PDA

View Full Version : Creation vs Evolution



vcindiana
29 September 2007, 10:40 PM
I do not know what Hinduism says about this topic.

It has been almost 150 years since Charles Darwin published "The Origin of species" but fundamental Christians still argue about evolution. Darwin was a keen observer and a pragmatic thinker and he anticipated all the possible arguments against his findings. Concept of evolution actually started with Greek philosophers. Darwin theorized that natural selection provided the mechanism for evolutionary change. He could connect the hostile environment of the Galapagos Islands with the unusual species that he collected there. These islands are the best place to study evolution.
Creationists do not believe that we are similar to the animals around. Science and religions are not enemies, keeping them separate in the sanctuary and laboratory may make sense, but society has much to gain from the dialogue that places morality ahead of materialism. Darwin understood the difference, although he had lost all faith himself after witnessing the death of his young daughter from tuberculosis.
The federal court has already decided that creation is not science and it has no basis for being taught with evolution.

Concept of creationism based on faith can or cannot be proved, rules of Science do not apply here. We need to actively support teaching of scientific principles in schools. The bacteria that continue to evolve defenses against our best antibiotics demonstrate the power of natural selection. Conscious modern day physicians do understand the spiritual needs of their patients, yet they can separate those needs from evidence based medicine. Science must not be held hostage to religion, we have made remarkable progress and we need continue to do so for the benefit of us and our future generations.

I do not know much about Bible, but I look at the " creation " as something God metaphorically wants humans to be creative. Without creative minds we would not have accomplished any thing in our lives.

Care to comment?...........Love your creative thoughts... VC

Madhavan
30 September 2007, 02:26 AM
I do believe in macroscopic creation( responsible for the origin of life and many entirely different forms of life) and microscopic evolution.( smaller adaptable changes within species).

Hinduism does not accept evolution. Vedic cosmology holds that all the 8.4 million major species of life have been created by Brahma.

Can the theory of evolution explain how life can emerge from matter? Natural selection can explain a bit of evolution of life from a previous life form, but cannot account for the 'first life'. Instead they rely on the theory of random combination of elements of impossible probabilites. Life can emerge only from life, from the real life(prANa) that is consciousness, the Self.

atanu
30 September 2007, 07:39 AM
Namaste VC,

Madhavan has replied to the main part. I wish to add a few things.

I feel that if the theory of evolution does not delve into the realm of creation of first life, it’s OK then. What is experienced without colored glasses cannot be rejected. Science within a defined scope is true and good.

Your question is good. Open minded scientists or spiritualists with enquiring bent of mind are better than bigots. Hindu dharma definitely teaches enquiry as the highest spiritualism. Yoga Vashista teaches that a logical statement of a child is to be accepted and illogical teaching, even if from BrahmA, is to be rejected. It is true that science must not be held hostage to religion yet science like all other things is hostage to ego. It is often used for earning money and power.

On the other hand, a true spiritualist can illuminate a scientist. Once a scientist opined to Maharshi Ramana that Einstein’s relativity theory -- which proves that the reality of time-space is actually relative to the observer’s state and that for two observers the reality of time-space will not be same – supports advaita philosophy. Maharshi Ramana asked him “What is the state of the one who is observing those two observers?” The scientist was taken aback.

This example is extreme, but it highlights the point that science comes from mind whereas ONE who has the mind is ancient. Hindu dharma exhorts us to know the ancient one. In other words, science is limited to mind whereas sanatana dharma teaches the enquiry of the person, who is beneath the mind. It also teaches that mind (or words that have ensued from the mind) cannot reach the person, from whom the mind sprung up. Further it teaches ways to that person.

Is there anything wrong in that? Or can this enquiry hamper other scientific activities?

Best Wishes.

Om

atanu
30 September 2007, 10:27 AM
Namaste VC,

While talking of Science, Spiritualism and Darwin, allow me to put up a scientific question to you.

It is good to understand that survival of the fittest does mean overcoming some limitation? Limitation is felt as non-tangible thought. The will and resolve to overcome is again subtle, non-tangible.

How these subtle causes are bringing about non-subtle changes? How a non-tangible thought is contacting your arm, to impel it to act?

Some one tried to answer heroically “well, it is electrical stimuli/chemicals etc, you know”. I pointed out that chemicals are non subtle and how they come about and move due to some non-tangible thing called thought remains the question.

Om

vcindiana
30 September 2007, 10:41 PM
Thank you for your responses.

No scientist can claim that he or she can explain all the things in this world. Scientists do know their limitations but these do not have to impede their quest for new inventions and discoveries. I am not sure real scientists are ego centric. In their exciting work they do bring lots of good things to life. Just imagine this internet alone, we can almost say who needs God?
My only comment was that some Christians claim evolution is a big lie and they want to put Science down. Till recently Vatican did not accept the wrong doing of Church in summoning Galileo before the inquisition.

Yes, theory of evolution itself has limitation but that is the best it can explain based on the available evidence.

Religion and Science cannot be mixed and each one has its own purpose.

Love, VC

vcindiana
30 September 2007, 11:03 PM
I do believe in macroscopic creation( responsible for the origin of life and many entirely different forms of life) and microscopic evolution.( smaller adaptable changes within species).

Hinduism does not accept evolution. Vedic cosmology holds that all the 8.4 million major species of life have been created by Brahma.

Can the theory of evolution explain how life can emerge from matter? Natural selection can explain a bit of evolution of life from a previous life form, but cannot account for the 'first life'. Instead they rely on the theory of random combination of elements of impossible probabilites. Life can emerge only from life, from the real life(prANa) that is consciousness, the Self.

Thank you:
You say Hinduism does not accept evolution, so say Christians. How can vedic cosmology holds only 8.4 million major species, why not even more or less ? Who is keeping the accounts? Scientists have named about 1.8 million species but they honestly admit there are probably even more.
Religions cannot claim they have the factual answers.

Can people who wrote about self or consciousness explain how life can emerge from matter ? Neither religion nor science can explain the " first life". As human beings we can only speculate, there is some thing called God, truth consciouness etc. We have to, otherwise the alternative would be less meaningful life.

Love, VC

Madhavan
01 October 2007, 12:07 AM
No scientist can claim that he or she can explain all the things in this world. Scientists do know their limitations but these do not have to impede their quest for new inventions and discoveries. I am not sure real scientists are ego centric. In their exciting work they do bring lots of good things to life. Just imagine this internet alone, we can almost say who needs God?

My only comment was that some Christians claim evolution is a big lie and they want to put Science down. Till recently Vatican did not accept the wrong doing of Church in summoning Galileo before the inquisition.


There is no need to hold Evolution to be a 'big lie'. It is just one of those theories in science. But just because a number of scientists beleive in it does not necessarily make it true.



Yes, theory of evolution itself has limitation but that is the best it can explain based on the available evidence.


What is the available evidence to support the theory of evolution? How is it irrefutable? There is a dogma(based on the ockham's razor) in science that "God does not exist", so all evidences have to be used to formulate a theory that excludes God. So how can such a dogmatic view be held to be the best?





Religion and Science cannot be mixed and each one has its own purpose.


I disagree here. Infact, the term avidya as used by vedanta refers to science, and vidya to God. And Isha Up says:

vidyAm cAvidyAm ca yastadvedobhayam saha |
avidyayA mrtyum tIrtvA vidyayAmrtama´snute ||


One who knows vidya(knowledge of God), and also knows avidya(material science of dualty), for him, by knowledge of avidya which causes suffering, he overcomes death, and by practice
of vidya which causes enjoyment, he obtains mukti.

In vedanta, avidya has to be understood before it can be known to be unreal. Hence, knowledge of science is a prerequisite to the knowledge ( not merely the theory of science, but its intutive realization) of God. Though the vedantin will use the method of enquiry to arrive at the scientific knowledge insteading of performing experiments whose scope is very limited.

Madhavan
01 October 2007, 12:19 AM
You say Hinduism does not accept evolution, so say Christians. How can vedic cosmology holds only 8.4 million major species, why not even more or less ? Who is keeping the accounts? Scientists have named about 1.8 million species but they honestly admit there are probably even more.Religions cannot claim they have the factual answers.


So according to you, religion cannot have factual answers? Then why beleive in religion?



Can people who wrote about self or consciousness explain how life can emerge from matter ? Neither religion nor science can explain the " first life". As human beings we can only speculate, there is some thing called God, truth consciouness etc. We have to, otherwise the alternative would be less meaningful life.


Religion does explain the first life better because, life is considered to have resulted from the conscious will of a 'life giver'. Nothing can result from chaos, much less something so wonderful and complex as life. How many television sets you saw in the store were considered by you as having evolved by chance? Then how about our brains with their complexity? There is a stupendous amount of complexity associated with life that chance cannot explain anything.

There is no proof that God does not exist. Though God cannot be proved by perception, there is proof to God in the form of personal testimonies and scripture. And God can be found by following the path shown by those found before...follow the same experiments done by those who claim so. How can you deny their words without first attempting the experiments of yoga and shankya.

atanu
01 October 2007, 01:13 AM
Thank you for your responses.

---In their exciting work they do bring lots of good things to life. Just imagine this internet alone, we can almost say who needs God?
---
Love, VC

Namaste,

Yes, some may believe so "Who needs God", forgetting that the intelligence, the energy, and all other tools are provided.

Om

yajvan
01 October 2007, 02:12 PM
Religion and Science cannot be mixed and each one has its own purpose.
Love, VC

Namaste VC (et.al)
this is a very intersting statement...and I think if one pokes around at this notion, they ( Religion and Science) are closer then one thinks.

Religion is from latin, ligare to 'bind, connect' and re (again) + ligare.To again bind and connect. But to what? to the Source, to satyam ( of Sanatana Dharma)

And Science is rooted in Latin scientia, knowledge.

Both are connected via consciousness. One consciousness is the Divine, Purusha, Brahman, pure consciousness. The other is the application of consciousness, though the senses, and meters and lab devices, and scientific methods to seek out the knowledge of the Origin of and explanation of this creation, knowledge.

Both religion and science are touching the same elephant, at different locations. They are not apart as one thinks...and the best example of this Is Newton , the Father of modern scientific method.
His views were wise, as he believed that the beauty and regularity of the natural world could only "proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He felt that "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere."

I do not see a division here but that is me, I look for the connecting points, the sama, sameness. Scientists to keep their 'purity' of reason, of not influencing or blemishing the scientific work, think that this separateness is mandatory. For this one has to laugh, because it is only when one is possessed of the Self, this Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization) or turiyatit chetana (sustained turya) that the ego is left at the curb, and perfect viveka (discrimination) is applied.

