Hi,
Take a look at this article,its open for discussion and review :
http://www.rense.com/general58/moon.htm
--Zion--
Take a look at this article,its open for discussion and review :
http://www.rense.com/general58/moon.htm
--Zion--
Did Man reach Moon Thousands of Years Ago?
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
Let me be the first to say...
Yes.
Humans could travel to the moon thousands of years ago. There is no doubt about it. Anyone who disagrees is closed minded and cannot accept the true possibilities of life and the universe.
Rense.com offers the most objective and undeniable evidence.
Yes.
Humans could travel to the moon thousands of years ago. There is no doubt about it. Anyone who disagrees is closed minded and cannot accept the true possibilities of life and the universe.
Rense.com offers the most objective and undeniable evidence.
Pseudoscientific bunk.
The alleged author, John Winston, includes several footnote markers but no footnotes. This is curious.
Regardless, his 2nd footnote is doubtless a weak inference of the Mahabharata, since the alleged author mentions James Churchward, author of The Lost Continent of Mu. In that book, Churchward claims that the title continent existed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in antiquity and was sunk by a giant tidal wave. This hypothesis has long since been falsified by modern geology, but he also makes correlations of passages in the Ramayana and Mahabharata with flying "chariots" and called them "early scientific wonders."
It's fascinating the amount of time people spend applying the wisdom of the ancients fallacy to modern mythologies. That we even apply our own values and norms to the societies of proto-historic cultures is a fallacy in itself. The Mahabharata, like many other ancient texts, tablets, and inscriptions, comes from a society that had a vastly different worldview than any modern societies or cultures.
In today's Western society, in particular, we see science as being able to achieve miracles, perhaps rightly so. But this creates a bias in our thinking that wants to solve problems of traveling in the sky or space with rocket ships, flying saucers, anti-gravity machines, or jets aircraft. We see mass destruction of a city as being capable with atomic weaponry and particle beam weapons as probable armaments.
So when we get a piece of ancient text, like the Mahabharata, that speaks of the powers of gods, we dismiss the idea that "gods" existed and that these powers must have been "ancient science."
The baloney of the matter isn't that gods existed and that they bore their wrath down on their enemies or the enemies of their chosen people. It isn't that the gods were too holy to travel on the mere dirt of humans and rode their chariots in the sky. The stories of the powers of gods aren't the baloney because we recognize that these gods didn't exist beyond the imaginations of men. Yet we are so willing to accept that these men had atomic weaponry, particle beam weapons, and aircraft?
When people of antiquity made attempts to explain the universe in their early worldviews, they accepted that there were some basic places of existence: and underworld, a middle world, and higher world. The underworld was the realm of evil, demons, and general bad guys for many societies. The higher world was the province of gods and other divine beings. The middle world was the familiar world - Earth; the realm they could see, hear, touch and taste. When gods visited, they did so in full glory of their position.
The ziggurat excavated at Ur had grand staircases leading to the "place on high" where the actual sanctuary was kept. The Babylonian epic of creation is titled the Enuma Elish, which means "when on high." In Turkey, the Yazilikaya, a temple of the Hittites, clearly shows the gods traveling on the backs of animals or standing on mountains. Even ancient images of Vishnu show him elevated above mortals or lesser deities on pedestals. When gods travel, their chariots do not touch the ground.
But their chariots are no more real than they are.
The Rense.com link provided above is probably informational fraud. If not, who is Duparc and where are these "documents?"
The alleged author, John Winston, includes several footnote markers but no footnotes. This is curious.
Regardless, his 2nd footnote is doubtless a weak inference of the Mahabharata, since the alleged author mentions James Churchward, author of The Lost Continent of Mu. In that book, Churchward claims that the title continent existed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in antiquity and was sunk by a giant tidal wave. This hypothesis has long since been falsified by modern geology, but he also makes correlations of passages in the Ramayana and Mahabharata with flying "chariots" and called them "early scientific wonders."
It's fascinating the amount of time people spend applying the wisdom of the ancients fallacy to modern mythologies. That we even apply our own values and norms to the societies of proto-historic cultures is a fallacy in itself. The Mahabharata, like many other ancient texts, tablets, and inscriptions, comes from a society that had a vastly different worldview than any modern societies or cultures.
In today's Western society, in particular, we see science as being able to achieve miracles, perhaps rightly so. But this creates a bias in our thinking that wants to solve problems of traveling in the sky or space with rocket ships, flying saucers, anti-gravity machines, or jets aircraft. We see mass destruction of a city as being capable with atomic weaponry and particle beam weapons as probable armaments.
So when we get a piece of ancient text, like the Mahabharata, that speaks of the powers of gods, we dismiss the idea that "gods" existed and that these powers must have been "ancient science."
The baloney of the matter isn't that gods existed and that they bore their wrath down on their enemies or the enemies of their chosen people. It isn't that the gods were too holy to travel on the mere dirt of humans and rode their chariots in the sky. The stories of the powers of gods aren't the baloney because we recognize that these gods didn't exist beyond the imaginations of men. Yet we are so willing to accept that these men had atomic weaponry, particle beam weapons, and aircraft?
When people of antiquity made attempts to explain the universe in their early worldviews, they accepted that there were some basic places of existence: and underworld, a middle world, and higher world. The underworld was the realm of evil, demons, and general bad guys for many societies. The higher world was the province of gods and other divine beings. The middle world was the familiar world - Earth; the realm they could see, hear, touch and taste. When gods visited, they did so in full glory of their position.
The ziggurat excavated at Ur had grand staircases leading to the "place on high" where the actual sanctuary was kept. The Babylonian epic of creation is titled the Enuma Elish, which means "when on high." In Turkey, the Yazilikaya, a temple of the Hittites, clearly shows the gods traveling on the backs of animals or standing on mountains. Even ancient images of Vishnu show him elevated above mortals or lesser deities on pedestals. When gods travel, their chariots do not touch the ground.
But their chariots are no more real than they are.
The Rense.com link provided above is probably informational fraud. If not, who is Duparc and where are these "documents?"
I'd agree there's a huge amount of archaeology which is hidden/lied about/destroyed because it doesn't fit in to the mould of what is expected from so-called 'primitive' societies. Also, I'd agree that alien races have very likely arrived in our system many times in the past, and are still doing so (though with rather more caution than previously). It's also extremely likely they gave us more than a bit of help to get where we are--shades of Arthur Clark's 2001. Therefore it wouldn't surprize me that the aliens took humans to the moon with them, or into space, and the stories grew from there.
It occurs to me that during the ice age, which lasted for some 50-60,000 years, humans were just as intelligent as we are now, and just as capable of producing world-spanning civilizations and great technology. The trouble of course is that at the end of the ice age, there were tremendous coastal inundations (the ice age ended in three major episodes of flooding). If you wanted to hide a widespread ancient coastal civilization completely, you couldn't do much better than hide it in the 120 metres of water that have been added to the world's sea level between 12-6000 BC. What will people know of our civilization in ten thousand years time, if we succeed in drowning our cities and towns sometime in the next couple of centuries? Our culture will be reduced to a shadowland of legend as well.
It occurs to me that during the ice age, which lasted for some 50-60,000 years, humans were just as intelligent as we are now, and just as capable of producing world-spanning civilizations and great technology. The trouble of course is that at the end of the ice age, there were tremendous coastal inundations (the ice age ended in three major episodes of flooding). If you wanted to hide a widespread ancient coastal civilization completely, you couldn't do much better than hide it in the 120 metres of water that have been added to the world's sea level between 12-6000 BC. What will people know of our civilization in ten thousand years time, if we succeed in drowning our cities and towns sometime in the next couple of centuries? Our culture will be reduced to a shadowland of legend as well.
Xylene said:
Why would you agree to that? What observations have led you to believe this?
Xylene said:
Why would this be "very likely?" The probability that other civilizations exist in the universe is high if we are to accept the Drake equation (I do), but the probability that they have visited our meager planet is extremely low. Mostly due to problems associated with travel (resources, fuel, distance, etc.).
Xylene said:
According to the archaeological record, there would have been no need. Evolution managed just fine.
Xylene said:
Such a half-baked notion certainly wouldn't surprise anyone so willing to accept science-fiction as science-fact the way you appear to.
Xylene said:
Doubtless, civilizations were affected by rising sea levels, but these sea levels didn't rise over night! It took years... plenty of time for pre-historic man to pick up his things and technology and move. Humans were as intelligent then as we are now, but we weren't as knowlegeable. Intelligence alone cannot create technology, it takes observation, experimentation, and the ability to record the knowlege for future generations. This is why we can track the steady evolution of technology since the beginning of writing, which occurred as far back as perhaps 3500 BCE.
SkinWalker said:
I disagree; the geological events that accompanied the collapse of the major ice-sheets were catastrophic. There is evidence in Scandanavia, for example, that the shifting of the crust following the collapse of the Finno-Scandian icesheet produced earthquakes so powerful that they fractured the crust through its entire thickness. Also, the floods following these ice-sheet collapses were amazingly quick in their effects. I reccomend you read the book 'Eden in the East' which gives a good description of the three major flood events which followed the end of the ice age.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This suggests that you do not understand the Drake equation. The primary purpose of the equation was to identify those factors which would control the number of civilisations in the Galaxy or Universe. This was to facilitate discussion of the topic. Actual calculation of numbers was a decidedly secondary function.SkinWalker said:
Depending upon what values you choose as constants in the equation the number of civilisations can be vanshingly small, or mind-boggingly large. In the same way the probability that we have been visited may be very high. Interstellar travel will not be a problem to a Kardashev Type II civilisation.
Xylene said:
Localized catastrophes in no way implies that all of Earth's civilizations experienced the same effects. The geologic and archaeologic records are quite clear. Most of the sea level changes took place over many years.
LightOfErindir
Registered Member
I would like to clarify that Mahabharat is NOT a myth...here are the arguments for its truth.
1. It has been written in the epic from time to time that Mahabharat is a "itihas" which exclusively means "thus occured". The words "Puraan" and "Itihas" were specifically coined by the Arya people to catagorize the "ancient" and "recent" events. Both the words denote history that has occured at different times.
2. It is mentioned in Aadiparva, Adhyaya 62 that the annals of the Bharat-Dynasty are recorded in the work.
3. It has been clearly stated in the Aadiparva, Bheeshmaparva etc. that this is "itihas". If the intentions of the writer were to write a poem or a work of fiction, he would have stated it to be a "mahakavya" or "katha".
4. The dynasties recorded in the Ramayan and the Mahabharat concur without a difference. Even the relations between different kings and their dynasties in both the great "epics" match with each other. If both were mere "epics" written by two entirely different at two different times, why would everything match even upto minor details ?
Mahabharat is of a later date than the Ramayan. Why would the author of the Mahabharat borrow the same ideas and characters as those of the author of Ramayan ?
5. The description of such myriad of characters is astonishing. It is impossible for one single-mind to be the genesis of that number of personality-types. It could only be true if the Mahabharat is the recording of a real-life drama.
I agree this argument is rather weak ... but nevertheless..it makes the point clearer.
6. The time and place of events have been accurately recorded. All such recordings are redudant for a "Maha-kavya".
7. Vyas mentions to have written this "itihas" after the death of King Dhrutarashtra. Why would he write so ? Did Shakespeare say that he wrote "Hamlet" after the death of Hamlet himself ?
Why would he write that he is writing this scripture after the death of a mythical(?) character in the story?
8. The Greek historian Megasthenes has stated that Chandragupta Maurya was the 138 King in the lineage of Shri Krishna. This means that Shri Krishna did exist in the bygone era and that Mahabharat did really occur.
9. Archaeological excations has discovered the submerged city of Dwaraka. This is the same Dwaraka as mentioned in the Mahabharat. [ The city of Dwaraka has been reckoned to have drowned in between 2000-3000 B.C.]
10. The astronomical recordings in the Mahabharat "epic" and other scriptures (Bhagwat), given the correct positions of the planets and stars during that time.
Not to mention... all the events interpolated with the help of these observations tally very closely with the mentioned time spans in the epic.
Why would anyone make meticulous mathematical calculations to write a myth?
I can provide u with details of the calculations and the exact scripture notes if u want.
Thus there is no doubt that MahaBharata DID occurr. It is NOT a myth.
U may use this fact as u wish.
I leave the conclusions based on this to u.
1. It has been written in the epic from time to time that Mahabharat is a "itihas" which exclusively means "thus occured". The words "Puraan" and "Itihas" were specifically coined by the Arya people to catagorize the "ancient" and "recent" events. Both the words denote history that has occured at different times.
2. It is mentioned in Aadiparva, Adhyaya 62 that the annals of the Bharat-Dynasty are recorded in the work.
3. It has been clearly stated in the Aadiparva, Bheeshmaparva etc. that this is "itihas". If the intentions of the writer were to write a poem or a work of fiction, he would have stated it to be a "mahakavya" or "katha".
4. The dynasties recorded in the Ramayan and the Mahabharat concur without a difference. Even the relations between different kings and their dynasties in both the great "epics" match with each other. If both were mere "epics" written by two entirely different at two different times, why would everything match even upto minor details ?
Mahabharat is of a later date than the Ramayan. Why would the author of the Mahabharat borrow the same ideas and characters as those of the author of Ramayan ?
5. The description of such myriad of characters is astonishing. It is impossible for one single-mind to be the genesis of that number of personality-types. It could only be true if the Mahabharat is the recording of a real-life drama.
I agree this argument is rather weak ... but nevertheless..it makes the point clearer.
6. The time and place of events have been accurately recorded. All such recordings are redudant for a "Maha-kavya".
7. Vyas mentions to have written this "itihas" after the death of King Dhrutarashtra. Why would he write so ? Did Shakespeare say that he wrote "Hamlet" after the death of Hamlet himself ?
