Hello,
What does Hinduism say about Evolution?
Hello,
What does Hinduism say about Evolution?
Namaste One Who is the Product of the Incomplete Metabolism of Fat.
Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution
śivasya hridayam viṣṇur viṣṇoscha hridayam śivaḥ
see from 7:00
तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ।
उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्वदर्शिनः ॥
उस ज्ञान को तू तत्वदर्शी ज्ञानियों के पास जाकर समझ, उनको भलीभाँति दण्डवत्* प्रणाम करने से, उनकी सेवा करने से और कपट छोड़कर सरलतापूर्वक प्रश्न करने से वे परमात्म तत्व को भलीभाँति जानने वाले ज्ञानी महात्मा तुझे उस तत्वज्ञान का उपदेश करेंगे. श्रीमद्*भगवद्*गीता-4.34
From a philosophical angle...Hinduism believes that there is an eternal past. The number of souls is infinite and the souls were never created. Animals/plants do have souls. So, as I see it, evolution does not seem to be at odds with Hindu philosophy - that is, with infinite souls on hand, the Hindu God can guide the simultaneous evolution of lifeforms all over the world instead of having to begin with a pair of humans in one special geographical location.
Now, what Hinduism DOES take issues is with is the "survival of the fittest". I believe that would be at odds with theistic guided evolution which requires a purpose from God.
So, IMO, theistically guided evolution? fewer problems.
"survival of the fittest" guided evolution? not compatible with Hinduism.
Hi rdg,
Two sources:
The claim is that anything that can feel desire or aversion or volition or pleasure or pain or cognition is to be considered to possess a self(soul). Now the question is, what does science say about plants? Do they feel desire or aversion or volition or pleasure or pain? I am not fully knowledgeable on this issue.Originally Posted by Nyaya Sutra 1.1.10
The second reference is Brahmasutras 3:1:24-27 (Ramanuja's commentary).
These indicate that plants DO possess selves. How? The reference is further to Chandogya 5:10:6
Now, the purport of BS 3:1:24-27 is whether the self that enters plants actually is embodied AS the plant or whether it is merely connected with the plant. Ramanuja comments that the self is merely connected with the plants, etc. There is no enjoyment of karma in these stages. The commentary further continues Chandogya 5:10:6.Originally Posted by Chandogya 5:10:6
"This means that the soul only gets connected with that person. So we have to understand that, in the preceding stages also, the soul only gets connected with plants, herbs, etc. and is not actually born as such.For whoever eats food and performs the act of generation, the soul becomes that being.
It is only when the soul reaches the womb that it gets, according to its residual karma, a body for the enjoyment of pleasure and pain. In the previous stages, it only gets connected with ether, air, etc." - Ramanuja's purport.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Namaste.
I don't see how it would be compatible, either. I think Darwin regretted using that term (if he did at all, I don't remember that part), as it doesn't really reflect adaptive evolution. 'Weak' individuals of a species can survive and reproduce if the conditions are right, passing on other beneficial traits for the survival and adaptations of the species. And we have to remember, evolution has no end goal. It simply happens as a result of mutations and adaptations. Life finds a way to survive.
One loss of adaptation I see nowadays in humans is our ability to cope with heat. I remember as a kid, 40 years ago, living in a two-story one-family house. The bedrooms were upstairs, and we had no a/c. A/c was something not even schools nor many businesses had. You opened windows and hoped for a breeze. Or you used window fans. And we survived. I don't know if we are spoiled or not, but I've talked to a number of people who say the same thing. We tolerated heat much better in the past than today.
śivasya hridayam viṣṇur viṣṇoscha hridayam śivaḥ
Isn't it rather the opposite case? It is radical DE-volution which is depicted, isn't it? We used to be as powerful as the Gods, in some sources if I remember correctly. But somehow fell down to the level of ants.
Anyway, my view is that: whatever is true, let it be true, so long as it accomodates certain eternal truths I find to be evident. If evolution is true, then it can cast no shadow on Brahman, Krsna, or eternal Love. And if evolution turns out to be a gigantic Mayic hoax, so be it. No big loss.
How can I put this in a sentence? Try next time.
Namaste Kismet,the ISKCON theory that we 'fell down' from vaikuntha is extremely controversial.Most otger sampradayas beleive that the soul dies not return to samsara after moksha and that is what scripture states too.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks