Sanskrit Vedic Chants and the Secret World of Human DNA – Wave Genetics of Biological Internet causing Hyper Communication

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. - Teilhard de Chardin

Some time back I had written an article about Vedic Science and Modern Science which in summary emphasized that – most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors. And in this article we are going to find how modern science is now revealing the power behind the ancient vedic chants, the influence of these laser sharp sanskrit hymns on human body and mind, the way these sacred recitals are designed to communicate with the Biological Internet – the DNA. Our spiritual masters have taught us for ages that our body, surroundings and life can be mastered and programmed by our speech and words, with concentration and dedication.

Copy Paste and Cut Paste Genes

All these days, modern science had concentrated its research on individual genes of the DNA and was simply removing and mixing genes of one species into the other creating genetically modified species and crops which also resulted in side effects and disharmonies in the modified species. It was much similar to some of the so called software engineers googling and copy pasting software code – without trying to understand what the code actually meant or did. Genetic engineers similarly were used to searching inside the DNA to find genes with specific functionality and simply copy paste them in other species without really understanding the overall impact of these INDUCED genetic changes.

We see genetically engineered Onions coming out each weighing half a kilo, seedless fruits like grapes, disease resistant gene of one crop introduced into some other disease prone species without analysing other impacts on the nature of the crop. Then there are PATENTED seeds and crops which are genetically programmed so that their offspring seeds cannot be used to grow new crops (basically offspring seeds are coded to be sterile) and instead the farmers are required to purchase these seeds from the multinationals for every crop they grow – what a crime against nature! Nature gives away its secrets to us for free, its we mortals who patent these eternal truths in our name.

The kind of genetic engineering scientists do today is looking at the system in parts – whereas the fact is that the system works as a whole, not in parts. Else humans would have mastered weather forecasting long back. Even today the weather forecast by a local fisherman is n times more accurate than what modern technology predicts! The local fisherman looks at the system as a whole, technology tries to unsuccessfully break into parts.

A gene or a set of genes do not work in isolation. Removing, modifying or introducing new genes has an impact (positive or negative but rarely neutral) on the entire system, and introducing such genetically modified strains into production without studying the complete nature of the change is an invitation for disaster. Modern metropolis today have cellphone signal towers popping out everywhere and their negative impact on human brain and health is being slowly revealed, and within the next decade we will have people who have used cell phones for most of their lives and those who are over exposed to it will be revealing the exact long term health impact of prolonged daily cell phone usage. In other words, those who use cell phones for prolonged hours regularly today are simply offering themselves as experimental goats for an experiment which otherwise would have required a lot of both time and money.

Coming back to genetics, the once popular Mexican corn got mixed with the genetically altered species of corn meant for ethanol production (not for consumption), and a stage was reached where corn meant for food got adulterated with corn meant for fuel! Today Mexico is facing a food crisis because most of its corn is now being grown to manufacture biofuel as it gives more returns to farmers, so the direction is set towards moving humanity into a phase where you have fuel for your vehicle but no food to eat!

The Secret World of DNA

Flashback #1

All these days modern scientists used to think that 90% of the DNA is useless and even termed it junk DNA! Why? Because they only knew the functionality of 2% of the human DNA which was about manufacturing proteins. Since they did not SEE via experiments what other 98% of the DNA did, they had concluded that it is junk (non-coding DNA in scientific terms, as if God has given us a bond saying that DNA would be only about coding proteins :)

Flashback #2

Ancient vedic seers had always said that human body is capable of being influenced by sound and light, that the core of creation is represented by the ultimate sound OM and that the positive light emanated from fire rituals called Yagnas would create universal harmony. They had designed specific hymns with specific areas of influence, and had always advocated chanting of these hymns in specific pitches or frequencies, and performing specifically designed yagnas on a regular basis. One would recognize this if one listens to the chanting of the vedic hymns, the highlight of which is laser sharp focus on pronunciation and pitch. The ancients had also strongly advocated that we should always think only about positive thoughts and speak good.

The Missing Link

Now if you are wondering about the relations between the above mentioned Flashback #1 and Flashback #2, a Russian experiment has proved that, what was thought to be junk DNA till yesterday is actually the DNA which creates a Biological Internet – which of course is wireless in nature, communicating via light and sound waves! That the genetic code is similar to that of the grammar of human spoken languages. The syntax and semantics of these genes are similar to the way human languages are designed, and also that it responds to precisely focused vibrational patterns of human languages! In other words, it looks like the languages we speak actually evolved from the nature of our DNA itself!

You call it sound therapy or DNA therapy or whatever it takes, you can converse with your body (ie your genetic material) via vibrations and waves and can heal ailments, fine tune your health, control body functions etc without the need of any physical intervention like surgery or medicinal drugs!

The expirements by Pjotr Garjajev, the Russian Biophysicist, and his colleagues about the vibrational behavior of our DNA has proved that DNA responds to extremely focused light and sound vibrations at particular frequencies and hence can be instructed to perform tasks or exchange information accordingly!
So things like intuition, self-healing, telepathy, light-auras surrounding spiritual masters, influences of positive thinking, etc are no longer a domain to be studied outside the boundaries of modern science. The truth is that modern science itself had a blind belief about these otherwise scientifically valid facts all these days. As I have always been saying, modern science is NOT AN ABSOLUTE SCIENCE, it is always a work under progress, parts of it which are accepted as facts today might turn out to be wrong tomorrow, things which modern science considers as blind faith today might turn out to be real science tomorrow. So anybody who talks the language of – modern science being 100% accurate – is actually fooling himself.

Wave Genetics – Technology behind Ancient Miracles and Evolution?

While western scientists looked at the DNA in terms of bits and pieces of genes, Russian scientists tried to look at it as a whole – which is always greater than the sum of its parts.

In one of their experiments, the Russian scientists were able to beam the genetic patterns of Salamander embryos onto frog embryos and there by instructed the DNA of frog embryos to convert itself into salamander embryos! And they did! Without any physical intervention, no surgery, no drugs, no touching at all – just by beaming genetic patterns the scientists were able to convert frog embryos into salamander embryos.

The last time I saw this happening was in science fiction movies, and the last time I read about things like this happening was in the ancient Indian texts where people used their spiritual powers to convert themselves into different beings or things. Remember Maricha of Ramayana who got himself converted into a beautiful deer? Hanuman is said to have mastered the great eight arts (Ashta Siddhis) of anima, mahima, laghima, garima etc where he could instruct his body to become as large as a mountain, or as tiny as an ant, or as heavy as a huge rock, or as light as a feather etc!

Now going by this new discovery that doesn’t seem improbable isn’t it? For skeptics, I ask them then to be equally skeptical about the current scientific efforts of creating worm holes to transport people and things via space-time shortcuts. If that is possible, then so is this, isn’t it?

Also, the evolution of this branch of science called Wave Genetics has the ability to give a completely new dimension to evolution of life on earth. All these days we used to wonder, how on earth can DNA gather information about its surroundings and modify its future generations to create new species – as is stated by the theory of evolution?

Wave Genetics probably would be the best bet for this evolutionary puzzle, and the answer is probably not random mutations which is said to be the driving force behind evolution. Not only God, even Nature doesn’t plays dice either, its the DNA acting behind the scenes, not passively mutating randomly to create new species, but actively interacting and responding with its surrounding and writing better genetic code and there by creating new species!

So if this turns out to be true, then it would be a heavy blow for creationists who are opposed to evolution and who claim that all species were created in one go by God . While random mutations cannot explain creation of new species (which was a famous argument against evolution), coordinated changes in DNA based on exchange of information definitely can.

DNA – The Biological Internet

So here we have nature’s own wireless Internet ever communicating, ever changing, and ever growing – in the form of DNA. Just like we have different computers, devices attached to our digital internet, constantly communicating with each other – so is this biological internet exchanging information for the past unknown millions of years. And much more than that – while artificial intelligence is still a dream in our human invented digital Internet, the biological internet has natural intelligence which not just exchanges information but puts it to use creating new species – which computers can’t do – which is automatically creating new improved software based on exchanged information!

And this brings us to the core idea of this article. While the Russian experiments used electronic devices to create the wave patterns that could communicate with the DNA, the alternate and much simpler(?) technology used by our ancients is mind mastering, self control and concentration – coupled with meditation and dedication. This is also one of the primary reasons why our ancients always advocated us to look within.

