Is evolution necessary?

Compared to the age of the Earth, the human race is just a blip of existence. If we destroy ourselves the earth will eventually regenerate and a new species will dominate the planet.

Language is the tool that allowed us to work with each other in more complicated ways than the other animals. As Korzybski would put it, we are 'time binding' creatures. But our language also can limit our perceptions. All politics is a play on language. It is like the line in the sand that keeps a certain spider in an imaginary prison.

But that is because the majority of people are passive in understanding how to use the tool of language. Panini, the worlds first known grammarian (of Sanskrit), was very careful with the codification of the language. Nyaya logic systems were developed to prevent thinkers from falling into language traps. Mantras were encasement of language elements with the knowledge that repetition of patterns change perceptions.

So language can be both bad and good. Actually the dualistic nature of the previous sentence is another trap of language. In real observation there is no good and bad, this and that, etc. This is just how our modern language works. But reality is multi-ordinal. It takes practice of stepping back and observing as the wild do in nature, to make language a more useful tool of communicating.

But also think about how much we communicate in silence.

Kit Krash
Experience Lab NYC

Technology vs. Nature is as much of a dualistic illusion of the ego as is good and bad, democrat and republican, Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Jets, east and west.

But we also view nature with our own filters. Kropotski had questioned Darwin's assumption that evolution and survival is based on self-interest. He decided to observe nature in terms of cooperation systems. He found that the species that were the best at cooperation were the best at survival.

You can pretty much view anything through your filters and presuppositions and find what your mind is looking for. When you travel to a foreign country and assume everyone is unfriendly, you have a different experience of that country than if you assume everyone is overly friendly. Same with going to a party.

Western historians have made a mess out of yogic culture and continue to do this in academic institutions by perpetuating the same assumptions that came from a colonialist perspective. You can not claim to know a culture from reading these books or even books by Indians as they have themselves lost most of their history.

But if you study Sanskrit and actually read some of the texts of that era, you will find the assumption of a cast system quite absurd. Just in the story of the Mahabharata, Krishna (meaning black skinned) moves up for a cowherd to a chariot driver to a prince to a king. Women walk around and are as involved in life after their husbands are killed in war as if no one told them about Sati (and the original story has nothing to do with what today that term is used for). Agastya, one of the writers of the Upanishads is a short dark brahmin from the south (brahmin in it's original term only meant scholar, not a lighter skinned cast). Other writers and Rishi's happen to be women.

Cast I think is a British interpretation of much translated text that worked within their own knowledge of their own British class system.

Of course today, we all have read about it and assume we know really well what a culture was like thousands upon thousands of years ago. This keeps us away from yoga science and towards consumer/entertainment culture, a culture where people know what they want. They want what they are told they want.

Kit Krash
Experience Lab NYC