View Full Version : Intelligence vs. self in the Gita
"From attachment desire is born, from desire anger. Out of anger confusion arises, through confusion memory wander, from loss of memory the intelligence is destroyed; from the destruction of intelligence a man is lost." - Krishna
"They say that the senses are great; the mind is greater than the senses. Yet greater than the mind is the intelligence; but he is that which is still greater than the intelligence." - Krishna
This doesn't make sense to me. First it strongly correlates the self with intelligence, then denies that the self is the intelligence.
Why wouldn't attachment to the intelligence be another bad form of attachment, even if maybe not as bad as attachment to the physical? If the intelligence isn't the self, if it's below the self as the second quote says, then isn't intelligence irrelevant to the true self? If that's the case then what should the first quote be taken to mean?
Jan Ardena
03-07-02, 09:49 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth
This doesn't make sense to me. First it strongly correlates the self with intelligence, then denies that the self is the intelligence.
Try and understand that the body has an hierarchical system. Starting with the materials of the gross body , you have the five great elements, namely earth, water, fire, air and ether, Then there are false ego, intelligence and the unmanifested stage of the 3 modes of nature, namely goodness, passion and ignorance.
Then there are 5 senses for acquiring knowledge; the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin.
Then 5 working senses; voice, legs, hands, anus and genitals.
Then, above the senses there is the mind, which is within and which can be called the sense within.
Then there are5 objects of the senses; smell, taste, form, touch and sound.
These elements, numbering 24, are called the field of activity, or the body.
Desire, hatred, happiness and distress, which are interactions, are representations of the 5 great elements in the gross body.
The symptoms of life, are represented by consciousness and conviction, are the manifestation of the subtle body, which consists of mind, intelligence and (false) ego, these subtle elements are also included within the field of activities.
The 5 great elements are a gross representation of the false ego, which is basically called the materialistic conception, or intelligence in ignorance. For example, someone who is born in USA, white, named Harry Peacock, have a large family, may believe those designations to be true, when in reality it is just an illusion which has come into being and will end in time. Pretty much like a dream.
Intelligence is being able to understand the difference between what is real and what is false. If you identify with the material body as yourself, then you are not intelligent, according to vedic understanding. You would be regarded as animalistic, as the animals have no idea that they are not their body, but have acquired their body, either through evolution (spiritual) or through their previous (soulfull) activities. (karma)
The soul (brahman) is also situated within the body, the heart to be exact. The soul is not affected by anything within this material world. It is pure spirit, identical to the Supreme Soul (Param-Brahman/God), but finite, whereas God is in-finite.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Thanks for the explanation. So, it would be correct to say that intelligence here is equated with realization of the self, rather than with actual thinking capabilities?
I guess the "soul" is supposed to have thinking capabilities? The soul considered to be the one doing the thinking, despite being in essense outside time?
Jan Ardena
03-08-02, 07:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth
Thanks for the explanation. So, it would be correct to say that intelligence here is equated with realization of the self, rather than with actual thinking capabilities?
Yes.
We can think whatever we like, according to the capacity of the body. For example I can think I can fly because I have observed flight, but my bodily capacity is such that I am unable to fly, I have come to this conclusion through my intelligence. If however, I was to attempt to fly by flapping my arms, I would be classed as delusional and unintelligent.
Where the atheist is unintelligent, although he may be academically brilliant, is that he thinks this world came about through chance, even though nothing in his experience would suggest this. So from this we can understand that intelligence is not necessarily academic.
I guess the "soul" is supposed to have thinking capabilities? The soul considered to be the one doing the thinking, despite being in essense outside time?
The soul is pure spirit, it has nothing to do with this material nature, he is a separated, atomic, individual part and parcel of the Supreme Whole. He is identical to God in every way, except in size, he is finite whereas God is infinite. So yes he thinks, actually he is full of knowledge, he has senses, and in his pure state he utalizes his senses to serve God, that is the transendental relationship between him and God.
But when he becomes conditioned by material nature, he seeks only, to gratify himself, and in his quest for gratification he forgets his real identity, and his Lord.
This is why there is religion, to bring the conditioned soul back to his original senses.
Krishna says in the BG: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.
Somehow or other he has fallen from his lofty position and therefore has to accept a material body, according to his condition. After repeated birth and deaths of particular bodies, he gets a human body. This human body is very special, because you can get back your original, eternal and spiritual body, through the process of self realisation. If however we do not take advantage of this body, we will fall again into darkness and have to go through this evolutionary cycle, until we come again to the platform of owning a human body.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
If the soul knows everything, then the soul can have no new realizations. That means the realization that the self if the soul is a realization done by the body. Since the body/mind is not the real self (rather, the soul is), the self is actually not coming to any realization -- it already knows everything and is simply watching the body realize it.
That leads me back to the biggest piece of fundamental illogic I saw when I read the Gita. The self is a different sort of thing from the body/mind... yet for some reason it's supposed to be important for the self that the body/mind realize this. Considering that the real self isn't the body/mind anyway, the real self shouldn't care one bit if the body/mind has delusions. Most importantly, for a person to attempt to realize that they aren't the body/mind is to prove that they're still in the delusion: if you know you aren't the mind, you won't attempt to make your mind think about that since you'd no longer identify with your mind or care about the thoughts of your mind. Only the mind can have the delusions, and to think that it's you being deluded is to prove that you haven't made any progress.
If the soul knows everything, then the soul can have no new realizations. That means the realization that the self if the soul is a realization done by the body. Since the body/mind is not the real self (rather, the soul is), the self is actually not coming to any realization -- it already knows everything and is simply watching the body realize it.
That leads me back to the biggest piece of fundamental illogic I saw when I read the Gita. The self is a different sort of thing from the body/mind... yet for some reason it's supposed to be important for the self that the body/mind realize this. Considering that the real self isn't the body/mind anyway, the real self shouldn't care one bit if the body/mind has delusions. Most importantly, for a person to attempt to realize that they aren't the body/mind is to prove that they're still in the delusion: if you know you aren't the mind, you won't attempt to make your mind think about that since you'd no longer identify with your mind or care about the thoughts of your mind. Only the mind can have the delusions, and to think that it's you being deluded is to prove that you haven't made any progress.
By the way, the atheist could say that considering the soul to be a thinking thing is unintelligent because you're being deluded by the physical world's ways (which include intelligence, and time) into the irrational assumption that the nonphysical works in the same ways as the physical. The atheist could say that the simplest and most logical conception of the base of self would be as a perspective of observation... something which is not aware of itself, but which is aware of thought. In other words, the self would have no substance and the entire meaning of it would be "awareness of thought"... and as a result, a full sense of self requires both parts, the observer and the observed. The atheist may say that religion's fundamental unintelligent error is in applying physical concepts like time and thought to the soul, and from those mistakes being misled to the false conclusion that a perspective can have meaning without being of anything. ;)
...from loss of memory the intelligence is destroyed; from the destruction of intelligence a man is lost...
So, what is new? just look at all the Alzheimer patients...
...Yet greater than the mind is the intelligence; but he is that which is still greater than the intelligence...
A mind is like OS and the DRAMs, intelligence is like contents in a CD-ROM and self is the whole computer. Without the entire system in ship-shape, the whole thing is useless....
just another POV....
Jan Ardena
03-10-02, 08:01 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth
If the soul knows everything, then the soul can have no new realizations. That means the realization that the self if the soul is a realization done by the body.
If we see the Supreme Soul as a big fire and the finite soul as a spark, which has somehow separated itself from the fire,wshat would happen?
The spark although tiny, would qualitevely be identical to the inferno in every way, but size. The spark would land on the ground (earth), burn for some time and then be overcome, at some stage by, by the other elements, unless of course it came into contact with flamable substances. The reason for this is obvious, it is simply too small to counteract rain, or wind, so it becomes covered.
As we are individual parts and parcels of the Whole, we are qualitively identical to the Supreme Soul and therefore are full of knowledge as is the Supreme. But when we become separated, or when we think we do not need to be part of the Supreme Whole, we descend, fall, land in this material world where we are covered by material nature.
The result of this covering is forgetfulness of ones original position and identity and therefore we accept our present condition as our true self and position (false ego).
According to vedic literature, we get a body according to our state of mind or our condition, at the time of death. There are 8,400,000 different species of material bodies, once we fall down, we have to evolve through these various species. These species are divided into insects, birds, plants, aquatics etc. Going through this evolutionary cycle we eventually come to platform of a human being, this is considered the best.
As I said earlier, the spark (soul/atma) eventually pitters out due to being overwhelmed by material nature, but if that spark comes into contact with its own nature (for now we will say fire), immediately the spark regains its original identity. Only in the case of the soul, when it comes into contact with the spiritual nature he regains his knowledge by association. This is why there is religion (sanatan dharma), if the principles of religion are carried out, eventually one will understand his true identity.
Since the body/mind is not the real self (rather, the soul is), the self is actually not coming to any realization -- it already knows everything and is simply watching the body realize it.
The body and mind are emanations of the soul so in that sense they are real, what you experience (joy/sadness) is real, where the illusion comes in, is that the mind and body are temporal whereas the soul is eternal.
When we dream at night, we forget our bodies, while in bed, and accept our dream bodies but when we awaken from that dream we can understand that it was only a dream and therefore not real, even though our experiences were. It is the same with material life, only the dream lasts a lifetime.
By the way, the atheist could say that considering the soul to be a thinking thing is unintelligent because you're being deluded by the physical world's ways (which include intelligence, and time) into the irrational assumption that the nonphysical works in the same ways as the physical.
As I have said before we can say and think anything, and although we will understand some truth, but that is not the absolute truth.
On one hand you have theists, they say God exists, and on the other hand you have atheists, they say God does not exist. Both are bias, neither side will listen to the other, therefore they are proud and puffed up of their knowledge. This duality is a product of material nature, it has nothing to do with spiritual nature (non-physical).
To come to the platform of absolute truth, one has to surrender everything to the Supreme Absolute Truth, by way of accepting a spiritual master and surrendering to him, thereby giving up all sense of pride and possession. Then and only then can one see the truth which is one.
The atheist could say that the simplest and most logical conception of the base of self would be as a perspective of observation... something which is not aware of itself, but which is aware of thought.
But what is it that is observing and thinking.
I observe my hand, so who am I that I have come to possess this hand.
and as a result, a full sense of self requires both parts, the observer and the observed.
Yes I (spirit) observe that I have a hand (material), but the hand cannot observe that there is an ‘I.’
The hand is a servant of the ‘I.’
In the same way, the separated parts and parcels of the Supreme ‘I’ are servants of the Supreme ‘I.’
Love
Jan Ardena.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
But what is it that is observing and thinking.
Simply observation itself... which is why it has no meaning except when there's something for it to observe.
All thinking is material, intelligence can be explained by physical processes in the brain. The awareness needn't do anything but be aware... there's nothing left for it to do, in fact, since the brain is capable of everything else expcept the actual awareness of thought. The only reason that a non-thinking perspective of observation seems like such a strange concept to people is that we're too used to associating awareness with thought, since thought is what we're aware of. We're too used to ignoring the observed/observer distinction, so we don't normally realize that none of the actual awareness we have is thought, but rather the awareness is of thought.
Basically, I see two aspects to the universe: the awareness, and that which it is of. Neither means anything without the other. I like kmguru's analogy, because it's similar in function. To use a similar one, a computer without a program to run does nothing... and a program without a computer to run on also does nothing.
I observe my hand, so who am I that I have come to possess this hand.
People answer that by saying they are their thoughts. From there you ask "I observe my thoughts, so who am I that I have come to possess these thoughts?"
This can be answered by saying you are a soul. However, where I have a problem is when you try to say that you can have awareness of that soul, and you seem to arbitrarily ignore the question of "I observe my soul, so who am I that I have come to possess this soul?” Since you ask that question of everything you can experience, since you make the distinction between the experience and the experiencer, you have to ask the question here as well. That’s why I don’t believe in anything being self-aware, as you’re saying the soul is self-aware. If you can observe the universal soul, who are you to have come to possess that universal soul?
Jan Ardena
03-12-02, 04:01 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoth
All thinking is material, intelligence can be explained by physical processes in the brain.
Okay, so I am not going to put my hand in the fire, because I do not wish to experience the pain of being burned.
Simple example, but it encases everything to do with what we are discussing.
Firstly, I am aware of the fire, I can see that it is fire, I can feel that it is fire, if it was nice warm water, my awareness would be different. Secondly I am aware of my hand, skin, and the relationship with fire, these are not thoughts, they are experiences, which I have had, which someone else has had, or by understanding through some medium such as books, TV, radio, etc. So they are knowledge according to my consciousness.
Then the thought kicks in, can I be benifited in any way by being burned, is it to my advantage. I make the decision, no. How did I come to that decision, through my intelligence.
All this happens in a flash.
An animals intelligence would be controlled by its instinct of fear, which is nature, a child, whose consciousness is still in its development stage, may put his hand in the fire. This is because the child has no knowledge, as yet, and is clearly unable to make such decisions. But, having put his hand in the fire, and feel the terrible pain, the experience will profoundly alter his consciousness, which is responsible for our thoughts, awareness and intelligence.
You can see how this works in government, the government acquires secret knowledge through its intelligence agency. 1) That does not mean the president (soul) personally goes to find out. He simply issues the order, and then everything starts to move accordingly. 2) No matter what the intelligent sources acquire, the final decision rests with the pres. (soul) 3) Having made a decision, he makes his intention (mind) known to the rest of the government (body), and they carry them out, as per instructed. 4) Within the government is a very important part, the cabinet or the advisors, this is like the brain. Once the president decides what he is going to do, he then consults his brain, this may include scientists, occultists, top ranking generals, psycologists, spin doctors, the list could go on and on, it is their duty to formulate his ideas in the best way possible, but whoever he chooses, will be his choice. 5) Once a strategy has been formed, it is presented to the lower levels of the body of the government and so on and so forth. But everything is coming from the person at the top of this formation. In the same way, you, the soul, is responsible for everything you do, your body has no responsibility. If that was the case, prisons would be inundated with dead people.
Where I think you are mistaken, is that you think all these events are separate to our selves, and do not realise that you are the soul, you are the predominating diety within your bodily structure. It is because of you, that your body moves, not that the body is independent of you.
The awareness needn't do anything but be aware... there's nothing left for it to do, in fact, since the brain is capable of everything else expcept the actual awareness of thought.
By your very own analysis, I fail to see how you could have come to this conclusion, thereby accepting it as knowledge.
The only reason that a non-thinking perspective of observation seems like such a strange concept to people is that we're too used to associating awareness with thought.
In order to be aware, you, at some stage have to think. I see thought as communication, between the different aspects of you whole self. It is far more subtle than speech, which accounts for its speed, it communicates with the mind in the form of mostly desire, among other things which in turns directs the nature of your thoughts to your senses. For example if you are hungry, your body will desire food, but your thoughts do not desire food, they are free to wander anywhere, yet they may not be able to do anything but think of food, because your mind is overwhelmed with the desire for food. All this activity happens because you are conscious, but that consciousness is aloof to all the struggle that is going on. We can observe this, by analysing someone who can go without food for extremely long periods of time, ie; mystic yogis, without feeling the pangs of hunger.
The reason they are able to achieve this, is because they have learned to control the mind, which is the centre (according to vedic literature) of all the senses, so by controlling the mind they control most of their desire, and the body becomes like a servant to them, in this state their intelligence becomes clear and reveals to them, that which their consciousness dictates.
since thought is what we're aware of.
What about abstract thought, inspiration, we aren’t necessarily aware of those, they just pop right into our head.
We're too used to ignoring the observed/observer distinction, so we don't normally realize that none of the actual awareness we have is thought, but rather the awareness is of thought.[/I]
To use a similar one, a computer without a program to run does nothing... and a program without a computer to run on also does nothing.
And without a person to right the program…..?????
From there you ask "I observe my thoughts, so who am I that I have come to possess these thoughts?"
To ask this question, one must first ponder or think about the situation or experience that has arised, which made one ask the question in the first place. Or in other words thoughts must precede question, otherwise the question could quite possibly have no meaning, thoughtless.
This can be answered by saying you are a soul. However, where I have a problem is when you try to say that you can have awareness of that soul, and you seem to arbitrarily ignore the question of "I observe my soul, so who am I that I have come to possess this soul?”
You are quite right, weare the soul, but upon contact with material nature, we have forgotten that.
So the Supreme Soul, of whom we are part and parcel, distributes teachings (religion), that if we, even begin, to follow, can observe that we are the soul not the body, and regain the proper heirachy of the whole body, while in this life, and hopefully return to our natural state of knowledge, bliss and eternity.
That’s why I don’t believe in anything being self-aware, as you’re saying the soul is self-aware. If you can observe the universal soul, who are you to have come to possess that universal soul?
I don’t say the soul is a separate but integral part of the bodily structure, I say the mind, brain,and body, in that order are integral parts, but the soul ‘is’ the person, is you.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Do you know anything about Kalas?
THE SIXTEEN KALAS
Five Kalas like 1) Anna Maya (with cereals)Maya means desire or knowledge, 2) Pranamaya (with breath)this means breathing knowledge, 3) Mano Maya (with mind), 4) Vigyanamaya Vigyan means Science(with scientific knowledge) and 5) Anandamaya Anand means joy(with joy) are present in every human being. With little effort, humans can perfect in three more kalas - 6) Atishayini, 7) Viparinabhimi and 8) Sankramini. The other remaining eight Kalas are 9) Prabhvi. 10) Kunthini, 11) Vikasini, 12) Maryadini, 16) Sanhaladini, 14) Ahladini,1 5) Paripurna and 16) Swarupavasthit :
Anybody who has the ninth Kala besides the first five natural Kalas and next three perfected Kalas, becomes the god. As per scriptures, the ninth kalas Prabhvi means : KARTUM AKARTUM, that is able to do seemingly impossible tasks. Lord Narasinh is an example of this ninth Kala. Lord Narasinh has an altogether different appearance. He had a body of human and head of a lion. He appeared from a stone pillar that demon Hiranyakashipu had broken with a blow of his mace. It is not possible for an ordinary human being, only a God, having the ninth Kala Prabhvi, can do this. Among all these incarnations, only Lord Krishna is full of all the sixteen Kalas.
anything you want me to explain i can go ahead.
bye!
The modern translation of the word "Kala" is "methodology".
erm...Kala means Art.
bye!
Originally posted by zion
Five Kalas like 1) Anna Maya (with cereals)Maya means desire or knowledge, 2) Pranamaya (with breath)this means breathing knowledge, 3) Mano Maya (with mind), 4) Vigyanamaya Vigyan means Science(with scientific knowledge) and 5) Anandamaya Anand means joy(with joy) are present in every human being. With little effort, humans can perfect in three more kalas - 6) Atishayini, 7) Viparinabhimi and 8) Sankramini. The other remaining eight Kalas are 9) Prabhvi. 10) Kunthini, 11) Vikasini, 12) Maryadini, 16) Sanhaladini, 14) Ahladini,1 5) Paripurna and 16) Swarupavasthit :
So are these in order from lesser to greater importance? What do 6, 7 and 8 mean, and what do people do to reach them?
Yes the order is like that.
I"ll post later everything and let you know meanings.I have to go now.(Sorry:()
bye!
6,7,8 can be achieved through TM.(Transdescental Meditation)
Prabhavi means affecting others emotions via your brain.Others upto 16 inlude doing things like Shape shifting and other seemingly impossible tasks like destroying other person with your own Brain powers etc.
and as i said if you can achieve above 8 you"re God,and if 16 you are a complete incarnation of God.
bye!
As Km explained earlier Gita is so popular because of its simplicity and Layman's language.it is flexible and easy to understand,like a pocket Book or Dictionary(;))where Vedas are elaborate scientific Knowledge housewares.they are purest form of Sanskrit that very few people can understand in this world at least;).
bye!
In other threads we talked about past civilizations. What if the vedas are the knowledgebase of a long lost civilization? A civilization with Vimanas, gene targeted weapons, matter transmitters, advanced healing etc. etc......
KM,:D
are you trying to put me on?you know past civilization word initiates a lots of writing and posting devil in me:D:p
I Think you"re pretty right. as i posted various things in PAST CIVILIZATION thread,we are here talking and dealing with advanced civilization technologies and perhaps a detailed and thorough description and examination of Hindu Texts could yield long but forgotten civilization,which i am doing right know(ie reading Ramayana(its pretty long,i have original Valmiki and Tulsidas's version(both of them,yeah!) and Mahabharata(Original story).
Vedas are a little complicated for me.:(
bye!
I cant help myself from quoting this that "ll perhaps show something
about how much advancement we are talking about here.
Gurkha flying in his swift and powerful Vimana hurled against cities of Vrishnis and Andhakas,a single projectile charged with all power of the universe.An incandescent columm of smoke and fire as bright as ten thousand suns rose in all of its splendor,in an instant turned all the people into ashes.the iron thunderbolt as giant messanger of death reduced both the cities into ashes.
the above quote is taken from Mahabharata.we are talking about period waaaaay back,During Krishna's time when Gita was made.what does the above text show?Nuclear battle?
bye!
PS:VIMANA IN CASE YOU DONT KNOW MEAN AIRSHIPS OR PLANES.
AS I POINTED OUT EARLIER I HAVE THE ORIGINAL SANSKRIT TRANSLATIONS OF THE TEXT IN SANSKRIT WHICH I HAVE OBTAINED FROM INTL SANSKRIT ACEDMY OF MYSORE,WITH MY DAD'S HELP OFF COURSE,SHOWS THE DETAILED VIMANA CONTRUCIONS AND THE WAY FRAMES SHOULD BE SET IN A VIMANA AND WHERE IGNITION SYSTEM SHOULD LIE.
THE SHAPE ASTONISHINGLY RESEMBLE A FLYING SAUCER(NO I AM NOT KIDDING!)
THERE ARE ALSO VARIOS OTHER PLANS EG.MOVING OR ROTATING FLOOR PLAN,POWER GENERATION VIA WATER PLANT PLAN. ETC.
THEY ARE NOT MUCH KNOWN IN TODAYS WORLD BECAUSE INDIA IS YET TO EXPERIENCE FULL MODERNIZATION OF MODERN COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISPS,AS THE INTERNET AND INFO INCREASE WE "LL KNOW MORE.
Oh!Km...see what i am doin';)
BYE!
Consider this:
During and just before World War II, a lot of personnel from Max Muller Institute came to India in search of ancient manuscripts. The idea was to find high technology and copy them. Because German language and Sanskrit have the same root, at the time Germans believed that there is a lot of hidden technology in old books. The men from MMI kept looking for stuff as late as 1955.
Mahabarat described an arrow (weapon) that can target a specific person. Weapons that are thermal and heat absorbing. The heat absorbing weapon (which we still do not have yet), absorbs the thermal energy of a FAE type bomb.
Vedas were passed down from father to son for several generations before it was written. The Sanskrit fonts are called Devnagari fonts (God's fonts). What if people at the time were genetically advanced to have total recall and can absorb vast quantities of information. This is again going to happen once we understand the mechanics of memory and recall through gene manipulation.
Just some thoughts.
If you're interested in an outside point of view, I'd say talk of the Vedas being from a super-advanced civilization is simply more of the usual self-important interpretations almost all religions make. It's no different from when Ismu was saying the Quaran predicts the theory of relativity and a bunch of other modern ideas. You can read anything you want into stuff after the fact. Unless it's read into it before the fact, it's worthless... and to date no one has gotten any advanced tech info from the Vedas before the technology already existed. (That's perfectly clear evidence that the info isn't in there until you read it in.)
Three keys to understanding:
1) People of the past, at least within the last 10,000 years or so, were not all that primitive. Not having electricity doesn't mean you can't have a complex society and complex ideas. Human intelligence has not actually increased since then, people were just as smart (meaning capable of complex thoughts and deductions) then as now even though they had less history of knowledge to start from.
2) Things don't have to exist yet to be clearly imagined. People talked about air ships long before they'd even perfected hot air balloons, because birds were there all along. The imagination is powerful, and sometimes accurate.
3) Half (or more) of every book you read is written by you. It's not the book coming into you, it's you meeting the book halfway. The same book read by a different person is a different book. When you read a sentence it can trigger you to add another of your own... when you read about an idea it triggers you to compare with ideas from your own life and causes you to try to fit the ancient idea into your own context.
Nothing more than those points is needed to understand why religions keep viewing their holy texts as having super-advanced inspiration from lost civilizations that were ahead of their time, or from gods.
Now if there were a religious text from an actual super-advanced civilization, it'd give nice detailed instructions on how to travel faster than light, or build a transporter, or something like that. ;) (Of course I'm sure people will say all their texts do have the info... right after the actual invention.)
Oh! so Hoth is in belief that it was SCIFI AND POP CULTURE OF 6500 B.C. which led to such an understanding,is that so Hoth?.
Did you know that Velocity of light western civilization talks about so freely was calculated accurately 3*10^8 kmps by same Vedas,and calculate dates,thye were long before Bible's time.
I dont know much about Kuran,but i know one thing for certain and that is that age of Muslim relegion is very low as compared to Hindu culture,long before Christianity also.
Halicunations,fanatasies,lies,mistranslations?
Bah!
bye!
Or i suppose Sci-Am 6500 B.C'S CRITIQUE'S VIEWS HAVE INFLUENCED YOUR THOUGHTS IN PARTICULAR...
BYE!
Originally posted by zion
Did you know that Velocity of light western civilization talks about so freely was calculated accurately 3*10^8 kmps by same Vedas,and calculate dates,thye were long before Bible's time.
Wow, they had the metric system? :)
Obviously, I'd want to see the original text and study how it was reinterpreted and translated. Also, if it was passed on orally for a while, I'd wonder why people were memorizing the speed of light as an exact number when it'd be of no use to them.
People did try to measure the speed of light at least centuries ago, they just didn't have an accurate way since they couldn't get far enough away from each other that reaction time wouldn't be the main variable. (Experiments like flashing lights at each other from different mountain tops are what I'm talking about.)
I dont know much about Kuran,but i know one thing for certain and that is that age of Muslim relegion is very low as compared to Hindu culture,long before Christianity also.
Makes little difference, people were equally intelligent in both periods, and now. Only difference is quantity of data and techniques they had to work with, and that isn't always all that important for general ideas.
Hoth,i suppose you still dont imagine how long back we are talking about.the experiment of flashing light you are saying is centuries back only,but i am talking of thousands of year back period,even before 6500 B.C...
Purchase Vedas and find it yourself,if you have difficulty in understanding of Sanskrit i"ll explain.i"ll come up exact Quotes,but since you urself want to see the best way is to buy it out.All the Vedas.
Surely people were as intelliegnt as they were before but you dont seem to get my point.the point is that the people of the modern times had previous records for estimations and approximations,but i am talking about first hand knowledge that comes from Vedas.
bye!
Originally posted by Hoth
1) People of the past, at least within the last 10,000 years or so, were not all that primitive. Not having electricity doesn't mean you can't have a complex society and complex ideas. Human intelligence has not actually increased since then, people were just as smart (meaning capable of complex thoughts and deductions) then as now even though they had less history of knowledge to start from.
2) Things don't have to exist yet to be clearly imagined. People talked about air ships long before they'd even perfected hot air balloons, because birds were there all along. The imagination is powerful, and sometimes accurate.
3) Half (or more) of every book you read is written by you. It's not the book coming into you, it's you meeting the book halfway. The same book read by a different person is a different book. When you read a sentence it can trigger you to add another of your own... when you read about an idea it triggers you to compare with ideas from your own life and causes you to try to fit the ancient idea into your own context.
Nothing more than those points is needed to understand why religions keep viewing their holy texts as having super-advanced inspiration from lost civilizations that were ahead of their time, or from gods.
Again you"re underestimatin our ancestors in saying that electricity wasnt invented,after all how did Sumerians knew electroplating (that was in 4500 B.C) and that was long before any western civilization was said to exist.I dont give a damm about Patents,you know U.S was the only country that got Patent for Haldi powder,that was originally from India,later on Indians had to fight for the same patent in U.N.
That Newton you talk so fondly was classy man.yeah well.but have you ever heard of Leibnitz,Newton stole Leibnitz's calculus to make it his.Leibnitz's ardent supporter was Huygens himself(who also was incharge of Royal society).Consequently Britishers,didnt adopt Leibnitz's advanced calculus's Nth derivative concept and sufferrred.
You talk abut technologies not existent,how do you explain Dogon tribe knowing about Sirrius B long before western Civilization even knew how to talk about telescopes untill Gal came into pictures.see the purpose of all of this is that usually western culture has found a way to patentize their own discoveries and utilize them and establish their own Monopolies rather than Eastern cultures.
Now if there were a religious text from an actual super-advanced civilization, it'd give nice detailed instructions on how to travel faster than light, or build a transporter, or something like that. ;) (Of course I'm sure people will say all their texts do have the info... right after the actual invention.)
Well first of all we have a book called Vimanika shastra,in that in Vedic sanskrit they have described the actuall construction of Vimana type Craft.did you read my post correctly?i mentioned steering floor,power generation system.
After all this if you still consider all of this a SciFi and nothing else,well what can i do to convince you i dont know.
bye!
I give credit to Hoth for saying that the IQ of people probably has not changed much over many thousand years. That may be true and in my theory it has to be true. If we had advanced civilization 10,000 years ago and a catastrophe wiped out 90% of the population, the remaining 10% specially children will continue to survive with the IQs intact. What they will miss is the knowlegebase.
The theory we are putting forward is that Vedas are that knowledgebase. And that by properly reviewing it we could find out, how advanced the civilization was before its demise.
If you take a modern textbook in C++ or a 'relational database design' to say only 2000 years back, what do you think the people will decipher? Now, assume that book is available throught the last 2000 years - when do we think we can realize what it means? If such a book exists, will we say, it was the product of someones active imagination because the alternative is impossible?
Consider the case of Machu Picchu stones that are 250 tons in size and precisely cut to fit with other stones on site...high up on the mountain with the thinnest atmosphere to work....it is not a story....
Originally posted by zion
That Newton you talk so fondly was classy man.yeah well.but have you ever heard of Leibnitz,Newton stole Leibnitz's calculus to make it his.Leibnitz's ardent supporter was Huygens himself(who also was incharge of Royal society).Consequently Britishers,didnt adopt Leibnitz's advanced calculus's Nth derivative concept and sufferrred.
I don't tend to talk fondly of Newton (I don't know, strange to dislike a dead person I suppose), but anyway I've heard mentions of Leibnitz in calculus classes but mainly I know Leibnitz for philosophy.
You talk abut technologies not existent,how do you explain Dogon tribe knowing about Sirrius B long before western Civilization even knew how to talk about telescopes untill Gal came into pictures
I don't know anything about that, but maybe they had telescopes. Point is, having a telescope makes you neither supernatural nor alien nor inspired by god... no matter how many millennia ago you invent it. The telescope is quite simple, and a culture with a strong interest in the stars would tend to be likely to develop such a thing.
see the purpose of all of this is that usually western culture has found a way to patentize their own discoveries and utilize them and establish their own Monopolies rather than Eastern cultures.
And then both west and east pick on Africa and pretend it wasn't advanced, even though it's the origin of humanity and was once the home of many thriving civilizations.
Well first of all we have a book called Vimanika shastra,in that in Vedic sanskrit they have described the actuall construction of Vimana type Craft.did you read my post correctly?i mentioned steering floor,power generation system.
After all this if you still consider all of this a SciFi and nothing else,well what can i do to convince you i dont know.
See the junk Da Vinci dreamed up. Planes, cars, etc... How is this different? It didn't mean Da Vinci was capable of implementing his ideas himself, without the society around being advanced enough to manufacture such things. His ability to conceive of future inventions, down to the details of how to power such devices, does not in any way imply that he actually created working versions and lived in a society that included all those things. It just means he was a creative guy, and perhaps smarter than anyone currently alive. There's no reason the same couldn't be true of someone thousands of years earlier, at the time of the Vedas.
Originally posted by knguru
The theory we are putting forward is that Vedas are that knowledgebase.
If the civilization didn't lose its knowledge base, since the Vedas are still around, they shouldn't have lost their technology. Generally, I'd think it'd much more common to lose your knowledge base first and technology as a result.
The odds of a civilization having the technology and then losing it without losing the knowledge are very tiny.
The odds of one spot on the planet developing cars, planes, the internet, etc. while the rest didn't for many thousands more years are also very slim.
And that by properly reviewing it we could find out, how advanced the civilization was before its demise.
Let me guess, nuclear war. ;)
If you take a modern textbook in C++ or a 'relational database design' to say only 2000 years back, what do you think the people will decipher?
Considering their age, the Vedas are probably written in Pascal. ;) Seriously, languages -- even including computer languages -- are a different issue from tech specifications for constructing a device. If you leave an English language manual with exact specifications for the materials needed and steps involved with the creation of a transporter, and convince all modern people that this is a true technology, then enough people would be at work on it that they'd likely be able to follow the instructions to create such a thing. Certainly if you give us thousands of years.
Consider the case of Machu Picchu stones that are 250 tons in size and precisely cut to fit with other stones on site...high up on the mountain with the thinnest atmosphere to work
As far as atmosphere, people have an amazing ability to adapt when they live that high, given a number of generations. Take modern people in Lima, and you find they have an incredible ability to go casually about work where the rest of us would be gasping for breath.
Anyhow, with your theories, it's worth noting that there is an approximate time limit on "advanced" (meaning similar to now) human technology. To have the division of labor and stable living conditions, cities, etc. needed to create such things, it has to come after agriculture. I don't recall the origin date of agriculture in India, but I would doubt it can be any further back than about 9000 years. Consider that as the starting point from which people could start to build in a stable environment.
Da Vinci...hahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaaa...
what did he do for airPlane invention?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha. ..
he stuck Wings to his Limbs...:D
hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa...
did he write anything about Saucer Frames,constructions,detailed Angular frame description.Possible Angles of same flights.safest possible angles for making sharp turns...
Da Vinci yeah...
hahahahahahahhaaa...
take care Hoth.
bye!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.