Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: "Primitive" archaeological findings

  1. #1
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,063
    Rep Power
    971

    "Primitive" archaeological findings

    Hello people, I must say I'm a bit of a nastika regarding the dating science arbitrarily sets for the universe and for evolution on Earth. I remember reading an article 3 to 4 years ago that scientists found plant traces that dated back billion of years ago. That alone would push back the dates by a lot if I'm not mistaken. However, science needs statistical evidences to accept something, as if statistics could reveal the true nature of things, bollocks!

    Carl Gustav Jung uses a very astute example of the statistical weight of pebbles on a river. If we weight each one of them and come out with 145g, that would be scientifically accepted as the weight of those stones. However, if someone dove into that river trying to find one single stone weighting 145g he would come out empty handed, statistic tells very little about the peculiarities of each case.

    Some time ago I was researching about dinosaurs and the vedas, I found this message:

    Vedas were not focusing on describing animals living in different yugas. some huge sea animals (timingila) are mentioned more as curiosity surviving at the time the Vedas were recorded. civilized human fossils from previous yugas are rare or non-existent because these folks cremated their dead and rarely lived in areas where bone fossilization is possible (swamps or deserts). also, the ruins of their buildings were mostly used up as building material source for subsequent people so not much is left of such ancient structures today.

    Source: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/s...tml#post263217
    It sounds right to me, if we cross this information with the information that civilizations before Christian imposed scientific darkness were highly advanced, like those in the Indus valley, we push back even more the age intellectual ignorance.

    I'm curious of how ancient world was organized regarding advanced civilizations and tribals. The only thing that the ancient advanced civilizations didn't have (it seems) is instant communication as we do now. The limits of the physical world perhaps were of little meaning to a civilization that understood the limitless mind and spirit. So while there were these comparably (to what science tries to shout every time: "Our ancestors were dumb!") advanced civilizations there were still vastness for tribal and primitive clans to live their lives.

    Seems like we're living some sort of homogenization, the static characteristic of a primitive mind with the wonders of the advanced civilization.


    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen

    I look at this and see a simple construction, perhaps made by a renunciate, a yogi, to calmly meditate while using little resources and with integration to the environment.

    But the science consensus is: "They were very stupid and couldn't build houses!"

    What made us so great? The church? The crusades? Our destructive instance towards mother Earth? Tell me about complex of superiority!

    Om Tat Sat

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,063
    Rep Power
    971

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    ...All along the course of river Ganga, today 27 major towns dump over 900 million litres of sewage/industrial waste into it every day! This nonsense should be stopped at any cost. Humans have no rights to pollute the natural resources of this planet. If we cant handle our waste, we shouldn’t be producing it in the first place. Rather than being an individual’s symbolic effort to fight pollution, it should be an enlightened mass movement of entire humanity to create nonpolluting technology out of the science we know. The very fact that almost all the technology that we possess today in the name of development and modernization is polluting, proves that the technology we have created using modern science is still primitive. It has more to do with our greed, than with science.

    Source: http://www.hitxp.com/zone/books/scie...rets-of-ganga/
    What's the use of this "progress"?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    30
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1010

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    Hello people, I must say I'm a bit of a nastika regarding the dating science arbitrarily sets for the universe and for evolution on Earth. I remember reading an article 3 to 4 years ago that scientists found plant traces that dated back billion of years ago. That alone would push back the dates by a lot if I'm not mistaken. However, science needs statistical evidences to accept something, as if statistics could reveal the true nature of things, bollocks!
    Actually, the way in which the age of the universe is determined is pretty straightforward. It can be deduced from redshift measurements of objects at cosmological distances. As for plants on earth, I imagine these are dated using a radioisotope with a known decay rate. Is there any reason you find these conclusions to be suspect?

  4. #4

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    When I first saw the title of this post, I thought it was going to be about Drutakarma Das.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,063
    Rep Power
    971

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    Guys, I'm not a scientist, you're completely free (and encouraged) to disagree with me and call me names.

    I think my post has more emotional content than rational. Thank god I'm not a scientist.

    I also don't buy how vedic seers somehow missed on properly dating yugas and itihasas but at the same time mastered jyotish, makes no rational sense.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    30
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1010

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    Guys, I'm not a scientist, you're completely free (and encouraged) to disagree with me and call me names.

    I think my post has more emotional content than rational. Thank god I'm not a scientist.

    I also don't buy how vedic seers somehow missed on properly dating yugas and itihasas but at the same time mastered jyotish, makes no rational sense.
    No, it's OK. I've got my own issues. I get beat up every time I say this, but I'm not sure I believe in jyotish. I want to, especially since we've got a Vedic astrologer in the family who makes remarkably accurate predictions (or so I'm told). But it's difficult to be a real astronomer and believe in astrology, especially when the astrologers give such grossly inaccurate scientific explanations of their art.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    62
    Posts
    7,121
    Rep Power
    194

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté sanjaya
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjaya View Post
    No, it's OK. I've got my own issues. I get beat up every time I say this, but I'm not sure I believe in jyotish. I want to, especially since we've got a Vedic astrologer in the family who makes remarkably accurate predictions (or so I'm told). But it's difficult to be a real astronomer and believe in astrology, especially when the astrologers give such grossly inaccurate scientific explanations of their art.
    I can see why you say this. You see, many try and explain jyotish by ~questionable~ means - trying to add gravity into the equation, push-pull, all this. Yet at the end of the day it is about cycles + the tattva's ( elements or that-ness we find in this universe) and that the planets are representatives of these forces and influences over time.

    The great jyotisa-s found in our history put this knowledge in a format that is repeatable & systematic, yet also added a personality to it the graha-s or grāhaka - one who seizes or takes captive.

    At the end of the day, just like the scientist, it is the one with the greatest knowledge that gives the best results - who knows the subtler levels of this jyotish. Yet unlike the scientist the great jyotisa's ( and there are a rare few on this planet as of today) have integrated intuition into the equation.


    Yet after some 35 years of study I am still surprised by new techniques, a new law or rule that explains why a certain combination works ( a yoga as it is called). I still consider myself a śiya ( student). I have yielded to the fact that this knowledge is so vast and deep to consider oneself other then a student is just folly and a puffing up of the ego.

    When it is all said and done one can take the greatest precautions in calculations, be very knowledgeable and still be wrong . I have seen this. Hence one's estimates and predictions crumble. Yet one needs to be mindful that jyotish is about trends, influences, nudges here and there that occur. Just as a great sailing ship is guided by its rudder, a slight change in the wind direction and a new course is set. This is the influence of the graha's.

    praām

    शिवतुल्यो जायते॥
    __śivatulyo jāyate
    ____yajvan___
    _oṁ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,063
    Rep Power
    971

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    One of the reasons I joined this forum was because of a thread that discussed jyotish and some people were giving very interesting explanations, about how jyotish wasn't about planet rays influencing our lives, but instead about external synchronical events that could be used to predict internal events, how the planets were in fact a representation of the chakras (if I'm not mistaken).

    I have personal experience with jyotish and vedic astrologers that I don't need to believe in it, I just know it works.

    PS: I was typing my message while Yajvan posted, as always, wise words.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    62
    Posts
    7,121
    Rep Power
    194

    Re: "Primitive" archaeological findings

    hariḥ o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    I wrote the following:

    The great jyotisa-s found in our history put this knowledge in a format that is repeatable & systematic, yet also added a personality to it the graha-s or grāhaka - one who seizes or takes captive.
    My point is the great ṛṣi-s set up a model that would help people understand their surroundings and the effects that it may bring. To this I thought so do modern scientists. They offer us models that with the best of their ability try and reflect reality. The first thing I thought of was the model of the atom.


    Does the atom really look like this ? I think not ( from what I am told of the findings of electron-microscopes they have not found little red and green balls ). Yet it is a model , so people can wrap their minds around the concept of an atom and its workings.

    It is the same with jyotish. The words, the systems, etc . are working models that when put to practice help us understand and calculate the workings of the influences of the universe on our selves.

    Just like in science (or gardeners), there are excellent jyotisa-s and there are meager jyotisha-s. Unlike science , any one reading 1 book on jyotish (or gardening) can declare themselves to be an astrologer. This then pulls down the overall quality of the whole by having the apprentice think he is the master.


    praām
    Last edited by yajvan; 19 April 2011 at 06:45 AM.

    शिवतुल्यो जायते॥
    __śivatulyo jāyate
    ____yajvan___
    _oṁ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •