clarification

[Guest guest]

Subbuji Wrote:

the view that has been advanced by the Vedanta is the

drishti-srishti-vAda, in which any object, be it the entire world,

must be deemed to arise co-terminously with the cognition pertaining

to it – drishti-sama-samayA srishti. This prakriyA liberates one

from the clutches of the plethora of assumptions indulged in to

accommodate the aspirant of the low order. The reasoning developed

here is in support of the Srutis which provide the pramana in

respect of this vAda (Brihadaranyaka Up. II.i.20)

|||||||||||

 

Namaste Subbuji,

The implication of what you write here is that there was no world prior to

their being consciousness of it, that there was no world prior to the

arrival of the organic. In other words that what the best scientific

minds have shown, namely that the arrival of human consciousness is the

end product of a long chain of evolution, is just not true. You can't be

serious.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Subbuji Wrote:

> the view that has been advanced by the Vedanta is the

> drishti-srishti-vAda, in which any object, be it the entire world,

> must be deemed to arise co-terminously with the cognition

pertaining

> to it â€" drishti-sama-samayA srishti. This prakriyA liberates one

> from the clutches of the plethora of assumptions indulged in to

> accommodate the aspirant of the low order. The reasoning developed

> here is in support of the Srutis which provide the pramana in

> respect of this vAda (Brihadaranyaka Up. II.i.20)

> |||||||||||

>

> Namaste Subbuji,

> The implication of what you write here is that there was no world

prior to

> their being consciousness of it, that there was no world prior to

the

> arrival of the organic. In other words that what the best

scientific

> minds have shown, namely that the arrival of human consciousness

is the

> end product of a long chain of evolution, is just not true. You

can't be

> serious.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael

>

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Dear Michael ji,

 

Namaste. Good to see that truly penetrating question. To say that

human conscsiousness arrives is not the way of the Vedic teaching.

It is the basic given. In a creation without beginning, anAdi,

there is no question of any evolution in the sense that the

scientists talk of. Veda/vedanta admits of an evolution, but this

is in the sense of the gross mind immersed in samsara evolving into

an enlightened one. On this path there is room for several

unevolved stages and evolving ones too. The idea is, all lower

forms of life (lower than the human), is a result of the

transgression of dharma on the part of a human. For, the human being

who has been endowed with the Vedic dharma, is supposed to act

accordingly and avoid gross transgressions. When the quota of the

wrongs weighs higher than the rights, the taking on of a lower form

is inevitable. In such a scheme, there is no room for the theory of

a human consciousness arriving after a long chain of evolution.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbu-ji & Michael-ji,

 

While I am not an expert on dRShTi-sRShTi-vAda (DSV), I think both

Michaelji's question and Subbu-ji's reply are somewhat misplaced.

 

advaita-vedAnta says that Atman-brahman (pure consciousness/pure

being) is the sole reality. The diversity of names & forms is only

empirically true. The gamut of theories such as sRShTi-dRShTi vAda

(SDV), DSV, bimba-pratibimba-vAda, etc are only meant to provide

temporary answers for seekers until the truth of brahman is realized.

Which theory one uses is dependent one's own level of spiritual

development, intellect, inclination, etc. These are all vyAvahAric

theories that have no validity at the paramArtha level, but they have

great utility within the vyAvahAric reality that all of us know.

 

The vyavahAric theories are themselves products of the notion that

vyavahAra in itself is true. But this notion is false! Nevertheless

such theories are needed because all of us can only see the vyavahAric

reality with its subject-object dualities.

 

In this context, asking whether scientific evolution is compatible or

not with DSV is a case of missing the point. What we refer to as

scientific evolution, as well as all the laws of physics, are valid

alright, and we accept them as valid unless proven otherwise. But even

they have only vyAvahAric reality.

 

As Tony-ji pointed out in one of his earlier posts, one does not need

to know the molecular structure of water to come out of the swimming

pool. Hence all the detailed explanations of evolution, big-bang, etc

are of limited use to the seeker, though they are immensely useful to

us within the empirical world.

 

Given the nature of vyavahAra, there is scope for any number of

theories to explain various aspects of it. The validity of a

vyavahAric theory is determined by its utility & its verifiability

within vyavahAra, and not its truth per se (since vyavahAra in itself

is not an independent truth). In this context, concepts of evolution,

etc can be easily accomodated within vedAnta, as long as one remembers

that the diversity of the observed universe has no independent

reality. For example, SDV is the most commonly used vyavahAric theory

and I dont see any reason why evolution cannot be accomodated within

SDV. Certainly, the acceptance of darwinian evolution is not an

obstruction to the vedAntic seeker.

 

Now, subbu-ji wrote:

 

> On this path there is room for several

> unevolved stages and evolving ones too. The idea is, all lower

> forms of life (lower than the human), is a result of the

> transgression of dharma on the part of a human. For, the human being

> who has been endowed with the Vedic dharma, is supposed to act

> accordingly and avoid gross transgressions. When the quota of the

> wrongs weighs higher than the rights, the taking on of a lower form

> is inevitable. In such a scheme, there is no room for the theory of

> a human consciousness arriving after a long chain of evolution.

 

 

Now, while I am far from being an expert on DSV, I dont see how all of

the above is relevant to DSV. DSV is based on the concept of

eka-jIva-vAda. So there is no question of the existence of various

forms of life in the first place. Correct me if I am wrong, but from

what I understand, the generally accepted concept of multiple jIva-s

caught in the cycle of saMsAra is valid only within SDV and not in

DSV.

 

Even with SDV, I dont see how what you have written above is

incompatible with evolution. What we refer to as evolution is an

explanation of the development of life forms on this planet within a

span of time that can be studied by present-day humans using

present-day vyAvahAric knowledge. In this sense, evolution is quite

orthogonal to traditional concepts of karma & rebirth. They neither

validate nor invalidate each other. It is only if evolution

invalidates the concept of sUkShma sarIra (subtle body, the entity

that takes rebirth) that one can say that the two are incompatible. I

dont think that is the case and I dont see how that will be the case

in the forseeable future. In fact, it is only if science/evolution

implies bhUta-caitanya-vAda (the view that consciouness has a material

basis) that one can talk of any incompatibility with vedAnta. But

science by definition cannot do this because science can only study

object-consciousness and can hence operate only within the realm of

subject-object duality, whereas Atman/brahman as shuddha caitanya is

the very basis of this duality.

 

So I dont see any contradiction in accepting darwinian evolution and

being a vedAntin at the same time.

 

We must also remember that even karma & rebirth are vyAvahAric

theories only and have no validity at the paramArtha level.

 

Comments welcome.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste sri Rameshji,

don't strain too much with many vaadaas. read Shaankara Bhaashya . analyse the facts as in your anubhava in all the 3 states of jaagrat, swapna & sushupti. there is a methodology adopted in shruti as pointed by Shankara in his Bhaashya . i.e. adhyaaropaapavaada prakriya. this is the key to understand the real self ( Brahma) as in every ones anubhava.

certainly whose mind is pure with shamaadi saadhana sampat can say " yes, what shruti's proclaim is true " .

shubhamastu,

sanjeeva murthy

-

Ramesh Krishnamurthy

advaitin

Monday, November 20, 2006 7:12 PM

Re: Re: clarification

 

 

Namaste Subbu-ji & Michael-ji,

 

While I am not an expert on dRShTi-sRShTi-vAda (DSV), I think both

Michaelji's question and Subbu-ji's reply are somewhat misplaced.

 

advaita-vedAnta says that Atman-brahman (pure consciousness/pure

being) is the sole reality. The diversity of names & forms is only

empirically true. The gamut of theories such as sRShTi-dRShTi vAda

(SDV), DSV, bimba-pratibimba-vAda, etc are only meant to provide

temporary answers for seekers until the truth of brahman is realized.

Which theory one uses is dependent one's own level of spiritual

development, intellect, inclination, etc. These are all vyAvahAric

theories that have no validity at the paramArtha level, but they have

great utility within the vyAvahAric reality that all of us know.

 

The vyavahAric theories are themselves products of the notion that

vyavahAra in itself is true. But this notion is false! Nevertheless

such theories are needed because all of us can only see the vyavahAric

reality with its subject-object dualities.

 

In this context, asking whether scientific evolution is compatible or

not with DSV is a case of missing the point. What we refer to as

scientific evolution, as well as all the laws of physics, are valid

alright, and we accept them as valid unless proven otherwise. But even

they have only vyAvahAric reality.

 

As Tony-ji pointed out in one of his earlier posts, one does not need

to know the molecular structure of water to come out of the swimming

pool. Hence all the detailed explanations of evolution, big-bang, etc

are of limited use to the seeker, though they are immensely useful to

us within the empirical world.

 

Given the nature of vyavahAra, there is scope for any number of

theories to explain various aspects of it. The validity of a

vyavahAric theory is determined by its utility & its verifiability

within vyavahAra, and not its truth per se (since vyavahAra in itself

is not an independent truth). In this context, concepts of evolution,

etc can be easily accomodated within vedAnta, as long as one remembers

that the diversity of the observed universe has no independent

reality. For example, SDV is the most commonly used vyavahAric theory

and I dont see any reason why evolution cannot be accomodated within

SDV. Certainly, the acceptance of darwinian evolution is not an

obstruction to the vedAntic seeker.

 

Now, subbu-ji wrote:

 

> On this path there is room for several

> unevolved stages and evolving ones too. The idea is, all lower

> forms of life (lower than the human), is a result of the

> transgression of dharma on the part of a human. For, the human being

> who has been endowed with the Vedic dharma, is supposed to act

> accordingly and avoid gross transgressions. When the quota of the

> wrongs weighs higher than the rights, the taking on of a lower form

> is inevitable. In such a scheme, there is no room for the theory of

> a human consciousness arriving after a long chain of evolution.

 

Now, while I am far from being an expert on DSV, I dont see how all of

the above is relevant to DSV. DSV is based on the concept of

eka-jIva-vAda. So there is no question of the existence of various

forms of life in the first place. Correct me if I am wrong, but from

what I understand, the generally accepted concept of multiple jIva-s

caught in the cycle of saMsAra is valid only within SDV and not in

DSV.

 

Even with SDV, I dont see how what you have written above is

incompatible with evolution. What we refer to as evolution is an

explanation of the development of life forms on this planet within a

span of time that can be studied by present-day humans using

present-day vyAvahAric knowledge. In this sense, evolution is quite

orthogonal to traditional concepts of karma & rebirth. They neither

validate nor invalidate each other. It is only if evolution

invalidates the concept of sUkShma sarIra (subtle body, the entity

that takes rebirth) that one can say that the two are incompatible. I

dont think that is the case and I dont see how that will be the case

in the forseeable future. In fact, it is only if science/evolution

implies bhUta-caitanya-vAda (the view that consciouness has a material

basis) that one can talk of any incompatibility with vedAnta. But

science by definition cannot do this because science can only study

object-consciousness and can hence operate only within the realm of

subject-object duality, whereas Atman/brahman as shuddha caitanya is

the very basis of this duality.

 

So I dont see any contradiction in accepting darwinian evolution and

being a vedAntin at the same time.

 

We must also remember that even karma & rebirth are vyAvahAric

theories only and have no validity at the paramArtha level.

 

Comments welcome.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Thank you Ramesh-ji for that excellent perspective.

I agree with everything you have written.

Would like to further add a few points to highlight

what you have so nicely covered..

 

 

First of all, I disagree with "In other words that

what the best scientific minds have shown, namely that

the arrival of human consciousness is the end product

of a long chain of evolution"

I dont think the "best minds of science" have a clue

about consciousness, less of how (self)consciousness

originated with the advent of humans...

Science has yet to fully embrace the concept of a mind

- certainly a long way to go before it can even begin

to conceive of a subtle body, and certainly a very

very long way to go before dealing with

consciousness..what to speak of it as an essential

underlying ultimate unity..

 

If consciousness is defined as possessing an ability

to independently iteract with the environment then

viruses which are not even visible under a microscope

certainly have consciousness...that is why a cure for

the common cold is so elusive - you make it(a

medicine) they break it(and find a way to replicate

and beat you)

 

What is science's concept of consciousness? Science

would like us to believe that atoms of some elements

accidentally and "purposelessly" came together by some

forces of physics and chemistry and formed bonds, and

these, again by some accidental and/or incidental

miracle formed a doublehelix of nucleic acids, and

then at some magical point, these decided to

replicate, and develop a sense of separation from the

environment they were in - "they" i.e. this particular

aggregate combination of atoms and bonds "wanted to

live" and would indulge in what was "conducive to

their survival and propagation" - perhaps thats when

consciousness emerged out of matter..!!

