Tattva-viveka
regarding divine origin of rivers, moutains,epics
Vivek - September 6, 2006 5:01 pm
I was actually having a discussion with a greek person who was comparing the vedic epics with the greek epics illyaid and odyssey. So he was saying that either both are false or both have to be equally true, just because you are from india you think your epic is true. So i wanted devotees to consider this point on how to counter in appropiately. Secondly like in introduction to krsna samhita bhaktivinoda thakur says each set of people consider their own mountains, rivers to be holy and are sectarian in their understanding. So i wanted to understand how we consider sages seeing personalities and pastimes in Ganga, yamuna and mountains. I know it is due to their advanced consciousness they can see these personalities there. But is it true that there will be a personality and pastimes for other rivers like nile, amazon or is it limited to rivers in the indian subcontinent.
Also personality behind rivers, moutain or earth does it mean that rivers and mountains also have souls as in jivas so how do we discriminate between matter and consciousness.
Swami - September 12, 2006 12:52 pm
I was actually having a discussion with a greek person who was comparing the vedic epics with the greek epics illyaid and odyssey. So he was saying that either both are false or both have to be equally true, just because you are from india you think your epic is true. So i wanted devotees to consider this point on how to counter in appropiately. Secondly like in introduction to krsna samhita bhaktivinoda thakur says each set of people consider their own mountains, rivers to be holy and are sectarian in their understanding. So i wanted to understand how we consider sages seeing personalities and pastimes in Ganga, yamuna and mountains. I know it is due to their advanced consciousness they can see these personalities there. But is it true that there will be a personality and pastimes for other rivers like nile, amazon or is it limited to rivers in the indian subcontinent.
Also personality behind rivers, moutain or earth does it mean that rivers and mountains also have souls as in jivas so how do we discriminate between matter and consciousness.
These are interesting questions. Perhaps others can comment on this thread and on the other questions Viveka has recently asked, as I have been quite busy and this is the purpose of tattva-viveka 
Briefly, regarding your friend's position on myths of other cultures and those of our sastra, his position is like that of Joseph Cambell. I wrote somthing about this on here once before that may also be avaialble in the sanga archives. Perhaps someone can locate and post it (Radhanama?).
One way to look at this is to look at the phislosophy underlying the myths of various cultures, becasue in one sense the myths are an expression of the philosophy. Personally I think that Vedanta dwarfs ancienet Greek philosophy, and for that matter Greek philosophy was infleunced by India. The Greeks learned from India. Also I do not believe that the illyad and oddesy claim to be true, or to be experiencable on some level other than in terms of the underlying philosophical points raised therein. Whereas Mahabharata, for example, speaks of real characters. And where is the logic to support the notion that both must be either eqaully true or eqaully false? In the Bhagavata you have real people spoken of in stories that are philosophically ture and partially ture in a literal sense nuanced by a poetic license. They are more like the movies of today that are based on real events than those of pure fiction.
More thoughts . . . . ?
Bhrigu - September 12, 2006 4:27 pm
And where is the logic to support the notion that both must be either eqaully true or eqaully false?
A good point, especially since I don't think they really even contradict each other (but I have to admit it is many years since I read these texts). The ancients did take parts of Homer's epics to be historically true, and with the evidence unearthed (literally!) by Schliemann and others we can certainly afford to be generous and admit that. The ancient Greeks themselves identified the Indian demigods with their gods, so we can probably also do so (Zeus -- Indra, etc). There is no reason why these gods cannot have (had) holy places in Greece as well.
Now, what is the main difference between Homer's epics and the Bhagavata? The religious ideal. There is little bhakti in the Homeric epics, and of course no Krishna-bhakti at all. The great difference between India and the rest of the world lies precisely here. Many places may be holy, but all the places connected with the avataras of the Supreme lie in India.
As for gods behind matter, Guru Maharaja has explained that according to a Mahabhagavata devotee, everything is alive. There is thus no difference between matter and consciousness for her!
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 12, 2006 5:47 pm
Many places may be holy, but all the places connected with the avataras of the Supreme lie in India.
That may be stretching the truth a little. Remember all the current 7 continents were connected at one time until the chariot of ? chased ? and cut up the planet into 7 Islands.
Arjuna-Argentina and Balarama went to South America I have heard.
We all come from the same linage Krsna. It may just be a matter of perspective for the culture involved. After the Tower of Babal no one language controled in the majority of the planet.
Vivek - September 12, 2006 6:42 pm
That may be stretching the truth a little. Remember all the current 7 continents were connected at one time until the chariot of ? chased ? and cut up the planet into 7 Islands.
Arjuna-Argentina and Balarama went to South America I have heard.
We all come from the same linage Krsna. It may just be a matter of perspective for the culture involved. After the Tower of Babal no one language controled in the majority of the planet.
So are there personalities and pastimes for amzon and nile also like for ganga and yamuna?
Babhru Das - September 12, 2006 8:01 pm
Briefly, regarding your friend's position on myths of other cultures and those of our sastra, his position is like that of Joseph Cambell. I wrote somthing about this on here once before that may also be avaialble in the sanga archives. Perhaps someone can locate and post it (Radhanama?).
I came up with this one from the Sanga archive:
Q. The late Joseph Campbell was the first person I heard tell of Krsna, but he taught that the images used in myths are metaphorical and should not be taken literally. He used the word myth in referring to the world's spiritual, religious, and scientific explanations of reality and did not imply a negative connotation with the word. Rather he emphasized the need to understand the essential truth within religious myth, whether it was from Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or other traditions, and apply it in our heart. How does your understanding of Krsna differ from his?
A. Joseph Cambell's perspective has helped many people bridge the gap between Eastern and Western religion by encouraging them to appreciate the universal truth found within all spiritual traditions. However, we differ from Campbell in that we do not equate Krsna-lila with the myths of other traditions. We do not think that Krsna-lila is simply a metaphor from which to draw universal truth. Krsna-lila is full of metaphorical truth, but this is not all that it consists of. The lilas are an ontological reality, the highest reality. For that matter, I do not think that other traditions think of their myths in the way we think of Krsna-lila (with a view to live in them eternally), nor are any other cultural or religious myths as charming, detailed, or profound as Krsna-lila. Krsna-lila is in a class of its own, as it should be. Campbell has not entirely missed this, for Indian mythology was his personal favorite. However, he was not familiar with Vaisnava theology and had a distinct leaning toward the so-called perennial philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.
The idea that Krsna is God is considerably more well thought out than what we find in Greek and other mythology. The theological and philosophical underpinning of the lila is considerable to say the least. I do not believe that there is any comparison that can be made with other religious mythology. If one insists that an advaitic approach to Krsna lila is more rational, this is a subject for a lively debate that would no doubt embarrass most Advaitins and also shed light on many of Advaita Vedanta's own logical inconsistencies.
Babhru Das - September 12, 2006 8:27 pm
One way to look at this is to look at the phislosophy underlying the myths of various cultures, becasue in one sense the myths are an expression of the philosophy. Personally I think that Vedanta dwarfs ancienet Greek philosophy, and for that matter Greek philosophy was infleunced by India. The Greeks learned from India. Also I do not believe that the illyad and oddesy claim to be true, or to be experiencable on some level other than in terms of the underlying philosophical points raised therein. Whereas Mahabharata, for example, speaks of real characters. And where is the logic to support the notion that both must be either eqaully true or eqaully false? In the Bhagavata you have real people spoken of in stories that are philosophically ture and partially ture in a literal sense nuanced by a poetic license. They are more like the movies of today that are based on real events than those of pure fiction.
More thoughts . . . . ?
Myths are the stories peoples--and persons--tell to define who they are and what they're about. Their truth may or may not be empirically verifiable, but that isn't the point. The point is that the story telling, the poetry, may take us beyond mundane experience to get a sense of what a particular group sees as its essence. I agree with Swami that Vedanta dwarfs Greek philosophy, or any other, for that matter. And the sense the ancient sages of India had of who we are, where we're from, and what we are (and could be--and should be) about makes all the world's myths look like termite remnants in comparison. It is, frankly, advitiya: it has no rivals at all. Their ultimate ideal is presented in Srimad-Bhagavatam and disttilled in Sri Chaitanya-Charitamrita.
That said, I don't dismiss the world's other myths. I find much of value in indigenous American myth, as well as in the myths of the Hawaiian and other Pacific and Pacific-Rim cultures. And there's so much interconnection that studying them cannot fail to amaze us.
After studying some of the mythology of Hawaii, I find it easy and inspiring to see how closely the Hawaiian people are connected with the land and their other sources of food. Kalo (taro) is revered in Hawaiian culture because Kalo is also our older brother, not just a plant. The sun, the rain, and the earh are persons, as is the terrible, awesome creative energy of the volcano, Pele. And when we go to where the lava flows here on our island, we can experience Pele's power--and even more so when she comes to us. On one of his visits here, Sripad Paramadvaiti Maharaja insisted on going to Kilauea to offer Pele mahaprasadam garlands, even though his only chance was at night, after a program in Hilo. (It's probably a drive of an hour and a half from Hilo to the lava flow, and I think that at that time we needed to hike 45 minutes each way to get to the flow, after parking.)
However, I don't exactly regard Pele, or any other local gods, with even the gods of Vedic culture. That's because of the Vedic gods' connection with Vishnu, and with Krishna. And there's certainly no way that any gods of the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Pacific islands, or anywhere else compare with Krishna or any of his more direct manifestations. While all myth systems have value because they help their believers understand that they depend on others for their existence, the Vedic myths, and the Vedanta they express, point us toward life's ultimate goal, loving service to Krishna.
When I see performances of ancient hula, with its chants, I'm often very deeply moved. But it's not Sri Krishna sankirtan. When we visited Arizona, we imbibed from that land a regard for the myths of the peoples indigenous to that place. I'm sure that if we went to North Dakota, the land and its people would help us see the sense of the myths they have about the plains, the hills, the buffalo, etc. I would naturally be awed by the Amazon, the Nile, or any other great river. But I have a completely different kind of regard for the Ganga, the Yamuna, etc.
Bhrigu - September 13, 2006 7:09 am
That may be stretching the truth a little. Remember all the current 7 continents were connected at one time until the chariot of ? chased ? and cut up the planet into 7 Islands.
I'm quite sure that the seven dvipas mentioned in that pastime do not correspond with the seven present continents of earth. I know that Prabhupada does make that connection somewhere, but elsewhere he denies it. The other six than Jambudvipa are said (in the fifth skandha) to be populated by celestial beings living tens of thousands of years, etc, showing clearly that we're talking about something else.
The name Argentina comes from argentum, the Latin word for silver, something that the Spaniards brought home from there from the 16th century and onwards. The name Arjuna means "white" and is related to argentum, but the name Argentina has nothing to do with Arjuna. I have heard ithis statement before and even seen it printed in some devotional book (by Nandanandana Prabhu?), but it is just the fanciful imagination of someone completely unaware of historical realities.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 13, 2006 9:11 am
So are there personalities and pastimes for amzon and nile also like for ganga and yamuna?
I have only heard of some for the Nile being the life blood of the Sahara but none for the Amozon.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 13, 2006 6:26 pm
It is said in the Gita that the jiva soul is all-pervading—not in the sense that a single jiva is everywhere at once, but that everywhere in material nature jivas can be found. So a realized person will see the consciousness behind everything, be it a river, the sky, a tree, etc. Anywhere life is found, we can see evidence of consciousness. What place on earth has realized this more than anywhere else? India, clearly. That is not to say that nowhere else has this principle been understood, but no place else has understood and philosophized about it as India has.
One could similarly ask why the West historically has become the most powerful entity materially—Jared Diamond has written about this in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He points that there are several material and historical factors that combined to create the material situation that we see today. So the same could be argued about with India and its spiritual legacy. For whatever reason, India has been endowed with the greatest wealth of philosophy and religion; the historical reasons for this are unknown to me, and I am not aware of any writer addressing this point, but ultimately the reason we are all here is because we have recognized it and are trying to take advantage of it.
Swami - September 13, 2006 9:46 pm
One could similarly ask why the West historically has become the most powerful entity materially—Jared Diamond has written about this in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He points that there are several material and historical factors that combined to create the material situation that we see today.
I am not familiar with this author, but I believe that Western rationalism itself tends to foster materialism. Surely someone must have argued well in this direction. Does anyone know of any well reasoned arguments written along these lines?
Swami - September 13, 2006 9:57 pm
So are there personalities and pastimes for amzon and nile also like for ganga and yamuna?
The point you may be missing here is that it is not necessarily sectarian to attribute more spirituality to one place over another. Why would we expect the Nile River to have spiritual pastimes with Godhead? Persoanlity behind her yes, but lila with any particualr form of God? Why?
Furthermore, Krsna, the most refined conception of Godhead, appears in relation to the measure of one's approach. Wherever there is bhava for him, he appears in that devotee's heart, who in turn sees him in realtion to the natural world. Thus for Mahaprabhu every river was the Yamuna, every hill Govardhana, etc.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 14, 2006 5:09 am
I am not familiar with this author, but I believe that Western rationalism itself tends to foster materialism. Surely someone must have argued well in this direction. Does anyone know of any well reasoned arguments written along these lines?
Rationalism is the idea that intellectual reasoning, or deduction, can lead to truth. This of course we disagree with ultimately, but rationalism does not necessarily lead to materialism. Prabhupada spoke of how one can intellectually understand that he is not the body by a process of elimination, but one can equally argue that the belief in an eternal soul is irrational. Materialism is the idea that the only thing that can be truly said to exist is matter, a belief that can be rationally argued but hardly proven. Akin to this philosophy is the idea of empiricism, in which it is believed knowledge can be obtained only through sensual experience. It is interesting to note that all of these philosophies existed in India long before they existed in Europe (as far as we know), in Sankhya, Lokayata, etc. Whether these philosophies had a separate birth in the Western world, or whether they spread from India, I do not know. It does seem like nearly every possible philosophical worldview has existed in India at some time or another, though it may not have been commonly accepted. Why some philosophies are more popular in some parts of the world rather than others, I also do not know, but it does seem that it could be related to the material situation there. Mythology as well is often linked to its natural surroundings (i.e. Native American myths about the coyote). The great thing about the extraordinary wealth of Indian philosophy is that it gives us a chance to make a comparative analysis, and what could be more attractive than Mahaprabhu's philosophy of Krishna bhakti? A sort of "survival of the fittest" of ideas, if you will!
Swami - September 15, 2006 3:40 pm
Rationalism is the idea that intellectual reasoning, or deduction, can lead to truth. This of course we disagree with ultimately, but rationalism does not necessarily lead to materialism.
I was speaking more of rationalism as a philosophy. Rationalism as a philosophy is defined as using reason and logic as the reliable basis for testing any claims of truth, seeking objective knowledge about reality, making judgments and drawing conclusions about it. This seems to have led to scientific materialism.
Otherwise, certainly reason should be involved in spiritual pursuit.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 15, 2006 4:31 pm
I was speaking more of rationalism as a philosophy. Rationalism as a philosophy is defined as using reason and logic as the reliable basis for testing any claims of truth, seeking objective knowledge about reality, making judgments and drawing conclusions about it. This seems to have led to scientific materialism.
Yes, so was I. But throughout Western philosophical history, we can see that rationalism has led various philosophers in different directions. Plato, for example, and his form versus ideal, or Descartes and his famous "cogito ergo sum;" both of these are considered rationalist philosophers, but hardly materialists. Both, in fact, are "dualists:" positing a difference between matter and something higher than matter (in the case of Plato, the ideal world, and in the case of Descartes the mind, or spirit). As I hinted at in my previous post, I would argue that the rise of materialism in Western society has more to with the rise of empiricism. Rationalism more often than not has come to the conclusion that there must be something other than matter, but empiricism starts from the presumption that the only thing that can lead to truth is that which we can experience. By definition, empiricism does not need to apply only to our senses, but this is the sense in which it has been most often taken. In my opinion, this is due to two factors: first, the obvious appeal of empiricism—how can we deny that which we experience? Second, the lack of a suitable definition of consciousness in the Western tradition. Most definitions of consciousness, including Descartes, are today seen as naive or just plain impossible in most philosophical circles, so those seeking empirical knowledge avoid the realm of consciousness and turn toward the material. What sets the philosophies of India apart, and ultimately ours from those, is a very clear understanding of consciousness—what it is, what it does, what happens to it, what its purpose is, etc. I think we too are ultimately empiricists, since we too are also ultimately after experience, but we do not limit ourselves to the realm of the senses; in fact, this is the realm we believe to be the most fallible. A rationalist will prefer to rely on his own rational thinking—perhaps he is a kind of empiricist, since he relies on the experience of his intellect. But above him is the devotee, who relies first on the spiritual experience of others, and then ultimately his own.
Swami - September 18, 2006 1:32 am
Yes, so was I. But throughout Western philosophical history, we can see that rationalism has led various philosophers in different directions. Plato, for example, and his form versus ideal, or Descartes and his famous "cogito ergo sum;" both of these are considered rationalist philosophers, but hardly materialists. Both, in fact, are "dualists:" positing a difference between matter and something higher than matter (in the case of Plato, the ideal world, and in the case of Descartes the mind, or spirit). As I hinted at in my previous post, I would argue that the rise of materialism in Western society has more to with the rise of empiricism. Rationalism more often than not has come to the conclusion that there must be something other than matter, but empiricism starts from the presumption that the only thing that can lead to truth is that which we can experience. By definition, empiricism does not need to apply only to our senses, but this is the sense in which it has been most often taken. In my opinion, this is due to two factors: first, the obvious appeal of empiricism—how can we deny that which we experience? Second, the lack of a suitable definition of consciousness in the Western tradition. Most definitions of consciousness, including Descartes, are today seen as naive or just plain impossible in most philosophical circles, so those seeking empirical knowledge avoid the realm of consciousness and turn toward the material. What sets the philosophies of India apart, and ultimately ours from those, is a very clear understanding of consciousness—what it is, what it does, what happens to it, what its purpose is, etc. I think we too are ultimately empiricists, since we too are also ultimately after experience, but we do not limit ourselves to the realm of the senses; in fact, this is the realm we believe to be the most fallible. A rationalist will prefer to rely on his own rational thinking—perhaps he is a kind of empiricist, since he relies on the experience of his intellect. But above him is the devotee, who relies first on the spiritual experience of others, and then ultimately his own.
Interesting. Although it is true that a number of rationalsts were also religious, at least those you have cited were religious before rational. While rationalism perhaps first appeared as a defence of Cristianity in the face of paganism, superstition, etc., it seems to have paved the way for the dismissal of religion as well. So my question is with regard to the history of the philsophy of rationalism. In which direction has it gravitated to more readily over time?
By the way, has anyone read the Pope's recent controversial speech? He takes an interesting position with regard to faith and reason.
Swami - September 18, 2006 12:58 pm
Interesting. Although it is true that a number of rationalsts were also religious, at least those you have cited were religious before rational. While rationalism perhaps first appeared as a defence of Cristianity in the face of paganism, superstition, etc., it seems to have paved the way for the dismissal of religion as well. So my question is with regard to the history of the philsophy of rationalism. In which direction has it gravitated to more readily over time?
By the way, has anyone read the Pope's recent controversial speech? He takes an interesting position with regard to faith and reason.
Well Plato was much earlier and not a Christian. So I am referring more to the 18th century rationalists after Decarte, Leibniz, and Spinoza and the redefining of rationalism that surfaced in the so called "Age of Reason." This redefinition involved not so much reason over emotion and sense experience, as was the idea of Plato, but reason over superstition.
Vivek - September 18, 2006 5:50 pm
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: “For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”
This is an excerpt of the speech from the Pope and he has said that God can be known by reason. I dont know maybe he wants to correct impressions of Christainity where it was known to be a suppressive religion. But if we study Origen, then we see that his philosphy almost parellels eastern philosophy. The king and St Augustine threw out reincarnation and Origen to the dustbin, and that was just oppression, no reason was involved. So now maybe there are taking some steps in right direction but it maybe too late! Modern rationality like Maharaja said, in Satre and Anyn Rand has gravitated towards pessimism(in Satre existentialism) or materialism(in objectivism) and it just has nothing to offer to the world.
Pope also says
"This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate."
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 19, 2006 5:54 am
So my question is with regard to the history of the philsophy of rationalism. In which direction has it gravitated to more readily over time?
The conflict between rationalism and empiricism goes back as far as Plato and Aristotle, but it certainly does reappear in the 17th and 18th centuries. Descartes' contribution to philosophical thought was to say that a reasonable ground can be laid for all human knowledge, beginning with knowledge of the self. After all, one can doubt anything, but there must be a doubter. From this basis, Descartes argues for the existence of God and a material world. Descartes thus refutes the dogmatism of Church doctrine (aided immensely by the recent discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo), and replaces it with a new method of philosophical inquiry. At the other end of the spectrum is John Locke, who posits that the mind is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, on which impressions of the world of sensual experience are imprinted. Reason and intuition are simply advanced constructs of these original impressions. Locke also argues for the existence of God, but on the grounds that the world of experience is clearly ordered, with each thing designed with (apparently) some purpose. So we can see that two philosophers, using two entirely different epistemological methods (rationalism and empiricism) arrive at the same conclusion: God exists. It is not coincidental that both philosophers lived during a time of renewed interest in reason and science. While they did not agree in terms of method of ultimate knowing, both philosphers agreed on the grounds on which their discussion could take place. Both refute dogmatic acceptance of doctrine in favor of the ability of the individual to obtain ultimate knowledge. Later Kant would attempt to synthesize these two schools of thought.
Both philosophers were definite theists, largely because the state of science of the time was such that no other explanation other than God existed that could account for their ontological world views. John Locke believed in God because he saw design everywhere; thus he assumed that an intelligent agent must be behind it. No sufficiently scientifically grounded alternative existed until Darwin's theory of evolution, which showed that design could be the result of an unintelligent process. Similarly, the reason and consciousness on which Descartes depends for his proof of God has been understood in modern biopsychology to be the result of many unintelligent physical electrical and chemical processes within the brain, and furthermore as a result of evolution as well. Thus the grounds on which their theistic claims were built were shaken in the 19th and 20th centuries with scientific discoveries that posited alternative points of view. What need was there for God when everything could be explained by science? This leads inevitably to the philosophy of materialism. Materialism's ultimate response to any other philosophy, be it rationalism, existentialism, or Vedantism is that the ontological realities they posit either are imaginary or explainable through physical processes. Nothing exists except the material world; we are simply a conglomeration of material from it.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 19, 2006 7:06 am
Nothing exists except the material world; we are simply a conglomeration of material from it.
Yet there is still design and purpose that can not be from happen stance. Conciousness rules here.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 24, 2006 9:11 pm
Yet there is still design and purpose that can not be from happen stance. Conciousness rules here.
I think it is possible to accept the findings of modern science and still consider oneself a theist. People fear Darwinism because they sympathize with Locke's belief that design in nature proves the existence of God. Darwinism says that this design is produced through physical processes: those who are best suited to survive in the given environmental conditions pass on their genes. Mutations occasionally occur in this descent process; most of them are meaningless or even harmful, but occasionally they provide the recipient with an advantage over the competition, allowing it to spread its genes more easily. Thus the origin of species is in fact "happenstance." Not only is the theory logical, but it is backed by countless amounts of evidence that has accrued through scientific investigation.
A friend (who accepts evolution) once told me that he believed in God because he believed that for life to begin in a universe in which there is no life is mathematically impossible. I would argue that if it were mathematically impossible, it would not have happened! Everything that happens in the material universe is governed by the laws of physics, including life. Consciousness does not rule here: it is in fact ruled here—at least to the extent that it identifies with material nature. It is this identification that makes the world go round, so to speak. When the jiva identifies with material nature, it comes under the influence of the modes of material nature; all of the physical processes that are a part of this physical universe can be categorized as a part of one of these modes of nature. These physical processes have a life of their own, which lead us away from our real life as units of consciousness. We can only be free from this slavery to the extent that we have understood that we are not of the same nature as matter; to the exent that we have realized this is the extent that we are free. Even then, our karma to a great extent still dictates to us our physical limitations. After all, as much as I am of a higher nature than my body, I can not decide when it grows, when it gets sick, and when it dies—even if I know I am not it!
It is my belief that everything in the material world can be explained as a result of physical processes, including the origins of life and the origins of man's reasoning power. Units of consciousness are trapped within these physical processes, and can escape when they have realized this is not their true home.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 25, 2006 5:21 am
Everything that happens in the material universe is governed by the laws of physics, including life. Consciousness does not rule here: it is in fact ruled here—at least to the extent that it identifies with material nature.
It is this identification that makes the world go round, so to speak. When the jiva identifies with material nature, it comes under the influence of the modes of material nature; all of the physical processes that are a part of this physical universe can be categorized as a part of one of these modes of nature. These physical processes have a life of their own, which lead us away from our real life as units of consciousness. We can only be free from this slavery to the extent that we have understood that we are not of the same nature as matter; to the exent that we have realized this is the extent that we are free. Even then, our karma to a great extent still dictates to us our physical limitations. After all, as much as I am of a higher nature than my body, I can not decide when it grows, when it gets sick, and when it dies—even if I know I am not it!
It is my belief that everything in the material world can be explained as a result of physical processes, including the origins of life and the origins of man's reasoning power. Units of consciousness are trapped within these physical processes, and can escape when they have realized this is not their true home.
"Everything that happens in the material universe is governed by the laws of physics, including life." But I would beg to differ here for emotions are not. Conciousness rules here.
"It is this identification that makes the world go round, so to speak." But this idenification comes from conciousness for with out conciousness there is no identification taking place.
"We can only be free from this slavery to the extent that we have understood that we are not of the same nature as matter;" True
"our karma to a great extent still dictates to us our physical limitations." But, we can approach Sri Guru and He can intercede on our behalf
"It is my belief that everything in the material world can be explained as a result of physical processes"
But how can you explain the love of the mother for the blind son whom she calls lotus eyes by a physical process? It does not matter what we believe it is As It Is Krsna has spoken and we follow that if not we not we fall away, but conciousness rules here.
Swami - September 25, 2006 3:15 pm
It is worth noting that Eastern religion--Hinduism and Buddhism--gained a foothold in America because of their similarities with modern science. By the 1890s America and the rest of the West was in the midst of a spiritual crisis because modern science had so undermined the literal Bible that many educated people experienced a deep crisis in faith. This was the beginning of the great divide between reason and faith/science and religion, the resolution to which lies more than anywhere else in Eastern philosophy.
After the 1893 Chicago Parliament of World Religions Buddhist and Hindu (Vivekananda) monks were sponsored by American intellectuals to live in the US. These early Eastern missionaries all shared the same modern, reformist outlook--presenting a message compatible with science. Buddhist translators in particular selected passages that would appeal to modern rational sensibilities, for Americans wanted religion to "make sense," in accordance with conventional wisdom. Early missionaries of both Hinduism and Buddhism purposely stripped their traditions of any elements that might appear superstitious or mythological. Thus the popularity of Zen and Advaita Vedanta. Note that it was conscious choice of Vivekananda to present Advaita Vedanta, while his guru Rama Krishna was rather eclectic.
Missionaries like Suzuki, and Vivekananda understood that Americans measured truth in science, and that science posed little theological threat to a Buddhist or Hindu worldview. Thus, Eastern spirituality was packaged and presented in its most favorable light with regard to the West's faith crisis and it gained a foothold.
While Darwinism undermined Biblical Christianity, it only seemed to enhance the position of Eastern spirituality. Indeed, Buddhist monk Anagarika Dharmapala told his audience in Chicago that "the theory of evolution was one of the ancient teachings of the Buddha," and people believed him as he believed himself. As the Bhagavata says, "One living being is food for another," jivo jivasya jivanam—survival of the fittest. Vivekananda was cheered when he proclaimed that the latest discoveries of science seemed "like the echoes from the high spiritual flights of Vedantic philosophy."
It was only many years later that Eastern spirituality began to critique modern science, after two world wars and the realization that science itself lacks a moral conscience. The science that had promised to fulfill our dreams left unto itself was seen also as potentially our greatest nightmare. Today this nightmare looms large in the field of biotechnology--the manipulation of life at the genetic level. Scientists now talk of the end of evolution, the end of nature, in the sense that humans will soon replace nature to direct the course of creation themselves. However, as we all know, humanity is cruel, not compassionate. Nor are the new scientific gods enlightened and thus their tampering with nature has brought about widespread environmental pollution, and experiments with human reproduction, cloning, genetically engineered life, chemical-biological warfare, etc. all threaten to make our world more dangerous than the jungle. Add to this the fact that in the midst of these developments many scientists themselves are experiencing a faith crisis.
Thus we need religion, Eastern spirituality with its emphasis on healing oneself of the disease of exploitation. Herein we find the perfection of evolution, the end of nature. In a very basic sense we claim that only by knowing oneself can one know the world, for in one sense there is no difference between the two. Scientifically speaking the conscious observer is intertwined with that which is observed, and metaphysically speaking reality is nondual consciousness, advaya jnana tattva.
Science prides itself in objectivity and freedom from bias. So too does Vaisnavism with its emphasis on detachment. Only by stepping back from our attachments to matter can we understand the material world for what it is. Rising to this measure of objectivity is life's greatest challenge. It is the first step in the science of love that mystically brings us closer to everything, which in turn gives rise to the divine illusion that god is just one of us. This is the reality of the inhabitants of Vrajaloka: "We are Vrajavasis. Krsna is a Vrajavasi." This is the furthest extension of the statement of Suzuki, who wrote after reassessing the downside of modern science, "There are certain 'mythological' elements in every one of us, which cannot be altogether lost in favor of science. This is a conviction I have come to."
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 25, 2006 4:51 pm
We cannot deny the findings of science for the very fact that they are based on investigation and evidence. Emotions, at least material emotions, are also a result of physical processes, chemical processes taking place within the brain. I can attest to this, as I am required to take a medication which helps me maintain control over my fear impulses. This medication is called an SSRI, selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor. Basically, it does not allow the synapses in my brain to "reuptake" the seratonin that it produces as quickly, thus allowing more seratonin to take effect. Seratonin is a chemical in the brain that regulates mood, sleep, appetite, etc. Without this medication, I would have difficulty functioning in real-world situations; my main motivation is that taking this medication will help me serve Krishna better. I think this is the difference between my use of medication versus casual drug use. But clearly modern science, through the investigation of the physical processes of the brain (it has a lot more to learn, by the way), has found a way to help people like me. If I were living 2000 years ago, I doubt I would be so well off.
With regard to the love of a mother for her son, or material love in general, this of course has a biological purpose, and is regulated by hormones and the like within the body. A mother has a biological need to care for her child, and the child has a biological need to be cared for by his mother. This can be seen in most species of life, and evolved out of a need for protection of the young.
Of course it matter what we believe, for what we believe governs what we do. Christian scientists believe that all diseases are a result of diseased consciousness; therefore they do not believe in the use of medicine. I believe that diseases are physical processes, and so are their treatments. These two different belief systems lead to two different solutions to the same problem. Of course believing in something does not make it correct, but we tend to believe things because we believe they are correct. Therefore to dismiss someone else's belief system on the basis that "belief doesn't matter, because things are as they are whether we believe it or not" ignores the truth, however relative, that is the basis of all belief systems. I ultimately believe that the best belief system is that which attempts to integrate all elements of truth in all belief systems; as the bumper sticker says, "God is too big to fit inside one religion." The findings of modern science are too significant to ignore.
Guru Maharaja raises an important point about the (possible) lack of ethical action in modern science. The fact that life can be explained through physical processes is difficult to refute, but this says little on how we are actually to act in the world. This is an issue discussed by several philosophers, including the existentialist. I would like to write more on this later.
Bhrigu - September 25, 2006 5:19 pm
One interesting point regarding rationality and religion is that Vedanta steers clear of many issues troubling Western religions. One example is that of proving the existence of God. While Christians have tried to prove God through the design of the Universe etc, Vedanta (in all its forms) has always been adamant on the point that God cannot be proved by anything else than sastra. It could also be argued that the Bhagavata samkhya doctrine of sristi ("creation") as a gradual evolution from one principle to the next with only indirect influence from God can more easily be applied to modern findings than one of creation out of nothing, as in Christianity.
Guru-nistha Das - September 26, 2006 3:02 am
I finally had some time to read this thread and it's absolutely fascinating! Special thank you goes to GM, Vinode Vani and Vivek for bringi8ng all this up. I think it's extremely relevant to understand how theories of the nature of reality have evolved, developed and degraded too in some cases, and how the stance that Vedanta posits seems to really stand the test of time..
A friend (who accepts evolution) once told me that he believed in God because he believed that for life to begin in a universe in which there is no life is mathematically impossible. I would argue that if it were mathematically impossible, it would not have happened! Everything that happens in the material universe is governed by the laws of physics, including life. Consciousness does not rule here: it is in fact ruled here—at least to the extent that it identifies with material nature.
One thing to consider (and I'm sure you have) is that our understanding of mathematics and physics and so on is very limited, so at least theoretically it could be true that the origin of life can't be proven with the mathematics as we know it now, but who knows, maybe there is some kind of a supralogic or somethin yet to be discovered? It seems like the scientific circles are a bit intimidated to be more open to stuff like this, because it's easy to get labelled as one of those "What the bleeb!" -types or something...
Anyway, I'm thrilled to have the kind of sanga we have here. Very intellectually challenging, yet strongly based on spiritual principles, a worldview that takes us so much further than what we can achieve with even the most sophisticated technological inventions. 
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 26, 2006 4:08 am
As Guru Maharaja has said, scientists have discovered the principle that one living being is food for another. For the theory of evolution, this means that those species that are fittest to survive within a given environment will beat out their competition. The fascinating thing is that species have co-evolved in a state of mutual interdependence, similar to Adam Smith's theory of economics. According to this theory, when each individual within an economic environment acts according to his own selfish interest, the entire population is benefited. Few people nowadays (besides the libertarians) would claim to ascribe fully to this kind of laissez faire thinking, but in nature it seems to be an important operational principle. In discovering this principle, unfortunately, human beings have to some extent identified with it (Smith's principle is I believe a reflection of this fact).
I took a class in political science once, and one of the first things we learned about is the security dilemma. This is a principle that is demonstrated through game theory, in which important principles can be learned by hypothesizing the actions of theoretical players. In the security dilemma, we need only two different states, both of which have two choices: increase their military capability, or not. If one state increases its military capability and the other does not, the one that does will have a clear advantage over the other. If both states choose not to increase their military capability, they will not pose any overt threat to each other. If both choose to increase their military capability, they will both pose a threat to the other, which will lead inevitably back to square one: do we increase our military capability further? One of the assumptions of this game is that both players are incapable of communication with each other. Given that one does not know what action the other will take (and even if they told us they won't increase, should we believe them?), it would be too risky not to increase one's military capability. Thus the security dilemma will always lead to arms escalation. One of the essay questions on our test was to either posit an alternative solution to the security dilemma, or simply claim "realism" and ratify its truth (with argument of course). If have pondered this question in the years since I've taken this class, and I've decided that the real solution to the security dilemma is to transcend selfish action. In other words, one is not stuck with the two choices of either selfishly serving himself or succumbing to invasion; the answer to the dilemma is to act in a way that benefits everyone at the same time. What exactly that action may be can be debated, but a least a theoretical solution to the security dilemma (and the jivo jivasya jivanam dilemma of eat or be eaten) is possible. Human life affords us the opportunity to find this solution and to implement it. Much of modern science has been employed in the search for ever greater weapons with which to conquer our enemies; can it be employed in the service of life, and ultimately the service of Krishna, instead? Yes! We should always search for better ways to serve Krishna, and we can use our knowledge of nature and the physical universe in this pursuit.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 26, 2006 5:26 am
The fact that life can be explained through physical processes is difficult to refute, but this says little on how we are actually to act in the world. This is an issue discussed by several philosophers, including the existentialist. I would like to write more on this later.
It is very easy to refute. Why do living things not care for a dead body? All the chemicals are there. Conciousness rules here also.
Life comes from life and spirit rules but your free will may interfer with the proper path.
"Of course it matter what we believe, for what we believe governs what we do." True, but.
You may believe that there is no sun but it does not make it so. As it is clearly rules here and if we do not link our conciousness up with the direct path of Krsna conciousness it does not matter what we believe for it is as it is.
"Therefore to dismiss someone else's belief system on the basis that "belief doesn't matter, because things are as they are whether we believe it or not" ignores the truth," No it actually shows the truth. Your physical imbalances may be helped by proper eating and it can be explained by the scripture such as "Knowledge and forgetfullness come from Me" as well as many other mentioned by Krsna. Someone you met was able to diagnosis your problem and help you with proper food substances and this is good. Science can not be seprated from religion because it is all in the hands of Krsna.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 26, 2006 5:39 am
As Guru Maharaja has said, scientists have discovered the principle that one living being is food for another. For the theory of evolution, this means that those species that are fittest to survive within a given environment will beat out their competition. The fascinating thing is that species have co-evolved in a state of mutual interdependence, similar to Adam Smith's theory of economics. According to this theory, when each individual within an economic environment acts according to his own selfish interest, the entire population is benefited. Few people nowadays (besides the libertarians) would claim to ascribe fully to this kind of laissez faire thinking, but in nature it seems to be an important operational principle. In discovering this principle, unfortunately, human beings have to some extent identified with it (Smith's principle is I believe a reflection of this fact).
I took a class in political science once, and one of the first things we learned about is the security dilemma. This is a principle that is demonstrated through game theory, in which important principles can be learned by hypothesizing the actions of theoretical players. In the security dilemma, we need only two different states, both of which have two choices: increase their military capability, or not. If one state increases its military capability and the other does not, the one that does will have a clear advantage over the other. If both states choose not to increase their military capability, they will not pose any overt threat to each other. If both choose to increase their military capability, they will both pose a threat to the other, which will lead inevitably back to square one: do we increase our military capability further? One of the assumptions of this game is that both players are incapable of communication with each other. Given that one does not know what action the other will take (and even if they told us they won't increase, should we believe them?), it would be too risky not to increase one's military capability. Thus the security dilemma will always lead to arms escalation. One of the essay questions on our test was to either posit an alternative solution to the security dilemma, or simply claim "realism" and ratify its truth (with argument of course). If have pondered this question in the years since I've taken this class, and I've decided that the real solution to the security dilemma is to transcend selfish action. In other words, one is not stuck with the two choices of either selfishly serving himself or succumbing to invasion; the answer to the dilemma is to act in a way that benefits everyone at the same time. What exactly that action may be can be debated, but a least a theoretical solution to the security dilemma (and the jivo jivasya jivanam dilemma of eat or be eaten) is possible. Human life affords us the opportunity to find this solution and to implement it. Much of modern science has been employed in the search for ever greater weapons with which to conquer our enemies; can it be employed in the service of life, and ultimately the service of Krishna, instead? Yes! We should always search for better ways to serve Krishna, and we can use our knowledge of nature and the physical universe in this pursuit.
Very good points. The difference in nature though is that this selfish interest is that the bird or ____________ takes only the grains they need from the pile and leaves the rest for another. The nature of us human beings of course is to take the whole pile of grains and leave none for others unless he is trained up poperly.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 26, 2006 6:06 am
It is very easy to refute. Why do living things not care for a dead body? All the chemicals are there. Conciousness rules here also.
Life comes from life and spirit rules but your free will may interfer with the proper path.
"Of course it matter what we believe, for what we believe governs what we do." True, but.
You may believe that there is no sun but it does not make it so. As it is clearly rules here and if we do not link our conciousness up with the direct path of Krsna conciousness it does not matter what we believe for it is as it is.
"Therefore to dismiss someone else's belief system on the basis that "belief doesn't matter, because things are as they are whether we believe it or not" ignores the truth," No it actually shows the truth. Your physical imbalances may be helped by proper eating and it can be explained by the scripture such as "Knowledge and forgetfullness come from Me" as well as many other mentioned by Krsna. Someone you met was able to diagnosis your problem and help you with proper food substances and this is good. Science can not be seprated from religion because it is all in the hands of Krsna.
Why should living beings care for a dead body? What biological reason could there be? There is no survival interest there whatsoever. This does not prove the existence of consciousness. As Brighu has wisely pointed out, the proof of the existence of God and consciousness rests with scripture alone. The existence of such things cannot be infered from sensory data alone.
I admit that people may believe in things that are not true. But to dimiss someone else's belief by saying that things are as they are whether we believe it or not is not an argument. A friend of mine who is a Christian once used the same argument to say that whether I believed the Bible or not, it was true. This is just a way of saying "I am right and you are wrong" without bothering to give me a reason to change my mind. I believe what I believe because I believe that I am right, and I have my reasons for believing this. Your argument that whatever Krishna says is true will not convince anyone who does not already agree with you.
I'm not sure what Krishna's statement that "Knowledge and forgetfulness comes from Me" has to do with my chemical imbalance. Neither the doctor who prescribed the medication for me nor manufacturers of the drug were devotees to my knowledge, and yet they were able to help me. Many scientists are atheists: this does not make everything that they say false.
"Life comes from life" is not entirely true, even according to the Gita, because therein Krishna states that the soul in neither created nor destroyed, and of course the same is true for God as well. Souls in the material world wander from body to body; their bodies are created through combinations of material elements. To say that consciousness rules here is, in my opinion, to ascribe more freedom to the soul, at least the conditioned soul, than I think is warranted. How much ruling power do we really have in this world? We are being dragged here and there by our mind and senses; our belief in our ability to control matter is maya. We live in a box, the walls of which are the physical reactions that govern the life processes within our body. Free will in this condition is an illusion, for when we identify with the body we are not free at all: we are slaves to our mind and senses.
Swami - September 26, 2006 2:30 pm
Perhaps it goes without mentioning but the marriage of science and Eastern philosophy in the later 1800/s and early 20th century I mentioned was of course one that had enough superficial similarities to make it work for the time being. The two are quite different approaches to understadning reality.
Another interesting point to consider is how Bhaktivinoda Thakura, a contemporary of Vivekananda, was also trying to align Gaudiya Vaisnavism with science. For example, he wrote somewhere how the ten avataras mentioned in Gita Govinda corresponded with the notion of evolution and life beginning in water (matsya/aquatic life, kurma/reptiles, etc). Decades later Prabhupada preached against evolution, mostly in terms of the idea that consciusnes was ultimately subordinate to matter. This preaching correponded with the Buddhist critique of science. So preaching must take into consideration time and circumstances in order to be effective.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 26, 2006 3:46 pm
Perhaps it goes without mentioning but the marriage of science and Eastern philosophy in the later 1800/s and early 20th century I mentioned was of course one that had enough superficial similarities to make it work for the time being. The two are quite different approaches to understadning reality.
Another interesting point to consider is how Bhaktivinoda Thakura, a contemporary of Vivekananda, was also trying to align Gaudiya Vaisnavism with science. For example, he wrote somewhere how the ten avataras mentioned in Gita Govinda corresponded with the notion of evolution and life beginning in water (matsya/aquatic life, kurma/reptiles, etc). Decades later Prabhupada preached against evolution, mostly in terms of the idea that consciusnes was ultimately subordinate to matter. This preaching correponded with the Buddhist critique of science. So preaching must take into consideration time and circumstances in order to be effective.
I suppose one difficulty I have is the idea that we can simply say whatever we want for preaching purposes. One preacher will say evolution is true, one will say it is not. Which is it? Perhaps within Gaudiya Vaishnavism we can have legitimate disagreements over this and still agree on the core fundamental principles of our faith (I suppose Bijaya and I are in this situation). Prabhupada spent a lot of time saying that the jiva has fallen from Goloka, and now we are having to spend a lot of effort and energy convincing people that this is not in line with our philosophy. Prabhupada also stated that women are less intelligent than men--I'm actually not sure what the purpose of this was, as far as preaching is concerned, but clearly we don't believe it, and it wasn't a commonly held position during the women's liberation movement of the 60's and 70's while Prabhupada was preaching. It seems that making statements that are incongruous with our actual philosophy creates more harm than good. Am I being told that modern scientific findings are acceptable according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism to get me on board, only to be informed later that, whatever the findings may be, if they are not in line with orthodox creed that they are false? How should I be expected to react to that? Is it surprising that devotees who have been told that the jiva falls from Goloka by their own spiritual master have difficulty when we come along and tell them it is not true?
Bhrigu - September 26, 2006 4:35 pm
Vinode Vani Prabhu, I also have difficulties understanding the concept of "preaching tactics", especially if it entails preachers saying things that they do not themselves believe in order to get people aboard. For example, let's suppose that Swami's line on women and Krishna consciousness is a only a preaching tactic, something he actually doesn't personally believe in. At what point could he reveal that women really *are* dumber than men? To me, differences between acharyas can be more easily explained simply as differences in opinion. When it comes to things that aren't details but siddhanta (e.g. the fall issue) it is of course a more difficult question.
By the way, a collegue recently told me about a book called Bange Samajikata that Srila Saraswati Thakur wrote as a young man, before taking the vow in Mayapur. He plans to translate the whole book. It is all about different religious groups in Bengal, most getting a fair share of criticism, but what I found especially interesting was that Saraswati Thakur apparenly follows the method of his father's Krishna-samhita in explaining the history of Indian religion. So far, I had thought that that particular presentation did not continue after Bhaktivinoda, but apparently it did.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 26, 2006 5:42 pm
Why should living beings care for a dead body? What biological reason could there be?
You can not follow your own reasoning.
You were saying "The fact that life can be explained through physical processes is difficult to refute."
It is refuted by the dead body for all the physical processes are there except that the soul or conciousness has left. So to say that physical processes can explain life are refuted, because they can not preform with out the souls concious interaction.
But to dimiss someone else's belief by saying that things are as they are whether we believe it or not is not an argument. A friend of mine who is a Christian once used the same argument to say that whether I believed the Bible or not, it was true. This is just a way of saying "I am right and you are wrong" without bothering to give me a reason to change my mind. I believe what I believe because I believe that I am right, and I have my reasons for believing this. Your argument that whatever Krishna says is true will not convince anyone who does not already agree with you.
No one is disputing anothers belief for they can believe what ever they want and it will not alter the truth, as it is. It does not matter who is right or who is wrong, it is as it is, and until the one who can not understand the truth comes to understand it by self realization there is no hope for them except through grace. We are not interested in convincing any one they must convince themselves by the truth as it is.
We only speak what Krsna speaks.
Swami - September 26, 2006 5:47 pm
In the case of science I believe that Eastern religion had no dificulty with science when first encountered, but later as it became more familiar with science and science developed, Eastern spiritual traditions found problems with it. Thus the shift in preaching, which has arguably shifted once again following a develompment of thought in both fields.
The same thing occured with Christianity. The third shift is underway with Intelligent Design (as unscinetific as it is), in as much as its advocates have given in considerably to science while still holding out.
Good points about preaching and siddhanta, Bhrigu and Vinode Vani. Personaly I make it a policy to preach the siddhanta in accordance with my convictions. I am not leading anyone on to get them on board. Still one cannot tell everyone everything at once, and thus one may simplfy here and there, which can later be misconstrued.
Incidentally most devotees do not know how to arrive at siddhanta in a classic sense. This involves consideration of the adhikarana (original point), samsaya (doubt), purvapaska (counter argument), and scriptural sangati (context) regarding any point. So one cannot necesarily cite just any text or guru vani and call it siddhanta.
As for how much science is right or wrong on say evolution, as far as I have taken the time to understand it, I think it is both right and wrong. I admit that I have not take much time to study it.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 26, 2006 5:57 pm
I'm not sure what Krishna's statement that "Knowledge and forgetfulness comes from Me" has to do with my chemical imbalance. Neither the doctor who prescribed the medication for me nor manufacturers of the drug were devotees to my knowledge, and yet they were able to help me. Many scientists are atheists: this does not make everything that they say false.
The point I was trying to make is that Krsna is in control and the shastra states that demigods control even our bowel movements and internal functioning ie "not hair on your head moves with out My knowledge". Every one is under His control even the scientist and doctors that helped you find the proper food that helped you ie the medicines that straigtened out your imbalances.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 26, 2006 6:07 pm
I suppose one difficulty I have is the idea that we can simply say whatever we want for preaching purposes. One preacher will say evolution is true, one will say it is not. Which is it?
It may be that both are somewhat true as explained by His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta Swami in diferent circumstances. We believe in acintybedabeda simultaniously one and different.
Evolution of the soul through the speices is a fact stated in the Bhagavatam but there is no evidence that a frog became a dog by evolution and adaption happens such as bonsi growing of things.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 26, 2006 11:00 pm
You can not follow your own reasoning.
You were saying "The fact that life can be explained through physical processes is difficult to refute."
It is refuted by the dead body for all the physical processes are there except that the soul or conciousness has left. So to say that physical processes can explain life are refuted, because they can not preform with out the souls concious interaction.
No one is disputing anothers belief for they can believe what ever they want and it will not alter the truth, as it is. It does not matter who is right or who is wrong, it is as it is, and until the one who can not understand the truth comes to understand it by self realization there is no hope for them except through grace. We are not interested in convincing any one they must convince themselves by the truth as it is.
We only speak what Krsna speaks.
I think it is you who cannot follow my reasoning. My reasoning is that living beings not caring for a dead body does not prove the existence of the soul. We can only learn of the soul through revalation of divine knowledge. When a body has died, all of the physical processes are not there: the brain has stopped functioning, the circulatory system and beathing have stopped. Nobody denies that consciousness exists; the question is whether consciousness continues to exist after the body has expired. People have many theories of consciousness; some believe that it exists only while the body is alive, others that it continues to exist after the death of the body. You and I both agree on the truth of the latter, so I think I would formulate our difference as follows: you believe that the body stops functioning because the soul has left; I believe that the soul leaves the body because the body has stopped functioning. I wonder if anyone else would like to comment on that?.....
Obviously what one believes does not change the truth; I don't understand why you believe this is what I am saying. What I keep saying is that if you want to convince somebody of something that they don't currently believe, you will have to find some reasoning to get them to change their opinion, not just tell them that they are wrong.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 26, 2006 11:22 pm
you believe that the body stops functioning because the soul has left; I believe that the soul leaves the body because the body has stopped functioning.
I remember I was reading in SB 1.9.29 that some rishis could leave their body at their will, so both ways are possible:
While Bhismadeva was describing occupational duties, the sun's course ran into the northern hemisphere. This period is desired by mystics who die at their will.
Vivek - September 27, 2006 12:01 am
It has been a good discussion. Although i am not the best person to answer everything in biology or physics but i guess i have been exposed to a lot of great scientists in georgia tech and in IIT bombay back in India to say something on this matter. Vinoda Vani prabhu's arguments for the physical processes explaining everything including emotions is oversimplification of facts. Even a lot of scientists will disagree with it, especially with renewed interest in the phenomenon of consciousness. I am trying to get the new book by Bhaktisvarupa damodar maharaja which compile the opinion of lot of scientists on consciousness and God. There is a scientist in UC berekeley, a nobel prize winner who believes in a personal God.
Science may have benefited you in overcoming your fear, but it is a very superficial treatment to say the least,as there is an inherent dependence on the drug for relief. I am trying to say on the external level you can say emotions are caused by chemical secretions, but why not believe that desire inherent in the soul causes emotions and then they cause chemical secretions. Or else even the experience of any spiritual bliss can be explained by just chemical secretions in the brain similar to what LSD induces. But the difference is when the soul realises brahma buta platform, the good chemicals released are not the cause for that state, in fact it is other way round, because of your elevated state and happiness the chemical secretions follow. You cannot deny consciousness even in matter, as advanced souls are seeing personalities even working behind matter. Then all of them must be wrong . There has to be direction in evolution too ultimately according to our theology, our else we go to nyaya, sankhya or vaisesikha.
I am myself trying to understand scientific theories and theri implications but they are not on as firm a ground as you have claimed they are vinodha vani prabhu. Even scientists themselves are on shaky ground, so if we go too overboard in believing everything what they say then we may err unneccessarily.
Please go through material in quantum mechanics which points towards consciousness instead of just looking toward one dimensional picture of random natural selection of darwin. There is a lot of dogma and conflict even in science as anybody going against existing theory is suppressed like einstein was. So we have to be careful in accepting scientific facts and proceed with caution in future.
Again this is not a personal attack, but you need to have a lot of scientific background to deal with this issue, it is not as simplistic as you presume vinodha vani prabhu.
I apologise if i have been rude in the email.
Please send in suggestions on my viewpoint.
Swami - September 27, 2006 1:05 am
you believe that the body stops functioning because the soul has left; I believe that the soul leaves the body because the body has stopped functioning. I wonder if anyone else would like to comment on that?.....
Nandatanuja has mentioned the exception. The norm is that the expiration of one's prarabhda karma is another way to describe what death is. Time to move on.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 27, 2006 1:44 am
It has been a good discussion. Although i am not the best person to answer everything in biology or physics but i guess i have been exposed to a lot of great scientists in georgia tech and in IIT bombay back in India to say something on this matter. Vinoda Vani prabhu's arguments for the physical processes explaining everything including emotions is oversimplification of facts. Even a lot of scientists will disagree with it, especially with renewed interest in the phenomenon of consciousness. I am trying to get the new book by Bhaktisvarupa damodar maharaja which compile the opinion of lot of scientists on consciousness and God. There is a scientist in UC berekeley, a nobel prize winner who believes in a personal God.
Science may have benefited you in overcoming your fear, but it is a very superficial treatment to say the least,as there is an inherent dependence on the drug for relief. I am trying to say on the external level you can say emotions are caused by chemical secretions, but why not believe that desire inherent in the soul causes emotions and then they cause chemical secretions. Or else even the experience of any spiritual bliss can be explained by just chemical secretions in the brain similar to what LSD induces. But the difference is when the soul realises brahma buta platform, the good chemicals released are not the cause for that state, in fact it is other way round, because of your elevated state and happiness the chemical secretions follow. You cannot deny consciousness even in matter, as advanced souls are seeing personalities even working behind matter. Then all of them must be wrong . There has to be direction in evolution too ultimately according to our theology, our else we go to nyaya, sankhya or vaisesikha.
I am myself trying to understand scientific theories and theri implications but they are not on as firm a ground as you have claimed they are vinodha vani prabhu. Even scientists themselves are on shaky ground, so if we go too overboard in believing everything what they say then we may err unneccessarily.
Please go through material in quantum mechanics which points towards consciousness instead of just looking toward one dimensional picture of random natural selection of darwin. There is a lot of dogma and conflict even in science as anybody going against existing theory is suppressed like einstein was. So we have to be careful in accepting scientific facts and proceed with caution in future.
Again this is not a personal attack, but you need to have a lot of scientific background to deal with this issue, it is not as simplistic as you presume vinodha vani prabhu.
I apologise if i have been rude in the email.
Please send in suggestions on my viewpoint.
Of course I don't consider your opinion to be a personal attack, but you are not in a position to comment on the extent of my knowledge of science since you do not know what that extent is. You speak as if you already assume you have more knowledge than I do, without necessarily knowing whether that is true. As far as biopyschology is concerned, of course there is much more to learn about the brain, but it is common knowledge that emotional responses are linked to chemical reactions in the brain. This is not debated within the scientific community. As far as this community is concerned, it could hardly be claimed that there is one monolithic belief system that holds it together; scientists may be atheists, agnostics, theists, and anywhere in between.
Regarding my medication, which from some reason Bijaya insists on refering to as food, regardless of the fact that is has no nutritional value (implying that the problem is not nutritional in nature), it has changed my life for the better. I expect that many who are a not in my situation will find this hard to understand, but believe me when I tell you that my mental illness is merely a result of my karma and the physical body into which I was born. As an example, when I was not taking the medication, I had a fear that gravity would give out and I would go flying into outer space. I have also been plagued by thoughts that all of my perceptions were illusions and that I as an individual did not exist. These are thoughts that my rational mind can easily overcome, but continued to haunt me nevertheless, regardless of my efforts. It hardly has anything to do with my desires, which more than anything have been to feel mentally well-balanced. So before you dismiss my use of medication as drug abuse, take a walk in my shoes. The medication does not change my soul; we know from the Bhagavad Gita that the soul cannot be affected by matter. It simply regulates the chemical processes in my brain, which helps me to control my emotions better.
As far as transcendental emotions go, of course these transcend matter; I have never questioned that in any of my post. All of my comments have been with regard to the position of condiitioned souls, which frankly includes the majority of souls in this world.
I am well acquainted with the ideas of quantum physics, as well as string theory and other various modern scientific theories. Why do devotees insist that somehow modern science is going to vindicate the truth of their beliefs? That is not what it is there for. The fact that the presence of the observer affects the experiment, or that the nature of certain energies can be perceived as either waves or particles, depending on how we decide to view them, does nothing to prove that consciousness exists apart from material processes. The first example shows that we as physical beings are linked via various types of physical energies to the phenomena that surrounds us; in other words, we don't live in a bubble. This is indeed an important discovery, as much of scientific research since the 17th century has been conducted under the belief that the researcher is an impartial witness. The second example simply attests to the limitations of our physical senses. We can't detect X-rays or gamma rays either, but this does not mean that they are some kind of spiritual energy. As far as science is concerned, the best science is that which attempts to find a material explanation for everything material; "God did it" is not an acceptable answer.
I don't believe that modern science has the answer to every question, and certainly not to the most important question of who we are and what our purpose is in this world, but to characterize the findings of Darwinism as somehow on shaky ground frankly betrays how little you are acquainted with the theory. Quantum physics stands on much shakier ground. Science is an ongoing debate, not a set of laws written in stone, but science is backed up by evidence, observation, and reliable prediction. One of the great strengths of scientific theories, ironically, is that they are able to be disproven; they are therefore testable. If we want to know whether what science says about this or that is true, we can find out for ourselves.
Your mention of Einstein is ironic, as you tout quantum physics as a great indicator of the presence of consciousness. Einstein remained a staunch adversary of quantum physics throughout his life, and spent the remainder of his life, after writing his hugely successful and widely accepted theories of general and special relativity, to trying to find a "theory of everything." While he probably ended up moving in the wrong direction, and was dismissed as a little off the wall rather than suppressed, his attitude that science can come up with a "theory of everything," at least of everything material, is what science is all about. Einstein hoped to find some kind of equation, possibly only a few lines long, that would explain the nature of energy in the universe.
I would hardly disagree with the statement that we must be careful about the statements of science; scientists themselves say this! This does not mean we should be skeptical to the point of superstitous dismissal. Science has a lot of great things to offer.
Again, your statement that "you need to have a lot of scientific background to deal with this issue" suggests that I do not, and as I said before you are not in a position to comment on this. I have enough to be able to speak intelligently about the issues, understand the important existing theories, and provide my own opinions, as do you. If you want to have a serious discussion, you should avoid such a condescending attitude. Furthermore, I would hardly characterize my description of science and the nature of reality as simplistic. All I am trying to assert is that it can be understood. Knowledge is possible, and to the extent that it is useful in the service of Krishna we should try to acquire it.
I remember I was reading in SB 1.9.29 that some rishis could leave their body at their will, so both ways are possible:
While Bhismadeva was describing occupational duties, the sun's course ran into the northern hemisphere. This period is desired by mystics who die at their will.
Yes does seem to be a clear example of souls leaving at their own will. In this case, I think it is safe to assume these are not ordinary conditioned souls.
Vivek - September 27, 2006 2:17 pm
rry vinodha vani prabhu for offending you. I never claimed that there is no truth in darwin's theory, I said that random nature of evolution cannot be proven at any point. I am aquainted with chemical evolution and then biological evolution as part of evolution but to describe it as completly random can be a exaggeration.
And yes i dont have much knowledge about science unlike you, so please forgive me. I may need to work more on it before i can comment more. Sorry for offending you.
And i didnt talk of your case being the case of drug abuse, I was saying that the treatment is helpful but not all states can be explained by chemical secretions like a state of brahman realisation for instance and you also agree on it . There is no point of contention between us.
Swami - September 27, 2006 2:43 pm
I am aquainted with chemical evolution and then biological evolution as part of evolution but to describe it as completly random can be a exaggeration.
Can anyone briefly and simply explain how science understands chemical evolution leads to biological evolution—how a bilogical entity evolves from chemicals?
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 27, 2006 3:52 pm
Can anyone briefly and simply explain how science understands chemical evolution leads to biological evolution—how a bilogical entity evolves from chemicals?
That's a great question, and currently a point of contention amongst scientists, who have various theories about it. Geneticists have known for quite some time, of course, that DNA is a sequence of four types of nucleotides, which are a kind of code for building the various proteins that make up biological entities. So at this level chemistry determines biology. It is not quite that simple of course, since the environment plays an important role in the ultimate phenotype, or "realization," if you will, of the genotype (the DNA code). The main point of contention amongst scientists is how this system of DNA evolved. One theory involves the attachment of nucleotides to reproducing molecules such as clay crystals. At this point, there is no concensus among scientists on how the system of DNA evolved, so it remains a matter of speculation. The belief is it must have happened somehow, and this "somehow" should be theoretically reproducible given the right conditions. This point, though, has been the main point of contention between evolutionists and non-evolutionists, who say that some kind of divine intervention must have been necessary to get the ball rolling, so to speak. I personally believe that, given time and the right conditions, life happens--there is no need for God to swoop down and put it here. Again, I should reiterate, since I think this may have been a point of confusion in some of my previous posts, that I don't believe this disproves the existence of God. I just think that he just lets the universe do its thing, for the most part.
Vivek - September 27, 2006 4:31 pm
Thanks for your reply, vinodha vani prabhu. Yes it is exactly what information I have on this issue, but
isn't saying that ultimately God's doesnt have anything to do with the universe, contradicting the fact that krsna impregnates the material nature with living entities ultimately although it is sambhu which is doing
it as given in brahma samhita. Maybe that line where material nature is running randomly is more in tune with sankhya philosophy or nyaya to some extent(which believes that atom runs the show though nyaya does believe in existence of God)
Anyway i am no authority on this issue, and my knowledge is shallow. So i am just try to inquire, i am not position to assert anything and so i am trying to learn
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 27, 2006 5:31 pm
Thanks for your reply, vinodha vani prabhu. Yes it is exactly what information I have on this issue, but
isn't saying that ultimately God's doesnt have anything to do with the universe, contradicting the fact that krsna impregnates the material nature with living entities ultimately although it is sambhu which is doing
it as given in brahma samhita. Maybe that line where material nature is running randomly is more in tune with sankhya philosophy or nyaya to some extent(which believes that atom runs the show though nyaya does believe in existence of God)
Anyway i am no authority on this issue, and my knowledge is shallow. So i am just try to inquire, i am not position to assert anything and so i am trying to learn
Yes, I agree that as far as we are concerned it is necessary to posit some kind of connection between God and the material nature, especially on the matter of consciousness. Science is unable to comment on anything that is not material, and I think that is exactly what we are talking about when we say that living beings are "impregnated" in material nature: that behind the workings of this material world, there are units of (eternal) consciousness that have entered into matter and have identified themselves with it.
