Is Yoga Hinduism?

[Dwai]

Fantastic Dwai! I would love to be able to correspond with such individuals if I were a bit older! Why don't you invite them to this forum so they can discuss Indian history with the rest of us?

You can start first by reading their works (Infinity Foundation is a good place to start).

This is another great resource: http://www.medhajournal.com/medha-gold.html

As is this one: http://www.medhajournal.com/columns/wanderers-ruminations-mainmenu-227.html

Some more very useful links:

http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm
http://sankrant.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm
http://invadingthesacred.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Balagangadhara

[Surya_Deva]

I really like Rajiv Malhotra, his articles and his blog. He is a proper dharmic scholar. He's almost as millitant as I am and I love how he exposes the West. However, he cannot be as open as I am and openly say dharmic culture is superior to Western culture, and Western culture needs to move aside, and let dharma take control - because he needs to remain credible. It would be scholarly suicide to state such a thing. You can say something close and skirt dangerously close to it, but not say it.

Where do I get this habit of labelling thing superior or inferior? From dharmic culture itself. We never hestitated from calling a spade a spade. We classified people as having deva qualities or asura qualities and all non-dharmic cultures we called barbarian. In all our texts it is not uncommon to find the phrase x is superior to y, but even more superior to y is z. In the Chandogya upanishad, the same format can be observed in the dialogue between Sanat Kumara and Narada, where one thing is said to be superior than the other, "Speech is superior to name". It is seen in the Gita, where Krishna says he is the best amongst everything, "Kapila muni among the sages, Arjuna among the Pandavas" It is seen the Yoga sutras, where Patanjali divides people into low intensity, intermediate intensity and high intensity. We even divide people in the same way as can been seen in our niti shastras.

This idea of a spectruum with many grades is an important dharmic concept. Hence, we do not hestitate from saying one thing is inferior or superior, higher or lower. In fact, most people in the world do not hestitate either when saying Citizen Kane is better than Dude wheres my car. People are creating their top 10 lists on films, actors, books etc all the time. Yet, as soon as we do this with religion or culture, it is not politically correct anymore. But why can't we do this with religion or culture?

Why can't I say my dharmic deva culture is superior to Western asura culture? Why can't I say Hinduism is better than Christianity?

[Surya_Deva]

By the way Yogimat has rejoined the forum under the alias "Occidentalyogi" The silly man is giving his old alias a farewell and propping it up in the community forum. This is basically the integrity this guy had

Niti says not to associate with people of such low integrity.

Neitzsche,

The West was not even materially superior to our dharma culture before they invaded us in the 18th century. We had better production technology than they did and were outperforming them in the global economy by a wide margin. They stole our production technologies and then used it to fuel their own industrial revolution. This was even admitted on a BBC documentary entitled, "What the ancients did for us: What the Indians did for us" They stole our lost-wax metallurgical method which is used even today to make precision parts, they stole our textile production methods, they stole our surgical methods, which are still used today.

Ever since the development of factories in the West, the West overtook the technology of India. Then the motor came and it was all up from there. Why did the West develop this, and India didn't? The reason is GREED. The West wanted to outperform everybody in the world through mass production. So they built factories, and they had no ethical problem exploiting their working class, because you have to remember this was historically a slave-owning society. So armies of the masses worked in dehumanizing jobs in factories which allowed the West to mass produce. This is why the West leaped ahead in technology and why we have technology. All technology by the way is in some way related to war and improving effiency and productivity. It is hardly surprising a society that had materialist paradigm from its very beginning would later become a master of material technology.

But I do question whether dharmic civilisation had technology in the distant past. I cannot ignore the references to vimanas, yantras of all kinds, submarines, microscopes, WMD found in our literature. But these things were not mass produced. So it is possible only a few were built and owned by specialists.

[Dwai]

I really like Rajiv Malhotra, his articles and his blog. He is a proper dharmic scholar. He's almost as millitant as I am and I love how he exposes the West. However, he cannot be as open as I am and openly say dharmic culture is superior to Western culture, and Western culture needs to move aside, and let dharma take control - because he needs to remain credible. It would be scholarly suicide to state such a thing. You can say something close and skirt dangerously close to it, but not say it.

