Namaste Rishi,
It is manas which evolves, while buddhi remains fixed.
It is buddhi which inspires the universal order, although buddhi itself remains undivided and beyond particular classification.
The manas of man (the mind of nAra) is directly derived from (and potentially equivalent with) the buddhi of God (the intellect of nara).
The guNa of buddhi (jñAna ~ understanding or knowledge) is strictly a quality of prAkRti, and as such it may be said to evolve.
om tat saviturvarenyam bhargo devasya dhImahi dhiyo yo nah pracodayAt
We meditate upon the adorable light of that shining Creator, who incites our buddhi.
And the evolution (pracodana) of the intellect or buddhi (dhi) is facilitated by meditation on this sacred mantra.
Regarding the locus of buddhi: Where is Wisdom?
buddhi tattva is the pure faculty of intellect, the ability to form perfect conceptions, or absolute intelligence.
buddhi (mahat) existed even before manifestation, and nArAyaNa was conceived in avyakta before any manifestation of his subsequent creation.
nirguNa brahma is pure avyakta, with buddhi arising together with the very first conception of diversity or multiplicity (i.e. mahat).
mahat arises from nara, the turya brahma, as the source of nArAyaNa and ahaMkAra; but cit (as “consciousness”) is not exactly equivalent with turya, which remains absolutely humble and without any accumulation.
turya is the basis for mahat or cit ~ as “absolute cit”. And cit (or buddhi) is the basis for ahaMkAra ~ as “absolute Self consciousness”.
mahat (the conception of multitude) is the infinite cause of nArAyaNa; and ahaMkAra (the conception of individuality) arises from nArAyaNa as the finite cause of nAra.
avyakta mahat = brahman
vyakta mahat & ahaMkAra = mAyA
and
Consciousness = avyakta = turya
Knower = ahaMkAra = prAjña
Knowing = indriya = taijasa
Known = bhUta = vaishvAnara
The turya alone is unborn and eternal; and the apparent difference between turya and prAjña is only due to the mAyA of ahaMkAra.
And shrI kRSNa declares: “The earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, wisdom, and individualization (the conception of individuality or self), are the distinguished parts of my eightfold nature”.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
How could manas evolve while buddhi remains constant?
How could the prapañca evolve while the pañca remains constant?
How could nArAyaNa evolve while nara remains constant?
How could brahmA evolve while brahma remains constant?
The answer is mAyA!
True wisdom is fixed and eternal, while the mind is fickle and passing.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
My greatest objection to the Darwinian theory of evolution is its assertion that consciousness is a product of matter, that it is merely a byproduct of our brains.
Darwin never mentioned “consciousness”, speaking only of habit and instinct!
Perhaps Darwin’s own words (from The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ~ a.k.a. The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection) might provide a better understanding of his views:
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
Matter is a product of consciousness.
And I am sure that Charles Darwin would agree!
The first human to make stone tools (Homo habilis) appeared almost 3 million years ago; the first human to control fire (Homo erectus) appeared almost 2 million years ago; and the first “modern” human (Homo sapiens) appeared about 200,000 years ago.
In 1907, a workman dug a jaw bone out of a sand pit, from an approximate depth of 82 feet. The jaw was identified as “Homo heidelbergensis”, but the dating (somewhere between 250,000 and 450,000 years) is doubtful and the identification still disputed.
The French anthropologist Henry de Lumley found post holes and stone circles indicating that hominids (not particularly Homo sapiens) erected temporary shelters, and also evidence that they built fires, and used bone and stone tools, about 400 thousand years ago. And since hominids are well known to have made stone tools for at least 2.5 million years and controlled fires for at least 1.5 million years, this is an interesting find, but exactly what one might expect from Homo erectus. And the associated 9.5 inch foot-print in the sand could easily belong to Homo erectus, for H. erectus and H. sapiens are not particularly distinguished by their feet!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
Paleoliths in Spain, a partial human skeleton and paleoliths in France; two English skeletons, one with associated paleoliths, ALL at least 300,000 years old
Skull fragments and paleoliths in Kenya and advanced paleoliths, of modern human manufacture, in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, dated between 400,000 and 700,000 BC
Neoliths (the most advanced stone tools and utensils) in China of a type that indicate full human capacity, dated to 600,000 BC
Hearths, charcoal, human femurs and broken animal bones, all denoting modern humanity, in Java, dated to 830,000 BC
Again, unless the tools and the hearths are more than 1.5 million years old, their association with hominid remains is unremarkable, showing no more than the presence of Homo erectus (who was spreading throughout Asia around 800,000 years ago).
Originally Posted by
Rishi
An anatomically modern human skull discovered in Argentina and dated between 1 million and 1.5 million years BC (eoliths -chipped pebbles, thought to be the earliest known tools- at Monte Hermoso, also in Argentina, are believed to be between 1 and 2.5 million years old).
