For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.
How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent?
> For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.
In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.
You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion.
Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before.
If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
The conclusion is that there were ancient civilizations that we don’t currently have archeological evidence for. If you know anything about archeological research in India, you know that it is far, far from comprehensive.
Here’s a small example: Shiva is often represented smoking a chillum. Yet, the accepted understanding is that smoking was developed in the Americas and no smoking in the old world took place pre-1492. It would therefore be a major discovery to establish that a chillum was precolumbian. There simply isn’t a research base (no funding, no training) to investigate even simple questions like this.
Might we find evidence of, say, metallurgy that is 10,000 years old in India? Perhaps! Should we expect to? Probably not. Should we do more archaeological research in India? 100% Who will fund it?
This makes me feel like the rest of your comment is probably not accurate, either.
No evidence for smoking pipes in India before 1500. Source:
Please read the last line of my original post.
> If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts.
> Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them.
Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.
> And even if it is hokum
I 99% believe that you think these things are real; I don't know if you're a von Danikenite, but you sure talk like one.
> If there is no evidence to either support or refute it
There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes all over the world for centuries, looking for raw materials -- quadruply so, very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. If there was a civilization capable of supporting space-age technology, we'd've found it by now.
Again, go read the last sentence of my original post.
> There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes....very recently, in the Indian subcontinent.
Hmmm.
Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.