Where do I get this habit of labelling thing superior or inferior? From dharmic culture itself. We never hestitated from calling a spade a spade. We classified people as having deva qualities or asura qualities and all non-dharmic cultures we called barbarian. In all our texts it is not uncommon to find the phrase x is superior to y, but even more superior to y is z. In the Chandogya upanishad, the same format can be observed in the dialogue between Sanat Kumara and Narada, where one thing is said to be superior than the other, "Speech is superior to name". It is seen in the Gita, where Krishna says he is the best amongst everything, "Kapila muni among the sages, Arjuna among the Pandavas" It is seen the Yoga sutras, where Patanjali divides people into low intensity, intermediate intensity and high intensity. We even divide people in the same way as can been seen in our niti shastras.

This idea of a spectruum with many grades is an important dharmic concept. Hence, we do not hestitate from saying one thing is inferior or superior, higher or lower. In fact, most people in the world do not hestitate either when saying Citizen Kane is better than Dude wheres my car. People are creating their top 10 lists on films, actors, books etc all the time. Yet, as soon as we do this with religion or culture, it is not politically correct anymore. But why can't we do this with religion or culture?

Why can't I say my dharmic deva culture is superior to Western asura culture? Why can't I say Hinduism is better than Christianity?

Yes, rajiv does call a spade a spade, but he doesn't overtly alienate those he is trying to engage in discussions with. So you will never see him making statements such as x is superior to y...that stance, an us vs them stance are counterproductive to fruitful discussions. The way something is delivered is very important in te context of dialogue...by stating my way is superior to your way we are closing the avenues of dialogue...ie if the objective is dialogue

[Surya_Deva]

Yes, exactly what I said. The reason we do not say our culture is superior to Western culture is purely about rhetorics. We we want to persuade our opponent, so we do not say what we believe to be true.

But this is not the dharmic way and this is not Satya. We are told to always speak the truth, and forget about whether that truth causes pain/pleasure, loss/profit, praise/criticism. The truth is this Western culture is responsible for the current state of the planet(wars, inequality, poverty, crime etc). We need to replace it with dharmic culture to improve the state of this planet. Therefore we first need to prove dharmic culture is superior, and when this is proven factually, a case can be made for why dharma should replace the West.

[Nietzsche]

I really like Rajiv Malhotra, his articles and his blog. He is a proper dharmic scholar. He's almost as millitant as I am and I love how he exposes the West. However, he cannot be as open as I am and openly say dharmic culture is superior to Western culture, and Western culture needs to move aside, and let dharma take control - because he needs to remain credible. It would be scholarly suicide to state such a thing. You can say something close and skirt dangerously close to it, but not say it.

Where do I get this habit of labelling thing superior or inferior? From dharmic culture itself. We never hestitated from calling a spade a spade. We classified people as having deva qualities or asura qualities and all non-dharmic cultures we called barbarian. In all our texts it is not uncommon to find the phrase x is superior to y, but even more superior to y is z. In the Chandogya upanishad, the same format can be observed in the dialogue between Sanat Kumara and Narada, where one thing is said to be superior than the other, "Speech is superior to name". It is seen in the Gita, where Krishna says he is the best amongst everything, "Kapila muni among the sages, Arjuna among the Pandavas" It is seen the Yoga sutras, where Patanjali divides people into low intensity, intermediate intensity and high intensity. We even divide people in the same way as can been seen in our niti shastras.

This idea of a spectruum with many grades is an important dharmic concept. Hence, we do not hestitate from saying one thing is inferior or superior, higher or lower. In fact, most people in the world do not hestitate either when saying Citizen Kane is better than Dude wheres my car. People are creating their top 10 lists on films, actors, books etc all the time. Yet, as soon as we do this with religion or culture, it is not politically correct anymore. But why can't we do this with religion or culture?

Why can't I say my dharmic deva culture is superior to Western asura culture? Why can't I say Hinduism is better than Christianity?

This reminds me that I need to respond to the discussion we were having prior to this. I haven't been able to do so because of homework, but I hopefully will be able to set aside some time for a proper response.

[Nietzsche]

By the way Yogimat has rejoined the forum under the alias "Occidentalyogi" The silly man is giving his old alias a farewell and propping it up in the community forum. This is basically the integrity this guy had

Niti says not to associate with people of such low integrity.

Neitzsche,

The West was not even materially superior to our dharma culture before they invaded us in the 18th century. We had better production technology than they did and were outperforming them in the global economy by a wide margin. They stole our production technologies and then used it to fuel their own industrial revolution. This was even admitted on a BBC documentary entitled, "What the ancients did for us: What the Indians did for us" They stole our lost-wax metallurgical method which is used even today to make precision parts, they stole our textile production methods, they stole our surgical methods, which are still used today.

Ever since the development of factories in the West, the West overtook the technology of India. Then the motor came and it was all up from there. Why did the West develop this, and India didn't? The reason is GREED. The West wanted to outperform everybody in the world through mass production. So they built factories, and they had no ethical problem exploiting their working class, because you have to remember this was historically a slave-owning society. So armies of the masses worked in dehumanizing jobs in factories which allowed the West to mass produce. This is why the West leaped ahead in technology and why we have technology. All technology by the way is in some way related to war and improving effiency and productivity. It is hardly surprising a society that had materialist paradigm from its very beginning would later become a master of material technology.

But I do question whether dharmic civilisation had technology in the distant past. I cannot ignore the references to vimanas, yantras of all kinds, submarines, microscopes, WMD found in our literature. But these things were not mass produced. So it is possible only a few were built and owned by specialists.

Yes, the reason the West became superior was due to greed and desire. A greed for new markets that weren't monopolized by Muslims. The desire to explore and conquer. The greed for gold. The desire to spread their virus (Christianity) over the world. Need I go on?

The reason the West was ABLE to slake their desires was through WAR. Any good history student knows that the more WAR there is, the better weapons become. This was all too true of pre-colonial Europe...

As for your viamana, WMD, etc references, please try to refrain from asserting things with no archeological foundation whatsoever.

[Surya_Deva]

As for your viamana, WMD, etc references, please try to refrain from asserting things with no archeological foundation whatsoever.

You cannot have archeaological evidence for everything. Over 10,000 years all traces of vimanas, WMD etc would have vanished - the metals would have rusted, the parts would have broken down and been buried under the earth or submerged under the water, nuclear radiation would have dissipated. I am not sure why you are antagonic to vimanas and astras(WMD) because out literature is full of them. They are described in the Mahabharata, in the Ramayana, even in engineering texts along with flight instructions and a description of an engine that we currently are building. To deny their existence would be to claim our history which describes them is false. Charaka indirectly mentions microscopes in the Charaka samhita - he says "Microrganisms can be seen with the aid of a machine" The fact that they understood complex chemical processes like the splitting of hydrogen and oxygen using electricity is described explicitly in the Agastya Samhita, a Vedic era text, on how to make a cell. It has indeed been manufactured and it has a voltage of 1.1v.

The scientific knowledge is clearly there that would allow technologies like vimanas and WMD. And the texts clearly mention such technologies to be existent. Therefore, put two and two together Stop denying this evidence. In a way you are denying our history.

[Surya_Deva]

In an article I was reading from Rajiv Malhotra he mentioned that it is not a clash of civilisations we want, but a dialogue between civilisations. I understand what he is saying, that if we take a militant attitude against the West that it will be alienating to them and thus we will not be able to persuade them, therefore we should be friendly and polite and discuss with them our representations and persuade them to represent us fairly and accurately. But this will always put us at the receiving end. This is an asymmetrical dialogue where we are trying to convince West to remove their false representations of us. Here we are at the receiving end of the abuse and the West is aggressing against us and has been doing this continuously ever since they came to our country. So the solution to this is to appease them and convince them to be nice? - "Please Mr Western man, can you please remove this distortion of our history and culture from your textbooks, pretty please, with cherries on top? We will throw our women in as well. Deal?"

I truly hate this Gandhian approach that we have adopted in our dialogue with the West. We are expected to be nice, polite and tolerant, while even today they call our respected gurus homosexual pedophiles, give awards to anti-hindu publications, and place in the highest positions of authority anti-Hindu scholars like Wendy Doninger - who rather than getting a public flogging - is getting accloades. Are we always going to be the victims in this dialogue? First we complained how they distorted our history, mistranslated our texts and moaned about it, and then when we realised that nothing was being done to change it, we simply went silent and let our future generations learn the false and distorted history and read the distorted translations of our texts. Today, our Yoga, Ayurveda and Vedanta is being appropriated, and again all we are doing is moaning about it.

We are in a rather pathetic position here by taking this Gandhian dialogue approach. Should we not accept we are not dealing with noble and honourable people? Wasn't that clear during the East India company times itself? It is not a dialogue with civilisations we need, but a clash of civilisations. Power respects power. Why do you think China gets so much respect in the West, despite China positioning itself as its arch rival? Why do you think the West represents China's history so positively and views its history and civilisation as great? Because China had the courage to stand up to the West. Something Indians have not done, but need to do.

You need to take the same approach as the West did with us. They wanted to destroy our civilisation by destroying our culture by misrepresenting and essentialising the caste system, cows, wife-burning and superstition in our culture. We Hindu dharmic people don't have to misrepresent Western history and essentialise negative things to it, we just have to represent its real history and it will become clear how negative its essences are, this alone will destroy this civilisation. You see our fight is not with the common man of the West, our fight is its culture and its institutions - when the common man sees how decrepid his own culture is, they will adopt our dharma culture. Indeed, that is exactly what is happening. The so-called new emerging view of the West is all based on dharma. Although, they have tried very hard to pretend it is their own indigenious development and not credit the dharma sources, this has ultimately proven to be a double-edged sword, because it has increased the awareness of dharma culture in the West, even amongst the common man.

We have to raise the awareness of dharma culture by doing two things

1) Not dialogue, but fight against the misrepresentations of our culture. Wendy Doniger should not even be a scholar, people like this need to be removed from courses like Hindu studies. Hindus need to campaign against it and make sure their voice is heard.
2) Assertion of Hindu pride. We should not be afraid to admit that we do think we are the greatest civilisation in history and we think our culture is superior. Our approach should not be, "Hey have you heard about Panini" it should be "Hey, let me tell you about Panini"

Hindus can learn a lot from the Chinese. Every Chinese person I met has been proud of their country, civilisation, culture.

[Nietzsche]

You cannot have archeaological evidence for everything. Over 10,000 years all traces of vimanas, WMD etc would have vanished - the metals would have rusted, the parts would have broken down and been buried under the earth or submerged under the water, nuclear radiation would have dissipated. I am not sure why you are antagonic to vimanas and astras(WMD) because out literature is full of them. They are described in the Mahabharata, in the Ramayana, even in engineering texts along with flight instructions and a description of an engine that we currently are building. To deny their existence would be to claim our history which describes them is false. Charaka indirectly mentions microscopes in the Charaka samhita - he says "Microrganisms can be seen with the aid of a machine" The fact that they understood complex chemical processes like the splitting of hydrogen and oxygen using electricity is described explicitly in the Agastya Samhita, a Vedic era text, on how to make a cell. It has indeed been manufactured and it has a voltage of 1.1v.

The scientific knowledge is clearly there that would allow technologies like vimanas and WMD. And the texts clearly mention such technologies to be existent. Therefore, put two and two together Stop denying this evidence. In a way you are denying our history.

It isn't a matter of being antagonistic towards scriptural references. It isn't a matter of denying our history. Its a matter of credibility and direct proof. Archeology neither does not say they did not exist but neither does it say that they did. Evolution and genetics also discredits such notions of prehistoric advanced civilizations. Therefore, put two and two together. Stop denying this evidence. Doing so makes you look like an irrational idiot.

Instead, try to build our history from what historical evidence and foundation there is in our scriptures/texts/etc and material archeology alike. There is no evidence for these vimanas and WMD's. Even Rajiv Malhotra scorns this kind of fantasy thinking.

