A theory is not perse a dogma, and casting the conversation as one dogma versus another, to me, seems to fall into a stereotypical “science vs (Judeo-Christian) religion” argument.

I would like to read something that is not a reactionary “Darwin is dogma, we reject it“, and something that is more contributive to human understanding. How do you explain the development of different species of life?

A magical one-off event of interventionist creation by the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian idea. However, a fossil record that demonstrates multiple mass extinctions and the appearance of new species renders that insufficient as an explanation.

Without another mechanism it seems that magical intervention creationist will have to postulate multiple magical interventions.

The Srimad Bhagavatam does not describe multiple magical interventions. And by magical I mean an event that suspends the ordinary operating laws and procedures of nature - the birth of any living entity is in one sense a “magical” moment, but it is within the ordinary operating parameters of nature. The Bhagavatam speaks of a single magical creation event by the Supreme Being who afterwards remains aloof from the creation, which then carries on under the influence of His energies. Evolution of a species by natural selection is an explanation for species development that places it within the operation of nature. In that sense it seems more in tune with both observable phenomena (the fossil record) and the scriptural version of a single magical event followed by the operation of natural forces.

Arguing that only magical interventionism can be theistic, and that any attempt to explain development of species through natural forces is a priori atheistic, to me, seems incorrect. The origin and nature of life (as in consciousness) is a different issue, and theories of evolutionary development of species should be examined separately from explanations of “consciousness from matter”.

This isn’t to say that “Darwin’s theory is right!”, but rather that I want to see another alternative explanation that tallies with the observed facts (and doesn’t rely on the “well, science is wrong anyway because it’s based on sense perception” get-out-of-jail-free card) and also tallies with philosophy of the Bhagavatam.

I don’t find fundamentalist Christian explanations do this, and I don’t find that neo-Christian-fundamentalist-Vaisnava mash-ups do either.

Am I the only one?

Dear Sita-pati prabhu!

I have read your post regarding the “Nature’s IQ” book with surprise. I was also surprised by seeing your other articles and videos on your homepage, where you try to defend the evolutionary world view.

Because some of your comments are irrelevant, I guess that you have not read our book. You suggested that our book was written in a “one dogma versus another” style, but this is not the case at all. The IQ book presents a hundred special inborn animal instincts described by scientists (ethologists) in the last few decades. We ask the question that if the contemporary science is able to explain the origin of these behavioral patterns by evolutionary logic. With my co-author, Bhagavat-priya prabhu (Balazs Hornyanszky)–who is a bio-engineer–we analyzed dozens of cases and concluded that satisfactory scientific answers do not exist, and because of logical reasons, probably will not exist. In the last chapter of the book we present the Vaishnava description of creation as a realistic alternative.

I recommend you read the example of the mallee fowl bird’s strange incubation technique on the www.naturesiq.com webpage. I ask you to offer an evolutionary explanation for it, in complete harmony with the Darwinian logic and the known facts related to this complex behaviour. (If you need I can offer a scientific bibliography about this extraordinary incubation method.) Since in particular cases, evolutionists often cannot apply their philosophy, and since the Vaishnava scriptures and the opinion of our founder-acarya do not support their overstatements, so there is no need to embrace the crucial parts of their ideas.

You wrote that it was not enough to refute the scientific theories because “science is wrong because it’s based on sense perception”. But for those, who has strong faith in sastra it is enough argumentation, because this is our basic epistemological approach. Sabda is superior to pratyaksa and anumana. But of course we wrote our book to those, who do not have–or do not have enough–faith in the Vaishnava literature. We try to show for them that even empirical facts and unbiased thinking better support the non-evolutionary origin of living beings.

You wrote that you would like to read something more than “Darwin is dogma, we reject it“. I inform you with great joy that beyond the second and third canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam there are many books like that in the contemporary Vaishnava literature. For example the books of H. H. Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Maharaja, H. G. Sadaputa prabhu, the book of H.G. Drutakarma prabhu: “Human Devolution,” the book of H. G. Nanda-nandana prabhu (Stephen Knapp): “How the Universe was Created and Our Purpose In It” or our “Nature’s IQ” published recently. If someone reads these books he or she will see that they are not based on blind and irrational resistance, but they support the detailed Vaishnava origin concept by logic and by common sense, and this way they are the most contributive to human understanding. So yes, we can show another “mechanism” by which the species appeared in the universe.

Surprisingly you state that the Bhagavatam does not speak about multiple creation events. This is simply not true. There is a creation at the beginning of the life of Brahma and at the beginning of every day of Brahma. Moreover there are partial creations at the beginning of each manvantara (please see eg. the Bhag. 4.30.48), including the region of our Earth.

You said that evolution seems more in tune with observable phenomena (the fossil record). But it is possible to successfully evaluate the fossils from the angle of Vaishnava world view. The annihilations at the end of long cosmic time periods can be seen as “mass extinctions”. At the same time the existence of “living fossils” shows, that the forms of species have not changed in the last tens of millions of years. The absence of billions of “missing links” also does not support the evolutionary approach, nor does the existence of anomalously old fossil evidence. So the complete picture of the fossil record supports the idea that living beings were created in their complete form.

You mention that the evolutionary explanation of the development of species through natural forces is not a priori atheistic. That is true and obvious. We did not state the opposite nor in our book nor in the review on the Dandavats. It is common sense that there are basically two types of evolutionary thinking: a theistic and an atheistic approach. But at the same time we have to be aware that although not every evolutionist is an atheist but practically every atheist is an evolutionist.

The question is not that, as a philosophical construction, it is possible to fuse faith in God and faith in evolution. Of course, in principle, it is possible. But our question is that it is true or not that evolution happened in the past at all. If evolution did take place, then God’s existence undoubtedly remains a philosophical possibility. But if there was no evolution, then God’s existence is a certainty beyond all doubt. Although today evolutionism is the ruling paradigm, science could not prove evolution in the last one hundred and fifty years. And our spiritual lineage takes the opposite side and describes the complete design and complete creation of species in their presently known form.

It is true that fundamentalist Christian explanations do not give a complete and perfect answer to the question of origin, because they do not know the repeated “devolution” process that involves higher beings in the universe. But there is a common point of the traditional Christian and the traditional Vaishnava explanation of creation. All of the species were designed by the Highest Being and these species appeared on the Earth closely in their present forms. This traditional interpretation is antagonistic with every version of evolutionary speculation.

Athough you are a devotee it seems to me that you have become influenced by the contemporary, strong evolutionary propaganda. But our research shows that the evolutionary paradigm to be highly deficient, leaving many features and behaviours of animals unexplainable, and so we do not feel the need to change the divinely revealed Vaishnava theology and purports of our previous acaryas to satisfy those attached to evolutionary theories. We recommend you read our book and consider seriously the cases in question, and you may come to a similar conclusion.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Isvara Krsna das
cultural antropologist
co-author of Nature’s IQ

I have not yet read Nature’s IQ. (I did read the Chapter One sample on the website). Of course we should welcome any Vaisnava literary contributions, and also the critique by other Vaisnava devotees.

What I find more interesting than whether atheistic evolution theory adequately explains the world we live in (obviously it doesn’t) is the invitation to dive more deeply into what Srimad Bhagavatam actually teaches about the creation of the phenomenal world and its relationship to Krishna.

Sita Pati writes: “The Bhagavatam speaks of a single magical creation event by the Supreme Being who afterwards remains aloof from the creation, which then carries on under the influence of His energies.”

This is, I think, an oversimplification. janmady asya yato ‘nvayad itaratas carthesv abhijnah svarat: “He is the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes, is indirectly *and directly* conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him.”

He remains aloof from the material creation (deputing its oversight to various demigods who are loyal to Him), and yet at the same time He is directly in touch with every act and sensation due to His entry into every particle of creation as the Supersoul. [He also advents Himself as avataras again and again to display His marvelous forms, qualities and pastimes in order to protect devotees, annihilate miscreants, and reestablish the principles of dharma].

The laws of nature only appear to work without His supervision. For the materialist, He is far removed from all the workings. He is seated as though neutral and does not favor or envy any being. He lets them see a world acting under impersonal rules without His intervention. He is the supreme mystic and has full potency to create a world that (apparently) works without Him, although His absence is an illusion.

However, to the devotees who worship Him with love, He gives the understanding by which they can come to Him. He reveals Himself through His internal energy and comes alive for them. They see Him in everything and everything in Him, and He is never lost to them. He can at once transform His material energy into spiritual energy, and both are always under His complete control.

The devotee sees Him everywhere, even in the pillar of a building. He only appears to remain aloof to provide a temporary scope for the fruitive activities of nondevotees.

The creation of the various planets and their populations described in Srimad Bhagavatam (through Lord Brahma and his various Prajapati descendents like the Manu, Kasyapa Muni, Kardama Muni, Daksha, etc.) is more detailed than the simple Biblical account in the book of Genesis.

However, in terms of the modern scientific endeavor of “preserving appearances” — i.e., explaining the world as perceived by our senses — it also does not seem to do a very good job, at least at first blush. Astronomers and geographers do not find planets and geographical features like mountains and rivers where our tradition says they are. Astronauts walk on the surface of the moon and find a barren, dusty landscape instead of Lord Soma’s heavenly planet. Similarly, the accepted archeological evidence does not jibe with our account of history, which holds that sophisticated, civilized humans and other modern animals have walked the earth for hundreds of millions of years.

I would also like to see scientists explain the observable phenomena of the world in a way that tallies both with objective sense experience and also with Srimad Bhagavatam, as Sita Pati does, but in the mean time it seems obvious that the Bhagavatam is true, whereas our objective sense experience is misleading. If that’s a “get out of jail free” card, so be it. I never said I was a scientist anyway.

Modern empirical science does seem to have built-in impersonalist or atheistic assumptions and, as Drutakarma and Sadaputa have pointed out, is no less prone to applying various “filters” and prejudices in shaping an accepted, official view of reality than other fields of human endeavor (such as journalism and history). Actual reality is far more complex and mysterious and full of personality and various amazing demigods and sages and supernatural or “magical” influences than scientists can allow themselves to imagine, at least in their capacity as scientists.

And yet we love to see faithful devotees who are also professional scientists and philosophers gradually nudging the world of science toward a recognition of the profound truths of Vedic literature.

I am looking forward to reading “Nature’s IQ.” The basic arguments in Chapter One about angler fish and archer fish etc. are arguments I have heard other critics of Darwinian evolution raise. I am most interested in reading the positive Vaisnava explanation offered later in the book.

He Prabhu,

My comment is on the review, and obviously not on the book, which I haven’t read yet.

Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I am looking for a strong counter-narrative to the evolutionary one.

These statements of yours seem the most promising to me:

The annihilations at the end of long cosmic time periods can be seen as “mass extinctions”. At the same time the existence of “living fossils” shows, that the forms of species have not changed in the last tens of millions of years.

and

And our spiritual lineage takes the opposite side and describes the complete design and complete creation of species in their presently known form.

Most attempts to show the glorious superiority of the sastra seem to consist of trying to poke holes in evolutionary narrative, rather than presenting a complete, comprehensive and coherent alternative. Some of the points that you make here look like they could be the basis for this, if further developed. I’ll read your book with the hope that this approach, and further development of these ideas is in there.

Either way, thanks for your opinions and assessment.

Interesting book and interesting discussion. I would like to add a few general comments.

Unless creationists can reasonably explain the fossil record and undeniable changes in Earth’s fauna and flora over time, people will be attracted to the idea of evolution. Creationism is not a serious competitor to the theory of evolution because it tends to reject rational scientific thinking, insisting instead on models involving “and then a miracle occurs…” in its explanations. That does not satisfy even some people who are deeply religious. Some of the biblical creationism can be naive to the extreme. No wonder that evolution is quite popular among those who believe in God. It is the lack of viable alternatives as Sita-pati already pointed out.

Srila Prabhupada often emphasized the scientific nature of Krishna Consciousness. Science is based on empirical proof and logic, not on rigid dogma. We know that the world was created by God (our thesis), but precisely HOW it was created is something the true science of Krishna Consciousness can (and should) address. It is quite obvious from the fossil record that in previous geological periods life on Earth did not look like it does today. Dinosaurs no longer roam the earth (aren’t we all glad?). Free thinking people looked towards the theory of evolution to explain such changes. Can we really blame them?
Our focus should be on explaining the process of creation in a theistic but scientific way, not on Darwin bashing.

Are Prajapatis really creating each and every new beetle species? Or are they simply setting in motion a chain of events and a mechanism by which all new species come into being? As the bodies of each individual living entity develop via a media of a genetic code, perhaps a similar process takes place when it comes to the origin of species, and a gradual emergence of more and more complex life forms takes place here on Earth. Such theories can be a part of the theistic approach, but they need to be based on solid science and fact, not wishful thinking. Only then Creationism or ID may become a viable alternative to the more rational religious people.

Dear Kulapavana Prabhu,

PAMHO. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada emphasized the scientific nature of Krishna consciousness, and this is very important. It is a great science. It is factual. It is systematic. It is logically consistent and coherent. It really works, and those who master it are never bewildered, and they can directly see how others are bewildered.

Nowadays too often belief in God and devotional service is relegated to the realm of “faith”, and presented as a matter of personal taste.

No one is shy about presenting Newton’s laws of motion or Snell’s law of refraction or Boyle’s gas law as factual, as describing some important aspect of reality, but when it comes to speaking about the soul and God and devotion it has become commonplace for people to think that these are matters of personal opinion about which no one can really know the conclusive truth.

“adhyatma-vidya vidyanam, vadah pravadatam aham”: “Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.” (B.G. 10.32)

However, the science of Krishna consciousness is not particularly concerned with the empirical examination of the phenomenal world. It is a science of knowing Krishna. One who knows Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead without doubting is truly the knower of everything. (B.G. 15.19)

Such a person generally does not waste time trying to master the intricacies of interactions of endlessly mutable material elements, although he or she may do so as a kind of occupational engagement, with detachment, just as one may build houses or clean office buildings for a living.

The material senses and mind are impure and cannot perceive the spiritual reality of Krishna. They must be gradually purified by devotional service, especially by hearing and chanting (srinvatam sva-kathah krsnah; sevonmukhe hi jihvadau), and then when established in pure unalloyed goodness the devotee “gains positive scientific knowledge of the Personality of Godhead in the stage of liberation from all material association.” (S.B. 1 2.20)

Under the influence of the mode of passion, philosophers become determined to unlock the secret mysteries of nature. In that state they sometimes become indifferent to the pure Vaisnavas and their descriptions of the true science of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the jiva souls. Somehow we have to overcome their indifference and attract them to this glorious movement.

The people in the world are tired of “systems” and “dogmas” that do not really produce true heartfelt realization and genuine saintly behavior and feeling.

It seems to be the problem of this age of Kali that those who take up the cause of dharma and try to explain God and the revealed scriptures often do so in a dogmatic or hypocritical way, without true understanding and without true righteousness. In the name of “religion” they often quarrel and commit crimes and serve their lower natures.

As a reaction to this historic state of affairs, people are more inclined to follow those who say things like: “We no longer accept the traditional teachings of religion, which are full of dogmas and ignorant superstitions. We will create our own description of reality based on unassailable objective observations and experiments using our senses and the instruments we build to aid them. We may never understand ‘Absolute Truth’, if such a thing even exists, but we will not become gullible followers of anyone who claims to have received knowledge from some ‘descending’ process.”

As a result of such an unfortunate attitude, the real knowledge of the soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead remains for them outside the realm of what is accepted as factual knowledge. Srila Prabhupada came to reverse that process and has entrusted such important work to his sincere followers.

Explaining the fossil record of dinosaurs and such to match the descriptions of Srimad Bhagavatam does not seem to be an easy or fruitful endeavor. Maybe archeologists will find more evidence of Puranic history, and that might strengthen people’s faith in the Puranas, but that seems to be more of a side show. The fact is, our knowledge of the science of Krishna does not depend on empirical investigation and ‘ascending’ knowledge the way modern materialistic science does.

HOW the world was created is already explained in Srimad Bhagavatam, and any valid, truthful expansion on these descriptions must adopt the recognized methods of paying due deference to those perfect descriptions.

Having said that, I deeply believe devotees can and will accomplish the task of winning the world over to deeper appreciation of the profound truths explained by Vyasadeva and Sukadava Goswami. It has to be done with broad intelligence, with true realization as opposed to petulant dogmatism and ulterior motives or hypocrisy, and with genuine, heartfelt friendliness and well-wishing for all people.

Akruranatha Prabhu,

If people who supposedly represent knowledge descending from God voice their opinion on material matters (such as the evolution of biological forms) they must be prepared to prove their point in a way consistent with material science. Otherwise religion needs to limit itself to matters purely spiritual.

Because the spiritual matters are mostly difficult to prove objectively, cheating is very common. If you are selling goods that are to be delivered after you die, it is very easy to schwindle people and human history is full of such cases. You can’t blame people for being sceptical if yet another guy claims to have knowledge directly from God. It is not really that complicated.

It is evident from the fossil record that species of living entities inhabiting Earth change with time. Silurian swamps had a completely different flora and fauna than any swamp on Earth today. The mechanism of this change has to be explained in a way that is based on observable reality and logic, since it is happening continously: various species come into being and die off over billions of years of Earth’s history. You just can’t demand that people simply trust your explanation, especially if it requires frequent miracles. If it is not evolution than what? It is OK to say ‘I don’t know’ but then you have to stop bashing the theory of evolution.

Kulapavana Prabhu,

I agree with you that one of the main “vectors” of modern atheistic tendency is the problem of people claiming to have perfect knowledge from God who really do not. Srila Prabhupada was completely different from such swindlers. He not only had such perfect knowledge but gave such knowledge abundantly in his books in a way that people can take and be free from doubt.

I disagree that someone with perfect knowledge has to be prepared to explain the world consistently with materialistic science. Materialistic science is a very poor kind of “science,” if it is science at all. It is full of doubts and speculations. It is a reaction, perhaps, to cheating theologians, but it does not deliver us from ignorance.

It is not as easy to divide “matters purely spiritual” from other matters. To do so is to buy into the assumptions of the demonic and atheistic civilization. The reality is that all life is spiritual. Without the touch of spirit there is no consciousness, no will, no understanding, no motivation.

But I agree that it is bewildering that materialistic scientists perceive an observable world that does not seem to tally with the explanations of our great sages. For those devotees who are engaged professionally as scientists, they have to acknowledge and deal with the world that is objectively apparent to their senses, as well as the dominant accepted views for explaining that world, and thus there is a kind of split or tension between their Krishna conscious views and the outward views they must sometimes express to not seem too strange or radical to their professional colleagues.

However, it should not become a source of disturbance to their faith in the words of Guru and Krishna. Like the monkey in the Pancatantra story, we have to learn to “leave our heart in the tree.” We embrace Prabhupada’s teachings in our most intimate thoughts, and we learn to function externally as necessary with people who could not accept such teachings.

The “mechanism” of change in species, as you call it, already has built in atheistic assumptions. Why is the mechanical question the most important? What is this “observable reality” of which you speak? We observe emotions, moods, meaning, but materialism divorces those things from “reality” although they are most important.

“If not evolution [by random mutation] then what?” is the scientist’s problem. It clearly isn’t, but they can’t say “I don’t know”, so they give post-dated checks.

While the mechanical question about the origin of species may not be the most important to you, still it is the one that can’t be simply ignored because you do not happen to have an answer. Religionists pass out post-dated checks all the time, and you are doing it here as well, when you simply invoke faith based approach.

The observable reality I speak about is a gradual change in the way Earth is inhabited, as seen both in the world around us and in the fossil record. Do you deny that dinosaurs existed but are no more today? Dodo birds are gone too. Do you deny that there is an absence of mammalian fossils in the older layers of rock but they show up in more recent fossils? These things are an observable reality to millions of people and these people want an explanation.

What about the fossil records that have been discarded and suppressed by modern science, over the last hundred years or so, as stated in “Forbidden Archeology”, to give the appearance that only fossil records that confirm current scientific thinking, are the ones that have been found.

I am all for scientific discovery, as long as it is honest. What opened my eyes that modern scientists might possibly be cheating is the book “Forbidden Archeology”. For the last hundred years or so, since Darwin’s first theories were proposed, as well as others, to form what is the currently accepted belief system taught in schools and universities today, regarding the origins of life, specifically that of mankind, the scientific community, according to the authors, has exhaustively led a campaign to discard, discredit, and suppress all archeological findings in every field of study, that have disagreed with a certain agenda, leading ordinary people to believe that their theories and teachings are the only authorized and verifiable conclusions.

The so called ’suppressed’ fossil record does not invalidate the very well documented and extremely numerous ‘recognized’ fossil record. Earth 500 millions years ago was inhabited by a completely different set of species than today and all fossil evidence points to a gradual emergence of various new species.

Kulapavana Prabhu, I do want to address your questions. I am sorry if I have kept you hanging a little while, but I have been busy with work, guests and Ratha Yatra, and I have been commenting on these same themes in other threads also (about 5th Canto and moon landing) which you surely are reading.

I do not agree with the attitude that one must be a biologist or paleontologist to express doubts about the atheistic, mechanistic explanation of origin of species by chance mutation and natural selection. The idea that chemicals have just reacted in a way that from organic soup has sprung all forms of life we see around us, with their complexity of form and interaction and their variety of sensations and wills is just laughable. The only reason more people do not admit they don’t believe it is that the scientific community ridicules them as uneducated if they don’t.

In a U.S. presidential election debate last year, a group of 8 or 10 candidates for the Republican nomination was asked to raise their hands if they believed in evolution. Only two or three raised their hands, and reporters and comedians had a field day ridiculing them as either backward nincompoops or as insincere, prostituting themselves to attract the votes of evangelical Christians. I think they might just be competent people who have to scratch their heads when scientists say these bizarre things, especially now that there is a small but growing minority of very qualified scientists and intellectuals who have looked deeply into the matter and said that the theory after all this time just does not work.

Devotee scientists may differ on these issues. Rasaraj Das believes that “Intelligent Design” is a wrong turn, a blind alley, but Drutakarma Das welcomes it as a growing, serious challenge to the prevalent paradigm.

As for me, I am not a scientist. I do not feel obligated to be drawn into arguments about the fossil record, genetics, the biochemistry of cells and reproduction. I am a lay reader of popular works, both pro and con, and I still find atheistic mechanism of evolution unconvincing. I welcome books like Bhagavat-priya and Isvara’s “Nature’s IQ” as serious contributions by devotees.

But more to the point, as a practitioner of the “science” of Krishna consciousness, I find the debate about chickens and eggs less relevant. It is not the HOW but the WHY that the world needs to wake up to. Souls conditioned by different modes have qualified themselves for different bodies.

There are different kinds of material bodies because through their karma conditioned souls acquire different mentalities and the need to interact with matter through a different collection of senses and enjoy different types of sense objects.

For me this is the ultimate reality: what kind of karma am I engaged in? What kind of sense objects am I attached to interacting with? Why do I find myself in a body that is destined for suffering and death, and what kind of body will I get afterwards? Is there a way to get off this merry-go-round of passing through plant, animal, human and demigod species again and again?

Many scientists, at least those who are not from Hindu backgrounds (and some who are), are not sufficiently educated in the Bhagavad-Gita to even begin to pose these questions, let alone answer them. But many, like father of the atom bomb J. Robert Oppenheimer (who learned Sanskrt to study the Gita in the original), consider themselves broad-minded and cosmopolitan enough to be willing to have at least some working knowledge of what Bhagavad-Gita says about these things.

We don’t want to turn them off. The poor biologists feel very defensive about the theory of evolution. It is controversial because it removed the last great, popular argument for the existence of God (the argument that a designer is needed), and was thus attacked by religionists from the word go.

Therefore everyone frames the debate in terms of “faith versus reason,” “science versus religion.”

Kulapavana you accuse me of taking a “faith based” approach, but I do not think that is what I am doing. True, I have faith in the Vaisnava acaryas and scriptures, but my faith is supported by my experience with them, my consideration of their teachings. Part of their teachings is that sense data is potentially misleading, and that makes sense to me.

Scientism has its faith too. and its dogmas. Even qualified and professional scientists get ridiculed and “excommunicated” from respectable scientific circles if they express doubt over the theory of evolution.

But deeper than that, there is a kind of prejudice that has to be overcome, that those who claim to have books of revealed spiritual knowledge must somehow be swindlers, or at least simply “believers”, not to be taken seriously as philosophers in today’s world. Intelligent devotees should unite to overthrow this prejudice by gradually exposing today’s intellectuals to Prabhupada’s books.

I sometimes think that Maya Devi tests the sincerity of people by presenting them with things in Prabhupada’s books that challenge their prejudices.

They hear something that challenges their notions of democracy, or pacifism, or equality of the sexes, or the origin of species, or the discipline of historical, humanistic analysis of Vedic texts, or the position of the planets, or any number of other things, and they may take these things as an excuse to reject Lord Caitanya’s mercy.

As distributors of Lord Caitanya’s mercy, we should try to present things in such a way that people do not get turned off, but in the final analysis we are not going to be able to reach everyone. To really get it, a good deal of sincerity and willingness to surrender is required, and when you sell diamonds you cannot expect many customers.

My hope is that gradually, as more and more intelligent people appreciate the beauty and deep value of these books, this Krishna culture, a critical mass will be reached where interest ignites and the various objections and prejudices against Krishna consciousness will be swept aside.

But on the other hand, as Prabhupada’s books start to become more and more popular, we can expect a concerted opposition to put pressure on these points that vex modern sensibilities to keep people from giving themselves freely to the guidance of Prabhupada.

We do have to be prepared to give answers to these questions, and therefore I agree with you, Kulapavana, that we need distinguished physicists, chemists, biologists, paleontologists, historians, political and cultural leaders who embrace Lord Caitanya’s movement and can overcome the resistance of weaker candidates for devotional service.

That is also why I welcome these kinds of discussions amongst devotees. The discussions should help unite us in understanding the challenges faces by preachers and the means for overcoming them.

But most of the would-be devotees who turn away because of doubts about the Fifth Canto, evolution or whatever, do not go off to become astronomers or biologists. They just use their doubts as an excuse to stop chanting Hare Krishna, to stop following the four regulative principles, to stop reading Prabhupada’s books. They go do or read something lower.

It was not that the astronomical or biological questions were so important to them. It was just that Maya presented them with the false idea that they had found a chink in the armor of the Vaisnava view of the world.

Akruranatha,
Your arguments in this subject matter are not convincing even for me, an aspiring Vaishnava, let alone for people of science in general. Why? Because they fail to address the directly raised questions, instead presenting your own general philosophy of science.

Unless preachers learn to address people’s doubts in a direct way, with straight and honest answers, people will have doubts about the rest of your presentation as well (like devotional doctrine and practice). Trust is something that develops gradually.

I know plenty of people who believe in both God and evolution. It is an incorrect assumption that these two are mutually exclusive. This is a very important point. Preachers have their prejudices as well. You may claim that your approach is based not on faith but on science, yet as both a scientist and a devotee I do not see it that way at all. If you say that you have seen reconstructed dinosaurs in a museum, yet you are willing to reject that evidence if it contradicts Bhagavatam (or rather your idea of what Bhagavatam says) - then your approach is completely faith based.

Some attacks on popular religious beliefs and sentiments may be rather justified. Bhagavatam itself attacks the cheating religions. I personally see no value in a belief that woman was created out of man’s rib or in other equally naive creationist legends. They have nothing to do with true spirituality.

“I know plenty of people who believe in both God and evolution.”

Where did they get their idea of God? From their imagination? The Vaisnava acaryas teach not only about God but also about sastra. If the “scientific” idea of evolution is not compatible with what is presented in sastra as taught by Srila Prabhupada, then we have to choose to accept one or the other.

When did Srila Prabhupada ever congratulate Darwin on his famous theory? He didn’t. So if we want to embrace Darwin’s theory or something close to it, we have to let go of Srila Prabhupada. Personally I’m not willing to do that for anything. I have a scientific education too, with several biology classes (Environmental Studies, B.S.), but I also know that the whole modern paradigm is built on Krishna’s illusory energy with no idea about Krishna. Therefore it cannot be trusted regardless of how appealing it may seem.

Why should I spend time pondering things like evolution at all? I could be killed any number of ways today or tomorrow, and then such knowledge, right or wrong, will be of no use. Let me just hear and accept what Srila Prabhupada has to say, for he is our ever well wisher and he knows Krishna.

Kulapavana Prabhu,

I would venture to say that you are not actually the “Aspiring Vaishnava” you are pretending to be, and that your actual motive is to simply attack, harass, and discredit the Krishna Consciousness Movement in general, and Srila Prabhupada specifically, regarding his books and teachings. I did a little research, and notice that you have gone from one Vaishnava website to another, across the internet, and have made similar atheistic claims and attacks in many places. Most recently, at Planet ISKCON you were invited to leave the site, because in each and every thread you simply attacked Srila Prabhupada’s position in an antagonistic way, and contributed little else. I would almost venture to say that you really have much less interest in defending your scientific position, as you do in putting down devotees, and giving them trouble.

In many ways I believe you and I may be similar. I have behaved similarly in recent years – always attacking devotees and blaming them for my unhappiness in life. I had to really examine myself to see that I was not only angry with Krishna Consciousness, and the bhakti-yoga process, but that I in fact was angry with everything. You may need to take a time out, just for your own sanity, and just concentrate on your own spiritual life, alone, for a while. The problem of course is that bhakti-yoga is not easy. It is the most difficult endeavor of all endeavors one might aspire to. Each time I realize the futility of my attempt, I start writing for a while, and when I calm down, I return back to my own spiritual practice again.

Most people simply repeatedly rotate between Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. They never escape or make any progress on their spiritual path. Maintaining an offensive attitude towards devotees of Lord Krishna in general, and specifically a pure devotee of the Lord, will never help you. You will sink down more-and-more in your enviousness. Life is very short. Each day the sun is rising and setting, ticking away your life, and your precious time.

If you are truly an Aspiring Vaishnava then there is the chance you might listen. However, if you are just envious, there is probably no hope.

Pandu-ji,
Almost all people who accept the Intelligent Design theory accept both God and some form of evolution as true. I also know quite a few Hare Krishnas who have no problem accepting evolution as a way to produce idividual species. In both cases it is not a materialistic evolutionism, but ‘intelligent design evolutionism’. That is the dialectical approach.

I do not believe that evolution is blind, mechanical, and random. It is more like a computer program written into this world to create desired conditions without God’s intervention every few hundred years or so. Just like the individual bodies are built using DNA programming and not some miraculous process, the species might be appearing using an even more subtle mechanism. It took modern science a long time to discover the DNA mechanism, so who knows maybe one of our future devotees discovers the evolutionary code. In a way that would prove Intelligent Design.

Suresh-ji,
Pranams. I appreciate your concerns and the humble and personal way in which they were expressed. I thank you for it. To judge me on these issues you have to look at the totality of my writing, as well as my everyday practical service and sadhana. I definitely see myself as an aspiring Vaishnava but I gave up on agreeing with everything that is being said and done in our society of devotees. Very often our preaching suffers because we do not recognize errors in our positions and tactics. My vision of Krishna consciousness maybe somewhat different than yours but I still value it very much.

Kulapavana Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances.

Thank you for not taking offense with the things I said about you. I thought about you today and worried about what you might say in retaliation for what are probably unjust things I have stated about you. I spoke with Akruranatha Prabhu, who didn’t have any good things to say about my statement, and suggested that I apologize to you. I didn’t do enough research to make a claim that you only write antagonistic things against ISKCON. Obviously, you have also written many good and constructive things as well, that I didn’t notice, before I made my claim.

It’s good that you aren’t a blind follower either. That is not at all what Srila Prabhupada desired. He wanted intelligent, highly educated disciples. He wanted you to find out what the truth is, just like a scientist. Srila Prabhupada wanted us to at least be Agnostic Theists though, and not Agnostic Atheists, in our scientific search for the truth.

For me, I like to be honest and tell the truth about myself. Someone stated that spiritual people are often hypocrites. That is why I say to you, don’t be a hypocrite yourself. Tell people the truth about who you are, and what your aspirations truly are. You will have so much more freedom that way.

I am not an aspiring Vaishnava like you. I am in fact an aspiring Atheist. I am not very successful though, either as an atheist or a materialist, because each time I tried to increase my atheism and materialism; I receive punishments for taking that course, and for making those types of decisions in life. Srila Prabhupada stated if you want to forget Krishna, He will place you in a position where you will never see Him or hear of Him again. I am grateful for the punishments, rather than being placed in a position of completely forgetting Krishna Consciousness. The punishments I have received weren’t light either. I have had to keep on suffering for them, even years later. Each time I feel pain, I remember what happened, and why it happened that way. I feel a sense of gratitude to God for what I have received.

Yet in spite of receiving constant punishments, each time I feel some relief and happiness, I almost immediately forget Krishna Consciousness, and fall down again. That is probably why I am always suffering, and get to feel so little peace. I am very childlike. I always test my boundaries to find out what I can and can’t get away with. Sometimes I think Krishna Consciousness is for others to practice, and not actually meant for me.

Srila Prabhupada gave another analogy about this. He defined different degrees of intelligence in people. For instance, First-class intelligence - you hear the truth, you accept it, and surrender. Second-class intelligence – you hear the truth, don’t believe it, receive punishment, learn from your mistakes, and accept the truth. Third-class intelligence – you hear the truth, you don’t believe it, receive punishment, but you don’t learn from your mistakes, and you continue to make them again-and-again. For me scientific proof is not as important as freedom from suffering.

Kulapavana Prabhu,

I am sorry I have not been able to convince you. I am enjoying the discussion. My strong conviction is that if we keep talking about these things favorably and carefully our understanding will greatly increase. My experience has been that when devotees seriously discuss Krishna together without debating or quarreling, the solution eventually presents itself.

It is important that we listen carefully to each other though, and not talk past each other. Communication may be difficult in the best of circumstances, and internet blogs present greater challenges. I am willing to talk and listen on this subject until the surabhi cows come home, but I hope someday we get to talk in person and have real time to get clear what each other is saying.

[It was great to finally meet Suresh Prabhu at L.A. Ratha Yatra, but I regret I did not have more time to sit and talk with him due to some service I had to do. I look forward to spending more time together face to face.]

When you said “if not be evolution, then what?,” I assumed you meant Darwinian evolution of natural selection by random application of the known (or “to be discovered”) impersonal laws of biochemistry. If you can articulate some Vaisnava explanation that proves convincing to modern scientists, that will be great preaching indeed. I hope you can do it.

As for me, I am interested in exploring the “science versus faith” or “fact versus mythology” aspect of this discussion. The word “sraddha” which we translate as “faith” does not mean a blind belief in something irrational, as is often the sense when the word “faith” is used in contrast to “science.” Everyone has some kind of sraddha, or conviction, according to association with different gunas, as described in B.G. Chapter 17. The modern scientific conception that sense perception is the highest praman (and the disregard for Vedic authority) is another kind of faith. Truly.

The devotee’s understanding that Vedic authority is superior to ascending empirical knowledge is not a matter of blind faith in some mythology. It is based on sound philosophy and introspection. The modern scientific and rational world view often tries to shoehorn this philosophy into the box of “religious faith,” but we should be prepared to show how it is different.

Our stories of a disciple accepting guru’s authority that what seems like night is really day or a snake is really a rope is not based on blind faith, but on a deep skepticism…

…a deep skepticism about what our senses and minds are telling us. When we hear from authorities like Krishna and Sukadeva Goswami, great vistas of realized knowledge open up for us and we can see things clearly and know we have understood them.

Some perceive the Supersoul through meditation, others through cultivation of knowledge, and others through karma-yoga. Still others, who are not conversant with spiritual knowledge, worship the Supreme Person upon hearing of Him from authorities, and they also transcend the path of birth and death. (B.G. 13.25-26)

As for the origin of different types of bodies, as I said, devotees can have different ideas about these things. I do not pretend to be a scientist. I look forward to seeing devotee scientists of different stripes proving the truth of the Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-Gita philosophy. I hope you will contribute to that effort.

We know that Krishna creates the laws of cause and effect (the interaction of the modes), and His inferior nature causes the transformations of matter. His superior nature, the jiva, is the cause of suffering and enjoyment and various conceptions of life under the modes. (B.G. 13.20-22)

Knowing the way matter is transforming and interacting is only a small aspect of knowledge, and we can never know it completely. There are other, more important things to know. Contractors build a house, but architects draw up the plans, based on needs of the people who will live there. I have no problem with someone studying aspects of what carpenters, electricians and plumbers do, but there is value in understanding architecture as well. Greater value.

Regarding your question about woman being created out of a man’s rib, I think there may be some value in understanding that male and female were once part of the same whole. For example, after Lord Brahma became frustrated in his ability to populate the world through his mental creativity, the two forms of Svayambhuva Manu and Satarupa appeared together out of his body, and together this original human couple, who were endowed with the ability to procreate sexually, are accepted as “Lord Brahma’s body.” (S.B. 3.12.50-54)

Similarly, Brahma-Samhita describes that all creatures in this world, being offspring of Mahesvara and Maya Devi, are of the nature of the embodiment of male and female generative organs.

These statements of revealed scriptures convey great factual truths to mankind if we learn how to approach them.