True, which means that a better-than-present civilisation is useful for the purpose of study; as that gives the clue to even better civilisations that existed in the land and as understood from traditional accounts. Meaning, British rule, with its many new benefits (peace, mobility, literacy, printing press etc.) helped many Indians such as myself to have a better understanding of the Indian past. Prior to British rule, such understanding was highly localised. On the other hand, this understanding was correct to those holding same - with spread of information via literacy, corrupted or insbreastutionalised to various degrees, there is the challenge of grasping the original correctness from the wrong, or corrupted yet "hallowed" versions.
It means that the hanging gardens of Babylon, the colossus of Rhodes, etc. cannot be wished away as mere imagination. Troy was not imagination, though prior to Schliemann? it was supposed to be so. Similarly vimans may or may not be imagination. That there could have been civilisations far superior to anything now, long, long ago, whose dim knowledge is pbutted down the generations as tradition, need not be imagination. Very likely, there is a strong core of truth. For instance, the digging at the site of MohenjoDaro followed the strongly held local tradition.
Understanding America 3899
Sowell, Ethnic America, 1981 Basic ISBN 0-465-02074-7 p31 Irish brough to America a settled tradition of regarding the formal government as illegitimate, and the informal one as bearing the true impress of popular sovereignty p224...
Evidently you cannot distinguish between a fairy story and mythology. For you, it looks like all mythology is fairy tales! I'll allow that a good made-up fairy tale may give the impression of a mythological tale, but that is where the resemblance ends. In short, there are those who can distinguish between a fairy tell like Red Riding Hood and the stories in the Indian epics and the Puranas. For one thing, the latter are much older - meaning that they have had long-lasting value to very many.
Everyone knows the facts now. Few are denying them anymore. FACT: A panel of local, state, and...
But we do not know when they did it, and who did it. There is no reliable dating. We may have some earliest account, but no one claims to be the inventor. There is historically only the first narrator or the first known account. In fact, dating anything in the Indian context is difficult. For instance, according to Indian scholars Kalidas lived around 50 BC, while most Western scholars hold he lived five or six centuries later!
True. One has to see the context for the imaginative story. Very often, politics plays a role in the story, for the emphasis, and the twists given.
That should happen, after a few centuries. At this rate of interest in this work, I mean. Looks like, neither you nor I will be around then. (:
At present my new ideas explain a great deal about the universe, and upset the standard and current positions in physics. Mainly, in the fields of thermodynamics and relativity. Meaning, the most powerful lobbies are dead against my new ideas. So, I don't think I can ever be too popular in my own lifetime. Ah well.
If you say this after reading and understanding my article, I will take you seriously. Please give me some indication that you have understood what you read there. I have exposed a bungle.
See, how you are labelling me, as a creationist? What an usual atbreastude, for the people who will not read or understand what I write, but pour scorn instead!
As for failure, if I am right, then I have succeeded. Since my ideas explain the universe a lot better, and I have shown the Einstein's theories are ulitmately based upon a subtle experimental bungle, I *have* to be much more right than the modern positions in physics.
I don't think I am being proud. If I express myself clearly, I can at least live at peace with myself. It is my duty to express myself clearly, you see, and reply to any honest person when my ideas are honestly challenged. I have been doing just that, so far.
Then, you are very happy to believe in bogus theories? You will not make any effort to unlearn them? Yet you will make yourself free to attack other people's dearly held ideas?
But I do know you for what you are. Your dismissive atbreastude and ignorance about mythology quite stand out. They are so typical. In this context, my statement is very fair. You certainly do not understand the meaning underlying mythology, as you dismiss it as fairy tales of the simple kind you do know.
America at its best 3893
Marcus Aurelius and enriched India in countless ways, firstly by modest trade in cotton, and then later in tea; lifting your nation from...
Then why are they evading my new ideas in physics? If they are mature, they should discuss them and find out what is wrong with them. New ideas that explain the universe better cannot be simply dismissed.
America at its best 3894
India's share of world trade fell from 24% before the brits to less than 1% until they were booted out. Life...
No, certainly Western fairy tales have not that much meaning. Nowhere near our own wonderful accounts, and what we make out of them.
Don't be silly. I am not rejecting the contributions of an entire civilisation, only the worst aspects of it. Western medicine and engineering, are very good. In my time, Indians wanted to be doctors and engineers, accordingly, following Western masters. But our religion, tradition, philsophy, family values, social mores, etc are very highly developed; and our way is based upon truth, and the analysis of truth. Which makes me reject Einsteinian science, which is nothing but rubbish (as I have demonstrated, if you don't have the wits to understand my article - it is written very simply and clearly - what can be done!)