PDA

View Full Version : Science and Religion - Friend or Foe?



yajvan
30 October 2007, 07:45 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste ,

I was just thinking ....oh no!

What is the beef between science and religion? [lets use religion as the metaphor for spirituality]. I have seen people get absolutely sideways over this. A recent article in Discovery Magizine had various scientists in revolt over the theory of Intelligent Design. They were forming a consortium for scientists to participate in so as to upsurp this whole notion.

Now from my side, I have not spent enough time with this to form an opinion on Intelligent Design, yet only looked at the level of ire it instilled in some of these scientific folks.

So what's the deal... not with this Intelligent Design, but with the notion of science and spirit (religion) co-existing and benefiting? I do not view it as a challange of extremes by that of scope and balance.

How so? It seems to be two ends of the same pursuit of truth. One end is subjective e.g. the SELF, Aham is completely subjective experience i.e. turning inward. When one explains it, it is not in terms of quantitative data, but a qualitative nature.

On the other end we have ~pure objectivity, that of measurements and discernable facts that can be calculated, repeated, observed and quantified. Yet the same truths are being pursued by science as by spirit i.e. our origins, how things work, where we're going, how all 'this' works. This objectivity could be to the point of absolute unawareness of the SELF, completely lost to the field of prakriti with no sense of Aham. This is called abuddha: a or 'not' + bhu 'to become or exist' ; or budh ' to elighten , to know'. So it is without the knowledge of enlightenemt or SELF referral.

The languages between science and spirit are different. The rhetoric of spirituality as of today, is not a scientific dialog, yet still point to the same ideas on truth...I do see this changing as of late.

With science, the concern is that of measurable objectivity and the rigor of scientific method. Yet isn’t interesting that new science or discovery needs to start with an idea? The light (budh) of the intellect. Ideas are the realm of the subjective, internal to ones mind.

An impulse of a thought, a slight intent that brings the flood of new ideas. So the scientists take this and create their hypothesis and see if they create the proper environment to prove or disprove the theory. Yet it started in consciousness and they are applying dhi shakti, a fundmental element of Brahman, pure intelligence, pure consciousness that bubbles up ( is applied) to become individual consiousness and intelligence.

On the spiritual side, it starts in consciousness already. The value of this is awareness applied and used as the core foundation of the spiritual pursuit. Yet would it not make sense for more scientific investigation into the workings of consciousness? It's being done no doubt, yet this is where science and spirit intersect (IMHO).

It seems there is a cycle that takes place:

Conflict - that is, this spiritual stuff and this science stuff just does not mix. a.k.a. you guys are nuts syndrome. Because of this, the next phase happens;
Independence - you folks stay on your side of the wall and we will stay on ours a.k.a I am taking my ball and going home! No connection. Then over time, one begins to question, or run out of ideas and starts looking for new vistas to assist in thinking.

Dialog - people begin to talk and share ideas back and forth.
Integration - new ideas are incorporated into the scientific and spiritual community… examples like 'What the bleep' movie that takes a view of this universe, who we are and how we act and adds in quantum mechanics. Some interesting books from the science community e.g. the Tao of Physics, Dancing with Wu Li Masters, The Study of Natural Science with Reference to Theravada Buddhism And Advaita Vedanta. Even one by A.de. Riencourt called the Eye Of Siva which he says ' The new view of the Universe appears to be largely in accord with Eastern metaphysics'. There are more books on the genetics side of science which one can consider too.
If we look to Einstein and Newton - these people are the giants in Science, well grounded in the Intelligence of the Cosmos. Without them our world would not be the same. Their ideas were concepts brought to the forefront by insight and brilliance…this is what the spirit of man can do.

So ya got to ask what really is the beef? Perhaps that we are not going fast enough to get to this integration? From this, IMHO, it then is infused into society as the norm. This is how society is changed in the long term. The infusion ( once again) of science and spirit, not for the few but for the many.

Any thoughts and observations are warmly welcomed.

pranams,

atanu
31 October 2007, 08:11 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste ,
I was just thinking http://www.cybergifs.com/faces/wink8.gif ....oh no!

What is the beef between science and religion? ----pranams,

Pranam,

You are not thinking of any pickle now? Why change to beef?

How one knows the knower who knows everything? This is how Brihadaraynaka addresses this beef. Many scientists and doctors acknowledge this. I think objective and rational scientists have problem with those religionists who want to invade the world in the name of intelligent design etc.

A far as I know, Sarabhanga is a scientist and so am I and so are you possibly. Enquiring mind will definitely come to an understanding of its purpose eventually. Oppenheimer, Hiesenberg, Einstein, and the authors you have mentioned were all convinced of the root consciousness -- which is immeasurable, since it only measures and knows.

There are haters on both sides, that also was discussed earlier in a post between sarabhanga and kaos. Among scientists there are foes and different dharma schools spill blood. The opposite, a scientist can be good spiritual man, unlike a blind bigot or a spiritualist can give immense respect to scientists.


Om

yajvan
31 October 2007, 09:30 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Pranam,

You are not thinking of any pickle now? Why change to beef?

How one knows the knower who knows everything? This is how Brihadaraynaka addresses this beef. Many scientists and doctors acknowledge this. I think objective and rational scientists have problem with those religionists who want to invade the world in the name of intelligent design etc.

There are haters on both sides, that also was discussed earlier in a post between sarabhanga and kaos. Among scientists there are foes and different dharma schools spill blood. The opposite, a scientist can be good spiritual man, unlike a blind bigot or a spiritualist can give immense respect to scientists. Om

Namaste atanu,
pickles, beef, go figure...

You make a good point "rational scientists have problem with those religionists who want to invade the world in the name of intelligent design etc.". - keep out of my field of expertise, I am the owner of this...is the mind set.
My teacher has said this is small small thinking. Brahman is so vast there is room for every one to rejoice and advance in the knowledge.

Ultimately it is coming to know the knower who knows everything. Neither scientist or spiritualist is the owner, yet this is another mala/blemish of the human condition, no? Thinking I own this, and this boundary is mine, and my house is really my possession.

thank you for the post... I think I will take a look a bit further on this Intelligent Design stuff and get a POV; you have any thoughts on this?

pranams,

Znanna
31 October 2007, 06:30 PM
Namaste,

Intelligent Design (ID ... similar to ED) is a construct put forth by some evangelical political, eg American Family Council, (unfortunately not an oxymoron) organizations who are insidiously promoting propagandizing evangelism in the public schools and other organizations here.

Simply put, the notion is that since there appears to be order in nature (debatable as the perception of order isn't necessarily natural, eh?), that therefore there must have been a GOD which put this order out as a precept. How could things evolve, without a plan?

IMO, just as duality as a precept is a result of Cartesian mathematics and the thinking that derived from same ... the notion of ID is some sort of antithesis to Chaos theory as representative of the last vestiges of the previous mindset seeks analog for justification.


