You can show this answer to your parents.
Let us first understand the things which are common between science and spirituality:
- Both science and spirituality involve trying to find the truth about something.. The only difference is the subject matter. Science deals with what is seen and spirituality deals with the seer.
- Both require seeking; you need to try to find the answer with zero beliefs or preconceived notions.
- Being a scientist or a spiritual seeker is a state of mind, not a profession. So, not everyone who works as a scientist has a scientific temper.
- Both insist that truth is the authority and the authority is not the truth. A genuine spiritual seeking or a scientific seeking has no place for authority bias.
- Both are methods… Scientific method is a method… If a scientist does an experiment and comes to a wrong conclusion it is not a problem with the method. It is the problem with the way he conducted the experiment. In other words, he didn’t follow the scientific method accurately.. The same applies for spiritual methods too. So the argument ‘science was wrong before’ is heavily flawed. Science cannot be wrong for the simple reason that if you prove a scientific fact as wrong, what you prove will become science. Do you understand? Because this is very important and many people do not understand this.
- Neither science nor spirituality is confined to East or West. So when Sadhguru says ‘anything comes from East is superstition and anything comes from West is science’, I strongly disagree. But this is a notion that many people have and it is a myth.
But there seems to be one difference between science and spirituality in the modern India. In Science, you can challenge any scientific fact. If you challenge the findings of Albert Einstein and prove your hypothesis by a valid experiment conducted in controlled conditions and if the results of the experiment can be reproduced by other independent researches, it will be accepted with no question. No true scientist will call you an ‘idiot’ for challenging Albert Einstein, no true scientist will feel hurt no matter how much he loves Albert Einstein, no one will accuse that you are getting paid by a Christian missionary and no one will say ‘Do you think Albert Einstein is a fool? How can you challenge Albert Einstein’s findings’? But if you challenge a claim made by a popular spiritual leader, all these things will happen in modern India.
If you go back about 1200 years before, the situation was different though. Anybody could challenge Buddha, anybody could challenge Adi Shankara and any body could challenge Ramanuja. Shankara criticized Buddhist concepts; and I don’t remember reading any Buddhist texts calling Shankara as an idiot. In fact, people like Shankara and Ramanuja debated for their whole life. Majority of the educated people were fine with disagreements and they agreed to disagree. We have a school of logic called nyaya shastra and it is one of the 6 darshanas. So, the only requirement for a valid debate is that it should follow the rules of Nyaya shastra. But there is almost zero tolerance to disagreements in India when it comes to popular gurus.
Objection: But how can these things be discussed using logic? Isn’t spiritual enlightenment beyond logic?
Answer: Not really. In some sense it is true. It is similar to how a 6 year old boy cannot understand sexuality by thinking alone. He doesn’t have the necessary premise to logically talk about sexual feelings and only the hormones can give him the premise. The premise is experiential. Once he has the premise, he can logically talk about it. When it comes to spiritual path, this doesn’t mean that logic has no place at all and that you should shut down your intellect. Everything that is in the human body including your hands and legs have to be used for practical purposes and your brain is certainly not an exception! I have written a detailed post regarding this here: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/logic-and-spiritual-enlightenment-an-overview-of-anekantavada-saptabhangivada-seven-valued-logic-and-syadvada-of-jainism/
Anyway, what we are questioning here is his statements on Science.
Let us now see Sadhguru’s comments about science:
Right now I do not know if you are interested in these things but you must know these things because it has a very direct relationship with yogic system. There was a time when scientists believed – they thought – let’s say if this is an atom – big enough for you to see? Okay If this is an atom proton, neutron electron are all embedded in it like these dots. They thought it was like that. Then by the time you came to high school, they wrote a different picture they wrote one central circle which contains proton, neutron and electrons are going around like planets in different formats. This you see in those pictures. But now they know it is completely wrong and we have always known it is completely wrong. That’s why text books never ever interested me. Because when I looked at it it looked dumb.Fi
For any true scientist, the above comments he said about Science will look completely dumb.
“Scientific knowledge is often transitory: some (but not all) of what we find is made obsolete, or even falsified, by new findings. That is not a weakness but a strength, for our best understanding of phenomena will alter with changes in our way of thinking, our tools for looking at nature, and what we find in nature itself. Any "knowledge" incapable of being revised with advances in data and human thinking does not deserve the name of knowledge.”
—Jerry Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (2015).
Read this for more explanation: Science was wrong before
In Science, we can create models based on what we know and it doesn’t have to be 100% correct. It can be wrong but the models are created for the ease of communication and also for putting things to work. When further evidence is gathered, the models get corrected. This is how science works and it is the strength of science, not a weakness.
Do you switch on lights at night in your home?
As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."
If you understand the above the quote of Edison you can understand how science works. It is only because of dedicated research that scientists did for years, you can get into an aircraft, peacefully take your seat without worrying that something could go wrong.
Objection: But an air craft can crash!
Answer: Yes, it can crash if it is not made according to specifications. It can crash if you make an air craft with a half-baked understanding of the sophisticated technology behind it. In other words, an air craft will crash if you fail to follow the scientist’s advice. Other than that, you must be aware that things can go wrong any time with anything in this world. Sadhguru has traveled in aircrafts more than a thousand times and fortunately it has never crashed.. The helicopter he is flying is the gift of science and technology. Also, spirituality can go wrong too, when ends up in the wrong hands. A person claiming to be a guru and sexually abusing his disciples is one example of how spirituality can go wrong.
Objection: But what Sadhguru is saying is that every thing that science knows now has already been discovered by yogis by an inward journey.
Answer: Really? Is this your belief or the truth? You just heard this from Sadhguru as a verbal testimony, didn’t you?
Before Sadhguru came up with a draft for Rally For Rivers, he consulted with many experts who are scientists. Why? Couldn’t he find what he wanted to know with his inner vision or third eye? Moreover, topics like Higgs Boson cannot be oversimplified this way. It takes years and years of study to actually understand these things.
There is no doubt that many people in ancient India contributed many things to the world. It is not because they had some sophisticated technology like genetic engineering, aeronautics etc. It is because they were great mathematicians. For example, Aryabhatta was a mathematician more than being an astronomer. It was only because of this mathematical skills and keen observation he was able to find out many things.
Whatever method that people have followed to discover something is always through scientific method, in the past as well as in the present. When the ancient man discovered fire by rubbing two stones, science was born. In order to come up with the hypothesis that rubbing two stones produces fire, he had to test it again and again to make sure that it is not a coincidence. This is nothing but science.
The only difference between a primitive man’s scientific temper and a modern scientist’s scientific temper is that now we have a more sophisticated scientific method.
For example, we now know that many factors can affect the results of an experiment and we need to make sure that other factors which can influence the results of an experiment has to be eliminated, except the one factor that we are interested in.
But when a scientist is working on something he can get the answer in many different ways. Sometimes he gets an idea or a solution when he is not thinking about it and is completely relaxed. It is a stage in creativity called ‘illumination’:
Stage 1: Preparation
You might think creativity starts with an idea, but the truth is that ideas don't arise in an intellectual vacuum. If you want your brain to come up with innovative notions, you need to feed it materials to work with. This essential but under-celebrated stage of the process is simply called preparation and involves trying to learn lots of things. At this point, rather than searching for magic leaps of understanding, your brain is using attention, reasoning, and planning to gather information.
Stage 2: Incubation
"Then there is this important stage where you let it go," Kaufman explains, stressing that "it's really important." This stage is the one where you might actually want to climb into the bathtub or go for a walk and stop consciously thinking about the problem you're trying to solve. Research shows that letting your mind wander in this way leads to greater creativity.
Stage 3: Illumination
This is the scientific name for that classic "eureka!" moment when "connections automatically, subconsciously collide and then reach the threshold of consciousness," says Kaufman's words. "You're like 'oh my God! That's the idea!'"
Stage 4: Verification
Laypeople may understand creativity as pretty much ending with the thrilling light-bulb moment of the illumination stage, but Kaufman insists that at that point "you're not done." For creativity to reach others and accomplish anything, you need to once again use those critical thinking skills to think about your audience and craft your message or idea. "Some of the greatest creative ideas of all time can easily be lost because they're not packaged in the right way or consumable," Kaufman warns.
Do you know that August Kekulé
saw the structure of Benzene in a dream?It happened because Kekule was already working on it and he went through all the four stages described above. The dream happened in the stage of illumination. This is exactly what happened with Srinivasa Ramanuja, a famous mathematician from India.
Objection: Sadhguru is talking with a lot of scientists all over the world. I have seen many videos of him in which he talks to a lot of scientists. Do you think he is an idiot?
Answer: I certainly do not think Sadhguru is an idiot. I know he is very intelligent. Consider the following points:
- First of all, lack of intelligence is not the same as having a misconception. People can have misconception about anything if they do not have all the facts; this doesn’t mean they lack intelligence. But it is a behavior of some blind devotees to drag intelligence into everything. They are always interested to prove that someone is intelligent or not intelligent. I can tell you that Sadhguru is very intelligent than an average human being; but it certainly doesn’t make him infallible or omniscient.
- Second, in all those interviews they are just having a conversation. It doesn’t mean that the scientist who is listening to it completely agrees with whatever Sadhguru says. It is completely possible for you and I to have a friendly conversation even if we have disagreements. But many Sadhguru devotees are forgetting this.
- Third, I have watched what he speaks with scientists and what he speaks with normal audience. I have noticed his carefulness when interacting with scientists. His talks about science with scientists are less nonsensical.
- Fourth, not everyone who is labelled as a scientist really have scientific temper. There are so many instances where scientists are biased, not follow the rules of the method properly, working backwards to prove a conclusion after coming to a conclusion only based on beliefs etc. There was even a renowned scientist who claimed that Christian hell and heaven are real. He was more a Christian than a scientist. That is why we have peer review process in science. There is no authority bias in science. Even if a Nobel laureate says something, it cannot be accepted as science unless it is peer reviewed and replicated multiple times. Scientific method strongly follows Sadhguru’s quote, which is ‘Truth is the authority; authority is not the truth’.
Let me give you an example? Do you know Luc Antoine Montagnier ? He was the one who discovered HIV virus. He won a Nobel prize in Physiology. Does that mean he is always right? No!
“In 2009, Montagnier published two independently-made, controversial research studies, one of which was entitled "Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences." It has been said that, if its conclusions are true, "these would be the most significant experiments performed in the past 90 years, demanding re-evaluation of the whole conceptual framework of modern chemistry".[3]
The paper concludes that diluted DNA from pathogenic bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves" and that "these radio waves [are] associated with ‘nanostructures’ in the solution that might be able to recreate the pathogen". The paper has been met with harsh criticism for not being peer-reviewed, and its claims unsubstantiated by modern mainstream conventions of physics and chemistry. No third party has replicated the findings as of March 2015. In response to Montagnier's statement that the generally unfavorable response is due to the "non-understanding or misunderstanding of the breakthrough findings", columnist Andy Lewis has written that he has found it difficult to assert what the paper "actually claims" and that "The paper [...] lacks any rigour. [...]", as "important experimental steps are described dismissively in a sentence and little attempt is made to describe the detail of the work"
If something is neither peer reviewed nor replicated, then that has to be done first before anything is accepted as science. And in scientific community, no can can say, “Luc Antoine Montagnier is a boon for humanity for discovering HIV. Such a person can never do any mistake. We have to accept what he says and no peer review or further replication is needed. Do you think such a Nobel laureate is an idiot?’. No true scientist will ask such a question because every one knows that being wrong is very normal and happens to anybody in scientific research.
5. Fifth, a scientist will not react the same way a blind Isha devotee does. A scientist deals with many people and he knows most of them do not understand how science works. In friendly conversations like these, a true scientist will be more interested to listen with open-mindedness and will have no temptation to argue. He is polite enough to not to embarrass someone that he is talking to in a public program and he certainly respects another person’s opinion. But if it is a debate rather than a conversation that involves exchange of ideas, things will be different. So wait for an actual debate to happen and even there be aware of authority bias. Because a typical Isha devotee thinks this way: “See, Sadhguru is talking to a scientist and the scientist agrees. This means Sadhguru is correct’. They never see the possibility that the scientist could be wrong and biased. (This is authority bias). This has happened a million times before but people fallaciously see that as a failure of the scientific method, rather than seeing it as the failure of the scientist to follow the standards of science.
Objection: But you are not an authority in Science. You don’t have even a degree in science.
Answer: A couple of misconceptions here.
- First, a question to you just because you asked me this question: ‘Is Sadhguru an authority in science? Does he have a degree in science?”. But this is actually a wrong question to ask anyway, simply because science doesn’t work based on authority. The right questions to ask here are always, ‘Was the experiment done in controlled conditions? Was it published in an authentic journal and not a bogus journal? Was it peer reviewed? How strong is the evidence for that hypothesis? Did people get the same results after trying to replicate it multiple times?”.
- Second, scientific method and scientific knowledge are different. Scientific method is the method to acquire knowledge and anybody can learn it. A neuro-scientist may not know everything that an immunologist knows because they specialize in different fields. But both know the scientific method. I am not an expert in any field of science but have studied scientific method and understand how science works.
Objection: Anyway, Sadhguru is doing a lot of work for humanity and it is completely unwise to focus on such silly things and defame him. You should focus on the good things he does.
Answer: I am neither focusing on just the negative things nor trying to defame him. I am simply disagreeing with him. When a person who has millions of followers says something in public which is misleading, that can be dangerous. Also, he ridiculed scientists and said that text books are dumb. This will certainly invite criticism. These things have even made many Isha followers to imitate Sadhguru. I have seen people arguing with scientists and calling them as ‘idiots’… Kindly remember, I am writing this answer and you are reading this because we have something called science and technology. Sadhguru can give online inner engineering courses, take wonderful photographs for every function, release a ‘Sadhguru app’, do a live telecast of Mahashivaratri function in television and much more only because millions of scientists worked on it.
