GM thought this might be interesting to discuss here, it is the proposed official GBC statement regarding evolution.
Proposed GBC statement:
Hare Krishna Statement on Darwin's 200th Anniversary
English naturalist Charles Darwin was born 200 years ago and his book "Origin of Species by natural selection" was published 150 years ago. In his book he put forward his theory of evolution, according to which the types of living beings gradually evolved from common ancestors, from the primitive to the more complex. Although the theory never gained universal acceptance, by now it has become a marked element of public thinking.
As we see it, however, the Darwinian hypothesis on the transformation of the living world is but one of several possible interpretations of the facts and, in spite of its being widely known, it has never been scientifically proven.
In their book "Forbidden Archeology" Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson give a detailed analysis of controversial archeological finds that cast doubt on the concept that species as we know them now emerged by transformation of earlier species by evolution. Mathematical statistical analysis of the discoveries made in the last few decades in the field of molecular biology point out that the spontaenous evolution of organic compounds forming the building blocks of life is so unlikely as would safely be considered impossible in any other walk of science except biology.
Similarly to hundreds of millions of Hindus, the Krishna-conscious devotees consider the ancient Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit language as the reliable source of knowledge related to the origins and ultimate questions of existence. These scriptures are some of the most ancient heritage of mankind and their followers accept them as divine revelation. According to the Vedic literature, our world and the species in it emerged by a process of creation. Living beings are eternal spirit souls who spend a determinate amount of time in the various bodily forms of different species.
Our civilisation is greatly influenced by the ideas about the origin of life and our species being in circulation. Because of the dominant evolutionary paradigm, many regard life and themselves a mere product of matter. This view has formed the basis for the emergence of the overheated, consumer driven attitude of modern society that has led to the present economic, environmental and food crisis looming over humankind. Darwin's theory is thus not only unproven, but, to a large extent, also responsible for the moral decline of modern culture.
According to a well-known approach the evolution theory should be integrated into religious teachings. Proponents of this idea say that, evolution is God's method of creation. We deem such a distortion of the tenets of monotheistic religions as unfounded, for, originally, all these religions professed the direct creation of both the living and inanimate worlds. We see no reason why the unproven, human ideology of Darwinism should be mixed with the wisdom of revelations - that would be a concession to appease the proponents of materialism. We are convinced that the role of religions in society is to consistently represent divine truth rather than to make unscrupulous compromises with the dominant (and ever changing) materialistic views of the day.
We find it important that those forming the opinion of society take steps to allow a more balanced discussion of life, broadening the dominant, practically exclusive, evolutionist approach in education and mass communication. The Darwinian thought should not be presented as "The Explanation" but, true to the facts, as a hypothesis that has its own problems and limitations, and to which divine creation is a justified and rational alternative. By presenting the subject without bias, we should leave the way open to the possibility of considering and accepting spiritual explanations.
Leaders of society - politicians, teachers, intellectuals - are supposed not only to look after the physical and cultural needs of the members of the society but it is also their responsibility to work towards the moral and spiritual advancement for the people. Favoring a theory based on philosophical materialism which is not proven, the validity of which is questioned by an ever increasing number of academics negatively affects the moral and ethical standards of society, promotes a recklessly wasteful model of consumption and spreads disrespect for life.
Having never read his book I'm certainly no expert on Darwin. But from what I have read from other sources, as I understand it Darwin never said what they claim he said, rather that he was just putting forth the idea, based on his observation, that species evolve over time in response to environmental factors. And as I understand it this idea is then extrapolated backwards in time (not by Darwin himself) based on the logic that a species that is still here today had to have evolved in order to have made it this far. If I've understood Darwin's thesis correctly (and it's quite possible that I haven't) then they are basically setting up a straw man argument.
Another point that I think has particular relevance is the acceptance of the Vedic version of creation. While I think the emphasis on revelation is a good thing in the sense that logic and the so-called scientific method are unsuitable means of comprehensively knowing the ultimate nature of reality, I think that to take the Puranic accounts of creation as absolute statements is a mistake. Just because the Bhagavatam is the "spotless purana" that does not mean that the creation stories in it are absolute because such accounts are dealing with details of material manifestation, not eternal, essential principles. We know the creation stories in the Bhagavatam are relative because the narrator of those stories prefaces them with a qualifying statement to indicate their relativity. This leaves room for more information to be admitted as it comes in (based on evidence from modern science it would be hard to accept the idea that the sun is closer to the earth than the moon, for example) yet does not in any way diminish the absolute supremacy of bhakti as a means of knowing the Absolute, which is after all the central thesis of the Bhagavatam, not the other elements that comprise its Puranic format (creation, lists of dynasties, etc).
Another point I disagree with is the dismissal of evolution of species within a divinely created universe. As theists we accept the notion that nature is God's creation, and that the nature of nature is that one being is food for another (jivo jivasya jivanam). That being the case then does it not make sense that in order to survive adaptation must occur? I personally don't find it a difficult idea to accomodate, and I don't see how it compromises the message of the Bhagavatam unless as I pointed out above every aspect of the Bhagavatam is takes as absolute. Since that is demonstrably not the case then to do so is a mistake and does nothing to promote dialogue between thoughtful members of secular society and adherents of the Bhagavata philosophy.
what about this by SRS
http://www.sivaramaswami.com/?p=6056
kicking darwin with a boot. Not that great!!
I would highly recommend this site to all devotees who want preach about evolution. It is required to first understand the theory and its evidence before arguing about it. I think GV is very poor in its understanding of evolution and its evidence.
what about this by SRShttp://www.sivaramaswami.com/?p=6056
kicking darwin with a boot. Not that great!!
I would highly recommend this site to all devotees who want preach about evolution. It is required to first understand the theory and its evidence before arguing about it. I think GV is very poor in its understanding of evolution and its evidence.
and this one is another of those bashing attacks on evolution.
I thought it was shallow. I thought it reflected some of that Prabhupada imitation condemnation thing they like to do. I thought it lacked any scent of critical thinking - as if we MUST be cent percent against science and prove everything wrong because they are athiests!!! Aligning themselves once again with a right wing Christian element of society that pushes Intelligent Design is just another shovel full, digging that grave of irrelevance. Not at all impressed, and not at all surprised.
Can't figure out why they bash the "evolution is the system God sets in place" idea, but don't offer any alternative explanation of their own and rather lump themselves into a general category of creationist religion when Hinduism has a much different creation point of view than any Christian religion...
I remember when Intelligent Design freaks were suing the Kansas Board of Education trying to get ID taught in their schools - I think they actually won for a year, or maybe it is still going on! Anyway, Danavir Maharaj lived there and he was joining right in with their fight, using it for preaching. This stuff drives me batty!
I think that to take the Puranic accounts of creation as absolute statements is a mistake. Just because the Bhagavatam is the "spotless purana" that does not mean that the creation stories in it are absolute because such accounts are dealing with details of material manifestation, not eternal, essential principles. We know the creation stories in the Bhagavatam are relative because the narrator of those stories prefaces them with a qualifying statement to indicate their relativity.
What exactly are you talking about here? The story of creation via Maha Visnu??
What qualifying statement?
There is a Sanga on this:
Creation, Evolution, and the Big Bang
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2004/2004_5.php
"Our main objection to Darwinian evolution is that it sees consciousness as a product of matter. We cannot agree with this proposal, nor does it make much sense in terms of verifiable evidence. Where do we see consciousness arising from inert matter and what scientific experiment can prove that this occurs? Our theory is that matter evolves from consciousness—the supreme consciousness. Otherwise, we acknowledge the evidence for some kind of evolution."