The laser sharp focus of Sanskrit hymns, the ancient rituals and Yagnas (Yagyas) - where in Rishis (seers who mastered rendering these sacred chants) chanted these hymns in unison in hundreds of numbers clearly indicate that they were aimed at creating a powerful biological broadcast and invoking a communication with the DNA of those who were within the radius of influence of this sound and light energy, to create a positive atmosphere. Also note that, equal importance was given to Yagnas (Yagyas) which were to be performed with specific combustible material and in specific amounts to produce the desired light energy combined with these large organized chants, which would then probably send out massive broadcasting messages in the surrounding biological internet.

Probably this also explains the reason why emphasis was given to chanting the hymns with specific pitch and in a specific style which nevertheless was sharp and focused, and mistakes were to be avoided at all costs, else the chants would not have the desired effect.

Be good, think good, tell your DNA about your good thoughts, it will broadcast it to the surrounding DNA, they will then amplify it a hundred times or a thousand times and continue broadcasting it to the rest of the world until finally the effect reflects back to you like an echo with a million times more energy, giving life to your thoughts. Thats what our ancients said right? If your thoughts are bad, then they will bounce back upon you with a million times strength. Always think good, and you will blessed with showers of goodness. What you sow is what you reap.

Sarve Jana Sukhino Bhavantu – May all the people live happily.

The coming days are going to be even more interesting as the research into wave genetics and biological internet gains more ground.

Finally, do not miss reading these -

Update

Read this news item: Rain lashes Kerala village as fire ritual ends

  Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011

  • Chandraswamy G Kamplimath

    I am really wondering and puzzled to learn the Wave Genetics and also Ashta Siddhi of Hanuman.I was always thinking that these were real-but didn’t know how ?
    Thank You

  • Guest

    to quote, neither newton nor einstein

  • itzguru

    Regarding the Elixir of Life link I posted on EM waves based DNA modification , read this, there are scientists some supporting his claim and some opposing it http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/luc-montagnier-experiment-in-new-scientist/

    But what interested me more was, the news that he had to leave his home country France and migrated to China so he could escape what he called the “intellectual terror” which he had been told had prevented others from publishing their results. He believes that China’s Jiaotong University is more “open minded” to his research. And one thing I definitely know is the mainstream scientists ALWAYS have opposed any new discovery which alters their mainstream beliefs, and this has happened throughout history. Scientists are after all humans too, and just like radical religionism, there is also radical science. It is a joke to say, science only accepts proof, this and that, because finally who is this so called “Science”, all we see around are mortal humans claiming to represent the “true” science 

  • itzguru

    In the days of Galileo anything that went against Bible was pseudoscience. Yes, you can use words convenient, but the fact was it was not accepted as the ‘truth’.

    Sad that you didnt get the context of the comment. Nobody said spacetime is relative in Newton’s time. It was BELIEVED that spacetime was absolute then, so saying it was relative would have been pseudoscience. Just like today saying DNA cannot be modified by wave communication is pseudo science to some. Which is why I said, let people comeback and check these comments around 4-5 years from now.

    You seem to look at philosophy as something which is not related to science. The fact is, if you read history you will see that science has its roots in philosophy. Moreover is every single think in science today VALIDATED. You should ask a quantum physicist what all those wave equations really mean. We are simply using most of these physical equations WITHOUT KNOWING what it really means. Now is that science or philosophy. We only know that these equations work. But why or how? We dont know. 

    Heard about “Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”. It is more like every person has given his own version of what the world might be like. Nobody knows which interpretation is the correct one, or may be all the current interpretations are wrong. Yet dont we call it science? Do we call the many world theorem a “guess work” or “pseudoscience”?

    The very basic laws of mathematics (the mathematics on which entire science relies on),  are “assumptions” which do not have any proof.  And we have given them a beautiful name – “Axiom”.  They are just ASSUMED to be universally true! Einstein proved many of them wrong.

    To say Science of the Humans describes the Universe correctly is WRONG. Humans did not create the Universe. We are struggling to understand it yet. It would be arrogance to say we know most the science, because our civilization even today gets most of its energy needs by burning the remains of our dead ancestors ie fossil fuels.

    We are only attempting to describe this universe and are so bombarded by this knowledge that we have classified it into domains like physics, chemistry, biology, physiochemistry, biophysics, biochemistry, etc. There is no such thing in the nature. 

    A different civilization might have a different type of mathematics, a very different interpretation of universe in their science, a different way of observing and documenting knowledge.  

  • itzguru

    Your statements sound as if only those who take monthly salary in the name of physics research are eligible to talk about physics (and science in general) and all others (including philosophers) are unscientific people with little or no knowledge of science.

    And it also WRONGLY assumes that just because somebody is a scientist by profession is always correct!

  • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

     saying that the ancients knew not even basics of dna shows me that you are completely trying to ignore sometheing which gurudev has put up in this article with evidence and terminologies usd in sanskrit. then how can u say that the ancients knew nothing nothing about dna?  to say this u must eiter be blind to not being able to read the article or u must have turned a blind eye to the article. i request u re-read this article.the terminologies and also evidences.

  • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

     Folklore of all peoples contains references to incantations with power over nature. . Tan Sen, the great Hindu musician, was able to quench fire by the power of his song. Charles Kellogg, the California naturalist, gave a demonstration of the effect of tonal vibration on fire in 1926 before a group of New York firemen. “Passing a bow, like an enlarged violin bow, swiftly across an aluminum tuning fork, he produced a screech like intense radio static. Instantly the yellow gas flame, two feet high, leaping inside a hollow glass tube, subsided to a height of six inches and became a sputtering blue flare. Another attempt with the bow, and another screech of vibration, extinguished it.”

  • Anonymous

    Hey Gurudev,

    Great read.. I have read many posts from your blog and have gained tonnes of knowledge…
    I saw an advertisement on the side of your webpage which talks about Quantum Jumping by Burt Goldman…
    Any plans to write a post about it? I just wanted to know your point of view…
     

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for pointing it out Anonymous. I wasnt aware of this, will start reading about it. Quite interesting :)

  • Anir

    @itzguru

    Replying in a new comment, so that it has a readable width.

    Thanks for clarifying what you mean by “most”. Let me use your meaning and show you what I was getting at. In your article you said:

    Some time back I had written an article about Vedic Science and Modern Science which in summary emphasized that – most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors.

    And in this article we are going to find how modern science is now revealing the power behind the ancient vedic chants, the influence of these laser sharp sanskrit hymns on human body and mind, the way these sacred recitals are designed to communicate with the Biological Internet – the DNA

    So if by most you mean “most obvious” or “most common”, then are you implying that it applies to DNA? Then pray tell me how modern science “REINVENTED” the idea of DNA by showing which ancient text talks about DNA in the similar level of detail that you find in a high school text book.

    Your basic premise is that vedic chants communicate with DNA. Your evidence to support it? A pseudoscientific study. In short you have not established anything other than mere speculation and based on that, chose to stand by your claim of “most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors”. Well, if it is just your belief, I have nothing else to say. I see it as a faith based claim and not a claim rooted in reality.

    • Anonymous

      Yes it does apply to DNA as well, even though I was talking of a more specific case in this article. DNA is after all related to our health and impacts our day to day life.

      And again, yes there is an ancient Indian medical text which talks about genetics in detail. It is called Charaka Samhita authored by the ancient Ayurvedic physician Charaka. There are also similar chapters in the other ancient ayurvedic text Sushruta Samhita. Read the chapters related to Genetics in it and you will know it for yourself. Charaka Samhita has 120 chapters divided into 8 portions. Though the terminology used is Sanskrit and he has his own classification systems in place. Obviously science is not absolute, we can’t expect an alien civilization for instance to use base 10 system in their mathematics, they might be using base 12 or 8 too.

      Coming back to Charaka Samhita, here are some major points to note
      1. Beeja is the term used to refer sperm (in male context) and ovum (in female context)
      2. Beejabhaga refers Chromosome, Beejabhagavayava refers an individual Gene, Beeja dosha is the term used to refer to genetic defect.
      3. Artava, Shonita, Rakta are other terms used for ovum.
      4. Beejagranthi is the term used to testicles and ovaries.
      5. Charaka states that Diabetes Mellitus (Prameha) can occur due to Beeja Dosha (hereditary) or Sahaja Dosha (generic) reasons.
      6. Charaka also states that if a child gets Beeja Dosha (Genetic Disorder) then it is not due to any defect in mother or father, but it is because of the defect in one of the Beeja
      7. Sushruta Samhita states that in females their beeja is present in their Beejagranthi ever since their fetal stage, but is in Apakva(immature) form and gets matured only when they achieve puberty. Obviously in modern science oocytes are present since the fetal life in females.
      8. Charaka says that Alzheimer’s disease is passed on to the child by the father’s genes.
      9. Charaka says that con-sanguine marriages will cause genetic disorders.
      10. Charaka also talks about a methodology to change the sex of a fetus prevalent in his times!
      11. Charaka also mentions about the factors responsible for the sex of a child
      12. Of all the available texts Charaka was the first to describe in detail Charaka Multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Myasthenia Gravis, Parkinson’s diseases.
      13. Charaka lists over 500 medicinal plants and their medicinal values and the diseases which they can treat. This itself is a great achievement in itself.

      Note that I only mentioned some points related to Genetics in these works. These works cover a much larger scope in health and medicine. Also note that Charaka’s work for instance is a refining he did of the works that existed before his time and he wrote Charaka Samhita there by updating these even older texts.

      Regarding the above article – vedic chants are DESIGNED to communicate with or influence the DNA is my basic premise. I know I have not provided any proof and this is mere speculation, but as I said this is a blog article and this is what I THINK. Well is the referred study pseudoscientific in nature? Well I guess the onus lies on the original experimenter to reveal the actual methodology and observations, and then on the rest of the scientific community to either disprove it or accept it depending on their observations and interpretations.

      My claim about “most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors” it not based on this article. Infact it is the other way round. You can see that I have repeated similar claims in my earlier articles for years. And thanks to you, will start a series of articles soon, it definitely is not faith based for I have no faith in anything, its just the facts and opinions that matter. Thanks a lot for a healthy discussion though :)

      • Anir

        And again, yes there is an ancient Indian medical text which talks about genetics in detail.

        I’m only interested in the evidence for your claim that modern science is a reinvention of ancient knowledge. So if Charaka Samhita talks about genetics in *detail*, I’m going to compare it with the kind of detail one sees in modern science. Does Charaka Samhita talk about molecular structure of DNA? DNA replication, transcription, translation? Gene expression/regulation? Genes and natural selection?

        All Charaka did was to observe the phenotype. Note that I’m not putting down his achievements. What he did was remarkable. But what you are doing is to interpret his text in your own way assigning present day meanings to things which had a different meaning in the past. That is the intellectual dishonesty I was taking about earlier.

        Let me show what I mean. So you say beejabhaga is chromosome. Then according to Charaka Samhita, how many beejbhagas does a human cell have? Did Charaka even know about cell structure? If beejabhagavayava is gene, then on what basis are beejabhagavayava are identified from a strand of DNA? You know that all genes aren’t of the same length, right? Also what is the relationship of beejabhagavayava to allele? And how many beejabhagavayavas do we share with chimps?

        The knowledge of ancient people was limited by what they could observe with their naked eyes. No doubt that they had the same brains we have today, but science is contingent on technology. It builds up on knowledge of the past. You admit that when Mahabharat was written people didn’t have mobiles or laptops. Do you know how much of science wouldn’t be there if it were not for the existence of electronic computers? And yet you somehow believe that modern science is just a reinvention of ancient knowledge. Where does the question of reinvention arise when ancient people didn’t even know about stuff like molecular structure of DNA?

        • ARUMBHU

          Psedo-religious (HINDUISM is not at a religion) have started talking psedo-science. FAITH is inferior knowledge and all the religions are based on Faith. The religious have distorted minds and promote paganism in whichever way they get a chance. Have we ever questioned when did the languages evolved ? The age of a language gives off the age of the race/group speaking it.
          Sanskrit or for that matter no language is older than 5000 years.That is the maximum allowance one can give.In comparision with the age of the earth this 5000 years is nothing.And we try to define our existence with the languages available. Obnoxious!

          • Anonymous

            Sanskrit is not just 5000 years old. Astronomical dating of events in Ramayana takes it to around 5100 BCE which makes Sanskrit at least 7000 years old. Rigveda talks about events that took place when “Vega” was the pole star in place of current pole star. The last time “Vega” was the pole star was in 12000 BCE!

          • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

             correct. hinduism is not the name of our religion. it was the name given by greeks to our faith as the then civilization lived along the banks of indus i.e. indu river and thus the name hindoos which later became hindu. our faith is known as sanatana dharma which means eternal principles/duties. this dharma is not only limited to the faith of what is today known as hinduism but also describes the duties of all religions. religion is just a name given to various believes of people which is built around some  same fundamental principles . and to the ending peice of your comment it is funny to note that u urself are contradicting what u believe. u said that he age of a language gives off the age of the race/group speaking it but u also said that “we try to define our existence with the languages available. Obnoxious! ” so first see whether u believe in your own observations. i can also give an example to prove u wrong .consider the relatively most speaken language today-english. English is a West Germanic language that originated from the Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers from various parts of what is now northwest Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.Up to that point, in Roman Britain the native population is assumed to have spoken the Celtic language Brythonic alongside the acrolectal influence of Latin, from the 400-year roman occupation. does that mean that the people  speaking english today didn’t belong to any older civilization that existed before english originated? answer my question first and then think about the age of sanskrit.

        • sainath

          Anir I think can you for a proof… disprove what gurudev has stated in this article by scientific facts as you expect from him with examples references etc as why this is psuedo thinking (as you call it) by gurudev…. I understand that you want exact lines/quotes from ancient texts as proof for any proposed theory which is claimed as reinvention of past…. but i also want you understand that after any proposed theory only time can tell if the proposed theory/assumption was right or wrong when humans will be able to decode exactly the context and meaning the old texts… You cannot discard anything just since no  proofs are provided… since i feel even for you to negate what gurudev has proposed, providing proofs will not be easy… I feel you should try to appreciate the way gurudev tries to put his theories/thinking etc… Can you write any article the way Gurudev has wriitten to show how any recent scientifc discovery matches/maps with what is mentioned in old texts as you expect it from him… which will may be help Gurudev and all henceforth….

          • Anonymous

            “To the philosophers of India, however, Relativity is no new discovery, just as the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to thinking of time in millions of kalpas, (A kalpa is about 4,320,000 years).

            The fact that the wise men of India have not been concerned with technological applications of this knowledge arises from the circumstance that technology is but one of innumerable ways of applying it.”
            - Alan Watts (English philosopher)”

        • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

           if u are saying that the knowledge of the ancients are limited to what they could observe with naked eyes, then do u mean to say that dna strand is visible to naked eye?  of course not isn’t it? then how could u say that charaka did not know about dna when his works describes what a dna is? now u cannot say that charaka samhita’s information is false  as gurudev has explained some parts of what is mentioned in it. so when a person is researching on a thing like dna he surely knows about the structure of dna. if you debate on a topic to get a conclusion u shall surely get one. but if u have already made a decision that the ancients knew nothing and then start to debate on thier discoveries surely how much ever proof is given, u shall surely disregard them as u have already made up your mind. so such a debate becomes futile and  never comes to an end. you always have the simple option of saying that he did know this or that. since u recommend us to read books which talk about precise discoveries of moden scientists and how they then i too shall recommend u to read the charaka samhita to know more.  and always remember that if u say that modern science is more advanced from ancient texts like charaka samhita then HAVE U  EVER READ charaka samhita to talk about their differences? what gurudev has xplained herre is just a part of it as a vast text like charaka samhita can surely not be the size of this one article. gurudev has taken patient efforts to xplain  just the significant points in charaka samhita to show that these are the same as the primary discoveries made by modern scientists in the field of genetics.  

          • harry

            “when his [charaka's] work describes what a [sic] dna [sic] is”

            OK… please point out to me the description of the structure of DNA from Charaka samhita… I seem to have missed the part where he explains how the oxygen, carbon and hydrogen are arranged to form de-oxy ribose (5 carbons sugar, de-oxy at a PARTICULAR carbon, keto or aldo sugar – I must have missed this description). Or how the same atoms with nitrogen are arranged to form purines and pyrimidines (a little description of their single or double rings might be helpful in establishing that charaka in fact “described what a [sic] dna is”).

