Tweet
I was reminded of the currently raging ( at least raging in America ( the rest of the world looks on America WRT creationism with mild amused comtempt )) debate over creationism versus evolution while reading the following passage from "The complete works of Swami Vivekanand" , and also highlighted the fundamental differences in how American and Indian society dealt with change .
Creationists seem to reject the theory of evolution altogether , saying that only their Bible is supreme . There also seems to be an element of "I ain't got no monkey as me gramps !!!" in what they say ( man was created in the image of God , etc. ) .
Contrast this with how Swami Vivekanand dealt with the TOE :
To return to mythology. Behind all these stories we find one idea standing supreme — that man is a degeneration of what he was. Coming to the present times, modern research seems to repudiate this position absolutely. Evolutionists seem to contradict entirely this assertion. According to them, man is the evolution of the mollusc; and, therefore, what mythology states cannot be true. There is in India, however, a mythology which is able to reconcile both these positions. The Indian mythology has a theory of cycles, that all progression is in the form of waves. Every wave is attended by a fall, and that by a rise the next moment, that by a fall in the next, and again another rise. The motion is in cycles. Certainly it is true, even on the grounds of modern research, that man cannot be simply an evolution. Every evolution presupposes an involution. The modern scientific man will tell you that you can only get the amount of energy out of a machine which you have previously put into it. Something cannot be produced out of nothing. If a man is an evolution of the mollusc, then the perfect man — the Buddha-man, the Christ-man — was involved in the mollusc. If it is not so, whence come these gigantic personalities? Something cannot come out of nothing. Thus we are in the position of reconciling the scriptures with modern light. That energy which manifests itself slowly through various stages until it becomes the perfect man, cannot come out of nothing. It existed somewhere; and if the mollusc or the protoplasm is the first point to which you can trace it, that protoplasm, somehow or other, must have contained the energy.
Instead of saying ( as the creationists do ) that man is supreme , therefore he could not have evolved from something "lower" , the Swami says that , as man is evolved from something "lower" , that something is also to be considered as much a work of God as man is . The positive attitude towards creation versus the negative one .
I feel compelled to ask - why this difference ?
Discuss .
Creationists seem to reject the theory of evolution altogether , saying that only their Bible is supreme . There also seems to be an element of "I ain't got no monkey as me gramps !!!" in what they say ( man was created in the image of God , etc. ) .
Contrast this with how Swami Vivekanand dealt with the TOE :
To return to mythology. Behind all these stories we find one idea standing supreme — that man is a degeneration of what he was. Coming to the present times, modern research seems to repudiate this position absolutely. Evolutionists seem to contradict entirely this assertion. According to them, man is the evolution of the mollusc; and, therefore, what mythology states cannot be true. There is in India, however, a mythology which is able to reconcile both these positions. The Indian mythology has a theory of cycles, that all progression is in the form of waves. Every wave is attended by a fall, and that by a rise the next moment, that by a fall in the next, and again another rise. The motion is in cycles. Certainly it is true, even on the grounds of modern research, that man cannot be simply an evolution. Every evolution presupposes an involution. The modern scientific man will tell you that you can only get the amount of energy out of a machine which you have previously put into it. Something cannot be produced out of nothing. If a man is an evolution of the mollusc, then the perfect man — the Buddha-man, the Christ-man — was involved in the mollusc. If it is not so, whence come these gigantic personalities? Something cannot come out of nothing. Thus we are in the position of reconciling the scriptures with modern light. That energy which manifests itself slowly through various stages until it becomes the perfect man, cannot come out of nothing. It existed somewhere; and if the mollusc or the protoplasm is the first point to which you can trace it, that protoplasm, somehow or other, must have contained the energy.
Instead of saying ( as the creationists do ) that man is supreme , therefore he could not have evolved from something "lower" , the Swami says that , as man is evolved from something "lower" , that something is also to be considered as much a work of God as man is . The positive attitude towards creation versus the negative one .
I feel compelled to ask - why this difference ?
Discuss .
Comment