The Theory of Evolution and the Vedic perspective of Creation

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Rameshji, Shyamji and others,

 

Just in order to have a focussed discussion, i have given the above

title to the topic we have on hand. Thanks for your very

informative, involved and sincere views on the above subject.

 

Ramesh ji, actually i had noticed that Michael ji's question on

the 'evolved arrival of human consciousness after a long chain'

pertained to the realm of shrishti-drishti vaada (SDV) more than the

other one DSV. It was with this basic understanding that i had

proceeded to say what i said. I did not elaborate on what i said.

Now since some more views have come forth on the subject, i think i

shall say in greater detail what i have understood about this topic.

 

To accept the Darwinian or any other theory of evolution (of

Science) into the Vedic structure would give rise to many problems.

I shall enumerate just a few of them. First of all, to accept that

human consciousness evolved at the end of a chain would presuppose

that human consciousness was not present before and only other life

forms were there. That means the arrival of human consciousness for

the very first time would give it a date. Maybe the scientists will

be able to speculate that this is some millions or billions of years

ago. Now, as we all know, the Vedas are the teaching of Ishwara for

the upliftment of man. It is addressed to man and not any other sub-

human beings. This is undisputable. If the evolution theory is

accepted, it would put a date on the Vedas. But this is quite

contradictory to the anAditva (beginninglessness) and nityatva

(Eternality)of the Veda. It would mean that Ishwara gave out the

Vedas subsequent or simultaneous with human arrival. This itself

will have several problems.

 

Secondly, if this were accepted on a 'for the time being' basis

saying 'so what if the Vedas originated on a particular date?' we

have another problem. The Vedic conception of all living beings is

that each one is a jiva. That means all the sub-human forms of life

prior to the arrival of the human form are essentially jivas. If

Ishwara gave out the Vedas only when man arrived, Ishwara will be

subjected to the charge of partiality. He has not cared to show a

way to all the jivas (living forms) that were existing prior to the

human arrival. What have these jivas done to deserve this kind of

bias?

 

Again, as per the evolution theory, the human form has evolved from

the immediate, closest cousin, the primate. If this is true, we see

quite different things in the rebirth/karma scheme. For example, in

Jadabharata's case, we see a very great bhakta King being born as a

deer. After this birth he is born as a human, Jadabharata. In the

Vedic scheme the reverse is also possible. A Gandharva, owing to a

curse, was born as a lizard and was redeemed to his normal body by

Krishna in the Bhagavata. There is the Nala-kUbara twins who were

cursed to be to trees. Krishna redeemed them too to their Gandharva

forms. Then there is the story of Gajendra, the elephant. He was a

devotee King before. The crocodile that caught the elephant too was

a Gandharva before. Is this reverse evolution accepted in science?

I do not know.

 

In any case this is definite: In the vedic scheme of creation, there

is no creation bereft of all life forms including human. And karma,

dharma, adharma are possible only for humans to earn. The other

life forms are only meant for reaping the fruits of excessive

adharma or dharma. The complex matrix of karma/prarabdha is so

interwoven that at any time the various forms of life live together

affecting each other's lives.

 

In the Gita it is said that even a person going to swarga with

enormous punya returns to the human world or even lower worlds. And

again, it is not necessary that a human with excessive adharma will

attain a subhuman body of whatever denomination only once and come

back to human body. If the prarabdha has begun to carry him through

several sub-human bodies, he will have to undergo all that before

returning to human form. I said these several possiblities only to

show that the pattern spoken of in the evolution theory does not

strictly apply in the karmic scheme of the Veda.

 

In the Vedic scheme, every sub-human form of life is now in such a

state only because of its paapa karma. That means, every such jiva

was once a human and having not heeded to the 'dont's' of the Vedic

Dharma have ended up in such a state. The Gita is quite clear about

this rule. So, the Vedic way of looking at this is: There is no

creation that is not without the human presence already in it.

Since creation is held to be beginningless, there is no meaning in

questioning about the 'first human beings', etc. There is

scriptural proof for this.

 

In the very first sentence to His introduction to the Gita Bhashya,

Shankara says:

 

//The Lord created the universe, and wishing to secure order therein

He first created the Prajapatis (Lords of creatures) such as MarIchi

and caused them to adopt the Pravritti Dharma, the Religion of

Works. He then created others such as Sanaka and Sanandana and

caused them to adopt the Nivritti Dharma, the Religion of

Renunciation... It is this twofold Vedic Religion of Works and

Renunciation that maintains the order in the universe.//

 

Again, in the Third Chapter Shankara says:

 

//3.10 In the days of yore, having created the beings together with

the sacrifices, Prajapati said: 'By this you multiply. Let this be

your yielder of coveted objects of desire.'

 

Pura, in the days of yore, in the beginning of creation; srstva,

having created; prajah, the beings, the people of the three castes;

saha-yajnah, together with the sacrifices; Prajapati, the creator of

beings, uvaca, said; 'Anena, by this sacrifice; prasavisyadhvam, you

multiply.' Prasava means origination, growth. 'You accomplish that.

Esah astu, let this sacrifice be; vah, your; ista-kama-dhuk, yielder

of coveted objects of desire.' That which yields (dhuk) coveted

(ista) objects of desire (kama), particular results, is istakama-

dhuk.//

 

In the above we see that creation comes with human beings. In the

Purusha Sukta too we have this unmistakable scheme:

 

(I am quoting only the relevant portion from the Sayana Bhashya,

freely translating it)

 

//(After metioning the creation of various beings, the Sukta

proceeds to say about the creation of Braahmanas, etc. through

questioning: When the devas constituting the prAna of the Prajapati

brought forth the Viraat, then in how many ways were they created?

(This is the general question. The specific questions are: What

constituted His mouth ? What His hands ? What his Thighs and Feet?)

 

The replies are: BrAhmaNo'sya mukham AsIt....

The man who is of the Brahmana jAti was the VirAt Purusha's mouth.

This means, the Brahmana was created from the Mouth of the Viraat.

Then Kshatriya, Vyshya, Shudra. This creation of Brahmanas, etc.

has been spoken of in the Seventh KANDa specifically as 'sa

mukhatastrivritam niramimIta' (of the Yajurveda samhita?)//

 

Having seen the scriptural position of 'creation-along-with-humans',

i quote hereunder a portion from the chapter 'Shastras & Science'

from the Book 'Exalting Elucidations' p. 284/285:

 

Disciple: We learn from science that man evolved from animals.

Thousands of years ago, man was living in caves. Cooking too was

unknown to him. How could the Vedas have been there at that time?

Further, how could the people then have lived as per the dictates of

the Vedas?

 

Acharyal: Let us suppose that you have a dream in which you see

yourself as a ten-year-old boy. Should you not ligically conclude

that you must have been a child earlier?

 

D: Yes.

A: Did the dream start from the time you were a babe?

D: No. The dream begins suddenly revealing me as a ten-year-old boy.

A: That is, even though it suits logic to say that in the dream you

should have been a small boy initially, in reality it was not so.

Do you agree?

D: Yes.

A: It is not proper to extrapolate backwards in time since the dream

started suddenly. The contention of the scientists is also not

proper. Some of them may contend: 'We see a person in a particular

position now. Many years ago, he should have lived in a cave

because he would not have had this much knowledge.' However, just as

a dream begins suddenly, this world has arisen suddenly. So, here

also, it is improper to extrapolate the time element backwards.

D: Scientists say that life evolved from matter. They also say that

consciousness is produced when elements of matter evolve into a

particular form, such as that of a cell or a brain. Is such an

opinion wrong?

A: This indeed is the philosophy of the Chaarvaaka. It is not a

proper school of thought at all. Why does a scientist say that

consciousness arises from inert entities and that there is no

distinct entity called consciousness?

D: Since consciousness is seen only where the body or cell or brain

exists. Where the body is absent, we do not find consciousness.

 

(after a little more discussion..)

