Vedic Mythology
Ganesh
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1995). Vedic Mythology. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1113-5.
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony calls Vedas and other religions Hindu text
myth and stories on this own accord. He does not give any scientific
backings, and research for the same. Are, these researches valid? B'se
it looks like the author is calling them, myth on his own accord
B'se based on these, Religions texts have been termed myth and
mythology.
Ron O
> I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
Welcome to the real world.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
> I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
I'm unsure what you mean. A.A. Macdonnell was indeed a preeminent
Sanskrit scholar, and his works are rigorously and heavily backed up
by primary sources and the secondary literature of his time. Of
course, some of this is now dated (he died in 1930), but until you
say more precisely which of his ideas you mean, it is impossible to
say if it is still considered valid.
Ganesh
Ok, what is the current status with Vedas, are they still termed as
myth?
Burkhard
religious, linguistic/literary or ethical text. The label says more
about the methodology of the researcher than the text itself.
Ganesh
findings. Can you highlight some.
Devils Advocaat
> what portion of vedas are proven false and on what scientific reaearch
> findings. Can you highlight some.
Saying something is a myth isn't the same as proving it to be false.
A myth is a traditional story accepted as history, which serves to
explain the worldview of a culture, as I am sure you are aware, a
story is a fictional narrative.
And a work of fiction is based on imagination as opposed to fact,
although a work of fiction may contain actual facts, that doesn't make
it factual in its entirety.
Ganesh
vedas where never stories. can you call formulations in mathematics
story?
is pythagorus theorm a story?
Devils Advocaat
I personally have seen nothing in the Vedas that resembles
mathematical formulae, perhaps you could tell me which of the verses,
of which hymns, in which books, in which of the four Vedas can be
shown to be mathematics in any shape or form?
John Bode
No; are the Vedas mathematical theorems?
Ganesh
Read http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/vedic-mathematics.html
Read http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas.html
"The theorem bearing the name of the Greek mathematician Pythagorus is
found in the Shatapatha Brahmana as well as the Sulba Sutra, the
Indian mathematical treatise, written centuries before Pythagorus was
born.
The Decimal system, based on powers of ten, where the remainder is
carried over to the next column, first mentioned in the Taittiriya
Samhita of the Black Yajurveda.
The Introduction of zero as both a numerical value and a place marker.
The Concept of infinity.
The Binary number system, essential for computers, was used in Vedic
verse meters.
A hashing technique, similar to that used by modern search algorithms,
such as Googles, was used in South Indian musicology. From the name of
a raga one can determine the notes of the raga from this Kathapayadi
system. (See Figure at left.) "
Now, do these appear to be stories?
John Stockwell
> I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
Dear Ganesh,
The term "myth" is only derogatory in definition 2 below. So, yes the
Vedas
are myth or mytho-historical.
1. (noun) myth
a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world
view of a people
Definitions of 'myth' Webster 1913 Dictionary
1. (noun) myth
a story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief
regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often
the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient
legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of
prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as
historical
2. (noun) myth
a person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual
existence is not verifiable
Devils Advocaat
Perhaps you can explain why you completely ignored the rest of my
post, which would have saved you over reacting?
Burkhard
theorems. By contrast, the claim that the veda contain a secret
mathematical formula is highly interpretative, to say the least. Swami
Bharati Krishna Tirtha's claim to have found in some sutras a hidden
mathematical meaning is problematic to say the least - not just because
it is unclear if he really references authentic Veda material.
There are excellent examples of early Hindu logic and mathematics,
especially in the Nyaya school - but they are clearly presented as such,
and directly comparable to Pythagoras, even though couched in a
specific philosophical tradition. So no need really to talk up the Veda
into a Da Vince Code type math book.
Mike Dworetsky
No, they are about mathematics. Vedic mathematical ideas are well known
(though not so well known in the West) and go back a long way, and may well
predate or be contemporary with the early Greek mathematicians and
geometers. They also had some particularly interesting ideas about ways to
do mental arithmetic.
And, as you note, they had some interesting and original ideas about musical
notation.
And that is fine--it's factual. But if you want to discuss stories about
miracles or the doings of supernatural beings, then this isn't about
mathematics.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Kalkidas
news:f16548ea-a196-417f...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
The history of the attempts of Christian missionaries to convince the
Indian people that their scriptures were heathen mythology is well known.
Fortunately, this tragic misrepresentation of Vedic knowledge is being
rectified.
For starters, you can consult the Oxford Center for Hindu Studies for some
more accurate scholarship.
All-Seeing-I
In some respects, yes. Math, or "mathematical theorems" are in the
Vedas. "
"Officially"
------
Vedic Mathematics is the name given to the ancient system of
Mathematics which was rediscovered from the Vedas between 1911 and
1918 by Sri Bharati Krsna Tirthaji (1884-1960).
-----
The Vedas are part history and part information in story format with
hyms and metaphors. Most of the records regarding math is found in
Vedic texts associated with ritual activities. What better way to
learn math then to repeat the formulas over and over by ritual?
This is not unlike how many ancient cultures perserved their
cumulative knowledge. It is easier to remember a story that you find
intresting rather then memorizing boring dates and facts. There is a
lot of math within them.
More to the point about math though, the sanskrit language itself is
considerd a math. Well, not in the same sense as directly mathematics.
IOW you can't add and subtract with it but, in a sense you are
speaking the language in your mind to solve the problems. Quite a
unique but highly accurate approach to math IMHO.
Vedic math is actually a framework of rules that allow quite
complicated problems to be solved mentally even though they can be
written down as you work. It is also fluid enough to allow the student
to formulate some of their own style in solving math problems too. One
can use personal nimricks to remember the formulas too .So the same
answer can be arrived at in several ways depending on how the student
themselves think.
It is quite cool. Impressive too. The math is based on Sutras. We call
these principals. The sutras are learned and can even be combined to
solve the actual problems in your mind. It becomes second nature in
time.
One of the simpler uncombined Sutras:
/ALL FROM 9 AND THE LAST FROM 10/
For example 1000 - 357 = 643
In your mind, or even your fingers subtract 3 from 9 and 5 from 9 and
7 from 10
The answer will be 643
here is a bit more tricky one
1000 - 500 = 500
5 - 9 = 4, 0 - 9 = 9, 0 - 10 = 10
490 + 10 = 500
The last place is assumed 0 when it is more then 9 and then add the
last result to the first two results.
Same with multiplication.
Suppose you need 8 x 7
Use the Sutra /8 IS 2 BELOW 10, AND 7 IS 3 BELOW 10/
You can do very complicated math with it.
Here is a quick way to square numbers that end in 5 with
the Sutra:
/BY ONE MORE THAN THE ONE BEFORE/.
Fahrenheit to Celsius:
Take 30 away from the Fahrenheit, and then divide the answer by two.
This is your answer in Celsius. +- one or two
Here is a good web site explaining further if you are intrested:
http://www.hinduism.co.za/vedic.htm#History of Mathematics in India
All-Seeing-I
> "Ganesh" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f16548ea-a196-417f...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
>
> > Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1995). Vedic Mythology. Delhi: Motilal
> > Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1113-5.
>
> > Macdonell, Arthur Anthony calls Vedas and other religions Hindu text
> > myth and stories on this own accord. He does not give any scientific
> > backings, and research for the same. Are, these researches valid? B'se
> > it looks like the author is calling them, myth on his own accord
>
> > B'se based on these, Religions texts have been termed myth and
> > mythology.
>
> The history of �the attempts of Christian missionaries to convince the
> Indian people that their scriptures were heathen mythology is well known.
> Fortunately, this tragic misrepresentation of Vedic knowledge is being
> rectified.
>
> For starters, you can consult the Oxford Center for Hindu Studies for some
> more accurate scholarship.
I am sure the world would be a different place if the Vedas and other
ancient texts were given more consideration in the past. Certainly
would save research time and dollars.The knowledge in the Vedas could
have gotten us to the moon faster.
I can only assume so many reject works such as the Vedas because they
do not understand them. They read them for their face value only in
much the same way one would read a dictionary.
Their minds are just not fluid enough or, simply not capable enough,
for understanding the metaphors, perceiving the math, understanding
the various parallels and correlations to this century and the
centuries long gone by. They cannot perceive the information and the
history being told within the hymns. It is frightening to me to see so
many people with such a lack of perception.
The Indians, The Sumerians, The Egyptians and for the most part, the
ancient Chinese's and South Americans were some of the smartest people
to exist on this planet to date.
They all kept records of their accumulated knowledge. But ALL of this
accumulated knowledge is dismissed as it it were written by nothing
more then "goat herders" by people that lack enough brain cells to
understand what these people were writing.
As you said, the tragic misrepresentation of Vedic knowledge is being
slowly rectified. Much other knowledge is slowly being rectified as
well. What slows this process are the UFO freaks that want to
associate this ancient knowledge with their ufology. And of course,
the Greeks did more to damage the Sumerian history then could ever be
realize. Who would have know that Greek mythology would become so
acceptable in lieu of of the souses of the Greek mythology? For the
answer to that, turn to the bible.
All-Seeing-I
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Ganesh wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 8:41 pm, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 31, 9:26 am, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> A myth is a traditional story accepted as history
>
> >>> vedas where never stories. can you call formulations in mathematics
> >>> story?
>
> >>> is pythagorus theorm a story?
>
> >> No; are the Vedas mathematical theorems?
>
------
Vedic Mathematics is the name given to the ancient system of
Mathematics which was rediscovered from the Vedas between 1911 and
1918 by Sri Bharati Krsna Tirthaji (1884-1960).
-----
What part of "rediscovered from the Vedas" is so hard to understand?
Kalkidas
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:6abc7c00-cbf2-47b4...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
I agree that the "New Age" pseudo-spirituality of the UFO and other cults
has not helped anyone's understanding of the serious nature of the ancient
scriptures. However, I much prefer them to the destructive and utterly
boring materialists. At least the new-agers have some understanding that it
is wrong to exploit the world and other living beings. Although their
spiritual understanding is generally impersonalistic and monistic (due in
large part to the misrepresentation of Indian religions as impersonalistic
and monistic), that is a far higher position than no spiritual understanding
at all, which is what we have to deal with on t.o.
The Greek and earlier Sumerian and Egyptian traditions I regard as
degenerated forms of an original world-wide Vedic culture which collapsed a
long time before anything modern scholars regard as "recorded history". Only
India retained a more or less complete version of what was at one time the
prevailing philosophy over the whole planet. And, as this thread indicates,
the Indian version has also degenerated over the last few thousand years.
Real human history is so long that it staggers the mind. Materialistic
scholars have no idea how to deal with it.
Ganesh
wrote:
I was replying back from my mobile phone, it only allowed me 512
characters. I had read everything.
Ganesh
wrote:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myth
"a widely held but false belief"
Burkhard
only one, and not the one used by linguist of history scholars like
Macdonell (some sociologists may use it in the second meaning)
Ganesh
Yes, but Vedas are not stories.
Burkhard
Well, largely that the sources he claims he is citing are not recorded
in any other version of the Vedas. Which leaves some to claim he wrote
them himself. A more charitable interpretation is that he simply used
"Veda" literally, as a term for knowledge, and compiled them from any
part of Indian thought he could find, even if not necessarily in the
"Vedas" as a specific body of text (i.e. the four canonical Samhitas)
Devils Advocaat
From your source I quote:
"Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed the sixteen
mathematical formulae from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research
and �Tapas� (austerity) for about eight years in the forests
surrounding Sringeri. Obviously these formulae are not to be found in
the present recensions of Atharvaveda. They were actually
reconstructed, on the basis of intuitive revelation, from materials
scattered here and there in the Atharvaveda".
If these formulae are not to be found in the present recensions of the
Atharva Veda, how was this Guruji able to find them from materials
scattered here and there in the Atharva Veda?
After all "intuitive revelation" is about as reliable as "anecdotal
evidence".
Burkhard
shruti.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:6abc7c00-cbf2-47b4...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> They all kept records of their accumulated knowledge. But ALL of this
> accumulated knowledge is dismissed as it it were written by nothing
> more then "goat herders" by people that lack enough brain cells to
> understand what these people were writing.
>
Nobody ever said that the goatherds were stupid, but it cannot be argued
that, from today's perspective, they were highly ignorant, with the possible
exception of bronze age goat husbandry.
.
All-seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
They don't know how to deal with it. So they cut it all out by
discrediting it. Plus, the information would discredit both science
and religion if it is true. And Neither of them want that.
It is so blatantly apparent that man has lived on this planet with
perhaps even more technology at one time then we have right now and
that the earth has been through several births and rebirth cycles. So
a Noah's Flood of some sort is not out of the question since so many
cultures talk about a flood that nearly wiped them all out.
All of these ancient societies point to a creator and all of them
point to a death of this eon that we currently live in.
If they are correct, then the end of this eon is not that far away.
The Indians and The Mayans are quite close on their dates when this is
assumed to happen.
It is not logical and it is unscientific to toss out such a large body
of work that has been saved from the perspective of preserving
knowledge; as so many seek to do.
Will in New Haven
> I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
>
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1995). Vedic Mythology. Delhi: Motilal
> Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1113-5.
>
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony calls Vedas and other religions Hindu text
> myth and stories on this own accord. He does not give any scientific
> backings, and research for the same. Are, these researches valid? B'se
> it looks like the author is calling them, myth on his own accord
>
> B'se based on these, Religions texts have been termed myth and
> mythology.
By calling them myth, the author is not _making_ them myths. He is
stating his opinion, correct in my opinion, that they are myths. On
the same level that most of the stories in the Jewish/Christian bibles
are myths. I was much more profoundly affected by the story of Arjuna
and Krishna in the chariot than I was by anything in the Old Testament
or the New Testament. That does not mean I think it was _factual_
With all due respect, don't be so sensitive.
--
Will in New Haven
SkyEyes
> I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
>
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1995). Vedic Mythology. Delhi: Motilal
> Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1113-5.
>
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony calls Vedas and other religions Hindu text
> myth and stories on this own accord. He does not give any scientific
> backings, and research for the same. Are, these researches valid? B'se
> it looks like the author is calling them, myth on his own accord
>
> B'se based on these, Religions texts have been termed myth and
> mythology.
Yes, religious texts *are* myth and mythology. Happy New Year!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Ganesh
> Well, largely that the sources he claims he is citing are not recorded
> in any other version of the Vedas.
Will in New Haven
"Blatantly apparent" does not mean "totally false" or even "wildly
speculative and only believed by morons." By the way, it is extremely
funny that you mourned the idea that we haven't paid much attention to
the Vedas, which you did upthread, when it was first Muslims and then
Christians who tried to suppress them.
--
Will in New Haven
and
Ganesh
without any research, reasoning and investigation.
Ganesh
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> "Blatantly apparent" does not mean "totally false" or even "wildly
> speculative and only believed by morons." By the way, it is extremely
> funny that you mourned the idea that we haven't paid much attention to
> the Vedas, which you did upthread, when it was first Muslims and then
> Christians who tried to suppress them.
definition.
Moron => intelligent people
Kalkidas
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:e5fcdd47-5c7a-4a3b...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6abc7c00-cbf2-47b4...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> Real human history is so long that it staggers the mind. Materialistic
>> scholars have no idea how to deal with it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> They don't know how to deal with it. So they cut it all out by
> discrediting it. Plus, the information would discredit both science
> and religion if it is true. And Neither of them want that.
>
> It is so blatantly apparent that man has lived on this planet with
> perhaps even more technology at one time then we have right now and
> that the earth has been through several births and rebirth cycles. So
> a Noah's Flood of some sort is not out of the question since so many
> cultures talk about a flood that nearly wiped them all out.
>
> All of these ancient societies point to a creator and all of them
> point to a death of this eon that we currently live in.
>
> If they are correct, then the end of this eon is not that far away.
> The Indians and The Mayans are quite close on their dates when this is
> assumed to happen.
>
> It is not logical and it is unscientific to toss out such a large body
> of work that has been saved from the perspective of preserving
> knowledge; as so many seek to do.
According to the Vedas, the current "Kali-yuga" age began on Feb 18, 3102 BC
and lasts for 432,000 years (or 12,000 years of the demigods in higher
planetary systems where time has a different rate). Thus the Vedic account
is that there is a relatively long time to go before we see a new cycle. Of
course, in cosmological terms, 400,000 years is less than the blink of an
eye.
The Mayan calendar starts in 3114 BC, and there is dispute about whether the
2012 date really indicates any kind of end-time scenario or not.
Noah's flood is certainly historical, although it was undoubtedly a lot
longer ago than the few thousand years of the YECs, and there is a lot more
to the story than the few paragraphs that survive from the various
middle-eastern accounts.
Burkhard
That was the opinion of Agrawala, who edited one of the most scholarly
editions of it - you can look up hi introduction.
I'm not quite as sceptical as he is though, and found K Williams: "The
sutras of Vedic mathematics." more balanced in its argumentation, but
still sceptical as to its Vedic (in the narrow sense) origin.
I don't know any more recent analysis that changes this view.
Burkhard
question in the first place?
Tom McDonald
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:e5fcdd47-5c7a-4a3b...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:6abc7c00-cbf2-47b4...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Real human history is so long that it staggers the mind. Materialistic
>>> scholars have no idea how to deal with it.- Hide quoted text -
Archaeology does a good job dealing with it.
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> They don't know how to deal with it. So they cut it all out by
>> discrediting it. Plus, the information would discredit both science
>> and religion if it is true. And Neither of them want that.
>>
>> It is so blatantly apparent that man has lived on this planet with
>> perhaps even more technology at one time then we have right now and
>> that the earth has been through several births and rebirth cycles. So
>> a Noah's Flood of some sort is not out of the question since so many
>> cultures talk about a flood that nearly wiped them all out.
>>
>> All of these ancient societies point to a creator and all of them
>> point to a death of this eon that we currently live in.
>>
>> If they are correct, then the end of this eon is not that far away.
>> The Indians and The Mayans are quite close on their dates when this is
>> assumed to happen.
>>
>> It is not logical and it is unscientific to toss out such a large body
>> of work that has been saved from the perspective of preserving
>> knowledge; as so many seek to do.
>
> According to the Vedas, the current "Kali-yuga" age began on Feb 18, 3102 BC
> and lasts for 432,000 years (or 12,000 years of the demigods in higher
> planetary systems where time has a different rate). Thus the Vedic account
> is that there is a relatively long time to go before we see a new cycle. Of
> course, in cosmological terms, 400,000 years is less than the blink of an
> eye.
>
> The Mayan
Maya. Mayan is only used wrt the language(s) of the Maya people.
I know you have enough respect for the old cultures of this world
to use the right terminology for them.
> calendar starts in 3114 BC, and there is dispute about whether the
> 2012 date really indicates any kind of end-time scenario or not.
>
> Noah's flood is certainly historical, although it was undoubtedly a lot
> longer ago than the few thousand years of the YECs, and there is a lot more
> to the story than the few paragraphs that survive from the various
> middle-eastern accounts.
Will you say more about this?
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
All-seeing-I
Any man on the planet that is free of sin and mistake is welcome to
cast the first stone.
All-seeing-I
>
> From your source I quote:
>
> "Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed the sixteen
> mathematical formulae from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research
> and �Tapas� (austerity) for about eight years in the forests
> surrounding Sringeri. Obviously these formulae are not to be found in
> the present recensions of Atharvaveda. They were actually
> reconstructed, on the basis of intuitive revelation, from materials
> scattered here and there in the Atharvaveda".
>
> If these formulae are not to be found in the present recensions of the
> Atharva Veda, how was this Guruji able to find them from materials
> scattered here and there in the Atharva Veda?
>
> After all "intuitive revelation" is about as reliable as "anecdotal
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you ask him?
Andre Lieven
And, those kind of people are those who *answer their own
posts*...
Devil's Advocaat DID answer you:
"From your source I quote:
"Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed the sixteen
mathematical formulae from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research
and �Tapas� (austerity) for about eight years in the forests
surrounding Sringeri. Obviously these formulae are not to be found in
the present recensions of Atharvaveda. They were actually
reconstructed, on the basis of intuitive revelation, from materials
scattered here and there in the Atharvaveda".
If these formulae are not to be found in the present recensions of the
Atharva Veda, how was this Guruji able to find them from materials
scattered here and there in the Atharva Veda?
After all "intuitive revelation" is about as reliable as "anecdotal
evidence"."
Duh.
Andre
Andre Lieven
>
> [...]
>
> Noah's flood is certainly historical,
The evidence for your claim is... ?
<foot tapping>
> although it was undoubtedly a lot longer ago
> than the few thousand years of the YECs, and there is a lot more
> to the story than the few paragraphs that survive from the various
> middle-eastern accounts.
No evidence in support offered ? Factless BS claim always fails.
Andre
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
We have more than adequate evidence about the history of the earth to
know that Noah's Flood _never_ happened.
Devils Advocaat
>
> > From your source I quote:
>
> > "Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed the sixteen
> > mathematical formulae from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research
> > and �Tapas� (austerity) for about eight years in the forests
> > surrounding Sringeri. Obviously these formulae are not to be found in
> > the present recensions of Atharvaveda. They were actually
> > reconstructed, on the basis of intuitive revelation, from materials
> > scattered here and there in the Atharvaveda".
>
> > If these formulae are not to be found in the present recensions of the
> > Atharva Veda, how was this Guruji able to find them from materials
> > scattered here and there in the Atharva Veda?
>
> > After all "intuitive revelation" is about as reliable as "anecdotal
> > evidence".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Did you ask him?
Stop and think for a moment.
According to the quote, from the site you hold up in support of the
Veda containing mathematical formulae.
The formulae are not to be found in the current recensions of the
Atharva Veda.
Yet he found them in materials scattered here and there in (the very
same recensions of) the Atharva Veda.
How can you find something in a text if it isn't there?
As I said this "intuitive revelation" he had is about as reliable as
your much vaunted "anecdotal evidence".
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are other Vedas dude. Or dudette` which ever the case may be.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>would save research time and dollars.The knowledge in the Vedas could
>have gotten us to the moon faster.
which, of course, leads to the question: 'if the vedas could have
gotten us to the moon faster....
then why didn't the people who HAD the vedas get to the moon 2000
years ago?'
this is the problem with creationism...they keep telling us how
superior creationism is....but in 2000 years they've accomplished
NOTHING...
>I can only assume so many reject works such as the Vedas because they
>do not understand them. They read them for their face value only in
>much the same way one would read a dictionary.
he bitches because he's told he doesnt understand science (and it's
provable he doesnt)...but then he accuses those who disagree with him
of not understanding...
hoist on his own petard...
>
>Their minds are just not fluid enough or, simply not capable enough,
>for understanding the metaphors, perceiving the math, understanding
>the various parallels and correlations to this century and the
>centuries long gone by. They cannot perceive the information and the
>history being told within the hymns. It is frightening to me to see so
>many people with such a lack of perception.
yeah. the centuries...the millenia gone by..thousands of years when
the human race wallowed in ignorance....
to creationists, this is the golden age
\\]
>
>The Indians, The Sumerians, The Egyptians and for the most part, the
>ancient Chinese's and South Americans were some of the smartest people
>to exist on this planet to date.
>
>They all kept records of their accumulated knowledge. But ALL of this
>accumulated knowledge is dismissed as it it were written by nothing
>more then "goat herders" by people that lack enough brain cells to
>understand what these people were writing.
uh....no. it's scientifically worthless for the same reason
CONTEMPORARY stories about demons and angels are useless:
they explain nothing...
>As you said, the tragic misrepresentation of Vedic knowledge is being
>slowly rectified. Much other knowledge is slowly being rectified as
>well. What slows this process are the UFO freaks that want to
>associate this ancient knowledge with their ufology
and the difference between UFO's and creationism is?
.. And of course,
>the Greeks did more to damage the Sumerian history then could ever be
>realize. Who would have know that Greek mythology would become so
>acceptable in lieu of of the souses of the Greek mythology? For the
>answer to that, turn to the bible.
the bible is worthless as science. that's why it took science to
discover how the world works, not the bible
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>They don't know how to deal with it. So they cut it all out by
>discrediting it. Plus, the information would discredit both science
>and religion if it is true. And Neither of them want that.
really? how would it discredit science, given that science has
explained more of the world in 300 years than the vedic scriptures did
in 3000?
>
>It is so blatantly apparent that man has lived on this planet with
>perhaps even more technology at one time then we have right now and
>that the earth has been through several births and rebirth cycles. So
>a Noah's Flood of some sort is not out of the question since so many
>cultures talk about a flood that nearly wiped them all out.
yeah. all you lack is evidence. other than that it's a great story
>
>All of these ancient societies point to a creator and all of them
>point to a death of this eon that we currently live in.
which has zip to do with science. science is silent on a creator. yet
you creationists INSIST that, after 3000 years of failure, your ideas
still have merit.
how many millenia do you need to finally recognize your failure?
>
>It is not logical and it is unscientific to toss out such a large body
>of work that has been saved from the perspective of preserving
>knowledge; as so many seek to do.
>
siure it is. because we can test your views today. right now.
immediately
yet you are too much of a coward to do so
bpuharic
>
>
>I agree that the "New Age" pseudo-spirituality of the UFO and other cults
>has not helped anyone's understanding of the serious nature of the ancient
>scriptures. However, I much prefer them to the destructive and utterly
>boring materialists.
he prefers the excitement of 3000 years of failure in creationism than
the boring successes of science.
fine. you go your way and we'll go ours. you go ahead and try to use
'ghostbusters' to explain nature, and scientists will continue to use
science, m'kay?
At least the new-agers have some understanding that it
>is wrong to exploit the world and other living beings
now let me think...which religion has untouchables?
oh yeah....yours does.
.. Although their
>spiritual understanding is generally impersonalistic and monistic (due in
>large part to the misrepresentation of Indian religions as impersonalistic
>and monistic), that is a far higher position than no spiritual understanding
>at all, which is what we have to deal with on t.o.
gee that's too bad. why not get the untouchables to tell us how
wonderful your spirituality is?
>Real human history is so long that it staggers the mind. Materialistic
>scholars have no idea how to deal with it.
and yet life expectancy has doubled under materialism. while your
religion had people bathing in sewage.
tell us what a success your religion is.
>
bpuharic
>
>
>Noah's flood is certainly historical,
other than that no scientist or historian agrees with that...
Desertphile
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was studying http://books.google.com/books?id=b7Me8mcC&
Nobody gives a shit.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Will in New Haven
Your quoting style makes it look as if I said those vacuous words
about "all of these ancient societies point to a creator." Learn to
attribute correctly. Especially learn not to confuse something I said
with the words of that poser.
Ganesh
> "Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed the sixteen
> mathematical formulae from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research
> and �Tapas� (austerity) for about eight years in the forests
> surrounding Sringeri.
How do you and I otherwise reason and arrive at new ideas and
conclusions.
At-least I think, re-think, and keep thinking until I am able to
reason maths, science and the logic written in plane English, as even
that was tough to understand after all the explanations provided. It
is just an ancient Indian way of doing things. Even I for the matter
to reason tough-to-understand logical formulas and theorems go to a
silent end of the room and where no body will disturb me and break my
concentration.
The Guru has gone to forest to concentrate. Have you ever tried going
to a forest, sitting under a banyan tree and concentrating? You should
some time try doing it and then comment.
Ganesh
> After all "intuitive revelation" is about as reliable as "anecdotal
> evidence"."
My friend, that is how all these huge books of knowledge you see all
around the world arrived. The laws and formulas written by Einstein,
Galileo, Newton all arrived out of their intuitions after they studied
the books they had with them.
So, what's so super natural in that?
Ganesh
*plain
Ganesh
It does not satisfy me until I am able to reason.
Devils Advocaat
Please remember the person who "discovered" these alleged formulae was
only using the Atharva Veda, and not any of the other three, so your
comment is irrelevant.
Burkhard
Misses the point. You asked me a question, then answered it yourself,
including an unwarranted insult. Care to comment?
Ganesh
care to research, investigate and finally reason lazy. Did I mention
it is you who's doing it?
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
so is yours
Burkhard
> On Jan 1, 1:46�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Jan, 06:33, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 2:07 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Ganesh wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 1, 12:59 am, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Jan 1, 12:25 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:> Well, largely that the sources he claims he is citing are not recorded
> > > > >>> in any other version of the Vedas.
> > > > >> How did you arrive at this conclusion?
> > > > > There are many lazy ppl around in this world. They just conclude
> > > > > without any research, reasoning and investigation.
>
> > > > If you have already found an answer that satisfies you, why ask the
> > > > question in the first place?
>
> > > It does not satisfy me until I am able to reason.
>
> > Misses the point. You asked me a question, then answered it yourself,
> > including an unwarranted insult. Care to comment?
>
> Why did you take that insult onto you?
Because you posted it as answer to your own question to me: 'How did
you arrive at that conclusion"
Which implies that only a lazy person doing no research could reach
it. But I accept your clarification that this is not what you meant
Ganesh
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> And that is fine--it's factual. �But if you want to discuss stories about
> miracles or the doings of supernatural beings, then this isn't about
> mathematics.
Just because you are not able to reason something today, does it mean
that it is incorrect?
Can you give me an example? About what you feel in Vedas, incorrect?
Free Lunch
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Do you have a special, private definition of reason?
Free Lunch
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 1, 2:43�am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
You seem to forget that there was more than mere reasoning. There was
also scientific evidence.
Ganesh
> You seem to forget that there was more than mere reasoning. There was
> also scientific evidence.
Mark Evans
Actually the folks mentioned did not gain "intuitions" from books.
Newton seems to have used observation and thought, Galileo observed
and experimented and old Albert credited his thinking up Relativity to
riding a bicycle. By and large people who make contributions to the
knowledge in the world do so by looking at things and thinking about
them, not by seeking "intuitions" from books.
Mark Evans
Ganesh
> > My friend, that is how all these huge books of knowledge you see all
> > around the world arrived. The laws and formulas written by Einstein,
> > Galileo, Newton all arrived out of their intuitions after they studied
> > the books they had with them.
>
> > So, what's so super natural in that?
>
> Actually the folks mentioned did not gain "intuitions" from books.
> Newton seems to have used observation and thought, Galileo observed
> and experimented and old Albert credited his thinking up Relativity to
> riding a bicycle.
Ok, so, you mean to say, all, Newton, Galileo, Albert were illiterates
when they observed and thought? But, I heard something else.
Ganesh
> Depends a bit to which denomination you belong, and what you count as
> shruti.
Well, I talk to people all around the world today with a mobile phone.
If you had been in AD 200 told that to someone that time they would
possibly hold a view some what similar to what you held now.
Shruti could be someone (GOD) transmitting messages directly to the
sages mind. When you can transmit your message via phone to someone
else ears. May be that time some thing more advanced was devised.
Ganesh
distance. As there were multiple people hearing it. But, how is that
unscientific?
Andre Lieven
No, but you are gaining the appearance of the willful illiterate. By
building Straw Whores out of nothing.
Mark's point was that the fellows such as Newton, et al, did not ONLY
read books and contemplate their navels. Duh.
> But, I heard something else.
Who cares ? You are an idiot, so your "testimony" is worthless.
Andre
Mark Evans
No, they were well educated. What I am saying is that they did not
seek inspiration from what they had read but rather from what they
observed. They looked outward, no inward and did not depend on
recorded wisdom to inspire them.
Mark Evans
Ganesh
> Who cares ? You are an idiot, so your "testimony" is worthless.
learning to reason. But, that does not mean what they are asking is
always irrelevant.
very there are few ppl in the world are careful. anyway now days ppl
don't bother seeing others die why shd i expect good things frm u
Ernest Major
<fa6faf28-9b3a-49aa...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Ganesh <ganeshj...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jan 1, 11:59�pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> Who cares ? You are an idiot, so your "testimony" is worthless.
>Sometimes it is irritating to answer little toddlers who are just
>learning to reason. But, that does not mean what they are asking is
>always irrelevant.
If you could clarify, please - are you claiming to be a toddler, either
literally or figuratively?
>
>very there are few ppl in the world are careful. anyway now days ppl
>don't bother seeing others die why shd i expect good things frm u
>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
gregwrld
I've sat under a banyan tree on
Maui, but just to watch the young
ladies walk by...and meditate on
their geometry.
gregwrld
Burkhard
> On Jan 1, 12:37�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Depends a bit to which denomination you belong, and what you count as
> > shruti.
>
> Well, I talk to people all around the world today with a mobile phone.
> If you had been in AD 200 told that to someone that time they would
> possibly hold a view some what similar to what you held now.
Sure, but so what? You form your opinions on what you know, not what
you might know,
I can speculate no end about things that would make my core beliefs
wrong, e.g. i just "might" be the illegitimate child of Queen
Elizabeth and my parents only adopted me, but as long as I don't have
any reasons to believe this, why should I? The birds eye view is
unattainable and leads ultimately so solipsism.
>
> Shruti could be someone (GOD) transmitting messages directly to the
> sages mind. When you can transmit your message via phone to someone
> else ears. May be that time some thing more advanced was devised.
Ah, nice one, but you took me a bit too literally when I said shruti.
And you snipped a bit too much context to easily reconstruct the
argument: I replied to your statement that the Vedas aren't stories.
I took that you mean the quite reasonable point that much of the four
core Vedas is indeed not best labeled as (descriptive) stories but as
(performative) rituals. I would agree with that, and agree that even
though the concept of "story" as used in certain schools of cultural
studies is broad enough to encompass rituals, I think important
distinctions get lost this way. Of course, as performative rituals,
they t would not even be truth-evaluable, not any more than "I hereby
declare you man and wife" is true or false, but of a different
category entirely.
My point was then simply that different groups within "hinduism" (and
Kalkidas could tell you more about the ahistoricity of that term) have
different ideas of which texts count as shruti and with that part of
the Vedas. The Bhakti movement for instance includes the Sanskrit
epics, which are more obviously of story form than the four core
Vedas, as shruti and hence vedic.
Devils Advocaat
Really?
Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
Or was your last post an evasion of the truth?
el cid
I don't agree with that. A great deal of revolutionary inspiration
comes from more inward introspection than from outward observation.
The key is that the volume of "inspiration" that gets tossed aside
when it's tested against observation is __huge__. I'm not defending
this nonsense about divining mathematical proofs from the Vedas,
but I do think you've confused the inspiration and the confirmation.
Mike Lyle
>
> very there are few ppl in the world are careful. anyway now days ppl
> don't bother seeing others die why shd i expect good things frm u
So I'm all, like, you know, like?
Ths nt txt msgs. This is a Usenet newsgroup, where we generally try to
use real language.
kewl or wot? tia, xox, hand, wwJd?, gb m8, ttfn, cu O.
--
Mike.
Andre Lieven
> On Jan 1, 11:59�pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Who cares ? You are an idiot, so your "testimony" is worthless.
>
> Sometimes it is irritating to answer little toddlers who are just
> learning to reason.
As you show NO sign of trying to learn to reason, such children
are a step above you...
> But, that does not mean what they are asking is always irrelevant.
Some "questions" are stupid.
> very there are few ppl in the world are careful. anyway now days ppl
> don't bother seeing others die why shd i expect good things frm u
Thank you for confirming the fact that you ARE an idiot.
Andre
Ganesh
> > Sometimes it is irritating to answer little toddlers who are just
> > learning to reason.
Well I do not want to learn what you think is appropriate, correct.
I want to learn what is correct. So, this is the area of conflict.
There are two types of learners.
1. They read, understand and accept it as it is. (Who cares type)
2. They read, understand and then digg around a topic until they
actually get it.
I am of the second type.
Ganesh
> On Jan 1, 12:41 am, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 2:43 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed the sixteen
> > > mathematical formulae from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research
> > > surrounding Sringeri.
>
> > How do you and I otherwise reason and arrive at new ideas and
> > conclusions.
>
> > At-least I think, re-think, and keep thinking until I am able to
> > reason maths, science and the logic written in plane English, as even
> > that was tough to understand after all the explanations provided. It
> > is just an ancient Indian way of doing things. Even I for the matter
> > to reason tough-to-understand logical formulas and theorems go to a
> > silent end of the room and where no body will disturb me and break my
> > concentration.
>
> > The Guru has gone to forest to concentrate. Have you ever tried going
> > to a forest, sitting under a banyan tree and concentrating? You should
> > some time try doing it and then comment.
>
> I've sat under a banyan tree on
> Maui, but just to watch the young
> ladies walk by...and meditate on
> their geometry.
distractions.
Ganesh
> On 1 Jan, 18:44, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 12:37 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Depends a bit to which denomination you belong, and what you count as
> > > shruti.
>
> > Well, I talk to people all around the world today with a mobile phone.
> > If you had been in AD 200 told that to someone that time they would
> > possibly hold a view some what similar to what you held now.
>
> Sure, but so what? You form your opinions on what you know, not what
> you might know,
> I can speculate no end about things that would make my core beliefs
> wrong, e.g. i just "might" be the illegitimate child of Queen
> Elizabeth and my parents only adopted me, but as long as I don't have
> any reasons to believe this, why should I? The birds eye view is
> unattainable and leads ultimately so solipsism.
>
confirmation with the available tools in this generation that you are
born to your parents.
Similarly, if Mr. XYZ quote you are an illegitimate child of Queen
Elizabeth, would be an arguable statement. If someone makes such a
stupid, unbelievable statement you are but naturally going to counter
argue. You will ask him the reason he says so. You would surely ask
Mr. XYZ for the proofs. And, if Mr. XYZ does not have them, you know
what to call him.
****Would you accept Mr. XYZ's statement just because he thinks so?
In the case I presented
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony very apparently thinks so...
He does not have anything to back his statement. He has not put any
efforts to experiment to reach the conclusion.
Andre Lieven
> On Jan 2, 9:05 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Sometimes it is irritating to answer little toddlers who are just
> > > learning to reason.
>
> Well I do not want to learn what you think is appropriate, correct.
Clearly, you cannot even face it, because you edited out
EVERYTHING that I wrote. So, you're a weaseling and
dishonest kook.
So, this is just more of you wanking off.
> I want to learn what is correct.
Lie.
> So, this is the area of conflict.
Lie.
> There are two types of learners.
>
> 1. They read, understand and accept it as it is. (Who cares type)
> 2. They read, understand and then digg around a topic until they
> actually get it.
>
> I am of the second type.
Lie.
You're just a willfully ignorant moron who uses a few Big Words
that he doesn't understand, to try to fool others into believing that
he is not the fool that he is.
"Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me
correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The
central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the
London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all
mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/quotes
Otto is smarter than you...
Andre
Ganesh
> On Jan 1, 11:37�pm, Ganesh <grossly-dishon...@kook.nut> masturbated:
>
> > On Jan 2, 9:05 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Sometimes it is irritating to answer little toddlers who are just
> > > > learning to reason.
>
> > Well I do not want to learn what you think is appropriate, correct.
>
> Clearly, you cannot even face it, because you edited out
> EVERYTHING that I wrote. So, you're a weaseling and
> dishonest kook.
>
> So, this is just more of you wanking off.
>
> > I want to learn what is correct.
>
> Lie.
>
> > So, this is the area of conflict.
>
> Lie.
OMG, there are so many who conclude without reasoning.
>
> > There are two types of learners.
>
> > 1. They read, understand and accept it as it is. (Who cares type)
> > 2. They read, understand and then digg around a topic until they
> > actually get it.
>
> > I am of the second type.
>
> Lie.
OMG, there are so many who conclude without reasoning.
>
> You're just a willfully ignorant moron who uses a few Big Words
> that he doesn't understand, to try to fool others into believing that
> he is not the fool that he is.
>
> "Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
> Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me
> correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The
> central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the
> London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all
> mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
>
> http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/quotes
>
> Otto is smarter than you...
I really cannot comment about that. He could be smarter. Only GOD
knows the truth for sure.
Andre Lieven
> On Jan 2, 10:11�am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:37�pm, Ganesh <grossly-dishon...@kook.nut> masturbated:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 9:05 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sometimes it is irritating to answer little toddlers who are just
> > > > > learning to reason.
>
> > > Well I do not want to learn what you think is appropriate, correct.
>
> > Clearly, you cannot even face it, because you edited out
> > EVERYTHING that I wrote. So, you're a weaseling and
> > dishonest kook.
>
> > So, this is just more of you wanking off.
>
> > > I want to learn what is correct.
>
> > Lie.
>
> OMG, there are so many who conclude without reasoning.
Like you...
> > > So, this is the area of conflict.
>
> > Lie.
>
> OMG, there are so many who conclude without reasoning.
Like you...
> > > There are two types of learners.
>
> > > 1. They read, understand and accept it as it is. (Who cares type)
> > > 2. They read, understand and then digg around a topic until they
> > > actually get it.
>
> > > I am of the second type.
>
> > Lie.
>
> OMG, there are so many who conclude without reasoning.
Like you...
> > You're just a willfully ignorant moron who uses a few Big Words
> > that he doesn't understand, to try to fool others into believing that
> > he is not the fool that he is.
>
> > "Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
> > Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me
> > correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The
> > central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the
> > London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all
> > mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
>
> >http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/quotes
>
> > Otto is smarter than you...
>
> I really cannot comment about that. He could be smarter.
He is, and he was stupid. That makes you stupider than stupid.
> Only GOD knows the truth for sure.
"OMG, there are so many who conclude without reasoning."
Please present your testable objective evidence for this being
here:
<foot tapping>
None EVER offered ? Bullshit fact-free nutjob claim always fails.
Andre
Burkhard
> On Jan 2, 1:08 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Jan, 18:44, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 12:37 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Sure, but so what? You form your opinions on what you know, not what
> > you might know,
> > I can speculate no end about things that would make my core beliefs
> > wrong, e.g. i just "might" be the illegitimate child of Queen
> > Elizabeth and my parents only adopted me, but as long as I don't have
> > any reasons to believe this, why should I? The birds eye view is
> > unattainable and leads ultimately so solipsism.
>
> You can get your genes tested for that reason. You would get a
> confirmation with the available tools in this generation that you are
> born to your parents.
>
But do you do that? Did you really test for your DNA before you
started to accept that you are your parents child? Now some of our
more extreme atheists seem indeed to think that this would be the only
way for you to rationally accept that you are your parent's child
(otherwise, they'd dismiss it without evidence since no evidence eas
offered etc) I think that is ridiculous. Unless I have specific
reasons to believe I'm adopted, I presume I'm not (in technical terms,
this is called "autoepistemic reasoning, a form of default reasoning -
unless given reasons to the contrary, I assume taht my current beliefs
are correct)
Same here: unless there are positive reasons t believe that some
extremely unusual events happened in the distant past without leaving
obvious physical traces, I proceed under the assumption these are
(just) stories - but of course, if someone else gives me good reasons
to reconsider, I will do so.
> Similarly, if Mr. XYZ quote you are an illegitimate child of Queen
> Elizabeth, would be an arguable statement. If someone makes such a
> stupid, unbelievable statement you are but naturally going to counter
> argue. You will ask him the reason he says so. You would surely ask
> Mr. XYZ for the proofs. And, if Mr. XYZ does not have them, you know
> what to call him.
>
> ****Would you accept Mr. XYZ's statement just because he thinks so?
>
Indeed not - and that answers really your question, doesn't it?
Someone who claims that I'm the son of Elizabeth needs to give me good
reasons to believe him. This despite the fact that of course monarchs
having extramarital affairs is a documented occurrence, it happens,
as does having commoners bringing up these illegitimate children. So
if even a mundane claim like this requires the person making it to
give evidence, how much more should someone who claims that he is
"driving in a coach, driven by a thousand white and purple horses."
It is not my job to look after the remains of this coach, or for
evidence of purple horses, or test if such a coach could be driven at
all. Unless you give me better reasons than someone's say so, I'm
entitled to read this as symbolic, mythological etc.
> In the case I presented
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony very apparently thinks so...
>
> He does not have anything to back his statement. He has not put any
> efforts to experiment to reach the conclusion.
See above. Not his task, not any more than it is mine to rule out that
I'm Elisabeth' son.
But apart from that, you also misread his book. It is not a study that
has as an outcome the claim that the Vedas are (only) myth. He is a
linguist by training, and hence his interest and field of studies are
the Vedas as text only - for reality outside the text, you need
archeologists, biologists etc In the same way a psychologist can study
your beliefs and analyse how they motivate yuo, without having to ask
if they are correct or incorrect beliefs. So it is a methodological
choice, not the outcome of an argument, to study the Vedas as a
mythological account, and the arguments he made are of the form: this
is what the text says about Vayu etc. An approach that generated
considerable insights into the semantic of pre-classical Sanskrit ,
the identity of various deities etc etc
David Iain Greig
> On Jan 1, 12:18�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Yes? While this is _one_ meaning of myth,as John showed it is not the
>> only one, and not the one used by linguist of history �scholars like
>> Macdonell (some sociologists may use it in the second meaning)
>
> Yes, but Vedas are not stories.
And math isn't a science. So however much math there may be in
the Vedas, it's math, not particle physics.
--D.
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 1, 12:18�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:22 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Dec 31, 5:51 am, Ganesh <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> I was studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
> > >>> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1995). Vedic Mythology. Delhi: Motilal
> > >>> Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1113-5.
