The Theory of Evolution and the Vedic perspective of Creation

[Guest guest]

(: Namaste,

It seems that the evolution of an individual and of the human species is

linked. Truth has always been and always shall be. As more individuals

uncover It, we move toward a better world. The two processes are linked as

One.

May we enjoy a beauty-filled day

 

_______________

Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from

Microsoft Office Live

http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

> Namaste Michael-ji,

>

> Just a small clarification:

>

> On 21/11/06, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva 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.

 

 

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.

 

I am no scientist or a thinker of any true discipline. To tell you

the fact, i have not studied the Darwinian theory in any meaningful

detail. Hence, i am most incompetent to talk about it. Just out of

curiosity, i looked for some information on the criticism of

Darwinian theory and to my surprise found an astounding quantity and

range of material on the internet. Excepting reading thru some of

them cursorily, i have not studied them in depth. Frankly, i would

not like to spend my time on this subject. One of the many sites

that contain material on the criticism of Darwin is:

 

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000427.php

 

OR

 

http://tinyurl.com/ydpcvm

 

 

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

evoked over the years? 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?

 

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.

 

I know the question of Darwinism could become very sensational and

is clearly outside the policies of this List. You may communicate

to me off line, if it comes to that, on this matter. As i have said

above, i would not be able to argue against it; i would simply hear.

 

Once again, i admire your scholarship, outspokenness and excellent

delivery of your thoughts while communicating.

 

With best wishes and warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael,

 

You wrote (message #34051, Nov 21):

 

"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."

 

There seems to be a communication gap. I did not mean to describe

the three vadas (srishti-drishti, drishti-srishti and ajati) as

showing any 'metaphysical conflict'. Instead, I was trying to

explain them as an epistemological distinction of three levels at

which the world may be seen and interpreted.

 

Srishti-drishti vada is a materialist level of consideration -- seen

from the standpoint of perceiving body, in the world of structured

space. Drishti-srishti vada is an idealist level of consideration --

seen from the standpoint of conceiving mind, in its process of

replacing states in successive time. And ajati vada is a non-dualist

level of reflective enquiry -- towards a plain and simple truth

whose very being knows itself, as its own self-evident identity.

 

By distinguishing these three levels, as a progression of different

standpoints for consideration and enquiry, their seeming conflicts

are meant to be resolved, with due place allowed for each.

Accordingly, I very much agree with your endorsement of Rameshji's

moderate view of 'no conflict because they do not meet in the same

arena'.

 

But I would also here reflect on one of those inevitable paradoxes

that are inherent in Advaita enquiry. Moderation is only appropriate

at the relative levels of physical and mental world, observed

through body and conceived through mind. When someone finally and

genuinely asks for a plain and simple truth, there is no room then

for any moderating compromise. If such a final enquiry is genuine,

it must be completely immoderate, in its intolerance of any last

remaining trace of falsity.

 

This makes of course for a danger that the immoderation is

egotistically extended to relative levels where it is inappropriate.

And I must personally apologize for the extent to which I fall prey

to this danger in my discussions with you or any other member of

this forum.

 

But I do have a little bone to pick with you and a question to ask,

at the relative level.

 

The bone is your seeming intolerance of alchemy and astrology, when

you say: "Never mind it's all good, alchemy led to chemistry and

astrology to astronomy." I'm not quite sure what you are exactly

saying here; but I get a hint that you may be endorsing modern

physical and mechanistic sciences, to the detriment of older

sciences like alchemy and astrology. For me, and perhaps for other

members of this forum, your words could very well suggest that

alchemy and astrology are not proper sciences and that their only

value is that they led to modern physical chemistry and astronomy.

 

Am I reading your suggestion right? If so, I must echo back your

words of objection to Shri Subbu. You can't be serious. Surely, a

moderate view is required towards the old sciences as well, with an

acknowledgement of 'no conflict' with modern physical sciences,

'because they do not meet in the same arena'. The words in quotes

are precisely yours, as already quoted above, concerning the

srishti-drishti and drishti-srishti vadas.

