[beneitpedro]

The Aitreya Upanishad:


Part 1 - Chapter 1: The Creation of Virat

1
In the beginning all this verily was Atman only, one and without a second. There was nothing else that winked. He bethought Himself: "Let Me now create the worlds."

2
He created these worlds: Ambhah, the world of water-bearing clouds, Marichi, the world of the solar rays, Mara, the world of mortals and Ap, the world of waters. Yon is Ambhah, above heaven; heaven is its support. The Marichis are the interspace. Mara is the earth. What is underneath is Ap.

3
He bethought Himself: "Here now are the worlds. Let Me now create world-guardians." Right from the waters He drew forth the Person in the form of a lump and gave Him a shape.

4
He brooded over Him. From Him, so brooded over, the mouth was separated out, as with an egg; form the month, the organ of speech; from speech, fire, the controlling deity of the organ.
Then the nostrils were separated out; from the nostrils, the organ of breath; from breath, air, the controlling deity of the organ.
Then the eyes were separated out; from the eyes, the organ of sight; from sight, the sun, the controlling deity of the organ.
Then the ears were separated out; from the ears, the organ of hearing; from hearing, the quarters of space, the controlling deity of the organ.
Then the skin was separated out; from the skin, hairs, the organ of touch; from the hairs, plants and trees, air the controlling deity of the organs.
Then the heart was separated out; from the heart, the organ of the mind; from the mind, the moon, the controlling deity of the organ.
Then the navel was separated out; from the navel, the organ of the apana; from the apana, Death, Varuna, the controlling deity of the organ.
Then the virile member was separated out; from the virile member, semen, the organ of generation; from the semen, the waters, the controlling deity of the organ.
Part 1 - Chapter 2: Cosmic Powers in the Human Body

1
These deities, thus created, fell into this great ocean. He subjected the Person to hunger and thirst. They said to Him: "Find out for us an abode wherein being established we may eat food."

2-3
He brought them a cow. They said: "But this is not enough for us." He brought them a horse. They said: "This, too, is not enough for us."
He brought them a person. The deities said: "Ah, this is well done, indeed." Therefore a person is verily something well done.
He said to the deities: "Now enter your respective abodes."

4
The deity fire became the organ of speech and entered the mouth. Air became breath and entered the nostrils. The sun became sight and entered the eyes; the quarters of space became hearing and entered the ears. Plants and trees, the deity of air, became hairs and entered the skin. The moon became the mind and entered the heart. Death became the apana and entered the navel. The waters became semen and entered the virile member.

5
Hunger and thirst said to the Creator: "For the two of us find an abode also." He said to them: "I assign the two of you to these deities; I make you co-sharers with them."
Therefore to whatsoever deity an oblation is made, hunger and thirst became sharers in it.
Part 1 - Chapter 3: The Embodiment of the Supreme Self

1
He bethought Himself: "Here now are the worlds and the world-guardians. Let Me cerate food for them."

2
He brooded over the waters. From the waters, thus brooded over, there emerged a condensed form. The form that so emerged is indeed food.

3
The food so created wished to flee away. He sought to grasp it with speech. But He was not able to grasp it with speech. If, indeed, He has grasped it with speech, one would then have been satisfied by merely uttering the word food.

4-10
The Creator sought to grasp it with the breath. But He was not able to grasp it with the breath. If, indeed, He had grasped it with the breath, one would then have been satisfied by merely smelling food.
He sought to grasp it with the eye. But He was not able to grasp it with the eye.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the eye, one would then have been satisfied by merely seeing food.
He sought to grasp it with the ear. But He was not able to grasp it with the ear.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the ear, one would then have been satisfied by merely hearing of food.
He sought to grasp it with the skin. But He was not able to grasp it with the skin.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the skin, one would then have been satisfied by merely touching food.
He sought to grasp it with the mind. But He was not able to grasp it with the mind.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the mind, one would then have been satisfied by merely thinking of food.
He sought to grasp it with the virile member. But He was not able to grasp it with the virile member.
If, indeed, He had grasped it with the virile member, one would then have been satisfied by merely emitting food.
He sought to grasp it with the apana and He grasped it.
This grasper of food is what vayu, air or prana is. This vayu is what lives on food.

11
He bethought Himself: "How could this exist without Me?" Then He said to Himself: "Which way shall I enter it?" he said to Himself further: "If speech is uttered by the organ of speech, if smelling is done by the breath, seeing by the eyes, hearing by the ears, touching by the skin, thinking by the mind, eating by the apana and the emission of semen by the virile member, them who am I?"

12
So, piercing the end, the Lord entered through that door. That door is known as the vidriti, the cleft. This is the place of bliss.
Atman, thus embodied, has three abodes, three conditions of sleep. This is one abode, this is another, this is the third.

13
Having been born as the jiva, He realised the elements as one with Himself. What else here would one desire to speak about?
He perceived this very person as the all-pervading Brahman. He said: "Ah, I have seen It."

14
Therefore He is called Idandra. Idandra, indeed is His name. Him who is Idandra they call indirectly Indra. For the gods appear to be fond of cryptic epithets; yea, the gods appear to be fond of cryptic epithets.

Part 2 - Chapter 1: The Three Births of the Self

1
This person is, at first, the germ in a man. That which is the semen is here called the germ. This semen is the vigour drawn from all the limbs. The man bears the self in the self. When he pours the semen into a woman, he gives it a birth. This, indeed, is the first birth of the embodied soul.

2
That semen becomes one with the woman-just like a limb of her own. That is why it does not hurt her. She nourishes this self of his that has come into her.

3
She, being the nourisher, should be nourished. The woman nourishes the embryo. Immediately after its birth he nourishes the child, which in the beginning was already born. Nourishing the child from birth onward, he thus nourishes himself for the continuation of these worlds. For thus alone are these worlds perpetuated. This is one's second birth.

4
He who is the one self of his, is made his substitute for virtuous deeds. Then the other self of his, having accomplished his duties and reached his age departs. So departing hence, he is born again. This is the third birth.

5
About this a rishi has said:
"While still lying in the womb, I came to know all the births of the gods. A hundred strongholds, as if made of iron, confined me, yet I burst through them all swiftly, like a hawk."
Vamadeva spoke, in this wise, even while lying in the womb.

6
Thus endowed with Knowledge, he, becoming one with the Supreme Self and soaring aloft on the dissolution of the body, obtained all desires in the heavenly world and became immortal-yea, became immortal.
Part 3 - Chapter 1: Concerning the Self

1
Who is He whom we worship, thinking: "This is the Self"? Which one is the Self? Is it He by whom one sees form, by whom one hears sound and by whom one tastes the sweet and the unsweet?

2
Is it the heart and the mind. It is consciousness, lordship, knowledge, wisdom, retentive power of mind, sense knowledge, steadfastness, though, thoughtfulness, sorrow, memory, concepts, purpose, life, desire, longing: all these are but various names of Consciousness (Prajnanam).

3
He is Brahman, He is Indra, He is Prajapati; He is all these gods; He is the five great elements-earth, air, akasa, water, light; He is all these small creatures and the others which are mixed; He is the origin-those born of an egg, of a womb, of sweat and of a sprout; He is horses, cows, human beings, elephants-whatever breathes here, whether moving on legs or flying in the air or unmoving. All this is guided by Consciousness, is supported by Consciousness. The basis is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.

4
He, having realised oneness with Pure Consciousness, soared from this world and having obtained all desires in yonder heavenly world, became immortal-yea, became immortal.


The point is, this is not to be taken literally, so no commentator in the history of Hindu philosophical thought has taken it literally, and all commentaries have been of a philosophical and not literal nature. That is why you will not find Hindus protesting to have the Puranic or Upanashadic version of creation taught in school science books - it would be an insult to the intelligence of all great philosophers who have gone before, and it's be just stupid.

[PZXjoe]

Read them yourself. They are not.

[gechaheritt]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Read them yourself. They are not. Genesis 1: seven day creation, with plants on day 3, fish and birds on day 5, animals on day 6, with man and woman (together) later the same day.

Genesis 2, 4-8:
When the Lord God made the heavens and the earth, 5 no grass or plants were growing anywhere. God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land. 6 But streams came up from the ground and watered the earth. 7 The Lord God took a handful of soil and made a man.
God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing. 8 The Lord made a garden in a place called Eden, which was in the east, and he put the man there.

Something doesn't compute here.

Later on Gods specifically creates animals to kill man's boredom. There is no way God created those first outside Eden and first wanted man to live without them. Especially since there's no food for them.

[Flistelib]

It says nothing about the length of time between verses 6 and 7, the 'Myths' can be in agreement.

Jon Miller

[shenacatro]

Fine, I agree there's a lot of omissions in the Bible and one has to bend the wording to make it fit.

[rvadipoldkov]

As I said, it's an interesting question, and well worth the discussion as to how the scientific community established the age of the earth and the universe to be as old as it is. meteorites, the problem is we haven't found any terrestrial rocks dating back 4.5 billion years (oldest rocks are about 3.9, just as oldest life forms), but we do have meteorites dating back to 4.5 and the theory assumes these meteorites show what the early solar system was like before or as planets were forming. Of course meteorites may or may not be small rocks never gathered up by the planets, they could be mini-asteroids - debris left over from a collision between planetary bodies. "Dating" them certainly contains margins of error but when they are consistently in the same range the dating becomes more convincing. As for the universe, I think they use red shifts but simple triangulation using the Earth's orbit can give us a rough estimate.

Btw. they even don't know the Bible. There are two creation histories, and they contradict in their order of creation. In the first one (Gen. 1,1 - 2,4), humans are created at the end, in the second one (Gen 2,5 - 2,15) before all other creatures. It is interesting how the first creation of man - let us make man in our image - doesn't really state a purpose for man other than to fill the earth. But the second version does - slave labor. Those passages do seem in conflict with the first version, but the second creation is more specific - it deals with Edin/Eden and God's garden. The Mesopotamian version says we were to do the work so the gods didn't have to and that this happened by "mixing" the blood of the annunaki (lower tiered gods) with a creature roaming the plains in Enki's Apsu (southern waters/lands).

5 and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 1 Cor. 15.45
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 15 ¶ And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Not sure why you think Man preceded other life forms, he did precede the Garden planted by God. According to the Sumerian version Ea/Enki and his wife created man in the Apsu to toil for the gods and Enlil took a couple (who knows how many) to work in his neck of the woods, Edin... Also in the Sumerian versions, it was Enlil who decided to keep humans ignorant of the impending Flood and Ea/Enki who told the Sumerian Noah how to survive it inspite of his pledge to Enlil to keep it secret. The Bible merely combined the 2 deities so we have God wiping out humans but saving Noah, however the biblical version says God sent the Flood while the Sumerian says the gods tried to keep us ignorant of a coming natural disaster.

I'm surprised to see this coming from somebody who supposedly has read all this analysis on origin myths.

Do you want to back off this one, or want me to get you some obvious counter examples?

And that's the most important part of those creation stories (creation vs always existing). If we change more "minor" details, it almost doesn't affect the "correlation" with science.
Therefore the correlation is meaningless in the first place. There are many myths called "origin" myths that do not address the same thing, some deal with how a particular people arrived in what was to become their homeland. I'm talking about creation myths - celestial creation myths, ancient cosmogonies. Before the Earth as we know it came into existence, so go right ahead but it already appears you think finding an example or two that dont support what I said makes your point. It doesn't, the vast literature we have on creation myths shows two main themes - a celestial battle of some kind resulting in the Earth and "Heaven" and the rising mound or bringing up of mud. Both speak of a proto-Earth (or non-Earth since the word meant dry land) and creation resulting in land and life. You obviously haven't done much reading on the subject or you'd know that already.

I really don't see were you're going with your story.
The giant impact hypothesis has nothing to do with "land appearing" from underneat the waters.... Of course it does, the collision started the process of continent building as well as life. The oldest rocks and the oldest life forms date back to just after this collision.

The oceans appeared 350 millions years after the proposed date for the impact, and would have done so even without the impact. They couldn't before because of heat. The oldest life forms lived in shallow seas like coral and they date back to about 3.9 bya. We dont know what the Earth was like before the impact at 4 bya but we do know it didn't take a half billion years for life and rocks to form after the impact, obviously many of these meteorites we gather up were debris from that ancient collison. That suggests the Earth had already formed and was already "stable" before the impact, i.e., if the proto-Earth (4.5-4.0 bya) had water it had an ocean. The myths say "life" was brought to the proto-Earth, not the water.

