Where in which kalpa are we?
Gary Stevason
misconception that life comes from chemicals. It seems that the idea of
the transmigration of the soul through 8,400,000 life forms is novel to
them, but it does explain several of the problems with their theory of
natural selection and evolution which they've jury-rigged together.
I have tried to pass on the following overview of Vedic understanding to
them, but cannot find a reference that will tell me where we are now: i.e.
which day of Brahma we are enjoying and in which cycle of that kalpa we
are now. I would appreciate any input anyone could provide. I know I
have seen at least part of that information in some BBT publication.
Thank you,
Gary
................
>From the excerpt of the Bhagavad-gita from the ancient eternal Vedas that
follows my summary below, some figures may be important in resolving the
riddle of the life forms found to have existed here in past years:
The material cosmos is manifest for 311.04 trillion earth years.
Life is manifest in the universe for 4.32 billion years, then for the next
4.32 billion years no life is manifest, then again for 4.32 billion years
life is manifest and so on. This continues for 36,000 cycles before the
cosmic manifestation is wound up, and later a completely new one is created.
Which cycle are we in now and where in that cycle are we? Good question.
I have seen it, but unfortunately I can't remember where.
Based on this information we should expect to see distinct traces of major
change every 4.32 billion years. We may also even see phases starting
3.89 million years ago and prior to that, every 4.32 million years.
Another interesting note found in the Vedas, but not quoted here, is that
the average lifespan of a human varies significantly in the various ages.
In the current Age of Kali, life is 100 years, in Dvapara it is 1,000 years,
in Treta it is 10,000 years and in the Satya Age it is 100,000 years.
[Bhagavad-gita As It Is (8:17-19) by BBT]:
The duration of the material universe is limited. It is manifested in
cycles of kalpas. A kalpa is a day of Brahma, and one day of Brahma
consists of a thousand cycles of four yugas, or ages: Satya, Treta,
Dvapara and Kali. The cycle of Satya is characterized by virtue,
wisdom and religion, there being practically no ignorance and vice,
and the yuga lasts 1,728,000 years. In the Treta-yuga vice is
introduced, and this yuga lasts 1,296,000 years. In the Dvapara-yuga
there is an even greater decline in virtue and religion, vice
increasing, and this yuga lasts 864,000 years. And finally in
Kali-yuga (the yuga we have now been experiencing over the past 5,000
years) there is an abundance of strife, ignorance, irreligion and
vice, true virtue being practically nonexistent, and this yuga lasts
432,000 years. In Kali-yuga vice increases to such a point that at the
termination of the yuga the Supreme Lord Himself appears as the Kalki
avatara, vanquishes the demons, saves His devotees, and commences
another Satya-yuga. Then the process is set rolling again. These four
yugas, rotating a thousand times, comprise one day of Brahma, and
the same number comprise one night. Brahma lives one hundred of such
years and then dies. These hundred years by earth calculations
total to 311 trillion and 40 billion earth years. By these
calculations the life of Brahma seems fantastic and interminable, but
from the viewpoint of eternity it is as brief as a lightning flash. In
the Causal Ocean there are innumerable Brahmas rising and disappearing
like bubbles in the Atlantic. Brahma and his creation are all part of
the material universe, and therefore they are in constant flux.
In the material universe not even Brahma is free from the process of
birth, old age, disease and death. Brahma, however, is directly
engaged in the service of the Supreme Lord in the management of this
universe--therefore he at once attains liberation. Elevated sannyasis
are promoted to Brahma's particular planet, Brahmaloka, which is the
highest planet in the material universe and which survives all the
heavenly planets in the upper strata of the planetary system, but in
due course Brahma and all the inhabitants of Brahmaloka are subject to
death, according to the law of material nature.
At the beginning of Brahma's day, all living entities become manifest
from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they
are merged into the unmanifest again.
Again and again, when Brahma's day arrives, all living entities come
into being, and with the arrival of Brahma's night they are
helplessly annihilated.
The less intelligent, who try to remain within this material world,
may be elevated to higher planets and then again must come down to
this planet earth. During the daytime of Brahma they can exhibit their
activities on higher and lower planets within this material world, but
at the coming of Brahma's night they are all annihilated. In the day
they receive various bodies for material activities, and at night they
no longer have bodies but remain compact in the body of Visnu. Then
again they are manifest at the arrival of Brahma's day. Bhutva bhutva
praliyate: during the day they become manifest, and at night they are
annihilated again. Ultimately, when Brahma's life is finished, they
are all annihilated and remain unmanifest for millions and millions of
years. And when Brahma is born again in another millennium they are
again manifest. In this way they are captivated by the spell of the
material world.
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.22, 2/6/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Gary Stevason
[...]
: them, but cannot find a reference that will tell me where we are now: i.e.
: which day of Brahma we are enjoying and in which cycle of that kalpa we
: are now. I would appreciate any input anyone could provide. I know I
: have seen at least part of that information in some BBT publication.
A nice lesson in surrender ... followed my feet to the May 95 BTG and
voila the answer to one question: from the Puranic accounts, we are in
the 28th yuga cycle of the 7th manvantara of this kalpa. This means this
life cycle started 2.3 billion years ago. Which, incidently, fits in
nicely with the scientists' fossil 'evidences'. :-)
Still hoping to find which day of Brahma this is. This will also be
interesting for astronomers, who are fond of speculating about the age of
the universe.
Gary Stevason
>
> Haribol, Gary
>
> I've been searching for the sastric reference to the number 8,400,000.
> All I've found are the many references in Srila Prabhupada's purports.
> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Haribol Susan,
Happy Gaura Purnima!
Thanks for searching ... I guess you have a Vedabase. Lucky, were envy
not allowed in a Vaisnava heart, I would be green by now! ;-(
But I have been able to download the Gita and searched it for the basic
information. In a post to this thread, likely not up yet, I mentioned
that Krsna helped with part of the information by walking me over to the
May 95 BTG where I learned that this kalpa began 2.3 billion years ago.
I still don't know when Brahma's creation began though. I have been
searching for 'kalpa' and the combination of 'Brahama' and 'day'. We
need to know which of 100 days of Brahma this is.
I don't hold much hope of success though. I skimmed the astronomy and
physics books by Thompson, with no success, and one would expect that if
it were known it would be there.
Thanks again, and Jaya Caitanya!
Ghari,
P.S. Did you ever get a message from me pouring out my heart about
Ritvik and the other issues you asked me about. Our system died just as
it was being 'sent'.
Susan Eshelman
>I have been trying to assist the scientists who are labouring under the
>misconception that life comes from chemicals. It seems that the idea of
>the transmigration of the soul through 8,400,000 life forms is novel to
>them, but it does explain several of the problems with their theory of
>natural selection and evolution which they've jury-rigged together.
{snip}
Haribol, Gary
I've been searching for the sastric reference to the number 8,400,000.
All I've found are the many references in Srila Prabhupada's purports.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks
Susan
Mani Varadarajan
> I have been trying to assist the scientists who are labouring under the
> misconception that life comes from chemicals. It seems that the idea of
> the transmigration of the soul through 8,400,000 life forms is novel to
> them, but it does explain several of the problems with their theory of
> natural selection and evolution which they've jury-rigged together.
Before you attempt to educate scientists on the Vedantic
and Puranic cosmology, I strongly suggest you read a
commentary, any commentary, on the 3rd Sutra of the
Brahma-Sutras. This sutra discusses the provability
of Brahman, and by extension, the individual self.
All philosophers of Vedanta categorically deny that
the existence of Brahman (or the self) can be proved
by inference or logic. The only basis upon which
we can base information of Brahman is the Veda. If
a scientist chooses to investigate the origin of life
as bracketed by logic and inference as the only means
of knowledge, then he or she is not obligated to
accept the Veda as an authority. Consequently, it is
not so absurd for the scientist to conclude that life
began as purely a biological process.
The other side of the coin is that you are violating
age-old Vedantic conclusions if you attempt to ``prove''
the existence of Brahman or the self based on logical
inference or perception.
Mani
Mani Varadarajan
<susarla...@studentserver1.swmed.edu> writes:
> In article <4hkmnv$3...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
>
> >I do not understand why you imply evolution and natural
> >selection are incompatible with reasoned belief in God.
[...]
> >I have no problem with both accepting evolutionary
> >theory and the existence of God.
> I for one, do not accept Darwinian theory.
With what specific parts of Darwinian theory
do you take exception? I should remind you that
Darwin was a devout Christian. He just could not
deny the facts at hand. Therefore, a literal
understanding of the creation theory as expressed
in Genesis had to be discarded.
Similarly, PuraNic accounts of SrshTi must be
reinterpreted if they disagree with the facts as
we have them.
I would also like to make a distinction between
the theory of natural selection and evolution.
Evolution is an absolute fact, as are the
scientifically provable evolutionary history
of life on earth. What is theoretical is the
``how'' of evolution, and Darwinian theory still
is the best explanation -- natural selection.
Note that this theory neither denies nor affirms
God, which is exactly where it should be.
namo narayana,
Mani
Hari Krishna Susarla
Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
>> I for one, do not accept Darwinian theory.
>
>With what specific parts of Darwinian theory
>do you take exception?
While I accept that natural selection is certainly a correct mechanism for
microevolution, and that limited speciation can take place by such a
mechanism, I object to the idea that entire systems of organs, tissues, or
even biochemical pathways within a single cell could have arisen by gradual
evolution through natural selection. I also object to the idea that the
beginning of life started by the combination of chemicals. As far as the
latter is concerned, I have seen the probabilities calculated for such an
event (by scientists), and the chances are way too low even given the
billions of years that supposedly passed for such an event to occur.
I should remind you that
>Darwin was a devout Christian. He just could not
>deny the facts at hand. Therefore, a literal
>understanding of the creation theory as expressed
>in Genesis had to be discarded.
Several points should be raised here. Frankly, I don't think that labeling
Darwin as "a devout Christian" is really a good argument. Whether or not he
was devout depends on who you ask, and I don't think that such an adjective
can be quantified. To be honest, I don't find his devotion (or lack thereof)
to be relevant here.
If I were a Christian, I would probably feel very insecure about basing my
faith in the creation on the account given in Genesis. After having read Parts
1 and 2 of the Book of Genesis, I must say that I find its account to be
remarkably vague. It certainly is not nearly as detailed as the creation
accounts given in the Vedic literatures.
>
>Similarly, PuraNic accounts of SrshTi must be
>reinterpreted if they disagree with the facts as
>we have them.
If the facts were so solid, then you might have a case. But I frankly don't
believe the facts are strong enough to merit a reinterpretation. My
observation has been that people who tout the supposed solidity of the
evolutionary theory do so because that's what they want to believe. In short,
they have fallen for the same trap they accuse the religionists of - belief
resting on faith.
It is true that some of the evidence could be interpreted to account for a
developmental model of creation. However, this line of thinking generally
caters to people who want to be able to explain everything in terms of easily
quantifiable, mechanistic laws. After having considered that mindset, I have
concluded that it really is a very subtle form of maya.
>
>I would also like to make a distinction between
>the theory of natural selection and evolution.
>Evolution is an absolute fact, as are the
perhaps
>scientifically provable evolutionary history
>of life on earth. What is theoretical is the
No. That certainly is not scientifically provable. If by the evolutionary
history you are referring to the gradual increase in complexity of lifeforms
observed in the fossil record, then you certainly will not be able to defend
this statement. Less than %1 of the total fossil record has so far been
analyzed, the rest of it being unavailable due to erosion or other
difficulties. But even that %1 does not show the gradual increase in
complexity hypothesized by evolutionary biologists. For example, modern
Darwinian theory holds that homo sapiens first appeared on the Earth some
10,000 years ago. Before that, there were various prehuman neandrathal types,
like homo erectus and so on. However, several researchers in the Bhaktivedanta
Institute collected evidence traditionally ignored by the scientific brahmins
and published it. They show that findings do exist pointing to tool-making and
other traces of human civilization as old as several hundred thousand years.
They also found discoveries of neandrathal fossils during the period of homo
sapien domination, when the former was supposed to have evolved into the
latter.
The unfortunate fact is that many of these discoveries are conveniently sifted
out of the big picture due to overwhelming faith in the status quo model of
creation and evolution. It is nearly impossible for an archaeologist to
publish a finding pointing out that human civilization is many orders of
magnitude older than what is currently believed. The problem with scientists
is that their already precarious objectivity is compromised when they consider
where their grant money is coming from. If they publish something that sounds
too outlandish, they can easily lose funding. The BI institute also collected
some accounts of these situations.
>``how'' of evolution, and Darwinian theory still
>is the best explanation -- natural selection.
And this is one of the major problems with evolutionary theory. In order for
the neoDarwinists to state that we developed through natural selection, they
should be able to propose some developmental sequences that conceivably could
have ocurred to result in something as complex as, say, the eye.
For example, it is a well known fact that the human eye contains 3 tissue
layers and 6 extraocular muscles innervated by 3 cranial nerves. The eye's
tissue layers are themselves quite complex, containing several delicate
muscles such as the constrictor pupillae and the ciliary muscle (which
controls lens size through ligaments called zonules). The innermost tissue
layer, the retinal layers, contains a complex network of cells designed to
receive light and transmit action potentials. This includes a layer of
photoreceptors, a layer of bipolar cells, and a layer of ganglion cells
(whose axons make up the optic nerve). These three cell types are connected in
series, and they all *have* to be there in order for the eye to function. Now,
for me to believe that this came about due to natural selection, it's only
reasonable that I should be able to see a hypothetical sequence of events
showing how this might have developed. Such a sequence would have to involve
the step-by-step addition of various improvements, each giving a selective
advantage over the previous design. This is exactly where the problem begins.
One can't imagine a primitive eye with only photoreceptors and no bipolar or
ganglion cells. It would therefore be dubious that the eye's development could
be advanced by the addition of photoreceptors, since such cells by themselves
give no selective advantage. One might also question the accomadation reflex
in the same way. What selective advantage would there be in a lens when no
zonules or ciliary muscle were present? It can't focus if the ciliary muscle
and zonules are not present to control it. Nor do the ciliary muscle and the
zonules have any useful function outside of controlling the lens. So, one
would have to propose that all three improvements came about simultaneously.
But because natural selection hypothesis states that such improvements are due
to random mutation, that would leave us with the problem of explaining how 3
simultaneous mutations could appear.
And how about the pupillary light reflex? Have you ever wondered why both
pupils contract when you shine a light in only one eye? It happens because the
visual cortex (or was it the optic radiations, I forget...) synapses on both
same side and contralateral parasympathetic fibers of the oculomotor nerve. In
order for the pupillary light reflex to give a selective advantage, both
synapses have to be intact, on both sides. In a precursor eye, one might
imagine a setup wherein both sides of the visual cortex, as well as both optic
pathways, already exist. Now, there are 2 parasympathetic oculomotor fibers
going to the constrictor pupillae of each eye (one fiber synapses on the
ipsilateral oculomotor nucleus, and the other on the contralateral oculomotor
nucleus). If you can visualize this (no pun intended), then you can probably
see the problem. What selective advantage is there in the step by step
addition of parasympathetic oculomotor nerves when none of them by themselves
give the complete pupillary light reflex? There are eight synapses which have
to be made, four to the eye, and four to the two oculmotor nuclei. If all 8
synapses are made correctly and simultaneously, then there is certainly a
selective advantage. But in a step-by-step fashion, it's hard to see what
could select for a mutation that would cause the left-side parasympathetic
oculomotor n. to appear (running ipsilaterally), then the left-side para oculo
n. (running contralaterally), and so on. Actually, I was wrong when I said
there were only 8 synapses. As it turns out, the parasympathetics synapse onto
the short ciliary nerve at the ciliary ganglion. So that means there are
actually 10 synapses, because the short ciliary nerve is what directly
innervates the constrictor pupillae. That means that the step by step addition
of oculomotor nerves is even less likely to happen because the short ciliary
nerves have to be added at the same time.
This is the stumbling block of the evolutionists. Although one could gloss
over the details, wave his hands, and explain the complexity of form by
natural selection, the reality is that a sequence of development based on
natural selection is very difficult to conceive of. I have only brought up the
eye, but there are many other examples I could think of. Helicase and Fatty
Acid Synthetase are two very complicated enzyme systems whose origins
are difficult to understand from a natural selection perspective. I will not
go into them here since I may be getting off topic. Suffice it to say that for
evolution to be respected as a challenge to the scriptural account of
creation, its proponents need to be capable of explaining how the major
mechanism of evolution (natural selection) could lead to step-by-step
improvements in complicated biochemical and organ systems. In fact, evolution
rests on the ability of the scientists to be able to do this, and the fact
that they have not makes me feel more secure in accepting the Vedic account
for creation.
Note that I am not rejective evolutionary hypothesis completely. In the field
of molecular biology, which I have done some research in, evolution can be a
useful paradigm at times. One of my medical professors, a devout Christian,
pointed out that he found a gene which only seemed to be present on half of
the body's chromosomes. Since the gene encoded an enzyme that is vital to
life, he supposed that it was indeed present in the diploid number, but that
the second copy had been transposed (which he later confirmed). But paradigms
are accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they predict certain
outcomes. They are not accepted simply as a statement of faith that they are
actually correct. A good scientist knows when to throw away old theories and
accept new ones.
Incidentally, I noticed that you never answered my earlier query about the
belief of the Sri Vaishnava acharyas on this issue. In order to make
advancement in spiritual life, one has to have strong and mature faith in guru
and sastra; one cannot accept only what he happens to like and reject the
rest. Once you start "reinterpreting" sections of scripture like that, then
the whole point of sabda pramaan is lost.
>Note that this theory neither denies nor affirms
>God, which is exactly where it should be.
I have heard of people who claim to believe in God, but also believe in
evolution. I think that the reason this kind of theory is generally not
considered very believable is because it calls into question why an omnipotent
God would want to spend billions of years manufacturing humans through natural
selection.
Hare Krishna,
-- Krishna
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.23, 3/11/96
Gary Stevason
[...]
: > >I do not understand why you imply evolution and natural
: [...]
Mani, I am not sure that the Veda say that the jiva soul starts in a
lowest karmic form and then transmigrates through to the human form? I
seriously think this is non-Vedic. Clearly karma is a better
explanation of the changes, extinctions, seeming 'evolving' of the life
forms on the planet. I see no problem with humans existing in the distant
past ... they see a problem because their pet 'evolution of life from
a single celled bacteria somewhere' theory can't support it.
Of course, the abiogenesis theory of life coming from chemicals, which has
been split out of the Darwinian theory since his was definitely a poor guess,
is by their own admission mere speculation at this time.
Here is an action clip from my discussion with the scientists in
talk.origins about this topic. Young people have told me they don't
believe in God ... they believe in evolution. These lies must be
stopped, and it is our duty to do so:
Keith Robison (rob...@mito.harvard.edu) wrote:
: Gary Stevason (cait...@torfree.net) wrote:
: : There are just too many other hypotheses
: Name them
Keith, first let me thank you for a very cordial and informative response.
Regarding other hypotheses, I personally favour the Vedic explanation of
the description of the transmigration of the soul through 8,400,000
species of living forms - plant, aquatic, air, land, etc.
The physical findings are not inconsistent with the ancient wisdom, and
given that I've found so much of it to be true to this point, I'll stay
with the horse I rode in on, at least until it throws a shoe. :-)
Perhaps someone with the Big Vedic Picture will become motivated to put
the knowledge back together for us. Unfortunately, for me it is only a
side issue, but certainly fascinating.
Good luck,
Gary
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.23, 3/11/96