Dawkins, Dungeons and Dragons, and Vedic metaphysics

Note: My "Devotional Dawkins" series of posts is not designed to prove or even assert the factual correctness of either Dawkins' Darwinian narrative or the Vedic worldview narrative. Its purpose is to demonstrate that there are significant points of congruence between the two. Caveat Lector. And on with today's post...

(W)aged against Dennett, Dawkins and Wilson, are an alliance of creationists, religious fundamentalists, church-goers and rightwing politicians, as well as a rump of scientists who include the US biologist Richard Lewontin, the UK academic Steve Rose, of the Open University, and Stephen Jay Gould, the late palaeontologist and science populariser... Hostilities can be traced to the publication of Wilson's theory of sociobiology 30 years ago. In it, Wilson argues that the make-up of society has a strong genetic component, a controversial notion to say the least.

- "Great minds united in an ungodly trio", Guardian UK

Come on, how can anyone in ISKCON seriously join a crusade against this? This stuff is old school HK smackdown - pure gold!

Hippie: "Surfing is so spiritual, man"
Dawkins: "No it's not - it's an extended phenotype, in other words: sex life."
Classic music appreciator: "Well Bach's music is definitely spiritual"
Dawkins: "Nope, sex life."

According to Dawkins (and Vedic fundamentalists) human society is based on sex life - all material human activities (and most so-called spiritual ones) are genetically (ie: "sex life" in the contemporary Vedic lexicon) based.

The extended phenotype is Dawkins principle contribution to evolutionary science. It is the idea that genes, in their "struggle" for survival, not only influence the biological tissue of the organism, but also its behaviour. It's kind of obvious when you think about it, but the implications are profound.

Non-Vedic-worldview subscribers are very disturbed when the material world, including human society, are reduced to mere genetic ("material" in the Vedic lexicon) status. However, this meshes perfectly with the Vedic worldview's relative assessment of this world. We have a desire to be more than that, because ultimately we are. But I'm sorry, according to both Dawkins and the Vedas, this world is a deterministic one, and we are largely spectators of the interplay of genes as they move through different survival machines.

Once in the body (collection of genes) of a dog, you are forced to live and act as a dog. Humans are another case of this among millions, nay billions of species - not an exception.

The Vedic worldview does offer that humans have the potential to aspire to more than this however, as Dawkins confirms in The Selfish Gene:

So far, I have not talked much about man in particular, though I have not deliberately excluded him either. Part of the reason I have used the term 'survival machine' is that 'animal' would have left out plants and, in some people's minds, humans. The arguments I have put forward should, prima facie, apply to any evolved being. If a species is to be excepted, it must be for good particular reasons. Are there any good reasons for supposing our own species to be unique? I believe the answer is yes.

- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

This brings Richard in short shrift to a discussion of the "God meme":

Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool.

- Richard Dawkins, ibid

Richard Dawkins' views on God and religion are another huge motivation for the crusade against him. I would like to point out at this point the very first point that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, our spokesman for the Vedic worldview, makes in his Srimad Bhagavatam commentary:

The conception of God and the conception of Absolute Truth are not on the same level.

- A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam Introduction

Richard Dawkins has not commented extensively, or even at all to my knowledge, on the Vedic worldview, especially its metaphysic. I know how Richard responds to generic religious tradition, or religions with which he is not familiar. He would say something along the lines of: "Well, I could say that you have to believe in the Jabberwocky of the mountain." I know this from studying his public debates, and from debating students of his books.

Dawkins has dealt a significant (some would say fatal) blow to much of Western religion (most of which actually has its roots in the Middle East) and its philosophy. While discussing with students of his thinking I found that they would often cast my presentations of the Vedic world view as another religion in the same vein, and then tilt away with great vigour using the same arguments and lines of reasoning that Dawkins has so effectively used to demolish the rational and empirical underpinnings of Western faith.

However, in doing that they missed the opportunity to discover something unique and valuable in the Vedic worldview. You see, I myself found the Western religious traditions to be lacking in empirical and intellectual rigour, well before Professor Dawkins was on my radar screen. That is not to say that I find them without value, and I know that Professor Dawkins recognises great value within them as well, although we might differ on exactly which aspects of them we find valuable.

In the Vedic world view, however, we find a metaphysic without comparison - one which easily accommodates Dawkins' empirical analysis, agrees with it, and encapsulates it within a wider metaphysical perspective.

Don't get me wrong - the Vedic tradition and its religious aspect are full of "Jabberwockies", and not just one God, but 33 million of them for Dawkins to tilt at if he wishes. But behind that, carried within that cultural covering, is an incredible metaphysical system. It is impossible to know with certainty the precise historical path that lead to its arrival to us today, wonderfully encapsulated in a rich, colourful cultural package - and I totally appreciate the cultural aspects of it, replete as they are with Dungeons and Dragon-type imagery, complete with magic-thread-wearing spell-casters summoning demons from fire. For someone who has a soft spot for the odd Amon Amarth video, and who once considered the Dungeon Masters Guide as essential reading, the Srimad Bhagavatam was really a no-brainer (the web version doesn't hold a candle in this respect to the printed version, with its Devanagari script and amazing pictures).

However, the cultural context and background of the Bhagavatam should not distract us from or blind us to the metaphysical system that it presents. The trappings of Vedic culture, a human culture subject to the same analysis as any human culture, should not eclipse or obscure the unique value that is to be found in the Vedic metaphysical philosophy, laid out in the Upanishads, and summarised in the Vedanta-sutra (and its "natural" - read then-culturally relevant - commentary the Srimad Bhagavatam), and the Bhagavad-gita (also known as the Gitopanisad for its Upanishadic synthesis).

There are plenty of Jabberwockies for Dawkins and his students to invoke and tilt at in the Vedic tradition, but this misses the point.

At its core, empirically the Vedic metaphysical system agrees with Dawkins' observations and conclusions, and provides additional information.

Again, my point is not to prove or even assert the factual nature of either Dawkins' or the Vedic worldview, merely to point out points of congruence.

So to return to the original point: on Wilson's initial barrage that started the war with the religious right - the idea that human society is majorly a product of the deterministic laws of material nature, I call 100% congruence.