The aspect of Time - would it have been different at some point of time? - 10 October 2008

On the aspect of TIME - Would it have been different at some point of time?
Bharat Bhushan - 10 October 2008

How do we know time? By looking at the wristwatch or the wall-clock, of course. And, nowadays, by looking at our cellphones or at the TV. I mean, who continues to carry a wristwatch? It's passe. The wristwatch is no longer a style statement. Most certainly, it is not a user accessory. But, that's another topic and another post. So, How DO we know 'time'?

We know 'time' as a factor of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years. The 'seconds' are a factor of 'minutes' which are in turn, a factor of 'hours'. So, how do we know that 24 hours make up a single day? Because of the day and night, the sun and moon, of course. That's how. It takes the revolution and rotation of the earth around the Sun, and the revolution of the moon around the earth to make up our day and night.

Similarly, 365 days or thereabouts make up a year. And so on. And there lies our dependence on this aspect of certainty that day follows night and night follows day, and so it shall be that each day will consist of exactly 24 hours, and each year shall consist of 365 days, the leap year notwithstanding. We have factored in the 'leap year' in the Roman Calendar, and similarly, in the Hindu Calendar, we have factored in the additional month to help do the jump in four years. We know everything there is to be known about 'Time'.

Or, do we? Do we know everything that there is, to be known about 'Time'? We do know that the 'Time' that is gone by, will never return. We also know that the 'Time' that is yet to come, will come only when it would, and not earlier or later. If that is so, then why is our wristwatch designed to be circular? Why do we have our months return to the beginning, i.e., December is followed by January? Why not keep naming new months, as we go on, and keep naming them with new names, forever. If we are not to return to the time that has gone by, then why do we return to months and days of the week with the same name?

We do know that 'time' has duration, and that 'time'-intervals such as days, weeks and months have the very same finite 'intervals' between them. How can we be sure? How can we be sure that the month that is to come will not have more than 28-29-30 or 31 days to it? Because we have never seen that happen. We have never seen the day become shorter or longer, and we have never seen the month become shorter or longer.

Is that true? Yes. Because we know the length of day and the length of the year for hundreds and thousands of years before us. We have ancient planetariums that have been used to record the synchronicity of days and nights and of months and years. We have ancient knowledge systems of astronomy and astrology, of star-gazers and the sky-wanderers, who have delved into the deep unknowns of the universe, and have established precise calculations of the movement of stars, planets and their moons. Long before the first telescope was made, the human mind has journeyed into space and delved into the amazing symmetry and precision of the universe.

No school of ancient knowledge has ever been able to define 'time' without ascribing circular perspectives to calculating it. Every aspect of time helps bring the design of understanding 'time' to the same point of origin. And thus, Saturday meets Sunday, but Monday never meets Thursday. Similarly, December meets January, but March never meets November. What would happen if we name them differently? Would 'time' behave differently? No.

We know that 'time' behaves in cyclical manner because we have defined it to be so. We have been able to go back in time to measure the duration of time between solar eclipses on each side of the world, and we have also measured and identified the exact location of the umbra of the lunar eclipses, going back across thousands of years. We are able to calculate all these exactitudes because we compare the orbit and the duration of the year and day with reference to the day, month and year of modern times.

What if we are wrong? What if, at one point in time, the day-length and the year-length were different? What if, they were shorter or longer? How would we know? By what measure of knowledge would we know? Would we ever know if it was so? This is an aspect of knowledge that modern science can never study or even explore.

The knowledge of YANTRA - 16 July 2008

The knowledge of YANTRA and the aspect of precision in design and planning
Bharat Bhushan - 16 July 2008

YANTRA - the design

It is often dismissed as ridiculous superstition. Usually, the free-thinkers label it as the irrational belief in the occult. There could be diverse ways and means of explaining what we thought we knew, except that we do not simply accept it as what it was, or is. It was, to put it plainly, ancient knowledge about the precision of design.

Old, really old, really really old, older than ancient. Much older than the vedas (c. 4000 BC at the earliest). Its out there, staring at us, from all the ancient structures, the ancient cities and settlements, from Stonehenge to the pyramids to the ancient astronomers and the very ancient seafarers. To do what they did, successfully and repeatedly, it required a simple art of precision - namely, geometry. Known in so many different perspectives, but as the most ancients termed it - YANTRA.

The ancient knowledge of YANTRA, known to a very few, grew later in different forms, only becoming known as the 'Geometry' that we recognise, in the past 500 years or less. Before you begin to google and wiki me wrong, for what I am about to describe and explain, it is not to be found in google or in the wiki, and you have to admit, in today's web world, that IS an achievement.

There are books that label YANTRA, and for that matter, MANTRA and TANTRA, as occult science. Similarly there could be many who would disagree that anything related to the occult, could not be science. I am not willing to be drawn into that argument. Argue what you will.

There does exist the knowlege of YANTRA, and there does exist ancient knowledge presenting and explaining various aspects of it. I am only going to attempt a convergence of the existence of ancient knowledge and explore the various aspects of systems that relate to the science of geometry and present the usefulness in 'planning'.

Planning? Planning what? well, simply, the systems of planning, from thought to ideas to concepts to hypothesis to postulates and thereon to multiple and multivariate systems of planning sciences, sports, structures or governments and governance. In contemporary times, planning is pitiably discussed in the myriad wordplay of the lexicon of management, organisations, corporate processes, quality systems, kaizen, and even, surprise of surprises - futuristics and minimalism. There is too much theory out there, and very little attempt to present the very early beginner's tools of precision - i.e., geometry in all aspects of planning. Namely, perfection.