The Hindu view of evolution? (Omar)

Razib has a post up on brown pundits  and it mentions some Hindu doctor giving his new-agish views about evolution in Hinduism. Any comments?

Comments

[Ruchira]

This is mind-numbingly confusing. I am aware of the Hindu concept of the Atman-Brahman-supreme consciousness. I guess Bhat is working backward from there to explain why lower intelligence = lower life form. Who knows? And just today, I came across this article which explains bio diversity ((as well as ecto-plasmic life forms) through the ancient Hindu judicial system :-) Perhaps Razib will find something there also to drive his blood pressure up! But I should add that the last link is an interpretation of ancient texts. No one has stepped forward to claim the scientific basis of that. Yet.

[omar]

I dont think these things have any effect on Razib's blood pressure...

[Ruchira]

Ah, good. Don't want the boy to come to any harm :-)

[Sujatha]

Dr. Bhat's specialty is astrophysics,if that gives any clue to his thinking, however badly put. Arguably, one could say the formation of stars, planets, life forms on planets etc. are all devolutionary processes from the original point where everything was One.

Me, I like to think that grass and trees are higher life forms than humans, in many ways;)

[Ruchira]

Yep, that's what I thought. He is working backward from that minuscule and infinite point of energy to the exapansion of the universe and evolution of life forms.

[Norman Costa]

I am always interested in systems of belief and knowledge. The description of evolution in Hinduism, as given by Dr. Narayana P. Bhat, was fascinating. I have no idea how pervasive these ideas are among the many, many sects and worshipers. What I find consistent with Western monotheistic traditions are the notions of life as a force, and consciousness as a force. As forces they are disembodied, but nonetheless real and indestructible. Of course, these ideas are not compatible with modern views of the chemistry and biology of living systems.

A friend of mine, Reverend Jaganath Carrera, wrote "Inside the Yoga Sutras: A Comprehensive Sourcebook for the Study & Practice of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras." What I found in the book was that varied meanings, uses, and responses can be associated with important words in the Sutras. In my view, this is one of the strengths of some traditions of ancient sacred literature. Reciting the words, meditating on them, or reflecting on them in times of personal need or spiritual development, offers the individual a very personal understanding even to the point of idiosyncrasy.

The writer and historian of religion, Karen Armstrong, points out that religion fails when it tries to provide THE answers to the most difficult questions and sufferings of life. Rather, religion functions best when it provides comfort and compassion for believers when they find themselves in distress and when no answer is sufficient.

What is a strength for a religious tradition (a multiplicity of meanings) is a weakness for any scientific pursuit. When a science cannot provide clear, consistent descriptions of phenomena within its field, it is a safe bet that it is probably not science. When a religious tradition specifies the functioning of nature in faith-based dogma, it will lose the battle to science, every time.

Religion tries to answer the questions: Where did I come from? Why am I here? and Where am I going? None of the answers proffered will find a home in science. It is unlikely, though, that science can extend comfort and compassion to those in need, in the same way that some religious traditions can.