I think that to take the Puranic accounts of creation as absolute statements is a mistake. Just because the Bhagavatam is the "spotless purana" that does not mean that the creation stories in it are absolute because such accounts are dealing with details of material manifestation, not eternal, essential principles. We know the creation stories in the Bhagavatam are relative because the narrator of those stories prefaces them with a qualifying statement to indicate their relativity.What exactly are you talking about here? The story of creation via Maha Visnu??
What qualifying statement?
My mistake; I should have mentioned that I was referring to the account given by Sukadeva in the 5th Canto. GM has pointed out previously that Sukadeva prefaces his narration by saying that what he is about to go into is the opinion of the scholars of the day thus implying that there is not necessarily a universal opinion about it.
Citta Hari, I think you were referring to this:
(From Sanga: the Sun and the Moon)
Sukadev says, “: kastham manasa vacasa vadhigantum alam vibudhayusapi purusa, “No one can possibly explain or perfectly conceive of the nature of the material universe even in a lifetime of Lord Brahma.” (SB. 5.16.4)
"As the sage continues his explanation, he describes it as being based on the estimations of learned persons of that period, pramana-laksanato vyakhyatah.”
(I also think that subjective is a better word than ‘relative’ to describe Sukadev’s vision of universe.)
Sridhara Maharaja says it like this: “Politically speaking, Russia is closer to India than America or Pakistan. Its nearness is calculated in terms of the friendly relations, or influence. So I like to say we may take in that way. Not in physical distance. Sun’s influence over the earth is first, next that of moon, next that of Mars. In this way perhaps we may proceed. I got some hint in that direction. If we are challenged we may take this course. But my ultimate basis of argument is that it is subjective. It is like a hypnotizer … what the Lord showed Sukadeva at that time, it is described like that. It is in his hands, subjective control. Not that the objective will control us to see a thing. But the subject as he likes can make a show like a hypnotizer. That is my view. So everything can be explained. The higher seer is controlling our capacity to see anything. What one man sees another man won’t see. Subjective control. The Visvarupa darsana in Bhagavad-gita, what is it? Krsna says, ‘Arjuna, you see this. I am so and so.’ And Arjuna is seeing that. It’s not that the object is controlling the experience of the subject. But the super-subject (Krsna) is controlling the experience of the lower subject (the jiva soul). That is my understanding. Everything is controlled by the higher. The root (consciousness) is above, not the fossil (matter). ‘The fossil (matter) will control my vision,’ no such mean law I am ready to accept.”
Thanks for finding the reference Brahma. But I have to say that your statement below doesn't make much sense to me:
(I also think that subjective is a better word than ‘relative’ to describe Sukadev’s vision of universe.)
One person's subjective view is relative to another's, no? If so, then it's not absolute (i.e., it is relative).
“Just because the Bhagavatam is the "spotless purana" that does not mean that the creation stories in it are absolute because such accounts are dealing with details of material manifestation, not eternal, essential principles.”
Interestingly, in another Sanga (Arya Samaj and the Bhagavatam) Swami writes that the creation stories found in the Puranas are “different ways of explaining esoteric truths through analogy.” Hmmm??
Q. Arya Samaj scholars demonstrate how each Purana is propaganda for a particular deity and how in each a different deity is declared supreme.
They also show how the stories of creation found in various Puranas thoroughly contradict each other. They say that the Puranas were written by unscrupulous people whose aim was to suppress people. They claim that only the Vedas and Upanishads are of Vyasa and all the rest is mumbo-jumbo. They also declare all avataras as concoctions and say that the Vedas mention nothing of avataras or that God has or ever takes form.
A: The apparent contradictions found in the Puranas do not prove that they are the work of different authors, or that unscrupulous persons whose aim was to suppress people wrote them. Is that what happens when people read the Puranas? This is not my experience. Different Puranas glorify different deities because they were written for persons who were primarily influenced by different gunas. This and much of the above is explained in great detail by our Gaudiya acarya Sri Jiva Goswami in his Tattva-sandarbha (read the Pramana-khanda of my edition).
Different creation stories are merely different ways of explaining esoteric truths through analogy. Indeed we find at least two such stories in the Bhagavad-gita: at the beginning of chapters 14 and 15—the glance of God and the Banyan tree, respectively.
The churning of the ocean of milk found in the Bhagavatam is also a creation story. So one has to go through all the creation stories of our main texts and see what they are all have in common.
“Just because the Bhagavatam is the "spotless purana" that does not mean that the creation stories in it are absolute because such accounts are dealing with details of material manifestation, not eternal, essential principles.”Interestingly, in another Sanga (Arya Samaj and the Bhagavatam) Swami writes that the creation stories found in the Puranas are “different ways of explaining esoteric truths through analogy.” Hmmm??
From what you posted it's not clear what GM was referring to, but if we take the "esoteric truths" he mentioned as principles every practitioner needs to know to be ultimately successful in spiritual life then I stand corrected on that point. The principles I was referring to are basic tattvas like guru-tattva or bhagavata-tattva. The details I was referring to are things like the diameter of the universe. Clearly there is an element of relativity there.
The churning of the ocean of milk found in the Bhagavatam is also a creation story. So one has to go through all the creation stories of our main texts and see what they are all have in common.
What they all have in common is that God is the source of creation. Would that be the esoteric truth you were referring to in the Sanga Brahma quoted?
What they all have in common is that God is the source of creation. Would that be the esoteric truth you were referring to in the Sanga Brahma quoted?
Truths like the world has its origin in Brahman. The One becomes many. The relationship between maya and jiva, god and jiva, God and maya, etc. Actintya bhedabheda. Matter is animated by consciousness, thus jivas sustain the world. The position of desire in relation to the world. The position of God in relation to the world and sristi lila as opposed to say Krsna lila. How the world puts God to sleep, while it is so important to us to be on top of (we think). That the world is lila. The world's insignificance in relation to the Godhead, being only his exhalation or dream, etc.
Truths like the world has its origin in Brahman. The One becomes many. The relationship between maya and jiva, god and jiva, God and maya, etc. Actintya bhedabheda. Matter is animated by consciousness, thus jivas sustain the world. The position of desire in relation to the world. The position of God in relation to the world and sristi lila as opposed to say Krsna lila. How the world puts God to sleep, while it is so important to us to be on top of (we think). That the world is lila. The world's insignificance in relation to the Godhead, being only his exhalation or dream, etc.
“What appears in the mind of a maha-bhagavata is reality” (SSM)
“According to the text itself, Vyasa wrote/compiled the Bhagavatam after entering into samadhi of smaranam on Krsna lila, urukramasyakhila-bandha-muktaye samadhinanusmara tad-vicestitam. SB 1-5-13. At that time Vyasa saw the Lord, his internal sakti, his maya sakti, his jiva sakti, etc.” (BVT)
(The same could be said of Sukadeva’s vision of the universe as related in the Bhagavatam).
All this leads me to think that ultimate reality is both literal and allegorical at the same time..hmmm??
It would be interesting to put together a summary of visarga, secondary creation, according to the Bhagavata.
All this leads me to think that ultimate reality is both literal and allegorical at the same time..hmmm??
It certainly appears that way, and why not? Some aspects of the creation stories are relative and some are absolute. Acintya-bhedabheda.
It would be interesting to put together a summary of visarga, secondary creation, according to the Bhagavata.
With what goal in mind?
For the fun of it! And for the pleasure of immersing oneself in the world of the Bhagavat. And for being able to really know what it means to believe in creation "according to the Srimad Bhagavatam".
For the fun of it! And for the pleasure of immersing oneself in the world of the Bhagavat. And for being able to really know what it means to believe in creation "according to the Srimad Bhagavatam".
Well said! Worthy goals indeed.