Dharmic Religions Only: Evolutionary Science and Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.

[kalyan]

Also can @sayak83 post us who were the first discoverers of

1. Fibonacci Series
2. Binomial numbers
3. Binary numbers
4. Pascal Triangle
5. Calculus
6. Trigonometry

Clue: All of these originated from bhArat,

 

[sayak83]

First you NEED to work upon your dates, your boot licking of western ideology and the dates borrowed from wiki are not helping you either.
Sulba Sutras provide numerical proof and so are the works of Āpastamba.
The Sulbasutras contain the geometry necessary for construction of the vedi and the agni for the obligatory and votive rites. These in turn are a part of the Kalpasutras , which are attached to the Vedas as one of the six V dangas or limbs of the Vedas. It is likely that the Sulbasutra sections were a part of the Srautasutras of the Yajur Veda, the Veda designed for the performance of sacrifices.

The three most primitive agni, Garhapatya, Aavaniya and Daksinagni, are older than the Rg Veda and the Mahavedi was likely known to the Indus Valley civilisation. The Sulbasutras deal with the correct construction of the vedi and agni including orientation, size, shape and areas and, as such, they are not meant as mathematical theorems or proofs. The geometry in the Sulbasutras can be categorised into that which expressly states theorems, constructions and implicit geometrical truths contained in constructions.

In the Yajur Veda and the Satapath Brahmana, 36 units is the length of the east-west line or praci or line of symmetry or prsthya of the Mahavedi and 30 units as one of the north-south lines. The praci and half the side make the sides containing the right angle in the triangle with sides 36, 15, and 39 units. There is a possibility that this theorem was known even earlier by the construction of the three agni, Garhapatya, Ahavaniya and Daksina. Other rational right triangles as well as the irrational right triangle 1,1 √2 and approximate right triangles are also mentioned in theSulbasutras (Amma 17-18).

There are several Vedic proofs for this theorem which are all fairly simple :

Proof I
The square AE = the square KG and the four congruent right-angled triangles all around it.

The areas are c2, (b-a)2 and 4( ½ ab) respectively.

So c2 = a2 – 2ab + b2 + 4( ½ ab) = a2 + b2

Proof I

Proof II
Construction:

CD = AB = m; DE = BC = n

So, ABC and CDE are congruent and ACE is a right-angled isosceles.

The trapezium ABDE = ABC + CDE + ACE

So ½ mn + ½ h2 + ½ mn = ½ (m + n) = ½ m2 + mn + ½ n2

So, ½ h2 = ½ m2 + ½ n2

So, h2 = m2 + n2

Proof II

Proof III
AE = BF = CG = DH = m and EB = FC = GD = HA = n

The square AC = the square EG + the four congruent right-angled triangles around it.

So, h2 + 4 (½ mn) = (m + n)2 = m2 + 2mn + n2

So, h2 = m2 + n2

Proof III

Proof IV
BD is perpendicular to AC.

So, triangles ABC, ABD and BCD are similar.

So, AB2/AC2 = ADB/ABC and BC2/AC2 = BCD/ABC

So, (AB2 + BC2)/AC2 = (ADB + BCD)/ABC = ABC/ABC = 1

So, AB2 + BC2 = AC2

Proof IV

Proof V
Using coordinates, the distance between point A at (a,0) and point B at (0,b) is:

BA = √ [(a – 0)2 + (0 – b)2] = √ (a2 + b2).


Following are a selection of constructions given in the Sulbasutras (Amma 23-46).


i) Drawing two perpendicular diameters in a circle in Baudhayana’s recipe for drawing a square.

Drawing a line one fixes a pin at its middle. Slipping the end ties on to this pin, one draws a circle with the mark (the middle of the cord) and fixes pins at the ends of the diameter. With the end-tie on the eastern pin one draws a circle with the whole cord. Similarly at the western pin. The second diameter should be stretched through the points where these (circles) intersect.

This method is well known in later Indian mathematics as the ‘fish’ method due to its shape.

'Fish' Method

ii) The construction of a square with a given side results in a beautiful geometrical pattern.

