You can not have any personal experience of whether a story set in ancient times is true or not. You simply decide on whatever non-experiential basis to believe it is. Other cultures have equally non-historical myths which all contradict each other, all the more so if thay are taken by the ignorant as historic fact.
even if you were 100% convinced that there is a definite spiritual reality, it wouldn't mean you would be convinced of the truth in literal terms of ancient stories of monkey armies and so on. In fact it might make you much less inclined to believe in such things. Direct experience would be no more likely to make you accept the literal truth of the ramayana than the book of genesis.
Not so as we actually exist and have the potential to change and develop, unlike fictitious monkeys. Ever hear of the wisdom of the idiots?
Absolutely, but how does one define ridiculous? or define mythic? when one deems something ridiculous or mythic, does that become universally true? If the answer to this question is "No" or even "yes", then who gives these labels of "mythic" or "historially true" to a phenomenon that no one in their current lifetime has experienced? Now, when both opposing parties - one that defines something as mythic, and another that defines something as "historically true" are at each other's throats. who is right? The fact of the matter is that it does not really matter, there is no scale of measurement by which we can define something as right or wrong in the natural world. If you ever draw a line between "ridiculous" and "non ridiculous" it is not natural and you will find that both depend on each other because they are not natural.
how do you know that what you are interpretting now as real is really real and it is not just you who exists in this world? how can you say that with complete 100% accuracy? Lets say i don't share the same opinion, does that prove that i hold a seperate existence from you?
I think that to prosper in this world, and probably any other, you need some common sense. Credulity won't get you anywhere. There is really no reason for example, to believe in giants. There are many stories about them, but actually, not a shred of evidence. Some might say that the giant's causway in northern ireland is proof that the giant Finn McColl existed, or how could the causeway have got there? But actually, it is a natural rock formation. In effect I tend to think that the probabilty is very high that Ram's bridge to Sri Lanka is in the same category.
If you wake up tomorrow and find out that scientific evidence points to the idea that it is a bridge possibly constructed by monkeys, and convinced you go about believing that... then do you think that will make you prosper in this world? There is no reason to believe in the giants and neither is there any reason to believe in giants because the causeway is a rock formation.
The point is that no such evidence will ever be forthcoming, as you know full well. In my view, the real skeptics are those who don't believe in humanity, or accept the fact that we've progressed greatly in our knowledge of the universe since ancient times when people made up imaginitive stories to explain it all to themselves. To reject the literal truth of ancient myths is not to reject the spiritual, but perhaps to come to a more clear understanding of what the spiritual might really be.
For all we know, an asteroid might strike earth ...leading to our most unfortunate demise... that is a possibility for a tomorrow and the paranoid section of hip forums, *you sir, may never know*.
It's true - the earth could be wiped out tomorrow. But again, perhaps there is a cosmic order which prevents that from occuring. Perhaps we are too valuable to the universe to allow such a total wipe out.
Wow, we move from a possibility of getting annihilated tomorrow to a possibility that a cosmic order will save this tiny planet in one post. Now, the world has become such a safe place when we move it from chaos to control by just a change in our thoughts. Is it in accordance with reality? does it really matter?
Those "fictitious" monkeys could easily be your ancestors, and the reason why they are not around anymore is (they were actually more advanced than monkeys but not quite human) because they probably evolved into what we have nowadays as "humans". This present debate as to what can and cannot be real, reminds me of an ancient parable of the frog that had never seen the ocean and would ask one who had seen it "is it twice as big as my pond?". "no" would be the answer,."it's about ten times the size of your pond, or more". Our imagination is like the imagination of the frog, which by default cannot think to the level of a human,as humans themselves think on different levels; for instance Einstein was on a higher plateau than let's say a boxer, but compared to beings we have not met yet, Einstein himslef would look retarded. It's safe to assume that life in all its forms comes in many grand and inferior levels, and for me that is very obvious simply by deduction based on observation of principles, and the grand variety of life being discovered constantly that can do things, we had not imagined (creatures deep withing earths core or deep underesea levels). True intelligence is not adhering to final research as total fact, but intelligent deduction (probably a separate subject itself) based on the motion of constant discovery (if we thought that could'nt exist, and it exists based on later discoveries, and that couldn't be done and now it's been done). Intelligent deduction is higher than fact-adherence on any board. This is what I'm talking about when I consider what has not been proven as fact, a possible reality...true intelligence is like the smarts of a gambler who risks without final fact, based on a skill few others posses--- not 100% guess, but neither 100% assurance either; but a beautiful blend of both, and perhaps some other secret ingredient. We, as individuals, and as a race of beings, have to stop thinking that only the proved is real, since this is idiocy of the worst kind.
some are afflicted worse than others, but i don't believe all humans are idiots. it just seems that those at the wheel are way miguided and corrupt. That and humans are very vulnerable to mass influence, apathy, and morally corruptable. I mean even destroying a planet is an accomplishment of sorts. It took some intelligence. no band of monkeys could do that, you have to remember (unless you're one of those fundamentalist christians who believes humans rode dinosaurs, in which case you can stop reading here, for your God may smite you for reading such heresy) we evolved from monkeys, not the other way around, so naturally we are superior. Let's not suck each other's dicks quite yet though, because the difference between a true genius such as Tesla or Da Vinci and your average Joe is just about equal to the difference between the average Joe and a well trained Ape. Nothing is to be more pitied than the ignorant persistance of persistant ignorance.
So where did the humans who are also actors in the Ramayana come from? Really this doesn't hold water.
Well both are possibilities. Note the use of the word 'perhaps' - a word some people don't seem to have in their vocabulary. I'm saddened that simply on the basis of trying to justify a set of irational beliefs, people limit their own mental capacity, or their ability to think for themselves. But prorbably the single worst aspect of the fundie mind-set is that by taking the literalist view, the intended truth of what are symbolic or allegorical stories is totally missed. Hence what begins as light ends up as darkness. This seems to apply to most religions. 'What fatal flowers of darkness spring from seems of light' Don't forget that these fundies are ready to go and burn down a mosque on the basis of their ridiculous belief in what are no more than fairy tales.
