It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Aryan Heritage: Learn about your real spiritual heritage

page: 13
113
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Yep, happiness is not a thing, it is feeling. Now why does that feeling occur. Heres why: When you resonate with something, you experience a state of oneness with it, and this gives you happiness. You mistake the thing to be the source of the happiness, when in fact it is your own state of being which sees its reflection in the thing. However, because your being is constantly changing, what gives you happiness is also constantly changing. This is why true happiness is in the totality of being.


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.


Person B does not require anything, other than the basic needs he must satify. He is happy with whatever he gets so as long as it satisfies. He lives his life not by any self-interest, but he lives his life for the divine only.

A famous Vedic maxim goes, "All for society, nothing for me" Person B is one who gives and gives for the benefit of others, without asking much for himself. He does not need much for himself, he is content with what he has. This makes him a noble and saintly person and everybody loves person B for it.

Others live their live for self-interest, their participation is life is always conditional. They are the norm, there is nothing special about them.


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.


You have clearly not understood these religions, and perhaps that is because you looked at them when you were ten
Although some schools of Buddhism promote a solitary life, Hinduism does't. Hinduism promotes a social life, where you are involved with others and are helping them.

You can either live a selfish life where you use others for your enjoyment, or you can live a noble life where you help others develop.



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.


You miss the point, capitalism is Christianity. Christianity has nothing to do with Christ, it is a distortion of Christ as many Christians have said in this thread themselves. It was always a system of social-control, where men had power, but invoked in the name of Christ. This later became industrial capitalism and it was used to spread capitalism around the world through colonialism, and unsurprisingly it spread Christianity at the same time. Browse over to any Christian channel on television and you will not see the difference between capitalism and Christianity. This relationship was noted by the famous sociologist Max Weber. The use of Christianity to control the masses was also noted by Karl Marx.

As for Vatician and the power is has in the world. Take a look at this:

www.bereanbeacon.org...

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 




Let me spell this out better.

Everyone wants to give. They want to give, and they want others to take what they want to give. This is an extremely important human desire.

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.

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 exterior is certainly capable of giving one true pleasure, such as the pleasure from knowing that you have done something good for someone, by the simple act of accepting a gift from them.

You either succeed on the journey of life in this physical world in which we live, or you fail. You can not succeed here, by concentrating on there.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

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.


If you say so. In actuality you have demonstrated no understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism. I am not saying I am the world expert on these religions, but I've at least read the primary texts several times, and read a lot of secondary texts. Altogether I have probably read up to 50 books on these religions. I can freely describe the very complex philosophies of these religions because I am so well-read in them. I have not seen you do that, so it strikes me as humerous that you claim more understanding than me who has studied religion(Eastern and Western) academically, because you read something when you were ten years old



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 are telling me someone who gives to others, takes very little for themselves is selfish and egotistical. Ok.....


You must be willing to give AND TAKE to share in the human experience.


I think you are just trying to use pseudo-philosophy to justify a selfish and ordinary life you lead. Nothing you have said so far is outside of the norm.
You talk about pleasure seeking - everybody does it; you talk about give and take; everybody does it.

You've also deliberately misunderstood what I am telling you. I will repeat, but I won't be repeating again, I know when somebody refuses to listen and acknowledge new ideas. I said that a person who gives, but takes little for himself is a noble person. The person takes little for himself because they require little.

Are you familiar with false needs? No, I don't think you are. I doubt you've read on any Philosophy whatsoever. I far outstrip you when it comes to education. I actually know what I am talking about. I say that with as much modesty as I can. We only have some basic needs:

Material: food, water and shelter
Intellectual: Good memory and reasoning skills
Emotional: Positive interactions with others, love
Spiritual: Awareness

Anything other than that is a false-need. A noble and civilised person takes only as much as they need, and the rest they give. So they will have a humble meal with humble shelter, and that is really all they need to sustain themselves. The rest of the time they will dedicate to positive upliftment of others and gaining awareness through meditative practice. That is what all the saints and spiritual teachers do.

And you're telling me they are selfish and egotistical? While you who insist on a pleasure-seeking life for yourself and are not selfish and egotistical? You've got your world upside down mate.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Look, I am just here to have a philosophical discussion on spiritualism, not to be attacked by someone who seems to have very little emotional discipline. This last post of yours is nothing but a rant building yourself up and attacking me, hardly the sign of a well developed person.

A big part of love is making the other person feel like they have worth, that they contribute, that they are needed, and this is why you must be willing to give and take. Someone who is unwilling to take from others when offers are made has problems.

When it comes to needs, we also need to procreate if our species is to survive. In addition, as humans, we need to have ambition, drive, be productive, and that is even more important than intellect when it comes to succeeding in this world. I would add that in order to further develop yourself, you need to develop virtues.

I will leave you with one last tidbit of information, and you can look it up yourself if you would like.

The ancient Druids were Celts, who are most closely related to the Basque, so they are not Aryan or Indo-European, they are the original ancient Europeans.

I have read enough on Buddhism and Hinduism to know they are not my cup of tea. I respect the culture and the philosophy, and recognize that there are many things to learn from it, but it is not my system, and it will never be. It seems that you don't have any tolerance for other peoples beliefs, and so further discussion is a waste of time.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I am not really trying to attack you. I was responding to your arrogant statement that you understood more about Hinduism and Buddhism when you were 10, than myself now. That was an attack undermining my knowledge. I will possibly grant you that when you've read 50 books on the subject, read the primary texts, and studied Indian Philosophy like I have. (I have alslo studied Western Philosophy)

I do not boast, but I do know my Hinduism and Buddhism very well. I practically live my life in accordance with their philosophies. I even have familarity with Sanskrit.



The Celts were Indo-Europeans. It's a fact that top Celtic researchers themselves state. Your problem is European pride. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your culture, but there is everything wrong if your pride gets in the way of facts.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. All I was doing is dishing back what you have been dishing out for a while now, constantly telling me I don't understand what I am talking about when you can't back up your point with logic and reason.

Here is a link on Celtic genetics. You didn't even bother to do a little research to see if what I am saying is true.

www.goldenageproject.org.uk...


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.


By the way, the Basque are also highly keen on stone circles. Their language is completely unique, and they are the primary population of RH Negative Blood, as not having the Rhesus monkey blood connection.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Great thread and Good debate and I've appreciated the attempts of civility and decorum being practiced so far. So please continue debating the points set forth in the thread and a reminder to all participants to refrain from taking things to a personal level.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Actually, I have extensively argued each of my points. You have not been able to refute any of my arguments. I always appreciate a good refutation, but so far all you've done is dismiss my arguments. I have presented you a lot of links but you have not read on them. I would appreciate that you start engaging what I am saying to show that you are listening and discussing with me.

Anyway lets get onto topic. Regarding celts. I am aware of genetic research that connects the Celts to the Basque, but this is not conclusive. In any case I am not saying that the Aryans are an ethnic or genetic group, I am referring to Aryans as a cultural group. The word Aryan means "noble" and refers to a noble and enlightened culture and not a master race. So it is entirely possible that the Celts are indigenous to ancient Europe, but they practiced Aryan culture.

A culture is the totality of language, arts, beliefs and social institutions and in those terms Celtic culture belongs to the Indo-European family which in turn traces to Vedic culture.

Celtic language origins:


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.


Druid etymology:


The English word druid derives from Latin druides (pronounced [druˈides]), which is the same as the term used by Greek ethnographers, δρυίδης (druidēs).[5] 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),[6] 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"[7] and, by extension and figurative use, also referred to knowledge, as in English wit, wisdom, Latin vision or Sanskrit veda.


Source: Wiki

Celtic culture is clearly traceable to Vedic culture says Peter Berresford Ellis, "one of the foremost living authorities on the Celts and author of many books on the subject, including "Celt and Roman," "Celt and Greek," "Dictionary of Celtic Mythology" and "Celtic Women."


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.


Source: www.hinduismtoday.com...

A very detailed analysis by a Pagan specialist site of the parallels between Celtic culture and Vedic culture, can be found here:

www.geocities.com...


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".


Source: www.geocities.com...

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Celtic culture descended from Vedic culture. In other words Aryan. Only somebody completely ignorant would deny this.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Ok, with encouragement of our moderator, let's continue

By the way, thanks Worldwatcher for the encouragement.

Indigo, while you think you have done a good job of arguing your points, I think you have done a poor job of defending your beliefs. Your beliefs are your beliefs, but if you want others to share in those beliefs, you have to find a way to convince them that you are right, and you have failed to do this.

You have wavered numerous times on your position on time, and have yet to produce a logical or reasonable position to counter my example of hitting a baseball, and pointing out how being at the right place and the right time is a necessity to make things happen in our world.

You claim that the pursuit of perfection is an Abrahamic concept, but I provided a link from a Hindu swami stating that Hinduism is the pursuit of perfection. While you may claim different, clearly there are recognized authorities within the Hindu community who agree with me that much of Hinduism and Buddhism is about the pursuit of perfection.