A: The shastras are the highest pramana. There is no finality in

our logic. One reason may appear to us to be right and unassailable

but if a highly intelligent person were to argue against it, we may

be forced to admit that what we thought right is really wrong. Yet

another logician may falsify the arguments that led to our changing

our views. Mere logic is thus quite insufficient. We require the

foundation of the Shastra for finality in our reasoning. The Vedas

were taught by the Lord. They are very sacred. In the Vedas it has

been mentioned that the body is different from consciousness.

Therefore, we should accept that. The realization of the Jnanis of

the Atman as pure Consciousness is in complete accord with what the

Shastras say. In fact, the Atman is beyond the ken of scientific

investigation. ....Of course there are many advantages that we get

from science. There is no doubt at all about it. But it is not

necessary to accept what some scientists conclude through

imagination and faulty logic.//

 

>From the foregoing, it is clear that the scriptural position of

creation does not give room for admitting the evolution theory that

says the human consciousness arrived after a long chain of other

forms.

 

With pranams to all,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

On 21/11/06, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

>

> Ramesh ji, actually i had noticed that Michael ji's question on

> the 'evolved arrival of human consciousness after a long chain'

> pertained to the realm of shrishti-drishti vaada (SDV) more than the

> other one DSV. It was with this basic understanding that i had

> proceeded to say what i said.

 

Thanks Subbu-ji for this observation. Indeed, as far as DSV is

concerned, all this talk of multiple jIva-s and ISvara is quite

irrelevant. So it is clear that, in this discussion, what we are

talking of is SDV only. I will proceed forward with this

understanding.

 

>

> To accept the Darwinian or any other theory of evolution (of

> Science) into the Vedic structure would give rise to many problems.

> I shall enumerate just a few of them. First of all, to accept that

> human consciousness evolved at the end of a chain would presuppose

> that human consciousness was not present before and only other life

> forms were there. That means the arrival of human consciousness for

> the very first time would give it a date. Maybe the scientists will

> be able to speculate that this is some millions or billions of years

> ago. Now, as we all know, the Vedas are the teaching of Ishwara for

> the upliftment of man.

 

>From what I know of the traditional position, the veda is considered

apauruSheya, unauthored even by ISvara. The veda exists in seed form

only to be seen and recorded by the RShi-s in each cycle of time. I

think one of the mImAMsaka-s (kumArila?) even says that we know

nothing of the RShi-s and that some of them might have been non-human

forms of life such as birds, mammals, gandharva-s, etc. But all this

is actually quite irrelevant. The basic idea is that the veda always

exists, irrespective of whether or not humans exist. There are no

humans during pralaya, but the veda still exists, awaiting to be

"re-discovered" by some seer in the next kalpa.

 

> It is addressed to man and not any other sub-

> human beings. This is undisputable. If the evolution theory is

> accepted, it would put a date on the Vedas. But this is quite

> contradictory to the anAditva (beginninglessness) and nityatva

> (Eternality)of the Veda. It would mean that Ishwara gave out the

> Vedas subsequent or simultaneous with human arrival. This itself

> will have several problems.

 

But evolution need not & does not imply any date on the veda. It only

implies a date on when the RShi-s existed in the present kalpa. The

existence of the RShi-s has nothing to do with the existence of the

veda.

 

>

> Secondly, if this were accepted on a 'for the time being' basis

> saying 'so what if the Vedas originated on a particular date?' we

> have another problem. The Vedic conception of all living beings is

> that each one is a jiva. That means all the sub-human forms of life

> prior to the arrival of the human form are essentially jivas. If

> Ishwara gave out the Vedas only when man arrived, Ishwara will be

> subjected to the charge of partiality. He has not cared to show a

> way to all the jivas (living forms) that were existing prior to the

> human arrival. What have these jivas done to deserve this kind of

> bias?

 

This might sound comical, but may be there were humans or human-like

beings (subject to dharma) living on other planets, who manifested due

to their prArabdha on our planet!

 

The veda does talk about many loka-s, doesn't it?

 

The reason I am mentioning this is because there is no reason why we

should restrict theories of karma & rebirth only to our planet or only

to bhAratavarSha.

 

For that matter, people who lived in say North America 2000 years ago

would had no access to either the veda or any vaidika texts (gItA,

etc). How were they to know what vaidika dharma is? They followed the

mores of their own societies. Are we to say that they were vaidika

dharma followers in their previous lives who ended up being born in

North America due to their prArabdha?

 

If one takes the words of the veda in a very restrictive manner, one

will always end up in such logical quibbling. AcArya gauDapAda says

clearly in his kArika-s that ajAtivAda alone is the supreme truth, and

that the merciful veda teaches different (and often contradictory)

creation theories to suit the needs of individuals with different

capabilities to gradually lead them to moxa. Not every statement in

the veda has the same validity. At the vyavahAra level, there will

always be different explanations for different things. The veda, which

is itself a vyAvahAric entity, aims to teach dharma & moxa to beings

capable of understanding it. There is no point in extending its

jurisdiction over every vyAvahAric issue.

 

>

> Again, as per the evolution theory, the human form has evolved from

> the immediate, closest cousin, the primate. If this is true, we see

> quite different things in the rebirth/karma scheme. For example, in

> Jadabharata's case, we see a very great bhakta King being born as a

> deer. After this birth he is born as a human, Jadabharata. In the

> Vedic scheme the reverse is also possible. A Gandharva, owing to a

> curse, was born as a lizard and was redeemed to his normal body by

> Krishna in the Bhagavata. There is the Nala-kUbara twins who were

> cursed to be to trees. Krishna redeemed them too to their Gandharva

> forms. Then there is the story of Gajendra, the elephant. He was a

> devotee King before. The crocodile that caught the elephant too was

> a Gandharva before. Is this reverse evolution accepted in science?

> I do not know.

 

Sir, you are confusing between two different issues. karma &

punarjanma pertain to the spiritual evolution of the inidividual jIva

over time in the SDV formulation. Darwinian evolution pertains to the

evolution of species, not individual jIva-s. The two are very

different things. There is no point in linking them up.

 

>

> In any case this is definite: In the vedic scheme of creation, there

> is no creation bereft of all life forms including human. And karma,

> dharma, adharma are possible only for humans to earn. The other

> life forms are only meant for reaping the fruits of excessive

> adharma or dharma. The complex matrix of karma/prarabdha is so

> interwoven that at any time the various forms of life live together

> affecting each other's lives.

 

Sir, the problem is that you are restricting the vedic conception of

"humans" to our planet & our kalpa only. Why should this be the case?

And in all this, you are forgetting what the veda is meant for in the

first place - a pramANa for dharma & moxa, not for solving every

riddle in vyavahAra.

 

>

> In the Gita it is said that even a person going to swarga with

> enormous punya returns to the human world or even lower worlds. And

> again, it is not necessary that a human with excessive adharma will

> attain a subhuman body of whatever denomination only once and come

> back to human body. If the prarabdha has begun to carry him through

> several sub-human bodies, he will have to undergo all that before

> returning to human form. I said these several possiblities only to

> show that the pattern spoken of in the evolution theory does not

> strictly apply in the karmic scheme of the Veda.

 

 

That is because, as I said earlier, the scientific theory of evolution

is addressing the development of species, whereas the veda is a guide

on dharma & moxa for living beings capable of understanding it.

 

Sa~Nkara says in his gItabhAShya says that a hundred Sruti vAkya-s

cannot make fire cold. The temperature of fire is not in the realm of

Sruti pramANa. It is in the realm of pratyaxa & anumAna.

 

pratyaxa-anumAna tell us that dinosaurs existed at a time when human

beings did not. Does this mean that the veda is false. Not so. The

veda is meant to address a different set of issues.

 

>

> In the very first sentence to His introduction to the Gita Bhashya,

> Shankara says:

>

> //The Lord created the universe, and wishing to secure order therein

> He first created the Prajapatis (Lords of creatures) such as MarIchi

> and caused them to adopt the Pravritti Dharma, the Religion of

> Works. He then created others such as Sanaka and Sanandana and

> caused them to adopt the Nivritti Dharma, the Religion of

> Renunciation... It is this twofold Vedic Religion of Works and

> Renunciation that maintains the order in the universe.//

 

advaita-vedAnta also teaches DSV and other vAda-s. The above quote

from the gItA bhAShya would not apply to DSV. Are we to reject DSV

then?

