Extinction, Creation, and Transmigration
Narasingha Guru das, author of an upcoming book about institutional dogma which addresses Darwin and evolution [read an excerpt], writes:
Philosophically, it is not hard to understand how Darwinian evolution and transmigration of the soul are incompatible - karma demands that all possible material situations are already existing for the soul to enter whatever body type is appropriate.
I'm assuming "Darwinian evolution" here to mean Darwin's general theory of evolution [see here for a definition of Darwin's two different theories of evolution - the special and general]
I've asked Narasingha Guru for a citation to establish the point that "karma demands all possible material situations to be already existing".
Ongoing Species Extinction and Creation
Empirically speaking, the fossil record indicates that all possible material situations are not extant on this planet all the time. Scientists have recorded at least seven extinction events [wikipedia], where large numbers of species (up to 96% for the largest, the Permian-Triassic extinction event [wikipedia]) cease to exist in the fossil record. These species are no longer found in the contemporary environment either. A more "recent" example (relatively speaking) would be the Creataceous-Tertiary extinction event [wikipedia], 65 million years ago, which saw the end of the dinosaurs.
Extinction events are interesting not only because they see the end of the manifestation of many species on this planet, but also because they see the rise of new ones. So seven extinction events also implies seven different "creation" events, where new species are somehow either evolved by natural forces, or else brought into being by some other as yet unexplained mechanism.
Other Worlds
At the same time, with millions of planets in this universe, the loss of a species on the Earth does not mean that the opportunity does not exist for a jiva to incarnate in that species on another planet.
In fact, the Caitanya Caritamrita (Madhya-lila 19.151) describes just such a scenario:
guru-krishna-prasade paya bhakti-lata-bija
According to their karma, all living entities are wandering throughout the entire universe. Some of them are being elevated to the upper planetary systems, and some are going down into the lower planetary systems. Out of many millions of wandering living entities, one who is very fortunate gets an opportunity to associate with a bona fide spiritual master by the grace of Krishna. By the mercy of both Krishna and the spiritual master, such a person receives the seed of the creeper of devotional service.
The word brahmanda means "universe".
The Earth could be unpopulated by humans for billions of years. In that time humans could have lived on Mars, Venus, or planets orbiting other stars. If a requirement exists for humans to always exist, it will be also necessary to demonstrate that sastra requires them to always exist on this planet.
At the same time, empirical evidence may be found that they have always existed on this planet. Some people make an argument for this, but it is not widely accepted at this point in time by the scientific community.
A Digression into the Journey of the Jiva Through Species
Karma is a complex subject. In Bhagavad-gita (4.16) Krishna says:
kavayo 'py atra mohitah
Even the intelligent are bewildered in understanding what is karma and what is not karma
The mechanisms by which living entities obtain their bodies are explained in chapter 15 of Bhagavad-gita. By current scientific standards these would be considered metaphysical, although in Vedic terms it is physical (karma) rather than transcendental (akarma), which is the Vedic standard of metaphysics.
Bhagavad-gita 8.6 outlines the central principle of metempsychosis, or transmigration of the soul:
tyajaty ante kalevaram
tam tam evaiti kaunteya
sada tad-bhava-bhavitah
Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kunti, that state he will attain without fail.
This is the general principle for transmigration of the soul, applying to all material bodies.
An example of this principle at work in the animal kingdom is given in Srimad Bhagavatam 11.9.23:
O King, once a wasp forced a weaker insect to enter his hive and kept him trapped there. In great fear the weak insect constantly meditated upon his captor, and without giving up his body, he gradually achieved the same state of existence as the wasp. Thus one achieves a state of existence according to one's constant concentration.
Conclusion
Given the empirical evidence it appears that not all species are manifested all the time on Earth.
If the Vedic model requires that all species always be manifest, the empirical situation does not present a problem, as there are infinite planets in the universe where other species can be manifest.
The empirical situation of repeated extinctions and repopulations by different species on Earth requires a mechanism by which development of different species happens.
The central idea of general evolutionary theory (both Darwin's or the more recent Punctuated Equilibrium) is that it occurs by natural processes. This is confirmed by Bhagavad-gita 9.10.
So I don't think that the general theory of evolution (that natural processes cause the development of species) and transmigration of the soul are incompatible philosophically - at least not based on this point.
- sitapati's blog
- Login or register to post comments
And Srila Prabhupada clearly states ...
Hare Krsna
I'm just posting this for the information of any other devotee who may read this
First however, let me point out that I never said or implied that all material situations have to be present on this planet all the time - so any comments/challenges in that regard are misdirected and irrelevant ... more so because the actual point being debated is whether or not evolution occurs, which you have stated is the natural mechanism, as borne out by 'the scientific method' - and you have presented this opinion in spite of Srila Prabhupada's explicit explanations to the contrary.
Here again are a few statements from but a single morning walk with Srila Prabhupada - but these alone make it very clear how emphatic and unequivocal Srila Prabhupada's vision is in these regards:
Dr.Singh (Swarupa Damodara Maharaj): "Your Divine Grace, are all the species of life created simultaneously?"
Srila Prabhupada: "YES. The species already exist, and the living entity simply transfers himself from one womb to the next, just as a man transf\ers himself from one apartment to another ... Evolution does not mean physical development, but development of consiousness. Do you follow?
"... as your consciousness develops you move up to a higher species of life. The species already exist, however. It is not that the lower specices become higher species. That is DARWIN'S NONSENSICAL THEORY.
"God knows the various desires of all the living entities in the material world. Therefore, to accommodate all the conditioned souls, HE CREATES THE 8,400,000 SPECIES OF LIFE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING."
Dr. Singh: "What you have been saying COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Darwin and his supporters say that life started from matter and evolved from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms. they believe higher species like animals and men diddn't exist at the beginning of creation."
Srila Prabhupada: " THE DARWINISTS' THEORY THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGAN IN SUCH-AND-SUCH AN ERA IS NONSENSE.
"THE BHAGAVAD-GITA SAYS THAT ON LEAVING THIS PRESENT BODY YOU CAN DIRECTLY TRANSMIGRATE TO ANY SPECIES OF LIFE, ACCORDING TO KARMA"
"Sometimes I travel to America, sometimes to Australia, and sometimes to Africa. The countries already exist; I am simply traveling through them. It is not that because I have come to America, I have created or become America. And there are many countries I have not yet seen. Does that mean they do not exist? ANY SCIENTIST WHO SUPPORTS DARWIN IS UNINTELLIGENT.
"THE BHAGAVAD-GITA CLEARLY SAYS THAT ALL THE SPECIES OF LIFE EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY, and that you can go to any of them ... Lord Krsna explains all this very clearly in the Bhagavad-Gita."
So regardless of how many extraneous quotes and understandings you may proffer in so many different regards, your opinion regarding evolution and Darwinism is unauthorized and entirely contradictory to Guru-Sadhu-Shastra.
This is not merely some difference in our individual opinions that we all have the right to ... as disciples of His Divine Grace, our actual right is to hear submissively and use our intelligence to understand and then recreate in our own words for the benefit of others, not simply misuse verses here and there to bluff people that somehow our own speculations have some transcendental realization backing them. That's akin to those unauthorized commentators on Bhagavad-gita that Srila Prabhupada criticized for using Krishna's words to try to put forward their own unauthorized philosophy.
I say left, you say black and white
I say left..
You say - "What? You say black? Prabhupada said white!"
So I say: "OK, so you prove white."
Then you spend all your time trying to prove that black<>white, and demanding that I show proof that black=white ("prove that what (i think) you say is said by Srila Prabhupada!")
Apart from your misunderstanding left as black, that's an argument about doctrine, not an argument about evolution.
My point is not, as you seem to think, that evolution is true, but rather that people who think that evolution might be true don't have to be atheists, and if evolution were to be true, it would not do away with God, which is quite a different thing. It would have been good if you had demonstrated that you understood this (the old "first understand, then refute")
Aside from that, the actual flow of the discussion about the point you raised is this:
You have presented that "all species simultaneously exist".
My counterpoint is that T. Rex is not visible on the planet right now. This means that species are not existing all the time, at least on this planet. The implication of this is that if going forward species differ, they may differ going back. In other words, since we can show that a species existed previously that doesn't exist now, it empirically challenges Prabhupada's assertion that they exist all the time. This means that it opens the door to the doubt: "If a species existed previously and doesn't exist now, maybe a species didn't exist before and does now - human beings."
So you have to defend this point to maintain Prabhupada's stance (not simply restate it with "you are supposed to believe it!").
In the same post where I made that point I gave the "out" that they may exist on other planets.
Anyway, the main point is that if you want to play the role of "Prabhupada's bulldog" (to play on the description of Dawkins as "Darwin's bulldog") you need to be able to defend and establish Prabhupada's view on empirical and scriptural grounds, not simply repeat it.
To simply repeat with no ability to defend or establish is fine, from a point of view within the tradition, however it is characteristic of the kanistha. The ability to defend and establish a viewpoint outside the tradition is a madhyama characteristic. This is what Srila Prabhupada wanted his followers to do. An example of this is Hansadutta das' well-known exchange with Dr Kovoor.
I was hoping that you would be able to put up a spirited defense, but you kept changing the argument back to "Prabhupada said... Prabhupada said...", something Prabhupada himself did not do, preferring to use scripture and logic rather than "My Guru said...".
I am well aware of what Srila Prabhupada said. I was hoping that you would be able to make a contribution to demonstrating it as a defensible position in the contemporary context.
Perhaps you will be able to do that in your book. I look forward to reading it.
I say Prabhupada, you say Sita Pati ...
1) SITAPATI NOW, AND THEN:
NOW: >> My point is not, as you seem to think, that evolution is true, but rather that people who think that evolution might be true don't have to be atheists, and if evolution were to be true, it would not do away with God, which is quite a different thing. It would have been good if you had demonstrated that you understood this (the old "first understand, then refute")<<
THEN: You in fact began these most recent threads with the following statement: >> Evolution could be wrong, but it doesn't have to be atheistic. Trying to make it out to be so is not just an attack on a scientific theory, it's an attack on the scientific method<<
a) There is a huge difference between suggesting that evolution theory itself is not atheistic, and that people who believe in evolution are not necessarily atheists. This latter statement is undeniably true - which is one reason why we preach Krsna-consciousness, to rectify so many people's poor fund of knowledge along with the results of their having been misled and cheated in so many ways.
But the former statement is what I took issue with, and which you have refused to deal with in a single-pointed and honest manner. That statement is your opinion only, and not only is it unsupported by shastra (though you demand such support for any counter-point, however), but is contradictory to what Srila Prabhupada expressly, emphatically and consistently taught.
The theory of evolution itself is utterly atheistic, it was propounded and propagated by atheists, as a means to explain life and existence without any need to refer to a supernatural designer because, as they claim, such a topic is outside of the domain of science ... their brand of science just deals with physical matter and energy, that can be subjected to empirical observation and analysis, so that theories explain everything in strictly material terms, without recognizing the existence of God. Kind of like: "They (the demoniac) say that ... there is no foundation and that there is no God in control" (BG 16.8)
b) This "first understand, then refute" seems to be your favorite phrase, that I have seen you direct towards several devotees. Personally, I find your usage of it to be an entirely supercilious and disrespectful tactic of one-upmanship, and I would encourage you to drop it, especially as so many questions may be raised in regards to your own understanding
2) YOUR UNFOUNDED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS (on behalf of evolutionary theory):
SITAPATI THEN:
>>If there is a better empirical explanation, then let's hear it; a coherent narrative that explains the observed phenomena and makes testable predictions. Otherwise evolution wins as the current scientific model. ... there is as yet no other coherent narrative that accounts for things as much as evolution does.<<
a) Your statements imply that you consider empirical research and explanations to be the proper means for determining, recognizing and proving what is true. I would suggest if this is so that you study Srila Prabhupada's introduction to Sri Isopanisad. At least consider the statement in Srimad Bhagavatam whereby we can understood that in fact it is the transcendental messages of Godhead (that lies entirely outside of the domain in which empiricism may function) that can distinguish between reality and illusion for the welfare of all.
c) You claim that evolutionary theory does indeed afford an empirical explanation. I have read many evolutionary texts, and have never read a single scientific account of what actually happens, and how. Scientific theory is far more than mere assertion that 'firts there was a this, and then there was a that' - it explains what the actual stages of development were, and how they lead from one to the next, which understanding is presented in the form of specific demonstrable laws. Assertion is not explanation.
d) "makes testable predictions" - really. For example? Dawkins is confident that 'in 10,000 years there will be a dominant species completely distinct from modern man.' Hmmm, how is such a prediction remotely testable? And who could ever have predicted that bacteria and algae would have evolved, instead of into even better forms of the same (even though they were already admirably suited to survival), into peacocks and people and platypuses?
e) How is evolution a "scientific model"? How exactly is it representative of the '"scientific method"? How do you define such? My understanding is that there are 3 key ingredients: Observation, Theory and Experiment. How has evolutionary theory satisfied any of these 3, what to speak of all 3 of them!
f) "No other coherent narrative"? So is the narrative of Srimad Bhagavatam incoherent? Admittedly the descriptions of the creation, of the purushas and so on do not fit within the more mundane empirical narrative ... but that's because they're part of a transcendental narrative. And truth really is far stranger than fiction! But as far as presenting the esoteric details of creation in such a way that attentive empirically trained intellects can begin to appreciate, I would again recommend studying Sadaputa prabhu's wonderful contributions in this regard
3) RE. PREDICTABILITY:
You have done exactly what I had 'predicted,' and sidestepped the actual crux of the matter, namely whether or not your stated opinions are valid. So much bluff about this and that, while avoiding my pointing out that your opinion regarding evolutionary theory being a legitimate product of empirical science that is also not necessarily atheistic in nature is diametrically opposed to the much-repeated teachings of our Guru Maharaj.
4) RE. UNYIELDING CHALLENGE TO GURU VS. SUBMISSIVE ENQUIRY:
It is conceivable that at first you were unaware that your novel opinions were in fact challenging Srila Prabhupada's transcendental revelation ... and I don't mean 'challenging' in the sense that he encouraged, i.e. submissively, so as to learn and adapt one's thoughts accordingly. But stubbornly, convinced that your opinion is right, and looking only to justify it.
In your post immediately following this one, you question the validity or weight of Srila Prabhupada's own statement, by asking for a quote to actually support what he says Bhagavad-gita clearly says regarding how all species are ever-existing. You even try to justify this 'request' by quoting Srila Prabhupada's recommendation we back up our claims by shastra. That would seem to indicate that you do indeed accept his authority ... except you also seem to be questioning it?
What you seem to ignore is that for the disciple, who has already come to the point of accepting the authority of guru, guru's words are also shastra! The fact that the fully realized mahabhagavat acarya has revealed something means that that is indeed a transcendental statement from the mouth of one who is to be seen as good as God. Otherwise, one is behaving like the mayavadis who reject Srimad Bhagavatam while claiming to accept the authority of the Vedanta Sutra, even though Bhagavatam was written as the natural commentary on Vedanta by the very author of Vedanta.
When you say that arguing on the basis of "Prabhupada said... Prabhupada said..." is something Prabhupada himself did not do, preferring to use scripture and logic rather than "My Guru said..."... you are forgetting that Prabhupad was not speaking to his godbrothers! Assuredly if he was, then all the evidence and authornity in the world was accepted by all as being present in the words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.
Meawhile, since you have read a small sampling of my writing that is indeed intended for a public audience, I wonder why you criticize me for presenting my case in such a manner as "Prabhupada says, Prabhupada says"? I am only writing to YOU like that because he is your guru, your authority!
5) KRISHNA'S WORDS SUPPORT SRILA PRABHUPADA'S:
One verse that clearly supports what Srila Prabhupada is saying is BG 3.10: "In the beginning of creation, the Lord of all creatures sent forth generations of men and demigods ..." Note, Krsna does not say that in the beginning He sent forth inert chemicals, so that some considerable time after the beginning of creation amoeba appeared, and then this and that, and then finally, men appeared.
I have to ask, why won't you graciously surrender to the words of our Guru and Krishna and abandon this idea that you have been defending so aggressively and disrespectfully?
6) YOUR DIVERSIONARY TACTICS ARE DISRESPECTFUL AND UNWARRANTED:
So much of what you are writing not only leads away from the main issue, which is whether or not your original premises regarding evolutionary theory are actually representative of real science as well as being compatible with theism; but it also appears to be based on your according yourself the position of my teacher who has the power of approving or dismissing my work/ideas etc.
You proffer various condescending cautions and critical or demeaning conclusions that are thinly veiled by suitably polite-sounding intellectual terminology. (eg >> So you have to defend this point to maintain Prabhupada's stance (not simply restate it with "you are supposed to believe it!" ... Anyway, the main point is that if you want to play the role of "Prabhupada's bulldog" (to play on the description of Dawkins as "Darwin's bulldog") you need to be able to defend and establish Prabhupada's view on empirical and scriptural grounds, not simply repeat it... To simply repeat with no ability to defend or establish is fine, from a point of view within the tradition, however it is characteristic of the kanistha... I was hoping that you would be able to put up a spirited defense, but you kept changing the argument back to "Prabhupada said... Prabhupada said...", something Prabhupada himself did not do, preferring to use scripture and logic rather than "My Guru said..."<< ).
However, I haven't submitted my work for your consideration or approval, nor have my words to you been my attempts at explaining our philosophy to an uninformed or skeptical public whereby I either need to establish so many empirical arguments or offer so many shastric quotes. Rather, I wrote in to your blog first to address your challenge to a statement of mine you read elsewhere, and which challenge indicated that you are proposing something quite out-of-line with the siddhanta given by Srila Prabhupada.
Never mind any reasons (stated or implicit) to 'encourage others' (such as myself, for example) to learn/practice presenting the philosophy to the public in such a way that you feel merits your approval - save that for your disciples, for those who make it clear that they have come to you to learn from you. My interest was to make it clear to persons who read your opinions re. evolution and atheism and so on, and who may be confused by your word-jugglery and your liberal use of quotes that do not in fact apply to those opinions, that at least as far as this subject goes, you are way off-base.
Thank you for making the
Thank you for making the effort to present some scripture in defense of your point that all species are present initially (Bg. 3.10).
Now, the fossil record shows several extinction events in the Earth's history; we have even seen species become extinct recently such as the New Zealand moa; and the Earth has obviously been repopulated after these mass extinction events. We see that there are both species now that did exist previously and species that existed previously that do not exist now.
How do you reconcile this with your interpretation of Bg.3.11 (that all species are manifested immediately)?
It's about time you changed tack/track
Regarding this question, you have already answered it yourself (as in existing at different times on different planets) ... what you call 'extinction events' simply refer to conditions changing on this planet whereby they are no longer suited for various life-forms ... the dinosaurs, for example, Srila Prabhupada said appear later in kali-yuga ... we are finding remains from the previous kali-yuga. Prabhupada gave the example so many times of a child's seeing a man appearing from an elevator or a plane disappearing in the sky to indicate that our thinking that things come into existence or become extinct simply on the basis of our own perception is simply childish ignorance ... this verse from Gita sets things straight in such regards.
This may or may not fit with what you may think to be the infallible results of empirical research ... but when I became a devotee so many years ago I happily let go of any devotion to empiricists. And please note, I am addressing you, a devotee, in regard to a public presentation that is ashastric, that goes against the clear siddhanta stated by our guru maharaj - I am not trying to explain to non-devotees here, step-by-step with reason and logic they can understand, all about karma and transmigration and the existence of God and faith in Prabhupada and shastra and so on and on ... that is what I am trying to do in my book. But as far as our exchange goes, I am definitely making certain base assumptions regarding what I expect you to already know and believe and agree with, and I am trying to discuss with you from there.
The problem I am seeing here is that I have in so many ways pointed out various fundamental faults in your whole approach, reasoning, conclusions and attitude ... and you have ignored all such. Instead, you thank me for making the effort to present 'some' scripture etc., which occurs to me as being somewhat condescending in tone, especially taken in concert with the overall tone of your previous blogs.
Honestly prabhu, I feel it's about time you 'got real,' and humbly acknowledged that you've been baffled by where your mind took you in regards to this subject, and instead happily and submissively apply yourself to hearing what Srila Prabhupada has already clearly explained ... and instead of fighting with me or anyone else to establish how you are right and demanding we 'prove' our 'interpretation' of Srila Prabhupada's clear teachings so as to suit your own stubborn reluctance to actually take it in, use your obvious intelligence to understand how what he is saying is right! Otherwise, if you don't trust that to begin with, what is the meaning of being a disciple of one you have already determined to be the proerply qualified guru?
addendum
Re. different life-forms existing at different times on different planets - this does not mean that all species are necessarily manifest all the time. A musician may have many pieces of music in his mind, but he doesn't have to be playing them all at once ... yet neither does this mean they have not yet been created.
When conditions are appropriate, then different life-forms appear. Krishna knows the desires of all living beings, their needs and desires and karmas will all be perfectly attended to, material nature will manifest the appropriate arrangements at the appropriate times - the management and balance of all the logistical details is utterly incomprehensible to us ... so that with our tiny helpless and virtually impotent 'intelligence' we come up with various alternate theories to explain how it all works, such as 'evolution' and imagined facts re. 'extinction.' But such ideas are simply projections of tiny minds, that is all. If you want to know the truth, just approach a bona fide spiritual master - as opposed to relying on your own perception of the actual facts (of what you call 'extinction' and so on) and your own speculative analysis of what such a distorted fragment of the actual facts actually means (along with the speculations of so many limited mundane 'scientific' 'authorities' that you may have placed your trust in, in the name of 'empirical research and analysis.')
Dear Narasingha Guru
Dear Narasingha Guru prabhu,
Your approach to this discussion confirms to me my initial assessment that it is fundamentalist in nature.
You accuse of me of maligning you by this assessment, and then berate me for not adopting the same approach.
Your approach to the issue of reconciling empirical investigation with literal interpretation of scripture relies on attacking the scientific method, rather than addressing a specific theory.
I have no problem with that, but I don't understand why you simultaneously reject that assessment and then berate me for not adopting it myself.
I respect your right to approach things in the way you see fit, but I'm not converted to it by your personal example, or your explanation. I find that you are not forthcoming in explaining or justifying your understanding, but rather are surprised that I would even (dare) ask you to do that.
You are not Srila Prabhupada and your realization of his teachings and how to apply them is precisely that - your realization. Acknowledging that would, to me, be realistic. It's not the only way, the only truth and the only light. You have a right to stick to it with firm determination, but in putting it forward for the consideration of others I would be careful about becoming frustrated and denouncing them if they don't immediately and unquestioningly accept it. I don't know if this is your intention, but it is my perception.
I get the feeling that you are using Srila Prabhupada's name as a means to try to beat me into submission. In addition to his spoken and written teachings Srila Prabhupada was a person of high personal integrity and spiritual potency, and even so he took the time to explain what he said and to justify it based on scripture, without demanding that people simply believe it because he said it. He taught the standard triple pramana of guru, sadhu, and sastra (sadu sastra guru vakya, tinete koriya aikya).
As Srila Prabhupada said, this Krishna Consciousness movement is meant for creating a class of independently thoughtful men. That requires respecting others and their right to make up their own minds after an assessment of your presentation. As for my creating a new sampradaya, I would imagine that would involve changing something in sambandha, abhideya, or prayojana, rather than simply re-examining the issue of the theory of evolution in the context of the century after Srila Prabhupada's manifested lila.
We obviously have a different take on things. I have no expectation that you agree with me, and make no assertion about how that affects your relationship with Srila Prabhupada, because I am not he. Rather than adopt a fundamentalist posture and declare a fatwa on you for failing to see things my way, I prefer to offer you my respect and wish you well in your devotional life.
in service,
Sitapati das
Time-Out
Prabhu, I certainly appreciate your final comment, and I also offer my respects to you and for your determination to follow and serve Srila Prabhupada to the best of your understanding and ability.
As far as your other comments are concerned ... I'm only going to refer to the following:
>>>You accuse of me of maligning you by this assessment, and then berate me for not adopting the same approach.
Your approach to the issue of reconciling empirical investigation with literal interpretation of scripture relies on attacking the scientific method, rather than addressing a specific theory.
I have no problem with that, but I don't understand why you simultaneously reject that assessment and then berate me for not adopting it myself.
I respect your right to approach things in the way you see fit, but I'm not converted to it by your personal example, or your explanation. I find that you are not forthcoming in explaining or justifying your understanding, but rather are surprised that I would even (dare) ask you to do that.
You are not Srila Prabhupada and your realization of his teachings and how to apply them is precisely that - your realization.<<<
So I think you need to re-read what I've actually written to you -
1) I accused you not for calling me a fundamentalist per se, but for the demeaning and condescending connotations you have attached to the word. I have already explained this, with reference both to the the proper usage as well as to the common derogatory meanings of this word. I have also pointed out various examples of where you have been condescending, supercilious and disrespectful in your conviction that your understanding and approach is superior to what you are referring to as 'fundamentalist.'
2) I have not berated you for failing to be a fundamentalist - but for not simply accepting the very clear teachings of our guru in regards to the topic of empirical atheistic Darwinism
3) As far as reconciling empirical investigation with literal scriptural interpretation goes
a) empirical investigation is a hopelessly limited and fault-ridden tool for examining the nature of reality
b) Literal (reading) and interpretation of are not exactly synonymous! I have presented and re-presented some of Srila Prabhupada's statements without any interpretation at all, since they are absolutely self-explanatory! So regardless of whether you are converted by my example or explanation, the bottom line is you seem unwilling to abandon your own point of view in favor of simply accepting Srila Prabhupada's. If you wish to call that fundamentalism, feel free - but you have not given any reason for not being willing to do so, other than you are not willing to do so! And then try to use my unimpressive example/interpretation as your excuse?!?
c) I HAVE NOT ONCE ATTACKED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD! I have pointed out that evolutionary theory is not a product of the scientific method, I have explained why this is so, and I HAVE CHALLENGED YOU TO GIVE AN ALTERNATE DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND TO SHOW HOW EVOLUTIONARY THEORY FULFILLS SUCH CRITERIA. THIS YOU HAVE NOT DONE, AT ALL, BUT MERELY GO ON HOLDING YOUR ORIGINAL OPINION ALOFT, akin to the fellow in the metaphor Srtila prabhupada gave us where the professor is still maintaining his point by holding his 2 fingers up above his head while he drowns in the river.
d) I haven't discussed any finer points of evolutionary theory with you since you have not yet moved from the first point under discussion, and since so far you have not actually demonstrated that you understand what the scientific method actually is, although you have repeatedly claimed that evolutionary theory is properly representative of such.
e) I have never expressed any surprise or upset for your failing to accept my explanation or understanding. Rather, my surprise is that you are trying to avoid accepting Srila Prabhupada's clear statements. AGAIN: THESE ARE SO CLEAR THAT ALL I DID WAS TO REPEAT THEM, WITHOUT SEEING ANY NEED TO 'EXPLAIN' THEM. And your response was to suggest that Srila Prabhupada's words were not supported by shastra! So then I gave you a verse from Bhagavad-gita, that is crystal clear in its utter denial of what you keep on trying to propose. And that also you don't accept!
So my conclusion is that that is your major point: to maintain your position in this domain regardless of whatever Guru of shastra may say - you ask for corroboration from such, and still do not accept it, but make another demand or excuse (for example, about how my example is so uninspiring - but please, don't be a victim of my failings! Be responsible and recognize that you do not accept what Prabupada says because you don't want to. Don't blame me, or try to suggest that my interpretations and realizations of his words are not absolute or whatever other nonsense -
I DIDN'T MAKE ANY INTERPRETATION! Please read back through - I simply repeated, without changing!
Oh, is that what you mean by 'fundamentalism'? Not interpreting when Srila Prabhupada's words are crystal clear? So to be a more modern and relevant and liberal preacher who can actually truly communicate with the people of the modern world, I should simply ignore what Prabhupada said in favor of some new concoction of my own that seems to accommodate the illusions and arrogance of empirical speculations?
I am sorry that there has been so much contentiousness in our exchanges. I also can appreciate that you are engaged in much active preaching and dynamic interaction with others, I think both in musical/kirtan fields as well as encouraging spiritual and philosophical discussion. That is all wonderful, and doubtless very pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. But all of us have other stuff that isn't so great, that can stand purifying - and one way for this to happen is through exchanges such as these. And again, I thought that this was the purpose of your blog: 'self-purification.' So please consider my approach to you in this relation - this particular area is one in which you are apparently covered over, perhaps on account of previous attachment to what you identify to be the empirical process ... I can only emphasize, in direct regards to Srila Prabhupada's unequivocal explanations on this subject, that holding to this position neither helps you nor anyone else.
Hare Krsna
Narasingha Gurudas
Please understand that it
Please understand that it has never been my intention to use the term "fundamentalist" in a derogatory or dismissive way. Fundamentalist may be a derogatory term in some usages, but I prefer to use as precise as possible terminology and analyze things on their merits rather than to emotively dismiss things by characterizing them.
I apologize for the misunderstanding my use of the term has caused.
There You Go Again!
SITA PATI writes: >>Fundamentalist may be a derogatory term in some usages, but I prefer to use as precise as possible terminology and analyze things on their merits rather than to emotively dismiss things by characterizing them. <<
This is exactly what I am talking about! Regardless of whether you dismiss things emotively or 'analyze them on their merits' you identify yourself as the actual true judge of things and do indeed dismiss others' views in a very high-handed manner ...
I have pointed out to you already that you have repeatedly written in a disrespectful and demeaning way, not so much in the words themselves, but in the implications of the 'unsaid,' your tone, the superiority you automatically assume for yourself, your views, your standards, your judgments. An apology is not so cheap -the first element is to clearly acknowledge the action or words that gave offense, and to do so without excuse or justification.
I have indeed experienced frustration in this exchange with you ... because although on the one hand you present yourself as being an intellectual, able to reason in a powerful and unique way (and I don't doubt this), on the other I have found you to be intellectually dishonest.
I mean 2 things by this.
1) I have countered your points in so many ways, with so many specific and separate arguments, challenges and questions, including questions regarding how you define such things as 'scientific method' so as to justify your assertions that evolution is an example of such. And neither have you acknowledged or responded to these points. You have merely maintained your own opinion/belief without actually engaging in dispassionate intellectual debate to determine the relative strength, truth or validity of such. In other words, you have declared yourself to be either unable or unwilling to actually defend your position. While at the same time, you have made various dismissive comments regarding the possible relevance or value of anything I have to say, not only with your use of the term 'fundamentalist,' but various phrases as 'first understand then refute," (implying I don't even understand your ideas) 'I/m not impressed by your explanations or whatever else it was about me that warrants that my points are unworthy of your attention' and so on.
2) The actual reality of our dialogue:
It began with you citing a quote I had made in an excerpt from something I am writing regarding evolution. You didn't at all like what I was saying because it immediately threatened your own novel ideas. I was introduced to your blog-site and responded to your attempt to dismiss what I was saying (as some kind of parochial dogmatic fundamentalist out-of-touch with modernity and the wonderful revelations of empirical science) with some further explanation.
Explanation was irrelevant you informed me, unless I could establish shastric support for my statements. I then sent you a fully sufficient selection of quotes from Srila Prabhupada on one morning walk. That also was not good enough for you - could I prove that Srila Prabhupada's words were also backed by shastra! So I then sent you just one verse from Bahagavad-gita that utterly repudiates your entire proposal.
And what was your response? To fall back on this 'fundamentalist' nonsense and basically say that my presentation is useless because it is simply repeating, without any realization, that "Prabhupada said, Prabhupada said, Prabhupada said .."
Do you recognize your nonsense here? First, my own words and explanations are inadequate, quote shastra. Then, Prabhupada's words are inadequate, quote shastra. Then Krishna's words - oh. can't you say anything of your own, in your own words, with your own reasoning?
So this is why I say that you are intellectually dishonest. It is time for you to put up or shut up - properly counter my points, answer my objections, refute the validity of the quotes I have offered ... or humbly acknowledge you have been in error with your entire proposal favoring evolution! Anything else would seem to be simply vanity.
Prabhu, I humbly suggest
Prabhu, I humbly suggest that you let it go. You are not getting anywhere by demanding compliance with your viewpoint.
Rather than trying to get me to admit defeat, you should ask to see whether you have understood what I am talking about, because I still don't think you have.
As far as your points go, I had further questions, but I'm not interested in discussing further at this point in time.
Statements such as "anything else would be vanity" are meta-discussion - it's not about the actual points, but rather about your own subjective analysis of my motivation. As I pointed out previously, statements such as these reveal more about the consciousness of the speaker than they do about the person they are commenting on.
I will not say anything about your motivation, but will simply say that at this point I ask you to take a break from this discussion for some time. Continue reading my blog if you like, and we can return to it in the future.
I look forward to reading your book when it is completed, and wish you well in your endeavor to write it.
Feel free to respond to this to have the opportunity to have the last word at this point in the discussion. However, do not expect a response from me.
All the best,
Sitapati
If you wanted to try
If you wanted to try again:
You quote Srila Prabhupada:
"The Bhagavad-gita clearly says that all the species of life exist simultaneously"
So I ask:
Where does it say that (in the Bhagavad-gita)?
Now you, as the proponent of Srila Prabhupada's presentation, should provide some evidence from scripture to support it.