Wishing to construct a square one should make ties at both ends of a string as long as the desired side and make a mark at its middle. One should draw a line and fix a pin at its middle. Fixing the ties on this pin one should draw a circle by the middle mark (of the cord) and at the ends of the diameter (formed by the praci) one should fix pins. Fixing one tie on the eastern pin one should draw a circle with the other tie. Similarly round the western pin. Through the points where they meet the second diameter should be drawn and pins should be fixed at this end. With the ties on the eastern pin a circle is to be drawn with the middle mark. Similarly round the southern, western and northern (pins). Their outer points of intersection form the square.

This method is found in the Baudhayana Sulbasutra.

Transformation of Figures
Different shapes were prescribed for the fire-altars depending on the benefit sought: the falcon or syenacit for attaining heaven, the isosceles triangle or praugacit for destroying enemies etc. However, the shapes had to have the same area of 7 ½ square purusas and therefore the Sulbasutras described different methods of changing the shapes of figures while retaining the same areas.


To convert a square into a circle
The Sulbasutras give an approximate construction, which results in a value of π of 3.088. Whether or not it was known at the time that this method indeed results in an approximation is not known.

If a is the side of the square and r the radius of the circle then r = a(2 + Ö2)/6.

If a = 1, then the area of the square is 1, r = (2 + Ö2)/6 = 0.5690355 and the area of the circle (using today’s value of π) is 1.0178256.

Convert a Square to a Circle

To convert a square into a rectangle
One method is given by:

Wishing to transform a square into a rectangle one should cut diagonally in the middle, divide one part again and place the two halves to the north and east of the other part. If the figure is a quadrilateral one should place together as it fits. This is the distribution.

Convert a Square to a Rectangle

And remember, this coming from a small portion of this one Sulbha shastra and your post is ****e

All you provided in terms of actual scriptural quotes are means by which geometrical constructions can be made. Such construction manuals with very very similar relations exist uiniversally and are found in Egypt, Sumer, Babylon and China. Without such manuals, nobody can make any big or small building whatsoever, and these were built everywhere, and methods for getting the geometry right are written about everywhere. The kind of algebraic proofs you included in the middle of the thread are completely anachronistic, the use of abstract symbols to represent the general principles of geometry apart from its use as a technology is far more recent and not found in any of these ancient texts from form any civilization.
History follows its own methods and date texts according to the balance of evidence, not faith.

 

[kalyan]

All you provided in terms of actual scriptural quotes are means by which geometrical constructions can be made. Such construction manuals with very very similar relations exist uiniversally and are found in Egypt, Sumer, Babylon and China. Without such manuals, nobody can make any big or small building whatsoever, and these were built everywhere, and methods for getting the geometry right are written about everywhere. The kind of algebraic proofs you included in the middle of the thread are completely anachronistic, the use of abstract symbols to represent the general principles of geometry apart from its use as a technology is far more recent and not found in any of these ancient texts from form any civilization.
History follows its own methods and date texts according to the balance of evidence, not faith.

Basically you are admitting the works to India, and you do NOT understand what numerical proofs are , and your post does not make sense where you claim these existed in egypt , china and other, can you post proof of these existing works in china ?

Also, I am waiting for your reply on my earlier post

 

[sayak83]

Also can @sayak83 post us who were the first discoverers of

1. Fibonacci Series
2. Binomial numbers
3. Binary numbers
4. Pascal Triangle
5. Calculus
6. Trigonometry

Clue: All of these originated from bhArat,

A claim made with no evidence I believe.

 

[kalyan]

A claim made with no evidence I believe.

what ? Can you answer the question or just backing away from answering ? I am asking you a question not answering, I would later answer that after you reply with answers. If you cannot answer, admit that you lost the argument

 

[sayak83]

Basically you are admitting the works to India, and you do NOT understand what numerical proofs are , and your post does not make sense where you claim these existed in egypt , china and other, can you post proof of these existing works in china ?

Also, I am waiting for your reply on my earlier post

Egypt and babylon certainly had their own advanced math. Entire books.
https://books.google.com/books?id=w...ge&q=mathematics in ancient babylonia&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...nepage&q=mathematics in ancient egypt&f=false
These books amply demonstrate my claim that the geometrical principles you quoted were known and widely used to make actual architectural works throughout the Old World.

The best book on the topic of mathematics of the ancient world is certainly the one below,
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Egypt-Mesopotamia-China-India/dp/0691114854
This book translates primary texts from all civilizations and draws up an exhaustive portrait of the each civilizations mathematical understanding as it evolved through the centuries. Judge for yourself.

 

[kalyan]

Answer my previous question or admit you lost the argument, I am waiting

who were the first discoverers of

1. Fibonacci Series
2. Binomial numbers
3. Binary numbers
4. Pascal Triangle
5. Calculus
6. Trigonometry

 

[sayak83]

what ? Can you answer the question or just backing away from answering ? I am asking you a question not answering, I would later answer that after you reply with answers. If you cannot answer, admit that you lost the argument

Nobody can claim to have invented any of the the first 4 and trigonometry as every civilization has ancient texts that refer to results pertaining to them. Calculus was invented by Leibniz and Newton, though the concept of infinitesimals was used previously.

 

[kalyan]

Nobody can claim to have invented any of the the first 4

what does it mean ?

 

[kalyan]

Calculus was invented by Leibniz and Newton,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/calculus-created-in-india-250-years-before-newton-study-1.632433

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics

Calculus was created and used in India 250 years before newton was born, so there you go!

You are DEFEATED in Q#5 , calculus part

 

[sayak83]

Nobody can claim to have invented any of the the first 4 and trigonometry as every civilization has ancient texts that refer to results pertaining to them. Calculus was invented by Leibniz and Newton, though the concept of infinitesimals was used previously.

Just in case there is any confusion. Algebra and the decimal number system was definitely invented as a specialized mathematical discipline in India, but not in Vedic time.

 

[kalyan]

Just in case there is any confusion. Algebra and the decimal number system was definitely invented as a specialized mathematical discipline in India, but not in Vedic time.

we could reserve this discussion for another time because we are not discussing about decimal sys now, but let me know what exactly did you mean when you said
Nobody can claim to have invented any of the the first 4

I am waiting............

 

[sayak83]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/calculus-created-in-india-250-years-before-newton-study-1.632433

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics

Calculus was created and used in India 250 years before newton was born, so there you go!

You are DEFEATED in Q#5 , calculus part

LOL. "Calculus" was "invented" by Archimedes in 3rd century BC when he explicitly calculated the area of a parabola by the quadrature formula of using smaller and smaller triangles.
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient Mathematics/Archimedes/QuadraturaParabolae/QP.contents.html
Your absurd idea that somehow the contributions required in making calculus possible when it comes from India counts as "invention" while all other contributions coming from all other places do not count as such is illogical, bigoted and narrow.
What history shows that most of the foundational ideas in mathematics crop up again and again in many many places quite independently of each other in various treatises. Consider how Ramanujan alone could come up with a lot of modern mathematics independently by himself. The books I linked also show how distinctive, vibrant and original the mathematical works of ancient people were (including but not only in India). It is only the 18th century scientific tradition, with its methodological obsession about "first authorship" that tried to project its idea of "heroic inventors" back into history and tried to put names on the ideas. But in the ancient world, people knew that they were working within a tradition, they could not alone take the credit for inventing anything, and that even their tradition was one of many traditions that have inter-fertilized each other. So much of these writings you find in the ancient world are either anonymous or ascribed to ancient or mythical founders of the tradition they belonged to.
Till the time of the Kerala mathematicians or the Greeks/Arabs, whatever work they were doing was still within algebra and geometry though both used concepts of infinite series and infinitesimals in their works. It is with Newton and Leibniz that calculus as a mathematical branch in and of itself becomes voluminous enough to create its own specialized discipline. This is what I speak of when I say Calculus was "invented" as discipline in its own right within maths.
Finally I would point out all the algebra and infinite series maths you are talking about are not from some Vedic scripture, but creations of Indian mathematicians. Just because a Christian invents or discover something, does not mean that the discovery is "Biblical". None of the works of the Indian mathematical schools like in Kerala or earlier by Aryabhatta etc. are "Vedic" maths.

 

[kalyan]

@sayak

LOL. "Calculus" was "invented" by Archimedes in 3rd century BC when he explicitly calculated the area of a parabola by the quadrature formula of using smaller and smaller triangles.
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient Mathematics/Archimedes/QuadraturaParabolae/QP.contents.html
Your absurd idea that somehow the contributions required in making calculus possible when it comes from India counts as "invention" while all other contributions coming from all other places do not count as such is illogical, bigoted and narrow.

I would later respond on these queries, I am eagerly waiting for the answers to the first 4 points

 

[kalyan]

LOL. "Calculus" was "invented" by Archimedes in 3rd century BC when he explicitly calculated the area of a parabola by the quadrature formula of using smaller and smaller triangles.
http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient Mathematics/Archimedes/QuadraturaParabolae/QP.contents.html
Your absurd idea that somehow the contributions required in making calculus possible when it comes from India counts as "invention" while all other contributions coming from all other places do not count as such is illogical, bigoted and narrow.

Archimedes did NOT invent calculus,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus

He invented heuristics which resemble the methods of integral calculus and that is all.

Researchers in England may have finally settled the centuries-old debate over who gets credit for the creation of calculus.

For years, English scientist Isaac Newton and German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz both claimed credit for inventing the mathematical system sometime around the end of the seventeenth century.

Now, a team from the universities of Manchester and Exeter says it knows where the true credit lies — and it's with someone else completely.

The "Kerala school," a little-known group of scholars and mathematicians in fourteenth century India, identified the "infinite series" — one of the basic components of calculus — around 1350.

So you stand defeated in Q#5

I don't know why it is taking so much time to respond to my first 4 questions, you might be busy google searching but can you reply faster

#Waiting............

 

[sayak83]

@sayak

I would later respond on these queries, I am eagerly waiting for the answers to the first 4 points

I have already replied. Nobody invented them. individual mathematical relations crop up so often in so many places that its silly to name an inventor. Calculus was invented in Europe as a specialized mathematical discipline (using contributions from everywhere certainly) and trigonometry existed as a specialized discipline since the dawn of civilizations.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Actually he is specifying the speed of light. Your objection is common, but his commentary says specifically "tatha ca smaryate" or "it is remembered here" and since the Rg Veda verse in question is specifically glorifying the light aspect of the sun (it brightens the sky, and travels very fast), it is reasonable assumption to make that Sayana is speaking about light here.

Ok. Let us be clear that this interpretation has nothing to do at all with the Rig Veda. A prayer authored by a poet is far removed by a statement that attempts to provide the speed of the Sun or light. Therefore, we not discussing the Veda, but Sayana, who was from the 14th Century CE and this is not strictly relevant to the topic of Vedic knowledge.

However, I agree that light is a possible interpretation of the statement, though I am very skeptical about Vartak's mapping of Yojana, etc., to more familiar units.

I would disagree with that statement. Many ideas and knowledge that the Greeks first had came from India (when Alexander the Great established trade routes between the two countries ).

Actually, the knowledge of astronomy passed from Sumerians to Chaldeans and then to Greece and finally to India. This is based on the chronology of evidence. Tracking and computation of planetary movements and the associated astrology both are not found in India until the Gupta period. In contrast, we have clear evidence in the form of tablets attesting this knowledge in Sumer, thousands of years before the Gupta period. Moroever, Varaha Mihira, the celebrated astrologer (5-6th century CE) clarifies that the Indian knowledge of astronomy came through the Mlechchas (Yavana-jataka, Romaka Siddanta, etc.,).

It should be noted that none of the above is related to the short, 44 verse text of Lagadha, named the Jyothishya Vedanga - considered an auxillary text to the four Vedas. This is an original work of remote antiquity, but does not address plantary motions and the like.

On Pythagoras, the general acceptance is that the properties of a right angled triangle were known well before his time, discovered independently around the world by different civilizations. Pythagoras is known to have traveled through Egypt and this theorom was known to Egyptians thousands of years before his time (~2400 BC).

While on the subject, I would like to draw a clear distinction between the four Vedas, the Vedanga (auxillary texts) and the Purana. Let us not mix them all up into one single body of scripture - for they are not. In other words, Baudhayana's sutras - though held in high regard - are not Veda. Mathematical and astronomical knowledge of Aryabhatta, Varaha Mihira, Sayana, etc., is not Veda.

