Linked paper explores various spiritual traditions of Hinduism from the
evolutionary perspective. The term evolution in its contemporary
usage is closely associated with Biological Evolution (BE). However,
the paper uses the term ‘evolution’ in a more general sense to
include not only BE, but also Cultural Evolution (CE), Axiological
Evolution (AE), and in general any Developmental Evolution (DE) as a
continuous process that develops over a long period of time with or
without teleology.
The
paper defines Hinduism as a meta-religion - a group of belief systems
which originated, coexisted and interacted with each other in the
Indian subcontinent with shared traits and common substrata. It then
defines the contours of what is known as Shāstra - a corpus of
Sanskrit texts which forms the basis of theological and philosophical
traditions of Hinduism. The Shāstra corpus is divided into three
groups: (a) Primary texts (Nigamas and Āgamas), (b) Secondary texts
(Smṛitis, Purāṇas, and Epics), (c) Philosophical texts based on
primary and secondary sources, including the writings of some of the
19th-20th century protagonists of Hinduism. The evolutionary
perspective of Hinduism is explored within and among these three
groups with the admission that this particular approach though
justified on the basis of sample selection, is incomplete for the
very same reason. In this paper, AE is essentially karmic in nature
and binds various Hindu belief systems together. The paper explores
the relationship between AE, BE, CE, and DE along with their
directionality. BE stands out due to its rationalist framework and
absence of directionality.
It
is unrealistic to expect complete uniformity of views in a
meta-religion like Hinduism that gives space to plurality of beliefs.
It is also unrealistic to find in Shāstra any explicit support to BE
which originated in the 19th century of Common Era and which is being
developed since then adding to its explanatory power.
The
paper shows that the germinating ground for BE’s ‘common descent’
is available in the monist Upaniṣhads and pantheist hymns of
primary texts. The secondary texts (Purāṇas) offer an interesting
model of Dashāvatāras (10-incarnations) which is loosely isomorphic
to BE. Though this isomorphism is ‘by accident’, it suggests that
there is no inherent resistance to the gradual evolution of humans
from the lower organisms due to the pantheist, nature worshiping
substratum of popular Hinduism. Hindu axiology (AE) too supports such
evolution on the karmic basis.
Among
the huge corpus of secondary texts however, there are few
socio-religious texts which sourced cultural memes of hierarchical
patrilineal classes and purity of lineage. Although these memes did
not exist in the primary source; and although Advaita - the apex
theosophy of Hinduism advises the aspirant to shed off these memes
for spiritual knowledge, they still exist and may resist the ‘common
descent’ - the basic principle of BE.
The
paper discusses Hindu theosophical systems which support cosmic DE.
Non-sectarian systems among them offer ground to the ‘gradual
development’ and ‘common descent’ of BE by following the
monist, pantheist primary sources and the karmic axiology. This
ground and the subsequent development is without any explicit notion
of “random hereditary changes being fixed by natural selection”
which is one of the definitive ideas of the Darwinian BE. Yet, the
conception of “design without designer”, “direction without
director”, and “laws without law maker” is part of the
‘understanding’ (ज्ञान)
of these schools which foreshadows the post-modern ideas of BE and
DE. The difficulty of explaining the emergence of qualitative
experience in individual life-forms seems to have been anticipated by
these schools.
Yogi
Aurobindo and Swami Vivekānanda of 19th-20th century offered a
spiritual model of evolution with alternating directionality of
evolution and involution. This model integrated
BE and cosmic DE in the cyclic paradigm of Hindu belief systems.
Hindu theosophical traditions allow such constructive view which
enables theologian to place himself in a particular position of his
choice in the vast empirical spatium and construct his metaphysical
and axiological models based on the primary sources. Such models are
'regularized' (usually, but
not exclusively in Sanskṛit)
depending on how firmly they are rooted in the spiritual tradition of
Hinduism. Such reconstructions are a part of CE and AE of Hindu
belief systems.