Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

[sudarshan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkyd4ks ... aG91cnM%3D

Dahhi-shankha-tusharabham kshirodarnava-sambhavam
namami shashinam soman sambhor mukta-bhushanam

"I offer my obeisances to the Moon god, whose complexion resembles white cheese, the whiteness of conch shells, and snow. He is the ruling deity of the soma-rasa born from the ocean of milk, and he serves on the ornament on the top of the head of Lord Shambhu."

The samudra-manthan story from our itihaas (featuring the Koorma avatara of Lord Vishnu) talks about how the Devas and Asuras were engaged in an activity, wherein they threw the mountain Meru into the ocean of milk and churned it with a snake as a rope. The moon was born from this activity.

The video above tells of how a Mars-sized (proto) planet slammed into the earth 4.5 billion years ago, churning up the mantle (ocean of milk?), and how the moon was born from this activity. The earlier theory was that it took millions of years for the moon to form from this collision. Now it seems there's a theory that the moon actually formed within hours.

It would be interesting to compare the formation stories of other planets from the Indian tradition (Mars - formed from the earth - Dharani garbha sambhutham; Saturn - son of Surya - Ravi putram; Mercury - formed from the moon - Saumyam Saumya-gunopetham; etc.) with cosmological theories today.

[sudarshan]

In India, we consult horoscopes based on planetary alignments. We also consult the planetary alignments before scheduling important events. Superstition much?

It is rather ironic that we need to do exactly the same thing today, before scheduling launches to other planets or the outer reaches of the solar system. Here's an example:

45 Years Ago: Voyager 2 Begins Its Epic Journey to the Outer Planets and Beyond

The ambitious mission took advantage of a rare alignment of the outer planets before continuing its journey into interstellar space.

What's that? Rare alignment of outer planets? This is basically a horoscope, right? Maybe at higher resolution than dividing the ecliptic into 12 regions (zodiac) or 108 regions (27 nakshatras with 4 padas in each). But consulting planetary ephemerides values, and determining optimal windows (muhurtas) before scheduling launches is essentially the same thing as consulting a planetary position chart to determine the ideal time interval for life events. Food for thought.

[bala]

Astrology came from the banks of river Saraswati 11000 years ago, as part of Vedic civilization. Jyothish Vedanga which is an adjunct to Vedas is the basis of Indian Calendars. Surya Siddhanta formalized the Indian Calendar. These efforts led to the creation of the panchanga or almanac. The panchang covers everything from the phases of the moon, the positions of the constellations, sun, stars, planets, and identifies auspicious time and day for various activities. We refer to the traditional panchang for all new undertakings in life, for auspicious events like weddings, religious rites like naamkaran, shraadh, tarpan etc.

Varahamihira compiled old Vedic astrology, which was dying, in a lucid manner. He wrote treatises on shakuna (augury) as well as the Brihaj-Jataka (Great Birth) and the Laghu-Jataka (Short Birth), two well-known works on the casting of horoscopes. His work is called the Brihat Samhita (Great Compilation) discusses topics such as: descriptions of heavenly bodies, their movements and conjunctions, meteorological phenomena, indications of the omens these movements, conjunctions and phenomena represent, what action to take and operations to accomplish, sign to look for in humans, animals, precious stones, etc.

The celestial equator is a great circle on the imaginary celestial sphere, in the same plane as the Earth's equator. In other words, it is a projection of the terrestrial equator out into space. As a result of the Earth's axial tilt, the celestial equator is inclined by 23.4° with respect to the ecliptic plane of the earth. The Sun itself orbits around the galactic center at a radius of about 8,500 parsecs and takes over 200 million years to make one full orbit. A solar calendar is a calendar whose dates indicate the apparent position of the sun moving on the celestial sphere.

In the Vedic system we have 12 signs ('Rashis' - Mesa, Vrishabha, Mithunam, Karkatakam, Simha, Kanya, Tulam, Vrisksikam, Danu, Makaram, Kumbham, Meenam), each 30°, of the zodiac and 27 nakshatra constellations, each of 13°.20’ (thirteen degrees and twenty minutes).

The Surya Siddhantha of Maya Danava concisely specifies the coordinates of the twenty seven Nakshatras. Nakshatras are star clusters at the center of the galaxy (Vishnu Nabhi). The starting point for the nakshatras is the point on the ecliptic directly opposite to the star Spica called Chitrā in Sanskrit. The number of nakshatras reflects the number of days in a sidereal month (modern value: 27.32 days), the width of a nakshatra traversed by the Moon in about one day. Each nakshatra is further subdivided into four quarters (or padas). 27 Nakshatra is divided into four Pada = 4 quarters; 27 x 4 = 108.

The word ‘Rashi’ (sign) literally means ‘heap’ or ‘cluster’ which indicates towards the cluster of constellations. The western astrological equivalent names are a straight copy of Indian terms, with symbols and elements the exact same.

Rashi
Tulam is Libra (balance)
Chingam or Simham is Leo (lion)
Kanni or kanya is Virgo (virgin girl)
Meenam is Pisces (fish)
Kumbam is Aquarius (water pot)
Midhunam is Gemini (couple)
Makara Capricon goat
Dhanu Sagittarius horse
Kumbham February 16th - March 15th (water pitcher)
Meenam March 16th - April 15th (fish)
Medam April 16th - May 15th (goat-ram)
Edavam May 16th - June 15th (bull)

Nakshatra
In the Atharvaveda (Shaunakiya recension, hymn 19.7) a list of 28 stars or asterisms is given as:

(1) Kṛttikā (the Pleiads), (2) Rohinī, (3) Mrigashīrsha, (4) Ārdrā, (5) Punarvasu, (6) Sūnritā, (7) Pushya, (8) Bhanu (the Sun), (9) Asleshā, (10) Maghā, (11) Svāti (Arcturus), (12) Chitrā (Spica), (13) Phalgunis, (14) Hasta, (15) Rādhas, (16) Vishākhā, (17) Anurādhā, (18) Jyeshthā, (19) Mūla, (20) Ashādhas, (21) Abhijit, (22) Sravana, (23) Sravishthās, (24) Satabhishak, (25) Proshtha-padas, (26) Revati, (27) Asvayujas, (28) Bharani.

The period of revolution of the moon is not an exact integer multiple of the period of rotation of the Earth: it is 27.3 days. Hence a 28th nakshatra (Abhijit) with an unusually short interval (about eight hours) is inserted to compensate for the sidereal month being eight hours more than 27 days is Abhijit (alpha, epsilon and zeta Lyrae - Vega) - between Uttarashada and Sravana.

Nakshatra Pada
# Name Pada 1 Pada 2 Pada 3 Pada 4
1 Ashwini (अश्विनि) चु Chu चे Che चो Cho ला La
2 Bharani (भरणी) ली Li लू Lu ले Le लो Lo
3 Kritika (कृत्तिका) अ A ई I उ U ए E
4 Rohini(रोहिणी) ओ O वा Va/Ba वी Vi/Bi वु Vu/Bu
5 Mrigashīrsha(म्रृग- ीर्षा) वे Ve/Be वो Vo/Bo का Ka की Ke
6 Ārdrā (आर्द्रा) कु Ku घ Gha ङ Ng/Na छ Chha
7 Punarvasu (पुनर्वसु) के Ke को Ko हा Ha ही Hi
8 Pushya (पुष्य) हु Hu हे He हो Ho ड Da
9 Āshleshā (आश्लेषा) डी Di डू Du डे De डो Do
10 Maghā (मघा) मा Ma मी Mi मू Mu मे Me
11 Pūrva or Pūrva Phalgunī (पूर्व फाल्गुनी) नो Mo टा Ta टी Ti टू Tu
12 Uttara or Uttara Phalgunī (उत्तर फाल्गुनी) टे Te टो To पा Pa पी Pi
13 Hasta (हस्त) पू Pu ष Sha ण Na ठ Tha
14 Chitra (चित्रा) पे Pe पो Po रा Ra री Ri
15 Svātī (स्वाति) रू Ru रे Re रो Ro ता Ta
16 Viśākhā (विशाखा) ती Ti तू Tu ते Te तो To
17 Anurādhā (अनुराधा) ना Na नी Ni नू Nu ने Ne
18 Jyeshtha (ज्येष्ठा) नो No या Ya यी Yi यू Yu
19 Mula (मूल) ये Ye यो Yo भा Bha भी Bhi
20 Pūrva Ashādhā (पूर्वाषाढ- ा) भू Bhu धा Dha फा Bha/Pha ढा Dha
21 Uttara Aṣāḍhā (उत्तराषाढ- ा) भे Bhe भो Bho जा Ja जी Ji
22 Śrāvaṇa (श्रावण) खी Ju/Khi खू Je/Khu खे Jo/Khe खो Gha/Kho
23 Śrāviṣṭha (श्रविष्ठा) or Dhanishta गा Ga गी Gi गु Gu गे Ge
24 Shatabhisha (शतभिषा)or Śatataraka गो Go सा Sa सी Si सू Su
25 Pūrva Bhādrapadā (पूर्वभाद्- पदा) से Se सो So दा Da दी Di
26 Uttara Bhādrapadā (उत्तरभाद्- पदा) दू Du थ Tha झ Jha ञ Da/Tra
27 Revati (रेवती) दे De दो Do च Cha ची Chi

Vedic astrologers teach that when a child is born, they should be given an auspicious first name which will correspond to the child's Nakshatra. The technique for deducing the name is to see which nakshatra the Moon is in at the moment of birth; this gives four possible sounds. A refinement is to pick one sound out of that four that relates to the Pada or division of the Nakshatra. Each Nakshatra has four Padas and four sounds.

In Vedic astrology we leave out Uranus (Shweta), Neptune (Shyama) and Plutu (Teevra) as they are too far away to exert any major influence on humans and are also in one single rashi for too long. Instead we use the sun, the moon, Rahu and Ketu. Rahu and Ketu are two imaginary points in the heavens without mass, shape or form. They are the points of intersection of the apparent path of the Sun with the path of Moon, and are called Chaya Grahas or Shadow planets. Rahu and Ketu are the North and South Lunar nodes causing the sun and moon eclipses.

[sudarshan]

In Vedic astrology we leave out Uranus (Shweta), Neptune (Shyama) and Plutu (Teevra) as they are too far away to exert any major influence on humans and are also in one single rashi for too long.

In Nilesh Oak's MB dating, he was able to match the positions of the other planets accurately to the timeline of 5565 BC for the MB war. In his book, he mentions that Vyasa has given positions for the Shweta and Shyama planets. Nilesh Oak was unable to identify these planets using the Voyager software (they did not correspond to Uranus/ Neptune). I tried with the Stellarium software, and that did not match Uranus/ Neptune either. I suggested to him to try some of the larger asteroids, but he couldn't find a match for Shweta/ Shyama. They are definitely mentioned in the MB text, but we don't actually know what planets they are.

[bala]

we don't actually know what planets they are.

According to my research/notes this what I have: Uranus (Shweta), Neptune (Shyama) and Plutu (Teevra). I will stand corrected if they are not.

[bala]

Rashis, Nakshatra Padas
Initially, the zodiac was grouped in 12 Rashis, however, the ancient seers have further subdivided the heavens into 27 Nakshatras or star constellations due to precession. Therefore the first Rashi, Mesha, which has 30 degrees, contains the entire 4 Padas (13:20′) of the 1st star constellation Ashwini, the entire 4 Padas (13:20′) of the 2nd star constellation Bharani and the 1st Pada (3:20′) of the third star constellation Krittika. In this manner, each Rashi comprises of 9 Padas.

Nakshatras are broadly classified under the three heads of Deva (divine), Nara (human) and Rakshasa (Demonic). Each of the nakshatras is governed as 'lord' by one of the nine graha in the following sequence: Ketu (South Lunar Node), Shukra (Venus), Ravi or Surya (Sun), Chandra (Moon), Mangala (Mars), Rahu (North Lunar Node), Guru or Brihaspati (Jupiter), Shani (Saturn) and Budha (Mercury).

This cycle repeats itself three times to cover all 27 nakshatras. The lord of each nakshatra determines the planetary period known as the dasha, which is considered of major importance in forecasting the life path of the individual in Vedic astrology.

Rahu and Ketu
Rahu and Ketu are clubs of magnetic and gravitational forces of two celestial bodies, the moon and the earth and hence are very influential on the life of mankind. These points affect our central nervous system as well as sympathetic and para-sympathetic nervous systems which work on the principles of electro-magnetic systems. The strength of Rahu and Ketu when compared to other planets is very high by thousands of times or more. North node rahu is like gravity - pulling us toward something whether we really want to or not, whether we have agency over this desire or not. The south node Ketu is like anti-matter in a natal chart. Ketu is considered the keeper of the book of our life - past and present karmas. Nine is connected to Ketu, the moksa Karaka (liberation). Rahu takes people off their dharmic past path to tempt them on the road of self destruction. Rahu has the properties of Shani (Saturn) whereas Ketu has the influence of Mangala (Mars).

Rahu takes us into the physical world and Ketu takes us out of it. Rahu symbolizes the birth into the material manifestation. Ketu symbolizes our leaving the material plane for the spiritual realm. Their role as karmic indicators of our life is connected with their power to cause eclipses. Eclipses occur only near the lunar nodes. Rahu and Ketu symbolically eclipse the sun (consciousness) and the moon (mind), they deal with the concept of death and re-birth, transformation and regeneration. In keeping with their shadowy nature, Rahu/ Ketu work at a psychological level. Ketu deals with the past karma and rahu with the future. Both Rahu and Ketu have the ability to keep our mind focused on these instincts - Rahu by exaggerating and Ketu by obscuring or blocking.

Rahu takes us under its spell with the illusions of this world, the promise of happiness, leaving us with a sense of wanting. Conversely Ketu strips us of the objects of our desires, revealing that nothing in this world gives us security and permanence. Rahu, Ketu deals with the inner fight within us, the moral and the social choices we have to constantly make and the inner dilemmas.

Dasha
The Dasha cycles are unique to Vedic Astrology and are an essential component to the astrologer’s accuracy of predictions. The timing of events is indicated by the Dasha periods because they show when a planet will come into its relative strength or weakness. The exact timing is further determined by the transiting planets which are influencing the Dasha lords.

Astrology
Astrology explains life’s reactions to planetary vibrations. It is a science of correlation of astronomical facts with terrestrial events. The planets do not dictate, but indicate the energies that are influencing a situation in a given time. Astrology is based on the fact that we are all star dust and hence we are affected by cosmic events - we have stuff in us as old as the universe. We’re dynamic beings and we have to be dynamic to remain alive. Astrology does not say that events must and should happen, but gives the benefic and malefic tendencies that can be directed or modified through conscious effort. In astrology, the planets do not dictate, but indicate the energies that are influencing a situation in a given time.

Horoscope
The birth horoscope reveals the general path of destiny by way of the disposition of the planets. Horoscope is the natal chart showing the position of planets and stars at the time of your birth. The astrologer will calculate the possibilities based on your Lagna and Rashi. Both Rashi and lagna are very important in making estimations and suggestions based on your horoscope. Rashi is calculated as the position of the moon according to Indian horoscope. Lagna can be considered as your sun sign as it is calculated as per the rising sun. Rashi can be considered as the moon sign as it deals with the moon’s position.

Heavenly bodies do affect the atma and body (full of water). The planets and their relationship between themselves and with zodiacs change constantly, but can be predicted accurately by mathematical calculations. Thus by comparing the position of the Earth to the planets and zodiacs, astrologers can explain the present event and predict the future.

The ancient maharishis devised these astrological systems in order to help people align with their "dharma" or life purpose by giving them a bird’s eye view of their life and suggesting what to do and when. The value of predictive astrology is to help us come into harmony with the seasons of our lives. Likewise, we can use predictive astrology to pin point favorable time periods for any activity in our life.

Lagna
In Vedic Astrology Lagna or Ascendant, is the first moment of contact between the atma and its new life on earth in Jyotiṣa. Lagna is the rising nakshtra or sign at the time of birth. It is the most crucial thing in the horoscope which has a lot of impact on the person’s mind and behavior. It depicts the person himself. Lagna is the pivot of an individual’s horoscope. It represents the atma and body of the individual to whom the horoscope pertains. Lagna is the base house, from which all the other 11 houses in a horoscope are assessed. The predictions, based on your Lagna, are more important. Your 'Ascendant' or the first house is the most important house in your horoscope. The Lagna signifies your body, the self and has important clues about the guiding traits in your life. Your Lagna (Ascendant) is calculated on the basis of your birth date, time and the location that you were born.

At the time of birth each person, one particular sign will be rising from the eastern horizon and that sign is known as Lagna or Rising Sign. Your lagna or rising sign rules your first house in the horoscope. The first house deals with the physical stature, color, form and shape, constitution, health, vitality and vigor, natural disposition and tendencies, personality, struggle for life, honor, dignity, and general structure of life.

Rashi
Rashi is the name given to the position of the moon at the time of birth. Rashi helps in estimating various challenges and opportunities and fate/destiny that will keep coming in the life of the person. With the Rasi, we face fluctuations on all issues of our life depending upon the everyday movement of planetary positions.When planets transit from one zodiac sign to the next sign, we experience fluctuating results in our life on daily basis. But these qualities are temporary in nature. These transits of all 9 planets can bring either troubles or relief that is temporary in nature. That is, the predictions based on your Rasi, is only temporary lasting for few days to few months.

[nachiket]

The ambitious mission took advantage of a rare alignment of the outer planets before continuing its journey into interstellar space.

What's that? Rare alignment of outer planets? This is basically a horoscope, right? Maybe at higher resolution than dividing the ecliptic into 12 regions (zodiac) or 108 regions (27 nakshatras with 4 padas in each). But consulting planetary ephemerides values, and determining optimal windows (muhurtas) before scheduling launches is essentially the same thing as consulting a planetary position chart to determine the ideal time interval for life events. Food for thought.

Sir, these two events would be "essentially the same" only if you were planning to launch yourself into space and use gravitational assists from all of those planets to build up enough speed to escape the solar system. If you were only planning a wedding on the other hand the situations are not similar at all.

I am sorry to butt in like this but it is a personal bugbear of mine when people try to provide scientific explanations for our Hindu beliefs. This is not necessary at all and will often lead to absurd explanations like the above. If you truly have faith, you do not need to indulge in this. Followers of abrahamic religions also have beliefs which cannot be explained by science but are not asked to prove them. And the ones who try also end up in similarly absurd mental gymnastics.

IMHO it is far better to be confident enough in our faith that we can assert it without having to create scientific sounding but not really scientific explanations for it. If people in the west can assert that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead, then people in India are allowed to assert that the positions of planets have direct effects on their personal lives without providing any further explanation.

[Vayutuvan]

All I want to say is that Hindu philosophy is on a firmer ground than other "faiths"' beliefs. Sanatana dharma is not purely faith based but has a faith element to it. Abrahamic faith is all faith, no evidence.

[Vayutuvan]

They are definitely mentioned in the MB text, but we don't actually know what planets they are.

sudarshan ji, I posit that Archaeoastronomy is a pseudoscience. It is a fool's errand to prove anything going back to thousands of years, leave alone tens of thousands of years.

Please consider this.

1. It is a multibody problem which is chaotic.
2. From the boundary conditions , i.e. now, we want to derive the intial conditions.
3. There could have been perturbations both in time an in the number of objects during the evolution from the intial state to the current state. For example, there could have been several comets and large asteroids that would have passed through the solar system and would have perturbed the statespace at that point of time.

Since it is chaotic, i.e. small changes in the intital conditions might ("might not" also but those are zero measure, if you are looking at all the possible paths of evolution a non-linear system of differentiaal equations) lead to large deviations in the final state , what guarantee is there that calculated intial state(space) is the right one?

Several intial conditions on the state(space) might lead to the present.

(If I try, I can probably make it more formal, but it is not the worth the effort)
Due to the above reasons, I dismiss Archaeoastronomy as a fool's errand with extreme prejudice

[sudarshan]

I am sorry to butt in like this but it is a personal bugbear of mine when people try to provide scientific explanations for our Hindu beliefs. This is not necessary at all...

IMHO it is far better to be confident enough in our faith that we can assert it without having to create scientific sounding but not really scientific explanations for it...

In this particular case, you make a fair point, and I agree that my post in question was a bit of a reach. Granted that we don't *have* to get defensive about our faith and try to justify it on scientific grounds.

Having said that, if there really is a valid scientific basis for a particular belief (maybe not the particular one I posted), then there's no harm in acknowledging that either.

[sudarshan]

sudarshan ji, I posit that Archaeoastronomy is a pseudoscience. It is a fool's errand to prove anything going back to thousands of years, leave alone tens of thousands of years.

Please consider this.

1. It is a multibody problem which is chaotic.
2. From the boundary conditions , i.e. now, we want to derive the intial conditions.
3. There could have been perturbations both in time an in the number of objects during the evolution from the intial state to the current state. For example, there could have been several comets and large asteroids that would have passed through the solar system and would have perturbed the statespace at that point of time.

Since it is chaotic, i.e. small changes in the intital conditions might ("might not" also but those are zero measure, if you are looking at all the possible paths of evolution a non-linear system of differentiaal equations) lead to large deviations in the final state , what guarantee is there that calculated intial state(space) is the right one?

Several intial conditions on the state(space) might lead to the present.

(If I try, I can probably make it more formal, but it is not the worth the effort)
Due to the above reasons, I dismiss Archaeoastronomy as a fool's errand with extreme prejudice

As for the Ramayana dating by Shri Nilesh Oak, I have to accept that the comet observation was a big reach. And the posited date of ~12,000 BC is too far back to trust the software.

WRT his MB dating of ~5500 BC: I find that more convincing. The reason is that Shri Vartak independently arrived at the same date before Nilesh Oak, using (as far as I could determine) traditional Indian Panchang data. Nilesh Oak used the Voyager software, and essentially validated Vartak's date. More to the point - Nilesh Oak also used the dynamics of axis precession to show that the seasonal observations in the MB also agreed with that date. On top of all that, he pointed out an observation in the MB, which can essentially be regarded as a one-time event (the Arundhati-Vashishta observation) which lined up very well with the above dating. This one-time observation is not a planetary observation. Rather, it is based on precession dynamics, combined with the proper motion of stars. I.E. - the phenomenon does not happen at all, if one only considers precession - it is the proper motion of stars which imposes another downward trend in the RA difference between Arundhati and Vashishta (A-V), causing the difference to change sign for a period of several hundred years. And this period of several hundred years lines up with the dating of 5500 BC.

One can certainly project astronomical dating as far back as several hundred years (do you disagree?). Several thousand years would be more doubtful, if not for the one-time A-V observation, which essentially is determined by the proper motion of stars, rather than planetary ephemerides predictions.

[nachiket]

sudarshan ji, I posit that Archaeoastronomy is a pseudoscience. It is a fool's errand to prove anything going back to thousands of years, leave alone tens of thousands of years.

Please consider this.

1. It is a multibody problem which is chaotic.
2. From the boundary conditions , i.e. now, we want to derive the intial conditions.
3. There could have been perturbations both in time an in the number of objects during the evolution from the intial state to the current state. For example, there could have been several comets and large asteroids that would have passed through the solar system and would have perturbed the statespace at that point of time.

Since it is chaotic, i.e. small changes in the intital conditions might ("might not" also but those are zero measure, if you are looking at all the possible paths of evolution a non-linear system of differentiaal equations) lead to large deviations in the final state , what guarantee is there that calculated intial state(space) is the right one?

Several intial conditions on the state(space) might lead to the present.

(If I try, I can probably make it more formal, but it is not the worth the effort)
Due to the above reasons, I dismiss Archaeoastronomy as a fool's errand with extreme prejudice

How would transient phenomena like comets and asteroids have an effect on long term observations of solar/lunar eclipses and positions of stars? These are most definitely calculable in the past having taken the precession of equinoxes etc. into appropriate consideration. We are only talking about a few thousand years here.

My concern about dating ancient events like the Mahabharat using astronomical calculations is not in the method itself. It can very well be done provided every observation you use is a valid one. The question is how far you can trust relatively minor observations and comments made by various characters during the course of the book which may not even be central to the story. Or whether all these observations were indeed present in the original text and have not been added later.

For example, the Mahabharat if I'm not mistaken contains multiple references to Iron. So if it is then dated to 5500 BCE, we have to either believe that the Iron age in India started over 3000 years before we have any archaeological evidence for it, or that the references to Iron may have been added much later and were not part of the original text (Bronze weapons being changed later to Iron weapons etc.). But if we accept that then how do we know all the astronomical observations are also part of the original text and not added in later?

[nachiket]

In this particular case, you make a fair point, and I agree that my post in question was a bit of a reach. Granted that we don't *have* to get defensive about our faith and try to justify it on scientific grounds.

Having said that, if there really is a valid scientific basis for a particular belief (maybe not the particular one I posted), then there's no harm in acknowledging that either.

By all means if there is a reasonable scientific explanation for a belief we can investigate and present it. But we have to carefully follow the scientific method to make sure the evidence for it is solid and the conclusions we make from it do not require leaps of faith. Otherwise we will provide opportunities to non-Hindus to undermine our argument and make things worse.

My problem with this endeavour though is that there is little to gain from it even if you are successful. Even if you manage to find explanations for a few beliefs you will never be able to do so for the vast majority because many cannot be proved by such means. And we cannot discard those beliefs. So what have we really achieved?

[sudarshan]

By all means if there is a reasonable scientific explanation for a belief we can investigate and present it. But we have to carefully follow the scientific method to make sure the evidence for it is solid and the conclusions we make from it do not require leaps of faith. Otherwise we will provide opportunities to non-Hindus to undermine our argument and make things worse.

My problem with this endeavour though is that there is little to gain from it even if you are successful. Even if you manage to find explanations for a few beliefs you will never be able to do so for the vast majority because many cannot be proved by such means. And we cannot discard those beliefs. So what have we really achieved?

The scientific method as it exists today is "deductive logic." It starts from a set of limited axioms, and builds a theory from that starting point. Then the theory is used to make predictions. If the predictions are not borne out empirically, or if there are existing observations of the universe which conflict with the theory, then the axioms are wrong. If the theory is borne out empirically, then the axioms are *acceptable* (note - I didn't say the axioms were *right*). All of our science today works on this basis - identify axioms, validate them, and accept them as *useful* and *acceptable* if they pass the test of empiricism. We don't actually care if the axioms are right (we just need them to be acceptable), but we *do care if they are wrong.*

Back in 2019, I put up a series of posts in this same thread, wherein I tried to show that all the fundamental beliefs and practices of Indian religions (not just Hinduism, but also Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism) could be derived from 3 fundamental axioms. This series of posts starts here:

viewtopic.php?p=2360381#p2360381

Back then, there were only three or four people who were actually interested in this topic.

At the time, I tried to pull examples from the Upanishads or Puranas, and showed how the underlying principle of those scriptural stories was consistent with the set of 3 axioms. If you are interested, I would like to request you to go through those posts of mine (they stretch over four or five pages), and then we can continue from there.

If four or five pages are too much, then there is a TLDR summary of three posts, starting here:

viewtopic.php?p=2363401#p2363401

[Vayutuvan]

One can certainly project astronomical dating as far back as several hundred years (do you disagree?). Several thousand years would be more doubtful, if not for the one-time A-V observation, which essentially is determined by the proper motion of stars, rather than planetary ephemerides predictions.

I don't disagree. Hundreds of years or even low thousands of years is reasonable. I read somewhere that even 3000 yrs is not too bad but that is the outer limit.

Please check this out. Since both Voyager and Stallarium codes do simulations going backwards, numerical error accumulation is a big problem, even for few bodies. Star positions don't change but Earth's orbit around Sun changes so does earth's precession. The more the simulation time the less the accuracy. This is an inverse problem in that what configuration at a partuclar time lead to the current configuration as opposed to the normal forward simulation which is given the current statespace of the N-body system how does it evolve into the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#Few_bodies

[bala]

Vayu ji, the laws of physics and interplanetary motion are well known and certain conjunctions happen within a margin of error. Voyager/Stallarium etc might be following them and use some correction due to historical data. You cannot dismiss the whole software tracking, maybe it is off by a few days/month at max but for the most part is pretty accurate (unless physics is wrong and we have interplanetary motion all wrong, pbuh newton/einstein). I know ISRO has some nifty good software for instellar motion - the one used for Mars journey. Maybe they can publish their commercial version of Voyager/Stallarium or maybe some insider in ISRO can simulate the ramayana conjunctions and ascertain time periods.

However Nilesh ji has other corroborating evidence in other allied fields like Rivers, etc. Those evidence should be clinching, right?

I would rather have Indians making these discoveries rather the westerners with their demented Aryan/Dravidian outlook making any calls on Ithihasa.

// just an aside: I know for a fact that there was meteor hit around 65-66 million years ago in Arabian Sea and brought DNA for current mankind. Narmada river area is where human kind got started. However the grand narrative is only mexican bay got hit with meteors and destroyed Dinosaurus.

[Amber G.]

However Nilesh ji has other corroborating evidence in other allied fields like Rivers, etc. Those evidence should be clinching, right?

In my case, and I suspect this is the case with anyone with background in astronomy/math, Nilesji oak's 'evidence/calculation' is so full of errors, and some times has absurd conclusions/logic that the whole thing is frankly meaningless. (I have expanded on that a quite a bit -- i have read his first book in details, and discussed it even in brf-dhaga). This does not give credibility in other fields too.
( for those interested, here is brief discussion about Nilehji's book and one review

Le me state - world renowned Physicist Gell-Mann's 'Amnesia effect'.

It is as follows: You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. (or Math/astronomy in this case) You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to read the other issues .., and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about other issues .. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

[Vayutuvan]

@Sudarshan gaaru

As for the star field not changing much in 3K years or 12K years, one objection I have is that it is quite possible if there is a massive balckhole or there are other stars nearby those prominent stars but are of far lower magnitude. They can perturb the star field (looking from planet Earth).

As for applying axiomatic method, the axioms are assumed to be consistent in the first place. IOW, that you will never be able to prove 0 = 1 from those sets of axioms. That is the strict definition followed in Mathematical Logic AKA Foundations of Mathematics.

Nilesh ji said here on BRF that his theory is scientific in the sense of Poper's razor, i.e. he gives methods of how to falsify his theory(s). I haven't read his books. You seem to have read the books. Could you please summarize how one would go about falsifying his putatively scientific theory? I am unable to figure out how to falsify other than phsyically travellng back in time with apropriate astronomical measuring instruments

[Vayutuvan]

Vayu ji, the laws of physics and interplanetary motion are well known and certain conjunctions happen within a margin of error. ...

@bala gaaru,

Do you know the motivation for developing Stellarium (or is it Voyager?. In any case it is one of them for sure?!

They proved the historicity of Jesus Christ by applying the software to prove the following story of Three Kings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... al_account

...
Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage.
...

Then we know where we are going to end up. Creationism, i.e. nothing can be older than what 5000BC or some such nonsense.

If we accept Nilesh ji's dating of MB and Ramayana, then we have to accept "the three kings" account as well. Same software amd same methodology is used in boith the cases.

Let me say something a little bit tangential here.

Intteligent Design/Creationism believers have a nice theory about all the fossils that have been found. Their claim is that God created all these fossils in situ on the day he created the the World (now they accept that he created the whole universe). That is a very clever argument. Immediate question that comes to mind is why did God do that? The answer is to show how powerful he is. If you beleive in him, then you have to reject Darwin theory of evolution.

@Sudershan gaari, please see the above. If you take it that the God is all powerful, then the above is totally kosher (I use that word in jest ), as per the rules of decutive logic.

There is also a proof by Kurt Godel himself that God exists.

[Vayutuvan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) for the existence of God. The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers.[1] Points relevant to the ontological proof include:

4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

[Vayutuvan]

@Sudarshan gaaru

Please see this from the above Wikipedia page.

Criticism
Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof – because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

Your objections that some of the observations came from minor characters in the epics as well as whether they were later additions are totally valid. They sound a death knell to not only to Nilesh ji's theory(s) but the entire field of Archaeoastronomy, imho.

[nachiket]

@Sudarshan gaaru

Your objections that some of the observations came from minor characters in the epics as well as whether they were later additions are totally valid. They sound a death knell to not only to Nilesh ji's theory(s) but the entire field of Archaeoastronomy, imho.

Vayutuvan ji, that was my argument not Sudarshan's. However after reading what Amber G posted above including the links to the other discussion, I have a lot more doubts about the methodology itself now, rather than just the observations.

[sudarshan]

@Sudarshan gaaru

As for the star field not changing much in 3K years or 12K years, one objection I have is that it is quite possible if there is a massive balckhole or there are other stars nearby those prominent stars but are of far lower magnitude. They can perturb the star field (looking from planet Earth).

As for applying axiomatic method, the axioms are assumed to be consistent in the first place. IOW, that you will never be able to prove 0 = 1 from those sets of axioms. That is the strict definition followed in Mathematical Logic AKA Foundations of Mathematics.

Nilesh ji said here on BRF that his theory is scientific in the sense of Poper's razor, i.e. he gives methods of how to falsify his theory(s). I haven't read his books. You seem to have read the books. Could you please summarize how one would go about falsifying his putatively scientific theory? I am unable to figure out how to falsify other than phsyically travellng back in time with apropriate astronomical measuring instruments

Why do you want to prove 0=1 . J/K - I guess you meant 0!=1?

The axiomatic method is *always* limited by the axioms. There is no doubt in this. There will always be conjectures which cannot be proved from within the theory built from any set of axioms. You are right when you point out Goedel's conjectures on this. It is understood that the axiomatic method is merely a *useful device* in the cause of science, not any kind of *absolute truth.* Any theories built on the basis of axioms are tentative, vulnerable to falsification, and by definition, also incomplete. None of this is in dispute.

When I put forth that axiomatic development of SD, it was with the understanding that it was merely a *useful device,* not any kind of comprehensive definition of SD. The idea was that since we have several generations of scientific training history, the axiomatic development would serve as a starting point for scientifically trained individuals to get a better understanding of SD. Basically, converting 10 to 12 years of STEM sadhana into an equivalent SD sadhana to gain some traction in understanding SD.

As far as SD is concerned, the fundamental truth is defined as being beyond all axioms, it just *IS.* One cannot prove it, one just has to realize it. Therefore, any kind of "(dis)proof of existence of God" is flawed to begin with - it simply cannot be done.

As far as the archaeo-astronomy goes - yes, I've read both of Nilesh ji's books, the MB one and the Ramayana one. The MB one was the more impressive of the two (IMHO).

One can always come up with "what-if" scenarios - what if a black hole had distorted the star field? What if a supernova had happened? What if a collision had altered the earth's orbit? Etc. - there is no end to this. The theory that comes from archaeo-astronomy is a *best possible guess,* nothing more. It is the best kind of dating we can do, given our current state of knowledge. It seems right now the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) is calling the entire premise of the "Big bang" itself into question, something which had been widely accepted by scientists to date. That is simply the nature of science.

So any questions on later additions, etc. are speculation. They could be later additions, for sure. The theory is based on the assumption that they are NOT later additions (and this assumption is *explicitly stated* at the beginning of Nilesh Oak's MB dating book). You can think of this as another falsifiable axiom underlying the theory. I think part of the problem is, that folks are looking for some kind of iron-clad, infallibly true dating of the epics. The unfortunate truth is, that we can never be sure of the actual date of either the MB, or the Ramayana, and that we are simply going by best guesses as per current knowledge.

Having said that - the MB dating by Nilesh Oak (and also by Vartak - who earlier arrived at the very same date) was very interesting to me. Nilesh Oak estimated the date of the MB based on a limited set of 10 to 12 observations. The remaining 200+ astronomical/ seasonal observations were used for TESTING. He took these remaining observations, one at a time, and used them to test whether or not they broke the earlier dating. Barring about five or six observations (IIRC), the remaining ones fell right in line with the dating of 5565 BC. Basically, if one thinks of this in terms of a neural network training, the TRAIN-TEST split was like 10:200 - i.e. - like 5% training data, 95% test data.

How would one falsify the dating - there are already several observations (which Nilesh ji was honest enough to point out) that don't support the dating. There are a couple which are unknown (Shweta/ Shyama planets). Then there is the fact that archaeology says something else - that the use of iron had not yet started; that writing was probably not known that far back; etc. Then there's hydrology/ geology. If evidence coming in from archaeology/ hydrology/ geology/ genetics conflicts with the astronomical evidence, then the former would (IMHO) be more credible. That serves as falsification. Nilesh Oak himself says - his theory is the best theory to date, which is not the same as saying it is the *RIGHT* theory. In his own words (paraphrasing) - the day his theory is disproved, he will celebrate it, because it indicates progress towards an even better theory. Please take the archaeo-astronomical dating in that spirit, not as some kind of "last word" on the subject.

[bala]

Nilesh Oak himself says - his theory is the best theory to date, which is not the same as saying it is the *RIGHT* theory. In his own words (paraphrasing) - the day his theory is disproved, he will celebrate it, because it indicates progress towards an even better theory. Please take the archaeo-astronomical dating in that spirit, not as some kind of "last word" on the subject.

This from a rational viewpoint is the best summation of Nilesh's work. I totally agree. If anyone can disprove or come up with another method to date things in Ramayana or Mahabharata then we all will stand corrected. So far none have turned up.

BTW Nilesh has stated that using just Mars he can prove Mahabharata date. That is why I want ISRO to verify the claim, they have some nifty 6-D software which was used to precisely, on the dot, for Mangalyaan navigation (hitting a golf ball from Sriharikota and landing in the hole in Los Angeles!).

@Vayu ji, the magi stuff has been disproved by Vedveer Arya, there is no physical Jesus Christ born on 0 AD. All the Bethelem stars (as in the bible) are pointing towards 660 BC. The Nicean council (325 AD) talks about the spiritual Jesus.
BTW Darwin etc don't understand the Brahman in Sanatan Dharma and his/her lila of creatures/human beings in this material world. At best it is another wild-ass theory pulled out of the ether with no proof.

[nachiket]

Back in 2019, I put up a series of posts in this same thread, wherein I tried to show that all the fundamental beliefs and practices of Indian religions (not just Hinduism, but also Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism) could be derived from 3 fundamental axioms. This series of posts starts here:

viewtopic.php?p=2360381#p2360381

Back then, there were only three or four people who were actually interested in this topic.

At the time, I tried to pull examples from the Upanishads or Puranas, and showed how the underlying principle of those scriptural stories was consistent with the set of 3 axioms. If you are interested, I would like to request you to go through those posts of mine (they stretch over four or five pages), and then we can continue from there.

If four or five pages are too much, then there is a TLDR summary of three posts, starting here:

viewtopic.php?p=2363401#p2363401

Sudarshan ji, I did read some of your posts from back then. Will read the others too. So far, I have no issues with your second and third axioms but I definitely do with your first one

1. God is all-powerful, but disinterested* in materializing any of His (Her - doesn't really matter) potential

How does this conform to Hindu belief when we have had multiple avatars of Vishnu on earth who had a direct and significant impact? Also the various mortals who received exceptional boons from Brahma, Shiva etc. that gave them supernatural powers (Raavan being the biggest example of course but there are plenty of others including the various warriors in the Mahabharat).

BTW I have nothing against the attempt to define Hinduism axiomatically as you are doing. Can be very helpful in a purely religious and societal sense especially to resist the spread of the two proselytizing religions. My only opposition is to try and put a vaguely scientific veneer over any of this because IMHO it is not only unnecessary but perhaps counterproductive.

Even in this case of trying to date the Mahabharata with astronomical observations there is a fundamental contradiction. For example in using the evidence of the eclipse on the 14th day and trying to match it to a predicted eclipse in the past you must necessarily discount what many Hindus believe about the divinity of Krishna and his ability to "cause" that eclipse using his powers, which if true would mean that it could not have been a regular eclipse which happened naturally. So in order to accurately date the MB you have to consider that all these observations were accurate while at the same time saying that the explanations that the text itself offers for them should be disregarded because they are supernatural and thus made up. But if that is the case how can you ever be sure that the observations aren't made up as well?

[sudarshan]

Sudarshan ji, I did read some of your posts from back then. Will read the others too. So far, I have no issues with your second and third axioms but I definitely do with your first one

1. God is all-powerful, but disinterested* in materializing any of His (Her - doesn't really matter) potential

Nachiketji, I appreciate your interest in the topic and in my earlier posts.

How does this conform to Hindu belief when we have had multiple avatars of Vishnu on earth who had a direct and significant impact?

Like I explained in my earlier posts, there is a difference between being "disinterested" and being "uninterested." For example, the host of a television game show is expected to be disinterested - not rooting for or gunning against any of the candidates in particular; not having a financial stake or any other conflicting interest in the success of any of the candidates; etc. The game show host lets the candidates' own actions dictate their outcomes. (S)he is the well-wisher of each candidate (suhurdam sarva bhutanam), but will not help or hinder any of them in any undue way. The game show host is definitely not uninterested - i.e. - if the candidates start fighting among themselves, the host is definitely going to call security and restore order.

Vishnu will definitely intervene to restore order if necessary (it is His role as the preserver). When He intervenes, it will not be for His own personal gain or desire in any form (i.e. - totally disinterested - na mam karmani limpanti, na me karma-phale spraha). Vishnu - like that game show host - is definitely interested in each of us, wishes us all well, wants us all to succeed in attaining moksha. But will not hesitate to lay down the law if any of us misbehave.

The "disinterested God" (which is not just a Hindu axiom, but an Indian axiom) is critical for the following reasons.

• It sets up a counter narrative to the Abrahamic notion of God. The Indian notion of God is - non-judgmental; disinterested in being worshipped by humans (recall how Sri Krishna admonished Indra during the Govardhan parvat episode); the impartial enforcer of the law of karma.
• The Indian notion (not Hindu notion) of the "disinterested God" - which implies that God does not demand worship or submission from humans - this notion is what allows Indian religions such as Jainism and Buddhism to be agnostic (i.e. - to pretty much do away with the notion of God). No Abrahamic religion can do without the notion of God - since the Abrahamic God is anything but disinterested. Thus, the notion of "disinterested God" allows one to completely disregard the first axiom, and work with just the remaining two (which is pretty much what Jainism and Buddhism do). OTOH, Hinduism and Sikhism choose to keep the axiom and work with it.
• The notion of morality or ethics in India does not come from a judgmental God, but from the third axiom - the concept of karma. Thus, as a corollary, any religion which can do away with the notion of God, and still retain morality or ethics, is by definition Dharmic. This firmly brings even atheism into the Dharmic fold. India is comfortable with the notion of any number of Gods, all the way from zero to infinity. Impossible to have this, without the notion of a "disinterested God." As a corollary again - not having the notion of a "disinterested God" is pretty much the same as strict, uncompromising monotheism (but not the other way round - Sikhism is monotheistic, but still with a disinterested God).

Also the various mortals who received exceptional boons from Brahma, Shiva etc. that gave them supernatural powers (Raavan being the biggest example of course but there are plenty of others including the various warriors in the Mahabharat).

God is the granter of *everything* we enjoy. If one puts in the effort to attain a certain goal, God will impartially and disinterestedly grant the goal. God does not play favorites - you worked for it, you got it. Enjoy. If one misuses the boon, God will have infinitely many other ways to deal with that without invalidating the original boon, which has already been earned.

Humanity gained access to nuclear weapons, antibiotics, space travel, etc. - because scientists and governments put in the effort to bring these to fruition. God will happily grant us anything, which we have truly earned. Then we start to misuse those boons, and then we face unexpected consequences. Antibiotic-resistant infections; space debris; the specter of world annihilation.

Similarly, the asuras of Tripura; Bhasmasura; Raktabeeja; Ravana; Kumbakarna; ... all put in severe penance to attain their goals. So God happily and impartially granted them whatever they'd earned (not what they asked for - eternal life in the same body - but what they actually earned). Likewise with Jayadratha - Lord Shiva specifically told him that he could not have the boon of defeating Arjuna in battle (he'd not yet earned it), but he could hold off the remaining four Pandavas in battle for one specific instance (that's all he'd earned through his penance). When these individuals started misusing their powers, God had other ways of dealing with that, without rescinding the original boon (even though God was perfectly capable of doing so). Some of my previous posts were about Bhasmasura, Raktabeeja, and the asuras of Tripura.

BTW I have nothing against the attempt to define Hinduism axiomatically as you are doing. Can be very helpful in a purely religious and societal sense especially to resist the spread of the two proselytizing religions. My only opposition is to try and put a vaguely scientific veneer over any of this because IMHO it is not only unnecessary but perhaps counterproductive.

Even in this case of trying to date the Mahabharata with astronomical observations there is a fundamental contradiction. For example in using the evidence of the eclipse on the 14th day and trying to match it to a predicted eclipse in the past you must necessarily discount what many Hindus believe about the divinity of Krishna and his ability to "cause" that eclipse using his powers, which if true would mean that it could not have been a regular eclipse which happened naturally. So in order to accurately date the MB you have to consider that all these observations were accurate while at the same time saying that the explanations that the text itself offers for them should be disregarded because they are supernatural and thus made up. But if that is the case how can you ever be sure that the observations aren't made up as well?

The divinity of Sri Krishna is not an issue actually, given the axioms one and three ("disinterested God" and "the law of karma"). If one observes the actions of Sri Krishna throughout the MB, Sri Krishna has never gone against the law of karma. God can definitely rescind the law of karma, God is not bound by it. However, God made a pact with each of us, that all of our outcomes in the material plane will be regulated by the law of karma.

As examples:

• Sri Krishna refused to confront Jarasandha in a crucial battle, preferring to run away to Dwaraka, thus earning himself the title of "Rannchod." Why, because Jarasandha's karmic consequence did not allow him to be slain by the Lord Himself (he had not earned moksha). So Sri Krishna instead maneuvered Bhimsen into wrestling with Jarasandha and killing him. Because that was the course of events dictated by the law of karma.
• Killing Bhishma, Drona, Karna in battle, seemingly against Dharma. However, if one follows the story closely, one can see that everything happens according to the law of karma. Bhishma, Drona, Karna had all earned their deaths in exactly that particular fashion, owing to their own actions.
• The way Sri Krishna left the world - dying of septic shock from a hunter's arrow, which penetrated His foot. He was fulfilling His own karmic consequences from having killed Vali in His previous life.
• Breaking His own vow to not participate in the final battle - when He picked up the chariot wheel and charged at Bhishma. This was owing to the consequences of Bhishma's actions - Bhishma had vowed that he would fight in such a way, that he would force Krishna to break His vow. Again - you earned it, you got it.

Thus, Krishna did not ever go against the law of karma using His divinity. He used His divinity to enforce consequences which were fully in line with the law of karma. The eclipses being matched to actual events in the past actually reinforces this notion, and actually bolsters one's faith in the divinity of Sri Krishna - that one can fully rely on the fact that God does not ever enforce any outcome in the material plane, which goes against the law of karma (even though God is fully capable of doing so).

If you think about it, rescinding the law of karma using one's divinity (i.e. - performing a true "miracle") is actually an admission of failure on God's part. It implies that the law of karma (created by God) was insufficient in handling a situation in the material plane, on its own. The true genius of a creator or inventor is in inventing a system, which can perform independently of the inventor. As an example - one expects one's car to just run as desired, not to have to take it back to the manufacturer every day, for the manufacturer to perform a "maintenance miracle" on it.

EDIT: As per the above, when God comes to the material plane as an avatara, God comes in as the *servant* of the law of karma. When the material plane reaches a situation where no other agent is capable of enforcing the law of karma, God Himself/ Herself comes to serve as its engine. Even then, God prefers to teach other relatively capable material agents (such as Bhima or Arjuna) as to how to become the humble servants of karma, rather than doing everything Herself.

[bala]

As Indians we have to stop using the word "God". I have written why the western "God" is not the same as Sanatan Dharma's Brahman.

In Sanatan Dharma, we truly don't know Brahman, instead we try to get at aspects of Brahman using our limited mind/senses. We are also given freedom to worship Brahman by any worship worthy object and channel our thoughts via the object. The central theme as the Keno Upanishad say:

Keno Upanishad 2.3:
यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः ।
अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥ ३ ॥
yasyāmataṃ tasya mataṃ mataṃ yasya na veda saḥ |
avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām || 3 ||
You have come to know about Brahman? Yes, I am seeking knowledge of Brahman.
In that case, first know this: that person who thinks I can know Brahman has no knowledge of Brahman. That person who thinks nobody can know Brahman, he truly knows Brahman.

नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च ।
यो नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ॥ २॥
I do not say that I have known it; it’s not that I do not know it; I know it; those among us who have understood my statement, that I do know it, yet that I do not know it, they know it.

When the individual understands what Keno Upanishad says, then there is self inquiry journey to embark upon, whereby the ultimate goal is fusion with that Brahman or moksha.

Each individual has a ratio of satva, rajas and tamas according to their prarabda karma are endowed with a material body during this lifetime. They have an independent decision making mind that steers them, acting and doing things which they deem fit. If they understand yoga and samyama they can acquire extraordinary powers. According to their IshtaDevata, these individuals perform samyama and thereby get a boon.

Avatars are endowed with powers that are beyond Samyama.

[Vayutuvan]

Vayutuvan ji, that was my argument not Sudarshan's. However after reading what Amber G posted above including the links to the other discussion, I have a lot more doubts about the methodology itself now, rather than just the observations.

Thanks for the correction. I can't edit anymore. My sincere apologies to @sudarshan gaaru.

[Vayutuvan]

@Sudarshan gaaru, I meant if one can derive 0=1 from a set of axioms, then those axioms are inconsistent as a starting set of axioms. Godel assumes consistency and has proved two theorems on incomleteness. Those two theorems are considered to be the highest human intellectual achievement todate.

But let us focus on "Contigent Truth" since we are talking physics, not mathematics nor its foundations, i.e. what is an acceptable proof in mathematics.

That is why I said it is tangential. But it does have some impact on your assertion that all one needs is a set of axioms (my rider is that they have to be consistent) from which you can derive "top" (Tautology). I am saying that those axioms also have to be consistent, i.e. you should not be able to derive "bottom" (Contradiction).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_type#In_logic

[Vayutuvan]

@Nachiket ji, all the points you raised are valid and have to be taken into account.

[Vayutuvan]

Another thing I remember is that I think it was Narahar Achar ji who came into the threaf on AIT etc. and made a big mistake. He doesn't understand what is a material implication and how modeus ponens works.

aaand Hakim Shiv ji fell for it.

[Vayutuvan]

@Vayu ji, the magi stuff has been disproved by Vedveer Arya, there is no physical Jesus Christ born on 0 AD. All the Bethelem stars (as in the bible) are pointing towards 660 BC. The Nicean council (325 AD) talks about the spiritual Jesus.

This is a problem isn't it? Same data, same methodology as Nilesk Oak ji's was used to prove historicity of Jesus H. C. which you say has been disproved by Vedveer Arya.

Can Vedveer Arya's method of disproving be used as a schema (i.e. generalized) to disprove any dating that uses the same datasets and same (modulo specifics to a certain relgion or dharma) methodology?

[Vayutuvan]

As Indians we have to stop using the word "God". I have written why the western "God" is not the same as Sanatan Dharma's Brahman.
...
Avatars are endowed with powers that are beyond Samyama.

This is getting into the philosophy which is actually why this thread was created by you and @Sudarshan ji.

I am not saying that philosophical musings are not useful. I would be the last person to say that since founders of Mathematical Logic were philsophers - Frege, CS Pierce, Russel, (arguably) Godel himself.

@A_Gupta ji had made an observation long back in the AIT-OIT thread that "Do we need the history or a history?". That is the question posed by Balu (Balagangadhara).

The objective of Archaeoastronomy is to have a proof of "the history". These methods are weaker than hard archaeology. Language reconstruction as is done by the historical linguistics folks is as weak or even weaker than Archaeoastronomy.

If one is interested in "the history" neither ArchA or HistLing can you get you there.

[Vayutuvan]

@sudarshan gaaru

God can definitely rescind the law of karma, God is not bound by it.

gods are also bound by karma. "tatvamasi" means barhman (i.e. God) == aatman (i.e. phsyical manifestation) but the physical manifestation is bound by karma. Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu and he was also bound by karma. Hence he had to run away from battle. That was his karma phala.

[nachiket]

Like I explained in my earlier posts, there is a difference between being "disinterested" and being "uninterested." For example, the host of a television game show is expected to be disinterested - not rooting for or gunning against any of the candidates in particular; not having a financial stake or any other conflicting interest in the success of any of the candidates; etc.

Sorry that is my mistake. I assumed you meant uninterested not disinterested. I understand what you are saying now and like I said, from a purely Hindu religious sense I have no issues with it.

The divinity of Sri Krishna is not an issue actually, given the axioms one and three ("disinterested God" and "the law of karma"). If one observes the actions of Sri Krishna throughout the MB, Sri Krishna has never gone against the law of karma. God can definitely rescind the law of karma, God is not bound by it. However, God made a pact with each of us, that all of our outcomes in the material plane will be regulated by the law of karma.

Thus, Krishna did not ever go against the law of karma using His divinity. He used His divinity to enforce consequences which were fully in line with the law of karma. The eclipses being matched to actual events in the past actually reinforces this notion, and actually bolsters one's faith in the divinity of Sri Krishna - that one can fully rely on the fact that God does not ever enforce any outcome in the material plane, which goes against the law of karma (even though God is fully capable of doing so).

If you think about it, rescinding the law of karma using one's divinity (i.e. - performing a true "miracle") is actually an admission of failure on God's part. It implies that the law of karma (created by God) was insufficient in handling a situation in the material plane, on its own. The true genius of a creator or inventor is in inventing a system, which can perform independently of the inventor. As an example - one expects one's car to just run as desired, not to have to take it back to the manufacturer every day, for the manufacturer to perform a "maintenance miracle" on it.

EDIT: As per the above, when God comes to the material plane as an avatara, God comes in as the *servant* of the law of karma. When the material plane reaches a situation where no other agent is capable of enforcing the law of karma, God Himself/ Herself comes to serve as its engine. Even then, God prefers to teach other relatively capable material agents (such as Bhima or Arjuna) as to how to become the humble servants of karma, rather than doing everything Herself.

The problem with this line of thinking is it goes against what is said in the Mahabharat itself. In the eclipse episode i believe the story is that it was Krishna using his Sudarshan chakra to hide the sun and not a true eclipse. If so it could not possibly be a real eclispe that everyone now knows happens predictably and would not need Krishna to be involved at all. Same in the case of Draupadi's cheerharan where it was his divine power which saved her. It was also his divine power (Sudarshan chakra again) which was used to kill Shishupala after his 100 mistakes. Krishna did not rely on the law of Karma to take care of things all the time.

Now we can discount all of this in order to provide scientific explanations for each occurrence but that is a futile exercise which achieves nothing. It would mean discounting everything that a vast majority of Hindus believe about their own Gods. I humbly suggest that if Hindus and Hinduism have to stand up to the proselytizing religions and counter their spread in India, they need to be unapologetic about their beliefs just like people of other religions are. Because at the end of the day, people who believe in a divine power need that power to be supernatural and something beyond their understanding which has control over the world and their existence. That is at the core of why they believe in the first place and why no amount of scientific arguments against the existence of such a power actually cause them to lose their faith. It is an innate need that a lot of people have and have always had.

[sudarshan]

Sorry that is my mistake. I assumed you meant uninterested not disinterested. I understand what you are saying now and like I said, from a purely Hindu religious sense I have no issues with it.

I would definitely like to use another word than "disinterested" if possible, the word "disinterested" is technically correct, but pretty confusing, and one has to delve into the nuances of the English language to understand it. I haven't found a better word so far, but I'm open to suggestions.

The problem with this line of thinking is it goes against what is said in the Mahabharat itself. In the eclipse episode i believe the story is that it was Krishna using his Sudarshan chakra to hide the sun and not a true eclipse. If so it could not possibly be a real eclispe that everyone now knows happens predictably and would not need Krishna to be involved at all.

I believe the use of the chakra to hide the sun was during the episode with Jayadratha, to fool him into thinking the sun had already set. Not for the eclipse (I could be mistaken).

There's a little nuance here, with regards to "karma" versus "divine agency." The same as the difference between the "legislature" and the "executive." Maybe I worded it incorrectly before. The law of karma is the legislature. The executive can be any capable agent. Even when God comes down as an avatara, God prefers to train agents such as Bhima or Arjuna to serve as this executive agent of karma (which actually is what the Gita is about - do your duty dispassionately, become the agent of the law of karma, and the consequences will not bind you). If there is no other capable material agent, then God is fine with serving as this material agent, using as much of His/ Her infinite power as is strictly necessary (again - disinterested God - God has no interest in showing off). But God will not arbitrarily rescind the law of karma - God will let the law take its course, and *then* put in the full weight of the executive to *enforce* the law.

In the case of the eclipse, IIRC, Nilesh Oak has indicated that this "double eclipse" is actually not such a rare event or big deal, it is more common than one would think. There actually isn't a need for a divine agency to make this happen (I'll have to reread his book and/ or some of his posts on BRF itself).

I'm not saying that God does not invoke divine agency, ever. I'm saying that it is most often unnecessary, because competent material agencies do exist (the planets themselves, in the case of the eclipse). In other cases, such as the Jayadratha episode, God certainly does invoke higher agency, to the extent necessary, but never in contravention of the law of karma.

Also interestingly - I remember a podcast where a certain Ami Ganatra was the guest (I might have got her name wrong). She seemed very well-versed in the MB, I was impressed. The thing which stuck with me was - that Sri Veda Vyasa in the MB seems to have sometimes indicated the "divine explanation" of events, and then simultaneously, in "fine print" so to speak, also included a plausible "material explanation." For example - the episode where Sri Krishna is said to have depressed the chariot with his foot, so that Karna's Nagastra would miss Arjuna's head and take his crown instead. It seems - as per Ami - Shalya (Karna's charioteer) told Karna just before he fired his Nagastra - dude, your stance is incorrect, if you fire your arrow with this stance, it will go somewhat higher than you think. Apparently, Karna angrily retorted - mind your own business! and deliberately fired his arrow with an incorrect stance - so the astra went higher than intended. In another instance, it seems Bhim had figured out the secret of the bow used in Draupadi's swayamvar, and thought to himself - I can do this! Only to have his older brother Yudhishthir pick Arjuna instead to handle the bow. IOW, there was a "material explanation" involving the center of gravity of the bow, which made it difficult to pick up and string in the normal fashion.

Little things like this - they are the reason why I try to look for the subtle indicators in the MB, that there actually is a "material explanation" for events - carefully orchestrated by God Himself of course! But you are right, there is nothing wrong in believing that there is divine agency which will be invoked as necessary.

Same in the case of Draupadi's cheerharan where it was his divine power which saved her.

Interestingly, Nilesh Oak has often indicated that he thinks the entire episode of "Draupadi's vastraharan" is a later interpolation!

But that aside - assuming it is part of the original MB - there is still a nuance. The story is that Sri Krishna did not come to Draupadi's aid, so long as she had one hand on her dress and was imploring God with the other hand. He waited till she threw up both her hands in complete surrender, and then he intervened. Once again - the law of karma had to take its course (a devotee completely surrendering to God triggers God's intervention) before Sri Krishna would act.

Sri Krishna also did not technically start the Gita gyan, until Arjuna humbly said - "shisyas te aham sadhimaam tvam prapannam" - "I surrender to you completely as your disciple."

It was also his divine power (Sudarshan chakra again) which was used to kill Shishupala after his 100 mistakes. Krishna did not rely on the law of Karma to take care of things all the time.

Again - "after his 100 mistakes" = law of karma taking its course. "Divine power being invoked" = executive arm being applied once the law had run its course.

Now we can discount all of this in order to provide scientific explanations for each occurrence but that is a futile exercise which achieves nothing. It would mean discounting everything that a vast majority of Hindus believe about their own Gods. I humbly suggest that if Hindus and Hinduism have to stand up to the proselytizing religions and counter their spread in India, they need to be unapologetic about their beliefs just like people of other religions are. Because at the end of the day, people who believe in a divine power need that power to be supernatural and something beyond their understanding which has control over the world and their existence. That is at the core of why they believe in the first place and why no amount of scientific arguments against the existence of such a power actually cause them to lose their faith. It is an innate need that a lot of people have and have always had.

I agree, there is no need to be defensive and apologetic. There is also no need to regard the "rational explanation" as some kind of "gold standard."

I'm just saying - appealing to the higher power without putting in one's own efforts, is futile. God will not invoke the executive arm, in contravention of the legislature (although God is fully capable of doing so). This "own efforts" can be one's actions, which bear fruit (God will absolutely ensure this). It can be penance and austerity, with the aim of attaining boons or gifts from God. It can also be complete surrender to God, in which case one doesn't have to act anymore - but one trusts God implicitly and totally, and one does not complain when things seemingly go wrong all at once - the surrender has to be absolute. This is also another way of placating the law of karma, to trigger the executive arm.

[bala]

Chandru Ramesh in Sangam Talks, points out that the sky maps of different astronomical software are different and questions dating based on them.

An independent & investigative analysis of the historical evidence of Krishna and Mahabharata. Based on 300+ evidences from epigraphy, numismatics, petroglyphs, sculptures, archaeology; literary evidence from Vedic, Buddhist, Tamil Sangam literature & Greek sources. The Mahabharata is the history of Greater Bharata.

About the Speaker:
Chandru Ramesh is a software engineer-turned-historian. His top-rated book showcases the historical evidences of Mahabharata. He presents his research at universities, forums, and temples worldwide. He leads Historika Foundations, dedicated to establishing the Real History of India. (historika.org)

Around 49:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02zmYqhwp8

0:00 Is South India related to Mahabharata?
6:28 Secrets of ancient Tamil Literatures
12:23 The fifth veda ?
13:24 Do Vedas accept Mahabharata?
14:28 Was Dhritarashtra historical ?
16:52 Decoding ancient pillars & Inscriptions
23:57 Lesser known statues of antiquity
24:29 Leads from caves of Madhya Pradesh
25:26 Afghans related to Mahabharata?
28:57 Can a Budddhist accept Mahabharata?
32:43 Greek, Chinese & muslim testimonials
39:36 Tracing the family Lineage
45:27 When did Mahabharata happen
51:08 Our projects to transform your future
54:18 What is Historika ?

// BTW he buries the Dravida narrative that culture of north is different than the south. He provides enough evidence in Tamil records about Krishna and Balaram.

[bala]

Understanding Shivahom

Brahmavalli section of Taittiriya Upanishad makes this statement which teases the individual:

Taittiriya Upanishad (Brahmavallī) 2.1.1
ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम् ॥ १ ॥
brahmavidāpnoti param || 1 ||
The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme (param).

Brahman, as defined, is the same as our own Inner Self (Pratyagātman) and no other

However, the knowing part is a steep hill to climb for the individual.

Another verse claims the following:

सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ॥ २ ॥
satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ brahma || 2 ||

where the words mean thusly:

Satyam - real or true; it signifies the aspect of Brahman that is eternal, unchanging, and the ultimate reality beyond the temporal world.

Jnanam - knowledge; denotes knowledge or consciousness. It represents the awareness or intelligence that permeates all existence. This aspect highlights that Brahman is not just inert but embodies supreme consciousness.

Anantam - infinite; it emphasizes that Brahman is beyond boundaries, limitless, and transcendent of space, time and objects.

Each of these words could be tricky for someone to fully comprehend what is being talked about in the Upanishad.

All objects in this world are actually not real, their existence is not absolute. They are created, they can be destroyed by some external force and disappear completely. True today, false tomorrow. Every object requires another object to rest upon or reside upon or within. A pen requires a table to rest upon, the table requires a floor, the floor is within a room, a house, a plot of land, in a city, in a country, in the earth, in universe, in ... And all of these can disappear, they are not real or true, they don't endure forever. So what is real or true? The Upanishad asserts that only the Brahman is true.

Knowledge is another concept which deludes the individual into accepting some understanding of any object. If a fan is presented to someone, they can claim they know about fans. But is that true? Seeing a fan, implies an image of the fan is recognized, the mind processes the image and there is a recall of an object similar to a fan stored in the deep recess of the chitta/mind. So far knowledge of the fan is by association. Unless and until one has worked on a fan and understands all the nuances, knowledge is superficial. Claiming to have knowledge on an absolute basis is impossible for the human mind. Such a thing that can be all knowing in all aspects is only the Brahman.

Anantam is simply beyond any individual. Unlimited in space, time and objects is mind boggling.

Which leaves the individual lacking about any understanding of the Brahman. So where can an individual start on the journey to be aware?

Vedas ask for a deep inner examination of the self, the inner self, Pratyagātman. We as individuals are supremely confident about ourself, during waking hours we attach prime importance to the "I" and rightly so. The night falls and we slip into another phase of our life, we sleep. During sleep, we may have dreams and an entire scenario is created by the mind during sleep, sometimes having the "I" involved. Wake up and you can recount the dream and you explain yourself as an Object in that dream. See how careful the waking "I" distances itself from the object "I" in the dream. There are two versions now. There is another kind of sleep where there are no dreams. You sleep like a log and upon waking you tell others you had a good night sleep and feel rested. During sleep you are aware of nothing. But somehow upon waking up, you recall the fact that you slept well. So who is doing the record keeping so that you can confidently say "I slept well". Ah, there seems to some other witness, not connected with "I" who is keeping track of your sleep.

A person being aware (of their selves) is the consciousness of the “I”. In Jagrath we have thoughts in the mind and the consciousness of the “I”. In Swapna we have thoughts in the mind but there is no consciousness of the “I”. In Susupthi we have no thoughts and no consciousness of the “I”. Is there a state with only consciousness of the “I” and no thoughts at all? Yes, the Vedics recognize this as Turiya. Turiya is very difficult to achieve since consciousness of the “I” without thoughts is a tricky matter.

Mandukya Upanishad 1.10
निवृत्तेः सर्वदुःखानामीशानः प्रभुरव्ययः ।
अद्वैतः सर्वभावानां देवस्तुर्यो विभुः स्मृतः ॥ १० ॥
turiya, the changeless ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the nondual turiya alone is known as effulgent and all pervading.
Vibhu - Turīya is called Vibhu because it pervades all the three states.

What is this consciousness, is sung in these verses in Sanskrit:

Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham

मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे ।
न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥१॥
Mano Buddhi Ahankara Chitta NinahamNacha Shrotra Jihve Na Cha Ghrana NetreNacha Vyoma Bhoomir Na Tejo Na VayuChidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I am not the mind, intellect, ego, or memory. I am not the eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin. I am not the earth, wind, fire, water or ether. Indeed, I am consciousness-bliss, I am Shiva.

न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः ।
न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥२॥
Na Cha Prana Samjno Na Vai Pancha VayuNa Va Saptadhatur Na Va Pancha KoshahNa Vak Pani Padau Na Chopastha PayuChidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I am not prana, the five types of breath, the seven material essences, nor the five coverings. I am not the rectum, genitals, legs, hands or mouth. Indeed, I am consciousness-bliss, I am Shiva.

न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः ।
न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥३॥
Na Me Dvesha Ragau Na Me Lobha MohauMado Naiva Me Naiva Matsarya Bhavah Na Dharmo Na Chartho Na Kamo Na MokshahChidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I have no hatred or dislike, no affiliation or liking, no greed or delusion, no pride or haughtiness, no feelings of envy or jealousy. I have no duty (dharma), no wealth, no desire (kama), nor liberation (moksha). Indeed, I am consciousness-bliss, I am Shiva.

न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं न मन्त्रो न तीर्थं न वेदा न यज्ञाः ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥
Na Punyam Na Papam Na Saukhyam Na Dukham Na Mantro Na Teertham Na Vedo Na Yajnaha Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na BhoktaChidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I have neither merit, nor demerit. I do not commit deeds, bad or good, I am neither happy nor sad, I experience neither pain nor pleasure. I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures, rituals or sacrifices. I am not the seer nor the seen, the experience or the experiencer. Indeed, I am consciousness-bliss, I am Shiva.

न मृत्युर्न शङ्का न मे जातिभेदः पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः ।
न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरुर्नैव शिष्यं चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥५॥
Na Me Mrityu Shanka Na Me Jati BhedahPita Naiva Me Naiva Mata Na JanmaNa Bandhur Na Mitram Gurur Naiva ShishyahChidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I have no fear of death, I am deathless. I have no separation of Self, no doubt of my existence, nor caste discrimination. I have no father or mother, as I was never born. I am no one’s relative, friend, guru, or disciple. Indeed, I am consciousness-bliss, I am Shiva.

अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकाररूपो विभुत्वाच्च सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
न चासङ्गतं नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥६॥
Aham Nirvikalpo Nirakara RoopahaVibhur Vyapya Sarvatra SarvendriyanamSada Me Samatvam Na Muktir Na BandhahChidananda Rupa Shivoham
I am all-pervasive. I have no attributes, I am formless. I have no world attachment, nor am I liberated. I have no wish for anything as I am everything, everywhere, always, always in equilibrium. Indeed, I am consciousness-bliss, I am Shiva.

[bala]

The verses in Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham acquaints us with consciousness. However, consiousness can be explained only by consciousness in the fullest sense. Consciousness is not in the material realm, it is outside all material realms, cannot be expressed in physical terms or other terms. Nevertheless, it invades/shines the material realm everywhere and each individual has consciousness. It is not obvious and recognized since it is not an object or part of another object. Similar to light shining on pot of water, consciousness shines upon the material world. Manifestation of consciousness in the mind (which has limitations in space and time and is a mere instrument) can introduce many conflicting views. The understanding in the mind throws up such differing views which are deemed as paradoxes. The Vedas report such paradoxes.

Understanding consiousness is a full time job for an individual. Miraculously, each of us is endowed with 33 koti (types) of deities without which we are helpless in this prakriti. We recognize the fact that we are bonded/related to material stuff in this world. There is a distinction from man and animal wherein there is potential for man to transcend material consideration and aspire to be para (supreme). This tussle between being material and spiritual is what the Vedas talk about.

To lift oneself from Apara to Para, from Avidya to Vidya, from Bhautik to Chaitanya is a journey for each individual. To do this, there should be Icha (desire) in oneself to understand and transcend, and you take a vrat, with sankalp to do some sadana, yagna to understand oneself. We use shraddha which is a power within oneself, and in turn, the global consciousness infuses the pinda. The material world is Maya, a Shakti of the Brahman, which is very hard to shake off easily. We get gyan (gnanam) from the boundary of material and spiritual understanding. The churning of opposites yields amrit, vibhuti and siddhi and in some ways the samudra manthan episode allegorically is about the internal struggle between asura (material viewpoint) and devi/devata (spiritual viewpoint) within each one of us. The churning happens around consciousness as the axis around which opposites churn, using tools like shraddha, yagna, mantras/meditation and yoga. The mind is a yantra, instrument and getting to the spiritual is beyond the mind.

When the spiritual understanding happens, the "I" within gets dissolved, the Aham/Ahankar in each of us disappears and prakash illuminates you. The self atma is suddenly revealed and you become untangled with the bonds of material world. You become a different person. It is very easy to slip back and forth but once the switch is made it is very hard to accept the purely material version of your existence, you have taken a step forward when the prakash hits you. An entire new dimension is revealed from which you don’t want to leave. This is the beauty of Sanatana Dharma, eternal truths available to everyone whereas Abrahmic thought will never get you there since they are focused on material realm.

[Cyrano]

It is this "inner-transcendental journey" that I cannot fathom, I have never experienced anything like it or even remotely similar to what many learned people have posited across the ages.

I have tremendous respect for Sanatana Dharma and the culture of Bharat that deeply explores various aspects of human existence, and is a true enabler of human well being and flourishing, as individuals and as a society. I have been born into and shaped by this Dharma, and this much is largely enough for me.

Whatever lies beyond and transcends whatever else is out there, is for me, personally, irrelevant.

No two humans are alike. If others around me are finding whatever support, explanations and meanings they are seeking in such transcendental experiences of self or others, it's great, if it helps them be better humans.