Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed

Now this is what I call Irony. Yes, the capitalization is intentional and justified.


What about Germanic influences on English? Does this mean that a large unified German empire held sway over England? The answer is no. It indicates that the people migrated and settled new areas- not under the influence of a large highly organized empire, much less a technologically advanced one.


Perhaps somebody who actually has an education in linguistics should weigh in on this issue before we go making unwarranted conclusions based on the existence of large language families. In case you didn't know, Sanskrit isnt the only "parent language" out there. There are several language families with common origins.

So you are basically using this discussion not for the merit of it but just so that you can get some *points* to "throw the ball at the other court"? How quaint.


It should. I and others who are reading this thread will determine what prima facia you've got. Merely defeating the initial assumption only goes to prove your debate skills - it however does not deny the actual existence of proof.

Anyway not to sidetrack the thread, continue your "debate" please. Don't think either of you can make a convincing argument though. As I said, absence of proof is not lack of proof.



[edit on 14-1-2005 by aryaputhra]

Think really had about this genius. You are trying act as if your case had prima facie evidence; meaning that at a glance it was assumed true and the burden of proof were on the opposition. The fact is however that your statement about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, while true, is not prima facie evidence of presence.
This is a discussion of how evidence should be viewed. "points" (of logic) are all that there is.



It should. I and others who are reading this thread will determine what prima facia you've got. Merely defeating the initial assumption only goes to prove your debate skills - it however does not deny the actual existence of proof.

Anyway not to sidetrack the thread, continue your "debate" please. Don't think either of you can make a convincing argument though. As I said, absence of proof is not lack of proof.
[edit on 14-1-2005 by aryaputhra]

This is in reponse to all of the unfounded criticism and misconceptions on Sanksrit and ancient Indian atomic theory. I will also discuss even further proofs that support my proposition that there is absolute proof of an advanced ancient Indian civilization.

Sanskrit Language

Will Durant - “India is the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of European languages. Sanskrit was the mother of our modern philosophy.

Sankrit is not a secret, alien, language. That is simply not the case, and if this was not true, there would not be thousands of sanskrit scholars in the world. Sasnkrit is actually an easy language to learn and there exists several dictionaries for it. Further, Sanskrit was not lost, and nor were the treaties on science and physics. If they were lost, I would not be able to produce them. Ancient Indians have been able to preserve their culture, sciences and heritage against all odds, despite repeated invasions, internal corrosion, looting and pillaging by greeks, romans, arabs and europeans for centuries. However, in this process, knowledge of them were lost. It is fortunate that there still exists enough records to re-learn them. Further, Sankrit texts have suffered at the hands of white-supremist, racists translators who have only deliberately mistranslated the texts.

In the vedic times, knowledge was dictated in oral form, not written form. It was only the Maharishis that penned their knowledge. It was not that writing did not exist, it's just that ancient Indian schooling was so advanced that they could remember their lessons by memory. This may sound like a seemingly impossible feat of human intelligence. However, it is known, that memory can be trained and certain people have the ability to completely memorize entire books. I recall the case of a 7 year old who had commited to memory the entire Koran and could recall any verse.

Sanskrit is recognized as the mother language of all Indo-European languages. It is the most advanced ancient language in existence, some even say(forbes) the most advanced language today. In 700 BC Yasaka wrote on book on etymology and in 500BC, Panini compiled a treatise on grammer. They both attribute their sources to vedic times.

You can see how English words can be traced to their sankrit roots:

Manu the first person gives us man, manual, manhood.
Pitru gives rise to pater, father
Matru to mother;
Bhratru to brother
Dohitru to daughter.
Devapitru - the godfather becomes Zeuspater and then Jupiter.
Timir the darkness is to be feared and gives rise to timid and timorous. Janma, Janani are birth and mother who gives birth and from it stem gene, genesis, generate.
Mrut, Mrutyu are dead and death and hence mortis, mortal, mortality. Sarpa is to slide or slither like a snake, so serpent and serpentine.
Madhu, Madhur are honey and sweet and from them we get mead and mellitus.
Gnana is the basis of spelling knowledge with a K, and hence gnosis, Gnostic and ignorant.
Agni is fire and hence the English words ignite, ignition, igneous.
Raaj is rule and from it come regis, reign, royal, regina, regal, ragnar.
Sthaan, Sthit, Sthiti meaning position, stable and condition, give rise to stand, stance, state, static.
Vijaya becomes vici and then victory and invincible.
Yoga, Yukta give yoke
Bandha, Bandhan are the root of bind, bound, boundary, bond and binding.
Pada gives root to podia, podiatry, peddle, pedlar.
Surya - Sun
Akasha - Air
Naas is to Nose and Nasal
Danta is to teeth/tooth and the origin of dental, dentine and dent
Rudra is red and from it comes rubro, ruby and ultimately red
BARBARA, "barbarian, one with long hair" (BARBER)

The Sankrit numbers(2-10) Dwi, Tri, Chatur, Pancha, Shat, Sapta, Ashta, Nava, Dasha

The numbers in other language, there is only some interchangability:

The Hindi numbers: Ek, Do, Tin, Char, Panja, che, sat, aat, nuo, das

The French numbers: Une, Deux, Trois, Quatre(catre), cinq, six, sept, huit, neuf, dix

The German numbers: eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht, neun, zehn

The Latin numbers: unus, duo, tres, quattuor, quinque, sex, septem, octo, novem

Hindi is the first descendent of Sanskrit and English is a much later one:

Manu - Manav - Man
Pitha - Pitah - Pither - Father
Mutra - Matra - Mother
Gnana - Gyana - Gnosis
Agni - Aag - Ignite
Vijaya - Vijay - Victory
Surya - Suraj - Sun
Bhratu - Bhai - Brother

So, all sankrit words can be translated by comparing it to other Indo-European languages, especially Hindi and comparing it to known Sankrit docments. As I said Sankrit is not an unknown language. It is the master language in fact.

Ancient Indian atomic theory

There is no wrong way to catagorize elements. Not all cultures in the universe would catagorize them by their atomic number in a periodic table like mendeleevs. To only accept this kind of catagorization is fundamentalism, and oh, it's more intellectual arrogance. Moreover, it is maybe our own elemental theory that is lesser developed than the Indian one. If only matter is an element, then what is light and energy? Modern science has propounded many theories on light and energy, where they are either waves, particles, or a particle-wave duality. However, according to quantum mechanics, energy is comprised of discreet multiples, or photons, tiny packets of quanta, or particles of light. We cannot observe them, but that does not mean that they do not exist. If light was not made of particles then certain quantum mechanical effects would not exist, like the photoelectric effect. I

n the end the physical universe is physical, all that exists within it, has physicality. We assume that energy has no mass, because we cannot observe it, however if energy has no mass, why does it have finite speed. If energy has no mass, why does it condense to form mass? There is no explanation of this, other than a magic higgs field that turns on and matter forms.

In multidimensional QM theory, such as superstring, the universe is not 3D. Relativity only works in the 3D universe. QM effects like quantum entanglement does not occur in the 3D universe and henceforth have infinite speed. Perhaps, relative to a higher dimensional universe, QE is finite speed. So all of the physical universe is duality.

This is the crux of ancient Indian metaphysics which accords with modern quantum mechanics, in particular the holographic theory of the universe. That is that the physical universe is is a dual-existence, and therefore an illusion of the absolute existence or the absolute reality, the Brahman. In ancient India all technology was called "maya" which means "illusion" so while ancient Indians were an advanced scientific civilization, they were also a spiritual one. Unlike our western civilization, technology was not an imperative, end all and be all of life. It was used as a means, not an end, to their spiritual growth.

Today, we are experiencing the same transformation from physical to the metaphysical thought - from NM and GR to QM. Further showing that relative to Ancient Indian civilization, we are a developing civilization.

I actually think the Indian catagorization of the elements is a far more advanced view of the physical universe. It accounts for the main states of matter, solid, liquids and gas, as well as energy and light and the vacuum field. The western view of only saying matter is that which only has mass, thus only matter is an element, is very lopsided and also inaccurate. Matter is that, that occupies space-time. Does light and energy not occupy space and time?

Ancient Indian atomic theory was an empirical science, not just a theoretical science. Kanada simply systematized the knowledge from the vedic times in his vaisheShika sUtras in 600BC(2600 years ago) Here is a detailed and complete look at his postulations.


All elements that comprise the physical universe, except ether, are made up of atoms

All substances are a combination of atoms

Force is that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.

In the absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change.

The forces to be considered are an external force, gravity, that with causes attraction of particles, that which causes repulsion of particles and the internal movements of them in matter.

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction

The diversities of the movement of an arrow are due to the consecutive changes in the components of the acting forces. The stored energy provides the propulsion to the arrow and this causes it move further to a high point. This component keeps reducing while that of gravity increases resulting in its fall.

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it.

Once the work against gravity ceases then the body reaches an energy-less state falling under gravity.

In the absence of all forces the Samyoga binding(gravity) still exists.

The guna(direction of force) prevents the magnitude from being obtained.

The nature of air is formed of the collision of gases.

Despite of being made of atoms and occupying space, air fails to show orderly movement, so it's form cannot be perceived.

Solid's occupy space and assume form because of a coglomeration of constituent particles.

In a liquid the particles possess energy, the heat bearing rays provide the particles the energy to form and rise into gas.

Some substances, like tin, gold, wax and ghee are in reality liquids conjoined by "heat" once they are supplied with heat energy they are disordered and they become liquid.

A substance cannot arise from nothing, it is formed from other substances and it's properties change.

A Dwinuka(binary molecule) retains the propeties/individuality of it's parent atoms.

Any fundamental entity can be a constituent of multiple substances.

Any substance comprising of two or more particle types requires a chemical reaction to generate it - the conjoining or breaking of pre-existing molecular bonds.

Forces are necessary to combine atoms or break bonds.

The combinations of particles that form Dwinukas results in substances that have very different states of matter from the original.

The mind can only be explained as being made of particles

Space and time are only a frame within which matter exists.

Space and time is particular in nature, like gas, and is also made up of constituents particles.

An unseen force adR^isShTam is responsible for the movement of a needle or bead(magentism)

Matter and energy are two forms of the same substance and are therefore interchangable

Sources:

www.geocities.com...
home.no.net...

