7 ms·

After that destruction, the cycle starts all over again. It is the closest thing to evolution formulated by the Indian rishis (scientists of their time). It beg

After that destruction, the cycle starts all over again. It is the closest thing to evolution formulated by the Indian rishis (scientists of their time). It begins with (on a high level) the water based living beings (fish), amphibians (turtle), mammal (boar), neanderthal (Parashuram), the perfect humans (Ram & Krishna) and so on. It is quite interesting. Another name for Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma - or the Eternal Way of Life.

yantrams 8y ago
> scientists of their time Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists. You are doing a disservice to the accomplishments of real historical figures like Panini, Brahmagupta etc by making statements like this. You don't have to resort to mythological characters to feel good about the supposed glorious past. I can understand how the tales of Dasavataras can possibly have some allegorical references to evolution but claiming the rishis to be scientists only serves to further ridiculous beliefs like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity originated from Vedas, Rishi scientists developed nuclear weapons in 10000 BC etc. The main purpose they(Puranas (post-vedic Hindu mythology)) served was to legitimize the Vishnu cult, get rid of the pantheon of older Vedic gods (Indra etc.) and to counter the rise of Buddhism. Most of these stories were made up ad hoc to suit the purposes of their times. I find them quite clever to be honest and fascinating from literary and sociological perspectives. Take Buddha for example. Once Buddhism and its crusade against animal slaughter / rituals became a hit with the masses and started competing with Brahmanism/Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism, Buddha was made an incarnation of Vishnu and added to the Purana bloatware, while simultaneously obliterating Buddhist monasteries and driving it out of the subcontinent.
- amriksohata 8y ago
  Err... source?
  - anonnel 8y ago
    A source on ancient mythos not having a basis in science or facts? Or that they served political purposes in their time?
    - dahidahi1 8y ago
      Science has not been able to address every single thing. In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. I'm not trying to disparage science, but I want to emphasize that there is like 99.99% of things we do not know or understand, which is great considering we will all have super interesting times ahead of us. Not a moment of boredom.
      - losteric 8y ago
        > Science has not been able to address every single thing. In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. Can you be more specific about what things you feel science cannot address? It seems like the one and only proven method for understanding our universe.
      - krapp 8y ago
        > In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. I mean, we understand relativity well enough to predict astronomical movements and to account for it when synchronizing GPS, we understand biology well enough for genetic engineering and complex medicine, chemistry well enough to create exotic materials and superconductors, quantum mechanics enough to harness it for computation, physics enough to split the atom, space travel, astronomy, etc. We understand a lot more than "the most basic things."
      - anonnel 8y ago
        We know much more than the people before us, not the other way around.
  - yantrams 8y ago
    Sure. I'll have to dig up the literature but I'd be happy to do so. Can you be more specific ? If you are interested in investigating, It'd be illuminating to contrast the belief systems in Vedas and Puranas. (Rigveda and Puranas to be more specific. ) If my memory serves right, Narayana(Vishnu) was a minor diety in Rigveda whose only claim to fame was carrying Indra on his back to circumnavigate the universe 108 times. He gradually started gaining more prominence as time passed, as a benevolent and sophisticated alternative to replace the more belligerent/primitive Indra. By mid 15th century(I could be wrong), this process was complete, with Vishnu taking over Indra completely, as established in that Govardhanagiri tale where Indra was utterly humiliated by Krishna. Coming to the claims on Buddhism, once again, examining the Rigvedic and post Rigvedic belief systems can help you hypothesize how things unravelled. (Replacement of Horse with Cow as the sacred animal, renouncement of non vegetarianism, incorporation of Tantric belief systems etc ) Destruction of Buddhist monasteries and massacring the monks is quite well documented too. Read about Pushyamitra Sunga for example. Edit: Typos
- dahidahi1 8y ago
  I can imagine we had very similar conversations & skeptics when the first design for flying machines were proposed. Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost. I think you are taking an extremely parochial view of things by calling Vedas as "mythology". I believe I do not have to tell you about "Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"... You look at the advanced technology that we unfortunately lost and you think it is magic (mythology in your words). Look around you & think of all the insane (to current humans) & incredible accomplishments of humans that our sciences of today still cannot explain convincingly how they were possible. By the way, Indra was not a god - god, it was a role, the role of the king of gods. Besides the trimurthis anybody can become Indra. And Buddhism, if you have read it is by far very similar to Hinduism sans the gods concept, but it still embodies the concept of isht-devata by making buddha the preferred god. Both + Jainism are what are known as dharmic gods & have a not of commonality between them that the differences are quite obscure. Finally, there is no such thing as Brahmanism except in the minds of those who felt threatened by Hinduism & its natural concepts and approach to the betterment of humanity in general. In other words, once you remove Brahmins and Hinduism will cease to exist. Further, there was never a case of obliterating Buddhist monasteries (by Hindus)! Why would that be if Buddha was an avatara? Again these are narratives that want to paint anything coming out of (ancient) India & hinduism in very bad light. It is mischievous at best, please do not fall for such gimmicks & false narratives & do not feed them. There were some fights between Jains & Buddhists for a very brief time, but with Hinduism it was rarely physical because of the (earlier mentioned) concept of Ishta-devata / polytheism.
