Evolution & scientific preaching in general

[Guest guest]

QUOTE Pandu das> Also, his usage of the word "species," as in "there

are 400,000 species of human beings" refers to levels of development

of consciousness. That contrasts with the mundane scientists' usage

of the term which is roughly based on the ability to reproduce.

 

>From what I've seen of his teachings, which certainly isn't everything,

it seemed to me that Srila Prabhupada and the scientists were talking

about different things even when using the same words.<UNQUOTE

 

That's true. I don't think the word "yonishu" translates exactly to

biological "species", or is limited to that level. Levels of

development of consciousness is definitely the macro criteria on which

the Vedic ontology and Srila Prabhupada's statements are based. Taking

this idea a little further, perhaps the word "dvija" is also used in a

related sense, in contrast to the materialistic "dvipada pasu".

 

In sharing Krishna Consciousness (esp. campus preaching), I wouldn't

want to lose balance and err on the side of "scientism", i.e., being

overly anxious to show that tangential Vedic statements about physical

phenomena agree with what is most current in the scientific community.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to take a dogmatic and bitter

opposing view either.

 

Presenting the Vedic viewpoint requires a paradigm shift in people's

ontological worldview, and the idea is to explain this different angle

of vision, and comment on such "science" and other contemporary social

issues with proper reference to this difference. This applies to

biological and social forms of "Darwinism", which is totally at odds

with the Vedas in its basic assumptions. Its for good reason that

Prabhupada hammered away at the "bodily concept of life", because he

was attacking a false ontology and urging a shift.

 

Another example of explaining the paradigm shift: we need to show that

knowledge about consciousness uses non-Aristotelian logic, rather than

the rigid and limited Cartesian kind of understanding that many

physical sciences use. Of course, it helps that the importance of non-

Aristotelian logic is now recognized in academic fields like Quantum

metaphysics, Psychology and Artificial Intelligence. This kind of

support helps bridge the "belief gap" while preaching to students and

certain kinds of people, and we SHOULD capitalize. For instance, 20

years ago, people like Fritjof Capra wrote books on the philosophy of

science, and some Impersonalists really capitalized on how he related

many modern concepts to the more impersonal lower-level aspects of

Vedic ontology. But the same guy (and others) are today glorifying Sri

Madhvacharya's epistemology as being the deeper cause of their

observations. Why shouldn't we use this? Similarly, in my last post, I

touched upon other modern theories in science which correlate with

Vedic philosophy and DIRECTLY lead to the Personal Conception of

Godhead.

 

But we need not lose balance. We should explicitly deny

certain "scientific" theories (such as "survival of the fittest" being

the driving force of universe). And we may accept other scientific

theories. And about some things, we can just reserve our comment.

 

-Carl.