            From there could you point out the part where he describes how these molecules are arranged with phosphorous bridges between the sugars at particular carbon atoms, and the bases attached by specific nitrogen atoms to specific carbon atoms on the sugars.
            Or how this strand then interacts with a complementary chain to form the DNA double helix. Perhaps he described the dimensions of this helix and the geometry of its turns? Or perhaps he discussed how the four bases encode for amino acids? His own version of Chargaff’s rule perhaps? Or the redundant nature of the triplet codon system?

            Phew! we haven’t even gone into the transcription factors and replication enzymes associated with replication and transcription of genes. Or how epigenetic control is exerted over gene expression or RNA (the structure and functions of tRNA, rRNA, mRNA, snRNA) post transcriptional modifications of mRNA to have one gene give multiple polypeptides or post translational modification of proteins to give the final functional protein or 
            how protein trafficking takes place inside the cell.

            Then there is the entire issue of proof reading enzymes and dna repair systems which make (even assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry allow it) the above described modifications to DNA rather implausible.

            I’d like to see all these descriptions in the Charaka Samhita before I even begin to consider that modern discoveries are but a rehash of ancient knowledge.

    • Ananya

      @0aa5080bd4925d64ffd8bdf864688e7f:disqus  The ability of DNA communication is not pseudo-scientific. DNA indeed has telepathic abilities. This has been proved by experiments. And scientists are still wondering about this mystery. Read this news item http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/the-dna-mystery-scientists-baffled-by-telepathic-abilities.html

  • Anir

    Nice piece of pseudoscience. All you did was let your imagination run wild without providing any evidence.

    • Anonymous

      Well yes, Saying Sun is the Center of Earth was Pseudoscience during the times of Aristotle, Saying Earth rotates around Sun was Pseudoscience during the times of Galileo, Saying Space and Time is relative was Pseudoscience during the times of Newton, Saying Atomic Particles can instantly communicate with each other even if they are millions of light years away from each other was Pseudo Science before Quantum Mechanics and non-locality was discovered, Saying DNA can be modified by ware communication was pseudo science till the above experiments by Russian Scientists and so on..

      The fact is Science as we humans are developing is a pseudoscience till we discover the actual mechanism and functioning of nature and make it a part of OUR SCIENCE. Request you to come back to this article after 5 years or so and see how much of this remains a Pseudo Science then.

      For the latest development in the field read this article The Elixir or Life

      • Anir

        Wow! Talk about intellectual arrogance! It is usually science that is accused of such arrogance, but science is actually humble. It doesn’t decree “truths” like you did here without there being any evidence. Again all you did was to cherry picking a few successful theories whilst ignoring the theories that failed because there was no evidence to support them.

        And the elixir of life thing? I see you quoting from TOI speaking tree – a bastion of pseudoscience. So here is some actual science.

        You see, science ultimately depends on reality to verify its theories. As I said you can let you imagination run wild, but reality has a habit not giving a damn to what you think is or will be true.

        • Anonymous

          Oh come on now, the TOI article is not talking some spirituality. It is talking about an experiment by French scientist Luc Montagnier (the 2008 Nobel prize winner (medicine) for discovery of the HIV virus) and his experiments have shown.

          “.. that it is possible to replicate and transfer DNA strands from one test tube to another by passing a low level electromagnetic (EM) radiation of 7Hz through them.”

          Now you call this scientist and his experimental results Pseudo Science?

          • Anir

            Now you call this scientist and his experimental results Pseudo Science?

            Yes. That is why I linked to Orac’s take down of Luc Montagnier’s pseudoscience. The article also explains why somebody getting a Nobel prize doesn’t mean that everything they say is science.

          • harry

            Yes, I do call it pseudoscience. That is the beauty of science. As a scientist, I believe that which is consistent with reality, irrespective of WHO says it, IN WHICH LANGUAGE it is said and all other irrelevant details. A fact is a fact. Luc Montagnier’s conclusion that the HIV virus causes AIDS is a FACT as it is consistent with reality. Has been proven beyond doubt. His statements about replication of the DNA strand ar FALSE as it is inconsistent with reality. Neither has he been able to reproduce his experimental results, his methods are doubtful and what he proposes is inconsistent with established facts. The latter is the weakest argument in science, but the first is the ONLY argument required: inconsisten with reality.
            So yes, I can call the words of even a Nobel prize winner as pseudoscience when it is inconsistent with reality.

        • Anonymous

          Exactly, what I meant here is that the Science as we know today is NOT Complete, so we cannot rub off a claim based on a new experimental finding as unscientific without having any proof AGAINST it.

          How does Science work? You propose a theory based on a experimental finding or observation or based on some other theory – and if Science finds even a SINGLE evidence against it, then that theory is termed a failure. Right?

          So both in the above article and in the TOI article, what has been done is propose a theory based on certain latest experiments in the field. Even if there is a single proof AGAINST these proposed theories which are in turn arrived at based on the mentioned scientific experiments, then obviously the theory will be a failure. But to rubbish off a theory without even giving it a consideration, that definitely is not a scientific spirit.

          By the way, be it general relativity or quantum mechanics, the not so common sensical nature of universe proposed by these theories was discovered ONLY because the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger etc let their imaginations run wild :)

          • Anir

            I’m very much for letting imaginations run wild. But what I’m not for is articles like yours which don’t explicitly state that what you are doing is mere speculation built upon an unsubstantiated claims like this – “most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors”. That’s not how science works. Reality is where it starts off from. Not from baseless claims.

            And yes, scientists speculate all the time. But they state that they are doing so and make it explicit such speculation needs to be corroborated with evidence. If you read published papers, even when there is evidence, scientists are very careful to state under what conditions their theory is valid. They don’t make unqualified conclusions like you do.

            Scientific spirit is all about being skeptical about theories given the past evidence of how many theories went wrong. Now have stated anywhere in your article that it is mostly speculation and it may well be wrong? No. You just took the conclusions of a pseudoscientific study on face value because it confirms to your preconceived notions.

            • Anonymous

              I do stand by “most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors”. There have been many discussions about this topic in this blog.

              Classic example is the building of Egyptian Pyramids. That knowledge of building such megastructures was lost after that civilization, and the engineering was REINVENTED in the last 2-3 centuries. It was reinvented once a millenium back when the famous Granite Temple at Tanjore in India was built.

              The methodology followed today in Rhinoplasty is again a reinvention of the one followed by Sushruta – read any medical book on this or ask any expert plastic surgeon today. I mean I can give loads of examples like this.

              About your remaining comments. I am NOT a professional scientist and this is a blog NOT a scientific journal. Blog by its very own nature is about PERSONAL opinions. So unless and until references are provided to the contrary, all the articles in one’s blog are personal opinions. So have I done, have provided references to the sources from where I got the information, and everything else is my personal opinion. If we go by what you are saying, then almost every blog article in the web should have a line saying, “this is my personal opinion” in almost every paragraph :)

              And finally, if my intuitions are right – the science in the next five to ten years (depending on how soon we get there) will definitely prove that IT IS possible to reprogram the DNA of our body from outside, and that is when most of what is in the spiritual domain today will find way inside actual sciences. Yes, it will be possible to cure not just sickle cell anaemia but almost ANY genetic disease using this gene therapy from external sources.

              • Anir

                So you mean you can show me Newtonian mechanics (say for ex, calculate escape velocity of earth), Relativistic mechanics (predict the orbit of Mercury around the Sun), Nuclear physics (calculate the amount of fissile material needed to generate 5000 MW of electricity. Pick your fuel), Astronomy, (how many moons do Jupiter and Saturn have. And what compound makes up the atmosphere of Titan), Evolution (explain all the points in this article) in ancient texts?

                And please, don’t spare me the details. I’m all for it.

                And I don’t care if you are a professional scientist or not. Luc Montaigner is one and that didn’t stop him from peddling pseudoscience. If you are in the quest for knowledge, what matters is, how did you acquire that knowledge and how do you know what you know is true. Science uses reality for that purpose. What do you use? Your personal opinions?

                • Anonymous

                  I see that you skipped my examples of the Technology behind Pyramids and the modern medical procedures used in Rhinoplasty :)

                  Regarding the last paragraph of your reply, I said I am not a professional scientist because blog articles are not written the way you publish scientific papers. And yes my personal opinions in these cases (science related or pseudoscience related articles as you may call it) is a proposed thought about the possible explanations or elaborations regarding the recent (or the ones about which I came to know recently) scientific revelations.

