[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.