Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga

by

Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.

Dear Panchan Pramanik,

You sent this list an interesting challenge to some of the points in my post on the above mentioned topic in the subject line. Unfortunately the formatting did not show properly the difference between my statements and your critique. For that reason I am posting it here, along with my replies in a way that the content hopefully appears more clearly.

You wrote:

>

Dear Sir why are you misleading the truth scientific findings,

>

Quoting me from my previous post:

>>

We have already pointed out that scientific observation proves that life comes from life, while Darwin’s claims have never been substantiated by any scientific evidence.[1]"

>>

You commented:

>

The reference 1 is your opinion . What Darwin showed a trend  of changes of anatomy and physiology of life species through time (evolution ). He could not  answer rightly  the cause of this gradual changes - i.e formation of  higher animal from single cell . All the studies are substantiated from fossils ( Palenteological studies ).You better request   biology department of  many of the eminent universities like University of London , Harvard University and others .Now also  some of their studies are coming in TV. organised by London University.

It is very sarcastic to find that most of the religion is against Darwin . Similar situation happened against Galileo- now no body dares to challenge him because of NASA.

>

My reply:

That life comes from life is not my opinion. It is an observed fact of everyday life. The opinion of Darwinists is that life comes from matter, and this is not an experimentally verified fact, but a mere conjecture. If someone says, “The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West” would you claim that to be an opinion? It is observed in everyday life. Likewise, if someone said, “The Sun rises in the West and sets in the East” we would immediately expect that person to be confused or insane. Yet, when someone claims against the daily observed truth that life comes from life, and proclaims that life comes from matter, we call him a “great scientist!” Thus we must conclude this so-called great scientist, and the people calling him that, are both confused or insane.  This is the unhappy fact today.

You want to claim that Darwin merely “showed a trend of changes of anatomy etc.” But this is not a fact, and Darwinists today accept that the theory of evolution also involves abiogenisis, i.e the evolution of matter into life forms. Darwin, himself, clearly held this opinion. In a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker (1871), on the possibility of a chemical origin for life, it is well-known that Darwin wrote:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Charles Darwin)

Then you claimed that, "All the studies [on evolution] are substantiated from fossils (Palenteological studies).."

If this is so, then why is the Cambrian Explosion and Burgess Shale Formation such a mystery to paleontologists, who find the sudden appearance of most of the major phyla of animals all present at once, without any trace of predecessor fossils. These fossil beds are estimated to be about 530 million years old. And many of the phyla found there are present on the Earth even today. This is hardly to be considered evidence FOR evolution. Rather, for any objective scientist it would be conclusive evidence AGAINST evolution. Yet why do Harvard and others market this type of hype? How many of their grants come from institutions that have a stake in maintaining the materialistic viewpoint of evolution, and any number of other similar factors. It is hardly indicative of an objective and impartial search for the truth. If that were the case, both sides of the question would receive equal attention and funding. But that is most definitely not the case, in spite of the evidence against evolution.

When I wrote:

>>

More evidence is being accumulated every day that substantiates the fact that life is a non-material principle that cannot be explained away in terms of matter and energy. We are compiling that evidence and, from time to time, presenting some of it here in this list. We will establish a separate website to archive all this scientific evidence in order to assist in the research of any theistic scientist who would like to take up this service.

>>

You replied:

>

[if] Life is [a] non material thing then why this cellular mechanism is needed by God . He could make life in rock or  stone . Conscious field (so called  Chetan ) needs it  and likes  to follow a process of improvement . Please go thorough thew writings of Rishi Aurobindo.

>

My response:

Anyone can take a single cell and put it into a sterile test tube with all the necessary ingredients to sustain its life. If you then puncture that cell with a sterile needle, the contents of the cell will pour out into the solution. Even if you wait for hundreds of years, life will not be generated from those original biochemicals of the cell.  This tells us that life is not simply cellular in nature. The life principle is the apriori formative cause of the cell or the body of any multi-cellular creature. We can see this in action by watching any seed or egg or embryonic zygote go through its development to maturity.  Science cannot explain this development by simple reference to chemical activity. Much advanced research is being done today to verify this simple fact. [See the recent post on this list referring to Ben-Jacob's research.]

The scriptures (such as Bhagavad-gita) refer to para prakriti, a principle of  life that is superior to matter (prakriti), as well as to the controlling energy of God that directs the activities of matter. It also explains that the living entity is different from its body. The Bhagavad-gita explains this very simply by pointing out that in one lifetime the soul continually changes bodies in going from childhood, to youth, to old age. Scientists also confirm that the cells in the body are in a constant process (metabolism) of construction, maintenance and destruction. Then how can the self, who maintains a single identity throughout his life, be considered identical with the changing cells or body?

Arubindo may be held in high regard by popular opinion, but we do not accept his authority in these matters. According to Bhagavad-gita, the material body is the source of birth, death, old age and disease (“janma mrithu jara vyadhi”). The life principle or atma is “sat-cit-ananda” by its original nature. Then how can he say that life “likes” the material body?  This is a complete misunderstanding of proper spiritual knowledge. Such “liking” of material nature is called Maya in the scriptures – illusion that arises from ignorance.

Next, you quote me again,

>>

To ignore Darwin is simply to ignore the major atheistic argument that is influencing the youth and older generation today. First we must show scientifically that Darwin is wrong. Then the question of God becomes significant for the materialistic scientists. We are concerned with them because they are influencing the whole society toward godlessness. Everyone knows what Richard Dawkins, and others are doing in this regard.[2] And this is being propagated in the schools, with the result that students are losing their faith due to this teaching. So it must be stopped, and genuine science must be taught that will encourage faith in God.

>>

You replied:

>

It is an excellent deduction - Dawkins is  one of the successor . I have gone through his writing . It is full of assumptions . It is not accepted by any of the eminent scientist of the world .. He has become famous for his book - but unfortunately it is read  in any course of  evolution- theory in any part of the world . In this respect you are really wise.

I feel you are competent to deny Darwin’s findings  and present findings  of evolutionist  . Why do you not write  a thesis and submit in international  journal -which may help you to substantiate your theory and people will learn that Darwin is totally bogus.

>

My response:

There are many well qualified scientists who write books and journal articles confronting the false arguments of Darwin and his votaries. I am a retired scientist and a sannyasi, so it is not among my duties to engage in such activities. I leave that to those who are practicing scientists in their respective fields of expertise. My aim is only to give spiritual guidance and encouragement to such persons so that they may take up the task at hand, and not be fooled into complacent acceptance of false doctrines in the name of science that impede spiritual progress. I see the proper scientific understanding of the origin of life as essential to the spiritual development of humanity at large especially in this modern age of materialistic science. This is the objective we had in starting this list for scientists and others who are interested in this vital topic.

Then you quoted me again, I will give just the last part of that quote:

>>

But this does not mean that science is itself to blame. Science was gloriously practiced for hundreds of years by the previous civilizations in India. The evidence for this in writings and in archeological finds is quite conclusive on this point. There has never been a problem of doing science on the basis of a theistic conception of reality. And there is no problem with doing science on a theistic basis today. Rather, it will lead to a further advance of science, beyond what the materialistic viewpoint can produce, because it is based on a proper understanding of the personal nature of reality - that includes both the Science and Scientist. Thus our publication bears this name. http://scienceandscientist.org

>>

You replied:

>

Again you are misleading us . Are all  philosophers  denied material world? Can you ignore  electricity , or medicine or your costly computer?  Religion was always against science - cause is  very simple . Science can show you  atom , molecule - you cannot show  any thing.

Science has  given relief  in many areas of civilization . Can you solve all these by chanting some holy name . This  is why so many religion came  and many of them vanished.

In India it is widely accepted that Swami Vivekanada  and Rishi Aurobinda are two vast learned spiritualist who were  not Unicorn.

Reality is personal or impersonal - this question have been rightly answered by them . These great men had realization . They  knew what is God . I feel everybody should read their writtings because they knew what is GOD . They rightly explained why evolution is needed by nature or God.

>

My response:

No philosopher in his right mind would deny the existence of the material world, although there are some misguided ones who would try to convince others that it is all an illusion. We are certainly not denying the existence of the material world. And the scriptures do not deny its existence either.

If you have a material conception of reality, you can see only matter. Then what about those who have a spiritual conception of reality? What do they see? Just as the materialist sees matter, the spiritually awakened soul sees God. There is no difficulty for the devotee to see his Lord everywhere. As it is described in the scriptures:  “atmavan manyate jagat” – as you are, so you see the world. As the supreme Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad-gita, “bhaktya mam abhijananti” – “I can be known by devotion.” Thus there is no problem in seeing God for one who is properly qualified and purified of the material conception of life.

Aurobindo and Vivekananda may not be Unicorns, but they are certainly Monists – reducing everything to one, like the single horn of the unicorn. We reject the monist viewpoint of reality as abstractly one-sided. Rather, we find the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to be more rational. He taught the principle of “achintya bheda bheda tattva” - difference and non-difference together. Monist philosophers are under a misconception, for they cannot explain how differentiated personalities and varieties come from non-differentiated impersonal substance.

We are not interested in reading Aurobindo and Vivekananda. If you want to present a particular viewpoint of theirs we are interested in arguing their ideas. In fact, we find their message to be fundamentally lacking in proper understanding and substance. Since this list is dedicated to discussion of the relation of science to religion, unless you have a specific point in reference to a philosopher or rishi, general proselytizing of sectarian preferences will not be posted here to avoid divergence from our main topic of concern. I have already mentioned in this post, that if the aforementioned gentlemen accept the theory of evolution then we are showing that they, along with materialistic scientists, are misguided in their understanding of scientific evidence, scriptural conclusions and ontological reality.

Finally, your claim that "religion was always against science" shows a complete lack of any understanding of what has transpired in this list, and a complete lack of knowledge of the history of science, or of the Vedas. If this is what you have to show for your enlightenment by Aurobindo and Vivekananda, then you show them to be extremely poor teachers.