Hare Krishna

Haribol. I saw your website. I think you have a very nice ability to harmonise things in a way that does not disturb your faith, which was one of the characteristics of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

Yes, it is possible to believe in evolution and at the same time be a Krishna devotee. Evolution is simply a mechanism, and as we both know, a mechanism is not a cause, but merely a means. We may say that by Krishna's empowerment, Lord Brahma creates all the creatures through the mechanism of evolution. This could be an acceptable explanation.

Ultimately all explanations for events and situations will not be the complete truth, but will be a particular perspective on the truth. What is significant is the conclusion that one arrives at on the basis of the explanation, and how he acts based on that. The case of the hellish planets in the Srimad Bhagavatam is a good case in point. Bhaktivinode has said that these are allegorical, and are simply a device meant to encourage people to act piously. Others after Bhaktivinode have said that his preaching in this respect is itself a device, meant to encourage western scientifically-minded people to accept the Bhagavatam. I think at the end of the day, the message we are to take from all this is that impious activity is not in our best interest, and accepting the Bhagavatam is.

Different acaryas will present different things at different times, but the aim is one, to encourage the conditioned living entities to surrender to Krishna and reawaken their original constitutional consciousness - Krishna Consciousness. In this respect, Srila Prabhupada has opposed the doctrine of evolution on the grounds that it is leading people away from Krishna. For this reason it should be rejected. Rupa Goswami has explained that the basis of acceptance or rejection of a given thing is its utility in Krishna Consciousness. Whatever is favourable should be accepted, whatever is unfavourable should be rejected. In the Srimad Bhagavatam (one of the four seed verses - 2nd Canto) Krishna says to Brahma that "Whatever appears to be of any value, if it is not in relation to me, has no reality." This is the vision of the devotee. However, we should endeavour to find out the relationship of everything with Krishna. As Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati says: "Religion means proper adjustment." With some adjustment, everything has its perfection in relation to Krishna.

Bhaktivinode has written in his essay "The Bhagavat", available from www.vrindavan.org and reprinted as a foreword to Srila B.R. Sridhar Maharaja's "Search for Sri Krishna", that the utility of a bad road is that it can be further developed to become a good road, or travelled along to a good road. So if you can develop an interpretation of the doctrine of evolution that fulfils this end, then you will do a great service to the parampara. It should be harmonious with the Gaudiya proyajana siddhanta and progressive in terms of engaging people more fully in devotional practices. You will have to be a pioneer in this yourself.

Our predecessors have done this - Srila Sridhar Swami's commentary on the Bhagavat contains mayavada philosophy as a lure to get monists to read the lilas of Krishna. The potential problem in accepting the validity of the doctrine of evolution, and one that you yourself fall prey to at this stage of your devotional career, is that of accepting the underlying philosophical underpinnings. In his Tattva-sandarbha Sri Jiva Goswami examines different pramanas, or means of arriving at the truth. This is essential before any program of understanding reality can be undertaken. How you go about it is fundamental to your inquiry. A good summary study of this work by Swami B.V Tripurari is available from www.swami.org. In this work Sri Jiva points out the inherent limitations in ascending methods of inquiry, attempting to understand reality through empirical observation and logical deduction. As a case in point; the refutations of Forbidden Archaeology that you cite miss the real point of the book. The essential point is that alternate explanations can be proposed for the evidence, and that two opposing explanations may both be consistent with the evidence and at the same time contradictory. The fact that proponents of one school will then attempt to exclude any new evidence that does not support or even contradicts their explanation is secondary. New empiric facts are being observed constantly in science and scientists are forced to revise their theories. It is natural that the old school, whose position is founded on what rapidly become out-dated theories, have a tendency to try to protect their position, and thus may fall prey to intellectual and scholarly dishonesty. This is the result of pride. Their intelligence is directed into a method which will not reveal Krishna, because they don't want to have to surrender to him. They are given a method that allows cheating because they have pride, and they will ultimately be cheated, because no matter what they understand, or how many accolades they get in their lifetime, Krishna will come as death and take it all away.

The supposed refutations do not refute the work of Cremo and Thompson, but rather simply restate the case for the evolutionist. We might say that evolution may or may not be a fact, but one fact is that the scientific method is incapable of definitely establishing it as anything more than a theory. It cannot provide irrevocable absolute truth. This is Sri Jiva's point in Tattva-sandarbha. He wishes to establish a means of knowing (pramana) that is itself perfect, and can provide a perfect understanding. Nothing less will do. This is main point. The specific case of evolution is itself a detail. What Cremo and co are pointing out in their book is that science cannot provide definite answers. What was known as a scientific fact 100 years ago is now considered ridiculous and simplistic. What makes us so proud that we think that our descendants in another 100 years will look back and see anything different?

The other thing about the doctrine of evolution is that it does not provide a very supportive background for understanding the Srimad Bhagavatam. Have you read this? This is what Srila Jiva Goswami has firmly established as the ultimate means of knowing in his Tattva-Sandarbha. If you read the Bhagavatam and get some feeling for what it is speaking of, you cannot but help realising that the doctrine of evolution has serious problems. One of them is that it does not lead to love of Krishna, whereas the doctrine of the Bhagavatam does. At the end of the day we are not living for mere dry intellectual understandings, but for love. When one has love for Krishna day turns to night and night turns to day; what appear to be the most abominable irreligious acts become the highest statement of love in perfection; the moon becomes further away than the sun; and everything else becomes meaningless in comparison. When Krishna plays his flute in Vraja, the water turns to stone, freezing in its course to hear the beautiful sound of Madana-mohan's flute song. The stones become soft like butter, and our stone-like hearts melt as well. This is what we want. This is beyond thinking. Intellectual endeavour has no standing in this realm. Reason is very limited, even within this world. It cannot establish definite truth in relation to matter, what to speak of penetrating into the land of Vrindavan. To do this requires bhakti.

To travel and lead others along a path leading from a dry understanding of the world, separate from Krishna and based on imperfect methods, to the perfection of love of Krishna, beyond the reason and argument that characterises scientific endeavours, is a nice service, and i encourage you to do so. Do not remain on the surface of Krishna Consciousness. It is not an intellectual endeavour, it a matter of the soul. Do not be distracted by the temporary presentations of the material world, politics and controversy, even when they externally appear in the guise of devotional matters. Immerse your intelligence, and your heart, in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Get some feeling for it. In the mood of Bhaktivinode, build a road from the dry desert of the doctrine of evolution to the sweet nectarean land of Vraja, and lead the way travelling along it yourself. Your position will be beset by controversy from both sides. Pure materialists will criticise your conclusion as not being a logical conclusion of the doctrine of evolution, which necessarily it is not, as evolution is merely a description of a mechanism and cannot speak of ultimate causes. This is its limitation, and the limitation of the underlying pramana in general. You can study a painting down to the molecular level, but you will not understand who has painted and why through this method. On the other side, many devotees will criticise you for making a compromise with the materialists. You should understand that Prabhupada's argument lies with the philosophical (scientific) method underlying the doctrine of evolution as much as with its conclusions, and this is it weakest link. It is not due to any lack of understanding on his side or faulty presentation on the part of others. He is pointing out a much deeper reality. We would do well to go this deep ourselves. 

Back to Readers Comments