Talk:Vaimānika Shāstra

Vaimanika Shastra

Started this interesting not much discussed subject.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

alleged 4th century BC manuscript

DO you mean even this manuscript is alleged?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we phrase that properly? This Shastra is very much there.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

can you read the original 1973 publication please? Josyer clearly states the text was dictated from "memory" by some Pandit in 1923. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It reads "The story of this book is as follows: sometime in the period just before World War I, a Brahman named Pandit Subbaraya Sastry began to dictate previously unknown texts in Sanskrit which purported to contain ancient Indian technological knowledge.", does it say dictated from memory?[1]. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

he "dictated" it. Not necessarily from memory, I agree, he may have made it up as he went along. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First Unmanned Plane Flew in India

The first Unmanned plane of the modern world flew in India.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• By Dileep Kumar Kanjilal
• Published 1985
• Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar
• 246 pages
• Google Link

that's completely unrelated. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The plane was built based on the Shastra, so do we need to create another article for the same?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Stephen Knapp has:[2]

The controversial text known as Vimaanika Shastra, said to be by Maharshi Bharadwaja, also describes in detail the construction of what is called the mercury vortex engine. This is no doubt of the same nature as the Vedic Ion engine that is propelled by the use of mercury. Such an engine was built by Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, based on descriptions in the Rig-veda, which he demonstrated in Mumbai (Bombay), India in 1895. ... Additional information on the mercury engines used in the vimanas can be found in the ancient Vedic text called the Samarangana Sutradhara. This text also devotes 230 verses to the use of these machines in peace and war. We will not provide the whole description of the mercury vortex engine here, but we will include a short part of William Clendenon's translation of the Samarangana Sutradhara from his 1990 book, Mercury, UFO Messenger of the Gods:

(mercury vortex engine?) this is all related to the "Vedic cargo cult science" that arose with Swami Dayananda/Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj from the 1870s. It is still notable today because of the role it plays in Hindu nationalist pseudoscience (Kak, Frawley, Knapp & friends). I do think we'll need a Category:Vedic pseudoscience soon. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I thought this was about the actual first unmanned flight in India. It turns out this is a 1985 allegation of an 1895 flight with an ion thruster built by some guy based on "descriptions found in the Rigveda". BalanceRestored, please tell me you are not really a physics student. Do you see a pattern? Brothers Wright: 1901. Vaimanika Shastra discovered: 1918. First ion thrusters developed: 1970s. "Rigvedic ion thruster" revealed: 1985. I'm expecting the relevation of a "Rigvedic cellphone" daily. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vaimanika Shastra discovered: 1918", where's that?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the Indian flew to Europe and stole the blue prints. Good going.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Swami_Dayananda died in 1883. Creating a story. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

History speaks for itself, didn't you hear it. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the point of your four (4!) comments here. Dayananda/Vivekananda started the "all modern science is already in the Vedas" idea. Crackpots have been pursuing this ever since, down to Stephen Knapp, David Frawley and Subhash Kak. This is discussed in e.g. *Alan Sokal's "Hindu nationalism and 'Vedic science'") (2006). --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read page "Page 37" "Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India and Atlantis", By David Hatcher Childress, it says "Swami Dayananda Saraswati in his comprehensive treatise on Rig Veda dated 1875 references the Vaimanik Shastra as well". The reference for this is also provided. Read "Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India and Atlantis", By David Hatcher Childress At google. 1875 is older to Brothers Wright: 1901. Kindly do not draw quick conclusions. I think you acquired this habit from me :)). Cheers. Fortunately Swami's book published after his death and before the well known first flight.. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, I hope you realize that David Hatcher Childress, whom you are quoting, is a well-known purveyor of fantastical junk and pseudoscience and all his books are self-published by the Adventures Unlimited Press. As such he is eminently quotable as a source to establish that a pseudoscientific belief (such as the mercury vortex engine) is held, but has zero value as a scholarly source. Abecedare 11:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had a full article on this chap :) --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a better article yet . Abecedare 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Josyer then tells how he was visited by "Miss Jean Lyon, journalist of Toronto and New York" for an interveiw, and how Lyon in her Just Half a World Away (1954) concluded that he was "guilty of a rabid nationalism, seeking to wipe out everything since the Vedas.", I think you quoted that Dab. You should keep emotions at home and welcome good research. I hope you realize not everyone likes to narrate things from India. These articles are but obvious. Do I need to show you WP:OR, if you have something published in real against that author, it is always welcomed. "Josyer", what do you have to tell about him, do you have something for him too. Cheers.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

try to pay attention. The "guilty of rabid nationalism" is a direct quote form Josyer's own foreword. If you haven't read that foreword yet, now would be a good time. This entire thing (as most of our UFOlogy articles) has no value whatsoever except as a documentation of a couple of complete nutcases. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First you say "Swami" writes false, then you try to say the Shastra came out of no where and invented a pattern. Leave it to the experts man. I only started this article, there will be expert opinions coming soon. We will wait. Cheers :)BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

but "experts" on what? psychiatry? --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refer WP:FORUM, it is not good to cut your debate, but helpless. You can carry that on my talk page. Cheers. I've created a User_talk:BalanceRestored/soap/Vaimanika_Shastra, if you wish to debate more on this.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• dab, Can we put Vivekananda (very often very rational) on the same footing with the crackpot Dayananda? Kuntan in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.24 (talk) 12:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't know. For all I know he may have been the most rational of people at times he wasn't writing things like "Today we find wonderful discoveries of modern science coming upon us like bolts from the blue, opening our eyes to marvels we never dreamt of. But many of these are only re-discoveries of what had been found ages ago. It was only the other day that modern science discovered that what it calls heat, magnetism, electricity, and so forth, are all convertible into one unit force. But this has been done even in the Samhita.". Crackpot or not, Vivekananda is at the root of a crackpot movement that persists until today. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB, you cannot present WP:OR, do you have any peer reviewed WP:V work to support your claims?'BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed. Sokal (2006) quoted above. If you want to discuss the credibility of Ufology in general, go to Talk:Ufology. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All famous TV Channels recognize his work

"Childress is often seen on various television programs on Fox Network (Sightings and Encounters), Discovery Channel, A&E, The History Channel, and the like, as an expert consultant on subjects such as the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, and UFOs". Source David_Hatcher_Childress.

How can you directly quote his findings false, do you have anything solid peer reviewed WP:V to claim his findings false??BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

his "findings" aren't "false" the same way Picasso's paintings aren't "false". This guy isn't a scholar, ok? He's an author peddling to the pseudoarchaeology book market. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this peer reviewed?

The Vymanika Shastra was first committed to writing between 1918 and 1923, and nobody is claiming that it came from some mysterious antique manuscript. The fact is, there are no manuscripts of this text prior to 1918, and nobody is claiming that there are. So on one level, this is not a hoax. You just have to buy into the assumption that 'channeling' works. ... there is no exposition of the theory of aviation (let alone antigravity). In plain terms, the VS never directly explains how vimanas get up in the air. The text is top-heavy with long lists of often bizarre ingredients used to construct various subsystems. ... There is nothing here which Jules Verne couldn't have dreamed up, no mention of exotic elements or advanced construction techniques. The 1923 technical illustration based on the text ... are absurdly un-aerodynamic. They look like brutalist wedding cakes, with minarets, huge ornithopter wings and dinky propellers. In other words, they look like typical early 20th century fantasy flying machines with an Indian twist.??BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

it's a review of Josyer's book. If you can find us a review in academic literature that would be great. But you have to accept that this is not an academic topic, and thus there won't be academic discussions. This is a topic of ufology, and citation standards that of other pseudoscience articles. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"But you have to accept that this is not an academic topic", well that would be possibly accepting your views without research. I will only accept your views after I study both the possibilities. This is something that I've found only this week. You too can see that it could be possible. I think people from the right back ground could comment better, I think a person from aeronautics can easily make out if this text makes sense. Where can I find good researchers on Aeronautics? If you can guide me with the same, it will be great. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This entire subject is clearly WP:FRINGE material of the most exotic type. This article may prove to be interesting case study of how to refute claims that are so absurd that they are not likely to be mentioned in many WP:RS. Probably the best approach would be to simply identify the work as a recent addition to the UFO literature, and perhaps ask some Wikipedians who regularly edit UFO articles if they can add anything about this particular book. I am not sure that attempting to refute the facts of the science will be productive, but I have little experience working with this type of article. Buddhipriya 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice explanation, looks like you found nothing to tell the literature is faulty? BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the following at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vimanas/vimanas.htm "A project study conducted by wg. Cdr. M.P.Rao, etc. of Aeronautical Society of India on behalf of Aerospace Information Panel of Aeronautics Research and Development Board, B-Wing, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi –110011, India. Copyright: AR&DB, New Delhi, India. Comments to Dr.T.N.Prakash, Coordinator, AIP of AR&DB"

They should have gone crazy to have been working on a WP:FRINGE stuff, isn't it? Cheers :) BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 21 "VIEWS OF FOREIGN RESEARCHERS" "It is interesting that Researchers abroad have perceived Vymanika Shastra in a positive and meaningful manner...."BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Researchers abroad point out that Crystals, Manis and Mirrors stated in this work have potential not yet explored by modern science. Crystals today, though sparingly used in technology still play a dominant role in Digital Technology." somethings that's sparingly used is already found around the 1850s. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Famous experiments on small flying crafts known as searls craft have added credence to applications of these theories in aviation." BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A reliable peer-reviewed reference

There seem to be some reliable sources on the subject of this article. For example, Mukunda, H.S. (1974). "A critical study of the work "Vyamanika Shastra"" (PDF). Scientific Opinion: 5–12. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) I couldn't access the PDF, but Google has a cached version, which is mostly readable. Here is the abstract:

A study of the work “Vymanika Shastra” is presented. First, the historical aspects and authenticity of the work are discussed. Subsequently, the work is critically reviewed in respect of its technical content. It appears that his work cannot be dated earlier than 1904 and contains details which, on the basis of our present knowledge, force

us to conclude the non feasibility of heavier‐than craft of earlier times. Some peripheral

questions concerning dimensions have also been touched upon.

Will read the paper and add content to the wikipedia article in the next couple of days. Others are welcome to beat me to it :-) Abecedare 07:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And here is a quote from the concluding section:

Any reader by now would have concluded the obvious – that the planes described above are the best poor concoctions, rather than expressions of something real.

None of the planes has properties or capabilities of being flown; the geometries are unimaginably horrendous from the point of view of flying; and the principles of propulsion make then resist rather than assist flying.
The text and the drawings do not correlate with each other even thematically. The drawings definitely point to a knowledge of modern machinery. This can be explained on the basis of the fact that Shri Ellappa who made the drawings was in a local engineering college and was thus familiar with names and details of some machinery. Of course the text retains a structure in language and content from which its ‘recent nature’ cannot be asserted. We must hasten to point out that this does not imply an oriental nature of the text at all. All that may be said is that thematically the drawings ought to be ruled out of discussion. And the text, as it stands, is incomplete and ambiguous by itself and incorrect

at many places.

A more thorough debunking would be hard to imagine. Abecedare 07:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"force us to conclude" ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh so it means the airplane technology is so advanced that the current world is still unable to understand them.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly an evidence, for me at least. Don't know about other readers. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is around "HOW CAN IT BE POSSIBLE", "THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE" rather discussing the technicalities. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We all know that even thinking of flying before 1800 is impossible, but we are all here to study the same, if this has really happen in the past. This material has not discussed any thing about the technical aspects. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the shastra was so stupid I am sure "Aeronautical Society of India" would not be preserving the same.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

um, nobody ever claimed this text was "genuine". It was dreamed up in 1918-1923. Anybody claiming otherwise would bear the full burden of proof. Mention of Vimanas in the Sanskrit epics is, of course, genuine. The burden of proof lies completely on anyone claiming that this is anything other than mythological topos. Gods can fly in every culture, without anyone claiming they had airplanes and what not. Ufologists are, of course, dedicated to prove otherwise, but their scholarship is so shoddy that it qualifies as surreal literature at best. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

a great find, Abecedare (Mukunda et al.). Especially the link to Talpade, who apparently is a "Vedic ufologist" rather than an aviation pioneer after all (the ToI article sounded as if his model had really flown...) dab (𒁳) 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Abecedare! The debunking article may make a more interesting read than the bogus source text. Buddhipriya 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Three types of metals

Source: [3] Just quoting the summarized findings from a report of Birla Science Centre[4], Hyderabad, relating to researches on three types of alloys developed by them as described in the textual content of this work, they find:

“As these materials were found to be novel in their compositions and preparations patents have been asked for them. The experimental results in BISR laboratory established the originality and textual description of the materials in “Vimana Shastra”. Therefore there is a strong possibility that the large number of descriptions of other new materials described may also yield good experimental results in the laboratory.”

There are some successful experiments and have been Patented too. Does not look that awfully bad too. Surely there's some mischief with in Joyers book. The book that's presented is not very honestly quoting facts. For me the author is surely biased, sorry to be frank. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BR, If you can find the actual report or scientific publications by Birla Science Center or Birla Institute of Scientific Research on the topic, we can add a discussion about the alloys in the article. You can search the web or email the personnel at the two institutes. Abecedare 13:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Add criticism?

It's been quite a few months since academic criticisms of this idea were reported, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of them in the article. Shouldn't this be added? Martian bob (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no source for the claim, a search on either 'Birla Science Centre' or 'Birla Institute of Scientific Research' with the word Vaimanika added turns up nothing useful (just the link above which is hardly useful here). Or do you mean "A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE WORK “VYMANIKA SHASTRA”? Doug Weller (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The latter. Rereading the article and my comment, I think I need to clarify what I meant. I believe that a "Criticisms" section should be added to the article, as criticisms of the Shastra appear in a couple of different places. This would bring the article's structure more in line with other fringe topics, e.g. ancient astronaut theories. Martian bob (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been "a few months since academic criticisms of this idea were reported"? What are you even talking about? Nobody apart from hopeless kooks has ever dreamed of taking this at face value, let alone bothered to publish "criticism". You might as well clamour for a "criticism" section at Unicorn. This is an interesting case of "cargo cult science". Colonel C. W. Bowles brought early aircraft to India as early as 1910. This Shastri must have heard about them or perhaps even saw one of them. This is what his unconscious made of them. This article isn't lacking a section which carefully points out that there were not, in fact, Vedic UFOs. It lacks a section exploring the nature of "automatic writing" and the like, viz. a psychological analysis of the text. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rowdree Darpana

I apologize if this is considered spam; maybe it can be useful to you guys as an example of the vaimanika in popular culture.

I'm trying to verify the spelling, in Sanskrit of the term "Rowdree Darpana" that appears on p23 of the Shastra (in the Josyer translation). It is claimed as meaning "Terrifying Mirror". This term is also used as a flamethrower weapon in Digimon for a character based on Vritra.

The scans of the Sanskrit portions on the Sacred Text Archive only go up to p 10, so I can't verify it using that. However, based on the claimed meaning and the pronunciation, I believe that the Sanskrit should be रुद्रियदर्पण (rudriya darpaNa, terrifying mirror). I have absolutely no experience with Sanskrit, so I can't be sure if the conjugation is correct.

Can someone who has a copy of the book check which word is used, or failing that, use experience in Sanskrit to determine the proper conjugation of the word? If you can help me with this, please leave a message at this page. Thanks!70.34.147.3 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Content section should be divided into two parts.

The structure and content section includes criticism as well. Why should we not put it in different section --Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 15:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I went ahead and created an Appraisal section; if you can think of a better heading, feel free to change it. Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercury vortex engine

Apparently, "Mercury vortex engine" redirects to this article, but this article currently doesn't mention mercury vortex engines anywhere (Vaimānika Shāstra does mention them or something like them, from what I've heard, but they're not mentioned in the article), maybe it would make sense either to have a "Mercury vortex engine" article or to put something about that in this one.

It sounds like, there's never been any verified demonstration that there's any such thing, but it gets talked about a lot in fringe circles and probably quite a few people come here looking for info about whether there is such a thing or not, and currently they'll get directed bewilderingly to this article that appears to have nothing to do with it.

Possibly, failing that, it could redirect to Die Glocke (conspiracy theory) instead, since that does have a lot about something roughly adjacent to mercury vortex engines, or to Vimana - that might make more sense than Vaimānika Shāstra, since it turns out that there's at least one other, much older, account of vimanas being propelled by mercury, which may have inspired Vaimānika Shāstra, and maybe even the Die Glocke story too, who knows. Wombat140 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Redundant - clean up

The second and fifth paragraphs are almost identical. 2603:6013:9B00:9B:5943:8CFC:EB06:7BBC (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory Sentences about Who Discovered the Text

The 2nd paragraph states "The existence of the text was revealed in 1952 by Shikhar Thakkar", while the 1st paragraph under 'Origin and Publication' states "The existence of the text was revealed in 1952 by G. R. Josyer".

I believe G. R. Josyer is the correct person who discovered the text. The first instance of this statement needs to be fixed by removing mention of this unknown Shikhar Thakkar. 71.93.50.67 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes this article should clearly say that this text had no existence before 1952. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like, that was just a piece of vandalism that had been overlooked so I've removed it - but we can't say that the text didn't exist before 1952 without a reputable published source to say so, and in fact Mukunda et al claim that they tracked down two people who knew Shastry and that he did exist and did write the thing (of course, that doesn't in any way prove whether it's thousands of years old and was miraculously revealed to him by Bharadwaja, only that it was written between 1866 and 1940 rather than in the 1950s). Wombat140 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)