5 ms·

I could be wrong because I haven't read unabridged versions of either. My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see arou

I could be wrong because I haven't read unabridged versions of either. My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us. For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.

phekunde 5y ago
> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us. How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent? > For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power. In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.
- blackoil 5y ago
  There is a lack of consistency and continuity. We had aeroplane in stories but no similar ground vehicle like Car/train, which should have been invented earlier if technology was present. We had vision across space/time but no knowledge of places outside India.
  - phekunde 5y ago
    We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.
- thechao 5y ago
  > were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion. Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before. If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    I’ll bite! The conclusion is that there were ancient civilizations that we don’t currently have archeological evidence for. If you know anything about archeological research in India, you know that it is far, far from comprehensive. Here’s a small example: Shiva is often represented smoking a chillum. Yet, the accepted understanding is that smoking was developed in the Americas and no smoking in the old world took place pre-1492. It would therefore be a major discovery to establish that a chillum was precolumbian. There simply isn’t a research base (no funding, no training) to investigate even simple questions like this. Might we find evidence of, say, metallurgy that is 10,000 years old in India? Perhaps! Should we expect to? Probably not. Should we do more archaeological research in India? 100% Who will fund it?
    - thechao 5y ago
      Smoking is attested both archeologically, and historiographically dating back something like 7000 years in the old world. People have been smoking opium & marijuana in the middle east for probably 2000 years. Smoking culture in India goes back at least 3000 years. Anyone who's accidentally put the wrong thing on a fire will immediately recognize the source for "smoking". This makes me feel like the rest of your comment is probably not accurate, either.
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I mean, if a complete layperson were to describe how an airplane works, how would you even begin? It looks a bit like a bird and err, it's very loud, and it flies! I mean if you don't know the least about an engine, how would you describe it? There's untold masses of people out there that still lack even a basic education, and that education / class difference was worse as you go back in time. Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.

phekunde 5y ago

> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us. How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent? > For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power. In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.

blackoil 5y ago
There is a lack of consistency and continuity. We had aeroplane in stories but no similar ground vehicle like Car/train, which should have been invented earlier if technology was present. We had vision across space/time but no knowledge of places outside India.
- phekunde 5y ago
  We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.
thechao 5y ago
> were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion. Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before. If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I’ll bite! The conclusion is that there were ancient civilizations that we don’t currently have archeological evidence for. If you know anything about archeological research in India, you know that it is far, far from comprehensive. Here’s a small example: Shiva is often represented smoking a chillum. Yet, the accepted understanding is that smoking was developed in the Americas and no smoking in the old world took place pre-1492. It would therefore be a major discovery to establish that a chillum was precolumbian. There simply isn’t a research base (no funding, no training) to investigate even simple questions like this. Might we find evidence of, say, metallurgy that is 10,000 years old in India? Perhaps! Should we expect to? Probably not. Should we do more archaeological research in India? 100% Who will fund it?
  - thechao 5y ago
    Smoking is attested both archeologically, and historiographically dating back something like 7000 years in the old world. People have been smoking opium & marijuana in the middle east for probably 2000 years. Smoking culture in India goes back at least 3000 years. Anyone who's accidentally put the wrong thing on a fire will immediately recognize the source for "smoking". This makes me feel like the rest of your comment is probably not accurate, either.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I mean, if a complete layperson were to describe how an airplane works, how would you even begin? It looks a bit like a bird and err, it's very loud, and it flies! I mean if you don't know the least about an engine, how would you describe it? There's untold masses of people out there that still lack even a basic education, and that education / class difference was worse as you go back in time. Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.