>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
<snip>
> > And again, what Nanda calls "Vedic Creationism" does
> > not appear to be what MMY teaches in that it doesn't
> > "propose to replace Darwinian evolution with 'devolution'
> > from the original one-ness with Brahman" (key word being
> > "replace").
<snip>
>
> Not to mention that in MMY's interpretation of things, Brahman, the
> simple, undifferentiated thing, notices itself and gets
> progressively more complicated until the universe comes into
> existance. This process can't be considered "devolution" because it
> is a process of anti-entropy, just as evolution is.
Yes, exactly, thank you. I was trying to find a way
to express this clearly and succinctly and couldn't.
I suspect Nanda is doing her best to equate Christian
fundie Creationism (the "fall" from the Garden) with
"Vedic Creationism"; I seriously doubt even Hindutva
espouses anything like that. Either she doesn't
understand the Hindu/Vedic notion, or she is hoping her
readers don't.
I guess you could call the cycling of Satyuga into
Kaliyuga something of a "fall" and devolution, but
that doesn't seem to be what she's referring to.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
