The 10,000 year old civilization which was more advanced than us

reply to post by KrummyButton


as far as I'm concerned, if this thing is real, then the Egyptians during the dynastic period etc were not much more advanced than is commonly thought, since it is not them that built the great pyramid/sphynx/flew around in planes etc. IF this is real, they were descended from refugees from the technologically advanced civilisation, after it had been mostly wiped out by war and some catastrophe, or they were descended from people who interacted/traded/were ruled over by the advanced race, prior to said catastrophe. Meaning while their legends and history might have described the civilisation, and some advanced knowledge may have been kept alive in certain groups (most likely priesthoods/"mystery schools" etc), in general, they were pretty much at the level mainstream archeology thinks they were.

so, having crummy dentistry doesnt prove much HOWEVER: look up susrata(sp?) father of surgery, who wrote of advanced surgery techniques thousands of years ago in india. Also I seem to remember a story maybe 6 months ago about ancient (I mean "stone age" ancient) fairly accurately drilled teeth (apparently using a stone bow drill) being found somewhere or other. Now imagine you stranded a survivalist nut (with flint knapping skills), a modern dentist and someone with a painful cavity on an island with no modern tools/metal objects...


On another note, I found this very interesting website, which has done much to convince me of the reality of Atlantis:

www.atlantisquest.com...

and would be interested in any honest comments on the information presented from knowledgeable people such as Byrd etc, but only if they are willing to give it a decent read, not just superficially scan it for "errors" without considering it properly. I understand if they cant be bothered (thinking/knowing it all to be fake), but honestly am interested in their (properly analyzed) opinions of it, even if I might disagree with them. (specially if they can point out any obvious definite errors in the data)

[edit on 29-3-2008 by diablomonic]

Hello, I’m new to ATS. I was looking up something on Google and was routed to this thread. I spent yesterday evening reading through the thread and I must say there is a lively debate going on here.

From my point of view after reading the threads and knowing what I have read and watched on the History Channel and Discovery Channel, I believe there are probably many civilizations that have risen and fallen during what we call pre-history, but the record is lost due to the vast areas of ancient coast line that is now underwater. Does this mean that they invented airplanes and nuclear bombs and blew themselves up? No, and most unlikely. Could these societies have been similar to the ancient Egyptian, Mayan or Indus Valley Civilizations, Yes and more likely, however there is a lack of evidence for a number of reasons. Until evidence is found it is a mute point. Science is based on theory backed by empirical evidence. Story telling is a theory based on some truths, but more entertainment usually with a good moral or ethical message attached.

Ancient literary works that allude to some great civilization make for a great campfire story, but without physical evidence we have to base our conclusions on what we know. Are the science community and archeology community counterproductive and at times and biased? Absolutely, it’s just human nature. However, there are many mavericks in both communities who push the envelope and end up finding new artifacts/ evidence, rewriting history in the process, which is what history has really become, a process, and one that will continue so long as there are people on this planet.

Humans of today think and socialize similar to how they did 30,000 years ago. We are an intelligent and adaptive species, and wouldn’t put it past any individual at any time in our prehistory, historic times for the ability to mentally propose the worse weapon imaginable or flight. However, the evidence does not support it the actual invention being made. Claims based on superficial or biased evidence collection have in my opinion damaged the search for truth.

I think everyone interested on this subject should get involved at least on an armature basis in marine archeology. That was the subject I was searching on when I came across this thread. If there is any evidence of advance civilizations prior to the ocean level rising (our great flood), most of it will be under water.

Before I sign off I would like to make some statements which may agree or disagree with previous postings:
1) Technology hasn’t become linier until around the end of European medieval times. Civilizations have created technology, lost it and reinvested it several times. Most notably agriculture, building construction, sewer/ water systems, steam propulsion, maritime travel, medical, surgery, hydraulics, optics, weaponry… the list can go on and on. The point is that this technology was lost and needed to be reinvented so we have it today. Could there be other technologies that were lost and we have not invented? Sure, invention is pushed by necessity and if the need does not exist it won’t be created.

2) I personally disagree with any references that aliens or some previous civilization created the pyramids or the sphinx. Give credit where credit is due.

3) I do agree that some technologies could have been based on different foundations to achieve similar objectives. We use chemistry and physics more than biology in building materials and methods, information collection and storage, power consumption. Could past civilizations used organic plant matter to grow buildings, store and use data, communicate and create and use power, sure, but there is no evidence for it and until such time that evidence is collected to support such arguments it is a mute point. On the flip side to say that we could have ONLY evolved technologically via the industrial route we have taken is narrow-minded.

4) When analyzing this type of data, one should look at the average life span of humans in a particular time period in a particular region from burial grounds, etc. to get an idea of their technology. The longer than average life span, the more advance a civilization is. Additionally one should look at the DNA record to see if any genetic markers skipped from one continent to another. This would show and increased level of travel. DNA evidence over the last 90,000 years hasn’t really showed anything like this until much recently. So if there was a great civilization that could travel the planet in airplanes and blew themselves up in a nuclear war and all remaining evidence for their civilization has vaporized or is under water, they sure didn’t breed with outsiders, and we all know that does not fit humans at all!

5) New ancient cities are unearthed on a regular basis around the planet, and better analysis is being performed due to our increased technology developed over the past 100 years. Some Mayan cities and buildings are much older than originally estimated. The ruins on Santorini are older than originally dated (I discovered this by visiting the ruins myself in 2005), so they are pre-Minoan with a later Minoan influence. Foundations for large buildings/ or pyramids in were recently found in South America pre-dating the Egyptian building projects. I’m sure older even more magnificent cities are hidden due to time/ underwater, etc. For the believers keep reading relevant information and do your own hunting, not just jump on the bandwagon with someone that may or may not be looking at evidence with an unbiased approach. For the skeptics, keep challenging the evidence.

6) Conspiracy theorists: Though I believe there is always a little conspiracy in just about any place a large number of people live and are governed by a few, I don’t think there is a master plan, and if there was one, they sure screwed it up a long time ago. People by nature are rebellious when they smell BS. “You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but never all the people all the time”.

It was good adding to the chat, happy debating!!!

I have made a decision to side with CaptainRon after reading the posted materials and comments. My particular instincts say to me there is something more to this. I have arrived at my conclusion based on unrelated information which I know to be a fact.

India is vastly superior with technology and scientific advances and is a the primary reason that so much "work" gets outsourced to India and just by America- but I suspect every nation in the world today. There is something far more to this than cheap labor because Indian labor is not "cheap"- but it is being marketed that way as an excuse/explanation/reason- if this were actually true- there are cheaper labor sources and this is no secret.

Also the repetition of history does support CaptainRon's theories far more than disputes them- and thus lacking the same ingredient to prove/substantiate either side is hard evidence- the cycle continues yet goes nowhere.

The gross moral conduct of India and her peoples has not changed significantly either over the centuries which clearly establishes the lack of humanity in technology so before India can get on a high horse- she needs to get a bit more humble and human before introducing such "superior" skills on every level- clearly this is not India's direction- in fact quite the opposite.

That said- if we have been "documenting" ancient aircraft and mis-interpreting such aircraft as "alien" technology throughout history cleverly disguised as our own aircraft and early attempts with technology- this also is a trend which has carried over in the "modern" world. Likely the ancient farmers seeing this aircraft depicted on a cave wall (or whatever) and thought it was angelic/aliens/demons...again whatever- when in fact it was earthly scientific technology- again this rings true for lack of hard evidence.

I do see the similarities on every level repeating themselves. Also- the conquerers have historically destroyed evidence to discredit the last and this still occurs today as does same the arguments- albeit the communication skills have changed and that's about it.

Gotta pick a side and the only way this can be achieved is by instincts because everything else leads to substantiated and unsubstantiated arguing which cannot and will not be proved until its too late and there are not a lot of people left saying "I told you so" and who cares anyway because one needs to get busy rebuilding a future which leaves no real time to investigate the past, by the time the rebuilding efforts are done the evidence left is severely diminished or destroyed completely.

America gets to shoot holes in everything because we are a child compared to other countries and nations histories. We are the teen age know it all's for lack of a better way to put it. Everyone is afraid to rile up a teeny bopper because you can't tell them anything anyway!

Its always fun to discuss the facts- but speaking for myself it is only when a draw the simple conclusions and easy to understand analogy's that I am able to hold a belief, which tends to be right after all the information is eventually considered.

Scriptures have been edited and the information to empower and free our souls from the human condition has been reserved for a very few- leaving the rest of us confused enough to follow someone else who appears more informed. This is the only statement of fact that is generally accepted to be true for every being on the planet- thus is where the focus must be kept- or follow blindly into slavery and doom.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by dk3000]

Originally posted by dk3000
India is vastly superior with technology and scientific advances and is a the primary reason that so much "work" gets outsourced to India and just by America- but I suspect every nation in the world today. There is something far more to this than cheap labor because Indian labor is not "cheap"- but it is being marketed that way as an excuse/explanation/reason- if this were actually true- there are cheaper labor sources and this is no secret.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by dk3000]

Sorry but this is just nonsense. India is still one of the poorest countries in the world and 320 million people live on less than a dollar a day (which adjusted for spending power often effectively means 25c a day) - if you don't call that cheap labour then I don't know what is. It's population is nearly a billion, but it's economy is still 3 times smaller than the UK or Italy!

It might be catching up fast, and already has a vast number of highly educated citizens, but it's science and technology is still far behind much of the West.

Hey all,

I've been watching this forum for a while, there are some interesting theories there, but no evidence. If i had to make a decision based on what i've seen I'd have to say it's false. But take a look at this link

www.nasca.org.uk...

Interesting I think.

By the way, I am not religous, I believe the theory of evolution, and I am open to new ideas.

Keep up the good discussion.

The nuclear warfare angle falls apart for a lack of evidence of technological socities in the past. An impacting metorite generates the type of heat that will cause glass to appear which was created at Trinity.

The proper use (if there is such a thing) of nuclear weapons wouldn't generate this type of damage- as Naga and Hiro show.

reply to post by Byrd


Sorry to correct you, but the Earth is aged at 4.54 billion years old

reply to post by Huynhy


To quote Huynhuy:
"Although methodically this isnt hard the science and reasoning behind this invention is. The ancient race (if it did exist) would need knowledge of how atomic structures work and hence they would need some very advanced tech for that to happen."

Wasn't Brownian motion proved by dropping pollen grains into water? Not very advanced to me...

Well, if anyone's still checking this thread, here's my two cents:

Considering the transient properties of the universe, I find the idea of rising and falling civilizations a much more conceivable notion than that of a steady progression. My reason? The planet itself. It constantly rebuilds itself, restructures itself, violently and catastrophically, every day; To think that we, a life form borne of this world, are outside of this cycle is outlandish at best, and ignorant of evidence in front of our very eyes at worst.

I have been mildly interested in so-called "conspiracy theories" (I hate that tag, it suggests an interest in such insignificances as "Who shot JFK?", and "Who blew up the World Trade Centre?"; who gives a sh--? Does it affect your everyday life, even if you were Jackie Onassis or live in NYC? Does the sun still rise and fall?) for a while, and though I consider myself far from being an expert, I do consider myself a rather critical analyst and well educated. In the course of my unthorough but quite extensive studies, I have found multiple occurances of oddities in the history of the sciences which first led me to this line of thought; such as the fact that the Pythagoreans were very, very secretive of the mathematical techniques they had stolen from the Babylonians/Mesopotamians, the fact that the I Ching can be used as a hexadecimal/unicode system, the lack of blue LED's until they found the electroreceptive mould in a Peruvian temple (I remember neither the temple or the source, but I'm sure one of you is well read enough to know of which I speak), the Baghdad Battery and the Egyptian electric sconces, the mysterious planet Nibiru (if it's not there or unimportant, why does NASA have two satellites tracking a large extra-solar object?), and other such wonderful things.

Alot of people have already damned the idea of "advanced" meaning "current"; I, too, take a dim view on any former civilization requiring plastics, brand names, and skyscrapers (although in reference to the latter: what is a pagoda?), and the idea that anything would be left after a nuclear attack (google "Nuclear Firestorm". Modern military strategy would be to minimise resistance as quickly and effectively as possible once a threat has been established and confirmed; one bomb just wouldn't be good enough... and has anyone done extensive testing for the isotopes Pu-239 + U-283, or pu-240? That would be the clincher there, they are NOT naturally occuring, and have half lives of 24,110 years + 4.46 billion years, or 6563 years respectively.); the Mahabharata describes the Iron Thunderbolt, a horrific weapon that vapourises two whole races of beings, a little too close to home for my liking.

As regards the idea of flying chariots or temple roofs, the only thing I have heard that challenges my western preconceptions is the Hakatha, or Laws of the Babylonians, which states rather unashamedly

"The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives."

Methinks out of all the poignant metaphors, lessons, and truths that may be found in these so called "conspiracy theories" (AAAGGHH!!), this is the one to which the most attention must be paid.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Looshkin]

Semantics: the two Plutonium isotopes are not naturally occuring; The uranium isotope is abundant in nature.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Looshkin]

Originally posted by Looshkin
reply to post by Huynhy

 

To quote Huynhuy:
"Although methodically this isnt hard the science and reasoning behind this invention is. The ancient race (if it did exist) would need knowledge of how atomic structures work and hence they would need some very advanced tech for that to happen."

Wasn't Brownian motion proved by dropping pollen grains into water? Not very advanced to me...

And the mathematics behind most of Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity is pretty simple, that was his genius.

I'd like to agree with CaptainRon, but I just can't as there is no 'proof' presented which has swayed me towards his premise.

Such advanced civilisations leave 'indelible' marks, and while it is 'possible' that some evidence has been destroyed by tectonics, volcanism, erosion, ice-scouring etc there is still no evidence, no roads etc and it seems more like charlatans pulling the wool over the eyes of the hopeful in order to either make a buck or advance a theory of 'racial superiority'.

In response to the OP, Atlantis is not a fact, I do not believe in the divinity of the bible or in god and the most plausible theory for Tunguska is a subaerial extraterrestrial impactor exploding.

I'm not sold on this idea yet.

[edit on 20/9/08 by ChChKiwi]


Oh, and an 'Iron Thunderbolt' could (just as easily) be a meteorite/bolide impactor.

[edit on 20/9/08 by ChChKiwi]

I agree, the Iron Thunderbolt could well have been a meteor/bolide impactor, a very plausable scenario considering the history of this planet. But surely you must also agree, the context in which it is used and described does ring quite true given todays nuclear climate?

But in closing, I must also agree that such "indelible" marks are not forthcoming, and as such there is no proof. But maybe, just maybe, their marks were not created in the chipping and carving of the face of Earth; it could just as well be the lores passed down to us, be it in fairy tail, religious/historic scriptures and documents, and scientific and industrial insights that seem to be just recently coming to light...

I guess I'm in love with the romance of the whole thing...

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Looshkin]

Originally posted by Looshkin
I agree, the Iron Thunderbolt could well have been a meteor/bolide impactor, a very plausable scenario considering the history of this planet. But surely you must also agree, the context in which it is used and described does ring quite true given todays nuclear climate?

Please provide the quote and source that makes you feel this story "rings true."

Harte

"Gurkha flying in his swift and powerful Vimana hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendour. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas."

en.wikipedia.org...

Although widely disreputed, and the alleged "Iron Thunderbolt" is generally cited as being a manifestation of Shiva himself, I still find the quote, even when read in its six or seven-page true context, highly interesting.

www.uforq.asn.au... - about a third of the way down.

By "rings true", I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, I just think that the context in which it was used sounds a little too close to the current nuclear climate, and the weapon itself has a potential not unlike those the current governments have in their possession. I need not quote a source for a feeling, surely?

I meant not to take a side, or influence anyone else's rational judgement as regards this matter. I just wanted to contribute.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Looshkin]

Originally posted by Looshkin
"Gurkha flying in his swift and powerful Vimana hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendour. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas."

en.wikipedia.org...

The quote you provided is from the Vimanika Shastra, a book that was written through "channeling" in the twentieth century.

Got any other reasons? Preferably some that actually come from ancient, and not modern, texts?

Look, the actual texts are available at Sacred-Texts.com. I suggest you go there and find evidence for yourself, as there are a lot of so-called "quotes" from the Mahabharata floating around websites out there that do not actually come from the Mahabharata.

BTW, a search here at ATS (maybe even in this long thread we're in) can tell you all about these faked-up quotes.

Harte

reply to post by CaptainRon

I believe if those civilizations were really so advance, they wouldn't write by their hands on stones. they would at least leave some printed material, or have their knowledge saved on some usb sticks. and those who survived they must have had mp3 s with them, or some laptops in their bags.. for the anti-gravity, why can’t we must see some of their remains on the moon with some little tools ?. ... sure wars can destroy civilizations, but they don't erase completely the history. and if you look carefully to the history you will find the average history tells what we must exactly know about the past..Over-guessing about the facts of past can lead only to strange non worth beliefs, which keeps us busy from our worth current days that we live.

I am also resurrecting this thread, because it contains an excellent debate related to my other one. I have read a few pages, but I could not read it all, and what I have read is not exhaustive. I think the subject matter of this thread is for me the most important topic on all of ATS at this moment, because of its ramifications for the present.

We are living in a time period today where we could see a very devestating global nuclear war, which has the potential to destroy much of civilisation today. The destuction of the advanced ancient Indian civilisation by similar wars, which seems to have affected the entire ancient world, is a stark reminder to us of just where we are headed. In the words of Oppenheimer when asked if this was the first atomic blast by an interview, "Of the modern age, yes" implicit in his answer is the belief that there have been atomic blasts in the past. This is not surprising, considering he was well-read in the Mahabharata epics, which contains vivid descriptions of weapons of mass destruction.

I do not mean to trivialise the skeptical argument, but it pretty much can be summarized like this: "There are no remains of metal works, skyscrapers. advanded machines etc, and it seems unlikely that everybody in the world would forget all their knowledge and technology.

The major problems with these arguments are:

1) They assume that ALL advanced technological civilisations would have skyscrapers etc
2) They assume that the masses would have access to technology.

These are errornous assumptions. It is perfectly conceivable that there can be advanced hi-tech civilisations that have simple lifestyles. This means. they may not have futuristic buildings, but may just live in mud-brick houses. They may not have huge power plants, but may generate their power using natural ways. Nor are devices like televisions, personal computers, mobiles phones necessary. None of these are essential to life. Perhaps, the only place where technolog is used is by elites. So the masses would not have access to it.

So it is conceivable that the city of Mohanjadro was an advanced city(actually in most respects it is) even if the material technology seems primitive. The skeptical argument thus can be rejected on the basis of plausible deniability.

In my reserarch on the ancient Indian advanced civilisation the question of technology has always confused me. It seems as if low-technology and hi-techology seems to exist side by side. Even in dates as late as Alexander's invasion of parts of India, there are records of hi-technology being used by the Indians. Again, one can evoke plausible deniability again and say that the Indus civilisation had both advanced and low technology. But if that is true, what happened to the hi-technology? There seems to be a period in ancient Indian hiistory where the future generations have forgotten about the details of the past, and there is no doubt that these later generations are low-tech.

I have a theory to explain this. I have discussed this in my other thread. There have been two major historical super-events: The global floods and the Mahahbharata. Just as we were coming out of the ice age, there was unprecedented super floods around the world, which caused civilisation to rupture and fragment. This event was catacylsmic and brought an end to the Aryan civilisation. The survivors tried to recreate this civilisation, and the best record we have of this is the Indus Valley civilisation,. They had the tehnical know-how on planning cities, but the material technology at their disposal was primitive. There was a tiny elite that still had access to hi-technology, but this technology in the hands of the elites of this new fragmented civilisation proved to be catastrophic in the Mahabharata. This was the first world war.

This indeed is one possible account of what happened. Another possibility is that the Aryan civilisation was VERY pre-glacial, in fact it was pre-ice age and possibly tens of thousands of years old. When the ice-age set, it destroyed all of civilisation, and man had to resort to hunting and gathering stone age culture, with only an oral tradition of the past. As soon as the ice age ended, man was able to rebuild civilisation based on that tradition. He did it faster, than it would have taken if there was no pre-knowledge at all. In places where the oral tradition was weak, more primitive cultures resulted(such as Western Europe), and in places where the oral tradition was strong, more advanced cultures resulted(such as India)

As per my theory it would seem that cataclysmic events are regular, not rare. They seem to take place every few thousand years. It is definitely possibly there there have been many several dozen of these cataclysmic events in human history, both man-made and natural. But the one were headed for now is definitely man-made

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Unfortunately for this theory the lack of evidence is damning. You might have a simple civilization - but they leave traces, as we can abundantly see.

We can find camp sites and habitation areas for hunter-gathers from tens of thousands of years ago but you are suggesting it plausible that we cannot find the slightest trace of civilization that used nuclear weapons to destroy themselves?

Hmmm

reply to post by Hanslune


The absence of evidence is of course debatable. There are two kinds of evidence which has survived from ancient times: texual and artefacts. They both require interpretation to be understood. There is certainly a problem with interpreting ancient texts and artefacts, because of the problem of multiple interpretations, especially with artefacts. Take the Baghdad battery for example, one could say it suggests advanced knowledge of eletricity, chemistry etc; on the other hand another could say it is just a crude battery that has been built through trial and error and does not mean the ancients Sumerians actually knew of eletricity and chemistry.

Even if we did discover far more sophisticated artefacts, it is explained by the skeptic as either a modern hoax or as naturally occuring. Some examples include underwater pyramids, and allegedly advanced thousands of years old metallic components(which have been dismissed as modern spark plugs.) So it seems it is a lose-lose situation. No matter which evidence you produce it can be denied.

An India-related example of the above is ancient wootz steel, which recently was discovered to be composed of carbon nanotubes, which gave its unusually high quality. Almost suggesting that the ancients were aware of nano-engineering. The explanation by skeptics is that the ore used for Wootz steel had naturally occuring carbon nanotubes , but it is no longer extant.

The dubious quality of artefacts thus makes them a rather redundant type of evidence, and hence why I am not so preoccpued with them. I consider them weak evidence for ancient advanced civilisations. The strong evidence are the texual evidence that has survived from ancient times. These still have to be interpreted, but linguists can use accurate methods to interpret them properly. The Sanskrit literary tradition in particular has legions of experts on translating classical Sanskrit texts. The texts I have made reference to exist, widely studied and translated, and rather uncontroversial. They are teeming with anomolus references which are uber-modern. Some include

1) A text on cosmology: Discussing the cycles of the universe, supersymmetry theory, and observer paradoxes. None of that ideas are jaded one bit from contemporary quantum physics. In fact this particular text inspired Schrodinger and his cat in the box problem. I have read it quite extensively, and a lot of books on it. I can read Sanskrit a bit too, so understand it. Here is one aphorism from that text which is striking because it discusses how one should go about in observing phenomena and the problems inherent in:

Standard methods of evaluation through detection are affected
by distortion, attenuation and inferior resolution to details; but an
alternate method that is totally satisfactory, is based on the
principle of discriminating the basic and dynamic substratum into
its appropriate components of the unmanifest, manifest, the selfpotential
and kinetic or dynamic potential.

This is talking about certain unperceivable phenonena, which exists(e.g., cosmic rays) but cannot be perceived because by a range of problems with intruments(inferior resolution etc). From the same text another Sutra:

2.. The reasons why manifestation may not be detected.
Extremely far or near distances, mental and sensory
inefficiencies, subtle or attenuated conditions, occultation or
eclipsing of the object, poor background contrast, camouflaging
effect (are the causes of non detection or non measurement of
phenomenon).

In the text's school of cosmology: the universe is divided into three distinct stages: manifest, unmanifest and absolute. All phenomena which occurs is emanating from a single physical substratum called cosmic energy(Prakriti) which is very close to modern concepts of quantum vacuum. All phenonena are cylical units which emanate from the substratum, become manifest, exist in a local and temporal phase and then become unmanifest again. The above passage is talking about why to the observer phenomena can become undetectable. The most obvious is one our sensory instruments are insufficient to detect the phenomena.

According to this text before the observer observes any phenomena, the universe exists in a state of supersymmetry, where three elemental forces(known as Gunas) are in a state of balance. As soon as the observer makes an observation it collapses the state, throwing the forces out of balance, and what results is manifestations, each manifestation being a certain modification of the forces. It not only explains this is how the universe came into existence, it also talks about the cycles of expansion and contraction it goes through. Another revolutionary idea contain within it is that not just the universe, but all phenomena within (what it calls cyclic units) go through the same process i.e., creation and dissolution is happening every moment.

The Sanskrit tradition took this model of cosmology as accepted fact and event went as far as to give time-scales for various cycles. The age of the Earth was given as 4.32 billion years; the age of the universe was given as 155 trillion years, the age of the solar system is given as 8.45 billion years and the lifetime of the universe is 311 trillion years. The Vedic Aryans believed this cycle goes on forever.

Another thing which is striking here that there is no god in this system of cosmology. This is an atheistic school, which explains the entire universe in purely empirical language. Just what one would expect from an advanced civilisation. Some parts of it are indentical with Quantum Physics.

If that is not anomolus, then what is? Should something like this have been written in 1000BCE or older?

This is just one example of an anamolous text. Other examples I have given in my other thread: texts on microbiology and brain surgery, texts on computer science, texts on binary numbers and hashing algorithms. All of these texts, by conservative dates, were written in the 1st millenium BCE.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]