Objection: But science can only make things comfortable. It cannot give you lasting fulfillment.
Answer: First of all, we are not debating ‘science vs spirituality’ here. Real spirituality and science has always been complimentary to each other. There is no need to argue whether right hand is better or left hand is better. You need to use both hands if you want to do something effectively.
Second, any work can give fulfillment if done with intrinsic motivation and without worrying about the fruit of actions. For a scientist who enjoys his work, science can give fulfillment. Science is not about just dissecting a butterfly and killing it to understand a butterfly as Sadhguru is saying. A scientist can certainly admire the beauty of a butterfly. Because, being a scientist doesn’t negate the fact that he is also a human being.
See how a scientist Krishna KumariChalla (కృష్ణ కుమారి చల్లా) defines spirituality:
What is spirituality? You can sum up spirituality in this way:
Spiritual journey is actually an inquiry into one's own existence. It is an inquiry into existence and non-existence and the relationship between these two. It is realizing true existence. An inquiry has to be open without any fear in mind about the ability or outcome. So being fearless is the first step in the path of realization. We are always under the influence of some or other fear. The fear is an outcome of either illusion or weakness to understand and tackle the situation. Illusion can be overcome by acquiring knowledge while weakness can be overcome by acquiring strength. Fearlessness is prerequisite as well as an outcome of spiritual quest. For this to happen, you have to be emotionally neutral. First you should not get associated with anything mentally and should be able to analyze everything rationally. That is what science tells us to do!
There are two types of reasoning:
(1) the one that is attached to emotions and beliefs
(2) the one that is detached and neutral
I have rarely heard something like this from an Isha follower. But she is saying the truth of spirituality. What she refers to as ‘emotionally neutral’ is what we call as non-attachment in spiritual path. In spirituality, people always ask you to live like a lotus leaf; even though lotus leaf is in water all the time, the water doesn’t stick to the lotus leaf. When you are attached too much to anything, your reasoning will be emotionally motivated. In fact, a true scientist who is unbiased and not attached to something can think very clearly, can look at the reality without any glasses and make wonderful contributions to the world. In other words, a true scientist is doing a karma yoga, a spiritual practice on his own.
Let me quote from another answer written by her:
I truly feel I am not a victim of circumstances but a higher self that is made to test and emerge victorious all the time. My love for all living entities is universal and doesn't stop at the boundaries of my home, city, region, state or country and is universal in nature. I am not afraid of anything anymore! I conquer fear with my rational thinking.
Understanding the scientific principles this universe is based on made me realize I am one with the universe and is not a separate entity from it and that there is no difference between me and the other forms - either living or non living - in this universe!
How beautiful! When someone is blissful in what they are doing and can love people without any prejudice, it is spiritual.
Here is the answer given by her to the question “Why do people who support Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev disrespect and verbally abuse the non-supporters on the internet (You can see this in YouTube, social media and Quora too)? Are Isha programs not working for them?”
If you are attached to something, your thought process gets screwed up. It fogs your reasoning power out of fear, hope, love or respect and affects your behaviour. A mind that is agitated by belief can never be free and therefore never know truth. You cannot think clearly, neutrally and rationally. That is why people belonging to different ideals and religions clash and abuse one another. They defend their faith by resorting to unsocial behaviour.
This biased analysis of anything is due to the now well-known psychological phenomenon of motivated reasoning. Research suggests that all people tend to seek out information that confirms (or at least does not challenge) the conclusions they want to draw on a given topic. In other words, we will work to discredit or avoid information that might require us to reconsider our pre-existing beliefs. Motivated reasoning is particularly likely when taking the other side might create conflict within our social circle—like religious or political or social groups.
She gives the right reason! This answer not only has scientific significance but also spiritual significance. How is what she says different from what Sadhguru himself says, when he says that most of the conflicts in this world are caused by ‘my belief’ vs ‘your belief’?. This is also a very generic response, just explaining that a person may be verbally abusive because he is attached to a belief. And I don’t see any disagreement between this and what Sadhguru himself says about beliefs. But look at the response of an Isha devotee:
You know what? He just defamed his own guru. He didn’t really understand the message in the answer at all! He is only reacting.
But the question here is, ‘if some one is throwing obnoxious comments at you, should you respond with obnoxious comments or should you ignore it because it is not worth it to respond to every such abusive comment? Tell me what is the best option. If you also respond him with obnoxious comment, what is the difference between you and him? Do you even understand why you do Yoga? If Yoga doesn’t calm your mind enough, what is that Yoga good for? I am not saying that you should never defend yourself, but the defense doesn’t have to arise from a disturbed mind and doesn’t have to be abusive. If you want, read Krishna KumariChalla (కృష్ణ కుమారి చల్లా) posts and see how she has responded to abusive comments. I have seen many people leaving obnoxious and abusive comments on her answers and her responses are not emotionally motivated, not indicative of a disturbed mind and is certainly not abusive. If she can respond that way, that what is stopping a person practicing Yoga and claiming to be joyful to respond that way? It is because you have developed a lot of attachments and blind devotion.
Do you know how a defense of a meditator looks like? Like this:
If he is angry or disturbed, he cannot practice martial arts. Even when it comes to a physical attack, a person has to have a calm mind to do a proper defense. Defending what is true verbally will never work if your defense is filled with abusive and personal attacks. In fact, it is not even a defense. Instead of defending that the yoga you do produced good results, you end up proving the opposite.
The basic problem is this. Many people have a wrong understanding of what science is. Let me ask you a simple question: When you go to a shop, buy stuff, pay for it and get the change, do you count and make sure if the right amount is given to you? You do this no matter from whom you get money. Counting the money doesn’t mean you are insulting the person who gives you that. It simply means that you understand that a human being can make mistakes when he counts money. Only after you count it, you know that the correct amount is given to you. If the amount is too big, you are extra-careful by counting twice or thrice. When someone makes extra-ordinary claim and says that it is true, an extra-ordinary evidence is needed. The experiments should produce the same results when reproduced multiple times, just like when you come up with the same amount even after counting multiple times. Does it make sense?
Also read this: Is Isha Foundation a Cult? Is Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev a Cult Leader?
Update: 07 Aug 2018
Let us see the nature of one of Sadhguru’s claims and see how they are:
Here is an excerpt from Sadhguru’s blog:
So did it happen by accident? No. The Theory of Evolution – you know Charles Darwin, who made a monkey out of you? (Laughs) Not me, him. If you look at the Theory of Evolution which was propounded just hundred and fifty years ago, we have said this thousands of years ago, in the sense, you know the ten avataras? At least the nine you know those who have come. What is the first one? Matsya Avatara. Matsya Avatara means fish or water life. All life on this planet started under water. What is the next Avatara? Koorma Avatara – amphibious like a turtle, half in the water, half on the land. The next one is Varaha Avatara – a pig or a wild boar. Among the mammals, one animal which is strongly, strongly rooted in its body is a wild boar. See, we live next to the forest, we see this – the tribal boys can kill a deer with a stick. If you hit it with a stick it will fall dead. The local dogs will hunt the deer but a wild boar you try to kill him and see, it's not easy to kill him. You go smash him with the car, his spine is broken, still he will go. He will not stop because he is so physically rooted. His life is so physical. So the next form of life was Varaha Avatara. This simply means the Creator is finding expression in first as fish, then as a turtle, then as a wild boar. Next one is Narasimha, half man, half animal. Next one is Vamana a dwarfed man. Next one is a full grown man but emotionally volatile man who is Parasurama. Next one is a peaceful man which is Rama. Next is a loving man, which is a Krishna. Next is a meditative man which is a Buddha. The next is supposed to be a mystical being, yet to come, okay.
This is running very much in parallel lines with the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Yes or no? It’s in the same sequence, exactly in the same sequence. Darwin propounded his theory only hundred and fifty years ago, this was said twelve to fifteen thousand years ago, Adiyogi himself spoke about it.
This claim that evolution theory has been discovered by Indians thousands of years before has been going around among Hindus for the past two centuries. But if one really has the knowledge about the texts of India, they will see many problems with this claim.
- The avatars were mentioned first in Brahmana portions of Vedas. But only three avatars are mentioned,not ten. The avatars were attributed to Prajapati. The later texts starting from Srimad Bhagawatam have different lists which vary by number. The standard list was 24, not ten.
Let me quote from Quora User’s answer:
The question comment says:-
The Vishnu avatars were in perfect order of evolution:
Fish-life started in water
Turtle-amphibian
Boar-land animal
Narsinh-half lion human
Vaman-dwarf
Parshuram-fighter
Rama-civilised
Krishna-politician
Buddha-inner peace
Kalki-future humanThere were no fossils or radio carbom dating back then.
Let us break down the myth today. The list provided which shows the incarnations of Lord Vishnu in a perfect order of evolution is simply arranged to look so. That is not how it actually happened.
Don't believe me? Want proof? Let us look at the order of Avataras as per the original timeline. A fair warning. This is going to be very long.
