Atlantis and Vedic Civilization

[Gauracandra]

In 360 B.C. Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, put down into writing the oldest known written account of the ancient civilization of Atlantis. The story is told in two texts by Plato named ‘Timeaus’ and ‘Critias’. According to Plato, the story of Atlantis is true, and the conversation he recorded between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timeaus and Critias, details the ancient civilization of Atlantis, said to have flourished 9000 years before his time. The story originally was told by an Egyptian priest to Solon, and from Solon it was passed on to Dropides, from Dropides it went to Critias I, who then related it to Critias II (grandson of Critias I).

 

I have often thought that there was a link between the ancient Greek civilization and the Vedic civilization. The following are some details from Timeaus and Critias of the Greek view of the world and the civilization of Atlantis that bear a striking similarity to Vedic concepts. The quotes from these texts have been edited for brevity.

 

Timeaus speaks principally on the ideal social order, and the make up of the universe. It also details how the story of Atlantis was passed down. You will note several similarities to the Vedic view. First, the ideal social order creates classes by on occupation of priest, military, laborer, and agriculturalist. Second, the creation of the universe is comprised of earth, water, fire, and air. Third, in the description of Atlantis, the Egyptian priests mentions that many deluges occur in periodic intervals, and as such force civilization to begin again. The idea of cyclical partial and total devastation and rebirth of civilization are common in Vedic scriptures.

 

Critias speaks mainly on the physical structure of Atlantis, its architecture, fields etc…. It appears that it was destroyed through the centuries as only a portion remains, and ends in mid-sentence.

 

Gauracandra

[Gauracandra]

Timeaus

 

This text deals principally with the Greek view of creation and gives a very detailed view of the order of the universe. For the sake of brevity I have edited out much from this text for this posting.

 

[Note: This part of Timeaus discusses the ideal civilization as conceived by Socrates, that allocates occupations by one’s nature. In the dialogue, this will then prompt Critias to relate the story of the civilization of Atlantis. I will post that portion later.]

 

Socrates: To be sure I will: the chief theme of my yesterday's discourse was the State-how constituted and of what citizens composed it would seem likely to be most perfect.

 

Timaeus: Yes, Socrates; and what you said of it was very much to our mind.

 

Socrates: Did we not begin by separating the husbandmen and the artisans from the class of defenders of the State?

 

Timaeus: Yes.

 

Socrates: And when we had given to each one that single employment and particular art which was suited to his nature, we spoke of those who were intended to be our warriors, and said that they were to be guardians of the city against attacks from within as well as from without, and to have no other employment; they were to be merciful in judging their subjects, of whom they were by nature friends, but fierce to their enemies, when they came across them in battle.

 

Timaeus: Exactly.

 

Socrates: We said, if I am not mistaken, that the guardians should be gifted with a temperament in a high degree both passionate and philosophical; and that then they would be as they ought to be, gentle to their friends and fierce with their enemies.

 

Timaeus: Certainly.

 

Socrates: And what did we say of their education? Were they not to be trained in gymnastic, and music, and all other sorts of knowledge which were proper for them?

 

Timaeus: Very true.

 

Socrates: And being thus trained they were not to consider gold or silver or anything else to be their own private property; they were to be like hired troops, receiving pay for keeping guard from those who were protected by them-the pay was to be no more than would suffice for men of simple life; and they were to spend in common, and to live together in the continual practice of virtue, which was to be their sole pursuit.

 

Timaeus: That was also said.

 

Socrates: And do you also remember how, with a view of securing as far as we could the best breed, we said that the chief magistrates, male and female, should contrive secretly, by the use of certain lots, so to arrange the nuptial meeting, that the bad of either sex and the good of either sex might pair with their like; and there was to be no quarrelling on this account, for they would imagine that the union was a mere accident, and was to be attributed to the lot?

 

Timaeus: I remember.

 

[Gauracandra]

[Edited. This section deals with the story of Atlantis]

 

Timaeus: I quite approve.

 

Critias: Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages. He was a relative and a dear friend of my great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says in many passages of his poems; and he told the story to Critias, my grandfather, who remembered and repeated it to us. There were of old, he said, great and marvellous actions of the Athenian city, which have passed into oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one in particular, greater than all the rest. This we will now rehearse. It will be a fitting monument of our gratitude to you, and a hymn of praise true and worthy of the goddess, on this her day of festival.

 

Socrates: Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

 

Critias: I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man; for Critias, at the time of telling it, was as he said, nearly ninety years of age, and I was about ten. Now the day was that day of the Apaturia which is called the Registration of Youth, at which, according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and the poems of several poets were recited by us boys, and many of us sang the poems of Solon, which at that time had not gone out of fashion.

 

One of our tribe, either because he thought so or to please Critias, said that in his judgment Solon was not only the wisest of men, but also the noblest of poets. The old man, as I very well remember, brightened up at hearing this and said, smiling: Yes, Amynander, if Solon had only, like other poets, made poetry the business of his life, and had completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet.

 

And what was the tale about, Critias? said Amynander.

 

About the greatest action which the Athenians ever did, and which ought to have been the most famous, but, through the lapse of time and the destruction of the actors, it has not come down to us.

 

Tell us, said the other, the whole story, and how and from whom Solon heard this veritable tradition. He replied:

 

In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene; they are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them.

 

To this city came Solon, and was received there with great honour; he asked the priests who were most skilful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old. On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man," and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened.

 

Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.

 

There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.

 

When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient. The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples.

 

Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.

 

In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

 

Solon marvelled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.

 

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.

 

In the first place, there is the caste of priests, which is separated from all the others; next, there are the artificers, who ply their several crafts by themselves and do not intermix; and also there is the class of shepherds and of hunters, as well as that of husbandmen; and you will observe, too, that the warriors in Egypt are distinct from all the other classes, and are commanded by the law to devote themselves solely to military pursuits; moreover, the weapons which they carry are shields and spears, a style of equipment which the goddess taught of Asiatics first to us, as in your part of the world first to you.

 

Then as to wisdom, do you observe how our law from the very first made a study of the whole order of things, extending even to prophecy and medicine which gives health, out of these divine elements deriving what was needful for human life, and adding every sort of knowledge which was akin to them. All this order and arrangement the goddess first imparted to you when establishing your city; and she chose the spot of earth in which you were born, because she saw that the happy temperament of the seasons in that land would produce the wisest of men. Wherefore the goddess, who was a lover both of war and of wisdom, selected and first of all settled that spot which was the most likely to produce men likest herself. And there you dwelt, having such laws as these and still better ones, and excelled all mankind in all virtue, as became the children and disciples of the gods.

 

Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

 

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars.

 

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

 

I have told you briefly, Socrates, what the aged Critias heard from Solon and related to us. And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon; but I did not like to speak at the moment. For a long time had elapsed, and I had forgotten too much; I thought that I must first of all run over the narrative in my own mind, and then I would speak.

 

[Gauracandra]

[Edited. This section deals with the creation of the universe]

 

Timaeus: All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of Gods and Goddesses and pray that our words may be acceptable to them and consistent with themselves. Let this, then, be our invocation of the Gods, to which I add an exhortation of myself to speak in such manner as will be most intelligible to you, and will most accord with my own intent. First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is?

 

[Edited for brevity]

 

[Note: Here a discussion of the elements of the universe corresponds with the Vedic conception].

 

Now that which is created is of necessity corporeal, and also visible and tangible. And nothing is visible where there is no fire, or tangible which has no solidity, and nothing is solid without earth. Wherefore also God in the beginning of creation made the body of the universe to consist of fire and earth. But two things cannot be rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union between them. And the fairest bond is that which makes the most complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines; and proportion is best adapted to effect such a union. For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term is to it; and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean-then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one. If the universal frame had been created a surface only and having no depth, a single mean would have sufficed to bind together itself and the other terms; but now, as the world must be solid, and solid bodies are always compacted not by one mean but by two, God placed water and air in the mean between fire and earth, and made them to have the same proportion so far as was possible (as fire is to air so is air to water, and as air is to water so is water to earth); and thus he bound and put together a visible and tangible heaven. And for these reasons, and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the world was created, and it was harmonised by proportion, and therefore has the spirit of friendship; and having been reconciled to itself, it was indissoluble by the hand of any other than the framer.

 

Now the creation took up the whole of each of the four elements; for the Creator compounded the world out of all the fire and all the water and all the air and all the earth, leaving no part of any of them nor any power of them outside.

 

[Gauracandra]

[Edited. Here is described the Greek conception of the soul. Based on lay analysis, it appears to me that the indivisible is the soul, the divisible is the material body, and the “third and intermediate kind of essense” which was placed between matter and spirit is the subtle body]

 

Now God did not make the soul after the body, although we are speaking of them in this order; for having brought them together he would never have allowed that the elder should be ruled by the younger; but this is a random manner of speaking which we have, because somehow we ourselves too are very much under the dominion of chance. Whereas he made the soul in origin and excellence prior to and older than the body, to be the ruler and mistress, of whom the body was to be the subject. And he made her out of the following elements and on this wise: Out of the indivisible and unchangeable, and also out of that which is divisible and has to do with material bodies, he compounded a third and intermediate kind of essence, partaking of the nature of the same and of the other, and this compound he placed accordingly in a mean between the indivisible, and the divisible and material.

 

[Edited]

 

And we should consider that God gave the sovereign part of the human soul to be the divinity of each one, being that part which, as we say, dwells at the top of the body, inasmuch as we are a plant not of an earthly but of a heavenly growth, raises us from earth to our kindred who are in heaven. And in this we say truly; for the divine power suspended the head and root of us from that place where the generation of the soul first began, and thus made the whole body upright. When a man is always occupied with the cravings of desire and ambition, and is eagerly striving to satisfy them, all his thoughts must be mortal, and, as far as it is possible altogether to become such, he must be mortal every whit, because he has cherished his mortal part. But he who has been earnest in the love of knowledge and of true wisdom, and has exercised his intellect more than any other part of him, must have thoughts immortal and divine, if he attain truth, and in so far as human nature is capable of sharing in immortality, he must altogether be immortal; and since he is ever cherishing the divine power, and has the divinity within him in perfect order, he will be perfectly happy.

 

[Gauracandra]

Thus far I have shown some philosophical connections between ancient Greek civilization and Vedic civilization. I also would like to note that many of the Vedic gods had been worshipped at times throughout the Greek and Roman empire, and throughout much of Europe. Principle amoung these gods were Varuna, Mitra, and Indra (to a lesser extent). In fact, the Roman emperor Commodus (who can be seen in the recent 'Gladiator' movie starring Russell Crowe) was an initiate into Mithraism. Here is what the Columbia Encyclopedia has to say about Mitra:

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Mithra

(mth´r) (KEY) , ancient god of Persia and India (where he was called Mitra). Until the 6th cent. B.C., Mithra was apparently a minor figure in the Zoroastrian system. Under the Achaemenids, Mithra became increasingly important, until he appeared in the 5th cent. B.C. as the principal Persian deity, the god of light and wisdom, closely associated with the sun. His cult expanded through the Middle East into Europe and became a worldwide religion, called Mithraism. This was one of the great religions of the Roman Empire, and in the 2d cent. A.D. it was more general than Christianity. Mithraism found widest favor among the Roman legions, for whom Mithra (or Mithras in Latin and Greek) was the ideal divine comrade and fighter. The fundamental aspect of the Mithraic system was the dualistic struggle between the forces of good and evil. Mithra, who gave to his devotees hope of blessed immortality, represented the fearless antagonist of the powers of darkness. The story of Mithra’s capture and sacrifice of a sacred bull, from whose body sprang all the beneficent things of the earth, was a central cultic myth. The ethics of Mithraism were rigorous; fasting and continence were strongly prescribed. The rituals, highly secret and restricted to men only, included many of the sacramental forms common to the mystery religions (e.g., baptism and the sacred banquet). Mithraism, which bore many similarities to Christianity, declined rapidly in the late 3d cent. A.D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Also, here are a few quotes on both Mitra and Varuna from a report I found on the internet:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Another divinity mentioned in the Mitani treaty and praised by the Vedic poets, is Varuna. He appeared to the Vedic Indians as & most powerful god approaching, if not rivalling in might, the national god Indra himself. The opinions of scholars differ widely as to the origin of this divinity. Some of them assert that the word "Varuna" is related to the Greek word "ouranos" which means "heaven " and that we are confronted with an old personification of the firmament.

 

[Edited for brevity]

 

The cult of Mithra (which is the Persian form of the name) or Mitra was much more popular in Persia than it had ever been in India. Certain communities worshipped that god almost to the exclusion of all other divinities and formed a sect which spread from Persia to the adjoining territories subject to the Roman Empire and thence to Rome itself. The Roman legionaries, who had been partly recruited in Asia Minor, carried Mitraism to the farthest borders of the Empire. By the middle of the first century A.D. the cult had reached the Danube frontier; and Mitraic monuments dating from subsequent periods are found on the Rhine, in France, Spain, Africa, Greece and Great B.itain, principally along the northern border of the Roman dominions. The monuments left behind by the Roman soldiers are our main source of information concerning Western Mitraism, and the ancient Latin texts do not help us much.

 

[Edited for brevity]

 

The cult of Mitra, who was supposed to be represented on earth by the Roman Emperor and who was worshipped throughout the Empire as "Dens Sol invictus Mithras," achieved its widest dissemination during the third century A.D. and bade fair at that time to become a world religion. Mitraism still had some adherents in Central Europe at the end of the fifth century, but must be considered extinct in the West ever since the sixth century. In Persia it lasted longer; and even present-day Zoroastrians still recognize Mitra as one of their gods without, however, as far as I know, performing any special rities in his honour. He is particularly respected as the god of contracts and oaths.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[shvu]

 

Mithra alongwith Varuna and Indra are popular Gods in the oldest Veda, the Rig-veda. In the later Vedas and subsequent Hinduism, these Gods lost their popular status.

 

This is a point that supports the Aryan theory. It is believed that the Ancient Greeks, Persians and Aryans came from a single source who had Mithra as their God. Quite possible, considering how similar the languages of the Ancient Greeks, Iranians are with Sanskrit.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra]

The following is from a novel called “Sophie’s World” by Jostein Gaarder. The passage I am quoting from was brought to my attention by a female devotee, who read the book, and also saw some of my postings on these forums regarding the similarities between Greek philosophy and Vedantic philosophy.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>An Immortal Soul

 

As I explained, Plato believed that reality is divided into two regions.

 

One region is the world of the senses, about which we can only have approximate or incomplete knowledge by using our five (approximate or incomplete senses). In this sensory world, “everything flows” and nothing is permanent. Nothing in the sensory world is, there are only things that come to be and pass away.

 

The other region is the world of ideas, about which we can have true knowledge by using our reason. This world of ideas cannot be perceived by the senses, but the ideas (or forms) are eternal and immutable.

 

According to Plato, man is a dual creature. We have a body that “flows” is inseparably bound to the world of the senses, and is subject to the same fate as everything else in this world – a soap bubble, for example. All our senses are based in the body and are consequently unreliable. But we also have an immortal soul – and this soul is the realm of reason. And not being physical, the soul can survey the world of ideas.

 

Plato also believed that the soul existed before it inhabited the body. But as soon as the soul wakes up in a human body, it has forgotten all the perfect ideas. Then something starts to happen. In fact, a wondrous process begins. As the human being discovers the various forms in the natural world, a vague recollection stirs his soul. He sees a horse – but an imperfect horse. The sight of it is sufficient to awaken in the soul a faint recollection of the perfect “horse”, which the soul once saw in the world of ideas, and this stirs the soul with a yearning to return to its true realm. Plato calls this yearning eros – which means love. The soul, then, experiences a “longing to return to its true origin”. From now on, the body and the whole sensory world is experienced as imperfect and insignificant. The soul yearns to fly home on the wings of love to the world of ideas. It longs to be freed from the chains of the body.

 

Let me quickly emphasize that Plato is describing an ideal course of life, since by no means all humans set the soul free to begin its journey back to the world of ideas. Most people cling to the sensory world’s “reflections” of ideas. They see a horse – and another horse. But they never see that of which every horse is only a feeble imitation. What Plato describes is the philosopher’s way. His philosophy can be read as a description of philosophic practice.

 

When you see a shadow, you will assume that there must be something casting the shadow. You see the shadow of an animal. You think it may be a horse, but you are not quite sure. So you turn around and see the horse itself – which of course is infinitely more beautiful and sharper in outline than the blurred “horse-shadow”. Plato believed similarly that all natural phenomena are merely shadows of the eternal forms or ideas. But most people are content with a life among shadows. They give no thought to what is casting the shadows. They think shadows are all there are, never realizing even that they are, in fact, shadows. And thus they pay no heed to the immortality of their own soul. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Gauracandra

 

[Val_Baital]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

In 360 B.C. Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, put down into writing the oldest known written account of the ancient civilization of Atlantis. The story is told in two texts by Plato named ‘Timeaus’ and ‘Critias’. According to Plato, the story of Atlantis is true, and the conversation he recorded between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timeaus and Critias, details the ancient civilization of Atlantis, said to have flourished 9000 years before his time. The story originally was told by an Egyptian priest to Solon, and from Solon it was passed on to Dropides, from Dropides it went to Critias I, who then related it to Critias II (grandson of Critias I).

 

I have often thought that there was a link between the ancient Greek civilization and the Vedic civilization. The following are some details from Timeaus and Critias of the Greek view of the world and the civilization of Atlantis that bear a striking similarity to Vedic concepts. The quotes from these texts have been edited for brevity.

 

Timeaus speaks principally on the ideal social order, and the make up of the universe. It also details how the story of Atlantis was passed down. You will note several similarities to the Vedic view. First, the ideal social order creates classes by on occupation of priest, military, laborer, and agriculturalist. Second, the creation of the universe is comprised of earth, water, fire, and air. Third, in the description of Atlantis, the Egyptian priests mentions that many deluges occur in periodic intervals, and as such force civilization to begin again. The idea of cyclical partial and total devastation and rebirth of civilization are common in Vedic scriptures.

 

Critias speaks mainly on the physical structure of Atlantis, its architecture, fields etc…. It appears that it was destroyed through the centuries as only a portion remains, and ends in mid-sentence.

 

Gauracandra

Here is a link to an interesting site that considers a different take on where and what "Atlantis" really was:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/oam/

 

According to this account, the true story of Atlantis is recorded in a volume of books written by the Frisians, a Scandinavian people pre-existing the Teutonic tribes. The English translation of these books is at the site. Interesting reading.

[clare]

I was watching BBC Knowledge channel about a week ago and their was a documentary about Socrates in ancient greece. This documentary said that the ancient Athenians were travelling to India in their great ships. That they shared knowledge with Indian civilisations.

Bhakti Ananda Goswami has done much research on the connections between forms of worship and here are a couple of quotes from him and a link to an article that may be of interest.

 

 

Bhakti Ananda Goswami : "MY POSITION IS THAT THERE WAS A SINGLE THEOCENTRIC CULTURE WHICH GAVE RISE TO HIGH CIVILZATION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. THAT CULTURE, AS THE INTERDISCIPLINARY EVIDENCE I HAVE AMASSED PROVES, WAS THE RIG-VEDIC PURUSHA-SUKTA RELATED WORSHIP OF PURUSHA AND PRAKRITI. KRISHNA AND RADHA WERE CONSIDERED THE SOURCE OF PURUSHA AND PRAKRITI."

 

Here is a small quote from some of his writing ,

 

"From the beginning, the inter racial religion of Heliopolis had at its historical and theological core, the worship of RADHA AND KRISHNA AS the UNIVERSAL MOTHER AND FATHER-GOD OF ALL HUMANITY.

 

RADHA-KRISHNA / RHODA-KOUROS KI JAYA !

 

May we soon realize that we are all children of the same MOTHER and FATHER AMEN ! AUM ! and HARE KRISHNA ! "

 

http://www.saragrahi.org/columns/one/kouros.htm

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Shvu:

 

Originally posted by shvu:

Mithra alongwith Varuna and Indra are popular Gods in the oldest Veda, the Rig-veda. In the later Vedas and subsequent Hinduism, these Gods lost their popular status.

This is the view put forth by European transators and their present day followers. I had a chance to discuss this in detail with an Arya Samaji and an Aurobindo ashramite, both outstanding Sanskrit scholars. They both pointed out that Indra, Mithra etc., are only part of the Brahmanas. Even in the vedic times, they were only part of the rituals. Even today, they are just part of the rituals. Two years ago, when my twin daughetrs turned one, I organised for a full feldged vedic ritualistic yagna by a very good priest. I observed that all the sacrifices were to Agin, Indra and Varuna in that order. So, the ritualistic importance of Indra et al, hasn't changed. Even Prof. Cardona, America's greates authority in Sanskrit and incidentally the only American academic who can speak Sanskrit, agrees to this.

 

This is a point that supports the Aryan theory. It is believed that the Ancient Greeks, Persians and Aryans came from a single source who had Mithra as their God.

I don't know if you have followed the latest in AIT. This very point can be used to show that all the above folks originated in India. Let me give one evidence. The motif of the ancient Mittani is peacock and no other Asian animal. This is possible only if the Aryan groups (vedic groups) had migrated westwards. Not the other way round.

[Gauracandra]

Interesting that this thread was renewed. I was thinking about it as a few days back on television another special on the search for Atlantis was on. Another theory that was interesting revolved around a King Tantalis. Apparently his kingdom was destroyed, and some suggest his story is the basis of Atlantis.

 

I really do find it very interesting the similarities between Greek culture and Vedic culture. Above I gave some translations of Plato's account of Atlantis. There is no interpretation needed to see that he is talking about Varna (4 social order) system of setting up society.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu]

This is the view put forth by European transators and their present day followers. I had a chance to discuss this in detail with an Arya Samaji and an Aurobindo ashramite, both outstanding Sanskrit scholars. They both pointed out that Indra, Mithra etc., are only part of the Brahmanas.

 

...Which is what the European Translations say too. While Indra is the biggie in the Rig-veda Samhita, his position is minimal by the time of the Brahmanas where Vishnu is the body of the sacrifice [vide Shatapatha Brahmana]. Come further to the Puranas and Indra is only a Deva vis-a-vis Vishnu who is the Supreme Entity.

 

 

Even in the vedic times, they were only part of the rituals. Even today, they are just part of the rituals. Two years ago, when my twin daughetrs turned one, I organised for a full feldged vedic ritualistic yagna by a very good priest. I observed that all the sacrifices were to Agin, Indra and Varuna in that order. So, the ritualistic importance of Indra et al, hasn't changed. Even Prof. Cardona, America's greates authority in Sanskrit and incidentally the only American academic who can speak Sanskrit, agrees to this.

Yes. Even today Rig-veda mantras are chanted during occasions like child naming etc, where Indra and other Rig-vedic Gods are invoked.

 

 

--

This is a point that supports the Aryan theory. It is believed that the Ancient Greeks, Persians and Aryans came from a single source who had Mithra as their God.

--

 

I don't know if you have followed the latest in AIT. This very point can be used to show that all the above folks originated in India. Let me give one evidence. The motif of the ancient Mittani is peacock and no other Asian animal. This is possible only if the Aryan groups (vedic groups) had migrated westwards. Not the other way round

 

 

The Mittani are believed to have been Indian Aryans who migrated west later (After Aryan entry into India). This speculation has been around for the last 100 years or more.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

Here is a link to an interesting site that considers a different take on where and what "Atlantis" really was:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/oam/

There are any number of such links about theories on Atlantis. Here is another.

 

http://www.atlan.org

 

I can put up a few myself. Angelfire gives free web pages.

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

Regarding Mittanis, for a long time, Indologists maintained that they were Indo-Iranians who migrated eastwards. Only recently, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, they are agreeing that they came from India. Let me give you another evidence also. If the Aryans came into India on their horses, what should you expect to find? You should find no remains of horses preceding 1500 BC and between 1500 BC and 1200 BC, you should find an abundance of horse remains, right? But, what is the reality?

 

Horses (34 ribbed, not the Steppes one) have always been found in IVC. There is no difference in the pattern of finds for the period preceding 1500 BC and the period after that. In fact, the finds jump up only after 600 BC and this is the period which throws up finds of the Steppes horse (36 ribbed). Understandable, as the Persians and later Greeks come to India then. Another proof that the AIT is flawed.

 

I don't know if you have read Talageri. But, he has elucidated beautifully that the original home of the Indo-Aryans was the Gangetic basin and they indeed moved westwards. This is the view with which every objective scholar like B B Lal, Cardona, etc., have agreed.

[Gauracandra]

Any insight into Plato's philosophy of the soul? I was just rereading that passage from 'Sophie's World' and it really struck me as being correct. We look out to the world and we just naturally (or atleast I do) feel there is something not quite right. We have this longing to see these perfect forms. To be free of these material constraints. It seems to me this is very much the philosophy that everything in the material world is a reflection of the transcendental spiritual world.

 

Is there a good Plato primer I could pick up? Whenever I read excerpts of his writings I see a strong similarity to Vedic truths.

 

Gauracandra

[bhaktashab]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Prof. Cardona, America's greates authority in Sanskrit and incidentally the only American academic who can speak Sanskrit, agrees to this.

 

Really? He is the only one who can speak Sanskrit? I would have regarded Hridayananda Dasa Goswami fluent in Sanskrit, but maybe you know better than I...?

 

 

[Avinash]

As I have read, Plato talked of kinds of psyche. (Some authors use the word soul instead of psyche but, as I have read, the greek word used by Plato means "psyche". Also, usage of the word soul may confuse us).

 

1. The rational psyche: It is the thinking portion within each of us, which discerns what is real and not just apparent, judges what is true and what is false, and makes the rational decisions in accordance with which human life is most properly lived.

 

2. The spirited psyche: It is the active portion; its function is to carry out the dictates of reason in practical life, courageously doing whatever the intellect has determined to be best.

 

3. Appetitive psyche: It is the portion of each of us that wants and feels many things, most of which must be deferred in the face of rational pursuits if we are to achieve a proper degree of self-control.

 

As I read it, I am reminded of the three modes of nature (satvik, rajasik and tamasik) mentioned in Gita and Puranas.

[Avinash]

Oops, I forgot to add this. It is really interesting. Plato thought that soul was immortal. When body dies, then the soul goes to the idea world (Gauracandra ji, as you have read Sophie's world, you must be knowing what is the meaning of 'idea world' here.) After spending time in that world, the soul will be reincarnated into another body. Plato said that learning involved recalling what the soul had learned in the idea world.

 

[shvu]

Shvu:

Regarding Mittanis, for a long time, Indologists maintained that they were Indo-Iranians who migrated eastwards. Only recently, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, they are agreeing that they came from India.

Indologists themselves have been varied in their opinions since a long time and so to lump them together is also not correct.

 

The clay tablets from the archives of the capital of the ancient Hittite kingdom, which were found in Boghazkoi [in 1907], included records of treaties concluded by the king of Hittites and the king of Mitani at the beginning of the 14th century BC. The Gods of both kingdoms are invoked and the names of Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Naasatyau appear among the names of the Gods of Mitani. This particluar grouping of these names is found only in the Rig-veda. Jacobi, Konow, Hillebrandt et al., consider them to be Indian, Vedic Gods and there is no justification possible for any other view [Winternitz].

 

Let me give you another evidence also. If the Aryans came into India on their horses, what should you expect to find? You should find no remains of horses preceding 1500 BC...

Why is that? The Aryans came in horses does not necessarily mean there were no horses in India before that time. Some people speculated there were no horses, chariots, etc in India before the Aryans and they were found to be incorrect.

 

Even if people discard Aryan entry into India, someone will have to come up with a good reason for why the languages are strikingly similar.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Why is that? The Aryans came in horses does not necessarily mean there were no horses in India before that time. Some people speculated there were no horses, chariots, etc in India before the Aryans and they were found to be incorrect.]

Even now, most Indologists like Witzel, still maintain that there weren't horses in India before the supposed AI took place. Anyway, the second part of my post is more significant. If at all, there was an invasion, there should have been a quantum jump in horse remains for the period 1500 BC to 1200 BC. On the contrary, Rg veda talks of the Indian horse as being 34 ribbed. And all the horse remains found in India for the period preceding and during IVC are 34 ribbed. This again confirms that RV Aryans were not invaders. Had they been, they would have spoken of 36 ribbed horses, not 34.

 

Even if people discard Aryan entry into India, someone will have to come up with a good reason for why the languages are strikingly similar. Cheers

Well, if similarity is used to suggest that there was a common origin, that common place seems to be India. Even the vedic verses attest to that. I am not a big believer in linguistic analysis. It is not a science. You can interpret things in a million ways. I don't know if you are a Tamil. Asko Parpola tries to find proto-Tamil words in IVC inscriptions and they are amusing. Had it come from an Indian, the whole world would have derided such thoughts. The so-called linguistic analysis, which is so subjective, should not at all be accorded any importance. Instead, astronomical keys in these treatises should take precedence.

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by bhaktashab:

Really? He is the only one who can speak Sanskrit? I would have regarded Hridayananda Dasa Goswami fluent in Sanskrit, but maybe you know better than I...?

Sorry Bhaktasahab Prabhu. Thanks for correcting me. When I wrote that sentence, I was having Indologists/Sanskritists like Deshpande (Michigan) and Witzel(Harvard) and their likes. These are the people who cannot speak Sanskrit, cannot read Brahmi script and yet gang up to stifle any opposition and launch their many anti-Hindu tirades and try to sustain untenable theories. I wasn't talking of the likes of Maharaj. Sorry about that.

 

[shvu]

Well, if similarity is used to suggest that there was a common origin, that common place seems to be India. Even the vedic verses attest to that.

The point that the Vedas were composed in North India by itself, does not show everything started there. They may have been composed several generations after the migration [without any conquests]. They may perhaps have been the people of Harappa, but still they must have migrated at some point. However this is not the Aryan Invasion theory.

 

I am not a big believer in linguistic analysis. It is not a science. You can interpret things in a million ways. I don't know if you are a Tamil. Asko Parpola tries to find proto-Tamil words in IVC inscriptions and they are amusing.

Yeah, I am tamil. And as you are aware, sanskrit has more similarity with Ancient Greek of a distant land than with Tamil, which is from a much closer region. That and the fact that the North Indians resemble Europeans more than the Ddravidians, is food for thought although of course, it doesn't prove anything.

 

The so-called linguistic analysis, which is so subjective, should not at all be accorded any importance. Instead, astronomical keys in these treatises should take precedence.

 

This has done it's rounds too. Jacobi used the astronomical evidence in the Brahmanas to show they were from 4500 BC. Parallely Bal Gangadhar Tilak used the same evidence to show the Brahmanas were from 6000 BC ! Both these asertions were met with violent opposition during their time and it was shown these verse can be interpreted in multiple ways, which is why this theory never caught on. Add to it the fact that different people were reading different dates out of it. Other ambitious people in the early 20th century went as far as interpreting the Brahmana evidences to show they were composed in 16000 BC and 25000 BC.

 

Winternitz rejects Max Muller et al., showing their dates are absurd and feels the Vedas are much older. He does not give an dates saying there is no evidence to stamp a clear date in the Vedas. However he says they cannot be as old as 25000 BC because, "It is impossible to believe intelligent people like Indians lived for 25000 years, without any improvement and progress in their culture and lifestyle. The language too must have remained the same with minor changes only for 25000 years after which it suddenly started changing significantly, turning into classical sanskrit. This seems very unlikely".

 

Cheers

 

[Gauracandra]

Avinash,

 

Actually I haven't read 'Sophie's World'. My friend loaned it to me after seeing my interest in Greek philosophy compared to Vedic thought. But I really don't read much fiction. I know you said it was good, but I never got around to reading it. Could you explain the meaning of the 'world of ideas'?

 

Gauracandra

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

This has done it's rounds too. Jacobi used the astronomical evidence in the Brahmanas to show they were from 4500 BC. Parallely Bal Gangadhar Tilak used the same evidence to show the Brahmanas were from 6000 BC ! Both these asertions were met with violent opposition during their time and it was shown these verse can be interpreted in multiple ways, which is why this theory never caught on Cheers

I am very surprised at this remark of yours. It was John Playfair who first dated the vedas based on astronomical keys. Bailley also came up with the same dates though he worked independent of Playfair. Playfair used 17 key indicators to validate them. Tilak proposed the dates based on Orion. None of the above were refuted by anyone. In fact, the only opposition that those dates contradicted mosaic account of creation. And that was the only reason why the European Indologists of the last century ignored them. Not because, they could refute them. Even Seidenberg agrees with those keys.