Thee Theory of Evolution and the Vedic perspective of Creation

[Guest guest]

Neelakantan wrote:

Namaste!

 

This thread has been troubling me somewhat. It started with Michael-

ji's post about the arrival of consciousness. He wrote:

 

"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."

 

I understand the science and the principles of evolution. I am not

arguing about that. Maybe, I am viewing this in a different context,

but this set me thinking about consciousness in general and in the

Advaitic context in particular.

 

When Brahman is consciousness and everything is brahman, what does

it mean to say that consciousness arrived at a particular time?

Further, how can we talk of this arrival at a particular point in

time, when Brahman is beyond time?

 

In Atma Bodha (verse 17), AchArya says:

 

sadA sarva gatOpyAtmA na sarvatrAvabhAsate|

buddhAvEvAvabhaAseta svacchEShu pratibimbavat||

 

Translation: Although Atman is all-pervading, He does not shine in

everything. He is manifest only in the intellect (buddhi) just as

the reflection in a clean mirror.

 

Here's a verse from AnandasAgarastva (verse 101) in this context:

 

nirmAsi samharasi nirvahasi trilOkIm

vrttAntamEtamapi vEtthi na vA mahEzah |

tasyeEzvarasya girijE tava sAhacaryAt

jAta: zrutiShvapi jagajjanakatva vAdah ||

 

Translation: You create, sustain and dissolve the three worlds;

Mahesha may or may not even know this fact. O GirijA, only because

of His being your consort is He spoken of in the shruti as the

creator of the worlds.

 

As this verse points out, Brahman is actionless but it is only

through the 'tatasthalakshnas' that Brahman is recognized, that is,

through the acts of creation, etc. (which pertain to 'shakti', and

not Maheshvara - hence the statement He may not be aware of it!).

 

I would like to say that consciousness is seen where we see life.

But that need not mean that it is not present everywhere all the

time. It is, but just not in a way that our senses can recognize it.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Neelakantanji,

My post said 'human consciousness'

by which I meant what is normally taken to be that point of transition

between the higher apes/hominids and early man. If I meant consciousness

in the sense that you refer to I should probably have capitalised it i.e.

Consciousness meaning that which always is, changeless one without a

second etc.

 

Everything that is, has being, and manifests that being/consciousness

according to the complexity of its structure. The human level of

complexity allows for reflexive consciousness and so therefore can turn

back on itself as it says in the Upanishad: Ka.Up. II.i.1 "A rare

discriminating man, desiring immortality, turns his eyes away ((from

external phenomena)) and then sees the indwelling Self."

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste Neelakantanji,

> My post said 'human

consciousness'

> by which I meant what is normally taken to be that point of

transition

> between the higher apes/hominids and early man. If I meant

consciousness

> in the sense that you refer to I should probably have capitalised

it i.e.

> Consciousness meaning that which always is, changeless one without

a

> second etc.

>

> Everything that is, has being, and manifests that

being/consciousness

> according to the complexity of its structure. The human level of

> complexity allows for reflexive consciousness and so therefore can

turn

> back on itself as it says in the Upanishad: Ka.Up. II.i.1 "A rare

> discriminating man, desiring immortality, turns his eyes away

((from

> external phenomena)) and then sees the indwelling Self."

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

Namaste, Michael-ji.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I did notice that you wrote 'human

consciousness', but I thought it would be more appropriate to talk

of the arrival of the human body (and esp. mind) which as you have

pointed out allows for Self-realization. The light is one but the

reflecting media are many and varied in their capacities.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Dear all :

 

i am a little puzzled by the term 'human consciousness'? ! Do you

for a moment think 'animals ' or for that matter even the

green 'grass' have no cosnciousness or 'feelings' ? ...

 

Once , Sri Ramakrishna Pramahamsa was meditating in the Panchavati

garden when he heard some cows grazing on the green grass. Sri

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was disturbed by the sound of the cows

grazing nearby and he came out of his meditation session - Sri

Ramakrishna then summoned the Dakshineshwar Temple servants

to 'shoo' away the cows and asked them to feed the cows ! Then

Thakore removed his shirt and the temple servants saw 'red red

marks' on Thakore's back - the servants were taken aback -and the

reason for all those 'red marks ' on Takore's back was he felt

the 'pain' the Grass was suffering when so many cows trampled on the

Grass , crushing them under their feet! After i read this story, i

never like to walk on the 'Grass' anymore nor do i like to pluck a

flower from a plant ! Believe me , plants or trees do

have 'cosciousness ' of sorts ! ( We honor Maa Prakriti in any

form) ! so, from this i learned even grass has 'consciousness' ! (

is it *inhuman* to think so? )

 

Here are some stories From Sri ramana bhagwan's relationship with

animals !

 

When Bhagavan was living on the hill, a big monkey came one day when

he was having his food, and sat near him. Bhagavan was about to put

a morsel of food into his mouth, but when he saw the monkey he gave

it the morsel. The monkey took it, put it on the plate and gave

Bhagavan a square slap on the cheek. "What do you mean, you fellow?

Why are you angry? I gave you the first morsel!" exclaimed Bhagavan.

Then he understood his mistake. It was a king monkey and he had to

be treated in the right royal manner. Bhagavan called for a separate

leaf plate and a full meal was served to the king, who ate it all

with dignity and proudly went away.

 

Tales of Bhagavan

Ramana Smrti Souvenir

Translated from Telugu by Surya Prasad

 

Once a monkey tried to bring her new born baby through a window near

Ramana's couch. The attendants were preventing her. Ramana chided

them as follows, "Don't all of you bring your newborn babies to me?

She also wants to do so. Why should you prevent her?"

 

Timeless in Time

 

 

On June 17, 1948, Lakshmi (Ramana's cow) fell ill. The following

morning June 18 it looked as if her end was near. At about 10

o'clock in the morning Ramana went to her. He found her breathing

hard and she was lying prostrate. Taking her head into his arms,

stroking her neck, Ramana fixed his gaze in her eyes. Her breathing

became steady immediately. Tears began to trickle from her eyes.

Ramana's eyes too overflowed as he looked at her with great love.

How could those nearby hold by their emotions? He asked

tenderly, "Amma (mother), do you want me to be near you? I must go

now as people are waiting for me in the hall. But wherever I may be,

I am always with you." Then he placed his hand on her head as though

giving diksha. He put his hand over her heart also and then caressed

her, placing his cheek against her face. When he convinced himself

that her heart was pure, free from all vasanas entailing rebirth and

centred solely on him, he took leave of her and returned to the

hall. Her eyes were calm and peaceful. She was conscious up to the

end and left the body at 11:30 a.m. quite peacefully.

 

On her tomb was engraved an epitaph by Ramana which makes it quite

clear that she attained liberation.

 

http://www.satramana.org/html/maharshi_stories.htm-------------------

 

Sri Ramana Bhagwan believed that, like human beings, animals and

birds have life as well as joys and sorrows, and, therefore, they

too should be treated with love and compassion! Yes, Bhagwan was

the 'original' Animal rights activist !

 

with love and metta

 

ps : peterji - if you read one of my earlier posts , i had mentioned

that i was quite surprised to see some of 'advaitin' posts being

reproduced in another e group ( without naming 'names - I have

noticed this about 'audarya fellowship from a long time even when

our beloved chitta was doing his 'real and unreal ' series but i

personally thought that was quite flattering - ... anyway , to each

his own! )

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

 

Veda, the pramANa for Dharma and Moksha (Part I) [Part II appears in

the next post.]

 

Namaste All Sadhaka-s,

 

We have recently seen the excellent post of Sri Ramesh ji wherein he

has stated in an aphoristic form what the Veda is pramaana for:

Dharma and Moksha. Here are some thoughts on this vital idea.

 

Now, dharma, although one of the purushArthas, human goals, it forms

the basis for the other purushaarthas stated in the Veda: artha,

wealth, kaama, desire/enjoyment of pleasures and Moksha,

liberation. What is dharma? This is a question that covers a very

wide field. However, for the purpose of a Vedantic sadhaka, we can

define dharma as comprising all the practices pertaining to karma

yoga and upaasana yoga. As the unevolved mind cannot grasp the

highest teaching pertaining to Moksha, namely the Nirguna Brahman,

the Veda has devised the step-by-step practice that involves first

the taming of the senses that are constantly engaged in some work or

the other and then second, the mellowing of the mind that is

constantly in thought pursuit of one or the other worldly goal. In

order to accomplish this two-fold goal of conditioning the aspirant

properly and lead him to the sadhana of Moksha, the Veda has

presented us with the concept of sa-guNa Brahman. The aspirant is

asked to direct all his work as an offering to this saguna Brahman

otherwise called Ishwara. How does the Veda present the concept of

saguna Brahman? The only way this is accomplished by the Veda is by

showing Ishwara as the Creator, the Intelligent cause of this

universe consisting of all the beings, animate and inanimate, chara

and achara. Brahman is also the material cause of the universe.