This is what they try to do in their testing, lab experiments , etc is avoid human interference. This can be accomplished through the realization of the SELF. This is the end state of religion to ligare to 'bind, connect' to the SELF and the perfect state for the scientist to discover knowledge.



pranams,

vcindiana
01 October 2007, 08:31 PM
Namaste VC (et.al)
this is a very intersting statement...and I think if one pokes around at this notion, they ( Religion and Science) are closer then one thinks.

Religion is from latin, ligare to 'bind, connect' and re (again) + ligare.To again bind and connect. But to what? to the Source, to satyam ( of Sanatana Dharma) ,

Thank you for your way of explanation. Hope that is not the only explanation. Let me state the way I understand. The word "Religion" comes from the same Latin root as the word "ligament". It does mean to bind as you wrote. It does best when it binds us to the people around us.Religion means a community, the family through which we learn what it means to be human and by which we are reinforced in our efforts to do what we believe is right. Religion puts our joys and sorrows into a context. But when any religion becomes much of set of philosophies, idealogies or beliefs or a series of rituals its very purpose becomes meaningless.



Both religion and science are touching the same elephant, at different locations. They are not apart as one thinks...and the best example of this Is Newton , the Father of modern scientific method.
His views were wise, as he believed that the beauty and regularity of the natural world could only "proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He felt that "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere."

I do agree with you, It is good thing we had scientists like Newton who humbled inspite of his acievements.It was his time, late 17th century and begining of 18 th century, territory between government, science and religion was divided , all manner of good came from it, inquisition faded away, slavery was abolished, democracy was established, science thrived, giving birth to a technological revolution. It is not the Scientists who are ego centric but it is the religious people who absolutely think they have the key.


This is what they try to do in their testing, lab experiments , etc is avoid human interference. This can be accomplished through the realization of the SELF. This is the end state of religion to ligare to 'bind, connect' to the SELF and the perfect state for the scientist to discover knowledge.
Please do not be sarcastic. Lab experiments are very important part of Science. We could not have enjoyed this world without experiments, inventions and discoveries. Thank you

Love VC

yajvan
01 October 2007, 08:55 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Please do not be sarcastic. Lab experiments are very important part of Science. We could not have enjoyed this world without experiments, inventions and discoveries. Thank you


Namaste VC,
I am not sure how you came to a conclusion that my intent was sarcasm, but that is okay.
This suggest perhaps,the verbiage has caused mischief or the meaning here was missed. So, let me see if I can try again and if you are open to this.

When the SELF is not realized, then the ego is involved in daily matters... if its baking a cake or a lab experiment. To completely remove the obstacle of interference, or of tainting an experiment with the scientists notion that 'my feelings, wishes' etc. may effect the outcome or pollute the experiment, operating from the SELF removes this blemish or concern.

This is why for years the kings of Bharat had Brahmana's as part of their advising ministers, completely free of blemishes... perfect 20-20 vision on seeing issues as they where.

This was my intent of this post. I am in hopes the explanation removes any ire you may have thought I was intending on lab experiments or the like.

pranams.

atanu
02 October 2007, 05:57 AM
----Please do not be sarcastic. Lab experiments are very important part of Science. We could not have enjoyed this world without experiments, inventions and discoveries. Thank you

Love VC

Namaste VC,

Whether Lab or mind, any experiment is likely to expend/introduce some energy into the observation and thus altering it. You must have read Uncertainty principle.

The truth is known when the mind has no waves (no thoughts). This is the beginning of Yoga Sutra, taught by Patanjali. This is truly not sarcasm.


Love

Om

saidevo
02 October 2007, 10:37 AM
Namaste everyone.

A theory called Intelligent Design (ID; aka Intelligent Design Creationism, IDC; Intelligent Design Theory, IDT, Neocreationism) is proposed by many scientists as an alternative to Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. According to ID, life is too complex a process to have evolved by chance or otherwise, and the only way to understand its complexity is to realize that it was designed by some super-human intelligence who may be God or some other being from outer space (?!)

The observations that support ID are many, which include:



1. The Big Bang theory states that the universe suddenly came into existence in one location, -- "including all matter, space, time, and energy." That is, at the time of the Big Bang, it did not materialize in one corner of the universe; the Big Bang occupied the totality of the universe at that time. ID promoters feel that this is what one would expect from an act of creation by a deity. In contrast, believers in naturalistic evolution feel that this could also happen from purely natural forces and processes.

2. The universe appears to be "finely-tuned" 6 for the existence of life. If some of the basic constants of the universe were different from their present values, then star formation, and the life itself would have been impossible. This suggests the existence of a tuner -- i.e. a creator.

3. "...the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly..." 6 They suggest that cells, certain organs, and certain functions (like blood clotting) in animals, could not have come into existence through many chance intermediate steps, but must have been fully formed at one time. For example, a human eye requires many sub-systems to be in place before it can function. This includes a lens, a transparent medium, a retina, an optic nerve and structures within the brain to decode images. When all are present, the eye works superbly. If one were missing, the eye would not work at all. Thus, they reason, the eye must have suddenly appeared with all its sub-systems fully developed and functional. According to natural selection -- the foundational principle of evolution -- a lens would be useless without all of the other components. It could not have been developed first, followed by the remaining components. To ID supporters, that implies a design and a designer. Believers in naturalistic evolution have countered this argument by suggesting a path by which they believe an eye could have developed through natural selection.

4. They feel that information "encoded along the DNA molecule has suggested the activity of a prior designing intelligence." 5 Supporters of naturalistic evolution point out to the large amount of junk DNA in humans and other animals which points to random development.

5. They point to two persistent problems in artificial intelligence (AI) research which suggest "a fundamental chasm separating machine intelligence and the human mind." 6 This suggests that the human mind could not have simply evolved. It must have been specially created by a super-human intelligence -- perhaps by a God -- and put in place. Other scientists point out that the science of AI is in its infancy, and that this "fundamental chasm" will be bridged in time.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_id1.htm


To me, the following points almost totally negate evolution and natural selection as the ONLY way the earth and its inhabitant life forms came into being:

1. The human eye as a complex life form is a good example. The eye in some form exists even in the tinest life form, in fact often in greater complexity as composite eyes as in the case of a house fly! Isn't the fly's eye superior to the human eye? What would happen to a human who is affixed with such an eye? The humans cannot simply exist in their present form with such eyes.

Spiritually, such an eye does exist in man, as the third eye, that maps to the pineal gland. A human eye has a restricted structure with a limited field of vision because the human mind is far developed and compensates for the external senses. This is the reason a blind human can train himself/herself to the surroundings whereas a bind bird or animal would die sooner.

Other examples of superior skills of the lower species are the aerodynamics displayed by the fly or mosquito, the sharper vision of the eagle, the untiring journey of birds in migration and their sense of direction, the complex behaviour and skills of ants and so on. If man evolved by natural selection of the best in the lower forms why did he not have a body to suit these skills and facilities?

2. Why should evolution and natural selection stop with humans? Why should it result in their ultimate, inevitable death? How does death fit into the Darwin's scheme of things? Why hasn't natural selection enabled the evolution of a super human who can confront death?

3. Machines are the extensions of humans in evolution. They do what humans cannot, faster and much more precisely. Yet they are designed by man who is unable to give them the intelligence to grow on their own. I don't think man can ever endow a machine with AI that matches his own. The very fact that man can't a design a machine or another life form that is 'as evolved as he is' is in itself indicative of a superior intelligence that designed the human form.

4. If man evolved from the monkey, why is it that he has a far superior mind and intellect? Why the gorilla and other familes of monkeys aren't today evolving into humans or at least give birth to human babies? At least has their mind evolved without being in proximity with man?

Madhavan
02 October 2007, 11:29 AM
[color=black]
Please do not be sarcastic. Lab experiments are very important part of Science. We could not have enjoyed this world without experiments, inventions and discoveries. Thank you

Love VC

No one is asking to abandon Lab experiments or theoretical researches. It is a gift that God has given this fertile brain and it can and should be put to such use.

However, one should not think that science and religion are disconnected, or that our mind be restricted only to scientific thinking. All our thoughts are inspired by God, and we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by thoughts such as "I discovered this and that". Even the so called scientific research which is the profession of a scientist can be converted into Karma Yoga by doing the work with honesty and dedication ( and not fabricating results to fit theory like most evolution scientists do), and mentally giving all credit to God for your achievements.

Intelligent Design ( not necessarily the form of ID advocated by bible lovers whose aim is to promote Christianity under the guise of ID and not any real search for truth) must be accepted by all theists. All the principles of Prakriti operate in accordance with strict laws as designed by the creator, and how could a Hindu really disbeleive in such an idea and yet call himself a vaidika?

While doing all these as a scientist, one must not forget that the true goal of life is Atma darshana.

vcindiana
02 October 2007, 08:29 PM
[quote=yajvan;16507]Hari Om
~~~~~
When the SELF is not realized, then the ego is involved in daily matters... if its baking a cake or a lab experiment. To completely remove the obstacle of interference, or of tainting an experiment with the scientists notion that 'my feelings, wishes' etc. may effect the outcome or pollute the experiment, operating from the SELF removes this blemish or concern.
quote]

SELF” realization cannot be a domain of vedantins alone. Self knowledge as I understood is gained by humility alone. Humility is true knowledge of oneself as one is. All great Scientists including Darwin and Einstein were humble enough to admit their limitations. They never claimed it is their “feelings or wishes “as you describe them. But the limitations never dampened their spirits in search for newer inventions and discoveries for the betterment of mankind.


Quote: This is why for years the kings of Bharat had Brahmana's as part of their advising ministers, completely free of blemishes... perfect 20-20 vision on seeing issues as they where.

Sorry, I did not understand your point. This may open a can of worms. You mean to say Brahmanas were the only privileged people who had self knowledge? meaning humble themselves? I do not understand this.

Love, VC

vcindiana
02 October 2007, 08:50 PM
Namaste VC,

Whether Lab or mind, any experiment is likely to expend/introduce some energy into the observation and thus altering it. You must have read Uncertainty principle.

The truth is known when the mind has no waves (no thoughts). This is the beginning of Yoga Sutra, taught by Patanjali. This is truly not sarcasm.


Love

Om

Thank you . I cannot be intelligent like you to see things black and white. What is the purpose of questions or discussions or forums when every thing is certain. Science never boasts it has answer to every thing.

How can Truth be known when the mind has no thoughts, no freedom ,no keen observation and conformed to some philosophy or idealogy and stays dull ?

Love, VC

saidevo
02 October 2007, 09:41 PM
Namaste Madhavan.



Intelligent Design ( not necessarily the form of ID advocated by bible lovers whose aim is to promote Christianity under the guise of ID and not any real search for truth) must be accepted by all theists.


You are right. ID is promoted by the Christian scientists to give a new lease to the creation theory of the Bible. This is the reason that ID has some ridiculous 'beliefs' that can easily be unscientific:

1. Proving the existence of one or more Gods, and to disprove the validity of naturalistic evolution. (How can the existence of Gods be 'proved' in the scientific sense?)

2. There is an old earth which is 4 billion years old and a young earth that is 10,000 years old! Both the ID and the Evolution theory believe that there are about 4,000 species in existence today (compare this to the 8.4 million species mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam).

Though ID has a clue to the correct approach, it lacks any serious research into human mind, a serious shortcoming of the Abrahamic religions. Unless science knows about the human mind it cannot hope to even know about God, leave alone proving His existence!

Eastern Mind
02 October 2007, 10:09 PM
Just thought I'd jump in. Let's not forget that science is part of God, as He is all and in all. Scientists have God in them also. As far as evolution goes, many today believe our souls came from another planet somewhere in the Pleiades, and we are here to further evolve. From my readings, the last planet, also a fire planet (meaning there is fire inside) i.e. a warm planet capable of supporting life forms, was dying out, so the soul bodies had to find a new one, which this is. These events are spoken of in the Akashic records, a vast library that contains the history of the universe, accessible by mystics. Darwin of course couldn't have seen this. Regardless of the history now is now, and we attempt to live beyond time, in the eternity of the moment. Aum Namashivaya

yajvan
02 October 2007, 10:23 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


VC writes:
SELF” realization cannot be a domain of vedantins alone. Self knowledge as I understood is gained by humility alone. Humility is true knowledge of oneself as one is. All great Scientists including Darwin and Einstein were humble enough to admit their limitations. They never claimed it is their “feelings or wishes “as you describe them. But the limitations never dampened their spirits in search for newer inventions and discoveries for the betterment of mankind.


Quote: This is why for years the kings of Bharat had Brahmana's as part of their advising ministers, completely free of blemishes... perfect 20-20 vision on seeing issues as they where.

Sorry, I did not understand your point. This may open a can of worms. You mean to say Brahmanas were the only privileged people who had self knowledge? meaning humble themselves? I do not understand this.
Love, VC

Namaste VC,
lets see if I can sort out a few items.

Self knowledge is not for Vedantins alone
Yes, you are correct - it is for the family of man, who ever chooses the discipline to pursue this.
Self knowledge as I understood is gained by humility alone
Self knowledge can be realized in multiple ways. True humility I would suspect a vital quality to have, yet if one does not experience turiya, the raw materials of SELF awareness, humility on its own will remain a noble quality; The key and the instruction of Krsna is, be without the 3 gunas. This brings one to this Union of the Divine, of SELF.
FYI - SELF knowledge is not a list of characteristics of facts or figures, nor is it a personality development program. The SELF is the Divine essence in you not touched by the ego, action, and cause and effect. [ we have tons of posts on this ]
Darwin and Einstein were humble enough to admit their limitations. They never claimed it is their “feelings or wishes “as you describe them.
This VC is the essence of the point that you perhaps missed. The notion was - how in the lab does one not disturb the experiment. What is meant here is atanu's offer of the Uncertainty Principle. It suggests as fact, that a scientist, can infact influence the outcome of his experiment, not touching it physically, even though he does not wish to do so.. Atanu suggested their energy is mixed in, or as I said it 'wishing or feeling' for a particular outcome. That was the point. If you care to look up this uncertainty principle you will find it intersting.
Now, next part of this. When one is possessed of the SELF, the ego is not engaged, the thought patterns are still, the scientist is in perfect balance. Possessed of the SELF, s/he is outside the realm of the mind influencing the outcome....that is the point. A perfect state of mind for the perfect experiment.

It has nothing to do with ones limitations, and everything to to with balance, and equaniminity. Nothing to do with being humble. Yet if one chooses to define humble as the 'same in pleasure and pain, in loss or gain' then being possessed of the Self, is perfect humility.
This is why for years the kings of Bharat had Brahmana's as part of their advising ministers...
The point here VS is these Brahmana's, established in the SELF, in Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization) or turiyatit chetana (sustained turya), are beyond motivational gain, above the ego. They are established in more then the most, Brahman. In this level of consciousness, they see everything with an equal eye, and give the best advise, because of this even-ness of mind. They are not motivated by self-achievement of things or possessions. So, for a King, this is the best minister to have, one that speaks and sees the Truth ( Ritam).

That said, no one can corner the market on Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization)- there is not a privileged few, there are those that pursue this level of Being and those that don't. Yet, it was the Brahmana's that took to this life style, to tapas, to sadhana, to develop this level of Being as a high priority for them. Yet we see in the Upanishads Kshatriyaand others achieving and pursuing the SELF. I will be happy to point out the sadhus called out in the Chandogya Upanishad. Here is one if you care to read this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1745

The way one of my teachers would assess it is one posessed of the SELF, a Brahmana, a realzied soul, one possessed of the SELF, of the Atman, is in tune with and guided by the same laws that manage this total Universe. Why then not ask the Universe ( a Brahmana, a realized Being, etc.) for their views and opinions on matters of state? It is an unbiased view they will give that is best for all concerned, as thier vision is far reaching.
I think I have addressed your concerns... poke around some more with questions as you see fit.

pranams,

Madhavan
03 October 2007, 01:06 AM
Though ID has a clue to the correct approach, it lacks any serious research into human mind, a serious shortcoming of the Abrahamic religions. Unless science knows about the human mind it cannot hope to even know about God, leave alone proving His existence!

Even if a logical proof for God could be theoretically supplied, the scientist will be satisfied in accepting the Deistic God, who just created and left the creation as it is, without any involvement in it, which means it would not add any objectives like moksha etc. The kind of personal God as in Abrahamic religions cannot be proved through any amount of logic. The kind of Advaitic Brahman( even with some logical problems in it) can be proved because all of us have the "I" awareness and it is self evident. The existance of anything external to oneself which cannot be directly cognized or inferred cannot be proved except through scripture.

Even if we know the human mind, God cannot be proved. The thinner the mind gets(lesser its vrittis), one could realize the subtleties of nature which are otherwise imperceptible to the senses, but still this cannot get us anywhere closer to understanding or proving God. God is proved when one personally experiences it through grace. Whether one beleives in it or not, God has nothing to loose, the looser is always the man.

Madhavan
03 October 2007, 01:36 AM
Thank you . I cannot be intelligent like you to see things black and white. What is the purpose of questions or discussions or forums when every thing is certain. Science never boasts it has answer to every thing.

How can Truth be known when the mind has no thoughts, no freedom ,no keen observation and conformed to some philosophy or idealogy and stays dull ?

Love, VC

Do you accept that the Truth is ever unchanging? If so, how do you expect to know it through an ever changing apparatus like the senses or the mind? If you want to study a species under a microscope, what do you do? Do you keep rolling your eyes and keep tilting the microscope? How can you observe anything without steady concentration?


To know the unchanging, you should become unchanging too - shut off your senses, shut off activities and shut off thoughts. There will be no short cuts. If you cannot do this straightaway, achieve this by constant practice. That is where many kinds of yogas have been prescribed - karma yoga, bhakti yoga, raja yoga etc.

Since, the senses operate under the mind, it is sufficient to control the mind to achieve the state of complete inaction. But it is not easy. No one is used to a situation where mind is thoughtless. Therefore, the goal is only to minimize the patterns in the mind field. The initial focus should be to keep it steady on one constant thought for as long as possible without straining. This could be the "I" thought, or some personal diety, or on some sacred mantra or any object that pleases your mind. When this practice has become steady by practice for years, at some point, all patterns in the mind will be cleared. This does not automatically lead to samAdhi or God realization, but is the way towards it. The supreme power beyond us(maybe guru if one has a guru) is always monitoring us, and guiding us further towards the goal. One who engages in any form of spiritual practice will be certainly given guidance in the form of "inner voices". At some point of time, when the mind is pure and thoughtless, the divine grace flushes through and reveals itself...

For most people, all the above will be extremely tiresome and boring. Such people are advised by the Lord to practice the art of selflessness and love - love your neighbour, love all creatures and love your creator. This will create samadRsTi in you, which is very important in any form of meditation. To gradually prepare a person into the subtleties of Yoga, Hindu religion does not advocate "a one shoe fits all" religion. We can follow any of the standard method of practice that pleases us, whatever form of religion that pleases you is the best for you because that will ensure maximum commitment.

atanu
03 October 2007, 03:51 AM
Thank you . I cannot be intelligent like you to see things black and white. What is the purpose of questions or discussions or forums when every thing is certain. Science never boasts it has answer to every thing.

How can Truth be known when the mind has no thoughts, no freedom ,no keen observation and conformed to some philosophy or idealogy and stays dull ?

Love, VC

Hello VC,

Why you are bringing up extraneous things -- comparison of intelligence etc.?

First, I know a simple thing. A scientist may know a lot of things but may not know himself and attempts to know oneself is a scientific endeavour.

Second, science is good within its scope. I AM A SCIENTIST MYSELF. Do I know the intelligence that is given to me? In fact, I am not talking black and white. I am talking of the shades much more than you.

Third. The main question “How can Truth be known when the mind has no thoughts, no freedom, no keen observation and conformed to some philosophy or idealogy and stays dull ?" exposes your unscientific bias. It assumes that attaining a thoughtless mind leads to “no freedom ,no keen observation and stays dull”.

Dear VC, try to attain a thoughtless state for a moment and with that experience (empirical evidence) you say whether trying to attain a thoughtless mind means remaining non-alert or not? To attain a thoughtless mind one has to be 100% keen and alert to every rising thought. Shri VC, please experience something and then speak. That is science.

Attaining a thoughtless mind is the keenest activity that leads to omniscience and nothing less. This is science of Yoga. On the other hand, your loose comments (being not based on experiments or logic) are unscientific.

Moreover, you are ignorant about a well known scientific paradigm of an observer altering the state of truth.

I clarify that I am a scientist. I am for a rational scientific way of life. However, a mind may know a lot of things but may not know itself. Trying to know itself is a scientific endeavour. But, like a report written by me will not understand me, the thoughts issuing from a mind will not understansd the mind. And the mind will not understand its own source (the person) using thoughts as tool.

Om

vcindiana
03 October 2007, 09:04 PM
Hello VC,



Om

Thank you so much for your efforts in explaining me. I am trying to understand your points. My original post was about fundamental Christians putting down evolution. Darwin's work was based on his keen observation ( not experiments) and he himself knew some might disagree with it. I am not sure how we got into the discussion of SELF in this. Any way, thank you again for your insights. I keep my mind wide open for fresh thinkings.

Love, VC

vcindiana
03 October 2007, 09:10 PM
....For most people, all the above will be extremely tiresome and boring. Such people are advised by the Lord to practice the art of selflessness and love - love your neighbour, love all creatures and love your creator. ..........that pleases us, whatever form of religion that pleases you is the best for you because that will ensure maximum commitment.

Thank you for your response. Theology and abstract ideas are a little beyond my head. I am a sincere believer in freedom and Love.
Thanks again

Love, VC

vcindiana
03 October 2007, 09:56 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


I think I have addressed your concerns... poke around some more with questions as you see fit.

pranams,

Thank you, you have addressed my concerns. Your explanation is well taken.

If you do care, let me tell you how I see this "Self" from a different angle. It is critical for me to be realistic, to have a true knowledge of myself as I am, and to be able to recognize both the good parts and the bad parts in me.( Humility). In that very process I can love myself ...not to be mistaken for self esteem or self centeredness.. Self love implies care, respect and resposibility for and the knowledge of myself. Self knowledge has taught me that even though I try to be perfect, imperfection is a reality in my life. I have witnessed several moments of breaking in my own life, I have come to realize I am not OK, I do not have it all together and I am not perfect. In those breaking moments I value, love and forgive myself. It is essential for my growth. In that self there is a realization that there is something about me that I need to work on. I think lots of people have the unrealistic sense of their own unimportance, unloveliness and undesirability. I feel it is important for us to go out into the world to teach others how importantant they are, how beautiful they are and how they too are desired beyond their wildest imaginations
Thank you again for your patience and interest in me

Love, VC

saidevo
03 October 2007, 11:37 PM
Namaste Madhavan.



Even if we know the human mind, God cannot be proved. The thinner the mind gets(lesser its vrittis), one could realize the subtleties of nature which are otherwise imperceptible to the senses, but still this cannot get us anywhere closer to understanding or proving God. God is proved when one personally experiences it through grace. Whether one beleives in it or not, God has nothing to loose, the looser is always the man.


I agree with you that the mind needs to be cleared of its vrittis (expressions) to realize the Self. But ironically, the Self is realized only through the mind! Please correct me if I am wrong: I think the experience of that realization as it happens in samAdhi may be beyond the realm of mind, but Jivan Muktas get back to the jAgrat state of wakefulness and still 'feel' that experience in their mind. Ramana calls the mind of JnAnis shuddha manas (blemishless mind). Thus I think the human mind partakes all experiences whether worldly, spiritual or Self-realiztional.

Madhavan
04 October 2007, 02:47 AM
Namaste Madhavan.



I agree with you that the mind needs to be cleared of its vrittis (expressions) to realize the Self. But ironically, the Self is realized only through the mind! Please correct me if I am wrong: .

The mind has no role in self realization as far as I know. Mind is an evolute of jaDa prakriti, and how can one experience the Self with an insentient mind? Self is to be known by the Self alone, and nothing else.

Basically I see it like this:

Man -> body -> mind -> intellect -> individual purusha(soul) -> param purusha(purushottama or God)

Each of these layers acts as an obstacle that veils the vision of God.

The God as seen through the body ( with senses) will be an extreme distortion of the true form of God which we see as the universe.

The God seen through the mind( through dhyAna) will be clearer, but not the true God. You can see certain aspects of Saguna Brahman through the clean mind.

The God seen through the intellect gives you the feeling of approaching oneness towards God, ie to say that you know that you resemble God.

The God seen through the soul, is the vishvarUpa darshana. One knows that his existance is inside God, and God exists everywhere in this kind of realization. This is the kind of experience at Brahma Loka.

The God seen in identity with purushottama is the final. There is nothing external to oneself to see. This is the Advaita jnAna.



I think the experience of that realization as it happens in samAdhi may be beyond the realm of mind, but Jivan Muktas get back to the jAgrat state of wakefulness and still 'feel' that experience in their mind. Ramana calls the mind of JnAnis shuddha manas (blemishless mind). Thus I think the human mind partakes all experiences whether worldly, spiritual or Self-realiztional


Once turiyatit chetana has been attained, the Jivan mukta exists in all the states and there is nothing such as going back to jAgrat state. How are you under the impression that jAgrat avastha is not there in the turIya samAdhi? In turIya, one is the all knowing seer, through the cognizing apparatus of pragnya. One reaches the turIya consciousness starting from jAgrat state only, because it is not possible from svapna and shushupti.

The Jivan mukta has a body, the mind and all the stuff even after attaining jnAna, but these external instruments are no longer needed for him to know anything. It hardly matters if they are pure or not. Karma does not bind a jnAni anymore, as he sees inaction in all action.

atanu
04 October 2007, 07:47 AM
---My original post was about fundamental Christians putting down evolution. Darwin's work was based on his keen observation ( not experiments) and he himself knew some might disagree with it. I am not sure how we got into the discussion of SELF in this. Any way, thank you again for your insights. I keep my mind wide open for fresh thinkings.
Love, VC

Namaste VC,