I am afraid the Vedas claim that from the start. The Aitareya Brahmana (3.44) declares:

"The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting it is not so. For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side. Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets."

No this does not specifically say the earth is spherical,

As you agree, this does not say that the Earth is spherical.

I think I did see the verse in Rg Veda that mentioned "Bhugolam".

I would love to see the verse number.

Thanks for the verses from the Bhagavatam. I need some time to go through them. Will get back to you on that.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram shivsomashekhar ji

Can you quote a verse from any of the four Vedas to backup this statement? A single verse will do.

prabhu ji , ...I very purpousfuly said Vedic Cosmology please do not side step the issue the 4 Vedas are not Veda in its entirity , .....please if you wish to continue to follow what I was saying I sited Ayurveda and Vedic Cosmology , ...many more detailed references to Vedic Cosmology appear in the Puranas , ....and in the Gita Sri Krsna explains thus to Arjuna , .......Chapter 8 , ..verses 17 - 21

''By human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahmā's one day. And such also is the duration of his night.

When Brahmā's day is manifest, this multitude of living entities comes into being, and at the arrival of Brahmā's night they are all annihilated.

Again and again the day comes, and this host of beings is active; and again the night falls, O Pārtha, and they are helplessly dissolved.

Yet there is another nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is.​

That supreme abode is called unmanifested and infallible, and it is the supreme destination. When one goes there, he never comes back. That is My supreme abode.''

which refers to timespans given in more detail in the Puranas , ......modern day Science knows of yet of these time scales , if it did prehaps it would look more closely at Vedic Knowledge , ...


prehaps also reading this they might look differently at the Concept of A Supreme Being , ....


''The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is greater than all, is attainable by unalloyed devotion. Although He is present in His abode, He is all-pervading, and everything is situated within Him.

O best of the Bhāratas, I shall now explain to you the different times at which, passing away from this world, one does or does not come back.

Those who know the Supreme Brahman pass away from the world during the influence of the fiery god, in the light, at an auspicious moment, during the fortnight of the moon and the six months when the sun travels in the north.

The mystic who passes away from this world during the smoke, the night, the moonlight fortnight, or in the six months when the sun passes to the south, or who reaches the moon planet, again comes back.

According to the Vedas, there are two ways of passing from this world—one in light and one in darkness. When one passes in light, he does not come back; but when one passes in darkness, he returns.''


''The devotees who know these two paths, O Arjuna, are never bewildered. Therefore be always fixed in devotion.

A person who accepts the path of devotional service is not bereft of the results derived from studying the Vedas, performing austere sacrifices, giving charity or pursuing philosophical and fruitive activities. At the end he reaches the supreme abode. ...........Ch ..8 v ..22-28
​

as science accepts only that which is observable , it neglects that which is observable to the Devotee (the spiritual aspirant), ..thus they miss the Glaringly Obvious revealed in the Words of Sri Krsna , ....

but what i wanted to discuss was the Ayurveda , .....in which there is no lacl of evidence

For lack of evidence, obviously. It is better to accept an incomplete story grounded in facts than a complete story which has no corroboration. Besides, the Christians and Muslims claim their religious theory of origins are complete as well. So there is nothing unique about this claim about completeness

Ayurveda explains the life force of our very being in such a manner that Science today has not yet matched , in my veiw it alone gives a complete story which is totaly grounded inprovable fact , ....I will continue in my answer to @sayak83 ji

No. Rather, we have people here who have no clue about the Veda and are imagining it be some kind of encyclopedia - which it most certainly is not. The proof for this is the simple fact that long posts about the glory of the Veda are not backed by a single reference.

prabhu ji , ...please before calling others clueless , please differentiate between 'Veda' Vedic Knovledge and the 4 vedas , ....please also be patient and I am sure verses and texts can be provided , ...

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ji

No, he is not. Go educate yourself about Agnivesha and Hippocrates.

what Prabu ji about Dhanvantari ?......Agnivesha is acreditted only with forming one branch of Ayurveda and of comitting it into writen form , ..before that it was (as many vedic traditins were) an Oral Tradition , ....For get Hippocrates , merely another great inturpreter , ...

