Do you think the Ramayan and Mahabharat are real?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Poll

Do you think the Ramayan and Mahabharat are real?

Frequent Posters

purvi

@coolpurvi

Voyager

Posted: 17 years ago

#41

dating may be incorrect. that I too agree
do comment abt first article. i will read them after this exam gets over

Quote

Charu

@Krinya

Trailblazer

+ 8

Posted: 17 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: coolpurvi
dating may be incorrect. that I too agree
do comment abt first article. i will read them after this exam gets over

oh ho! sorry yaar..by dating, i meant tht the dates were calculated from the positions of stars at the time of Mahabharat..n i guess in the same way, they've come up with the dates of Ramayan...using the same software, if we come to this conclusion tht those were ACTUALLY the positions of stars at tht time, it means that Ramayan and Mahabharat didn't happen really long ago with very less time gap...

MB has been carefully dated, specially the event of 2 eclipses in 13 days which happened during MAhabharata war...scientists have discovered tht this rare phenomenon actually happened at tht time...

P.S oh plz concentrate on ur studies..i remember i used to do the same when i was in my school...surfing the net n studying at the same time 😆

Charu

Edited by luv_khwaish - 17 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

#43

Originally posted by: luv_khwaish

that's what we've been discussing purvi..these dates can't be correct...bec. if we assume that Ramayan happened during treta yug, and this is kalyug, and in between dwapar yug is passed, all this can't happen in 7000 years! that was the root cause of our discussion from the beginning..Mahabharat has been dated to around 3000CE or around 5500BC..Now both these facts don't match at all bec. the time gap between Mahabharat and Ramayan should have been lakhs of years........Kaliyug is said to have started in 3102BC and Mahabharat events took before tht....so how can Ram take birth in 5112 BC? Ved Vyas and valmiki both have given astronomical positions of stars and planets at that time and surprisingly both r correct!!!!! 😲 if this is so then the time gap between Ramayan and Mahabharat should be less then 2000 years! in this timespan, the treta yug ends and dwapar beings and end?

the article u've posted might be 100% correct but i have serious doubts abt the birth date of Lord Ram..

u can read this post related to the dating of MB

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080221&TPN=2

someone made a logical comment abt the article i posted before abt Ram Sethu..

"Historiocity of Sri Ram:
[b] As per Sastra, Sri Ram was born in Treta Yuga (TY). TY ends about 869000 years back, from now (about 5000 Kali Yuga years (out of 432000 years) plus 864000 Dwapar Yuga years). TY lasts (three times Kali Yuga times, that is 1296000 years. During which part of the Treta Yuga, Sri Ram was born, at the beginning, middle, end etc? Our puranas say that God was incarnated on Earth in the end of each avatar, because that was when the evil of the next Yuga started appearing. During the end of Treta Yuga, Ramayan happened, and in the end of Dwapara Yuga, Mahabharat happened. Likewise, during the end of this Kali Yuga, when evil and sin in this world will be more than 100x worse than how it is now, and Prithvi Devi (Mother Earth) can no longer bear the weight of the growing sin, she will go to Lord Vishnu for protection and he will destroy the world in Kalki Avatar, creating a brand new World which will start again at Satya Yuga.

[c] Does these numbers really tally, are there consistencies? Parashuram (6th Avatar of Vishu, preceding 5th Avatar Sri Ram) appeared in Treta Yuga. And we see Parashuram was Guru/Military Art Trainers of Bhisma, Druna and Karna. Bhisma, Druna, Karna lived about 5000 years back, fron now. Are there two Parashurams, or He was same? If He was the same, then He lived around a million years. And if there was already one Avatar (Parashuram) establishing dharma and destroying adharma, why another Avatar (Sri Ram) appeared in between? Parashuram is one of the Chiranjeevis. He lives until the end of the World. And Shri Ram appeared, because his purpose was to defeat Ravan. There were certain curses Ravan had that said his killer would be born in the Ikshvaku Vansh, and a woman would be the cause of his death. I don't think Parashuram had any wives (did he?), and also, Vedavati told Ravan she would be reborn to be the cause of his death, and she was reborn as Sita. Parashuram definitely had the ability to kill Ravan, but due to Ravan's curses, no one other than Lord Vishnu born in the Ikshvaku Vansh could kill him. That's why Ram had to be born.

[d] Buddha appeared in about 2500 years ago, Sri Krishna appeared about 5000 years ago (Krishna's historiocity is a well-accepted fact). Does it make any sense putting Sri Ram's birth at 1000 BCE (i.e. about 3000 years ago)? I agree that sounds like a false date.😆

4. If it is a matter of faith, we shall restrict it as a faith (like faiths in other religions). If it is an scientific endeavors to establish historicity, then we need trust on true experts (those who are really trained in the discipline and objective).

Quote

TheEngineer

@TheEngineer

Explorer

Posted: 17 years ago

#44

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

American scholar Michael Cremo's recent books Forbidden Archaeology and Devolution of Man based on scientific discoveries prove that the Darwin theory has hardly any truth and that man came on earth at least two billion years ago. Cremo and his co-author Richard Thompson have quoted a lot of archeological evidences which undoubtedly prove that scientists in the last 150 years have collected so many facts which disprove many fundamental theories in history, linguistics and science.

This article mentiones some work of Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson who claims that the humans have lived on Earth since billions of years. Not to mention, his ideas have been rejected by the mainstream scientific community. His book 'Forbidden Archeology' has been criticised for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Many of the specimens on which this evidence was based no longer exist. Also, Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education criticized the work, noting that "specimens no longer exist" to back up Cremo's claims, and dubbed it pseudoscience.
Moreover, michaell Cremo was considered popular only among the Hindu creationists and he was largely ignored by the scientific community. (originally posted at: click here)

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

#45

Originally posted by: shyam.rathi

This article mentiones some work of Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson who claims that the humans have lived on Earth since billions of years. Not to mention, his ideas have been rejected by the mainstream scientific community. His book 'Forbidden Archeology' has been criticised for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Many of the specimens on which this evidence was based no longer exist. Also, Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education criticized the work, noting that "specimens no longer exist" to back up Cremo's claims, and dubbed it pseudoscience.
Moreover, michaell Cremo was considered popular only among the Hindu creationists and he was largely ignored by the scientific community. (originally posted at: click here)

I have a question for you. Who exactly do you consider "the scientific community"? I mean, that's such a vague word, because there are many many many scientists in the world. What exactly is the "scientific community"? Also, are scientists Gods, to never make mistakes? Are they always 100% right, that anyone who contradicts them, or anyone who is criticized by them, should not be taken as reliable sources?

And Michael Cremo was not considered popular only by the Hindu creationists. Over 200,000 copies of his work, Forbidden Archeology, were sold in 13 languages, including Bulgarian, Polish, and Russian!👏

Here's an article about his book.

New Evidence Challenges Darwin's Theory
Best-selling Author Further Defies Evolutionists

San Diego, CA – Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory (Torchlight Publishing,
September 2003), the highly anticipated sequel to the controversial bestseller Forbidden Archeology,
continues the literary drama with the same astute attention to detail and ground breaking revelations
as its predecessor.

Forbidden Archeology documented a massive amount of evidence showing that humans have existed on
earth for hundreds of millions of years. Such anomalous evidence, contradicting Darwinian evolution,
catalyzed a global inquiry, "If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?" Human
Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo's definitive answer to this question.

"We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure
consciousness, spirit," says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world's
great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that
before we ask the question, "Where did human beings come from? we should first contemplate,
"What is a human being?" Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and
consciousness (or spirit).

Human Devolution contains solid scientific evidence showing how a subtle mind element and a
conscious self that can exist apart from the body have been systematically eliminated from
mainstream science by a process of knowledge filtration. "Any time knowledge filtration takes
place you can expect a great deal of resistance, criticism, and ridicule when it is exposed and
challenged," says Cremo.

Michael Cremo is no stranger to resistance. In 1993 when Forbidden Archeology was released
there was a vast array of response. From anthropologist Richard Leakey calling it "...pure humbug"
to Fingerprints of the Gods author Graham Hancock referring to it as "One of the landmark
intellectual achievements of the late 20th century," it has received both positive and negative
international attention. In addition, in 1996 when NBC aired its special The Mysterious Origins
of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, and featured the book, establishment scientists felt so
threatened by this program that they lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to
censure and fine NBC for airing it (read the complete story in Forbidden Archeology's Impact).

Despite the criticism surrounding it, Forbidden Archeology is a huge success. Both it and Human
Devolution present human origins in a new perspective. The two books are the culmination of
eighteen years of research. The result, unlike the early creationist perspective, offers a new
scientifically based take on human origins. Forbidden Archeology gave us the cover-up and now
Human Devolution brings us the true story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any person who makes "an effort" to go against the rules of science will be criticized. Do you really expect them to receive the support of every scientist, no matter how much appropriate evidence they present? A belief of long ago that we, our parents, our grandparetns, have grown up with about the evolution of man, is being doubted by someone who did give good evidence. Still, do you expect everyone to blindly believe him? Obviously he will receive criticism. Does that mean what he presented is wrong? Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that we shouldn't blindly believe him either, but he his theory definitely should be researched by your scientific community. What this guy wrote may not be correct, but I don't think it should be completely left off as unreliable just because your "scientific community" doesn't agree with him.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

#46

@Shyam,

I was looking through that website my cousin gave me. And...wow. The college people are not stupid. They probably know that others might copy and paste their scholarly written articles (all of which are acknowleded by both the scientific community and other scholars who won the Nobel Prize), soo...I am unable to post the really good article I found. It's the size of a book anyhow, but I can post the info about it so you can buy the book in which the article was written...if you want.

Title:

Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism.

Authors:

Brown, C. Mackenzie¹

Source:

Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science; Sep2007, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p715-748, 34p

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

*VISHNU (Hindu deity)
*AVATARS (Religion)
*THEOSOPHY
*INCARNATION
*SOCIAL Darwinism
*BECOMING (Philosophy)
*EVOLUTION -- Religious aspects
HINDU renewal

Author-Supplied Keywords:

Annie Besant
Aurobindo Ghose
avataras and Darwinism
avataric evolutionism
British colonialism
Hinduism and Darwinism
Hinduism and evolution
Narayana Bhavanrao Pavgee
Orientalism
theosophy
Vedic geology

Abstract:

Avataric evolutionism is the idea that ancient Hindu myths of Vishnu's ten incarnations foreshadowed Darwinian evolution. In a previous essay I examined the late nineteenth-century origins of the theory in the works of Keshub Chunder Sen and Madame Blavatsky. Here I consider two major figures in the history of avataric evolutionism in the early twentieth century, N. B. Pavgee, a Marathi Brahmin deeply involved in the question of Aryan origins, and Aurobindo Ghose, political activist turned mystic. Pavgee, unlike Keshub, used avataric evolutionism in expounding his nationalistic goals for an independent India. His rationale was bolstered by the idea that India was the fountainhead of all science and civilization. Aurobindo saw in avataric evolutionism a possible key to understanding the involution and evolution of the supreme spirit in the realm of matter as taught in traditional Vedanta. This material-spiritual evolution represented for Aurobindo the necessary knowledge for the true liberation of India, transcending purely political independence. Such knowledge he also saw as the means for the spiritual liberation of the whole of humankind. The processes of involution and evolution he claimed were not in conflict with modern science, and Western evolutionary thinking seems to have inspired many of his own evolutionary reflections, even though in the end he rejected the Darwinian transmutation of species. I conclude with an overview and assessment of recent, post-colonial Hindu assimilations of avataric evolutionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)

Author Affiliations:

¹Professor of Religion at Trinity University, One Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212-7200; e-mail .

ISSN:

05912385

DOI:

10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00862.x

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

#47

Here's the link to this article. It may or may not work, cause it might ask for the password to get into this university's databases.

Quote

TheEngineer

@TheEngineer

Explorer

Posted: 17 years ago

#48

Let's put the problem of defining historicity of Gods in simpler terms. A classic example of 'proving' something is to try to analyze complex theories before proving simpler and basic hypothesis. Those who try to fix the historical dates of Ramayana and Mahabharata always ignore the questions about the 'mayavi' or magical or supernatural powers of the characters of them. If one can't explain the mechanism of Hanumanji flying over the ocean in one leap without any divine powers, one should not try to make him a historical figure.. Mayavi or divine powers are possible only in mythology and not in history.. Can these same authors explain the long saree of Draupadi flowing through Krishna's hand without anyone being able to watch it? Can these same authors throw some light on Krishna making a dead baby alive? (Parikshit).. Can someone explain the phenomenon of these Gods getting from one place to another instantly? That too when it is impossible to travel faster than light.. These things are not possible for humans who have appeared in history. These are part of mythology and should remain so.. Why these questions are not answered before deciding upon a 'date' of these Gods? Until and unless the source of these divine powers can't be figured out, there is no point moving ahead and proving the dates.. These simpler questions must be analyzed before digging into the complex questions like the actual dates of these epics.. 😳

Quote

TheEngineer

@TheEngineer

Explorer

Posted: 17 years ago

#49

Originally posted by: godisone
Any person who makes "an effort" to go against the rules of science will be criticized. Do you really expect them to receive the support of every scientist, no matter how much appropriate evidence they present?

This is not true, Lalitha. Science evolves through scrutiny, not criticism. If scientists didn't allow others to go against the established theories, the science could not have been the way it is today.. I will give one example of Newton and Einstein.. Nearly 250 years after Sir Issac Newton established the universal laws of motion and gravitation, Albert Einstein proved that they were not applicable at very high speed (near to the speed of light).. Did the scientists criticized Mr. Einstein? No, each and every aspect of his theory was analyzed in greater detail and his theories were taken as the successor of Newton's theories. Have they criticized Newton after that? No, his laws are still valid at low terrestrial speeds.

Even today, the theories of Newton and Einstein are scrutinized for each and every minute detail. This is how science works. If the idea is backed by independent experiments, a general consesus is developed among the scientific community. Only after that, someone's work is considered as true and gets mainstream support. It means that the theories can now appear in school textbooks and other academic literature. But failing to get mainstream support is not equal to criticism of a theory.. Unless the theories have been verified by experiments, they will be rejected by the scientists, which is necessary for progress of science..

You have asked me about the term 'scientific community'.. let my try to give it an attempt.. it is not a vague word as you have mentioned 😳..

First, let's consider seven basic qualities which characterize scientific theories and which are mostly or entirely lacking in pseudoscience:
' Consistent (internally and externally)
' Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
' Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
' Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
' Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
' Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
' Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

If a newly proposed theory is able to have these seven characterisitcs, it will generate a rough consesus among the other scholars. Slowly and steadily, more and more experiments will grant further support to the proposed theory.. Some of the scientists may question some aspects of the theory, seeking more of the verifiable experiments.. but once the theory is able to answer all the questions and concerns, it gets the support of 'scientific community'..

If someone wants to prove the historicity of the epics and its characters, one should propose a theory which has the above mentioned characteristics.. but unfortunately, most of the proposed analysis lacks many of them..

Let's analyze these seven characteristics for the 'historicity of epics'..

1. consistency: There are considerable uncertainities in the dates of these epics, with some sources putting it in kali-yuga for the events happened in treta-yuga.. so the first characteristic, 'consistency' is not there..

2. parsimonious: The term "parsimonious" means "sparing or frugal." In science, to say that theories must be parsimonious means that they should not postulate any entities or forces which are not necessary to explain the phenomena in question. But in the case of these epics, most of the authors are not able to explain the events of these epics without accepting the divine powers of Gods.. Without divine powers, there is no way to explain the flying of Hanumanji over the ocean.. For the historicity of these epics to be parsimonious, the researchers would have to produce results and data which can readily explain all the events of these epics in some manner...

3. useful (based upon evidence): Can we provide some evidence that a human can generate infinite amount of cloth from his hands without any divine power? is it possible to reproduce the results?

4. Empirically Testable & Falsifiable: Scientific theories are falsifiable, and one of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that pseudoscientific theories are not falsifiable, either in principle or in fact. To be falsifiable means that there must exist some state of affairs which, if it were true, would require that the theory is false.
For example, to get to a speed greater than the light, the theory of relativity must be falsified... So, it may be natural for Einstein to hide any results that shows a particle travelling at a speed that is more than the speed of light.. Similarly, most of the authors or researchers trying to prove the historicity of MB or Ramayana annouce only the 'suitable' proofs and ignore everything that is against their findings..

5. Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments: These are two key characteristics of genuine science: controls and repeatability. Controls means that it is possible, both in theory and in practice, to eliminate possible factors which might be affecting the results. Repeatability means that we are cannot be the only ones who arrive at our results. In principle, it must be possible for any other independent researcher to try to perform the exact same experiment and arrive at the exact same conclusions.
In proving the historicity of epics, however, neither controls nor repeatability appear to be common - or, sometimes, to even exist at all. Controls, when they do appear, are typically very lax. When controls are sufficiently tightened to pass regular scientific scrutiny, it is common that these researchers' abilities no longer manifest themselves to any degree beyond that of chance. One such example is the 'discovery' of Ram-sethu or the corpse of Ravana.. both of these issues are considered very touchy topics and are kept at a distance from the mainstream science (e.g. NASA distanced itself from the Ram-Setu controversy after finding it a sensitive issue)..
Also, the dates determined by one of the researchers are always in sharp contrast with that of the others.. so, reliability is out of question here..

6. Correctable & Dynamic: In science, theories are dynamic - this means that they are susceptible to correction due to new information, either from experiments done for the theory in question or done in other fields. For example, as I mentioned above, Newton's theories have been superseded by that of Einstein's.. But are the findings about historicity of the epics are correctable? No.. because no one of the researchers have been able to correct the myth that a historical human being can't make someone alive without using any divine powers (I'm talking about Krishna & Parikshit).. It is something that is believed by people becasue of their faith and can't be corrected by any of the researchers..

7. Tentative: In genuine science, all the theories are always regarded as the best available explanation - something to be quickly discarded at the earliest possible moment, namely when research provides a better theory.But in our case, the alternatives are always ignored.. anyone going against the historicity of these epics is quesitoned about his faith in religion and Gods (I also have some recent expereince like this).. In extreme cases, he or she may also be labled as an athiest.. This kind of thinking doesn't work for science, it works only for so called psudo-sciences..

---
Let's hope that someday, someone will propose a theory about the historicity of these epics which will pass all these seven tests and will be accepted by the scientific community.. till then, it is in the best interest to consider these epics as mythology, not history.. Even then, their morals and teaching will not be reduced.. they will always reside in the heart of people like me, without any question about their historicity..

Cheers! 😛

References:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_sci_pseudo.htm
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~olau/ir/archive/haa2.pdf
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

Edited by shyam.rathi - 17 years ago

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

#50

@Shyam,

I won't argue with you about science, because it is clear you know that subject more than me (science was always my worst subject in school😆), but I just don't understand how you can say we must not prove our epics with science if others are allowed to say they are not history, based on science? I agree that science and religion should not be mixed, and religion should not be proved by science, but in the same way, is it fair to say something is not history using science when others are not allowed to use science to prove epics?

God can never be proved by science, because it is beyond the power of science and scientists to find explanations for ever single thing in our puranas (I'm sorry, but I refuse to call them mythologies), but does that make God unreal?

You're right. One may never find scientific explanations for how Hanuman flew over the sea, or how Shri Krishna gave Draupadi an endless amount of sari, but does that make them unreal? You say we can believe in Shri Ram and Shri Krishna without saying Ramayana and Mahabharata happened, but how? I don't understand that part. If they are real, so do their stories.

Without bringing the issue of science into this matter, please think about what I'm going to say. Maybe everything else that was found about the Ramayana and Mahabharat was unreal. maybe;maybe not, but what about Ram Sethu? For one moment, without bringing science into the issue, please answer my question.

Can Ram Sethu really be such a coincidence? Whatever it was made of, or whoever made it, it links Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka.

In the Ramayana, before the Ram Sethu was constructed, Shri Ram made a Shiv Linga and prayed to it for success for three days and nights, and thus, the place where he made the Linga was named Rameshwaram.

Maybe Ram's Rameshwaram and our Rameshwaram are different. Fine. (Though in the Ramayana, the description of it fits to where it is now)

But after Ravan died, we all know that Vibhishan was made King, but a while after that, Lanka sunk into the ocean, and was no more.

On the exact spot where Lanka once stood, Sri Lanka formed, and the bridge (whatever it is) now connects Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka, like it did Rameshwaram to Lanka, back in the Treta Yuga.

Tell me your honest opinion. Can Ram Sethu be such a coincidence that it is in the exact same spot as described in the Ramayan? Without bringing in the issue of science, do you really think it is a coincidence?

Not everything is explained by science, and if science cannot explain our puranas, it does not mean that they are not real, but that science is not yet developed enough to 'explain' our puranas.

About Hanuman flying over the sea....as you know, God can do anything. So if God came down to Earth, why should science explain his doings? Why should they be called impossible and unrealistic? Hanuman is the incarnation of Lord Shiva. Obviously, one will find it impossible to find scientific explanations for such a great God like Lord Shiva. Does that make Hanuman not real? Nooooooooooooooooo..........

The same with Shri Krishna. He is the incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Obviously he would have powers other humans would not have. Does that make him unreal just because he is God? Nooooo.....One other question: Do you think God never comes down to Earth? I can tell you believe in God. That much is obvious. But do you believe in God coming to Earth when evil is at its peak?

God came in the form of Ram and Krishna, so obviously their stories will not stick with the rules of science. That does not make the Ramayana and Mahabharata unreal, because they are. They are as real as you and me.

And I'm not going to use science to prove they are real. Why should I? For me, science is not the tool to proove something is real or not. It may be for you, and I won't criticize you for that, but I'm just saying, if one should not use science to proove God; then others should not use it to disprove him.

Cheers

Quote

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 24

Do you think the Ramayan and Mahabharat are real? - Page 5

Poll

Related Topics

Explore Topics