                  So I guess nobody has the right to stop one person from expressing his or her ideas or thoughts. NOBODY OWNS SCIENCE. If what I propose is proved to be false then so be it. What’s the big deal? I would be happy to find another way the laws of nature DOESNT work. But to say that I shouldnt write my personal thoughts about scientific probabilities as I see them is not a just call. There are loads of papers coming out everyday claiming to prove Relativity to be false, so you wanna stop them from publishing their thoughts? Science has its very root at personal opinions (which are called conclusions based on experimental data), now how many of these go on to get proved and become actual science and for how long is completely a different subject of discussion.

                  Now you might come back and say what is the experimental proof of your opinions. As I said, these are my thoughts (thought experiments?), which is trying to analyze within one’s own mind about what might be going on in nature. So the true scientific spirit should be to prove or disprove it via scientific experiments. Not to say dont write your thoughts :)

                  Oh yes and finally about my mentioning of a lot of modern knowledge being found in ancient texts, its going to be really lengthy so will write an article about it and post the link here. Thanks for the heads up. Please note that I am not nuts to claim that EVERYTHING that we know today was known earlier, like I didnt say people had mobile phones during Mahabharatha times or Ravana had a laptop. But let us give due credit to all those things which the ancients knew. And I will definitely highlight all those I can in my article, just that it would take some time. Will post the link here once I publish it.

                  Unfortunately when the science textbooks teach us Pythagoras Theorem, no scientific minded person asks – did Pythagoras give a proof to his theorem which is named after him? :) Read Voltaire and you will see that he says, ““Pythagoras went to the Ganges to learn geometry”. I can show you proof of the Pythagoras theorem not only in ancient Indian texts dating back to centuries before Pythagoras, but also in ancient Chinese texts. So much so about the the history of science as we are taught about. Now please dont tell me history is different from science – anything that is truth is science, and history is the truth of our past.

                  Here is Voltaire’s actual text related to this
                  “I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, – astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc. It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry…But he would certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the Brahmins’ science not been long established in Europe.”

                  The above text is a translation of the below original in Italian by Voltaire
                  “Sono convinto che tutto ciò che è giunta fino a noi dalle rive del Gange, – astronomia, astrologia, metempsicosi, ecc E ‘molto importante notare che circa 2.500 anni fa, al Pitagora almeno è andato da Samos al Gange per imparare la geometria … Ma lui non avrebbe certamente intrapreso un viaggio così strano aveva la reputazione della scienza i brahmani ‘non è stata da tempo stabilito in Europa.”

                  and the reference for it http://www.frasi-inglese.net/aforismi/voltaire/ – Note that this is not some hindu propaganda religious website, but an actual Italian website.

                  • Anir

                    You are just indulging in diversionary tactics. You do not know what I think of Pythagoras theorem. You do not of what I think of ancient mathematics, astronomy or medicine. I’m quite aware of what ancient civilizations have achieved. Nowhere did I deny that they didn’t have some knowledge. But for every ancient technology you mention, I can cite a 100 others they had absolutely no clue about.

                    I’m only questioning your claim that “most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors”. How much is most?

                    That’s why I asked very specific examples. I know it is easy to make tenuous links between present day science and what ancient people knew. You could point to some verse saying earth attracts objects to itself and conflate it with Newton’s theory of gravity like how you conflated genetics with vedic chants based on psuedoscientific studies. That’s why my request to calculate escape velocity. I know that you can’t arrive at it using knowledge solely from ancient texts.

                    If you want to write an article showing “most if not all of modern science is a mere reinvention of the knowledge of our ancestors”, I’d suggest you take some high school text books on physics, chemistry, biology and maths and show that a MAJORITY (say greater than 80 percent ) of the knowledge of those textbooks is contained in the ancient texts. And that’s just the start. After that you’d need to do the same for undergrad/grad level books for all sciences. Only then can you say “most” or “a lot of”. Else you are just being intellectually dishonest.

                    • Anonymous

                      What is diversionary here?

                      1. We were talking about scientific origins of inventions and discoveries. Your views are that most of the science is of recent origin (correct me if I am wrong), and I gave Pythagoras theorem as an example to say how the TEXTBOOKS ARE WRONG. Ask any student of mathematics and he says Pythagoras discovered that theorem, which is WRONG. Even Babylonians knew that theorem long back him. I did not tell about Pythagoras theorem to show my knowledge of what you know or not, nor did I ever ask you how much you know about what I know before questioning me. I mentioned Pythagoras to prove a point that how original inventors of a scientific or mathematical knowledge are not attributed their due place in Scientific History.

                      2. Coming to “most”, it is a relative term. Every person has his or her own prejudices or measurements for that. For me “most” is the “most obvious” or the “most common” features of science which form “most” part of our day to day life.

                      Just to quote Einstein
                      “We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made”

                      THAT is the most for me. If not for the out of the box idea of place value system and the subsequent invention of zero as a result (both of which we take for granted today) we would still be doing nothing more than mere simple addition and subtraction using the complex roman numerals. If the world had relied on European Roman numerals as the foundation of its mathematics, then we wouldnt be able to do even simple multiplication. It is the place value based base system and the zero invented in ancient India that have made modern science and math possible. Let us accept that fact.

                      Now even for the sake of argument, the civilization which came up with such an ingenious method which is used by us all over today including in this computer software (base 2 system), do you believe that they stopped after inventing zero and did nothing? So if you agree that they did, then how much of modern math did they uncover or lay the foundation for? I would say most of it where “most” is my prejudice which I define as most of everyday mathematics including its everyday use in the field of science and technology. Obviously nobody calculates the metric tensor or solves schrodinger’s equation on a daily basis.

                      3. You said start with high school, I have started with Primary school. ALMOST ALL OF Primary School Math textbooks have their origin at the ancient Indian mathematics – be it Arithmetic, Algebra or Geometry. I am not talking about some verse which SOUNDS similar or can be interpreted eitherway, I am talking about actual math problems. Which is why I said I would write a series of articles on this.

                      Just take the works of Bhaskaracharya alone. His works contain actual mathematical formulae and problems ranging from the proof of Pythagorean theorem, to surds, qurdratic equations, cubic equations, indeterminate equations, infinitesimal calculus, derivative, trigonometry, spherical trigonometry, Rolles theorem and so on. Weren’t all these things REINVENTED later again in history? Which is what I meant in my original statement which lead to this discussion. Aren’t these things most of the common mathematics used on a regular basis?

                      I NEVER said that ancients knew ALL of what we know today, but yes I did say most. So obviously I can only point to those which I know that the ancients knew about it. Since you seem to be more interested in mathematical statements ie formula that could be used to solve actual mathematical problems than just stating theories, which one may as well consider to be guess works of the ancient, I will try to stick only to mathematically stated ancient sciences.

                      4. On a last note, humans have been having the same brain that we have today for past couple of million years. Humans have been living a settled life as civilizations atleast for the past 8 to 15 thousand years. On the other hand most of the modern science we use today was invented only in the past 3 to 5 centuries.

                      But the earliest proof of existence of mathematics dates back to anywhere between 3000 BCE to 5000 BCE. And those early civilizations existed for a continuous period of anywhere between 3000 to 5000 years.

                      Given these facts, how wise it would be to assume that the ancients never used the same brains they had as we have today, for thousands of years, and ONLY we in the past three to five centuries were the first to discover all that we know today? Which is why I use the term “REINVENTED”.

                      Oppenheimer the father of modern atomic bomb was humble enough to say that he DID NOT think that the first atomic bomb explosion which he handled at Manhattran (before they were dropped on Japan) was the first one in history. He said it probably was the first one in recent times indicating that the ancient were probably aware of nuclear technology. Well, we may even accuse him of taking to pseudosciences after having achieved so much in science. But does that matter to him?

                    • harry

                      Pythagors’ theorem was known long before pythagoras formalized it and chances are that our ancestors were the first to discover it and its implications. OK but saying that just like that, they may have even known about DNA is preposterous! DNA isn’t something you find while cutting open an organism. It requires highly sophisticated techniques to study it. To understand DNA, more basic concepts have to be known. There isn’t even any proof of those basic concepts. Please give me a quote from any ancient books which give a description of the components of DNA, how those components interact and a description of the base-pairing.
                      “Most is a relative term”. True, but it has an inviolable definition without which it is just a grunt, not a word. Most means more than other components which means that more than 50%. If you can show that even 50.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of what we know today was known back then, then you are right. But “most is a relative term” doesn’t mean that you have your own definition of most.
                      Again, to define MOST of what we know today, you have to know what it is that is actually known today. Sadly, you have little idea about what exactly it is that is known today. I don’t claim to know the full extent of what is known today… I know a little bit and know that a huge amount exists beyond what I know… but I can say that your ignorance regarding even what little I know itself is so appalling that it is highly unlikely that you grasp the vastness of current knowledge. Hence you are not in any position to compare what is known today with anything.
                      So you are saying that inventing the zero means we knew about DNA. Please re-read your statement and realize how absurd it is. We invented the zero which enabled humanity to make a lot of progress in the field of science but it doesn’t mean that all that progress was made by us. We have made our contributions (many others, including the invention of the zero) but we cannot stake claim to others contributions.

                    • I=Indian

                      The issue with the self proclaimed scientific minded people today is as follows. If a sentence contains a sanskrit term it becomes unscientific. If it contains a Latin or a Greek term, then it becomes Scientific.

                      Just pick up any random quote by a reputed scientist who appreciates ancient Indian knowledge. Tell these self proclaimed scientific minded people that an Indian spiritual Guru said it, and see their reaction. And then tell them the truth that a reputed western scientist said it and now see their reaction.

                      I am not joking. This is a hard fact.

                    • harry

                      That is a false claim. What most people peddling “our ancient culture already knew all this” do is exaggerate what was already known and make up wishful interpretations of the ancient texts. I am an Indian and am proud of my heritage. We had the world’s first sanitation network and huge, well-planned urban complexes. These are UNEXAGGERATED and PROVEN facts. Charaka and Sushruta were great doctors of their era for the observations that they had made and for evidence for effective remedies exists in MANY (though, NOT ALL) the drugs in ayurveda. But it is exaggeration of facts and mmisinterpretation that since charaka knew about myasthenia gravis, he knew about its cause, about specific immune mechanisms, about autoimmunity etc. because there isn’t a detailed account of these and there is no way he could have known. It is difficult to imagine the implausibility of him knowing about the aetiopathogenesis of the disease without you actually understanding the aetiopathogenesis of the disease and what is the evidence in support of the mechanism.
                      That with a Latin or greek term is taken to be scientific is only because naming conventions in the modern scientific world are in Latin and Greek, even if discovered by Indian scientists. This isn’t actually from ancient texts of greeks and romans because many of the things contained in their ancient texts is also equally implausible.
                      Science is the practice of believing what is reality irrespective of the language in which it is written.
                      I am proud of the heritage of scientific exploration and technological innovations which our ancestors have bequeathed unto us. Let us not malign their legacy by over exaggerating their accomplishments and clinging onto certain things concluded by them which are demonstrably false.

                  • harry

                    There is no dispute that our ancient Indian mathematicians, philosophers, naturalists, doctors etc were very accomplished in their respective fields. It may even be true that many fundamental mathematical theorems, concepts etc may have actually been of Indian origin. But that does not mean that EVERYTHING we know today was already known then. There is no proof and hence it cannot be believed. The quotes that you give from ancient Indian sources prove that they knew quite a bit but NOT AS MUCH AS YOU claim. There is no shame in admitting that they didn’t know the things which we know today because knowledge builds upon past accomplishments and hence they have definitely contributed to our knowledge as it stands today.
                    Again, there is a difference between knowledge and speculation. Einstein’s theory of relativity (as I have mentioned earlier) was a speculation (of course, not without a SOLID back ground in FACTS known in physics and mathematics) until a lot of it has been proven. It was believable because it built on known facts and didn’t violate what was already known to be inviolable. You, on the other hand, stake claims based on highschool level knowledge of biology which, surprisingly, you think is the entirety of what is known and your speculations not only violate rules in biology but also the laws of physics and chemistry which also you seem to be unaware of.
                    Your claims on rhinoplasty are baseless – I’m a Doctor and have NEVER come across what you say. So much for “check any medical book” or “ask a plastic surgeon”. My uncle’s a plastic surgeon. BTW, what ARE the methods followed for rhinoplasty? No quotes from wikipedia, please. I want your own explanation based on your OWN understanding of the subject.
                    “No body owns science”. True, nobody owns science. But science is not toilet paper either, that you soil it with your ignorance as if it is your birth right. You are free to air your views but that is “free speech” and not “science”. Science is: when your view is shot down by reality, you have to change it. What you speculate as possibiltiy is not possible because in reality it CANNOT happen. To understand it, you have to first understand modern molecular biology. Do you know how many mechanisms are in place to prevent DNA from changing? DNA doesn’t change as dynamically as you are describing it. You don’t understand basic premises of FACTS of molecular biology to even formulate an opinion

                • Prasad Kulkarni

                  Dear Friend i must say you haven’t studied ancient text properly. Aryabhatta studied the entire solar systems to it’s depth.In those days without using any instruments he calclulated masses ,radius of orbit,propreties of planets,stars etc(ref:aryabhattiya).as far as nuclear physics is concerned,maharshi KANAADA was the first to propose the atomic theory.Evolution is not at all discarded by vedas.In fact even today’s spiritual gurus support evolution.Mention any other field if you wish to.I am in for it…

                • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

                  the atharva veda talks about a ll the mentioned field of science as well as engineering ,airplane architecture and MAINLY ATOMIC ENERGY(NUCLEAR FISSION) IN DETAIL.

              • harry

                Uh, we already can reprogramme the DNA from outside…. We do it time and time again… How do you think many modern drugs are made? By reprogramming bacterial DNA. There is treatment for HIV using reprogrammed human CD4 T-lymphocytes. However, this reprogramming isn’t how you imagine it to be. To understand it, you have to know DNA and how it works. What you are talking about is pure fantasy which cannot work. The only reason why reprogramming of the DNA is not used on humans yet is because of a) We do not know the side effect of the vector used for the purpose, b) Due to ethical issues, c) The technology for doing it is not yet very efficient, d) High costs making it unfeasible yet.
                Your statement yet again highlights what you little you know about what is actually known today. This is why this blog entry of yours is being criticized by Anir and me. What you don’t realize is the improbability of your assertions which again is a result of your lack of knowledge about the issue.
                You speak of Einstein and Eisenberg who, “let their imaginations run wild”. Let me remind you, they were actually working in the fields which they revolutionized, as people who already knew whatever was to be known about the field at that time. They were at the cutting edge of their fields when they stumbled upon their discoveries. You, on the other hand, are not even at the fringes of the field of genetics so don’t expect to revolutionize anything by, “letting your imagination run wild”. The former knew the limits of reality which they were describing (no one, even in their ‘wild imaginations’ for instance would violate the law of conservation of mass, energy, momentum, angular momentum, charge etc which are established facts), whereas you have no clue about it.

          • harry

            Yes, these gentlemen let their imagination run wild but eventually backed it up with hard evidence which has proven itself time and time again. Science describes REALITY and not your imagination. Einstein was given the nobel prize for his explanation of the PHOTOELECTRIC effect which proved itself. Einstein, howevere, DID NOT get the nobel prize for his theory of relativity. It was based on his imagination, logically approached through thought experiments and explored via powerful mathematical tools (riemman geometry, tensors etc) and gave some elegant solutions to problems in physics which appeared to be a clash between Newtonian mechanics and the implication of Maxwells equations. However, it was not established as a SCIENTIFIC FACT till many of its predictions were observed. Even today, not everything predicted by the theory of relativity has been established however, most of it has been esablished. But, the reason why it was accepted as a probable explanation of reality because of the strong compatibility with what was known at that time and hence worth exploring. Similarly, quantum mechanics appears nonsensical to a layman, but rest assured, to the ones working on the theory at the time, it wasn’t as bizzare as it is to even the layman of today. The didn’t exactly let their imaginations run wild, rather they were working on possible explanations to questions in physics and chemistry and what forms the fundamentals of quantum mechanics today were the POSSIBLE solutions to those questions. Some of the bizzareness to the layman also stems from the choice of terminology which isn’t exactly what one would expect in ordinary english (for example, the concept of colour in qcd and the concept of spin).
            BUT, eventually, REALITY was the final test for all these theories before they were accepted as science. Today, there is the same hoopla about the string theories but what most laymen don’t realize is that it is only the MOST PROBABLE among the explanations of reality that we have today, which is why such a major experiment is being conducted at CERN to VERIFY whether it indeed describes reality and hence is science OR not. REALITY is eventually the test and so far, your Russian posterboy has failed the test.