Why would he write that he is writing this scripture after the death of a mythical(?) character in the story?
8. The Greek historian Megasthenes has stated that Chandragupta Maurya was the 138 King in the lineage of Shri Krishna. This means that Shri Krishna did exist in the bygone era and that Mahabharat did really occur.
9. Archaeological excations has discovered the submerged city of Dwaraka. This is the same Dwaraka as mentioned in the Mahabharat. [ The city of Dwaraka has been reckoned to have drowned in between 2000-3000 B.C.]
10. The astronomical recordings in the Mahabharat "epic" and other scriptures (Bhagwat), given the correct positions of the planets and stars during that time.
Not to mention... all the events interpolated with the help of these observations tally very closely with the mentioned time spans in the epic.
Why would anyone make meticulous mathematical calculations to write a myth?
I can provide u with details of the calculations and the exact scripture notes if u want.
Thus there is no doubt that MahaBharata DID occurr. It is NOT a myth.
U may use this fact as u wish.
I leave the conclusions based on this to u.
LightOfErindir said:
If its truth required "argument," then the literal truth of the Mahabharata wouldn't be debatable, would it?
LightOfErindir said:
The Egyptian story of the Deliverance of Mankind from Destruction begins with "{I}t happened that... Re, the god who came into being by himself..." and that same opening paragraph concludes that Re's bones were of silver and his flesh was of gold. If we accept that all stories that provide their own assurances of truth are, indeed, true, are we to believe that there existed a god named Re with silver bones and gold skin?Φ
LightOfErindir said:
Works of literature are great sources of information to historians and anthropologists. I have several anthologies of ancient text, which I refer to on a regular basis. The Gilgamesh epic, for instance, mentions many factual places and people: Uruk and its temple of Eanna for example. Does that mean we are to believe that Enkidu porked Shamash for 6 days and nights until she "tamed" him? Or that Gilgamesh was truly two-thirds god, one-third man? Or that Utnapishtim was the immortal Noah? Ω
What of Mark Twain? In one of his stories, the narrator claims the story is true, and the Mississippi river really exists, as does the geographical and technological places and things that Twain describes through the narrator. Yet its fiction.
LightOfErindir said:
Unless the writer of the Mahabharata was actually a scribe for the actual author, or the author/writer wanted others to believe it was, in fact true. We already have other examples of religious texts to draw this hypothesis from, such as the Judeo-Christian texts (see the flood myth, creation myth, David and Goliath, etc.).
LightOfErindir said:
Does not modern literature do the same? Ever read a Tom Clancy novel? I can only speculate as to the historical value of Clancy 10,000 years in the future... perhaps there will be those that view The Hunt for Red October as a factual account of 20th century.
LightOfErindir said:
Again... I don't doubt that there is some fact associated with either the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, I just accept that while there may be some valuable insights to historical persons, places and events, there is much to regard as fictional. Gods flying in chariots, for example. Ancient texts are rife with these sorts of hyperbole and exaggeration. The inscription on the Temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, for instance, tells the story of vanquishing the "Sea Peoples" and eliminating their seed. His grandiose description, if taken a face value, would have the reader believe that not a single member of the coalition of "Sea Peoples" survived, yet there is indication from other sources that many did. φ
LightOfErindir said:
That assumption makes it appear as if you don't read many modern works of literature... It may even be the work of many authors over a long period of time. There is much to suggest that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are the written account of a much older oral tradition of story telling.
Why would he write that he is writing this scripture after the death of a mythical(?) character in the story? [/quote]
As I've pointed out, mythologies, legends and fictions often contain actual persons, places and events. Indeed, few of them do not. Even the legend of King Arthur is argued to have a factual basis. Indeed, I think we should expect the authors of ancient stories and myths to attempt to aggrandize or create legends of figures contemporary, or recently contemporary, to them. It is even likely that Gilgamesh was an actual king of Uruk that lived at around 2700 BCE, given a legendary status by the myth of Gilgamesh.
LightOfErindir said:
I've actually followed the excavations of the Indus Valley somewhat and know of this. The Iliad mentions Troy, but do you really think that the Greek army hid in a wooden horse? Attaching legendary feats and mythical events to actual history and geography is what we expect from humanity, regardless of the culture.
LightOfErindir said:
This is all nice... but it says little to the factual nature of the entire document.
LightOfErindir said:
Why wouldn't they? It is a very handy way for the people of the period/location to record what they've observed. The stars have always been a fascination of ancient astronomer/astrologers. The terms weren't exclusive at that time, either.
LightOfErindir said:
Not necessary. Predictions of the past, while impressive in that they were extensive, don't offer much in the way of proving much more than someone was able to accurately demonstrate the astronomical events of the past based on observations of the present. I'm not disputing that math is a recent invention nor am I disputing that Mahabharata (or the Ramayana) is void of truth. I am, however, disputing that either of these, or other ancient texts, indicate that a highly advanced civilization existed prior to our own that had abilities of flight, atomic weaponry, etc.
LightOfErindir said:
Let me correct you. There is no doubt that the Mahabharata was written by some very observant author(s), but there is considerable doubt that it occurred verbatim and to the letter. It is, without a doubt, a monumental work of literature which can teach us much about an ancient culture, but to take every word literally and without question is foolhardy and ignorant.
There are many of your points that I left out, but I found that they were redundant with regard to my response. That is, a work of literature can, and often does, contain many factual events, places, and people. This is what gives credibility to the literary style, and the author, but it doesn't imply that the author didn't create much of what he wrote. Stating that the Ramayana and Mahabharata are historical works does a great disservice to the author(s) who put a tremendous amount of creative effort into them.
Cheers.
References:
ΦPritchard, James B. (1958). The Ancient Near East Volume I: an Anthology of Texts and Pictures. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p 3.
ΩIbid. pp. 40-75.
φPritchard, James B. (1969). Ancient Near Eastern Texts. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 262-263.
SkinWalker,
Hi, how are you doing?
out of curiousity did you ever visit Dwarika,where Lord Krishna had actually built his kingdom on?...or did you ever hear about it?.While visiting there,be sure to visit Dwarika Remains Museum,where every Piece has an age that shows undeniable evidence.
My Second Observation was : All that was referred in Mahabharat of Lord Krishna's Palace,MANY of such remains have been found already.
Why wasnt this a big news?...well In U.S. Only news like Tsunami comes in when something Happens in India.International news here literally doesnt exist!.i am currently in NJ,you find the only International News in U.S. is of Iraq! heheh...
in fact KM also has mentioned this in one of his posts.I said that you should visit the place,since her at sciforums Take my word it doesnt work.
Truly yours,
Zion
Hi, how are you doing?
out of curiousity did you ever visit Dwarika,where Lord Krishna had actually built his kingdom on?...or did you ever hear about it?.While visiting there,be sure to visit Dwarika Remains Museum,where every Piece has an age that shows undeniable evidence.
My Second Observation was : All that was referred in Mahabharat of Lord Krishna's Palace,MANY of such remains have been found already.
Why wasnt this a big news?...well In U.S. Only news like Tsunami comes in when something Happens in India.International news here literally doesnt exist!.i am currently in NJ,you find the only International News in U.S. is of Iraq! heheh...
in fact KM also has mentioned this in one of his posts.I said that you should visit the place,since her at sciforums Take my word it doesnt work.
Truly yours,
Zion
I would love to visit some of the Indus Valley sites that are being excavated... I haven't as yet, though.
I don't dispute that there are factual references in the Mahabharata or the Ramayana or any other Indus Valley text... I expect that much of what is described can (in theory at least) be observed in the archaeological record.
I do, however, dispute that any ancient text or religious document deserves to be accepted as literal truth. Just because a palace or artifact excavated has a detailed correlation in the Mahabharata, doesn't mean that the part where the author(s) speaks of a god in a flying chariot is also factual.
I, too, am dismayed at what constitutes news in our society, but the sad fact of the matter is that the average American doesn't find the excavation of an old city nearly as exciting as "another bomb was detonated in Faluja today while in Indonesia, aid workers work to provide clothing and food to displaced refugees of the tsunami..."
I think anyone who doesn't find an excavation of any old city exciting is just crazy. But that's me. I'm a geek like that.
You might like the article in the current Special Edition of Scientific American, Uncovering the keys to the Lost Indus Cities. Check the Feb 2005 Special Edition, vol 15 issue 1... page 25-35
I don't dispute that there are factual references in the Mahabharata or the Ramayana or any other Indus Valley text... I expect that much of what is described can (in theory at least) be observed in the archaeological record.
I do, however, dispute that any ancient text or religious document deserves to be accepted as literal truth. Just because a palace or artifact excavated has a detailed correlation in the Mahabharata, doesn't mean that the part where the author(s) speaks of a god in a flying chariot is also factual.
I, too, am dismayed at what constitutes news in our society, but the sad fact of the matter is that the average American doesn't find the excavation of an old city nearly as exciting as "another bomb was detonated in Faluja today while in Indonesia, aid workers work to provide clothing and food to displaced refugees of the tsunami..."
I think anyone who doesn't find an excavation of any old city exciting is just crazy. But that's me. I'm a geek like that.
You might like the article in the current Special Edition of Scientific American, Uncovering the keys to the Lost Indus Cities. Check the Feb 2005 Special Edition, vol 15 issue 1... page 25-35
LightOfErindir
Registered Member
SkinWalker...
First of all... u r doubting the author's character by saying that he has included fictitous descriptions in a record which he mentions..is a HISTORY.
I must stress that Mahabharata is written by Vyaasa..a sage for whom lieing is THE worst sin he can committ....It's not written by a writer , who wants publicity or appeal from either intellectuals OR the common public.
I must stress the fact that these(sages) are people who have left all the worldly possessions to search the truth. They don't need to write fanciful books just to gain attention.
Here, u can argue that every fictional writer of the past has claimed to be the holiest..and that he is not lying. But I don't think , there are Philosophical discussions , OR the rules of conduct of a king in any of them. (But still I have not read Epic of Gilgamesh or other stories u mentioned completely to come to a definite conclusion).
I don't deny that there are "sages" today in India who turn out to be hoaxes. But they are not capable of writing epics or holding a thoroughly philosophical discussion on purpose of life.
And if you want to argue that the descriptions of flying chariots and all ,are to generate readers' interest..then why would he give detailed descriptions of all the weapons, their origin, their effects, their way of effect, none of which a common reader can comprehend ?It will only serve to bore the reader to death.
Indeed, there are many in India who don't like to read Mahabharata for the same reason. Since you happen to be an intellectual person... maybe u were curious enough to read it ( I hope u have read it ) .
The point is, the purpose of writing Mahabharata is not to become popular OR become a historical figure. It is just cold harsh description of events as they happened...there is never a mention of flora and fauna...nor is there rich language used anytime.
Also , not only does Mahabharata tell that this knowledge will be doubted in the future but also...that this process has been going on for many years..and that , at the time before Mahabharata also (In the previous Kali Yuga) people have doubted the authenticity of such events.
U might think that this is a kind of reverse psychology the author is trying, to ensure that people will believe it more if u tell them there are going to be people disbelieving it... but that's ur point of view... too much thinking !! I prefer to believe that the author was genuine and told what he felt.
I won't be surprised if u do not agree. But before doubting credibility of such great thinkers.. i suggest u try to spend some time witha REAL philosophical guru.....I know this is a emotional rather than logical argument , but to prove some things which have occurred thousands of years ago to a non-believer ...u need some gut feeling or a 5000 year old nuclear reactor!!! Since I don't have latter........
So i insist that u re-evaluate your points. I have already re-evaluated mine.
First of all... u r doubting the author's character by saying that he has included fictitous descriptions in a record which he mentions..is a HISTORY.
I must stress that Mahabharata is written by Vyaasa..a sage for whom lieing is THE worst sin he can committ....It's not written by a writer , who wants publicity or appeal from either intellectuals OR the common public.
I must stress the fact that these(sages) are people who have left all the worldly possessions to search the truth. They don't need to write fanciful books just to gain attention.
Here, u can argue that every fictional writer of the past has claimed to be the holiest..and that he is not lying. But I don't think , there are Philosophical discussions , OR the rules of conduct of a king in any of them. (But still I have not read Epic of Gilgamesh or other stories u mentioned completely to come to a definite conclusion).
I don't deny that there are "sages" today in India who turn out to be hoaxes. But they are not capable of writing epics or holding a thoroughly philosophical discussion on purpose of life.
And if you want to argue that the descriptions of flying chariots and all ,are to generate readers' interest..then why would he give detailed descriptions of all the weapons, their origin, their effects, their way of effect, none of which a common reader can comprehend ?It will only serve to bore the reader to death.
Indeed, there are many in India who don't like to read Mahabharata for the same reason. Since you happen to be an intellectual person... maybe u were curious enough to read it ( I hope u have read it ) .
The point is, the purpose of writing Mahabharata is not to become popular OR become a historical figure. It is just cold harsh description of events as they happened...there is never a mention of flora and fauna...nor is there rich language used anytime.
Also , not only does Mahabharata tell that this knowledge will be doubted in the future but also...that this process has been going on for many years..and that , at the time before Mahabharata also (In the previous Kali Yuga) people have doubted the authenticity of such events.
U might think that this is a kind of reverse psychology the author is trying, to ensure that people will believe it more if u tell them there are going to be people disbelieving it... but that's ur point of view... too much thinking !! I prefer to believe that the author was genuine and told what he felt.