 

The point here is that the older sciences are essentially organic

and biological. Where modern physics is applied through externally

constructed and manufactured machines, the older sciences are more

essentially applied through the inward cultivation and education of

our organic and our living faculties. Such older sciences make use

of concepts like living energy (prana) and cosmic mind (mahat) -- in

a way that is completely beyond the jurisdiction of modern physics

and all its derivatives. In the derivatives, I would include all

modern chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics, molecular and cell

biology, along with Darwinian evolution and classification of

biological species.

 

Accordingly, the older sciences have their own levels of

consideration, quite distinct from the restricted and mechanistic

arena of modern physics. I'd say that Advaita is one of those older

sciences. And in particular, it is a science which allows for all

other sciences, at various different levels that need to be

respected by keeping them distinct. It is precisely a confusion of

levels that obscures non-dual truth.

 

Perhaps this bone that I have picked, about the old sciences, comes

from a misunderstanding of what you say. I must confess to having a

particular difficulty with the word 'metaphysical', which you use

prominently in your posting. I generally find this word difficult,

because it's used in two, rather different ways that often get

confusingly blurred together.

 

1. The first of these usages is relatively recent. Here, the word

'metaphysical' is rather loosely used, to mean 'beyond the

physical'. And hence it refers to basic principles of being that are

believed by various doctrines to exist beyond the reach of modern

physical observation through mechanical instruments.

 

It's in this first sense that the being of metaphysics is opposed to

the knowing of epistemology. And thus the basic principles of older

sciences can be dismissed as merely 'metaphysical' -- implying here

that these 'metaphysical principles' are no more than matters of

belief. Their existence cannot be observed through the mechanically

standardized instruments of modern physics, and so it's meaningless

to speak of them as being rightly known.

 

Included in this dismissal are the living energy called 'prana', the

cosmic intelligence called 'mahat', the witnessing consciousness

called 'purusha', the manifesting nature called 'prakriti', and all

the basic principles that are investigated in Advaita philosophy.

 

2. In its second usage, the English 'metaphysics' takes after the

medieval Latin 'metaphysica' and the medieval Greek 'metaphusika'.

This is an older usage, whose meaning is rather more precise. Here

'meta' means 'after', and 'physica' or 'phusika' means 'physics'. So

'metaphysics' here means 'after physics'. 'Metaphysics' is that

study which comes after the study of nature in the old physics.

 

But the old physics was not restricted to the mechanical, as modern

physics has now come to be. The English 'physics' and the Greek

'phusika' come from the Greek verb 'phuo', meaning to grow. The

growth implied is very definitely organic –– including an essential

component that expresses consciousness, in living development and

behaviour. And the Greek word for 'nature' is 'phusis'. It comes

from the same verb 'phuo'. This shows an old concept of 'nature' or

'phusis' as alive, including both bodily and mental activity, just

like the Sanskrit word 'prakriti'.

 

Accordingly, in its older meaning, the word 'metaphysics' rather

precisely describes a study of basic principles found manifested by

a living nature, which expresses consciousness in the observed

phenomena of world and personality. The old 'physics' or 'phusika'

refers to the study of observed phenomena; and after that comes

'metaphysics', as a reflective investigation back from bodily and

mentally observed appearances to the basic principles that they

express.

 

In this second sense of metaphysics, as a reflective enquiry, its

principles of being are not found in opposition to the knowing of

epistemology. Instead, they are found by treating nature as

essentially alive, and thus as expressing consciousness. Then,

reflecting back from the expression, a questioning investigation

asks its way back through habitual assumptions and beliefs; so as to

uncover and correct their mistakes, and thus to seek clearer

knowledge of more fundamental principles of being. Here, metaphysics

and epistemology are meant to work together, reflectively

investigating deeper levels where reality is progressively

uncovered.

 

Given these two senses that I understand in the word 'metaphysical',

I am a little puzzled as to which one you are using. Or are you

using some further meaning that you'd care to clarify?

 

Ananda