Dr. Abraham T. Kovoor
Sri Lanka Rationalist Association
Dear Dr. Kovoor:
I am in due receipt of your letter dated September
10,
1977, and have noted the contents carefully.
If it is futile to try to convince each other of
our respective points of view, then what is the meaning of your
science, rationalism and search for truth? The close of your
letter--"Yours in search of truth"--suggests that you have not yet
found the truth. That is your defect: you have not yet found truth, yet
you pose and speak as if you were in knowledge of truth.
The first aphorism of the Vedanta-sutra
is athato brahma-jijñasa: "In the human
form of life, one should inquire about the Absolute Truth, or God." You
do not know what God is, yet still you have written, "The question of
the
creator does not come in . . . . The various forms of terrestrial
organisms,
extinct as well as extant, are products of millions of years of
biological
evolution of macromolecules of protein that were formed on earth as a
result
of chemical evolution under suitable circumstances." In simple English,
you mean to say that life is a result of chance biochemical
combinations.
So if this is a fact--and if by this statement you wish to establish
your
credibility as a rationalist, scientist and seeker of truth--then why
do
you repeatedly fail to combine some chemicals and bring them to life,
as
I have challenged you so many times to do?
You say your philosophy is based on "existing
scientific evidence." So where is the scientific evidence that life
comes from chemicals? Mix the chemicals and prove it! You say, "As far
as I am concerned, the
universe is only matter and energy in time and space." Where did this
matter
and energy and time and space come from? Without giving any reason or
evidence, you state, "The question of a creator does not come in . . .
everything is a matter of chance biochemical combination." Do I have to
accept this blindly? The onus is on you. Mix the chemicals and produce
life. That is science.
But no scientist can create even an insignificant mosquito from
chemicals.
Therefore, under the circumstances, it appears that it is you, and not
we,
who may be mentally deranged, foolish, gullible, dogmatic and totally
fanatic.
Scientists like to discredit the Vedas
by
saying that they are the writings of superstitious aborigines. But what
kind
of aborigines were they who wrote in a language so perfect in grammar,
composition, poetry and meter that a scholar needs twelve years to
master the grammar alone? What kind of aborigines were they who
thousands of years ago formulated divisions of time, beginning with one
ten-thousandth of a second up to the complete duration of universal
time? What kind of aborigines were they who could describe, thousands
of years ago, all the planets that modern scientists have only recently
discovered? Where is the scientist today who can perfectly describe the
process of conception taking place in the womb, as the Vedic so-called
aborigines did thousands of years ago? How could these uncivilized
aborigines categorize and enumerate in the Vedas all the
different species of life, numbering 8,400,000? How is it that the Vedas,
which are supposed to be the dubious writings of uncivilized
aborigines, contain systematic information on subjects such as music,
medicine, art,
politics, architecture, warfare and psychology? How could uncivilized
aborigines
even know the arts of reading and writing, much less describe the atom
and
atomic energy? How could they give descriptions of the orbits of the
planets,
their size, their eclipses and the size of the universe, and how could
they
describe the soul and the Supersoul, God?
If Krishna is the Hindu aboriginal God, why did
such a
scientist as Oppenheimer pay Him heed by studying the Bhagavad-gita
spoken by Him? Why did Einstein, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel, Emerson,
Thoreau, Schweitzer and scores of scientists more important and
brilliant than you read Vedic literature--especially Bhagavad-gita--if
these are books full of superstitions and the deranged ideas of
uncivilized aborigines? What is your authority? Are you greater than
God? Do you t think that these highly learned and honored men were all
fools and rascals who had nothing better to do than spend their
valuable time reading the writings of uncivilized aborigines? Or could
it be that the Vedas are
books of knowledge originally given by God at the beginning of the
creation,
and that they are preserved by being handed down in a Vedic tradition
of
disciplic succession about which you unfortunately know nothing?
As a scientist, you would do well to take out some
time and sincerely examine the Vedas on their own merit,
not in
terms of preconceived notions resulting from limited, imperfect
speculations
and experiments.
Whether one speaks for or against the existence of
God, the central point is God. You say, "I hope you understand that it
is not the way with science to provide proof for things that do not
exist." But
we see that the so-called scientist is very busy trying to prove the
nonexistence of God. If God has no existence, why bother about Him?
According to logic, one cannot conceive of a thing that does not exist.
And if a nonexistent entity is inconceivable, where is the question of
even discussing it, whether positively or negatively?
It is the peculiar madness of many so-called
scientists that they cannot seem to get off the subject of God, who
according to them has no existence. We see that the whole aim of their
scientific research is to justify their rebellion against the authority
of God and the scriptures by trying to find an alternative cause and
reason for life and creation. Although these scientists would like to
believe that life originated from inert chemicals, no one has ever
observed such an event. Therefore, a science based on such beliefs can
only be a science of rascals and fools.
My challenge to you, or to any scientist who claims
that life originates from chemicals, still stands: mix the chemicals
and produce life. Why can't you do it? You say, "It's like this. It is
like that."
So then why can't you produce life? Sunshine is available, the earth is
present, the water, air, fire and all other ingredients are present,
and
life is being produced by God. If you are greater than God, why can't
you
produce something? What is the use of your talk if you cannot produce
life?
Nor can you stop old age, disease or death. Your talk is simply empty
nonsense.
You cannot do anything, yet still you are talking, saying that life
comes
from chemicals. You are a talking scientist, and I am a practical
scientist.
Take some chemicals and save yourself from old age, disease and death.
I
asked you to produce an egg--where is it? The chicken is a better
scientist
than you, because it lays an egg and within a month produces another
chicken.
Therefore you are less important than a chicken. Chickens are producing
life,
but you cannot produce anything but empty sounds.
In the service of Krishna,
Hansadutta das
