Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c46.s4: A More Sympathetic View

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c46.s4

Language: English

A More Sympathetic View

v2.c46.s4.1

Having noted the casteist and irrational trends in Indian science, we may also record the positive aspects in our tradition.

In the famous Nāsadīya Sūkta (RV, 10.129), the Rgveda provides the earliest example of India’s spirit of enquiry. When the post-Vedic culture degenerated into rituals and regimentation in thoughts, a large number of non-conformist intellectuals such as Kapila, Kaṇāda, Buddha appeared on the scene. They brought back the culture of reason and logic (Pande, 1969), and none of them, except the Lokāyata scholars, denied the ethical precepts of the original Āryas.

v2.c46.s4.3

Pāṇini stressed on proof (pramāṇa), original discoveries of knowledge ‘which had not existed’ (upajñā) and their applications (upakrama). Kauṭilya stressed on accurate measurements and standardisation in trade and commerce. Whereas the followers of Manu considered philosophy to be a subject subserving the Vedic lores (Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, 1.2.2-3), Kauṭilya asserted that ānvīkṣiki or investigative philosophy was supposed to investigate, by means of reasoning, not only the hazards of economics and politics, but also dharmādharmau trayyām ‘What is spiritual good and evil in the Vedic lore’ (AS, 1.2.11). It was boldly proclaimed that :

v2.c46.s4.4

प्रदीपः सर्वविद्यानाम् उपायः सर्वकर्मनाम्।
आश्रयः सर्वधर्मानाम् शश्वत् आन्वीक्षिकी मता।।
pradīpaḥ sarvavidyānām upāyaḥ sarvakarmanām |
āśrayaḥ sarvadharmānām śaśvat ānvīkṣikī matā ||
(AS, 1. 2.12)

v2.c46.s4.5

Philosophy is ever thought of as the lamp of all sciences, the means of all actions (and) as the support of all laws (and duties).

v2.c46.s4.6

Chattopadhyaya himself has described (1976: 5-7 and 1982: Volume 1, pp. 209-38) how the spirit of debate, enquiry and logic were sustained, during the early Christian era, by Caraka, Gautama and Vātsyāyana, who subscribed to the ethical principles of the Vedānta concurrently. Caraka pointed out the merit of scientific debate which ‘strengthens conviction by way of removing doubt in the pre-existing stock of knowledge, and breaks the tendency to insularism even of those that would not normally impart their own knowledge to others’ (Caraka Saṃhitā, 1.25.27, 3.8.15 and 28). In the second century AD, Gotama or Gautama wrote his famous Nyāyasūtra (which was the origin of the science of logic in ancient India) and three centuries later, Vātsyāyana wrote the equally famous commentary on it. They emphasized the importances of intellectual doubt (samasyā), critical examination of the problem (parikṣā) and final ascertainment (nirṇaya) as distinct stages in the scientific and philosophical pursuits.

v2.c46.s4.7

Āryabhaṭa (born AD 476) did not subscribe to the traditional notion of five elements. His denial of the fifth element, *ākāśa* or ether, was in accordance with the materialistic philosophy of the *Lokāyata*. (Bongard Levin, 1977) Bhāskara I (AD 629) and later Al-Beruni emphasized on Āryabhaṭa’s agnostic approach about the space which is not reached by the solar rays, and the notion ‘that which is not reached by perception is not knowable’. Āryabhaṭa’s theory of the Earth’s rotation around its axis and his scientific explanation for the solar and lunar eclipses invited hostility from those who believed in the earlier cosmogenic doctrines, but there is no evidence that he faced any theological inquisition like Galileo.

v2.c46.s4.8

Al-Beruni rightly accused Brahmagupta (born AD 598) for indulging in half-truths, for criticising Varāhamihira and Āryabhaṭa (who had demolished the Rāhu theory) and yet ‘calculating the diameter of the moon in order to explain her eclipsing the sun’. (Sachau, 1910, 1983, Volume 2, pp. 110-12)

v2.c46.s4.9

Chattopadhyaya (1976: 256-70) has discussed why the intellectuals of the ancient India, not only Brahmagupta, but also Kaṇāda, Caraka, Gautama, Vātsyāyana, Varāhamihira, etc. chose not to go against the Brāhmaṇic or the Vedic concepts and ideals. According to Chattopadhyaya, theirs was an act of ‘subterfuge, a technique of evading inquisition’. He further observed that even in the modern world there are scientists who believe in matter as well as the divine (Newton and Einstein believed in God) and that ‘they have split personalities’.

v2.c46.s4.10

A more sympathetic view may be proposed. The issue whether matter has evolved from consciousness (the spiritual view) or consciousness has evolved from matter (the materialistic view) has not yet been finally settled. This could be the famous ‘chicken and egg’ problem. Most intellectuals of all ages and countries might have preferred not to put all their eggs in one basket (atheistic material science). It is better to remain more open-minded on this issue. (Biswas, 1969 : 19-31 and 99-118)

v2.c46.s4.11

At any rate, the spectacular scientific achievements in the ancient India clearly show that not everything was dead in the intellectual plane. Whereas Śaṅkara ridiculed Kaṇāda’s atomic theory, Śubhagupta commented that if atoms are to be doubted on the ground that these are not demonstratable like macroscopic objects, then one should doubt the human mind also!

v2.c46.s4.12

Ancient India always believed in accurate observations and experiments. *Atharvaveda* initiated the ancient medical tradition by recommending that the animals in the forest may be closely observed to discover the pharmaceutical properties of the herbs (AV, 8.7.23-26). Caraka has laid emphasis on the importance and utility of scientific experiments (Caraka Saṃhitā, 6.8.132,10.5):

v2.c46.s4.13

परीक्षायास्तु खलु प्रयोजनम् प्रतिपत्तिज्ञानम्। सम्यक् परीक्षा हि बुद्धिमताम् कार्यप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ति कालौ शंसति। परीक्षाकारिणो हि कुशला भवन्ति।। *parīkṣāyāstu khalu prayojanam pratipattijñānam |* *samyak parīkṣā hi buddhimatām kāryapravṛttinivṛtti* *kālau śaṃsati | parīkṣākāriṇo hi kuśalā bhavanti ||*

v2.c46.s4.14

The entire Āyurvedic science of medicine has been based on experimentation; for example, poisoned food and drinks and antidotes were tried on lower animals followed by trial of drugs on human beings. Abundant material on this topic is available in the Saṃhitās of Caraka and Suśruta and in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha. For centuries, this approach was pursued by the Rasaśāstra scholars.

v2.c46.s4.15

The author of the thirteenth-century text Rasakalpa wrote:

v2.c46.s4.16

साक्षात् अनुभवैर्दृष्टो ना श्रुतो गुरुदर्शितः। लोकानाम् उपकाराय एतत् सर्वं निवेदितम्। *sākṣāt anubhavairdr̥ṣṭau nā śruto gurudarśitaḥ* *lokānām upakārāya etat sarvaṃ niveditam |*

v2.c46.s4.17

I have performed the aforesaid experiments with my own hands and have seen them with my own eyes. They are not recorded from mere hearsay or from the dictation of a teacher. These are being promulgated for the benefit of mankind’. (quoted by Ray, 1956:157 and 370)

v2.c46.s4.18

Yaśodhara made a similar statment in Rasa-Prakāśa-Sudhākara.

v2.c46.s4.19

The author of the fourteenth century text Rasendracintāmaṇi wrote :

v2.c46.s4.20

That which I have heard of learned men and have read in the śāstras but have not been able to verify by experiment, I have discarded. I am committing to writing only those which I have been able to perform with my own hands’ (Ray’s translation quoted by Chattopadhyaya, 1982, Volume 1, p. 345)

Linked texts (10)

Carakasaṃhitā — Agniveśa (Āyurveda) & Caraka, Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Suśrutasaṃhitā — Suśruta & Nāgārjuna (siddha/alchemist), Sanskrit
Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha — Vāgbhaṭa, Sanskrit
Rasaratnasamuccaya — Vāgbhaṭa (alchemist), Sanskrit
Rasaprakāśasudhākara — Yaśodhara (alchemist), Sanskrit
Rasendracintāmaṇi — Ḍhuṇḍhukanātha, Sanskrit
Nyāyasūtra — Akṣapāda Gautama, Sanskrit
Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit