Throughout his critique, Stephen wants substation of the works of the Rishis or how they obtained their information in the first place. I could by the same token, ask him why, for example, he believes what is written in the Book of Genesis as true. He would probably reply that they are true because the Bible is the only true book of God. I would like to inform him that scholars are now discovering that the earliest bibles were quite different from the one we find at present - which was ' cooked up ' by the clergy of the Middle Ages to suit their selfish purposes.

The Rishis have always maintained that the Vedas contain all the eternal truths. Like Stephen, I mocked at this declaration, until of late, it was proven in more ways than one that the Vedas are indeed the repository of all truth. I will go into this in detail later in this article.

Stephen goes on to say that the Hindu Masters cannot amount to much, as the Nazis obtained their erroneous beliefs from Hinduism. He proves this 'fact' by the Nazis use of the holy Hindu symbol of the swastika. This weird sort of thinking by Stephen pervades his critique of my article. Now let's suppose that a present day evil minded group used the three pointed star of Mercedes Benz as its symbol. Is the company Mercedes Benz then responsible for murder and mayhem caused by this group? For Stephen's information, the Indians (except those that ape the West) have never believed that there ever was an Aryan invasion of India. This is a Western concoction, which they believed was the cause of the fall of the Indus civilization. It has since been established, that the most likely cause of the fall of the Indus civilization was due to crop failure due to a change in the climate. In my research into the Australian Aborigines, I was stunned to discover many Sanskrit root words in the languages of many of the tribes. There were far too many of these to be attributed to chance. So how did these Sanskrit words find their way into these Aboriginal languages? You must remember that anthropologists have stated that the Aborigines had been living in Australia for the past 50,000 years!

Stephen claims that Hindus admire Hitler, and regard the latter as an avatar. Where he obtained this information is a mystery. It is true however that in every race, there are people who are attached to evil and admire people who are evil. Perhaps one of these evil minded Indians had written something that praised the Nazi dictator. Christian scholars with the same mentality of Stephen will have then pounced on this article to discredit Hinduism. Would it be fair for me to criticize Christianity basing on the behavior of some pedophile clergyman?

Stephen must understand that none of the information which I mentioned in my article is my own. They have been gleaned from the writings of Hindu saints past and present (there are saints in other religions too you know, who performed all the miracles that Christ performed - including raising the dead). Thus when they mention that the very first humans reproduced without the use of sex, then it must be true. Several Hindu works state that in planets more spiritually advanced than ours, reproduction is achieved only through mental means, i.e. a couple who want a child dwell intently about this thought for a while, and a child then materializes from the ether. I have mentioned this in my article when I said that reproduction was by 'mental fiat' in the early days. Stephen either did not understand what I meant, or disbelieved it because it was not found in the Bible. His suggestion that they must have reproduced by mitosis if not by sexual means shows that he is not open to new ideas and disbelieves anything that he cannot find in the Bible. These events must have occurred long before the advent of the proverbial Adam and Eve.

The concept of the development of eyes in organisms is again completely misunderstood by our narrow-minded friend. Hinduism believes in the Darwinian concept of evolution, but states emphatically that man was not a result of this sort of evolution. Hinduism claims that mankind was a special creation of God. So, when tiny marine creatures evolved into bigger organisms and finally into creatures which had eyes, the development of the eyes was a result of the stimulus of light. I mentioned in my earlier article, that there is a tremendous chance in the physical structure of the earth at the end of every yuga or cycle. The Australian Aborigines belong to the current cycle, and cannot be equated with the time that organisms first developed eyes. Man had still not been created when eyes first appeared in creatures. Similarly, it was not the Aborigines that God warned not to have sex, but the initial humans that inhabited the earth which was probably several million yugas ago.

I would like to inform Stephen at this juncture, that an enlightened Hindu understands the Bible far better than the most distinguished Christian theologian today. We know for example, that the garden mentioned in Genesis is not a garden at all, but refers to the human body. When God informed Adam and Eve to partake of all the fruits of the garden, but to not touch the tree that is in the center of the garden, He was referring to the fact that mankind is allowed to enjoy all the senses, but the 'sense' that is in the center of the garden i.e. the sexual organs that are located in the center of the body. Similarly, Hindus find that Christian scholars have completely misunderstood the book of Revelation. Is it any wonder then that the Christian religion was the cause of much spillage of blood in the last two thousand years?

I will now elaborate on how I found that the book of knowledge of the Hindus (the Vedas) is indeed the repository of all knowledge. I will cite three examples to prove this.

Hatha yoga, which is practiced by millions around the word, and which has given those who practiced these exercises almost perfect health, was developed through the understanding of the rishis of spiritual makeup of the human body.

The late Sankarcharya of Puri, when he visited the United States, pitched his mathematical ability against a super computer and came out the winner. When he was questioned as to where he obtained this ability from, he replied that he meditated on a single verse of the Vedas for several years before he obtained the ability to work out mathematical problems faster than a computer. The Vedas contains thousands of verses. Just imagine the wealth of knowledge that must be hidden in all these verses.

It has always been maintained by saints, that the letters that make up the Sanskrit alphabet are 'alive.' Being Western educated, I was skeptical of this notion. It is said by linguists that Sanskrit is the most perfect of all languages, and Hindus say that the Devas ( the good aliens ) spoke a language very similar to Sanskrit.

The fact that the Sanskrit alphabets can be alive came about in an unexpected way. When mysterious drones were seen flying in California not too long ago, it was found that they had mysterious writings on their bottoms. A scientist who worked with downed ufos in a secret location in the U.S. saw these writings in the photographs the drones that were published, and recognized them to be immediately very similar to the hieroglyphics found on the downed ufos. This is what he had to say about it. (I took this from a ufo site, but I've forgotten from which- so my apologies for using it here without asking for permission first. The name of the author remains unknown, as he preferred being anonymous as he was still employed by the government.

The "Language"

I put the word Language in quotes because calling what I am about to describe a "language" is a misnomer, although it is an easy mistake to make.

Their hardware wasn't operated in quite the same way as ours. In our technology, even today, we have a combination of hardware and software running almost everything on the planet. Software is more abstract than hardware, but ultimately it needs hardware to run it. In other words, there's no way to write a computer program on a piece of paper, set that piece of paper on a table or something, and expect it to actually do something. The most powerful code in the world still doesn't actually do anything until a piece of hardware interprets it and translates its commands into actions.

But their technology is different. It really did operate like the magical piece of paper sitting on a table, in a manner of speaking. They had something akin to a language, that could quite literally execute itself, at least in the presence of a very specific type of field. The language, a term I am still using very loosely, is a system of symbols (which does admittedly very much resemble a written language) along with geometric forms and patterns that fit together to form diagrams that are themselves functional. Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field, they immediately begin performing the desired tasks. It really did seem like magic to us, even after we began to understand the principles behind it.

I worked with these symbols more than anything during my time at PACL, and recognized them the moment I saw them in the photos. They appear in a very simple form on Chad's craft, but appear in the more complex diagram form on the underside of the Big Basin craft as well. Both are unmistakable, even at the small size of the Big Basin photos. An example of a diagram in the style of the Big Basin craft is included with this in a series of scanned pages from the [mis-titled] "Linguistic Analysis Primer". We needed a copy of that diagram to be utterly precise, and it took about a month for a team of six to copy that diagram into our drafting program! Explaining everything I learned about this technology would fill up several volumes, but I will do my best to explain at least some of the concepts as long as I am taking the time to write all this down.

First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, and a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say it's holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you want and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole system. They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4 elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful than 1. Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to computation at any time and in any state. The shape of these "chunks" of substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more complex.

So back to the language. The language is actually a "functional blueprint". The forms of the shapes, symbols and arrangements thereof is itself functional. What makes it all especially difficult to grasp is that every element of each "diagram" is dependant on and related to every other element, which means no single detail can be created, removed or modified independently. Humans like written language because each element of the language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expressions can be built. However, their "language" is entirely context-sensitive, which means that a given symbol could mean as little as a 1-bit flag in one context, or, quite literally, contain the entire human genome or a galaxy star map in another. The ability for a single, small symbol to contain, not just represent, tremendous amounts of data is another counter-intuitive aspect of this concept. We quickly realized that even working in groups of 10 or more on the simplest of diagrams, we found it virtually impossible to get anything done. As each new feature was added, the complexity of the diagram exponentially grew to unmanageable proportions. For this reason we began to develop computer-based systems to manage these details and achieved some success, although again we found that a threshold was quickly reached beyond which even the supercomputers of the day were unable to keep up. Word was that the extra-terrestrials could design these diagrams as quickly and easily as a human programmer could write a Fortran program. It's humbling to think that even a network of supercomputers wasn't able to duplicate what they could do in their own heads. Our entire system of language is based on the idea of assigning meaning to symbols. Their technology, however, somehow merges the symbol and the meaning, so a subjective audience is not needed. You can put whatever meaning you want on the symbols, but their behavior and functionality will not change, any more than a transistor will function differently if you give it another name.

Here's an example of how complex the process is. Imagine I ask you to incrementally add random words to a list such that no two words use any of the same letters, and you must perform this exercise entirely in your head, so you can't rely on a computer or even a pen and paper. If the first in the list was, say, "fox", the second item excludes all words with the letters F, O and X. If the next word you choose is "tree", then the third word in the list can't have the letters F, O, X, T, R, or E in it. As you can imagine, coming up with even a third word might start to get just a bit tricky, especially since you can't easily visualize the excluded letters by writing down the words. By the time you get to the fourth, fifth and sixth words, the problem has spiraled out of control. Now imagine trying to add the billionth word to the list (imagine also that we're working with an infinite alphabet so you don't run out of letters) and you can imagine how difficult it is for even a computer to keep up. Needless to say, writing this kind of thing "by hand" is orders of magnitude beyond the capabilities of the brain. My background lent itself well to this kind of work though. I'd spent years writing code and designing both analog and digital circuits, a process that at least visually resembled these diagrams in some way. I also had a personal affinity for combinatorics, which served me well as I helped with the design of software running on supercomputers that could juggle the often trillions of rules necessary to create a valid diagram of any reasonable complexity. This overlapped quite a bit with compiler theory as well, a subject I always found fascinating, and in particular compiler optimization, a field that wasn't half of what it is today back then. A running joke among the linguistics team was that Big-O notation couldn't adequately describe the scale of the task, so we'd substitute other words for "big". By the time I left I remember the consensus was "Astronomical-O" finally did it justice.