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

[निताइ dasa]

Nitai Dasa ji, this is Same Faith forum. We are allowed to discuss things here. And if we both are Hindus then how does it become necessary for me to toe your line? Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is OK for Hare-Krishnas but not for me, and Nitai certainly not. Not my view to make every one equal to deities. By thinking himself to be Radha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu acquired female qualities. I would not like that to happen to Indian youth. We have Pakiistan and China waiting for us to weaken.

Hindu means to respect each other's philosophy even if you don't agree with it. Have I ever attacked you for being an atheist or changing Sankaracharya's philosophy to suit your position?

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu acquired female qualities

Very rarely, and that is only to show the glories of the feminine nature (esp of Radharani).

I do not want my deities to be sissies.

Do you think femininity is "weak"?

I am simply trying to resolve the debate by allowing both parties to get a mutual understanding of each other's positions. That is why I was telling Kalyanji be respectful with others. There was no need for you to start such a criticism which is so irrelevant to the debate.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Femininity can be any according to the situation, a lioness or a female bear defending her cubs from a male or feeding them, but it does not cross the gender lines.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Anyway as I quoted Ananda Tirtha before, a validity of a pramana depends only on the source. Pratyuksha as a conditioned soul is imperfect, therefore it must be rejected when it wieghs against perfect pramana.

This is not Ananda Thirtha's position and evidence has already been posted. The conditioned soul, imperfect senses theory is a Gaudiya Vaishnava concept and please do not try to pass it off as a generic Vedanta or Vaishnava position.

You can keep thinking that. I hold that this is the generic vaishnav positions. Kalyanji is a Sri Vaishnav and he also agrees with us, about the superiority of Shastra over everything. This epistemic basis comes from Jiva Goswami's analysis (in Sat Sandarbhas) and he heavily follows the pramana portion from Madhavacharya. I think Jiva Goswami knows Madhvacharya a bit more than you. Anyway, I would like an actual Tattvavadi to weigh in here, because we have presented evidence for both our sides. .

Seriously? I just posted a direct quote from Madhva that proves you wrong. However, I am not surprised because this is the Hk way...whatever the Guru says is the final word, regardless of glaring contradictions. And please do not try the "Jiva Goswami knew Madhva" claim here. We are all too familiar with these bogus claims and there has already been an abundance of discussion to settle this.

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

I am leaving the evolution discussion to sayak as he/she knows the subject a lot better than me.

 

[sayak83]

So I would take 'Evolution is without evidence' is the proven point of this discussion as there is no evolved species like from frog developing wings and becoming a bird and the likes.....even billions of years of evolution could not make crocodile develop wings and fly......SAD....Not to mention taking into life spans of chimpis and humans, it makes evolution more a MYTH which has no proven SCIENTIFIC BASIS

/EndThread

Since reptiles did evolve into birds over a 100 million year span, you last statement is wrong. If you wanted to see the same thing happen in half a day, then what you want has nothing to do with evolution.

So its settled that that your arguments against evolution has no basis other than ignorance. It is Maya born from avidya that makes it seem to you that evolution has no evidence. Hopefully you will overcome ignorance soon and see evolution as it really is, a true feature of the world.

 

[sayak83]

I am really happy you understand. You also seem like a polite and sincere person who is only trying to do what you think is correct based upon your view of the world and I respect that. The main basis for our opposition is the words of Srimad Bhagavatam and other Puranas (specifically Visnu Purana) which state that humans have been on this earth far longer than modern day biology predicts. The Bhagavatam asserts that species did not diverge from a common ancestor but were originally created by Brahmadev and have been on this earth for all 4 yugas (Satya, Treta, Dwapura and Kali) which span. In the other thread I posted the exact verses from Bhagavatam which shows this (they are found in 6th Chapter, 6th Canto). Please refer there as I do not want to post here.

Could you provide quotes/links of the original parts of the Vishnu Purana from which you get this?

EDIT:- Will refer to the other thread. thanks. But can you tell me the post number. Thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I maintain, do not look for scientific evidence in scriptures, they were written for a different purpose and are valuable for that reason.
SrimadBhagawatham is civics, psychology, psychiatry, etc.; Vedas mainly are for history.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

As I maintain, do not look for scientific evidence in scriptures, they were written for a different purpose.

However, this is precisely what @kalyan and the Hare Krishnas do.

The Hare Krishnas are working backwards. Using the Bhagavatam tales as the basis, they are trying to find evidence and pick loopholes in established science in the hope that they can build an alternate paradigm, which validates the Bhagavatam tales. In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with the idea. However, the problem is that they are not open to the possibility that the hypothesis may be incorrect and that is where they deviate from the scientific method.

In the case of @kalyan, he is among those who have been fed fantasy stories of how the Veda is a one-stop shop for all knowledge in the world. And the older the date assigned to them, the more reliable source. So, the Veda has to be very old (the older, the better) and it also contains all kinds of information. Any advancement in science and technology around the world must have a basis in the Veda. We have a set of internet blogs that serve to propagate these nonsensical ideas and we have a set of gullible people who are being taken for a ride. It is the perfect combination.

 

[atanu]

I was just pointing out the fact that smriti is a valid authority in line with vedam because it does not cross a word of vedam, so it can be treated on par with vedam and one can easily quote from it to prove a point...One have no expertise to go into vast forest of vedam, that is where the ithihasas, puranas, agamas, divya prabandhas help in understanding the tattvam

Yes. smarta tradition is based on smriti.

 

[kalyan]

However, this is precisely what @kalyan and the Hare Krishnas do.

The Hare Krishnas are working backwards. Using the Bhagavatam tales as the basis, they are trying to find evidence and pick loopholes in established science in the hope that they can build an alternate paradigm, which validates the Bhagavatam tales. In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with the idea. However, the problem is that they are not open to the possibility that the hypothesis may be incorrect and that is where they deviate from the scientific method.

In the case of @kalyan, he is among those who have been fed fantasy stories of how the Veda is a one-stop shop for all knowledge in the world. And the older the date assigned to them, the more reliable source. So, the Veda has to be very old (the older, the better) and it also contains all kinds of information. Any advancement in science and technology around the world must have a basis in the Veda. We have a set of internet blogs that serve to propagate these nonsensical ideas and we have a set of gullible people who are being taken for a ride. It is the perfect combination.

If it weren't for Vedas, you would be doing ka-ka-ka in the forest.....The entire numeral system, all the numbers were invented from Vedam.. I have tried to read your blog, you are nothing but a BRAHMIN HATE mongerer

 

[kalyan]

Since reptiles did evolve into birds over a 100 million year span

which one and have you seen it or if you have proof of reptile evolution post instead of trying to establish a myth as a fact by force.........?

 

[atanu]

which one and have you seen it or if you have proof of reptile evolution post instead of trying to establish a myth as a fact by force.........?

Kalyan, I am also not sure that hypothesised transitions, for example from ape to human, are correct beyond doubt.

But that apart, let me ask, what is your explanation for the observation that through geologic time, the diversity in plant forms have increased dramatically. And why the human form is not seen in sediments older than about 2 million years?

 

[sayak83]

which one and have you seen it or if you have proof of reptile evolution post instead of trying to establish a myth as a fact by force.........?

Transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds amply support my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/

In the 1990s, an influx of new dinosaur fossils from China revealed a feathery surprise. Though many of these fossils lacked wings, they had a panoply of plumage, from fuzzy bristles to fully articulated quills. The discovery of these new intermediary species, which filled in the spotty fossil record, triggered a change in how paleontologists conceived of the dinosaur-to-bird transition. Feathers, once thought unique to birds, must have evolved in dinosaurs long before birds developed.

Sophisticated new analyses of these fossils, which track structural changes and map how the specimens are related to each other, support the idea that avian features evolved over long stretches of time. In research published in Current Biology last fall, Stephen Brusatte, a paleontologist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and collaborators examined fossils from coelurosaurs, the subgroup of theropods that produced archaeopteryx and modern birds. They tracked changes in a number of skeletal properties over time and found that there was no great jump that distinguished birds from other coelurosaurs.

“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”

Yet once those avian features were in place, birds took off. Brusatte’s study of coelurosaurs found that once archaeopteryx and other ancient birds emerged, they began evolving much more rapidly than other dinosaurs. The hopeful monster theory had it almost exactly backwards: A burst of evolution didn’t produce birds. Rather, birds produced a burst of evolution. “It seems like birds had happened upon a very successful new body plan and new type of ecology—flying at small size—and this led to an evolutionary explosion,” Brusatte said.

How to make a croc-a-duck

Fossilized skulls of baby dinosaurs show the same pattern—they resemble adult birds. With those two observations in mind, Abzhanov had an idea. Perhaps birds evolved from dinosaurs by arresting their pattern of development early on in life.

To test that theory they tracked how the skull shape changed as dinosaurs morphed into birds.

Over time, they discovered, the face collapsed and the eyes, brain and beak grew. “The first birds were almost identical to the late embryo from velociraptors,” Abzhanov said. “Modern birds became even more babylike and change even less from their embryonic form.” In short, birds resemble tiny, infantile dinosaurs that can reproduce.

This process, known as paedomorphosis, is an efficient evolutionary route. “Rather than coming up with something new, it takes something you already have and extends it,” said Nipam Patel, a developmental biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Why would paedomorphosis be important for the evolution of birds? It might have helped drive miniaturization or vice versa. Changes in size are often linked to changes in development, so selection for small size may have arrested the development of the adult form. “A neat way to cut short a developmental sequence is to stop growing at smaller size,” Benton said. A babylike skull in adults might also help explain birds’ increased brain size, since baby animals generally have larger heads relative to their bodies than adults do. “A great way to improve brain size is to retain child size into adulthood,” he said.

Armed with their insight into bird evolution, Abzhanov, Bhullar and collaborators have been able to dig into the genetic mechanisms that helped form the beak. In new research, published last month in Evolution, the researchers show that just a few small genetic tweaks can morph a bird face into one that resembles a dinosaur.

So that's how we know that birds are small baby dinosaurs with wings.

 

[atanu]

.....Vedas mainly are for history.

Hey rAma

 

[LuisDantas]

As I maintain, do not look for scientific evidence in scriptures, they were written for a different purpose and are valuable for that reason.
SrimadBhagawatham is civics, psychology, psychiatry, etc.; Vedas mainly are for history.

Have you heard of post-theism, Aupmanyav? I suspect that you have considerable affinity for that line of thought and that some other people insist on believing that some form of theism is necessary for religious practice, thereby putting themselves in a difficult position to understand where you come from.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In India, such grammarians (Niruktikaras) were known as 'Aitihasika' (who went by history). One of the oldest mentioned is Aupamanyava who lived prior to 700 BC (Yaska's time). As the name indicates, he was a kinsman. Wikipedia has a page on him.

I do not consider theism as useless. It has meaning and is a help for majority of people. If post-theism means rejection of religion, then I am not for it. Good night, Luis.

 

[LuisDantas]

In India, such grammarians (Niruktikaras) were known as 'Aitihasika' (who went by history). One of the oldest mentioned is Aupamanyava who lived prior to 700 BC (Yaska's time). As the name indicates, he was a kinsman. Wikipedia has a page on him.

I do not consider theism as useless.

Nor do I. I do however see it as potentially dangerous, somewhat outdated and in need of some oversight as a matter of course.

It has meaning and is a help for majority of people.

I agree.

If post-theism means rejection of religion, then I am not for it. Good night, Luis.

What? No, not at all. If anything, it is conducive to freeing religion from the excesses of theism. Among them, the temptation of denying known facts to favor blind belief or chauvinism.

 

[ShivaFan]

Hinduism not only teaches (or implies, depending on translation or scripture) evolution, which most assume means evolving to a next "higher" stage, but "devolution" (may not be the best word) where you evolve backwards into a "lower" stage. Of course, I said "you", but this includes "things".

As far as total reliance on science, while science of course is a great method, one thing to remember is that the question is "whose science?" ... for example, we are assuming humans.

Now as fantastic is the eye of a human, and steady the hand, the human eye can only see so many dimensions, colors, depth, small, the hand is only so steady. So we make tools to help.

But these tools are made by imperfect eyes, hands, other machines or robots made by the same imperfect eyes, hands, so on. And from the perspective or "vision" of the human mind or reach.

These tools are fantastic. But no way are they as accurate as assumed. And certainly not subjective free from what the human mind thinks is the "stage" on which the schema of the "goal" is layered from which the tool is resting on. We may point a big eye to the sky, but not know the ground the big eye is resting on is moving and the "glass" of both the tool and the sky itself is bending as it passes through between the tool and the farthest reach of the sky the big eye is looking at. And what it might see at some distance is not the thing itself, but you are looking at a mirror and the thing is just a reflection on the mirror and not the actual thing and you are seeing an image in reverse of reality and bent. Sort of a simple example with a lot of hyperbole in it, but do not assume the tools you are using are accurate, and thus the science may not be. Even in math, one could say that zeros and one's may not exist on some levels.

I once read a raven can count in sets of 13. Let us say, there are 28 ravens over there. The raven sees or counts "two" (sets) and "some extras". Maybe it evolved to do this for some reason we do not know yet.

We evolved to see different "sets". We often also have "and some extras". I think I read the average person looking at 23 people will see sets of four. The brains says, "oh, 4 or maybe 5 sets and some extras" when doing a 6 second look without trying to count on fingers.

But some humans see sets of 5, and there are a few who see sets of 6. Did they "further evolve" than those who see sets of 4? By the time we see sets of 13, we may grow wings and look very black. And go "caw! caw! caw! gurrrrr, kuk. culkguk culkguk guuuuuurrrr, kuk"...

 

[von bek]

What about traditional Buddhist cosmology? Is that compatible with evolution?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

I don't see anything that conflicts with the fact that biological forms have diversified over time. I believe that kamma is related to natural selection in the animal and human realm. The Buddha teaches us that no God is responsible for sending us through the realm of rebirth, our own minds send us along, conditioned by contact with sense objects. This means our present environment has a profound effect on our future arisings, something I see as a convergence of both the Buddha's teachings on dependent origination and Darwin's theory of natural selection.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hinduism not only teaches (or implies, depending on translation or scripture) evolution, which most assume means evolving to a next "higher" stage, but "devolution" (may not be the best word) where you evolve backwards into a "lower" stage. Of course, I said "you", but this includes "things".

In biology, evolution is not really very similar to that idea. Organisms evolve to more adapted forms, not to "higher" or "lower" ones.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

If it weren't for Vedas, you would be doing ka-ka-ka in the forest.....The entire numeral system, all the numbers were invented from Vedam.. I have tried to read your blog, you are nothing but a BRAHMIN HATE mongerer

I will call your bluff.

Please post the Vedic verse which taught us the numerical system.