Evolution Bhagavatam What are the issues for devotees The Monk s Podcast 165 with Akhandadhi Prabhu

Podcast: Summary podcast: Video:

Hare Krishna Khandadi Prabhu. Welcome back to the Monks Podcast. Hare Krishna Chaitanya Charan.

Great to be back with you again. And I've been listening to many of your podcasts since we last spoke. And I think it's a tremendous service you're doing for the devotees.

Thank you. Thank you, Prabhu, for your kind words. Actually, this has been a very wonderful way for me to nourish myself intellectually and devotionally as well as get the association of senior devotees and also, in a sense, have a platform where senior devotees can address the devotee community in an interactive format.

So it's been very nourishing. And our podcast was, I would feel, one of the most important podcasts on the broad genre of science and spirituality. I haven't had many podcasts on that subject.

And it was a very important discussion. So I thought we today, in our last podcast, you discussed about how consciousness, if we start with consciousness instead of matter, we can explain reality much better and we can change the way how science is done. So today I thought that whenever as devotees or even upcoming devotees, new people coming to bhakti, one of the biggest areas of tension is the theory of evolution.

So in some ways, in today's world, the theory of evolution has become like a litmus test, which if you don't accept evolution, then you are a religious fundamentalist. Maybe you are a young earth creationist who accepted the earth is 6000 years old or whatever. People don't even give much consideration.

So that is one side of the extreme rejection of anyone who questions evolution. That's one side. And other side, within our movement, there are certain quotes of Prabhupada, certain statements of Prabhupada, which seem to say that we can have no stand except categorically reject evolution.

So over the years, as I have travelled abroad and met with different devotees, I have realised that things are not that simple. Even Prabhupada made many statements and Prabhupada's positions were more nuanced than what comes out by just a few quotes. That's why I thought we could have this discussion.

And since you are at present one of the, I could say, front runners in bringing about a serious dialogue between science and spirituality in our tradition, especially with your pioneering Atma paradigm. So I thought we could discuss this topic today with you. Thank you very much.

I think it is a very valuable topic. And it is one, like many others, which causes angst amongst devotees, both in our early stages and for many, it's something that lingers with them. And it is important to clarify these things.

I don't believe that Krishna consciousness is a series of beliefs that we have to accept. Otherwise, we can't be card-holding members of ISKCON. Rather, it's a process of development of knowledge and realisation by which we enhance our purification and come to understand our relationship with Krishna and how Krishna is behind all the workings of the universe.

So there will be lots within that that will be difficult for us to comprehend or rationalise even, you know, in the earlier stages of our development. Those early stages can last many decades for some of us. I was thinking about this, you know, that we have different issues.

This is a beautiful point you made, that Krishna consciousness is not just alignment with a set of beliefs. It's more of developing the knowledge and you could say the realisation, the understanding, the vision to see Krishna everywhere, Krishna underlying or acting behind everything in the world. So that is the central point.

Like even in our philosophy, we say that always remember Krishna, never forget Krishna. That is the purpose of all rules. So we could say it's not just the purpose of, you could say, all rules, but also the purpose of all, you could say, doctrines or what we had called as beliefs or so both the practical dimension and the action dimension as well as the doxy and the praxy.

For both of them, the purpose is enhancing our Krishna consciousness. So yeah, that's a powerful point. Thank you.

Did I understand you clearly, what you are saying? Well, that's correct. And that there are always going to be aspects of Krishna consciousness that may be a little elusive to our own understanding at this point. And they're not just the science bits.

They can be other aspects. I remember I joined the temple in 1975, and I had actually never been inside the temple before. But Krishna kind of manifested himself to me in some way and just told me, look, you're wasting your time doing what you're doing, you know, in university.

You want to be a devotee, do it and do it now. So I thought, okay. So off I went to join the temple at Bhaktivedanta Mandir.

And I had a fear at that time, there was something in my mind, the thing that I wondered could I accept the deities? Because I'd read in the Bhagavatam that we worship the deity forms of Krishna. And I thought, how will I cope with that? Because I'm from a Presbyterian Protestant background, and we had nothing like that. It's a very austere, you know, no imagery provided.

So I was wondering how that would sit with me. You know, so I think every devotee will have something or other in some aspects of our practise, of our culture, of our methodology, that we might find challenging. As it was, thanks to the beauty of Radhika Kulananda at Bhaktivedanta Mandir, and the Association of Wonderful Devotees there, I found this isn't a problem.

My little purification, I got to say, ah, yes, now I understand why they worship the deities. I understand this is Krishna. I mean, I'm still trying to understand, of course.

That's beautiful. So we don't have to put, say, philosophical tenets in a different category from other things. We often accept that, okay, you will not be able to follow this particular rule.

You will not be able to accept this cultural aspect. But somehow we don't make that into a faith issue. But when we are unable to accept something intellectually, sometimes we make that into a faith issue.

Oh, you're having doubts. So sometimes it seems that we could have a more accommodating and understanding approach, not just to somebody's difficulty in practising a particular rule or a particular standard, but also difficulty in accepting a particular philosophical proposition or philosophical tenet also. Yes, I think we can only make progress from where we are.

One of my favourite kind of theological jokes is a thing from Ireland, where if you ask someone, how do you get to Kilkenny? And they'll say, ah, no, I wouldn't start from here. Where else can you start from? Beautiful. We can only start our journey in Krishna Consciousness from where we are.

We can only ever take our next step from where we are. I wish I was further down the path of Krishna Consciousness. I wish I had greater realisations on so many other aspects, but I'm not there yet.

And therefore, I've got to proceed from where I am. And I think we've all got to be very comfortable with that and to take great comfort, encouragement and gratitude for the realisations that each one of us already have in our spiritual life and use that as the strength, the determination to want to progress further. And all things kind of can come to be revealed.

Over the early years, in the late 70s, early 80s, I had a little association with Sadaputta Prabhupada. Um, not a lot, but what I did have did impact me. And one of the things that I imbibed from him was that in the science field, you know, where there are either statements in the Bhagavatam that seem to not run parallel or consistent with what, say, modern science would say, you know, we don't get hung up on that one.

And we don't worry about it. But we don't necessarily just compromise either in our minds. But we just think there's something more that I need to understand about both.

I need to understand exactly what the science is about. And I need to know exactly what Krishna Consciousness is saying. And not just to make a very quick assumption.

Oh, this doesn't tally with what I think each of the means. So that was something I got from Sadaputta. And it's always stayed with me that we have to deepen our understanding, both of what we understand within Krishna Consciousness and also what we understand science can say and is saying about something in particular.

So I think that we've always got, you know, where there are issues that seem to cause controversy in our minds, relax, we will come to them. You know, we progress along those things that we are confident on in our spiritual path. And if we do the right study, and if we do it carefully and objectively, it's amazing the sort of realisations that come to us in due course.

Yes, beautiful. Over a period of time, initially, I used to equate faith with certainty. If you have faith, this is certain.

And there is no questioning it. But over some time, I have realised that bhakti is not just about certainty. It's also about humility.

And you could say humility in the intellectual domain means questioning the certainty or finality of our present understandings. So what you said exactly that I need to understand science better and I need to understand Shastra also better. So then those blanket positions that you might come up with, oh, this is contradictory.

We'll find that maybe they're not as contradictory or as reconcilable as they seem initially. Or there still may be differences, but we may at least understand why those differences arise and where and my experience again with Sadhaputa is that by taking that humble, patient approach, in due course, you discover something far greater about our own tradition, about our own philosophy, and about the brilliance of the Srimad Bhagavatam than you ever expected to find. So I think for me, the continual exploration of the relationship of science and Krishna consciousness over decades just continues to actually amaze me now in my appreciation for Srinu Prabhupada and the Bhagavatam.

Oh, and that's so inspiring to hear. For many devotees, it is like, this is a touch me not, that this will only cause me anxiety and it will fill me with doubt so that we not get into that at all. But if that could happen, that can make it like an intellectual adventure exploring this.

It's an intellectual and spiritual adventure and it is very, very exciting, but we do have to learn how to relax in our, where there is uncertainty and where there is a little doubt and we may have to even park those whilst we develop our understanding. Okay. Yeah, that's true.

It's like sometimes some things, I like the word parking actually. Okay, just keep this. It is not that I have to understand this right now to move ahead in my Krishna consciousness and we do that with so many philosophical things also in scripture.

Sometimes even a purely theological verse in the Bhagavatam, we may not be able to understand it. So then we don't really stop studying the Bhagavatam. So if we don't do it for core theology, then why do it for something which is interacting of a theology with a contemporary theory or something like that.

Exactly. We do it with so many different aspects. Later on, I'll probably understand that a bit better.

And of course, every devotee has the experience. Every time you go back to the Gita, every time you go back to the Bhagavatam, you get something different from it because your mind, your consciousness is regarding different questions and you see things in the Bhagavatam. I never knew that was there.

But it's completely pertinent to a question or issue or something that you're exploring at this time. And it leaps out from the page at you and you go, yeah, that's really good. You know, I never realised that was there because last time I was reading it and maybe thinking about a different aspect of Krishna consciousness.

And on this regard, you know, how many devotees, and we all have done this, I'm sure, when we read the third canto, we get to the Sankhya bits, you know, the elements. We go, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We're just kind of going on, you know, getting that out of the way.

So we come to the pastimes, you know. But actually, understanding our Sankhya system, understanding our metaphysics is crucial to understanding the mercy of Krishna and how he provides the material world for us. And understanding how kind and how Krishna is in his provision of this material world.

And when it actually comes to our interaction with science on various issues, whether it's consciousness, matter, the universe, or evolution, unless we really are deeply immersed in what is our metaphysical position of the nature of consciousness, mind, and its interaction with the physical aspects, unless we are really tuned into that, we're not going to actually understand the Bhagavatam's position on these topics. So, it's really important, I think, for devotees, if they want to kind of get a better understanding of some of the, say, science issues that might cause them anxiety or feel that there's controversy, there is, I'm afraid there's no choice. You're going to have to immerse yourself in the Bhagavatam's metaphysics.

That's very, in one sense, even the Chaitanya Chaitanya says this point that siddhanta balya chitte na kare alas, don't be lazy about studying the metaphysics of philosophy because iha hai the krishna lage sudhruda manas, by this, you'll be able to fix your mind on Krishna better. So, and maybe there's a personal thing there. For me, it works really well.

But I know other devotees who are just so absorbed in Krishna's pastimes. They just love listening to the, you know, Vrindavan, Leela. And for them, that's inspiring.

And they're not really that worried about the material world because their view is, well, you know, okay, I'm stuck in the material world. But really, I want to orientate myself to desiring to be with Krishna and serving him in the spiritual world. And that's a perfectly good approach.

You know, and I would never wish to say to those devotees, no, I think you really better sit down and let me lecture you on metaphysics for the next seven days. Yeah, like Sarvabhaumaacharya, you know, I would want to take that sort of line with those devotees, because in one sense, they've already transcended the issues of the material world. But for others, like myself, I find the material world fascinating.

That's true. I also noticed that. Sorry, please complete.

I was just going to say maybe that's part of my conditioning and attachments here. But I just, I not only find it fascinating, but also spiritually uplifting when you understand how how Krishna works with us in the material world. And for me, that is an impetus towards bhakti as well.

Because it makes me more attracted and grateful to Krishna and also eager also to go back to Godhead. Yeah, it struck me that sometimes I would get disturbed why devotees are not disturbed about a philosophical issue. How can you be so calm? This is such a serious controversy.

In fact, I've seen some devotees who are actually doing research in the field of evolution, and they have no interest in exploring how evolution works with, how it, how, what is the relation of evolution with scripture? They say, okay, that's my profession. And this is my bhakti. And it doesn't intellectually trouble them.

So, it struck, and it's not that they are intellectually lazy or intellectually responsible. It's just that that is not their need. So, it just struck me.

I had done a podcast. In one sense, we are very different as devotees. There's so much which makes us common and which is so easy to relate to any devotee, you just feel a bond with them.

But at the same time, there are many devotees who, I just don't see Krishna Consciousness in the same way as they do. I don't, you know, and I know that they have interests in Krishna Consciousness, which just, I can't fathom or I wouldn't relate to in that way. There's a plurality amongst us.

And I think that also has to be respected. And ISKCON, I think, is getting better and better at providing a plurality of encouragements for devotees, wherever they are, wherever their starting point is, they are getting to that same point, back to Godhead. They've been encouraged through their interests, because our brains are small.

Our minds are like a tiny mind. It's not possible for us to, any one of us to encompass all the knowledge of the spiritual and material worlds, all the knowledge of the science of Bhagavad Gita. It's just not possible for us to take all of that in.

So, we each have our own little part of the total jigsaw puzzle. Okay, beautiful. I think you made two distinct points over here.

It's very powerful. Now, I had a podcast with Hanuman Pleshak Maharaj on Shakespeare and Krishna Consciousness. So, he mentioned at that point, like one of the questions, which when I told some devotees, we are having this podcast.

We don't have time to read Prabhupada's books. Who is going to read Shakespeare? So, when I mentioned this to Maharaj, he said that, actually, yes, that in general, not everybody is a reader. But for some people, books are their life.

And for those, they will read scripture and they will want to read other books also. And then they will see scriptural truth in other books. And they'll see in Shakespeare, things which can be connected, engage with Krishna Consciousness.

So, it's their need. So, actually, that what you said about as our movement providing plurality, I love the phrasing, plurality of encouragement for devotees. And I would say, not just at different starting points, but even during the journey.

Some of us may have more of intellectual need, like you said, I could resonate so much with it. It's almost like you find the material world fascinating. And not fascinating in a distracting sense from Krishna, but fascinating sense in an embracing sense.

Fascinating in an embracing sense. Okay, Krishna is, how can I see Krishna here also? Just to use it, I mentioned a little example there. Some years ago, I was doing workshops with the introspection course at Radhidesh.

And I would start the group of devotees with a little exercise. I would give them a bag of jigsaw pieces and say, okay, each one of you work on this jigsaw. And I give them, you know, within 10 minutes, they were putting the pieces together.

But all of them started to realise, wait a minute, I haven't got all the pieces. You know, they started very enthusiastically saying, I'll get that. I'm good at puzzles.

I'll put this together really quick. You know, there was a little bit of wait a minute, I just don't have all the pieces. And they were kind of looking at me, what have you done? You haven't given me all the pieces.

And that's the first realisation, I think, in Krishna consciousness, I haven't got all the pieces. I've got some pieces. And those with those pieces, I can put together a certain part of the total picture of Krishna consciousness.

Then I would ask them, have a look at what your neighbours got, and see if what he has put together helps you fit in some of the other pieces that you have into your piece. And they would do that. Then I'd say, actually, why don't you share the pieces with your neighbour? And see if together, you're able to create a bigger picture.

And so by collaboration with devotees, and they're the parts of the picture of Krishna consciousness they can see, my picture is being enhanced. And when we share it all together, and we have devotees working on different aspects of our philosophy and practise, we're starting to amass a very beautiful, large, and complete picture of Krishna consciousness, which is our legacy for this world on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Magnificent, beautiful, large and complete picture of Krishna consciousness.

Yeah, and that is, as you said, that's our legacy. Otherwise, we have, in one sense, even one piece of jigsaw, the jigsaw puzzle is enough to attract us toward Krishna, is enough to nourish us in our Krishna consciousness. But that's not a whole picture.

So, when you're thinking about this in the Chatur Shloki Gita, Krishna in 10.8, he talks about those who are enlightened Buddha, they become devoted to him. That's 10.8. But the 10.9 says, these Buddhas come together, and they do Bodhayanta. They enlighten each other.

Yes. So, it's exactly what you're saying, the same thing, that they are enlightened in the sense that they know Krishna. And in one sense, one part of Krishna is also non-different from the whole.

But at the same time, there are many other parts which we put together. So, beautiful example. In the context of what we're discussing today, I think we have to understand that the BI, the Bhaktivedanta Institute, has a particular purpose and role within this larger picture of Krishna consciousness.

It's dealing with some particular issues in particular area of the overall picture. And even within the BI, it's not that there is homogeneity. The BI doesn't meet all together in some big Congress and make resolutions, here is our policy, here is our creed, here's what you should believe in.

It's not like that. Certainly in recent decades, the BI has become rather diverse, individuals working on specific projects that they are personally dedicated to, in different parts of the world even. And because of that, I think I felt, and this was going back 10-15 years, I'd done other services within Krishna consciousness, but always had an interest in making Krishna consciousness accessible to the public and meaningful and rational for the public.

And I was kind of concerned that we don't seem to have a lot of activity within the Bhaktivedanta Institute that is manifesting in the life of the devotees. There may be research going on, but it didn't seem to be very obvious or visible to the rest of ISKCON. So, that's why in the UK, I was working on a particular kind of approach through my interest in consciousness and the relation of consciousness to the physicality of this world.

And we formed our own little group, we called the Science and Philosophy Initiative. But we were kind of working on our own things and having a good time together and doing nice research. But really, it was only when we connected with Brahmatirtha and his group of the BI in Gainesville, that our kind of progress really started to take off.

And I think the collaboration between the devotees we had in the UK and those in America was very valuable. And that then led to the conference, the Consciousness and Science Conference, which was in January 2019, and which basically was a call to devotee scientists around the world, you know, whatever your interest is, is there a way we can kind of communicate? Can we connect together? Can we communicate? Can we collaborate on research and really trying to understand both these things? What is our philosophy? What is our metaphysics? What is science? Where is the overlap? Where is the parallels? Where are the differences of opinion there? And from that, we've got a number of different, if you like, research groups that have started to occur, collaborating on particular issues. And it's a growing network.

And it's actually been really encouraging what's happened even in during these lockdown years, how it's developing. But still, there is plurality. And no one, certainly not me, can speak on behalf of the BI.

We can say, here is something that I'm working on, or here is something that our group is working on. And this is the sort of views that we have come up with. So anything I offer in this particular podcast, please, it should be seen in that light.

I am not a representative speaking the BI sedanta. I am representing myself. But what I have done, and I think to my personal advantage, is that I have worked with quite a few devotees and tried to develop the ideas, particularly on this field of evolution.

And that led to our presentation within last year's series on the Atma Paragon. Oh, okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

In one sense, among intellectuals, it's going to be difficult to avoid diversity. And unless diversity is leading to dissension or destructive criticism, diversity is not necessarily a problem at all. So, since you mentioned about the metaphysics, I thought we could go ahead and see, at one level, science has come up with many different theories.

There is gravity, there is thermodynamics, there are so many theories. It seems that the theory of evolution has become like a lightning rod, a flashpoint. And what are the reasons for that? So, from what I also studied evolution a little bit, what I understood is that it happened at a historical point where science was increasingly gaining influence on society.

And then, in some ways, atheism was trying to gain the upper hand. And atheism used evolution to reject science and to reject religion. And religion also, especially by religion, I talk about Christianity.

And not everyone in Christianity, again, these are nuanced things. So, but even some Christians, they felt it was a direct threat to them. So, atheists wanting to use it to propagate atheism on one side, and Christians feeling it's a threat to Christianity, to their faith itself.

Those were the two broad reasons. Well, in my understanding, it's become very controversial. Maybe you could explain what are the reasons why it is such a serious challenge to faith for many people? Well, you've actually given the history in a nutshell there.

So, thank you for that. But yes, you're right. The science emerged from what we call the natural philosophers, like Newton and others.

And people like Bacon kind of try to develop a methodology by which we could gain certainty on certain ideas we call theories. So, you know, if when you follow this methodology of observation, you know, thesis, and then predictions and testing those predictions through replicable experiments, and then seeing how that matches up with what you predicted, and then reviewing it, peer review is a very important part of the scientific method. Then you kind of come to a conclusion.

And you kind of think, we can have some confidence in this conclusion, because we have done this methodology. And actually, it's a brilliant system. I'm a great fan of the scientific method.

It is brilliant. It has been called one of the most brilliant methods for establishing kind of validity about an idea connected with the physical world. But what we have to appreciate, of course, is that the scientific methodology has sacrificed the scope of what it can examine in order to get extra clarity and certainty within those boundaries.

Because the scientific methodology cannot deal with things that it can't put in the test tube. And I'm thinking metaphorically, you know, it can't experiment on, it can't replicate, you know. So, it has its method, and it has, therefore, it's defining its scope of examination.

And very much, it is to do with that which is physically observable to our senses. And science is a system for modelling our experience of the world. And science will tell you, it cannot tell you what the material or physical world is.

It can only tell you what our experience of the world is. So, it is very limited in its power to shine a light on the nature of reality. But within its own boundaries, it can be brilliant.

And it can be extremely useful. And we have developed incredible technologies from that. And that is fine.

That is its purpose. Now, in the 19th century. So, if you don't mind, this is a very important point which you made.

I think it is, was it some prominent scientist, I forget, he said that we don't really study nature, we study nature as subjected to our methodology. What you said something. So, this is something which I studied engineering.

I was quite fascinated by science. But somehow, until I was introduced to Krishna Consciousness, that science limits its scope was never really highlighted, maybe because no branch of knowledge will want to point out its limitations. But so, from what you said about this thing that science sort of divides the world into primary qualities and secondary qualities.

And it started right from Galileo. And so, primary qualities are those which science considers measurable or you said like put in laboratory. So, length, breadth, luminosity, viscosity, but those which are non-measurable, which are in one sense associated with consciousness, like say, beauty, fragrance, taste, all the aesthetic aspects, which to some extent in our lived experience are primary.

So, they are put aside. So, is that something similar? Are you talking about a primary secondary division or you're talking about something else? That is what you just described. The primary and secondary are a very clear distinction of the boundaries of science.

Science likes to look at what can be observed and what can be measured. And therefore, where you can predict cause and effect mathematically. And ultimately, science is underpinned by math.

Math is not science, but it underpins, it is a truth maker for science. Whereas any issues regarding consciousness and our mental states, the qualia, the actual experience of our inner world, they're out of reach for this process. And that is part of the reason consciousness has been neglected for so long within the scientific world.

And it's a whole subject how neuroscience will kind of really only look at what are the correlates of our conscious experience within the brain activity. But why do I see a picture? Why am I experiencing a picture with colours and forms and movement, when all my brain has are electrical patterns and neurones, you know, firing and the little charges of ions jumping from one to another? How does that equate to my experience, my conscious experience? That's why we make the point. The first thing is the qualities of our conscious experience cannot be reduced to those properties which are identified within physics, and the systems that are described by physics and biology.

So therefore, we say consciousness must be a non neural, non material or non physical attribute. So yes, consciousness is one, but there's lots of others. Origins are the other, because what are the origins of something? You can't put that in the test, because you can't replicate the beginning of the universe.

You can't replicate the idea that there was a first living cell, you can't replicate that. You can try to simulate, you can try to create things which might suggest that you can never actually replicate it. So the origins are never part of what can be achieved by the scientific method.

That's fascinating, bro. Is this something which science also acknowledges? Because theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory and many other cosmological theories, origin seems to be a major part of scientific research today, at least nowadays. The difficulty is that science has now adopted a narrative about existence.

And that came about through the 19th and 20th century. And you gave a little summary of that. And it's basically now kind of summarised that before space and time existed, at some point, something or other, or maybe nothing, you know, something or other manifested matter.

In that point, we call the Big Bang. And no one actually believes it was a Big Bang. But whatever it was, there was some start, it produced matter, matter coalesces into the form of the universe on one of these little rocks, you know, somehow or other, the chemicals organise themselves into the first biological organism, you know, first life, that further then develops through an evolutionary process of just chance and mutations, and so on, until more developed organisms arise, some with neural capacity brains, and from advanced brains, consciousness emerges.

That's the narrative. And none of that can actually be actually established by the scientific method. There may be lots of aspects that people might take as hinting and inferring that, but you can never actually get to the point of a scientific proof of those, those aspects.

But for many, there is enough of, they think, well, because we've looked at the brain, and we can see this fires when we're conscious, then yeah, that satisfies that bit that the brain produces consciousness. When we say, you know, we can see natural selection at work, you know, that's fine. We can see microevolution at work.

Yeah, that satisfies the development of the species, you know, because we can see, you know, the universe at different stages, we can look at galaxies forming, and we can kind of, we have this radiation that seems to infer aspects of the Big Bang. And all of this is, you know, is useful. Some of these observations are valid.

But they don't necessarily lead to the narrative as the only explanation for them. And along the way, there is the big omission in all of this is information. Yes.

Just one minute, if you don't mind, I mean, information is a very important point. We'll come to that. So, if I understand where you are going is that you said that I was discussing how evolution became so controversial.

So, you're saying that evolution is like a key part in the narrative that either science has assumed, or people who subscribe to science assume is true. And that narrative seems to or that narrative challenged the prevailing religious narrative, or the prevailing narrative about human beings that people had in general. And that is why it has become so controversial.

Is that where you're going with? Yes, I mean, the way it worked is in the 19th century, ideas of evolution already existed early 19th century. And there was even an understanding of natural selection. Darwin was not the first to think of evolution.

And he didn't even wasn't the first to think of natural selection. But what he did do, and which he is credited for, is that he kind of presented natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution could take place. This was a mechanism that would favour, you know, favourable traits, it would kind of accentuate them and allow them to be passed on, and therefore species to develop in their capacities in whatever way.

And that was seized on as a way of explaining nature that didn't involve God. And immediately, you know, there's, there's always those who are theists and those who are atheists in human society, that's perennial. And the atheists suddenly realised, finally, we have actually got a philosophy, a theory, you know, a way of presenting a narrative on the world that doesn't involve God.

So it satisfied the rational need to have an atheistic philosophy. Because up to that point, you required God because in order to explain the complexity and diversity of the world. But Darwin's theory, and, you know, there's, you know, people debate whether he was himself, you know, firmly believed that it put God out of the picture or not, is irrelevant in one sense.

Many others took it. This is exactly what we needed. This removes the need to propose God as the explanation for the world.

Yes, I think Richard Dawkins famously or infamously said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. And then it later on got incorporated within the bigger narrative, you know, once the ideas for the universe and Big Bang, because up until the beginning of the 20th century, people thought the wasn't very developed ideas of its origin. So that came later.

But now we've kind of got this standard narrative of Big Bang, matter, universes, life, in this part, maybe elsewhere, we don't know, but it's a rare thing, and consciousness. And that's where we all come from. No need for any creator.

And certainly in this picture, even consciousness is simply a physical phenomenon of the brain. So there's no question of it surviving death. Now, the problem with this is the information content.

Okay, you're saying all this happens, but in simple terms, how does that explain the complexity of the universe, and the very specific forms that matter and biological organisms take? And the answer is chance, chance interaction. Somehow or other, these things just happen. And if they happen, chance things happen over a long enough time, you're going to get something useful.

And natural selection chooses favourable things. Yeah. So this is, I just want to, before you go to information, maybe it's related.

So I'm just trying to articulate the journey. So what happened is that there was a prevailing narrative about how the world came about, which was maybe biblical or whatever. But science, while proposing, you could say individual theories about the way the world worked.

So Newtonian physics, for example, gravity and mechanics, it's largely about how the world works, how things function. But evolution became like a centrepiece for describing not just how the world works, but how the world came about. And not just how the world came about, how we all came about.

And in that sense, you could say its philosophical implications were far heavier, were far more serious. So that, say, an object falls because of gravity, doesn't challenge humanity's self-understanding of who we are as much as, say, we came from stardust or we came from chemicals alone. So in that sense, it became a serious issue.

And one more point, what you mentioned is that this narrative itself does not have scientific proof. It's like a narrative. There are fragments of it which are provable.

I remember Sadaputra mentions in one of his books that with respect to many of these theories about evolution, about origin, what we have is non-scientific extrapolations of scientific observations. And let's take on that point, because I think that's really important, that there's only certain things that science can establish through its own methodology. And what has happened is that science has become arrogant in its philosophical extrapolation, as you say.

And it has taken those points and said, now we can make a theory about origins and things which are far beyond the scientific method. And that's not science. That's philosophy.

But scientists aren't trained in philosophy and they don't understand when they have trespassed beyond their remit as scientists and into the world of philosophy. And what you then get is very bad philosophy. Philosophy where you explain something according to a chance interaction.

That's bad philosophy, because there is no explanatory power. It cannot be tested. It's actually anti-science in that it's denying causality or specific causality.

So you get this mismatch of science and philosophy, and that needs to be understood. Philosophy has become downgraded. Scientists actually actively try to attack, they think we've got rid of religion, now we'll get rid of philosophy, because that's a speculation.

And then they leave the speculation to the scientists, but scientists who are not trained in proper philosophical thinking, philosophy has its own rules for establishing validity. And those aren't being followed in the West, and they're certainly not being followed by many of those who are speculating on narratives taken from certain philosophical observations, but then developed into a bigger story about the overall origins of the universe, life, and humans, etc. Now, to go back to the point of Darwin's thing, Darwin's theory wouldn't necessarily have been a big issue had it not been for the Christian response.

In many ways, a lot of the natural philosophers could easily have accommodated, okay, well, if that's part of the system that the watchmaker started, that he kind of got life started, and then it just develops on its own in all this way, that would have been Newtonian, and acceptable to theists in a Newtonian sense, right? But what the Christians were complaining about was that this removed what they thought was the special status of the creation of humans distinct from the beasts, whereas what Darwin's idea was linking humanity and its origins with the beasts, not with Adam and Eve, or at least, and even if they don't believe in Adam and Eve directly, at least with the particular creation of humans in the form of God, or in the likeness of God. So that was the bit that the Christians were most up in arms about, you know, that our descendants, we were descended from monkeys, because otherwise it could have been, you know, if Christianity had had a different theology, then they might have been more accommodating for it, and it mightn't have had exactly the same significance in the dichotomy of those who wanted to believe in evolution, having to identify themselves as not following the Bible, and therefore atheists. So I think… Let me re-articulate if I understood you right.

So evolution became controversial because of Christianity perceiving it as a threat, and Christianity perceived it as a threat because it accords to humans a special status, that the humans are only meant as, I think, Thomas Aquinas said that humans only are rational beings, and we have the light of reason to know God. So humans are something special, different from all other species, whereas the evolution says that humans are just evolved monkeys, evolved apes. So it was not just like a challenge of a historical question of origins, but it was a question about one's very identity and one's destiny.

Yes, it challenged both Christian theology and, as you say, Christian identity and the specialness of the human in relationship to God. So there was something that was very specific in separating those who accepted evolution and separated them from the creed, if you like. Okay, so it was almost like if you accept evolution, then you cannot be a Christian.

It almost, of course, I think now the Christian response has become much more multifaceted and we could say accommodating to evolution, but at least that was the reason for the vehement opposition at that time. Yeah, I'm sure there was a mixture of views even then, but a particular prevailing view took hold and that allowed and it gave impetus to trying to really clarify the evolutionary idea, because there's a guy called Romanus who was an actual student of Darwin. He realised that Darwin's ideas don't work.

Natural selection alone isn't going to get you there, but that didn't matter. The idea had already taken hold. The narrative was established, but even the followers like Romanus thought this doesn't work, so he said there's got to be something more.

Now he didn't know what that something was, so it wasn't until the 1920s, I think, Mr De Vries came up with the idea of mutations. And then the idea was that if there was mutations of the genes, that could be passed on. So mutations, so the idea of random mutations, then producing changes in certain individuals within a group, and if those changes were favourable to their reproductivity, you know, they would survive to reproductive age and they were more likely to reproduce, then those traits would be passed on, and that became known as the modern synthesis, defined by Huxley.

So that is the prevailing, that is the model that is currently taught as the theory of evolution today, the modern synthesis. Okay, so Prabhu, if I may just pause, let's, if I could just clarify terms with respect to evolution itself, so that, you know, not everybody may be equally familiar. So you said that natural selection was already accepted, it was observed, it was accepted.

So natural selection is basically that it's survival of the fittest, that nature will select among two species, that which is the fitter one to survive. Well, within various species, not necessarily within two, but basically the fitter one. I'll just give a simple explanation and you can elaborate if you want.

We're just trying to understand what evolution is because the term can itself be slippery sometimes. So natural selection is one thing, and so mutation is another, where mutation, natural selection may favour certain living beings with certain features that they were more likely to survive. But just because they have those features and they survive doesn't necessarily mean that those features are going to pass to their next generations, because what passes on is based on genetics.

And that's why another thing which is required is that genetic mutations, that was another thing, that means genes sometimes change at random, and while some changes or many changes can be destructive, but some changes, at least according theory, can be constructive. And if those are preserved and passed on, so that will lead to change in species. So what you said is natural selection was already observed and accepted, but Darwin proposed it as a mechanism for bringing about change in species.

So change in species means that eventually apes evolved into human beings. So that is what evolution, when people have the image of evolution, they have this like a sequential image starting from animals crawling on the ground and then apes getting up and walking, and then we have modern humans sitting on a chair or something like that. So that is evolution, and for explaining that we have natural selection and mutation as two factors.

And then you talked something about micro evolution, which is basically, if I understand right, variation within species, that say we could have a bigger apple or a smaller apple, we could crossbreed dogs and have various sizes of dogs or various crossbreeds. So evolution itself can be very complicated. It is a complex theory, but are these terms sufficient for us to get a basic understanding? And these terms, we have to understand, these are all very obvious things, actually.

Natural selection, there's no argument that natural selection works. It's just so obvious that if you have a trait that's favoured, you know, that might help you survive. If you have, for instance, some predisposition to a disease, you're less likely to survive to reproduce than someone who's free from that.

I like to give the example of two guys go out hiking in the mountains, and a bear appears and a bear's starting to chase them. And one says to the other, let's run, we better run for it, we can't fight the bear, we better run. And the other one says, but you can't outrun a bear.

And the first one says, I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you. So that's an example where the person with the trait of running quickly is more likely to survive than the one who can't run so quickly. So that's a favourable trait.

And the other one has been eliminated from the gene pool. And the one with the faster genes, if you like, is able to procreate and maybe his kids will be quick runners as well. So that natural selection works.

But when you actually look at its capacity for, you know, particular changes, it's very, very limited. And of course, breeding, you know, the particular breeding processes that people go through, and of course, we know Krishna learned the breeding of birds and creatures in, you know, in Krishnapur when he was at the Gurukul. So it's, you know, it's been a system that has been known from antiquity, that you can breed particular, this creature has a particular trait, let's make sure that that trait gets passed on and, you know, in very particular ways.

So in that way, you can create what appear to be modifications of a species. And we look at the various dog species, particularly we have here in the West, incredible range from big to small to, you know, doing all sorts of different activities and psychologies involved. Whereas we go to Mayapur, we see all the dogs running around there.

They're dogs. They're unbred, you know, amalgamated. That's what a dog looks like, actually.

You know, and this is what happens within breeding, you just let them and they will go back to what they used to be because the original, if you like, makeup will kind of tends to bring them back to what they are. But there is room for flexing within the morphology of a species. And, you know, so there is an apparent of micro evolution acting within a species, and it can happen by breeding.

It can also happen in a natural selection, in a natural setting rather, where species start to, different groups of the species start to experience different environments or different eating habits, and they may develop slightly different kind of systems. They might change their form. It might even change how they digest food.

It might manifest in colouration. But they're still recognisable as the same species, but there are variants within that species. So the interesting thing is the information aspect, which I think I'll come on to in a bit.

So micro evolution works, but it doesn't work the way the narrative suggests. So just one minute, when you said to that there is natural selection works, but its capacity is limited. So I think you said it can flex to some extent.

It's almost like, I read somewhere, it's like a rubber band can pull it to some extent, but you keep pulling, pulling after some time. You can't pull it, it just breaks down. So you can't really crossbreed widely different species in that sense.

And then also, if you leave them, if you leave the rubber band, it comes back to a natural state. Similarly, what you're saying is that dogs will come back if they're left on their own without possibility. Something like that.

Yeah. And the other aspect is that mutations, most mutations are not helpful or they're neutral and sometimes are favourable. But if those favourable mutations happen in the soma line, then they're not passed on.

They have to be mutations which happen in the germ line in order to be passed on. Now, what modern analysis is starting to show is that a couple of the defects of the kind of Darwinian narrative is not only is the process that is said to produce macro changes, i.e. from one species to another, seems to be very limited in its ability. As you said, it can create variants within a species, but not to the extent where that species is no longer, should be considered to be a new different species.

Now, let's be clear on what we mean by species. There are 32 different definitions for what a species is or how species could be categorised according to modern biology. 32.

So, there are 32 definitions? 32 different ways that you can categorise a species and they will each come up with a different tree of life. They will relate the species to each other differently and they would say these two are one species. Another one would say, no, those two are actually three species.

It's that different. There are about five or six of the main ones that are used. Even the tree of life, then you can say the tree of life is also more a part of a narrative.

It's not a scientifically established truth. No, in fact, I've read papers that basically say the tree of life is a complete mess now, because whichever system you use will produce a different tree. And then they thought, well, DNA, that's the thing that's going to tell us.

If we can show the line of genes from one to the other, then surely that is the most scientific, rather than saying, well, this one has a similar form to this one. This one, they kind of look together. Maybe they should be connected in the tree.

So, let's use DNA. But they found that depending on which gene you wish to follow in between them, you get a different tree. So, even genetics doesn't work, because there seems to be what's called horizontal gene transfer, where a gene that is in this species, which we don't think is in any way related to this one, is appearing here, but it hasn't appeared in what we think were its ancestors.

So, the tree of life, unfortunately, it's just a confusion. And what's missing? I think we have to go back and understand what is working and why it works. And this is, I think, the difference that I, myself, and the devotees, scientists that I'm working with, have with the standard narrative, is that, and I think we have to go back, first of all, to look at this issue of information, that the standard narrative from Big Bang to life to consciousness misses out the issue of information.

And it relegates that complex information can be aggregated from chance interactions. And when you say this is aggregated from chance interactions, you are saying, we can't prove that, because science, the scientific method cannot deal with chance, cannot. You can't put something in the test tube and say, oh, it's happened by chance.

You know? You cannot explore chance. And chance itself is not a causal explanation. So, you're invoking a philosophical concept of chance, infinity, epiphenomenons, and so on.

These are philosophical concepts which you are imposing on your narrative. They're not things that are provable by science. They are philosophical conjecture imposed.

And it's a way of ignoring information and trying to explain it away in that way. And therefore, it's actually important to realise that this philosophy of physicalism, this idea that there is only the physical, and that everything can be explained by physics and by the scientific method, is actually a belief system which cannot be substantiated by science. So, physicalism, the belief in scientism cannot be established by the scientific method.

Now, this is worth a little kind of digression here. If I'm a scientist, and I'm really dedicated to the method of science, I might say I will only accept as valid that which can be proved by the scientific method. Now, if I met a scientist like that, I would say, okay, you're obviously very dedicated to that method, and you have accepted an epistemology, a way of gaining knowledge, which is entirely reliant on the scientific method.

That's wonderful. Okay. Now, if that person then says, and because of that reason, I'm a physicalist, I only believe, or a naturalist or materialist, you know, I only believe in matter, then I would say, wait a minute, how did you come to that conclusion using the scientific method? The scientific method can never tell you that all that exists is the physical.

It can't do that. The scientific method may only be able to investigate the physical, but it can never say that all that exists is the physical. Do you see the point? Yeah, it's almost like that is the starting assumption.

So, the assumption can't be the conclusion. Exactly. Science begins with the measurable aspect of the universe or the physical aspect.

And then if you say that is all that exists. So, if I'm a physicalist, it means I actually don't, I'm willing to believe in something that hasn't been proved by the scientific method. So, if I say I believe in the scientific method as the only way of substantiating truth, I cannot be a physicalist.

I can't adopt that belief, because it can't be established by science. So, technically, true scientists can't be a physicalist. I think that's fair.

I think there's this, some people say we are only methodologically naturalist or physicalist. We're not metaphysically, but actually… That's fine. There's nothing wrong with being methodological.

But then when you say I'm a physicalist, you realise that that isn't established by the method, that is established by my belief. And it's an assumption I'm making, not something that is based on the method of science. It's a bit of an arcane argument, but it's something I like to tease those people.

We often meet people who believe in science, you know, and I believe in science, you know, that's therefore there's nothing else. And it's worth teasing them about this. But that's not a scientific point of view.

That's brilliant. So, I was just trying to understand the broad context where we are going in right now. So, we discussed about how evolution became controversial because it became a part of the narrative which challenged the Christian narrative.

And then now we were going into the merits of evolution or does evolution actually explain what it purports to explain? So, this itself is a big universe and we could go into it if we need to. But before we go into it, are there some differences we could like to explore that say it challenges, evolution challenge the prevailing Christian narrative. It might not have been necessarily the only Christian narrative, but does the narrative which emerged from evolution, does that similarly challenge the Bhagavatam's narrative also? Or are there metaphysical differences which make the conflict not that belligerent? Do you want to go in this direction or you can decide? No, I think that because we have identified that evolutionary theory is being targeted within a broader narrative which tries to explain the origins of the universe, life and consciousness without any reference to anything existing before the universe and certainly not to any supreme being.

So, and which then gives a picture of human existence as simply birth to death and that's it. So, that narrative obviously does not sit with the Krishna conscious view. So, we have to say that doesn't work, and it doesn't work for many reasons.

And my particular view is that we start with, let's just take this thing that we do know about is my own consciousness. How does that arise from the physicality of the body and the brain? And we can demonstrate that it doesn't, and we can demonstrate actually, as one, I was debating one kind of naturalistic philosopher recently, and he said, if you can show that mind can act independently of the brain, you've done your job. And actually, although we didn't discuss it in that meeting, we can do that.

We can demonstrate evidence that the mind does act. There is scientific evidence that the mind acts, you know, in a way that is at least independent or without the inputs from the brain. And therefore, mind is not a physical product of the brain, and neither is consciousness.

So, that can be demonstrated, and that's a subject on its own. And that's the first step. Are we saying that this is something to like out-of-body experiences or some of the what are called paranormal experiences? We won't go into that.

But is that what you're saying? Well, there are ways in which we can do clinical studies of certain aspects. There are certainly studies of out-of-body experiences, which when you can correlate a conscious perception of something, when the brain is actually in a shutdown situation, when there is zero electrical activity, then you are certainly demonstrating that. Now, that's quite a rare find, you know, and it requires very specific clinical situations.

And it's hard to kind of create that as a replicable experiment. But certainly, there are examples and evidence of that, which should not be ignored. My personal favourite, and I don't want to get into it in any great detail, is my research through remote viewing, because that is a replicable thing, which can be done pretty well with any human and has the ability to do that.

We can demonstrate that the individual can receive information that is not being received by the senses. And we can do that in a quantitative fashion. So, it can be done in a clinical setting again and again and again.

And it will demonstrate the principle that the mind acts independently of the brain. So, that's my favourite for scientific research. Yes.

So, what we are trying to do now is, what you are trying to say is that evolutionary narrative purports to say that consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon or somehow it's emerged from physicality of matter. But we are countering that by saying that consciousness, or at least the mind, can function independent of the physical brain. So, in that sense, it is different.

So, we can demonstrate that consciousness and mind cannot be reducible to the physical processes and act independently. Now, if that's the case, then that really puts a big question mark over the rest of the narrative. Okay.

What it does, particularly, it opens up, well, okay, if consciousness isn't a product of physical stuff, what is it? And the interesting thing is that consciousness can be shown to be non-temporal. The time is an energy, we understand of Krishna, that influences and facilitates the changes of material things, material objects, even mental things. Our mind changes over time, and we can watch that change of our mind over time.

We can watch the changes in the physicality of our own body over time. We can watch things move and change, you know, in the external world. So, consciousness observes the changing moments and the changing circumstances around us.

Now, that which can observe this moment, and can then observe the next moment, and the moment after that means that the thing that is doing the observing is not changed by time. I am the same thing that observed our conversation a few minutes ago. I'm observing it now.

I will be observing it in a few minutes' time. Therefore, I, as the observer, conscious entity, am not changing. The physical world changes, our mental states change, but I, as the atma, do not change.

These other things are being affected by time, that's why they change. I am not changing. I am not affected by time.

I am an entity outside of time. That is the realisation that we get from our study of Krishna consciousness. I am not a product of time and matter.

I stand outside all of that. So, I had this question that how exactly is all this, you can say, related with evolution, particularly? Yes, because the thing that is missing in the evolutionary narrative is information, and it tries to say that we can make up for information by invoking mutations which are random, but occasionally favourable. That may be rare, but, you know, we've got plenty of time to play with, and therefore, they can produce a gradual change in a species if they're favourable and they are selected by natural selection.

That will produce a constant development of a species. Now, the evolutionists are always careful to say, you know, it's not that natural selection isn't designing species. It hasn't got a direction, you know.

It's just that particular one just happened to be more favourable for that particular entity within its group, and therefore, that trait continued to spread and so on. Now, the problems with this are twofold, two major things. One is the information involved is very limited, and it can only be shown to have very minor significance.

It doesn't provide the detail of requirement of information for that organism to really make a significant change in its morphology, because changes in morphology require to be holistic. You know, you're going to change one part, you've got to change another. You know, the example, best example probably is a giraffe's neck.

You know, you can say, oh, it's stretching to get, you know, it can reach higher leaves, and therefore, that's a favourable trait. But to have a low neck would be a detriment if it didn't have the holistic design of the valve system within the blood vessel going up the neck, because when that neck bends down to drink, if the blood just poured in free form, it would destroy the brain, but there's a valve system protecting that. So, you can't have one little change that is really significant without making a number of changes to the physicality of the body, and that means coordinating many, many genes in biological terms.

So, the other aspect is that gradualism has been thoroughly discredited by the biologists, actually discredited. It's discredited by Gould and the fossil record, but by biologists, they've also done the analysis of what they call speciation events, what seem to be the distinctions between different species, and show that these cannot be, they do not match what you would expect through a kind of gradualism of random mutations. What is now appearing in the biological world is the view that somehow or other, evolution, if it happens within a species, seems to be consciousness-led, and the examples that we're now seeing of, we see microevolution happening within certain species when they are placed in different environments and have different eating habits or have different threat to them.

So, these organisms respond to the situation by changing their physiognomy, by changing their body. That means that they are able to change their genes in order to get the changes that they want in order to cope with whatever they're trying to deal with, and in each case, you can analyse that this is a response of consciousness. Now, we're able to look at that in a different way to most biologists, because we understand that the same entity of consciousness, the atma, is present in every single life form.

It may have different abilities to express its conscious nature, you know, according to the body that it gets, compared to us as humans, and we know even we as humans are a very low expression of consciousness compared to other beings, perhaps. But we know that at least that atma, that entity of consciousness, is present in every species, and it is the entity of consciousness that is the source of information that can affect how the body utilises its genetic material. And this is the other thing that's coming up in biology, in systems biology.

I'm only trying to give a little flavour today. I'm not trying to get into this in great detail. But the idea used to be that genes, the genetics, the DNA, that determines the body.

You know, I mean, it's important, but I'm just trying to keep a bigger picture clear. So what we are trying to do right now, if I understand right, is that the narrative which has come about from evolution, we are pointing out that the various components of it are not able to do what they aim to do. Because in one sense, because everything which you said about evolution, there are like big evolution debates among scientists.

So does and then none of these, what you are saying are necessarily going to be accepted as by all scientists. So even evolution itself is a very debated subject, that scientists may, even people who are evolutionarists, they will not question evolution, but they will heavily debate the mechanisms by which evolution will happen. So when we take a particular position within that, so, you know, gradualism doesn't work or something, then we are, what are we trying to, what is it that we're trying to achieve by this? Is it that we are trying to bring in the Bhagavatam worldview to explain what science itself can't explain or where are we going in this? If you could just clarify that, then we'll move ahead.

Okay, well, look, we started on this by looking at certain things which are valid, and there are certain observations which are valid. Natural selection, no problem. Mutations happen.

They just happen to be rare, they usually are corrected, and they're usually not helpful, but they happen. And so, and there is micro evolution, there is adaptation within a species. And we know that breeding does it, and we know it happens naturally.

But what is missing from the picture is the understanding of the role of consciousness in all of this, and that it is consciousness, which is helping the individual entity, the individual organism, to use its genetic material in particular ways, and even to change its use of its genetic material within its own lifetime in order to adapt to particular circumstances, but within very clear boundaries of that particular organism's nature, if you like. Now, that does bring in a Bhagavatam picture. That is actually entirely consistent with how the Bhagavatam discusses the nature of being an atma within a particular species type.

Now, the Bhagavatam has its own way of categorising species, which is different from the 32 systems. So, we shouldn't, and we shouldn't get confused that when the Bhagavatam is talking about species, it is necessarily talking about exactly the same categorisation used by the biological systems. Okay.

The Bhagavatam has its way of looking at species in a very broad way. It basically says, let's take all the atmas who are going to be in this universe, every one of them. Let's look at all their different desires, all the possibilities in their karma, and everything that they aspire for.

And let's think, how many types of entities do we need to produce in order to look after all those desires? And it actually turns out 8.4 million. So, the gunas have analysed the nature of every desire that is there and said, yeah, we can deal with this in 8.4 million different species types. So, there are 8.4 million guna species types.

And each one of them is defined by a set of the gunas. And each one of them conflects within those limitations. And those limitations set the five senses, working senses that this body is going to have, and the five knowledge-acquiring senses.

So, each guna is a particular set of 10 senses grouped around the mind. And according to the psychology of the mind, that also has a little room for flexing. And so, within that, the atma can enjoy those 10 senses and the mind, and has a certain flexibility, which manifests as what we would see as, you know, in terms of also in terms of micro, what's called micro evolution, but it is better described as adaptation within a species type.

Okay. So, basically, what you're saying is, we are explaining the difference between the conception of species within the Bhagavatam. And we were talking earlier about how science itself has many different conceptions of what a species is.

And the Bhagavatam's vision is a little more holistic, in terms of explaining what species are. Am I following what you're saying, Prabhu? Yes, it has its own way of categorising and describing. And ultimately, of course, the crucial point, and Prabha keeps making this point, that when you consider what a living thing is, it's a combination of both a material body, which is like a machine, Prabha describes at times, and the life force, the living entity, you know, the conscious entity, which is inhabiting that.

And in one sense, and this is an interesting kind of metaphysical point, that there are plenty of descriptions in Shastra, which say that the Jiva has no ability to manipulate Prakriti. We are distinct from it, we may experience it through, you know, our conscious perception, but we have no ability to actually change Prakriti. It is all done thanks to the Purusha, you know, the Vishnu forms, the Paramatma.

However, because Krishna as the Paramatma facilitates our desires, therefore, our desires are considered to be hated, causal. And therefore, we can model how nature works by discussing it in terms of the desires of the living entities, and Prabha also does that. He describes how it's the living entity has the ability to use his body and to control it and change it, you know, do things like that, and to change which body we have, and so on.

Actually, it's all being facilitated by Krishna. Eko bahunam yuvadati kama. But because it is a facilitation of our desires, we can model how all of this works in terms of consciousness, and the consciousness of each individual Atma.

And we can also understand when a group of Atmas work together, that has a stronger intention force for facilitation. And these factors start to kind of give us a very different picture of how consciousness and Prakriti work together. And how Prakriti is subservient, ultimately, to the desires of the Atma.

Because Krishna is allowing that to be the case. Krishna is so kind, he is taking our desires and facilitating them for us within Prakriti. So consciousness is the driver for how the material energy works, and what it produces.

And this creates a very different picture of the world. You know, you can apply this on the megascale, because the universe… If you don't mind, it's fascinating, if I understand what you're saying is that we talked till now about how the various mechanisms, which evolution is based on, are inadequate for bringing about the changes that evolution requires. But what you're saying now is that if we consider the consciousness directed perspective, then we get enough motive force or even enough causal factors to actually bring about the change.

So in that sense, we are, if I understand right, it's not that we have to refute evolution to establish consciousness, rather the valid aspects or observational consciousness are evolution claims to be based. The consciousness-based paradigm, in one sense, can, in some ways, at least be complementary. It can explain what evolution is unable to explain.

What our concept of consciousness certainly can, you know, it could be used to fill in the gaps, if you like, of evolutionary theory, but it actually can do more than that, I think. Okay. And because I think it can give us a much bigger picture of how actually material energy works.

But I think different devotees will take this in their own way. And that's why, I mean, if you look at how we might discuss the issues of evolution with, perhaps say, younger devotees, or even with the public, you know, and do we actually say, you know, do we have to say evolution is rubbish? Do we have to even bring it up? No, because as Prabhupada would do, he would say, you know, does it really matter? You know, does that point of where we come from, where our bodies come from matter? No, the real thing is that I'm not this body. I'm spirit soul.

That's the thing we should be focussing on. And do we have a connection with the rest of nature? Well, we actually have a far deeper, more intimate connection with nature than the common descent of our DNA. We actually go a lot further than that.

We're willing to say, actually, I have a connection with nature because I've been there. I've been in that body. I've been a dung beetle.

I've been a fish swimming around. I've tried it as a bird, you know, I've done them all, you know, and through the evolutionary process of consciousness, I have come to the platform of being a human being where I have this extra facility of understanding my situation and understanding, you know, establishing a relationship with Krishna. So that is one way of, in one sense, that sounds like a bit of a, you know, dodging the issue.

But it's certainly what it is doing is establishing the priority for us as humans. You know, I can go back, just to finish this book, I can go back in my genealogy, you know, I can trace my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather gets a little blurry after that. Do I need to know much further back than that? No, not really.

You know, I think, you know, those more recent circumstances, you know, at least even tell me who I am as a human being, a conditioned human being. But even more important, they tell me nothing about who I am as a spirit soul. That's beautiful.

So it's fascinating. If we are, if our essential identity is not that we are not the body, then getting into a huge conflict about where the body came from, that itself becomes inconsequential. And in one sense, to understand who we are, it's not so much going into a genealogy, but going into our spirituality.

Yeah. So, now, if I understand right, a modern evolutionary synthesis would say that there is no room for our spirituality itself. But what you have discussed till now through various aspects like remote viewing and so through how we experience life, and also through what the mechanisms of evolution can actually do, what we have established is that there is not just room for consciousness, but we could even say that there is necessity for consciousness.

Well, that's right. And that's very good. That's the purpose, perhaps the next level of discussion that we might enter.

You know, I think the first one is just as we said, you know, we don't have to deal with it. Let's deal with the big issues of who we are, you know, spiritual beings. This next one would be, you know, this assumption that evolutionary theory is atheistic.

I could ask, where did you get that idea from? What tells you? What is it about evolutionary theory that necessitates it being atheistic? I mean, some devotees, I think, are quite comfortable with the idea that there is kind of a theistic evolution, or a theistic Darwinism, if you like, you know, that, you know, maybe God creates evolutionary theory, you know, or evolutionary process, and we are products of that. And I can't, that doesn't sit with me personally, but I respect those devotees who might feel like that, and that have come to that sort of conclusion. I would deal with it in the converse.

I would say to someone, why do you think that evolutionary theory has to be atheistic? And there's no reason why it has to be atheistic. But people might say, well, because it removes the need. I don't need to have a God in order to explain where life comes from.

And then that's when I would actually challenge, really? You've no more need? You haven't got any information in there. You haven't got a process of information. And this was one of the kind of Mahavakyas, I think, of the early BI, that how can high information systems come from low information processes, and random mutations, natural selection, gradualism, these are very, very low information processes, tiny information processes.

How does high information content come from that? And it's not over a long period of time. It's not. So there is a need for information.

And we have a source of information. Now, most Christians will immediately go to God. God did it.

But that's not very scientific. And that seems to be bringing in something that is a speculation, or at least a belief of the Supreme Being. What I find is more attractive for in discussions is bring in consciousness.

Because consciousness we know exists. It's not some new esoteric thing. That's why I don't even mention the soul.

Actually, in preaching, I tend not to, because I think, well, what's the soul? Because they've separated the concept of soul from their own consciousness. You know, but if we say consciousness is a real thing, and you know it because you are a conscious being, and consciousness is a source of information, well, maybe consciousness is part of the process. And because consciousness is outside of time, it actually can play a part in the development of the universe, and of life in it, from its very beginning.

That is the unique picture that we have of non-temporal consciousness. It changes the picture, the philosophical, theological picture entirely. And therefore, you know, you cannot say that evolution is necessarily atheistic, when it actually requires and it facilitates consciousness.

Maybe consciousness is that thing which actually helps in the manufacture of its own physical bodies. That's powerful. And if we take this line of thought, the logical result that we have is that whether evolution is theistic or not, evolution doesn't at least become, evolution is not anti-spiritual, or evolution is not entirely a physicalist process.

So, in that sense, it opens the avenue for acknowledging the reality of change at the physical level, at the same time acknowledging the possibility or even the necessity of some higher level of existence beyond the physical. Yeah. David I mean, I think we can say that the narrative of that evolution is incorporated with it is certainly atheistic, and that's what we are challenging, the narrative.

The actual processes claimed for evolution, some of them are valid, but they're insufficient. And they may not even be the most important aspects. I personally think that micro-evolution cannot happen without consciousness.

And actually, even if you're going to posit an argument for evolution, macro-evolution, frankly, I think you would need to bring consciousness as a non-material element into the picture in order to claim that evolution could actually work. However, my personal view is actually we take it even a stage further. Oh, really? Okay.

That actually, we're not just, I don't believe the Bible is just saying consciousness is a useful thing to, if you like, to enable macro-evolution to happen. I don't think it says that. I think it's giving us a bigger, a better picture of how consciousness is able to interact with procreating.

Because we have this understanding, which modern physics is just about coming round to, they thought matter was the hard stuff. But when they look at, you know, what this desk is made of is wood, it's made of material, cellulose, and so on. And these are molecules which are arranged in a lattice, and you look at the individual molecules, and they're made of atoms, and the atoms are made of subatomic particles.

You get down to quarks and different things, and you start to wonder, well, what are these things in reality? What are they in substance? And we start to realise that these are entities which manifest properties for a moment, and then flicker back into their kind of quantum unmanifest state. And then you start to think, well, what is this stuff around us? Is it actually hard stuff? What is it made of? And basically, the message these days is that it's energy and information. And that is what the Bhagavatam has been saying for all these thousands of years, that actually the material world is a composition.

Material energy is composed of two things, the prakriti, material stuff, and the maya guna, information stuff. And the combination of those two then manifest all the properties that we experience of the material world, including our own physical bodies. And then there's the explanations, how through consciousness, when consciousness is elevated, and this isn't something that is typical for us human beings in our conditioned state, you know, we are conditioned to act through our senses.

But those atmas who actually understand how to manipulate the guna information content of matter can manifest whatever they want. Now, most devotees accept the siddhis. Even those devotees who, you know, they may have a little problem on how exactly does it work.

But most devotees accept and Prabhupada tells us these siddhis are real, right? They are real things. They are real powers. But they're pretty far out.

Now, we don't include them naturally in the first lecture we give, you know, to the public, perhaps. And even Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras, who gives a whole exposition of the different siddhis, is very careful. Many commentators think Patanjali has lost it.

They read his first couple of chapters. And they think, wow, this is incredible psychology. This is incredible analysis of the meditative processes.

But he kind of loses it in chapter three when he goes on to the siddhis. But even then, Patanjali is very careful. He says, please understand, this is not magic.

This is not mysticism. What I'm about to explain to you is the way in which the material energy, matter, can be manipulated by consciousness, if you know the process. So, one of them, what's it? You can take any form you like, you can do other things, which is siddha, you can produce all sorts of things.

These are incredible powers. And they're not magic. They are actually the technologies that underpin the workings of the material energy.

Now, they are difficult for humans to obtain, but possible. And we know that other beings in other places in other parts of the universe may have these powers. And really what it is, it's the yoga sutras explain how it works.

From atavatva, which is intention, from your pure intention as a yogi, say, or as a deva, you then generate what's called anvaya, which is the guna information, which then becomes constituent and comes fed into the material energy. And first is shukshma, which is the tan matra. So, it takes a form and starts to manifest the tan matras.

And the tan matras then manifest the qualities, the samanya and the vishesha of the mahabhuta, the actual elements. And that's what becomes manifest. So, from intention, you can generate form, you can generate objects.

Now, a group of us are kind of working with a modelling of physics and this metaphysics, which actually is starting to become very interesting to those in the outside world of physics, showing that this is a standard process. But most devotees aren't really aware of what is the capability of consciousness, both as an advanced yogi or an advanced being such as a deva, and what they can do in order to manifest objects and species. And my personal view is that what we see on earth is a manifestation, a punctuated manifestation of guna species at different times and different places, according to the needs and particularly the facilitation of the jivas who need to enjoy that particular type of body.

And the interesting thing is, you can correlate that with how the appearance of the species in fossil terms, even. There's no contradiction. That model corresponds with the fossil record.

Darwinian evolution does not correspond with the fossil record. There's problems. Because what the fossil record shows is that particular groups and major types of species just suddenly appear in the fossil record without any way of linking them to what came before.

Yes, yes. I think the Cambrian explosion is a major example of that. It's part of it, but actually all the way along.

All the way along. Okay. So, if I understand right now till what you have explained, is that, so we have went at multiple levels.

One level is that, so evolution leaves room for consciousness and then not only that leave room for consciousness, actually we could say that evolution can't happen without consciousness. And then we use, from our philosophy's perspective, how consciousness has the capacity to explain, to cause change in matter. So, in that connection, you talk about the siddhis.

And then if yogis have siddhis, then devas also can have powers. And what you are saying is that in the evolutionary fossil record, where we see suddenly new species appearing, that could be conceivably attributed to the agency of certain cosmic agents, like the devas acting at particular times. So, then we could go into the specifics of the fossil record and see what exactly is happening and how it can be correlated.

So, it's a whole genre of research. Now, there are a couple of questions. In one sense, if we consider that Occam's razor is one of the principles, that it is go toward a simplest explanation.

But here, aren't we complicating the explanation a lot? That first we posit that there is something which is non-reducible, that is consciousness. And then we posit that consciousness has, we may say it's not mystical or magical, but on the perspective of science, this kind of modification of matter, of physical matter through consciousness, it does seem miraculous. So, what part of this, let me just complete this.

So, in some ways, we may, some of the propositions of how evolution talks about species coming about, some of the critics have said these are Darwinian fairy tales, that how certain new species came about. They are just so stories. So, but then that same argument could be used towards the Bhagavatam's worldview also that you are talking about that consciousness has these powers and these kind of miraculous things happen.

So, what part of it could be subjected to the scientific method for it to be considered as a serious contender for explaining the natural world as you observe it? Well, yeah, you raise, of course, great points as always. Occam's razor, let's start with that. When we discuss consciousness, we know consciousness exists.

All right. So, Occam's razor would like to keep it, well, we know the brain exists. So, let's keep consciousness in the brain, because that would seem to be the simplest thing.

But that's like me trying to say, how can I find the Taj Mahal here in Britain? You tell me, well, actually, it's not in Britain. It's in India. And I say, no, no, no, but I only want to look in India.

I want to look in Britain. You know, I want to find the Taj Mahal in Britain. And that's the neuroscientist trying to find consciousness in the brain.

Okay. Occam's razor in a foolish way. You not find that, you know, you've created a false boundary for your investigation.

I must find consciousness in the activities of the brain. So, but we know consciousness exists. So, we're not postulating anything new.

We're just demonstrating that its functions cannot be reduced to the physical things. And that is a key element of our analysis. We can certainly show and we were working with biologists, particularly to show that we need to have a top down view of an organism's biology.

See previously, and again, I'll just give this in summary, the idea that DNA generates everything about the body, including its form, that our human form, that's all because of our DNA. No, they've now kind of, that's highly questioned. Rather, the DNA doesn't even control the cell in which it is found.

What's now observed is that the cell uses the DNA, like you might use a library. You might go and say, I want this book with this bit of information, this gene, and I want this gene over here. I used to have that gene over there.

I'm going to switch that one off. And it's controlling the information that it takes and then says, okay, now I've got all this information together, I'll create this particular protein. It's not the DNA deciding how the protein will be produced.

It's the cell's purposes, because it needs that protein. So, it works out how to turn on and use the genetic material in order to get what it needs. And why is the cell doing that? Because it seems to be trying to facilitate its role as a particular cell within tissue.

And the tissue seems to be producing its properties in order that it can form an organ. So, it's the organ's purpose, which is determining how the tissue develops, and the tissue's purpose is defining what the cell does and how it uses its DNA. And all of these organs are trying to form into systems, to follow the system's purposes, in order to fulfil the purpose of the organism.

So, this is a top-down systems biology, which is now part of the mainstream way of looking at how we deal with organisms, because it is a better way of modelling what is happening than trying to say the DNA is doing the whole job. Because we can't see what the DNA, why it would be doing these things. Why is it making these cells and not these cells? And why do these cells kind of then form into, what says they should be a heart shape? Where is that coming from? What's saying that it should be, there's no morphology in the DNA.

So, biology is not as simple as they thought it was. It's now starting to say, well, what are the purposes of the organism? How does the organism define its purposes as a whole unit? Where is that coming from? Now, our understanding of consciousness, the subtle body, and its systems, starts to play a role within that. That starts to be a reasonable way of modelling what is happening within the physical body.

So, I think when we start to get into our metaphysics, we are seeing many, many opportunities by which our understanding of how the atma works, how the subtle body works, how Prakriti works, how physics works, are going to be very valuable for changing the perspective of what is life, what are material bodies, what is the material world in reality, and how consciousness plays its part in all of this. We have a lot to offer. Hopefully, just to conclude, that would offer a narrative which puts consciousness at the centre, timeless consciousness, and that then necessitates us looking at what is the unifying aspect of consciousness that holds us all together, and that is Krishna.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's an important question. It's fascinating.

So, if I understand right, how you address the point of the Occam's razor is that, that basically consciousness is something which is a given, so in which every conscious person will accept if they're basically rational. So, now, all that we are saying is that there are certain empirically observable things that require explanation, and seeing them as the actions of consciousness offers a more satisfactory explanation. It is fascinating how you explained about the DNA, the DNA not controlling the cells, but the cells using the DNA.

Yeah, so that is, so that would require a top-down approach, and where you could say, within the living being, the top is at one level, the soul, and it is unified with, unified through the consciousness of Krishna. So, now, in this case, with this particular narrative, do we accept propositions of evolution, or it opens a wide field of dialogue for us, what we accept, because, say, for example, at one level, if you consider Devas, there is a particular narrative described in the Bhagavatam about how life forms came about, and that does not seem to, say, for example, the daughter of Daksha, she gave right to so many different species including reptiles and other things. So, now, that seems to be quite a different narrative from what you are talking about right now, or what the fossil record talks about.

So, does this reconcile everything, or it opens us very, what, how, because, within the Bhagavatam's narrative, there are many things which may not seem to be reconcilable with the narrative. So, what are we trying to do by this overall? Well, I think you're right. When we start to get into certain specific statements in the Bhagavatam, we may have difficulty trying to kind of fit them into the general picture.

I think it's important that we understand a kind of generality, both of our own philosophy and of the scientific model, because I remember at the conference, the consciousness and science conference, there was one academic who was berating us, actually, for those who would challenge and doubt evolution, and he was almost saying, you're right, these kind of primitive anti-vaxxers who won't get their kids inoculated, you know, in Africa. So, it was actually quite strong in his condemnation. And I felt like asking him, yeah, which theory of evolution would you like me to believe in? Because I don't believe that people know the complexities and the issues and the debates within the evolutionary world and biology.

And although people often try to be faithful to the narrative, a lot of the evidence is not sitting well. And so, in a general picture, we should understand the issues there, and in the general picture, we should understand the aspects of how consciousness is facilitated in the material world, thanks to Krishna, and the ways in which it can work. Now, I've been actually surprised how much I think the Bhagavata, even in specific statements, do correlate, but I am careful to try and understand the circumstances.

Like, there was one that just came up, you mentioned Daksha. You know, Daksha was around Swayambhuva Manu. That's the beginning of this day of Brahma.

You know, it's a time when, you know, you've got to get the earth planet would have been kind of got up and running, and you kind of want to get it populated. But then Daksha, after his offence to Shiva, and he goes into meditation, he goes to penance for five manvantaras. So, he actually doesn't get back into action in his Prajapati role until the Chakshusha Manu, which is the one before now, which started around 400 million years ago.

And that's interesting, because if you look at what was happening 400 million years ago, that's when the invertebrates appeared. So, was that what he was up to in those days? You know, so, and I'm not saying, you know, that's a fact. I'm just saying that sometimes, even when there is such specific statements in the Bhagavatam, they might not not correlate, if you know what I mean.

It's not that there is necessarily a divide. And even if I don't understand what type of activity Daksha was up to in that period, you know, I can't say. But so, the generality of both our metaphysics, and the generality of the complexity and situation of evolutionary theory, allow us to understand actually the Bhagavatam has a lot to say.

And I think my picture, and I'm saying this is my picture, I'm not saying this is a BI kind of perspective, or that everyone, you know, that I deal with, or, you know, work with, has the same viewpoint. But my kind of viewpoint is that consciousness is being facilitated, you know, and that there is sequential manifestation of the species, because you have to establish the ecosystems in which the species appear. And I think that's, you know, it's not that everything is created all at once.

The Bhagavatam says that at the beginning of the universe, all species are present. And that is true, that the templates within the guna analysis is present. So, the subtle bodies, and the templates for the bodies are all present from the beginning.

And I'm sure that they manifest in different places very quickly. But we know Brahmā is anxious to get on with the process. He doesn't just do it all at once.

He's worried that, oh, there seems to be a lack of population, or, you know, he's always seems to be geeing up the Japanese to get into more action. So, it's not that it's all at once. And a few moments of Brahmā's time is a long time here on earth.

So, we don't have to think, oh, I have to see the full creation, and all the species at the one time. And rather, I think that what's happening on is that the earth is facilitating, and I think this is probably true of most of the earthly type planets, that the earth is manifesting life for a particular set of, you know, a particular karma of a particular group of atmas, and there may have been us amongst them. And then after a while, you know, wipe those out, you know, get a new kind of set of entities, because it's a new provision of experience for the atmas.

So, giving them a new one, and then, you know, doing things in sequential. So, I don't have a problem with the kind of historical narrative of evolutionary, you know, the fossil, I don't really have a problem with that, as consistent with the general principle, that what is happening is that the living entities are being provided the bodies they need in the time and place, and the circumstances, according to their karma and desire over history. So, on that aspect, I don't have a problem.

I think that there is a role by the Devas in the manifestation of original species. I think that those original species, those original guna types may go through modification and variance, you know, within the natural flexing of their guna type. So, it may appear to be a proliferation of what we call cows, for instance, you know, but there may be an original type.

We talked about the proliferation of dogs. One of the things that's interesting is that wolves, foxes, and jackals are considered in the Bible to have three different types of canids, you know, three different types of dog-type things, but they're considered to be separate. So, I would say they look like individual guna types, maybe independently manifest, because the Bible seems to regard them as very different karma opportunities.

So, I think, you know, we have to look at these in kind of very generalised ways and start to see a picture of Krishna's facilitation of the atmas, and all our weird desires and karma being accommodated within this very big universe, and part of that manifestation, only part of that is on this planet. And even then, it's the part of the earth planet that we think we've got access to. So, we're in this tiny little space, we're experiencing a fraction of the overall provision.

Well, you know, so, if I understand right, it's very beautiful asymmetrical correlation is what we started in the beginning. If we have humility that there's a lot more I need to understand about both science and Bhagavatam, then with that again the approach of generalities, the focus on generalities, that is not dodging or evading. It's recognising there's much more to study and then there are some areas where we could make some empirical correlations, there are some areas where we could make some postulations about how things might be happening, and then like that we can fill in from the generalities towards some specifics.

So, that's right. I think it's by focussing on the generalities and deriving, you know, the most important theological and spiritual lessons from that. That's what's going to continue to advance our appreciation for Krishna and our devotion.

And the details, I'm not going to get tied up because I don't understand the questions, if you like, on the issues well enough to be able to untangle those. But I don't, you know, and maybe someday more will be revealed. But the generalities, I think, from what we've studied, is that no devotee has to fear the theory of evolution.

How you approach it, how you want to deal with it in your preaching, I think is a personal question. We've always got to be sensitive to our audience. We don't want to alienate people and make them think they have to believe something that is just too difficult for them, and that applies to our devotees.

But we all take encouragement when we meet other devotees who have reconciled what for us might be difficult questions. And we see that that reconciliation is encouraging them and inspiring them on their devotional path, both in faith in Prabhupada, faith in the Shastras, and in the practise of their Krishna consciousness. So, we've each got to help inspire one another on that path.

Beautiful. So, that brings away one point. I don't know how long it will take, but it's an important point.

So, Prabhupada seems to, or at least it's portrayed that Prabhupada was quite, you could say, strongly anti-evolutionary. So, you have introduced a lot of nuance soundly based on Shastra. But if you look at Prabhupada's statements in Life Comes from Life or several other places, he does seem to critique evolution quite a bit.

So, is it that he is criticising the narrative around evolution and not specifically the theory of evolution? Because I got the sense of this when I actually read the Prabhupada's conversation, unabridged conversation in the Veda base. So, what you said about natural selection or even about certain, what we might call as intermediate species or whatever, Prabhupada is not discounting the evidence. Prabhupada is also giving propositions of how to explain the evidence.

So, my question is two part. That first is that was Prabhupada strongly anti-evolutionary or is it that, say, we have oversimplified our understanding of Prabhupada's position? I think that Srila Prabhupada was definitely very angry at the narrative, the overall atheistic narrative proposed by modern science. He really felt that it had taken such a hold that it was destructive for human society.

And it is. When you tell human beings that they are nothing but chemicals and there is no life to worry about, there's no karma, there's no retribution, there's no God, you know, what sort of society are you going to generate from that type of mentality? So, Prabhupada was, something often is made that the previous Acharyas were not that concerned about evolution in itself. And I don't think Prabhupada was particularly when he came to America.

He was, most of his preaching was against Mayavad thinking, you know, but material science narrative is Shunyavad. It's voidism. There's nothing.

Ultimately, everything comes out of nothing and there's nothing for us at the end of this life. So, that's voidism. And I think Prabhupada began to recognise more and more the grip that this narrative had on society, and that it must be counteracted.

And there's a lot of very strong personal statements he made to the devotees in 76, 77, in formulating the Bhaktivedanta Institute. You're quite right. And we would recommend that people read Prabhupada's discussions on the life comes from life in the Veda base, rather than in the book, which was originally presented as it was an edited version presented in German, and the English version is a translation of the German.

So, the Veda base one is the transcript. And the story of life comes from life is quite a shocking story. Yes, but still, you know, even so, I don't, you know, believe that Prabhupada had a, you know, Prabhupada used those three systems that I just mentioned.

He would concentrate, you're not this body. You know, in one sense, diverting the question, we don't need to know the, you know, evolution's irrelevant. We just need to focus, we're not this body consciousness, right? And he would also use, well, you know, whether evolution is right or wrong, still, you require a process of design, intelligence, creation, whatever, as part of that process, you know, to explain, or he needed that to explain life.

But he also, in the Bhagavatam, he is giving the kind of the metaphysics and the systems by which higher beings acting on behalf of Krishna do participate in the existence of species in the different planetary systems. No question, that's also there. So, I think all three are there, and we have to understand them, that they work together for our preaching, but they work together also for our own understanding.

And they, you know, we can, and as we kind of get more into certain details, we may kind of find ourselves, you know, satisfied and have a particular way of resolving this for ourselves as individuals, and also for engaging in preaching. Okay. So, let me understand the three things once again.

One is, what you said is like diverging the question, that where the bodies came from doesn't matter, because we are not the bodies. The second, you could say, is some almost like complementing, even if you accept evolution, you need to explain it. How does it happen? And third is more like, you could say, expanding or something, that there is much more to reality within the universe or something.

How would you articulate those three processes? Any words you use? All right, just to mention them again, I think the first one is, as you said, issues of origins of the species is not required for me to deal with the fact of I'm existing now, I'm a conscious entity, where does consciousness come from? You know, will I die? And what happens after death? Those are questions which I've got to deal with, and evolution doesn't address those questions. People might infer that it does, but it doesn't. In scientific and in philosophical terms, it doesn't have anything to say about the nature of consciousness.

You know, everything is an assumption and an extrapolation. So, let's just focus on consciousness, you know, and am I a conscious being? And what does that mean? Am I this body? The second aspect is, you know, even if one is discussing or wanting to believe in the process of the Darwinian evolution of physical bodies through macro evolution, still, the systems for that are so pathetic and weak, that they need extra help. And that is what is being seen by modern biologists, that you cannot remove the psychological conscious impetus of the organism from what is actually happening.

And we need information, and the information isn't there in the material circumstances, it comes because of consciousness. So, we can, you know, we can inject consciousness back into the subject matter there, if that's what that audience or even ourselves require. But, and that's fascinating.

But the picture that the Bhagavatam gives is far, it's far more wondrous. But it is a little esoteric. And unless one has actually full faith in the nature of non-material, non-temporal consciousness, and unless one has actually got willing to embrace that the material, the world around us, isn't just all this hard stuff, just as physics describes, but actually is a manifestation of the energy and information.

And that is flexible and malleable through different processes, then I wouldn't go to the third point. So, we have to study consciousness well, we have to study the metaphysics of consciousness and its relationship with the material energy well, then we can kind of look at what are the possibilities for manifestation. When you actually delve into the Bhagavatam's metaphysical systems, and that becomes really interesting, and there are going to be spinoffs.

I'm going to a conference next month, which will be demonstrating how conscious intent has its role to play physics and biology and medicine. Four-day conference just on this point held here in the UK. Now, it may be that not everyone who's there would be considered absolutely mainstream, but the idea is that they are willing to explore how is it that we are able to demonstrate that consciousness can affect physical systems.

Something's going on. What is behind all of this? So, we can help. Amazing.

How much it'll take my views on this is another matter, but it will be fascinating to hear theirs. Yes, it's beautiful. So, just these are the three very good points.

So, basically, some devotees may prefer not to engage with evolution at all. I think that's not the key question for us. And I will do that in many circumstances.

Yeah, I agree fully. So, in one sense, here it is, if we look at the comparative number that Prabhupada made, and if we have limited time interacting with people, that our identity is spiritual is a far more important teaching of our tradition and of Prabhupada than where historically specifically we came from. There's no doubt about that.

I don't think this. So, in one sense, we shift the discussion. And just on that point, why that's so important is that most people are schizophrenic in this world.

Most people, if you ask them, where do we come from, they'll say evolution, Big Bang. But when you talk to them about what they actually believe for themselves, they don't believe that they're not going to die. They believe there must be something more.

They will articulate their origins, because that's what they're told is the answer to that. But when you actually talk to them about their own personal being, they don't believe it. They don't believe that they are just a physical being.

That is true. We have to speak to that person and not worry about what is that bit of their intellect that has been kind of fed a narrative. It's much more important always to speak to the individual.

Yes, that's so true. In one sense, many people who accept evolution, they have not really studied evolution deeply. They accept it because they think it's scientific.

But on one sense, if you take evolutionary narrative literally, then it reduces our very existence to meaninglessness. And no person will say that, okay, my existence is meaningless. We all act as if our existence has meaning.

Yeah, because it does. Because it actually does. Yes.

So, but what you're saying is, I like the word schizophrenic very much. So, there is a part of them which accepts evolution without considering its implications. And there is a part of which accepts certain ideas, which are very much explainable by our philosophy that our life has meaning and that there is consciousness is real.

So, rather than taking issue with their apparent acceptance of evolution, we can focus on the part from which we can take off and go into our philosophy. So, in that sense, while belief in acceptance of evolution can be a major obstacle for some people, in a functional sense, it becomes an obstacle only when we confront it. But for a lot of people, that is the case.

The mental acceptance that most people have of evolution and Big Bang is so weak compared to their own emotional kind of deep-rooted kind of yearning for the meaning and purpose and understanding of who they are as a conscious being. And that's also true when we deal with groups. We can deal with the social effects of the evolution narrative can be very detrimental.

And people are recognising the alienation, the isolation, the mental health issues that people go through, because we seem to be kind of following this idea that, you know, society, life is kind of a meaningless slog. Life's a bitch and then you die, sort of thing, as the t-shirt says. So, you know, and psychologists, I think, have significantly found out that meaning is not just something supplementary.

