Rating: 
Summary: Question For Dr. Newbrook...
Review: "One fairly typical case involves the name Australia, which is a modern coining transparently derived from Latin, where it would mean 'southern' (land, etc). On p 76 SK states that it is from Sanskrit Astralaya, meaning 'land of missiles'; he suggests that the pilots of vimanas practised firing their missiles in Australia, thus creating the deserts! This is just not true"This is just not true... don't the authors have the same right to say it is true as you have to say it is just not ture?
Rating:
Summary: Question For Dr. Newbrook...
Review: "One fairly typical case involves the name Australia, which is a modern coining transparently derived from Latin, where it would mean 'southern' (land, etc). On p 76 SK states that it is from Sanskrit Astralaya, meaning 'land of missiles'; he suggests that the pilots of vimanas practised firing their missiles in Australia, thus creating the deserts! This is just not true" This is just not true... don't the authors have the same right to say it is true as you have to say it is just not ture?
Rating: 
Summary: If you wondered why is God such a universal concept
Review: For anyone who has wondered as to why, despite the existence of different religions, different cultures and different races of people in different regions of the world... why do they all have some common basic foundations, such as the concept of God. Every religion has some form God or the other. There is this concept of heaven and hell (the description varies from relg. to relg). There is this concept of good and evil. The concept that if you do good you go to heaven and if not, you go to hell. Whether you believe in them or not, it is just too much of a concidence that all these different part of the world/religions should come up with the same basic concepts. The only theory that can completely explain these concidences, is the theory that there existed one religion/culture throughout the world at one time. And over a period of time, it broke up as is bound to happen. And the author has done an excellent job of driving that point home with the use of linguistic tools, prevelant names and legends. There are some places where I felt that the facts were being stretched to fit the theory, but such occasions were very rare. Anyone on a quest to understanding vedic religion and its roots, this book definitely a must read. You can also read "In search for the Cradle of Civilization".
Rating:
Summary: Better insight into what really happened in History
Review: History remains the most abused subject of education throughout the world. This is true even in India. As claimed by Stephen Knapp, not only the people outside India lost touch with their Vedic roots but also Indians themselves. With centuries of assault, humiliation, molestation the present day history of Vedic culture as depicted in the classroom books presents a contradictory picture of what was really happened. Very few blessed people have had the chance of going through this sacred knowledge and associated training in India. But the truth especially in the matters of religion can be appreciated only when one comes out of reasoning. One has to be completely open to understand sensitive matters like religion and ancestoral links which are very personal to everyone. Even for a devout follower of Sanatana Dharma, there are many things in his/her spiritual life which do not hold up to real life terms. But deep in heart persons who had gone through these know that their experiences are simply beautiful and true. It is hard to explain all such incidents unless one goes through them. I guess Stephen wants to bring this point forth by establishing the truth that this culture has spread over the globe and has influence over all the regions. Whether one belives in what is explained in this book or not, Stephen Knapp has done an excellent job in trying to throw light on a broad and yet complex issue that makes it worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Origin off word Australia
Review: I agree with Knapp. The word Australia denotes a land lying to the south. If man is at the northern pole, he sees the sun rising (only once a year) from 'south' - this is a geographical fact howsoever wierd it may appear.
B.G.Tilak who wrote the 'Arctic Home in the Vedas' has explained in his book how the words Australia - Eostra - Ushas (the goddes of sunris) are related. Further only man at north pole would see the Ushas or Eostra rising from 'south'. Hence the origin of the word Austr.
Rating:
Summary: I'm very impressed with the research
Review: I'm very impressed with the amount of research that was presented in this book. It is interesting and one of the few nonfiction books that I could not put down once I started reading it. So many things I've wondered about and questions I've had were answered here by the information that made a lot of sense to me.
There are all kinds of bits and pieces of evidence scattered throughout numerous books and articles on the widespread influence of Vedic culture, and Stephen has collected a large amount of this to present in this one condensed volume. As he mentions in his Preface, which most critics don't seem to read, he has compiled the information from many sources and researchers who have been studying this for many years, and you can decide what evidence is most agreeable or not. However, whether you agree with it all or not, the credibility is when the numerous references and researchers that are mentioned all allude to the premise that the area of India was far larger, and Vedic culture far more influential, hundreds of years ago, creating a global culture. And this book points out why and how it can be recognized.
Personally I found the book to be fascinating and well documented and referenced. There's a lot more here than a few points of comparative linguistics. You can see the connections of the different areas of the world and religions to Vedic culture, which is the real point of the book. So if you want to get an idea of how Vedic culture had spread around the world and had been a worldwide influence, this book will certainly give you insights into this. As others have said, this book is a must read.
Rating: 
Summary: Think carefully before accepting this man's theories!
Review: I've recently bought a copy of this book, and quite frankly I was appalled at the sheer number of factual errors, mistakes, howlers, etc. To quote a few:(i) "In England we find towns such as Lancashire, Pembrokeshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire" - these are NOT towns, they are counties, and in any case Pembrokeshire is in Wales!; (ii) He tries to make out that Canterbury is connected to the Sanskrit word 'Sankarpury' - it is NOT : it is derived from the Roman name for an indigenous tribe in that part of Kent, the Cantiae; (iii) "The 'Pound Sterling' is a corrupt form of the Sanskrit term Poundra Sterling - it is NOT: the word "Sterling" originated with the 'Esterlings', members of the Hanseatic League in Mediaeval England; (iv) mistakes with translations of Russian - "malka" is SMALL and does not mean 'Mother'; (v) lack of references to most facts, all too often completely unsubstantiated; and on , and on, and on, and on. . . . .the review by a fellow Englishman from Cheshire, singles out Mr. Knapp's predilection for changing letters around to make words sound more Sanskrit, rightly drawing comparison to those amateur historians of 200 years ago, who so desperately wanted historical facts to fit their theories that they were not adverse to "bending the facts". If I, as a Vaisnava 'Hindu' living in England, can recognize the errors and irregularities pertaining to references to Britain, then I wonder how much more has he perhaps written of other countries in like manner? A great pity, for his other books are inspiring.
Rating:
Summary: response to 'a reader from usa'
Review: Knapp is definitely mistaken about 'Australia', and in general his linguistic claims are demonstrably wrong or at best unsupported. Tilak is not a reliable source on etymology, but even to the extent that he is right about this word-root it cannot be argued that the name 'Australia' is of ancient Indic origin. There is no doubt that it was coined in modern times and on the basis of the Latin form; it does not come from Sanskrit. In any case, Knapp derives it - quite wrongly - from another root with a completely different meaning. Those who wish to practise historical linguistics should learn the subject first.
Rating:
Summary: response to 'a reader from usa'
Review: Knapp is definitely mistaken about 'Australia', and in general his linguistic claims are demonstrably wrong or at best unsupported. Tilak is not a reliable source on etymology, but even to the extent that he is right about this word-root it cannot be argued that the name 'Australia' is of ancient Indic origin. There is no doubt that it was coined in modern times and on the basis of the Latin form; it does not come from Sanskrit. In any case, Knapp derives it - quite wrongly - from another root with a completely different meaning. Those who wish to practise historical linguistics should learn the subject first.
Rating:
Summary: comment on fellow reviewer's comment
Review: Liza Kappukattil says: Re my "One fairly typical case involves the name Australia, which is a modern coining transparently derived from Latin, where it would mean 'southern' (land, etc). On p 76 SK states that it is from Sanskrit Astralaya, meaning 'land of missiles'; he suggests that the pilots of vimanas practised firing their missiles in Australia, thus creating the deserts! This is just not true" This is just not true... don't the authors have the same right to say it is true as you have to say it is just not true? Answer: No, they don't. The etymology of the word AUSTRALIA is not conjectured, it is KNOWN. Even if missiles were fired in Australia in ancient times, the word AUSTRALIA has nothing to do with this. Mark Newbrook
| 