Yes, we got sidetracked, contributed by everyone, but especially your statement about sarcasm.

Om

saidevo
04 October 2007, 11:45 AM
Namaste Madhavan.

I would rather request Satay to shift the posts in this thread that discuss Hindu concepts of Self and Self-Realization to a suitable thread, perhaps with the name "The Role of Mind in Self-Realization".



The mind has no role in self realization as far as I know. Mind is an evolute of jaDa prakriti, and how can one experience the Self with an insentient mind? Self is to be known by the Self alone, and nothing else.

The Jivan mukta has a body, the mind and all the stuff even after attaining jnAna, but these external instruments are no longer needed for him to know anything. It hardly matters if they are pure or not. Karma does not bind a jnAni anymore, as he sees inaction in all action.


The point I am trying to address, Madhavan, is that since most of us are not JnAnis ourselves, it is essential to discuss the technicalities and practicalities to Self-Realization and this would help our progress.

All of us are very familiar with the human mind (manas) and the human intellect (buddhi) and use them in our worldly and spiritual endeavours. I think that so long as the physical body is there, the Jivan Mukta too does use these two faculties, albeit they are subtly material and although he/she always remains in all the four states having already realized the Self. The mind of the JnAni is however different from that of the AjnAni in the following way as explained by Swami Sivananda Saraswati in his essay The Pure and the Impure Mind that can be read at http://www.pahealthsystems.com/archive443-2006-5-718503.html.

Mind is of two kinds: pure mind (shuddha manas), aka the higher mind; and impure mind (ashuddha manas), aka the lower mind.

Impure mind -> associated with the thought of desire, generates impure VAsanAs, attachment to objects, rebirths. Filled with Rajas and Tamas.

Pure mind -> free from desires, filled with pure VAsanAs and Sattva; they lead to Moksha. JnAnis work with pure mind and since they have no egoism and do not expect fruits for their actions, they are not bound by their Karmas.

Swami Sivananda says, "All impure Vasanas are fried in toto when you get knowledge of the Self or Brahma Jnana. Meditation, Japa, Kirtan, practice of Pranayama, Brahma Vichara, study of religious books and Satsanga generate pure Vasanas."

Theosophy also speaks of lower and higher minds, terming the lower mind kAma rUpa. Mental plane (Suvaha) is the natural habitat of these two faculties. The lower mind resides in the lower subplances of the Rupa levels where communication is through forms. The higher mind resides in the higher subplanes of the Arupa level and communicates using light and color instead of concrete thoughts.



Basically I see it like this:

Man -> body -> mind -> intellect -> individual purusha(soul) -> param purusha(purushottama or God)

Each of these layers acts as an obstacle that veils the vision of God.

The God as seen through the body (with senses) will be an extreme distortion of the true form of God which we see as the universe.

The God seen through the mind( through dhyAna) will be clearer, but not the true God. You can see certain aspects of Saguna Brahman through the clean mind.

The God seen through the intellect gives you the feeling of approaching oneness towards God, ie to say that you know that you resemble God.

The God seen through the soul, is the vishvarUpa darshana. One knows that his existance is inside God, and God exists everywhere in this kind of realization. This is the kind of experience at Brahma Loka.

The God seen in identity with purushottama is the final. There is nothing external to oneself to see. This is the Advaita jnAna.


This is a good explanation which I like for its clarity and terseness. The key word you have used in all the stages is 'seen'. In the final stage of union with Purushottama, it is not an external sight but an internal realization.

What exactly does the world 'realization' of Unity connote? The experience, even in Advaita, I think is one of visual realization: neither aural, nor feeling. Atanu would say that it is a state of Being or Be-ness where the Knower, Known and Knowledge merge, but that state is not one of darkness as seen/felt in deep sleep but one of flooding light (parashiva veLLam, as the Saiva Siddhanta philosophy puts it) which is experienced with a predominantly visual element in consciousness. (Am I right here, or is there any other way to know it?).

Though such experience of the Self in the Self is beyond words or thoughts, it might still be visual, even in the stage of identity with Purushottama, which is perhaps the reason you have described it as "The God seen in identity with purushottama..."



Once turiyatit chetana has been attained, the Jivan mukta exists in all the states and there is nothing such as going back to jAgrat state. How are you under the impression that jAgrat avastha is not there in the turIya samAdhi? In turIya, one is the all knowing seer, through the cognizing apparatus of pragnya. One reaches the turIya consciousness starting from jAgrat state only, because it is not possible from svapna and shushupti.


This corrects my impression about the Jivan Mukta 'switching back' to Jagrat state, thank you. But there is a catch here. What does it actually mean to exist in all the states simultaneously? It is like a person fully wake up yet dreaming, in deep state as well as in SamAdhi!

Does that mean a Jiva Mukta somnambulates in other states except his own natural state which is Turiya? It can't be. It would be more correct to say, I think, that a Jivan Mukta maintains a Pragnya (consciousness) that is continuous and homogeneous, like the white screen on the wall over which a movie is played and whatever happens on that consciousness does not stick to the Self of the Jivan Mukta. Such consciousness is more akin to AkashA where everything is resolved and nothing stays except the light of consciousness itself.

This raises another point. If the Jivan Mukta in Advaitic Oneness realizes everything to be a Unity of the Self, then the people around him would also be seen as the extensions of his/her Self. But the Atmans of these people suffer from Vasanas! In what way they do or do not affect the states of the Jivan Mukta?

Perhaps an incident connected with Trailanga Swamy that Yogananda describes in his Autobiography has the clue. This Swamy was a God-realized great yogi who was habitually silent. He would stay away from food for weeks and then break his fast with potfuls of clabbered milk offered to him by devotees. One day a skeptic offered him a bucketful of calcium-lime mixture used in whitewashing walls, calling it clabbered milk. Swamiji promptly drank it to the last drop. The skeptic fell to the ground in agony calling for help and forgiveness, but nothing happened to the Swamiji!

The great yogi broke his habitual silence. "Scoffer," he said, "you did not realize when you offered me poison that my life is one with your own. Except for my knowledge that God is present in my stomach, as in every atom of creation, the lime would have killed me. Now that you know the divine meaning of boomerang, never again play tricks on anyone."