ZN

yajvan
01 November 2007, 10:04 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Simply put, the notion is that since there appears to be order in nature (debatable as the perception of order isn't necessarily natural, eh?), that therefore there must have been a GOD which put this order out as a precept. How could things evolve, without a plan? ZN

Hello ZN,

In my observations I see lots of order ... let me also use the word structure and intelligence. Intelligence orders and structures. I see the seasons come on time, I see earth's orbit and the planets subscribe to mathmatical rules. I 'see' matter organized in a way that has components to it. A hierarchy of order.

When I plant a watermelon seed I get just that , not an apple or a cherry tree. This is the order I see. Certain rules of nature that are kept e.g. cause and effect.

I also see chaos theory, yet there is order to how that too unfolds. Lets say the decomposition of uranium, it is decomposing to its half life; Lets look at a body decomposing - it to goes though a set of rules or laws on how this decomposition takes place. All the elements are headed for lead if I recall correctly...the march in an orderly fashion to this element.

Even in chaos, the randomness has a pattern, an order or a set of rules the govern dis-order and chaos. If something goes flying out from the center of a star or a galaxy or ejected in a random manner out of a human cell , the laws of velocity, attraction, resistance , gravity all apply.

Lets not get so cosmic - how about a balloon that is let go, letting the air out to propel the balloon. To us, the path is random, yet to analyse it and chart the course of pressure, wind velocity, bla bla bla, the balloon took the path of least resistance to move in space... random to the observer, yet filled with order and the laws of physics.

I see this as the intelligence of this Universe managing it on every level.
I see Creation ( Brahma at work) , the maintenance of this universe by Visnu and I see its destruction (Rudra). Beautiful order. Now are these deities or are they names we give to macro-qualities of nature. I will leave that your discretion.

I see this order in breath, walking, blinking, etc. in each case there is a creation-maintenance and destructive part.

God then as a part of this Intelligent Design, perhaps, is this Infinite Intelligence that does not even need 'mind' to manage this whole creation, as intelligence is within every cubic inch of creation as consciousness, that brings this perfect order with ease. Even suggesting the word 'manage' infers effort ... this is not the correct word. It is His will of Paramasiva...effortlessness.

Curving back onto Myself I create again and again.

pranams,

atanu
02 November 2007, 08:21 AM
This is a very complicated thing 'Order vs. Chaos'.

Cause-effect is not beyond mind, whereas the being to whom the order or chaos is being ascribed is simply beyond the mind. I feel that the following is pertinent here.

Svet. Upanishad


V-13: Realizing Him who is without beginning or end, who creates the cosmos in the midst of chaos, who assumes many forms, and who alone envelops everything, one becomes free from all fetters.

Lets see what ZN brings out.

Om

yajvan
02 November 2007, 07:30 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


This is a very complicated thing 'Order vs. Chaos'.
Om

Namaste,


Usually when people talk of chaos they introduce Entropy.
An older definition of this was defined as a change to a more dis-ordered
state, the way of the universe as it ages. Today with a better understanding, its now redefined as the dispersal of energy.


These are the laws of thermodynamics - most people are familur with them i.e. the conservation of energy and all that.
ref site for those inquiring minds: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=73383


pranams

yajvan
18 November 2007, 06:50 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste,
Usually when people talk of chaos they introduce Entropy.
An older definition of this was defined as a change to a more dis-ordered
state, the way of the universe as it ages.

Namaste,

I thought to finish this thought... What do I think then is chaos? it is not the randomness of the Universe. 'Random' follows laws, yet to the casual observer it looks outta control and total chaotic.

For me chaos would be that the laws of nature are not reliable.


Today I plant a tomato seed and get a pumkin... I am okay with that as long as each time I did this I got a pumkin. It is when you plant a tomato and one day you get a pumpkin, the next day you get a palm tree.
Today I put gas in my car and I get 50MPG, the next day I put gas in and it freezes the engine and it falls part.
Today a female dog has puppies, tomorrow she gives birth to a kangaroo.
Today the earth completes a day in 24 hrs, tomorrow it takes 100 hrs to rotate 360°
That is chaos...

pranams,

Nuno Matos
18 November 2007, 08:02 PM
Namaste Yajvan


" For me chaos would be that the laws of nature are not reliable"

I think that the created laws of man are different from Nature laws at least in our present age that we all grieve towards power .
There is an interesting sociologist called Edgar Morin that has a book on the subject of Human Nature the book is called by the author, " Human nature or the Lost Paradigm". Were he states that humans somehow lost their root connection with nature when they started to look for artificial paradises out of a god given world. With that come education, city's, trade, power and of course different laws come to justify duality and the one's capable of imposing their artificial power over other's. So now a days everybody is lost. Time is like acid!
Science says now a day's trough the "Quantum paradigm" that what was once take as granted is not true at least at a quantum level. In fact now a day's the only possible affirmation is that the Universe is no more ruled by ordained laws in an ordained universe but the rule is the one of Kaos.
Kaos in unity. Some prefer to say; " From here to eternity. Love is the Law."

Om Jaya Kali Ma!
Hara, Hara-Mahdeva, Shiv-Shamboo!!!

yajvan
19 November 2007, 03:17 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan

I think that the created laws of man are different from Nature laws at least in our present age that we all grieve towards power .


Namaste Nuno,
Can you give me an example of a created law of men so I can follow your idea...thank you.

Nuno Matos
19 November 2007, 04:24 PM
Namaste Yajvan

Legal laws and moral laws for example or even scientific laws. There is an interesting scientist, Pierre Bourdieu, who says that scientific laws have only a scientific value they are scientific ways of explaining nature way of working and not to be confound with real Nature Laws. He says that science has grow a lot in terms of production of consciousnesses in a recent past, but the job is not yet done and every day's new answer's come and destroy the already existing presumptions.
Interesting debate isn't it?

Pranams

Om namah Shivaya!

yajvan
25 November 2007, 09:32 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


I have seen people get absolutely sideways over this. A recent article in Discovery Magazine had various scientists in revolt over the theory of Intelligent Design. ... I have not spent enough time with this to form an opinion on Intelligent Design, yet only looked at the level of ire it instilled in some of these scientific folks.


Namaste,

I Have just watched a two hour NOVA originated program on Evolution(E) vs. Intelligent Design (ID). This was about the court case that took place in 2004, in Pennsylvania.

I learned a lot by viewing this. The argument is not ID is better and the right way then E, but that it (ID) should be taught along side E. And that E is a theory and not fact and the final word. [This was the ID's position on this matter].

Bottom line - the court ( by judge only, no jury) ruled ID was not in fact a science. He also made the observation that the proponents of ID saw E as antithetical to God and felt their religious beliefs were being challanged and needed to respond.

I have no issues or see no challenges in my mind with either side. Here's a few points for those that have interest.

