| >>> 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. |