Namaste Nirotu,Originally Posted by nirotu
Welcome back.
Om
Member
Namaste Nirotu,
Welcome back.
Om
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Avadhuta
Re: Science and Religion - Friend or Foe?
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.
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.
A “Darwinist” accepts that the diversity of life has evolved through a process of natural selection.
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!
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.
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.
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).
Last edited by sarabhanga; 02 December 2007 at 12:38 AM.
here and now
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.
You don't keep news is it ??Can humans ever de-evolve into animals?. This seem to happen rather frequently these days.
What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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:
It is funny.
From Wikipedia
Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation—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 god.[47][28][48][49]
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
Last edited by atanu; 05 December 2007 at 10:49 PM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Member
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.[107] 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]
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]
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
New Member
Re: Science and Religion - Friend or Foe?
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 ). Then we may talk about " Intelligent Design" in a scientific way.
Last edited by Nuno Matos; 05 December 2007 at 06:21 PM.
Avadhuta
Re: Science and Religion - Friend or Foe?
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.
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.
The creator has not merely created. He is creating, and recreating ~ and his creation is his own recreation!
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.
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).
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.
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.
Avadhuta
Re: Science and Religion - Friend or Foe?
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)
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.
Last edited by ShinyDragonkin; 24 February 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason: left out word "not" in sentance
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks