VEDAS ,HINDUISM Mathematics and Modern Science Part 2

This is my second article on this topic.Well I am just trying to explain here the most complex theory which somehow have the great impact on modern world technological development has been already implemented in ancient hindu mythology.It was a golden time when the theory of Quantum physics was represented in front of world.Ever want to have a "life do over", teleport, time travel, have your computer work at lightening speed or be guaranteed of no turbulence on your next flight, while many of these things are on the horizon. Make no mistake about it, quantum physics has been around for sometime but it is just about to change all of our lives.Quantum physics deals with the behavior of the smallest things in our universe: subatomic particles. It is a new science, only coming into its own in the early part of the 20th century, when physicists began questioning why they couldn't explain certain radiation effects. One of those pioneering thinkers, Max Planck, used the term "quanta" for the tiny particles of energy he was studying, hence the term "quantum physics". Planck said the amount of energy contained in an electron is not arbitrary, but is a multiple of a standard "quantum" of energy. One of the first practical uses of this knowledge led to the invention of the transistor.Another world-changing aspect of quantum physics may come in the computing realm, where a type of superconducting circuit is giving computers unprecedented speed and power. The circuits behave like artificial atoms, researchers say, because they can only gain or lose energy in packets by moving between discrete energy levels. The most complicated atom has five energy levels. This type of system is known as a "qudit" and is a vast improvement over the previous "qubit," which had only two energy levels. Qubits and qudits take the place of the bits used in standard computers. These quantum computers will use the laws of quantum mechanics to perform computations much faster than traditional computers.All sorts of information, from your credit card numbers to top-secret military strategies, are on the Internet, and a skilled hacker with enough knowledge and computer power could play havoc with your finances or world security.Encryption codes keep that information secure, and computer experts work ceaselessly to come up with more and more secure methods.Encoding messages inside an individual particle of light, or photon, has long been the goal of quantum cryptographers. That method seems to be just at hand, as scientists at the University of Toronto have worked with a method fast enough to encode a video . Cryptography involves a string of ones and zeros called the "key." Adding the key once encodes the information, adding it again decodes it. If an unauthorized person manages to obtain the key, the code can be cracked. But in quantum key distribution, the very act of using the key would reveal the hacker's presence.Haven't we all imagined what it would be like to instruct Scotty to beam us up, then dissolve into a stream of particles, only to be reassembled in another place? It's science fiction no more; it has been done, not on humans but on large molecules. Therein lies the problem. Every molecule in the human body would have to be scanned and then reassembled on the other side. But that's not going to happen any time soon. Another thing: Once you scan the particle, according to the laws of quantum physics, you have changed it. You can't make an exact copy.Scientists are using something very, very big -- the Large Hadron Collider -- to look for something very, very small: the fundamental particle believed to be at the root of our universe. The Higgs boson -- sometimes prosaically called the "God particle" -- is what scientists believe gives mass to fundamental particles (electrons, quarks and gluons) . Scientists believe the Higgs boson field must pervade all space, but so far the existence of these particles is just a theory. By isolating the Higgs boson, physicists might be able to understand how the universe went from a dense mass at the moment of the Big Bang to the infinitely spacious universe we have today. It might also explain how matter came to be balanced with antimatter. In short, finding the Higgs boson might explain everything.It is hard to imagine that the Native American, shamanistic healers and the pioneers of quantum physics would have much in common, but it turns out they do. Niels Bohr, one of the early investigators into this strange field of science, believed that much of what we call reality was dependent on an "observer effect," the relationship between what our reality does and how we observe it. This became a huge debate among quantum physicists, but experiments more than half a century after Bohr proposed his theory provided some support for it.Quantum theory is the theoretical basis of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level. In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory.Planck wrote a mathematical equation involving a figure to represent these individual units of energy, which he called quanta. The equation explained the phenomenon very well; Planck found that at certain discrete temperature levels (exact multiples of a basic minimum value), energy from a glowing body will occupy different areas of the color spectrum. Planck assumed there was a theory yet to emerge from the discovery of quanta, but, in fact, their very existence implied a completely new and fundamental understanding of the laws of nature. Planck won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his theory in 1918, but developments by various scientists over a thirty-year period all contributed to the modern understanding of quantum theory.n recent years physicists have had to address the interplay of consciousness and the physical world. In Quantum Physics much has been made over Bell's Theorem. The implications of this theorem and the experimental findings that flow from it are staggering. They force us to consider that the entire notion of a purely objective world is in conflict not only with the theory of quantum mechanics, but with the facts drawn from actual experiments. These findings point insistently to a profound interaction between conscious mental activity and the physical world itself.I studied one book which is a comparative study of Quantum Physics (for dummies), Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhism. I did it mainly because it is said too often that somehow Eastern Religions and Quantum Physics are identical. I clearly show where Vedanta and Buddhism have connections and contradictions to Quantum Physics. This isn't another attempt to equate science and religion, it is more an attempt to clarify the relationships. I was hoping to open up dialogue on this topic.

Here's my basic points:

Dvaita Vedanta (dualistic conclusions to the Vedas) is similar to classical physics in that it claims the universe is composed of separate distinct pieces, and therefore is incompatible with the Wave/Particle theory.Advaita Vedanta (non-dualistic conclusions to the Vedas) claims the universe is merely one whole and therefore particles do not exist they are merely illusion. This is also incompatible with Quantum Physics because QP does not claim particles don't exist, QP merely claims that it is an illusion to see them as separate from the waves and fields they emerge from. The Bell Tests even showed that two different particles are connected over long distances in space as well.

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (qualitative non-dualistic conclusions to the Vedas, or non-dualism with qualities) is directly compatible with QP because it claims that everything in the universe is intertwined but unlike pure non-dualism it claims that different things exist as different qualities and therefore exist qualitatively. In other words particles behave with the qualities of a particle, a rock has the qualities of a rock, but all these things exist intertwined with all other things. It's like a compromise between wave (non-duality) and particle (duality) where particles emerge as a qualitatively measurable occurences but remain intimately interconnected with the universe. However, it is also incompatible with QP because VV declares a God and QP makes no attempt to define a God.

Buddhism is a little trickier. Early Buddhism is like Advaita Vedanta in that it claims that the universe is empty (sunyata) of separate forms. The universal interconnectedness is taken more literally to mean ultimate truth is in the elimination of the idea of "things". However, later Buddhism like Tibetan Buddhism is a little more flexible when speaking of things, and therefore it can be said that later Buddhism allows for the discussion of particles as long as they are seen as intertwined with the universe. Plus because Buddhism does not try to prove a God it is even more compatible. It ends up being how you understand sunyata and anatman (no-self), if you take it literally that there are no particles then it is incompatible with QP, but if you allow fr qualitative existence that remains intertwined in the whole then it is compatible with QP.

I wanted to do this to address the common notion that Eastern Religions are somehow proven through QP and the fact is only certain kinds of Buddhism are directly compatible with QP.

Theory of relativity

People might tell I am person of IT why I am writing a blog in physics.A long time ago I was very much involved in IIT preparation .I almost spent three most crucial years during the preparation of that.it can be said it was really wrong decision to destroy these three years for no goal gaining process,but there is one most important thing I learned a lot by personalty wise by maturity and by mental development.this is not worthy to say during that time i learnt so many things.Specially Physics was my most favorite subject,where I studied topics not by exam point of view but by subject of interest.theory of relativity was one of the topic which I studied for matter of interest. I am just describing it whatever I wrote that time in my diary.What Lorentz, Poincare and finally Einstein did was to change Newtonian mechanics in such a way that the electromagnetic forces would fit inside it. The resulting new theory of mechanics is the special theory of relativity. After obtaining this theory, which suited electromagntism perfctly, physicists were disconcerted to find that gravitation was left on the outside. Newtonian mechanics had no problem incorprating the gravitational force (Newton himself solved that problem), but special theory of relativity couldn't do it. Eventually, after more than 10 years, Einstein and Hilbert delivered the general theory of relativity which solved the problem of gravitation. In the process, they ended up with a theory of gravitation that proved to be even more precise than Newtonian gravitation.This history is not exactly straightforward! And the problem with presenting the special theory of relativity using a historic approach is that you need to present electromagnetism (which is also the theory that explained light). However, once the special theory of relativity was in place, it delivered various mechanical predictions which were empirically tested. So, I'll use these experiments because they are easier to understand and thus I'll present you the theory in a totally unhistorical manner.The entire theory of special relativity can be deduced out of two things. These two things seem at first to contradict each other, and for understanding the theory of relativity you only have to understand how is it that in fact they don't. The principle of relativty (the relativity of space):This principle says that everything happens in the exact same way in two frames of references that move in a straight line at constant speed relatve to each other. For example when you are in a train that moves in a straight line with 300 km/h (relative to the ground) everything seems normal to you - it's exactly as if you were on the ground. In other words, you cannot feel sped, you can only feel acceleration (the change of velocity). The principle of relativity says that the reason why you cannot feel speed is not that you have some sort of biological inability (in the same way as you, for instance, cannot see radio-waves), but because this is an intrinsic, objective aspect of the physical reality: frames of reference moving uniformly relative to one another are entirely equivalent. For understanding why this principle is true you may wonder what it means that something stands still. Imagine for example that the entire universe was empty and only a single ball existed in it. Is this ball moving? In what sense could you say, "five minutes ago it stood still, but now it is moving"? You couldn't say something like this. It is moving relative to what?! If it's the only thing that exists, the idea of motion doesn't even have meaning. Now suppose you have two balls in this otherwise empty universe. You still couldn't say "one ball stands still, the other one is moving" because in order for one ball (random picked) to move relative to the other one, the distance between them would have to change in time. But how could you realize whether this distance changes? You would still have nothing (no other distance) to compare it with. Now suppose you have three balls. Now we're getting somewhere! We have three distances that we can compare with each other. The concept of motion can finally have meaning and motion can finally exist. But, as it should be obvious, there is a matter of choice which balls you happen to declare "standing still". In other words, the idea of "standing still" is subjective, not objective. And no matter how many more balls you would add, even an entire universe of particles of all sorts, this idea wouldn't become any more objective.This is what the principle of relativity says. That it is a matter of choice whether you dub something as "standing still" or as "moving with constant speed in a straight line relative to another object that stands still". This idea of relativity of space was discovered by Galileo and it is a fundamental part of Newtonian mechanics (as well as the theory of relativity). The relativity of time.Above I talked more about space, and assumed that we have some way of measuring time. But how do we measure time? The best way is to use various particles that have an intrinsic rate of spontaneous disintegration. These particles' rates of disintegration are unaffected by anything, temperature, pressure etc. You can artificially disintegrate them by smashing other particles into them, but otherwise, they have a very constant rate of spontaneous disintegration. You can easily verify that this rate of disintegration is indeed incredibly constant: all you have to do is take two identical such "clocks", start them simultaneously, and, as "time goes on", watch whether any difference appears between them. None appears! Among such particles are the radioactive atoms or other various subatomic particles called mesons.The classic experiment regarding the relativity of time involved mesons, but the experiment was also conducted with atomic clocks. Mesons can be produced in the lab by smashing other particles. After producing such mesons physicists could measure the rate of their spontaneous disintegration (they spontaneously change into other particles after a while).Another way such mesons come into existence is when cosmic rays (such as high energy light coming from the Sun or protons from outer space) hit the upper layers of Earth's atmosphere. The mesons generated this was fly downwards toward Earth's surface. The only difference between the mesons produced by the cosmic rays and the mesons produced in the lab is that the former move at huge speeds while the latter are almost standing still (relative to a human experimenter I mean).Let us take an example::Physicists got on the top of a mountain and measured the amount of mesons there at high altitude. Then, they went to the bottom of the mountain and measured the number of mesons there. Some mesons disintegrate on their way from the top of the mountain to the bottom of the mountain. But, remember, the physicists already knew at what rate the mesons disintegrated in the lab. Knowing how many of them are at the top of the mountain, how many of them go "puf" in each unit of time (the disintegration rate) and how fast they fly towards the bottom of the mountain you can compute how many mesons should be at the bottom of the mountain. But the physicists could also measure the actual number of mesons reaching the bottom of the mountain. The result is that the actual number of mesons at the bottom of the mountain (determined experimentally) is far greater than the calculated number.So what happened?Think about an alternative experiment: You have a sandwich. If you leave the sandwich on a table, it has a certain rate at which it decomposes. It becomes uneatable after a day or so. But if you place it in the fridge it doesn't rot even for a week or more. So, what happens? Does time flow more slowly inside the fridge? Do Eskimos live longer than Africans as a result of the colder northern climate?Well, in case of the sandwich, the explanation is easy: temperature influences the rate of sandwich disintegration. Its disintegration ultimately involves a bunch of chemical reactions which are more likely to happen if the entire system (the sandwich) is supplied with more energy - i.e. if the temperature is higher. Thus, it's no miracle that a warm sandwich disintegrates faster than a cold one.But what about the mesons? Their situation seems analogous to that of the sandwich. It seems that their speed influences their rate of disintegration. A bunch of mesons standing almost still (relative to the experimenter) disintegrate much faster than a similar bunch of mesons moving at huge speeds (relative to the experimenter). But this contradicts the principle of relativity! According to that principle (and we have already seen why this principle is true) the speed of something cannot influence what actually happens to it. Speed is subjective, remember?So, the issue cannot be what actually happens to the mesons due to their speed, because nothing happens to them due to their speed. The issue must be what happens with the experimenter's perception of the mesons. The meson's intrinsic, objective rate of disintegration cannot be affected by its speed relative to the experimenter. The only thing that can be affected is the experimenter's perception of this rate.Where am I getting at? There are two different times involved here: On one hand we have the moving mesons which have their intrinsic clock, and on the other hand we have us looking at the moving mesons and having our own (equally precise) clock. The huge discovery here is that these two clocks do not show the same time. And it's all a matter of perception: We are seeing the fast moving mesons' clock lagging behind our clock. But from the mesons' perspective, they are the ones standing still and we are the ones moving at incredible speed towards them: so, they see our clock lagging behind theirs. We are seeing the cosmic ray mesons as "living longer" than out lab mesons. But the cosmic mesons "see" our lab mesons as "living longer" than them. This is the relativity of time and it's the fundamental cause of the weirdness of relativity theory. According to Newtonian theory, and to our everyday intuitions, both clocks should show the same time, none of them should lag behind. But this is not what actually happens in nature. (Although at the speeds we are moving this de-synchronization of clocks is, fortunately, very hard to observe - but it does exist even at our speeds and it has been measured.)How can one make sense of this nonsense?The idea that saves the day is the idea of space-time. The point is that in the same way as we are seeing the moving meson at a certain position, we are also seeing it at a certain time. But what time should we consider? As we're seeing it or as it's seeing itself?The correct solution is that the meson's position in space-time is the position in space and the time as it is measured by us. This seems logical because we are measuring the meson's position in space-time relative to ourselves - so we should use our time (the way we see it) and not the meson's time. But the use of intuition is already pretty uncertain. So we need some experiment to tell us that in order to represent the meson's position in space-time we should indeed choose our time and not the meson's time.The experiment is simple (at least conceptually). The idea is that two things collide with each other when the distance between them becomes zero. So we simply go on and see: When do particles collide - when the distance in space-(our)-time is zero, or when the distance in space-(one-of-their)-time is zero? The answer is that they collide when the space-(our)-time is zero. Thus, the correct choice is (x, y, z, t) and not (x, y, z, s).How real is this space-time? Is it just a mathematician's toy? It is worth mentioning that collisions are as real as you can get and, generally speaking, collisions don't happen when the distance in space at a certain moment of time is zero (as Newton would have it), but when the distance in space-time is zero. It is possible to have two particles situated at two different positions in space and each at two different moments of time that nevertheless collide with each other because the space-time distance between them is zero. When does this collision happen? If you think in terms of the time you associated to one particle it happens at one moment in time, if you think in terms of the time you associated with the other particle it happens at a different moment in time! In other words, you see the same collision twice in two different locations in space (but only once in particles' proper time and at a single location in space-time). Thus, the experiments with colliding particles demonstrate that space-time is very real and that the Newtonian separation between three-dimensinal space and time is in fact an illusion.This illusion is the result of the fact that we are used to things moving slowly relative to us and in these cases the distinction between moving clocks is much too small (given the precision with which we perceive time). Physicists first stumbled upon relativity when they studied light - which moves a very high speeds and the relativstic effects cannot be ignored.Another way to understand why the meson's space-time involves the time measured by our clock is to understand that the "time" in the space-time is not really time in the sense of the thing that measures change - it is simply a way to identify where the particle is relative to our orientation devices. The true time (or "proper" time as it is called by physicists) is the meson's time s - that time really describes the intrinsic change experienced by the meson until its spontaneous decay.In Newtonian physics we understand motion as the change of the spatial position of a particle in time - how from time to time the particle moves from one place to another. In relativity we understand motion as the change of the space-time position in proper time. This is weird, but if you think about it, it shouldn't be very mysterious. The change from Newtonian mechanics to special relativity isn't really that big. It just incorporates the fact that the two clocks moving at constant speed one relative to the other are not perceived by the observer as both showing the exact same time - there's always a difference between them (as the experiments with mesons prove).Einstein tried to justify why it is that there's always this difference between the perception of the two clocks - for instance he tried to link this fact to the idea that information cannot travel faster that a certain speed. But there are all sorts of problems with the attempts to derive the relativity of time from something else (such as the speed limit). For example in his attempt, Einstein understood "speed" in the Newtonian sense (because in the relativistic sense it simply doesn't make sense to speak of a limit speed). In the end I think that the fact is more important (and after all more general) that these speculations about how information (or other people say energy) is supposed to travel. You can of course wonder about why does this difference between the perception of clocks exists, and it may seem to be a pretty important question, but I think that insofar your guess is as good as anybody else's (including Einstein).The most common misunderstandings of relativity are what we could call "the rotting sandwich analogies": ideas that the speed influences the stuff that moves. The very essence of the theory of relativity is that speed cannot influence what actually happens to an object because speed is subjective; it depends on the chosen frame of reference. For example it is sometimes claimed that something that moves gets slightly compressed ("length contraction") or that its time flows slower ("time dilatation") or that is mass gets larger. These ideas are just plain wrong. Length contraction and time dilatation have everything to do with somebody's perception of the moving thing and nothing to do with what actualy happens to the thing. The thing that moves in a straight line at constant speed doesn't actually contract, it's clock experiences exactly nothing and its mass doesn't change at all. Moreover, there is no such thing as an actual speed limit. If you were to get on a spaceship and start accelerting, your speedometer won't hit some impassable limit (the "speed of light"). Your speed as you measure it will get higher and higher toward infinity. But the interesting thing is this: the Newtonians on Earth looking at you would indeed see your speed as going asymptotically toward some "speed limit"! This happens because the Newtonians measure your speed as x/t, while you measure your speed as x/s. You are correct, they are wrong - the correct speed is the one computed using the proper time and not the time coordinate (it doesn't make much sense to divide one coordinate to another coordinate). The idea that mass increases as you speed up is a mathematical trick that some people find useful because it allows them to retain the Newtonian concept of velocity. However, the whole point is that the Newtonian concept of velocity is wrong. The funny part is that when you start talking about an increasing mass you are forced to say that Newton's second law, F = ma, is wrong, but in fact this law is correct even in the theory of relativity (provided that you understand velocity properly)! This law is very important because it tells you that in order to predict the motion of an object you only need to know its position and velocity at one moment of (proper) time. This holds in the theory of relativity as well as in Newtonian mechanics and messing up with F = ma doesn't help understanding one bit; it just obscures a very important fact about mechanics.Finally, the theory of relativity is often presented as having a lot to do with light. However, the theory of relativity actually describes the motion of everything (including light) and light doesn't play any fundamental part in the story. Light is just one of the things that moves and that fits well into the theory. The history of the theory of relativity has a lot to do with light, but what the theory itself tells us about nature isn't linked to light in any special way.

VEDAS ,HINDUISM Mathematics and Modern Science Part 1

It's now 21st century,The world is seeing itself as the new technological era.people genarally talk about the developemnet related with different areas.India as the source of Indian civilization has given a lot of things in form of knowledge,inventions and technological things.It is not worthy to say ,many of the personalities accept the ancient vedas,theology and the principles (BHAGWAT GITA ans ALL) are the source of modern civilization and changes.Some of speeches I am pointing below:

When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.

- Albert Einstein

The Indian teaching, through its clouds of legends, has yet a simple and grand religion, like a queenly countenance seen through a rich veil. It teaches to speak truth, love others, and to dispose trifles. The East is grand -- and makes Europe appear the land of trifles. All is soul and the soul is Vishnu ...cheerful and noble is the genius of this cosmogony. Hari is always gentle and serene - he translates to heaven the hunter who has accidentally shot him in his human form, he pursues his sport with boors and milkmaids at the cow pens; all his games are benevolent and he enters into flesh to relieve the burdens of the world.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

In the great teaching of the Vedas, there is no touch of sectarianism. It is of all ages, climes and nationalities and is the royal road for the attainment of the Great Knowledge.

- Henry David Thoreau

It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation is the ancient Hindu way. Here we have the attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow together in to a single family.

- Arnold Joseph Toynbee

For many Indians and Indophiles, Vedas, in revelation of the above observations of scientists, actually appear to be a compendium of the ultimate results that Modern Science obtained after a rigorous and methodical search spanning thousands of years. It’s as if, to get to the same conclusions, scientists and Indian mystics have taken different paths. If that is the case, the mystics seem to have come to the same conclusion almost two thousand years ahead of the scientists. Wow! This is so nice and convenient. It makes many Indians proud of their own ancestry. Its as if, for all that we missed during scientific and industrial revolutions of Europe and US between 16th and 19th century we already made up thousands of years ago - and it is all well documented in our Vedas. It is not longer a division of our beautiful earth as East and West. Both the hemispheres have quotas of the same kinds of people, taking or opposing sides of a basic premise. Thus, in the West, there is an increasing number of people with a conviction of spirituality, and a vastly superior though imperceptibly declining number of those who do not have use for spirituality. The truth is, the whole world was all the time like this, and so it will be. The reason, man may not be the ultimate product of all evolution, or, if you will, of God. I may sound magisterial in saying so, but upon reflection it will appear so, to anyone who cares to reflect. The debate, or rather, its opposing two sides, prove that we are men, conscious beings. And taking CONSCIOUSNESS, the physical and biological scientists only now have considered it necessary not to totally ignore this aspect. Deepak Chopra says that even now there are very many physical and biological scientists consider consciousness as an epi-phenomenon of all the phenomena that they are dealing with in their research investigations based on counting and measuring. But, Deepak says, consciousness IS THE PHENOMENON, and all else that appeal so easily to the scientists is EPIPHENOMENA. [ epi = upa, cognate in Indo-European languages]. In the Bhagavad-gita, which is trusted since times immemorial as the essence of all the Vedas, not only in the East among large sections, but also by a growing no. of philosophers of the West, the science of spirituality [ adhyaatma-vidyaa] is the epitome of all sciences. To my mind, this statement implies that as mankind increases the feebleness and inability of the natural sciences [physical plus biological] to explain with any certainty and usefulness, ever so many mysterious phenomena like mother in all species exhibiting an inexplicable attachment to its sibling upto a certain stage of growth; telepathy, telekinesis, etc. which are NOT amenable to experimental verification despite their being manifest through actual experience; and so on. There is an all-pervading and absolute truth which transcends whatever we can comprehend and arrive a consensus at, with our sensory organs of perception of ears, nose, skin, eyes and tongue whose outputs are inputs for the central nervous system, the brain. Now, the terms, brain, mind, spirit, soul, consciousness are being given specialized meanings by philosophers AND scientists, although it will be fashionable for, say, a doctor to say, "In all my life, I never could see a specimen of the much talked about soul blowing off a dying man whom I was treating". The spiritualist, who is a specialized philosopher will not of course give him a Gallantry Award to that doctor for his trivializing the issue of spirituality with such words. In the end of this response, but this debate is bound to be endless!, I feel like adding that there is much more for all of us to wonder and yet not getting a definite answer, in spirituality, while there is so, so much to derive from the interaction of our mind, the natural elements and the forces like gravity, electricity and magnetism. The former is daunting and tantalizing for the sincere seeker, the latter gets titillations with the ad hoc answers based on measuring and counting [ that is science and counting with math and instruments of various kinds ]. The Vedas, or rather the Upanishads which constitute the Jnaana-kaanda or the Spiritual Wisdom portion of them meaning, the Upanishads, are essentially concerned with Spirituality, not at all with electronics, particle physics, or astrophysics and that kind of science areas. The claim that the Vedas contain all knowledge of airplanes, or rockets, trasmutation of one element into another due to the basic oneness of all matter. As one of the thoughtful respondents on this blog site has stated, the Vedas were NOT concerned with these physical concepts and technologies which have their role as size of human population increases, and the landscape gets "shrunk" in relation to population size, giving rise to demands of rapid mass transport, housing with vertical growth of buildings, quick reliefs from physical sufferings, and so forth. The spirit, the consciousness that underlies all matter, whether animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic, is the subtlest cosmic self. Saints, of all religions, realized this spiritual truth, through their subjective experience, and preached that eperience for the benefit of the suffering masses, and wanted that meditation and prayer can help establish a communication link between the individual self and the cosmic self so that the miseries of earthly existence will seem considerably less, and more bearable. Mere rationalistic science will NEVER, NEVER help in the pursuit of happiness and peace which should be the true purpose of knowledge with wisdom, or science with spirituality. Some of the greatest scientsts testify to this truth and yet differed among themselves: Einstein thrilled at the perfection of the natural laws, to the extent his limited span of existence allowed him to realize, but Niels Bohr said perfection does not autopmatically translate certitude in everything for any human being. Einstein said, if God's macrocosmic universe is predictably law-abiding, there is no room for Bohr's and Heisenberg's uncertainty. Einstein elaborated his statement on certainty, saying that his God does not play at dice. To which Bohr retored saying "Einstein, you tell God what to do with his dice". This simple incident between two of the greatest philosopher-scientists, to my little mind, means that by means of arguments all science can only come to a standstill, so avoiding such arguments, nay, through such debate, and yet keeping spirituality as the source of inspiration, we should carry on endlessly with our scientific and spiritual endeavours. I ALSO WISH TO ADD HERE SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION VS. INTELLIGENT DESIGN. My thought on this is that whenever we talk about Evolution, we consciously deal only with unicellular organisms growing in stages, and observing certain laws such as the survival of the fittest, to higher and higher species, so far ending with Man. Maybe, after a few million years later, if man does not extinguish his kind by playing with fission and fusion bombs and tampering with natural elements and the ozone layer, for his own creature comfort, preferring sensory titillation to spiritual and intellectual bliss, THEN, man can evolve still higher, into some species while many of his kind are still languishing as men, due to opertion of law of survival of fittest, along with all those lesser species such as dolphins, chimpanzees, buffaloes, and the like. At this point, I wish to ask the respondents to this blog, what business have we to assume that there are NO SUPERIOR BEINGS, EVEN IF WE CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE THEM WITH OUR SENSES, even at the present time ? And how the hell is it logically correct to think that evolution in other planets in the stellar systems out there, has NOT already resulted in such species far superior to Man on this tiny little earth of ours ? Hence Intelligent Design should, properly, be applied to the whole, infinite, and expanding cosmos, and not just to our Solar system, much less our Milky Way galaxy, alone. So this talk of Evolution and ID leaves much to be desired.BEFORE ENDING THIS, let me say something about this INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION, a phrase which one respondent has used in his response. I do not myself use this word combination, though it is up to the blog owner to keep it or delete it. The respondent who used it seems to think that what some other respondents have said is some illogical and internally inconsistent, even incogent and inconherent nonsense from his viewpoint. I may illustrate the use of rustic type of usage: My uncles, at least two generations older to me, were from the villages, when there was not even electricity or when buses moved with coal-fired boilers fitted on for steam to provide motive power. My uncles had a penchat for using them frequently.Today I cannot use the same which my uncles did. That is because, whilst they used it with absolute precision, as it were, to put the required punch into what they said - especially objections - we cannot do this since we have evolved different forms of civility norms.While talking of the Vedas and the Puranas, and the various Vidyas or Shastras (such as Dhanurvidya, Vaimaanika shastra, ... ), visavis achievements of modern science and technology, we should also remember that the discoveries and devices get obsolete as advances are made, and hence, it gets confusing to anyone attempting modern science vs. Veda comparisons, to sort out this problem of obsolescence factor. Thus, for example, helicopters, propelller driven aircraft, jumbo jets driven by gas turbine power, and other items (flying saucers?? !! ) in that specific category, have just to be taken as flying machines, again those with capability to fly within the atmospheres of living planets, or inter-stellar machines! The Vedas and the other ancient texts [almost all of them handed down by Karna-paramparaa] do mention flying machines, those with speeds of winds (vaayu-vega) and those with speed of thought/ mind (mano-vega). Given these two facts - obsolescence factor by which today's genre of machines are a forgotten factor tomorrow; and the basic ideas of flying machines with Intra-atmospheric and Inter-stellar capabilities, you don't expect in that perspective to obtain design details of a machine with the features of Sabre Jets or any other specific flying machine types.A slight, but only slight, digression from this subject, in some detail, may provide some further insight for our debate. According to Johannes v. Butlar, writing in his book 'Journey to Infinity', Tsiolkovsky - or, Konstantin E. Ziolkowski (1857-1935), who was among the pioneers in the field of rocketry for space travel, "expressed himself as convinced of the necessity for the use of telepathy in future space-flights. Ziolkowski regarded telepathy as one of the greatest essentials for the further development of humanity. And in his opinion, man would solve the problems of the human spirit by penetrating the mysteries of psychical phenomena, while spce-travel would open up the universe to him. ... Ziolkowski believed that humanity would reach its highest fulfilment through knowledge of space travel and parapsychology."But how the hell is this reference to Tiolkovsky relevant visavis science in the Vedas, you ask? My answer is that we today, on this little 'blue dot' (Carl Sagan's term for the earth), have no business to believe that space and air travels were invented and inaugurated by men just on our own planet, that too in our present centuries. My answer, further, is ours is just one among the possible millions or billions among the numberless trillions of galaxies, each star, in general, having a system of orbiting planets around a sun (star). Please see Carl Sagan's relevant works {like his 'Cosmos') or view selected videos (uploaded on Youtube, for instance) on this subject of galaxies and planetary systems. Sagan has also spoken eloquently on the reality or otherwise the dreamlike nature of the material universe and he talks about the Vedic statements speculating that our universe just may just be dream stuff of Brahmaa, or the universe merely a nonexistent nonmaterial object which is produced in man's dreams. In fact Einstein is said to have squarely asked Rabindranath Tagore what he thinks on the question whether or not the Universe exists independent of human mind/thought. Responding to which, Tagore (pardon me here, I am writing from vague memory, but you can do web research on these points with suitable entry on Google search) elaborted on the Drg-Drshya-Viveka of the Advaita Vedanta in which the seer and the sought are, in the final analysis, one and the same. It may not have been recorded whether Einstein was satisfied with the response, used, as he was, to equations, and science based on them using counting and measuring concepts, though Einstein himself never had to bother himself with apparatuses and conduct experiments (which some contemporaries or later day scientists did, for verification of his equations' truth).

I may end my response here with this: Our ancient texts are not compartmentalized for their conceptual framework, in the sense that physical scientific and technological pursuits were also 00stipulated to be viewed, for serving any noble purpose, in tandem with spiritual profundities. The Vedas had a cosmic vision, and not just of today and OUR earth. The Vedic knowledge IS, to us today, put in soome seemingly vague or obscure and somewhat recondite language. Vedic scholarship exists even today in several parts of our country, and the scholars are an isolated lot, since Sanskrit and Vedic knowledge is hardly ever a favorite for pursuit of study among the youth (not to speak of the old, since youth unprepared even on the margin, only generates the 'old'). There is even utter contempt for these studies, but not among the really serious thninkers with a feeling of remorse at their failures during their earlier years to continue such studies with seriousness,as well as the greatest achievers on intellectual front, many of whom have migrated to greener pastures in the West, mostly with the topmost and aspiring-for-top-slot American universities, NASA, and organizations of that class. It is to be recalled here that Mahatma Gandhi always emphasized the paramount importance of Sanskrit studies in our schools and universities, to the extent that he felt without them, our languages, all rooted in Sanskrit past, will languish and cease to grow in real terms (though not among pseudo educationists).The Vedic methods do not always conform to the rules of empirical science based on what is agreed, rather presumptuously sometimes, as rational logical reasoning. This may be because there are, as I have pointed out earlier in this debate, we are wallowing in a four dimensional universe, as it were, whereas the universe, even by current scientific thinking, may have at least eleven dimensions, of which not more than four may not admit of easy comprehension to all of us but a few to be counted on our fingertips. This being so, we would be merely exhibiting our limitations of thinking, and our ignorance, in discussing the heights to which human comprehension can ascend, such as the Vedic seers were able to. Which does not mean, however, why we should not strive strenuously and earnestly to think individually and collectively into the mysteries of our own exitence. Qeustioons like whether aeroplane designs are found in our Shastras pale into irrelevance, when the insights found in them are such as to attract the serious attention of Western scientists to whom we always reserve our admiration for their extraordinary intellectual prowess. Such scientists and thinkers include, Erwin Schrodinger, Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein, Arthur Schopenhauer,just to cite a few examples. There are innumerable Indologists especially of Germany of the eighteenth century onwards who are still finding it tough, though convinced of the worthwhileness of their effort, to plough and uncover what our scriptures do really say. They are of course convinced that even words are formed in Sanskrit, and the Vedic predecesor of that language, on the basis of both the material and spiritual significance of the component letters (aksharas) conforming to rules of the Nighantu and Nirukta, the two forms of what may be called Grammar today.

(CONTINUED IN THE NEXT PART)

India got freedom??

Freedom is measured in so many ways. It may mean having the ability to come and go as you please with no accountability to another, or to make your own decisions about what you want. Small steps, such as a wheelchair ramp, or larger steps like leaving a former safe haven and striking out for the unknown, all represent different types of freedom, as does taking the liberty to speak your mind and think your thoughts without fear of repercussion. So many times, though, freedom gets confused with escaping or running away. True freedom comes from having a sense of running toward something, not from something.Burdens of our past and present lives can keep us from feeling truly free. We all carry reminders of hated restrictions imposed on us as children by seemingly unfeeling adults, convinced that they had forgotten completely what it was like to be young. Don’t we all long for the carefree days of youth, only to be followed quickly by the remembrance of our anxiousness to grow up? Growing up in an abusive or otherwise unloving environment can keep us from allowing ourselves to become emotionally available to others, locking us in a self-made prison. Only the awareness of the causes of our pain can begin to cleanse us of our reluctance to open ourselves to others and to take steps to create the lifestyle we desire.

Come to bigger perspective.Now talk about world's greatest population containing country's freedom.Our India's freedom.

What's this all about??

Why are we so proud of being called humans, and why do we claim our rationality at a time when we're more animals than most of the species...

Freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right in my country, India. But what if my views are against any religion?? Then I am booked for hurting the religious sentiments of the disciples of that religion. That means that I am booked for exercising one of my rights. Then why was I given the right in the first place?

This country is a secular country so I can follow any religion that I want. What if one of my religious beliefs are totally against some other religion?? What I exactly want to say is that may be some practices of my religion may potray some other practice of some other religion in bad sense. so will i be allowed to practice it?? If yes then as I have seen during all these years is that there will be clashes all over between the disciples of both the religions and at the end I'll be made to stop the practice. But if I consider some practice by some other established religion as hurting my new religion's feelings then will the practice by the other religion be stopped?? No. I'll have to keep my mouth shut only because the other religion is older and have more number of followers. If the number of followers is the deciding factor then how is this country secular?? Many minorities suffer like this.

So it is very clear that there is no room for rational thinking in this country and one has to keep his mouth shut and should not try to speak his mind ad if it hurts the mahority then either hw becomes victim of some militant group or the politicians.

I'll not be able to give solutions to the problems but will atleast start a quest to find them. And will urge people to stop hating each other on different grounds such as caste, creed, sex, religion etc. but try to find better ways of living and progressing together.

three years befores I have been listening about the protests that are going against the release of the movie, Da Vinci Code. It is being said that the movie potrays christ in wrong sense and should not be released.

I thought both ways.

Had the movie potrayed any God of the established religions in India in bad sense, would our religious leaders allowed it to release?? There would've been big protests and bandhs. But as christians are in minority, our country doesn't care much.(Here I am talking only about India) And then we say that it is a secular country.

Thinking in another way, the movie is a work of fiction and no body exactly knows the truth. If Christians feel that Da Vinci Code is against Bible the isn't Bible against Da Vinci Code and shouldn't it also contain a warning that it is a pure work of fiction as it is very clear thst Bible was written by Men??

I am not supporting any side here as both have there own reasons, but personally i'm really looking forward to the movie as enjoyed the book a lot and will surely watch it first day first show.

