Dealing with Darwin?

May 5, 1999

Shree Rama

Dear Bhagavathas, i have a question that needs some help and

advice. If this is a question that does not belong to this list please

let me know. I just wanted to know how people deal with the idea of

darwin's theory of evolution and the history of the universe as

propounded by the vedas and shastras. Sometimes due to the world we

live in especially going to college and stuff, i come across tons of

"information and evidence" for the darwinian theory but i have such a

strong belief in the vedic origin of the universe sometimes it just

becomes tough. Can you please help me out on this? Thank you for your

help and please excuse this ignorant one if i offend anyone.

Shree Rama

Shree Mahalakshmi Kataaksham

Shree Ramanuja Dasan

-Mukunda

May 6, 1999

Mukunda,

In my opinion, there is absolutely no problem in accepting

scientific opinion regarding the origin of species and the

universe, and at the same time being a devout Vedantin and

follower of Sri Ramanuja.

Let me explain why.

The philosophers of Vedanta typically posit three ways

of "knowing" things: (a) pratyaksha -- perception or

direct observation, (b) anumAna -- inference or logical deduction

such as "where there's smoke, there's fire", and

Each one of these ways of "knowing" are independently

valid (svatah prAmANya). One does not need corroboration

from another source of information in its sphere of

influence.

Each way of knowing (pramANa) operates in its own

sphere of influence. The Vedas and ancillary scriptures

are part of the 'adhyAtma SAstra', meant for understanding

the supra-sensory, such as the nature of the self, the

nature of God, the nature of consciousness, and the

relation between all of these. Obviously, science has

little bearing in this area.

Similarly, pratyaksha and anumAna (i.e., science) is meant

to understand the world that we see and live in. Whatever

is posited by the Vedas and other scriptures has to agree

with scientific observation. Sri Ramanuja makes the brilliant

point that when one's understanding of the Veda disagrees

with knoweldge obtained through scientific investigation, the

scientific observation is preferred; the Veda

must be reinterpreted to fit with the observation.

Two ways of knowing simply cannot be in conflict.

This principle, in my opinion, reflects a unique genius,

and blends the scientific and religious outlooks.

For example, if the Veda says "the moon is made of

green cheese", but our observations indicate that the

moon is indeed not made of such a substance, the Veda

must be reinterpreted to fit our observation. Perhaps

the Veda means something symbolically or metaphorically --

whatever the case, our observation simply cannot be wrong.

Similarly, science simply cannot tell us about God. It

cannot say anything about whether God exists or doesn't

exist, or whether God plays a helping hand in creation,

whether we have free will, whether there is more to life

than bodily experience, or whether God is the ultimate

reality. Science deals only with what we can see, and

what we can deduce from this observation.

Let's analyze the matter further to answer the present

question.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is accepted by

nearly all scientists in some form or another. There are

some so-called scientists who espouse "scientific"

creationism, but most of this theory consists of misquotation

of learned articles and a misunderstanding of the scientific

record. Unfortunately, some of this dubious science

is even propagated by some Vaishnavas today, when before

it was purely the mainstay of extremist Christians.

Should acceptance of evolution, a scientific fact, in any

way affect one's beliefs as a Vedantin? Absolutely not.

There is nothing in our primary shastras that cannot be understood

in the light of commonly accepted science; after all, these texts

are meant to inform us about what we *cannot see* or *reason*

about. (By primary texts, I mean the Upanishads, Gita,

and Brahma Sutras. There are countless secondary texts that

posit illogical and irreconcilable theories of the universe.

But these secondary texts are just that -- secondary.)

Finally, realize that our tradition in particular is a

tradition of experience -- anubhavam. Its foundation does

not lie in a dogmatic assertion of the creation of the earth

at a point of time, or some personality's exuberant vision.

It relies on certain *principle* of life and religious

experience, which are elucidated by the Upanishads, Gita

and Sutras, and reaffirmed and experienced by our Alvars.

These principles neither stand nor fall on the acceptance

scientific evidence about the world around us.

This is one of those issues where the tradition of Vedanta

really stands head and shoulders above the others.

rAmanuja dAsan

Mani

May 6, 1999

Dear Bhaktas,

I am listing a few web sites where you will find a few excellent

books that discuss the modern theory of evolution & science. After

critically studying these theories, the authors also present the Vedic

Vaishnava perspective based on Sri Veda Vyaasa's Srimad Bhagavatam and

other sources.

1) http://www.mcremo.com

2) http://www.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/

3) http://www.bvinst.edu/home.html

I have read a few of the publications mentioned in these web sites and

found them to be very authentic. If anyone is interested, I can

recommend specific books, and discuss these thorny issues privately,

as discussion of this subject might not be in consonance with Mani's

vision for this forum.

Sincerely,

Arun

************************************************************************

* Arun Sridharan Phone: 650-497-7565 **

* Rains Houses 7F Email: aruns **

* 704 Campus Drive FAX #: 650-723-2666 **

* Stanford University Dept: EE/Ginzton Laboratory **

* Stanford, CA 94305 Lab #: 650-723-9100/5-2254 **

************************************************************************

May 7, 1999

Dear Bhagavathas,

We must accept the vedic opinion when it contradicts our scientific opinion.

Vedic opinion is the word of Krishna dharmam tu sakshat bhagavat pranitam.

As a result this knowledge is completely perfect. On the other hand, modern

scientific opinion is based on the opinion of scientists who have the

following four defects :

1. Imperfect Senses : You cannot even see your hand in a dark room

2. Make mistakes : Dalton's concept of atom(indivisible) was later found to

be a mistake.

3. Tendency to cheat : Dont we know how much cheating is going on in the

scientific community.

4. Illusion : Materialists do not knows who I am. If you do not even know

about yourself, why you are born or die or how you think and act the way you

do, how can you comment on the Universe - past, present and future.

There are two aspects of Science :

1. One is practical application of scientific models. With the help of our

knowledge of electronics, we created computers, Internet etc. We will use

this in the service of Krishna and general comfort of society as we are

doing now.

2. Fundamental science : We will not use the our tiny brains to fathom how

they were created because it is not possible to understand. We will use the

words of God.

Vedic period stressed more on spiritual understanding an they used subtle

technologies to satisfy dharmartha and kama needs with a fraction of effort

that we need today. As a result of our dull brains which again is the result

of the advancing of kali yuga, we have lost our ability to use mantras to

achieve desired results. But still the names of the Lord (Krishna, Rama

etc.) are powerful enough to give us spiritual awakening. So we will cling

on to the names.

Fundamentally we dont have to care about scientific knowledge. They only

deal with material things and like all material things scientific knowledge

is temporary. Newton described gravity in one way, Einstein in another and

that is being challenged today. However we have lost much of the mundane

vedic sciences like medicine, engineering etc. So we will use the modern

techniques just like a snake takes away a rat hole. Whether we use mantras

to light fire or friction between inflammable objects to light fire, it is

only Krishna who is the doer.

We can react to athiestic opinion of some of the foolish scientist by

showing that they are have the above four defects and hence their knowledge.

We should oppose theory of evolution etc., not because it cannot happen. Any

thing is possible for Krishna. But we should oppose only because some

scientists use it to show that Krishna does not exist.

I dont think that our tradition is mainly based on anubhavam. Even while

saying this we are referring to alwars etc. So it is more correct to say

that our belef is based on authority. Our own experience of bhakti can be

discounted as unexplained mental phenomenon by scientists. Why not ? But if

we base our arguments on the statements of the Vedas there is no problem

because we are taking knowledge directly from Krishna and his devotees who

are on the absolute platform.

Christians are any one who defends God is superior to atheistic mortal

scientists who propound theories which they can in no way be sure of and

mislead people in to adharma.

We dont have to misinterpret vedas when they say things which contradict our

observation - for example seven seas around earth, green cheese moon etc.

That is because our interpretation manufactured with our tiny brains is also

bound by the four defects stated above. So we will honestly admit that we do

not know what it means. Our ignorance does not make Krishna ignorant. Some

times mothers explain so many things to the child about moon, trees etc.,

while feeding him. The child does not obviously understand these things. But

he does not think that the mother does not know what she is taliking about.

Like that we will accept Krishna's statements revealed directly and through

sages without interpretation. One reason that He is great because He is so

knowledgeable that many things He says are incomprehensible to our tiny

brains.

You said, Sri Ramanuja makes the brilliant

>point that when one's understanding of the Veda disagrees

>with knoweldge obtained through scientific investigation, the

>scientific observation is preferred

Please show the authority.

Having said this I fall at the lotus feet of all the vaishnavas here and

pray to you to forgive me for any offense I might have committed because of

ignorance

Regards