Is It Worthwhile Discussing Darwin's Theory? (refined and resent)

[Guest guest]

Dear bhagavatas,

 

This is something I have been contemplating for a

while and feel it is a worthwhile topic for discussion.

In fact, this topic is quite relevant given the current

discussion of mundane topics such as Darwin's theory

of evolution. I wrote to Sri. Krishna Kalale about this and

he gave me some feedback. I submit this refined outline,

of my (current and partial) understanding, for feedback.

Note I will continue with the posts on elements of

Vis'isTadvaita Vedanta this weekend.

 

Knowledge (dharmabhUta-jNAna) is a substance

(dravya) that inheres in the Jiva as an attribute.

This knowledge (dharmabhUta-jNAna), being

substance, is subject to modification due to Karma

(for Jiva's subject to karma.) These modifications bring

about different states of knowledge. Knowledge can be

implicitly classified into two broad categories, mainly

spiritual and mundane. Spiritual knowledge is that which

is required to experience the bliss of Brahman.

Mundane knowledge is that which is not required for

experiencing the bliss of Brahman.

 

Given this, a mukthA is one who has fully expanded

dharmabhUta-jNAna in what sense?

 

-For the muktA, knowledge is in a state such that

the bliss of Brahman can be experienced in its

fullest form.

 

Then in what sense is a muktA omniscient or all knowing?

-If we think of the BrahmajNAna (knowledge

required to enjoy the bliss of Brahman in the fullest

form) as a subset (a particular state) of the universal

set of knowledge, then there are infinitely many subsets

(states) consisting of BrahmajNAna plus some other

extraneous knowledge; a muktA, by using its will, can

modify the dharmabhUta-jNAna to take on any one of

these states.

 

- You may ask why does a muktA need mundane

knowledge?

 

A friend of mine, who is perceptive and well learned,

pointed this out to me. A muktA or Nitya suri needs to

make use of mundane knowledge to transmit the spiritual

Knowledge.

(This is a terse but profound statement, I can elaborate

on this but was hoping that some of the more learned

members of the group can do that.)

 

A Baddha jivAtman, who aspires for moksha, should

cultivate BrahmajNAna, for that alone will help to

develop the conviction required for unconditional

surrender to Brahman. Extraneous (mundane) knowledge

is only helpful in the sense that it aids in the cultivation of BrahmajNAna.

 

Should this not be the sense in which extraneous knowledge

(or mundane knowledge) is viewed?

 

Given the above, how is Darwin's theory relevant to an

aspirant of mokshA, who's prarabdha karma is such that he

or she is in a field that does not involve the study of Darwin's

theory ?

 

Please note, I am not trying to argue that mundane

knowledge is totally useless; I am merely arguing that it is

only useful in the sense that it may help in the cultivation of

BrahmajNAna.

 

Adiyen,

Venkataramanan

krishNArpaNam

[Guest guest]

>Given the above, how is Darwin's theory relevant to an

>aspirant of mokshA, who's prarabdha karma is such that he

>or she is in a field that does not involve the study of Darwin's

>theory ?

>

>Please note, I am not trying to argue that mundane

>knowledge is totally useless; I am merely arguing that it is

>only useful in the sense that it may help in the cultivation of

>BrahmajNAna.

 

 

Generally, I don't get too worked up over accounts of creation or astronomy

as they are given in scripture. What does concern me, however, is the

perceived conflict between what is described in scripture and what can be

verified by empirical evidence. Obviously, if empirical evidence really

contradicts something given in scripture (even if it is only mundane

knowledge), then that calls into question the validity of the scriptures

themselves. To put it another way, if the scriptures can't even get the

mundane knowledge right, why should we trust them when it comes to spiritual

knowledge? One can give so many arguments such as, "the ancient rishis were

more concerned with brahmagyaana..." and so on (to which I would agree).

However, none of these give satisfactory explanations as to the existence of

falsehoods in the same scriptures. Calling them exaggerations or allegorical

are simply polite ways of saying they are factually incorrect.

 

Therefore, my own $0.02 on this (others feel free to disagree), is that such

discussions are only important in as much as they are relevant to how we

accept shaastra. And our attitude towards shaastra is important in

cultivating brahmagyaana. Once again, I can point out that in the community

of brahmin caste members to which I have been exposed, all the elders

compromise with shaastra in regards to scientific details. And I can hardly

think of one among the next generation who are even attempting to cultivate

brahmagyaana. The conversations that I have had with them often revolve

around disbelief at various Puraanic narratives (such as the idea of Ganesha

being created from an elephant's head and a decapitated body), which then

leads them to hold the entire body of Vedic literature under scrutiny. With

the idea in mind that their scriptures contain superstitious ideas mixed in

with some philosophical points, I have even observed some among them looking

with admiration at other religions like Christianity or Islam.

 

Obviously, this is a gross generalization, and it is hard to do justice to

this complicated social issue that has its roots in a basic lack of faith in

the Vedas. But anyway, these are my views, for whatever they are worth. I

personally would not like to see this same kind of degeneration going on in

the Sri Vaishnava community, but sadly I have seen it to some extent.

 

namo naaraayaNaaya,

 

-- Krishna