        • I=Indian

          You mean to say Meditation is Pseudo Science? You definitely need to update your Science then. Psychology is a science and it directly impacts the Biology of a person.

          • Anir

            When did I say that? I was pointing out that what Luc Montaigner did was pseudoscience. But since you mentioned it, most claims about meditation are pseudoscience. The only scientific claims on it are that it reduces stress, relaxes you and sometimes induces Depersonalization disorder which was historically interpreted as the soul realizing itself or the dissolution of “self”.

            • I=Indian

              The only scientific claims? I am not surprised about your initial comments now. So let us leave it to that then, you continue to live in your world, and we will continue pursuing ours.

            • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

               oh come on. how thick can u be?
              depersonalization disorder and meditation are poles apart.meditation is something that is related to yogic science whereas depersonalization disorder is an alteration in the experience of reality .sufferers maintain the ability to distinguish between their own
              internal experiences and the objective reality of the outside world.
              During episodic and continuous depersonalization, sufferers are able to
              distinguish between reality and fantasy, and their grasp on reality
              remains stable at all times.
              here the confusion comes as both – the people who meditate and sufferers of this disorder both have grasp on reality. but meditators or those who practise yoga do not have delusions and do not force their minds to accept fantasy as real events.
              sufferers are able to
              distinguish between reality and fantasy, and their grasp on reality
              remains stable at all times but still they fail to accept  reality and tend to live in their own  fantasy ideas and this slowly erodes their process of thinking and perception of reality. Depersonalization disorder is thought to be largely caused by severe
              traumatic lifetime events including childhood sexual, physical, and
              emotional abuse; accidents, war, torture, panic attacks and bad drug
              experiences. there are hormonal changes usually involved in it unlike in meditation.
              infact cure to depersonalization disorder is exercise and meditation .u can refer to any scientific reference books and find the truth.

        • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

           it is true that science was accused of arrogance by some religious sects like the medieval vatican popes, who condemned great scientists like copernicus, galileo and also put them under house arrest to stop them from sharing their  scientific discoveries with the world. this was a time when the vatican believed earth was flat and al such things. they did such arrests mainly in the fear of losing the people’s belief in them. so this was complete religious politics. but that doesn’t mean that whatever our theories have been put forward by our vedic culture is also false or copied from others. scientists do need to think and change their perceptin of religion. just because one religion fails to recognise their achievements doesn’t mean all other  religions too do the same and claim credit for their discoveries.it is only when such hostile thoughts spread that science and philosophy faces a partition. again i am not saying that only scientists create hostility. mistake occurs on both sides. but scientists should understand that both philosophy and science are inseperable. both have a lot to gain from each other and only when both remain in harmony that true knowledge shall be imparted. picking up swords against each other is never a solution. if so then humanity shall be divided to two. those who believe in scientisfic facts shall discredit philosophical knowledge and vice versa. so bothshall fail to absorb the true purpose of their discoveries and inventions.             

    • Virender singh

      there only difference between the science and philosophy is that philosophy is when we put ahead something without proof and facts the same thing become science if it is represented with facts and proofs . u must no if u r a scholar of science that there was no separate discipline known as science in the starting which was the part of philosophy which later bifurcated as a branch of philosophy further evolved as separate  new discipline as science  .

       this is the worldwide fact that what we assume (our fantasy) is based on what we  have discovered (the science and technology of present) . and we assume a step ahead of today’s science(near future) or a step back(near past) of today, we can not think beyond that because we dont have the idea of assumption. like the distance of sun form earth was mere assumption before the discovery of light speed now is the part of science and can be improve in the future with much invention ,now reaching at sun is mere assumption but can be science when we will discover who to counterfeit such a high temperature of sun and speed of our vehicle , now u can apply the ideas on our ancestors, the ideas they gave us. If u think that was mere an assumption then u yourself  prove that they were assuming the the thing base on the science of their time (things of a step ahead or back) so u can not deny that fact what they have discovered or invented (like the idea of -atom , zero , accessiblility to sun , artificial rainfall by chant (which is now proved) burning fire by chants ,test tube baby system (the birth of dronchaarya), living for long time (like survaasa rishi ,based on respiration system of our body), invisibility (based on nenotechnology(scattering of light by neno-fesciets  ) now used in satellite to escape form radar), viewing the war far beyond the location of war now t.v.,missile ,revival , escaping the unborn fetus without operation ,flying in the sky (the fantasy which u can see in modern movies,going to be the part of reality in near future ) and many more 

      • Anonymous

        Very true, science started became materialistic from the moment it branched away from philosophy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

         exactly virender . a well known example of sound vibrations in correct frequencies can produce astounding results is the events of musician tansen. he caused lamps filled with WATER to light up by singing the deep raagaand caused artificial rain to pour down by singing in MALHAR RAAGA. also there is a example in sri raghavendra charita where he chants the agni sukta while preparing sandalwood paste for guests.it causes the paste to cause boils to the guests who applied the paste. again he chants the varuna sukta while preparing the sandal paste and gives it to the guests to apply on the boils. the boils reduce almost completely giving a cooling effect to their body.

    • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

       if u say that the proof gurudev gave about sanskrit being more than 7000 years old is not enugh for u then sorry we have no more proof 2 give u other than referring u to read the vedas and upanishads for proof. if u can read them well and good. and as for your question as to how much of modern discoveries were already made the ancients let me give u an example.

      u might surely know about NOETIC SCIENCES. before this field of science existed and even when it came into being many of ur today’s modern scientists refused to believe the ideologies put forward by scientists researching in this field unless some proof was shown.
      some of the theories put forward by this field were-
      1) the existence of a inward force driving the human body known as soul. this itself shows that scientists who refused to believe anything about a thing called soul were forced to believe if u ask for experimental proof for it let me give it- In 1907 Dr Duncan MacDougall made weight measurements of patients as they died. He claimed that there was weight loss of varying amounts at the time of death. now u cannot claim that only modern science has given proof of xistence of soul. hindu philosophy mentioned in upanishads had already mentioned it-In Hinduism, the Sanskrit words most closely corresponding to soul are “Jeev”, “Aatma” and “Purusha”, meaning the individual Self.
      The MANDUKYA UPANISHAD verse 7 describes the Aatma in the following way:-

      “Not inwardly cognitive, not outwardly cognitive, not both-wise
      cognitive, not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive,
      unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no
      distinctive mark, non-thinkable, that cannot be designated, the essence
      of the assurance of which is the state of being one with the Self, the
      cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second
      (a-dvaita)—[such] they think is the fourth. That is the Self. That
      should be discerned.” In Bhagavad – Gita 2.20 Lord Krishna describes the soul in the following way:na jayate mriyate va kadacin nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah ajo nityah sasvato yam purano na hanyate hanyamane sarire”For
      the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come
      into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He
      is unborn, eternal, ever – existing and primeval. He is not slain when
      the body is slain.” NOW NO ONE CAN CLAIM THAT BHAGAVAD GITA WAS WRITTEN AFTER SUCH EXPERIMENTS WERE CONDUCTED.  2) another example of cutting edge science like well established facts of science- PHENOMENA OF POLARITY. this fact was once again already mentioned more than 50000 years ago by lord krishna in the gita. he xplained it by mentioning the presence of two worlds one the eternal world and the world of illusion. if u say that this is just metaphorical references i am sorry i just have to say that u still blindly refuse to accept that both philosophy and science go hand in hand.3) in today’s modern science the most significant discovery in quantum physics is the superstring theory. superstring theory basically explains interaction of various forces of nature like electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces with quantum mechanics.this concept had long been explained in the foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought

      known as Kabbalah It is a group of books including commentary on the
      mystical aspects of the Torah (the five books of Moses) and scriptural
      interpretations as well as material on Mysticism,
      mythical cosmogony,
      and mystical psychology. it explains about the six other dimensions
      mentioned by modern superstring theory in its concept of–Sephirot or Sephiroth
      meaning “enumerations”. they are the 10
      attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which Ein Sof
      (The Infinite) reveals himself and continuously creates both the physical realm
      and the chain of higher metaphysical realms (Seder hishtalshelus). The term is alternatively
      transliterated into English as Sefirot/Sefiroth, singular Sephirah/Sefirah
      etc.

      not only
      in jewish mysticism but also in hinduism once again  Kaśmir Śaivism, the 36 tattvas describe
      the Absolute, its internal aspects and the
      creation including living beings, down to the physical reality. The addition of
      11 supplemental tattvas
      compared to the Sāṃkhya allows for a richer,
      fuller vision of the Absolute. Going from śiva to pṛithvī tattva we find the process of manifestation, the creation
      of the universe; going the opposite way we find the process of spiritual evolution culminating with the
      dissolution in Śiva.
      all these tattvas describe the interactions between every physical object in this world as just a micro  manifestations of the macro interactions between the galaxies and stars.
      string theory also talks about the omnipresent vibrations between each quantum particle vibrate at resonant frequencies. this omnipresent vibration was what was described as the sound of creation “om” also called “aum” by all hindu vedic scriptures wriiten thousands of centuries ago. 