Ancient Indians from 5000 to 10,000 years ago, understood atomic theory, relativity, magnetism, newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics that even surpasses our own understanding. It seems evident that at least at an abstract level they understood sub-atomic physics. We know, that as soon as man conceptualized the atom and understood chemical and atomic theory, it was not long before he split the atom and discovered nuclear energy. All those prerequisites are present in ancient Indian science.
Further, calculating the exact speed of light(a process which itself requires lasers and modern measuring equipment) discovering the nature of atoms and chemistry was obviously not an abstract form of thought. It was an empirical science that they utilised.

We have evidence in terms of the records describing advanded technology in a practical and empirical manner and the general anecdotes from all the world of advanced technology. We have evidence of modern scientists designing new technology and materials using ancient Indian texts. There is even evidence of irradiated cities, vitrified rocks and gobules of glass that suggest nuclear weapons.

Finally, there actually existing structures from thousands of years ago that prove advanced atomic and chemical knowledge. A case in point: The corrision proof Iron pillar of Delhi more than 1,600 years ago. There was no corrosion proof metallurgical technology until stainless steel in the 20th century.

One of the criticism raised that because Indian elemental theory called water an element and Kanada said that all elements could subdivided, that it was not understood that water is a molecule of hydrogen and oxygen. It has already been shown from Kanada postulates that he understood the nature of air to be formed of a mixture of gases and that liquid become a gas when provided enough energy. He also understood that substances can be made of other substances and have different properties from the original.

The major appehension was Kanada's postulate that a dwinuka will take on the properties/individuality of the parent particles. This suggests that Kanada understood chemical bonding and resultant properties beyond modern chemistry. However, it is very easy to prove: a different combinaton(that is possible) would give a different substance with different properties. For example H20 is neutral and H2SO4 is acidic. CO2(carbon dixoide) is non poisonous, but CO is poisonous. Just the addition of a single oxygen atom makes CO non toxic. So, there is an inherentlproperty from each atom that forms the emergent properties of the combined molecule.

So chemistry is very much like human reproduction, which in itself is bio-chemistry. Where the parents genes are passed on to the offspring and from which the characteristics are determined.

Now to further prove that ancient Indians did indeed know that water was indeed made UP of Hydrogen Oxygen and knew how to apply it. We can consult the [
i]Agastya Samhita from the vedic times. The Agatya Samhita is another sanskrit treatise on flying aircraft and energy generation. However, this time, it does not discuss advanced flying machines. It discusses a hydrogen balloon, called "chchatra" (umbrella or balloon) to be filled with hydrogen by extracting hydrogen from water with electrolysis. It describes it as a very primitive vimana to be used to escape from a city.

The process of extracting the Hydrogen, as well as the construction of a dry-cell batttery is described very elaborately:

Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel.
Cover it first by copper sulfate and then moist sawdust.
After that put a mercury-amalgamated-zinc sheet on top of
an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will
be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A
chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very active
and effective force."

ÄÄ Agastya Samhita

(Indian Princes' Library)

Pranavayu = oxygen air
Udanayayu = Hydrogen air(upwards air)
Mitra-Varuna = Cathode and Anode(friends of water)

An actual dry-cell battery was found in Baghdad 2000 years old. It is clay jar with a stopper made of asphalt. Sticking through the asphalt is an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder. When filled with vinegar - or any other electrolytic solution - the jar produces about 1.1 volts. Scientists believe it was used for electroplating.

Ancient Indian cosmology

Ancient Indian cosmology is the most advanced of all ancient cultures, and some of the theories even foreshadow modern cosmological theories. Some aspects of ancient Indian cosmology is even new for modern science, such as the cyclical or oscillating universe and the many worlds hypothesis. In western civilization as late as 19th century scientists could not think of the age of the universe/earth multiple powers of tens. When western scientists were thinking of the universe as 6000 years old and finite and the earth as flat. Indians were dividing time into eons and ages and the universe into galaxies and mapping out the solar system. Yet, thousands of years ago, Indians were measuring time and distances in billions and trillions and even understood creation, evolution and microbiology. The following illustrates this:

Evolution and microbiology:

The first germ of life was developed by water and heat. Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. These are the transformations declared, from the plant to Brahma, which have to take place in the world."
' (Manusmriti - Book I, sloka 8,9)

' Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals.' (Manusmriti - Book III, sloka 76)

Man has passed through 84 lakhs (8,400,000) of birth as plants, animals, as an "inferior species of man" and then as the ancestor of the developed type existing to-day - a thought held in ancient India and also propounded by Sikh Gurus.

The Heliocentric model of the solar system

Ancient Indians had none of the absurdities in early western scientific civilization, like; flat earth; humans being the centre of the universe and the sun revolving around the earth. From as early as the beginning of Indian civilization in recorded history. Indians knew that the earth was an imperfect sphere, that revolved around the sun due to gravity, and the sun itself was a star. Not only that they, they also knew that about the poles:

The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting (it is not so). For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side…Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets….” Aitareya Brahmana (3.44)

Markandeya Purana (54.12) speaks of Earth as being flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator, that is, not perfectly spherical.

Again, as was the case with atomic theory, this is not just theoretical or philosophical thought. While, Kanada systematized the science of atomic theory in the vedic times. Gravitational theory was systematized under science of astronomy and gravitation in Surya Siddhantha in 400AD(1600 years ago)

An ancient Sanskrit couplet also contemplates the idea of multiple suns:

"Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaham Suryaha, Surya."

"There are suns in all directions, the night sky being full of them,"

The Laya Yoga Samhita stated that just as the beams of sunlight entering a room reveal the presence of innumberable motes, so infinite space is filled with countless brahmandas (universes).

The word "Brahmandas" is interesting. It means universe, however the individual constituents of the word, Brah and Andas, mean expanding egg. So the the universes in the superverse are expanding eggs. The expanding universe was only discovered when Hubble measured the red-shift in the universe.

Ancient Indian Mathematics

The concept of infinite sets of rational numbers was understood by Jain 2600 years ago. Algebra, geometry, logarithims, trigonometry, and calculus were all originated in India."Bakhshali manuscript", 70 leaves of bark dating back 500AD reveals fractions, simultaneous equations, quadratic equations, geometric progressions.

The Sulba Sutras, composed between 800 and 500 B.C foreshadow pythagoras theorem and shows the square root of 2 has two solutions - correct to five decimal system. The Kerala mathematician Nilakantha wrote sophisticated explanations of the irrationality of "pi" before the West had heard of the concept.

Ancient Indian Computer Science

We know that binary numbers are the essential mathematics for the digital age and the computer. The Pingala's "Chandahshastra" was a treatise written on music. Pingala constructs a "Prastara" or a matrix of binary number. The treatise also describes how to convert decimal numbers to their binary equivalent. This was discovered by B van Nooten of the university of California. Ancient Indians had also found mathematical techniques to present text as binary numbers.

It was noted by forbes magazine that Panini is the most suitable language for computers. It described the rules of grammar as described in the Panini Sutra to be as advanced(if not more) as Backus-Naur Form in Syntax of Formal Languages". Bakus was developed in 1970's by IBM. An article was also published by AI magazine in 1985 where a NASA scientist proposed Panini should be used to develop high-level languages for computers and robots.

Here is the article: www.aaai.org...

Note: Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader

So if Sankrit is indeed the most advanced language for computers and systems to represent texts with binary numbers existed. And as we have learnt that principles of atomic thoery was known. Then all prerequisites for developing a computer exist. So are there any records of computers in ancient India?

Yes, as a matter of fact there is. Not just computers, but aritifial intelligence:

Artificial intelligence was known as a yantra-purusa, which means machine-man. A machine man was described as human-like. There are many accounts of artifiicial intelligence in sankrit documents. As usual, they belonged to the elite or acharyas and maharihsis, however they were also used in the military. Some accounts:

In the Buddhistic Bhaisajya-vastu, in which a painter went to the Yavana country and visited the home of a yantracarya, or teacher of mechanical engineering. There he met a machine-girl who washed his feet and seemed human, until he found that she could not speak.

A robot palace guard stands at the gate with a sword, ready to "quickly and quietly kill thieves who break into the palace at night.

A complete city of mechanical people, presided over by a human being who manipulates them from a control center in his palace.

All the divya(celestial) aastras in the Mahabharata worked on the basis of artificial intelligence and psychotronic means. The weapons could be summoned by thought and a "mantra" a sort of password was recited and they would materialise. They would be then directed at the target and then fired and they would seek out their target and unleash the effects they are associated with.

In the often quoted battle between Salva. Krishna deploys a special weapon that seeks out sound(the weapon has it's own intelligence) While Salva Vimana was cloaked, it had not blocked out the transmission of sound from the two Danava soliders that were piloting the air craft and screaming taunts and insults. Krsna then dealt with them as follows: "I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound, to kill them, and the screeching subsided. All the Danavas who had been screeching lay dead, killed by the blazing sunlike arrows that were triggered by sound."
Now, it is fairly obvious the weapon had it's own intelligence and is not just a weapon with sensors. In a battlefield there would be sound everywhere. So how does the missile distinguish between the sound of Salva's Vimanas and the sound of everything else? It would have to be intelligent.

Conclusion.

Ancient India was certainly a very advanced and sophiticated civilization. It is normally believed that technological development is a linear progression. However, the truth seems to the opposite. Everything begins to degrade from the Indian civilization of 10,000+ years ago. We can see from how IE languages devolved from the original master language.

A summary of the facts raised in this post and others.

A scientific understanding of atomic theory, relativity, newtonian mechanics and quantum theory

An understanding of binary nunbers and hashing algorithms for converting text to binary

An understanding of cyclic universe, multiple world theory, holograhic universe and the expanding universe(red shifts)

An understanding of the heliocentric model of the universe

An understanding of evolution and microbiology

An understanding of the exact speed of light and light as a particle

An understanding of the exact age of the Earth

An understanding of algerba, calculus, trigonometry, quadratic and simultaneous equations, geometric progressions etc

A practical knowledge of electricity, electrolysis and hydrogen airships

A practical knowledge of corrosion proof metallurgy

A practical knowledge of medicine and advanced surgery(including cataracts, plastic and brain surgery)

A language with such advanced grammar and syntax that it is suitable as a computer language for artificial intelligence.