स एव प्रथमं देवः कौमारं सर्गमाश्रितः।
चचार दुश्चरं ब्रह्मा ब्रह्मचर्यमखण्डितम् ॥६॥
The first position the godhead [Narayana] created was that of the sons of Brahma [the Kumaras] who performed the most difficult discipline of continuous celibacy.
द्वितीयं तु भवायास्य रसातलगतां महीम्।
उद्धरिष्यन्नुपादत्त यज्ञेशः सौकरं वपुः ॥७॥
The Supreme Enjoyer secondly assumed the form of a boar for the welfare of the earth that had sunken to the lowest regions and lifted her up [from the ocean].
तृतीयं ऋषिसर्गं च देवर्षित्वमुपेत्य सः।
तन्त्रं सात्वतमाचष्ट नैष्कर्म्यं कर्मणां यतः ॥८॥
Thirdly He accepted His presence among the seers [in the form of Narada Muni] for the sake of evolving the Vedic knowledge concerning the performance of devotional service free from material motives.
तुर्ये धर्मकलासर्गे नरनारायणावृषी।
भूत्वात्मोपशमोपेतमकरोद्दुश्चरं तपः ॥९॥
Fourth born as the twin sons of [Murti] the wife of king Dharma He in the form of Nara-Narayana subjected Himself to severe penances to attain control over the senses.
पञ्चमः कपिलो नाम सिद्धेशः कालविप्लुतम्।
प्रोवाचासुरये साङ्ख्यं तत्त्वग्रामविनिर्णयम् ॥१०॥
Fifth He, carrying the name of Kapila, gave an exposition to the brahmin Asuri on the nature of metaphysics and the elements of creation, because in the course of time that knowledge had been lost.
षष्ठमत्रेरपत्यत्वं वृतः प्राप्तोऽनसूयया।
आन्वीक्षिकीमलर्काय प्रह्लादादिभ्य ऊचिवान् ॥११॥
Sixth as the son of Atri [named Dattatreya] being born from Anasuya who prayed for Him, He lectured to Alarka, Prahlada and others about transcendence.
ततः सप्तम आकूत्यां रुचेर्यज्ञोऽभ्यजायत।
स यामाद्यैः सुरगणैरपात्स्वायम्भुवान्तरम् ॥१२॥
Seventh being born from Akuti as Yajna, the son of Prajapati Ruci, He together with His son Yama and other demigods, ruled during the period of Svayambhuva Manu [and became the Indra].
अष्टमे मेरुदेव्यां तु नाभेर्जात उरुक्रमः।
दर्शयन् वर्त्मधीराणां सर्वाश्रमनमस्कृतम् ॥१३॥
Eighth, from the wife of King Nabhi, Merudevi, the Almighty Lord took birth as King Rishabha and showed the path of perfection respected by people of all stages of life.
ऋषिभिर्याचितो भेजे नवमं पार्थिवं वपुः।
दुग्धेमामोषधीर्विप्रास्तेनायं स उशत्तमः ॥१४॥
His ninth incarnation He accepted in response to the prayers of the sages, whereupon He [as Prithu] ruled the earth for the sake of collecting ['milking'] her produces, which made her most attractive.
रूपं स जगृहे मात्स्यं चाक्षुषोदधिसम्प्लवे।
नाव्यारोप्य महीमय्यामपाद्वैवस्वतं मनुम् ॥१५॥
Assuming the form of a fish [Matsya], He after the period of Chakshusha Manu protected Vaivasvata Manu, keeping him in a boat afloat the waters when the world was deeply inundated.
सुरासुराणामुदधिं मथ्नतां मन्दराचलम्।
दध्रे कमठरूपेण पृष्ठ एकादशे विभुः ॥१६॥
Eleventh the mighty Lord in the form of a tortoise [Kurma] sustained the Mandarachala Hill of the theists and atheists that served as a pivot in the ocean.
धान्वन्तरं द्वादशमं त्रयोदशममेव च।
अपाययत्सुरानन्यान् मोहिन्या मोहयन् स्त्रिया॥१७॥
Twelfth He appeared as Dhanvantari [Lord of medicine] and thirteenth He appeared before the atheists as an alluring beautiful woman and gave nectar to the demigods.
चतुर्दशं नारसिंहं बिभ्रद्दैत्येन्द्रमूर्जितम्।
ददार करजैर्वक्षस्येरकां कटकृद्यथा ॥१८॥
In His fourteenth incarnation He, half as a lion, appeared as Nrisimha, who with His nails on His lap tore apart the king of the atheists like a carpenter splitting cane.
