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.

 

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

page: 12
53
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I guess everyone assumes an advance civilization would be technology based, and that doesn't need to be the case. Low tech but advance in math and other areas could be the case. The big problem is if there is nothing for us to find it really doesn’t matter if they existed or not. Also they would most likely be a different branch of the human race, so I would expect they would think totally different.

I do find 10,000 years rather a short distance in the past, and so I would suggest 500k or more. I would think, unless it was an isolated small group like an Atlantis scenario, there would be something still around.

The biggest issue I have with this all is the fact that our advancements are more based on a large population with advances in communication. If this off shoot human group were all geniuses as an average compared to us then maybe they could advance quicker.




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I suppose I have to take a bit more of a middle of the road approach. I would not deny that there is a very good possibility of advanced civilizations in the past. In fact, this would go a long way toward explaining anomalous artifacts.

There is ancient knowledge that has been passed along as fable and legend. Yet, withing those so-called fables, knowledge exists that there is no explaining, unless our so-called fables and legends have basis in fact.

I would suggest that while there may have been advanced civilizations in the long past, and possibly even nuclear exchanges, that the mechanism of their demise may have been entirely due to the very thing that ancient cultures around the world have been repeating for millennia.

Catastrophic geology.

Most ancient cultures indicate repetitive catastrophic geology that wipes out man (almost to extinction) on a periodic, regular basis. To them, this was a part of the cycle of natural events, and nothing to be astonished about.

Consider that roughly 10,000 years ago, the North American continent alone lost 130 species with a body weight of more than 100 pounds. Horses, American camels, Great Sloth, Sabretooth, Mammoth, on and on.

Advanced tools, no different than those made a hundred years ago have been found in every strata one can imagine. Finely machined mechanical parts only found on a fine Swiss watch.

Some locations would suffer greater damage, some would disappear, and some would remain. We do have to admit that megalithic constructions have commonalities.

Extinction can take many forms. And every day we learn more and more about just how fragile we and our civilization are.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Some interesting ideas floated above.

It is possible that there can be a low-tech civilisation with advanced knowledge. However, it seems unlikely. If a civilisation had advanced knowledge, then there is no real reason why it would not apply it to creating better tools, which will benefit in the end. The Vedic Aryans were not anti-technology, in fact surprisingly, they were as materialistic as they were spiritual. A cursory reading on the Sanskrit literature will evince this. In the IVC we find a culture that is very much pro technology, we find instruments that were used to measure tidal waves, innovations in metallurgical technology, and sanitation systems. In the Ayurvedic texts we find descriptions of chemical apparatus to manufacture medical drugs, and in the Charaka Samhita is described a machine to see microorganisms(sounds like a microscope) Then of course we have the epic literature, which have a certain degree of historicity, that are teeming with references to technology impossible for any neolithic culture. Thus the Vedic Aryans were very much pro-technology.

The theory of natural cataclysms is definitely very interesting. In fact, it is not really a theory, scientific data actually exists that shows in the last 100,000 years alone the Earth has undergone many cataclysms. In fact at one point man almost became extinct. It is easy to see how such events could destroy civilisations. If entire coast lines can be submerged in the twinkle of an eye with a Tsunami like the recent one in Indonesia, imagine what would happen in a super-flood or super earthquake,

The absence of remains of these civilisations is not damning at all, such critisms can be dismissed by evoking plausible deniabilty. But merely arguing from possibility is not enough, there has to be some example of anomolus data to give reason for entertaining that possibility. No such artefacts exist which cannot be explained by ordinary explanations. Stories and fables of most cultures in the world couldd be called flights of fancy. So again, they are not evidence either. In fact, I would include the fantastic descrition of advanced technology in epics like Mahabhatrata in the list. It could easily be dismissed as neolithic sci-fi and fantasy, even those vivid descriptions of so-called nuclear weapons.

What I am interested in is the actual empirical evidence in the Secular Sanskrit texts. These are not religious, nor are they fiction. They are verifiable. There is no doubt at that medical texts do exist that give vivid descriptions of microrganisms and mention machines to detect them. There is no doubt at all that texts exist which describe brain surgery. There is no doubt at all texts exist which use binary numbers and hashing algorithms, and texts which describe computational science and modern linguistic analysis. There is no doubt at all that texts exist which describe quantum physics, and even inspired it. There is no doubt that texts exist which describe cognitive psychology. There exists no doubt that texts exist which describe modern atomic theory and classical mechanics. And there is no doubt that all of these texts, at the very latest, are written in the first millenium BCE.

Parallel dimensions, time dilation, infinite universes, space and time travel all seem to be accepted by these texts as if they are common sense lol
If you don't believe me that these texts exist, just ask, and I will post each one here. When I do that people tend to shut up completely. I posed the part which mentioned microrganisms in my other thread to a skeptic, and I've not heard from him since.

Again, if those texts are not anomlous, what is?

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Agreed that Ancient Indian Civilization was indeed advanced.

For the time being, forget the mentions of nuclear weapons or wars/vimanas , AIT et al.

Just a few questions, that have been runnign in my mind.

according to you,




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.


In your posts, you state many times that your theory is an alternative look on the way IVC developed.
by saying "alternative", you dont have to provide any proof for your theory.
If you strongly believe that your theory is what is real and actual, you should also support it with evidence.

Ancient Indian Science is not what you should be providing as the evidence for the origin of the aryans or the claim that they founded the IVC or provided the stimulus for its creation.

Are there any evidence/proof that the aryans originated in the areas around the location of the IVC?
Any archaeological evidences linking aryans to IVC? simnply posting long paragraphs is not enough dude. provide links to archaeological papers backing these claims.

Any idea why the IVC Script has no link to sanskrit or ancient pali script?


once again, alternative views/theories are best to remain as alternative views/theories.
If these views /theories have to be mainstream, evidence is required.

But instead of evidence, we get only long long posts only.

wot say?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   


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.


In your posts, you state many times that your theory is an alternative look on the way IVC developed.
by saying "alternative", you dont have to provide any proof for your theory.
If you strongly believe that your theory is what is real and actual, you should also support it with evidence.

Ancient Indian Science is not what you should be providing as the evidence for the origin of the aryans or the claim that they founded the IVC or provided the stimulus for its creation.

Are there any evidence/proof that the aryans originated in the areas around the location of the IVC?
Any archaeological evidences linking aryans to IVC? simnply posting long paragraphs is not enough dude. provide links to archaeological papers backing these claims.

Any idea why the IVC Script has no link to sanskrit or ancient pali script?


once again, alternative views/theories are best to remain as alternative views/theories.
If these views /theories have to be mainstream, evidence is required.

But instead of evidence, we get only long long posts only.

wot say?





There are two debates here.

1) Is the IVC Aryan?
2) Is the Vedic Aryan civilisation pre-glacial.

The first one is a bit moot really. As I discussed with you in the other thread, there are competing models for the origin of the Aryans(AIT, AMT and OIT) and OIT is the one that best fits all the available evidence, without actually being conclusive. It is possible the Vedic Aryans did come from elsewhere, a man named Tilak has proposed an even more outrageous origin for the Aryans, they are from Antartica and a pre-glacial civilisation.

There is a lot of evidence which supports OIT and I mentioned in the other thread. I promised I would share the evidence with you, but you did not seem interested in the end, so I decided to save myself some time. Anyway I am sure you already familiar with all of this evidence. It always comes up in AIT debates.

But this is actually below top secret for me, because the IVC are only relatively advanced. They are still primitive by modern standards, especially the Megrah period. The kind of knowledge contained in the 'Indian Sciences' is too advanced even for IVC. Hence why I insist that this civilisation is pre-glacial. My evidence is the Indian scientific texts which have survived and their incredibly advanced knowledge which is impossible for their time. The fact all of these texts all point to a very ancient history and all internal Vedic records talk about impossibly ancient history is my proof for this civilisation being pre-glacial. That is all I can say.

You being Indian should be familiar with Panini's machine-code like analysis of the Sanskrit language. He anticpates many computational concepts like formal language processing which did not appear until the mid 20th century! Clearly it is anomolus. Nobody should expect any pre-modern culture of writing treatises on computer science concepts. It sticks out like an elephant in a crowd. And nor is Panini an outlier. Basically the Sanskrit literary tradition is impossibly advanced. If Panini is doing computer science, Kapila is doing Quantum Physics, Kanada is doing particle physics, Patanjali is doing Cognitive Psychology, Charaka is doing Microbiology, Susratha is doing brain surgery, Pingla is doing binary numbers computing and writing error checking algorithms! Yajnavalkya is doing advanced astronomy, Badarayana is doing advanced metaphysics.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
excuse me.....i didn't ask for another long post with no real credible evidence..

all i am asking is for evidence.. and you have none to give!!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainRon
And thats how most of them turn it down.

