Originally posted by Hanslune
Sorry Indigo
The reason you are having no success in getting others to believe in what you so strongly believe in is because you have advanced the art of
self-deception to a new high.
I think you should only speak for yourself. A lot people have believed, some have not. Please don't speak for others.
Saying over and over that, "you've proven something" doesn't mean you've proven it.
I have also said recently that nothing can be proven. I have provided the evidence, tons of it, and you have failed to acknowledge this evidence. The
most recent evidence was more or less conclusive the Sanskrit civilisation had post-21st century knowledge. Unless you are going to accuse modern
linguistics such as heavyweights like Chomsky of lying, this conclusion you must accept.
I have shown that the Sanskrit tradition was clearly thousands of years ahead of modern civilisation. I have shown you all areas in which this is true
medicine, logic, mathematics and linguistics and Philosophy. Now while I can understand having advanced knowledge does not translate to having
advanced technology, technology does not operate in a vacuum, it goes alongside ones knowledge. I have studied history to know how knowledge
traditions develop and alongside which material technology develops. It was not until the enlightenment or the age of reason that the prerequisite
condition for the development of technology was establishd and therefore within centuries we have computes, space shuttles, nuclear energy etc. It is
evident that the Sanskrit knowledge tradition had their age of enlightenment thousands of years before modern times, thus there is no reason to
believe that it would not have been possible for them to have advanced technology.
I also would like to point out when we say modern history, we are mostly referring to Western history, which happens to have went through a dark age
for 1000 years. Eastern history on the other hand did not go through a dark age, never eschewed science or technology, and science, philosophy and
technology were developed to a high extent that it is still inspires modern times. This only suggests one thing: The West is behind. It arrogantly
believes that it is discovered science, reasoning and technology, when it fact its discoveries were thousands of years behind. We also have clear
evidence it also plagiarised Eastern knowledge.
Ask any learned professor of Eastern Philosophy and they will tell you modern logic, metaphysics, cognitive science, ethics have already been
exhausted 2000-3000 years ago in India. This has been admitted by many of our our own philosophers, such as the likes of Scrhopenhaeur, which based
his entire philosophy of idealism and psychology on Indian Philosophy. So what really seems to be afoot here is Western arrogance, of which you appear
to be party to, which cannot possibly accept that a non-Western culture was ahead of it and its own forefathers the Greeks. This is the reason this
knowledge has been suppressed, even despite some of the best philosophers in the West deriving their knowledge from the East. Part of the reason is
nationalistic, and partly it is because of Judo-Christian control on history. Indian history is far older than Western history and this was discovered
by the early Indologists. While some accepted the new discoverties, the Indologists of a Judo-Christian persuasion didn't because they believed in
biblical history. So using their power of authority they arbitrarily shrank Indian history to coincide with Greek history. Actual recorded history of
India which placed the Vedas in at least 4000BCE was brought down to 1000BCE, and the transision period between Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit
was made only a few centuries. According to this narrative a tribal, polytheistic and anti-science culture within a few centuries became a scientific,
monistic and and urban culture. All of the dates for India's greatest minds were forced into the 1000BCE bracket(Panini, Patanjali, Kapila, Charaka)
It is now known in modern historical research that this is bunk. Indian history is indeed 10,000 years old, it has been continious without any breaks
and the IVC phase is the same as the Vedic phase i.e., the scientific culture that was forced into 1000BCE is around 4000BCE. This means all figures
for Indian sciences need to be revised by several millenia. This is happening now in modern research.
New narrative: The new narrative shows that India never was a primitive culture in known history. It was always a post-enlightenment culture and it
had established urban civilisation pretty much immediately after the glacial period ended. This categorically means only one thing, its history goes
back into pre-glacial times. The Sanskrit tradition is thus our most preserved memory of our forgotten history.
I will furnish this case with some physical evidence later. At this point what should be noted all evidence is converging on one thing. India did have
an advanced knowledge tradition which was post-21st century more than 5000 years ago at least according to evidence.
You say that a word that until the 19th century meant demon - for several thousand years, is suddenly transformed into the modern concept of
germ. Your proof of that is based on your so stating it. That dear is amusing but completely worthless. You mistate what links say or you link to
other sites that say they were inspired by Vedic literature and offer that as proof.
The word "gay" in the 19th century meant happy today the word gay mostly means homosexual. What does that tell you? It tells you that meanings of
words change over time. So Rakshas meant demon in the 19th century, in 1000BCE it meant germ. I have also produced the Sanskrit dictionary meaning of
that time to show that. Moreover your point is moot because the word for microrganism/microbe in the Charka Samhita is not Rakshas but krimi. I will
again cite from the text because I have it at hand:
Charaka Samhita, chapter Vimansthan 7/9: "Krimis are very minute and can be observed with a yantra(instrument/machine). They are round in shape,
without feet. Some are so minute they are totally invisible and copper coloured"
Corrobration from a book giving explicit details on Krimis with the Sanskrit terms and various classifications:
books.google.co.uk...
=j1fXSb_8J-OrjAfk4-mWDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA481,M1
books.google.co.uk...
&hl=en&ei=MlrXScv7AperjAfupO2VDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
I have told you before many times microbiology in Sanskrit medicine is not a controversial issue. Moreover, Sanskrit medicine is not just advanced in
the area of microbiology, but every other area too. Plastic surgery for example, and modern plastic surgery is based on it directly and this is freely
admitted as well. I think it should click in your head by now that what we call modern is based on Sanskrit knowledge itself.
Don't you think it's a bit odd that all the other Sanskrit scholars were wrong for thousands of years and that by chance - as you state
yourself, we cannot check these sources our selves?
You've been given enough evidence to show that all of this is accepted fact. Now if you are genuinely interested, and somehow I don't think so
because you've taken as gospel what modern history tells us, you need to do your own investigations and do them properly as well. I have done mine
and I am sharing my results with refereces.
And none of the above is controversial. It's accepted fact. If you enrolled onto a degree course in Ayurvedic medicine you will be taught all of this
and some more. If you enrolled onto a course to study linguistics, more than likely you will cover Panini. If you enrolled onto a course to study
Indian Philosophy you will study Indian logic and metaphysics. This is all accepted fact.
You don't think its just slightly odd that the real scientific community doesn't recognize the brilliant of your discovery?
No, I don't, because I don't know what a
real scientific community is?
I have provided you references and citations to India's most authorative scientific community and peer-groups. Evidently you don't think this is
a real scientific community and I can only interpret that as racism. I think what you're really asking me is, "Don't you think its just
slightly odd that the Western scientific community does not recognise the brillance of your discovery" It's an appeal to authority fallacy out and
out and it is racist.
Here is what you need to do. Go get a few thousand qualified scientist to agree with, get a concensus, shock the world, change the direction of
human civilization.
An openly stated appeal to authority fallacy. I don't need to rely on authorities to work out things. I am can think critically and independently,
and sorry that you cannot. Your argument above if transposed in the 16th century would amount to Copernicus trying to prove the Earth is not flat by
finding 1000 people in authority who agree with him. It turns out more than 1 million people disagreed with him.
Get your evidence, get your backup and try again later.
Nah, the demand are not on me anymore. It's on you to investigate all this information or keep your silence. As far as I'm concerned you have been
debunked and out very outmatched by my education and research.
[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]