There was also a big hue and cry against the paintings of M.F. Hussien. It was said that he disrespected India by painting Bharat Mata nude. Will someone ask these people that how do they think that India wears clothes.

We are sent into the world naked, that all the variations of the blood might be made visible. However trite, I cannot avoid quoting here the lines of the most deep-thinking and philosophical of our poets:

We understood

Her by her sight: her pure and eloquent blood

Spoke in her cheeks, and so distinctly wrought,

That one might almost say her body thought.

Its a work of art and please take it as that.

From all this it is very clear that India still has a long way to go to become a place where a person is allowed to think logically and speak his mind.

A nation's wealth doesn't lie in its Banks. It exists in its public schools...

Did Mahatma Gandhi Kill Bhagat Singh?

This is very complex and confusional topic.Nobody can deny the contributions and experiment of Mahatma Gandhi to make the country free,but there is a matter of incident when India lost its super martyre Bhagat singh just in the age of 23.This is a big question from the historian and common man ,could his death be cancelled.Why Mahatma gandhi didnt make pressure on IRWIN on this.I have read Three books on it from my father's library and now keeping my opinion.it is 70 years since Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged to death at the Lahore Central Prison. That was on March 23, 1931. The same month witnessed another event of importance in the freedom struggle, that is, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. The pact was signed on March 5, 1931 after a long discussion. The executions and truce between the Congress and the Raj after an intense spell of satyagraha in 1930 did not merely coincide in history but almost collided. They influenced each other to some extent. A controversy was generated about Mahatma Gandhi not getting an amnesty for Bhagat Singh under the pact, and it put him on the defensive. The controversy also created a strong debate about the inter-relationship between the peaceful and violent means employed in the freedom struggle. In fact, reviewing the events now in perspective, one suspects that the British might have timed the execution to create an uneasy situation for the Congress. It will be interesting to review both the events independently and then in conjunction.

Bhagat Singh. Mahatma Gandhi did plead for the commutation of the death sentence imposed on Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, but he did not succeed in the bid because the Viceroy's moves were governed from England and the three were considered a challenge to the Raj.

The chain of events started with the death of Lala Lajpat Rai while demonstrating against the Simon Commission. Lalaji was injured in a lathicharge; he died on November 17, 1928, probably owing to shock. This drew many youth closer to the conclusion that violence is the only means to fight the British. In fact, inspired by the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, many militant groups had been functioning in India. Bhagat Singh was a member of one such group called the Ghadar Party. Some of these militants killed Assistant Superintendent of Police John Poyantz Saunders , who was supposed to have beaten Lala Lajpat Rai. Four months after Saunders was shot, that is, on April 8, 1929, two young men were arrested for throwing bombs at the treasury benches of the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi. One of them was Bhagat Singh. It was possibly this incident that prompted the police to suspect his involvement in the so-called Lahore Conspiracy Case.

The case is famous because of the draconian provisions incorporated by the British in this context in the otherwise reasonable laws of criminal procedure. Those detained under the case resorted to hunger strikes and boycotts in jails. Many a time the accused had to be brought to the courtroom on stretchers because of physical weakness. It is believed that Jatin Das, a young man, died during an attempt to feed him forcibly after he had completed 63 days of fasting. Bhagat Singh is more in the public memory than many other martyrs probably because of the attention this trial attracted.

The trial was discussed so much that the witnesses started turning hostile. Even a British policeman refused to identify Bhagat Singh as a person present at the time of the murder. As a result, the government came out with the Lahore Conspiracy Case Ordinance, 1930, which dispensed with the need of defence counsel, defence witnesses and the presence of the accused during the trial. After this new-style trial that lasted five months, the judgment came on October 7, 1930. An appeal was made to the Privy Council but to no avail. Some people feel that Bhagat Singh could have been saved under the Gandhi-Irwin agreement, which evolved during the same period. This feeling prevailed especially among the leftists who presumed that Gandhiji did not attempt for amnesty because he hated violence.

It will be proper to sit in judgment on the matter only after knowing the background of the Gandhi-Irwin pact. This first ever agreement between the Raj and the Congress came after two years of turmoil in the country in the form of a non-violent civil disobedience struggle. After the Congress passed its Poorna Swaraj resolution in December 1929, Gandhiji devised the 450-kilometre Dandi March to shake the rural people out of inaction and break the Salt Law, as a token of disobedience. The chain of events that followed showed that the extent of sacrifice needed for a non-violent struggle was no less than what was required for a violent struggle. Apart from making monetary and career sacrifices, the participants showed, in the face of police torture, a level of physical courage that would have been required in a violent struggle. By December that year almost all leaders, including Gandhiji, were rounded up and jails in the country were full. Finally, thanks to the mediation of moderates like Tej Bahadur Sapru, the government came forward to talk to the satyagrahis. As a precondition the leaders were released in January 1931. Gandhiji stayed in Delhi where later he convened a meeting of the Congress Working Committee.Accounts of the parleys between the Congress and the government between February 17 and March 5 indicate that frequently there were delicate moments of stalemate, long arguments over a phrase or a word, objections from colleagues and so on. Many a time Gandhiji was seen off by the Viceroy after midnight and the former would walk down to his residence at Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari's house, which was 8 km away. It was on this occasion that Winston Churchill made the nasty remark describing Gandhiji as a half-naked fakir. Disturbed by the endless discussions, he had said: "It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace... to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor."

The outcome of the talks was a mixed one. Each leader was unhappy about specific parts of the pact. Subhas Chandra Bose, for example, told the leftists among Congressmen: "Between us and the British lies an ocean of blood and a mountain of corpses. Nothing on earth can induce us to accept this compromise which Gandhiji had signed." On the whole, the Congress had to accept the pact because the Working Committee was with Gandhiji at every stage of the discussions. But the militants and their supporters would not have it. What is the use of a truce that does not get amnesty for Bhagat Singh and his colleagues? Wherever Gandhiji went, youngsters with red flags encountered him with questions; sometimes he was even manhandled. At the All India Congress Committee (AICC) meeting in Karachi they shouted: "Gandhi's truce sent Bhagat Singh to the gallows.WHILE parading through history, it would be unfair to Gandhiji if one does not record his efforts in this case. He was not a mere politician but a humanist at the core. He got 90,000 political prisoners other than satyagrahis released under the pretext of "relieving political tension". He did plead for the commutation of the death sentence of the three heroes, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, also. But he did not succeed because the Viceroy's moves were governed from England and these three were a challenge to the Raj and thus were not thought fit for pardon. In fact, he wrote a letter to the Viceroy on the day of their execution, pleading fervently for commutation, not knowing that the letter would be too late.

A point to be placed on Gandhiji's side of the balance is that he was already weak in the truce with the Raj, owing to incomprehensible reasons. Probably, Irwin was a better bargainer than he; otherwise a leader who spearheaded a successful, unique, non-violent agitation that attracted the attention of the press the world over and drew millions, including women and children who showed a rare spirit of sacrifice, need not have made so many concessions to the government. In such a situation he could not have been expected to win on the major issue of commutation of death sentences. He said in Karachi: "I might have done one more thing, you say. I might have made the commutation a term of settlement. It could not be done so. And to threaten withdrawal now would be a breach of faith." But this should not be taken as a manifestation of a lukewarm feeling towards Bhagat Singh.Records are replete with Gandhiji's speeches commending the spirit of sacrifice of all such youth and their nationalistic spirit. He once said: "I am not referring to the frothy eloquence that passes muster for patriotism; I have in mind that secret, silent, persevering band of young men and women who want to see their country free at any cost." He differed with them only on the merit of their path. He said in Karachi: "If I had an opportunity to speak to Bhagat Singh and his comrades, I should have told them that the way they pursued was wrong and futile. We cannot win Swaraj for our famishing millions by sword. The way of violence can only lead to disaster, perdition. I shall explain to you why. Do you think that all women and children who covered themselves with glory during the last campaign would have done so if we had pursued the path of violence? Would our women known as the meekest on earth have done the unique service they did, if we had violence in us? And our children - our Vanar Sena; how could you have had these innocent ones who renounced their toys, their kites, their crackers and joined as soldiers of Swaraj - how could you have enlisted them in a violent struggle?"It is worth pondering over these words. It is the mass support that decides the success or failure of a method of struggle. The people of India chose non-violent means over violent ones so clearly that even after this controversy, whenever Gandhiji gave a call he had millions responding to it. Perhaps it was this mass support to Gandhiji that made prominent Left-leaning youth like M.R. Masani, Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan to stay in his company. In any case, a violent struggle for Independence could have succeeded only with external armed help, which came as late as 1942 with Subhas Bose's efforts; by then independence had already been conceded in principle.It may take too long to discuss the Mahatma's arguments and compare the merits and demerits of violent and non-violent means of struggle, but it would suffice to note that it was not his creed of ahimsa that would turn to violence even "to punish a dacoit, or even a murderer". Perhaps the following words of Lord Irwin himself might explain why Gandhiji must have failed to persuade him to commute the sentence: "As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved." He has referred to Gandhiji's personal visit to meet him on March 19. Interestingly enough, on the same day, Bhagat Singh and two others had sent off a letter to the Viceroy because their friends coaxed them to do so. But in that letter they had not asked for clemency. Instead they asked the Viceroy to treat them as prisoners of war and hence to shoot them rather than hang them. With this letter now available, it is no use lamenting on Gandhiji's stand, whatever that was, because Bhagat Singh did not relish the idea of asking for a pardon. This is evident from the fact that a friend of his (Prannath Mehta) visited him in the jail on March 20 with a draft letter for clemency but he declined to sign it.Four days later the three were executed in Lahore, on the eve of the AICC session in Karachi. On hearing the news, Gandhiji said that the sudden execution under the circumstances was like cutting the ground underneath his feet, however technically unconnected it might be with the terms of the truce. It probably was a cunning move by the Raj to order the execution just a night before the Karachi session. It was done in the knowledge that the emotiveness of the issue would put Gandhiji and the Congress in an awkward position at the AICC as the heat was anyway directed against them. Indeed, that was what happened.

No doubt, it was a queer combination of circumstances that two streams of the freedom struggle should thus meet in one incident, namely, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. But queerer yet is the fact that people who never believed in satyagraha as a tool to achieve freedom should be irked at the withdrawal of satyagraha by those who started it.

Chanakya Neeti

I last couple of days I got a chance to visit to my colleague's place and to see the serail Chandragupta Maurya.During that so mant times,I got intearacted with a historic character Chanakya.Now a days most of the people might know him with this TV serial but some how the personalty and philosophy of this person is still a matter of study in big universities.The worls is based with an ideology of true style of living the daily life in the terms of CHANAKYA NEETI.
The momentous life of Chanakya reminds us of a revengeful saga where the individual is obsessed by the idea of taking revenge. But personal revenge was not the aim of Chanakya. He wanted that the kingdom should be secure and that the administration should go on smoothly, bringing happiness to the people. He thought that there were two ways of ensuring the happiness of the people. Firstly, Amatya Rakshasa had to be made Chandragupta’s minister; Secondly, a book must be written, laying down how a king should conduct himself, how he should protect himself and the kingdom from the enemies, how to ensure law and order, and so on.By writing "Arthashastra" and "Nitishastra", Chanakya has become a never ending phenomena. He has truly guided the generations with his wisdom . It would ideally suit the closing of the life of Chanakya with a couple of quotations by Chanakya"The secret task of a king is to strive for the welfare of his people incessantly. The administration of the kingdom is his religious duty. His greatest gift wouldbe to treat all as equals.""The happiness of the commoners is the happiness of the king. Their welfare is his welfare. A king should never think of his personal interest or welfare, but should try to find his joy in the joy of his subjects."These words were written 2300 years ago by Chanakya, the expert statesman and wise sage. And Chanakya is also another name for courage and perseverance.Chanakya, apart from being a man of wisdom and unfailing strategies, propounded Nitishastra, the ideal way of living for every individual of the society. He looked at the country like a person surrounded by problems. He worked at the total annihilation of problems by the roots. The re-appearance of troubles only shows its growth. His contribution to foreign policy in the present day world is immense. Universities teach his principles to aspiring foreign policy experts showing the infallability of his principles. Chanakya’s art of diplomacy is well known across India and practiced in the areas of defence, strategy formation and foreign relations.People who think that the society in which we live will remain the same; are dissuading themselves of the truth. Society is a complex and dynamic system changing constantly leaving those people behind who say no to change. Broadly speaking, Chanakya dreamt of a country reaching the following levels of development in terms of ideologies and social and economic development: