 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
7. Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows or maybe even he does not know.
The hymn plainly considers Gods to be a part of the whole thing (unlike
the Abrahamic God.) This is not surprising as the earliest Indo-Aryans
were mostly pantheistic. Also, it is perhaps the ONLY hymn in world's
living religious traditions which is utterly skeptical of its Gods - and
the tradition cherishes it as sacred.
Here is the URL of the complete hymn (it seems to be very popular -
there are number of sites hosting it) :
http://enteract.com/~jwalz/Eliade/056.html
The following URL has another (later) creation hymn :
http://enteract.com/~jwalz/Eliade/101.html
(This one is a fairly "transcendent-pantheistic" version.)
There is another version (to which I cannot immediately find any
reference) which essentially considers "something" to exists all the
time, though it manifests itself, goes through a stage of development,
and then dissolves/gets destroyed. It is somewhat akin to the
expanding-contracting (cyclical ?) Universe. The present Universe,
according to this view, is more like ONE phase. However, none of the
myths/hymns/theories I have read propound an entity like the Abrahamic
God (external to and different from the creation) who creates it (it has
much significance to the concept of realization and the absence of
eternal hell and heaven.) The theistic systems (there are non-theistic
and atheistic systems too) view God as both IMMANENT and TRANSCENDENT to
Universe. To further complicate matters, many of these systems have
there own cosmogeny and cosmology.
It might interest you to know that one of the philosophical systems
(Samkhya) postulates EVOLUTION as the central principle of Prakriti
(nature.) It also supports abiogenesis (in the sense that Universe and
all its consituents are of one category - there are just different
arrangements of the same thing.) God does not play ANY role in its
metaphysics or ethics (and its ethics are very non-violent and
compassionate.) This system does not have many adherents now in India,
but it has played a major role in its past (and has influenced other
systems like Buddhism - it predates 500 BC though it was evolving
throughout.) Of course, its "evolution" is different in scale as
compared to speciation and natural selection.
Here is an excerpt :
"According to Samkhya philosophy, any cause can produce any effect
(since all things are modifications of prakriti) if only the obstructing
barriers of that particular effect are removed..."
(Indian Philosophy, S. Radhakrishnan, Oxford Univ. Press, pg 258)
Here is another extract from the same book (pg 259 - the book is
considered a classic on Indian Philosophy) :
"If all effects are latent in their causes, and if infinite regress is
to be avoided, there must be an uncaused cause. From the principle of
causality it is deduced that the ultimate basis of the empirical
universe is the unmanifested prakriti. The Samkhya argues for the
existence of prakriti on the following grounds : 1) Individual things
are limited in magnitude. Whatever is limited is dependent on something
more enduring and pervasive than itself. 2) All individual things posses
certain pervasive characteristics, thus implying a common source from
which they all issue. The Samkhya does not believe that different
elements are completely different from one another. 3) There is an
active principle manifesting itself in the development of things.
Evolution implies a principle which cannot be equated with any one of
its stages. It is something larger than its products, though immanent in
them. 4) The effect differs from the cause, and we cannot, therefore say
that the finite and conditioned world is its own cause. 5) There is the
obvious unity of the universe, suggesting a single cause. The Samkhya
assumes the continuity of the world from the lowest to the highest. The
products evolve and dissolve in a definite order. The world is said to
be the parinama, or transformation, of prakriti, which is the cause."
The prakriti is held by Samkya to be uncaused. Samkhya is considered
NON-THEISTIC.
An unrelated point. I too read talk.origins regularly, and what amuses
me very often is the assumption that theists (mostly creationists) make
about the relationship between belief in God and ethics. If we were to
rate philosophical systems as ethical based on :
- their advocacy for compassion
- their advocacy for non-violence
then some of the most ethical systems of the world are NON-THEISTIC or
MONISTIC. All the following systems consider sin to be anything that
harms another living being (not just man, or someone belonging to one's
faith) :
- Jainism
- Buddhism
- Samkhya
- Advaita
A caveat. There are a number of Hndus who believe (like creationists do)
that their scriptures are infallible or contain all the scientific
discoveries of the modern world. However, all Indian philosophies and
belief systems are VERY comfortable with an "ancient-earth" theory. We
revel in our antiquity.
As for the relationship between science and culture (I hope you mean
ancient culture), many Indian systems hold knowledge to be of ultimate
validity. Some systems hold knowledge derived from sensory data and
logic to be of ultimate validity, and some ancient philosophers have
held LOGIC alone to be valid. Even God must be deduced, or junked
(Vaisesika and Nyaya - both are "atomicists" somewhat like Descartes) Of
course, their rules of logic are not entirely similar to that of the
modern day philosophers, but it still illustrates the point that for
some of these system even God's existence was a matter of derivation and
not faith. However, most systems hold ultimate knowledge to be that by
which "the knower becomes known." It is "realization", and is somewhat
akin to our knowledge of our existence (that which is not derived from
sensory data or logic but that which is self-evident - I know I exist by
the very fact that I exist.) Of course, things get very mystical from
here on but the point is that knowledge is esteemed GREATLY and is even
considered one of the ways to "realization." Therefore, the attitude of
the religious towards Science is not at all antagonistic (as it
sometimes is in case of the Abrahamic family of religions) but very
positive - for it enhances knowledge. That is also perhaps the reason
why there are so MANY systems - after all they are different views and
perceptions and therefore in their own way knowledge (rightly or
wrongly.)
Regarding conflicts with Big-bang theory - not really, if it does not
rule out other Big-bangs. I think the religious would be very
comfortable with a ...Bang-Bang-Bang... theory which has no beginning
and no end. Basically, the religious idea is that anything with a
beginning has to have an end (that is why, unlike in Abrahamic
religions, we postulate an enternal soul when we do postulate one.) If
Science says more Bangs can occur, we are fine. If Science says there
can be ONLY one Big-Bang, I am fairly certain one of our systems would
have thought of that too. We try to think of everything - for
contingencies. We have them all - from atheistic to polytheistic. Unlike
the Abrahamic theologies, we prefer to have multiple notions and ideas -
that way we are always right.
Dennis Curran wrote:
>
> What do Hindus believe regarding the creation of the earth and life upon
> it? I heard (somewhere) that of the world's major religions, the Hindu
> creation story was the only one that gave an age for the earth close to
> the current scientifically accepted age. The number I vaguely remember
> was some tens of millions of years. Is my memory correct? Could you
> point me toward any books that might help? I would also be interested in
> hearing whether you see any conflict between your creation story and
> modern scientific theories, in particularly the "Big Bang" and
> evolution.
>
> I'm curious because I've been spending some time at the talk.origins
> newsgroup which is devoted to debating the fundamentalist Christian
> (6000 year old earth) vs. the modern scientific view (4.5 billion year
> old earth) of creation. I'm a chemistry/physics major and very
> interested in the relationship between science and religion in different
> cultures.
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks-DMC-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|