[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Evolution?
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> As you know, the age of the great Acharyas who interpreted
> the Veda for the commoners preceded Darwin and his theory;
> therefore there is no authoritative pronouncement in
> Hinduism for or against the theory.
Although Darwin's theory may not have been explicitly addressed, the
Vedas themselves give an account of creation that leaves little room
for belief that humankind evolved from primitive ancestors. Of course,
many people will prefer the Darwinist view, but I just want to point
out that the Vedas clearly say something else.
> Of course, in the Ramayana,
> Sri Rama was a mere human, and therefore not expected to
> remember this.
Point of clarification: Lord Rama was acting as a mere human. He did
have the full potency of the Supreme Lord. I'm sure you meant that, but
I thought I would just clarify to avoid confusion.
> Anyway, the idea is that once having set the Law in motion,
> God no longer interferes with the laws of physics and
> other scientific principles. Thus Darwin's theory should
> be perfectly acceptable to the Hindus.
One problem with that example, though. We see Lord Ramachandra and
His servants building a bridge of stones which floats on the water
(even after his army is walking over it). We must conclude then, that
God can suspend the laws of science whenever it please Him. He is the
lawmaker, after all.
> There is another curious parallelism that intrigues
> a lot of people, including myself. If you look up the
> 10 avatars of Vishnu, they go from the fish to the
> fully human by way of amphibians, reptiles, mammals,
> semi-man, dwarf etc and finlly end up in Superman.
> People who believe this should have no problem in
> grasping or agreeing with Darwin.
I have heard that example given. However, we should understand
that the idea of the dasavatar symbolizing evolution is really
just speculation. There were reasons why the Lord took each of
the forms which He did, and they don't even give a hint that it
had something to do with evolving.
> Finally, in Hinduism, since the earliest times, there
> has been a full recognition of the fact that the
> "lower" creatures are not fundamentally different
> from the humans; their kinship with the humans was
> a given; thus this great artificial divide between
> humans and animals which is a fundamental axiom of
> the Semitic religions, which deny that animals have
> souls, and which encourage men to lord it over the
> animals, and therefore find it unacceptable that
> humans could have evolved from them, this whole
> syndrome does not exist in Hinduism. Hindus find it
> quite reasonable and natural that science has
> discovered what they had always believed - there is
> no such absurd divide; all life is a continuum.
True that animals are same as humans in the sense that both have
souls. The explanation I have heard being given by authorities in
the Madhva sampradaya is that the soul takes birth from lower forms
of life to higher forms, until finally getting the human form and
getting a chance at self-realization. In this way, there is evolution.
> Thus Darwin would have found a welcoming audience
> among the Hindus.
I think it is reasonable to assume that Darwin's views would find
a welcoming audience in any group of people who tend to take a
'liberal' approach to interpreting their scriptures.
Yours,
-- HKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- H. Krishna Susarla - "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or -
- susarla@rice.edu - sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without -
- Rice University - religion is mental speculation." -
- Class of 1995 - -- Swami Srila Prabhupada -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and
have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge,
they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme."
- Bhagavad-Gita 7.24
