Namaste.
Thank you for your sharing as well, Nature. There's not much I can give comment on, but I have also seen those flat-topped cut off mountains (artificial mesas) in Indonesia, with gunung padang being the most recognisable one:
https://grahamhancock.com/gunung-padang-latest-hancock/
Carbon dating the site puts it as being built about 26,000 years ago - about the same time as procession:
However, I'm digressing also from topic and so, I'll post what I typed the other day:
I'm often reminded of exactly why it is that I'm a totally monotheistic Hindu of the Shaivite bent and all this takes is a polytheistic Vaishnava trying to explain away Lord Shiva's role in the whole pantheon. This also leads me to wonder whether I'm really a 'Hindu' or I just happen to love and worship a 'Hindu God' and live by the precepts of Yoga.
Over the past day, I have watched two videos, both written/produced by devotees of Lord Krishna. The first was attempting to explain Tantra from this perspective and the second trying to explain the nature of Consciousness. What followed, was a convoluted explanation of events, using a whole lot of philosophies which seemed to be added as an 'afterthought' to try and incorporate deities and devas all having individual roles as being totally independent from the 'creator' of them.
Basically, the confusion goes like this; Lord Narayana is the Supreme God (Brahman) and from His navel sprang Lord Brahma, the 'creator God'....however, Lord Shiva is seen as the Atman (soul) or pure Consciousness and from Lord Shiva came Shakti, the 'creator Goddess'....start to see the conundrum already?
1. How can both Lord Brahma and Goddess Shakti be responsible for the creation of the material universe? and
2. I always thought that Jivatman (soul) is indistinguishable from Paramatman (oversoul) and that Brahman and pure Consciousness is one in the same thing - so why call Jivatman Lord Shiva and Paramatman, Lord Narayana? and in any case, wouldn't that just make Lord Narayana, Sadashiva anyway?
There's a heirarchy of 'double standards' existing in Vaishnavism which does not exist in Shaivism.
In Shaivism, all deities are seen as manifestations of Lord Shiva who are equal to and interchangable with Lord Shiva, so that really, only Lord Shiva exists and the extent at which he 'appears' to exist, is only represented by His 'external energies' or Shakti...and that's IT...simple, no?
In Vaishnavism, Lord Narayana is God, Lord Shiva is a Deva, Shakti is manifested from Lord Shiva to create the Universe, which is also Lord Brahma who comes from Lord Narayana. I mean, why not just do as Shaivites do and say Lord Narayana is purusha and everything else is only an emanation/manifestation of Lord Vishnu and leave Shiva and Shakti out of it altogether (in much the same way that Shaivites leave Lord Vishnu out of it altogether?)...but nope, Lord Vishnu is "up here" and Lord Shiva is "down there" and they are not 'equal' in any way (which is only the result of human ego imho).
To make matters more complicated, in the Tantra video, they go on about how Krishna and Radha are located within the chamber of the Hridaya Chakra (heart chakra) even though the union of Shiva and Shakti is responsible for enlightenment (Nirvana) of the individual soul...now, I don't know about anybody else, but I have Shiva/Shakti (Shiva) within the chamber of my Heart and not Radha and Krishna...unless, of course, Krishna and Radha are Shiva and Shakti and vice versa, but of course, no Vaishnava would ever admit to that.
I often wonder why Hindus need three Gods anyway I mean, IF God is omnipotent, wouldn't He/She be able to do the role of all three? Well, I, for one, seem to believe that is the case. Things also get more complicated when we look at the avatars of Lord Vishnu...especially in regards to the Kalki avatar destroying the universe and I go 'wait up, isn't Lord Shiva the one who actually goes around 'destroying' everything?' this does not make one iota of sense to me. It seems that the whole Hindu religion is all about 'creating Gods' where none needed to be created and for specific purposes which, it seems, the 'creator God' just could not manage on His/Her own.
Sure, I can understand the Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) being ONE God - but why break one God down into 'three parts' to start with? I even have enough trouble with one God being broken down into TWO parts - viz a viz the unmanifested potential of Purusha Consciousness (Brahman/Sadashiva) and the manifested form or effulgence of it as Prakriti matter (Shakti and Shankara) - Nirguna and Saguna...as opposed to Triguna....and I mean, of course everything is Brahman anyway, so whatever 'name' you give it, does not matter...but why oh why totally complicate matters beyond any logical comprehension of them?
With Hinduism, like I said before, all of the philosophy seemed to be added as an 'afterthought' to explain yet another incorporated and introduced belief system under the whole banner and auspices of it until somebody like Shivani comes along and goes; "I thought we already had a God for that purpose..." and of course, you'll see gods like Rudra, Indra and Surya Deva being replaced by Shiva who then gets replaced by Vishnu who just goes about re-creating them all again.
Aum Namah Shivaya