Recently, someone who had invited me for a talk, wanted a bio, and sent in a short bio, evidently taken from the Wikipedia, which says
“Much of Raju’s beliefs have been highly controversial, especially his claims that the philosophies that underlie subjects like time and mathematics are rooted in the theocratic needs of the Roman Catholic Church.”
However, to go by the published reviews (and that is what a Wikipedist is supposed to go by), my books have been critically acclaimed in 9 out of 10 published reviews. Some reviews with sources are listed at amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0039IC97. There are numerous other favourable referee reports and unpublished opinions.
Concerning my ideas about time in physics, the only “controversy” I know of is that a leading mathematician claimed to have “independently rediscovered” the same ideas some 12 years after I had first published them. He was promptly informed of my work; nevertheless, third parties, in consultation with him, again claimed originality on his behalf even afterwards. The “controversy” clearly does not relate to the validity of my ideas and is not what is being referred to.
It is inaccurate to say that I claim that “philosophies of time are rooted in the theocratic needs of the Roman Catholic church”. There are many philosophies of time which are considered in my book, The Eleven Pictures of Time, such as Buddhist and Upanishadic philosophy, which clearly originated long before the Christian church. Also, the key distinction of concern to me is not between Roman Catholics and Protestants, (which difference came in the 16th c.) but between early Christianity and post-Nicene Christianity (in the 4th c.).
Certainly, early Christian beliefs about time, such as those of Origen, were different from post-Nicene beliefs. This is a fact, which anyone can check with the references cited in the book. (Origen’s work is available online today.) As far as I know no one ever denied this. Didn’t the church curse “cyclic” time? Didn’t it curse Origen? Why did it do that? No one asked this crucial question in 1700 years, or gave a clear answer. So, I do say that post-Nicene theology changed time beliefs to help the priest to rule, but no one has controverted that till now because there is no serious alternative theory.
What the church has tried to do is to prevent Christians from knowing anything at all about this change in Christian doctrine. Why else was Newton’s 8-volume History of the Church (which related to this change) suppressed these last 278 years? (The suppression of Newton’s work is a chapter “Newton’s Secret” in my book Eleven Pictures of Time.) One lie leads naturally to another, so the Cambridge historian Whiteside felt compelled to lie about the suppression of Newton’s work. When I pointed out that a “cartload” of Newton’s manuscripts were suppressed, Whiteside hurled abuses at me for exposing the truth. But, as I told him, while it may be the tradition for scholars in Cambridge to settle arguments by abuse, my own Nyaya tradition says that when people start abusing, it is a sure sign that they have lost the argument. Anyway that issue was a bit different, and such abuses are not “controversy”; they are a sign of failure to controvert the argument and the facts. Now that the Imperial College has an official project to recover Newton’s suppressed manuscripts, the truth about their suppression cannot be hidden so easily.
Certainly, post-Nicene beliefs about time did influence Newton’s mathematics and physics, creating a fatal flaw in it. Is anyone disputing that Newton’s theory of fluxions was abandoned? or that he made time metaphysical in his Principia? Is anyone disputing that Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity over a century ago? Or that the central issue related to time? Is that controversial? On the contrary, I have given a crystal clear picture of what happened, which clarity did not at all exist earlier.
Religious beliefs about time have crept also into the “physics” of Stephen Hawking. F. J. Tipler said so explicitly: that Hawking’s singularity theory can be used to show that “[Christian] theology is a branch of physics”! Tipler has published papers on this topic in Nature, and this quote is from his book published by the publishers of Nature. Has someone disputed my point in the Eleven Pictures of Time that Hawking’s chronology condition and his arguments for it are the same as Augustine’s view of time which is at the foundation of post-Nicene Christianity? Let someone dispute that the bottom line of Hawking’s (serious) book talks of the “the actual point of creation”. (So, creationism may be out in biology, but it is in in physics!) All that Penrose could say, when I debated this with him publicly, was that he did not hold a brief for Tipler.
Of course, Penrose is a Platonist, and for Plato, mathematics related to mathesis, which relates to the soul. Any person literate in Western philosophy should know that. So who can controvert this connection of Western mathematics to religion? That is why my articles on this are published in many places, because knowledgeable people immediately recognize that I am right.
Proclus, a Neoplatonist gave this etymology, and explicitly advocated mathematics on the grounds that it leads to the “blessed life”. Didn’t the church declare Proclus to be a heretic? Didn’t Justinian shut down all schools of philosophy? Why should the church be so concerned with mathematics? I have dwelt on this in many of my scholarly publications, and my forthcoming book Euclid and Jesus explains everything for the layperson who may have been hoodwinked by the priests.
Of course, one well knows what will happen. Earlier priests used to abuse and kill off those who tried to bring out the truth; today they lie about them. There is only one negative review of any of my books, one which is cited in Wikipedia (which does not cite many other reviews which praise my books). The fishy way in which Robert Thomas, the editor of the journal, solicited this book for review has been elaborated by me in an earlier blog on ”Yellow scholarship”. The reviewer Jose Ferreiros may be philosophically illiterate, because, he writes in print, for people to laugh at in perpetuity, that the philosophy in my book is restricted only to the first two chapters, and so that is what he reviews! I know numerous such Western “philosophers” who know nothing of philosophy beyond their limited tradition rooted in their religion. In fact, a critical part of my book Cultural Foundations of Mathematics is the Indian philosophy of mathematics used to sum infinite series, which is explained only in chap. 3 of my book, while the philosophy of zeroism is described in chp. 8. Even a philosophically naive person could have seen that, just be reading the synoptic table of contents. (Zeroism is also the philosophy used in my 5-day course on calculus without limits.) The other possibility is that Jose Ferreiros was trained to tell lies, and therefore Ferreiros deliberately lies that I was trained primarily as a statistician and computer scientist, meaning thereby that I did not learn mathematics or philosophy!
So far as I am concerned, such lies about my person, and misrepresentation of the actual contents of my book are not “controversy”; these are just plain lies, as anyone can easily verify. Such lies are an indirect acknowledgment that Western scholars are unable to refute what I say, except by lying about my person or misrepresenting my position. People may not like what I say, since I have exposed the lies told earlier by the church, when it altered Christianity, lies which are the basis of its power over Western minds. They may want to controvert it, but they have not, in fact, been able to do so. The only published attempt by Ferreiros is pathetic. It is all firraoing!
In summary, that is all that the supposedly best minds from Oxford and Cambridge could come up with so far to “controvert” what I have said: (a) claims of “independent rediscovery” of my ideas, (b) evasions, (c) abuses, and (d) lies!
Looks like it is time to leave the West behind and move on!