|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Astronomy and Cosmology.
- 3 Big Bang Theory and Hindu Cosmology
- 4 Proposed Change to Article Title
- 5 Repetitive Copy: Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe
- 6 Move Controversies and Calendar Section to New Article
- 7 Remove Graphics
- 8 Sources and References Needed
- 9 Math Doesn't Work Here
- 10 Hostility Towards Krishna Consciousness
- 11 1 Brahma Day is made of 1 Kalpa or 2 Kalpas?
- 12 Unsourced / off topic content moved here for insertion
- 13 Numbers in speed of light calculation seem "cooked" to get right number
- 14 Information Lacking
I think a separate page is required. --Bhadani 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Astronomy and Cosmology.
- Sometime we merge as we may not be aware of the factual position, and sometimes, merger arises as the page remains a stub for long. There may be varioud reasons. In this case, two separate pages are required. --Bhadani 16:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
hi- does anyone have a better image of a vedic mandala? i saw some in a show in new york and they are AMAZING. the gif on the hindu cosmology page is lame in comparison, tho it is a good explination. ive been looking for images like those i saw ("rose apple island " )but no luck so far
Big Bang Theory and Hindu Cosmology
I am removing the paragraph on the Big Bang Theory for two reasons: 1. It does not appear to have any relevance in an article on Hindu Cosmology 2. Most of the paragraph was original research WP:NOR making comparisons to the two theories. If someone can site a reference or source for this comparison, then I have no objections to it being added back in. --Keithbob (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Guess what, it's back! And it certainly does look like original research. This is completely unnecessary because there are a number of sources making the Big Bang connection that could be cited. This should be done in a section coming after the cosmology per se, which greatly predated the genesis of Big Bang as a theory. LADave (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposed Change to Article Title
I would like to propose that this article be titled Vedic and Indian Cosmology. I do not believe that this cosmology is exclusive to the Hindu religion as indicated in the current title. A good part of the article concerns it self with the Vedas which although they are considered by Hindus to be religious scipture they are also consider by many historians, anthropologists, scientists and scholars to be ancient texts of India that have their own integrity and origin, independent of the Hindu religion. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Keithbob (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
yes i agree or else add these, 1. [ajativada] 2. [Mimamsa] eternilism 3. [samkhya]-[yoga] theory 4. [nyaya]-[vaisheshika] [atomic] theory 5. [lokayat] theory 6. [sasvatvada] 7. [folk hinduism] myths Pratpandey13 (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Repetitive Copy: Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe
It seems to me that the sections Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe are just a rehash of the concept of time that is described in great detail in the opening paragraph of the article. I'm might be OK with the Four Yugas section since it is a nice clear summary of the four Yugas and a good reference tool (even though it is repetitive). However the Section on Creation of the Universe seems both repetitive and nebulous. The Puranas are a part of the Vedas. So why are we trying to distinguish between the two descriptions of what appears to be the same thing? If there is some clear and valid distinction than let's make the point in a few sentences with a partial rehash of the Brahma and Yuga points already covered in the opening section of the article. Do you get my point? Can we tighten things up a bit? I'd like to have feedback before I make anymore changes. Thanks for you help! --Keithbob (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since no one has responded I am gradually making changes. I'm still open to other points of view. Let's discuss it.--Keithbob (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- After more careful reading of the section on Four Yugas and Creation of the Universe I feel that it does bring out some new versions of the concepts in the opening section and is not redundant and does not need to be removed. However it needed to be moved and the section title edited. Having done that I am now satisfied with all of the sections execept those that need to be moved to a different article as noted in talk sections below.--Keithbob (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Move Controversies and Calendar Section to New Article
- I agree the Calendar section should be moved to some other appropriate article. --Keithbob (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remove the graphics (red circle and items below it) as they have no relevance to the article and do not reference any terms mentioned within it.--Keithbob (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since 10 days have passed without any objections I have removed the three graphics which had no direct relevance to the points in the article. --Keithbob (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Keithbob: Thanks for your work on this. However I think you need to add back the graphic on the Hindu timescale as it is very much a part of hindu cosmology as it gives an Idea from milliseconds since creation to the entire life cycle of Brahma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources and References Needed
I have added the WP:NOR, Original Research banner to inspire editors to cite valid references for this article. There is a lot of unsubstantiated material here. Let's fortify it. I have added refs for the first section but need help with the rest of the article. Thanks!--Keithbob (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Math Doesn't Work Here
I've been trying to make sense of this but the numbers don't add up at all. If one mahayuga = 4.32 million years, and there are 1000 mahayugas in one DAY of Brahma, and a full cycle of creation = 100 YEARS of Brahma, then the complete cycle has to be way way way more than 4.32 billion years. But I also checked reference #2 and it doesn't say billion, it says million, i.e. the earth is the approximate age of 1 mahayuga (have no idea if that's right anyways). So as far as I can tell this article is not usable as it is and needs serious help.Yonderboy (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Yonderboy, yes the article needs work, you are correct. Please tell me specifically which section of the article you are referring to so we can try to fix it. The opening section states that the life of Brahma is more than 311 trillion years. --Kbob (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
``````````````````````` Hi this is Jagan. 11/11/2010. 1) I have just gone through this article. For me also maths does not work there seems to be difference in years, can anyone suggest if i am correct Or wrong. year i am getting out of the values provided in the article is 4.29 billion years / 4294 million years. below my calculation is : It is mentioned sum of 4 yugas/era is 1(one) Chaturyuga, i.e Satya Yuga - 1,728,000 + Treta Yuga - 1,296,000 + Dwapara Yuga - 864,000 + Kali Yuga - 432,000 = 4,320,000 human years OR Chaturyuga. AND, it also reads there are 71 Chaturyuga in 1(One) MANU, so 71 * 4,320,000 = 306,720,000 Finally One Brahma day is equal to 14 MANUs, which means 14 * 306,720,000 = 4,294,080,000 which is contrary to 4.32 Billion years.
2) Can anyone tell me how many days does one Brahma year has (365 days) or it is different.
maths doesn't work... see the article on manvantara: 1 kalpa means 14 manvantaras which in turn means 14*71 chaturyugas... and that is approx 4.3*10^9 human years... and one chaturyuga is 4,320,000 years... and one brahma year is 360 kalpas... kalpa is one brahma day... if you feel this is right change it... and there have been references to additional human years between manvantaras... that might be completeing the 4.32 million
Hostility Towards Krishna Consciousness
Hi, I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for me. It seems to me as if Wikipedia does not want Krishna Conscious beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia articles. For some reason Wikipedia believes that Krishna Consciousness does not matter and that it is Vandalism to even include anything about them. For example in articles such as Rama, Wikipedia will not even let me say that according to ISKCON or Krishna Consciousness Rama appeared 20 million years ago or that he is believed by ISKCON to incarnate every 8.64 billion years (a day of Brahma). Since Wikipedia considers ISKCON to be Hindu I think this should at least be noted since I have supplied many accurate sources from ISCKON itself that represents ISKCON’s beliefs. These are not my own beliefs or original research but beliefs by what you consider a sect of Hinduism so I thought it would be appropriate to atleast acknowledge Krishna Conscious beliefs since you say it is apart of Hindusim. When I do include this you say ISKCON is not Hindu and it does not count in a Hindu article. So if I go on the ISKCON page and change the word Hindu to Vedic or Krishna Conscious, you then say that ISKCON is Hindu and stating it as another religion is wrong. So I think this a contradiction. You insist ISKCON is Hindu and that the word Hindu must be used but you fail to let anyone even acknowledge the beliefs of ISKCON in Hindu articles like Rama or this one “Hindu Cosmology”. It seems like this is a double standard. You insist that ISKCON is Hindu but when I include ISKCON’s beliefs in Hindu articles like this one or Rama you insist that it is not Hindu and cannot get any mention whatsoever. This is unfair because in many articles of Hinduism even non-hindu beliefs are given yet when I try to say if we can have just one sentence acknowledging ISKCON’s beliefs you do not allow it. It seems as if Wikipedia will deny that ISKCON is separate from Hinduism and at the same time insist it is not Hindu in order to completely censor its beliefs relating to Hindu topics such as Rama or Hindu Cosmology. For example you say I cannot even write any ISKCON-related beliefs about Hindu Cosmology, yet you insist that ISKCON is Hindu. This is hypocrisy because you will not acknowledge ISKCON to be its own religion so you call it Hindu, but even so then you will say it is not Hindu and that any view ISKCON has on anything Hindu cannot even be mentioned in one sentence anywhere. I even tried to make my own articles to give the Krishna Conscious belief of Krishna, Rama, and other but Wikipedia continually deletes these articles again and again even though I have many reliable sources. The articles I create are usually entitled as Rama in Krishna Consciousness, or Krishna in Krishna Consciousness so that I am not being biased and that it is not my point of view because I am saying in the title that this is the Krishna Conscious view. So people know that is why it is only talking about one view. And I cite many reliable sources from ISKCON to prove it. I made these articles because Wikipedia would not let me even include one sentence about ISKCON’s belief about Rama in his article, even though they insist ISKCON is Hindu and has a fit if anyone says otherwise. Sadly Wikipedia seems to want to censor all ISKCON related beliefs, all beliefs about how Krishna Consciousness views other things. For example there is an article entitled Jesus in Islam. This gives the Islamic View of Jesus. But when I created an Article entitled Jesus in Krishna Consciousness many times every time Wikipedia deleted it and blocked me from editing. I had cited many reliable sources of How ISKCON (Krishna Consciousness) views Jesus but they keep saying I am vandalilzing. I think it is religious intolerance that other beliefs are allowed to be expressed like Jesus in Islam but Jesus in Krishna Consciousness cannot be allowed to exist. Why is this? Why must Krishna Conscious views by censored and grouped in Hinduism like it doesn’t exist and then their views are not even mentioned so that people do not even know these views exist and assume that everything a Hindu believes in is the same as a Krishna Conscious person. It is like saying Jesus in Islam should not exist, so that everybody will think that the whole world thinks Jesus is the Son of God. Why is Wikipedia letting other religions express their beliefs in articles but censoring any Krishna Conscious belief that does not agree with Modern Hinduism. Even when I create articles explicitly stating that this the Krishna Conscious belief you have people saying it is biased and should be deleted. It is not biased. It is the Krishna Conscious belief. With that logic the article Jesus in Islam is also biased because it only talks about the Islamic beliefs about Jesus, but obviously nobody believes this because obviously if it says Jesus in Islam it is only supposed to be about Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus, in the same way if the articles says Jesus in Krishna Consciousness it is only supposed to be about Krishna Conscious beliefs concerning Jesus. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs on Wikipedia but Krishna Consciousness is persecuted. Why is this religion being persectuted? It doesn’t makes sense why is an article like Jesus in Islam okay but an article like Jesus in Krishna Consciousness is not? I have cited many good and reliable sources showing the Krishna Consciousness view of Jesus, just like the article Jesus in Islam shows the Islamic belief in Jesus, but because it is Krishna Conscious, Wikipedia does not like it so it destroys and erases the article and blocks me again and again everytime I try to represent the Krishna Conscious beliefs. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs but Krishna Conscious beliefs are not allowed on anything except the ISKCON page? Is Wikipedia Anti-Krishna Consciousness. All I know is I live in America and in this country we have Freedom of Religion and we not censor one religion but let other religions be expressed. If you have Jesus in Islam but not Jesus in Krishna Consciousness that is unfair and Un-American. I do not think Wikipedia should be allowed persecute Krishna Consciousness yet let other religions express their beliefs. Wikipedia does not want Krishna Consciousness views to be expressed so they call ISKCON Hindu but if you want to mention “Hindu” beliefs in Hindu Cosmology they through such a fit and block you, yet they insist it is Hindu and will not let you say otherwise. What is this hypocrisy. If I were to create a page entitled Krishna Consciouness Cosmology and provide good reliable sources showing how Krishna Consciousness views Cosmology it would be immediately erased because Wikipedia will not let Krishna Conscious views be expressed because they hate Krishna Consciousness but they will allow other religions to be expressed and will allow Mormon Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Buddhist Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology etc. I cannot include Krishna Conscious beliefs in the Hindu Cosmology article because even though they say it is Hindu then they say its not Hindu and if I try to create an article called Krishna Conscious Cosmology they will not allow it because Krishna Consciousness is the one religion that Wikipedia hates and will not allow to be expressed yet every other religion can have one Buddhist Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology, but no not Krishna Conscious cosmology. The only way that Wikpedia can censor Krishna Conscious beliefs is by first not allowing anyone to remove the word Hindu from the ISKCON article. They will not allow you to say change Hindu Scriptures to Vedic Scriptures and they will not allow you to change Hindu religion to Krishna Consciousness on the ISKCON article. The reason they do this is because they want to censor Krishna Consciousness beliefs by calling them Hindu so that nobody knows there is actually a religion called Krishna Consciousness who have belefis that differ from Krishna Consciousness. This is exactly who they censor Krishna Consciousness. First they deny it exists as a religion by claiming it Hinduism and then when we want to express Krishna Consciousness beliefs in Hindu articles they do not allow this and deny it so people are not aware of Krishna Consciousness beliefs. In this way Krishna Conscious belefis are never expressed and nobody knows about them. Since they are called Hindu everybody assumes that Krishna Conscious people are Hindu, believe the same things Hindus believe in and that there is no difference because Wikipedia will not allow us to call Krishna Consciousness different from Hindu and when we want to express are beliefs in Hindu articles they will not allow it so that people are unaware of them and think they are just all Hindu, and they will not allow creation of Krishna Conscious articles like Jesus in Islam, because then people would be aware of these beliefs, but they don’t want that because they want to persecute Krishna Consciousness by calling it Hindu and then not allowing inclusion of its beliefs in any Hindu article because then people will know it is different. This is the only way they can extinguish Krishna Consciousness, by denying it exists by merging into Hinduism and then denying what they call Hindu beliefs to be expressed in a Hindu article. They then say it is not Hindu, but if you change Hindu from Krishna Consciousness they will say it is Hindu, and if you create your article about Krishna Consciousess they delete it because they do not want people to know Krishna Consciousness exists as a unique belief system. Well this is America and I don’t care what Wikipedia does it can block me as many times as it wants but I will still keep editing every day of my life. Do you know why I can do this? Sure Wikipedia can block my computer, but it cannot IP ban every computer at my University, and every computer at the Public Libaray, and every computer I have access to because if you count all of the computers I have access to at my University and at the Public Library near my house it would come out to be like 100,000 computers. This means that even if you blocked the IP address of a computer I used every day it would take you 300 years to block every computer I have access to at my University and the Public Libarary which I go to everyday. For this reason I will continue to edit everyday and you can keep blocking but You will have to keep doing so for 300 years, and your kids will have to continue, doing so and then your grandkids will help to keep reverting my blocks because I have “FREE” access to so many computers at my UNIVERSITY and LIBRARY that you could block my IP Address on a different computer every day for 300 years and you still could not stop me from editing. Even if I die I have people who will continue editing every day and if they did they also have people so this could go on for thousands of years. Bottom line you cannot stop me from editing because I can edit every single day, which I WILL DO! And even if you block my IP everyday its not a big deal because I will just use a different computer in the library or a different computer at my University, or a different computer at my House, or a computer at my friends house, etc. Do you not understand I have free access to so many computers? If you block the IP of all the hundreds of thousands of computers at my University and the libraray, and my house and all my friends houses, I will just go to another library where there are thousands of more computers that you can block, if You block all the IP addresses of all computers in my city, then I will use computers in another city, its not a big deal. If you try to block all the computers in my state. I will go to another state. If you block all the computers in my country, I will use a computer in a different country. You cannot block all the IP addresses of every public computer in the world. There are millions and millions of computers that I have free access to and mark my words I will continue to edit all of these articles every single day of my life which might be another 70 years since I’m young, so probably much longer than most of you will be alive for and if I die no problem I will have people editing all the same articles every day just like I did and you cannot block every public computer in the world, so you can keep persecuting my religion and blocking my IP but when the next day comes I will just use another computer at my library and college and you can block that to. And you can do this every day for thousands of years. What’s the use? Just give up and stop persecuting my religion because you will never win and I will never give up. So please stop persecuting my religion, it doesn’t matter to me I will keep editing every day whether or not you agree with me or not and we have already established that I have enough access to convenient and free computers so it is in your best interest to stop, because what will you gain? I will keep editing every day whether you like it or not? You can’t kill me, so give up and stop persecuting my religion. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Discussing your views and why you feel your edits are justified is all well and good, but threatening to turn this into an edit war is a big no-no. Based on what I've seen, you're the hostile one in this dispute. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, I suggest you tone it down and engage other editors in rational and calm debate. Believe me, even if you do edit every single day, you will be reverted unless you explain why you think your edits should stay and gain consensus.
- In short, don't accuse other editors of persecution simply because they are following Wikipedia policy in reverting edits that are unsourced, unverified, and unsatisfactorily justified. --clpo13(talk) 08:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we have to consider two points here. First, when an article is talking about one way of belief, one might not add another perspective to it, unless it really makes sense. I would prepare another article and publish it in the Wikipedia along with references to websites, books and related works, more perhaps with a word or two on this article for linking.
- On the other hand, it's a bit confusing how Wikipedia is truly maintaining it's neutral point of view and presentation. It might've sounded harsh and hard, but I found most of the articles in Hiduism are mostly based on references that are not established in India. I am not sure if neutrality really means it should be established by a western author, may intellects forgive me. If the article is about software or say Big Ben, I agree 100%. However, when an article on Valmiki declares he is born around 400 BC, which implies Ramayana was written around 400 BC based on a western researcher's reference, many of the intellects simply smile at one such article. No offense intended, I am just representing a group of highly knowledgeable intellects in Sanskrit, Vedic studies and much much more deeper understanding towards roots of Hinduism. I myself am studying those for the past 20 years.
- IMHO, if Wikipedia wants to talk about religious matters, I guess neutrality would mean representing both western researchers' conclusions _AS WELL AS_ eastern intellects' opinions. For example, from Yoga Vasishtham, it is mentioned that Valmiki himself is born twelve times. On the other hand, a name such as Valmiki could be used again and again for generations together, which questions the validity of such research by name and incidents. Better represent both believes and studies.
1 Brahma Day is made of 1 Kalpa or 2 Kalpas?
The article mentions:
One day in the life of Brahma is called a Kalpa or 4.32 billion years.
A book called 'The Mind of God' written by Paul Davies mentions:
Four yugas made up a mahayuga of 4.32 million years; a thousand mahayugas formed a kalpa, two kalpas constituted a day of Brahma; the life cycle of Brahma was one hundred years of Brahma, or 311 trillion years.
I have taken this excerpt from Chapter 2 (Can the Universe Create Itself?) - Section 'Was There a Creation Event?' - page 40 of the book.
The confusion came because of translation as well as school of interpretation.
Many of the Sanskrit terms mean extremely different meanings based on the way of interpretation. The Veda itself, many Vedic Scholars and intellects say, should not be interpreted as just Sanskrit poetry. It has various interpretations using various schools of study. For example, a simple stanza can mean a ritual that a man has to do or the same may mean praising the divine or the same may mean a mathematical equation or the same may mean entirely different in a sanyasi's life. Just as an example, Vyasa had given bhashyam or an analysis for the Veda, so he is called Veda Vyasa. From his school, the same stanza means different than some other school. As far I remember, Veda Vyasa analyzed the Veda in the context of Gruhasthasrama or the married phase of human life. Other phases definitely have other meanings.
Another example, refer to Rigveda, where we offer havis during a yajna to Surya & Shiva individually. From Krishna Yajur Veda, the Lord Shiva is said to be appearing as Surya as well as many other forms. The former is supposed to be starting point where the latter is supposed to be the peak of divine consciousness according to many Vedic intellectuals.
Finally, being a Vedic scholar myself, I give what I understand from our daily rituals. This is the 51st birth day of Adya brahma and we just passed the noon for him. A kalpa is his day time, during night he rests and will not create/sustain. So, if you consider active kalpa, it's only one. If you consider actual time, it's two kalpa's. This is just another interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttina (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced / off topic content moved here for insertion
Below the earthly plane are seven nether planes:
Below these are 28 hellish planes (according to Bhagavata Purana), below which is the Garbhodaka ocean with waters of devastation. Depending on good and bad activities (karma) on an earthly plane, a soul either ascends up to enjoy heavenly delights or goes down to fiery hellish planes depending on sins performed which are judged by the god of death & justice, Yama, who presides along the 28 hells. After the results of good and bad deeds (karma) are delivered, souls return to the earthly plane again as human or animal depending on desires and karma. Thus the cycle of birth and death.
Eternal liberation or freedom from the cycle of birth and death is called Moksha, which can be obtained only in human life by turning attention inwards for uniting the soul with the Supreme Being (Parabrahman) through Yoga - Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga etc.
Liberation (Moksha) is of five types as described in Puranas:
- Sayujya: Merging into the oneness with the impersonal aspect of the Lord, and hence freedom from all material anxiety.
- Salokya: Attaining residence in the eternal abode of the Lord, called Vaikuntha, beyond material universal creation, beyond the six material heavens, a place where only surrendered devotees of the Lord go.
- Saristi: Attaining same opulences as the Lord in His abode.
- Sarupya: Attaining same beautiful form as the Lord in His abode.
- Samipya: Attaining close association of the Lord in His abode.
This abode of Lord is briefly described in the Bhagavad Gita (15.6), "That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world". Further descriptions of Vaikuntha are in the Puranas where the Lord's devotees reside eternally in loving relationship with the Lord.
Furthermore, Vaikuntha residency has following categories:
- Shanta Rasa: In neutral relationship of great awe, reveration and constant thinking of the Lord.
- Dasya Rasa: Serving the Lord personally to please the Lord as master and soul as servant.
- Sakhya Rasa: Serving the Lord as an intimate friend (formal, informal, and many other types).
- Vatsalya Rasa: Serving the Lord from a superior position as a caretaker (like motherly or fatherly relations).
- Madhurya/Sringara Rasa: Serving the Lord as an intimate conjugal lover including all previous rasas, the most sweet of all, with many further categories. In this rasa the Jiva takes the form of a gopi. Within this Rasa a Jiva can chose to be a Sakhi, a Nitya-Sakhi, or a Priya-Sakhi. A Nitya-Sakhi is a Jiva that does not wish to have amorous relations with Krishna. They are also called Manjaris and are younger than the Priya-Sakhis. Priya-Sakhis on the other hand do occasionally have amorous relationships with Krishna at the bequest of Radha.
Numbers in speed of light calculation seem "cooked" to get right number
Can anyone provide a cite for the claim that 30.3 Kala = 1 Muhurta (other sources, including the Muhurta wiki page, say 30 Kala = 1 Muhurta), or that 1 Yojana = 9.09 miles (this page says that "Yojana is an ancient measure of distance, where one yojana roughly equals to 8 to 10 miles")? Without such precise numbers, the corresponding speed (which is actually stated in the quote in question as the speed of the Sun, not the speed of light) is not nearly as close a match to current estimates of light speed (with 30 Kala = 1 Muhurta, half a nimesh becomes 0.106666... seconds, and with 2202 yojana being between 2202*8 and 2202*10, the speed works out to between 165150 miles/second and 206438 miles/second). Hypnosifl (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I removed section as hoax/OR/cherry picking Bulwersator (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it might merit a brief mention in Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts#Vedic texts (with a reference to a published work making the argument like this one or this one) but this sort of advocacy of the "Vedic writings prefigured modern science!" view doesn't really belong here. Hypnosifl (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
the article is just about some peculier and perticular form of hinduism, totaly biased and favour of theist-vedanta I would like to add these suggestions 1. ajativada 2. Mimamsa eternalism 3. samkhya-yoga theory 4. nyaya-vaisheshika atomic theory 5. lokayat theory 6. sasvatvada 7. folk hinduism myths Pratpandey13 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)