--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:43 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > All it would take is for one creation myth scripture to give an > > accurate account of the dinosaurs. Having dominated every ecological > > niche for 250,000,000 years, is that really too much to ask from a > > creation myth? > > > There are visible fossils all over the Himalaya since there are huge > amounts of sedimentary rocks. What is traditionally believed in > superstitious "Vedic" culture is that these represent souls who have > incarnated into inferior forms of life and are trapped for huge > swaths of time into the very rocks themselves. So those aren't > dinosaurs Curtis, they're poor souls trapped in the rocks. Get with > it already! > > Aren't the Vedas SO scientific! I just know one day I'll wake and > I'll see the Vedas on the covers of both Nature and Scientific > American with the caption "How Could We Have Missed It? Ancient Vedas > are Actually an Advanced Form of Science Based on the Unified Field!" >
Be it as it may, I think it's wrong to judge for instance Rgveda based on a translation, into any language. The deeper meanings, or stuff, are almost inevitably lost in a translation. As an example, compare the orginal Vedic of the first line of Rgveda X 129: naasad aasiin no (pornounce: naw) sad aasiit tadaaniim to Macdonell's translation: There was not the non-existent nor the existent then...
