The Theory of Evolution and the Vedic perspective of Creation

[Guest guest]

Namaste All Followers of this Thread,

Rather than go through all the posts and dealing with them all in detail

let me address just a few points and try to indicate my general

position. It is a large subject.

 

First of all my questioning of Subbuji's position assumed that he was

taking a literal approach. His latest post indicates that this was the

case. For him the Vedic doctrine conflicts with science in the way that

two theories in science might contest the same problem field. He is

thus on a par with those Christians who discuss where on earth exactly

the Garden of Eden was situated. Ananda's attempt to explain this SDV

vs DSV business as a metaphysical conflict does not affect the

literalist's adherence but it is an interesting discussion in its own

right. My personal view is that it is a false dilemma arising out of a

tendency to idealism and solipsism. That's another discussion.

 

Rameshji's no conflict because they do not meet in the same arena view

is the moderate position that best allows the parallel development of

the metaphysics implied by a doctrine; anadi, non human origin etc., and

the science of cosmology and palaeontology. The areas where they could

conflict are in the metaphysical ones which are by no means settled.

Scientists and technologists are often quite naive in this department

and operate under assumptions which are incoherent and unsustainable.

Never mind it's all good, alchemy led to chemistry and astrology to

astronomy.

 

Shyamji questions the metaphysical assumptions of the materialist

Darwinians. I would remind him that there are others such as Tailherd

De Chardin who hold that the divine is working through evolution. Apart

from that however he seems to find the actual progress of evolution from

rocks and gas to the Oprah Show reflected in the details of the Vedic

cosmogony. Ingenious but I suppose that in his day to day work he has

more use for the Periodic Table than the 5 Elements. The idea that it's

all laid out in the annals of yore would be a recipe for doing no

science at all.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji,

 

Just a small clarification:

 

On 21/11/06, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva (AT) eircom (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Rameshji's no conflict because they do not meet in the same arena view

> is the moderate position that best allows the parallel development of

> the metaphysics implied by a doctrine; anadi, non human origin etc., and

> the science of cosmology and palaeontology.

 

To the best of my understanding, mine is not a moderate view at all.

The jurisdiction of pramANa-s is a fairly traditional &

well-established topic and my claim is that any traditional scholar

who knows his pramANa shaastra (epistemology) well would largely agree

with what I wrote.

 

The traditional view is that the veda is a pramANa on matters that

cannot be fully understood using the other pramANa-s that are based on

the senses viz., pratyaxa (perception), anumAna (inference), etc. In

other words, the veda is a pramANa on dharma & moxa only. In the

course of teaching dharma & moxa, it might dwell on other topics from

which useful lessons may be learnt. But the veda is not the ultimate

authority on anything except dharma & moxa.

 

Since issues such as darwinian evolution are fairly recent and as the

general intellectual climate in modern India is nowhere near what it

was in ancient times, these issues have not been dealt with in much

detail by present-day scholars. Nevertheless, the basic principles of

epistemology are well-established and I dont see any difficulty in

addressing these issues.

 

I might add here that other vedic schools may have different views on

pramANa shaastra and may conflict with science on some issues. But

advaita-vedAnta's position is quite clear cut. Because of the

jurisdiction of pramANa-s and also because of the vyavahAra-paramArtha

nomenclature, advaita-vedAnta has the unique capacity of including &

transcending every other system. It is not for nothing that AcArya

gauDapAda uses the term "avirodha" (non-conflicting) to describe

advaita's relationship with other systems.

 

>

> Shyamji questions the metaphysical assumptions of the materialist

> Darwinians. [...........] Ingenious but I suppose that in his day to day work he has

> more use for the Periodic Table than the 5 Elements.

 

Interestingly, Prof Paul Kiparsky of Stanford & others have done a lot

of research connecting Mendeleev's periodic table with the structure

of the saMskRta alphabet as laid out by pANini circa 600 BCE in his

Siva sUtra-s. Mendeleev actually gave saMskRta names to some of the

elements in his table.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subramanian-ji,

 

My apologies upfront for the delayed reply.

 

On 22/11/06, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

>

> Namaste Ramesh ji,

>

> Let me first thank you sincerely for your wonderful posts on this

> thread. I bow to your deep knowledge of our Shastras and the very

> convincing way of presentation.

 

Subbu-ji, please dont embarrass me!! You know very well that I am

nowhere near being a deep scholar of the shaastra-s. My only effort is

to keep the basic principles in mind while interpreting them.

 

>

> Tell me, is the Darwinian Theory truly beyond criticism it has

> evoked over the years?

 

Certainly Darwin is not beyond criticism. However, my limited point

was that quoting veda pramANa to disprove Darwin is not appropriate.

As Ananda-ji pointed out in his recent post (# 34088) what we call

"human consciousness" is quite different from the shuddha caitanya

which is Atman/brahman.

 

As an aside, my personal view is that Darwin's basic point viz. the

evolution of species through natural selection, is correct. It is also

my understanding that this has no bearing on advaita-vedAnta.

 

 

> Why has there been opposition on the part of

> the Church to this theory? Is the modern scientific community one in

> giving a clean chit to Darwin?

 

The church operates under its own set of assumptions which we do not

share. Hindu pramANa-shAstra is not acceptable to the church either.

On the whole, we have very little in common with the church so there

is no point in considering its objections to Darwin.

 

Now where does the modern scientific community stand? I am not an

expert on this but to the best of my knowledge, there is no widely

accepted scientific theory that overturns the principle of evolution

through natural selection. At the same time, evolutionary theories

have been studied in great detail and I am sure many modern biologists

will have a far more nuanced understanding of the matter than Darwin.

So while there might be disagreement on the details, I think the basic

principles are fairly well established.

 

> Let me tell you i am not raising these questions with any feeling of

> agitation. Was there no purpose at all for the Disciple (in the

> quote from the book in my post) in posing this question to

> Acharyal, if the question/subject of evolution had no bearing at all

> on religion/religious belief/adhyAtma shAstra/saadhana and

> therefore altogether outside the field of religion/spirituality? I

> would like to think about this last question myself. I invite you

> to help me in this.

 

My response to the above would be as follows:

 

Many people think that the objective study of the external world

(which is what science essentially is) can answer all existential

questions. But it cannot. The question that the disciple asks is a

reflection of this misunderstanding (the disciple himself may not have

this misunderstanding, but he is surely pointing to people who do).

 

In other words, while we must accept the usual methods & conclusions

of science in relation to the objective world, we must also admit that

these methods are ineffective when it comes to brahmavidyA, the

"science" of the Self.

 

Do such scientific theories have any implications in the field of

brahmavidyA? To an extent they do, in the sense that brahmavidyA needs

to provide vyAvahAric frameworks for the seeker to digest before he

can move to the next level. It is well accepted traditionally that

there are different vyAvahAric theories to suit the needs of different

seekers. To some extent, these needs may change over time due to the

development of new ways of understanding the world, such as new

scientific and/or socio-economic theories.

 

These changes are reflected in the needs/temperaments of individual

seekers, so teachers of brahmavidyA need to recognize this and adapt

themselves suitably. Such changes may be quite minor in the overall

scheme of brahmavidyA but quite important to individual seekers.

 

After all, we are discussing brahmavidyA on the Internet, so the

Internet does have some implications in the field of brahmavidyA!!

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh