[dahidahi1]

After that destruction, the cycle starts all over again. It is the closest thing to evolution formulated by the Indian rishis (scientists of their time). It begins with (on a high level) the water based living beings (fish), amphibians (turtle), mammal (boar), neanderthal (Parashuram), the perfect humans (Ram & Krishna) and so on. It is quite interesting.

Another name for Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma - or the Eternal Way of Life.

[yantrams]

> scientists of their time

Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists. You are doing a disservice to the accomplishments of real historical figures like Panini, Brahmagupta etc by making statements like this. You don't have to resort to mythological characters to feel good about the supposed glorious past.

I can understand how the tales of Dasavataras can possibly have some allegorical references to evolution but claiming the rishis to be scientists only serves to further ridiculous beliefs like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity originated from Vedas, Rishi scientists developed nuclear weapons in 10000 BC etc.

The main purpose they(Puranas (post-vedic Hindu mythology)) served was to legitimize the Vishnu cult, get rid of the pantheon of older Vedic gods (Indra etc.) and to counter the rise of Buddhism. Most of these stories were made up ad hoc to suit the purposes of their times. I find them quite clever to be honest and fascinating from literary and sociological perspectives.

Take Buddha for example. Once Buddhism and its crusade against animal slaughter / rituals became a hit with the masses and started competing with Brahmanism/Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism, Buddha was made an incarnation of Vishnu and added to the Purana bloatware, while simultaneously obliterating Buddhist monasteries and driving it out of the subcontinent.

[fooker]

>Please don't masquerade mythologocal saints/yogis as scientists.

What is a scientist?

Does Newton qualify as one in your worldview? He spent about half his life on alchemy.

Will any of our scientists qualify as scientists after a thousand more years of science?

[yantrams]

I should've phrased it better. I meant masquerading fictional scientists as real scientists.

And yes based on my understanding of science, Newton was a scientist and so were the undocumented pioneers who tinkered with what they had available at the time. Be it the wandering ascetics from India who studied the effects of various herbs on humans to compile treatises on medicine like Ayurveda or the priests and traders from Babylonia who arrived at mathematical results based on heuristic principles, in my worldview, they are all scientists.

[ralfd]

Newton was a mathematician, but he was not a scientist. John Maynard Keynes opined "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians."

"Scientist" is a modern term and I would grant historic figures only that label, if they (disregarding if their conclusions were right or wrong) tried to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic.

[aalleavitch]

The modern idea of a scientist is almost purely an enlightenment-era concept, and only represents one revision towards a better understanding of the world out of many throughout human history.

I think your distinction is pretty arbitrary; in what way does a mathematician not attempt to reason about the world in a systematic fashion and according to empiricism and logic? The only real difference over time has been in our ability to determine valid logic, our rigor in what empirical evidence we'll accept, and our sophistication in how we systematically go about this process. Early philosophers were attempting each of these things to various degrees, they just weren't as good as we are now at them. Really defining the "first scientist" is like defining the "first mammal"; the category is fuzzy and doesn't really mean anything at that level of granularity.

[gbacon]

Where do Newton’s study and formulations of optics and celestial motion place him in your taxonomy?

I suspect Keynes’s desire to discredit Newton was motivated more by the former’s irrational, perhaps as the first postmodernist, impulse to deny the value of gold.

[blueprint]

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. Science means "application". The origin of science is philosophy. That's why to be a true scientist, one ought to be familiar with philosophy, first. The problem is, in this day and age, while science and technology have developed greatly, philosophy is ancient, and has disappeared.

The evidence is that if you go to the top philosophers these days then they will be unaware of the right answer to the first question in studying philosophy: what is the definition of philosophy? Without having learned it, people have been going around trying to teach what they are unaware of.

[fooker]

The problem is that the prevalent view of what is considered 'systematic fashion' tends to change rather quickly.

Even in modern science, there is a lot of ambiguity about what scientific method 'permits'. For example, many physicists would scoff at the idea of String Theory being called real physics.

What happens, if, in some 500 years we find a definitive way to simulate experiments? I can see any physical science not validated by such a simulation being dismissed.

[mr_toad]

Newton’s work on optics alone qualify him as a scientist.

And his deduction of the laws of motion, thermodynamics, and gravity establish him as one of the greatest scientists ever.

[aalleavitch]

It's fair to call them scientists in the same way you might refer to Pythagoras as a scientist. For most of human civilization religious philosophy and science were not separated.

EDIT: Ah, I see what you meant is that these people didn't exist.

[booleandilemma]

Take Buddha for example...

An early example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?

[yantrams]

You spoke my mind. I was just about to compare it with EEE. It has been the modus operandi for the spread of what we now call Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent.

Here is an example of that happening in the 21st century. Classic case of appropriating indigenous dieties.

> It all started in March 2015, when their simple pole-hut shrine for Dokri Burhi (earth goddess) was taken over by a saffron-coloured, tiled, electrified and gated Hindu temple for Kanaka Durga. And in accordance with Brahmin beliefs, all Shudras were barred from it. This is when the local Shudras woke up to the pattern. Almost 150-200 years ago, when a handful of Brahmin families migrated to Ichchapur, they started dislodging the Shudras, who were the original inhabitants, from their ancestral lands. As time passed, Brahmins took control of most of the land, despite the lower castes comprising the majority of the village’s population. In fact, currently, there are 22 Brahmin families in Ichchapur and about 250 odd lower caste households.

https://thewire.in/film/caste-dalit-uprising-in-odisha

[dahidahi1]

Yes, that may be true, because Buddhism for all practical purposes has teachings that are a subset of what Hinduism / Sanatana Dharma is. Some people may not like it because that hurts their sensibilities, especially if they were Buddhists or have a soft corner for Buddhism. So it has been a debate & Buddhism is simply lacking in providing any novel concepts other than what Hinduism already provided. At least the path of Islam / Christianity of "Extinguish" at the point of a sword was not practiced.

No other line of thought has been criticized, marginalized & ridiculed as much as Hinduism has been. Buddhism escaped all that criticism only because of Hinduism being the bigger target. This is also the reason why many people in Western countries resort to Buddhism & not Hinduism when they want inner peace or want to understand meditation. This is going on even now. You'll be amazed at the words used by Christian missionaries, they call Hindu beliefs as evil, the gods as satanic. Muslims? They just try to kill you if you're a Hindu, desecrate & vandalize Hindu temples, forcibly convert young girls through kidnap & rape and worse.. and I am talking of all this happening today, now and will happen tomorrow. Why? Because Hindus are a soft target, they have never harmed anybody. History is evidence to this.

Matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence that Buddhism tried to do exactly that to Hinduism & Jainism "Embrace, Extend & Extinguish" and it was successful in Afghanistan, Kashmir, SE Asia etc, but could not survive in the face is Islamic violence. Look up these regions' history if you do not believe me.

[amriksohata]

Err... source?

[yantrams]

Sure. I'll have to dig up the literature but I'd be happy to do so. Can you be more specific ?

If you are interested in investigating, It'd be illuminating to contrast the belief systems in Vedas and Puranas. (Rigveda and Puranas to be more specific. ) If my memory serves right, Narayana(Vishnu) was a minor diety in Rigveda whose only claim to fame was carrying Indra on his back to circumnavigate the universe 108 times. He gradually started gaining more prominence as time passed, as a benevolent and sophisticated alternative to replace the more belligerent/primitive Indra. By mid 15th century(I could be wrong), this process was complete, with Vishnu taking over Indra completely, as established in that Govardhanagiri tale where Indra was utterly humiliated by Krishna.

Coming to the claims on Buddhism, once again, examining the Rigvedic and post Rigvedic belief systems can help you hypothesize how things unravelled. (Replacement of Horse with Cow as the sacred animal, renouncement of non vegetarianism, incorporation of Tantric belief systems etc ) Destruction of Buddhist monasteries and massacring the monks is quite well documented too. Read about Pushyamitra Sunga for example.

Edit: Typos

[anonnel]

A source on ancient mythos not having a basis in science or facts? Or that they served political purposes in their time?

[dahidahi1]

Science has not been able to address every single thing. In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things. I'm not trying to disparage science, but I want to emphasize that there is like 99.99% of things we do not know or understand, which is great considering we will all have super interesting times ahead of us. Not a moment of boredom.

[krapp]

> In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things.

I mean, we understand relativity well enough to predict astronomical movements and to account for it when synchronizing GPS, we understand biology well enough for genetic engineering and complex medicine, chemistry well enough to create exotic materials and superconductors, quantum mechanics enough to harness it for computation, physics enough to split the atom, space travel, astronomy, etc. We understand a lot more than "the most basic things."

[anonnel]

We know much more than the people before us, not the other way around.

[losteric]

> Science has not been able to address every single thing. In fact science is not developed enough to address anything much beyond the most basic things.

Can you be more specific about what things you feel science cannot address? It seems like the one and only proven method for understanding our universe.

[dahidahi1]

I can imagine we had very similar conversations & skeptics when the first design for flying machines were proposed. Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost.

I think you are taking an extremely parochial view of things by calling Vedas as "mythology". I believe I do not have to tell you about "Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"... You look at the advanced technology that we unfortunately lost and you think it is magic (mythology in your words). Look around you & think of all the insane (to current humans) & incredible accomplishments of humans that our sciences of today still cannot explain convincingly how they were possible.

By the way, Indra was not a god - god, it was a role, the role of the king of gods. Besides the trimurthis anybody can become Indra. And Buddhism, if you have read it is by far very similar to Hinduism sans the gods concept, but it still embodies the concept of isht-devata by making buddha the preferred god. Both + Jainism are what are known as dharmic gods & have a not of commonality between them that the differences are quite obscure.

Finally, there is no such thing as Brahmanism except in the minds of those who felt threatened by Hinduism & its natural concepts and approach to the betterment of humanity in general. In other words, once you remove Brahmins and Hinduism will cease to exist.

Further, there was never a case of obliterating Buddhist monasteries (by Hindus)! Why would that be if Buddha was an avatara? Again these are narratives that want to paint anything coming out of (ancient) India & hinduism in very bad light. It is mischievous at best, please do not fall for such gimmicks & false narratives & do not feed them. There were some fights between Jains & Buddhists for a very brief time, but with Hinduism it was rarely physical because of the (earlier mentioned) concept of Ishta-devata / polytheism.

[losteric]

> Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost.

Such as?

> Look around you & think of all the insane (to current humans) & incredible accomplishments of humans that our sciences of today still cannot explain convincingly how they were possible.

Examples? I can't tell whether you're referring to ancient constructs (great pyramids, stone henge) or modern engineering (technology, medicine)... the former is uncertainty among multiple plausible theories while the latter is quite well understood (albeit difficult to learn).

> Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Contingent upon a perspective of ignorance.

Incandescent light bulbs are magic to a medieval society, yet we consider them to be relatively primitive lighting devices. Once the fundamentals are known (electricity) the "trick" becomes obvious and even trivial (resistance makes wire hot, hot wire is bright). Fundamental understanding also allows us to rule out mythical magic.

[blueprint]

> Such as?

Let's try gravity on for size. Where's my gravity car? No, really. It would be incorrect (and indicative of a lack of familiarity with modern physics findings) to suggest such technology is limited by power storage or output.

[dahidahi1]

Gravity is just a theory which happens to not fail whatever limited tests we have done so far. I mean everything is a theory for science which is great & how everything should be, except when that theory came from Indian / Hindu rishi's about the consciousness of the universe or any of the studies & accomplishments which got appropriated into Western culture as their own. That is what I am calling out on. Many glaring examples of such dishonest appropriation exist, but we choose to ignore them.

[losteric]

What is a "gravity car"? By my interpretation, all cars depend on gravity in order to move (tire friction).

[dahidahi1]

> Such as?

Both. Pyramids, gravity, Indian temples, stone henge, the patterns in the universe, cells etc. Like one simple example near where I used to live - the architecture of the Konark temple where it had a sort of magnet to levitate the "vigraha". The magnet was at least ~50 tonnes. http://www.thekonark.in/konarkfloatingidol.html

Another temple where the pillar does not even support the temple's roof: https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/travel/this-temple-has-a-...

Musical pillars made of stone. http://www.themysteriousindia.net/singing-pillars-hampi/

You may baulk at these, because your perspective is from probably an arrogant modern scientific outlook, but these buildings & structures predate even the pyramids. Many just too many of these have been destroyed by religious fanatics who cannot tolerate an alternative mode of thought besides Islam & Christianity, so what survives is a sorry remnant of that era, which even so is impressive I think.

> Fundamental understanding

Contingent upon a perspective of ignorance. Is that not correct?

For example, we use light as a form on energy in lasers etc, but only 70 years ago, this would have NOT been a fundamental understanding. The problem is that most of today's people, except the really great people like Einstein, Hawking, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Tesla etc, try to dismiss (& worse appropriate) any sciences that simply originated in the Indian subcontinent, and I am not sure why that is the case. Why do you think every major civilization in the last 500-600 years wanted to find a path to India. Why do you think the American native people are still called Indians? Why do you think strides in Science & Math were monopolized in the Indian subcontinent & it required the onslaught on the Islamic hordes first and then the European / British hordes to stop the progress of all such advancements? You may not be aware that the industrial revolution of Britain & Europe was funded by India & Indian wealth. Anyways, I digress. My point is that "fundamental understanding" is not limited to a set of people, it just requires time & since India is part of the longest surviving civilization (even the face of 80% destruction) there is a lot of understanding we can acquire from what the rishis had accomplished. We should not throw them all away just because we cannot make head or tail of it...

[losteric]

>>> Today we have lost all those scientific advancements made in those times and in time we will re-discover what was already discovered & lost.

>> Such as?

> Pyramids, gravity, Indian temples, stone henge, the patterns in the universe, cells etc.

So... your claim is that ancient civilizations had more advanced knowledge of patterns in the universe, cells, and gravity? Based on what?

For the other three: it's fair to say ancient civilizations understood how they built the things they built. We have plenty of theories about how they did it, what we lack is evidence to decide between theories. Nothing was "lost", we can recreate those structures today.

> the architecture of the Konark temple where it had a sort of magnet to levitate the "vigraha". The magnet was at least ~50 tonnes.

based on myths. What evidence is there that the myths are accurate?

> Another temple where the pillar does not even support the temple's roof:

Without any pictures of the roof. Have you ever sat on an unbalanced four-legged stool?

> Musical pillars made of stone

Quoting your link: "While during the British era, two of them were cut to check if there was something else producing the sound inside. But they turned out to be hollow" - mystery solved.

> You may baulk at these, because your perspective is from probably an arrogant modern scientific outlook

I refuse the perspective of blind faith. Educated guesses are acceptable when supported by evidence, but stories alone are not evidence.

People say Jesus turned water to wine (myth) - I say doing so would violate multiple fundamental laws of physics and turn the area into a nuclear hellhole (contrarian evidence). If that even happened, he probably just dropped a packet of dried powder in the water by slight of hand (alternate competing hypothesis + Occam's razor).

>> Contingent upon a perspective of ignorance.

> Is that not correct? For example, we use light as a form on energy in lasers etc, but only 70 years ago, this would have NOT been a fundamental understanding.

Correct! And that fundamental understanding lets us separate fantasy from history.

There are Greek myths of heroes "throwing" lighting bolts with the aid of Zeus - now we understand that's not how electricity works, and obviously did not happen verbatim. We can also look back on history and recognize the human tendency to exaggerate for effect.

> Why do you think every major civilization in the last 500-600 years wanted to find a path to India.

Status, military awareness, and aristocratic luxuries (especially spices).

> Why do you think the American native people are still called Indians?

Because Columbus didn't know America was a thing. He sailed west to reach proper India, landed somewhere with brown people, and figured that was India. That label is actually pretty offensive.

> Why do you think strides in Science & Math were monopolized in the Indian subcontinent & it required the onslaught on the Islamic hordes first and then the European / British hordes to stop the progress of all such advancements?

You believe that hilariously Indocentric view of history. I suggest you look up the origin of the word "algorithm" - in truth, all great ancient civilizations contributed to math and science. When one civilization collapsed, it's knowledge was preserved by another.

> You may not be aware that the industrial revolution of Britain & Europe was funded by India & Indian wealth

That's a nice way of phrasing Britain's economic exploitation of her colonies. It almost sounds India had a choice in the matter...

> there is a lot of understanding we can acquire from what the rishis had accomplished. We should not throw them all away just because we cannot make head or tail of it...

Stories survive because they are interesting. They are a great source of inspiration for research that may lead to the truth, but the stories are not truth in and of themselves.