Basically a giant object hit the Earth and probably formed the Moon. Then later volcanism created an atmosphere and once the it was cool enough so that the crust was solid and water could condense, the oceans appeared. It didn't take long for that to happen after the collision, so why do you assume there the Earth didn't have a crust and water and atmosphere before the collsion? And what do you think about that? The Earth was struck by a large object (Mars sized according to the theory)? Where in the solar system did this happen? Certainly not here, an impact like that would change the Earth's orbital characteristics, seasons (or created seasons), etc. and it would leave behind alot of debris, true? Do we see any debris? Yup. Is there any kind of pattern to the debris? Yup, there is a hammered out bracelet we call the asteroid belt.

If, with the NIV, we read 'Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east . . .' (Genesis 2:8) and, 'Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field . . .' (Genesis 2:19 with emphasis added), it is clearly seen that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam. When Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20), they obviously were already in existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20-25. Dr Henry Morris comments:

“It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. Sex with animals? God paraded some animals by Adam to see if he liked one and ended up making Eve?

When the Lord God made the heavens and the earth, 5 no grass or plants were growing anywhere. God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land. 6 But streams came up from the ground and watered the earth. 7 The Lord God took a handful of soil and made a man.
God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing. 8 The Lord made a garden in a place called Eden, which was in the east, and he put the man there.

Something doesn't compute here. Whats the problem? No plant life because no rain, God makes rain and waters the Earth - you got plant life. It says the man was created before God's Garden, not before the rain. The sequence is really condensed but it is logical.

[itititit]

Offcourse there is more contadictions in the Bible:

Adam and Eve get Kaïn and Abel. After Kaïn slays his brother, he goes in exile to another tribe.
WTF? People were made in the gods image first, Adam and Eve is a story about two people one God made for his Garden after people were living in the world.

If you assume that a whole bunch of independent people wrote the Bible, you are going to come to a lot of contradictions (based on your interpreations). If you assume that there is a one Author, then you interpret differently. Those independent authors weren't really independent - they had a story line. If we're talking only about Genesis, there may have been one author or several. The problems of contradictions were a result of this author or group trying themselves to interpret an existing story line. Abram was a Sumerian and given the obvious similarities its clear the Sumerian religion around 2000 BC influenced the Bible up until the time of Abraham. Creation, the Flood, all that happened when, as Joshua says, our Fathers served other gods in the land between the two rivers (Mesopotamia).

But combining the actions or deeds of many deities into one can lead to conflicts in the story line as well as translating the Sumerian without context. Two examples, many Sumerian words have double or even more meanings so the context was needed to tell which definition to use (think bear and bear). Genesis says Eve was the mother of life but she was made from a rib. The Sumerian word for rib also means life force or that which animates. Was Eve made from a rib or Adam's life force or that which animated Adam? The author(s) used both meanings. Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt? The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor - a pillar of salt or a pillar of vapor? The author chose salt, possibly because the geology of the area.

[TughEmotteTug]

So for example when would you date Cain and Abel with respect to that new "archaeological evidence" called the dinosaurs? I was speaking more of the time of the exodus and everything after Abraham left Mesopotamia.

I find it enlightening what people assume I believe when I haven't said anything of the sort. All I said is there is considerable archaeological evidence for biblical events.

[mirzaterak]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It's an interesting question to ask when the scientific community changed their views on the subject.



The scientific method operates on the process of CHANGE in theories, through observation, experiemntation, and so forth.

To say that a scientific theory is invalidated because scientists modify a theory, or create an entirely new theory based on NEW knowledge and facts speaks of your ignorance of how the scientific method works.

[Wezfyowk]

So for example when would you date Cain and Abel with respect to that new "archaeological evidence" called the dinosaurs? There is a really smart theory that ascribes much of the mythology relating to monsters and battling dragons to ancient peoples finding the fossils of dinosaurs and freaking out. The Griffin looks alot like a dinosaur found in that region of the world.

[fluistulkn]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The general interpretation and the one that I believe in myself is that the days in which Genesis refers to can also be eons, or an indeterminate period of time.
Super. And what method, rigorously applied, enabled you to arrive at this conclusion ?

Days in Genesis= whatever we want them to mean when it suits us.

A great substitute for calculating, quantifying, measuring et cetera.

The free form approach to science and religion.

If only I'd known physics was that easy in school, I'd never have bothered with all those formulae and S.I. units.

[Sheestgag]

Gen1: creation of the earth
Gen2: creation of the garden of Ede

6 day creation? Genesis 1 speaks about a 7 day creation, but the story is cleary to be token spiritual or symbolical, not literally.

6000 years? Well, the Bible doesn't try to give an age of the earth anywhere. People try to add dates to each other and claim that the sum is the date of the earth according to the Bible, but the Bible doesn't claim to be complete anywhere.

Having said that, I don't believe in a billion years old earth either. I think it may be somewhere between 6000 (at least) and 25000.

I'm not sure if we should take anything prior the flood literally anyway. Not that it didn't happen, but it didn't nessecarily happen in that way. (still talking 'according to the Bible')
Gen 1-5 morely try to paint:

1. God is the creator of heaven and earth (it doesn't explain how he did it)

2. Mankind wanted to be autonome and decide over good and evil themselves. ( I don't think it's a must to take the story of Genesis 3 literally)

3. Mankind corrupted and things became a mess.

The Bible is not a modern science book, and people shouldn't try to use it as a modern science book. Having said that, Evolution is the modern science for age old materialism as well. To me people who try to explain billion years old stuff through todays observations are as crazy as people who try to explain Genesis 1 through modern observation. The arrogance that we can look that far back without a 99% change of error is amazing.

Adam and Eve get Kaïn and Abel. After Kaïn slays his brother, he goes in exile to another tribe.

I'm not sure if we should take this story literally, but let's just do it, if not only for the sake that it is easilly possible to come with an explanation for the above.

1. Adam and Eve were genetically perfect.

2. Their children were very very close to being perfect, therefor brothers and sisters multiplying was not a problem.

3. Adam and Eve got many children after Cain and Abel (the Bible says so)

4. Adam and Eve were biologically perfect (or close to perfect) and most probably got a child at least once a year.

5. Seth was born as a 'replacement' of Abel when Adam was 130, let's say that Abel was murdered when Adam was 128.

6. people could grow old because genetically perfectness and a different environment

7. Thus, Adam and Eve have multiplied every year for 128 years long, that's 128 children.

8. 128 children (let's say 50% man, 50% woman) were able to reproduce from the age of 12 years.
That means that on average Adam and Eve's children got 3364 children (see calculation below)

128 children
64 women
58 women who reached the age to multiply (64 - 50% of 12)
128 - 12 = 116 years to multiply at most, 0 years to multiply at least. That's on avg 58 children per child of Adam and Eve
58 x 58 = 3364 3rd generation children already

9. The 4th generation was able to reproduce after 24 years. After 128 years there were already 10 generations!!!!

You can calculate yourself to see that after 100 eyars it's easily possible to have at least hundreds (other tribes) of people on earth, and at most tens of thousands.

once again, I'm very fine with not taking the first chapters of Genesis not literally, and maybe I don't do that myself as well (didn't decide yet ), but there are explanations. The question is not if it's possible, the question is if it's likely.

[FLOMOUSLY]

It faith.

[Drugmachine]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It is interesting how the first creation of man - let us make man in our image - doesn't really state a purpose for man other than to fill the earth. But the second version does - slave labor. Those passages do seem in conflict with the first version, but the second creation is more specific - it deals with Edin/Eden and God's garden. The Mesopotamian version says we were to do the work so the gods didn't have to and that this happened by "mixing" the blood of the annunaki (lower tiered gods) with a creature roaming the plains in Enki's Apsu (southern waters/lands). By filtering and manipulating ten thousand years of myth, it's easy to support your wacky view that humans were created by aliens as servants.

What's this 'Mesopotamian version' you speak of? The (earlier) Sumerian version says that the gods created the humans out of clay. But that's not sufficiently close to evolution, so you go for the much later Babylonian version instead.

[SHpuntik]

Originally posted by LordShiva


You don't understand science at all That's obviously the easiest response one can give.
"Someone says something that goes totally against my opinion in, he most probably doesn't have a clue, while I have!"

I do very well understand science, my friend.
And I do also very well understand that we, humans, are only a very small part of the universe, and our direct observance only spans a very limited period, that our knowledge is only a small fraction of all knowledge there is to be known. I do not oppose science, I'd say that I'm happy with it! That we can't be sure now doesn't mean that we shouldn't proceed to try to discovered the truth. But we shouldn't be that @#!% arrogant about ourselves and keep thinking that we, tiny little humans with tiny little knowledge, know that much.

And that counts for both creationists and evolutionists.