Dharmic Religions Only: Evolutionary Science and Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.

[निताइ dasa]

But I do not require to reject aspects of science or other parts of the secular world to do this.

We do not also, I completely agree. A finite text (in terms of length) like the Vedas cannot possibly describe all facets of knowledge. However when something from it clearly contradicts modern day science, I think it is acceptable to take the scriptural version, and consider science may be flawed or incomplete in this matter (or maybe our interpretation of scripture is wrong).

 

[निताइ dasa]

default reading is about the movement of the Sun and not light.

I have shown previously, why I think it is not. You may personally find it is the default reading, but for me the default reading of the shloka is the speed of light.

The Veda is a very specific corpus of texts - Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharvana. Nothing else is Veda, though some texts may be accorded equal status by certain groups. I understand that within the Hare Krishna community, the usage of Vedic is rather loose to include a variety of other texts (once a Hare Krishna told me that Sambar and Gulab Jamun are Vedic recipes). But outside the community, that is not necessarily so and we need to be specific. Puranic is not Vedic.

Your opinion is the opinion of western archaeologists and hence is justified for your position. However this position is not held by all schools (Vaishnav schools). Like I have said, Vaishnav Schools accept all the limbs of Veda (including Puranas and Upapuranas) as part of the systematic knowledge database we call the Vedas (Vedas means knowledge). For us, both the Vedas and Puranas are both eternal, and time does not factor in this consideration.

 

[Terese]

We do not also, I completely agree. A finite text (in terms of length) like the Vedas cannot possibly describe all facets of knowledge. However then something from it clearly contradicts modern day science, I think it is acceptable to take the scriptural version, and consider science may be flawed or incomplete in this matter (or maybe our interpretation of scripture is wrong).

The Vedas aren't finite. They are knowledge of the universe itself.

 

[निताइ dasa]

The Vedas aren't finite. They are knowledge of the universe itself.

I didn't mean in that way, that why I wrote "in terms of length". Though Vedas themselves may be finite in terms of number of words etc, however they are infinite because they describe the non-dual ultimate reality the source and essence of everything.

 

[sayak83]

We do not also, I completely agree. A finite text (in terms of length) like the Vedas cannot possibly describe all facets of knowledge. However when something from it clearly contradicts modern day science, I think it is acceptable to take the scriptural version, and consider science may be flawed or incomplete in this matter (or maybe our interpretation of scripture is wrong).

I agree with you on this. My intention on this thread has only been to present a fair case for evolution and hear possible weaknesses of the theory. I have noted some of your more specific criticisms earlier and I will respond to them.

 

[Terese]

This thread doesn't look very productive.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Shivsomashekhar ji

But they are. The Veda is a very specific corpus of texts - Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharvana. Nothing else is Veda, though some texts may be accorded equal status by certain groups. I understand that within the Hare Krishna community, the usage of Vedic is rather loose to include a variety of other texts (once a Hare Krishna told me that Sambar and Gulab Jamun are Vedic recipes). But outside the community, that is not necessarily so and we need to be specific. Puranic is not Vedic.

it is not just the hare Krsna comunity but all Gaudiyas and many other Vaisnava trasitions who regard all 'Revealed' texts as Veda , ......as Veda means Knowledge , ....therefore it canot be limeted to the 4 Vedas refered to as the Vedas , ...this is Vedas with an S it is abreviation for the 4 texts in listed by your self above , ...these are colecrtions of knowledge , ...Rig , Sama , Yajur and Atharva Vedas contain certain Knowledge particularly those pertaining to mantra and prayer , ...however threr are other forms of Veda ; Knowledge , ..revealed Knowledge , ..I sited Ayuraveda but you egnore me on this point , ...when a Krsna devotee says that Gulabjamun is a vedic recipe , he is correct in that it is a recipe containing wholesome food stuffs aproved in in Ayuaveda containing no animal matter , and if cooked in the prescribed manner and offered to Krsna can be eaten providing it is not to excess without injury to health , ...this is Veda ...Knowledge , ...

Let us stick to humans. Dhanvantari was not human. Atreya and Agnivesha are the foremost known humans in Indian medical science. And Agnivesha did not write anything. He lived before writing began in India.

You say ''Known'' this may be true but it does not make them the originators of the Ayuraveda , ...as I said Agnivesha founded on particular brance of Ayuraveda he did not autor it it was knowledge handed down from Brahma to Dhanvantari , ... therefore it is Revealed knowledge , ....thus its title Ayur 'VEDA' ......

Interpreter of what? Please go read about him if you haven't. He is the father of Western Medicine and the doctor who treated you last, in all probability took the Hippocratic oath.

, ...Hippocrates although the father of western medicine is known to have taken great interest in Ayuravedic medicine as his contemporaries did in Vedic philosopies in general , ....amongst the greeks there was a huge respect for Vedic Wisdom .

 

[LuisDantas]

This thread doesn't look very productive.

Oh, I don't think so. It does at the very least bring to the surface the general outlines of an apparent controversy whose existence is a matter of concern.

I for one never suspected to find it much of a reality among Dharmi. I have learned better now, much to my disappointment.

 

[Terese]

Oh, I don't think so. It does at the very least bring to the surface the general outlines of an apparent controversy whose existence is a matter of concern.

I for one never suspected to find it much of a reality among Dharmi. I have learned better now, much to my disappointment.

I understand where you're getting at, but you can't force people to believe in something they don't want to. To them, if something proves the scriptures wrong, or in this case, evolution contradicting literal interpretations, they will find their scriptures the truth, not the scientists. It doesn't help that most scientists are materialistic, and do not believe in the concept that matter comes from consciousness, rather the other way round.

 

[kalyan]

Oh, I don't think so. It does at the very least bring to the surface the general outlines of an apparent controversy whose existence is a matter of concern.

I for one never suspected to find it much of a reality among Dharmi. I have learned better now, much to my disappointment.

One thing I got from this thread is apart from 'Vaidika Dharma', Buddhism also CLEARLY refuses Evolution. I would take Buddha, the Enlightened one over Darwin and his monkey Gang

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand where you're getting at, but you can't force people to believe in something they don't want to.

Sure, which is why I don't expect to. The gains of this thread are of another nature and have other goals.

To them, if something proves the scriptures wrong, or in this case, evolution contradicting literal interpretations, they will find their scriptures the truth, not the scientists.

Sure, scripture literalism is a plague. It should never have been widespread. But since it does exist, we should be aware of it and learn to deal with it by spreading the lights of knowledge and wisdom over it.

It doesn't help that most scientists are materialistic, and do not believe in the concept that matter comes from consciousness, rather the other way round.

I think that is blaming the victim, personally.

If much of supposedly mainstream religion presents itself as obscurantings, literalist, and proudly defiant of science and fact, it is only fair for those interested in science to turn their backs to it as a direct result.

It is not science's duty to conform to the expectations of supposedly religious people. It is instead religion's duty to make sense and to be humble enough to acknowledge reality.

One thing I got from this thread is apart from 'Vaidika Dharma', Buddhism also CLEARLY refuses Evolution.

I am sorry that you are learning wrong things about Buddhism, them. It is a very sad reality.

I would take Buddha, the Enlightened one over Darwin and his monkey Gang

I hope you can find it in yourself to take that dark obscurantism out of your heart.

It is not only unsupported by facts and reality and unfair and cruel towards science and scientists. It also belittles religion and religious people.

 

[Terese]

Sure, which is why I don't expect to. The gains of this thread are of another nature and have other goals.




Sure, scripture literalism is a plague. It should never have been widespread. But since it does exist, we should be aware of it and learn to deal with it by spreading the lights of knowledge and wisdom over it.



I think that is blaming the victim, personally.

If much of supposedly mainstream religion presents itself as obscurantings, literalist, and proudly defiant of science and fact, it is only fair for those interested in science to turn their backs to it as a direct result.

It is not science's duty to conform to the expectations of supposedly religious people. It is instead religion's duty to make sense and to be humble enough to acknowledge reality.




I am sorry that you are learning wrong things about Buddhism, them. It is a very sad reality.



I hope you can find it in yourself to take that dark obscurantism out of your heart.

It is not only unsupported by facts and reality and unfair and cruel towards science and scientists. It also belittles religion and religious people.

Scriptural literalism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[kalyan]

Sure, which is why I don't expect to. The gains of this thread are of another nature and have other goals.




Sure, scripture literalism is a plague. It should never have been widespread. But since it does exist, we should be aware of it and learn to deal with it by spreading the lights of knowledge and wisdom over it.



I think that is blaming the victim, personally.

If much of supposedly mainstream religion presents itself as obscurantings, literalist, and proudly defiant of science and fact, it is only fair for those interested in science to turn their backs to it as a direct result.

It is not science's duty to conform to the expectations of supposedly religious people. It is instead religion's duty to make sense and to be humble enough to acknowledge reality.




I am sorry that you are learning wrong things about Buddhism, them. It is a very sad reality.



I hope you can find it in yourself to take that dark obscurantism out of your heart.

It is not only unsupported by facts and reality and unfair and cruel towards science and scientists. It also belittles religion and religious people.

I think buddhist standpoint was explained 1 or 2 pages prior, I don't see the confusion at all and it makes perfect sense.

Uncruel or not, NO ONE saw evolution happening, that is enough for me. Logically evolution is the biggest fraud that was invented in the modern era.

 

[LuisDantas]

Scriptural literalism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Oh, I beg to differ. It is very much an entirely bad thing, by definition even.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think buddhist standpoint was explained 1 or 2 pages prior, I don't see the confusion at all and it makes perfect sense.

Buddhism is a religion, which means that it has no business purposefully making itself superstitious, obscurantist and fact-fearful.

I am sorry if you don't understand that.

Uncruel or not, NO ONE saw evolution happening, that is enough for me.

That may be enough for you, but it is also a lie, don't hold any doubts there. Or at least a grave mistake that can only be attributed to serious misinformation or even worse problems.

That it takes serious effort and often specialized knowledge to observe and attempt to falsify it does not make it evolution any less of a reality.

Logically evolution is the biggest fraud that was invented in the modern era.

Hardly. Anti-evolutionism, unfortunately and very misleadingly known as "Creationism", would be a far better candidate.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Scriptural literalism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Texts can sometimes be interpreted in both literal and metaphorical ways. I think the challenge is reading with an open mind, rather than allowing one's personal beliefs and disbeliefs to dominate interpretation.
For example secular Buddhists insist on interpreting the teachings on rebirth and the realms in a metaphorical way, despite there being very little support for that interpretation in the suttas. Their stance seems to result more from a sceptical mindset than from an objective appraisal of what the suttas actually describe.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Your opinion is the opinion of western archaeologists and hence is justified for your position. However this position is not held by all schools (Vaishnav schools). Like I have said, Vaishnav Schools accept all the limbs of Veda (including Puranas and Upapuranas) as part of the systematic knowledge database we call the Vedas (Vedas means knowledge). For us, both the Vedas and Puranas are both eternal, and time does not factor in this consideration.

Semantics.

No one outside the Gaudiyas will club the Purana and other Smriti literature under the label of Shruti (Veda). The correct term for this combined body of literature is Shaastra. And the terms Shaastra and Veda are not interchangeable as the former is a lot bigger in scope.

But I think the above is moot anyway as we are all clear on where we all stand. Since it has been established that the people who were claiming that the Veda teaches Math failed to produce any evidence to back up the claim (not a single verse from any of the four vedas) - either because they did not do any fact-checking (@kalyan) or because they did not really mean the Veda (nitai, @ratikala) due to incorrect usage of the term. Ergo, for the purposes of this thread, none of the four Vedas teach Math. Or for that matter, history, economics, geography, chemistry, etc. Their purpose is purely religious in nature and it is plain ignorance to view them as encyclopedias.

 

[von bek]

@Spiny Norman, do you think it possible that we live in a world where both kamma and natural selection operate? Or, do you find the two ideas to be impossible to reconcile? I see no reason why both cannot be in operation. They are two separate processes, neither guided by a God, which flow along, modifying organisms over time both in accordance with the effects of past kamma AND from the selective pressures of the natural environment.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

You say ''Known'' this may be true but it does not make them the originators of the Ayuraveda , ...as I said Agnivesha founded on particular brance of Ayuraveda he did not autor it it was knowledge handed down from Brahma to Dhanvantari , ... therefore it is Revealed knowledge , ....thus its title Ayur 'VEDA' ......

There is no proof that it was magically revealed. And your view also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of revelation.

Revelations are for subject matters that cannot be known through other means, such as observation, study and inference. Transcendental topics such as heaven, hell, soul, Vaikunta, Paramatma, etc., can only be known through revelation. Material subjects such as history, Math, Science, Astronomy and Medicine are known through worldly means and do not require to be revealed.

I have tried to emphasise and repeat this multiple times on multiple threads on this forum. Your approach of ignoring this important distinction and considering all kinds of knowledge to be revealed would require us to close down all the Labs, discontinue all research and try to find answers in the Puranas and other Smriti texts.It would take us back to 1000 AD and I am pretty sure that no Hare Krishna (including yourself) is willing to give up the medical facilities, the internet and the host of other other modern comforts they are used to and this seriously undermines your position.

Without the technology that has been developed in recent times (by scientists), Prabhupada would not have been in a position to travel to foreign countries and you would never have heard of Krishna. Don't you think it is ironical, that had your proposal been followed, you would never know the very system that has influenced you to think this way?

, ...Hippocrates although the father of western medicine is known to have taken great interest in Ayuravedic medicine as his contemporaries did in Vedic philosopies in general , ....amongst the greeks there was a huge respect for Vedic Wisdom .

I am sorry, but these are highly irresponsible and arrogant statements to make. You are belittling something that you have no knowledge of. There is not a single shred of evidence to support any claim that Hippocrates copied Indians. And please do not post random internet blogs to support these wild theories or quote conspiracy and cover-up stories by academia .

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Uncruel or not, NO ONE saw evolution happening, that is enough for me....

Alert: This may be too much for your level of understanding.

There are different means of acquiring knowledge and inference (anumana in sanskrit) is one of them. No one saw the fossilized dinosaurs live, but we infer that they were alive once upon a time. Surprising that your Guru failed to teach you basics. Or perhaps, he realized it would be too much for you and so did not try?

Logically evolution is the biggest fraud that was invented in the modern era.

A meaningless statement. One can just as easily say "Logically, religion is the biggest fraud that was invented in any era".