This has been an attitude not only by you, but maximum out there.
I hate to say this, but the WTC were reduced down to a pile of dust by two airliners...






Two airliners, several hundred (thousand?) pounds of explosive and thermate.

[crlf]
forth line



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by coredrill
excuse me.....i didn't ask for another long post with no real credible evidence..

all i am asking is for evidence.. and you have none to give!!


That was not a long post at all. I was engaging in a dialogue with you and sharing what little I know with you for free. I am actually sharing evidence with you, it's just not the evidence you are looking for. My argument could not be any simpler: Pre-glacial civilisation because of advanced knowledge in Sanskrit texts anomolus for its time. But to be honest I am finding you very rude and inconsiderate, and thus it is best I do not pursue any further dialogue with you. I think you will learn in life that showing a bit of respect and appreciation to others, goes a long way.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
i appreciate the way in which you have put together your theory.

Thats about it. Nothing more.

another question....

If the Aryan Civilization were the source for the IVC and later ancient indian culture (sperated by a glacial period), why doesnt the IVC Script match with Sanskrit Script or ancient Pali Script.

You got thousand of words for similarity between IVC Script and the Rongo rongo script, but none for the scripts of closeby indian civilization.
strange isnt it???



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Some interesting ideas floated above.

It is possible that there can be a low-tech civilisation with advanced knowledge. However, it seems unlikely. If a civilisation had advanced knowledge, then there is no real reason why it would not apply it to creating better tools, which will benefit in the end.


I think you assume that this race would be much like us, which in fact would not be us and would most likely have a totally different way they see the world. I wouldn't be so quick to think advance tech would be a big part of them, plus if it was we would see it all over the place...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Script is basically a form of notation, nothing else. Mamma Nama Indigo is an English transliteration of its Sanskrit equivalent. You could use any script to denote the Sanskrit sounds. One could easily say that the Indus Script is just proto-Brahmi, and in fact there are scholars that say that.
There are scholars, like Witzel that argue the Indus script is actually non-linguistic. It is only a sign system, it does not prove that the Indus people actually had writing.

It is interesting that the Indus inscriptions seem to have been found only on seals and pottery. It could be possible that these are just signs used in trading and isn't actually a language script. The thing is, the use of seals just as it is used in IVC is described in the Arthshastra, which says each seal has a certain elblem and sign for the purpose of trading.

One thing is clearly undeniable today, even AIT defenders do not deny this, there is perfect continuity from IVC times to post-IVC times(so called vedic period) There really is no reason to separate the two. They seem to be the same culture. As I told you many times before, the very notion of Aryans and Dravidians being a separate ethnic group is a modern one.

The only reason there is a problem with the idea that the Vedic Aryans and the IVC are different is because it does not fit with the historical narrative created by colonialists. In their narrative around 1500BCE Aryans invade India, compose the Rig Veda in India from 1500BCE to 1200BCE, around 1000BCE to 800BCE Upanishadic philosophy emerges and around 600BCE the philosophical systems emerge, by 400BCE two great religions emerge Buddhism and Jainism. But you see there are MASSIVE problems with this:

It significantly condenses Indian history. In less than a few centuries a nomadic, polytheistic, anti-urban people(Vedic Aryans) become metaphysicians, scientists and philosophers, without any stages of natural development.

It is not consistent with any of the of Vedic records all of which record very ancient history, nor is it consistent with the foreign records which also record very ancient history for Vedic civilisation.

It is not consistent with modern archeological finding, or consistent with astronomical evidence. In other words its wrong. And we know why it is wrong, because the colonial scholars believed literally in 4004BCE as the beginning of creation, and the Vedic records of even ancient times contradicted that. So they deliberately gave very late dates for the Vedic literature. They even admitted they did that. Max Mueller, who originally proposed the dates, admitted in the end that he was only guessing.

The truth is Indian history as it has been taught in modern education is a bunch of lies, distortions by colonialists. But those lies lay exposed today. The latest research is clearing showing that the IVC and the Vedic Aryans are the same thing, and now every date is being revised for major figures in Indian history as per the evidence. Indian history is going through a major overhaul. I think you South Indians need to realise you've been lied to, deceived and duped all this time, and you and North Indians are two peas in the same pod. Seriously, stop the separatism.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I am an Indian, not south Indian or North indian.
I was born and brought up outside India.
I consider myself a cosmopolitian rather than belong to a single nation.

again i ask you, do you have any evidence for your views/theories/ideas?
dont give long paragraphs...dont beat around the bush..

its your claims. Its your responsibility to provide proof for your claims.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


I am not really sure what claim you want evidence for. My claim that the Vedic Aryans are a pre-glacial civilisation is based on the anomolus content of the 'Vedic sciences'. Do you actually want evidence for this content(which is fairly common knowledge to those aware of them)?

Do you want evidence for the Indus being Aryan? I've already told you that this is a minor thing for me. It makes no difference if the Aryans were from India, Europe or Antartica to my main theory that they were an advanced pre-glacial civilisation. It sounds like your main contention is my minor claim that the IVC are Aryan.

The only reason to assume the IVC are not Aryan is AIT which was suppose to take place 1500-1200BCE OR so. If I can show that the Aryans were in India way before IVC then there is no longer any reason to believe in AIT and hence to conclude that IVC is Aryan.

EVIDENCE 1:

Indus Saraswati River:

From Wiki:

The Saraswati river was a major river that flowed throughout the Indus, on which are the Indus sites were found alongside, but which dried up in 3000BCE due to geological changes.


en.wikipedia.org...
Sarasvati is mentioned both as the chief of the Sapta Sindhu, the seven major rivers of the early Rigveda, and listed in the geographical list of ten rivers in the Nadistuti sukta of the late Rigveda (10.75), and it is the only river with hymns entirely dedicated to it, RV 6.61, 7.95 and 7.96.


[edit] Praise for the Sarasvati
The Rigveda describes the Sarasvati as the best of all the rivers (RV 2.41.16-18; also 6.61.8-13; 7.95.2). Rigveda 7.36.6 calls it "the Seventh, Mother of Floods" sárasvatī saptáthī síndhumātā[3]. RV 2.41.16 ámbitame nádītame dévitame sárasvati "best mother, best river, best goddess" expresses the importance and reverence of some Vedic poets for the Sarasvati river, and states that all life spans (āyuṣ) abide on the Sarasvati. Other hymns that praise the Sarasvati River include RV 6.61; 7.96 and 10.17.




[edit] The course of the Sarasvati
Some Rigvedic verses (6.61.2-13) indicate that the Sarasvati river originated in the hills or mountains (giri), where she "burst with her strong waves the ridges of the hills (giri)". It is a matter of interpretation whether this refers not merely to the Himalayan foothills like the present-day Sarasvati (Sarsuti) river. The Sarasvati is described as a river swollen (pinvamānā) by other rivers (sindhubhih) (RV 6.52.6).

In RV 8.21.18ab mentions a number of petty kings dwelling along the course of Sarasvati: Citra is King, and only kinglings [rājaka] are the rest who dwell beside Sarasvati. The Sarasvati River is also associated with the five major Rigvedic tribes (e.g. RV 6.61.12), with the Paravatas and with the Purus (RV 7.95; 7.96).

Another reference to the Sarasvati is in the geographical enumeration of the rivers in the late Rigvedic Nadistuti sukta (10.75.5, this verse enumerates all important rivers from the Ganges in the east up to the Indus in the west in a strict geographical order), as "Ganga, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Shutudri", the Sarasvati is placed between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, consistent with the Ghaggar identification. It is clear, therefore, that even if she has unmistakably lost much of her former prominence, Sarasvati remains characterized as a river goddess throughout the Rigveda, being the home river of the Puru and lateron, the Kuru tribe.

In RV 3.23.4, the Sarasvati River is mentioned together with the Drsadvati River and the Apaya (Āpayā, the later Apagā) River.

In some hymns, the Indus river seems to be more important than the Sarasavati, especially in the Nadistuti sukta. In RV 8.26.18, the white flowing Sindhu 'with golden wheels' is the most conveying or attractive of the rivers.

In the Rig Veda (7.95.1-2, (outdated Victorian) tr. Griffith) the Sarasvati is described as flowing to the samudra, which is usually, if ahistorically, translated as ocean.


If the Rig Veda describes the Saraswati river as a living river and obviously revers it as some kind of source of daily life, then it must have been composed when the river was flowing. In other words it was prior to 3000BCE, meaning the Aryans were in India in 3000BCE and hence the IVC is Aryan.

EVIDENCE 2

Astronomical dating of the Rig Veda and other Vedic literature. I have found an article by professor Koenraad Elst, faculty member of the Oxford Centre for Hindu studies published for free on this site. Reading this you will be become acquainted with all the astronomical evidence and arguments for and against AIT:

Read here Astronomical Evidence

Extract 1:


One of the earliest estimates of the date of the Vedas was at once among the mostscientific. In 1790, the Scottish mathematician John Playfair demonstrated that thestarting-date of the astronomical observations recorded in the tables still in use among Hinduastrologers (of which three copies had reached Europe between 1687 and 1787) had to be4300 BC.3His proposal was dismissed as absurd by some, but it was not refuted by any scientist. Playfair's judicious use of astronomy was countered by John Bentley with a Scriptural argument which we now must consider invalid. In 1825, Bentley objected: "By his [= Playfair's]attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports allthose horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity.Nay, his aim goes still deeper, for by the same means he endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity ofHindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction."


Extract 2:


That Hindu astronomical lore about ancient tuimes cannot be based on later back-calculation, was also argued by Playfair's contemporary, the French astronomer Jean-SylvainBailly: "the motions of the stars calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single minute from the [modern] tables of Cassini and Meyer. The Indian tables givethe same annual variation of the moon as that discovered by Tycho Brahe -- a variationunknown to the school of Alexandria and also the the Arabs".


Thus the scientific methods of dating by astronomers and mathematicians clearly show the Rig Veda cannot be later than 4000BCE. In other words the Aryans were in India in 4000BCE and thus as late as the Megrah period of the IVC. In other words the Harappa period is late-Vedic.
Note that even the inventor of the 1200BCE date, admitted he was guessing and retracted it. The only reason this date was kept in Western history books was because Hindu dates falsified biblical creation account. This is the only reason why AIT was maintained by Western indologists.

Dating of other Vedic texts which are very late-vedic such as Jytoshi Vedanga contain astronomical time-signatures which date to 1500BCE itself. In other words not only were Aryans in India before Mueller date of 1200BCE, they were in India several millenias before then and the bulk of their history had already taken place. This is consistent with all of the empirical evidence.

Interestingly, by the time of the Mahabharata which is dated 3000BCE by Hindu records, the river of Sarasvati was reported to have dried up at her source in the Thar Desert(In Afghanistan) This is now confirmed by modern scientific archeaology.

The Hindu records go all the way back to Manu around 7000BCE and report a continious linage of kings(early Megrah period) who had survived the floods and then repopulated the world. These records were also kept by Greeks and Romans. In the other words not only is my theory of Aryans being a pre-glacial advanded civilisation the only explanation for the impossibly advanced scientific and philosophical content of the Sanskrit tradition, it is consistent with the Hindu historical account itself which even mention the super-floods that destroyed civilisation which existed prior to the glacial period and give a continious account from that period right up to 1AD. The evidence is overwhelming supporting my theory.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

 
Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Wed Mar 18 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am not really sure what claim you want evidence for. My claim that the Vedic Aryans are a pre-glacial civilisation is based on the anomolus content of the 'Vedic sciences'.

I believe that we've seen several times in various threads that there is no "anomalous" content in the ancient Vedic "sciences."

Got anything else?

Also, you simply cannot rely on a period of glaciation to erase all physical evidence of such a society.

After all, we have piles and piles of evidece for what humans were doing before, during, and after the last glacial period.

Harte



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Actually.....The Glider model found in Egypt WILL fly. The model had it's tail broken off at one point. Evidence of this is on the model.

An advanced computer flight simulator program was set up using the specifications of the glider and WITH a tail it worked VERY well.

Deny Ignorance....read up on this stuff!



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Then you have not looked properly. Earlier on, in my other thread on this subject, I have quoted from an ancient Sanskrit text on medicine on microbiology.



I mentioned is not within the Atharva Veda, but it is mentioned in the Classical Sanskrit text Charak Samhita. This is a massive and seminal medical encylopedia of the Vedic medical tradition. It consists of 120 chapters(!) divided into 8 sections:

1. 30 Chapters on food, diet, physicians and distinguishing quacks, philosophy and pharmacology.
2. 8 chapters on diagnosis of disease
3. 8 chapters on specific determination of taste, nourishment, general pathology and medical studies
4. 8 chapters on Physiology and anatomy, including embroyology
5. 12 chapters on the prognosis of disease
6. 30 chapters on the treatment of disease
7. 12 chapters on pharmaceutics
8. 12 chapters on general therapy

As per the accepted dates, the Charka Samita was composed in 300BCE, redacted from an even older text from 800BCE, which in turn mentioned a long linage of researchers in the field.

Now the verses on microgranisms and germs from the text:

Germ theory

Charaka describes 20 disease causing germs, which thrive in the body under certain conditions. He said that in the absence of conditions which allow their growth they do not grow. Interesingly, Charaka was refuting some of his peers, who outlined germs as the major causitive factor in disease.

Epidemics

Charaka defined an epidemic similar to how it is defined in modern medicine: it is a disease affecting, and which destroys a locality(Vimansthan, 3) He lists four contributing factors which can cause epidemics: corrupt air, water, locale. He was aware of water-born disease and prescribed boiled water during the monsoon(this is when germs are more rife)

He gives a description of parasites and microbes, called Krumis. He gives a particular vivid and fantastic description of krumis in the blood, "They are very minute and can be observed using a yantra(mechnical instrument) They are round in shape, without feet. Some are so minute that they are invisible and are copper coloured. The symptoms they cause include "raising ones hairs, itching, neede-like piercing pain and a current life effect(Vimansthan, 7/9)

The Charak Samhita also has a section on genetics(i kid you not) It's section on Embrology is so precise it mirrors the modern account. I recently read a paper on this published in some Microbiology journal.
Another key text of the Vedic medical tradition is the Sushrath Samhita, a medical treatise on sugery. It mentions plastic surgery, brain surgery, eye surgery among many things. In fact modern surgical techniques were adopted from it.


That is normal for 3000 years ago?



[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
You have apparently quoted your own interpretation of what this text says, as far as anyone here knows.

There are no scholarly reviews of this text online (the text itself is not available to the general public unless you purchase it) that mention anything like this.

Of course, I've only looked at three such reviews. However, according to what I've read, one of these is considered the definitive review on this text and was written by the most respected translator of Sanskrit alive today (assumiong he's still alive, that is.)

I don't have titles, links or names at hand right now, but anyone can find this info at Google and Google Scholar.

So, no, you make no convincing case.

Harte



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
You have apparently quoted your own interpretation of what this text says, as far as anyone here knows.

There are no scholarly reviews of this text online (the text itself is not available to the general public unless you purchase it) that mention anything like this.

Of course, I've only looked at three such reviews. However, according to what I've read, one of these is considered the definitive review on this text and was written by the most respected translator of Sanskrit alive today (assumiong he's still alive, that is.)

I don't have titles, links or names at hand right now, but anyone can find this info at Google and Google Scholar.

So, no, you make no convincing case.

Harte


Right, well this is why you at a disadvantage. The Sanskrit tradition is a rather elite tradition available to only those that can understand Sanskrit or are studying a tradition a part of it(Indian Philosophy, Indian Medicine, Indology) It is by no means esoteric though, Sanskrit studies and Indology is being conducted at many major universities, including the University of Oxford.

Anyway this text does indeed exist, it does actually discuss what I just told you(I have not interpreted, but described it) and it is a core-text in all Indian medicine degree programs. I will try and find you some more information available on the web, but as this is a core-text, you are not likely to find online English translations. At best you will find extracts from it.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   


Sanskrit studies and Indology is being conducted at many major universities, including the University of Oxford.

Oxford do offer Sanskrit studies as a course, and they will publish papers - can't you link to any of them to support your case?

In fact a cursory search shows hundreds of academic papers on Sanskrit, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you can't link to any of them.

You claim academic support for your hypothesis, but completely fail to demonstrate it.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


It is a bit odd

This claim would be a major change in the view of ancient man. Google Scholar shows no published support for this. As modern Hinduism has been eager to show the extend of its roots and the importance of it heritage I find this odd that no academic support exists (that I can find).



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join