A language that is the mother of Indo-European languages.

All the prerequisite understanding for advanced technology like computers, nuclear weapons, flight and lasers is present. Is there any reason why they could not progress that far? It took western civilization only a century to go from horse-driven carriages to space rockets. I reiterate that there is no doubt that this is a very advanced civilization. This advanced and sophisticated civilization calls the Ramayana and Mahabharata history, and we know that the Mahabharata does indeed have basis in history.

We can further corrobortate that the kind of technology described in the Mahabharat is described in other sankrit texts too.

The flying aircraft and wonderos technology becomes a natural progression allowed by the advanced state of ancient Indian science. Finally, we can refer back to the VS that describes all the yantras and materials in a high level of technical depth. The fact that Indian scientists have been able to fabricate technology from directions in the VS, and considering again, the fact that Indian science was advanced enough to progress to this technology, I submit that this is absolute proof that a more advanced Indian civilization existed.

I asked in another thread recently "Will Humanity become a Myth?" Well, yes, if the future inhabitants of this planet are as ignorant and arrogant as us.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Don't know about your linguistics but u surely have trouble reading on the screen, or maybe u do this posting on forum stuff all day so u have developed a 'macro' to bash every post. Anyway, what will it take to make u get the catch here. "We are not talking about 'recent' history".
If you arent confused with history, the inhabitation of aryan race was from europe and central asia to Iran and North India. As matter of fact all Germans were speaking sanskrit at one time. Sanskrit was the language of the Aryans. The history of Aryans is not very concrete, like where they originated from etc. Apart from that we have Dwarika, the city of 7000BC, a period when Aryans were not even thought to exist. So all in all, the history of aryans which has been officially documented, don't make much sense here.



Yo, I know, but Sanskrit is a master peice of the human brain as is quoted. It's also one of the oldest languages... or maybe the oldest.
And I am quite surprised that u didnt consider mentioning a few more language families apart from sanskrit. Well for europe, Latin and greek have been the most influential languages. But again, this is a recent history scenario. Also Tamil language has a lot of follow ups. But as a matter of fact, Sanskrit had the biggest area coverage.

Hello, apologies for intruding on a fascinating subject but I felt perhaps I could make a small contribution of sorts. I have only recently started reading this forum and so am not completely familiar with the style of the various posters so forgive any inaccuracies in my judgement.

There is always this inclination to become emotive about a subject and this invariably destroys any effectiveness of a discussion. This leads to important points and issues for discussion being scattered amongst far more salient distractions which fuel the aggression rather than the curiosity in us.

It is true that those in the Western hemisphere are more likely to be sceptical about subjects that are as amazing and potentially life-altering such as these, but this is to be expected. There's always likely to be something missed, some angle not considered, some possibility, however outlandish, that makes whatever theory you like fit into place. It might be a crazy theory, doesn't make it wrong but how right it seems really *really* depends on where you're coming from. For someone who has been nurtured in Vedic philosophy, there is an element of understanding that seems to go beyond the cold empirical realiities of our modern world. However, this is not sufficient for someone who has been nurtured in the formal, rigorous mindset of modern science and it is largely unfair to expect those who fall in this category to suddenly abandon their understandable mental framework to believe something that you perceive from a totally different angle.

From my limited exposure to the writings on this forum (it's limited so I could be wrong) there seem to be an awful lot of people who are sceptical in a healthy, modern way but open minded enough to entertain theories that the majority would be embarrassed to have to face. They may have their own beliefs (*EVERYONE* does) but they make the effort not to show condescencion to those they entertain and while they might make it hard they seem open to change. Being an academic, I have been trained as such but I am always excited about the possibilities often perceived to be frowned upon as serious study in orthodox academia. People who are open minded and yet rigorous in a modern way are to be valued, not alienated with insults. Most of the sceptics in this thread I do not feel needed to be rebuffed in such a way. I understand this was a reaction to a perceived slight, but I feel this original perception was a misperception. Just as Indians look at things more spiritually, in the same way as the ancients did, modern Americans and Europeans look at things more mechanically, particularly since the beginning of the industrial and scientific age. Discussions on a forum such as this should be as much about understanding the mindsets of ancient cultures and the influence of these mindsets on issues such as city development, science, philosophy etc as about what actual achievements suc h cultures made. Efforts in this direction will break down the misconceptions and limitations in mindset required to truly unravel the possibilities in a hopefully *civilised* and *productive* way (and yes, modern science and scientific methods ARE productive - both sides of an argument should realise their limitations *and* benefits).

Just a final point. History as we all know is not exactly mathematics. Interpretations and mistranslations, limitations of dating, cultural misunderstandings, political motivations in history writing, personality-related influences of all sorts - these serve to make history as a subject very shaky indeed, on a fundamental level. Errors and inaccuracies can have a multiplicative effect on a final result under such circumstances. This is especially true when talking about "long lost" civilisations. For someone who relies on scientific empiricism and observation, it would be unacceptable to accept theories based on assumption after assumption after misunderstanding after mistranslation since by that point the uncertainty has increased exponentially. It is perfectly understandable for someone in this situation to take Occam's route and fall back on a more simple model.

Approaches to discussion will vary and cultural traits are always an influence on how things go, the important thing is to be understanding and appreciate that for healthy discussion it is important to try and understand that if someone disagrees with you it isn't always because he is biased/racist/fundamentally opposed to your people and everything they stand for. If the greatness of ancient Indian civilisation is to be fully uncovered and appreciated, it seems it will largely have to be in a way acceptable to the scientific community as well as the people at large. So don't fight the system.

should you find a legitimate plan for how we could copy it, please let me know....I haven\'t yet....in 20 years.

For lack of a stone quarry I would propose the use of conrete for a pyramid, however if we were to use quarried stone it may be necessary to smooth the stone faces by grinding with other stone.

The blocks can be transported by rolling assissted by ropes on a road which has had ditches cut into it to simulate the board example given at this link. This gentleman is shown rolling a 300 pound block of cement several feet with a single push by using a series of dips in the road. He claims to have moved 2 ton blocks by himself using only a small lever on such a road constructed in the ground.

Once blocks reach the site, they can be "walked" into the proper arrangement by use of wooden levers and fulcrums.
The pryamids shape is functional in the building of successive tiers.
See the last video on this link: www.theforgottentechnology.com...


The greatest difficulty would be the attention to detail required in grinding down the blocks to make a good fit. One possible explanation for some pyramids is that there are types of stone found in South America which can be ground up, mixed with water, and poured as cement just that easy. This opens up the possibility that some of these structures are mortared or even poured, although in most cases this may be unlikely.

I can't say for certain this is how it was done exactly. I can only say that it is possible this way and that extreme levels of technology are not the only explanation. The attention to detail, mathematical, mechanical, and astronomical knowledge displayed in these structures is impressive without a doubt. I'm just saying that they aren't proof of nuclear war.

Semper Fi

Sanskrit is not the mother language. It branched off from the older IE languages a very long time ago.

Since when is this known? Also, there are cities from 9,000 BC, very primitive ones indeed tho.

There is no basis for making such statement. The people of northern india do not show any genetic linkage with the 'europeans'. As far as I know they are most closely related to asiatic peoples, which isn't surprising.

The sanskrit of the ancient veddas isn't spoken today by anyone, except specialist preists who learn to sing/preach it from scripture. It's extremely unlikely that it hasn't changed since it was first written.

No. This does not indicate that. The european IE languages do are thought to have branched off from the older IE languages long after sanskrit and in a geographic area very much removed from northern india, which is the only place there is any evidence of sanskrit being used.

The claim (that europeans spoke sanskrit) is baseless so this new claim does not stand.

I would imagine germans claim the same for german and italians the same for italian.

Why should anyone care about anything that Forbes magazine has to say about linquistic matters?

This, of course, is an opinion, and doesn't shed any light either way on some 'madrid to madras' kingdom.

On the IE/Aryan subject,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
here is a thread wherein some of us were discussing it recently. Perhaps you'd like to contribute there also?


You have not, however, presented the portions of the texts that have these formulas.


It is extremely important to recognize that this is simply not true. Proto-Indo-European is the re-constructed language that is the theoretical 'mother-tongue', the one spoken by the 'original' indo-european 'society'. Its not quite as simple as indians speaking sanskrit.


The fact that sanskrit words have parallels in other languages is meaningless, at least so far as being informative on the 'original language'. Latin and Sanskrit are extraordinarily similiar, apparently. But that doesn't let us know that one is older than the other. Simiilarly, the fact that many english or german words have forms that are similar in sanskrit merely means that they are all related languages, not that the one is an offshoot of the other.
[quote4]To only accept this kind of catagorization is fundamentalism, and oh, it's more intellectual arrogance

I'm not getting into this debate, because I know it will be pointless, but let me clarify something for you, Vagabond.
________________



I ACCEPT YOUR defeat then.




No. Since you are not willing to let this die down let me wisen you. I did NOT assume anything to be true. If so, it does not constitute prima facia evidence. That is my point. there is no prima facia evidence for this theory, in either angles. Except perhaps the texts that Indigo child produced, which then opens the questions of the probability (which by all means is still a probability, because we cannot go back in time) of such an existence. All you are trying to do is debunk this, YOU on the other hand, do not have ANY prima facia evidence for the contrary. Yours is similarly a theory, but in the same as Indigo child's - JUST ANOTHER THEORY. With everything there is a grey area which both sides can or cannot prove. For you, you either need to call the kettle black or white. Not everything that happened in life can be called that way. There are millions of mysteries in life that have yet to be explained. So your western logic of dividing by zero (which in vedic maths is not existent btw) does not apply. ok?



Read above. You call the kettle either black or white. Speculation my dear friend, can make the kettle grey too.



Please don't pretend that you are on a high horse. It's laughable. I have read your similar posts on other threads, but I don't wish to "debate" with you for it will be a waste of my energy and valuable bandwidth.



You are letting yourself off lightly by saying the negative argument need not be proven absolutely. It must. It is not for you to define what must be proven absolutely or not, especially when you are one of the "debaters". That is for the rest of us to decide.

As I said, this won't prove anything to both sides. I will log on two or three weeks from now and still prove that nothing here can be proven.