As far as the randomness in evolution and material nature more generally, I think it is important to remember that it is not complete randomness. I think what I mean when I say that God kind of lets the universe do its thing is this: the conditions, or at least the potential, for life, are there; it is simply a matter of time before it happens. While evolution does involve certain things that appear random, all of these things operate within fairly rigid physical laws, i.e. the laws of chemistry, physics, etc. Furthermore, from a devotional point of view, there is no such thing as randomness, for nothing happens without the will of Krishna. So where an atheist may look at the evolution from primate to human and see a mere chance mutation, we will see opportunity; opportunity, given our present capabilities, to find our true purpose in life: service to Krishna.
Vivek, I apologize if I seemed upset in my previous post. My problem is, I like a good argument every now and then. I don't want to give the impression that I think I know anything, so I appreciate your bringing doubts and arguments to me. I hope that, if someone shows me a better way thinking, that I will be humble enough to accept it. I know that you are highly educated, so don't hesitate to contradict me if you feel I am wrong. I won't take it personally! 
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 28, 2006 7:02 am
I think it is you who cannot follow my reasoning. My reasoning is that living beings not caring for a dead body does not prove the existence of the soul. We can only learn of the soul through revalation of divine knowledge. When a body has died, all of the physical processes are not there: the brain has stopped functioning, the circulatory system and beathing have stopped. Nobody denies that consciousness exists; the question is whether consciousness continues to exist after the body has expired. People have many theories of consciousness; some believe that it exists only while the body is alive, others that it continues to exist after the death of the body. You and I both agree on the truth of the latter, so I think I would formulate our difference as follows: you believe that the body stops functioning because the soul has left; I believe that the soul leaves the body because the body has stopped functioning. I wonder if anyone else would like to comment on that?.....
Obviously what one believes does not change the truth; I don't understand why you believe this is what I am saying. What I keep saying is that if you want to convince somebody of something that they don't currently believe, you will have to find some reasoning to get them to change their opinion, not just tell them that they are wrong.
It sure does prove that the soul exist because if the soul were still there then the body would still be functioning.. The soul has moved on.
Krnsa tell us that the conciousness exits after the body expires so it does, as it is.
I do not know how you can conclude what I believe, but the proof is in the pudding, when the soul leaves the process of the bcdy functioning has no concious direction to continue and some souls have the ablitiy to leave at will ie Bishma.
Once again you can not convince anybody of anything they must convince themselves. A mans opinion changed against his will is of the same opinion still.
We are not interested in who is right or wrong, but in what Krsna says.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 28, 2006 7:18 am
Can anyone briefly and simply explain how science understands chemical evolution leads to biological evolution—how a bilogical entity evolves from chemicals?
The experiment was done in an enclosed flask filled with inert material substances with an electrode inside. The scientist turned on the electicity (like a lighting bolt inside the flask) some amino acids were formed.
They concluded that the big bang created the amino acids and we all evolved from it. Clearly ignoring the scientist who turned on the electricty and or God who caused the big bang.
We say Mahavishnu creates and destroys with each breath multiple universes.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 28, 2006 8:19 am
The experiment was done in an enclosed flask filled with inert material substances with an electrode inside. The scientist turned on the electicity (like a lighting bolt inside the flask) some amino acids were formed.
They concluded that the big bang created the amino acids and we all evolved from it. Clearly ignoring the scientist who turned on the electricty and or God who caused the big bang.
We say Mahavishnu creates and destroys with each breath multiple universes.
Guru Maharaja has asked that we move on from this debate, which is getting nowhere, so I suggest that we do. I think it is important to remember that you and I don't really disagree on the important issues. Our understanding of relative issues, like the importance (or lack thereof) of science, and the relative truths that it claims, is at odds to some extent, but I don't think either of our positions present a lack of faith or sincerity. The important thing is that we get on with our service.
Bhrigu - September 28, 2006 10:37 am
In this connection, the Bhagavata explanation of creation or "emission/ evolution" (sarga) may be worthwhile repeating. The Bhagavata divides the whole process of creation into two parts: 1) sarga or primary creation, and 2) visarga, the secondary creation by Brahma. The first goes like this, with reference to the specific verses of the third skandha:
3.5.24 Lord alone
3.5.25 He has maya, power
3.5.26 By the influence of time, the Purusa infuses his power into maya
3.5.27 By the influence of time, the Mahat or Buddhi appears, the Lord again infuses power
3.5.29 Mahat transforms into ego divided into three gunas
3.5.30 Ego and sattva transforms into manas --> the gods i.e. the 5 knowledge-gathering senses
3.5.31 Ego and rajas --> the 5 active senses
3.5.32 Ego and tamas –> the 5 subtle elements –> space
3.5.33 Glance of Purusa, maya & time and space + subtle element of touch –> air
3.5.34 Air + sky + subtle element of form --> fire
3.5.35 Glance of Purusa, fire, air & maya & time + subtle element of taste --> water
3.5.36 Glance of Purusa, fire, water & maya & time + subtle element of smell --> earth
Elsewhere (3.6.2), time is called an energy of the Lord, so we begin with the Lord and his maya and time energies. Through these, the Lord makes things happen, and then the elements gradually evolve in the standard samkhya way, from subtle to gross. It is noteworthy that in the Bhagavata version, the Lord personally intervenes no less than four times after starting off everything, and this is only the beginning -- the next chapter of the third skandha explains how the Lord again has to enter all these 23 elements to make sure the evolution continues.
Swami - September 28, 2006 12:40 pm
A number of Hindu scholars have tried to show that on both rational and experimental grounds there are a number of core truths underlying the Bhagavata/Sankhya docritne of evolution that do not seriously conflict with modern science and Darwinaian evolution. They claim that the differences perceived are due to the two distinct methods of approach, language, etc. This can also be seen in Western philosophy as well wherein, for example, Taylor's elaborate commentary on Plato's cosmology found in Timaeus discovers a good number of the very complex notions of Whitehead.
In his Vaisnava Vednata Mahanamabrata writes the following about Sri Jiva Goswami's metaphysical worldview while comenting on the above line of thought:
"I feel that if Sri Jiva were alive today he would not hesitate to accept all that modern science has to offer us and still maintain all the essentials of his metaphysical system. And in making that adjustment Sri Jiva, I believe, would not have to take a jump anywhere as big as a medieval theologian of Europe would have to do in order to be at home with Darwin or Whitehead. . . Wahtever be the nature of the world order presented by the 20th century scientists, Sri Jiva would find very little difficulty to admit it and still uphold the doctrine that the power underlying the cosmic order is the secondary power [maya-sakti] of the Absolute Consciousness. The laws of nature he would advocate are the habit patterns of the cosmic Person, and as such, when considered apart form their source, are, like our habit patterns, unconscious (jada) and utterly powerless to bring forth the creation. Sri Jiva would say nature, being unconscious, lacks spontaneity and cannot therefore evolve without the joyful presence of the Supreme Personality of the God-head."
These are interesting points that also bring us almost full circle: Reason does not mandate that the mythology/cosmology of the Greeks must be accepted as equally profound as that of the Bhagavata. Still there is no doubt universal truth in both.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 28, 2006 4:02 pm
A number of Hindu scholars have tried to show that on both rational and experimental grounds there are a number of core truths underlying the Bhagavata/Sankhya docritne of evolution that do not seriously conflict with modern science and Darwinaian evolution. They claim that the differences perceived are due to the two distinct methods of approach, language, etc. This can also be seen in Western philosophy as well wherein, for example, Taylor's elaborate commentary on Plato's cosmology found in Timaeus discovers a good number of the very complex notions of Whitehead.
In his Vaisnava Vednata Mahanamabrata writes the following about Sri Jiva Goswami's metaphysical worldview while comenting on the above line of thought:
"I feel that if Sri Jiva were alive today he would not hesitate to accept all that modern science has to offer us and still maintain all the essentials of his metaphysical system. And in making that adjustment Sri Jiva, I believe, would not have to take a jump anywhere as big as a medieval theologian of Europe would have to do in order to be at home with Darwin or Whitehead. . . Wahtever be the nature of the world order presented by the 20th century scientists, Sri Jiva would find very little difficulty to admit it and still uphold the doctrine that the power underlying the cosmic order is the secondary power [maya-sakti] of the Absolute Consciousness. The laws of nature he would advocate are the habit patterns of the cosmic Person, and as such, when considered apart form their source, are, like our habit patterns, unconscious (jada) and utterly powerless to bring forth the creation. Sri Jiva would say nature, being unconscious, lacks spontaneity and cannot therefore evolve without the joyful presence of the Supreme Personality of the God-head."
These are interesting points that also bring us almost full circle: Reason does not mandate that the mythology/cosmology of the Greeks must be accepted as equally profound as that of the Bhagavata. Still there is no doubt universal truth in both.
Yes simultainioulsy one and different but both need the conciousness of a jiva to bring forth action and the first source is Krsna as Bhrigu has shown. Nothing can happen with out it (conciousness) and because we have free will all our troubles begin when not in sink with Krsna conciousness. Nama sankritan brings us in touch with this and helps us to rectify our position through grace.
Thank you Gurudeva.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 28, 2006 5:01 pm
In this connection, the Bhagavata explanation of creation or "emission/ evolution" (sarga) may be worthwhile repeating. The Bhagavata divides the whole process of creation into two parts: 1) sarga or primary creation, and 2) visarga, the secondary creation by Brahma. The first goes like this, with reference to the specific verses of the third skandha:
3.5.24 Lord alone
3.5.25 He has maya, power
3.5.26 By the influence of time, the Purusa infuses his power into maya
3.5.27 By the influence of time, the Mahat or Buddhi appears, the Lord again infuses power
3.5.29 Mahat transforms into ego divided into three gunas
3.5.30 Ego and sattva transforms into manas --> the gods i.e. the 5 knowledge-gathering senses
3.5.31 Ego and rajas --> the 5 active senses
3.5.32 Ego and tamas –> the 5 subtle elements –> space
3.5.33 Glance of Purusa, maya & time and space + subtle element of touch –> air
3.5.34 Air + sky + subtle element of form --> fire
3.5.35 Glance of Purusa, fire, air & maya & time + subtle element of taste --> water
3.5.36 Glance of Purusa, fire, water & maya & time + subtle element of smell --> earth
Elsewhere (3.6.2), time is called an energy of the Lord, so we begin with the Lord and his maya and time energies. Through these, the Lord makes things happen, and then the elements gradually evolve in the standard samkhya way, from subtle to gross. It is noteworthy that in the Bhagavata version, the Lord personally intervenes no less than four times after starting off everything, and this is only the beginning -- the next chapter of the third skandha explains how the Lord again has to enter all these 23 elements to make sure the evolution continues.
Since Brighu and Guru Maharaja have put us back on track here, I will try to pick up on their direction. This list here raises several questions/comments. Perhaps they will seem pedantic, but I just want to try to understand.
1. First the Lord is said to be alone, and then his maya is mentioned. Is maya an eternally existing energy of the Lord, or does he in a sense "create" it when he creates the material world? In other words can the Lord said to be alone without his maya shakti, or is it an integral part of his being? (I avoid the use of the word "nondifferent," which is not found in the English dictionary--but since it is part of the traditional vocabulary in our lineage, I certainly don't object to its usage.)
2. I have difficulty understanding "by the influence of time, the Purusa infuses his power into maya;" what does time influence? Surely not the Lord, who would be beyond the influence of time. As we know from Gita, "Time I am, destroyer of all the worlds." So the Lord is time. So the same question as the previous arises as to the nature of time: is it eternally existing with the Lord, or is it also "created?" Since the influence of time of time does not affect the Lord the only other possible object of this verse could be maya. So it would seem that the first operation after the appearance of the maya shakti is the addition of time. The result of this interaction between maya and time is the appearance of the mahat or buddhi (I admit I don't know what this is). The statement "the Lord again infuses power" is ambiguous to me: what is the result of this infusion--the division of the mahat into the three gunas?
(By the way, possibly another topic for discussion: since Einstein, time and the speed of light have been considered integrally linked. It is theorized that for objects moving at the speed of light, time stands still. Objects that would move faster than the speed of light are considered impossible, since they would be required to have infinite mass; however, such impossible objects would actually move backward in time. Thus time is relative (thus Einstein's "Theory of Relativity") to the speed at which one moves. Einstein showed this through several thought experiments, and it has been substantiated in several experiments.)
3. The next step seems to be the division of the mahat into the three gunas and their corresponding senses or elements. The higher gunas, rajas and sattvas, seem to be more connected to the ego, since their corresponding manifestations are the ego's ability to sense. The tama guna is more connected to matter itself, since its manifestations are the five subtle elements: sound, touch, form, taste, and smell. The influence of tama guna then results in the creation of space, usually considered the most subtle gross element.
(Again, bringing up Einstein: scientists often refer to the "space-time" continuum. Newtonian physics conceives of space and time as two separate elements, while Einsteinian physics consider the two to be inextricably linked--recall that time is measured relative to the speed of light, which is called "speed" precisely because of its movement through space.)
4. After the creation of space, the influence of the purusa appears to be required again for the creation of the remaining gross elements; each glance creates a further element. It is interesting to note the use of the word glance here: he doesn't even lift a finger! He has to keep looking back, though, because apparently the gross elements do not manifest out of each other without his help. (Science would probably dispute that.)
5. From this, if we consider the sidelong glances from the purusa as one action, it seems that the Lord intervenes three times. First, to infuse maya with time, creating the mahat; second, the infuse the mahat with ego, thereby creating the senses, the subtle elements, and space; third, glancing at space to fill it with material elements. So the continuum might look like this:
Lord->maya->time->mahat->ego->gunas->knowledge-gathering senses->active senses->subtle elements->space->air->fire->water->earth.
6. Given this, an overall question is: why is the influence of the Lord required in some places and not others. Why does ego divide by itself into the gunas, the senses, and space, while the Lord is required to infuse material nature with mahat, ego, and elements? There is no obvious reason that I can think of.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 28, 2006 5:29 pm
Sorry Brighu, I didn't notice the last paragraph of your post, which answered some of the questions in mine. Anyone who would like to comment on any of the other remaining unanswered questioned is welcome to though.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 28, 2006 6:58 pm
The lords influence is always there but he still gives us our free will, thus problems may develop.
Swami - September 28, 2006 7:08 pm
Yes simultainioulsy one and different
Huh?
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 28, 2006 8:07 pm
Huh?
acintyabedabed "nature, being unconscious, lacks spontaneity and cannot therefore evolve without the joyful presence of the Supreme Personality of the God-head"
Swami - September 28, 2006 9:31 pm
acintyabedabed "nature, being unconscious, lacks spontaneity and cannot therefore evolve without the joyful presence of the Supreme Personality of the God-head"
This fact does not illustrate acintya bhedabheda. All thiestic schools of Vedanta aknowledge this, be they visistadvaitins, dvaitins, etc. We should be careful not to blur terms like this. Acintyabhedabheda is one that is widely abused.
Swami - September 28, 2006 11:03 pm
Since Brighu and Guru Maharaja have put us back on track here, I will try to pick up on their direction. This list here raises several questions/comments. Perhaps they will seem pedantic, but I just want to try to understand.
1. First the Lord is said to be alone, and then his maya is mentioned. Is maya an eternally existing energy of the Lord, or does he in a sense "create" it when he creates the material world? In other words can the Lord said to be alone without his maya shakti, or is it an integral part of his being? (I avoid the use of the word "nondifferent," which is not found in the English dictionary--but since it is part of the traditional vocabulary in our lineage, I certainly don't object to its usage.)
2. I have difficulty understanding "by the influence of time, the Purusa infuses his power into maya;" what does time influence? Surely not the Lord, who would be beyond the influence of time. As we know from Gita, "Time I am, destroyer of all the worlds." So the Lord is time. So the same question as the previous arises as to the nature of time: is it eternally existing with the Lord, or is it also "created?" Since the influence of time of time does not affect the Lord the only other possible object of this verse could be maya. So it would seem that the first operation after the appearance of the maya shakti is the addition of time. The result of this interaction between maya and time is the appearance of the mahat or buddhi (I admit I don't know what this is). The statement "the Lord again infuses power" is ambiguous to me: what is the result of this infusion--the division of the mahat into the three gunas?
(By the way, possibly another topic for discussion: since Einstein, time and the speed of light have been considered integrally linked. It is theorized that for objects moving at the speed of light, time stands still. Objects that would move faster than the speed of light are considered impossible, since they would be required to have infinite mass; however, such impossible objects would actually move backward in time. Thus time is relative (thus Einstein's "Theory of Relativity") to the speed at which one moves. Einstein showed this through several thought experiments, and it has been substantiated in several experiments.)
3. The next step seems to be the division of the mahat into the three gunas and their corresponding senses or elements. The higher gunas, rajas and sattvas, seem to be more connected to the ego, since their corresponding manifestations are the ego's ability to sense. The tama guna is more connected to matter itself, since its manifestations are the five subtle elements: sound, touch, form, taste, and smell. The influence of tama guna then results in the creation of space, usually considered the most subtle gross element.
(Again, bringing up Einstein: scientists often refer to the "space-time" continuum. Newtonian physics conceives of space and time as two separate elements, while Einsteinian physics consider the two to be inextricably linked--recall that time is measured relative to the speed of light, which is called "speed" precisely because of its movement through space.)
4. After the creation of space, the influence of the purusa appears to be required again for the creation of the remaining gross elements; each glance creates a further element. It is interesting to note the use of the word glance here: he doesn't even lift a finger! He has to keep looking back, though, because apparently the gross elements do not manifest out of each other without his help. (Science would probably dispute that.)
5. From this, if we consider the sidelong glances from the purusa as one action, it seems that the Lord intervenes three times. First, to infuse maya with time, creating the mahat; second, the infuse the mahat with ego, thereby creating the senses, the subtle elements, and space; third, glancing at space to fill it with material elements. So the continuum might look like this:
Lord->maya->time->mahat->ego->gunas->knowledge-gathering senses->active senses->subtle elements->space->air->fire->water->earth.
6. Given this, an overall question is: why is the influence of the Lord required in some places and not others. Why does ego divide by itself into the gunas, the senses, and space, while the Lord is required to infuse material nature with mahat, ego, and elements? There is no obvious reason that I can think of.
Suggested reading mateiral:
Pain, Sex and Time
by Gerald Heard
This book was first published in 1939. It was written by Gerald Heard, a then well-known British polymath and science commentator for the BBC. In later years he was a regular lecturer at the Vedanta Society of Southern California.
What's noteworthy about this book is that it influenced a generation of leading thinkers from the scientific worldview to the perspective of the mystic. The highly respected Huston Smith endorsed the book and wrote the foreword to the current edition. About it he said:
"Overnight, the book converted me from the scientific worldview to the vaster world of the mystics."
I have not read it but I would like to have a copy in my library.
Radhanama Dasa - September 28, 2006 11:26 pm
I have not read it but I would like to have a copy in my library.
Guru Maharaja I will send a copy out to you tomorrow.
Swami - September 29, 2006 1:13 am
Guru Maharaja I will send a copy out to you tomorrow.
Radhanam, you don't say much, but actions are said to speak louder than words.
It might be interesting to choose books like this one and then discuss them on Tattva-viveka. Not that they would have to be only about science. They could be on any contemporary issue. Any suggestions? Comments?
Babhru Das - September 29, 2006 2:12 am
This fact does not illustrate acintya bhedabheda. All thiestic schools of Vedanta aknowledge this, be they visistadvaitins, dvaitins, etc. We should be careful not to blur terms like this. Acintyabhedabheda is one that is widely abused.
This term, and rasabhasa as well.
Madangopal - September 29, 2006 3:04 am
It might be interesting to choose books like this one and then discuss them on Tattva-viveka. Not that they would have to be only about science. They could be on any contemporary issue. Any suggestions? Comments?
I would really like this, though I don't have any reading time outside of school work right now. I'm always interested in seeing how devotees who have moved beyond aversion to "mundane" authors interpret and gain value from literature. There are a lot of books I'd like to read when I get out of school!!
I am co-leading a therapy/skills group called DBT - Dialectical Behavioral Therapy. While learning more about it I have discovered that the woman who designed it was influenced a lot by zen teachings. We teach a lot about mindfulness and its value in gaining control of emotions. I'm reading The Miracle of Mindfulness by Thich Nhat Hanh. Mindfulness is something that I think has a lot of value for some devotees as they have not learned to be present in their spiritual practice. I think of it as what Prabhupada meant when he said "first be conscious, then Krsna conscious." Anybody read that book? Anyway, I give a lot of sankhya analogies from Gita about the mind and the group members like that a lot. The mind is like the ocean, constantly being filled but always still...
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 29, 2006 4:04 am
Radhanam, you don't say much, but actions are said to speak louder than words.
It might be interesting to choose books like this one and then discuss them on Tattva-viveka. Not that they would have to be only about science. They could be on any contemporary issue. Any suggestions? Comments?
Great idea. Most of the crazy ideas I go on about are inspired by something or other I've read. I also strongly agree with Madangopal that we should not be afraid to explore the ideas of various thinkers, even those we have differences with. In fact some of my favorite authors are those I disagree with; for example, Daniel Dennett, who has written about consciousness and evolution in various publications. I will look for a copy of the book you mentioned as well. Frankly I think it is our business to be able to speak intelligently about philosophy, science, art, the humanities--you name it. Few things will garner respect for devotees more than the ability to engage in intelligent discourse.
Swami - September 29, 2006 2:48 pm
Frankly I think it is our business to be able to speak intelligently about philosophy, science, art, the humanities--you name it. Few things will garner respect for devotees more than the ability to engage in intelligent discourse.
Yes, most certainly. But let me remind everyone that this requires that one be acquainted with Gaudiya siddhanta as much or more than one is with other subjects. This also speaks to the fact that well educated persons are best suited to serve in the capacity of front line preachers.
A few related words from Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
"Among the chief ornaments of a God-conscious way of life are material science, culture, and ethics. And when, along with these features, religious morality matures into devotional life, all one's desires are satisfied.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 29, 2006 8:17 pm
This fact does not illustrate acintya bhedabheda. All thiestic schools of Vedanta aknowledge this, be they visistadvaitins, dvaitins, etc. We should be careful not to blur terms like this. Acintyabhedabheda is one that is widely abused.
Sorry for the abuse and confusion. I thought the topic was the material inhert matter and its interaction with conciousness and the manifistations from matter, Darwinist or Big Bangist claiming we evolved from it and Creationist understanding that there is a creator behind it. Krsna being the creator of both matter and spirit is in matter, but aloofed, there but not there at the same time.
mayä tatam idaà sarvaà
jagad avyakta-mürtinä
mat-sthäni sarva-bhütäni
na cähaà teñv avasthitaù
“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.”
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 29, 2006 8:45 pm
6. Given this, an overall question is: why is the influence of the Lord required in some places and not others. Why does ego divide by itself into the gunas, the senses, and space, while the Lord is required to infuse material nature with mahat, ego, and elements? There is no obvious reason that I can think of.
Räja - Vidyä: The King of Knowledge has a lot of answers to your questions.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 30, 2006 12:52 am
"Among the chief ornaments of a God-conscious way of life are material science, culture, and ethics. And when, along with these features, religious morality matures into devotional life, all one's desires are satisfied."
I find this to be a really inspiring quote. Where is it from?
As I was reading today, it occurred to me that science and philosophy have more in common than we often think. In the 17th and 18th centuries, there was not the distinction that we perceive today; science was referred to as "natural philosophy," and all the important philosophers of the time were also interested in scientific experimentation. Guru Maharaja, you mentioned Whitehead in a recent post; I learned today that his brand of "process philosophy" has had some effect in modern psychology. From what I gathered, the approach is to view society as a kind of process, and mental health is achieved by attaining a kind of balance or equilibrium within this process. (Others may be able to speak further on this topic, as I was just acquainted with it today.) The lesson to be learned from this is that our philosophical attitudes affect how we do science: what our methods are, what our interests are, and what our goals are. All great societies in human history have made scientific advances of one sort or another: India, Rome, Persia, and Europe. If we look to create an intelligent, spiritual society, science will be an intergral part of that, as Bhaktivinode Thakura pointed out.
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 30, 2006 12:56 am
This discussion has gone in quite a few different directions but I thought I would add just a few words regarding evolution and life from chemicals. My training is in biochemistry and cell biology. The crux of the issue regarding evolution and how it relates to, or can be accomodated in a theisitc world view, is life and what is the definition of life. For the theist - life is spirit. For the empiricist, or reductionist, or whatever terminology fits most appropriately to those with a materialistic/atheistic world view, life is merely a combination of chemicals.
Here are some definitions of life from the Merrian Webster dictionary:
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>
3 : BIOGRAPHY 1
4 : spiritual existence transcending physical death
5 a : the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life> c : the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life> d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life
6 : a way or manner of living
7 : LIVELIHOOD
8 : a vital or living being; specifically : PERSON <many lives were lost in the disaster>
9 : an animating and shaping force or principle
10 : SPIRIT, ANIMATION <saw no life in her dancing>
11 : the form or pattern of something existing in reality <painted from life>
12 : the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something <the expected life of the batteries>
13 : the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) -- compare HALF-LIFE
14 : a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being
15 : living beings (as of a particular kind or environment) <forest life>
16 a : human activities b : animate activity and movement <stirrings of life> c : the activities of a given sphere, area, or time <the political life of the country>
17 : one providing interest and vigor <life of the party>
18 : an opportunity for continued viability <gave the patient a new life>
19 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b
20 : something resembling animate life <a grant saved the project's life>
It appears that the definitions are both theistic and atheistic - so not much help there other than to illustrate the obvious - there are differing opinions as to what exactly constitutes life.
For a theist to accomodate evolution as it is most widely accepted today into their world view requires either a) positing divine intervention at the point where matter becomes animated (or most commonly in biological circles 1 c above or something very closely resembling it) or, :Big Grin: somehow allowing for evolution of life without spirit and positing that the spirit rides along in such an 'live' vehicle. Either way there needs to be a mode of entry of spirit into the body. Of course we also know that the rishis have seen life everywhere in everything.
The experiment that Vijay Kumara was referring to was an early experiment meant to ascertain whether or not simple chemicals would form into more complex chemicals given the proper environment. Indeed a variety of complex chemicals can be made in such an experiment and some amino acids were produced in this early experiment. I can dig up the details of that experiment if there is interest. Of course there has been quite of bit of experiementation and development in the this field since that early experiment. When I was in college back in the late 80's the most interesting work in that field had to do with RNA. RNA can serve as a template for making DNA so positing the first gentic material to be RNA is not outlandish.
At any rate, at this point there are still a lot of unknowns regarding evolution of life from chemicals and the mechanisms involved in organizing the chemicals into self-replicating entities. I'm not particularly interested in this field of study so I haven't kept current with the research in the field.
I like Sridhara Maharaja's explantion of evolution - that matter evolves from spirit - that is obviously what the S.B. quotes that Brighu provided indicate as well.
If a world view cannot accomodate scientific facts then it is definitely in need of revision. There is enough scientific evidence to prove that evolution of species does indeed occur. I am not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence of life being generated from chemicals. If, or when, that evidence comes to light we will have to accomodate that as well. Until then, it is not outlandish or backward to question the conclusions drawn from the fossil record, or relational trees based on genetic similarity or any other data that is used to show evolutionary trees. There are a lot of unknowns and any honest person working in the field of evolutionary biology will readily admit that. Though most of them are of the opinion that the basic theory is correct and that only minor adjustments will be made over time as the mechanisms are more fully uncovered.
Bijaya Kumara Das - September 30, 2006 2:09 am
I like Sridhara Maharaja's explantion of evolution - that matter evolves from spirit - that is obviously what the S.B. quotes that Brighu provided indicate as well.
If a world view cannot accomodate scientific facts then it is definitely in need of revision. There is enough scientific evidence to prove that evolution of species does indeed occur. I am not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence of life being generated from chemicals.
It has been proven the chemicals come from life in many experiments with seeds. They take the chemical composition of the seed with water and weight them. After the seed germinates there is a variety of many increased amounts of and new chemicals and the weight has increased.
Please sight an example of a species evolving into another. I have never seen or heard any evidence of this other than a butter fly.
Swami - September 30, 2006 2:34 am
I find this to be a really inspiring quote. Where is it from?
It is from the second half of the first chapter of the Thakura's Sri Caitanaya Siksamrtam.
As I was reading today, it occurred to me that science and philosophy have more in common than we often think. In the 17th and 18th centuries, there was not the distinction that we perceive today; science was referred to as "natural philosophy," and all the important philosophers of the time were also interested in scientific experimentation.
I wanted to make this point in relation to ancient India. However, it is perhaps important to understand this point mostly becasue today science and philosophy are considered entirely different fields. This makes it difficult to compare the descriptions of the natural world found in the Bhagavata with those discussed in modern science. Furthermore, given the philosophy of the Bagavata, the language it speaks to us in is poetic, not mathematical. While it does speak of measurements and such in places (as with time calculated in relation to atomic particles), such claculations were not arrived at with the help of percise instuments.
I will try to find time :Big Grin: to write something on time 
later. Busy here with the gardens, cows, and temple construction—and going to Evolution Yoga Center tomorrow to speak on "The realm of ritual."
If we look to create an intelligent, spiritual society, science will be an intergral part of that, as Bhaktivinode Thakura pointed out.
Yes, what would we do with out Bhaktivinoda Thakura?
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 30, 2006 3:28 am
Please sight an example of a species evolving into another. I have never seen or heard any evidence of this other than a butter fly.
Probably the best examples of the ones that Darwin found on the Galopogus islands which led him to posit his theory of evolution. The examples he cited were of turtles and some bird species I believe.
The problem with demonstrating speciation experimentally is that it is a very long process. In the laboratory micro organisms can be exposed to mutagens and 'forced' to 'evolve' at a higher rate than what is observed in the natural environment. Clear differences in genetic traits develop rather quickly in such types of experiements. Natural selection can be demonstrated rather quickly by presenting a colony of micro organisms with 'selective pressure'. For instance - a colony of billions of individuals can be subjected to antibiotics and from that colony, only those with the ability to 'survive' (there may be many different mechanisms for survival) will live. They, in turn, will have off spring that have that same genetic trait.
This rapid 'evolution' is being taken advantage of in many novel ways. As an example there is one researcher who is using a bacterial virus known as M13 phage to develop all sorts of novel materials. She can create biological 'libraries' of these phages and then screen them for proteins that bind to all sorts of different substances. She can then multiply them and use them to detect drugs, isotopes of various types - you name it - they are very versatile.
At any rate, technically speaking - speciation is defined as enough genetic drift that mating between members of the two species will not yield viable off spring. This type of drift is seen when a small group is isolated from the larger group and over time diverges. This can be clearly demonstrated, as Darwin did with his findings in the Galopogus (sorry about the spelling) - where groups of animals were divided due to land masses breaking up and seperating. The different groups isolated on their respective islands diverged enough over time to become classified as different species.
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 30, 2006 3:35 am
If a world view cannot accomodate scientific facts then it is definitely in need of revision. There is enough scientific evidence to prove that evolution of species does indeed occur. I am not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence of life being generated from chemicals. If, or when, that evidence comes to light we will have to accomodate that as well. Until then, it is not outlandish or backward to question the conclusions drawn from the fossil record, or relational trees based on genetic similarity or any other data that is used to show evolutionary trees. There are a lot of unknowns and any honest person working in the field of evolutionary biology will readily admit that. Though most of them are of the opinion that the basic theory is correct and that only minor adjustments will be made over time as the mechanisms are more fully uncovered.
It seems that you are the most qualified person to speak on this topic, given your training. I definitely agree with your first sentence of the paragraph quoted above. I am of the opinion that we have nothing to fear from science, whatever its findings may be. There is nothing that science can ever discover that can disprove the existence of the soul or God, regardless of the opinions of some prominent thinkers. As far as the evidence behind evolution is concerned, nobody in the scientific community has doubt as to the basic tenets of the theory, but indeed many of the details are in dispute. The fossil records are the best evidence in its favor. Evidence of life evolving from chemicals is certainly in short supply, but I personally don't find the idea especially radical, or for that matter dangerous to theism generally.
The Padma Purana (I believe) speaks of the 8,400,000 species and their general categories. It should be noted that Darwinism has a different idea of species. A species, according to the theory, can really only be identified retroactively; in other words, evolution takes place on a geological time scale, and most evolutionists consider themselves gradualists, believing that tiny modifications to the genetic code over millions of years lead eventually to species differentiation. So it is unlikely we will find at any time that a frog one day sprouted a tail and started barking. The evolutionary tree looks something like this:
4 billion years ago: the earliest life, self-replicating molecules, possibly made of RNA; eventually form a kind of cellular structure
3.9 billion years ago: prokaryotes appear--one-celled organisms
3.5 billion years ago: single-celled organisms split into bacteria and archaea
3 billion years ago: evolution of photosynthesis in cyanobacteria
2.5 billion years ago: some bacteria evolve the ability to utilize oxygen (the by-product of photosynthesis)
2.1 billion years ago: more complex single-celled eukaryotes appear, with organelles that have diverse functions
1.2 billion years ago: sexual reproduction evolves, leading to faster evolution; some cyanobacteria possibly living on land
1 billion years ago: multicelled organisms appear: algae, then seaweed
900 million years ago: choanoflagellates, the ancestors of the animal kingdom, appear (it is interesting to note that at this time there are 481 18-hour days a year; the rotation of the earth has gradually slowed ever since)
600 million years ago: sponges evolve, the earliest known animals; they are followed by jellyfish and flatworms; during this time the ozone develops, allowing for movement of some species onto land
542-530 million years ago: the Cambrian explosion, in which all of the major body plans of animals develop; circulatory systems, basic organs, respiratory systems
505 million years ago: first vertebrate animals
488 million years ago: jawed fishes
475 million years ago: first primitive plants move onto land
450 million years ago: arthropods are the first animals to move onto land
400 million years ago: first insects
365 million years ago: first tetrapods, initially in shallow water but gradually moving onto land
360 million years ago: plants develop seeds
300 million years ago: amniotic egg develops, giving rise to reptiles; insects begin to fly
250 million years ago: large extinction wipes out 90% of all animal species
220 million years ago: archosaurs develop into crocodilians, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs; mammalian ancestors also develop
164 million years ago: first swimming mammal
150 million years ago: giant dinosaurs walk the land
133 million years ago: primitive bird
65 million years ago: another mass extinction wipes out the dinosaur species, allowing mammals to develop, including primates
13 millon years ago: early ancestors of humans
5 million years ago: humans begin to speciate from chimpanzees (which share 98% of their DNA with humans)
1.8 million years ego: homo erectus evolves in Africa and migrates to other continents
700 thousand years ago: common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals
130 thousand years ago: Neanderthal man lives in Europe, buries his dead and cares for the sick
100 thousand years ago: first anatomically modern humans
32 thousand years ago: first sculpture and stone tools found
10 thousand years ago: humans develop agriculture
3 thousand years ago: humans start using iron tools
As is evident from this list, evolution takes a long time. Single-celled organisms existed alone on Earth for 3 billion years before any major changes took place. Humans as we know them have been around 100 thousand years, but real culture has existed for only about 10 thousand years, with the development of agriculture. Recorded human history is less than 5000 years old. Fossil records are the main evidence for evolution: scientists compare the anatomical structures of the fossil species they find and infer their evolution. Mass extinctions happen occasionally, creating new evolutionary directions. Comparative DNA analyses, study of existing species, and geographical evidence all provide further information for scientists trying to flesh out the evolutionary tree.
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 30, 2006 2:54 pm
That a good general overview of the general idea of how the variations of life evolved over time. Just for clarity - procaryotes are bacteria. They are defined as simple single celled organisms that have no cell wall, no complex organelles which includes having no nucleus. As I said, I don't think too much about evolutionary ideas because it's not a subject that holds my interest for the most part.
The fossil evidence, relatedness of DNA and all other empirical facts have to be acknowledged. BTW, it's not really true that most evolutionists are gradualists. It is well known that are are very big, quick (in terms of the time scale were talking about) changes that take place. This has been termed evolutionary bursts. Major changes that happen rapidly and are advantageous for survival. All evolutonists acknowledge this and have incorporated these ideas into the general theory. Most major genetic changes are problematic and don't yield advantages, so they end with the individual.
The fact that people get caught up in prevailing paradigms even to the point of ostracizing anyone who challenges what is 'known' is well documented throughout history. Well respected scientists have scoffed at ideas that challenge established paradigms and riducule those who deliver new ideas. This is also true in the field of archaeology. The reason I bring this up is that our knowledge is evolving and we have to be flexible and open to new ideas, even if they shake our world view.
Vivek - September 30, 2006 3:41 pm
I am planning to read this book if i have time:-
Ramanuja and Hegel : a comparative study
by Rama Prasad
Type: English : Book
Publisher: New Delhi : Classical Pub. Co., 1983.
OCLC: 10997860
Vinode Vani Dasa - September 30, 2006 6:29 pm
BTW, it's not really true that most evolutionists are gradualists. It is well known that are are very big, quick (in terms of the time scale were talking about) changes that take place. This has been termed evolutionary bursts. Major changes that happen rapidly and are advantageous for survival.
Yes, this is something that has been acknowledged in biology recently. I have heard it termed "puntuated equilibrium," but as you point, the basic idea is that "rapid" large-scale changes take place, which puntuate large amounts of time of relative stasis. Stephen Jay Gould seems to the be the scientist most responsible for this change of thinking. I think that these two ideas are not completely incompatible though, since the actual steps in evolution tend to be small. You would probably be able to speak to this more, but it seems that many of the burts, as you say, in evolution tend to be caused by environmental factors.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 1, 2006 4:22 am
Probably the best examples of the ones that Darwin found on the Galopogus islands which led him to posit his theory of evolution. The examples he cited were of turtles and some bird species I believe.
There were different adaptations such as size, big nose-small nose, but none of cross species evolution has ever been shown other than the butterfly from a catapiller.
The different groups isolated on their respective islands diverged enough over time to become classified as different species.
Oh really, which new species were shown. I believe there was only adaption shown not a new genus or species.
Humans as we know them have been around 100 thousand years, but real culture has existed for only about 10 thousand years, with the development of agriculture. Recorded human history is less than 5000 years old.
This is totally refuted by the vedic literature and history in the sanscrit texts. There is physical evidence of necular explosions 1 million years ago consistant with the weapons of the vedic literature. Evidence of agricultural farming dates back as far if not further.
Recent satillite images showed the original flow of the Sariswati river from India to the persian gulf as well as traits of agriculture dating back further.
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 1, 2006 4:48 am
The Galapagos islands were formed about 6 million years ago due to volcanic activity in the ocean, which of course means that they began their life without any biological activity on them. So all the life that Darwin discovered on his visit to the islands in 1835 had at some point migrated to the islands from the mainland. Galapagos is famous for its many unusual species, which are only found there and nowhere else. So the historical evidence shows that the migrating species had so evolved by the time of the first human encounters that they could be considered separate and unique species. The most famous of these examples are the many different kinds of finches found on the islands.
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 1, 2006 5:46 am
This is totally refuted by the vedic literature and history in the sanscrit texts. There is physical evidence of necular explosions 1 million years ago consistant with the weapons of the vedic literature. Evidence of agricultural farming dates back as far if not further.
Indeed, the picture of biological history as described by evolutionary theory is inconsistent with history as presented in Vedic literature, at least if we take those sources completely literally. The "necular" explosions you mention can be explained by natural geological phenomena, though geologists still regard the evidence of 98% pure silicon glass in places like the Sahara desert as an unsolved mystery. Those who want to believe that such nuclear explosions are due to ancient sophisticated weaponry are perhaps unwittingly placing the burden of proof squarely on their own shoulders, for such advocates will have to show 1. evidence that these nuclear explosions were caused by some kind of man-made device as opposed to natural phenomena, and 2. account for the mysterious disappearance of this technology from human culture at some point (obviously nuclear weapons did not exist during Classical times). For the most part, these "ancient weapons" hypotheses are mentioned in the same breath by people who advocate belief in UFOs and other conspiracy theories, which hardly lends them credibility. As far as agriculture dating back one million years, I am unaware of any such evidence for this theory. If you have some, please provide it. It is believed that agriculture may have appeared independently several times, as in Peru and China, though the oldest evidence (that I am aware of) dates from 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent.
Here we get at another controversial point that doubtless Guru Maharaja above all of us is most qualified to speak to: what parts of these Vedic histories are we supposed to take literally, and which are poetic descriptions? Sridhara Maharaja is well-known for saying, for example, when asked why the Bhagavatam says that the sun is closer than the moon, that sun's influence is greater, and therefore perceived as closer. This is a brilliant synthesis which allows the literal of the distance of the sun to remain as it is, while providing us some insight perhaps on how listeners at the time of the Bhagavatam understood Sukadeva's cosmic descriptions. Perhaps these histories and cosmologies were not meant to be taken literally so much as intended to provide the listener with a kind of mystic insight (which I admit I do not have yet). I would like to hear what others have to say about this.
Vivek - October 1, 2006 4:38 pm
yes vinoda vani prabhu that is the biggest question as to what section of scripture has to be taken literally. Because in "subjective evolution of consciousness" sridhar maharaja even refuted his godbrother who said that rahu's action on lunar eclipse is farce. Sridhar maharaja says it is in bhagavatam so it should be true at some level maybe not at sensual level.
Only Maharaja can tell us which section is allegorical, like he referred to the section where prahlad is giving wine to demons as allegorical.
Thanks vinodha vani prabhu for bringing up the question. The problem is that for mayavadis rejecting the reality of any events in puranas doenst make any difference, for them forms of demigods and even krsna are imaginary at some level but for us we have to have faith in occurence of ramayana(like battle of lanka which is in the time where such humans were not supposed to exist at all according to modern archaeology) and krsna lila if not on the sensual level but on trascendental level. you must be knowing of NASA picture showing the man made bridge submerged between south india and sril lanka.
Also vinoda vani prabhu rega
Swami - October 1, 2006 5:55 pm
yes vinoda vani prabhu that is the biggest question as to what section of scripture has to be taken literally. Because in "subjective evolution of consciousness" sridhar maharaja even refuted his godbrother who said that rahu's action on lunar eclipse is farce. Sridhar maharaja says it is in bhagavatam so it should be true at some level maybe not at sensual level.
Only Maharaja can tell us which section is allegorical, like he referred to the section where prahlad is giving wine to demons as allegorical.
Srila Prabhupada writes,
"There are many stories and incidents in Srimad-Bhagavatam that are described figuratively. Such allegorical descriptions may not be understood by unintelligent men; therefore it is the duty of the student to approach a bona fide spiritual master for the direct explanation."
........
"But such questions as yours: why there is so-called discrepancy between the views of Bhagavat and modern scientists regarding the moon and other planets . . . these are most insignificant matters, and for anyone who is sincerely convinced that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for him these questions do not arise.
"But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction. Yes, sometimes in Vedas such things like the asura's decapitated head chasing after Candraloka, sometimes it is explained allegorically. . . . So there are sometimes allegorical explanations. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krishna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavat, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam. . . .The modern science takes everything as dead stone. We take it for granted that everything is being manipulated by a person in each and every affair of the cosmology. The modern scientists however could not make any progress in the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore we do not accept modern science as very perfect."
.........
Srimad Bhagavatam is not a science book, other than that it is concerned with the science or art of loving Krsna. Its sole purposeis to establish that Krsna is the supreme object of worship and how to worship him, as shown by the Vrajavasis. In doing this is must establish that there is a difference between matter and consciousness, both of which are saktis of Bhagavan.
More later.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 2, 2006 5:01 am
Those who want to believe that such nuclear explosions are due to ancient sophisticated weaponry are perhaps unwittingly placing the burden of proof squarely on their own shoulders, for such advocates will have to show 1. evidence that these nuclear explosions were caused by some kind of man-made device as opposed to natural phenomena,
It is very easy to do since there is an Iron beam at least 40 feet high and 2 to 3 feet wide stuck in the earth in India that is dated back well over may thousands of years before the iron age. The origin is unknown and the date also.
My father took a picture of this in the 1940s when he was there and it is a national site in India.
There is also evidence presented in Chariots of the Gods that would help you.
The Galapagos islands were formed about 6 million years ago due to volcanic activity in the ocean, which of course means that they began their life without any biological activity on them. So all the life that Darwin discovered on his visit to the islands in 1835 had at some point migrated to the islands from the mainland. Galapagos is famous for its many unusual species, which are only found there and nowhere else. So the historical evidence shows that the migrating species had so evolved by the time of the first human encounters that they could be considered separate and unique species. The most famous of these examples are the many different kinds of finches found on the islands.
Again you site adaptions for as far as is known finches exist world wide.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 2, 2006 5:24 am
[quote name= If you have some, please provide it. It is believed that agriculture may have appeared independently several times, as in Peru and China, though the oldest evidence (that I am aware of) dates from 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent.
They have found human foot prints dating back over 1 million years. Richard L. Thompson Gurdevas godbrother has reported.
It just sound like you do not accept the vedic record. Nothing has changed for milleniums as Krsna speaks we do not remember but he does.
Did Rama and Sita not exist as it states in the vedic record. That civilization was reported to be 1 million years old.
The facts speak that this planet and civilizations existed that long ago.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 2, 2006 5:37 am
Srila Prabhupada writes,
"There are many stories and incidents in Srimad-Bhagavatam that are described figuratively. Such allegorical descriptions may not be understood by unintelligent men; therefore it is the duty of the student to approach a bona fide spiritual master for the direct explanation."
........
"But such questions as yours: why there is so-called discrepancy between the views of Bhagavat and modern scientists regarding the moon and other planets . . . these are most insignificant matters, and for anyone who is sincerely convinced that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for him these questions do not arise.
"But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction. Yes, sometimes in Vedas such things like the asura's decapitated head chasing after Candraloka, sometimes it is explained allegorically. . . . So there are sometimes allegorical explanations. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krishna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavat, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam. . . .The modern science takes everything as dead stone. We take it for granted that everything is being manipulated by a person in each and every affair of the cosmology. The modern scientists however could not make any progress in the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore we do not accept modern science as very perfect."
.........
Srimad Bhagavatam is not a science book, other than that it is concerned with the science or art of loving Krsna. Its sole purposeis to establish that Krsna is the supreme object of worship and how to worship him, as shown by the Vrajavasis. In doing this is must establish that there is a difference between matter and consciousness, both of which are saktis of Bhagavan.
More later.
Thank you Guru Maharaja
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 2, 2006 5:54 am
1. How is an iron beam evidence for a nuclear weapon?
2. How do you account for the mysterious disappearance of this apparently highly advanced civilization?
3. How are footprints evidence for agriculture?
Yes, you are right. I don't accept the Vedic histories as factual descriptions of what actually happened. I may change my mind someday, but you're not doing anything to move me in that direction. I do accept the Bhagavatam, as Guru Maharaja puts it, as a work that encourages us to devote ourselves to the service of Krishna. This is an endeavor that has nothing to do with material science or history--it is an endeavor of the true nature of the soul.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 2, 2006 6:07 am
Here is some evidence that William Henry presents in his findings.
