Official Review: Real Education, With Scientific And Spir...

[Lisalovecraft]

[Following is the official OnlineBookClub.org review of "Real Education, With Scientific And Spiritual Understanding" by A. Sood.]

---

1 out of 4 stars

---

Share This Review

---

Real Education! With Scientific & Spiritual Understanding is a non-fiction book by Aruen Sood. Real Education is a collection of three separate essays: Education vs Modern Schools, Intelligent Design & Vedic Evolution vs. Darwin, and Understanding True “Religion” & Science.

This book proposes to answer 5 questions (p.3):

1. “What basic purpose should an education serve?
2. What are the flaws of the officials in modern schools, modern science, and major religion?
3. Are the above officials lacking “secrets” regarding life’s true history and an ideal system of gaining knowledge?
4. Where did all significant science and religion originate from?
5. How can we enter a golden age of enlightenment?”

I can sum up this seventy-page book in five sentences. Modern American education is bad. The theory of evolution is not true. Modern science is false. Christianity and Islamic religions are false. The only true source of education, history, and science is found in the Vedas (which are ancient texts of the Hindu religion).

Education vs Modern Schools discusses the flaws of the American public school system. I agree with some of the points Sood makes. The American education system is flawed and spends too much time on rote memorization. However Sood fails to mention any illuminating statistics on this issue and fails to come up with any viable solutions to the problem.

Intelligent Design & Vedic Evolution vs. Darwin. The majority of this essay bashes the theories of Charles Darwin with the assumption that there has been no progress on theory of evolution in the 156 years since “On the Origin of the Species” was published. He refers to “Darwinists” with vitriolic fervor and states that modern scientists believe that life was first created in a pond by a flash of lightning. He does not provide a reference for this statement. Toward the end of this lengthy rant he brings up the idea of “the Vedic model of evolution” but does not explain it. There is a kernel of an interesting idea in this essay. How did life begin? It is a thought-provoking question to ponder. Unfortunately Sood does not bring any thoughtful ideas to the table. He does throw around the words reliability and validity in an attempt to sound scientific but does not seem to know what those terms mean.

In Understanding True “Religion” & Science, Sood get to the point of his book: the Vedas are the only true source of education, science, and religion. He refers to the current times as the “age of Kali” but does not give any further explanation of what he means by this. I believe there are interesting truths found in the Vedas. Unfortunately, Sood does not provide any. He attempts to state that the Vedas are true because scientists found a sea bridge that was “many millennia old.” I believe that ancient civilizations had some advanced ideas and would be interested in reading about them. Sood attempts to introduce the reader to these truths but fails.

Sood writes in the passive voice and struggles express his ideas clearly. For example: “You may not necessarily need to feel so bad if you can’t answer most of the questions so well” (p. 3). The writing is filled with qualifiers such as ‘seems to be” as if the author does not want to commit to the point he is trying to make. There are typos and poor grammar throughout the book. The conversational writing tone, use of contractions, and unexplained non-standard abbreviations gives the work an amateurish vibe.

Sood attempts to use statistics but does not include a list of references. He fails to use standardized citation formats, which would have helped bring some credibility to his arguments. For example, Sood’s idea of a reference is “gathered by various sources this past decade, such as CBS” (p. 20) when discussing the percentage of Americans that believe in evolution.

I give this work 1 out of 4 stars. The writing is not fit for an English Comp 101 course. The ideas are poorly expressed. The facts used to make the author’s point are suspect and poorly referenced. The whole book is a cringe-worthy rant of a poorly educated person.

******
Real Education, With Scientific And Spiritual Understanding
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon

Like Lisalovecraft's review? Post a comment saying so!

[Playitalready]

As much as everyone as a right to their own opinion, I hate when people state untruth. Much of what you said is simply not true.
"The theory of evolution is not true. Modern science is false. Christianity and Islamic religions are false. "
-I never said any of this. for 1 thing I provided teachings about Jesus in the ancient Vedas and tried to refer where it's from.
"The only true source of education, history, and science is found in the Vedas (which are ancient texts of the Hindu religion)."
-The only time I mention the word Hindu is when I pointed out how this is a Persian word not found in the Vedas, and people using this word can show how they're likely not that qualified to talk about the subject since they don't know the name of the "religion" they're talking about. Like you still do after I pointed it out in the book. And although there are religions within "Hinduism" as you call it, I clearly pointed out Vedas provide various truths for countless millenia, not just religion, and I proved it.
"Sood fails to mention any illuminating statistics on this issue and fails to come up with any viable solutions to the problem."
I provided stats and sources. I confronted the problem more than the answers (mostly) yes, but later provided real sources of
knowledge because attacking modern schools is not as important as providing real science and religion to educate people.
"end of this lengthy rant he brings up the idea of “the Vedic model of evolution” but does not explain it."
Seriously is this review a joke or is you're bias like messing with you. Seriously i took pages (plural) to explain it. I even mentioned the number of species the Vedas teach are within this universe, how they're classified, and gave the scripture for what I say. The validity and reliability of the Vedas I mention in this chapter was elaborated on and proven in the next chapter by the way. I'm sorry you don't know what age of Kali means but that is not my fault just as if someone does not know what B.C. and A.D. means. And I even recall explaining we are in the Dark age of Kali. Kali is the name of the age and you should know what dark age means and anyway ancient calenders isn't the topic of the book.
"Unfortunately, Sood does not provide any. He attempts to state that the Vedas are true because scientists found a sea bridge that was “many millennia old.” I believe that ancient civilizations had some advanced ideas and would be interested in reading about them. Sood attempts to introduce the reader to these truths but fails. "
-I dislike this lie of your review more than your other lies. You're bias is too hard core here and I feel I am wasting my time trying to reason here. The longest chapter in the book was so long because I provided so many teachings from Vedas about the age of the Earth, advanced sciences and math and its history which came from the Vedas etc. and from modern science, sourced all of them as humanly possible, even quotes that show modern religions were predicted in the Vedas. The only unscientific thing here was when I say sometimes modern science disagrees with religion but that is due to the sometimes the Abrahmic religions maybe misunderstood or modern science isn't perfect. That is NOT attacking Abrahamic religions or saying modern science is all false. flawed maybe. and i say things like maybe because it is called humility and respect and being honest that I'm not perfect, not because i can't take a stand or because i am ranting lol. Ram's Sea Bridge wasn't the only thing I mentioned either.
"There are typos and poor grammar throughout the book. The conversational writing tone, use of contractions, and unexplained non-standard abbreviations gives the work an amateurish vibe."
Where? You should have showed the proof so I can fix them or else this is made up.
"Sood attempts to use statistics but does not include a list of references. He fails to use standardized citation formats, which would have helped bring some credibility to his arguments."
There are tons of sources. There is no universally accepted format to provide them and this isn't a textbook or essay so you're missing the point.
"writing is not fit for an English Comp 101 course." I Aced that class at CSUN.
"The ideas are poorly expressed. The facts used to make the author’s point are suspect and poorly referenced. The whole book is a cringe-worthy rant of a poorly educated person." That's all you're opinion without logic or facts. no sources by the way lol because you can't source lies. If I'm wrong and modern society knows who's educated, well I was an honor student who graduated from an accredited university and I didn't even like school. And it seems you disregarded, or maybe dismissed without reading, the closing chapter.
The last reviewer gave the book 3/4 and I was trying to get that to show up then I see this review from a person who seems so bigoted with his bias he can not even complain properly. I'd rather you point out grammar mistakes or something objective and just say what i think is your honest attitude; "this sounds weird. i am open to where life came from but if you focus more so on the fact that there were so many advanced teachings from ancient Eastern spiritual teachings for countless millenia, including the original and more advanced model of evolution, advanced sciences, and religions that are now here and practiced, i will attack you in an illogical and unfactual way and claim you hate Christian/Muslims and modern science and are ranting."

I prefer productive, logical, factual judgement. And people who read a book with some open mindedness and proper comprehension. I think I'm wasting my time here though and I can't change your mind. maybe videos would have less "misunderstandings" so the channel playitalready on youtube, has a playlist, 2nd from the top, on this issue most people like it.
best of luck with your learning and reading.

-- 08 Feb 2015, 22:11 --

...I'm noticing more mistakes in your "review" that are weird. The book has 5 chapters that build from one to the other. to say it is a book with 3 seperate essays is false. 5 isn't 3. Just like when I provide a bunch of sources showing how all math originated in the Vedas, and you act like I provide none...a bunch isn't 0. even math is against you're review. I would provide a quote of Einstein giving the number system's credit of origin to "Indians" but it seems that sort of efforts goes to waste on you. Sigh.

[Kappy]

I haven't read the book, but Playitalready's response is itself loaded with many obvious grammatical errors (e.g., failure to capitalize the first word in a sentence, "you're" instead of "your," and failure to capitalize the word "I"), so my impression is that the review is accurate.

I agree with many of the points that form the basis for the book. In fact, I recently read a great book with similar subject matter (Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence by Stephen Knapp). I believe the author has a lot of interesting things to say. However, he needs to understand that a polished writing technique is essential in producing a first-rate book.

[Playitalready]

My 1st reply to you got disapproved and I don't know about my 2nd reply.

-- 30 Mar 2015, 01:13 --

Internet grammar is 1 thing and I think the book's grammar was not bad. You might like this book or my videos.

-- 30 Mar 2015, 01:23 --

Grammar aside, I can prove this review is full of untruth. Ok bye.

[bookowlie]

I enjoyed reading your detailed review.

[Playitalready]

bookowlie the previous review was more honest and thus, gave a good rating...

-- 08 Apr 2015, 00:11 --

...I can prove this review is full of untruth and will even send the book free is possible. Or maybe wait for the next review. Bye

[Cee-Jay Aurinko]

I love the way you outline your review. I'm not familiar with any Verda stuff, so I can't say what's true and what's not. To the author, too much errors and typos can really take the fun out of reading the book. And non-fiction needs reference lists. A reviewer won't give a bad rating to a book if it isn't.

[Playitalready]

The review was outlined with blatant lies and the proof has been forwarded to an official for libel charges, though I only asked this review gets removed.

-- 29 Apr 2015, 19:59 --

It's not Verda stuff it's Vedic, and if you said Verda as a typo or something, you can understand why that can happen to anyone, assuming it happened to me in this book, which I doubt because it was proof read and the reviewer lied about other things.

-- 29 Apr 2015, 20:01 --

You can't say what's true regarding a reference list or anything the reviewer claims. Nobody who read this book complained about that like this reviewer did. People must try reading the book before trusting this review.

-- 29 Apr 2015, 20:03 --

A reviewer may give a bad rating to a book due to bias and/or their own ignorance towards teachings provided etc. No reviewer before this has given this anything but positive feedback. I pointed out tons of lies but longer posts and messages require approval and get removed so I will leave you with only 2...

-- 29 Apr 2015, 20:04 --

...contrary to claims in this review, the book never said Christianity is false, and the book is 5 chapters totaling over 74 pages NOT a 3 essay book totaling 70 pages. I can understand why the reviewer ignored all my comments here and direct messages and I suppose it's easier this way.

-- 29 Apr 2015, 20:07 --

I love the way you outline your review. I'm not familiar with any Verda stuff, so I can't say what's true and what's not. To the author, too much errors and typos can really take the fun out of reading the book. And non-fiction needs reference lists. A reviewer won't give a bad rating to a book if it isn't.

P.S. my last posts here were in reply to the last comment and sorry if they were broken apart but I can't risk them being removed, or denied I guess I should say, like my previous, longer posts.