Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed

Essan ,

Yes, it does. And I found a fascinating research paper on the subject. The author was a professor, who several decades ago, travelled extensively and accumulated evidence to support his theory that the ancient cultures of the far and middle east, had built eclipse predictors that were indicated in their artworks. He drudged up a sketch taken from the wall of a buddhist cave, in which it shows Mt. Sumeru's connection to the heavenlies being destroyed upon the death of Buddha. The interesting thing about that is, given the description of Mt. Sumeru and my personal theory that Enki's ziggurat contained a star gate, the two concepts actually seem to support one another. The support is most visible in a early babylonian text called the Enuma Elish, where Marduk's exploits in defeating the dragon "Tiamat" by cutting it in half (the destruction of the star gate connection) are nearly identical, visually, as the destruction of Mt. Sumeru's connection to the heavenlies: an hourglass shape (which is, amazingly, the same shape as a blueprint or wireframe construction of the mechanics of a wormhole).



[edit on 14-4-2006 by undo]

The book was called "Hamlet's Mill."

Here are the sketches which clued me into the Mt. Meru/Mt. Sumeru connection to Enki's ziggurat and star gate:

The Collapse of the Hour-Glass Shaped Meru
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Mt. Meru, the World Mountain, Rising from the Sea
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Source: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

[edit on 14-4-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by pradeep
I would agree with that explanation. However, I would like to put all the information given above into the TinWiki that ATS has created. I'll begin and if possible, can some one help me??

Pradeep

I'll help after I finish the debate tournament. I'll take it light on the skepticism and just keep it to "this is what this text says" and "this is how the theory goes" for the most part. I may put two cents in from the skeptics point of view in a separate section, but like I said, I'll keep it light.

Hi,

I happened to be reading this entire thread started by Mr. Indigo and flogged by Mr Vagabond.

I do not understand what is the fuss about ancient civilization having advanced technology?

What has technology achieved anyways? It did not save the ancient Indian civilization not does it help present day civilization with the US and others brimming with nuclear missiles and polluting the environment.

For me it does not matter whether ancient civilization were for real or not.

What is important what we are now? Are we progessing or degressing?

Are we more humane with all the new technology? Are we not always fighting each other whether it is on the streets or on online forums.

I would consider a civilization advanced when it puts an end to violence and people could live a better life...

guyfrom5006BC

Truer words have probably not been spoken in millenia. lol

[edit on 19-4-2006 by undo]

How true indeed. Here, in the Pacific Northwest, people lived in harmony with the environment for over 7 000 years, without harming it. In the last 200 years, the newcomers have virtually destroyed it, rivers, marshes, forests, everything. To me, being advanced includes not soiling your nest, and in that regard, we are not very advanced at all.

Anyone hear about the teeth they recovered recently? I saw it in a local paper, but found a link on MSNBC. They dug up some teeth in Baluchistan.

It looks like very sophisticated work, drilled into the interior and rear of a molar. They believe it was probably done with an obsidian drill tip, but the positioning is amazing for work dated somewhere between 5500 and 7000 BC. (no word on the dating method and therefore on the accuracy thereof, although I would hope that they have a general agreement between multiple methods, since this date does open up a lot of questions.)

Of course, the "drilling for evil spirits" hypothesis has been vetted, but even to me this seems unlikely since they chose to drill in particularly difficult places, and in one instance apparently did it twice.

No evidence of fillings was found, but it has been hypothesized that asphalt could have been used.

Another idea, that I haven't seen suggested, but I personally wonder, relates to exactly how they did such precise work. Did they actually develop such find instruments that they could do this without cutting away a section of cheek?

Really either way it opens up interesting questions. You've either got a fairly sophsiticated surgery or a fairly sophisticated tool involved here. Basically all you need is an obsidian tip and bow drill, but to scale it down where you can stick it in someone's mouth and hit an odd angled at the back?

I'm not onboard for the idea that they had modern technology still, but that's not to say that I'm not severely impressed.

I thought you all might find that interesting on the outside chance you haven't already heard of it.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
How true indeed. Here, in the Pacific Northwest, people lived in harmony with the environment for over 7 000 years, without harming it.

So how do you reconcile that outlook with scientific findings like the one that launched this thread: Indians hunted carelessly, study says.?

Hello, first post. Not wanting to interupt the argument or anything, I just wanted to say how interesting I have found this debate. Points have been generally well argued but im afraid I have to come down on the side of Vagabond.

As a graduate of archaeology it has become very obvious that the only evidence that could prove these arguments seem to be sadly lacking; namely artefacts.
If objects existed within a prehistoric (or otherwise) society we should be able to track them through the taxonomic record. Even if complete examples cant be found, some of the best archaeological evidence is found in the form of refuse; however this study seems to lack examples of either, or evidence of modern day scholars or scientist being able to replicate these apparent technologies.

interesting debate though, and I would have liked the idea to be true...


[edit] oh and on a side note, adding to what is said above, I remember reading a study (cant remember where - ill post if i find it), where in around the 15 century some fijians or samoans paddled themselves to an island in the south pacific, and decided to take up residence because of the abundance of abalone shelfish in the area. Anyway, within 50 years they had eaten all the abalone, which never returned, and paddled back to fiji (or samoa), leaving the ecology devastated. The same is true of easter island. The migrant inhabitants cut down all the trees, and then ended up stuck on the island with massive soil erosion and no way to build boats. lol. People in the past were as stupid (if not more so) than peeople are to day. I would cite this as proof but im afraid I have no artefacts to back it up .

[edit on 9-6-2006 by CovertDigi]

since there are no further posts from indigo_child, is the "issue" settled ?

those advanced civilizations existed or didn't exist ?

Originally posted by qwerasdf
since there are no further posts from indigo_child, is the "issue" settled ?

those advanced civilizations existed or didn't exist ?

no posts after 14th march 2006 that is

Originally posted by qwerasdf
since there are no further posts from indigo_child, is the "issue" settled ?

those advanced civilizations existed or didn't exist ?

I haven't seen Indigo in a few months, although there has been a contributor on tinWiki who reminds me of Indigo.

I wouldn't say that the issue is settled; I trust we retain our respective beliefs with equal certainty, but we've disengaged. I can't speak for Indigo's reasons, but for my part I've been trying very hard to defeat my own nature and not be quite as combative with my fellow members. Instead I take out a lot of my mental aggression on professors at school now.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by qwerasdf
since there are no further posts from indigo_child, is the "issue" settled ?

those advanced civilizations existed or didn't exist ?

I haven't seen Indigo in a few months, although there has been a contributor on tinWiki who reminds me of Indigo.

would this mean that indigo is no more contactable ? i have a few questions about 'source' of the quotes in the posts from indigo.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by qwerasdf
since there are no further posts from indigo_child, is the "issue" settled ?

those advanced civilizations existed or didn't exist ?

I wouldn't say that the issue is settled; I trust we retain our respective beliefs with equal certainty....I've been trying very hard to defeat my own nature and not be quite as combative ...

hmm .. would it be right to say that the 'respective beliefs' and 'combative' thingy of a few members here prevent the 'conclusions' from being arrived at ?

this would mean that 'above' the 'top secret' kind of info cannot be investigated thru discussions and the truth of such wierd possibilites cannot be neither confirmed nor denied .. since personal 'beliefs' obstruct investigation.

i was eagerly wading thru the 13 pages 1 by 1 to come to a final 'finding' .. but i guess that the thread is back to square one :-(

Originally posted by qwerasdf
would it be right to say that the 'respective beliefs' and 'combative' thingy of a few members here prevent the 'conclusions' from being arrived at ?

No. A conclusion hasn't been arrived at because of the evidence.

I feel that there is enough evidence to show that it didn't exist, but, of course, anything is possible.

and the truth of such wierd possibilites cannot be neither confirmed nor denied .. since personal 'beliefs' obstruct investigation.

Unless, of course, we try to rationally and objectively examine the evidence and let it lead us where it will.

but i guess that the thread is back to square one :-(

What were your opinions and understandings before reading the thread, and what are they now? What doubts hasn't the thread been able to assuage, are there any ideas that you had that the thread has over turned?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by qwerasdf
would it be right to say that the 'respective beliefs' and 'combative' thingy of a few members here prevent the 'conclusions' from being arrived at ?

No. A conclusion hasn't been arrived at because of the evidence.

I feel that there is enough evidence to show that it didn't exist, but, of course, anything is possible.

and the truth of such wierd possibilites cannot be neither confirmed nor denied .. since personal 'beliefs' obstruct investigation.

Unless, of course, we try to rationally and objectively examine the evidence and let it lead us where it will.

but i guess that the thread is back to square one :-(

What were your opinions and understandings before reading the thread, and what are they now? What doubts hasn't the thread been able to assuage, are there any ideas that you had that the thread has over turned?

well .. lemme try to answer :

1. no conclusions arrived at .. i guess i understand this now

2. because of 'evidence' .. i guess that's fair

3. objectively examine the evidence and let it lead us where it will .. way to go !

4. my opinions .. dunno for sure as yet ..

5. comments :

the wierdness of the wide spread of sanskrit is puzzling .. the text in chinese which was sent to dr. ruth (?) in chandigarh for translation was also about making aircraft .. this was not a 'chanelled' text .. so the source is different .. the chinese university's efforts on trying to understand the sense in the several manuscripts written in chinese is on records ..

the appearance of sanskrit words in tibetan script is puzzling too ..

this makes sanskrit not the exclusive preserve of india as a country ..

the use of sanskrit in buddhism which originated from india can be understood .. but the manuscripts in wierd places in china and monastries in tibet are not connected with the buddhism of indian origin .. so a 'different' view-pont is worth considering

what i FIND is this .. the words are the same ! when spoken out .. but they are written in different scripts .. being a phonetic language, sanskrit spoken out of the differently written texts still conveys the same sense .. this i find to be a th\ng to be looked at and to be looked into

the similarity of brahmi to sanskrit on the basis of 'phonetics' .. and the dis-similarity of letters on the basis of 'appearance' is what i find to be a line of enquiry as well .. especially because the construct of the spoken sanskrit is based on rules which have been written by panini .. it being reasonable to assume that he has 'written' the book .. not 'invented' the grammar .. just as Wren & Martin wrote the English Grammar Text Book giving parts of speech and figures of speech (nouns, pronouns, verbs, advers, adjectives .. and similey, hyperbole, etc)

this would bring up a natural question .. panini recorded what others had created :

- the letters based on 'phonetics' or 'sounds'
- the system of 'roots' for nouns, verbs
- the system of 'joining' words (sandhi rules) to make pronouncing them easier
- the careful way distinct sounding words leading to avoiding 'confusion'
- the only ONE way of spelling certain letters (example : krshn krishn krishna krishana are all used by us to mean the same word .. but in sanskrit it has only ONE spelling)
- the almost total exactness of word forms in sanskrit sentences
- the same meaning of sanskrit sentences even when the order of words is changed
- the 'finding' that sanskrit is a likely candidate for 'programming languages' in the info tech world because of it being a relatively more EXACT natural language
- the number of learned, accomplished, responsible scientist of east, west and other places from all kinds of study pointing out various useful aspects of sanskrit as a language compared to (similar ?) latin as a language

these lead me to think !

this would bring up a natural thingy :

- the letters based on 'phonetics' or 'sounds'
- the system of 'roots' for nouns, verbs
- the system of 'joining' words (sandhi rules) to make pronouncing them easier
- the careful way distinct sounding words leading to avoiding 'confusion'
- the only ONE way of spelling certain letters (example : krshn krishn krishna krishana are all used by us to mean the same word .. but in sanskrit it has only ONE spelling)
- the almost total exactness of word forms in sanskrit sentences
- the same meaning of sanskrit sentences even when the order of words is changed
- the 'finding' that sanskrit is a likely candidate for 'programming languages' in the info tech world because of it being a relatively more EXACT natural language
- the number of learned, accomplished, responsible scientist of east, west and other places from all kinds of study pointing out various useful aspects of sanskrit as a language compared to (similar ?) latin as a language

these lead me to think !


THIS IS WHAT would be better way of putting it .. not the way it went in the earlier post : ".. panini recorded what others had created : " followed by the bulleted points above .. sorry for the mixup ..

this clarification is to keep the thread intact and on topic .. there is no intention to discuss what panini did or did not do .. the topic is on existence of 'advanced' civilizations .. with mentions of those in sanskrit (written in devanagri, chinese, tibeten, arabic, persian or any other texts) .. if the spoken words from any of these scripts 'sound' the same .. then the 'contents' are what need to be investigated .. for truth .. based on reasonably acceptable 'evidence' .. by comparing the contents about the civilizations, the 'history' or 'myth' question .. and the logic of exact grammar, exact data on scientific measurements (speed of light, value of pi, parts of human body) .. which appear to 'impress' many

so comments on this topic would be nice .. finding holes in my beliefs is not the issue ;-)

(we all fall for that anyway .. me too ! .. i am human too you see !)

Originally posted by qwerasdf
being a phonetic language, sanskrit spoken out of the differently written texts still conveys the same sense .. this i find to be a th\ng to be looked at and to be looked into

Fascinating.

the 'finding' that sanskrit is a likely candidate for 'programming languages' in the info tech world because of it being a relatively more EXACT natural language

I've heard this before, and I just don't understand why it would be so. Also, no one speaks sanskrit now, so how could it ever serve as the langauge of IT anyway? I agree though, the language is a seperate issue from teh ancient civilization, especially since things like the "ramic' empire would've possibly pre-dated the existence of sanskrit anyway.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by qwerasdf
being a phonetic language, sanskrit spoken out of the differently written texts still conveys the same sense .. this i find to be a th\ng to be looked at and to be looked into

Fascinating.

the 'finding' that sanskrit is a likely candidate for 'programming languages' in the info tech world because of it being a relatively more EXACT natural language

I've heard this before, and I just don't understand why it would be so. Also, no one speaks sanskrit now, so how could it ever serve as the langauge of IT anyway? I agree though, the language is a seperate issue from teh ancient civilization, especially since things like the "ramic' empire would've possibly pre-dated the existence of sanskrit anyway.

yep .. fascinating for sure .. it seems that sankrit is not an 'indian' thingy !

about not understanding why it would be so .. consider this :

i am ram
ram am i
ram i am

well .. more or less ok

but : am i ram .. is not ok ! it is a question

way the natural language english is spoken .. nobody's fault ..

but in sanskrit :
aham ramah asmi
aham asmi ramah
asmi aham ramah
asmi ramah aham
ramah aham asmi
ramah asmi ahmi
ALL mean exactly the same .. i am rama !

this is because the words convey the meaning .. there is an additional part of speech in sanskrit which changes the word when it is in a 'question' mode ..

adding a question mark is not done .. as there are no punctuation marks in sanskrit

so far so good

now WHY is suitable to computers as it is not spoken anywhere .. me too .. fells the same .. it is a new thing to learn

this certainly is NOT a topic for this forum/thread .. better to discuss it elsewhere for further pursuing .. for members here these are my comments :

look at it this way .. we don't speak pascal, fortran, assembly language either .. nor we know well the OOP .. Object Oriented Programming ! .. those are "computer" languages .. they have exact 'structures' .. 'syntaxes' .. 'classes' and 'properties' .. these concepts of structure, syntax, class, boolean logic etc were needed to be developed .. to make computers of better use

these concepts are already existing in sanskrit .. co-incidence ? .. maybe .. maybe not .. i never heard of computers/microchips in ancient indian or non-indian (tibettese/chinese) scriptures.

but the suitability of the language because of it's exactness maybe what is worth talking about



there is one more funny allegory (not a supporting argument .. just a lighter vien thingy)

mary had a little lamb can also mean she ate, posessed, gave birth to, a little lamb
that would make an awful lot of confusion to AI in the pc :-) (and the context would become very important to 'understand' the sense .. giving rise to a whole new kind of programming techniques .. too much to get a bit of clarity)

which is a better thread/forum to discuss this 'sanskrit ok for pc' thing ?

Originally posted by CovertDigi
Hello, first post. Not wanting to interupt the argument or anything, I just wanted to say how interesting I have found this debate. Points have been generally well argued but im afraid I have to come down on the side of Vagabond.

As a graduate of archaeology it has become very obvious that the only evidence that could prove these arguments seem to be sadly lacking; namely artefacts.
If objects existed within a prehistoric (or otherwise) society we should be able to track them through the taxonomic record. Even if complete examples cant be found, some of the best archaeological evidence is found in the form of refuse; however this study seems to lack examples of either, or evidence of modern day scholars or scientist being able to replicate these apparent technologies.

interesting debate though, and I would have liked the idea to be true...


[edit] oh and on a side note, adding to what is said above, I remember reading a study (cant remember where - ill post if i find it), where in around the 15 century some fijians or samoans paddled themselves to an island in the south pacific, and decided to take up residence because of the abundance of abalone shelfish in the area. Anyway, within 50 years they had eaten all the abalone, which never returned, and paddled back to fiji (or samoa), leaving the ecology devastated. The same is true of easter island. The migrant inhabitants cut down all the trees, and then ended up stuck on the island with massive soil erosion and no way to build boats. lol. People in the past were as stupid (if not more so) than peeople are to day. I would cite this as proof but im afraid I have no artefacts to back it up

.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by CovertDigi]

i guess taking sides is not going to do much good .. none of us are perfectly right .. and all of us are pursing the right story .. what was the real thing ?

so, i guess this issue of advanced civilizations .. india .. sanskrit .. need to be dis-entangled !

1. were there advanced civilizations ?
2. were there such civilizations in india too ?
3. does 'sanskrit' have a role in 'advanced civilizations ?

it may be that advanced civilizations used 'sanskrit' .. so do many other texts .. including the 'familiar' kama-sutra and (don't laugh) the stories of birds called the panchatantra .. kalidas wrote abhigyan shaakuntalam in sanskrit too .. it is just a language ! .. doesn't necessarily mean that if you write BS in sanskrit, it converts to fact !!

so, the questions of advanced civilizations, civilizations in india (therefore advanced .. using sanskrit) .. or civilizations elsewhere (the altantis story..ashwin people, etc) .. are all different 'issues' .. not to be mixed up as intertwined single thingy

NOW, the question would be :

were there or were there NOT any advanced civilizations in ancinet times ? as also in ancient india ? since india did exist in ancient times too ;-)

this is a catch 22 thingy .. civilizations do advance .. we have seen it more than any recent historical account .. the developments in the 20th century were more than the 19th .. and in the 19th there were more than in the 18th .. and so on

now, if there was a real world war 3 .. then surely things would have been totally destroyed except in pockets .. and there would be some who would remember the 'advances' in phones (cellphone) and recording of life (dvd videocam) .. and cloning of sheep .. etc

a few generations later these would look suspicous .. and a few more generations later they would be doubtful, absurd and figments of imagination .. even 'stories' ..

sounds 'happenable' .. doesn't it ?

who know for sure ..
that's why we're here !