Ayurveda is beleived to have originated in aprox 5000 BC , ..of course being an oral tradition it is hard to trace it back any further , or to say if it was as it is said an instruction given by Brahma to Dhanvantari , in which case it is timless knowledge .....Agnivesha's texts date to around the 6th century BC , ......this makes him none other than an author of texts upon the subject , ....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Ji

Namaskaram.
l will do without the implication that I must be either deffective or ashamed of being an atheist, if you do not mind. Or even if you do, really.

why must you take everything as a personal insult ???, ...or paralell it to your stance on theism , ..this thread is about Evolution , ....so let us discuss the merits of the theory of evolution and if it has any bearing upon the sadhana of a practicing Buddhist or Hindu , ....for instance does the proposition that man has evolved from apes help you in any way to control Kama , Krodha and Moha ...? .....

It ill fits me, you know. Nor can I in good faith refuse my perceived duty to challenge theistic assumptions when they threaten to disturb the learning of truth and proper religions practice.

then likewise Prabhu Let me fullfill my Dharma by chalenging nontheistic assumptions when they to threaten to disturb learning of truth and the practice of religious principles , ....

I take it that you mean here that the scientific theory of evolution is an example or stance of a more abstract or cosmic principle that you are also calling Evolution. But I am not certain, since you began this post by saying that they are at odds with each other. Or maybe you just want to underscore that you think we should consider Buddhist Cosmology as so much more ambitious and realized than the biological theory? I honestly don't know.

please if you are unsure of a stance ack for clarification , ...

namaskaram sayaK ji

if one is interestes in Mathematics then we must return to the Vedic cosmology it will confirm much that we are strugling to comprehend , ..further more it will give it in the context of Sentient existance , if Science is not aiming at universal understanding then the perfection of one science alone will bring dissharmony and imballance to life , ....

Science is not sentient, while people are. If there is a duty, it must be acceptd by the people, not the abstract discipline. Not sure why you feel we have such specific duties, though.

I was refering here to Sentient life forms rather than saying Human Beings as it tends to proclude other sentient forms of life as if they were of no consequence , ...The duty that should be addopted by all people is a responcibility to honour all forms of life and to protect sentient and non sentient lifeforms as a homogenous whole , ....

It is a deliberately self-limiting approach that, while perhaps not as fulfilling to people who look for awe and inspiration over reliability of certainties, nonetheless makes a whole lot of sense and protects us all from dangerous assumptions and serious mistakes.

some veiw it as a mistake to associate to strongly with material life and material matter , ....we are each entitled to our own veiw , ....

Not sure what you mean here. At first glance it feels like some sort of appeal to keep true to awe for awe's sake. I really don't know.

As I beleive that I was not replying to a remark of yours , prehaps your not understanding my reply is inevitable , ...

what I had said was , ...

''but please share one amusing irony with me ...''not restrict it to mean only transcendental truths regarding relation of the self with Brahman.'' .......Prabhu ji please ''only transcendental truths regarding relation of the self with Brahman.'' ........this is the Only Truth !!!''

By this I was implying , that our relationship with Brahman is the ultimate truth , ...all else pales into insugnificance , ....well at least it does to me , ..whether or not our temporay human form was decended from apes is irrelavant , meaning if we accknowledge this life to be transient then why cling to examining its every minutiae ?

A Dharmi should not feel any unease at doing his or her best to skillfully understand and deal with the world as it manifests towards us all. Fear of learning better is not a virtue by any means.

exactly but it is where we look for verification that is at Question , ....

This, I suppose must be considered a situation of misassignment of blame, or perhaps of simple abuse of the purpose and scope of religious texts. There is little else to conclude from this paragraph.

again I fear you have missed my point , ...

I have to wonder how you came to these concepts of "true" and "secular" sciences, as well as what you mean by "rejection" of the Vedas.

please , reaserch it without preconceptions and find out , ....'Secular' pertains to material or worldly existance , ...'True' encompases the question of why , ..why life exists , ...who and what we are , ..and other small questions like etenality as oposed to our finite nature , ...
''as to rejection of the Vedas'', ....I said Veda , ...not Vedas (as in 4 books) , ...a common mistake , but please do not confuse the two , .....