Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Harsh86_Patel

Vedic mythology collobarate with science?

81 posts in this topic

The literal translation is

"What. We Spear-danes in days of yore,

tribe-kings, glory heard

how those nobles did great deeds"

Seamus Heaney, whose version is I think the best, transliterated it like this:

"So. The Spear-danes in days gone by

and the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness.

We have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns."

These are the first three lines of the epic Beowulf, the most complete poetic work known in Old English.

Oh so you do acknowledge that the literal translation can be misleading or utter rubish and further interpretation is required for it to make sense.Good that you atleast spared Beowulf and old english with your literal understanding and ridicule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so you do acknowledge that the literal translation can be misleading or utter rubish and further interpretation is required for it to make sense.Good that you atleast spared Beowulf and old english with your literal understanding and ridicule.

The literal translation is neither misleading nor utter rubish. Rather it's both concise and to the point. The transliteration is an embellishment of the literal translation. While I respect Clobhair-cean's opinion I think it was well enough understood on its own. Too bad you couldn't have spared us your opinion of Old English.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The literal translation is neither misleading nor utter rubish. Rather it's both concise and to the point. The transliteration is an embellishment of the literal translation. While I respect Clobhair-cean's opinion I think it was well enough understood on its own. Too bad you couldn't have spared us your opinion of Old English.

cormac

Not rubbish to whom?Who can claim to understand and tranliterate it the best?Do you think that the transliteration that is very obvious to a western scholar is equally obvious to people from all differnt cultures around the world.The way Clobhair-cean dismisses the possibility of transliteration of verses from the Rig Veda because it doesn't fit into his cultural world view the same way people belonging to a different world view can be the best source to transliterate their native literature.The way i can respect or acknoledge tranliterations of Old English literature made by Europeans/western academicians i can also expect same amount respect for transliterations made by other cultures of their native literature.

In short we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss or to ridicule transliterations made for ancient texts by people belonging to different cultures of their native texts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether a translation is accepted by academics has nothing to do with the nationality of the translator but with how well educated they are in the languages they translate from/to. I think you will find it is not only Western scholars that would disagree with your interpretations. In the same way, just because you are from a specific country does not mean you are better able to translate ancient texts from that location.

The medical practices you were discussing seem to remind me of the Greek humoural theory. Not in the sense that they are the same concept but in the sense that they are an outdated and scientifically innacurate model. It is human nature to find a nice neat pattern of how everything fits together and build from there. This doesnt make it comparable to modern science. It simply makes it an early attempt to make sense of the world and of ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether a translation is accepted by academics has nothing to do with the nationality of the translator but with how well educated they are in the languages they translate from/to. I think you will find it is not only Western scholars that would disagree with your interpretations. In the same way, just because you are from a specific country does not mean you are better able to translate ancient texts from that location.

The medical practices you were discussing seem to remind me of the Greek humoural theory. Not in the sense that they are the same concept but in the sense that they are an outdated and scientifically innacurate model. It is human nature to find a nice neat pattern of how everything fits together and build from there. This doesnt make it comparable to modern science. It simply makes it an early attempt to make sense of the world and of ourselves.

I am not doubting the veracity of transliteration of native texts,i am talking about the cognitive ability and cultural understanding of the tranliterater in context to the cultural text he is trying to transliterate.If i as an Indian without having any knowledge of western culture and history would try to learn about it and then translieterate Old english epics,i would probably end up looking like a fool or making the epics look foolish and gibberish,i would rely rather on an Englishman well aware of the Old English culture to transliterate Old english epics to better put things into perspective.Like i said that if the ancient culture we are talking about is still in existence and considerably well preserved then a person belonging to that culture will have a better perspective of transliterating native texts.

The fact remains that when such ancient texts are tranliterated then a lot depends on the ability and understanding of the transliterator and the cultural background he/she is from.The tranliterator can pretty much add their own imaginations or doubts and literally change the meaning of the text.So a lot depends on who is transliterating it as it is not a "completely objective" process.

I cannot comment on the greek humoral theory and on how many people still practice it even as an alternative medical system or on how systematic it was but i can sure tell you that Ayurveda is different still not dead or discarded.

Like i said every modern concept(even scientific concepts) have been recently discovered/invented/created or in many cases have been rediscovered so there is no harm in comparing modern scientific concepts with ancient one's.(for eg- the earth not being flat and the centre of universe was suggested before Copernicus made it famous,and gradually the rediscovered scientific concept was accepted and established).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation does indeed often have some subjective input. This is something you need to also bear in mind with the interpretations you personally select. There is just as much danger you are placing what you want to see in the these texts based on your current ideas of the world. My personal feeling is that this is exactly what you are doing. The texts you are discussing come from a very different period of history and you are imposing modern concepts onto that.

Current practice of outdated ideas does not make the outdated ideas true or factual. Yes some knowledge has been lost and regained over time but that is not the same as saying all ancient concepts are true. We agree the greeks did a great job with maths and with calculating the size and shape of the planet. They also had many ideas that we know are completely wrong.

The persistent idea that being cold and wet is the cause of catching a cold is a myth based on humoural theory that persists in modern society. Persistence of an idea does not make it valid it just means it has become rooted within a culture. Just like people practice acupuncture and believe rhino horn is good for the libido in some regions.

It is good to have a healthy respect for past cultures but that does not mean everything they believed is applicable to the modern world. As i said before be careful not to allow a modern bias make you see things which are not there in these texts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mix religion and science. Religion doesn't use scientific method and science doesn't use faith.

Non-dualism is a philosophy and its scientifically proven by quantum mechanics.

Those religions which are based on non-dualism such as Pantheism and Buddhism have no God Being. They are nothing like Christainity which is where your misconception arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation has some subjective inputs and transliteration is nothing but subjective input along with finding similes elsewhere.There can be no objective ways of transliteration as it is completely dependant on the respect and understanding of the transliterator.If a transliterator decides he doesn't want to take texts seriously or doesn't have a clear understanding of the cultural context then he can pretty much make the text look gibberish.

Never said there is a thumb rule for everything written in the Vedas and that all that is written in them is presently considered true or the "entire" Vedic content colaberates with modern scientific concepts,none my assertions were blanket statements.Just as we are ready to grant that Ancient Greeks did have some great ideas that are presently considered valid the same way Ancient Indians also had some great ideas that are presently considered valid.There is no harm in drawing comparisons between modern concepts and ancient ones.

The issue in giving ancients credit for some of our current ideas has more to do with our arrogance.For eg-if we didn't have the great pyramids present today would any of us have ever believed that the Ancient Egyptians knew how to make such structures which are considered engineering marels even today.

If current ideas colaberate with ancient ideas then there is a good chance that we can consider both of them as factual or true or at the least "currently fashionable".

Cold and water can increase the chances of acquiring a 'cold'.So the greeks probably had something going there for them.Persistence of an idea cannot make it valid even if the conclusion is reached by modern scientific inquiry?.I think you refer to Ayurveda not having acknowledgment from western medicine,but it is only in respect to ayurvedic medicine and not the other practices of Ayurveda.Either ways the concept of having a systematic medical system was my point of comparison.

We should understand that the way Ancients were wrong about many things,5000 years down the line our descendants will think that we were wrong about many things and would probably refrain for giving us credit for many of our concepts that might endure for 5000 years.I don't think that would be fair to us though.

So the reverse of your statement is also true that all ancient concepts are not false and can be factual and can colaberate with modern concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation has some subjective inputs and transliteration is nothing but subjective input along with finding similes elsewhere.There can be no objective ways of transliteration as it is completely dependant on the respect and understanding of the transliterator.If a transliterator decides he doesn't want to take texts seriously or doesn't have a clear understanding of the cultural context then he can pretty much make the text look gibberish.

certainly. My problem with this is your implication that those who translate it any differently to what you see do not have respect ad understanding.

Never said there is a thumb rule for everything written in the Vedas and that all that is written in them is presently considered true or the "entire" Vedic content colaberates with modern scientific concepts,none my assertions were blanket statements.Just as we are ready to grant that Ancient Greeks did have some great ideas that are presently considered valid the same way Ancient Indians also had some great ideas that are presently considered valid.There is no harm in drawing comparisons between modern concepts and ancient ones.

The issue in giving ancients credit for some of our current ideas has more to do with our arrogance.For eg-if we didn't have the great pyramids present today would any of us have ever believed that the Ancient Egyptians knew how to make such structures which are considered engineering marels even today.

If current ideas colaberate with ancient ideas then there is a good chance that we can consider both of them as factual or true or at the least "currently fashionable".

Cold and water can increase the chances of acquiring a 'cold'.So the greeks probably had something going there for them.Persistence of an idea cannot make it valid even if the conclusion is reached by modern scientific inquiry?.I think you refer to Ayurveda not having acknowledgment from western medicine,but it is only in respect to ayurvedic medicine and not the other practices of Ayurveda.Either ways the concept of having a systematic medical system was my point of comparison.

You appear to have added 'reached by modern scientific inquiry' to my comment about persistence therefore altering the meaning and intent. A systematic medical system by itself is meaningless. It does not make it accurate or sound.

We should understand that the way Ancients were wrong about many things,5000 years down the line our descendants will think that we were wrong about many things and would probably refrain for giving us credit for many of our concepts that might endure for 5000 years.I don't think that would be fair to us though.

So the reverse of your statement is also true that all ancient concepts are not false and can be factual and can colaberate with modern concepts.

You agree not all ancient thoughts and ideas are accurate. How then does this support your original theory?. What criteria do you use to determine what concepts from the past match with modern ones? Are you completely certain you are not putting words in the mouths of those writing ancient texts based on what you know about modern thinking?

Edited by tipsy_munchkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not rubbish to whom?Who can claim to understand and tranliterate it the best?Do you think that the transliteration that is very obvious to a western scholar is equally obvious to people from all differnt cultures around the world.The way Clobhair-cean dismisses the possibility of transliteration of verses from the Rig Veda because it doesn't fit into his cultural world view the same way people belonging to a different world view can be the best source to transliterate their native literature.The way i can respect or acknoledge tranliterations of Old English literature made by Europeans/western academicians i can also expect same amount respect for transliterations made by other cultures of their native literature.

In short we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss or to ridicule transliterations made for ancient texts by people belonging to different cultures of their native texts.

So you're changing the goalposts from translation to transliteration, huh? If you don't understand the language then perhaps you shouldn't critique the translation, particularly since it was the translation (not the transliteration) you claimed was misleading and rubbish.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're changing the goalposts from translation to transliteration, huh? If you don't understand the language then perhaps you shouldn't critique the translation, particularly since it was the translation (not the transliteration) you claimed was misleading and rubbish.

cormac

I said "further translation" refering to transliteration.Re read the post.I said it in context of the translation and the transliteration provided by Clob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "further translation" refering to transliteration.Re read the post.I said it in context of the translation and the transliteration provided by Clob.

No, you didn't. You said specifically:

Oh so you do acknowledge that the literal translation can be misleading or utter rubish and further interpretation is required for it to make sense.

If you don't understand the English in which you're writing, then perhaps you shouldn't be writing it.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're changing the goalposts from translation to transliteration, huh? If you don't understand the language then perhaps you shouldn't critique the translation, particularly since it was the translation (not the transliteration) you claimed was misleading and rubbish.

cormac

I must confess i glossed over and ignored the shift between translation and transliteration and continued to refer to translation. I thought it was easier to discuss the overall concept of translation than to delve into the abyss. Those conducting translations are well aware of the potential pitfalls of transliteration and also where it is useful so it seemed irrelevant to single it out from the materiel provided by scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "further translation" refering to transliteration.Re read the post.I said it in context of the translation and the transliteration provided by Clob.

Further Translation does not = transliteration

Transliteration is a technique used when translating words that have no corresponding word in the target language so it is transcribed phonetically, or at least that's what i thought.

Edited by tipsy_munchkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess i glossed over and ignored the shift between translation and transliteration and continued to refer to translation. I thought it was easier to discuss the overall concept of translation than to delve into the abyss. Those conducting translations are well aware of the potential pitfalls of transliteration and also where it is useful so it seemed irrelevant to single it out from the materiel provided by scholars.

Evidently Harsh86_Patel isn't aware of this as he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently Harsh86_Patel isn't aware of this as he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

cormac

Keep raising non-issues buy dumbing yourself down.You very well understand the context in which i was saying it but you can continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep raising non-issues buy dumbing yourself down.You very well understand the context in which i was saying it but you can continue.

Keep pretending to know what you're talking about. The rest of us see through your ignorance.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rest of us" cant you stand on your own and let the others come and support you as they would.Speak for yourself when passing your flimsy judgements."Rest of us" know that you are trying to raise non-issues and not contributing coherently to the topic.And incase you want to debate on semantics we can start a seperate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rest of us" cant you stand on your own and let the others come and support you as they would.Speak for yourself when passing your flimsy judgements."Rest of us" know that you are trying to raise non-issues and not contributing coherently to the topic.And incase you want to debate on semantics we can start a seperate thread.

Ignoring what everyone else has posted so you can take exception to what I said, because I see your posts for what they are? Which is total BS. Sounds like you have a comprehension problem if you can't understand what everyone else has been telling you. Either that, or you prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone else "I can't hear you". You've contributed nothing but fiction from the start, it's nobody's fault but your own that no one takes you seriously.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring what everyone else has posted so you can take exception to what I said, because I see your posts for what they are? Which is total BS. Sounds like you have a comprehension problem if you can't understand what everyone else has been telling you. Either that, or you prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone else "I can't hear you". You've contributed nothing but fiction from the start, it's nobody's fault but your own that no one takes you seriously.

cormac

Again your resort to "everyone" why don't you just talk about yourself or do you not have an individual back bone.I am responding to everyone who is posting and none of them are resorting to the 'everyone' 'rest of us' 'no one' trick,they are speaking for themselves and i am speaking for myself.If you think this thread is BS why come here to join "us fools",take it to the moderator.You can see my post for what they are and so can everyone else who can read are you saying you are smarter then the "rest of us"?Do you think "we" are all stupid and you are the smart one who can see through us simpletons.I am amused that you can't say one thing without "implying majority" or claiming "yourself to be superior".I am not posting here for "you" to take me seriously but inorder to discuss and debate and learn somethings new and also give some new information and i am not claiming that i know it all under the pain of being daft,something you should take a clue from.I am hearing everyone as individuals and am replying to them in my individual capacity not as an implied "Cartel".And like i said if you term this thread as Fiction then there are a whole series of threads in this section of UM that are dedicated to discussing pure fiction and that is not necessarily a bad thing but on the contrary gives oppurtunity for people to contribute their own creative ideas/theories,something i feel you are incapable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again your resort to "everyone" why don't you just talk about yourself or do you not have an individual back bone.I am responding to everyone who is posting and none of them are resorting to the 'everyone' 'rest of us' 'no one' trick,they are speaking for themselves and i am speaking for myself.If you think this thread is BS why come here to join "us fools",take it to the moderator.You can see my post for what they are and so can everyone else who can read are you saying you are smarter then the "rest of us"?Do you think "we" are all stupid and you are the smart one who can see through us simpletons.I am amused that you can't say one thing without "implying majority" or claiming "yourself to be superior".I am not posting here for "you" to take me seriously but inorder to discuss and debate and learn somethings new and also give some new information and i am not claiming that i know it all under the pain of being daft,something you should take a clue from.I am hearing everyone as individuals and am replying to them in my individual capacity not as an implied "Cartel".And like i said if you term this thread as Fiction then there are a whole series of threads in this section of UM that are dedicated to discussing pure fiction and that is not necessarily a bad thing but on the contrary gives oppurtunity for people to contribute their own creative ideas/theories,something i feel you are incapable of.

You haven't said anything worthy of merit yet. I've already caught you in one fabrication and you tried to claim it was taken out of context when it was exactly what you said. In short, you got caught in a lie. Others have found you fabricating things in other areas as well. That's your doing, not anyone elses.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't said anything worthy of merit yet. I've already caught you in one fabrication and you tried to claim it was taken out of context when it was exactly what you said. In short, you got caught in a lie. Others have found you fabricating things in other areas as well. That's your doing, not anyone elses.

cormac

Finally i see an improvement,you have stopped using collectives to pass of your own objections.Now there was literal translation and then a subjective transliteration provided by Clob and that is what i was trying to point out.I have not lied about anything,you might have misunderstood what i was trying to get across or i might have been deficient in my language to get it across for which i apologise.There were no lies involved so stop lying about me lying.

I can own up to my mistakes which don't amount to lies in a rational world.But i can see you are trying hard to prove i am a liar or have deliberately lied.The whole conversation is in public domain and if your read through it then it will become clear what i was objecting to.When Clob can be subjective about transliterating Old english similar respect has to be shown for tranliteration of the Vedas.I have stated the crux of my objection once again now you and the others can decide if i have lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally i see an improvement,you have stopped using collectives to pass of your own objections.Now there was literal translation and then a subjective transliteration provided by Clob and that is what i was trying to point out.I have not lied about anything,you might have misunderstood what i was trying to get across or i might have been deficient in my language to get it across for which i apologise.There were no lies involved so stop lying about me lying.

I can own up to my mistakes which don't amount to lies in a rational world.But i can see you are trying hard to prove i am a liar or have deliberately lied.The whole conversation is in public domain and if your read through it then it will become clear what i was objecting to.When Clob can be subjective about transliterating Old english similar respect has to be shown for tranliteration of the Vedas.I have stated the crux of my objection once again now you and the others can decide if i have lied.

When you made an incorrect statement the first time, I pointed it out as incorrect. But when you further claimed that you didn't say what you actually did, that was an obvious lie. Sorry, but you did it to yourself. You've already made it quite clear, both in reference to my posts as well as in your posts to others that you really don't understand as much as you think you do. An obvious shortcoming on your part that you might want to correct.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daśāvatāras and evolution

The British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J B S Haldane observed that the Dasavataras (ten principal avatars of Lord Vishnu) provide a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution. The avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.[39][not in citation given] Avatars Explanation Evolution Matsya. First avatar is a fish, one which is creature living in water. If we compare it with biological evolution on different Geological Time Scale first developed life was also in the form of fish which originated duringCambrian period. Kurma Second avatar was in the form of Tortoise (reptiles). In geology also first reptiles comes as second important evolution which originated in Mississippian period just after Amphibians. Varaha Third avatar was in the form of Boar. Evolution of the amphibian to the land animal. Narasimha The Man-Lion (Nara= man, simha=lion) was the fourth avatar. But in geology no such evidences are mentioned. It may have been related with Ape Man The term may sometimes refer to extinct early human ancestors. Vamana Fifth Avatar is the dwarf man. It may be related with the first man originated during Pliocene. It may be related with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were generally only 12 to 14 cm (4½–5½ in) shorter than modern humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Parashurama, The man with an axe was the sixth avatar. It has the similarities with the first modern man originated during Quaternary period or the man of Iron Age.

Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha were the seventh, eighth and ninth other avatars of Lord Vishnu. It indicates the physical and mental changes and evolution in the man from its time of appearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you made an incorrect statement the first time, I pointed it out as incorrect. But when you further claimed that you didn't say what you actually did, that was an obvious lie. Sorry, but you did it to yourself. You've already made it quite clear, both in reference to my posts as well as in your posts to others that you really don't understand as much as you think you do. An obvious shortcoming on your part that you might want to correct.

cormac

What did i do to myself?If i make a small mistake and rectify it by restating what i actually meant,is that really a very bad thing.Does it mean i am lying or i don't have any credibility?If you are living by such strict impositons on yourself then i can only pity you.I am usually multi tasking and working when i make these posts so i feel i can excuse myself for misreading or misinterpreting slightly as long as i can verify and correct myself later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.