Mail Archive

The Universe, Evolution, Cycles and Religion

• Subject: The Universe, Evolution, Cycles and Religion
• From: Ray T
• Date: Wed Jun 07 13:41:29 1995
• Message-Id: id500

Dear Ray,

Hello. I'm happy to receive your letter.

>
>The idea that "forms" for various species are stored away in the
>universe everywhere is worthy of consideration.  I am of the opinion
>that life is likely on other worlds and that some are likely to be
>DNA based and similar to out own.  It would not be a total surprise to
>me if there were giraffes and elephants on another world.

The Vedic scriptures say there are...

>However your blanket dismissal of evolution is not consistent with
>enormous numbers of facts.  The geological record shows that the form
>of life has changed on earth.  Many changes are documented as a result
>of human activity.  For example, the many types of dogs have been
>"made" by humans from wolves in only a few thousand years.

Yes. I have to agree with this. There are also so many different flowers and
fruits they have made... But it's varieties of the same basic thing. The roses are
still roses, the dogs are still dogs... They haven't been able to produce
something between a dog and a cat or an orange and an apple. They might be able to
cross oranges and lemons but that's about the limit of it.

Also the type of life may have changed over time. It's not that all the species
have to be present all the time. There is a limited number of species however
(8,400,000) which can be manifested from the subtle platform. Presumably small
changes can then be made by selective breeding and so on. But how perminant are
these changes? If the dogs were allowed to run wild and breed without control how
long would the new breeds of dogs last? If the "new" roses weren't carefully
propergated how long would they last. The English brought their pet white rabbits
to Australia and the ones that went wild in the bush turned back into the same old
brown rabbits... I think much of the "evolved" lifeforms we have engineered would
be the same.

>The idea that there could be standard forms and evolution is not
>incompatible.  In a plantation of trees, there are many directions
>in which we can see rows, including but not limited to the rows
>travelled by the planter.

We accept a type of evolution. In the beginning the planet was covered with water
so there were only aquatic creatures, then plants, then inscets... But the forms
are already there on the subtle platform. The same forms appear in each creation.
The universe is created, it exists for some time and then it is destroyed. But
then the creation starts again. It's a cycle that is going on eternally and in
each cycle the same forms are manifest. They are stored and they simply manifest
again.

>
>It may be that the patterns of evolution are also always there.
>
>You talk of the supreme father [God] and the supreme mother [nature]
>making the universe.  To me there is no difference between nature,
>the universe and God.  You must explain what you mean by this if
>you are to have me understand your intention.

What you have said is one conception of God. "God is everything..." This is, of
course, correct but we see God ultimately as a person, the Supreme Person. So He
has everything we have. He has feelings, he has a form, similar to our form as we
are made in His image... It is described the material energy ["mother" nature] is
always existing. Sometimes it is manifest as the material world and sometimes it

is unmanifest. As a women is impregnated by a man and thus gives birth to a child
it is described that the material energy is "impregnated" by the glance of
Krishna. He places all the spirit-souls within matter by His glance in the same
way the father places the spirit soul within the womb of the mother.


This agitation by the glance of Krishna has sometimes been used to explain the big
bang. There has to be something that caused the bang...

This is the first part of the creation of the universe [Krishna's glancing and
impregnating matter] but there are other levels. On the next level the whole
material creation is described as being "bubbles" emanating from the body of Maha-
Visnu. Each "bubble" is a universe and it may well be expanding. The analogy is
perspiration. As we can produce perspiration from the pores of our skin, Maha-
Visnu can produce universes from the pores of His skin.

These descriptions sound fantastic... but why not? Why couldn't the universe be a
product of similar things we see within the universe but on a bigger scale?

>You say that you have a lot of details about how this happened.
>I am interested to hear more about the details and what you propose
>as the events that lead to the creation of the universe.

I'm going to try and put a presentation together of the creation according to the
Vedas. I have had the idea for a while but now you have asked for it I will start
working on it. I will mail you when I have something.

>
>I accept that water is wet, so you do not need to convince me further
>of this.  I do not feel any need to doubt that.  Please however do not
>use terms such as "you have structured science" to me.  I do not
>accept responsibility for how science is.  I do agree with much of it
>but find many scientists are too dogmatic for me.

I'm sorry. I was still recovering from the dogmatic scientists...

>The same goes for
>religious people generally.


Yes. I sometimes have problems with "religious" people too. But there is
something special in Krishna consciousness.

>I replied to your post because it seemed
>that you were a rare exception to this.  However, you have not dealt
>with the question of faith in religion (compared to science) to my
>satisfaction.

It's not an easy thing to explain. It is something you experience. I can write so
many words and scientifically present the philosophy but it's about reestablishing
our lost relationship with God. Sounds a little out-of-place on the scientific
backdrop but what can I say? Everyone has faith. We have faith the drivers on the
road will follow the road rules, otherwise we couldn't go anywhere in our cars. We
have faith in so many things. So I have developed faith in Krishna. It's not
blind. I understand it scientifically and I practically experience Krishna in my
life. I can see Him. I know He exists. So for me it has gone past the stage of
faith, but it is difficult to explain.

>There are many religions.  They all believe that they have divine
>revelation.  They do not all teach the same things however.  It
>follows that the majority must be mistaken.  Why should an innocent
>like me accept your religion rather than any other.  By what reasonable
>means (or otherwise) could I get from not believing to believing.

God appears at different times sometimes personally and sometimes He sends His
devotees or sons [like Jesus Christ]. Their mission is to reestablish religious
principles and they have to present the message in a way the people can relate to
it. There are differences of time, country and culture, so the presentations vary.
If you study the different religions you will find many differences but they are
all meant to raise the consciousness of a particular group of people. For example

Lord Buddha is accepted as an incarnation of Krishna but he didn't talk about God.
There is no concept of God in Buddhism. But Buddha taught non-violence, he stoped
the animal killing and the people [who were atheists] followed him. If, in that
situation, he had talked about God the people would not have accepted it... But
there are underlying, absolute principles which do not change. They are given in
the Bhagavad-gita and other Vedic scriptures.

As far as going from not believing to believing, you have to be convinced. There
are people who "believe" out of sentiment. But this is not usually very permanent.
You can read the books, ask your questions, try chanting Hare Krishna and become
convinced yourself, that is the best way.

>
>I do not know a lot about Hare Krishna.  Many years ago I met some
>Hare Krishna adherents while travelling, and enjoyed their company.
>I have the idea that it is a relatively new religion; is this correct?

It's not new. It's relatively new in the Western world. We are Viasnavas, devotees
of Vishnu and there are so many Viasnavas in India and there have been since time
immemorial.

>Also, does it also include teachings from some other religions such as
>Hindu?  I have that impression, but need to check that out.  From
>what period of time do the teachings that you refer to about knowledge
>of the universe come from?

"Hindu" is not a very good term. It refers to the people in India who follow the
Vedic scriptures but there are many different groups who believe different things.
It's a collection of many "religions". We are Viasnavas, there are still many,
many Viasnavas in India and they accept us as being bona fide Viasnavas.

The knowledge of the universe I am talking about comes from the Srimad Bhagavatam
which was written down about 5,000 years ago, but that was just the time they
started writing things down, the knowledge has always existed. Prior to 5,000
years ago the knowledge was handed down from spiritual master to disciple. The
students had good memories and they could remember everything they heard from
their spiritual master so books were not necessary. But Srila Vyasadeva could see
with the advance of this age (Kali-yuga) peoples memories would become shorter so
he wrote down all the scriptures.

>
>Looking at what I have written in reply to you, it seems to have
>drifted away from discussion of the universe.  It is important to
>establish as much common ground as possible.  Please send as much
>material as you can on your ideas of how the universe came to be
>as it is.  Your message contains a reference to WWW pages.  As yet
>I do not have WWW access, but hope to get it in the near future.
>

I will start working on it today. Currently my WWW page doesn't have much on the
universe so perhaps I can develop something for it at the same time.

>Over many years I have studied cycles in the universe.

The Vedas describe many cycles also.

>I have made
>many discoveries about the nature of the universe from a scientific
>(but unorthodox) point of view.  The result has been to be able to
>explain quantitatively quite a few things not achieved by presently
>accepted theories.  If you are interested I can send you my writings
>on these matters which seem to be at least partly compatible with
>the ideas that I have seen you express.  There is altogether about
>100kb of text files in my writings.

Yes. I would be very interested to read what you have written. I am also trying to
come to grips with how to present this Vedic knowledge in a scientific way and I
think it would help.

Thanks for the letter. Hare Krishna.

• Prev: The Universe and faith
• Next: Vedic Cosmology
• Alpha: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Alphabetical Index
• Date: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Date Index