Hello? as we speak, we have humans on all different leves, (is what we are taking about) those monkeys evolved into humans by now, but remember that evolution is happenning constantly, and wether those who promote that we are all exactly the same, accept this or not, we are not all the same; some have evolved as a group far before others, and some are barely begginning to evolve, but because of mass communication and advanced education, plus proper nutrition (not just bananas) the IQ's of the average humans, are very close.
I think you need definitely to do more research into evolutionary theory. Social development, the development of culture, even better diet etc is not biological evolution or mutation. Humans are on different levels, but they are all human. There are no semi-ape people, there are no mutants pointing to a further evolution into a new spieces. The monkeys in Ramayana never existed outside of the world of imagination. And if you would but look into the matter, you'd find that bananas actually contain many substatances which are good for the brain, as they are the building blocks for the brains production of neuro peptides and neuro transmitters. Try a banana smoothie sometime, it might help.
Maybe that's why we evolved from monkeys and not Tigers or dogs...there's nothing wrong with bananas, but a diet of only one type, wether that be apples or raw meat, is not conducive to a good balance or brain growth, or Gorillas would be teaching at Harvard. "The monkeys in Ramayana never existed outside of the world of imagination" Can you prove that?
Evolution does not depend on your diet. some bacteria can make everything they need, and they are not complex like multicellular organisms. Why are you so attached to the idea that it is built by Ram. Lets say it is not built by ram, when you look at your life, it doesn't really change anything. If you prove this bridge is built by ram, it does not authenticate Ramayan as a "real story".
I am sure I watched a programme with Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost evolutionally scientists. He stated we did not evolve from monkeys, but from a creature which was similar. I could be wrong however, my memory is not perfect.
Monkeys > Apes > Aridpithicus ramidus > Austrailipithicus aferensis > Austrailipithicus africanus > Au. garhi > H. habilis > H. rudolphensis > H. ergaster > H. erectus > H. heilderbergensis > H. neanderthalensis > H. sapiens > H. sapiens sapiens (us!) My point being is that...our last common ansestor is with apes...so we did come from them..we just split into different branches in the Hominid family tree (there are other species such as Paranthropus bossei and H. floresiensis that just died out...and didn't lead to anatomically modern humans but you get the point)
That we are discussing this over the internet is enough to prove that we are not doing so bad after all. If we are monkeys or gods, we are still hip.
We're not monkeys or gods - we are human beings. Probably we have much more potential than monkeys or gods. As for proof that Ramayana is fiction - Just as you can't prove it's true, I can't prove it's not true, and actually, it doesn't interest me much to try.
I think it's a question of probabilities. In general in the field of spirituality, belief isn't that important in my opinion - it is only what one can actually experience and thus verify for oneself which is at all relevant. To be honest, it's always struck me as a bit odd that so much is made of 'belief.'.It's a bit like saying only the credulous will be saved. I can't see how I'd gain any benefit from trying to force myself to believe in stuff which to me seems incredibly unlikely to be true. It would mean abandoning one's own intelligence. But things like the truth or falsity of ancient scriptures can't be proven or disproven. I prefer to believe that which I percieve as useful, and in line with my overall experience of life. Since I have yet to experience the physical reality of many armed monsters, shapeshifting monkeys etc, I prefer to see such things as imaginative creations. But of course, the truth can be embodied in works of imagination.
I believe in every scripture I have read mainly because, why would liars become writers of scriptures?
Are poets liars then Hari? You seem to see everything in very black and white terms. Either they were telling the truth or they were liars? Was Shakespeare 'telling the truth' - I mean about human nature? Was Homer? Walt Whitman? It is clearly not possible to believe the literal truth of all scriptures as you claim to do without holding views which are totally incompatible and contradictory. The version of the Bible for example, would totally cancel out all the Indian scriptures. And the Koran would cancel the Biblical view. (Allah has no son etc) So it's pretty clear to any sane person that they can't all be literal truth.
You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from BBb. Jesus told parables, and a parable is like a poem a story or analogy, yet we know a fairy tale when we se one; and no one takes a fairy tale for a factual story. Here's a good example of where I'm coming from: We can see a movie of Tarzan, Star wars, Superman, The Matrix, and know that it is pure fantasy with a great point, a simple imaginary adventure, or trying to enlighten us to the things that we could do if we put our minds to it; yet,(from another perspective) we can read about George Washington, Hitler, Lincoln, or the Egyptian culture, and know that we are being told facts, not fables. When I read the scriptures I know what is meant to be a fable, a parable or if it's a true historical event, however incredible and miraculous it may be, or hard to believe. I know what is possible in this universe, and what we are capable of doing, and how much potential we have within ourselves that we haven't evn began to tap. I am unshakeable in that area, t what others may consider impossible, for me its reality as is. I cannot convince those who have not taken the road to discover it themselves; like Don Juan one said to Carlos: "Good luck?, my foot.!! It's hard work!!" Think of the parts of the elephant and the blind men. It is blind men who write the scriptures also, but not liars...the blind man that said an elephant is like a tree, really believed what he touched; similarly, those who witnessed Jesus, Muhamad, budha and others, were still ignorant of the totality of God. In another thread someone asked if Budha was an incarnation of God, and why then would he deny the Gods? Would God deny himself? This is explained easily in another great and complete scripture, and unless one reads that complete scripture, one will be at odds and confused. The blind men never saw the wholle picture because they never listened to each other, and formed thus an incomplete picture of the elephant, this is what's happenning to main relgions nowadays. It is safe to say that they will remain forever blind.
I'm sure Don Juan would swallow tales of flying monkeys hook line and sinker. Esp considering his total dismissal of religion in 'The Fire From Within'. The problem really is wanting a kind of mental/rational explanation that is absolutely pat. It simply can't and doesn't exist.
People have to live before they realize anything. Just out of interest though, who is 'ahead of death'? What would being 'ahead of death' actually mean?
Enlightenment...? But at the same time our true Selves can never die....b/c the were never born....so aren't we all...stripped down to who we really are...ahead of death (though I wouldn't even use that phrase). So shouldn't we be not looking to live to see the Truth or die to see the Truth...but just to Be to see the Truth and Be the Truth?