पञ्चदशं वामनकं कृत्वागादध्वरं बलेः।
पदत्रयं याचमानः प्रत्यादित्सुस्त्रिविष्टपम् ॥१९॥
Fifteenth He assumed the form of Vamana [the dwarf brahmana] who went to the arena of sacrifice of Maharaja Bali to beg for only three steps of land, concealing His wish to regain the three worlds.
अवतारे षोडशमे पश्यन् ब्रह्मद्रुहो नृपान्।
त्रिःसप्तकृत्वः कुपितो निःक्षत्रामकरोन्महीम् ॥२०॥
In His sixteenth incarnation He [as Bhrigupati or Parashurama] saw that the ruling class was hostile towards the Brahmins and acted twenty-one times against them.
ततः सप्तदशे जातः सत्यवत्यां पराशरात्।
चक्रे वेदतरोः शाखा दृष्ट्वा पुंसोऽल्पमेधसः ॥२१॥
Seeing that the common people were less intelligent He, seventeenth, incarnated as Vyasadeva taking birth from Satyavatî with Parashara Muni as His father, for the purpose of dividing the desire tree of the Veda into several branches.
नरदेवत्वमापन्नः सुरकार्यचिकीर्षया।
समुद्रनिग्रहादीनि चक्रे वीर्याण्यतः परम् ॥२२॥
Next He performed in a superhuman way having assumed the form of a divine human being [Rama], by controlling the Indian Ocean and such, so that He could act for the sake of the godly souls.
एकोनविंशे विंशतिमे वृष्णिषु प्राप्य जन्मनी।
रामकृष्णाविति भुवो भगवानहरद्भरम् ॥२३॥
Nineteenth as also twentieth Bhagavan took birth in the Vrishni family as Balarama and Krishna and thus removed the burden from the world.
ततः कलौ सम्प्रवृत्ते सम्मोहाय सुरद्विषाम्।
बुद्धो नाम्नाञ्जनसुतः कीकटेषु भविष्यति ॥२४॥
Thereafter at the beginning of the Age of Kali He shall appear in Gaya [Bihar] as the son of [mother] Anjana with the name Buddha for the purpose of deluding the ones envious of the theists.
अथासौ युगसन्ध्यायां दस्युप्रायेषु राजसु।
जनिता विष्णुयशसो नाम्ना कल्किर्जगत्पतिः ॥२५॥
Next, at the conjunction of two yugas [this one and the next], when there is hardly a ruler to be found who is not a plunderer, the Lord of the Creation carrying the name of Kalki will take birth as the son of Vishnu Yashas.
श्रीमद् भागवतम् स्कन्धं 1, अध्यायं 3, श्लोकं 6–25
Sreemad Bhagavatham Canto 1, Chapter 3, Verses 6–25
The Dashavatar as we know of it today is a list that is compiled by selecting the most popular among the 24 incarnations of Lord Vishnu.
Someone on a later date arranged it and made it as we know today.
मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नारसिंहश्च वामनः।
रामो रामश्च रामश्च कृष्णः कल्किर्जनार्दनः।।
It was simply a calculated move of some genius from the past to arrange the Dashavatar in such a way that it looks like the evolution of species.
Here is an excerpt from another answer which puts it very well:
First of all, Darwin explained only the natural selection part which leads to the conclusion that all living organisms had a common ancestor. But I am assuming you are talking about evolutionary timeline of humans.
Human minds are hard-wired to seek out patterns. If you look hard enough and take as many parameters into account as possible, it is very easy to find two phenomena to coincide in many aspects. Even when we make comparisons, we remembers the hits and forget the misses. For example, Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend - Wikipedia.
If it were true that the ten avatars were designed to imitate the evolutionary timeline of human life, one should definitely ponder over the following points:
- About 3.5 billion years had already passed before the evolution of anything that resembled a fish. The following characteristics outline the major evolutionary checkpoints before that: Prokaryotes → Photosynthetic organisms → Eukaryotes → Multicellular organisms → Development of muscles and nerves → Development of brain → First vertebrates → First jawless fish. None of them have been mentioned in the Dashavatar. We straight away jump to Matsya.
- As for Kurma, the turtle, and Varaha, the boar, out of all the properties, they had to choose the most trivial ones like being an amphibian and being a mammal to compare it with our amphibian and mammalian ancestors. This is a good example of seeking out patterns desperately to to make things look similar. Besides, our amphibian and mammalian ancestors were nothing like a turtle or a boar.
- I don’t even know how the Narasimha avatar fits this equation. A half-human half-animal reminds me of a famous misunderstanding of evolution which goes something like this: If birds evolved from reptiles, why aren’t there “crocoducks” roaming around? Wouldn't that be a reasonable transitional organism?
- Sure, our ancestors were shorter when they started walking on two legs about 3.5 million years ago. But they were more ape-like than human-like unlike what is proposed in the Vamana avatar.
- The creators of the Dashavatar really spent an awful lot of time on humans when modern humans only appeared in the last 0.00625% (250,000 years ago as opposed to 4 billion years) of evolutionary history.
- The reasons used to compare the Parashuram, Ram and Krishna avatars are just cherry-picked to conform to some people’s understanding of evolution of humans and humanity. Depicting “Early Human”, “Virtuous Human” and “Intelligent Human” as a series of evolutionary points has no basis. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
It is very important to notice that Sadhguru has made one more claim. He went ahead and said that Adiyogi said this 15,000 years ago. I have already questioned many things he said about Adiyogi which is here: Shanmugam P's answer to Who taught yoga to Adiyogi according to Sadhguru?
This is nothing but an attempt to glorify India. In fact, while one group is arguing that the theory of evolution has been discovered here thousands of years ago, there is another group which claims that theory of evolution is not true at all. Read this:
Union minister Satyapal Singh has claimed that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution of man is “scientifically wrong” and it needs to be changed in school and college curriculum.
Singh, the minister of state for human resource development, said our ancestors have nowhere mentioned that they saw an ape turning into a man.
“Darwin’s theory (of evolution of humans) is scientifically wrong. It needs to change in school and college curriculum. Since the man is seen on Earth he has always been a man,” he said while speaking to reporters on January 19.
The IPS officer-turned-politician was in this central Maharashtra city to attend the ‘All India Vaidik Sammelan’.
“Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral, have said they saw an ape turning into a man,” he said.
“No books we have read or the tales told to us by our grandparents had such a mention,” the minister added.
This is how we Indians embarrass ourselves. This seriously need to change if you are really interested in showing India as a great country. Just look at the tactics and games human minds play unconsciously. The union minister says that Darwin’s theory is wrong because none of our ancestors spoke about it. Sadhguru says that Adiyogi spoke about it 15,000 years ago and people in the west were late to discover it. But when compared to the Sadhguru’s claim, the union minister is at least honest enough to say that our ancestors never said that!
Finally, if Sadhguru really has such a power to know anything from past, present and future, I request him to immediately contribute something to scientific community. Otherwise, after 500 years, we will be still fighting to prove that everything in the world that scientists are discovering now has been already discovered in Ancient India. I think it makes sense to make a lot of new discoveries now rather than arguing that ‘look, we have discovered this long time ago’ for every new discovery made by scientific community.
Please read this too: Shanmugam P's answer to What are scientists’ opinions on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's IIT Madras talk about water having memory and his abilities to manipulate its taste via telekinesis?
…………………………………..
Update - 09/08/2018
(I will be updating some of the comments and my answers to them here:
- Nagari Premchand says:
“Great answer as usual sir. From my side a question to you sir. Before asking Please note that I am not in anyway in support of sadhguru. I am only talking about a possibility.
I have a six year old daughter. To make her to go to school I need to do a thousand things, which includes lies, threatening her, or boasting myself as great because I got education, all sort of non sense just to send her to school because I know how education is important from this age. If I talk straight, will she listen, is she going to understand first of all ?
Similarly There is a possibility that sadhguru is doing all this, which you are in disagreement with him, just to make people set their direction towards liberation. Isn’t it sir? I am again saying, this is only a question of possibility sir.”
My Answer:
I consider all possibilities, including the one you stated… But I always want the emphasis to be on what you can get out of my answer… No matter why Sadhguru says certain things, if it is evidently and clearly pseudoscientific, it has to be seen as such.
Tomorrow Sadhguru may come and say, “I had to speak a lot of nonsense because only because of that I could get a lot of people to do yoga and get some taste of spirituality; but now I want to let you know that much of what I said was nonsense. So let go of all the information that was fed to you now. All that was done to create some interest on doing yoga. “
But right now it is important for people to let go of obsessive blindness of insisting that everything he says is correct and he is infallible. All of the answers I write are not really about proving or disproving something about sadhguru. It is only to help people to avoid distractions. If people develop a cult of personality rather than focusing on their own journey, that is not only good for their progress but may also become dangerous.
What people are missing out on my answers usually is this. It is not about Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, it is about their spiritual progress.
Some people think that this cult of personality is the same as bhakthi yoga. But a devotee cannot be abusive or arrogant. Real love is never destructive in anyway. I still remember what my school principal said about this, which I have mentioned in this answer: Shanmugam P's answer to Can anyone tell about their experiences with Jaggi Vasudev aka Sadhguru?
Footnotes