Minds Are Like Parachutes, They Only Function When Open

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Discussion on Vedas & Science - Continued Part 4 and 5

For the first three parts of discussion please click on:
Part 4

Vj ~ What idiot would write of the evolution of any kind of life before knowing the origin of the soul and its purpose and the material cause of the universe? Well, if reading(Light of Truth) didn't do the job, then shouldn't that tell you how important practice (yoga) is necessary? I can honestly say, you are not looking for answers but to show off the ego, like all evolutionists do.
Pandit Vishal was an Aryasamajee also, he claimed to have read all of Swami Dayanand's work, but on reading the Vishnu Puran he immediately returned to the fold of Hinduism. Wow! This shows that, the most abtruse science of the Divine is called WISDOM, it cannot be taught in any educational institution, nor can it be found in a science lab or a book, but can only be acquired through the practice of yoga (self-study by stenuous effort and practice).

Raj~ Sorry VJ for taking time in replying as I was busy with other things. I was never an aryasamajee in the first place. Anyway, I have shown in my previous discussion that laws on which you discarded evolution are not sound enough to debunk evolution and I came with examples to show you, but you weren’t convinced. You didn’t say what’s wrong with those arguments and your argument was that you have had similar arguments before. And you accused me of showing off my ego like all other evolutionists. Now, I am not an evolutionist although I subscribe to evolution, and evolutionists ,on the contrary have the humility to digest and accept the fact that humans are the 5th ape, and that we are no way different to any other animals. Any one who understands evolution will accept the fact that it takes one mutation of deadly virus like ebola to wipe out humans overnight and hence they immensely respect the power of nature.
What actually amazes me is that you base the vedic religion as scientific religion yet attack the same science when it contradicts your religion. For example, your website says that one of the tests for a true religion is :

It must be in harmony with science.Modern science has proven creation to be more than 6,000 years old, the earth is spherical and it rotates and revolves, contradictions to the Torah, Bible and Quran.

Actually, modern science has proved that the creation is 14 billion years old. Now, the same modern science has also proved that viruses and bacteria become resistant to a drug, and the underlying principle for this is one of the principle of evolution – A random mutation of virus into a drug resistant strain. Although experts agree that this is only the proof of Micro-evolution(changes with in the species) in action, not the Macro-evolution(Change of one species to another), nevertheless mutations such as these can give a logical idea of why Evolution makes sense.

What doesn’t make any sense is the fact that which according the Vedic religion, is that Man has always been there since day one of the creation and Vedas have been revealed to the purest of the men, the altruistic sages of Himalayas at the start of creation. As I have replied in my earlier mail that Swamiji’s The Light of Truth is a good book when it comes to debunking other religions. But, there are things in that book that makes little sense to me, and you think that is because I haven’t been practicing Yoga. I don’t need to know yoga to doubt anything, all it takes is a prejudice free inquiry and rational mind. For example, let us consider the following from the Chapter 8: Creation sustenance and dissolution of universe. The paragraphs in red are from the book and my objections are in green and please tell me how the practise of yoga could have changed my opinion.

PAGE 262 -263

29. The wonderful creation of the earth.
The earth studded with various kinds of precious stones and metals, the seeds of trees of a thousand different kinds* with their wonderful exquisite structures, leaves with myriads of different colours** and shades, flowers, fruits, roots, rhizomes and cereals with various scents and flavours*** none but God could create. Nor could any one except God create myriads of earths, suns, moon and other cosmic bodies, and sustain, revolve the regulate them.
An object when perceived produces two kinds of knowledge in the mind of the observer, viz., of the nature of the object itself and of its maker. For example, a man found a beautiful ornament in a jungle. On examination he saw that it was made of gold and that it must have been made by a clever goldsmith. In the same way, the wonderful workmanship and execution of this wonderful universe prove the existence of its Maker

Raj ~ So, the premise here is that, when you look at anything in this world, it raises two questions. The nature of the object and its maker. Applying the same logic, I could ask the same two questions about God: His nature- who is He? And what is he made of and his attributes etc. Secondly and more importantly, Who is his maker? If this intelligent universe needs a super-intelligent creator, the super-intelligent creator should have ultra-super-intelligent creator and hence we are in an infinite regress.
If you say that God doesn’t need a maker, then at least you agree in principle that not everything needs a maker and that is contrary to the initial premise .

Q.What was first created, man or earth, etc.?
A - The earth, etc., because without them where could man live and how could he maintain his life?

The above statement makes a supposition that Earth was created for man to live and to maintain his life. Hence, we see a purpose of creating Earth and other celestial objects, hinting a anthropocentric purpose of creation. I have always pondered, what is the need for creation of millions of galaxies, each galaxy consisting of billions of stars just like our sun with uninhabitable environments and the notorious blackholes, when all it needs is one big Earth and one big sun to place humans and no scriptures including Vedas, will never account for nor explain this. As the existence of such vast universe was only known in this century, it is hardly surprising that such a grand universe was beyond the imagination of authors of these scriptures.
Having said that the extent of knowledge of the solar system that our ancestors developed by the likes of Aryabhatta, Varahamihira, Bhaskara, Brahmadeva and other great Indian astrologists cannot be underestimated. We have developed our science on the accumulated intelligence of our forefathers and it would be a mistake of gargantuan proportions to forget their contributions they made to the world of science.

30. Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one?
A - More than one; because souls, that on account of their previous good actions deserve to be born in the Aishwari - not the result of sexual intercourse - Creation, are born in the beginning of the world. It is said in the Yajur Veda, "(In the beginning) there were born many men as well as rishis, i.e.., learned seers of nature. They were progenitors of the human race." On the authority of this Vedic text it is certain then that in the beginning of Creation hundreds and thousands of men were born. By observing nature with the aid of reason we come to the same conclusion, viz., that men are descended from many fathers and mothers (i.e., not from one father and one mother).

Raj ~ So, it is technically possible for a man to be born without a sexual intercourse in the Aishwari, if a soul accumulates enough points through good actions so that you look into his DNA and you would see blanks. This is in breach of your natural laws and substantiates claims of Jesus Christ’s virgin birth.

31. In the beginning of Creation were men created as children, adults or old people or in all conditions?
A - They were adults, because had God created them as children they would have required adults to bring them up, and had created them as old men, they would not have been able to propagate the race, therefore He created them adults.

Raj ~ This completely threw me, VJ. So, one fine morning when God created Earth and Sun, guided earth on its orbit around sun, and created men from souls with previous good actions. So few hundred fully matured healthy humans descended onto Earth around Tibet. And I would assume they can read and write, probably Sanskrit . How do you then account for the Neaderthals and other prehistoric tools such as flint stones found in the caves of ancient human dwellers. If these well learned seers of nature are progenitors of the human race, how do you account for the bush tribes and pygmies of Africa. Please do not deny existence of Neanderthals, there is enough evidence that they exist.

33. Does not the belief of souls in lower beings impute partiality?
God put some souls in human bodies, while others he clothed with bodies of ferocious animals such as tigers, others with those of cattle, such as cows, others with those of birds and insects, other still with those of plants. Does not this belief impute partiality to God?
A - No, it does not impute any partiality, because He put souls into the bodies they deserved according to deeds done in the previous birth. Had He done so without any consideration as to the nature of their deeds, He would have been unjust indeed.

Raj ~ So, the impure souls were animals and pure souls were ancient sages, is it?
Could you please throw some light on at what time in creation were dinosaurs created? Unless you either deny that dinosaurs ever existed apart from in Steven Spielberg’s trilogy or that dinosaurs did exist and men happily cohabited with these giant beasts. None of the cave paintings ever found around the world had depictions of dinosaurs, but usually had paintings of domesticated animals such as bulls, horses and other wild animals. This shows that these cavemen didn’t have a clue about any other creatures other than those that were around them. Neither any of scriptures contains references about these pre-historic giants.
And how about microscopic organisms? Viruses and bacteria reproduce and kill humans, and we with our science try to stop their reproduction and kill them by using drugs. So what about souls of these viruses and bacteria? They are living entities how ever microscopic they may be and they get killed. Do they have souls? If they do, are they different to our souls and if they are not different , do they comply with the Law of Karma.

Page 271

39. What are the sun, the moon and the stars?
Q. Are they inhabited by man and other living creatures or not?
A - They are worlds inhabited by men and other living beings, The Shatpatha Braahman 14:6, 9, 4. says., "The earth, the water, the heated bodies, the space, the moon, the sun, and other planets are all called Vasus or abodes, because they are abodes of living beings as well as of inanimate objects." When the sun, the moon and other planets are abodes like our earth, what doubt can there be in their being inhabited? When this little earth of God is full of men land other living beings, can it ever be possible that all other worlds are void? How can myriads of other worlds be of any use unless they are inhabited by man and other beings? It follows, therefore, that they are inhabited.

Raj ~ This is where I almost started to think, this book is useless when it comes to science. So moon, sun and other planets are called vasus and swamiji here thinks they are inhabited as well. To be honest, I would give full credit to swamiji for taking a scientific approach of assuming a possibility of life somewhere in the universe but the idea that stars and sun could be inhabited is farfetched. Even moon and other planets in our own solar system are uninhabitable. But, again swamiji was coming up with ideas relating to the scientific knowledge of his times. But his conclusion follows the logic that is evident in the last two lines of the above paragraph. He asks-“ How can myriads of other worlds be of any use unless they are inhabited by man and other beings? It follows, therefore, that they are inhabited.
This is exactly what I argued before, we know that myriads of universes and planets and moons in our solar system are uninhabitable and only logical conclusion is that they were not created for us. And I have no reason to believe that GOD created all these billions of stars.
Having said that, I believe that there is real possibility of extra-terrestrial life in this universe which takes us to the next question.

PAGE 272

40. Do they have the same bodies?Would men and other living beings in the other worlds have the same kind of bodies and bodily organs as they have here or different?
A - Most likely there is some difference in their form and the like, just as you see some difference in form, countenance, appearance and complexion among people of different countries as the Ethiopeans, Chinese, the Indians and the Europeans. But the creation of the same class or species on this earth and other planets is identical. The class or species that has its sense organs (as eyes) in some definite place in the body here (on this planet), will have them in the same place other planets; for it is said in the Veda, "Just as God created the sun, the moon, the earth, and other planets and the objects therein in the previous cycles of Creation, the same has He done in the present Creation." RIG VEDA 10: 190. He does not make any alteration.
Raj ~ The above logic makes sense in 19th century, but has no place in 21st century.
Because even if life exists in another place in the universe, i would still think the life will have to evolve. It is statistically improbable for the life here to be similar to that of on the Earth.

41. Are the same Vedas revealed in the other worlds as in this?
A - Yes. Just as the policy of a king is the same in all the countries under his rule, so is the Vedic system of Government of the King of kings identically the same in all the worlds over which He rules.

Raj ~ This question doesn’t even arise unless we find the proof of extra-terrestrial life. And even if we find it, the chances of Vedas being revealed in the other worlds are as good as Christopher Hitchens going back to thiesm.

VJ ~ And you asked who would write of the evolution of any kind before knowing the origin of the soul and its purpose?

Raj ~ Well, I would say Physics comes first and then Metaphysics.

Finally, Swamiji says:

"The man who resolves, to stick to the truth at all costs, steadily rises in virtues. When his virtues raise his reputation and prestige, he becomes all the more a devotee of truth. This devotion to truth becomes an unerring source of power and greatness."
Raj ~ I absolutely believe this. Swami Dayanand Saraswati was one of the most prominent thinkers and reformers that India ever produced and his works were based on the knowledge that he had during his times. Science has advanced and so did we, and his book is not different to other scriptures, all written in light of limited knowledge our ancestors had possessed during their time. To claim a book to be true for all times is asinine, and this hold good for Gita, Koran, Bible, Vedas and even Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. Who knows, a major breakthrough in science could prove Darwin wrong and as swamiji says, we have to stick to truth at all costs.
Part 5
Vj ~ Seems like a trend, you not sure of anything, even the existence of a Creator.
Raj ~ I am quite sure about some things, and i am unsure about some. As Bertrand Russel wisely said-"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".I gladly admit that I am not sure of the existence of a creator, and i have no reason to believe that He does. If you think he does, then burden of proof is on you, not me.
Vj ~ Believe me, if "restrictions to the number of words" poses an impediment here, you are not going not going to get the truth anywhere else without it.This is my venue for propagating the truth and if your "spirit" is affected I suggest you reconsider.Natural Laws is one of the means of ascertaining truth, and if you have no interest in discussing the functions then there is nothing else to discuss.
Raj ~ I have been patiently discussing my objections to various issues on your website, and I am quoting where ever possible references from your site and the book 'The light of Truth' you cling to so dearly. You seem to completely ignore the points I raised and rather than answering to the questions i posed, all you are doing is resorting to non-sequiturs, red-herrings and ad hominem accusing me showing off my ego.Please reply, if you can, to my objections I raised in the so called Light of Truth of pages 262, 263 and 272 on my site.If you wish there is nothing to discuss, so be it my friend. Or probably you have nothing to answer.

No comments: