Friday, September 17, 2010

Rama’s Bridge On The Moon

Whenever science finds something interesting, it serves as a proof of the greatness of the grand, glorious Indian civilization. It is a known fact that the ancient scriptures have all the answers. It’s just a matter of time before somebody else discovers them.

Last week one such discovery was made which proves again that Rama existed and that he is supreme. In addition to Rama’s bridge here on Earth, another Rama’s bridge was found on the Moon:


Here are the facts concerning this discovery:
  1. It was made by NASA who have also proved the existence of Rama’s bridge on Earth.
  2. The photo clearly shows a bridge that could have only been built by monkey-human hybrids and not some natural phenomenon.
  3. Ramayan provides incontrovertible proof that space travel was known at that time. Hanuman was a master of this as he had travelled to the Sun and ate it when he was young.
This finding is a paradigm shift. All this while it was thought that Americans were the first to step foot on the Moon, but that picture proves that Rama and his army of monkey-human hybrids were already there at least 1.296 million years ago (as Treta Yuga ended 1.296 mya). If Rama could go to the Moon, other great divine personalities too might have gone there!

This also means that the Moon belongs to Indians. Americans have un-dharmically trampled upon our property. We need to organize another rath yatra and teach those mlecchas a lesson.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

straw man

Lije said...

@Anonymous, Congratulations on knowing the name of a logical fallacy! But too bad that your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

Anonymous said...

lol....mine's working alright though...

GotNoName said...

What's your view on the "floating stones" near the Rama's bridge?? Why do you think they float? And why is it that kinda stones aren't found in any part of the world other than that region?

I myself examined the stones when I went there as a tourist & found out that those were not ordinary stones in that they weren't as heavy as they looked.

Lije said...

@GotNoName,

Why do the stones float? Why do objects that float float? Some elementary knowledge of physics will answer those questions.

GotNoName said...

Well, stones generally don't float on water..

But these stones in Rashwaram float, which makes me wonder that the case is.

Now I certainly won't be quick to conclude that this is some sorta supernatural phenomenan unless sience really doesn't have any sound explanation..

What's bugging me is why this kinda stones are not seen anywhere else other than Ramshwaram..

The absence of this kinda stone anywhere else is making the case stronger for hindus.

Lije said...

Did you actually verify that floating stones aren't found anywhere else? (Hint: There is something called Google in existence). And science does have an explanation for stuff like that which was what my previous comment said. And how does it make a stronger case for hindus? Does aurora australis make a stronger case for The Invisible Pink Penguin?

Astik said...

Excuse me, there's plenty of evidence that Rama's Bridge was man-made. Just look up the recent researches that point to an old age of the bridge & a creation by men.

Have you ever read the book called "Search of a Historical Krishna" by NS Rajaram??

Moreover, after Dwarka was discovered, it became clear that Mahabharat really happened & that Krishna did exist. They were not mythologies. Another interesting fact that proves Krishna's historicity is the fact that Mahabharata mentions the submersion of Dwarka, which in fact got discovered.

And then there are these astronimical references within Mahabharata that prove beyond doubt that Krishna existed & Mahabharata happened.

In case they hadn't, we would not expect them to give the astronomical references so accurately.

You atheists need to learn more about God..

Lije said...

@Astik,

Before you dole out unneeded advice, maybe you should evaluate the kind of logic you use?

Astik said...

Oh C'mon now!!
If Krishna didn't exist or Mahabharata never happened, why would those guys, whose description of ancient India is taken as history, wanna even refer to a figure that never existed, assuming they knew it? Why would the sages write a great deal about someone who never existed?? After all, weren't they the one claiming "Satyameva Jayate"????

Everyone knows Harry Potter is fictious. So if anyone's against this character, would definitely speak out of it as being fictious. Right???

Buddhism, as we know, is an off-shoot of Hinduism. And even to this day, Buddhist speak out against some of the Hindu laws they did't like. So if Krishna was known as a fictious character to them, they woud have outright said it. But even in Buddhist work we see mention of Krishna

The name Kṛishṇa occurs in Buddhist writings in the form Kaṇha, phonetically equivalent to Kṛishṇa.[34]

The Ghata-Jâtaka (No. 454) gives an account of Kṛishṇa's childhood and subsequent exploits which in many points corresponds with the Brahmanic legends of his life and contains several familiar incidents and names, such as Vâsudeva, Baladeva, Kaṃsa.

Megasthenes (350 – 290 BC) a Greek ethnographer and an ambassador of Seleucus I to the court of Chandragupta Maurya mentioned about Herakles in his famous work indica. Many scholars have suggested that the deity identified as Herakles was Krishna.

Now why on earth would a Greek refer to Krishna if he knew he was fictious. Moreover, why would so many people all of a sudden start worshipping a character they always knew as mythical??

Moreover, there's the dating method I have pointed out earlier that puts the birth of Krishna somewhere around 3000 BC. How did they get it??? The astronomical references, if made up, would not match. BUT THEY DO!!!!


Do you have any sound explanation???

Astik said...

Oh and another intersting proof to add: -

an inscription has been found at Mora near Mathura, which apparently mentions a son of the great satrap Rajuvula, probably the satrap Sodasa, and an image of Vrishni, "probably Vasudeva, and of the "Five Warriors".

Is that enough for you to believe that the whole Harry Potter argument is invalid???
Oh well, at least Harry Potter wasn't worshipped anywhere!!

Lije said...

If Krishna didn't exist or Mahabharata never happened, why would those guys, whose description of ancient India is taken as history, wanna even refer to a figure that never existed, assuming they knew it? Why would the sages write a great deal about someone who never existed?? After all, weren't they the one claiming "Satyameva Jayate"????

How am I supposed to know? Why do some people believe that aliens abducted and molested them? It probably has something to do with the number of ways a human brain can be fooled. You have made a false assumption that the people who wrote the books were writing the truth. You haven't provided any evidence to support it.

Everyone knows Harry Potter is fictious. So if anyone's against this character, would definitely speak out of it as being fictious. Right???

In the present day world people would call it out because there exist rational people who don't use religious logic in evaluating what is real and what is fictitious. That wasn't the case in the ancient world.

Buddhism, as we know, is an off-shoot of Hinduism. And even to this day, Buddhist speak out against some of the Hindu laws they did't like. So if Krishna was known as a fictious character to them, they woud have outright said it. But even in Buddhist work we see mention of Krishna

So what? Elves and goblins are mentioned in Harry Potter books and in older mythologies. That doesn't make them any more real.

Megasthenes (350 – 290 BC) a Greek ethnographer and an ambassador of Seleucus I to the court of Chandragupta Maurya mentioned about Herakles in his famous work indica. Many scholars have suggested that the deity identified as Herakles was Krishna.

Now why on earth would a Greek refer to Krishna if he knew he was fictious. Moreover, why would so many people all of a sudden start worshipping a character they always knew as mythical??


Probably because of human biases as I said above.

Moreover, there's the dating method I have pointed out earlier that puts the birth of Krishna somewhere around 3000 BC. How did they get it??? The astronomical references, if made up, would not match. BUT THEY DO!!!!

Again so what? We are talking about religion here where one has to strongly feel something is true and it becomes true. One just has to pick some old date and make it the date of birth for Krishna. Or maybe somebody called Krishna did exist and had a nondescript life, but was elevated to ridiculous proportions like present day people do with Rajnikanth or Chuck Norris. The article I linked to says evidence for each and every claim is what is needed. If you are going to pick and chose what to believe in and what not to, the same logic proves that the world of Harry Potter is real.

Lije said...

an inscription has been found at Mora near Mathura, which apparently mentions a son of the great satrap Rajuvula, probably the satrap Sodasa, and an image of Vrishni, "probably Vasudeva, and of the "Five Warriors".

Is that enough for you to believe that the whole Harry Potter argument is invalid???


No it doesn't. The inscription by itself doesn't have any veracity other than what you claim it has (and this applies to some of your other arguments as well). That would be circular reasoning which was one of the arguments used in that article to prove the realness of Harry Potter.

Do you have any other arguments to offer other than those mentioned in the Harry Potter article, i.e argument from authority, argument from ignorance, argument from personal experience and circular reasoning? Do you know what criteria science uses to come to conclusions? If so, apply them to any future arguments you want to make here. Else don't bother replying as, if you continue using religious logic and religious evidence, we would be using two incompatible knowledge standards and will have no common ground upon which to resolve our arguments.

Anonymous said...

Love the sarcastic tone...