Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lahokamal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wjp;

Such eternal finest form of energy is called as Mahat by Veda and is called as Mahat-Brahma by Gita (Mamayonih Mahat-Brahma). The Shastras say that Mahat itself means Brahman (Mahat Brahma iti proktam). When the will of God is withdrawn, this entire world along with the souls and their corresponding attributes become a static impression on the inert energy and is retained in the state of Avyaktam. In this state both good and bad attributes or feelings are static and inert and therefore become equal. A good deed painted as a picture on a paper is equal to a bad deed painted on a paper. There is no difference between good and bad in this state. This is the equilibrium state of the good (Sattvam) and bad (Rajas and Tamas) qualities before and after the creation. This is the meaning of the equilibrium state of the three qualities as mentioned in the Sankhya philosophy.

If the qualities are associated with awareness, certainly a bad feeling or a bad action cannot be equal to a good feeling or a good action. The equilibrium state certainly means the state of the good and bad qualities as inert impressions in the basic phase of inert energy. Such a state results in the deep sleep. This finest primary energy is called as Mula Maya or Mahat-Brahma or Karya-Brahma or Hiranya-Garbha. Since it is the first greatest item of creation and since it is infinite, it is called as Mahat-Brahma. Since it is the generated product or effect, it is called as Karya-Brahma. Since God is hidden as root cause in this energy, it is called as Hiranya-Garbha. The word Hiranya indicates the most precious God and the word Garbha indicates the unimaginability of God. It is called as Mula Maya because it is the root cause of this universe up to which only one can analyze. God is called as Mula Mulam which means the root of the root. The word Maya means the wonderful capability or potentiality of this energy by the will of God. This energy again stands as the medium for the will of God. The wonderful design of the world created by this energy indicates the wonderful will of God.

No soul can cross this Mula Maya because the soul can be transformed into this basic inert energy at the maximum. It cannot be beyond itself. Only God who is the generator of this energy can be the original creator. The modifications of this energy like matter, awareness, light etc. constitute the second plane called as Maha Maya. A soul can cross this Maha Maya at the maximum. He can create matter from the existing inert energy. He can create awareness (life) from the existing inert energy. He can create light, heat etc. from this inert energy. These are the super natural powers which are responsible for miracles (Ashta siddhis). He cannot create the primary energy and thus cannot be the original creator. He is the creator at the secondary level and therefore can be called as secondary creator. In the third level, the feelings are generated from the awareness. The forms are generated from the matter.

These forms and feelings constitute the third level called as Maya. Any soul has the power to cross this Maya. Anybody can produce any form from the matter. Anybody can produce any feeling from his awareness. When a devotee blessed by God with super powers has created a golden pot, it indicates his level beyond the third and second planes. The gold is produced from the existing energy and this shows that he controlled the Maha Maya. When that pot is produced from that Gold that shows that he controlled Maya. But he cannot create the primary energy from which the gold and pot are produced. At this point you cannot differentiate the human incarnation from a devotee. If the human incarnation has to produce this primary energy, first He must dissolve all the existing primary energy. After such dissolution, the soul disappears.
 
wjp;

You cannot exist to see the creation of that primary energy. Even after the creation of primary energy, you are existing as an inert impression in the inert energy and thus cannot understand anything. Only when this primary energy is transformed into awareness, you are able to understand anything. Therefore the transformation of inert energy into awareness cannot be also understood by you in the process of creation. You can only understand this transformation by observing the dissolution of awareness on stopping the supply of inert energy in the form of food. Therefore any devotee can be blessed to cross Maya and Maha Maya at the most but can never cross Mula Maya because in such state the souls disappear along with the entire universe. When Lord Krishna was taking the parched rice form Sudama, Rukmini restricted the Lord while taking the rice for the third time. If Lord takes the rice for the third time also Sudama will cross the Mula Maya and will become the original creator, manager and destroyer of the primary energy.

A soul being the primary energy in its essential form cannot go beyond the very inert energy. Therefore it is impossible for any soul to create, manage and destroy the Mula Maya. Sudama was blessed to cross the two levels of Maya and Maha Maya. When he crossed the first level, he crossed the illusion of forms and qualities while living with them. When he crossed the second level, he attained all the superpowers. The Lord was ready to give up the original creatorship also, but since the soul cannot perform that activity, it was restricted. When the Lord is prepared to become your servant through your practical devotion, what is the necessity of becoming the Lord? When the doctor is becoming your servant to perform the operation, why should you wish to become the doctor? When you can attain the higher fruit than Advaita, what is the necessity of aiming at Advaita, in which state you have to perform the tremendous duties of creation, management and dissolution of the universe? Such duties are impossible to any soul and are also unnecessary headache, when there is a possibility of becoming the master of God through the real, practical devotion. God becomes servant of His servants.

A human being is exactly regenerated by science, today, in the form of a robot. Several microprocessors simultaneously function and identify the object in a single instance like the human brain. The chip of information present in the robot is the subtle body of the human being. According to science, which does not believe in previous birth, the information in the chip is gathered by the brain in course of time as the child grows by observing the world. In a dead body since this chip of information (Subtle Body) escapes as Jiva, it is very difficult to exactly reproduce the same chip and introduce into the dead body. Therefore, it is very difficult to make the dead body alive to behave exactly as the previous person. The Jiva contains the information collected in the previous millions of births. Therefore, the regeneration of the chip is impossible which means to bring back the same dead person is impossible. This point indicates only the difficulty in the process and thus is not related to the concept of God. It is only an impossibility within the limits of Science.
 
wjp;

Christianity and Islam which do not believe the previous birth or future rebirth are in agreement with science in this aspect because the escaped chip will never come back to the earth. Science says that the chip disappears along with the life. But there are several practical examples in the world in which souls have remembered the past births and narrated the past events correctly. Thus the rebirth is proved based on the perception. Whatever may be the case, the human being is exactly reproduced in toto by the scientists in the form of a robot, whether the brain-chip has received information from the previous birth or from external world in this birth. All the potentiality of awareness is exhibited in toto by the robot. This has clearly proved that any human being is a created item only and not the creator. This rejects the view of Advaita philosopher who says that every living being is Brahman or God, the creator. However science is good as far as this achievement is considered but some scientists who are atheists say that no human being is God because God does not exist. Science is good and most of the scientists are also good because even the top scientists like Einstein believed in God.

The scientist who is not the perfect scholar in science talks like an atheist. The superman like Krishna or Jesus is a perceived example in this world. Even though the scientist is able to produce robot, who represents any ordinary human being, why is science unable to produce the robot resembling Krishna or Jesus? Jesus gave the eyesight to blind. But the robot cannot do that. The super powers are impossible for a robot. Therefore science is used to reject the philosophy of Advaita scholar but the same science is to be condemned in the case of superman. The logic of science is used to refuse the logical items like human beings to be called as God. But the same science is to be condemned if it says that there is no God or human incarnation (superman). The logic is used to reject the items of creation to be called as God. But the same logic is to be rejected to analyze God, who is beyond logic. The superman is exhibiting the superpowers before our eyes.
 
wjp;

If science rejects the perception of superman, then the perception of the entire world should also be rejected. Thus science is utilized in one context and is criticized in another context. Ghatotkacha was a demon having both good and bad qualities. He was utilized by the Lord to kill Alambusa who was a demon with all bad qualities only. But Ghatotkacha cannot be excused for his partial bad qualities. Therefore the Lord planned in such a way that Karna kills Ghatotkacha. Karna is having all good qualities except a very few bad qualities. Therefore even Karna cannot be excused and was killed by Arjuna according to the instruction of the Lord. Therefore science is used to analyze any item of the creation. Science is perfectly useful in rejecting the items of creation, which are not God. But the same science is to be rejected when the concept of creator is approached, because the logic fails in God. In fact, science is only a subject which is limited to the analysis of the creation.

It keeps silent about God because it cannot analyze God. Therefore there is nothing wrong with science. Some scientists oppose God and this does not mean that science opposes God. Buddha kept silent about God because God is unimaginable. He preached about the spiritual efforts of the human being because the human beings and their efforts are imaginable entities. The silence of Buddha was misinterpreted by the followers and Buddhists say that Buddha did not accept God. The same situation is true in the case of science also. Therefore there is nothing wrong with science because only some scientists are wrong. If science is absent, we cannot analyze the awareness so clearly and we might have been misled by the followers of Advaita and we might have thought that awareness is God. You must maintain the power of logic always as far as the items of the world including human beings are concerned. You have to leave logic only in the case of God. Science helps you to identify what is not God and this itself is a great advantage.

Otherwise you will be fooled by others since you can easily be trapped by others so that you can easily believe any item of the creation as God. Today there are several spiritual preachers who do not know the fundamentals of science. They believe certain items of the creation as God because their analytical faculty is weak due to lack of scientific knowledge. They are blind and mislead the people, who are also blind due to lack of scientific knowledge. The philosophers are good scholars of logic but the ancient logic contains several wrong conclusions due to absence of experimental verification. For example, the ancient Indian logic says that sound is the characteristic property of space. But sound cannot travel in vacuum. It requires particles to vibrate mechanically for the propagation. Thus mere theoretical logic called as dry logic also goes wrong in several places. Science is never wrong as far as the analysis of the creation is considered. In the case of God it is incapable to touch God. Incapability is not wrong. Science accepts its incapability by not speaking about God like Buddha. In fact this is the correct way of explanation about the unimaginable God. Shankara says that silence is the best explanation for the unimaginable God called as Para Brahman (Maunavyakhya Prakatita Parabrahma Tattvam).
 
wjp;

At least science does not pose to give wrong conclusions in the case where it fails because it understands its limits. The Advaita philosopher is just opposite to science. He is also incapable of understanding the unimaginable God like science. But he does not accept his incapability and poses that he has understood God and presents every living being as God. Silence is far better than the misled and misleading Advaita Philosopher. Buddha is far better than the present Advaita philosopher. Buddha kept silent about God and such silence is the correct interpretation in the case of unimaginable God. Veda says that every word fails in the case of God which means that one has to keep silent about the explanation of God. In Veda it is mentioned that a son of a sage came to his home after studying the spiritual knowledge.

When his father asked about God, the son kept silent and the sage certified that his son has completed the spiritual knowledge. God is unimaginable only to those people who like to approach God directly. But the devotees experience God through a specified human form. The devotees may not know the real nature of God but they have experienced God.

The Advaita scholar opposes this concept and tries to experience God within himself or within every human being. He does not experience God because he poses that he knows the real nature of God as awareness. The devotees accept the unimaginable nature but experience God. A blind man enjoys the taste of a sweet kept on his tongue even though he does not see it or realize its appearance. This is the case of a devotee who believes the human form of God. A person is not blind but he is eating some mud claiming it as the sweet. He has seen the mud and can explain the nature of it. But what is the use? His conclusion is wrong and therefore he lost the experience of sweet. Egoism is responsible for such loss.

A devotee who does not believe the human incarnation but believes in other forms like statues, which are not God is also a blind person who eats mud thinking it as a sweet. A person who has not tasted sweets pleads or believes that the mud is the only sweet. He is not prepared to taste the real sweet. Therefore he is not capable of differentiating the mud from sweet. Therefore mere devotion is not sufficient. The devotion must be associated with knowledge or logical analysis to reject the items of the creation as non-God entities.
 
Montalban said:
:whacky:

Michel Brunet* discovered a hominid skull in Chad a few years back. This discovery make about 16 hominid species known in Africa between 8 to 3 million years ago. Not one bone fragment has been discovered from the ancestors of any of the 12 species of African ape from this period. With no apes in this period (3 to 8 million yeas ago) the question remains ‘what could that mean? Perhaps apes evolved from Men; or a creature that was more man-like, than ape-like.
Click to expand...
Or, perhaps it’s just a bit too early to place this specimen with any accuracy within primate history.

p.s. - Google is your friend! 😉
 
Can someone please tell me about Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna?
I know he is in constant debate about evolution and creationism but I have neither the time nor desire to research both aspects further to know really what he’s talking about. Is he one who rejects evolution and is a staunch supporter of creationism or is he trying to fit creationism into evolution (ie. God created us, but a day for God could be a bigillion years and so God created us through evolution?)

Thanks
 
canada << Can someone please tell me about Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna? >>

We’ve discussed him in here. He had an article in the New York Times from July 2005, but slightly backtracked. He doesn’t claim to have a problem with modern science (including evolution and natural selection) but only with what he terms “evolutionism.” He has philosophical / theological problems, although his original article delved into science and he was criticized for that.

He had an exchange with a Catholic physicist Stephen Barr in First Things which is linked from his Wikipedia entry here which I helped edit.

Also see www.CardinalSchonborn.com which contains links to all his recent lectures on the creation-evolution issue. In a November 13, 2005 catechetical lecture he specifically condemns young-earth creationism as “nonsense.”

Phil P
 
wjp984 said:
so what is your argument? Did God try to trick all of us? Is he messing with our minds making it look like we can see deep into space and see many light years away? I am not trying to argue for life and creation on Earth since that is too difficult. I am just saying how for me, it is a lot easier to understand or see the plausability of evolution from the astronomical sense than just using the data about Earth.
Click to expand...
If you see a mirage, is that God tricking you? Why is it we don’t always see things for what they are? Is this God trying to trick us?

What a strange question you ask - because people can make mistakes, it must be God tricking us?

But then you want to say there’s photos of life in space, er, :nope: no, not life, but carbon, er, :nope: no, but… ?
:dancing:

You see perhaps what you want to see and then blame it on God for leading you astray!
 
Lord – Creation – Existence of Lord

Lord is substratum of the whole creation and hence forms base. Without Him creation cannot sustain. Lord created the universe for entertainment. He has given free will to all the human beings to do whatever they like. But, the results will follow the deeds. So, He is indirectly controlling, that is to say that enjoyment for good deeds and misery for bad deeds. Misery is to bring realisation only and not to repeat the same bad deed. Otherwise, He is not responsible for one’s deeds.
Creation is in Lord but Lord is not the creation. But such a Lord can enter creation at the request of devotees who wants Him only and His service. He comes down to give four fortunes to His devotees (to talk, to touch, co-living and to serve).
 
Montalban said:
The way specimens are moved around how would you know when it’s in the right place?
Click to expand...
The point, of course, being that more data is better than only a very little, and adds to the confidence level of the interpretation.

But then, you knew that, I’m sure.
40.png
Montalban:
I prefer meta-searchengines.
Click to expand...
sure, whatever you’re confortable with. The point is that if you use them, they can lead you to additional information.

But then, you knew that, I’m sure.
 
Montalban said:
If you see a mirage, is that God tricking you? Why is it we don’t always see things for what they are? Is this God trying to trick us?

What a strange question you ask - because people can make mistakes, it must be God tricking us?

But then you want to say there’s photos of life in space, er, :nope: no, not life, but carbon, er, :nope: no, but… ?
:dancing:

You see perhaps what you want to see and then blame it on God for leading you astray!
Click to expand...
Well I will leave it as this. As long as you don’t think that you are more religious or closer to the truth for believing the way you do then I will respect your opinion. I do stand by my assertion that I think people that believe in creationism would have been the ones arguing the world was flat and that we are the center of the universe with the sun going around us.
 
zian said:
The point, of course, being that more data is better than only a very little, and adds to the confidence level of the interpretation.

But then, you knew that, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
That’s an assumption
zian said:
sure, whatever you’re confortable with. The point is that if you use them, they can lead you to additional information.

But then, you knew that, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
Yes, I looked it up.
 
wjp984 said:
Well I will leave it as this. As long as you don’t think that you are more religious or closer to the truth for believing the way you do then I will respect your opinion.
Click to expand...
Certainly don’t think that of you, or of me. I do admire people who have convictions.
wjp984 said:
I do stand by my assertion that I think people that believe in creationism would have been the ones arguing the world was flat and that we are the center of the universe with the sun going around us.
Click to expand...
Well, I am not a ‘creationist’ per se. I believe in ‘creation’. But to me creationists are trying to tie dogma to science; a different set of proofs than evolutionists, but science never-the-less.

I am not one who ties my faith to science, as St. Basil the Great said.
 
interesting. I don’t know anything about Basil and I should since it is my patron saint (I did not get to have a choice since I was an infant). I do know that it is my name in Slovockian and that is about it. You are talking about the Eastern saint right? I don’t know if there is more than one
 
There are 2 stories on the creation in Genesis 1 & 2. They are similar but differ, coming from different points in history. There is no set interpretation of these scriptures from the church, and only one point is not debatable. God is responsible for creation of everything we know of. I Believe in evolution, and science. I also believe there is much mankind cannot explain without faith in God. As Catholics we believe in an inspired text, written in a way that could be understood at the time. A few thousand years ago anyone suggesting evolution would have been stoned. God created us, how he saw as appropriate.
In 1996 Pope John Paul II in his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences said that evolution was “more than just a hypothesis.” He also said, “truth cannot contradict truth.” Pope Pius the XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
 
wjp984 said:
interesting. I don’t know anything about Basil and I should since it is my patron saint (I did not get to have a choice since I was an infant). I do know that it is my name in Slovockian and that is about it. You are talking about the Eastern saint right? I don’t know if there is more than one
Click to expand...
That’s the one.
 
EBSSTF4 said:
There are 2 stories on the creation in Genesis 1 & 2. They are similar but differ, coming from different points in history. There is no set interpretation of these scriptures from the church, and only one point is not debatable. God is responsible for creation of everything we know of. I Believe in evolution, and science. I also believe there is much mankind cannot explain without faith in God. As Catholics we believe in an inspired text, written in a way that could be understood at the time. A few thousand years ago anyone suggesting evolution would have been stoned. God created us, how he saw as appropriate.
In 1996 Pope John Paul II in his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences said that evolution was “more than just a hypothesis.” He also said, “truth cannot contradict truth.” Pope Pius the XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
Click to expand...
A couple problems with this post. The Catholic Church has been defending itself from evolution since the beginning.

God’s inspired truth is timeless. A truth of the past is still true today. We are the ones who have to work harder to unlock and harmonize the texts. The burden is on us. Discarding texts because they don’t fit our worldview is a no no.

The constant teaching that Eve came from Adam has to be reconciled.
 
While it is easy to dismiss Pope John Paul II or Pius XII, (What do they know about scripture anyway?) This has been studied by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for many years. As far as Benedict XVI, this article catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21156 portrays his views on the subject. Science has historically clashed with the church, but John Paul II stressed that the two are compatible. It is really easy to take a simple (literal) approach to what you read. It is a little harder to accept them as inspired, leaving some leeway and requiring some meditation. The only non-debatable aspect is God created us.

It is wonderful that we are not in a close-minded church that is afraid to look outside a literal translation of the bible for answers. Do you believe God put dinosaur bones here to test us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top