A human tooth from Java yielding a date between 1 and 1.9 million years BC
Incised bones, dated between 1.2 and 2.5 million BC, have been found in Italy.
Finds of paleoliths, cut and charred bones at Xihoudu in China and eoliths from Diring Yurlakh in Siberia dated to 1.8 million BC
Eoliths in India, paleoliths in England, Belgium, Italy and Argentina, flint blades in Italy, hearths in Argentina, a carved shell, pierced teeth and even two human jaws all bearing a minimum date of 2 million years BC
In Idaho, a 2-million-year-old clay figurine was unearthed in 1912. But even this find does not mark an outer limit. Bones, vertebrae and even complete skeletons have been found in Italy, Argentina and Kenya.
By the late 1930s, it was generally accepted that eoliths are naturally produced geofacts and are not evidence for Pliocene hominids. And a single hominid vertebra was found on the coast of Argentina in 1887, but it has been classified as belonging either to Homo neogaeus or to a separate hominid genus Tetraprothomo (as a possible progenitor of Homo pampaeus). This is certainly not “an anatomically modern human skull” !
Hominoids have existed for about 23 million years, and Homo has existed as a genus distinct from Gorilla and Pan for about 6 million years. And unless the incised bones and stone tools are more than 2.5 million years old, their association with hominid remains is unremarkable.
The work of Carlos Ameghino in South America (1912-1914) is interesting, with an early date for the use of both fire and stone tools by a hominid (2-3 million years ago).
Originally Posted by
Rishi
A human skull, a partial human skeleton and a collection of neoliths discovered in California have been dated in excess of 5 million years.
A report published in 1880 listed hundreds of stone tools and weapons, and numerous hominid skeletal remains discovered in various Californian gold mines, dated from between 5 million and 55 million years ago. But the dating of these objects is doubtful, and likewise some of the objects, which include an infamously faked hominid skull!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
A chalk ball, the minimum ages of which range from 45 to 50 million years.
A chalk ball was discovered in 1857, in a bed of lignite dated up to 55 million years, but there is no evidence that the rough sphere was made by man!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
In 1983, the Moscow News reported the discovery of a fossilised human footprint next to the fossil footprint of a three-toed dinosaur in the Turkamen Republic. Dinosaurs have been extinct for approximately 65 million years.
In 1983, Professor W. G. Burroughs of Kentucky reported the find of three pairs of fossil tracks dated to 300 million years ago.
Such claims of humans walking with dinosaurs are plainly false: http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
Originally Posted by
Rishi
In 1968, an American fossil collector named William J. Meister found a fossilised human shoe print near Antelope Spring, Utah. There were trilobite fossils in the same stone, which means it was at least 245 million years old. Close examination showed that the sole of this shoe differed little, if at all, from those of shoes manufactured today.
It is only an iron-stone concretion, a completely natural formation!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
In 1897, a carved stone showing multiple faces of an old man was found at a depth of 40 m (130 ft) in a coal mine in Iowa.
According to The Daily News of Omaha (Nebraska), on April Fool’s Day in 1897, an object covered in an incised diamond pattern had been found in an anthracite mine at Lehigh (Iowa). Each diamond was supposedly marked with the face of an old man with an indented forehead. But there is no illustration, and little more description, and (conveniently) the object has been lost!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
A piece of coal yielded up an encased iron cup in 1912. Frank J. Kenwood, who made the find, was so intrigued he traced the origin of the coal and discovered it came from Wilburton Mine in Oklahoma. The coal there is about 312 million years old.
This anecdote relies entirely on the word of Frank Kenwood and a co-worker (Jim Stall, of whom nothing is known), and neither the original cup nor the lump of coal is now available for investigation.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
In 1844, Scottish physicist Sir David Brewster reported the discovery of a metal nail embedded in a sandstone block from a quarry in the north of England. The head was completely encased, ruling out the possibility that it had been driven in at some recent date. The block from which it came is approximately 360 million years old.
The head of the nail was actually the only part imbedded in the stone (the rest was merely laying against the surface of the stone in the overlying boulder clay). And there are no photographs and no remaining evidence, so little more can be said of this old (otherwise unsupported) anecdote.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
On 22 June 1844, The Times reported that a length of gold thread had been found by workmen embedded in stone close to the River Tweed. This stone too was around 360 million years old.
A supposed ‘gold thread’ was found by Scottish quarrymen in 1844, but again this story is purely anecdotal, with no evidence of the thread nor its discovery (other than the Kelso Chronicle, a 19th century local newspaper).
