Page 11 of 13

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:51 am
by BoeingDriver
I have, and I repeat:

WHAT ARE YOU BANGING ON ABOUT????????

Leon merely quoted from some publication (that was published last century, hence the reference to "this century").

Maybe you should take your own advice and -

reeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaddddddddddd,

and then take the time to comprehend what you have just read!!!!

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:52 am
by Sam Hyde
pull your head out your arse and think BIGGER PICTURE!

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:57 am
by BoeingDriver
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.

'Tis you with your head up your arse, methinks.

Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning, did we?

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:58 am
by a different guest
Sam Hyde wrote:Or here,
http://www.vedicmaths.org/Introduction/What%20is%20VM.asp

thats a fair one, just to balance your links tom.

Sam xox

(its all still barmy anyway)


Hardly a 'balance' Sam - you've link us to a site that makes money selling books filled with this crap.

St James isn't much chop at developing analytical thinking skills is it.

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:58 am
by Sam Hyde
lol, one is hungover. And frantically doing coursework....stilllll PULL IT PULL IT!

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:01 pm
by Sam Hyde
ADG, thanks for having nothing better to do with your time than scrutinise my links. I simply googled it and stuck the first one up that seemed to be informative.
When I have nothing to do, I'll search far and wide for one that suits your specification, ok babe?
In the mean time, formulate the balance yourself!

sam xox

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:10 pm
by Sam Hyde
oh and ADG......
you've link

I think you'll find its LINKED with an 'ED' when using the past tense.
Kiss Kiss

Sam xox

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:14 pm
by BoeingDriver
No one stir Sammy-boy up.

His head hurts, poor wee chap.

I wonder who's fault that is?

Maybe you should try looking at the "bigger picture" and keep your hissy fits to yourself.

Try a litre of Coke, the real stuff not the low octane diet crap. Always found that helped the morning after - hangovers, that is.

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:17 pm
by Sam Hyde
Aint no hissy fit, just a moment of pure divine inspiration, I have become enlightened, fully realised. I have now attained my visitors pass to heaven, I am fully welcome. Mr. Kettle would be proud!

mmmm foood! LUNCH TIME!

Sam xox

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:22 pm
by BoeingDriver
Glad to see you're feeling better.

Lunchtime already? :eggface:

Enjoy the rest of your day, even if it is just doing course work.

Good luck!

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:23 pm
by Sam Hyde
cheers boss

Sam xox

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:35 pm
by a different guest
Sam Hyde wrote:ADG, thanks for having nothing better to do with your time than scrutinise my links. I simply googled it and stuck the first one up that seemed to be informative.
When I have nothing to do, I'll search far and wide for one that suits your specification, ok babe?
In the mean time, formulate the balance yourself!

sam xox


1) My time - Hardly any time at all Sam, I just had to click on the homepage tab. Being on broadband this whole 'scrutiny' of the site took a few seconds.

2) Your goggling skills - I would rate them 'poor'

3) Finding a site to my specifications - I don't beleive I specified any, however one from a legitimate tertiary education institution would be nice..

4) "babe" - I am not an infant, please don't address me as such.

5) "formulate the balance yourself" - I have, vedic maths is simply maths tricks.

Finally, I thank you for picking up my typo.

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:05 pm
by leon
Sam Hyde wrote:Ok, it?s all getting a bit much now; you can NOT claim that the sutras came into existence this century. We do NOT know that and do NOT know ALOT, yet many of us CLAIM to know an awful amount about it. It is arrogance in the extreme.
I have stated MY opinion on it, and these are entirely my own beliefs.
I don't however begin to question the foundations of a religion that predates much of what we hold dear to our hearts as a Christian nation! Frankly, how dare you!
There seems to be a large group of people on this site arguing over matters which in fact they know very little about, JUSTICE, YOU IMPARTICULAR!
I might fall under this bracket from time to time but I am very aware of boundaries and making statements like that!

Sam xox


Sam I think you misunderstood. I was not saying the vedas rigveda etc, were invented this century but the 16 "vedic" sutras that form the foundation of the vedic maths system were, and were not part of any ancient indian maths system and are not to be found in the extent vedic literature. The forward to Tirthajis book even admits this. Do you actually know who Tirthaji is? without him, Vedic maths as we know it would not exist, he is its originator.Disciples such as Saraswasti believed the Tirthaji got the sutras direct from god. I am no expert, but I have read the original vedic maths book and read around it's origins. I did this for everything I was taught at St James and SES. In that way I was able to see more clearly why I was biased in certain directions.


I also meant 20c creation rather than 21c, as the Vedic maths book was published posthumously in 1965. As i said, long nights little sleep..sorry i wasn't more clear. Perhaps if you think they did exist in the past you could show the evidence?

I also think you should "dare" to question everything you are taught, religion included, and accept nothing. It can be disorientating, but worth it in the long run. Don't accept as fact for example that Vedic thought predates Christianity, or that antiquity equates to value.

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:22 pm
by Tom Grubb
Sam Hyde wrote:Ok, it?s all getting a bit much now; you can NOT claim that the sutras came into existence this century. We do NOT know that and do NOT know ALOT, yet many of us CLAIM to know an awful amount about it. It is arrogance in the extreme.

Keep your hair on, Sam. I don't think leon's being arrogant at all. His actual claim (not your misunderstood interpretation of it) is very reasonable. If you want to disprove his claim, you just need to produce evidence that the 16 sutras upon which 'Vedic mathematics' is apparently based were around before the 20th Century. Good luck!

Sam Hyde wrote:I have stated MY opinion on it, and these are entirely my own beliefs.

And you're fully entitled to hold those beliefs, despite the lack of any evidence to back them up.

Sam Hyde wrote:I don't however begin to question the foundations of a religion that predates much of what we hold dear to our hearts as a Christian nation! Frankly, how dare you!

Speak for yourself, Sam. I wish more people would question the ridiculous claims that religions make. And just because a belief system is old, it doesn't mean it's right - or do you think astrology, numerology, dowsing, sympathetic magic, etc. must never be questioned?

Sam Hyde wrote:There seems to be a large group of people on this site arguing over matters which in fact they know very little about, JUSTICE, YOU IMPARTICULAR!
I might fall under this bracket from time to time but I am very aware of boundaries and making statements like that!

Like I said, Sam, just disprove the statement!

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:40 pm
by Sam Hyde
I turn the task to you, you prove that the sutras were invented in the 19C. as you claim because you seem to have all the time on your hands!

Sam xox