I think you should verify the maya words. Chilam Balam is the name of a prophet, Chilam means "who is mouth" and Balam is "jaguar" an American feline (Panthera once). K'ultanlini is not a Mayan word, but k'u certainly means god or sacred.

The Maya Culture begins circa 800 B.C., the Classic period was between 200 B.C and 900 A.C. When happened the stories of Mahabaratha?

I consider that many similarities there are between Maya Religion and Vedic Religion but that similarities are the typical convergence of symbolism of all religions.

Dear Pushan: Your question is a good starting place for a scientific study. To do this you will have to consider alternative hypotheses and look for evidence that may refute each of these hypotheses. If they pass this test, you may consider them possibilities, and continue to test them. On the other hand, if you pick and choose data that tend to confirm your favorite hypothesis, ignoring evidence to the contrary, you will have slipped into the realm of pseudoscience. In this realm any hypothesis can be sustained, even the weakest ones, and many people untrained in the art of critical thinking will be very impressed, but not academic specialists like most people at ResearchGate. Another suggestion would be for you to use higher quality sources of information. Some of your "facts" look more like items from a New Age blog than data from academic literature. The social sciences demand just as much rigor as the natural sciences. Imagine what would be the reaction of your colleagues if you were to you speak of magical ponds and strong concentrations of divine energy in your academic work on earthquakes!

My David Charles Wright-Carr divinity and spirituality cannot be explained by classification algorithms and decision trees. Scriptures talk of magic ponds and jet streams , technology cannot explain the facts. why I choose the part of Maya Danav noted in mahabharata and also Ramayana is because there is a strong explanation towards building mystery houses (Maaya means 'illusion' or 'magic'). When ancient scriptures talk about 'illusion' or 'magic' they are in fact talking about some 'technology' whose inner workings are unknown to the narrator. So Maya's illusion or Maaya is nothing but 'Maya's technology' or the 'technological wonders created by Maya'.

Thank you for the explanation, Pushan.

I should clarify that in the social sciences there are methods for exploring and explaining concepts like "divinity" and "spirituality". We don't often use classification algorithms and decision trees; we look at human beings, their societies, cultures, and collective symbolic systems as aspects of the same universe that natural sciences study. After all, we are part of the universe. There are fundamental ground rules, and fallacies to be avoided, that apply to all areas of scientific research.

If you would like to move toward a scientific perspective that would generate productive academic discussions in scientific journals, congresses, or virtual forums like ResearchGate, these basic rules will help, as most researchers use them in their work.

In the classes I teach on research methods, I give my students two texts with simplified, highly distilled versions of the scientific method, one by an astronomer, the other by an anthropologist. These brief texts say essentially the same thing. The first is Carl Sagan's "Baloney detection kit," from his book *The demon-haunted world* (http://www.worldcat.org/title/demon-haunted-world-science-as-a-candle-in-the-dark/oclc/32855551), available here:

http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Sagan-Baloney.pdf

The second is James Lett's article "A field guide to critical thinking," which can be read here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

If you gather a large quantity of relevant data from academic publications written by experts, then use these tools for critical thinking to look hard at your question, you will be able to come up with a reasonable answer on your own. The best use for these tools, I have found, is to use them to test my own ideas, so that what I put out on the discussion table is a bit more solid to begin with. Of course, my colleagues are always very helpful in finding additional problems, helping me to get a bit closer to that elusive goal called "objective truth", which is unattainable, but which provides a guiding light to keep us on the path of reason, within the illusion of our phenomenological experience.

Thank you David Charles Wright-Carr I would keep searching and Since Maya Civilization is a vast topic and needs a lot of background reading which I do not have at present. I will remove my first post . But at the same time I would keep following the work of science which deals with the etymological similarity of Maya with the Maayans of Meso America. For me the interest in this field was born out of curiousity and the intended post was written just in transmitting the information I gained

You are welcome, Pushan.

I think that one hypothesis that should remain on the discussion table is that the phonological resemblance of certain words may be due to coincidence, since the human speech organs produce a limited quantity of sounds. The extremely large separation between Indo-European languages and Amerindian langages like those of the Mayan family of Mesoamerica (which predates the entry of humans into America during the Upper Paleolithic period), together with the absense of reliable evidence for ancient contact between these families, makes etymological relations highly unlikely.

Applying Occam's razor (see the text by Sagan I provided an hour ago), it would seem that the hypothesis mentioned for the phonological similarities (i. e. coincidence) is probably the best explanation for similarities between architectural forms in India and Mesoamerica as well.

I think it is, as the existing evidence lead towards that

check this link please

http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/who-discovered-america