In ancient times, our ancestors wore wooden khadau (sandal) in the feet.

The thought of our ancestors was completely scientific even after wearing wooden stands on the feet.

The science of electrical waves which was later found by scientists was understood long before by our sages, earth absorbs electrical waves of body due to low potential that's why they started wearing wooden Khadau
cause Wood is a good resistant which prevents electrical waves of body to get absorbed by Earth.

According to the theory, the electric waves flowing in the body are absorbed by the Earth due to low potential of the earth.
If this process continues , then the biological force of the body decreases.
In order to save this biological power,
our ancestors started the practice of wearing the Khadau in the feet so that the electrical waves of the body could not be in contact with the Earth and get absorbed.
On the basis of this principle, the khadau was worn.
At that time leather shoe was not acceptable to a large section of the society due to many dharmic, social reasons and the use of cloth shoes was not successful everywhere.
Whereas people of any religion and society did not have objection to wearing wooden Khadau, hence it came into vogue.
Later, this Khadau became associated with the and sages.

Pata, another simplified form of Khadou's theory, has become a part of our lives.
Dining tables have found a place in our Indian society much later.

Earlier, food was taken on wooden patas and sitting on wooden patas.
Most chemical reactions occur in our body while eating.
In this situation, the best way to conserve physical energy is to eat at the wooden Patas.

More from 🇮🇳Sonal 🇮🇳

More from History

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x