Intelligent Design at its core is base upon a simple premise - many organisms on this planet are just to complex biologically to not have been designed. Hence God created the species i.e. fish, man, dogs, horses, and from there they evolve accordingly to meet the demands of the environment.
ID proponents never mention God, as they see this as a challenge to the scientific community.
When defining 'design' the definition was 'the purposeful arrangement of parts'
the ID part that is NOT discussed is that of the links to Creationism. The NOVA program made that sound like a bad thing. Creationism is based upon Genesis. That the earth is ~ 4,000 to 10,000 years old. That does not pass the common sense test when one looks at fossels, but so what. There are multiple things on the Darwin E side that does not compute either, but we can leave that for another post.All of the Evolutions' arguments was predicated on Darwin's work.

There was an 'in fact' attitude that this theory is accurate and is improved over time.
The facts that were offerd were compelling and connected the data together. Many scientists offered their views and work. Very compelling. There was a general distain for ID from this commuinty overall ( IMHO).
Now what I find interesting is this key point: That of natural selection of species to adapt to its environment. I think that is brilliance and accurate. Yet what I see at its core is the [I]'intelligence' for this adaption to occur. The intelligence in the Universe for this ability to take place. That was not discussed and completely dismissed to 'trial and error' of DNA changing to mistakes or mis-queues that happened chemically.
The other example that was not challanged was various animals that came from the sea. Okay. Why did they come out of the water? If they came of out the water initially, they will die , as they need gills to breathe, yes? So how could they mate to evolve to an adaptable species e.g. amphibians. These questions were not entertained.The key issue with the E folks vs. ID folks is not that ID is true-or-false, but it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, therefore it cannot fall in the realm of a scientific discipline.

I also must say as a 'neutral' viewer of this program, NOVA ( a science based organization) was biased. They made the ID folks look suspect i.e. the bad guys, and the E folks the good guys. I did not see it as a balanced analysis.

As I see it, there is the Creative Intelligence of this Universe that powers this whole creation... we cannot put that in a test tube , as it is self-realized. Yet there are plenty of foot prints that lead back to this Great Intellect.

For one, we always hear of the Big Bang Theory and scientists relish in this notion as fact. Yet where are the questions of before Big Bang? or where the the raw materials for this to happen. Many think it came from zero mass. Okay... now take me from there, backwards, I am all ears.

To me, I find no issues with E or ID existing together. But that is not what the scieince community wants. So , perhaps it is not taught in science class but in a phiolosophy class ( that is usally not offered in high school).

pranams,

sarabhanga
29 November 2007, 04:23 AM
There are multiple things on the Darwin E side that does not compute.

Such as ??? The principle of evolution through natural selection is robust, and the science of biology relies on this well supported understanding (without which biologists can describe nature but not fully explain it).

sm78
29 November 2007, 07:43 AM
The motivation behind E is "Spirit of Inquiry", while it is only "politics" behind ID.

I am not a biologist, but what little I know, E is a very sound and robust explanation of biological evolution of species.


As I see it, there is the Creative Intelligence of this Universe that powers this whole creation... we cannot put that in a test tube , as it is self-realized. Yet there are plenty of foot prints that lead back to this Great Intellect.

And how does it "hurts" this creative intelligence to postulate that man came from monkeys ?? Natural Selection is just a causal explanation as to how this was done. I don't see how it undermines this creative intelligence.
Infact for me it is a bright proof how creative this force really is, so as to conceive man from monkeys ;).

The universal intelligence according to our scriptures is beyond any "knowing". It is theories (****) like ID which tries to limit it to some pervert human imagination. I don't see any problem with causal explanation of a natural phenomena. But I see much greater problem and avidya with theories (****) which seeks to speculate how God works, motivation being purely political.

yajvan
29 November 2007, 10:58 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

The motivation behind E is "Spirit of Inquiry", while it is only "politics" behind ID. I am not a biologist, but what little I know, E is a very sound and robust explanation of biological evolution of species.

And how does it "hurts" this creative intelligence to postulate that man came from monkeys ?? Natural Selection is just a causal explanation as to how this was done. I don't see how it undermines this creative intelligence.
Infact for me it is a bright proof how creative this force really is, so as to conceive man from monkeys ;).

The universal intelligence according to our scriptures is beyond any "knowing". It is theories (****) like ID which tries to limit it to some pervert human imagination. I don't see any problem with causal explanation of a natural phenomena. But I see much greater problem and avidya with theories (****) which seeks to speculate how God works, motivation being purely political.


Namaste singh.
you mention you are not a biologist... me too!

Also I take no sides on E or ID. That was my notion of this Universal Creative Intelligence (UCI). I do not see E hurting this one bit. The notion of why wouldn't this UCI work though natural laws, since IT created the laws anyway. It's [ the natual laws ] are UCI's tools in its infinite tool box. Yep , agree this makes sense to me.

I also laugh to myself... I think ID has the right words 'Intelligent Design' as that is what UCI does, but then tries to squish it into a format that binds IT and constrains it and this misses the mark for me.

Does it make them bad people? For me, no, as I am patient with their ideas and concepts. Is it politically motivated in some ways, sure looks like it.

I differ with your POV on how God works and how humans speculate on His/Her workings. I see this in various schools of thought on how the unmanifest manifests... the various tattvas or mahabhutas, tanmantras, karmendriyas, and jnanendriyas. His/Her expression into the Manifest.

Does it suggest humans know what Siva/Visnu or The Divine Mother is thinking ( if this is even the process of this Being)? I do not know. But if one reads the Upanishads, the agamas, the Purusha Suktam it suggests we know something about this Beings workings from the rishi's cognition of the truth.

Is this a point of reference for the ID's or the E's? Most Likely not. Yet for me its a formidable baseline to suggest the risi's have a clue on this Beings workings ( still unfathomable albeit).

Two other items:

I did not comprehend the (****) in your post and what was to be communicated. Let know the definition so I can get the full jest of your post.
sarabhanga asked on the previous post: [I]Such as ??? The principle of evolution through natural selection is robust.
The issue that was offered on the show was the transition point from Species A to Species B. That is an interim species that bridges the gap. There was little explanation of why this event occurred. I found It to be a less then robust juxtaposition offered. And the only data was one fossil fish-amphibian found in 2004 ( so fairly recently) as the missing link. One species , one fossil was offered to suggest without question that yes, this is the product of natural selection and that is that.
I found it suspect. Enough to suggest that E is not a science that is well thought out and has multiple data points of integrity? Absolutely Not, not at all; Yet I seen the scientists a bit too eager with their own findings i.e. not being agnostic enough and say we have one data point we think. Now lets look for more.
That was my point... Not to dis-credit , but to have a balanced view. More on this if you wish, as the conversation goes to the bone structure they say looks like a wrist, arm configuration. The sample uses a 20% fish-remains fossil; they filled-in-the-blanks as a 'mock up ' with clay, pseudo-bone structure. For me it did not look like a reasonable assumption to make, but what do I know? My business card does not say paleontologist on it.One POV I think is delightful:
The reason why the Universe is eternal is that it does not live for itself; it gives life to others ( other forms) as it transforms...Lao Tzu 600 BC

For me, the universe is seated in evolving, the transformation as Lao Tzu suggests. It is the Infinite Dynamic of Creativity - that is the Intelligence I rejoice in and hope to know personally. That is, evolving, new forms, permutations is what IT rejoices in... so the Intelligent Design on this matter is E+ID = UCI. This Supreme Universal Creative Intellignce I humbly bow to and give my pranams... Brahman, Siva, Visnu , the Divine Mother.


Thanks again for considering the post...

pranams

sarabhanga
29 November 2007, 10:00 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

What is Natural Selection? In any natural assemblage there will be some individuals or configurations that are more stable or better suited to their environment, or better able to reproduce themselves, with characteristics promoting the survival of their offspring. And those variations best suited or most successful will survive in greater numbers than those less suited and consequently less successful. Some varieties will become extinct, through competition or environmental change, and others will flourish; but so long as some natural variability exists in a population the process of natural selection will continue to direct its gradual evolution.

What is a Species? A species is the basic unit of classification, which is a “self-breeding” group of successfully reproducing individuals that are reproductively isolated (by genetic, geographic or behavioral barriers) from other such groups.

And, over time, reproductively isolated populations will naturally drift apart, each evolving along a different path due to natural selection in its own particular environment.

An “interim species that bridges the gap” can be seen in the many cases where very closely related (only recently separated) species yet retain the ability for cross-breeding when returned to close contact or forced to interbreed.

Doubters can call for physical evidence of missing link after missing link, and evolutionists will never be able to produce concrete examples of every extinct stage in the evolution of every living thing ~ but natural selection, itself, is a logical necessity which cannot reasonably be denied (with or without fossils).

In general terms, the “missing link” between fish and reptiles is an amphibian. And the “missing link” between fish and amphibians is something like a lung-fish or an axolotl (a neotenous salamander).

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, and the embryos of all vertebrates (including humans) develop branchial clefts (“gill slits”) and a tail during the early stages of their development.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Haeckel_drawings.jpg

Sanatana dharma has always accepted the idea of evolution ~ indeed brahma could be translated exactly as a commandment to “evolve!”.

sm78
30 November 2007, 03:49 AM
Thanks sarabhanga for this beautiful diagram.

Yajvan, the main reason why dislike theories like ID is because, where as sanatana dharma talks about underlying unity these "theories" push hard to establish an inherent division. I can put the it many other ways...but essentially creationism of the west is not compatible with my understanding of dharma...and if I am not wrong it is driven by christian politics.

yajvan
30 November 2007, 11:29 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Thanks sarabhanga for this beautiful diagram.

Yajvan, the main reason why dislike theories like ID is because, where as sanatana dharma talks about underlying unity these "theories" push hard to establish an inherent division. I can put the it many other ways...but essentially creationism of the west is not compatible with my understanding of dharma...and if I am not wrong it is driven by christian politics.


Namaste singh,
Yes I see your point...


sarabhanga,
Thank you for your post... for me I am at home with the notions you offer.
Yet the interesting question for me is not so much

What is Natural Selection? In any natural assemblage...
but why this selection occurs.

I ask that rhetorically - as for me, the Intelligence of this Cosmos is at work, and why wouldn't it want to adapt the beings in life to its environment. For it its a delight to see this.

Yet from a scientific view, the 'scientist' will accept that natural selection is the way that nature does business... yet the conversation of the intelligence behind this, is not a subject that is addressed, as for them it cannot be proven. For me, its a matter of observation. This does not make them 'wrong', yet sooner or later this will have to be addressed by them, which I believe will be a true awakening of science.


pranams

Nuno Matos
30 November 2007, 03:53 PM
Namaste Yajvan


" but why thus selection occurs."

As I eared 4 years ago when I was in my 3 year of University, doing Social Sciences, in a semester on the subject of sociobiology. That stated that natural selection in fact is neutral. So now a days, I think, the Neutralist theory still occupy as a reference point the main place in the dominant paradigm i.e. ultimate scientific knowledge on the subject.

pranams

nirotu
01 December 2007, 08:52 AM
Sanatana dharma has always accepted the idea of evolution ~ indeed brahma could be translated exactly as a commandment to “evolve!”.

I am quite surprised by the above statement from Sarabhanga. You have mixed “spiritual evolution” with “biological evolution”. This has far reaching negative consequences.

While, I agree that evolution is a fact, but should not be interpreted in the sense Darwinists mean it! If you define evolution as “change”, then certainly living beings have evolved. But this evolution is “microevolution” and not “macroevolution”. There is not only lack of evidence but truly, there exists positive evidence that has not occurred.

Firstly, Darwinists say microevolution within types proves that macroevolution has occurred. That is fundamentally flawed statement. A common example is the study of fruit flies. Because of their short life span many generation of fruit flies can be studies in a relatively short period of life. Despite the best efforts of intelligent scientists to manipulate fruit flies, their experiment never turned out anything but more fruit flies. Dog breeders try many permutations and combinations in an attempt to create new breeds of dogs are always finding dogs always remain dogs. There is genetic limitation!

Secondly, for example, from scriptural point of view, using the idea that we all came from monkeys does not hold water against “karma – reincarnation” principle. The very purpose of suffering (working out karma) is to develop conscious awareness of the pain and, with that pain and suffering, to bring us to terms with the truth and transform us by way of repentance and good karma. All this is possible because humans are conscious of self. Do you think animals have self-consciousness to undergo such a transformation? A wounded dog would simply lick its wound and move along. Do you think any remorse is developed in that animal? Refer to my previous post “if humans ever de-evolve in to animals?”

Thirdly, ss a Hindu if you claim “Sanatana Dharma” is “eternal” then there must have been humans, with a well developed brain, all along from the beginning to be responsible for that dharma. The very definition “eternal” is meaningless without the existence of humans to justify it from the very beginning!

Blessings,

atanu
01 December 2007, 11:27 AM
I am quite surprised by the above statement from Sarabhanga. You have mixed “spiritual evolution” with “biological evolution”. This has far reaching negative consequences.

-----


Namaste Nirotu,

Welcome back.

Om

sarabhanga
02 December 2007, 12:18 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

brahma is derived from bRh (or bRMh), which means “to be thick, grow great or strong, or increase”.

The second person imperative bRMhan compels to “create!”, and the causative bRMhayati means “to make big or fat or strong, increase, expand, further, or promote”.

brahma is “the means or the cause of perfection or completion”.

And bRMh (vRMh, vRh, or bRh) also means “to roar, bellow, trumpet, speak, or shine” ~ and the unnamed rudra cried bRMhan (“let there be light!”), and he named himself as shiva (“auspicious” or “good”).

bRh especially indicates “speech or prayer”, and bRhan (masculine) or bRhat (neuter) is “lofty, high, tall, great, large, wide, vast, abundant, compact, solid, massive, strong, mighty, full-grown, old, extended, bright, luminous, clear, or loud”.

bRhan (or bRhat) is “speech”, and bRhat is “height, heaven, or sky”.

bRhat is another name for brahman or veda; and bRhat has adverbial force as “far and wide, on high, firmly, compactly, brightly, greatly, much, or aloud”.

The whole of creation evolves from the creative word bRMhan, the bRhan of brahman, the bRhat of bRhaspati ~ and indeed, brahman could be translated exactly as a commandment to “evolve!”.

Natural selection is the manifest will of brahman, as the self-generated means for perfection of the creation.




You have mixed “spiritual evolution” with “biological evolution”. This has far reaching negative consequences.

Indeed, I have not distinguished any particular variety of evolution. The whole universe is evolving, expanding and revolving and unfolding all kinds of wondrous forms and events. All matter has evolved from the interaction of elementary particles, and all elements have evolved from hydrogen. Stars and galaxies have evolved and are evolving; and, if more than one universe is created, there must even be natural selection among universes, with some better suited to prolonged existence or the ongoing creation of new worlds and others being rapidly extinguished.

We are here today, pondering existence, only because the fundamental laws of our universe are exactly the way that they are. If any variable was altered by even the slightest degree then our universe would not have persisted long enough to evolve stable planets, let alone self-conscious beings capable of such abstract musing.

The natural world is perfect in itself, and with time it naturally approaches perfection. The creative expression of brahman is a self-perfecting perfection (as nArAyaNa, the son of man, the only truly self-healing physician). :)

All living beings have a spirit, so biology and spirituality are intimately bound.

The law given to Moses was “do not kill”, and the law of Yama is “do not harm”, and there are “far reaching negative consequences” in considering that this advice does not apply to all living and breathing (and thus by definition “spiritual”) beings.

And the idea of natural selection applies not only to genes and biological expression, but also to memes and cultural expression (including religion) which has likewise evolved.




I agree that evolution is a fact, but it should not be interpreted in the sense Darwinists mean it!

A “Darwinist” accepts that the diversity of life has evolved through a process of natural selection.




Certainly living beings have evolved. But this evolution is “microevolution” and not “macroevolution”.

I cannot see any distinction between spirit and life, nor any particular division between “micro” and “macro”.

The Atman (“breath or spirit”) supports the activity of all living beings. It is within all this and without.

He who sees all beings in the Atman and the Atman in all beings, shrinks not from anything thereafter.

When, to the knower, all beings become one with his own Atman, how should he be deluded, what grief is there when he sees everywhere oneness?

And those who are slayers of their own souls go to godless worlds, covered over with gloomy darkness, after they leave their bodies!




That is fundamentally flawed statement … fruit flies always remain fruit flies … dogs always remain dogs!

Now that truly is a fundamentally flawed statement!

There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies in the family Drosophilidae ~ would you recognize any difference between them? And fruit flies do not always remain the same species of fruit fly! For example, some natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster have evolved reproductive isolation as a result of their different habitats ~ Korol et al. (2000) Nonrandom mating in Drosophila melanogaster laboratory populations derived from closely adjacent ecologically contrasting slopes at ‘Evolution Canyon’. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 12637-12642.

Dogs have been naturally and artificially selected into many forms, varieties, and subspecies, of Canis lupus. And cross-breeding some extreme forms is virtually impossible. The only reason that a chihuahua and an irish wolfhound remain in the same species is because there is a continuum of interbreeding possibilities between the two; but if some catastrophe wiped out all of the medium-sized dogs, then two distinct, naturally non-interbreeding, populations would remain. And the very small dogs would have to be named as a different species from the typical Canis lupus. So, if dog-breeders were solely intent on creating a new species, they have virtually done it! All that remains is the selective loss of intermediate varieties (just as sometimes occurs in nature) and a new species is born.




The idea that we all came from monkeys does not hold water.

Can humans ever de-evolve into animals?

Homo sapiens is but one of seven extant species in the Hominidae family of Primates, and the primates are just one order of eutherian mammal; and the Mammalia are all Animalia! And all animals (including humans) have evolved from a single-celled ancestor in some primordial sea ~ but that was a very, very long time ago. ;)

Man is a particularly self-conscious variety of ape, and man is among the most sapient of animals. Man, however, is the only extant “sacred” animal, created as an ape of God with the wisdom of sacrifice to God.




The very definition “eternal” is meaningless without the existence of humans to justify it from the very beginning!

Eternity has always existed, for it is beyond time, and no mortal justification is required (or even possible)!

The universe was created with perfect physical and spiritual laws, and true dharma (along with sanskrit, and the vedas) has existed since the beginning of time, just waiting for its inevitable realization. Sanatana dharma, in its essence, is the eternal source of ALL dharmas, and (unlike some religions) it was not created by mortal man and does not require mundane supervision or enforcement.

And the principle of karma is far greater than just “human suffering and repentance” (although, that is generally the vital moment of dharma’s full realization).

sm78
03 December 2007, 02:23 AM
I am quite surprised by the above statement from Sarabhanga. You have mixed “spiritual evolution” with “biological evolution”. This has far reaching negative consequences.

The so called matter is a state of consciousness in our philosophy AND so called biological evolution is just an aspect of spiritual evolution.

Far reaching negative consequences comes from lack of understanding of this evolution (biological and spiritual) on whose pinnacle stands Man. Without any idea about either matter and spirit and how Man fits into it (apart from few superstitious speculations like "A guy called God created Man") , we become an unfit species to survive and hover at the brink of extinction !!!

I hope I don't need to convince anyone on how close to extinction we have been in past and how gloomy the future seems.

A chunk of monistic hindu darshana is but understanding this evolution and following it back to the source (mahat) ... it is called the path of tattva jnana. No liberation is possible without understanding evolution.


Can humans ever de-evolve into animals?

You don't keep news is it ?? ;). This seem to happen rather frequently these days.

nirotu
04 December 2007, 03:13 PM
I cannot see any distinction between spirit and life, nor any particular division between “micro” and “macro”.
Macro-evolution provides a mechanism that explains how one form of life is eventually transformed into another.

Micro-evolution accounts for variation within a given kind. It is a variation within a given species due to environment and genetic mutation etc.


. . . .So, if dog-breeders were solely intent on creating a new species, they have virtually done it! All that remains is the selective loss of intermediate varieties (just as sometimes occurs in nature) and a new species is born.The change within types (micro-evolution) does not result into changing the animal of one form into another. They still remain as dogs, albeit, different shape and size. The fundamental problem with Darwinists is to prove “macro-evolution” based on results of “micro-evolution”. It is wrong to equate the two. This is exactly what you are doing. Therefore, it is flawed.