Once again, in short, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no understanding of the concepts we are discussing related to evidence. Skepticism need not prove itself. The absence of a thing would fall under the legal term res ipsa loquitor and as such need not be supported until challenged by evidence. This is the very principle upon which "innocent until proven guilty" rests.

Where believers have presented what might be considered prima facie evidence (evidence warranting further discussion) i have contested that evidence reasonably. The believers have failed to provide evidence which speaks for itself though (res ipsa loquitor) which would then shift the burden of proof. (You might notice that I have confused the two terms in my previous post, which is a common mistake. )
en.wikipedia.org...



This is true in this particular phrasing. It would be false if you replaced the world proof with evidence. To make the statement universally true would require the insertion of the word "final".
"absence of evidence is not final evidence of absence". For all intents and purposes the absence of evidence is evidence which speaks for itself until rebutted, and therefore can be the basis of conclusions in cases where a conclusion for some reason needs to be reached.

Last but not least, yes I am here to debunk this. Not because I walk around all day looking for a chance to lay waste to somebody's views, but because I strongly object to the precedent for "absolute proof" that would have been established if this thread had not gotten a good kick in the head.

Perhaps you would like for me to withdraw my opposition, embrace this new low standard of evidence, and use it to "prove" that my own narrowly defined religious beliefs are absolutely true to the exclusion of any ideas you may have, no matter how well evidence may support those? We could always talk to the mods and ask them to consider allowing such behavior. We could have a million threads with people claiming to have "absolute proof" of this or that fallacy- maybe even a "flat earth" thread.

It's been fun talking to you, but I'm done with this thread until someone other than myself and nygdan offers something intelligent.

Defy Ignorants. -Vagabond out.

Interestingly the same books that speak of nuclear battles also speaks of virgin birth with blessings from the Sun God.

Don't tell me that is true.

Like other ancient civilizations, the knowledge of them comes purely from couple of books and a few sculptures. For all we know those two books may be fantasy books for children of their age.

Btw, I am Indian too, but I think it is way too much to presume our ancestors as using vimana technology and fighting nuclear battles.

Surf

You seem to have some sort of a complex, in which you HAVE to HAVE the last word. Well hey, if you want to side track, fine. And in the process, you contradict yourself as well!

Just because you have thrown a legal jargon (*res ipsa*) does not suddenly make you an intellectual. I have come across several like minded people, who seem to be flashy with their internet posts. In fact on the contrary you seem to be more stupid. You speak of "innocent till proven guilty" but your thinking is the opposite, it's more like "guilty till proven innocent". You don't want to see/hear of any evidence that is subjected to you, hence you are saying that such a civilisation did not exist! So the initial poster was wrong in her assumption (in your eyes, that is). So your concept of prima facia goes something like ... "Guilty BEFORE proving innocence". HMMM there's some "res ipsa" for ya.



There you go again, with your legal jargon, Mr. liquitor, it still begs the question - what do you mean successfully contested? who determines that? You? You haven't scored "points" if that is what you're after. btw, i prefer simple english, not my mother tongue. As far as I am concerned, you are stuck in the same boat as defence in the OJ Simpson trial. You cannot prove that the opposite viewpoint is wrong.



Ahaa, Well, true colours showing Mr. Liquidator.



No, i don't want you to change your viewpoint. I just want to express MY opinion. That's what threads and forums are for, aren't they? Or are they also some legal battle to "win" every time.

And what is with the "Flat earth" thread?? What for? What are you trying to get at? Is it your way of insulting one's IQ? That the opposite viewpoint is stupid and yours is not? Just because the Indophiles in this thread, back one type of logic (or at least are open to it) - you being the typical unwilling westerner HAVE to debunk it?? Typical flawed thinking of having to "put them in their place". C'mon admit it.



Uhm... not exactly fun "talking" with ya. Just "posting" our opinions.



Yes,same here. Pity you have to resort to contempt.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by aryaputhra]

Point 1:

"Evidence on its own is sufficient to establish the fact".

Yes, there are several "evidences" purporting ancient indian civilization was advanced. Not going to repeat them. You just have to scroll up.

Point 2:

"..unless it is explicitly rebutted by other evidence or mitigating circumstances".

Come to think of it, where is the rebuttal evidence? Where is the mitigating circumstance?? All you've done is just written off the proposed theory as rubbish. You haven't presented ANY rebuttal "EVIDENCE". It is just your opinion. And that in itself is not convincing enough. Nor have you shown any convincing mitigating circumstances?

C'mon, Vagabond.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence".

[edit on 17-1-2005 by aryaputhra]

1. When did defending my arguements against your ridiculous assaults become a complex?
2. You have failed to point out any contradiction. At times I have had to make minor corrections of detail and when I have done so I have pointed it out.
3. What side tracking have I done except answering points which you have raised?



You're right, the jargon isn't what makes me intellectual. The research is. I include the technical terms because they add clarity and imply judicial rules of evidence, which are sound rules which will serve us far better than Indigo's version of "absolute proof".
As for being flashy- that's just be having a good time. I try to be what I call "George Bush Serious"- I make funny faces and phrase things in odd ways while I'm delivering a serious message.


You're supposed to say "psych" afterwards so people will know you're only kidding.
Innocent until proven guilty rests on the premise that the falsity of a claim speaks for itself until it is supported by evidence. That's the application of the term res ipsa loquitur. If the truth of a claim were assumed to speak for itself it would be possible to convict 50 people of acting alone in the exact same crime. Only strong evidence of presence can challenge the absence which speaks for itself, and only EXTREMELY strong evidence (such as DNA or multiple eye witnesses) can be said to speak for themselves and shift the burden of proof to the arguement of absence (not guilty).
You have either made no attempt what so ever to understand my point or you are misrepresenting it.



You seem to be trying, in spite of some difficulty with the english language, to argue that I have simply ignored evidence which would have spoken for itself. At best, the "evidence" warranted further discussion. I have given reasonable answers to these points. Note that you have blatantly misquoted me as saying that I have "successfully" contested it when I only said "reasonably". I intentionally avoided implying an absolute so as to be fair, which is far better than can be said for you and Indigo.
Nothing so concrete as to shift the burden of proof (such as the unearthing of a vimana) has been produced, and therefore the absence of an ancient nuclear war still speaks for itself and needs no proof beyond reasonable doubt.


There's the misquote. I have really enjoyed watching the legal terms evolve since you got your hands on them by the way. You're not the Governator are you?


If we were in a court of law up to this point it is almost certain that the ruling would favor my arguement because your evidence has not held up.


Actually the part that threw you off the most was Latin. Anyway I will clarify something for you which aparently hasn't translated properly. I'm not using the word "point" as it might be used to relate to a scoreboard. I am referring to debating points, or the various issues which have been brought up within the larger subject. The "points" or arguements you have made would not hold up as arguements, while legally speaking it is likely that my defense against those would have.


Well I'm sure as hell never going to India now that I've heard that. Has anyone ever been found "not guilty" in your country? The defense team need not prove anything unless the prosecution presents evidence which speaks for itself. Innocense, the falsity of the claim, or absence (of guilt) is considered to speak for itself until it is rebutted by evidence, at which point a reasonable counter-arguement must be made by the defense. The counter arguement need not live up to "absolute proof" or "res ipsa loquitur" unless the prosecutions evidence did first. This, in addition to his celebrity status and perhaps a little bribery is why Simpson was not convicted.




Yes they do. I am a fiendish predator on ignorance and my assaults on false statements and flawed assumptions are a blight on ATS and its motto. Somebody really ought to ban me for that.
Really nobody knew my true colors for a long time because I shave my head. Finally I grew a goatee and everyone found out.




Not at all. You are welcome to your opinion and I'd be all to happy to let you voice it. Feel free. Just don't make or defend ridiculous claims about "absolute proof". All you ever had to do was cut me off at the beginning by saying "look, I know there is room for debate, I just want to talk about the possibility".
Now that you seem to have made it clear that your intentions are to do that, I'll leave you alone with your theory, true or otherwise. Start gaffing off at the mouth about it being 100% proven true however and I wont let it stand uncontested.




It's one of those subtleties of the english language my friend. Talking is often used to apply to other forms of communication, especially when it is real-time or near that, such as online.


Anyway, for your sake and mine you'll be on my ignore list now. Nothing personal, it's just that your child-like belief for such fantastic notions gives me a headache.

Nydgan, with all due respect to you, but your knowledge and arguments have been far surpassed in all areas with all of the evidence and expert studies presented. All that is left is dogma and denial and a lot of uneducated remarks. A lot of your remarks show that you don't even understand the very basic scientific principles taught in high school. It's ironic that someone who doesn't understand science will judge what is right or wrong in anothers science.

Your assertion: Sankrit branched of other IE languages:

Evidence:

Nearly all European languages and the number system can be traced to their Sankrit origins. As I have shown in my previous post.

Sankrit is the most advanced scientific language in existence. This is corroborated by Sankrit scholars and scientists.

Sankrit predates the European languages.

Your assertion: Cities from 9000 years ago were primitive.

Evidence:

The Mahabharata which speaks of a very advanced culture, not only records the construction of the city of Dwarika, but also it's sinking. Therefore the civilization 9000 years ago was not certainly not primitive.

Your assertion: the sanskrit of the ancient veddas isn't spoken today by anyone, except specialist preists who learn to sing/preach it from scripture. It's extremely unlikely that it hasn't changed since it was first written.

Evidence:

Sankrit was the standardized language for ancient India. It is known by thousands of Sankrit students and scholars. Further, there are hundreds of texts from the post-vedic times of ancient India that are written in sanskrit. Again, the IE languages have descended from it.

Your assertion: Scholars opinions and scientists commenting on Sankrit being the most advanced and master language - is just an opinion - and therfore meaningless.

That is one single word: ignorance. Not only are you not qualified to judge sanskrit and linguistics in general, you overstep the mark, when you judge the qualified experts. That just makes you look very ignorant.



No, it is not meaningless. It is only meaningless to someone who wants uphold dogma and deny evidence. The fact that the family of IE languages can be traced to Sankrit, not just the similarity of words, but the fact that even the semantics are the same. Shows incontrovertibly that they have originated from Sankrit.

And it is a fact that the Indian civilization predates the Greek civilization. I am not going to debate the validity of facts with you. It's better you educate yourself.