the L, on 03 December 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:
me wonders,
I once start questioned did agriculture was first sign of our decline in general?
Hira Ratan Manek or Hirachand Ratanashi is not founder but expander of solar yoga or sun gazing.
He survived 411 days without food. He was observed by doctors in his atempts.
Second time when he was doing NASA observed him. We are 80 % water. We eat because those 20%.
He said that when our mind accept it body adopt. He also stressed that construction workers spent 3000 calories and eat 1500 calories. So where rest came from? Sun.
Jesus walk 40 days in desert. Maybe he used sun. Many stigmatas dont eat at all. Bleeding and live. Recent Kid Biddha didnt eat nothing for months.
So question is raised is agriculture destroyed humanity? In north hemisphere during winter we have Blues disease. In Scandinavia. I heard that doctors treat patient with strong light emitet at them.
Eye sight can be corrected with laser. Sun is like laser.Hepatitis is cured with Sun.
40 minutes in sunset for 6 months and you are healed.
I will not say that Lizards/Shapechangers/Aliens like David Icke introduce agriculture but its interesting that first sites are in mountains rather then in valleys.
Bottom of line-If he coud survive year without food just doing yoga in Sun...then truth is much bigger then we are thought.
But then again we have evidence that some civilization arent built on agriculture.
There are indication that our DNK knows more then we know.
I agree (for what we know today) that culture make us different from animals.
But I would not agree that north hemisphere cause patriarchal social system. What about Rome? They were on Med. Or Inuits who were on ice cap.
I personally studied Mongols for years. They are unique extraordinary case in history. If ever ET came they would probably be like Mongols. Ice cold calculated self sufficent nomad killing swarm of bee machine. They are hard to compare with settle civilizations. They arent like Vikings on north. They were nomadic people. They have different style of living then any known civilizations. They adopted their lofe style to stepe. But were they in art, writtings, science behind Chinese? Sure. But China was leading till industrial revolution happened. France, Italy, Germany, England were backward countries comparing to Chinese. Mongols were different from them all. Besides their wives were equal to men. They ride horses, they were soldiers if they wanted to be. There were records from Europeans that they treated their wives with much respect and that they are real ladies. Mongols were not Barbarians.Bu they had different consciousness. Anyway I would leave Mongols from any analogy because any historian will tell you that they are special all the way or took any historical record (arab,chinese,european) to see it.
Although I found interesting idea that matriarchy is connected to agriculture. I see where you going with Cain and Abel and Isis. I must say that your theory has logic I would say that herders and hunters arent same.
Waiting wheat or waiting sheep to eat grass is same. Difference is hunting I guess. But then again took native Americans. They were hunter gatherers till european came and they have time for their spiritual world. Hunting also dont need much time I guess.
Agriculture could took time. You need to dig canals for water, you need to spread seed. Just guessing.
Can we get to your question and the comment about early sites being in mountains, not valleys, because this is really my question.
edited addition.
Hum I have to come back to this question about agriculture being down fall. I do not think so. When people can stay put and have full bellies, it frees them to explore the arts, from painting and weaving, to music and medicine. Migrating people do not have this luxury. Try living in your car for six months and see if that doesn't make life more challenging, leaving you less time and effort for higher level thinking.
However, the nomadic people in general seem more interested in technology. See a difference here? It is kind of like the difference between liberal education and education for technology. Civilization as we know it, requires development in both the arts and philosophy and development in technology. Huge temples and government buildings are not possible without technology, and they are built by nomadic people.
The up tick in evolution from apes to humans, may have been cooking. Cooking increases the nutrition we get from our food, and requires less guts for digestion, and less time spent on foraging for food. When our guts are full we have more time for socializing. The miracle of humanity, is the result of socializing and then the ability to preserve what is thought and learned in writing. Our pool of information today is much greater than in any previous time in history. This is what separates us from the animals.
LRW, on 04 December 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:
The ancient world is not exactly his expertise.
He obviously never heard of the caste system in India and who brought it there. It certainly was not dark skinned people such as Dravidians. Even in modern times, the upper caste system in India are lighter than the lower castes in physical appearance. The darker classes were once branded as outcasts, and it was forbidden for "Noble Ones" to have sex with them, because they were seen as inferior by the elite higher echelons of the ruling caste who brought their religon there and culture there. The darker skinned people were actually not allowed to be in the caste system so they were branded as "Untouchables" in other words, not to be touched physically, because they were considered dirty etc. Even in modern times, untouchables in India are still discriminated against.
Mating did occur however, and the "Noble ones" became unpure, that explains the darker appearance of the upper caste people in north india, they are not as light as europeans in general, in other words "The Real Noble Ones" whose ancient religons were destroyed by christianity.
Also, i do not see the reason why you would use the word "Aryan" that word is a corruption, the invaders of India did not call themselves "Aryan" used a similar title and word, but slightly different, i think its better to just refer to them as "The Noble Ones" the light skinned and light eyed adepts who brought their knowledge and culture to the region of India. .
I used the word Aryan because is that is the word the professor I was listening to at the time, used. When the word was challenged I googled for more information, and came back with the information I found. No big deal. I personally don't care what people are called, because names change so much. However, I do wonder why some people are so light skinned and why some people became so interested in the heavens, and why so many early sites are high in the mountains. I regret that I used Aryan in the title of this thread, and that that word became an issue, instead being less confrontational and more interesting. I had no idea how important that word is to some people.
Can we just go with, evidently light skinned people entered the valley with the Vedic culture, and the same racism that occurred north America. I am not sure, but were the Aztecs expecting a White God when the accepted the Spanish as the expected God? Perhaps this should be the subject of its own thread? In Egypt wasn't the ruler White? At a later time a Black man made himself the pharaoh of Egypt. We do have a mixing of races here, but what is with those White guys? Where did the come from and why do they seem to take the position of Noble Ones? This is not just in India, but it happened all over the world. What is with this? It is like 6000 years ago there was change around the world, and there are strange sites around the world, and this more interesting than if the people who entered India would agree they were Aryans or not. Now the title Noble One's is interesting. How many human communities aspire to be noble? What does it mean to be a Noble One? Something is happening here that is dfferent. But in the west you have people giving themselves names that "the real people" and this might be psychologically equal to the Noble One's?
Oh, oh one of my books argues that people who move to find better lives for themselves are superior to those who settle and do not move. These are different personality types, and might some be born with the nature that is perhaps more driven and therefore more apt to rule? Like the color of skin is carried in genes, might personality type be carried in genes?
We can know, when these people moved into India, there was a shift from female gods to male gods. This is a shift from matriarchy to patriarchy, and it happened everywhere. Sooner or later, males become dominant, and the culture supports their domination. There is evidence that matriarchies did not have large temples and larger than life statues of men and gods. Where we see large temples and large government buildings, and armies and taxes put on the common people to pay for all this, we see a patriarchy. Now my thinking has gone all over the board, and there is no main subject, but in my head this stuff goes together. I wonder what is happening here, and really don't care what labels we put on the people. Come on, native Americans didn't call themselves Indians. Seriously, how important is a name? The Greeks are mix of people. The Jews did the best job of avoiding mixing with others, but seriously how pure are they are now? What is important?
Edited by me-wonders, 07 December 2012 - 03:58 PM.
2
