12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
I'm no astronomer but I see validity, June 17, 2001
By A Customer
This review is from: The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's Oldest Civilization (Paperback)
I'm not an astronomer and can't validate Sidharth's assumptions but if taken that his assumptions are, in fact, true, then Sidharth continues to provide lucid examples of astronomical examples in the Rig Veda. Sidharth, also refers to archaelogical examples of the spread of Vedic culture to countries like Turkey, and Iran. Sidharth gives very clear cut examples of the dates that astronomical occurences in the Rig Veda mention. Though the date of 10,000 B.C. (or prior) for the Rig Veda may seem preposterous to many scholars, it is a date that is being seriously considered as an accurate date by many scholars, including Western scholars. In my opinion, this book is worth reading for anyone interested in ancient history, astronomy, and archaeology.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
lot of misinterpretations with an occassional good thought, August 18, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's Oldest Civilization (Paperback)
The originality of the sciences and philosophy of the Indians is fiercely denied by all mainstream Western academics. They have made it a point to browbeat the Indians and force upon them the Greek origins of Indian science. These academics provide no clear reasons for the reverse path of transfer or descent from a common ancestor not applying. In this direction Siddharth takes the right step of defending and furthering the Indian view point. He rightly points to many important developments being present in Indian astronomy. However, beyond this he weakens his case by exagerration in the opposite direction. Unreasonably early dates for the R^ig veda and rAmAyana are amidsts these key faults. He also wrongly identifies the Ashvins as being Planets Mercury and Venus. However, he does have one good point- the mahAbhArata cannot be earlier than 1500 BC. By this he thankfully rejects the ridiculous claims for an earlier date that is championed by Rajaram without any basis.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No