 

The domain of dharma encompasses all that is concerned with Ishwara,

the Creator, and the jagat, the created. As an aspirant is in a

position to see and experience only this gross universe, the Veda

makes it possible to see the world as a manifestation of Ishwara,

the Creator. All the created beings are He only and are to be

viewed so. This is what constitutes all of karma yoga, bhakti,

upasana. The concept of saguna Brahman comprises a vast major

portion of the Veda, the Bhagavadgita and the Brahma sutras. Most of

the mantras we recite during Sandhya worship is directed to the

SaguNa Brahman, Ishwara. Almost the whole lot of hymnal literature

composed by the Acharyas and other Rishis are on Ishwara. The idea

behind this is not difficult to understand. Since man's training

has to be more on the taming of the senses and the mind and make

them subtle and fit for the Nirguna Brahma saadhana, the major

sadhana is, quantitatively, on the saguna Brahman. In the Gita, for

instance, we find five full chapters: 7.8.9,10 and 11 devoted almost

entirely for Ishwara and creation. The other chapters too contain

this idea. In the Brahma sutras, the beginning itself: janmaadi

asya yataH (Whence the origin, etc. of the universe) is on the

Creator Ishwara, saguna Brahman and the very last sutra too is on

the non-returning of the saguNa brahma upaasaka from Brahmaloka.

 

By presenting Brahman as the Creator and delving on the creation of

the beings, the Veda first helps the weaning away from the worldly

pursuits and focusing of the aspirant's mind on the Creator. Once

this is sufficiently accomplished, the next function of the Veda is

to deny the creator-status of Brahman and creation itself and help

focus on the Nirguna Brahman, the realization of which alone results

in liberation, moksha.

 

Thus, through this adhyaropa-apavaada principle (deliberate

superimposition and subsequent negation of what was earlier

deliberately superimposed), the Veda brings about the emancipation

of the aspirant. In the foregoing, we have seen that the Veda is

pramaaNa, authority, in the field of dharma and moksha. A further

explanation of this concept is necessary.

 

When we say the Veda is pramAna in the field of Dharma, what we mean

is the Veda is the only valid means of knowledge with which we know

the entire gamut of practices, the person fit for these practices,

injunctions and prohibitions, the process of performing these

actions (bodily, verbal and mental), the fruit of these actions, the

process of departing from this world, the path to other worlds, the

other worlds themselves and their nature, their inhabitants, their

custodians, guardians, etc., and the experiences in those worlds,

the expiry of the punya and demerit and the return from these loka-

s, the re-entry process and the birth again as specific beings in

specific worlds, the pralaya and srishti (creation and

dissolution). The basic idea is: In all those aspects where our

pratyaksha, sensory perception and anumana, inference, cannot

completely arrive at the right understanding, the Veda is the sole

authority, pramana. Since dharma is one such, the Veda alone has to

be approached for any knowledge about everything pertaining to

dharma.

 

Again, the Veda is the authority in respect of Brahman too, as

Brahman also is not an object of sensory perception and inference.

All our knowledge about the nature of Brahman, the sadhana required

to attain it, namely shravana, manana, nididhyasana, the process of

realization called yoga, the fruit of realization called mukti, both

jivan mukti and videha mukti are all to be known from the Veda

alone. And this liberating-Brahman Knowledge is presented by the

Vedanta by first showing It (Brahman) as the Creator Brahman, SaguNa

Brahman from whom Srishti, creation, as spoken of by the Vedanta has

originated. Thereby, the Vedanta is pramANa in respect of Srishti

as well. In fact the Creator Brahman Knowledge is the tatashtha

lakshana for the Nirguna Brahman, the Svarupa lakshana is Satyam

Jnanam and Anantam. That is the sequence in which the Vedanta

teaches Brahman and thereby becomes a PramaNa for Brahman/Moksha.

 

Some thoughts on the concept of `PramAna': A pramANa is a valid

means of knowledge. For example, the eye is the instrument with

which we get the knowledge of forms and colours. A pramANa

presupposes a pramAtru (pramAtA), the knower or the user of the

pramANa and prameya, the object desired to be known. The process of

knowing thus consists of the operation of the pramana by a pramata

on a prameya and as a result of this operation, gaining what is

known as pramiti, valid knowledge. When this triad is present, a

valid knowledge arises. Shankara says in the Brahma sutra bhashya

preamble that all vyavahara pertaining to worldly, religious and

even spiritual is based on the operation of this triad. He teaches

that the very vyavahara is a result of ignorance, of wrongly

considering oneself to be a knower, a jiva, wanting to acquire

something. While the Veda teaches that the Self is Full, Complete,

this engaging in vyavahara implies that one is ignorant of this fact

that he is Full, Complete, not really in need to do anything to make

him complete. This applies to the pursuit of Self-knowledge too

because even here there is the ignorance of the Purna nature, the

thinking that one is ignorant and therefore has to acquire

knowledge and thereby, liberation. All this was said only to

finally drive home the point that all pramANa, including the Veda,

is in the realm of ignorance alone. So, to say that the Veda is the

pramANa in the field of Dharma and Moksha is also from a relative

standpoint alone, for, from the absolute standpoint there is neither

Dharma nor Moksha. Says Shankara in the DashashlokI:

 

Na shAstram na shAstA na sikshA na shiShyaH

And elsewhere, `na dharmo na cha artho na kAmo na mokshAH

 

Meaning, in/for the Atman there is no dharma to be practiced, …no

moksha to be attained. There is no shastram (veda), no Guru, no

teaching and no aspirant from the highest standpoint.

Gaudapadacharya too says this in the KArikA.

 

Reverting to the concept of Saguna Brahman, Ishwara, the Intelligent

Cause of the universe, Krishna says in the Gita:

 

yataH pravrittir bhuutAnAm yena sarvamidam tatam

svakarmanaa tam abhyarchya siddhim vindati maanavaH (18.46)

 

By worshipping, through one's ordained duties, The Lord from whom

all these beings have emerged and by Whom all this is pervaded, man

attains the Supreme.

 

Again He says: whatever you do, worship, give in oblation, charity,

offer that to Me.

 

The concept of Dharma has been so developed in the Veda that it is

inseparably connected with the concepts of Ishwara the Intelligent

Cause, the Creator of the Universe with all its beings. When the

sadhaka practices dharma as taught in the Gita, for example, by

constantly holding Ishwara in view and offering all his actions

(also upasana), he gets what Krishna says: Ishwara prasada. This is

chittashuddhi and chitta ekAgrata (purification of the mind and one-

pointedness of the mind). By the help of this prasada he goes

further in the spiritual path and attains the goal of Moksha. The

Vedic dharma when practiced in the above manner results in Ishwara

prasada that comes from Ishwara who is the karma phala daataa, the

bestower of the fruit of Karma. Krishna says this too in the Gita.

We have a beautiful verse in Vedanta:

 

Ishwara anugrahAt eva pumsAm advaita vAsanA

 

It is by Ishwara's grace alone that a rare person gets the

propensity to Advaitic attainment.

 

As to what constitutes the ordained duties, the Lord Himself has

said that it is Dharma. Who is the Teacher of this Dharma? It is He

Himself as said in the verse:

 

Loke asmin dvividhA niShThA …..

jnAnayogena …..karma yogena….

 

After creating the world and its beings, the Lord specified two

types of dharmas: one for worldly pursuits and the other for

Liberation. All this, He did for the humans whom He created.

 

The upshot of all this is that in the Vedantic context, Dharma can

never be divested of Ishwara, the Intelligent Cause of all

creation. In the absence of Dhama, Moksha is impossible to be

attained. And this Vedic Dharma is impossible to be practiced

unless one accepts Ishvara to Whom he constantly addresses all his

karma and Who alone is his object of meditation, upAsanA.

 

When the Veda teaches creation by the Creator, Brahman, what it

intends is this performing of Dharma, as a means to Moksha. When

the appropriate stage is reached by the aspirant, the Veda withdraws

the concept of creation and the Creator Brahman and presents what is

known as `ajAti' no-creation concept and the nirguNa Brahman who is

no cause at all of anything. A question might arise: Why first

present a Creator, creation etc., and later deny all of them instead

of presenting the Nirguna Brahman and ajAti on the first instance

itself and finish the teaching? The reply to this is: The Veda has

a purpose when it does this. It knows that it would be disastrous

for an unprepared mind, which is what every aspirant is to start

with, to teach the Highest Truth. There is a verse to the

effect: `To teach `All is Brahman' to an ignorant and half-baked

person would tantamount to consigning him to the horrible hells.'

It is to save the aspirant from this calamity the Veda gives a

guided, graded path. This path includes creation, the Creator and

all of which constitutes Dharma for which the Veda alone is

pramaana.

 

It may also be noted that when Gaudapaada teaches the ajAti vAda, he

is basing it also on the authority of the Vedanta much as he did

when he taught the Creator Brahman in the sixth mantra of the

Mandukya Upanishad. The commentary on the KarikA I.6, in part, is:

 

//….and that appear divergently as Vishva, Taijasa,and prAjna in the

different bodies of gods, animals, and others….Purusha creates all

these rays of Consciousness that possess the characteristics of

living creatures……as shown in the Vedic texts: `As a spider (spreads

and withdraws its thread) Mu.Up. I.i.7 and `as from fire tiny sparks

fly in all directions (Br.Up. II.i.20)//

 

When the ajAti vada is spoken of it is not in rejection of the

creation Shrutis that were earlier mentioned. It has to be seen as

a growing, a metamorphosis, that takes place from an earlier stage

of understanding to a later refined stage of understanding. For

example, a student entering a professional College for higher

education is not in need of elementary education. That does not

mean that he has rejected the elementary education that he has

already had and which is what has brought him to this stage.

The `samskara' of the earlier education is inseparably united with

him. It is only on the foundation of the earlier education he is

going to further build. The Vedanta prakriyas of SDV, DSV and ajAti

vaada-s are to be seen in this light.

 

The case of a `yoga bhrashTa' spoken of in the 6th chapter of the

Gita may be considered. Supposing a sadhaka is sincerely practicing

the DSV prakriya. Let us assume he dies before becoming enlightened

through the akhandaakAra vritti, despite his advanced sadhana. On

the Shruti pramANa it has to be concluded that he goes to some loka

that is destined for him depending upon the karma that is next

waiting in line to give him the fruits, bhoga. Bhagavan Krishna,

considering the best case scenario, says that such a sadhaka will

go to the worlds of those who have great puNya, merit, and after

enjoying the bhogas there will return to be born in an atmosphere

ideally suited for his continuance of the sadhana from where he left

earlier. Now, what has to be noted is, all this going to other

worlds, coming back, etc., are in the realm of the SDV. The

sadhaka's having practiced the DSV does not free him from taking the

course of the SDV for which the Shastra is the only pramaNa.

 

The case of those who go to Brahmaloka and gain liberation there is

also similar to the above in that their going to Brahmaloka, getting

instructed about the Highest Truth by Brahmaa Himself and getting

the liberating Jnanam there and becoming finally liberated along

with Brahma at the end of the Kalpa and not brought forth again in

the next Creation, is all set out in the Shastra for which the

Shastra alone is the pramaNa.

 

The reason for mentioning these cases is to show that when it is

said that the Vedanta is pramANa for Dharma and Moksha, it

encompasses all these aspects like shrishti, pralaya, loka-s, etc.

which are all inseparably connected with the concept of Dharma and

Moksha.

 

(to be continued)

 

(Part II is sent in the next post)

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Here is the Part II of the post on `Veda – the pramaana for Dharma

and Moksha:

 

The concept of `Dual Authority':

 

In the present day context, it becomes essential that one plays a

role in public and one in private. A Brahmachari has a set of

conduct code that governs his status as a Brahmachari. This is

decided by the Dharma Shastra. As an employee eking out a living,

he is guided by a code set by his company. Thus, he is under a dual-

authority situation and acts accordingly, toggling between the

two. Similarly, a Vedantic sadhaka is faced with this situation.

He has to go by the Veda in all matters of Dharma which includes the

Intelligent Cause, Ishwara, the Creator who has created the world

and all its beings and brought out the Veda through the Rishis.

When this sadhaka, for instance, holds a teaching assignment in a

University, while teaching science he has to conform to the

syllabus handed down by the University and teach the theory that is

popular at that time (which could be replaced by another one in

future) that does not accept the Intelligent Creation/Creator

Ishwara and which teaches that man came into being much later. If

this person violates this rule, his job is at stake. If he goes

against the Vedic teaching of Intelligent Cause, he violates the

dictum of dharma and loses spiritual progress. The best way for him

is to to both views as and when he is donning these roles.

 

Is the creation-teaching of the Veda dropped on an ad hoc basis or

is there any method involved? We saw above that there is a method

involved. Although the Shruti is not intent on establishing a real

creation, it adopts the creation-teaching only as a stepping stone.

But that by no means makes this an insignificant one. For, only

that sadhaka who has first, in this or earlier lives, accepted this

step and performs action as per the dharma instructions and offers

his actions to the Creator Ishwara and progresses will be able to

graduate to the level of truly taking to the ajaati doctrine, the no-

creation teaching. If this sequential path is not taken, he might

very well intellectually understand the ajAti doctrine, teach others

and perhaps write books too. But the essential samskara that is

required for internalizing that doctrine will not be there in him.

This can be inferred from the very fact that Shruti teaches creation

in the earlier stages. Shankara says that there is no teaching of

the Shruti that is not useful for some one or the other (at some

stage or the other). The Mandukya Upanishad itself teaches that

Ishwara is the creator (in the 6th mantra while talking about the

third paada, the deep sleep state). It says:

 

He is the Lord of all, Omniscient, the Indwelling Lord and the

Source of all and the resolution ground of all at the time of

pralaya. It is pointed out by the commentator that unless Ishwara

is the material cause of all, He cannot be admitted to be the

resolving ground.

 

This saguNa Brahman, the Creator of the Universe, the Lord to whom

the sadhaka is devoted and carries on his sadhana, is the one that

is responsible for the sadhaka getting the realization of the

Nirguna Brahman leading to liberation. This might sound a little

illogical, but the factual position is that. The Gita says this

explicitly. A reading of the concluding posts that appeared on this

List covering the Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discources on Advaita

Sadhana brings out this point beautifully.

 

In conclusion, we may note these points:

 

1. The Veda is the pramANa for Dharma and Moksha.

2. Dharma constitutes the injunctions and prohibitions that

have to be observed.

3. The practice of dharma is linked to offering of the actions

to Ishwara.

4. Ishwara is the Intelligent Cause, the creator of the

universe.

5. Creation is taught by the Veda as a necessary stepping stone.

6. A pramaana is operative only in the realm of ignorance as it

presupposes a pramaataa who is a `victim' of ignorance. This applies

to the Veda/Vedanta (pramaana) as well.

7. Dharma and Moksha which are known through the pramaana of

the Veda are themselves not absolute. They are sought after only in

the realm of ignorance.

 

 

[//Namaste Neelakantanji,

My post said 'human consciousness' by which I meant what is normally

taken to be that point of transition between the higher

apes/hominids and early man. //

 

In the light of what Shri Michael ji has clarified above, that is

the position of the evolution theory. ]

 

Here is another extract from the chapter `Veda-s' from the

book `Exalting Elucidations':

 

//Disciple: Long ago, through the process of evolution, man

gradually came into being. In the early stages, his brain was much

less developed than the human brain is now. He led a primitive

existence. In due course, his brain improved to the present level.

Thereafter, the Lord could have taught him the Veda. Is there any

flaw in conceiving thus? If we have it this way, the findings of

palaeontologists are not contradicted and, at the same time, it is

admitted that the Veda was revealed by Ishwara. What does Acharyal

have to say about this?

 

Acharyal: This is faulty. Simultaneous with His creation of man,

the Lord should have taught him the veda. In the Bhagavadgita, Sri

Krishna says:

(at the outset, having created mankind along with yajna-s, the

Creator said…BG III.10)

 

Yajna-s (scriptural sacrifices) have the Veda-s for their basis.

For a yajna to be performed, the Veda is needed. Thus, the Lord's

words imply that Ishwara taught the Veda when He created the world.

If we do not accept this view, we cannot give logical replies to

many queries. If a primitive man predated the Veda, he could not

have known what is dharma and what is adharma. Since, the norms of

righteousness and unrighteousness were not revealed to him by God,

did God simply treat his actions as virtuous and reward him or just

treat them as sinful and punish him? If his actions fetched him the

rewards of righteousness, we are forced to conclude, `Before the

Veda came into being, good fruits were obtained for whatever one did

but after Veda came to light, one also reaps unpleasant fruits for

one's actions.' Is this fair? Further, can one accept the

conclusion that before the Veda came to light, one did not have to

go to hell at all as one always secured good results, whereas after

the revelation of Veda, the possibility of going to hell arose? If

the view that all actions led to bad consequences were accepted,

then also the implication is queer.

 

Therefore, when the Lord created the world, He should have revealed

the Veda. That is to say, He should have, at the outset itself,

made known what is dharma and what is adharma. Thus, it is improper

to hold the view that the Veda came to light only much after the

appearance of man. // (End of quote)

 

An extract from the book `Sridakshinamurti stotram' (Vol.I p.282/83)

(The book is authored by Sri D.S. Subbaramaiya, a Jnani. He was a

scientist under Nobel Laureate Sir C.V. Raman at the IISc,

Bangalore. Later he taught Quantum Mechanics at the Central College

throughout his career. Having been taught the Advaita Vedanta by

traditional Masters, he was an authority on the Shastra, apart from

his Direct Realization of the Truth.)

 

Creation defies speculation – Shruti the only pramANa:

 

It is thus clear that the solution of the problem is beyond human

ken. It must be realized that what is to be accounted for, viz.,

this universe `idam jagat' is too formidable for any one, however

intelligent, to bring it into the fold of speculation. As Sri Sri

Acharyapaada points out in the Sutra bhashya (II.ii.1):

 

//This entire world that is experienced, appears as external in the

form of earth and the other elements fit for enjoyment of fruits of

various actions, and as pertaining to the individuals in the form of

bodies belonging to different species, possessing definite

arrangements of organs, being therefore seats of experiencing

various fruits of action. Such indeed is this world of which the

intelligent and the most far-famed architects cannot even form a

conception.//

 

However, as already pointed out, in all matters falling outside the

range of sense perception etc., Shruti is the only pramANa. It is

therefore that the SvArAjyasiddhi (I.16)which gives a succinct

account of these vAda-s says: The Sankhya, Naiyaayika, Vaisheshika,

the Bauddha are all incorrect in their theorizing the cause of the

universe. The Shruti's teaching that Brahman is the Cause is the

only settled view.//

 

(End of quote)

 

 

Conclusion: Fortunately, the possibility/benefit of knowing the

ancient Shastras is not totally lost to us. There are people,

although very rare, who are possessed with the knowledge of the

Shastras, in their pristine, unpolluted, undiluted form and have the

capacity to transmit it to others of this modern age. The dialogue

that I have partly quoted above is an example. The Acharya who is

asked these questions is an unmatched scholar in the Vedanta and the

Tarka (pramana) shastras having been taught by the best traditional

scholars of the day. Over and above that He is a Jnani, a

Jivanmukta par excellence and a great Yogi. The person who posed

the questions is one trained in the modern system of education,

having obtained the highest scholastic degrees and having engaged in

post-doctoral research in some branch of engineering sciences. He

has kept himself abreast of the latest discoveries and theories in

Science with an unmatched understanding/analytical ability and

delivery skills. Added to that, he is himself a Jnani and a Yogi

with the direct realization of the Vedantic Truth. The purpose of

his questioning and obtaining answers to the topic of evolution is

to specifically convey to the modern minds the undisputable position

of the Vedanta Shastra that the theory of evolution is inadmissible

to traditional Vedanta. The value of the dialogue lies in the fact

of the foregoing (in this para) and in that the final message it

conveys is coming from a source that cannot be more authentic. The

final message it conveys cannot be discounted on grounds like lack

of up to date scientific knowledge, lack of understanding of the

pramANa shastra and the Vedanta shastra, bias, archaic thinking and

reasoning, etc., for the credentials of the giver of the replies and

the poser of the questions are impeccable. There might be/ are

benefits in the loukika vyavahara, worldly parlance, by subscribing

to the evolution theory. That is not a matter for discussion in the

present context.

 

Many thanks to Shri Ramesh ji and Shri Michael ji and all others who

participated in this discussion. While I am no spokesman for the

Vedanta Sampradaya (as it is not a commercial institution seeking

propaganda and acceptance), I leave it to the others to take the

message I have tried to convey or simply leave it.

 

With warm regards and humble pranams to all the Acharyas of the

Vedanta Tradition and sincere sadhakas,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

to all in this group

 

i have been reading these posts for sometime having become a mmmember

recently.

 

it is my feeling thst many in this group would have read most of the

scriptures or quotes presented.

 

will it not be useful to all if somebody can write about what personal

experiences they had in their search for god or while they were

meditating and so on.

 

with a quest for no more birht and death in this world may lord

krishna bless us all

 

baskaran