Pāṇini and Euclid: Refections on Indian geometry (Q5951595)

J. F. Staal has argued in several articles and books that Euclid and Pāṇini have exerted an important, formative influence on their cultures, whose scientific developments took different directions under those influences. In this paper the author analyses the extent to which it can be said that Indian and Greek geometry are indeed different, and whether the specific character of Indian geometry is attributable to Pāṇini's influence. The author finds that ``there is no proof for the claimed methodical guidance of Pāṇini's grammar with respect to classical Indian geometry'', although it might be among the factors that played a role in hindering the development of an abstract, deductive geometry, and finds that classical Indian geometry ``contrasts as sharply with Euclidean geometry as do other pre-modern geometries'', since it uses no proofs. The reason for the absence of proof and deduction (which is shown to be not only an absence of proofs in the texts, but an absence of it in the oral tradition of the time as well) is seen in the fact that ``classical Indian geometry, like grammar, describes objects that exist in the material world, not abstractions'', which allows for conclusions ``based on reflections about or observations of material objects''. Although proofs and deductions did exist in Indian logic and philosophy, early Indian mathematicians, unlike their Greek counterparts, had no contacts with philosophers, nor were there philosopher-mathematicians.