|NITAAI-Veda.nyf > All Scriptures By Acharyas > Puranas > THE FIFTH VEDA PURANA > LESSON SEVEN PART 2|
Arguing the Scientists' Theories
The conclusions of the scientists are based on the theory of a chunk appearing by chance from nothing, and then exploding. From this, they think that conditions became ready for creation.
This is just like the example of all the ingredients of a house appearing from nowhere, along with some dynamite, which for some reason explodes, and a perfectly built house is produced. Then on top of that, because such a nice arrangement of a house happened, a family naturally grew in the house along with all the household paraphenalia, household pets, running water and food to eat.
How do they know how the universe formed if they don't even know where the chunk came from in the first place?
Where is there any example of something appearing from nothing?
The modern contention that the universe originated in a big bang is simply a childish fantasy.
The creation of the universe is like the growth of a great banyan tree from a tiny seed. No one can see the tree within the seed, but all the necessary ingredients for the tree are there. Just as within this universe there are all the eight material elements, these elements are also in everyone's body. Therefore, each body, our body, the insect body, the tree body, etc., are all sample universes. These constituents are also within each atom.
Krishna controls nature just as an engineer controls a train. The engineer controls the locomotive, which pulls one car, and that car in turn pulls another, and so the whole train is moving. Similarly, with the creation, Krishna gives the first push, and then, by means of successive pushes, the entire cosmic manifestation comes into being and is maintained. This is explained in the Bhagavad-gita (9.10),
mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sacaracaram
"This material nature is working under My direction and is producing all moving and unmoving beings."
And in the fourteenth chapter (14.4) Krishna says,
murtayah sambhavanti yah
tasam brahma mahad yonir
aham bija-pradah pita
"All species of life are made possible by birth in this material nature, O son of Kunti, and I am the seed-giving father."
If they say that life comes from a combination of chemicals why can't they create life from chemicals now?
Our understanding is life comes from life and our proof is that everything we see is produced by something already living. Just like I came from my father who is living and he came from his father who was living. The trees come from living trees not dead ones.
Darwin says that the different species were not created simultaneously, but evolved gradually and modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
If life originated from chemicals, and if their science is so advanced, then why can't they create life biochemically in their laboratories?
They say that they will create life in the future.
What future? When this crucial point is raised, they reply, `in the future'. But if they are so advanced they must demonstrate now. Otherwise their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying a postdated check. What is the value of that check? Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted, they say they will provide in the future. Suppose I say that I possess millions of dollars, and when you ask me for some money I say, "Yes, I will now give you a postdated check. Is that alright?" If you are intelligent you will reply, "At present give me just five dollars in cash so I can see something tangible." Similarly, the scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass in their laboratories, yet they are claiming that life is produced from chemicals.
They say that in the ultimate analysis, everything came from matter. Living matter came from nonliving matter.
But where is this living matter coming from now? Do the scientists think that life came from matter in the past but does not at the present?
If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past? There must be proof. We can prove life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is the proof that a father can be a dead stone? They cannot prove that life comes from matter.
Scientists think that one species of life evolved into another higher form, like a monkey's body developed into a human body.
Living beings move from one form to another form. The forms already exist. The living entity simply transfers himself, just as a man transfers himself from one apartment to another. One apartment is first class, another is second class and another is third class. Suppose a person comes from a lower-class apartment to a first-class apartment. The person is the same, but now, according to his capacity for payment, or karma, he is able to occupy a higher-class apartment. Real evolution does not mean physical development, but development of consciousness. It is not that the lower-class apartment becomes a higher-class apartment.
Matter is caused by life and matter grows upon life. My body grows upon me, the spirit soul; just like putting on an overcoat.
All the buildings we see on the land, the ships that float on the ocean, planes that fly in the air, etc., are created by living people.
Scientists do not know that there are two types of energy - inferior and superior - although they are actually working with these two energies every day. Material energy can never work independently; it must first come in contact with spiritual energy. A competent machine does not work unless a man who knows how to work it pushes a button. A cadillac is a nice car, but if it has no driver, what is the use of it? So the material universe is also a machine.
People are amazed at seeing a big machine with many, many parts, but an intelligent person knows however wonderful a machine may be, it does not work unless an operator comes and pushes the proper button. Therefore, who is more important - the operator or the machine? We are concerned not with the material machine, this cosmic manifestation, but with its operator, Krishna.
Someone may say, "Well, how do I know that He is the operator?" Krishna says,
mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sacaracaram:
"Under My direction the whole cosmic manifestation is working". If you say, "No Krishna is not the operator behind the cosmos," then you have to accept another operator, and you must present him. But this you cannot do. Therefore, in the absence of your proof, you should accept mine.
The Origin of Nature.
In many scientific journals the scientists speak of `Nature'. They contain many articles concerning natural products like plants, flowers and minerals, but do not mention God.
We may rightly observe that plants are being produced by nature. But the next question we must ask is, "Who has produced nature?" Where does nature come from? For instance, I speak of my nature, and you speak of your nature. Therefore, as soon as we speak of nature, the next inquiry should be, "Whose nature?"
Nature means energy. as soon as we speak of energy, we must inquire into the source of that energy. For example, if you speak of electrical energy, you must accept its source, the powerhouse. Electricity does not come automatically. Similarly, nature is not working automatically; it is under the control of Krishna.
Because our senses are imperfect, because we make mistakes, we are influenced by illusions and we have a tendency to cheat or be cheated, whatever knowledge we gain by our senses and mind is also imperfect. Therefore we should accept things by authority. Just like if I want to know who is my father, the best authority to ask is my mother. There is no need to speculate if I accept the right authority. The Vedic literature is also known as mother and by her authority Krishna is the seed-giving father.
END OF SECTION ONE
1. History of: the 14 Manus
the Kings of the sun & Moon Dynasty