Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
suchandra

Why Darwinism Is Quite Tricky

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Below it says, Darwin stole parts of his theory from the Vedas and combined it with his speculation. Because his theory contains parts of vedic knowledge people became bewildered and declared Darwinism as science.

 

Prabhupāda: Before, it is described, before human birth, monkey, either monkey or lion or cow. Sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Monkey’s tamo-guṇa, cow is sattva-guṇa, and lion is rajo-guṇa. This is the last animal life before human life, gradually. Everything is described. Darwins want to take credit, nonsense.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But he could only see as deep as the body. He could not see it was the soul…

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory, this is… Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: For a while they did a pretty good job.

Prabhupāda: No, artificially you can do for a while. Unless it is sound footing, it cannot stay. You can cheat some people for some time…, no, all time. You can cheat some people for all time, and all people for some time, not all people for all time. This is the… That was their business, to cheat some people for all time and cheat all people for some time. But not all people for all time. That is not possible.

 

 

 

Morning Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

June 23, 1977, Vṛndāvana

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/770623rc.vrn.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwinism is a paradoxical blend of vedanta and demonic ignorance.

 

Evolution is a fact of embodied consciousness. Propelled by its karma, the jiva migrates through the three worlds, heavenly, earthly and hellish throughout the lifetime of the particular cosmic manifestation; the wheel of birth and death, samsara.

Of course, the jiva can seek mukti and ascend to Brahman, the static state of pure consciousness, only to fall down at some future cosmic manifestation. Optimally the jiva can reach Vaikuntha and even Goloka Vrindavan in a particular rasa with Krsna.

That is the vedic part.

 

The demonic part is the determinism, that life came from matter, that strife is the father of all things.

It is truth cominated with a lie - the worst kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Below it says, Darwin stole parts of his theory from the Vedas and combined it with his speculation. Because his theory contains parts of vedic knowledge people became bewildered and declared Darwinism as science.
First the only thing your thread and quotes do is call more question to the integrity of how much people really know.

 

Darwin spent the better part of his years traveling and collecting data. His book was not published until he was well aged as anyone of the time knew it was quite political to offer material that could contradict theological beliefs.

 

The summary was simply to share that a 'process' was involved in which an environment affects the development of species.

 

Just the same as knowledge evolves.

 

Darwin was a contributor of knowledge just as any other person who does for the benefit of tomorrow.

 

The man described a process; he did not create it.

 

 

Charles Darwin's views on religion have been the subject of much interest. His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory.

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school. He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. On return, he developed his theory of natural selection in full awareness that it conflicted with the teleological argument. Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality and came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. However, at the time of writing On the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

 

 

the man was a God fearing person but cared more for the contribution to knowledge than his own recognition;

 

a saint in my book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin didn't really invent Darwinism. That is something that was spun off of his theory of the origin of the species.

The conclusions that all life comes from matter, really wasn't exactly his. His idea was the evolution of the species, not the evolution of individuals.

So all life forms evolved - from so-called lower life forms, unicellular probalby marine organisms.

The evidence for this is flimsy at best. The big hole is the lack of transitional forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Darwin didn't really invent Darwinism. That is something that was spun off of his theory of the origin of the species.
Perhaps by creationist?

 

 

 

The conclusions that all life comes from matter, really wasn't exactly his. His idea was the evolution of the species, not the evolution of individuals.
Good bet

 

 

So all life forms evolved - from so-called lower life forms, unicellular probalby marine organisms.
such as a community; if the collective association benefits the 'life to continue' an evolved association develops.

 

Ever notice how birds clean tics from the various beast? Or how bees, pollinate the flowers; the association 'evolved'

 

 

The evidence for this is flimsy at best. The big hole is the lack of transitional forms.
But what makes the most sense in reasoning and comprehensive understanding:

 

creation or evolution?

 

Do we look at dinosaur bones and simply believe God put them in the ground to employ people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps by creationist?

 

 

Good bet

 

such as a community; if the collective association benefits the 'life to continue' an evolved association develops.

 

Ever notice how birds clean tics from the various beast? Or how bees, pollinate the flowers; the association 'evolved'

 

But what makes the most sense in reasoning and comprehensive understanding:

 

creation or evolution?

 

Do we look at dinosaur bones and simply believe God put them in the ground to employ people?

 

Where did dinasours come from? Who came from dinasours? The earth is silent as a tomb. There are no traces of neo-dinasours or dinasours-on-their-way-to-becoming-bird skeletons etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where did dinasours come from? Who came from dinasours? The earth is silent as a tomb. There are no traces of neo-dinasours or dinasours-on-their-way-to-becoming-bird skeletons etc...