 

Not so. Each vAda has its own utility. It is not the ultimate truth in

itself. Hence what Sa~Nkara says above is only one of several possible

vyAvahAric theories that address different aspects of vyavahAra.

 

> A: The shastras are the highest pramana. There is no finality in

> our logic. One reason may appear to us to be right and unassailable

> but if a highly intelligent person were to argue against it, we may

> be forced to admit that what we thought right is really wrong. Yet

> another logician may falsify the arguments that led to our changing

> our views. Mere logic is thus quite insufficient.

[..]

 

> But it is not

> necessary to accept what some scientists conclude through

> imagination and faulty logic.//

 

The shaastra is indeed the highest pramANa on dharma & moxa, not on

simple vyAvahAric matters such as the laws of physics or the evolution

of species. There is no doubt that some scientists have a materialist

mindset but that is where they are straying into the realm of moxa

where the usual techniques of science dont work (and it doesnt work

for the simple reason that the usual techniques of science cannot rise

above subject-object duality).

 

There is also a very simple reason why the veda is taken as a pramANa

on dharma-moxa, in preference to individual opinions. The reason is

that nobody else can question an individual's personal knowledge or

experience. So the veda provides an impersonal standard by which the

teachings of inidvidual AcArya-s can be evaluated. This is the reason

why, in the traditional scheme, a person who does not accept vaidika

pramANa is dubbed nAstika. Acceptance of ISvara (creator god) is quite

secondary to acceptance of the veda, otherwise ajAtivAda would be a

nAstika darSana for its rejection of creation.

 

Let me also raise another point regarding consciousness. Is a rock

conscious? No. Is it brahman? Yes.

What this shows is that when we refer to brahman as pure being/pure

consciousness, it is quite different from what we generally call

consciousness, which is object-consciousness.

 

Suppose a meteorite were to hit the earth tomorrow and destroy all

life. There will no "human consciousness" as we know it. So will there

be no brahman then? Of course, there would be no sAdhanA and no

sAdhaka even in a vyAvahAric sense, but the rest of the universe will

still be there. And brahman, as the ground of all being, as pure

being, as the thing in itself, will always "be there".

 

>

> From the foregoing, it is clear that the scriptural position of

> creation does not give room for admitting the evolution theory that

> says the human consciousness arrived after a long chain of other

> forms.

 

Quoting Sruti to oppose darwinian evolution is a misuse of the Sruti.

It is like inviting a physics Nobel laureate to fix a leaking tap or

calling the army to kill a cockroach.

 

The veda is simply not meant to discuss things that are addressed by

what we generally call science, and vice-versa.

 

In fact, I would say it is a suicidal mistake to put the veda in

opposition to science on issues such as the evolution of species. It

only serves to undermine the credibility of the veda on issues where

it is indeed the pramANa.

 

The fossil record shows that dinosaurs existed when humans didnt. Are

we going to use the veda as a proof against the fossil record? I am

sure any AcArya would agree with the fossil record on this count. The

problem only occurs when one uses scientific theories in the realm of

moxa. That is where they are not applicable.

 

ramaNa maharShi says that there can be any number of creation

theories, because creation itself is mithyA. So why does the veda

teach any creation theories at all? The veda teaches some theories

that are useful from a dharma-moxa perspective because it has to take

the current state of the seeker into account and guide him step by

step, and this is also the reason why these theories can be

contradictory. But if the veda were to start teaching all the laws of

physics, there would be no time for learning moxa-shaastra.

 

There is an ancient parable to the following effect - "when your house

is on fire, douse it first instead of asking where the fire came

from". One would need to know where the fire is and how to douse it.

This is what the veda teaches. The precise temperature of the fire,

the calorific value of its fuel or the chemical equation representing

the combustion are not the veda's concern. All these things can be

known through other means.

 

The veda is not meant to be a theory of everything. Rather it is meant

to teach that which sublates the need for any theories, which is moxa.

 

I have only tried to put down my own understanding. Kindly do not take

it otherwise.

 

Comments, corrections and brickbats welcome!!

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh