How is Evolution compatible with Hinduism?

[Chakra]

Revisiting the portion of the OP that acts as a background for the OP's premise:

...that's because Bharatiya Hindus, though often placatingly impotent, know better. Most of them know that bombing abortion clinics is wrong. Most of them know that irrationally pressuring school systems to teach about creationism is wrong. Most of them know that the stories of Vishnu's avatar-s aren't meant to be taken literally as if they were textualistic. Most of them know that holding placards at funerals of how fallen soldiers are going to hell is wrong. Most of them know that evolution doesn't damage the sublimity of Dharma---not in the slightest. Again, I declare: how these stats are alarming or concerning escapes me entirely, a worry that is misplaced and utterly unnecessary.

"Most of them know that the stories of Vishnu's avatar-s aren't meant to be taken literally..."

What do you mean?

 

[Poeticus]

"Most of them know that the stories of Vishnu's avatar-s aren't meant to be taken literally..."

What do you mean?

I don't know how I can clarify that statement any further, unfortunately.

Do you believe that one has to believe that Lord Krishna danced on top of a huge snake? Is it faith-defining? Is it a complete must---no ifs and buts? Does it damage the sublimity of Vaishnava Dharma if one does not believe in that?

...not in the slightest, correct? Since the sublimity of Vaishnava Dharma is eternal, no?

 

[Chakra]

I don't know how I can clarify that statement any further, unfortunately.

Do you believe that one has to believe that Lord Krishna danced on top of a huge snake? Is it faith-defining? Is it a complete must---no ifs and buts? Does it damage the sublimity of Vaishnava Dharma if one does not believe in that?

...not in the slightest, correct? Since the sublimity of Vaishnava Dharma is eternal, no?

I just wanted clarification to see if I was missing something. I don't like to reply to someone and find out that I misunderstood them.

Of course, you don't need to believe that an event like that actually happened. You don't become less of a Vaishnava. But to say that all of the leelas of Vishnu's avataras are metaphorical and not literal robs the spirit of Vaishnavism. Vaishnavas delight in these stories, such as when Krishna showed that the entire universe was inside his mouth to Yashoda or dancing on Kaliya. And the Puranas and Itihasa as well as our Acharyas tell us it is factual and not just metaphorical (actually all the leelas of the Lord are both metaphorical and literal in a Vaishnava POV) It's all a part of gaining faith towards the Lord. Of course, you are not a Vaishnava and thus I do not expect you to take them literally.

But let's just leave it at that.

 

[Poeticus]

And the Puranas and Itihasa as well as our Acharyas tell us it is factual and not just metaphorical (actually all the leelas of the Lord are both metaphorical and literal in a Vaishnava POV) It's all a part of gaining faith towards the Lord. Of course, you are not a Vaishnava and thus I do not expect you to take them literally.

But let's just leave it at that.

Don't worry, I understand. Analogous to the above: I believe, as per the Shri Rgveda, that Lord Shri Savitur personally brings ruin upon eaters of the flesh of the cow (R.V.10.87). However, I don't hold this belief as faith-defining. But as I said, one may believe in whatever. It's just that the concern of so many Hindus in Bharat having no problems with evolution is unwarranted; it's good for us in the long run that so many Hindus have no problems, you know? It shows we have class, ya feel me?

 

[Chakra]

Don't worry, I understand. Analogous to the above: I believe, as per the Shri Rgveda, that Lord Shri Savitur personally brings ruin upon eaters of the flesh of the cow (R.V.10.87). However, I don't hold this belief as faith-defining. But as I said, one may believe in whatever. It's just that the concern of so many Hindus in Bharat having no problems with evolution is unwarranted; it's good for us in the long run that so many Hindus have no problems, you know? It shows we have class, ya feel me?

Yes, I understand. Of course, there are verses MEANT to be taken metaphorically, but that's not the point. I, personally, do not see any problems with a literal interpretation of Shastra and modern science. Does that make me a neo-Hindu?

What do you mean by "faith-defining"? As in, if you don't believe in it, you're aren't a Hindu?

 

[Poeticus]

What do you mean by "faith-defining"? As in, if you don't believe in it, you're aren't a Hindu?

Yes, that's what I mean by "faith-defining". And I, too, don't see any issues with literal interpretation of shAstra with modern science, since I hold such compatibility issues as unable to be computed (i.e., differences are not necessary for reconciliation).

 

[Acintya_Ash]

It is possible that the aatma moves across these various species (referred to yonis which are of 8400000 types) based on karma.

Yes this is the kind of Evolution that i believe in.

Not only human form of life but all the animal forms of life, they are also from the very beginning. Not like Darwin’s theory that there was no human form of life in the beginning. All the forms of life were there, and the, actually the body is external; within the body there is the soul. So the body is created by material nature and the soul is part and parcel of God.

For example, if a man is within an apartment, the man desires to change the apartment to another apartment, it does not mean that the apartment evolves, but the man desires a change, and he goes to different apartment.

If you think of the Big Bang as a very condensed ball of energy that is spreading out into the universe as it is expanding you have pretty similar story to our faith.
We are all one connected source, we keep moving along due to our karma and forget that inside we are the source, don´t understand that we are still part of it and have never been separate in the first place.

Yes i don't have problems with the Big Bang. My query is regarding origin of species.
Darwinian model suggests organisms evolve from simple form of life to complex forms.
Hinduism says devatas(complex beings) first came after creation and life subsequently began on Earth...

Whats your idea on the origin of species?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Darwinian evolution deals with the origin of biodiversity, it does not deal at all with the creation of the universe, or even with the transition of chemistry to biology for that matter. Darwinian evolution does not contradict the idea that a creator deity exists, it only contradicts very literalist interpretations of particular creation myths.

The existence or non-existence of the soul, has no relevancy to whether or not Darwinian evolution is true.

If a creator deity exists, what is the need for gradual evolution? it only reveals his impotency or poor design.

Just like the existence of Soul, the existence of God too has no relevancy to Darwinian Evolution. But however it the heart of religions.

Scriptures say One can attain God realization only in human form of life. If we evolved from chimpanzees, Can a Chimpanzee realize Brahman?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

but I do think that there is a verse somewhere where it says that we all had to go through animal and plant bodies in order to get to a human form.

Yes but in this model, the different species of life are already there and Even after taking a human birth one can take birth as an animal/plant by misusing the chance for liberation. Thus its a flexible model in which both Evolution and Devolution are compatible.

However Darwin suggests the different species developed in time via evolution. He doesn't consider the Divine design rather bases his theory on Chance Variations.

Dr. Frog has examined his three-foot-wide well, and now he claims to know the ocean

 

[George-ananda]

If a creator deity exists, what is the need for gradual evolution? it only reveals his impotency or poor design.

Let's think about this. You seem to be assuming the way things are today is the end result of evolution. So, you're saying why didn't the creator just create the earth as it is now. I'm thinking our current situation is just a hair-width slice of a multi-multi-billion year experience in which even the earth itself will come and go. The universe starts from the tiniest building blocks and from that complexity slowly arises. And then will merge back into the creator.

So the creator is not impotent or a poor designer as you question above. It's just that we all tend to look at things from today's hair-width slice and don't grasp the incredible multi-dimensional spectacular design.

 

[Maya3]

Yes i don't have problems with the Big Bang. My query is regarding origin of species.
Darwinian model suggests organisms evolve from simple form of life to complex forms.
Hinduism says devatas(complex beings) first came after creation and life subsequently began on Earth...

Whats your idea on the origin of species?

Yes i don't have problems with the Big Bang. My query is regarding origin of species.
Darwinian model suggests organisms evolve from simple form of life to complex forms.
Hinduism says devatas(complex beings) first came after creation and life subsequently began on Earth...

Whats your idea on the origin of species?

Where does it say that exactly?

My thoughts on origin of species is the same as science, we began in the sea and then evolved and crawled out. If you want to call those of us who crawled out more complex I guess that is true.

Maya

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Where does it say that exactly?

In the Creation Hymn of Rigveda....The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda | Vinaire's Blog
Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

 

[Chakra]

I have a question for both @तत्त्वप्रह्व and @Acintya_Ash on the 8.4 million figure.

What exactly do the scriptures say are "species"? I did some research years ago and found out that there are a lot more species discovered already than 8.4 million. I mean, surely there must be millions of species we haven't discovered yet (10% in the Amazon and 90% in the ocean). What this led me to believe was that the Vedic idea of species and the Darwinian idea are not the same.

So, would a black bear and a polar bear be considered the same species according to Vedas, or would they be different?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

I have a question for both @तत्त्वप्रह्व and @Acintya_Ash on the 8.4 million figure.
What this led me to believe was that the Vedic idea of species and the Darwinian idea are not the same.

So, would a black bear and a polar bear be considered the same species according to Vedas, or would they be different?

What we see varies with our scale of observation.
Imagine two transparent glass beakers, one containing white chalk powder and the other, black charcoal powder. If we mix the two powders, we will get a grey mixture. But if we see the same mixture under a microscope, the grey particles will disappear; we will see only white and black particles.
What is grey to the naked eye is a mixture of black and white particles to the microscopic eye

The Puranas describe cosmology and Origins from a divine perspective and they mention many features of the cosmos that are inaccessible to human observation.

 

[Maya3]

In the Creation Hymn of Rigveda....The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda | Vinaire's Blog
Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Thank you! I forgot about this verse, it´s been a long time since I read it.

Although I look at it as that WE created the gods, that is why they came afterwards, they are our creation. That is why it asks again at the end, "Who knows whence it has arisen?


I read the whole link, and I must say that I like the translation, although it is Wendy Doniger. Do you or anyone else have another translation? I´d be interested in comparing them.

Maya

 

[Chakra]

Thank you! I forgot about this verse, it´s been a long time since I read it.

Although I look at it as that WE created the gods, that is why they came afterwards, they are our creation. That is why it asks again at the end, "Who knows whence it has arisen?

Maya

Actually, is Brahman a part of the "gods" that are mentioned in the verse? Or is Brahman different from the gods that came after the universe? I'd like to know whatever you know about this verse.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Here's an interesting take

Key points mentioned in the video:
Natural selection and Genetic Mutation have been proven, thus evolution is proved not the Origin of Life
Life comes from Life (Biogenesis)

 

[Maya3]

Actually, is Brahman a part of the "gods" that are mentioned in the verse? Or is Brahman different from the gods that came after the universe? I'd like to know whatever you know about this verse.

I think it means that we create Gods so that we can make sense of Brahman, so yes they are part of Brahman. I think Brahman is the same as the force that is creating the universe.

Maya

 

[Chakra]

I think it means that we create Gods so that we can make sense of Brahman, so yes they are part of Brahman. I think Brahman is the same as the force that is creating the universe.

Maya

Oh, so the verse is saying that Gods are figments of our imagination?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Oh, so the verse is saying that Gods are figments of our imagination?

What about Purusha who is praised in the Purusha sukta?