Richard Palmer90 said:Still, who’s more relevant to the conversation about Canadians than Canadians themselves?
That's a bit too simplistic. On one hand, someone living through an experience has the most direct insight, but on the other, they lack any sense of outside neutrality. And just because a lot of people support an idea doesn't make it right. That's a logical fallacy, if you can call it that.
The Purana myths—unlike the Vedas, for that matter—are a pretty messy collection of folk traditions. They weren't passed down with the strict precision you see in the Vedas; instead, they evolved through storytelling, embellishments, mixing elements together, and the classic "telephone game" effect.
Because of that, they often contradict themselves. There isn't one single, unified doctrine; it’s more like a massive pile of various stories, ideas, thoughts, and myths. You get all sorts of local versions with their own quirks, alongside modern academic versions that have been somewhat cleaned up.
The concept of nonviolence actually stems primarily from the Shramana circles, likely influenced by Jainism, Buddhism, and other non-Vedic Shramana ideals. That specific ideal isn't really present in early Vedic literature; you can actually track its gradual development. For instance, even in the Laws of Manu, you see a certain selectivity, yet animal sacrifice and eating that meat are still recommended. Some Vedic rituals even involve sacrificing cattle. Later on, those practices became unacceptable to the mainstream and were replaced by offerings of plants, though animal sacrifices lingered in less orthodox Tantric-Shaktist cults until quite recently. It wasn't until the late neo-Hindu reforms of the colonial and post-colonial eras that there was strong pressure for those groups to conform, which is why it’s mostly disappeared at all levels today.
As for the nuclear explosion theories, that’s a questionable way to interpret descriptions of traditional divine weapons in mythological battles, which lean closer to folk legends. It’s hard to tell exactly what those descriptions are portraying—how much is history and how much is pure imagination—just like with any mythology. Granted, some things in certain myths can be taken more seriously thanks to physical archaeological finds, but that’s a rabbit hole far too deep for this.
A good example of an idea evolving over time and space is the Vaishnava cult. It likely has roots in pre-Vedic local cults and myths (with the worship of Govinda being one of the oldest), which were later "Vedicized." The entire Vedic culture itself was shaped by the Shramanas and the ideal of nonviolence, particularly within the Brahmin caste. When medieval reforms integrated these cults into mainstream Hinduism by providing them with credible theological explanations—essentially building a theoretical bridge to the Vedas and Upanishads—they also adopted the Brahminical moral system. This was spread to the entire following, regardless of caste, elevating the cult in terms of social orthodoxy, acceptance, and respect.
So, you end up with this situation where older myths about Vaishnava demigods—who fight wars, hunt, and have plenty of wives (the archetypal, older model of a god-king)—are being linked to the ideals of nonviolence, vegetarianism, and asceticism (the archetypal, newer model of a saint-like god embodied by sages and the (semi)avatars of medieval Hinduism). You could probably draw some parallels here to the differences between Old Testament and New Testament/late Judaic religious styles.
Aha. What you listed are classifications, but what I was referring to are just different ways of dividing them. 😁
The division into four Vedas is horizontal; it refers to four distinct canons. Keep in mind that three of those are just variations of the same core text. The division I mentioned is vertical—it deals with the various content layers and chronological stages of the Vedas (much like how you have the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Epistles). They are all valid ways to categorize them, but when we talk about the types of writings that fall under the Vedas, the vertical approach makes more sense. Regardless of which of the four canons you look at, the vertical categories—the Samitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads—remain the same.
Sure, an epic is folk tradition. It has nothing to do with the Vedas. It isn't found in any of those categories, it doesn't use the same archaic language, it isn't passed down through strict mnemonic tradition, and there are countless local versions. Stories change over time; narrators add their own flair. It’s a completely different story, literally and metaphorically.
Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's essentially what you just said. What you're saying now doesn't make much sense to me at all. 😁
We know the deal. Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken are just pseudo-scientific cranks selling snake oil to the gullible. From a linguistic and topographical standpoint, it’s fairly clear what they’re describing. It's generally assumed where these groups originated and which parts—like the oldest hymns of the Rigveda—were likely composed before they arrived in India, evolving further after their arrival. The rituals are typical of nomadic civilizations; there’s nothing mystical about it. If you're constantly on the move with livestock and that livestock is your primary asset, it’s only natural that sacred sites and rituals are temporary rather than temple-based, and that animal sacrifice sits at the center. Once a society settles down, you naturally see the development of temple settlements and agrarian mythology, much like what's visible in later Hinduism. There isn't some grand mystery or hidden truth here.
Most guests on those shows are idiots, though there are exceptions. For instance, Jezic has been on. While it gets on my nerves more and more, I'll always admit he knows far more about the Vedas (and everything else) than I ever will. But Däniken and Sitchin don't just know less; they're flat-out wrong. They ramble on and spread misinformation. Now, I can't speak for the person you mentioned, so I won't guarantee anything, but based on statistical probability and the theories you're pushing, it's more logical to assume they fall into that pseudo-scientific category. Besides, the audience profile and the show itself say enough. The comments on a world-renowned Indologist or a Sanskrit expert were basically "this guy is a boring professor," while people were swooning over total fabulists and charlatans with zero credentials. As for my life experience—since I went to my first meditation course in elementary school (including living in Indian ashrams, finishing yoga therapy, working in Indian clinics alongside Ayurvedic and Western doctors, and completing a Buddhist equivalent of theology... none of which matter, since this conversation keeps getting derailed by constant attempts to personalize things—which is pointless because you never know who you're talking to. There are people on this forum with high-level academic credentials in various fields, yet you've already resorted to calling trained professionals unqualified because they don't share your specific Wikipedia-level grasp of geology )—you're welcome to claim I've spent my whole life studying this if we're using your flawed criteria for what counts as "Vedic." Personally, I wouldn't consider someone a serious practitioner unless they're fluent in archaic Vedic Sanskrit or hold a PhD in Indology. The rest of us are just amateurs rambling, so there's really no point in posturing.
But in the end, none of that matters for the discussion. The truth of a claim doesn't depend on how many years you've spent studying it or what formal titles you hold. Plenty of people spend their entire lives immersed in religion or ideology and spend that whole time talking nonsense from a historical or linguistic perspective. Truth isn't proven by appealing to authority, so it's irrelevant. It is, however, interesting to note that this "appeal to authority" argument is most often used by people lacking actual qualifications rather than those with an abundance of them. Let's just leave Sitchin and Jezic out of it.
If you’re claiming the Puranas are Vedic, but you also insist there are only four Vedas, then go ahead—show me where they actually appear in them. If you say these time cycles are Vedic, find them in the Vedas. If you try to prove it by pointing to the Puranas, we’re right back to square one: proving those Puranas exist within the Vedas.
This is just a circular argument designed to dodge specific questions. You’re essentially just contradicting certain claims while constantly tripping over your own definitions of what is and isn't Vedic.
They aren't actually that complicated. These aren't bedtime stories for kids; they are what they are. The problem is that the vast majority of what you described in your intro and attributed to the Vedas has absolutely nothing to do with them.
Yes, they are in the Puranas. My question was where they show up in the Vedas.
It's a fairy tale, no different from Christian creationism claiming the Earth is only 5,000 years old. It's not hard to debunk using basic physics, geology, paleontology, or anything else that isn't a PDF alternative.
One are just different ways of dividing things—one horizontal, one vertical. I don't see any inherent conflict there. They don't necessarily form a single unit. The Atharvaveda isn't always considered canonical, and since both are essentially derivatives of the Rigveda, they aren't fundamentally different. Usually, specific Brahmin families specialize in just one.
Well, if we're calling them Vedas, why don't you be a pal and tell us which horizontal or vertical branch the Ramayana actually falls under? Is it part of the Atharvaveda, or is it an Aranyaka? 😁
If you compare the Bible to the Vedas, the Vedangas would be something like biblical history or grammar—basically auxiliary disciplines developed to help study the Vedas, handle rituals, or manage historical and technical details. They aren't part of the Vedas themselves, much like a modern book on biblical grammar or history isn't part of the biblical text. And it certainly isn't some pious literature on hagiotherapy, for instance.
None of this has much to do with the Vedas. Repeating a factually incorrect claim ten more times won't suddenly make it true.
No, you can't just dump everything from that era into the Vedas; that’s complete nonsense. During that period, there were plenty of groups that directly opposed the Vedas and Brahminical culture, like the Jains, Buddhists, and Ajivikas. There were also various tribal traditions and cults. Vedic culture was primarily concentrated on the Indo-Gangetic Plain; it hadn't spread across all of India yet, nor did it hold an absolute monopoly over its own territory.
Science is a less reliable source than a tabloid magazine. This topic isn't actually that complicated, unless people have their own pseudo-religious agendas and fake historical mysteries they feel the need to defend with nonsensical gymnastics for an uninformed audience.
Where exactly in the Vedas did you find those time cycles?
- Samhitas (the core, most ancient layer—with the Rigveda being the oldest, followed by two rearranged versions; the fourth is somewhat comparable to the Rigveda Samhita but significantly different and hasn't always been considered canonical) - Brahmanas - Aranyakas - Upanishads (the youngest layer, sometimes written relatively recently, already showing different influences)
These texts represent the essence of Vedic and slightly later Brahmanical culture. It’s fundamentally different from modern Hinduism, which has almost entirely lost its original form (except within a few tiny Brahmanical communities). Only the youngest Upanishadic portion has had any serious impact on certain philosophical circles, and even then, primarily through later interpretations. If you agree that modern Hinduism isn't the same thing as the Vedic religion, then there’s no internal logic in grouping the texts it actually relies on (like the Puranas, Sutras, Agamas, Tantras, and other sources for these stories) into that original Vedic culture.
The way Christians and certain modern nationalists label everything as "Vedic" or "scientific" is just a propaganda tactic used to manufacture false authority. As I mentioned before, it’s similar to calling Moses a Christian. There is zero historical basis for it.
And even if you wanted to use that label, you couldn't apply the same criteria. It's another rhetorical trick: first, you label something else as "Vedic," and then, based on that semantic shift, you attribute the characteristics of Vedic literature to those third-party texts—even though they don't possess them at all. Their era of origin, methods of transmission, and primary sources are fundamentally different from the Vedas.
Of course, you don't really need proof when dealing with a world of stories, fantasies, and projections.😉
Knowledge is never enough, but that's beside the point. Let's not make this personal.
What you’re writing doesn't really align with the Vedas. It feels more like later Purana-based Hinduism, some Western mystifications, and superficial pattern recognition. The Vedas don't deal with yogas, Vimanas, or the mythical wars of Rama; they don't prioritize non-violence, vegetarianism, reincarnation, chakras, or any of that. Honestly, I’m not even sure where some of this is being pulled from. For instance, these myths are notoriously vague when it comes to numbers and specific details—quite the opposite of what people assume. Usually, when you find archaeological evidence for a myth, the actual history is incomparably younger and the culture is much more primitive than described. They just throw around big numbers and flowery descriptions.
The Vedas represent the oldest substrate of Indian religions, clearly codified and passed down quite reliably through an oral tradition. Everything that developed later claims a connection to them, even if there isn't much of one. Modern Hinduism isn't a Vedic religion; it's a cocktail of those older roots mixed with the aforementioned Purana folk myths (which are much fluffier and constantly shifting), Shramana traditions (like Buddhism and Jainism), and things like Samkhya, yoga, Tantra, tribal cults, shamanism, and even Islam.
Furthermore, when people talk about "Vedic Science," they’re usually referring to the Vedanga auxiliary disciplines developed specifically to interpret the Vedas. But even there, you see all sorts of mixing. For example, Jyotish was created by layering Greek astrology over a relatively limited base of ritual astronomy. It wasn't derived directly from the Vedas, despite how much certain nationalists fight historical reality to try and make the Vedas the foundation for everything.
Ayurveda works in a similar way, categorized under one of the Vedas because of its health aspects. The catch is that most of it is magical-ritualistic, whereas 99% of what it actually covers isn't even in the foundational Vedic texts. It has its own separate texts and traditions that are constantly in flux, regardless of the somewhat codified modern phase meant for standardized academic teaching (though it hasn't been nearly as successful as the way the Chinese leveled out their traditional medicine and various versions of meridian points and such). In the US, you might see variations depending on the region, the institution, or the individual practitioner...
It’s fundamentally the same thing as calling Moses a Christian. It's a cool idea, but it's based on the classic, logically flawed "appeal to antiquity" fallacy. Everyone does it to some extent, but the actual sources are almost always much later and far more heterogeneous.
And don't even get me started on the propaganda-heavy use of the word "Science."
Frank Allen70 said:Never satisfied, always cynical 😁 You actually remind me of a friend of mine—someone who struggles immensely because they're terrified of everything, including themselves and what they might actually be capable of. I truly hope to see you again in a year or two with a bit more of an open mind; honestly, I don't see how staying stuck like this could ever benefit you. Perhaps you should try exploring things on your own terms—just step away from the scientists, the academics, and everyone else's lived experiences for a moment and see what happens?
I changed my mind after spending quite a few years diving into various mystifications. Most of it doesn't hold up. Not necessarily all of it, but most of it.
Michael Gonzalez77 said:And here is Mike in a fight.
What’s the joke here? The lower abdomen isn't exactly a sensitive spot; you can take a hit there and train through it, so it's a pretty poor target for a strike. It would have been much more interesting if they had aimed for the solar plexus, the liver, or even just the head.
As it stands, this is just overcomplicating basic physics.
Even in this day and age, people flock to charismatic seminars claiming they’ve "found their inner spirit" or felt a "touch of the Divine." It's all very dramatic. Of course, any decent hypnotist could replicate that exact same effect, and Brown did something pretty similar during his broadcast.
You seem to think this only happened with superstitious cults over a century ago.
Why bother with archery, pole vaulting, javelin throws, horse racing, or sword fighting? They all feel like relics from some pre-tech, warrior-driven era we left behind.
Combat skills were intentionally rebranded as sports once firearms made them obsolete on the battlefield.
At the same time, people started pumping up the whole tradition and spiritual side of things.
Once you lose your old purpose, I guess you have to invent a new one to stay relevant.
Suggestion is just a natural mechanism tied to socialization and learning processes.
If you choose to view it as a form of manipulation, then every religious ritual—like a Sunday Mass—every bit of religious indoctrination, and all those stories and myths from the Bible, are essentially forms of hypnosis.
It's basically having a log or a stone in your eye, and that 😁
But that’s not what we’re here for. Let’s stick to discussing the etheric body without cluttering things up with (pseudo)ethics.
casualtiger2 said:How so? Don't you realize all that stuff comes from the devil? True ethics are based on the words of our Good Father—who was a bit high-strung, nearly wiped out all of humanity, and founded the very institution his son later ran, which, let's be honest, can easily devolve into inquisitions, wars, and covering up predators within its own ranks—all while sitting on massive wealth (spiritual wealth, obviously). If that doesn't click for you, maybe go talk to your local inquisitor; they'll happily "cleanse" and save your soul.
This isn't some battle about whether I'm giving up or not. Bell and I have been around this forum long enough to know each other—I respect his take (and honestly, I even agree with him sometimes, even when I don't 😍)—so we're good. Besides, my experiences are mine alone; I don't need validation from random people on a forum (especially since most of what I post here is just me rehashing old stories anyway). "Spirituality" can't really be treated as a hard science yet—at least not in the strict, objective, external sense. And let's face it: spiritual types tend to drift into fantasy quite a bit, especially once they start throwing scientific terminology around. Anyway, if you're actually interested in the topic, check out "Etheric body" by Arthur E. Powell, or "Subtle Body" by David V. Tansley.
PS A few more thoughts crossed my mind regarding that whole suggestibility thing we were talking about. There are plenty of scientific studies on the placebo effect. Most of them conclude that the placebo actually works. Does that mean—given that there’s a partial improvement in health—that it's all just a scam or an illusion, simply because the effects come from suggestion using substances with no actual medicinal properties?
It's a known fact that through focused attention, you can create temperature differences of several degrees in different parts of your body (like between your left and right hand), or use specific visualizations to speed up or slow down your heart rate and brain waves through meditation or prayer. Does that mean those measured changes in heat, heart rhythm, or brain wave frequency are actually illusory, just because they were produced by the subjective mind of the person being studied?
If, for instance, I imagine I can control my pranic energy to lessen or stop pain, have I objectively reduced the pain, or did I just convince myself that I did?
That’s a clever question. Some research suggests this is a matter of dissociation. Your instruments might record physical pain signals traveling through the nervous system, yet the person isn't consciously aware of them. It’s similar to how you might not notice a bruise on your leg because you were too preoccupied with something else when you bumped into a table; you simply didn't register the sensation at that moment.
For instance, if you want to make your hand feel warm, you're essentially trying to trigger physiological relaxation in the circulatory system. There are plenty of ways to pull that trigger. Someone tactile might conjure the physical sensation of warmth in their mind. A visual thinker might imagine fire or another heat source. You could even visualize prana. This doesn't mean there is actual fire or actual prana present; they are just symbols used to trigger specific reactions through the associations we create.
Kevin Ruiz36 said:He’s just being overly critical about spirituality right now. Buddhism seems to fit him best—that whole idea that everything is built on impermanence. 😁 I wonder what other path he'll pivot to once he gets tired of the "nothingness" phase. 🤦 Honestly, he should probably stick with Buddhism long enough to realize there might actually be something found within that void Buddha talked about.
Buddhism itself is loaded with esoteric energies (especially in the Tantric traditions) and all sorts of silly superstitions.
The Buddha wasn't describing some kind of void, and claiming there's "something in nothing" is just a nonsensical oxymoron.
You're giving up way too soon. If Fleming had actually stuck strictly to his lab protocols, who knows how much longer we would've been waiting for penicillin.
Bas Quota 🤣
You're giving up too soon. If Fleming had stuck strictly to lab protocols, who knows how much longer we'd have waited for penicillin.
Non sequitur 😛 If penicillin hadn't been intentionally identified, Fleming would have been dismissed. 😉
Medical history is full of people guessing and speculating. What survived was what could actually be proven, not just every random thought or experiment someone tried.
Rigorous experimentation isn't about the creative phase of finding an idea—whether by design or accident. It’s about the verification, the proof, and the presentation that follows. After that initial fluke, Fleming spent quite a bit of time experimenting and verifying his findings, followed by others doing the same before it ever reached medical use or mass production.