> > >>> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony calls Vedas and other religions Hindu text
> > >>> myth and stories on this own accord. He does not give any scientific
> > >>> backings, and research for the same. Are, these researches valid? B'se
> > >>> it looks like the author is calling them, myth on his own accord
> > >>> B'se based on these, Religions texts have been termed myth and
> > >>> mythology.
> > >> Dear Ganesh,
>
> > >> The term "myth" is only derogatory in definition 2 below. So, yes the
> > >> Vedas
> > >> are myth or mytho-historical.
>
> > >> 1. (noun) myth
> > >> a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world
> > >> view of a people
>
> > >> Definitions of 'myth' � Webster 1913 Dictionary
>
> > >> 1. (noun) myth
> > >> a story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief
> > >> regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often
> > >> the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient
> > >> legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of
> > >> prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as
> > >> historical
>
> > >> 2. (noun) myth
> > >> a person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual
> > >> existence is not verifiable
>
> > >http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myth
> > > "a widely held but false belief"
>
> > Yes? While this is _one_ meaning of myth,as John showed it is not the
> > only one, and not the one used by linguist of history �scholars like
> > Macdonell (some sociologists may use it in the second meaning)
>
> Yes, but Vedas are not stories.
That is true, in as much as the Rig Veda is a collection of hymns, the
Yajur Veda contains mantras for specific rituals, the Sama Veda
contains another collection of hymns (all but 75 taken from the Rig
Veda), and the Atharva Veda contains spells, incantations, stories,
predictions, charms against evil, and some speculative hymns.
But are they historical accounts that can be verified by the writings
of other contemporary civilizations?
Do they contain anything remotely resembling mathematical formulae?
Those are questions that really only the experts in such matters can
answer.
Cory Albrecht
> I was studying http://books.google.com/books?id=b7Meabtj8mcC&
>
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1995). Vedic Mythology. Delhi: Motilal
> Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1113-5.
>
> Macdonell, Arthur Anthony calls Vedas and other religions Hindu text
> myth and stories on this own accord. He does not give any scientific
> backings, and research for the same. Are, these researches valid? B'se
> it looks like the author is calling them, myth on his own accord
>
> B'se based on these, Religions texts have been termed myth and
> mythology.
>
Are you familiar with the concept of "burden of proof", Ganesh?
In this particular case it means that that those who claim that Vedic
mythology is true and historical have the responsibility to provide
evidence that it actually happened.
Until then, the default position is, yes, that it is simply mythology.
The same goes for any religion, including my own.
Ganesh
> Are you familiar with the concept of "burden of proof", Ganesh?
Exactly this is what I am trying to get to, on what proof do you claim
Vedas, or for the matter even "Writings in Vedas" to be just stories
(mythology)? Do you have a proof for it? Did you put efforts to find
out if they were just stories?
Again, I am repeating what I've already asked before, is someone here
following the latest findings w.r.t facts in Vedas? If Yes, what all
in the Vedas did the current world find 100% correct?
Again, I do not care what the people around the world call the Vedas.
For me Vedas are real, because that is what my elders have told me.
@Burkhard said:-
"But do you do that? Did you really test for your DNA before you
started to accept that you are your parents child? Now some of our
more extreme atheists seem indeed to think that this would be the
only
way for you to rationally accept that you are your parent's child
(otherwise, they'd dismiss it without evidence since no evidence eas
offered etc) I think that is ridiculous. Unless I have specific
reasons to believe I'm adopted, I presume I'm not (in technical
terms,
this is called "autoepistemic reasoning, a form of default reasoning
-
unless given reasons to the contrary, I assume taht my current
beliefs
are correct)"
Exactly the same way I have been told by my parents, my elders, my
teachers, and all those who live about me that Vedas were told to
risis who were our ancestors, and this is continued for generations.
And for that matter what is the reason for me to question them?
Burkhard
> On Jan 3, 5:51 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you familiar with the concept of "burden of proof", Ganesh?
>
> Exactly this is what I am trying to get to, on what proof do you claim
> Vedas, or for the matter even "Writings in Vedas" to be �just stories
> (mythology)? Do you have a proof for it? Did you put efforts to find
> out if they were just stories?
>
> Again, I am repeating what I've already asked before, is someone here
> in the Vedas did the current world find 100% correct?
Your assumption is that there is a research programme that addresses
this issue. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't - if for no other
reason that there is an insufficient notion of what that would
actually mean. what empirical facts would you be looking for? A
really big trishula with Ganesha's DNA still on it? Some Christian
fringe groups try to do this type of "empirical validation" for the
bible, but never get very far (and are far from representative even
for Christianity) Most others seem to have the good sense not to
approach their sacred texts in that materialistic way.
Personally, that seems to me very wise What would the historicity of
any of these texts show? They would just be some other thigs that
happened, like all of history. Even lion prides (or any other animal
of course) have history in that sense at one point, this lion was
alpha male, later another. Stories on the other hand are uniquely
human, and in my view much more valuable and interesting than mere
facts about the past - it is just important not to confuse the two and
their respective claims.
>
> Again, I do not care what the people around the world call the Vedas.
> For me Vedas are real, because that is what my elders have told me.
>
> @Burkhard said:-
> "But do you do that? Did you really test for your DNA before you
> started to accept that you are your parents child? Now some of our
> more extreme atheists seem indeed to think that this would be the
> only
> way for you to rationally accept that you are your parent's child
> (otherwise, they'd dismiss it without evidence since no evidence eas
> offered etc) I think that is ridiculous. Unless I have specific
> reasons to believe I'm adopted, I presume I'm not (in technical
> terms,
> this is called "autoepistemic reasoning, a form of default reasoning
> -
> unless given reasons to the contrary, I assume taht my current
> beliefs
> are correct)"
>
> Exactly the same way I have been told by my parents, my elders, my
> teachers, and all those who live about me that Vedas were told to
> risis who were our ancestors, and this is continued for generations.
> And for that matter what is the reason for me to question them?
To some extend you are right. "burden of proof" isnt' necessarily a
"hard and fast' rule, and what seems extraordinary and in need of
evidence for one can seem common as muck for the other.
However:
What is your reason to believe them? Now, in my scenario, the issue at
stake is if the person I know as "mother" is really my mother. She is
"in a position to know" (Douglas N. Walton: Appeal to expert opinion:
arguments from authority 1997) which makes her a trustworthy expert on
the circumstances of my birth unless proven otherwise. ut your
parents or grandparents are of course not in a better position than
you to vouch for the accuracy of the Vedas.
Second, we know from everyday experience that in the majority of cases
(though not all, and probably more than people think) the person who
claims to be your parents are your parents. It is common and to
extraordinary, and hence the "challenger" has the burden of proof.
Thousand purple horses (OK, 500 purple and 500 white ones) drawing the
coach of a deity by contrast is not something we see every day, it is
in that sense "extraordinary" and hence the rational assumption is to
put the burden on the claimant.
Third, my argument about te legitimacy of my birth are culturally
invariant, that is I can communicate them to people from a huge
variety of backgrounds, and they will understand why my belief is
reasonable. However, the only reason you consider the Vedas, and
not say the Bible reliable is the culture you grew up in. But apart
from that , you could ask your question of course just as well as far
the Greek gods are concerned.
All this indicates that the burden of proof, and in fact also the
burden to come with specific enough claims to be even testable in
principle, lies with the one who claims their historic accuracy. (and
see above, why anyone would even want to claim that beats me, it looks
like "greedy materialism" to me. )
Cory Albrecht
> On Jan 3, 5:51 am, Cory Albrecht<coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Are you familiar with the concept of "burden of proof", Ganesh?
>
> Exactly this is what I am trying to get to, on what proof do you claim
> Vedas, or for the matter even "Writings in Vedas" to be just stories
> (mythology)? Do you have a proof for it? Did you put efforts to find
> out if they were just stories?
Then you obviously do not understand the concept of burden of proof,
even though you are aware of it's existence. Otherwise, why would you
have unmarkedly snipped this rather important part of what I said (which
I now replace):
>>In this particular case it means that that those who claim that Vedic
>>mythology is true and historical have the responsibility to provide
>>evidence that it actually happened.
If I say that leprechauns exist, when you challenge me on that I don't
get to say "Prove that leprechauns do not exist" and then claim victory
when you cannot prove a negative. Rather, if I make that claim then it
is my responsibility to provide evidence for the existence of leprechauns.
Similarly, if you want to claim that the Vedas are factually and
historically accurate then it is your responsibility to provide evidence
for that historicity. You do not get to retort "Prove they aren't
historical".
You are the claimant, therefore the burden of proof lies with you, not
with me to disprove your claim.
>>Until then, the default position is, yes, that it is simply mythology.
>>The same goes for any religion, including my own.
>
> Again, I am repeating what I've already asked before, is someone here
> following the latest findings w.r.t facts in Vedas? If Yes, what all
> in the Vedas did the current world find 100% correct?
You are the claimant, not us, therefore it is up to you to show the
accuracy of what is in the Veda. However, note that showing that one of
the Vedas has a reasonable accurate formula for π is not the same a
providing evidence that Indra exists.
>
> Again, I do not care what the people around the world call the Vedas.
> For me Vedas are real, because that is what my elders have told me.
Do you just blindly accept everything that your elders tell you, with
without question?
Do you not ask for evidence? Do you not examine their opinions for
biases and flaws in reasoning? Do you test what they say against reality
and verifiable facts?
>
> @Burkhard said:-
> "But do you do that? Did you really test for your DNA before you
> started to accept that you are your parents child? Now some of our
> more extreme atheists seem indeed to think that this would be the
> only
> way for you to rationally accept that you are your parent's child
> (otherwise, they'd dismiss it without evidence since no evidence eas
> offered etc) I think that is ridiculous. Unless I have specific
> reasons to believe I'm adopted, I presume I'm not (in technical
> terms,
> this is called "autoepistemic reasoning, a form of default reasoning
> -
> unless given reasons to the contrary, I assume taht my current
> beliefs
> are correct)"
>
> Exactly the same way I have been told by my parents, my elders, my
> teachers, and all those who live about me that Vedas were told to
> risis who were our ancestors, and this is continued for generations.
> And for that matter what is the reason for me to question them?
Do you always accept things blindly, just because they have been told
for generations?
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. perhaps you need to look up why.
Ye Old One
A good point.
I questioned my religious beliefs when I found the in conflict with
science. Which was correct, religion or science?
I questioned my science teachers. They were not, of course,
all-knowing, so they did not answer every question I raised, but they
did often point me in the direction to find out. They explained that
the scientific view of the universe could be seen as a set of many
inter-related models. From the Big Bang to Evolution, from Chemistry
to Particle Physics and many, many points in between.
I questioned my religious teachers, including a Bishop of the Church
Of England. Other than quoting the bible to me, and I had already
worked out that a lot of that was just fiction, all they could say was
"You have got to have faith." To me than stank, it was pure
unadulterated bullcrap. Faith is, to me, defined as a belief in
something for which there is no evidence. I still, to this day, over
40 years later, cannot understand how someone can exhibit this thing
called faith. I further cannot understand how anyone can believe that
bronze age texts can beat modern science.
--
Bob.
There are two rules for ultimate success in life.
The first is - Never tell everything you know.
Ganesh
I do not know, how much of Vedas have you read. What ever I've read
looks flawless to me and that is the very reason my increase in faith
about it.
The science it has, the mathematics it has, the ethics it teaches, the
personality building exercises it has, the talks about human biology.
What ever is discussed does not have a flaw even w.r.t modern science.
That is the reason I am talking all this to you. So, if something is
that clear, it would be shocking to hear otherwise.
That is the very reason for me to be asking what scientific evidences
did the Vedas fail on. Did it have anything substantially negative
against it, for it to be called a story?
Ye Old One
I've read quite a bit, but that was some years ago. Of course, all
believers in whatever religion believe theirs is the flawless one. It
is easy to drive a coach and horses through any religious work because
every one requires faith.
>
>The science it has, the mathematics it has, the ethics it teaches, the
>personality building exercises it has, the talks about human biology.
>What ever is discussed does not have a flaw even w.r.t modern science.
>That is the reason I am talking all this to you. So, if something is
>that clear, it would be shocking to hear otherwise.
But don't you see other religions making the same claims?
All religions, without exception, are the invention of man.
>
>That is the very reason for me to be asking what scientific evidences
>did the Vedas fail on. Did it have anything substantially negative
>against it, for it to be called a story?
It is called a story because it is not history, it is not based on
fact.
--
Bob.
Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard all this bull before.
Kermit
I think you misunderstand the nature of the word "myth". This is easy
to do, for most native speakers of English misuse it. "Myth" (or
mythology) is a story or group of stories that a people (a culture)
tell to explain their place in the world, and their purpose. It has
not traditionally been intended to be scientific or historical; I'm
not sure people had the modern concepts of those until a few
generations ago.
I am not one who studies myths, but I am under the impression that
those who do would not typically refer to any group of them as "just
myths". English speaking Christians learned of older European myths,
and since those were "false" religions, in common usage "myth" has
become synonymous with lie or fantasy, but that is incorrect.
Most education people, even in America, are aware of the great
contributions to math that India has presented to the world. But the
general population here in the US are not. As a child I was told
modern math used "Arabian numerals". They of course came to Europe
from Arabia, which in turn learned them from India - but I only found
that out later.
Myth is not a pejorative, but neither does that mean they are
literally true. A materialistic reading of any myth, I think, misses
the point.
Literalist Hinduism would be as sad as literalist Christianity. Do the
Vedas say that humans are 200,000 to 5,000,000 years old (depending on
what you mean by "human"), and evolved from very different animals
over time? If they say otherwise, you are in the unenviable position
of claiming they are scientific but having to deny verifiable
evidence.
I have read neither the Vedas nor Macdonell, so I have no opinion on
the OP.
Kermit
Ganesh
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:58:12 -0800 (PST), Ganesh
evidence... my friend how did you arrive at this inference?
Ganesh
> I think you misunderstand the nature of the word "myth". This is easy
> to do, for most native speakers of English misuse it. "Myth" (or
> mythology) is a story or group of stories that a people (a culture)
> tell to explain their place in the world, and their purpose. It has
> not traditionally been intended to be scientific or historical; I'm
> not sure people had the modern concepts of those until a few
> generations ago.
Kermit, have you heard "cooking up a story" the term story is not
generally used with truth. Where as some stories can be adopted from
real life incident. But again, a story is a story, it is not real. It
has been quiet some time, no one came with substantial evidences
against the Vedas. Looks like some authors just cooked up a story that
Vedas were just stories. B'se now when I'm asking evidence for the
same, no one seems to have it. So, looks very apparent that
researchers just cooked a story that Vedas are just myth.
Ye Old One
When I discovered christianity was a hoax, and yes, that is exactly
what it is. I did set our to look at other religions. I had a good
friend at school who was a Hindu so I started there, it was not long
before that was dismissed, far to divorced from reality. Islam was
quickly rejected as it was based on the same ideas as christianity.
Ditto Mormonism which is even dafter, and even Judaism fails because
of the clear lies of the Old Testament.
Many religions have good ideas at their core, but shrouding them in
lies and fiction makes them worthless.
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
If you don't like the word "myth", that's your problem -- yours alone,
having nothing to do with anyone else. "Myth" is a compliment.
If I really wanted to put down the Vedas (or other mythology) and
emphasize their worthlessness to people today, I would call them "just
historical fact."
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume