You are on page 1of 3

More on Vedic Geometry

Man from the very beginning might have had certain geometrical sense and in spite of all that, we consider those notions to be signicant, only in terms of the Euclidean geometry. That theoretically placed the origin of the classical geometry to the middle of the 3rd c.BC. However, signicant geometrical constructions like the Great Pyramids of Egypt etc., which belonged to an earlier period, were there for all to see. But perhaps there was no treatise on geometry earlier to Euclid, according to many, till the ulbastras were recognized to belong to atleast the 8th c.BC, if not s u earlier. Not only the Baudhyana ulbastra could belong to a much earlier period a s u than acknowledged, the very Veda contained oblique statements of geometry, for whatever purpose those became parts of the narrative. My study of the Vedic geometry and the Rgveda had earlier brought out certain details of it. Thus it was claimed that RV1.164.48, contained a specic geometrical construction to obtain an area value of 108,000.1 This 108,000 is the area of an uttaravedi in the altar space. It signied space and time alike as stated in that article. The geometrical presentation of the ecliptic in terms of the 12 ri s and as the 27 naksatras would be found randomly and sparsely spread all over the Rgveda. . Further, oblique references were made to them in so many verses. Thus space, time and geometry got integrated into a wholesome and important subject of the Rgveda. The sages were, perhaps, seeking better understanding and acceptance by introducing visibility into the abda and audibility. s The Vedic approach, and indeed the approach of many later texts, to geometry were not in line with the evaluation methods of the present day. Theoretical proofs and analytical methods were not parts of the Vedic approach to geometry. So it was in the case of the ulbastra as well. The ancient Indian methods were aligned to sr. . i s u . st and perhaps the geometric constructions were made upon spontaneous inspirations, though still based on consciousness and meditations. So it would appear from the many details of the Rgveda. But all of the geometry that India saw did not get presented in the Rgveda. There were the ones that did not get admitted and then there were the ones that perhaps never tried. The exquisite Sriyantra could have never aspired to be represented in the Rgveda. It had its own messages to all and was always totally independent, while at the same time strongly presented the complex universe in a matching complex manner. But there could have been other clear statements on geometry, possibly coming from the same Vedic period and which somehow did not congure in the 4 Vedas.

Of course it is possible that such verses which presented geometry could have been formed during a later period as well. At any rate, I happened to recognise such a as verse that appeared in the Svetvataropanisad. The verse came as 4th in the rst . adhyya. It went like this. a tamekanemim trivrtam . odantam atardhram vimati pratyarbhi: s a s a . s . sa as. akai: . adbhirvivarpaikapam trimrgabhedam dvinimittaikamoham t s . s u as a . It said: Gradually emaciating from One, till the rim, observing the rule of 3, 16 as the end, 50 as the spoke, 20 to both sides from the spokes, with 8 and 6 having formed a rope that would reach everywhere, along the route of those dierentiated 3, moving from the one and focused on the two. Obviously, we could discern that this contained a presentation of a geometry based on the geometrical and other aspects of the universe. The verse reminded you of the geometry of RV1.164.48 and that conguration was claimed to be unique. Was it so unique that not any further set of other dimensions produced the area value of 108,000 in identical work outs? An enquiry was clearly on and must have continued. Now let us capture the geometry of the present statement.

The verse mentioned about an immense universe commencing from a point of origin. The end limit could be deduced as 50 16 = 800. The spokes were 50 in length (yellow) and the rims were 20+20=40. That much were recognized easily. But one has to know the rule of 3, referring to the 3 points C,D and E on the hub and thereby congure the triangle just as done in the case of RV1.164.48. The hub size of 260 should be congured as (8 20) + 100 = 260. The area of the triangle indeed magically came as 108,000. And of course all the time we know that it was 2

about the zodiac and the angle will be 300 . Again it would be observed that the area was 108,000.0000000001 and thus at some time in the past it was proved that the conguration of RV1.164.48 was not that unique. If we assume that the verse aspired to be included in the Vedic corpus, we would also nd that it did not nd a place in the Vedas(so I presume). It, any way could not have found its way into the Vedas for a couple of reasons. One was that it did not touch upon the divine nature and descriptive components of the Vedas. The other would be that the proportion of the heaven (260) to the universe (800) was rather too high. It should hang around 120. All the same this verse made a loud and clear statement on the proportionality of the conguration and in a way raised and answered a geometrical challenge. What is really surprising would be that this verse then crossed vast periods of as time as it only was to appear in the Svetvataropanisad claimed to be a very late . composition. In this very upanisad itself, the placement of the verse would be found . quite random. The geometrical searches in India would be thus found as ancient as the very Vedas. More over, it had a tremendous continuity, well recognized or otherwise. Geometry was thus an essential element in the Vedic formulae. It would appear that the stra style of narration ruled for millenniums. u Parameswaran Murthiyedath July 31, 2011.