  - losteric 8y ago
    > Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost. Such as? > Look around you & think of all the insane (to current humans) & incredible accomplishments of humans that our sciences of today still cannot explain convincingly how they were possible. Examples? I can't tell whether you're referring to ancient constructs (great pyramids, stone henge) or modern engineering (technology, medicine)... the former is uncertainty among multiple plausible theories while the latter is quite well understood (albeit difficult to learn). > Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Contingent upon a perspective of ignorance. Incandescent light bulbs are magic to a medieval society, yet we consider them to be relatively primitive lighting devices. Once the fundamentals are known (electricity) the "trick" becomes obvious and even trivial (resistance makes wire hot, hot wire is bright). Fundamental understanding also allows us to rule out mythical magic.
- fooker 8y ago
  >Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists. What is a scientist? Does Newton qualify as one in your worldview? He spent about half his life on alchemy. Will any of our scientists qualify as scientists after a thousand more years of science?
  - ralfd 8y ago
    Newton was a mathematician, but he was not a scientist. John Maynard Keynes opined "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." "Scientist" is a modern term and I would grant historic figures only that label, if they (disregarding if their conclusions were right or wrong) tried to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic.
    - blueprint 8y ago
      Yes, I would tend to agree with you. Science means "application". The origin of science is philosophy. That's why to be a true scientist, one ought to be familiar with philosophy, first. The problem is, in this day and age, while science and technology have developed greatly, philosophy is ancient, and has disappeared. The evidence is that if you go to the top philosophers these days then they will be unaware of the right answer to the first question in studying philosophy: what is the definition of philosophy? Without having learned it, people have been going around trying to teach what they are unaware of.
    - aalleavitch 8y ago
      The modern idea of a scientist is almost purely an enlightenment-era concept, and only represents one revision towards a better understanding of the world out of many throughout human history. I think your distinction is pretty arbitrary; in what way does a mathematician not attempt to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic? The only real difference over time has been in our ability to determine valid logic, our rigor in what empirical evidence we'll accept, and our sophistication in how we systematically go about this process. Early philosophers were attempting each of these things to various degrees, they just weren't as good as we are now at them. Really defining the "first scientist" is like defining the "first mammal"; the category is fuzzy and doesn't really mean anything at that level of granularity.
- booleandilemma 8y ago
  Take Buddha for example... An early example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
  - yantrams 8y ago
    You spoke my mind. I was just about to compare it with EEE. It has been the modus operandi for the spread of what we now call Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent. Here is an example of that happening in the 21st century. Classic case of appropriating indigenous dieties. > It all started in March 2015, when their simple pole-hut shrine for Dokri Burhi (earth goddess) was taken over by a saffron-coloured, tiled, electrified and gated Hindu temple for Kanaka Durga. And in accordance with Brahmin beliefs, all Shudras were barred from it. This is when the local Shudras woke up to the pattern. Almost 150-200 years ago, when a handful of Brahmin families migrated to Ichchapur, they started dislodging the Shudras, who were the original inhabitants, from their ancestral lands. As time passed, Brahmins took control of most of the land, despite the lower castes comprising the majority of the village’s population. In fact, currently, there are 22 Brahmin families in Ichchapur and about 250 odd lower caste households. https://thewire.in/film/caste-dalit-uprising-in-odisha https://thewire.in/film/caste-dalit-uprising-in-odisha
    - adictator 8y ago
      The wire? You're quoting the blatantly communal media channel? What you quote about EEE (& this news) is the missionary narrative & it is TOTALLY false. The wire, nyt, bbc etc know only one thing, the last citadel of Hinduism is India and it must be destroyed. What better way to destroy it than attacking the core beliefs & the maintainers of those core beliefs - the Brahmins. Educated people like you fall for such gimmicks, it is shameful indeed. From your id, it seems you're also Indian. Did you know that Indian education is heavily Left tilted? We are manufacturing minds by training students to be ashamed of their own culture, & not only ignore but despise the accomplishments of their ancestors.
  - dahidahi1 8y ago
    Yes, that may be true, because Buddhism for all practical purposes has teachings that are a subset of what Hinduism / Sanatana Dharma is. Some people may not like it because that hurts their sensibilities, especially if they were Buddhists or have a soft corner for Buddhism. So it has been a debate & Buddhism is simply lacking in providing any novel concepts other than what Hinduism already provided. At least the path of Islam / Christianity of "Extinguish" at the point of a sword was not practiced. No other line of thought has been criticized, marginalized & ridiculed as much as Hinduism has been. Buddhism escaped all that criticism only because of Hinduism being the bigger target. This is also the reason why many people in Western countries resort to Buddhism & not Hinduism when they want inner peace or want to understand meditation. This is going on even now. You'll be amazed at the words used by Christian missionaries, they call Hindu beliefs as evil, the gods as satanic. Muslims? They just try to kill you if you're a Hindu, desecrate & vandalize Hindu temples, forcibly convert young girls through kidnap & rape and worse.. and I am talking of all this happening today, now and will happen tomorrow. Why? Because Hindus are a soft target, they have never harmed anybody. History is evidence to this. Matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence that Buddhism tried to do exactly that to Hinduism & Jainism "Embrace, Extend & Extinguish" and it was successful in Afghanistan, Kashmir, SE Asia etc, but could not survive in the face is Islamic violence. Look up these regions' history if you do not believe me.
- aalleavitch 8y ago
  It's fair to call them scientists in the same way you might refer to Pythagoras as a scientist. For most of human civilization religious philosophy and science were not separated. EDIT: Ah, I see what you meant is that these people didn't exist.

yantrams 8y ago

> scientists of their time Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists. You are doing a disservice to the accomplishments of real historical figures like Panini, Brahmagupta etc by making statements like this. You don't have to resort to mythological characters to feel good about the supposed glorious past. I can understand how the tales of Dasavataras can possibly have some allegorical references to evolution but claiming the rishis to be scientists only serves to further ridiculous beliefs like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity originated from Vedas, Rishi scientists developed nuclear weapons in 10000 BC etc. The main purpose they(Puranas (post-vedic Hindu mythology)) served was to legitimize the Vishnu cult, get rid of the pantheon of older Vedic gods (Indra etc.) and to counter the rise of Buddhism. Most of these stories were made up ad hoc to suit the purposes of their times. I find them quite clever to be honest and fascinating from literary and sociological perspectives. Take Buddha for example. Once Buddhism and its crusade against animal slaughter / rituals became a hit with the masses and started competing with Brahmanism/Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism, Buddha was made an incarnation of Vishnu and added to the Purana bloatware, while simultaneously obliterating Buddhist monasteries and driving it out of the subcontinent.

amriksohata 8y ago
Err... source?
- anonnel 8y ago
  A source on ancient mythos not having a basis in science or facts? Or that they served political purposes in their time?
  - dahidahi1 8y ago
    Science has not been able to address every single thing. In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. I'm not trying to disparage science, but I want to emphasize that there is like 99.99% of things we do not know or understand, which is great considering we will all have super interesting times ahead of us. Not a moment of boredom.
    - losteric 8y ago
      > Science has not been able to address every single thing. In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. Can you be more specific about what things you feel science cannot address? It seems like the one and only proven method for understanding our universe.
    - krapp 8y ago
      > In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. I mean, we understand relativity well enough to predict astronomical movements and to account for it when synchronizing GPS, we understand biology well enough for genetic engineering and complex medicine, chemistry well enough to create exotic materials and superconductors, quantum mechanics enough to harness it for computation, physics enough to split the atom, space travel, astronomy, etc. We understand a lot more than "the most basic things."
    - anonnel 8y ago
      We know much more than the people before us, not the other way around.
- yantrams 8y ago
  Sure. I'll have to dig up the literature but I'd be happy to do so. Can you be more specific ? If you are interested in investigating, It'd be illuminating to contrast the belief systems in Vedas and Puranas. (Rigveda and Puranas to be more specific. ) If my memory serves right, Narayana(Vishnu) was a minor diety in Rigveda whose only claim to fame was carrying Indra on his back to circumnavigate the universe 108 times. He gradually started gaining more prominence as time passed, as a benevolent and sophisticated alternative to replace the more belligerent/primitive Indra. By mid 15th century(I could be wrong), this process was complete, with Vishnu taking over Indra completely, as established in that Govardhanagiri tale where Indra was utterly humiliated by Krishna. Coming to the claims on Buddhism, once again, examining the Rigvedic and post Rigvedic belief systems can help you hypothesize how things unravelled. (Replacement of Horse with Cow as the sacred animal, renouncement of non vegetarianism, incorporation of Tantric belief systems etc ) Destruction of Buddhist monasteries and massacring the monks is quite well documented too. Read about Pushyamitra Sunga for example. Edit: Typos
dahidahi1 8y ago
I can imagine we had very similar conversations & skeptics when the first design for flying machines were proposed. Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost. I think you are taking an extremely parochial view of things by calling Vedas as "mythology". I believe I do not have to tell you about "Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"... You look at the advanced technology that we unfortunately lost and you think it is magic (mythology in your words). Look around you & think of all the insane (to current humans) & incredible accomplishments of humans that our sciences of today still cannot explain convincingly how they were possible. By the way, Indra was not a god - god, it was a role, the role of the king of gods. Besides the trimurthis anybody can become Indra. And Buddhism, if you have read it is by far very similar to Hinduism sans the gods concept, but it still embodies the concept of isht-devata by making buddha the preferred god. Both + Jainism are what are known as dharmic gods & have a not of commonality between them that the differences are quite obscure. Finally, there is no such thing as Brahmanism except in the minds of those who felt threatened by Hinduism & its natural concepts and approach to the betterment of humanity in general. In other words, once you remove Brahmins and Hinduism will cease to exist. Further, there was never a case of obliterating Buddhist monasteries (by Hindus)! Why would that be if Buddha was an avatara? Again these are narratives that want to paint anything coming out of (ancient) India & hinduism in very bad light. It is mischievous at best, please do not fall for such gimmicks & false narratives & do not feed them. There were some fights between Jains & Buddhists for a very brief time, but with Hinduism it was rarely physical because of the (earlier mentioned) concept of Ishta-devata / polytheism.
- losteric 8y ago
  > Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost. Such as? > Look around you & think of all the insane (to current humans) & incredible accomplishments of humans that our sciences of today still cannot explain convincingly how they were possible. Examples? I can't tell whether you're referring to ancient constructs (great pyramids, stone henge) or modern engineering (technology, medicine)... the former is uncertainty among multiple plausible theories while the latter is quite well understood (albeit difficult to learn). > Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Contingent upon a perspective of ignorance. Incandescent light bulbs are magic to a medieval society, yet we consider them to be relatively primitive lighting devices. Once the fundamentals are known (electricity) the "trick" becomes obvious and even trivial (resistance makes wire hot, hot wire is bright). Fundamental understanding also allows us to rule out mythical magic.
fooker 8y ago
>Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists. What is a scientist? Does Newton qualify as one in your worldview? He spent about half his life on alchemy. Will any of our scientists qualify as scientists after a thousand more years of science?
- ralfd 8y ago
  Newton was a mathematician, but he was not a scientist. John Maynard Keynes opined "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." "Scientist" is a modern term and I would grant historic figures only that label, if they (disregarding if their conclusions were right or wrong) tried to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic.
  - blueprint 8y ago
    Yes, I would tend to agree with you. Science means "application". The origin of science is philosophy. That's why to be a true scientist, one ought to be familiar with philosophy, first. The problem is, in this day and age, while science and technology have developed greatly, philosophy is ancient, and has disappeared. The evidence is that if you go to the top philosophers these days then they will be unaware of the right answer to the first question in studying philosophy: what is the definition of philosophy? Without having learned it, people have been going around trying to teach what they are unaware of.
  - aalleavitch 8y ago
    The modern idea of a scientist is almost purely an enlightenment-era concept, and only represents one revision towards a better understanding of the world out of many throughout human history. I think your distinction is pretty arbitrary; in what way does a mathematician not attempt to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic? The only real difference over time has been in our ability to determine valid logic, our rigor in what empirical evidence we'll accept, and our sophistication in how we systematically go about this process. Early philosophers were attempting each of these things to various degrees, they just weren't as good as we are now at them. Really defining the "first scientist" is like defining the "first mammal"; the category is fuzzy and doesn't really mean anything at that level of granularity.
booleandilemma 8y ago
Take Buddha for example... An early example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
- yantrams 8y ago
  You spoke my mind. I was just about to compare it with EEE. It has been the modus operandi for the spread of what we now call Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent. Here is an example of that happening in the 21st century. Classic case of appropriating indigenous dieties. > It all started in March 2015, when their simple pole-hut shrine for Dokri Burhi (earth goddess) was taken over by a saffron-coloured, tiled, electrified and gated Hindu temple for Kanaka Durga. And in accordance with Brahmin beliefs, all Shudras were barred from it. This is when the local Shudras woke up to the pattern. Almost 150-200 years ago, when a handful of Brahmin families migrated to Ichchapur, they started dislodging the Shudras, who were the original inhabitants, from their ancestral lands. As time passed, Brahmins took control of most of the land, despite the lower castes comprising the majority of the village’s population. In fact, currently, there are 22 Brahmin families in Ichchapur and about 250 odd lower caste households. https://thewire.in/film/caste-dalit-uprising-in-odisha https://thewire.in/film/caste-dalit-uprising-in-odisha
  - adictator 8y ago
    The wire? You're quoting the blatantly communal media channel? What you quote about EEE (& this news) is the missionary narrative & it is TOTALLY false. The wire, nyt, bbc etc know only one thing, the last citadel of Hinduism is India and it must be destroyed. What better way to destroy it than attacking the core beliefs & the maintainers of those core beliefs - the Brahmins. Educated people like you fall for such gimmicks, it is shameful indeed. From your id, it seems you're also Indian. Did you know that Indian education is heavily Left tilted? We are manufacturing minds by training students to be ashamed of their own culture, & not only ignore but despise the accomplishments of their ancestors.
- dahidahi1 8y ago
  Yes, that may be true, because Buddhism for all practical purposes has teachings that are a subset of what Hinduism / Sanatana Dharma is. Some people may not like it because that hurts their sensibilities, especially if they were Buddhists or have a soft corner for Buddhism. So it has been a debate & Buddhism is simply lacking in providing any novel concepts other than what Hinduism already provided. At least the path of Islam / Christianity of "Extinguish" at the point of a sword was not practiced. No other line of thought has been criticized, marginalized & ridiculed as much as Hinduism has been. Buddhism escaped all that criticism only because of Hinduism being the bigger target. This is also the reason why many people in Western countries resort to Buddhism & not Hinduism when they want inner peace or want to understand meditation. This is going on even now. You'll be amazed at the words used by Christian missionaries, they call Hindu beliefs as evil, the gods as satanic. Muslims? They just try to kill you if you're a Hindu, desecrate & vandalize Hindu temples, forcibly convert young girls through kidnap & rape and worse.. and I am talking of all this happening today, now and will happen tomorrow. Why? Because Hindus are a soft target, they have never harmed anybody. History is evidence to this. Matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence that Buddhism tried to do exactly that to Hinduism & Jainism "Embrace, Extend & Extinguish" and it was successful in Afghanistan, Kashmir, SE Asia etc, but could not survive in the face is Islamic violence. Look up these regions' history if you do not believe me.
aalleavitch 8y ago
It's fair to call them scientists in the same way you might refer to Pythagoras as a scientist. For most of human civilization religious philosophy and science were not separated. EDIT: Ah, I see what you meant is that these people didn't exist.