Posts from Forum

Ariya is a person striving for perfection.

I invested an ethnographic meaning in this concept, and I tried not to delve into etymology and, moreover, philosophy.

In modern times, history has been rewritten countless times to suit certain political agendas.

And not just in modern times.

About the Tripolye culture. Artifacts similar to those excavated by V. Khvoika near the village of Tripolye, but dating back to the 6th-5th millennium BC, were found in the territory of present-day Romania, Hungary, and Serbia... And there, this is known as the Cucuteni culture. And in China, they once excavated the remains of the Yangshao culture, dating back to the 6th millennium BC. The patterns on the pottery belonging to this culture are completely identical to those of the Tripolye culture. And whether the Tripolye people actually belonged to the Indo-Europeans or the "Euro-Chinese" is an open question.

About DNA genealogy. There is nothing surprising about the coincidence of haplogroups and similar things among different peoples. I can easily prove that ALL of humanity originated from the same ancestors, using elementary (well, almost) mathematics.

In 1920, archaeologists made a scientific discovery, discovering two ancient cities - Harappa and Mohenjo-daro.

But didn't they realize that these cities had been in ruins for about 4,000 years?

Well, I wouldn't take the Mahabharata seriously. There is a wonderful work on this topic - the trilogy "Black Balaur" by G. L. Oldie.

A true master has no favorite tactics or techniques. He is equally good at everything. That is why he is a master.

Interesting topic. It reminds me of a phrase I once read somewhere (quoting from memory): "Every master, with 20 hammers, will definitely have one favorite." :)
If we don't try to solve the question "in general," specifically in relation to "Heroes": are there players who are equally good at playing any faction? And can such a universal player lose to a player who is more skilled at playing only one or a few factions?

Well, as for the Maha-Bharata, I wouldn't take it seriously at all. There is a wonderful work on this subject — the "Black Balamut" trilogy by G. L. Aldi.

The Mahabharata was compiled by the sage Vyasadeva about five thousand years ago. For three years he labored over this historical work, recording the events of the past. The Mahabharata is one of the oldest historical chronicles to have survived to our day. For a modern person, undoubtedly, much new and interesting is revealed in this work and film.

It is interesting to learn about the lives of holy sages and listen to their instructions on the "eternal" and the "earthly." Kings of the past, known for their valor, generosity, and devotion to duty and honor, will share their inner strength with us. Women of heavenly beauty, full of chastity and renowned for their loyalty, will reveal to viewers the secrets by which they firmly won the hearts of noble princes and kings. At that time, people also communicated with inhabitants of higher planetary systems and knew mystical techniques of yoga and meditation; it is interesting for us to observe how these were used in their daily lives. The laws of karma, which we sometimes take an interest in as amateurs, were well known to the people of antiquity. For many of us, it will be a true discovery to see how they are guided by these laws to make all sorts of everyday decisions. The lessons taught by the "Mahabharata" were the basis of moral, cultural, and spiritual education for hundreds of generations of our distant ancestors. Events of the Mahabharata, translated into other languages and slightly altered, are found literally in all modern cultures; for example, the Russian Vedas familiar to many of us.

If you wish to learn more about the Mahabharata, I refer you to the primary source. Below is an address by the sage Vaishampayana, a student of the compiler of the Mahabharata, Vyasadeva. Listen to what he says in the assembly of sages:

Vaishampayana said:
I will tell you that which I heard from my spiritual teacher, the great rishi, renowned in all worlds, a great man endowed with boundless power — Vyasadeva. This gifted son of Satyavati recounted in 100,000 shlokas the holy deeds of the sons of Pandu. Learned people who teach this narrative, and those who listen to it, having been spiritually elevated, will find inner union with God. This ancient narrative is equal in significance to the Vedas, for it combines purity with divine essence. It is the best of narratives, deserving of attentive listening, and therefore highly exalted by sages. This most pious narrative points the way toward economic and moral development and teaches one to act fully guided by the firm will of reason.

A scholar who teaches this Krishnaveda to people with an open mind, those who are generous and sincere but not ingrained atheists, will certainly achieve his life's goal. Having heard this narrative, even a very cruel person can undoubtedly eliminate the consequences of all their sins, even if it is the sin of killing an embryo in the mother's womb. The true name of this narrative is Victory; therefore, it should be heard by anyone who strives for victory. For so great is the power of this literary creation that with its help a king can defeat his enemies and make a victorious march across the whole world. The "Mahabharata" should be listened to again and again by a young king and queen, as this great history, auspicious for listeners, is the best guarantee of obtaining a son.

The "Mahabharata" is the most sacred among worldly books of wisdom; it also stands in the first rank of sacred scriptures. The "Mahabharata" leads to spiritual liberation, for it was created by Shrile Vyasa himself, an incarnation of the Lord, a sage of truly boundless mind. Those who read this narrative aloud can expect, now and in the future, that their children will be obedient and their assistants will please them in every way. Anyone who constantly listens to this narrative will be freed from the consequences of all sins committed by soul, body, or word. Everyone who learns without envy about the great lives of the kings of the Bharata lineage may feel no fear of diseases and, of course, not fear for their life after death.

Krishna-dvaipayana Vyasa helped people achieve holiness in their lives; therefore, he created a narrative that promotes the attainment of wealth, fame, longevity, as well as ensures ascension to heaven, and in this existence — purification from impurity. In this narrative, he glorified throughout the world the high-spirited sons of Pandu and other warriors who possessed great wealth and power. The Himalayan range and the great ocean are famous as storehouses of precious stones; similarly, the "Mahabharata" is famous as a rich treasury. A learned man who reads this creation aloud to Brahmins on holy days is purified of all sins and will be elevated to the heavenly abode. Eventually, he will be able to reach the spiritual world. If anyone during a shraddha memorial ceremony reads even a quarter of a shloka of the "Mahabharata" aloud to Brahmins, their participation in the shraddha will bring eternal benefit to their ancestors. All sins unintentionally committed during the day will simply disappear if one listens to the "Mahabharata." It tells of the great (maha) lives of the kings of the Bharata lineage and is therefore known as the "Mahabharata"; it is enough just to understand the meaning of the words "Mahabharata" to be freed from all sins.

The great thinker Krishna-dvaipayana Vyasa worked continuously for three whole years on the creation of this absolutely extraordinary historical narrative. O ruler of the Bharata lineage, everything contained in various books regarding religion, economics, satisfaction of bodily needs, and liberation can also be found in the Mahabharata; but beyond that, it contains things that cannot be found in any other book.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Черный_Баламут
"Black Balamut" is a novel-trilogy written in 1997 by Henry Lion Aldi. The novel is an artistic retelling of the ancient Indian epic "Mahabharata," as well as a number of other legends and traditions of Ancient India, and tells the backstory of the Great Battle on the field of Kurukshetra and the ascension of Krishna Janardana (whose name literally translates from Sanskrit as "Black Balamut" — this definition is given in accordance with the Brockhaus encyclopedic dictionary).

Vedic literature itself gives a different definition:
Janardana(Janardana) — one of the names of Vishnu, literally means: "He who destroys the chain of birth-death. He who helps break free from the endless cycle of births and deaths from the wheel of Samsara."

Plot
One of the features of the novel is the obvious divergence of its finale and the plot line of Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, from the letter and spirit of the canonical epic. The Bhagavad-gita, recognized by many as a great text teaching love, peace, and virtue, becomes in the trilogy the mysterious and terrifying Song of the Lord (which is a literal translation of the title), Krishna's tool in enslaving the hordes gathered for the battle at Kurukshetra.

Bhagavad — divine, gita — song (guitar — song of the sun, or song bringing the light of the sun, the light of knowledge)

Furthermore, the Pandava brothers (recognized sons of King Pandu) — Yudhishthira, Bhimasena, Arjuna, Nakula, and Sahadeva — who were the main positive heroes in the epic, are also not the primary protagonists of the trilogy. Instead, the narrative is conducted alternately from the perspective of Indra-the-Thunderer and three students of Rama-with-the-axe — Gangeya-Bhishma, Mentor Drona, and Karna-Sekacha — who played antagonistic roles in the original epic.

The plot of the work unfolds in the so-called Indian "nomos" of Aldi's mythological multiverse.

A similar situation can be seen in Homer's poems "Iliad" and "Odyssey," which are based on such an ancient Indian work as Srimad Bhagavatam.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So it turns out that the Maha-Bharata — which consists of historical chronicles — you don't take seriously at all, but a fantasy novel "Black Balamut" written based on it, distorting the historical facts described in the Maha-Bharata (the mere reading of which gives a person great benefit in various spheres of their life and activity), you do take seriously.

Very interesting logic.
Have you read even one of the 18 books that make up the Maha-Bharata?

If we don't try to solve the question "in general," specifically in relation to "Heroes": are there players who are equally good at playing any faction? And can such a versatile player lose to a player who is more skilled at playing only one or a few factions?

I don't know if there are, but if we're talking about skill, then no, such a versatile player won't lose to someone who is good at playing only one faction. And if they do lose, it will only be under two conditions:
1) Their opponent is exceptionally good at playing their faction.
2) The master is slightly unlucky, or their opponent is lucky (the element of luck always remains, in any case).

So, you seriously don't consider the Mahabharata, which is a historical chronicle, but you do take a fantastical novel, "Black Balмут," based on it, which distorts the historical facts described in the Mahabharata (simply reading which gives a person great benefit in various spheres of their life), seriously.

Historical chronicles? Sure. That is, 2 armies with a total of about 4.5 million people at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, or 99 sons of one king, are historical facts? This is at least an exaggeration.
And regarding the "noble, generous, and devoted kings," as well as "women of heavenly beauty, full of chastity and famous for their fidelity," one can argue.
But "Black Balмут" is at least fun. Sometimes.

GoedenDag, still, I ask you: it's not worth belittling/downplaying the "Mahabharata," regardless of one's personal attitude towards it: it is a great epic, and it is an integral part of the world's historical and cultural heritage. But arguments at the level of

"Black Balaam" is at least funny. Sometimes.

are best not used at all. Jokes about Vovochka are even funnier, for example - so what? Comparing the original and its free retelling is completely incorrect; it's like Caruso performed by a neighbor.:D

over 650 million people

Well, let's calculate. The total number of troops was 18 (eighteen) akshauhinis. 7 with the Pandavas, 11 with the Kauravas.

An akshauhini is a military formation consisting of 21,870 chariots, 21,870 war elephants, 65,610 cavalry, and 109,350 infantry.

That is, 1 akshauhini consists of approximately 250,000 soldiers. Multiplying this number by 18, we get 4.5 million. If both sides had mobilized all their combat-ready population, the total number of inhabitants in the territories under their control could be estimated at 22-23 million. But, since only Kshatriyas and (in small numbers) Brahmins fought, this figure increases by a factor of 20. 400 million. 5,000 years ago? Isn't that too much? And if there were 650 million of them, then the total population of India alone was something like 65 billion people. In my opinion, that's an exaggeration.

4.5 million? During the 18 days of the battle of Kurukshetra, more than 650 million people died. Moreover, there were only Kshatriyas (warriors - individuals for whom shame is worse than death); there wasn't a single Vaishya (merchant) or Shudra (worker). There were also Brahmins present.

In this battle, seismic, bacteriological, nuclear, elemental, and psychic weapons, among many others, were used.

StickyFingaz, I completely agree!:D
The Captain has the honor to inform:
1. "Mahabharata" is a work of fiction, or rather, a cycle of myths, and hyperbole is a necessary part of any myth.
2. The entire population of Earth during the specified historical period was significantly smaller!

4.5 million? During the 18 days of the battle of Kurukshetra, more than 650 million people died. Moreover, there were only Kshatriyas (warriors - individuals for whom shame is worse than death); there wasn't a single Vaishya (merchant) or Shudra (worker). There were also Brahmins present.

Let's assume that's true. But where is the plot hole then?

D. Bykov A fool is a fool. Well, in general, they achieved their goal – fools make up the majority. I have never lived in a society where fools make up the majority, and this, I must say, is a completely new, even revolutionary experience. Some will argue that it has always been this way, that fools have always made up nine-tenths of any community, and I myself have written about this, but I never meant the population as a whole. I am talking about that very one-tenth, which is considered the thinking part of society: it reads, writes, goes to the movies, follows politics and comments on it. At different times, Russia produced various goods of varying quality: machines, tanks, cars, sincere loyalists, snitches, dissidents, emigrants (this article of Russian export is particularly successful with us), and all of this went somewhere, moved, aroused great interest. Modern Russia produces almost exclusively fools, but in industrial quantities, exceeding any demand. These fools predominate in all spheres of Russian life, including the intellectual one. In the opposition, by the way, they are also in the majority, so the constant and monotonous criticism of this very opposition is, I must say, a bit tiresome. Even during the Belarus situation, it became clear that the situation could not be otherwise: where power is catastrophically degenerating, the opposition also becomes foolish. If you want a different opposition, one that you are not ashamed to support, let's start by changing the government, but you don't want that. Then your own idiocy will become obvious. Does anyone, except an idiot, ask what your positive program is to people who are removing a dead horse from the road? Their positive program is that there is no dead horse, and they are asked why they are striving for power. They are not striving for power; their function is hygienic; they are just a little more sensitive to the smell of a dead horse, that's all; but they cannot explain this either, being fools. Sensitivity to smells does not yet mean intelligence. The signs of a fool are numerous, but let's focus on the essential ones. First, a fool is inclined to discuss obvious things seriously, that is, to question the axioms of the society in which he lives. Some will argue (oh, they always argue with me! Instead of listening to the end), that Lobachevsky also questioned the axioms of Euclid; excellent, I will say, let's abolish the flat world of Euclid and create another one, and then we will question all the axioms; but you don't want that! You want to live in a post-industrial world and at the same time hotly argue about the national question; you want to travel freely abroad and yearn for Stalin; you want prosperity and still hate freedom! Fools argue about whether Jews are good or bad, whether Russians are better than everyone else, whether it is necessary to believe in God, and whether all foreigners should be expelled from the capital, and they do not understand that this is not being discussed, because it is not the Middle Ages and it is not Saudi Arabia. Secondly, a fool does not know how to argue. In an argument, he is only interested in dominance, and the argument for him is only an attack on the person, and the point of view of the opponent is determined only by inherent, innate characteristics: he lives abroad (or in the Russian province), he is a Jew (a Cossack), he raises children (a cat). The fact that one can be a Jew, live in the province and raise children, or be a Cossack living abroad and raise a cat, does not fit into the mind of a fool. He thinks in patterns. Thirdly, a fool is not able to look at the process outside the established context: for a liberal fool, the USSR is unequivocally bad and contains nothing progressive; for a totalitarian fool, everyone who lived in the USSR after Stalin was destroying the great empire. Fourthly, a fool reads very little. He doesn't know much in general, but reading is difficult for him in principle: "I won't read this and I won't," "Let the p...s read this," "I'd rather read so-and-so" (usually a close friend or neighbor, most often a regular on stikhi.ru). Fifthly, a fool is almost always a conspiracy theorist. He does not believe in the course of events, but he firmly believes in world conspiracies: "the twins were blown up by Bush, Yeltsin is a Freemason, the Anglo-Saxons are interfering with Putin." Most of the theories developed by fools are irrefutable precisely because it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a world conspiracy. A fool does not know what Popper's criterion is. In his head, it cannot fit the thought that only a falsifiable theory can be true or false – everything else is not a theory, but a walrus's dick, which is completely irrefutable in its obviousness and simplicity. Sixthly, a fool never sees himself from the outside. He is not capable of self-irony, but that's okay; most fools are monomaniacs and lose all criticality when they get carried away with their hobby. You can even communicate with them, but only until the conversation turns to Jews, pedophiles, or elves. Why there are so many fools is a complex question: the easiest thing to say is that they are produced by Putin's leadership, which is interested in ease of management. And this is even logical, like any theory of a fool. In fact, this is a multi-factor process, and these factors are the eternal curse of non-fools! – knowledgeable people call many; from global warming to the universal spread of the Internet. The fact is that the thinking part of Russia has for the first time degraded to such an extent that discussions in this environment have become impossible, predictions about the future are meaningless, and endless repetitions of banalities and excesses have turned into a norm. No circle of high school students, no combat group of terrorists, no company of drunken officials looks so hopeless, stupid, and aggressive. A natural question arises: why? We often think about the purposes of God, but we have not yet found an answer to Burns' question: the Lord is, of course, right in everything, but it seems incomprehensible why he created a sturdy cabinet with such a miserable contents. We don't know the ultimate purpose of creation, but somehow we liked to think that one of its possible purposes is progress. However, what is it like to imagine that regression is no less important, that without it we may not feel the proper humility, that every Renaissance must be preceded by dark ages? Or maybe the point is not in the Renaissance at all, and the fool has such a powerful compensatory mechanism that we don't even dream of? Perhaps this is an irrational intuition, amazing physical perfection, or the ability to slow down progress? After all, Leonov predicted in "Pyramid" that humanity is doomed to degradation, otherwise it will destroy itself and the world? It seems that in this environment of total and growing meaninglessness, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain an optimistic view of things (optimism is not a sign of a fool – a fool is optimistic only about himself, and he usually predicts doom for the world; the fact that fools will also perish if the world perishes does not occur to them). However, there is something truly inspiring in all this: there is a point of view that the Lord is not interested in our affairs at all – he is interested in our souls, which we must return, according to Kushner, "dying in the best possible way." Tsvetaeva wrote about this – you, she told Bessarabov, are wasting yourself on small good deeds for unkind people who will not appreciate them, but you need to work on your soul, there is no other meaning in anything! This is an egoistic, but sane view of things. I don't know what our souls are for – maybe it's scary to think that they are for ourselves, because with a cultivated soul, a person has an easier time – but the only thing that makes sense to do, in my opinion, is to develop, harden, polish, and perform other useful manipulations with one's own soul. So, I say, there is an opinion that one of the sharpest, most subtle, and strongest tools that process this soul is life in the time of fools, without any prospects, with a feeling of complete historical impasse. It must be admitted that the sword is tempered not only in fire but also in shit.

Oelm, it's just missing the link, for example: http://ru-bykov.livejournal.com/1506295.html

I'm even afraid to imagine what she's watching.

Oelm, I didn't initially understand that you were talking about a girl from an animated image posted on the previous page. :)

what is she looking at

She's probably reading Arriputra's posts. :D But why is she topless? :)

Where is the through hole?