“Those who use this type of curiosity often have vague agendas, which may include attempts to undermine our understanding of geological chronology, with evidence that humanity has existed on earth for much longer than is usually believed used as evidence for alien visitors and so on.” ~ Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews on “Bad Archaeology”
Originally Posted by
Rishi
According to Scientific American, dated 5 June 1852, blasting activities at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, Massachusetts, unearthed a metallic, bell-shaped vessel extensively decorated with silver inlays of flowers and vines. The workmanship was described as 'exquisite'. The vessel was blown out of a bed of Roxbury conglomerate dated somewhat earlier than 600 million years BC.
The object was found amongst rubble after blasting, with no proof that it was ever inside the surrounding conglomerate rock. It is a Victorian-style candle-stick holder, not a 600 million year old bell-shaped vessel!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
In December 1862, The Geologist carried news of a human skeleton found 27.5 m (90 ft) below the surface in a coal seam in Illinois. The seam was dated between 286 and 320 million years BC.
This, and all of the above, unsupported anecdotes from the 1800s should be taken with a grain of salt, and not as serious evidence for anything other than human credulity!
Originally Posted by
Rishi
What are we to make of these perplexing discoveries? They cannot be simply brushed off and forgotten. If the date given to even ONE of these highly numerous discoveries is 100% accurate, then how can that be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution? It can't.
There is absolutely nothing here that casts any doubt on the principle of evolution by natural selection! There may be some argument about the exact pathways and time periods, but there is no doubt about natural selection and its logical consequences.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
Also, the Vanaras in Valmiki Ramayan (like Hanuman and Sugriva) are hairy ape-like people who are bipedal, apparently able to communicate fluently in a human language (Sanskrit) and perhaps even capable of abstract thought. Could they have actually been one of the predecessors of Homo sapiens sapiens described in Darwinian theory?
A vAnara is a “forest-animal”, especially a primate, and (in old Tamil) AN-manti is a “male primate”.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
Long before that, the ancient Sanskrit writings were speaking of creatures with ape-like bodies and a human-like level of intelligence. However, humans similar to us existed alongside these hominids. Their relationship was described as being one of co-existence rather than Darwinian evolution.
Homo has coexisted with Pan (and other Primates) ever since they began to diverge genetically (about 5 million years ago). And the Ramayana does not deny that Hanuman and Rama are ultimately descended from the same essence.
The coexistence of related species, and the exact times of speciation or extinction, have no bearing on the principle of evolution by natural selection.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
Vedic conception of time which states that the current day of Brahma began approximately 2 billion years ago.
One mahAyuga lasts for ten kaliyuga, which is 4.32 million years (about the same time that Homo has existed as distinguished from Pan). And one kalpa (day of brahmA) is 1,000 mahAyuga (10,000 kaliyuga, or 4.32 billion years), which is about the same time that the Earth has existed.
So it seems that modern Science and traditional Hinduism are fundamentally in agreement, with the present kalpa comprising the whole history of the Earth, and the present mahAyuga representing the entire history of the genus Homo (i.e. “human”).
Originally Posted by
Rishi
I remain doubtful as to the notion of one species physically becoming another.
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. Unless the well-supported evidence of paleontology (and related disciplines) is completely discarded, without the concept of evolution we would have to assume a myriad of independent creation events!
A species as an isolated self-breeding group, and 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, 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).
Originally Posted by
Rishi
There are many people who claim that there is an obvious parallel between the sequential order of the 10 avatars of Vishnu and Darwinian evolution. At first, this parallel seemed reasonable to me. However, I quickly recalled that humans are described during the appearance of EACH and EVERY one of these 10 avatars.
The manifestation of nArAyaNa has evolved through time, 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. And the evolutionary plan for divine incarnations (life-forms) has been summarized in ten essential stages: the fish, the reptile, the ‘low’ mammal, the ‘high’ mammal, the primate, the wild man, the heroic man, the contemplative man, the perfect man, and the ‘son of man’. It is a summary of sequential life-forms, and an archetype for the whole history of creation.
Originally Posted by
Rishi
The Klerksdorp Spheres, which CLEARLY display signs of artificial intervention.
This fantasy is well explain in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_Spheres
Originally Posted by
Rishi
I think microbes differ from plants and animals in their capacity for self-expression. The capacity for a microbe to express itself is extremely limited, but it is less limited for plants and animals.
There are very many microscopic and/or unicellular plants and animals, and if these are not “microbes” then I assume that you are distinguishing the prokaryotic bacteria from other eukaryotic life-forms. There are actually some quite advanced unicells, which hunt and have well developed eye-spots, even with a lens, and apparently with the ability to recognize form and movement.
God sleeps in the rock, which is turya,
God stirs in the plant, which is prAjña,
God dreams in the animal, which is taijasa,
And God awakens in the man, which is vaishvAnara.
For man, however, the truth is reversed:
Man truly sleeps in vaishvAnara,
Man truly stirs in taijasa,
Man truly dreams in prAjña,
And Man truly awakens in turya.
Bookmarks