It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I have a theory to explain this. I have discussed this in my other thread. There have been two major historical super-events: The global floods and the Mahahbharata. Just as we were coming out of the ice age, there was unprecedented super floods around the world, which caused civilisation to rupture and fragment. This event was catacylsmic and brought an end to the Aryan civilisation. The survivors tried to recreate this civilisation, and the best record we have of this is the Indus Valley civilisation,. They had the tehnical know-how on planning cities, but the material technology at their disposal was primitive. There was a tiny elite that still had access to hi-technology, but this technology in the hands of the elites of this new fragmented civilisation proved to be catastrophic in the Mahabharata. This was the first world war. This indeed is one possible account of what happened. Another possibility is that the Aryan civilisation was VERY pre-glacial, in fact it was pre-ice age and possibly tens of thousands of years old.
I have a theory to explain this. I have discussed this in my other thread. There have been two major historical super-events: The global floods and the Mahahbharata. Just as we were coming out of the ice age, there was unprecedented super floods around the world, which caused civilisation to rupture and fragment. This event was catacylsmic and brought an end to the Aryan civilisation. The survivors tried to recreate this civilisation, and the best record we have of this is the Indus Valley civilisation,. They had the tehnical know-how on planning cities, but the material technology at their disposal was primitive. There was a tiny elite that still had access to hi-technology, but this technology in the hands of the elites of this new fragmented civilisation proved to be catastrophic in the Mahabharata. This was the first world war. This indeed is one possible account of what happened. Another possibility is that the Aryan civilisation was VERY pre-glacial, in fact it was pre-ice age and possibly tens of thousands of years old.
Originally posted by CaptainRon
And thats how most of them turn it down.
This has been an attitude not only by you, but maximum out there.
I hate to say this, but the WTC were reduced down to a pile of dust by two airliners...
Originally posted by coredrill
excuse me.....i didn't ask for another long post with no real credible evidence..
all i am asking is for evidence.. and you have none to give!!
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Some interesting ideas floated above.
It is possible that there can be a low-tech civilisation with advanced knowledge. However, it seems unlikely. If a civilisation had advanced knowledge, then there is no real reason why it would not apply it to creating better tools, which will benefit in the end.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sarasvati is mentioned both as the chief of the Sapta Sindhu, the seven major rivers of the early Rigveda, and listed in the geographical list of ten rivers in the Nadistuti sukta of the late Rigveda (10.75), and it is the only river with hymns entirely dedicated to it, RV 6.61, 7.95 and 7.96.
[edit] Praise for the Sarasvati
The Rigveda describes the Sarasvati as the best of all the rivers (RV 2.41.16-18; also 6.61.8-13; 7.95.2). Rigveda 7.36.6 calls it "the Seventh, Mother of Floods" sárasvatī saptáthī síndhumātā[3]. RV 2.41.16 ámbitame nádītame dévitame sárasvati "best mother, best river, best goddess" expresses the importance and reverence of some Vedic poets for the Sarasvati river, and states that all life spans (āyuṣ) abide on the Sarasvati. Other hymns that praise the Sarasvati River include RV 6.61; 7.96 and 10.17.
[edit] The course of the Sarasvati
Some Rigvedic verses (6.61.2-13) indicate that the Sarasvati river originated in the hills or mountains (giri), where she "burst with her strong waves the ridges of the hills (giri)". It is a matter of interpretation whether this refers not merely to the Himalayan foothills like the present-day Sarasvati (Sarsuti) river. The Sarasvati is described as a river swollen (pinvamānā) by other rivers (sindhubhih) (RV 6.52.6).
In RV 8.21.18ab mentions a number of petty kings dwelling along the course of Sarasvati: Citra is King, and only kinglings [rājaka] are the rest who dwell beside Sarasvati. The Sarasvati River is also associated with the five major Rigvedic tribes (e.g. RV 6.61.12), with the Paravatas and with the Purus (RV 7.95; 7.96).
Another reference to the Sarasvati is in the geographical enumeration of the rivers in the late Rigvedic Nadistuti sukta (10.75.5, this verse enumerates all important rivers from the Ganges in the east up to the Indus in the west in a strict geographical order), as "Ganga, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Shutudri", the Sarasvati is placed between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, consistent with the Ghaggar identification. It is clear, therefore, that even if she has unmistakably lost much of her former prominence, Sarasvati remains characterized as a river goddess throughout the Rigveda, being the home river of the Puru and lateron, the Kuru tribe.
In RV 3.23.4, the Sarasvati River is mentioned together with the Drsadvati River and the Apaya (Āpayā, the later Apagā) River.
In some hymns, the Indus river seems to be more important than the Sarasavati, especially in the Nadistuti sukta. In RV 8.26.18, the white flowing Sindhu 'with golden wheels' is the most conveying or attractive of the rivers.
In the Rig Veda (7.95.1-2, (outdated Victorian) tr. Griffith) the Sarasvati is described as flowing to the samudra, which is usually, if ahistorically, translated as ocean.
One of the earliest estimates of the date of the Vedas was at once among the mostscientific. In 1790, the Scottish mathematician John Playfair demonstrated that thestarting-date of the astronomical observations recorded in the tables still in use among Hinduastrologers (of which three copies had reached Europe between 1687 and 1787) had to be4300 BC.3His proposal was dismissed as absurd by some, but it was not refuted by any scientist. Playfair's judicious use of astronomy was countered by John Bentley with a Scriptural argument which we now must consider invalid. In 1825, Bentley objected: "By his [= Playfair's]attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports allthose horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity.Nay, his aim goes still deeper, for by the same means he endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity ofHindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction."
That Hindu astronomical lore about ancient tuimes cannot be based on later back-calculation, was also argued by Playfair's contemporary, the French astronomer Jean-SylvainBailly: "the motions of the stars calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single minute from the [modern] tables of Cassini and Meyer. The Indian tables givethe same annual variation of the moon as that discovered by Tycho Brahe -- a variationunknown to the school of Alexandria and also the the Arabs".
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am not really sure what claim you want evidence for. My claim that the Vedic Aryans are a pre-glacial civilisation is based on the anomolus content of the 'Vedic sciences'.
I mentioned is not within the Atharva Veda, but it is mentioned in the Classical Sanskrit text Charak Samhita. This is a massive and seminal medical encylopedia of the Vedic medical tradition. It consists of 120 chapters(!) divided into 8 sections:
1. 30 Chapters on food, diet, physicians and distinguishing quacks, philosophy and pharmacology.
2. 8 chapters on diagnosis of disease
3. 8 chapters on specific determination of taste, nourishment, general pathology and medical studies
4. 8 chapters on Physiology and anatomy, including embroyology
5. 12 chapters on the prognosis of disease
6. 30 chapters on the treatment of disease
7. 12 chapters on pharmaceutics
8. 12 chapters on general therapy
As per the accepted dates, the Charka Samita was composed in 300BCE, redacted from an even older text from 800BCE, which in turn mentioned a long linage of researchers in the field.
Now the verses on microgranisms and germs from the text:
Germ theory
Charaka describes 20 disease causing germs, which thrive in the body under certain conditions. He said that in the absence of conditions which allow their growth they do not grow. Interesingly, Charaka was refuting some of his peers, who outlined germs as the major causitive factor in disease.
Epidemics
Charaka defined an epidemic similar to how it is defined in modern medicine: it is a disease affecting, and which destroys a locality(Vimansthan, 3) He lists four contributing factors which can cause epidemics: corrupt air, water, locale. He was aware of water-born disease and prescribed boiled water during the monsoon(this is when germs are more rife)
He gives a description of parasites and microbes, called Krumis. He gives a particular vivid and fantastic description of krumis in the blood, "They are very minute and can be observed using a yantra(mechnical instrument) They are round in shape, without feet. Some are so minute that they are invisible and are copper coloured. The symptoms they cause include "raising ones hairs, itching, neede-like piercing pain and a current life effect(Vimansthan, 7/9)
The Charak Samhita also has a section on genetics(i kid you not) It's section on Embrology is so precise it mirrors the modern account. I recently read a paper on this published in some Microbiology journal.
Another key text of the Vedic medical tradition is the Sushrath Samhita, a medical treatise on sugery. It mentions plastic surgery, brain surgery, eye surgery among many things. In fact modern surgical techniques were adopted from it.
Originally posted by Harte
You have apparently quoted your own interpretation of what this text says, as far as anyone here knows.
There are no scholarly reviews of this text online (the text itself is not available to the general public unless you purchase it) that mention anything like this.
Of course, I've only looked at three such reviews. However, according to what I've read, one of these is considered the definitive review on this text and was written by the most respected translator of Sanskrit alive today (assumiong he's still alive, that is.)
I don't have titles, links or names at hand right now, but anyone can find this info at Google and Google Scholar.
So, no, you make no convincing case.
Harte
Sanskrit studies and Indology is being conducted at many major universities, including the University of Oxford.