You then go on to claim that people can never be happy pursuing temporal, or Earthly, pleasures like lust, or materialism, or victory. I then state that I obtain happiness through these things, as well as through my inner state of being, and that I know many other people who do, and who love life and see life as a gift. You claim that happiness can only come from within, but you admit that you look forward to leaving this world, and that this existence is one of suffering. Clearly you are contradicting yourself. How can you claim to know what it means to be happy when all you see is suffering?

Then you make statements like this:


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.


Do you know how egotistical you sound with this statement? My ego isn't the problem, your ego is the problem, which is why it only took me one little stone of a comment to make you break down and go off on a rant.

It's all a learning process.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


DNA is a far more reliable indicator than language. Here is a nice link that discusses how the different families of humans are connected. This link has some other very interesting stuff for those interested, who might be paying any attention to the thread.

www.friesian.com...


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.


Another important indicator or culture heritage is building structures. Outside of Britain, the largest dense grouping of stone circles is in The Basque region of Europe, where their unique language is still spoken. The stone circles in the Basque region were also used for religious ceremonies, just as they were used by the Druids.

The connection between the ancient Britons and the Druids is far greater than the connection between Hinduism and the ancient Druids.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Now, I have never denied that there is a cultural connection between Vedic culture and the Druids, but how much of a connection, and who influenced who is something that is very debatable.

You claim that Celtic culture descended from Vedic culture, but you have provided no evidence to back this up. Here is some evidence that shows that the situation is just the opposite, it was the Celts from whom the Vedics learned.

www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com...


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 article then goes on to demonstrate that the megalithic yard was used by the Indo-Aryans.


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.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Hitting a baseball:

I am not sure how that contradicts my argument that time is not real. The event of hitting a baseball is just like any other event in time. Each event is based on an observers frame of reference. At your frame of reference you have hit the ball at time t, at another observers frame of reference you’ve hit the ball at t - n, that is because time is flowing faster for the other observer. He see’s the event you see earlier than you see it.

Time is relative, it is not absolute. It is always observer-dependent and this has long since been demonstrated by general relativity. All events will appear differently to different observers depending on ones frame of reference.

Pursuit of perfection:

Now be honest you’ve not really been reading my posts carefully have you?

I never said that the pursuit of perfection is an Abrahamic concept. I have been saying from the start that Abrahamic religion teaches imperfection. This is where we get out, “humans are imperfect” meme from.

I never said that the pursuit of perfection is NOT a Hindu concept. It is a Hindu concept. The purpose of Hindu religion and Buddhist religion is to achieve perfection. In Hinduism it is through self-realization, in Buddhism it is through reaching the state of Buddha.

Happiness and suffering:

I said to you that you can never be satisfied through satisfying desires. You admitted yourself that you cannot be satisfied through desires and you will get bored doing the same thing. Well, that is what I am saying.

This is basic Hinduism and Buddhism 101. As long as you live a life of desire satisfaction you are stuck in a vicious loop(Samsara)

The explanation for this is as follows: A seed exists in your mind(samskara) which creates an impulse(desire) that directs your senses to satisfy that impulse by finding the object that will satisfy it. This creates another seed in your mind that you must satisfy in the future.

Suppose that the seed is, “I must smoke”, which creates an impulse in your mind and guides your senses to seek out a cigarette. You smoke that cigarette to satisfy the desire. This creates another seed in your mind, “I must smoke to satisfy my smoking desire” and the cycle repeats again in the future.

In reality it is far more complex than this because mental structures are more complex than this. Your mind is full of an entire network of associations which repeatedly force your senses to seek out objects to satisfy your desires outside. As long as your senses are pointed outwards you will continue to seek pleasure outside. This however will not produce real satisfaction, only a desire to repeat your behaviours. Hence why I said you do not satisfy your desire to smoke by smoking.

Our desires lead to various mental pathologies, especially when we cannot satisfy them, and ultimately no desire can be satisfied by doing it, so the mind employs various defence mechanisms, one of them is denial, which plagues us all. Some of us say we are “happy” in actual fact we are not. If we are happy we would not be still seeking happiness. When we are under denial our pursuit of happiness becomes like a dog chasing its tail.

When desires cannot be satisfied it leads to anger and frustration and anger and frustration lead to the corruption of intellect and ignorance to form. We do not function properly when our intellect is corrupt, it leads to our real spiritual being becoming covered by ignorance. This causes us to fall from grace to so to speak.

Now you say you know happy people? I can wager they are not really happy. You should open your eyes and look at the mass consciousness of the world. This is an angry world. This is why it is ravaged by war, violence, corruption, famine and death. You can pretend to be happy if you want, but the reality is most people on this world are suffering.

There are ignorant people living in the West who because they are so entertained by materialist living that think the world is alright. No, it is not alright. Nobody who is sane would say this world is alright. The people in the West have it worse than third world countries actually, because they live under the delusion that they are free, when in fact they are prisoners and completely spiritually impoverished. They are truly the most miserable of them all and soon the illusion is going to shatter. In 1-2 years you will not see a single happy face on this planet.

The material world is a plane of suffering. As soon as you become awakened like the Buddha you realise this. You realise that all pleasures are actually pain in disguise and that the soul is in bondage and the prisoner of its own mind. This is when you realise you must liberate the soul by breaking it free of the chains of the world. The real nature of the soul is FREEDOM. It is not free when it in bondage with the world.

I realised about 10 years ago how painful life was without there being any apparent cause for the pain. I became sick of the pointlessless of life and this is what started me on a path of spirituality. I am far more positive now than I was in the past by realising that the material world is a plane of suffering.

It is a matter of choice really. You might not be ready to wake up to the reality of the world because you have not had enough experiences yet to make that realisation. I have, and as painful as it was at the time, it has woken me up. That is not to say I have become a Buddha. I am just closer to getting there than people who still take this world for granted.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The site you link is an Irish pride side. The articles I linked were by academic researchers into Celtic culture that cite real evidence, and not emotion.

The Indus Valley civilisation is around 3000BCE and the Celts appear in Briton around 600BCE. It is clear in which direction the migration of culture has taken place. Moreover, there are virtually no records of Celtic culture prior to 600BCE in ancient Briton. It appears suddenly around 600BCE and we know that it is Indo-European and there is a culture almost exactly like it in India called Vedic culture which is more than a millenia older and is far more developed and has a very ancient history. So the evidence clearly shows the Celts descended from the Vedics than the other around.

I really think you should stop being a flat-earther when it comes to the fact that the Indo-Europeans have come from the Indian subcontinent. The evidence is far too overwhelmingly in favour of it.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


By the way to add to that. It's the same whereever you see the appearance of Indo-Euroeans. They appear suddenly out of nowhere in places without any cultural precursors. Such as in ancient Greence. The only Aryan culture that does not appear out of nowhere and records a very long history in the same place is Vedic culture in India.

Now we even have scientific evidence to show why the migrations took place. The appearance of the Indo-Europeans, the earliest being the Lithuanians appears around 2000BCE(incidentally the Lithanian legends say that originate from the foot hills of the Himalayas) and this was the same time when the river Saraswati dried up in India. This is where we see evidence of sudden disappearance of the Indian inhabitants from the cities. Where did they go? They went westwards that's where they went. They dispersed throughout Indo-Europe taking their language and culture with them and from thereon they split up into many factions: Slavics, Greeks, Celts etc.

The Indian subcontinent is our real mother land and the only ones not accepting this fact are people with racial complexes on both sides of the border. The fact remains that the Indians and the Europeans are actually the same race and we have originated from India. A fact that has been widely accepted by many intellectuals, except Christian missionaries and white pride and Tamil nationalists.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Sorry, but the moment the bat hit the ball is absolutely certain, because the ball changed direction, the physical change is a reality. Your argument that just because that exact moment can not be measured by our ability on this plane of existence is proof that it was not real is patently false. The rippling effect on reality of the bat hitting the ball proves that the event occurred at a point in time and space resulting from an expenditure of energy. Nothing in physics backs up your claim. If you can name an accepted theory that supports your claim, please post it with a link.

Now you claim that

I never said that the pursuit of perfection is an Abrahamic concept.
??? WOW!


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.


Nice double speak nonsense. If Hindu's seek perfection, then they must believe that they are imperfect, to need to seek perfection. In addition, if man is perfect, then why is this world one of constant suffering? You constantly claim your superiority, but if I am perfect and you are perfect, than we are equal in our understanding of the universe. If one is better than another, than one can not be perfect.

I never said that you can not be satisfied through satisfying desires, I said just the opposite. Getting bored is the natural result of living in a fluid universe.

The failure of Hinduism, and there are a great many failures with the philosophy, it that they seek this static state they call perfection that does not exist. Life does not go around in circles, that is an illusion, life moves in cycles, always changing, which requires one to always be adapting to the changes, which means there is no such thing as perfection. The closest thing to perfection is doing the right thing at the right time at the right place, but this is never complete, whole, or perfect, which is why the world must constantly change. This constant change is how we continue to grow and learn, because no matter how much we succeed, and can always do better. To imply that one is perfect, is to imply that one could not do better than what one currently is, and that will never be true.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


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.

Culture in Briton goes back beyond 3,000 BC, they have circles built with geometric precision older than that. Civilization in Briton might go back as far as 10,000 BCE.

The oldest known circles are in Gobekli Tepe, Turkey dated at 9,000 BC.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Time:

Your views on time have been obsolete since Einstein proposed the general theory of relativity. All events that you see have already taken place in the past, only that you are seeing them now e.g., stars can only be seen when we detect their light, and when we detect the light, the time at the stars frame of reference is in the future. So we detect only the past.
If a star is 500 light years away, it will take 500 light years for the light to reach us and by that time the time at the star will be 500 years into the future.

New neurological research shows that the brain knows an event that you are about to do a split second before you actually do it.

In other words the change between cause and effect which occurs in the dimension we call time is dependent on the observer’s frame of reference alone, there is no such thing as an absolute time where the event is taking place.

Perfection:

Nope, I never said that Hinduism says we are imperfect. The pursuit of perfection in Hinduism is called “Self-realization” which presupposes that we are already perfect, we just need to realise it.

We are all perfect beings, but we are at different stages in time. Time is cyclic and each of us are unit-minds which have come into existence at different periods. Each unit-mind evolves in conjunction with time, but as time is cyclic, it means that each-unit mind evolves towards their point of origin - like a circle. So the beginning and the end are the same.

All phenomena in the universe are cyclic units and their beginning and the end are the same and these cycles repeat. This in modern language is called fractal time. A phenomenon is unmanifest in the beginning, it manifests in the universe, and then it goes back to unmanifest. Every phenomenon obeys this - from plants to stars. The universe too will follow the same cycle and eventually revert back to the singularity state in the end. The beginning and end are the same.

Your views on time are clearly confused. You say time is cyclic and at the same time believe it is linear and progressive. Although I do not blame you on being confused about time, it is very a complex subject, but there is no need for you to reinvent the wheel, just look at what modern physicists and philosophers say about time to understand it better. Like I said your views have been obsolete since Einstein almost a century ago.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

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.


Celtic culture is clearly traceable to Vedic culture says Peter Berresford Ellis, "one of the foremost living authorities on the Celts and author of many books on the subject, including "Celt and Roman," "Celt and Greek," "Dictionary of Celtic Mythology" and "Celtic Women."

Hindu pride?

I suggest you stop being a flat-earther and just accept the Celts descended from Vedic culture. I know it hurts your "white pride" but I suggest you grow up and accept the facts. Accepting the common origins of Indo-Europe will bring us all closer and help us revive our ancient culture. If we let issues like "white pride" or "Hindu pride" get in the way there will be no revival, and such issues are really non-issues, it's people refusing to grow up.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Actually it is the special theory of relativity that suggests that time is not absolute, but just because this theory states that time is not absolute, not universal because theoretically, not all observers will observe the event at the same point in time, does not prove that time does not exist. Find me a paper that states that the theory of special relativity proves that time does not exist from a credible source, and I will find even more papers that not only don't say that, but challenge whether or not the theory of special relativity succeeds in proving that time is not absolute. The best you will find from a credible source is that the theory proves of that absolute time does not exist. The problem is that Einsteins theory is just that, a theory, unproven. The Theory of Special Relativity only works because it allows for compensation for errors in measurement.

This web site does a good job of explaining it.

www.statemaster.com...


Common moment

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.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Do you realize that your theory on perfection completely contradicts your theory on time?

Accor
ding to you, time does not exist because of the observers frame of reference, then how can perfection exist if it can not be observed?

You claim that Hinduism does not see man as imperfect, well, if Hinduism claims this, than it is a deception. Clearly Hindus do not treat all people as equals. If everyone was perfect, than why isn't everyone treated as an equal in India and Tibet? Hindus do not even treat all people as if they were created equal, as evidenced by the caste system.

How can one be perfect if one does not realize that one is perfect? Not seeing one's perfection would be a flaw, thus rendering the person imperfect.

How can we be at different stages of time if time does not exist?

Time can be cyclic, and always be progressive. It is called a sine wave, and it the most natural observable characteristic in nature. Time is not linear, it moves in all directions at once, like waves spreading out across a pool.




top topics



 
113
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join