      The Māndukya Upanishad is entirely devoted to the
      explanation of the syllable. The syllable consists of three phonemes, a Vaishvanara,
      u Hiranyagarbha and mIswara, which
      symbolize the beginning, duration, and dissolution of the universe.
       also if u would like to know let me tell u that  isaac newton, whose laws of motion have been fundamentals of many modern scientists discoveries and theories , was himself an occultist or mystic he himself had accepted this fact in many of his scientific diaries he published. he was also an philosophist who clearly understood the relation between nature and human society.
      thus modern scientists as clearly visible have taken only his scientific teachings but have failed to recognize the philosophical explanations and sources he utilised to obtain many of his unknown discoveries. some of the books he referred for his works were among the most rarest books which described not only clear derivations of today’s modern discoveries but also proposed many metaphysical practices practised those days by some mystic tribes. some of those books are HC AGRIPPA’S ‘OCCULTA PHILOSOPHIA’ AND ‘TESTAMENT OF SOLOMON’ ‘KEY OF SOLOMON’. also he has mentioned the vedic texts he used to study human body and supernatural energies gained by human body through some process of deep focus of mind in specific environment and postures. he has mentioned these text as ancient age texts of middle eastern india.

      finally i would like to mention that even the famous albert einstein accredited the bhagavad gita as the most significant scientific as well as philosophical text of all times. THIS IS NOT WILD IMAGINATION BUT A FACT.  i shall also later mention about yogic sciences described in the yoga sutras of patanjali in detail. as of for know u can refer to the book ‘AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI’ for vedic scientific knowledge with hard core proofs. it will really clear ur doubts on telepathy teleportations and metaphysics in detail believe me.
      just because vedic sciences did not have their knowledge and discoveries patented does not mean that modern scientists can claim them to be pseudoscience or rubbish imagination.

  • Kannan

    This explains a few more things to me. Recently I had the opportunity to read a book ‘ A short history of nearly everything’ by Bill Bryson. The book was so very informative. The author goes to the extent of saying Single celled Amoeba / Bacterium could be the foremost living organism formed in this earth / universe, and they further mutated to develop into different living organisms. I went all the way to post my status message on skype and facebook as ‘Bacterium are our ancestors’. This article actually enlightens that idea to a great extent how that could have been possible for a single celled micro organism to get mutated to the most complex living creatures on this earth. Excellent one Sir.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks Kannan. Yes we all have Bacterium and numerous and other species as our ancestors. In fact the Hindu texts say that humans evolved from 84,00,000 other species!

    • harry

      Read the book “On the Origin of species” by Charles Darwin. More informative and factual. Next, read up on molecular biology. You will realize how preposterous many of the above claims are.

  • Akshay

    My parents had attended a some lectures 5-6 yrs earlier at manashakti kendra in lonavala. They told me that these mantras and even your thoughts have an effect on all the molecules and atoms around. That is the reason why you feel pleasant around a good person or a saint and you feel bad around a bad person or a criminal (around a saint or criminal you can immediately notice). These mantras etc affect the walls and the area around so there is some difference of how you feel in the temple. The yagyas or rituals performed with chemicals and mantras affect the environment similarly and so rain or whatever the purpose of the yagyas occurs. But still we need to be careful of phoney babas. And these rituals are also supposed to be performed systematically.

    I was not sure of believing that earlier but now I have no reason not to believe.

  • Kaushik
    • http://www.hitxp.com Gurudev

      Thank you very much for that link Kaushik. Have updated the article by adding the link at the end.

  • Preshit

    Very true abt biological communication to outside world n it’s effect to ourselvese.I myself have realised positive thinking effect, but dont u think these secrets r given in vedas but many more times revealed n scientifically proved by foreign scientists. we must appreciate them , but why we indians dont make justice with our own knowledge, why we dont make researches on these vedik hymns, i agree our ancesters were wise or were wisest people but what abt us? We r not following them. I appreciate ur attemts towards awareness of people about vedas .but what others else means we indians do to more n more increase it n ultimately achieve the prosperity , success n knowledge(gyan) which our people were having? I want your opinion abt it . do vedabhyas in academics achieve this?

    • http://www.hitxp.com Gurudev

      We Indians today lack all this knowledge because of our education system which only is all about parroting the same stuff 1000 times. The English education system which was introduced during the Colonial Era rules even today. While the science part of it is great, it should also be complemented by equally introducing ancient schools of thoughts in Science and Mathematics. The history part of it is completely biased and even today talks about Rigveda being written in 1500 BCE, Aryan invasion and what not, wrong dating of Buddha and Shankaracharya, confusing Chandragupta Maurya with Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty, etc, all incorrect history. It talks about ancient Indian epics and Puranas as myth while the fact is that they are documented ancient history. The entire Indian education system needs a major overhaul.

    • harry

      Positive thinking makes you feel good because it effects your limbic cortex. It doesn’t change your DNA. Have you heard of biofeedback in psychology?

      • http://www.facebook.com/neelakantan.iyer1 Neelakantan Iyer

         exactly. what u said was absolutely correct. but what is this procedure that u are proving? was it something that modern science created like the supercomputers or something ? no! this is a natural phenomena in and around our body which is just being xplained by science. thus modern  science cannot claim that only they knew it. for if they use the word science to classify their modern discoveries the same word in the dictionary can also be used for the explanations given in yogasutras of patanjali that date back to many centuries earlier. just by calling these texts as VEDIC texts doesn’t mean they are different from MODERN SCIENCE. these are just two words.

  • Chaitra

    Interesting article ! … Thanks !

    • http://www.hitxp.com Gurudev

      Thanks Chaitra.

  • Dinesh

    Hi Gurudev,

    Interstingly, I was thinking on these terms too after reading the russian article. Also, I think karma is carried through our Wireless DNAnet too. :)

    Dinesh

    • http://www.hitxp.com Gurudev

      Yes Dinesh, you are right I guess, Karma is the data transfer that keeps happening in this biological internet about our actions, and good or bad it gets amplified and returns back to us and probably some DNA fingerprinting makes it receivable only by the source of that karma :)

  • sainath

    after a long long wait but a good one :) thanx gurudev

    That is how tansen used to shower rains by singing speific raga…

    Also when i look at my kid and his devlopment i sometimes keep wondering what he is doing right from the birth or may be prior birth is actually listneing/hearing to the sound and seeing (i:e light) whatever around him is happening several times and it gets automatically into his system and suddenly he starts using or behaving or responding things unknowingly… i:e when child is born it is completely fresh (blank slate apart from whatever it is listening in the mothers womb) soo all the information is taken from environment, processed within onself, and comes out again, soo whatever encoding/decoding/manipulation must be done within ones body only… because we or atleast me sometimes go into confused state as to what decision to take since our system is telling us something else from the past experiences and what actually coming/happening in front is different so the system is unable to decide what actually to do..

    • http://www.hitxp.com Gurudev

      Yes very true, when a child is born its devoid of any prejudice, knowledge and its the senses which act as data transfer networks which start feeding information into it. As it starts observing through its senses it starts unlearning whatever it knew earlier (if at all!) and gets totally hooked into this physical universe. We are like the ones in a room full of knowledge but without light, and just have one window in the room (our senses) through which we can see the outside world and so have forgotten completely about the true knowledge inside the room (within ourselves).