1. Why Should we Study Evolution?
In response to my thread on books on evolution, ecology and natural science some started claiming that why do we need to read books by foreign authors when our Acharyas have spoken on the subject?
In response to my thread on books on evolution, ecology and natural science some started claiming that why do we need to read books by foreign authors when our Acharyas have spoken on the subject?
2. It is a meaningless question but since it has been asked once again, let me answer. We should read books on evolution by foreign authors too, just like we should read Einstein for Relativity, or Feynman, Heisenberg, Schrödinger for Physics.
3. Evolution is a knowledge discipline born and developed in the West. So who else to read but authors from that culture? I am more than willing to read Indian authors on the subject but there are scarce few. But I refuse to stay ignorant just because Indians don’t write on it.
4. Next is the allegation of: “You can only be impressed by knowledge if it comes from the West.” That would be true if I had been reading texts & authors on Vedas, Upanishads, Agamas and Puranas from the West, instead of reading Hindu authors.
5. That charge would be true if I had been looking at Indian history, Hindu cosmology, Hindu darshana from the eyes of Westerners. That would show that in a discipline invented and perfected by India, I was still looking for validation from the West.
6. In that I absolutely don’t. Even when I read some translations of classical texts in English I promptly skip all introduction analysis & prefaces and go straight to translation and even that I read with skepticism if I ever do so. Otherwise Hindi translations are best for me.
7. To implement this yardstick of judging the ‘mental colonization’ of someone is funny and devoid of any sense. Any discipline which is worthy of studying and which is born outside India will naturally have more authors from that culture. What’s the disbelief here?
8. This is like saying I am colonized if I am reading a foreign author on quantum biology. I should just consult the Vedas. That is just absurd. For a discipline born in the West, it is only natural to read the authors there.
9. About Evolution, it IS a discipline worthy of deep study. It is the most beautiful description of our saṃsāra in its particular details. It is a celebration of our living universe in all its effulgent manifestation. It is a celebration of awareness in its manifestation.
10. And it is true. For there is not a single piece of evidence explaining otherwise. All the objections to it are a doing of Christian missionaries who misinterpreted evolution. And it has even been proved in lab now. It is another discussion. This is just the statement.
11. Evolution does not violate any dharmic cosmology. It is mute on the question of Supreme Consciousness and it should because that’s outside its ambit. But it is true on the matters that it speaks, and once you study it, you realize how mesmerizingly beautiful and true it is.
12. Science is an epistemology like Adhyātma. It is a way of knowing, there is no doubt about it. It is limited, yes. It will never have answers to ultimate and greatest of questions like: ‘Who am I?’, ‘Why life?’ etc. but in limited and closed disciplines its true and it works.
13. Adhyātma is the highest way of knowing. It is complete. It lacks nothing. All this is true. But not in the way in most literalists understand it. It is complete in the sense that it has the highest knowledge in front of which all knowledge becomes immaterial.
14. That does not mean you can’t study science, mathematics and other disciplines exploring other means of knowledge. These disciplines were always part of our culture and we did the best in our times. In these disciplines right now the lead is in the West.
15. So Science is an epistemology, a way of knowing. Limited, yes. Incapable of answering the ultimate questions, yes. Imperfect in some areas, yes. But it is a way of knowing. It would be utterly ignorant to say that it is not a way of knowing and it is not beautiful.
16. A singular marker of anything which is true is that it is also beautiful. Science is beautiful anyway you look at it. And natural sciences like evolutionary biology celebrates Nature, Prakruti, Śakti in all its brilliant, effulgent manifestation.
17. Only the a-rasikas can stay away from it. The rasika, the one who takes interest in the world, in the saṃsāra cannot help but enjoy and comment on it. 🙂 So like a rasika, I will read, know and enjoy. 🙂
===
===
Loading suggestions...