It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Indigo_Child
Person B isn't all that wise if he can not allow others to give to him. Life should be give and take, that is how we share happiness with others, and that is a very big part of life, that no one should deny themselves. people want to please as much as they want to be pleased.
I first studied Buddhism and Hinduism when I was ten. I would think you might have figured that out by now. It didn't take me long to figure out that this whole inner peace and happiness thing was a lonely way of life. It is more important for you to learn how to share and enjoy life with others than it is to find inner peace and happiness.
A majority of Westerner's do not follow the church all, and the church lost control of the masses long ago. Even most Christians in the first world nations tend to believe in Christ in far different ways than the Catholic church teaches.
I think I understood Buddhism and Hinduism at ten better than you understand it to this date, and our conversation so far has proved this.
The person who insists only on giving, is telling everyone that they have nothing of value to give. This is extremely selfish and egotistical.
You must be willing to give AND TAKE to share in the human experience.
The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Celts carried the early Y chromosome, said the study, which provides the first clear evidence of a close relationship in the paternal heritage of Basque and Celtic speaking populations. “They were statistically indistinguishable’, said Prof Goldstein.
The Celtic languages form a branch of the larger Indo-European family. By the time speakers of Celtic languages enter history around 400 BC (Brennus's attack on Rome in 387 BC), they were already split into several language groups, and spread over much of Central Europe, the Iberian peninsula, Ireland and Britain.
The English word druid derives from Latin druides (pronounced [druˈides]), which is the same as the term used by Greek ethnographers, δρυίδης (druidēs). The Latin and Greek terms are loans from a Proto-Celtic stem *druwid-, which combines the Proto-Indo-European roots *deru- and *weid-.
The word was etymologized (as per Aristides) as containing δρύς "oak tree"), and the Greek suffix -ιδης. *deru- is indeed the Indo-European "oak" word (cognate to English tree), but the root has a wider array of meanings related to "to be firm, solid, steadfast" (whence e.g. English true), and it isn't clear whether the term was originally derived from a meaning involving "oak", or the wider meaning of "true, solid".
*weid- is the Indo-European root for "to see" and, by extension and figurative use, also referred to knowledge, as in English wit, wisdom, Latin vision or Sanskrit veda.
The Druids of the ancient Celtic world have a startling kinship with the brahmins of the Hindu religion and were, indeed, a parallel development from their common Indo-European cultural root which began to branch out probably five thousand years ago. It has been only in recent decades that Celtic scholars have begun to reveal the full extent of the parallels and cognates between ancient Celtic society and Vedic culture.
Celtic cosmology is a parallel to Vedic cosmology. Ancient Celtic astrologers used a similar system based on twenty-seven lunar mansions, called nakshatras in Vedic Sanskrit. Like the Hindu Soma, King Ailill of Connacht, Ireland, had a circular palace constructed with twenty-seven windows through which he could gaze on his twenty-seven "star wives."
There survives the famous first century bce Celtic calendar (the Coligny Calendar) which, as soon as it was first discovered in 1897, was seen to have parallels to Vedic calendrical computations. In the most recent study of it, Dr. Garret Olmsted, an astronomer as well as Celtic scholar, points out the startling fact that while the surviving calendar was manufactured in the first century bce, astronomical calculus shows that it must have been computed in 1100 bce.
One fascinating parallel is that the ancient Irish and Hindus used the name Budh for the planet Mercury. The stem budh appears in all the Celtic languages, as it does in Sanskrit, as meaning "all victorious," "gift of teaching," "accomplished," "enlightened," "exalted" and so on. The names of the famous Celtic queen Boudicca, of ancient Britain (1st century ce), and of Jim Bowie (1796-1836), of the Texas Alamo fame, contain the same root. Buddha is the past participle of the same Sanskrit word--"one who is enlightened."
For Celtic scholars, the world of the Druids of reality is far more revealing and exciting, and showing of the amazingly close common bond with its sister Vedic culture, than the inventions of those who have now taken on the mantle of modern "Druids," even when done so with great sincerity.
The easiest of parallels to be drawn between the Celtic and Vedic peoples must be that of the Druids and the Brahmins. The Druids and the Brahmins were both the priests and philosophers of their respective cultures. Both orders of priests were the wise ones of their lands, the seers and teachers, to whom warriors and kings turned for counsel and advice. They were free to wander the lands, as many of India's holy men still do, and, according to Caesar's writings, the Druids were "held with great honour by the people".
The Druids and their daily activities of bathing in rivers is a mirror image of the Vedic Brahmins, who bathe during the first hours of sun rise in rivers such as the Ganges. Tacitus, a Greek historian, commented on the striking similarity of the bathing Druids to the Brahmins, suggesting they were "so emblematic of the brahmins." Morning bathing in rivers remains a daily activity for the Brahmins, and many Hindus, to this very day.
Both Celtic and Vedic cultures were closely entwined around a multifarious pantheon. The Celts had a large pantheon of which about 300 to 400 names are known to us today. Though most of these names appear only once, inscribed on alters or votive objects. Many of these deities were likely to be local forms of pan-Celtic deities. This also stands true for the Vedic pantheon, practically every deity known throughout ancient India had a local name alongside other titles which will have been in more widespread use. Often their function also slightly varied from region to region. It is interesting to note that the Celtic term for the Gods is 'Deuos' and the Vedic term is 'Devas', both terms meaning "Shining Ones".
As an Aryan I have a near complete understanding of all the logical steps on how creation happens and how knowledge happens(a clue for you, they are related) thanks to the wealth of knowledge I have gained from the Aryans. Which you too can benefit from once you get past your ego.
What is coincidental and what is evidence of affinity becomes a mathematical question, and many of the theorists may be unsophisticated enough in statistics to be unable to distinguish between the random similarities that can be expected and the systematic similarities that are evidence of common origins. The natural occurrence of linguistic change, which is rather like genetic drift in human DNA, may, over a few thousands years, as Trask says (p. 376), obliterate all evidence of origins. The hope for future understanding, however, may be from just such statistical methods as are already used to separate, for audio and images, the "noise" that accumulates from the "signal" that remains. How even to apply those methods, however, is a problem all by itself. Unlike genetic affinities, where the elements of comparison are just the chemical constituents of the DNA, RNA, or proteins, in languages prior decisions must be made about the words or grammatical structures to be compared. Phonetically similar words, for instance, with entirely unrelated meanings will not qualify in the first place for comparison, since it is not just the words but the meanings that are supposed to have a common origin.
Was there a super-advanced culture in prehistory? If not, how can it be that the supposedly unsophisticated people of Stone Age Britain possessed a fully-integrated system of measurement based on a deep understanding of the solar system?
In Appendix III, entitled: The Minoan Civilization of Crete, we present a few passages from the book The Knights Templar Revealed, by Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe.
The passages deal with the so-called "Megalithic Yard," a measurement that ancient western adepts frequently employed when laying out and constructing innumerable sacred sites (stone circles, dolmens, cairns, tumuli, and so on) throughout Britain and Europe.
Since Professor Thom's time, the investigators Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe have discovered additional information concerning the widespread application of the Megalithic Yard. They have also discovered that its origins were in the far west. Their seminal discoveries serve to strengthen our own theories concerning the west to east movement of the elements of civilization which sadly these authors do not consider or address in their otherwise fine works.
The megalithic yard is much older...and was certainly in use in Britain as early as 3500 BC, at which time the Minoan civilization was still a full thousand years short of its ultimate emergence. Since there is little or no evidence of the existence of the megalithic system within central or southern Europe, the inference must surely be that the Minoan civilization ultimately responded to ideas that had originated further West - Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe (The Knights Templar Revealed)
...Alan's previous research had led him to believe that the Megalithic Yard was, and is, a "geodetic" unit. This means that it was derived from the geometry of the Earth itself - specifically, it was based on the polar circumference of the planet.
The Indo-Aryans from Northern India employed a unit of measurement called the "gaz." It too was based on the Megalithic Yard. Of the connections between the Indus Valley civilizations of India and the western lands of Britain, the authors write:
There is no evidence that we are aware of that gives a precise measure for the gaz but we know it was very close to the Megalithic Yard, which was still in use in Britain when the earliest Indus Valley cities were established. Could international communications have been so advanced as to allow a southern Asian culture to take its measurement system from the Megalithic builders of the western fringes of Europe? Or is it more likely that all the ancient cultures we have looked at had the same teachers? Could an otherwise unknown group of super-scientists, that we have dubbed 'Civilization One' have trained indigenous peoples around the world to accelerate global civilization.
I never said that the pursuit of perfection is an Abrahamic concept.
The Hindus do not believe that man is imperfect. The belief that man is imperfect is an Abrahmic teaching, and this teaching justifies the control by the god-men or priestly class in the Abrahmic religion. Hindus believe man is divine himself.
The link I provided gives scientific evidence to back its claims. The sites you linked to are all nothing but Hinduism pride sites. You have yet to back any claims you have made with any scientific evidence at all.
Common moment is a hypothetical moment in time that is measured as the same time for two or more events at different points in space by all observers in the universe. It assumes existence of a time that runs at the same rate for all observers in the universe or at least that can be "scaled" to such a common rate, in which this "common moment" can be determined. Such hypothetical time is called absolute time. In cosmology it is usually called "cosmic time". The absolute time is a hypothetical time that either runs at the same rate for all the observers in the universe or the rate of time of each observer can be scaled to the absolute time by multiplying the rate by a constant. ...
According to relativity theory there can't be such time and each observer has its own time running at different rate than the times of at least some other observes in the universe. Therefore, strictly speaking, there are no "common moments" in nature since it is not possible to establish uniquely the simultaneity of two events in two different points in space for some observers. Nature doesn't need "simultaneity" for anything since nature doesn't operate at a distance, but only on contact between interacting agents, so the simultaneity, as not existing in nature, is a human rather than a physical idea, following from imprecise measurements of time. So is the "common moment". Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is a set of two theories in physics: special relativity and general relativity. ...
However the differences between measurements of time may be smaller than the ability to detect them and so we may postulate an "approximate simultaneity" and "approximately common moment" for some practical purposes.