 

They say birds. Can't remember which turned into which. But as you mentioned without the record of transitional forms it is a fool's tale. Darwin himself said he looked forward to transitional forms. Since there are none we can understand that Darwin himself would be an opponent of today's Darwinism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory, this is… Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” [url="http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/770623rc.vrn.htm"]

 

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.:crying2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.:crying2:

 

If you ask people on the street why they're atheits they basically say the same, something like, if God exists He must be a real hateful God, allowing all these karmic reactions to come back on us. If God would sanction all my material activities and reward me for my sinful actions, then I could believe in Him. But because He's not blessing my fruitive work but instead hatefully punishing me with my own karmic reactions, therefore I never take God seriously and actually am an atheist. Atheists are tolerant towards other atheists, but God states in Bhagavad-gita nothing but hateful, bigoted speech, mudha, naradhama, asura, duskritina, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.:crying2:

 

Interestingly for me, the word rascal and fool sounded as sweet as nectar when coming from his lips.

 

The way of viewing it might be different from person to person.

 

Maybe because, among the fools and rascals I'm matchless.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interestingly for me, the word rascal and fool sounded as sweet as nectar when coming from his lips.

 

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, Sai Baba calls Prabhupada a rascal. To Sai devotees, that would be nectar flowing from their guru's lips. But how would it make you feel?

 

 

Maybe because, among the fools and rascals I'm matchless.:)

 

Can't argue with that.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, Sai Baba calls Prabhupada a rascal. To Sai devotees, that would be nectar flowing from their guru's lips. But how would it make you feel?

 

 

Kool; if it can make the Sai devotees happy or understand something.

 

But as far as i know, Srila Prabhupada never treats authentic Gurus, whether Mayavadi leader Sankaracharya as rascal or fool.

 

 

Can't argue with that.;)

 

 

I'll remove you from my cathegory, you've proved to be intelligent by not saying for the sake of argument.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.:crying2:

 

I hardly see hatred in calling a spade a spade. Since evolution is originally a Vedic idea, then passing it as one's own is a sort of rascaldom, especially when it is mixed with the demonic philosophy that life came from matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hardly see hatred in calling a spade a spade. Since evolution is originally a Vedic idea, then passing it as one's own is a sort of rascaldom, especially when it is mixed with the demonic philosophy that life came from matter.

 

Whoever thinks evolution is a vedic idea is seriously deluded.:eek: And I don't see anything demonic about asserting that life came from matter. One may or may not agree with it, but to call it demonic is quite silly, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whoever thinks evolution is a vedic idea is seriously deluded.:eek: And I don't see anything demonic about asserting that life came from matter. One may or may not agree with it, but to call it demonic is quite silly, isn't it?

You seem quite determined to blaspheme Prabhupada. But spiritual evolution is a vedic idea whether you know it or not. If you don't see anything demonic about saying life comes from matter you don't understand the first thing about Vedanta.

Materialism is demonic - it is atheistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You seem quite determined to blaspheme Prabhupada. But spiritual evolution is a vedic idea whether you know it or not. If you don't see anything demonic about saying life comes from matter you don't understand the first thing about Vedanta.

Materialism is demonic - it is atheistic.

 

Not only Prabhupada, but many mayavadis say the same thing. Am I trying to blaspheme all of them? If you claim evolution is a vedic idea, then please provide some evidence from the veda. And please enlighten us as to why it's demonic to conclude that life comes from matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hardly see hatred in calling a spade a spade. Since evolution is originally a Vedic idea, then passing it as one's own is a sort of rascaldom, especially when it is mixed with the demonic philosophy that life came from matter.

 

really?? when prabhupada was criticized on this forum you and your friend were quick to label the critics as Prabhupada haters and vaishnava haters.

 

different standards, eh? prabhupada and his followers can label anyone as rascal but they cannot be subject to similar criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Below it says, Darwin stole parts of his theory from the Vedas and combined it with his speculation. Because his theory contains parts of vedic knowledge people became bewildered and declared Darwinism as science.

 

Prabhupāda: Before, it is described, before human birth, monkey, either monkey or lion or cow. Sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Monkey’s tamo-guṇa, cow is sattva-guṇa, and lion is rajo-guṇa. This is the last animal life before human life, gradually. Everything is described. Darwins want to take credit, nonsense.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But he could only see as deep as the body. He could not see it was the soul…

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory, this is… Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: For a while they did a pretty good job.

Prabhupāda: No, artificially you can do for a while. Unless it is sound footing, it cannot stay. You can cheat some people for some time…, no, all time. You can cheat some people for all time, and all people for some time, not all people for all time. This is the… That was their business, to cheat some people for all time and cheat all people for some time. But not all people for all time. That is not possible.

 

 

 

Morning Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

June 23, 1977, Vṛndāvana

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/770623rc.vrn.htm

 

 

Very eloquent. If evolution is a vedic idea then why are hare krishnas criticizing it? For prabhupdas problem is that it was stolen from india and not about its correctness.

 

Hare Krishnas form the most confused religious group I have ever known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very eloquent. If evolution is a vedic idea then why are hare krishnas criticizing it? For prabhupdas problem is that it was stolen from india and not about its correctness.

 

Hare Krishnas form the most confused religious group I have ever known.

 

The thread has many tangents each based in personal opinions; at least a few contribute their thoughts versus having to suggest an old teaching; created the term 'evolution', which common sense makes that opinion reveal a selfish approach, based on pride, rather than truth.

 

To echo a teachers response unquestioned is opposing Godhead (integrity).

 

Be honest; many teachers all over the globe had recognized the truth that life is upon mass, as well that light is that very energy (life) upon that mass but who has the words to convey this truth, absolute without having to rely on magic?

 

evolution is a word that has a definition. It was a created form of letters to assist in defining a process observed in nature.

 

For a person to read the book and how the conclusion were derived, then he could best understand what Darwin meant but then there are conflicting material such as what the teacher shared in the quote provided. Apparently the teacher had no clue what was commited to the work and the humility of conveyance, Darwin shared in his book(s).

 

So here we have a real dilema; does the teacher walk on water or not?

 

Nice to be human, isn't it?

 

Words are created to describe experiences. Darwin experienced the process of the progression of life governed by its environment and defined a term called evolution.

 

such that what you learn today may affect what you do tomorrow.

 

Same with any living process.

 

And the last item to observe; do we believe in what nature reveals, unblemished by the hand of mankind...

 

or....

 

do we believe in magic and that representation by misunderstanding or simply because of not comprehending what is occurring and to 'create' the idea that an omnipotent being (undescribable) magically created all these things we see and experience; just for fun?

 

What a sense of humor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

really?? when prabhupada was criticized on this forum you and your friend were quick to label the critics as Prabhupada haters and vaishnava haters.

 

different standards, eh? prabhupada and his followers can label anyone as rascal but they cannot be subject to similar criticism.

Obviously blaspheming Prabhupada doesn't make you a Prabhupada-lover.

It isn't the fact of a label. It is the use of the word 'rascal' for the proper reason - that is, claiming a philosophy as one's own when it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not only Prabhupada, but many mayavadis say the same thing. Am I trying to blaspheme all of them? If you claim evolution is a vedic idea, then please provide some evidence from the veda. And please enlighten us as to why it's demonic to conclude that life comes from matter.

Mayavadis say what? That evolution is vedic? I already explained that materialsim is not Vedanta. If you don't know why, that would take a whole education which is beyond the scope of one reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very eloquent. If evolution is a vedic idea then why are hare krishnas criticizing it? For prabhupdas problem is that it was stolen from india and not about its correctness.

 

Hare Krishnas form the most confused religious group I have ever known.

 

Which 'Hare Krishnas' are criticizing it,(which I am not BTW)?

Prabhupada is criticizing Darwin and Darwinism, not the idea of evolution as such.

You are confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which 'Hare Krishnas' are criticizing it,(which I am not BTW)?

Prabhupada is criticizing Darwin and Darwinism, not the idea of evolution as such.

You are confused.

 

the criticizing or ascertain that Darwin 'took' from existence for the self by conveying the experience as his work, is a clear error of judgment based on a lack of evidence and pride (a rascal)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the criticizing or ascertain that Darwin 'took' from existence for the self by conveying the experience as his work, is a clear error of judgment based on a lack of evidence and pride (a rascal)

I actually find your post not helpful but somewhat composed to create confusion. Whats your point actually, for what do you stand for?

Why don't you say I'm an agnostic and don't believe in anything. Just for having things clarified. Since your avatar is a cat - to let the cat out of the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I actually find your post not helpful but somewhat composed to create confusion.
Maybe sheads light where others can see but confusion is only known when retention and focus is kept in the clouds rather than experiencing what is occurring

 

 

Whats your point actually, for what do you stand for?
The truth as it is, not as it was learned.

 

 

Why don't you say I'm an agnostic and don't believe in anything.
No labels please. This comment is as if to put a name to an opinion; you are creating an "i" to the unknown opinion.

 

Such that since nothing can reveal the opinion or points being read as having a root in a theology, you can read up on, then your 'loss' is in not being able to isolate the causation.

 

Which emotion are you experiencing?

 

 

Just for having things clarified.
To put (the opinion) into a shelf or to begin equality; which is it?

 

 

Since your avatar is a cat - to let the cat out of the bag.

 

And if a reply was to answer your questions, than a pre-determination can be affixed; let's see if you have eyes to know compassion and truth combined into One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...