 

This kind of theory is actually more fantastic and

farfetched than a God sitting in heaven who in his

Divine boredom created a Adam and then a Eve and an

apple and so on and so forth...yet the greatest

intellects of Science can do no better...Science has

managed a great number of wonderful things but lets

not be coy about recognizing its infinite

limitations...

 

Having said that, the vedic model of srshti i.e.

creation is not incompatible with a so-called

scientific or Darwinian theory of evolution.

Incidentally the Vedic concepts of how old our current

universe is matches with the prevailing scientific

calculations, according to celebrated astronomer carl

Sagan..

 

The vedic vision envisages gross bodies being assigned

to jivas based on their accumulated prarabdha.

Every jiva needs a medium to exhaust his previous

karmas from beginingless time, and to enjoy the good

or bad fruits of the same.

So at the time of the Great Cosmic Dissolution, and

prior to the current Big Bang, the accumulated karmas

of billions of jivas were in a state of latent

suspension. As the universe cooled, and conditions for

life were conducive, the first of these jivas issued

forth as the vegetations - "yad annenatirohati" - it

was this particular form that these particular

billions of jivas had earned or needed to be able to

exhaust a portion of their prarabdha. This vegetation

then also constituted the food for the varieties of

other lifeforms to come. The subsequent "evolution" of

life forms from microbes to sealife to amphibious life

to vertebrates can certainly be accounted for by the

fact that these forms were considered necessary for

the jivas to exahust more and more of their karma.

 

The human form represents the apex of this order -

whether you consider it from a karmic standpoint or

from a evolutionary standpoint - and represents the

advent of "do-ership" from a karmic standpoint and

"selfawareness" when considered from a Darwinian

standpoint - they both point to the same thing...

 

Only thing is Darwin calls it "survival of the

fittest" - where the goal for evolution would simply

be to ensure survival and propagation of its own, with

no particular reasoning for this..

 

The Vedic vision could be represented as a "succession

of the finest" - where the goal is for the jivas to

gather more and more refined mediums of expression,

which can finally culminate in a human form and be

ripe for selfdiscovery of its own true nature..the

medium of the human shareera being the only medium

availabe in srshti to enable the dawn of

selfrealization, which culminates in the dissolution

of the sense of separateness from the whole..More

eminent media do exist such as devas, but they only

are mediums of experience not of action, and hence

incapable of conferring freedom...According to the

Yoga Vashishta, the presiding deities of time(Yama),

or even the Trinity of Rudra/Vishnu/Brahma are "mere"

officebearers, whose portfolios interchange with every

new birth of creation...

 

With the standpoint of drshti and srshti, if you view

both from the standpoint of Ishwara, then there is

essentially nondifference in terms of the order of

placing (one before the other)."sahasra SIrshA

purusha: sahasrAksha: sahasrapAt sa bhUmim vishvato

vRtvA atyatishTad daSAngulam purusha evedaGM sarvam

yad bhUtam yac ca bhavyam utAmRtatvasyeshAnaH" and

further "tasmAt virAd ajAyata virAjo adhipUrusha:"

>From the standpoint of the jiva, he is so

infinetismally insignificant even from a vyavaharic

standpoint, then the term "srshti" has no relevance..

 

 

Humble pranams

Hari Om

Shyam

 

 

--- Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy > wrote:

 

> Namaste Subbu-ji & Michael-ji,

>

> Given the nature of vyavahAra, there is scope for

> any number of

> theories to explain various aspects of it. The

> validity of a

> vyavahAric theory is determined by its utility & its

> verifiability

> within vyavahAra, and not its truth per se (since

> vyavahAra in itself

> is not an independent truth). In this context,

> concepts of evolution,

> etc can be easily accomodated within vedAnta, as

> long as one remembers

> that the diversity of the observed universe has no

> independent

> reality. What we refer to as

> evolution is an

> explanation of the development of life forms on this

> planet within a

> span of time that can be studied by present-day

> humans using

> present-day vyAvahAric knowledge. In this sense,

> evolution is quite

> orthogonal to traditional concepts of karma &

> rebirth. They neither

> validate nor invalidate each other.> Ramesh

>

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsored Link

 

Don't quit your job - take classes online

www.Classesusa.com