I won't be surprised if u do not agree. But before doubting credibility of such great thinkers.. i suggest u try to spend some time witha REAL philosophical guru.....I know this is a emotional rather than logical argument , but to prove some things which have occurred thousands of years ago to a non-believer ...u need some gut feeling or a 5000 year old nuclear reactor!!! Since I don't have latter........
So i insist that u re-evaluate your points. I have already re-evaluated mine.
LightOfErindir
Registered Member
SkinWalker...
First of all... u r doubting the author's character by saying that he has included fictitous descriptions in a record which he mentions..is a HISTORY.
I must stress that Mahabharata is written by Vyaasa..a sage for whom lieing is THE worst sin he can committ....It's not written by a writer , who wants publicity or appeal from either intellectuals OR the common public.
I must stress the fact that these(sages) are people who have left all the worldly possessions to search the truth. They don't need to write fanciful books just to gain attention.
Here, u can argue that every fictional writer of the past has claimed to be the holiest..and that he is not lying. But I don't think , there are Philosophical discussions , OR the rules of conduct of a king in any of them. (But still I have not read Epic of Gilgamesh or other stories u mentioned completely to come to a definite conclusion).
I don't deny that there are "sages" today in India who turn out to be hoaxes. But they are not capable of writing epics or holding a thoroughly philosophical discussion on purpose of life.
And if you want to argue that the descriptions of flying chariots and all ,are to generate readers' interest..then why would he give detailed descriptions of all the weapons, their origin, their effects, their way of effect, none of which a common reader can comprehend ?It will only serve to bore the reader to death.
Indeed, there are many in India who don't like to read Mahabharata for the same reason. Since you happen to be an intellectual person... maybe u were curious enough to read it ( I hope u have read it ) .
The point is, the purpose of writing Mahabharata is not to become popular OR become a historical figure. It is just cold harsh description of events as they happened...there is never a mention of flora and fauna...nor is there rich language used anytime.
Also , not only does Mahabharata tell that this knowledge will be doubted in the future but also...that this process has been going on for many years..and that , at the time before Mahabharata also (In the previous Kali Yuga) people have doubted the authenticity of such events.
U might think that this is a kind of reverse psychology the author is trying, to ensure that people will believe it more if u tell them there are going to be people disbelieving it... but that's ur point of view... too much thinking !! I prefer to believe that the author was genuine and told what he felt.
I won't be surprised if u do not agree. But before doubting credibility of such great thinkers.. i suggest u try to spend some time witha REAL philosophical guru.....I know this is a emotional rather than logical argument , but to prove some things which have occurred thousands of years ago to a non-believer ...u need some gut feeling or a 5000 year old nuclear reactor!!! Since I don't have latter........
So i insist that u re-evaluate your points. I have already re-evaluated mine.
First of all... u r doubting the author's character by saying that he has included fictitous descriptions in a record which he mentions..is a HISTORY.
I must stress that Mahabharata is written by Vyaasa..a sage for whom lieing is THE worst sin he can committ....It's not written by a writer , who wants publicity or appeal from either intellectuals OR the common public.
I must stress the fact that these(sages) are people who have left all the worldly possessions to search the truth. They don't need to write fanciful books just to gain attention.
Here, u can argue that every fictional writer of the past has claimed to be the holiest..and that he is not lying. But I don't think , there are Philosophical discussions , OR the rules of conduct of a king in any of them. (But still I have not read Epic of Gilgamesh or other stories u mentioned completely to come to a definite conclusion).
I don't deny that there are "sages" today in India who turn out to be hoaxes. But they are not capable of writing epics or holding a thoroughly philosophical discussion on purpose of life.
And if you want to argue that the descriptions of flying chariots and all ,are to generate readers' interest..then why would he give detailed descriptions of all the weapons, their origin, their effects, their way of effect, none of which a common reader can comprehend ?It will only serve to bore the reader to death.
Indeed, there are many in India who don't like to read Mahabharata for the same reason. Since you happen to be an intellectual person... maybe u were curious enough to read it ( I hope u have read it ) .
The point is, the purpose of writing Mahabharata is not to become popular OR become a historical figure. It is just cold harsh description of events as they happened...there is never a mention of flora and fauna...nor is there rich language used anytime.
Also , not only does Mahabharata tell that this knowledge will be doubted in the future but also...that this process has been going on for many years..and that , at the time before Mahabharata also (In the previous Kali Yuga) people have doubted the authenticity of such events.
U might think that this is a kind of reverse psychology the author is trying, to ensure that people will believe it more if u tell them there are going to be people disbelieving it... but that's ur point of view... too much thinking !! I prefer to believe that the author was genuine and told what he felt.
I won't be surprised if u do not agree. But before doubting credibility of such great thinkers.. i suggest u try to spend some time witha REAL philosophical guru.....I know this is a emotional rather than logical argument , but to prove some things which have occurred thousands of years ago to a non-believer ...u need some gut feeling or a 5000 year old nuclear reactor!!! Since I don't have latter........
So i insist that u re-evaluate your points. I have already re-evaluated mine.
None taken.
Sirius Is Serious
Registered Member
Zion:
Hinduism’s holiest text - the Bhagvad Gita is strongly based on the Mahabharata fable. As the text itself says that understanding its content and the Mahabharata’s fundamental values & core spiritual philosophies does not require any grandiose qualifications except a general interest and the desire to question till the quench is fulfilled.
Unfortunately, the throngs of Hindus that I have met seem to blatantly violate this very founding stone of Hinduism with their false interpretations, an element of fear & a strong arrogant prestige which proclaims, “we know better because we are Hindus”. You are no exception with your liberal yet prejudiced racial note of falsely inflicted ideas.
Your disillusioned Hindu baggage of ancient texts and mystic philosophies will not cloud our senses irrespective of whether we are Hindus or not. However the same might relegate you to the fiery altar of Lord Shiva and not even your Elephant God will be able to save you because you would have lost the Holy Truth forever by then.
A Christian could understand the Koran as much as a Muslim does and a Muslim could understand the Gita as much a Hindu does. So stop chanting your non-Hindu hymns of discontent.
Hinduism’s holiest text - the Bhagvad Gita is strongly based on the Mahabharata fable. As the text itself says that understanding its content and the Mahabharata’s fundamental values & core spiritual philosophies does not require any grandiose qualifications except a general interest and the desire to question till the quench is fulfilled.
Unfortunately, the throngs of Hindus that I have met seem to blatantly violate this very founding stone of Hinduism with their false interpretations, an element of fear & a strong arrogant prestige which proclaims, “we know better because we are Hindus”. You are no exception with your liberal yet prejudiced racial note of falsely inflicted ideas.
Your disillusioned Hindu baggage of ancient texts and mystic philosophies will not cloud our senses irrespective of whether we are Hindus or not. However the same might relegate you to the fiery altar of Lord Shiva and not even your Elephant God will be able to save you because you would have lost the Holy Truth forever by then.
A Christian could understand the Koran as much as a Muslim does and a Muslim could understand the Gita as much a Hindu does. So stop chanting your non-Hindu hymns of discontent.
Getting back to the moonshine of the topic, Winston's essay states the following:
In a remote northern area of Tibet lie the ruins of the Hsing Nu capital, discovered by Duparc in 1725. Within the city, Duparc came upon a mass of monoliths (once coated with silver), a pyramid, part of a tower of blue porcelain, and a royal palace, containing thrones with sun and moon images. There was also a large milky white stone surrounded by exquisite drawings.
Now for the stunning sequel. In 1952, a Soviet expedition arrived. The group was shown by Tibetan monks some ancient documents, whose descriptions agreed with those of Duparc.
But here is the breathtaking part: the milky white stone, so said the documents, was "brought from the moon." Moon rock? Is it possible? COULD MAN ACTUALLY HAVE LEFT THIS EARTH AND GONE TO THE MOON IN AGES PAST? Was space travel a natural adjunct to his civilization? Are there clues? [/quote]I must say it's amazing how consistent the ancient beliefs are. What we have is a milky white stone - I can just picture it in my mind's eye - and what do they believe? Why it must have come from the moon!
What I find bizarre is that John Winston just accepts that! It's white, like the moon, so it must come from the moon! Q.E.D.!
But of course, moon rock in close up does not in fact resemble a piece of the white disc that hangs in the sky, as if you could reach up and break a piece off. Moon rock is, in point of fact, quite dark.
Now for the stunning sequel. In 1952, a Soviet expedition arrived. The group was shown by Tibetan monks some ancient documents, whose descriptions agreed with those of Duparc.
But here is the breathtaking part: the milky white stone, so said the documents, was "brought from the moon." Moon rock? Is it possible? COULD MAN ACTUALLY HAVE LEFT THIS EARTH AND GONE TO THE MOON IN AGES PAST? Was space travel a natural adjunct to his civilization? Are there clues? [/quote]I must say it's amazing how consistent the ancient beliefs are. What we have is a milky white stone - I can just picture it in my mind's eye - and what do they believe? Why it must have come from the moon!
What I find bizarre is that John Winston just accepts that! It's white, like the moon, so it must come from the moon! Q.E.D.!
But of course, moon rock in close up does not in fact resemble a piece of the white disc that hangs in the sky, as if you could reach up and break a piece off. Moon rock is, in point of fact, quite dark.