To Sundeep (News Article:'Lord Ram was born in 5114 BC')

[Guest guest]

First, let me say that I am not trying to reduce the validity of the

scriptures. I am simply trying, and would love to see from experts

and Gurus, some reconciliation between scriptures and physical

evidence. I find it somewhat dismissive to say that physical and

scientific evidence is weak for the non-existence of civilization

before 10-12,000 years ago. It is actually pretty strong. If some

form of civilization did exist 990,000 years before the

archaelogically evident date, there should be some archaeological

proof no? Because in the 10-12,000 years of archaelogically known

civilization, progress and proofs abound all over the place.

Excavated cities, ornaments, jewelries, skeletons (not one as you say

but several hundreds or even more), domesticated animal fossils, art

and in later years written record. You are saying that it is logical

that for the past 10,000 years we have thousands of pieces of

evidence and for the 990,000 years before that we should not even

find one? Not even one? We have somehow missed every single piece of

evidence for the past 990,000 years of HUMAN civilization but have

retrieved hundreds of uncivilized human fossils of that period?

 

And if this is logical to you i.e. you dismiss the scientific method

completely, then I must warn you that your extrapolations of the

ephemeris of thousands of years ago is ALSO a scientific

extrapolation, isnt it? How else do you say that in 5114 BC so and so

planets were here and so and so planets were there? You have used

objective scientific data based on the regular movement of planets

and/or their relative positions to fixed stars to extrapolate their

positions then. I mean you are using your senses to observe arent

you? Why are your senses valid for observing stars but not for

observing fossils - to be consistent you should observe stars not

with your eyes but with internal meditative vision then..?

 

And to the comment by an earlier poster that our spirituality is

dependent on the birth of Lord Ram several million years ago, is that

really true? If Lord Ram were actually born in 5114 BC, does that

mean that there is no Brahman, no Atman etc?

 

I hope this post will be understood in it's true meaning - I mean

absolutely no disrespect - I am simply trying to resolve the

confusion that genuinely exists within me.

 

Sundeep

 

 

> Paleo-anthropological evidence can be a proof, but its lack

> cannot be a *disproof*.

>

> All it takes to push the 1 million year mark to 2-3 million

> years is the discovery of *one* fossil! Are we sure that we

> have excavated in every possible location, to every possible

> depth? Ancient civilizations, just as today's civilization,

> inhabited a very small percentage of earth. We could easily

> have missed some in our explorations and excavations.

>

> It is quite hasty to suggest that our understanding of the

> evolution of civilization is perfect. It could easily be way

> off.

>

> I am not trying to pass off scriptural views on this matter.

> I am only trying to give them the *benefit of doubt*, until

> modern science has a *definitive* answer.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep

 

Please view the follwoing 2 websites at your leisure.

 

http://www.mcremo.com/

 

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/

 

I am sure they will be fruit for a thoughtful man such as yourself

 

Best wishes

 

Kasim

 

 

>"pvr108" <pvr

>vedic astrology

>vedic astrology

>[vedic astrology] To Sundeep (Re: News Article:'Lord Ram was born

>in 5114 BC')

>Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:16:50 -0000

>

>Dear Sundeep,

>

> > First, let me say that I am not trying to reduce the validity of

>the

> > scriptures. I am simply trying, and would love to see from experts

> > and Gurus, some reconciliation between scriptures and physical

> > evidence. I find it somewhat dismissive to say that physical and

> > scientific evidence is weak for the non-existence of civilization

> > before 10-12,000 years ago. It is actually pretty strong. If some

> > form of civilization did exist 990,000 years before the

> > archaelogically evident date, there should be some archaeological

> > proof no? Because in the 10-12,000 years of archaelogically known

> > civilization, progress and proofs abound all over the place.

>

>You have to remember that archaelogy, paleontology etc are

>soft sciences. They are based on a lot of guesswork. It's

>like connecting 5 dots to make a beautiful multi-colored

>picture. When you suddenly discover a sixth dot, the

>picture can change drastically!

>

>Scientific temper also means to realize the shortcomings

>of a science.

>

>As for the progress of civilization in the last 5,000 or

>10,000 years, evidence of that does not rule out

>that civilizations existed, say, 500,000 years back. Why

>can't there be cycles of rising and dwindling

>civilizations? If you have a proof (sic) of a rising in

>civilization 5,000 years back, it does not mean that is

>the first time civilization rose on earth.

>

>As per scriptures, apes and men lived together and

>communicated during Rama's time and not during Krishna's

>time. Clearly, if Rama existed and scriptures are right,

>civilization at the time of Rama was at a different

>evolutionary phase of man.

>

>May Jupiter's light shine on us,

>Narasimha

>

>

 

_______________

Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger