Basudeba Mishra
Some people responded to my paper on Prashastapaada. Among them is one Mart Malakoff.
This is my reply to him:
Many people who have not even seen the original Vedas are writing books and giving lectures on Vedas. Some have admitted it to me when I questioned them. There is NOT A SINGLE book that translates the Vedas faithfully even by 0.000001%. The only way to interpret Vedas is through its phonetic system, its grammar and etymology, its procedural detail, its unit and nature of force, etc., which are detailed in a set of texts called Vedaanga. These are unique by themselves. No one interprets Vedas according to Vedaanga. Interpreting it according to Sanskrit or any other grammar is not sufficient, as Vedic grammar and phonetics are totally different from that of Sanskrit. Vedic grammar is the ONLY GRAMMAR that is totally scientific. It can be used as computer language with translation and retranslation showing exact form and content, which is not seen in any other language. Even Microsoft is making research on one of its texts called Taittiriya Praatishaakhya. There is nothing like “Vedic ideas”, as Veda is not an idea, but the UNIVERSAL BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE MANKIND. Even prayer in Vedic context has been defined as “Nomenclature and classification, physical characteristics, chemical characters and interactive potential – स्तुतिस्तु नाम्ना रूपेण कर्मणा वान्धवेन च. There is no way to interpret Vedas without science, though we have to derive scientific formulations through prescribed procedures. It is much more rigorous than modern physics, because only after one step is fully established, the next step is approached. I am willing for an open debate on this issue with anyone on any forum.
Regarding ‘indistinguishable particle’, I must point out to the Vedic classification of particles as 1) directly perceived (भावप्रत्यय) through observation and 2) indirectly inferred (उपायप्रत्यय) through its interaction or effects. The second has two categories: quantum (देवाः) that belongs to the category ‘indistinguishable from each other particle of its category’ and beyond quantum (प्रकृतिलयाः), that are ‘indistinguishable as particle itself’. It goes much deeper into the subject till it explains creation and structure formation without any anomalies or contradictions. Condemning something only from hearing about it is superstition – not science.
Regarding ‘ADS/CFT correspondence’, IS IT ANY BETTER THAN MERE WORDS? Only physicists know about physics and developments in physics. The anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence is a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. On one side are anti-de Sitter spaces (ADS) which are used in theories of quantum gravity, formulated in terms of string theory or M-theory. On the other side of the correspondence are conformal field theories (CFT) which are quantum field theories, including theories similar to the Yang–Mills theories that describe elementary particles. A previous exposure to string theory, Dbranes and some minimal knowledge of supersymmetry is also necessary to understand it. THESE ARE MERE WORDS TO FOOL THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WHO FUND SCIENTIFIC PROJECTS. Supersymmetry has been proved to be wrong by LHC. String theory requires ten dimensions and EVEN AFTER MORE THAN A CENTURY’S RESEARCH, SCIENTISTS DO NOT KNOW WHAT THESE EXTRA DIMENSIONS ARE. Yet they cling to this notion to build castles in the air. The STRING HAS NOT BEEN DISCOVERED. The name string theory arose from the Vedic concept वायुर्वै गौतमः तत् सूत्रम्, which literally means: Vaayu is verily that string. But lack of understanding of the meaning and implication of this statement has led scientists to disarray. GRAVITY CANNOT BE QUANTIZED. Scientists are still searching for a correct theory of gravity. It can only be solved through Vedic knowledge.
I request scientists to develop a scientific temper where they stop building theories on non-existent or proved to be wrong bases and stop their superstitious belief in “established theories”. They should not accept anything until it is proved to be true or false.