Natural selection is the manifest will of brahman, as the self-generated means for perfection of the creation.
Thank you, Sarabhanga for your thoughts. IMHO, the creation-evolution debate is not between religions but between those who believe in creator God (Theists and Pantheists) and those who do not. I don’t see there is any middle ground for me. Perhaps, purely out my academic interest, may I suggest my own opinion, which may or may not be agreeable to many? Nevertheless, I feel strongly about it.

I believe, people holding on to the idea that you are describing here are referred to as “Theistic Evolutionists”. They believe that God is the cause behind life on earth, but that He used the process of macroevolution through a natural selection to bring about new life forms and eventually the human race.

With all due respect, I have a difficulty in reconciling this idea that borrows half from “theism” and the other half from “Darwinism”. The idea that reformed Darwinists use to explain the “first cause” by borrowing the concept of Brahman from theism is like using half a hen for cooking and keeping the other half for laying eggs. On one hand, it undermines the Omnipotence and purpose of God as if, He is not sure of the perfect body for soul to reside and, as a result, allowing his own creation (nature) to do His bidding! On the other hand, it also undermines the complete “natural Selection” of Darwin by invoking God in to it. Such a view, in my opinion, is difficult to defend, especially, when one is strongly either a “theist” or an “atheist” in his beliefs because:

1 - It is scientifically unsound:

If macro-evolution did indeed occur – if the accumulation of small changes over long periods of time has occurred - then this fact of history should be verifiable in the fossil record. The transition between life forms should appear in paleontological evidence as part of what organism was in its original state and part of what it was becoming as a new life form.

Cambrian period in geology is the earliest and largest period of time for which rock strata are recognized. The major macro-evolutionary processes are supposed to have occurred during and pre-Cambrian time frames. There is absolutely no evidence indicating how, as many as 5000, genetic types of marine and animal life alleged to have evolved during these two eras. In fact, the first evidence of invertebrate animal life appears with startling and remarkable suddenness in the Cambrian period.

2 – It is logically unsound:

Now, Darwin’s assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over a long periods of time, necessitates the transitional time frame from scales to feathers. During this period the reptiles have lost half its scales and developed half feathers. Therefore, creatures with half feathers have no ability to fly. No matter how fittest the creature is according to Darwin, it would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. As a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either.

3 – It is Scripturally unsound:

While gleaning over scriptures, I find very clear description regarding the birth of human race.

In Rg-Veda (X 121) there is an account of creation of the world by an Omnipotent God out of the pre-existent matter. (there is also a view that God created world out of His own nature without any pre-existent matter). It is said that He created by His will, and deposited a seed in it which became the golden germ in which He himself was born as the Brahma or the creator God. “I am Hiranyagarbha, the supreme spirit Himself become manifested in the form of Hiranyagarbha. (Manu V.9)” This is exactly the later hymn called the Nasadiya hymn, which is translated by Max Muller.

In Rg-Veda (X. 82: 5-6) the hymn of Visvakarman, we find, it is said that the waters of the sea contained the first primordial germ, an egg floating on the primeval waters of chaos. From it arises Visvakarman, the first born of the Universe, the creator and maker of the world. The same waters are the chaos of the Greeks, the “without form and void” of Genesis.

In all this chaos we find the desire, will, self-consciousness, mind, vak all these qualities of the infinite intelligence, the personal God brooding over the waters, the Narayana resting on the eternal Ananta. It is the God of Genesis who says, “Let there be, and there was.” Such was the obedience of His creation to His creative power. It is said that such a supreme reality becomes the active Purusa, from purusa Virat was born, and from Virat again Purusa. Thus, Purusa is the begetter as well as the begotten. Likewise, only man is the begetter of man!

There are other accounts which also are fascinating. After Rg-Veda, the Taittriya Brahmana says, “formarly nothing existed, neither heaven nor atmosphere nor earth.” Desire is the seed of existence. Prajapati desires off-springs and creates. “Verily in the beginning Prajapati alone existed here. He thought with himself, how can I be propagated? He created living beings in his likeness. (Sat Brah ii. 5. 1. 1-3).

In all the hymns and Vedas, it is hard to find any reference to a seed germinating into different forms and evolving until a stage reached for humans with perfectly evolved conscience to exist.

Given these difficulties, intelligent Design by the creator God makes sense to me.

The God, as I have learned to know, has loved the whole world; not just a few in the world, but the whole world. His eternal desire is that all people know Him and His glory. This desire is supreme in His heart that the whole earth and its all inhabitants to be full of the knowledge of His Glory that is not limited to those who came to existence by surviving through the process of evolution. Therefore, I strongly believe that it was a perfect creation by the perfect- Himself, right from the beginning. When He said after His every creation, “It is good, it indeed was good”.

Every creation is designed with perfection and with a specific purpose in it’s/his/her life. Bison are made in such a way that natural inclination is to look down; the design of their neck makes it difficult for them to look up. In contrast, giraffes are designed in a way that makes looking up easy; the way their necks are designed makes it difficult for them to look down. Two creatures created by the same God but distinctively different body parts and purposes. God provides food for both, and neither has to become like the other to eat. Bison eat grass from the field below and giraffes eat from above. The design was perfectly suited for them.

Similarly, human beings are the apex of God’s creative intelligence. They are the crowning jewel of His creation, and we shine the brightest when we see our own likeness reflected in others and when each of us performs the unique functions that God designed for us to do. To undermine this with naturalistic theory is to undermine the very Omnipotence and purpose of God.

The theory of the derivation of the human physical body from merely animal ancestry is extremely difficult to harmonize with the God who created man after His own image. After all, you may argue that it is simply a matter of my faith that leads me to believe in “intelligent creation by creator God”. May it be so, but on a flip-side, given the irreducible complexity of DNA, I would need a lot more faith to be an atheist or a theistic evolutionist!

As I said earlier, these strictly my personal thoughts and opinions, albeit contrary, are never meant to denigrate others.

Blessings,

Some texts are referenced from:

Rg-Veda Sanhita: The secred Hymns of the Brahmans. Edited by Max Muller Vol VI, 1874.
Taittriya Samhita
Norma Geisler : Unshakable Foundation
S.Radhakrishnan : Hindu Philosophy
Wikipedia

atanu
05 December 2007, 06:54 AM
--
The theory of the derivation of the human physical body from merely animal ancestry is extremely difficult to harmonize with the God who created man after His own image. After all, you may argue that it is simply a matter of my faith that leads me to believe in “intelligent creation by creator God”. May it be so, but on a flip-side, given the irreducible complexity of DNA, I would need a lot more faith to be an atheist or a theistic evolutionist!

As I said earlier, these strictly my personal thoughts and opinions, albeit contrary, are never meant to denigrate others.

Blessings,


Namaste All,

I think the issue is totally confused.

ID proponents advance their notions as science, trying to impose their notions on science students and that is not acceptable to most scientists and also personally to me.

I will also point out the following:




From Wikipedia

Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer)—it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the leaders of the intelligent design movement have said that the designer is the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-dembski_logos)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-wedge1)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-wedge2)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-25)

It is funny.

We all believe in pure consciousness as God, whose nature is to be intelligent which is vidyavidya together. Natural selection (possibly as will of Ishwara) gets rid of the Avidya (i.e ID of present day (dvaita), in my view).

Without refuting or not refuting that there is indeed an intelligent designer (since it cannot be the subject of science), I point out that we definitely see new species appearing through epoch. We have records of algae diversifying through archean, precambrian, mesozoic and tertiary eras. We also know that the angiosperms came into existence post Cretaceous and were absent before that. Homo Sapiens are very recent (as of today this knowledge is verfiable).

Where from this diversity, if not from evolution (of prakriti, I add)?
--------------

It is altogether another dimension when one considers that the epoch itself is a so-called creation of the intelligence, wherein the epoch of one's waking state is not an epoch. Then we enter the shruti arena and it is not science any more, but beyond. Ajativada begins to make sense. Creation is of Vak and there is shruti evidence that Vak alone diversifies.

So, let science be taught as science. The verifier (scientist in this case)himself is the intelligent one -- the Purusha. How can the Purusha verify Purusha, except ---------? I will not repeat the question.

Note: The confusion, I think, stems from the fact that Nirotu (and ID proponents) may be considering the Homo Sapien form to be the reality as against the spirit that has assumed the Homo Sapien form.


Om

atanu
05 December 2007, 07:31 AM
Further




Wiki

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible).[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-PJC) Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-wedge_doc)
Barbara Forrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Forrest), an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-81)

Nuno Matos
05 December 2007, 04:20 PM
Namaste

Intelligent Design! Ok, lets´s wait to see if this Human race is able to get out of this planet ( the body ) and inhabit other worlds ( sat, chit, ananda ) before the all thing ( Sun, earth, moon) burn out in flames ( Mocksha ):D. Then we may talk about " Intelligent Design" in a scientific way.;)

sarabhanga
05 December 2007, 11:59 PM
Macro-evolution provides a mechanism that explains how one form of life is eventually transformed into another.

Micro-evolution accounts for variation within a given kind. It is a variation within a given species due to environment and genetic mutation etc.

Namaste Nirotu,

What do you actually mean by “form of life” and “given kind”? I assume that “form of life” refers to any taxon above species, and “given kind” refers to species.

Natural variation and selection occurring below the level of species causes “micro-evolution”, and natural variation and selection occurring above the level of species causes “macro-evolution”.

You admit that natural selection occurs, and that it causes evolution, but only up to a point (i.e. up to the rank of species).

This demarcation stems from the traditional definition of a species as an isolated self-breeding group.

At any one time, the situation is clear ~ the individuals are either reproductively compatible (truly interbreeding) and of the same “given kind”, or reproductively incompatible (not truly interbreeding) and different “forms of life”. But over time, geographically isolated subspecies can develop behavioral, physical, and physiological, incompatibilities (all of which assume genetic variation) making subsequent cross-breeding impossible. Thus, with only natural genetic variability, the pressure of natural selection, and time, two subspecies can easily become different species. And once distinguished as species, there is little chance of return, and the natural divergence continues.




They still remain as dogs, albeit, different shape and size.

If all dogs, except for chihuahuas and irish wolfhounds, were lost (by a fatal illness, for example, to which only chihuahuas and irish wolfhounds were immune), then these two varieties would be reproductively isolated and only breeding among their own kind (i.e. among their own species). And they would have to be considered as different species (albeit closely related, like foxes and wolves).

And, as Atanu has noted, the sequential origin of not only new species but also new families and even whole classes is well attested from fossil evidence. Perhaps not every “missing link” has actually been found, but how could this changing diversity occur if not by evolution (micro-, meso-, and macro-)?

Unless the evidence of palaeontology (and related disciplines) is completely discarded, without evolution we would have to assume a myriad of creation events. :eek:

The creator has not merely created. He is creating, and recreating ~ and his creation is his own recreation! ;)




Darwin’s assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over a long periods of time, necessitates the transitional time frame from scales to feathers. During this period the reptiles have lost half its scales and developed half feathers. Therefore, creatures with half feathers have no ability to fly. No matter how fittest the creature is according to Darwin, it would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. As a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, and it is relatively simple to examine the embryology of any organism and to follow the development of its particular organization, and in the case of scales, nails, horns, hairs, feathers, and all of the diverse range of dermal ossifications that are found in various vertebrates, the embryology is found to be identical, and the same materials derived by the same pathways are used, and modifications on the same suite of genes control the same processes in each case.

There are many flightless birds, and the primitive Paleognathae (including cassowaries, emus, kiwis, ostriches, and rheas) all have feathers that are useless for flight. :rolleyes:

Aves and Reptilia were considered as distinct classes, but now birds and crocodiles are classified together as the Archosauria, and along with snakes and lizards and their relatives they comprise the Diapsida, which with the Anapsida (turtles and tortoises) make up the class Reptilia (which also includes many extinct lineages).




It is scripturally unsound.

The manifestation of nArAyaNa has evolved through time from a fish-man to a reptile-man to a lion-man to a dwarf man, and through various human types up to the perfect human incarnation of lord kRSNa. So that viSNu himself (long before Darwin) provides a perfect archetype for evolution, mapping a fairly close approximation to the sequence observed by modern evolutionary science. :cool1:




The theory of the derivation of the human physical body from merely animal ancestry is extremely difficult to harmonize with the God who created man after His own image.

The image of God is truly unimaginable, for that image is the whole of creation viewed through all of time. The manas of man (the mind of nAra) is directly derived from (and potentially equivalent with) the buddhi of God (the intellect of nara); but the immortal nara puruSa has an infinite indefinable form, and it is naïve to assume that the mortal nAra puruSa actually defines its creator. The human design is only the apex of much wider plan. :)

sarabhanga
07 December 2007, 09:42 PM
The evolutionary plan for divine incarnations (life-forms), summarized in 10 essential stages:

matsya ~ the fish
kUrma ~ the reptile
varAha ~ the ‘low’ mammal
nRsiMha ~ the ‘high’ mammal
vAmana ~ the primate
parashurAma ~ the wild man
rAmacandra ~ the heroic man
balarAma ~ the contemplative man
kRSNa ~ the perfect man
kalki ~ the ‘son of man’ (sUrya nArAyaNa)

ShinyDragonkin
24 February 2008, 10:41 PM
I see no difference between Intelligent Design and Evolution.
History tells us one day, out of nowhere, homo sapiens gained morals, highly cognitive thought, and advanced language, from the best we can decipher. Who is to say someone did not interfere? And how does that make Evolution any more or less real?

Also, I wrote an interesting article on this a lot time ago for a class I taught called "Science VS Religion. Which is right, or are they both the same." It is an old file, and I might need to brush it up a bit, as I got some details wrong, but while it does not really argue any particular spiritual who is right and wrong in Religion kind of thing, it does talk of the possibility that Religion and Science are completely compatible, but our interpretations of older scriptures make it hard to see that.

An example of this is the concept that Krishna lives in men's hearts. In many older languages that scriptures are written in, before the "discovery" of where the heart is, this word simply refereed to the mysterious part of the human's "mortal coil" (or body) which feels emotion.
It was the Europeans who quite mistakenly decided the heart, based on these scriptures, was in the chest. This was an obvious misconception, however, as in order to fuel the right half of the cerebral cortex (the part of the BRAIN, the actual "heart" which feels emotion) during intense emotions, (ie, fear, lust, passion of any sort) this organ we now call heart would beat at a tremendous rate. Also, blood was recognized as the life source of the body, and this was the place the most blood came from during injury, so it was assumed what we now call the heart is the heart refereed to in scripture.

However, many people I have done studies on who suffer from insanity will reference a voice inside their head as something symbolic... a bug, a tiny man, a spirit or demon, or whatever they call it, but something that is not part of them... I have found also, most of who can pinpoint this location without excessive prompting will always locate one of two exact locations.
The left half of the cerebral cortex, between the eye and the left temple (the "mind" part of the brain) or less commonly, when it is a "good" insect, little man, voice, or whatever... the right half (or "heart") also between two perpendicular points of the right eye and right temple.

I find it to be an interesting correlation. If the heart refereed to in Scripture is truly the right half of the cognitive part of the brain, then who is to say Kabbalists are not correct, and that spirits are expressed physically in the macrocosmic world as atoms or small parasites which feed off emotional energy transmitted through the brain as chemicals?

The idea here is that Maya (the physical world) requires physical matter of some sort for manifestation, and this all miracles, etc, have explanations, which make more sense when you work with them

In some cases, Psychosis seems to be motivated by these things and, in my experiences with TIAMAT, much easier for us to cure, when caused in this manner.

The point is, when one can understand Science, I believe one can understand Religion coordinates with it, not contradicts it from a different perspective. Sometimes the connection is not immediately apparent, but with study, something usually unfolds, in my experience.

atanu
14 March 2008, 11:13 PM
----
I find it to be an interesting correlation. If the heart refereed to in Scripture is truly the right half of the cognitive part of the brain, then who is to say Kabbalists are not correct, and that spirits are expressed physically in the macrocosmic world as atoms or small parasites which feed off emotional energy transmitted through the brain as chemicals?

The idea here is that Maya (the physical world) requires physical matter of some sort for manifestation, and this all miracles, etc, have explanations, which make more sense when you work with them

In some cases, Psychosis seems to be motivated by these things and, in my experiences with TIAMAT, much easier for us to cure, when caused in this manner.

The point is, when one can understand Science, I believe one can understand Religion coordinates with it, not contradicts it from a different perspective. Sometimes the connection is not immediately apparent, but with study, something usually unfolds, in my experience.

Namaste ShinyDragonkin,

I do not understand fully as to what you believe the spiritual heart to be, about its location and physicality in body. It seems or appears that you are equating the spiritual heart to a part of brain. If my understanding of your undertanding is correct, then I would ask you: Where does the heart go in a dead man?

The following is a converstation of a devotee and Guru on the spiritual heart (which is not the heart chakra as some assume).

D.: There are six centres mentioned in the Yoga books; but the jiva is said to reside in the Heart. Is it not so?

M.: Yes. The jiva is said to remain in the Heart in deep sleep; and in the brain in the waking state. The Heart is not the muscular cavity with four chambers which propels blood. There are indeed passages which support the view. There are others who take it to mean a set of ganglia or nerve centres about that region. Whichever view is correct does not matter to us. We are not concerned with anything less than ourselves. That we have certainly within us. There could be no doubts or discussions about that.

The Heart is used in the Vedas and the scriptures to denote the place whence the notion ‘I’ springs. Does it spring only from the fleshy ball? It springs within us somewhere right in the middle of our being. The ‘I’ has no location. Everything is the Self. There is nothing but that. So the Heart must be said to be the entire body of ourselves and of the entire universe, conceived as ‘I’. But to help the abhyasi, we have to indicate a definite part of the Universe, or of the Body. So this Heart is pointed out as the seat of the Self. But in truth we are everywhere, we are all that is, and there is nothing else.


Om

saidevo
18 March 2008, 09:53 PM
25 big questions facing science over the next quarter-century

• What Is the Universe Made Of?
• What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
• Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
• To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?
• Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
• How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
• What Controls Organ Regeneration?
• How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?
• How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?
• How Does Earth's Interior Work?
• Are We Alone in the Universe?
• How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
• What Determines Species Diversity?
• What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?
• How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?
• How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
• How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?
• How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?
• What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?
• Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?
• Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?
• Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?
• How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
• What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?
• Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?

There a 100 more questions on 'What Don't We Know?' today. For more details check http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/

yajvan
19 March 2008, 10:50 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

25 big questions facing science over the next quarter-century

• What Is the Universe Made Of?
• What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
• Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
• To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?
• Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
• How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
• What Controls Organ Regeneration?
• How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?
• How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?
• How Does Earth's Interior Work?
• Are We Alone in the Universe?
• How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
• What Determines Species Diversity?
• What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?
• How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?
• How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
• How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?
• How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?
• What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?
• Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?
• Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?
• Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?
• How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
• What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?
• Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?


Namaste saidevo,
a very intriguing list.. while they look technically appealing, they also ( seem ) to beg additional questions after one question is answered, yes?

For me the question is not so much quantity and quality, but of Becoming. Becoming that Fullness that will know all these other questions as an extention of my SELF.

Saunaka the great householder approached Angiras in the manner laid down by the scriptures and questioned: What is that, O Bhagvan, which being known all this becomes known? ( Mundakopanishad 1.1.3)
Angiras addresses this question and what transpires is the wisdom of the Mundaka Upanishad, the conversation of para and apara knowledge.

That said saidevo, thank you, a very nice list indeed of the Relative Field of Life.

pranams

saidevo
19 March 2008, 11:20 AM
Namaste Yajvan.



a very intriguing list.. while they look technically appealing, they also ( seem ) to beg additional questions after one question is answered, yes?

For me the question is not so much quantity and quality, but of Becoming. Becoming that Fullness that will know all these other questions as an extention of my SELF.


I agree with you, and I am rather surprised you have not stated it with your favourite word bhUma for that Fullness. I think if they find the answer to this one question, that would lead to every other: "What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?"

yajvan
19 March 2008, 11:33 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan.
I agree with you, and I am rather surprised you have not stated it with your favourite word bhUma for that Fullness. I think if they find the answer to this one question, that would lead to every other: "What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?"


Namaste,
you have said it well, bhUma... that Fulless of Brahman. That samasta ( wholeness) that is discussed in the Chandogya Upanishad (Chapt 2.1).

thank you again.

pranams,