Ancient Weapons & Stargates
Investigative mythologist William Henry discussed his latest research into ancient technology and weapons of mass destruction. Henry said the Ark of the Covenant was used by the Israelites as a weapon and was responsible for as many as 65,000 deaths. This biblical object contained the two tablets of the Law, he explained, which may have been radioactive. As evidence, Henry said Hebrew priests wore protective clothing when near the Ark and anyone who touched the holy container died.
1. How is an iron beam evidence for a nuclear weapon?
2. How do you account for the mysterious disappearance of this apparently highly advanced civilization?
3. How are footprints evidence for agriculture?
Yes, you are right. I don't accept the Vedic histories as factual descriptions of what actually happened. I may change my mind someday, but you're not doing anything to move me in that direction. I do accept the Bhagavatam, as Guru Maharaja puts it, as a work that encourages us to devote ourselves to the service of Krishna. This is an endeavor that has nothing to do with material science or history--it is an endeavor of the true nature of the soul.
1. Of course it is not evidence of nuclear weapon but it is evidence of culture way before recorded history which the Bhagavtam tells us was only 5000 years ago because of the beginning of Kali yuga and the iron age. Nothing had to be written down before this for we all could remember anything spoken to us and the degradation began who Vasudeva had to put it writing.
2. There is ample evidenced presented in the Chariot of the Gods and other books like this.
3. The evidence recently uncovered by satalite images show that the persian gulf was cultivated many millions of years ago and it even shows the old river beds discribe in the
Vedic literature. Sataputa has many good records for you.
Get over it and just accept the truth as spoken by Krsna.
The image “http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/Henry090206a.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
It is Henry's picture of a partical excellarator and an ancient discripition drawing of Mt Meru.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 2, 2006 6:21 am
The Japan Times, August 16, 1997
Ancient footprints in Africa made by early human
WASHINGTON (AP) It had just rained when she walked through the sand, leaving three little footprints on her way downhill to the water. "Her heel landed here and her arch curled up," said paleontologist Lee Berger.
That was 117,000 years ago, making the footprints the oldest ever found of an anatomically modern human, Berger said Thursday.
Roberts said the footprints were dated as 117,000 years old using an array of scientific and high-tech methods.
Berger said that although ancient footprints have been found that are as old as 5 million years, they belong to distant ancestors on the human family tree, not to modern homo sapiens.
Ancient Footprints May Rewrite American History
By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News
July 6, 2005 — Humans colonized the Americas 30,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to a set of human footprints unearthed beside an ancient Mexican lake.
Dated to about 40,000 years ago, the impressions challenge the traditionally held view that settlers first came to North America after the last Ice Age ended about 13,500 years ago.
The ash has now been dated to 1.3 million years ago.
Your ancestors have been found, and they were human beings. Here is more information about them. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Ancient Man - 2
Early Man - Here are facts about some real people who lived in the past
Human Footprints - Large man-made footprints from ancient times
Remains in Coal and Rock - Did you know that man-made objects have been found in coal, rock, and other things?
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, ANCIENT MAN, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see order sheet), only 164 statements are by creationists.
EARLY MAN
After more than a century spent trying to figure out people, the experts still declare that all the races of man belong to only one species. Regarding the dates concerning mankind, evolutionists speculate that humans have lived here for one to three million yearsand then, suddenly, stopped evolving 100,000 years ago.
Yet actual historical dates go back less than 5,000 years. Using historical, archaeological, and astronomical data, dates for early mankind extend to about 2250 B.C.
But using results of the notoriously inaccurate carbon 14 dating system, the earliest dates for mankind extend back about 15,000 years.
Let us now consider some actual evidence of early people on our planet.
We will find they were real human beings. And where they were located disproves evolutionary theories.—p. 27.
The Guadeloupe woman. In 1812, on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, lacking only the head and feet. It was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation over a mile in length.
In accordance with their theory, evolutionists date that rock at 25 million years! You will not find the Guadeloupe woman mentioned in the textbooks, since this find would disprove evolutionary strata dating.—p. 29.
The Caveras skull. In 1876, 130 feet below ground, a skull was found in the "2 million-year-old" Pliocene strata. It was certified as completely mineralized, yet totally human. Dozens of stone mortars, bowls, and other man-made artifacts were found near this skull.—p. 29.
The Castinedolo skull. A group of perfectly human ancient skulls were found in Castinedolo, Italy, and, with the Caveras Skull, are considered among the most ancient skulls. Yet they are perfectly human.—p. 29.
The Moab Skeletons. Two skeletons were found in Cretaceous rock (supposedly dated at 100 million years) in Moab, Utah, about 15 feet below the surface.
Both skeletons were definitely human and ancient. They had been undisturbed till they were found. When tested for age, they were only a few thousand years old.—pp. 29-30.
HUMAN FOOTPRINTS
Evolutionists theorize that man did not evolve until the late Tertiary Period, and cannot be over one to three million years old.
But human footprints have been found in very old rock strata. These are human footprints, not ape prints. (Apes have very different footprints and styles of walking.)
These prints disprove evolutionary theories about rock strata—and reveal it is quite young, and place dinosaurs as living at the same time when people did. The prints also reveal that giants once lived on our planet.—p. 30.
Laetoli tracks. At a site in Kenya, called Laetoli, 30 miles south of Olduvai Gorge, Mary Leakey discovered human footprints in 1977. Although some evolutionists reject them as human, other scientists recognize them to be clearly human—and therefore date those who made the tracks to be 3.75 million years ago. But evolutionists teach that no people lived back then.
At about the same time, Mary Leakey and Dr. Johanson found human teeth and jawbones from around the same 3.75 million-year period.—pp. 30-31.
The Gediz track. A footprint found in volcanic ash, near Demirkopru, Turkey, was found in 1970. The track of a running man was found in strata dated by evolutionists at 250,000 years in the past.—p. 31.
The Glen Rose tracks. A remarkable number of human tracks have been found in a Cretaceous limestone formation near Glen Rose, Texas. Many are of giant men. The prints have been found in the bed of Paluxy River, when it is dry in the summer. Some are next to, on top of, or under dinosaur tracks.
The Glen Rose tracks are 15 inches long [38.1 cm], and were probably made by people 8.3 feet [25,38 dm] tall. Some, 21½ inches [54.6 cm] long, would have been made by people 11.8 feet [25.38 dm] tall.
*R.T. Bird, a paleontologist with the American Museum of Natural History, also found a trail of Brontosaurus tracks which were shipped to the museum. That means people were alive when the dinosaurs were! Some human tracks overlaid the dinosaur tracks, and some were found in layers below the dinosaurs.—pp. 31-32.
The Paluxy Branch. In August 1978, Fred Beierie spent the afternoon searching for tracks in the Paluxy riverbed. He found a tree branch encased in Cretaceous stone, with only the upper part showing. So it was as old as the tracks.
Beierie sent a sample of the wood to *Reisner Berg of UCLA, who tested it by radiodating at 12,800 years. Corrected, it would yield a date agreeing with the Flood. (Carbon 14 dating tends to skew toward greater age on older dates, because of atmospheric differences back then. See Dating of Time in Evolution for details.)
That would date both the giants and the dinosaurs as being recent.—p. 32.
Antelope Springs tracks. In June 1968, *William J. Meister, Sr., an evolutionist, was searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah. Splitting a piece of rock in two, he found inside a human footprint stepping on trilobites. The human was wearing a sandal!
Thoroughly shaken, he took other men back who confirmed it and found still more, including some with sandals stepping on trilobites.
As a result, Meister became a Christian. The strata was primarily Cambrian, which is supposed to be the oldest on the planet.—pp. 32-33.
The Alamogordo tracks. Near Alamogordo, New Mexico, 13 giant tracks, each about 22 inches [55.8 cm] long were found. The stride is from four to five feet [121.9-152.4 cm].—p. 33.
The Arizona tracks. Tracks of a barefoot human child were found, in the late 1960s, alongside some dinosaur tracks. The location was the Moenkopi Wash, near the little Colorado River in northern Arizona.
In 1984, similar tracks were found not far from the Moenkopi site. Many human tracks, dinosaur tracks, and a handprint of a child that had fallen.
More adult tracks were found in 1986.
The Arizona tracks are located in the Glen Canyon geological Group, which is part of late Triassic to early Jurassic strata and supposedly 175 to 100 million years old.
In addition to 300 tridactyle dinosaur tracks, sheep tracks, bivalve prints, large amphibian and lungfish marks have been found. Over 60 human tracks have been mapped and photographed.—pp. 33-34.
Other human prints. Many other human footprints have been found, which we will not mention here.—p. 34.
Other giant people. The skeletal remains of giants have also been found. Giants, twice the size of gorillas, were found in Java.
The petrified remains of a giant were found in South Africa. A well-known anthropologist declared that these remains showed that man's ancestors must have been giants.—p. 33.
REMAINS IN COAL AND ROCK
Human remains and man-made objects have been found in coal and rock—where they should not be found. The evidence disproves evolutionary theories about the age of rock strata. As far back as we can trace, people were people. They were not apes.
Human remains in coal. A fossilized human skull was found in coal that was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana (1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had changed into coal.—pp. 34-35.
Man-made objects in coal. A lady, in Illinois, found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).—p. 35.
Man-made objects in rock. An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851). A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851). The mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock (1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish conquistadores (1572).—pp. 35-36.
Man-made objects found in the ground. A doll was found near Nampa, Idaho (1889). A bronze coin was found 114 feet below the surface near Chillicothe, Illinois (1871). This means there were coins in ancient times in America! A paving tile was found in a "25 million-year-old" Miocene formation in Plauteau City, Colorado (1936).
Several discoveries were made during the California gold rush (1849-1850s). A prehistoric mining shaft, 210 feet [640 dm] below the surface in solid rock was found. A mortar for grinding gold ore was found at a depth of 300 feet [914 dm] in a mining tunnel. A human skull was also found at a depth of 130 feet [396 dm] under five beds of lava and tufa. Bones of camels, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, horses, and other animals were also found in California. The findings are almost always in gold-bearing rock or gravel.
Man-made markings on petrified wood. Evolutionists declare that petrified wood is millions of year old, yet humans have worked with it.
Hand-worked petrified wood was found in India. It was shaped prior to fossilization.
Prior to mineralization, several petrified pieces of wood had been hacked with a cutting tool. The wood was dated to the Pliocene Epoch, before humans were supposed to have lived.—p. 36.
Man-made markings on bones. At a site near Paris, France, fossilized rhinoceros bones had human cutting marks on them. No rhinos have been in Europe in recorded history. Another rhino bone, cut by a sharp tool, was found in Ireland.
Two saurian bones were found in a Jurassic deposit.—pp. 36-37.
Enough and I hope you are satisfied.
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 2, 2006 5:20 pm
It occured to me how unproductive this whole debate has been. I don't accept your facts or your sources, and you don't accept mine. But to some extent these are the things that are allowing us (neophytes that we are) to have faith in Krishna. Why should we try to undermine each other's faith? This is hardly what Guru Maharaja would want. I accept that we may have disagreements on these issues, but the important thing is that we try to grow our faith and bhakti, and we should accept whatever is favorable for us in this regard. For this reason, I am perfectly happy that you believe exactly what you believe.
Bhrigu - October 2, 2006 5:43 pm
I have been thinking about these matters during the last few days, reading Mahanambrata Brahmachari's excellent "Vaishnava Vedanta". He has a chapter on prakriti there, some of the end of which Guru Maharaja quoted earlier. I have been feeling it a pity that Jiva Goswami didn't write a "Prakriti Sandarbha" to sort out all this stuff in the Bhagavatam (and that that could be a good idea for someone else to do), but then I realised that Jiva Goswami left it out for a specific reason: it really isn't that relevant. The specific details of the evolution of matter can be explained in different ways. In fact, that is what the Bhagavatam itself says. I remembered reading something about this, and now finally found it. Eleventh Skandha, chapter twenty-one, verses one through nine:
---
Uddhava inquired: My dear Lord, O master of the universe, how many different elements of creation have been enumerated by the great sages? I have heard You personally describe a total of twenty-eight—God, the jiva soul, the mahat-tattva, false ego, the five gross elements, the ten senses, the mind, the five subtle objects of perception and the three modes of nature. But some authorities say that there are twenty-six elements, while others cite twenty-five or else seven, nine, six, four or eleven, and even others say that there are seventeen, sixteen or thirteen. What did each of these sages have in mind when he calculated the creative elements in such different ways? O supreme eternal, kindly explain this to me.
Lord Krishna replied: Because all material elements are present everywhere, it is reasonable that different learned brahmanas have analyzed them in different ways. All such philosophers spoke under the shelter of My mystic potency, and thus they could say anything without contradicting the truth. When philosophers argue, "I don't choose to analyze this particular case in the same way that you have," it is simply My own insurmountable energies that are motivating their analytic disagreements.
By interaction of My energies different opinions arise. But for those who have fixed their intelligence on Me and controlled their senses, differences of perception disappear, and consequently the very cause for argument is removed. O best among men, because subtle and gross elements mutually enter into one another, philosophers may calculate the number of basic material elements in different ways, according to their personal desire. All subtle material elements are actually present within their gross effects; similarly, all gross elements are present within their subtle causes, since material creation takes place by progressive manifestation of elements from subtle to gross. Thus we can find all material elements within any single element.
Therefore, no matter which of these thinkers is speaking, and regardless of whether in their calculations they include material elements within their previous subtle causes or else within their subsequent manifest products, I accept their conclusions as authoritative, because a logical explanation can always be given for each of the different theories.
---
All this considered, it does seem to me that a purely deist consideration of the Lord's involvement with creation ("he made the clock, wound it up but then lets it tick on all by itself") is inconsistent with the feeling and philosophy of the Bhagavatam.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 3, 2006 4:09 am
It occured to me how unproductive this whole debate has been. I don't accept your facts or your sources, and you don't accept mine. But to some extent these are the things that are allowing us (neophytes that we are) to have faith in Krishna. Why should we try to undermine each other's faith? This is hardly what Guru Maharaja would want. I accept that we may have disagreements on these issues, but the important thing is that we try to grow our faith and bhakti, and we should accept whatever is favorable for us in this regard. For this reason, I am perfectly happy that you believe exactly what you believe.
It has nothing to do with what I believe or what you believe. It has to do with what is as it is. The facts "4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see order sheet), only 164 statements are by creationists."
Again we only speak what Krsna speaks and I am sorry this may undermine your faith for I surely am not trying to undermine it but give you encouragement to believe what Krsna says. "By interaction of My energies different opinions arise. But for those who have fixed their intelligence on Me and controlled their senses, differences of perception disappear, and consequently the very cause for argument is removed."
All this considered, it does seem to me that a purely deist consideration of the Lord's involvement with creation ("he made the clock, wound it up but then lets it tick on all by itself") is inconsistent with the feeling and philosophy of the Bhagavatam.
Thank you Bhrigu for finding this. It should help Vinode Vani das. It sure makes sense to me and once again it was spoken by Krsna so it is as it is.
Swami - October 3, 2006 4:40 am
Again we only speak what Krsna speaks
You should pray for the day that this statment is authentic for you—that you only speak what Krsna speaks, at which time you will understand what he means as well.
"By interaction of My energies different opinions arise. But for those who have fixed their intelligence on Me and controlled their senses, differences of perception disappear, and consequently the very cause for argument is removed."
Thank you Bhrigu for finding this. It should help Vinode Vani das. It sure makes sense to me and once again it was spoken by Krsna so it is as it is.
Do you not think that you also need help in fixing your intelligence on Krsna and and controlling your senses? Only then, Krsna says here, will the difference you are perceiving between yourself and Vinoda disappear along with the cause of your argumentiveness.
My questions do not require answers.
End of debate.