05-07-2006, 08:53 PM
Ben Ami, it is true that we do not have any clear cut historical records; and it is also true that we do have historical records, our very own calender and very detailed texts. In fact we have recorded much more than the Greeks, and in greater detail.
However, our records are often a part of our religious texts. For instance, the Puranas record an entire geneology of kings, the durations of their reign and other events, at the same time they are full of symbolism and mythology.
The Vedas are interspersed with many scientific facts, but at the same time they are texts of worship of god(s)
The most secular and rationalist of the knowledge systems, such as the philosophical schools, like Yoga and Ayurveda, too are very much rooted in Hindu spirituality and again are not taken seriously by rationalists.
This is the main problem. Ancient Indian society, was firmly rooted in spirituality and the dharma tradition. It was a society that recognised eternal laws(santana dharma) and lived in harmony with them. There was no field, that did not have a component of spirituality.
So all of the vast body of knowledge that the ancient Indians have left, is dismissed or ignored, because it is so intertwined with Hinduism. It is really because of scientific dogma.
This is the real reason why AIT was forced onto us; according to the dogma of the west, all our records were not credible enough. Moreover, our records were in Sanskrit, a language that was understood by few, those few being sages, yogis. It left everything open to distortion.
Yet, if we do look at our records. Not only do we find advanced scientific theories throughout our literature, we find very detailed arguments and expositions and entire models of space, mind and time. We do not just find epics discussing flying machines, we even find manuels on how to construct them, based on scientific principles(Vyamanika Shastra)
We find documents discussing the science of cloud and rain formation, different kinds of yantras(machines) including a whole text(Ansu Bodhini) on the spectroscopy of light. We find ancient Sanskrit texts on neuropsychology.
In fact a lot of what we call modern ideas, are found in age-old Sanskrit texts, and some more.
A lot of these texts have undergone scientific scrutiny, albeit, from Indian academics. But still, they're not enough. It is still a matter of belief or subjectivity to accept them.
K_Ram, you bring up a good point, this really is about the standards of truth and reality, and as such, true objectiity cannot exist, because there is relativity of standards. Each of us have a different idea about what we accept reality and truth to be, and call for extraordinary evidence to change our model of reality, called a null hypothesis.
If we accept that progress is linear, we cannot accept that the ancients could have been more advanced than us. Therefore, despite how much evidence is produced to the contrary, it will always fall short of our limits.
This is why discussing ancient Indian history is difficult. There are just so many variations of what it could have been, depending on how much of it you accept. Hence, why I asked what do others believe.
However, our records are often a part of our religious texts. For instance, the Puranas record an entire geneology of kings, the durations of their reign and other events, at the same time they are full of symbolism and mythology.
The Vedas are interspersed with many scientific facts, but at the same time they are texts of worship of god(s)
The most secular and rationalist of the knowledge systems, such as the philosophical schools, like Yoga and Ayurveda, too are very much rooted in Hindu spirituality and again are not taken seriously by rationalists.
This is the main problem. Ancient Indian society, was firmly rooted in spirituality and the dharma tradition. It was a society that recognised eternal laws(santana dharma) and lived in harmony with them. There was no field, that did not have a component of spirituality.
So all of the vast body of knowledge that the ancient Indians have left, is dismissed or ignored, because it is so intertwined with Hinduism. It is really because of scientific dogma.
This is the real reason why AIT was forced onto us; according to the dogma of the west, all our records were not credible enough. Moreover, our records were in Sanskrit, a language that was understood by few, those few being sages, yogis. It left everything open to distortion.
Yet, if we do look at our records. Not only do we find advanced scientific theories throughout our literature, we find very detailed arguments and expositions and entire models of space, mind and time. We do not just find epics discussing flying machines, we even find manuels on how to construct them, based on scientific principles(Vyamanika Shastra)
We find documents discussing the science of cloud and rain formation, different kinds of yantras(machines) including a whole text(Ansu Bodhini) on the spectroscopy of light. We find ancient Sanskrit texts on neuropsychology.
In fact a lot of what we call modern ideas, are found in age-old Sanskrit texts, and some more.
A lot of these texts have undergone scientific scrutiny, albeit, from Indian academics. But still, they're not enough. It is still a matter of belief or subjectivity to accept them.
K_Ram, you bring up a good point, this really is about the standards of truth and reality, and as such, true objectiity cannot exist, because there is relativity of standards. Each of us have a different idea about what we accept reality and truth to be, and call for extraordinary evidence to change our model of reality, called a null hypothesis.
If we accept that progress is linear, we cannot accept that the ancients could have been more advanced than us. Therefore, despite how much evidence is produced to the contrary, it will always fall short of our limits.
This is why discussing ancient Indian history is difficult. There are just so many variations of what it could have been, depending on how much of it you accept. Hence, why I asked what do others believe.