Foremost of all, stick to the truth. Other cultures can easily tout the same kind of references to advanced technology in their scriptures, even Chri - Christians washes mouth with mouth wash immediately In fact, there was a History Channel episode where pseudo-intellectuals were proving the scientific veracity of the Bible.

Here, try disproving this: Mayans had contact with aliens.

It is a logical fallacy to prove the negation of something. That is what you are doing.

[Nietzsche]

In an article I was reading from Rajiv Malhotra he mentioned that it is not a clash of civilisations we want, but a dialogue between civilisations. I understand what he is saying, that if we take a militant attitude against the West that it will be alienating to them and thus we will not be able to persuade them, therefore we should be friendly and polite and discuss with them our representations and persuade them to represent us fairly and accurately. But this will always put us at the receiving end. This is an asymmetrical dialogue where we are trying to convince West to remove their false representations of us. Here we are at the receiving end of the abuse and the West is aggressing against us and has been doing this continuously ever since they came to our country. So the solution to this is to appease them and convince them to be nice? - "Please Mr Western man, can you please remove this distortion of our history and culture from your textbooks, pretty please, with cherries on top? We will throw our women in as well. Deal?"

I truly hate this Gandhian approach that we have adopted in our dialogue with the West. We are expected to be nice, polite and tolerant, while even today they call our respected gurus homosexual pedophiles, give awards to anti-hindu publications, and place in the highest positions of authority anti-Hindu scholars like Wendy Doninger - who rather than getting a public flogging - is getting accloades. Are we always going to be the victims in this dialogue? First we complained how they distorted our history, mistranslated our texts and moaned about it, and then when we realised that nothing was being done to change it, we simply went silent and let our future generations learn the false and distorted history and read the distorted translations of our texts. Today, our Yoga, Ayurveda and Vedanta is being appropriated, and again all we are doing is moaning about it.

We are in a rather pathetic position here by taking this Gandhian dialogue approach. Should we not accept we are not dealing with noble and honourable people? Wasn't that clear during the East India company times itself? It is not a dialogue with civilisations we need, but a clash of civilisations. Power respects power. Why do you think China gets so much respect in the West, despite China positioning itself as its arch rival? Why do you think the West represents China's history so positively and views its history and civilisation as great? Because China had the courage to stand up to the West. Something Indians have not done, but need to do.

You need to take the same approach as the West did with us. They wanted to destroy our civilisation by destroying our culture by misrepresenting and essentialising the caste system, cows, wife-burning and superstition in our culture. We Hindu dharmic people don't have to misrepresent Western history and essentialise negative things to it, we just have to represent its real history and it will become clear how negative its essences are, this alone will destroy this civilisation. You see our fight is not with the common man of the West, our fight is its culture and its institutions - when the common man sees how decrepid his own culture is, they will adopt our dharma culture. Indeed, that is exactly what is happening. The so-called new emerging view of the West is all based on dharma. Although, they have tried very hard to pretend it is their own indigenious development and not credit the dharma sources, this has ultimately proven to be a double-edged sword, because it has increased the awareness of dharma culture in the West, even amongst the common man.

We have to raise the awareness of dharma culture by doing two things

1) Not dialogue, but fight against the misrepresentations of our culture. Wendy Doniger should not even be a scholar, people like this need to be removed from courses like Hindu studies. Hindus need to campaign against it and make sure their voice is heard.
2) Assertion of Hindu pride. We should not be afraid to admit that we do think we are the greatest civilisation in history and we think our culture is superior. Our approach should not be, "Hey have you heard about Panini" it should be "Hey, let me tell you about Panini"

Hindus can learn a lot from the Chinese. Every Chinese person I met has been proud of their country, civilisation, culture.

Yeah, I also hate this pacifist approach. Just look at the African Americans. They have been fighting for their rights for 3 centuries and they are still scorned, persecuted, alienated, stereotyped, etc. This is especially true in the region I live in the U.S, the home of plantations, the birth place of the KKK, site of race riots

The reason Chinese history is so positively represented is because the evidence is there. Oracle bones, world's earliest written language, direct textual and factual evidence, and what not. Westerners respect materialism and China, along with India, long had everything the West coveted and needed. The West had no need to "take over" China when they got there for everything was already prepped up for "export." All they had to do was subdue the Chinese, carve their nation up, and exploit their resources.

Why is Indian history so poorly represented? Because of our 1 millennia of foreign rule and the ample time barbaric whites and Muslims had to screw us over materially, intellectually, spiritually, artistically, and etc. Because they took advantage of our weaknesses and destroyed our culture covertly, including the burning of scriptures, temples, etc. Because when the West got here, they found nothing that pleased them and felt as if they had to "start over." Indian civilization is an incredibly resilient one but no nation/civilization on Earth can can expect to withstand 1000+ years of foreign aggression and come out of it unscathed and invigorated.

Rest be assured though, I can sense a cultural uprising even in my community. Every day I live here, I see more frustrated Hindus. In fact, not too long ago, an Indian in my class, normally a soft-spoken and aloof kind of guy, started yelling at these two white shitheads who were taking a big dump on Indian culture, calling it "pagan" and "inferior."

If you consider the Infinity Foundation, RSS, BJP etc not an improvement over blind acceptance of the AIT, then I would hate to see what you call "stagnation."

And you are too harsh on Indians for their inability to see their greatness. Its like expecting present-day Mayans to be proud of their civilization when almost every written text or scripture they ever wrote was burned by demo - I mean, Catholics, who posses no wisdom, morality, or righteousness whatsoever.

[Surya_Deva]

I certainly am in favour of sticking to hard archeaological and textual evidence in discussing Indian history. This is why whenever I discuss the origins of Vedic civilization I always say 10,000 years, rather than billions of years which part of our tradition says. Even though I believe in lost civilisations as our own tradition says of the 5 previous Manus before the current Manu, I will never state it as fact. However, what I do state as fact is our texts do mention vimanas and they appear in historical texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata as well as secular texts like texts on engineering.

If we are going to talk about the historicity of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, we can't pick and choose elements from it. The fact is they mention WMD and vimanas. The Mahabharata mentions an astra kills 200,000+ by incinerating them all. Today we call such weapons nuclear weapons. The problem is the Mahabharata takes place in 3000BCE according to our records and this places it in the timeframe of the IVC. So we cannot talk about IVC without reference to the Mahabharata and its descriptions.

Truth does not care whether people think it sounds silly.

For the record there are indeed human fossils going back further as was demonstrated in the thread, "Ancient science and technology" in the documentary "Mysterious origins of man" We have found human fossils going back millions of years.

[Nietzsche]

I certainly am in favour of sticking to hard archeaological and textual evidence in discussing Indian history. This is why whenever I discuss the origins of Vedic civilization I always say 10,000 years, rather than billions of years which part of our tradition says. Even though I believe in lost civilisations as our own tradition says of the 5 previous Manus before the current Manu, I will never state it as fact. However, what I do state as fact is our texts do mention vimanas and they appear in historical texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata as well as secular texts like texts on engineering.

If we are going to talk about the historicity of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, we can't pick and choose elements from it. The fact is they mention WMD and vimanas. The Mahabharata mentions an astra kills 200,000+ by incinerating them all. Today we call such weapons nuclear weapons. The problem is the Mahabharata takes place in 3000BCE according to our records and this places it in the timeframe of the IVC. So we cannot talk about IVC without reference to the Mahabharata and its descriptions.

Truth does not care whether people think it sounds silly.

For the record there are indeed human fossils going back further as was demonstrated in the thread, "Ancient science and technology" in the documentary "Mysterious origins of man" We have found human fossils going back millions of years.

Of course.

However, such references of mass destruction exist in every culture. You can just as easily say The Flood was a product of Christian (:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:) mass engineering and climate control technology.

The truth may not care whether people think it sounds silly, but it certainly does care when people start stating unverified things in the name of truth.

Uhm, its already mainstream knowledge human fossils go back millions of years...

[Surya_Deva]

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;57603]Of course.

However, such references of mass destruction exist in every culture. You can just as easily say The Flood was a product of Christian (:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:) mass engineering and climate control technology.

There is also a flood talked about in our puranas Neitzsche, as well the story of a flood survivor who created an ark and collected various species of animals. We know now for a fact that around 11,000 years ago the sea levels of this planet rose due to the melting ice sheets(we were coming out of an ice age) and this is when the first townships appear in the world. In the Middle East we have Jericho and in the Indian subcontinent the early Vedic people in the Mehgarh phase. Then for a few thousand years sea levels continued to rise and Dwaraka was submerged several times. The submerging of Dwaraka is mentioned in the Mahabharata, as well as its previous submerging. The location is also given. The Mahabharata also mentions the drying up of the river Saraswati.

So the historicity of the Mahabharata is indeed clear. This means the events it describes did indeed happen. Now it also describes vimanas and WMD - so are we going to pick and choose what is real and what is unreal in the Mahabharata?

These other texts you speak of which describe technology sound interesting, can you please cite some? In the Mahabharata descriptions of technology are very explicit and match with modern technology. The Vimanas are described as aeroplanes made out of materials, owned by humans and were used to fly in the skies. The WMD are described as missiles(astras) There was a missle that could incinerate 200,000+ troops in an instant(nuclear missiles do that) There was a missile that could make troops unconscous by the fumes it produces(chemical missiles do that) Do you remember when Duryodhana tries to get the Pandavas and their entire family assassinated in the lac-palace. They escape by a secret passage made in the palace on the orders of Vidhura, and then escape in a metal sea going ship that goes under water(submarines are metal sea going ships that go under water)

What are we to make of clear descriptions of batteries and the process of electrolysis in the Agastya Samhita? Batteries which have been built.

The truth may not care whether people think it sounds silly, but it certainly does care when people start stating unverified things in the name of truth.

Uhm, its already mainstream knowledge human fossils go back millions of years...

I mean even further to the times of the dinosaurs 100 million years ago. Again, please check out the documentary, "Mysterious origins of man"

[Nietzsche]

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;57603]Of course.

There is also a flood talked about in our puranas Neitzsche, as well the story of a flood survivor who created an ark and collected various species of animals. We know now for a fact that around 11,000 years ago the sea levels of this planet rose due to the melting ice sheets(we were coming out of an ice age) and this is when the first townships appear in the world. In the Middle East we have Jericho and in the Indian subcontinent the early Vedic people in the Mehgarh phase. Then for a few thousand years sea levels continued to rise and Dwaraka was submerged several times. The submerging of Dwaraka is mentioned in the Mahabharata, as well as its previous submerging. The location is also given. The Mahabharata also mentions the drying up of the river Saraswati.

So the historicity of the Mahabharata is indeed clear. This means the events it describes did indeed happen. Now it also describes vimanas and WMD - so are we going to pick and choose what is real and what is unreal in the Mahabharata?

These other texts you speak of which describe technology sound interesting, can you please cite some? In the Mahabharata descriptions of technology are very explicit and match with modern technology. The Vimanas are described as aeroplanes made out of materials, owned by humans and were used to fly in the skies. The WMD are described as missiles(astras) There was a missle that could incinerate 200,000+ troops in an instant(nuclear missiles do that) There was a missile that could make troops unconscous by the fumes it produces(chemical missiles do that) Do you remember when Duryodhana tries to get the Pandavas and their entire family assassinated in the lac-palace. They escape by a secret passage made in the palace on the orders of Vidhura, and then escape in a metal sea going ship that goes under water(submarines are metal sea going ships that go under water)

What are we to make of clear descriptions of batteries and the process of electrolysis in the Agastya Samhita? Batteries which have been built.

The truth may not care whether people think it sounds silly, but it certainly does care when people start stating unverified things in the name of truth.

I mean even further to the times of the dinosaurs 100 million years ago. Again, please check out the documentary, "Mysterious origins of man"

I already know that. Flood myths appear in a surprising number of cultures. The point I meant to get across was that you can attribute all sorts of ancient and advanced technology to such mythological events of cataclysmic proportions.

The flood never happened :lol:. The melting ice sheets raised ocean levels but not NOWHERE close enough to cause an Earth wide flood. At the very least, small portions of India, North America, Africa, South America, East Asia, S.E Asia, West Indies, and East Indies were covered along the coastlines (the effects were more detrimental in East/West Indies and S.E Asia; entire regions were covered).

This is the scientific consensus and common sense. Otherwise, we would see its effects in the soil of every single landmass on Earth, screwed up center of mass, torque, angular momentum, tides, global air/water circulation patterns, and so forth.

The first townships indeed appeared in those times because of the ending of the Ice Age AND AFTER a monumental agricultural revolution that caused prehistoric peoples to favor agriculture over nomadic and herding lifestyles (the amelioration of climate conditions caused many people to give up their nomadic lifestyles, since it was more feasible in certain regions to grow crops and such). Wherever there is agriculture, there is a society that is formed out of a mutual need to protect the sovereignty of individual members. From agricultural societies are formed villages, towns, cities, and civilizations.

Please keep up with scientific theories, evidence, and consensus. Saying the things you just said will only harm our cause. We don't want to sound like Christian Retard Creationists, do we?

I have never seen scientifically detailed descriptions of the vimanas in any of the legitimate translations of the Mahabharata I have read, and trust me, I have read A LOT of them. I have never read anything about an astra that could emit fumes. The most common astras were elemental or weapon-oriented ones, like the Agneya Astra which created intense heat and caused fire arrows to fall from the sky, and the Pashupata Astra which could divide into thousands of arrows, maces, etc. In everything I have read, a "submarine" was not used but an underground passage, that Vidura's most trusted men helped dig, which led out of Hastinapura.

The descriptions of batteries are reasonable and believable enough since there IS the Baghdad Battery. However, these "batteries" you think of are actually classic voltaic cells in which electric power is produced through the transfer of electrons arising from a reduction reaction at a cathode and a an oxidation reaction at an anode. All it takes to create them is a bit of trail and error and reasonable scientific advancement. Of course, not all civilizations are privy to such strokes of genius due to geography, climate, and etc. Nevertheless, batteries/voltaic cells are a remarkable advancement for ANY civilization to make. This is only more proof that Indian civilization was more advanced than we thought. But can you first provide the necessary verses from this scripture?

As for the fossil evidence, I need to do more research to validate this. I am no Biologist and Biology was my most hated science class. Chemistry and Physics are superior.

[Surya_Deva]

I will respond to your post later with the evidence, which means I require some time to -research it and compile it.

[Nietzsche]

I will respond to your post later with the evidence, which means I require some time to -research it and compile it.

Here are some links that talk about the ice age, sea levels, etc.

Ice Age
Post-glacial Rebound

[synergyjasmine]

The word yoga now has evolved and transmuted from it's original definition. To some it is an athletic exercise class, to others gentle stretching and breathing, to others sitting in a lotus position in meditation and to others it is yoga philosophy and the yamas and niyamas.

[Surya_Deva]

now has evolved

So the West gets to decide what Yoga means now

In India, Yoga still means what it is always meant: science of self-realization. It still has the classical scientific form given to it by Patanjali thousands of years ago.

Which meaning am I going to go with? The authentic one of course. Do you really think I am going to let the West decide what a 10,000 year old non-western tradition it did not even know until 200 years ago means? I made it very clear in another thread on the forum. As far as I am concerned anything the West has to say on the Yoga is at best secondary and supplimentary - a mere footnote to the grande 10,000 year epic tradition of Yoga.

If you are going to use our science of Yoga, you are going to use our definitions and immerse yourself in Hinduism, or stick to pilates(though it is inspired by Yoga )

[Surya_Deva]

Okay, I have looked at the evidence for vimanas and WMD as described in the literature and I think it is scarce and too circumstantial to make a positive case. So I will agree with you that we should leave it out of the picture.

I still believe there have been advanced civilisations on this earth in the past personally, but I accept there is no significant evidence for this.