Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Avadhuta Raya: >>>...Shortly after the deluge Kasyapa Muni descended to the Caucasian mountains on the order of Brahma to populate this earth planet. Now, as in the beginning there was a lot of water Kasyapa first created the marine species with his wives by genetic manipulation and recession...<<< Good that you raised this reference from the sixth canto. When I was reading these verses, given my conditioning in modern science, prima facie this sounded totally fantastic and unbelievable for me. To say that these species popped overnight is as valid as the Big Bang or Common Ancestry of Species. So does it mean that the Theory of Evolution is correct except that Vedic position is there intelligence guiding the "Natural Selection"? Carl: >>>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.<<< Is the paradigm shift that "Natural Selection" is not an "unguided random" process but a "guided deterministic" process? Is Srila Prabhupada attacking the atheistic foundation of the theory and not the theory itself? Do you mean that Darwinism is at odd with Vedas in the sense that former is atheistic and latter is theistic? If Vedic position on Evolution cannot be rationalized, then it will be as axiomatic and dogmatic as current theories of evolution. So does it boil down to faith? Should I put my faith in ever changing scientific theories or constant Vedic theories? or Should I put my faith in the sages of sublime character or in modern scientists who are always engaged in breaking the regulative principles? If we bring this faith factor, then science exits then and there. Carl: >>>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.<<< I feel this is being politically correct but is there a conclusive way out? Hare Krishna, Vidyadhar **************************************************************************** ************ Vidyadhar M Karmarkar Graduate Fellow, Genomics and Bioinformatics, The Huck Institute of the Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801. Lab Phone: 814-863-2513 Fax: 814-863-2312 **************************************************************************** ************ "Essential truth spoken concisely is true eloquence." - Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi-Lila 1.106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Vidhyadhar Prabhu, Dandavats. > Is the paradigm shift that "Natural Selection" is not an "unguided random" process but a "guided deterministic" process? Is Srila Prabhupada attacking the atheistic foundation of the theory and not the theory itself? Srila Prabhupada is certainly attacking the atheistic assumptions and insinuations of Darwinism, but by "paradigm shift" I meant a more fundamental difference in angle of vision. The Srimad Bhagavatam is trying to describe a higher dimensional reality using metaphors from our limited experience. Our conditioned consciousness is imprisoned within a certain number of fixed dimensions (3+1 space- time in the waking state), but there are many more dimensions -- even by the admissions of modern science there are at least 11 dimensions. Srila Prabhupada would say that the metaphors in Vedic literature are like the "finger that points to a branch that points to the moon." What he means is that they canot be taken literally, and that's why there are rules on how to extrapolate Vedic metaphors. To get an idea of the difficulty of trying to explain higher dimensional reality to lower dimensional beings, check out this interesting page, especially the animated diagram of the sphere moving in and out of a planar surface: http://www.spiritualpaths.org/flatland.htm That diagram aptly illustrates how a higher dimensional CAUSE is perceived in a lower dimensional plane. In the context of our discussion, the subtle causes may unfold in linear time in our limited-dimensional consciousness. The Darwinists (and Logical Positivists in general) start from assumptions that this current material perception is all that exists and continue speculating for causes within these material dimensions only -- their speculation is BOUNDED by their current level of consciousness. This, I think, is called a "solipsism", where the individual thinks that his/her current self is the limit and the standard of Reality. But Srila Prabhupada and the Vedas are asking us to follow a process of expansion/elevation of consciousness to higher dimensions, after which many causes will reveal themselves in new ways. This idea of the "veils of causes" is there in many esoteric spiritual philosophies. In Sufism/Islam it is called Isbaab. The "paradigm shift" is that the spiritual vision is "vertical"...slowly standing up to unravel lower to higher dimensional reality. Whereas the logical positivist rejects metaphysical reality to begin with, and so looks for apparent causes in the "horizontal"...like a dog/hog walking with its nose to the ground, so to speak. > If Vedic position on Evolution cannot be rationalized, then it will be as axiomatic and dogmatic as current theories of evolution. So does it boil down to faith? The Vedic position can be rationalized if the correct tools of ratiocination are employed, and if the role of intellect itself can be put into its correct place. Firstly, we use non-Aristotelian logic, not Aristotelian/Cartesian logic. That way we can describe our ontology. Then, when the audience demands direct experience (pratyaksha), we point towards the process of development of consciousness. This suggestion is perfectly reasonable now, since we have reputed scientists on record as saying that preception is subjective and depends on consciousness. They themselves are admitting the epistemic limitations of the analytical, empiric method. > I feel this is being politically correct but is there a conclusive way out? Political correctness is not the motivation. On certain points, we should openly refute the assumptions of scientists, as Prabhupada did. And on certain points we just reserve our comment instead of participating in an essentially political wrangle. Real wisdom does not necessarily have an opinion about everything under the sun, and silence is often a good answer. Srila Prabhupada himself would often ignore questions, because he didn't want to consolidate the MENTAL LEVEL at which the question was asked. E.g., once a reporter asked him how he differed from other "Hindus and Buddhists"; Prabhupada just ignored the question and preached Krishna Consciousness to him. This whole evolution debate is more about political, ego-driven positions rooted in historical trends in the West, and less about God or the search for Truth. Whitehead and other philosophers at the turn of the 20th century had already started lamenting that the greatest tragedy was the increasing politicization of science. In my humble opinion, many devotees also make a big issue about evolution, etc even when speaking to people who are curious about Krishna Consciousness and who hardly care about these things. I don't think evolution, etc are Articles of Faith in Krishna Consciousness, so why introduce a source of doubt and controversy when the listener may not even care about it? This is especially ridiculous when we don't even present Srila Prabhupada's point of view properly and completely; just a couple of strongly worded statements here and there. Your servant, Carl. P.S. I think this 2-part article by Sri Ravindra Svarupa prabhu also addresses this paradigm shift concept. Modern Historical Consciousness - I http://www.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12rsd.html Modern Historical Consciousness - I http://www.iskcon.com/icj/3_1/rsd.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Haribol, >>>The Vedic position can be rationalized if the correct tools of ratiocination are employed, and if the role of intellect itself can be put into its correct place. Firstly, we use non-Aristotelian logic, not Aristotelian/Cartesian logic. That way we can describe our ontology. Then, when the audience demands direct experience (pratyaksha), we point towards the process of development of consciousness. This suggestion is perfectly reasonable now, since we have reputed scientists on record as saying that preception is subjective and depends on consciousness. They themselves are admitting the epistemic limitations of the analytical, empiric method.<<< 1. Can you explain the use of non-Aristotelian logic in ratiocination? 2. How does pointing towards development of consciousness help in discrediting Evolution? 3. How does epistemic limitations of analytical methods invalidate Evolution? >>> In my humble opinion, many devotees also make a big issue about evolution, etc even when speaking to people who are curious about Krishna Consciousness and who hardly care about these things. I don't think evolution, etc are Articles of Faith in Krishna Consciousness, so why introduce a source of doubt and controversy when the listener may not even care about it?<<< I am not asking this question because I need it in preaching. I am studying molecular biology and one of the foundational themes of my research is evolution. Actually, one of my projects is on molecular evolution. >>>This is especially ridiculous when we don't even present Srila Prabhupada's point of view properly and completely; just a couple of strongly worded statements here and there.<<< To present Srila Prabhupada's view properly, we need to understand his view correctly. So far no one on this forum or in my correspondence with others has given a "convincing answer" on SP's view on evolution. Epistemological analysis does not get us too far as we hit the hard wall of axioms in Vedic as well as scientific explanations and both require "acceptance" of the axiomatic framework. Vidyadhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Haribol. > 1. Can you explain the use of non-Aristotelian logic in ratiocination? Ordinary Aristotelian logic says that something can either be "true", or "false", but not both. Something can be discrete or continuous, not both. Et cetera. Non-Aristotelian logic works differently. We can have situations where multiple truth-values hold simultaneously. Something can be non-dual and separate simultaneously, etc. The latter is used in quantum physics, artificial intelligence, certain areas of psychology, and all fields (like consciousness studies) which are probing the ultimate nature of reality. At THAT level, we are no longer confined to our ordinary experience of space- time, and speeds much slower than the speed of light. Is Darwinian research even thinking at that level? According to quantum physics, Time IS Motion. Srila Prabhupada has also made some pretty amazing statements about Time, and I'll try to locate them. In the Vedas also, the material time-bound universe is called 'jagat', which literally means 'movement'. My point is to highlight the level at which the Vedas are talking. If a quantum physicist were to make those statements, he would be "cool", but because Darwinist people think the Vedas are the poetic outpourings of primitive people, the same statements are treated differently. Actually the whole evolution debate is not even about God. Its about social control, and the competition between the church and those who hate the church. I would be careful not to pitch in with Christian fundamentalists whose ideas are silly, and who are bent on proving that everything started about 10,000 years back. > 2. How does pointing towards development of consciousness help in > discrediting Evolution? Development of consciousness makes areas of experience accessible that transcend ordinary mental experience of space and time. It opens new angles of vision, including what "knowledge" means. Check out the documentary "What the bleep do we know" (and filter out the speculation). As I said in the previous posts, I am not interested in discrediting "evolution", but only some of the premises of Darwinism. Or more accurately, I would like to discredit those who want to EXTRAPOLATE or GENERALIZE some of those Darwinian principles to colour their view of EVERYTHING, including metaphysics. Its like those who said the world is flat, because of their limited sensory experience of it. Physical evolution of species may (or may not) have happened in time, but when the nature of time itself is so wacky, why are these Darwinists setting up their own schools of metaphysical speculation? > 3. How does epistemic limitations of analytical methods invalidate > Evolution? It invalidates the *generalization* of the premises of Darwinism, especially into the realm of metaphysical speculation. > Epistemological analysis does not get us too far as we hit the hard wall of > axioms in Vedic as well as scientific explanations and both require > "acceptance" of the axiomatic framework. Sure. We reject the *generalization* of Darwinian axioms in the light of the findings of other more advanced fields of science. No need to even bring the Vedas into the picture anymore! But Darwinian axioms may serve the purpose of paper-pushing research-work in a very limited frame of reference. E.g.: For all practical purposes, we can use Newtonian mechanics for most of the ordinary operations we perform on earth. But we cannot reject the theory of Relativity by saying that it makes no sense to the Newtonian fundamentalist. The SCOPE of that theory is FAR greater than Newtonian mechanics, and Newton's equations are a limited special case of Relativity. Similarly, we want to keep the Darwinian fundamentalists on leash. "Mulla ka daur masjid tak." No philosophical generalization of their premises. Rather, there may even be other forces that they are yet to discover. Just came across this report today on panspermia: http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/08gspec.htm?q=np&file=.htm Prabhu, I would like to get a better understanding of molecular bio and evolution when we meet. Your servant, Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Another Prabhupada quote from here: 'Creation, Evolution, and the Big Bang' http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0403/ET17-8586.html Letter to Hayagriva dated March 9, 1970: "We can take the idea from the tree--the tree grows gradually, and the different fruits, branches, and twigs gradually appear. Therefore it is to be understood that this planet has grown later on. Besides this we understand that although the planet was later on grown up, it was covered with water (pralaya payodhi jale) merged into the water after devastation. Then gradually it emerges from water. That we can experience, that gradually land is coming out of the oceans. Because of its being merged into water, it is natural to conclude that the beginning of life was aquatic. This is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind. This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life." ~C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.