It is, in one sense, essential for mental health and to some extent even for physical health. That's true. So, actually, even in another sense, when people turn towards spirituality, they are not really turning to spirituality to understand themselves from a historical perspective.

They are, in one sense, trying to understand themselves more in terms of, you could say, I don't know, existential perspective or whatever word you use, more in terms of finding meaning and purpose in life. So, actually, it's simple. You just want to be happy.

You're not happy and they just want to, you know, can you do something to turn this around for me? So, that's, you know, you say people look for meaning, they look for enjoyment and they look for belonging. Beautiful, yeah. Those are the three things.

And, you know, intellectualism serves some people, but it doesn't serve most people. And even those who are often very intellectual and very absorbed in these sort of theories, their lives, their emotional states aren't something to aspire to. But we have a philosophy that not only is intellectually satisfying, but which actually goes to the heart and fills our heart with some hope, joy, and inspiration.

Beautiful. So, if you take a few specifics, so, for example, if as devotees, we are talking with new people, and even if we are in a scientific university in a biology or something like evolutionary department, there is no need for us to, like, say, pinch a sleeping tiger, we could say. There is no need for us to bring evolution into the discussion at all.

Talk to them about their heart, you know, keep focused on what's really, really dear to them as individuals. And, you know, Bhakti Siddhanta gave that very important statement, you know, the platform speakers may give their talks, but far more important service is when you speak individually to people, and you actually deal with their doubts and their questions and their, you know, what's in their heart. And even when we're doing a talk, we have to understand we're speaking to a set of individuals, we're not speaking to a group, we're speaking to a set of individuals.

And let's try and reach and find something that we can say that resonates with those individuals. And it's going to be much more heart based than intellectual. You know, we do give some intellectual arguments, and sometimes that, you know, helps people become satisfied.

But evolution, I don't believe is a prime requirement. I think there's very few circumstances in which that needs to be discussed and confronted. Yes, I agree.

So, in one sense, the theory of evolution doesn't obstruct people from exploring spirituality, because as you said, is schizophrenic is maybe a provocative word, but because people just in one sense compartmentalise their lives, they don't see the ramifications of that. But so then, and when we criticise it, that becomes an obstacle. So, we don't want to create obstacles for them.

Now, after that, if somebody themselves raises a question, okay, so what do you think about the theory of evolution? So, what are the range of answers? In a situation where people raise a question, hopefully, you've already discussed the first point, you're not this body, that we have now convinced you, you're an eternal being, a conscious being. And if they say, well, you know, what about the theory of evolution? Well, what about it in the context of what we just said? Are you saying the theory of evolution says we're not an eternal being? What in the theory of evolution says that I'm not eternal, that I'm not a conscious being? There's nothing. It's talking about a mechanism for the production of material bodies, but that's not dealing with this issue.

You are an eternal spiritual being, regardless of where your body comes from. You know, that can be dealt with. I mean, there are methods for the circumstances.

Yeah. So, now, I understand why you made the difference earlier. Rather than we propagating theistic evolution, we say, what makes evolution atheistic? Why do you think evolution is atheistic? So, rather than we challenging evolution per se, it is, what we are doing is, we are asking them to evaluate the implications of evolution.

And so, then that way, we are not confronting evolution per se, in one sense, and we don't need to. Right. What we're actually asking them to do is to question their own belief system.

Why have they adopted a belief about evolution, which they can't substantiate? So, I'm challenging your belief system, not mine. Yeah. And in one sense, and not even exactly, because if we start criticising evolution, first of all, that alienates them, that shocks them, that makes them lump us with religious fundamentalists.

But that is also not addressing what we want to do, what we want to actually share with them. So, I found that, I use the word evolution at three levels, and in three senses, and I find that quite helpful in diffusing tension. So, because again, evolution can be a slippery term.

So, evolution in terms of observed phenomena. So, now, what we talk about natural selection or adaptation or mutation, that's not technically evolution, but many people consider that as evidence for evolution. Evolution is true because we have mutations and all this.

So, we have no issues with the observed phenomena as such. Then second is with respect to the evolution as observed phenomena, second is evolution as inferred mechanism. So, the mechanism that brings about change of species.

And with respect to that, you can say there is, even within the scientific community, there is a lot of conflict about that. How much can evolution explain? Which aspects of, which mechanisms explain what? So, we could say the jury is out and we don't necessarily have to debate that. As I said, at the second level, we could bring in consciousness, consciousness as an agent that can explain some things.

But the third level of evolution is evolution as almost like all-explaining ideology or a part of all-explaining ideology, what you use the word narrative over there. So, it is our concern is primarily the narrative that evolution rejects life spiritual dimension. It leaves no room for anything higher beyond just physicalism.

And many people, once you tell them that this is what we oppose, or this is what our concern is, they realise, okay, this is not that objectionable. This is in one sense, even this taking evolution and as a narrative or as ideology, that is not science, that is scientism. So, we are not in sense confronting science, we are only confronting unwarranted extrapolation coming from, based on science.

That's the important thing. It's an unwarranted, unsubstantiated extrapolation coming from a particular scientific theory. And that's the big thing to challenge.

And the part two point, okay, we will be careful in general circumstances. As I say, I think ultimately we can take things further, but you're quite right. Observations and the actual science, I never get into questioning the dating of fossils and things like that.

I never question the actual observations because my experience in looking broadly at the scientific evidence is that there is a lot more evidence out there which substantiates a kind of Bhagavatam viewpoint than a Darwinian viewpoint. So, I'm not frightened of the science, but I revel in that because I think it's much more useful to us than it is to Darwin, actually. And then that's why the mechanism is so weak, scientifically and philosophically, and there is inference there, which goes beyond what the evidence does suggest.

And as you say, when that system is then extrapolated into a narrative, a bigger picture of what life is all about and the fact and with the assumption of atheism and voidism, then that's where we've got to say, look, wait a minute, you've really gone too far in your assumptions and your assertions here. That's true. So, now when Prabhupada, the book is called Life, comes from life, I think that phrase Prabhupada himself also used it specifically on a few occasions.

So, what are the implications of that phrase? When we say life comes from life, is that a refutation of biological evolution or is it simply talking about that consciousness comes from the infinite consciousness and consciousness cannot come from matter? What are the implications of that? I think it's a great term because I think it has many different implications. Certainly, Prabhupada used it to refute prebiotic chemical formation of the first life form, that you are not going to get a life form from simply physical chemicals and objects, you know, that life is a function of the living entity of the soul. And the soul's connection with a physical body produces that phenomenon we call life.

So, that's the simplest of the life comes from life. But it also applies to consciousness, that our consciousness, but that which we can say makes life, life, you know, the fact that I exist and I'm sentient, that also comes from consciousness, from the supreme consciousness of Krishna. So, I think there's lots of different ways of looking at it, that can you using life comes from life.

In one sense, Darwinism could say, well, our macro evolution system, you know, is life comes from life, that human life comes from monkey life, you know. So, I don't think Prabhupada meant it in that way. I take it that even when we talk about the life forms themselves, that they are products of higher, you know, of life forms and of consciousness.

And that, again, it goes back to the whole point that there is one supreme being, you know, out of all the eternal conscious beings, there is one, who is facilitating all the others. And that's the beautiful picture that the Bhagavatam paints for us. But the Bhagavatam then takes that statement and really helps us understand the wonders of how Krishna has provided the material universe to shelter those Jivas, who don't want to be under the shelter of the internal potency and service and love to Krishna.

But he puts us under the care. He's still under him. It's his form as Vishnu.

It's in Purusha. They're still with us at every moment. They're still in our hearts.

Krishna never lets us go. He just allows us to feel that we are, you know, separated from him, that we are the masters of this material energy, and can create all sorts of crazy notions of why we don't have to surrender to him, and try and spread those crazy ideas in society. But there is a responsibility of those who have some inkling what it's actually all about.

Prabhupada wanted us to counteract, but to work to do that sensitively, to work with the individuals, to help each person from where they're at, not from where we would like them to be, not dealing with questions that will put them off, but to deal with that person where they're really at inside, and help them take a step in their awareness of Krishna. That's beautiful. So, I mean, there's so many levels.

I never thought we could explain that. But essentially, so even if you consider life comes from life to be like a central statement of Prabhupada's position on this issue, that doesn't intrinsically counter the evolution theory in its totality. It's not like an anti-evolutionary credo.

Of course, you talked about as a, we could say, life coming from inanimate matter of consciousness, coming from the brain, that is debunked. But then the evolutionary synthesis has many different aspects to it. So, what I'm trying to say is that many devotees have the idea that Prabhupada was strongly against evolution and therefore we have to be against evolution to be faithful to Prabhupada.

But that is not really necessary. Can we say that Prabhupada was against the narrative that has come from evolution? It is not necessary that Prabhupada was intrinsically against the theory itself or we don't have enough statements of Prabhupada to actually understand what Prabhupada's position was on various details like this. I know many devotees feel like that.

I'm sorry, I don't share that thought. I think Prabhupada was very broad. He used these different techniques in his preaching and that comes across even in statements in the Bhagavatam where it sometimes seems that he's referring to an acceptance of evolutionary ideas.

Most of the time, it's an indication of spiritual evolution and he wants to just emphasise transmigration rather than argue about Darwinian evolution. But there are enough statements, I believe, indicating that one species does not produce another species. I personally think there's enough statements there.

And for me, in my own study of it, I don't see evidence within the science that even suggests that that could be the case, that one species can produce another species. I don't see that evidence in the science. Rather, I see there's more problems on that.

And from the study of the metaphysics, I can see why there's no need to think that we need that one species has to be produced from another in order to justify why it would exist. That there's a perfectly simple system of manifestation of these guna-type species that is consistent with not only the Bhagavatam, but I think it's with physics. So, that's what I'm saying.

That's my personal reading of all those different statements by Prabhupada. So, that's my personal view, but I'm not going to argue that that's the truth or that's the only way of seeing it. So, you're saying that the major species, even on earth, like earlier you made that point that Bhagavatam is not just describing life on earth and life forms on earth, described in various places.

So, the idea that one species could have or one biological form could have evolved from another life form, that there is not sufficient scientific evidence for that. I don't think there is. And then from Prabhupada's perspective, Prabhupada's criticism.

So, Prabhupada did talk about, in some ways, some higher consciousness shaping life forms and features of the life forms. That was quite mayad-dakshina-prakruti. Prabhupada would quote that quite often.

It works under my supervision. Now, what I was trying to, the point I was making is that, that in some ways, when I talk with Bhaktisiddha Maharaj and some of his followers also, this is that Prabhupada, in one sense, wanted his disciples and followers to study this more scientifically and then present the Krishna conscious worldview. Prabhupada did not get into too many technicalities of particular theories and their implications.

And Prabhupada gave more broad principles that is for us to develop. Is that because what I'm saying is that, can devotees comfortably, you could say, you feel that there are certain aspects of evolution, which even scientifically are not supported. But can a devotee who say, doesn't accept the evolutionary narrative, but they accept some of the ideas of evolution, say for example, the micro evolution, the evidence is not a problem, but the idea of evolution of species, change of life forms, if somebody feels that the evidence for that is so strong that they can't reject it.

Can a person accept evolution and still be faithful to Prabhupada and practise Krishna consciousness? I know devotees in Sri Vaishnavism, I know devotees in Madhava Vaishnavism, they don't see any problem with that. And there are some devotees I know who were in ISKCON and they felt they just cannot do that. So, they went and go to Gaudiya Math and in Gaudiya Math, they don't seem to have such problem also.

So, my question is that, does this have to be like a make or break issue? That if I accept evolution, does that mean that I have to, I can no longer be faithful to Prabhupada? No, no. We've all got, you know, it's certainly not a make or break, you know, in terms of faithfulness to Prabhupada. It is an area that I think there is legitimate questions in the minds of devotees about what is the science and also what did Prabhupada say on this.

So, it's a reasonable, happy debate on this. And I think devotees need to just feel very comfortable and particularly to, you know, be satisfied in the generalities that I'm not this body and that there is no way that the material energy can produce species without the help of Krishna and facilitating the Jivas. So, that's a very simple point.

The actual mechanism by which that works, I think is, you know, something that can be discussed. I personally think Prabhupada didn't think that macroevolution actually happened like that. But I don't think that he certainly, but he did not make that a sticking point for his disciples.

And therefore, I think, you know, we can look into it more. And I have friends who are devotees and scientists and very, you know, absolute devoted personalities, and we disagree on this point. So, I'm not saying they're wrong.

It's just my own research has led me to this, to a particular way of seeing Prabhupada's instructions and, you know, feeling very encouraged by that. But other devotees take Prabhupada's directions differently, and that's okay. And we have to be, we're a big society, we have to, this is not something we should lose any devotee over.

You know, there may be other matters, and I'm not sure which ones they are, that we devotees, you know, I don't, my view is no devotee should ever leave ISKCON on any kind of point of dissension or debate. We should, you know, be able to hold together as a family on all matters. And this is not one that should divide devotees, definitely not.

Amazing. Oh, that's so compassionate. And so encouraging.

I wish that maybe 10-15 years ago, when I was interacting with devotees who are dealing with this issue, it is, so it's almost we as devotees in our presentation, it is we conflate evolution with the narrative. And then we, we ourselves also need to be a little more nuanced. The narrative has to be challenged, but that doesn't mean necessarily evolution has to be challenged.

So, it's almost like, it's not going to make, you know, if one has one view I don't believe it's going to really change your acceptance of Krishna consciousness, your path, your devotion. I just, you know, there are plenty of other obstacles that we all face and attachments and dangers and philosophical pitfalls. There's plenty of others.

We don't have to make this a Yeah, in one sense, why we are in one sense making the path to Krishna more difficult than it needs to be. If we make this like a faith issue. So, yeah, if somebody doesn't accept the idea that we are not the body in the soul, they won't be practising bhakti at all.

If somebody doesn't accept the idea that Krishna is, there is a supreme divinity, again, they won't be in bhakti. So, there are anybody who is practising bhakti, they are accepting the foundational truths anyway. Now, exactly how Krishna manifests material nature, there could be varieties and understandings of that.

And again, the Bhagavatam also, if we consider, whenever it talks about matter, it also does use the word achintya at times. So, that exactly how material nature comes about when it talks in the fifth canto cosmology. Although the statement is about cosmology, we can say it applies broadly to nature also.

This is not really so easy to conceive. Yes, that's really wonderful. That's wonderful.

And so, are you also, maybe one of the last questions, are you also working on some specific areas of research with respect to evolution? Or do you know devotees who are working in that area? So, if somebody wants to have, somebody has further questions, or they want to further enquire about it, where can they go to, say, discuss it at the second or third levels, which you mentioned? Right now? Well, I would, and this is a big ask, I would suggest devotees, if they have an interest in some of the things I've been discussing on consciousness and consciousness relationship with matter and how that understanding then feeds into an understanding of life and evolution and also the cosmos, I am going to recommend they sit through all the videos of the Atma Paradigm series on YouTube. There's only 35 of them. If you have nothing better to do, and this is some, but actually, I would ask devotees, because in that series, we do look at many of the philosophical, spiritual and scientific issues that devotees don't get a chance to come across regularly.

And it's been stress tested. I, you know, senior Vaishnavas have watched it all and given me notes and told me where to make corrections. But the overall thesis stands as an analysis of science, as scientists watch it, and as a way of interpretation or application of our own philosophy.

So it is a synthesis of science and our philosophy, which many devotees have found to be consistent. I'm not saying everyone agrees with everything, but it's overall consistent. But work through consciousness, really understand what the heck we're talking about when we talk about consciousness, not being material.

Work through what we consider to be Prakriti and how that works and how there is a connection between the intention that forms in the mind and how that manifests within matter, the role of information, all that. Then have a real look at what we say about evolution and about how species can be manifest. And then have a little look at the cosmological aspect where we kind of look at things in the big, big picture.

Yes, so definitely. So it's a big ask. But, you know, I would really prefer to get questions from those who have studied those and looked at them.

And some people have. One devotee wrote to me recently and said he's watched the whole series six or seven times. And I'm very worried for that devotee.

Have they not got something better to do for Krishna? But it was very kind. So some people are actually studying it, and therefore they've got questions. But whatever, myself, and if it's not me, I'll pass on questions to other devotees who can answer very specific things.

And if there are devotees who actually want to be involved in the collaboration, you know, using either their background of philosophy or in science or both, you know, we may be able to connect them in to different groups, whatever their background is. Okay. Yes, I think that's wonderful.

Actually, even before our first podcast and after that, I did watch several of the videos. And then I realised that this requires serious attention. These are not like other classes, which we can hear in a little lighter way.

So I didn't complete all the hearing, but it is a very serious and systematic treatment of the subject. Maybe Prabhu, what we could do is we can have one more podcast where we go deeper into what you have done in the Atma Paradigm series of lectures. And you could explain, because we had an introductory discussion long ago, but that was, you could say, it was quite introductory.

We could go something deeper in that and we could have one more podcast sometime in the near future. That would be nice. It's always great to have your association and you always bring out the best in all those who you interviewed.

So we find ourselves saying things we never even realised before. Should I try to summarise now? It's been a long discussion. Thank you for your patience.

Good luck. And the resourcefulness and untiringly going on. So, yeah.

So broadly, we discussed today about the, what would be the Bhagavatam's approach toward evolution. That is a broad subject. And then it started with why that evolution, why is this, it is a theory which is becoming a litmus test and we have the default understanding that we need to oppose evolution.

But what exactly are we opposing? So evolution, you started with the history of science, basically. And science, because it has a particular scope. So because of that scope, because of a particular purpose, it had a particular scope.

So it focused on the physical, mathematical aspects of nature. And then in that, it became very good and the scientific method is a very powerful tool for deducing the validity of tenets at an empirical inferential level. But at the same time, many aspects of reality are left out by that.

So one is, of course, consciousness and the primary secondary qualities. But everything non-mathematical gets left out largely or at least non-physical gets left out. And then because of that, there is a certain amount of limitation.

And then once science left out the non-physical, then when evolutionary theory came up, then in one sense, what happened was it became a tool for explaining all of reality without needing anything non-physical. And that's how it became, you could say, propagated aggressively by atheists. And it was, it became also controversial because of this opposition by Christianity, at least in major parts of Christianity, where the idea that we came from monkeys or apes, that seemed to strongly contradict the very Christian sense of identity, the speciality, the, I think what is called as anthropocentrism, that we are humans are special, the special creations of God in the image of God.

And so, because of that opposition, the theory gained far more prominence. And if we consider, then we went into some of the specifics of the theory and how the theory does not do what it claims or what it promises. So, yes, there is no need to debate with natural selection.

It happens that quite a humorous story of I just need to run faster than you, not faster than the bull chasing me, the bear chasing me. So, we can talk about micro evolution also. We can talk about mutations happening.

Most of them will be destructive, but we can assume that we can be open to the idea that some may be positive. But is that enough to bring about the changes that evolution requires? So, then later on, through the evolutionary synthesis, through genetics that was brought about and that is claimed, but there are a lot of insufficiencies, especially when you talk about information. So, you mentioned that this was like the Mahavakya of B.I. in the early days.

How can high information systems come from low information processes? And that is, that explanation still is, it's eludes. So, then we discussed about the Bhagavatam's perspective and way before that you mentioned that actually if we see contradiction between the two, it's largely because we are presuming certainty or finality where we need some more humility. So, I need to study both of these better and if I study them better, deeper, then you said in your experience, you found it fascinating to see how deep and deep the message of the Bhagavatam is and how it actually illumines for us Krishna acting in the background in the world.

Then with respect to the specific Bhagavatam's metaphysics, which is say different from the Christian metaphysics, then the first approach could be that we just divert the question. Not because we don't want to deal with the issue, but because we have more important issues to deal with. So, in the Christian worldview, our self-understanding who we are is largely tied to where we came from.

But in our understanding, we are souls different from the bodies and where our bodies came from is what evolution can explain. But that is, if I am not the body, then where the body came from is not that important a question at all. And in fact, if we understand the concept of spiritual evolution and transmigration, then there is a greater connection between us and other species rather than there being this big difference.

We are not apes. We are categorically different. We can say yes.

But actually, rather than emphasising the categorical difference, we have been in the other species. And in that sense, there is a greater sense of empathy which can come up. So, that was one aspect.

And the other, if somebody says, okay, we focus on the point of you're not the body or the soul and the relative inconsequentiality of where the body comes from. But still, if somebody has questions about that, then we can say that, point out that the mechanisms that are supposed to bring about evolution, they are quite inadequate in doing what they are claiming to do. Then we introduce the concept of how two things.

First is that evolution does leave room for consciousness because at one level consciousness can't be explained empirically and consciousness does exist. So, it's something which is a fundamental experience for all of us. So, then we could say that not only does consciousness exist, but consciousness can affect matter in bringing about change in even biological form.

You talked about empirical current latest trends in biology where it seems consciousness is directing say genetic changes and morphological changes based on the environment and perception of threats and other things, which is fascinating. So, we could take that as a departure point, launching pad. And they say that consciousness can bring about significant biological changes also.

So, consciousness is acting through the subtle body and the mind. So, you talked about the, we have physical bodies and then we have the, what was the word used? Guna, the mind which are, mind which is affected by the modes. So, through which we work, the, so our understanding of species itself is quite different from their understanding.

And in fact, there is no one understanding within science also. And the tree of life changes drastically if the definition of species is changed. So, what might seem like a monolith, the evolution which you have to challenge is actually not a monolith.

It is, and what happens is through actions of consciousness, we can talk about at various levels. Remote viewing is your favourite example of how consciousness can affect, or mind or consciousness can affect or pursue things beyond what the brain can do. And that suggests that consciousness does not depend on the brain alone.

It exists separate from the brain. And then if it exists separate from the brain, then it can also, it is a reasonable difference to talk about how it can influence biology matter beyond direct physical mechanisms also. So, then we talked about Siddhis, where Patanjali says these are not mystical or magical.

They are actually based on a subtle understanding of how the Jiva interacts with Prakriti through gunas, through the mechanisms of material nature. And then we talked about how if the yogis can do something like this with Siddhis, then devas can do something more. And then at this level of interface, what we can have is that, do we accept evolution or not? We do not have to fight with the evidence.

We do not have to fight with the fact that there are some changes happening. But whether the factors that are attributing, that are set to the changes, you could say, you said that gradualism is more or less out now and punctuated equilibrium is what is widely being accepted. And then there could be some correlations between the devas acting to either introduce new species or to bring about drastic changes in the species.

And although we can focus primarily on generalities, because even in science, evolution, when somebody says, how can you refute evolution? You can always say that, okay, which theory of evolution are you talking about? So, when scientists also talk about evolution, they talk about generalities and specifics are for specialist discussions. So, similarly, with respect to Bhagavatam, we can go into specifics about this or that. But broadly in terms of generalities, there is a significant level of compatibility that is possible.

And even with respect to specifics, some striking specifics like say Daksha, Daksha performed being off business for five Anvantaras and then coming back and then manifesting the species as the time when from the fossil record we have invertebrates coming up. So, there are some fascinating correlations possible over there also, which further research might reveal. And then beyond that, at the third level, so first is we shift the question, second is we may accept evolution, but then show how accepting consciousness can actually explain evolution in a more holistic, more complete way.

So, it should be shifting, then you could say complementing, and then we could say actually further is enhancing. Enhancing would mean that or enhancing or expanding that the Bhagavatam offers a whole worldview filled with conscious beings and the supreme conscious being. And that is the worldview that brings, you could say, what we are looking for in life, meaning, joy, belonging.

And whereas the evolutionary narrative, the narrative build around evolution is quite damaging to mental health, social health also perspectives. So, in that sense, the third level engagement needs to be done for people who have become firmly grounded in understanding that there is a non-physical aspect to life and they're exploring that. Otherwise, that can seem like sometimes too difficult to accept.

So, when we start introducing the whole Bhagavatam universe, that might seem to be against Occam's razor. But initially, the very fact that there is consciousness, that is, and that consciousness can act on matter, that doesn't necessarily have to contradict Occam's razor. And then to impose Occam's razor over there is like artificially saying that, how can I find the Taj Mahal in UK? It's like, how can I find consciousness in the brain? So, it's artificial arbitrary and arbitrary delimitation.

And then toward the end, we discussed about how that there are various ways in which devotees individually we make sense of evolution and scripture together. What people need when they're interacting first, they need to understand the spiritual identity, not where they came from historically. So, there's no need to bring evolution ourselves into the discussion.

And if somebody does bring evolution to discussion, we can talk about the second level in an appropriate way. So that if we refuse to challenging evolution, then we actually end up alienating people because they lump us with religious extremists. But if instead, we focus on what Sri Prabhupada focused on, that our spiritual identity.

And Prabhupada strongly criticised evolution. His focus was primarily on the narrative that if you consider evolution of three levels, the observed evidence, the inferred mechanism, and then the ideology of the all explaining ideology and narrative. So, Prabhupada's main issue was with the third.

And that definitely we can confront. But the way to do it would be rather than saying that we start with the body of the soul. And if somebody asks, what do you think about evolution? Rather than we critiquing evolutions, is there anything in evolution that contradicts the idea that the understanding that we are souls? So, we shift the discussion from evolution itself to its assumed implications, to the narrative.

And then when we challenge that narrative, that can be done relatively without positioning ourselves as anti-science. And we can avoid antagonism. And even if and there are different ways in which devotees may reconcile the two.

And so, you said that macro evolution in terms of change of species. Prabhupada didn't seem to support that. And you say according to you, science doesn't support that sufficiently also.

But still, if some devotees accept that based on their study of science or whatever, then that doesn't have to be seen as an obstacle in their spiritual journey. This doesn't have to be made into a faith issue. That we can continue our practise of bhakti because there are far more important challenges to be dealt with.

And we don't have to make life difficult. And just as we accommodate people in terms of praxis, cannot follow a particular rule, cannot follow a particular cultural aspect. So, even if somebody can't accept a particular philosophical tenet, that doesn't have to drive them away from Krishna.

And there is abundant scope. In fact, nothing should be made so important. It makes people give up the practise of Krishna bhakti.

But especially by going deep into science and scripture and studying the classes of Atma paradigm, there are doubts which are there which can also be resolved. So, whatever doubts are there and you can get a deeper understanding. So, anything you would like to add Prabhu? I think I missed a lot of things.

But it was quite a huge discussion and hugely illuminating discussion I would say. How do you do that? How do you give a summary like that after all of that? That was amazing. So, I would do that for the skill of the brahmacharya teachers that must be there in the strength of the power of your mind.

Thank you for that. The only point I would like to add is again to stress that I'm speaking from my analysis of what I believe Prabhupāda said, and how I've read those statements, and what I've studied in the science and the rest of the Bhagavatam. And I am trying to offer my resolution of the whole issue on evolution, and I'm not saying it is superior, better or more devotional or spiritual than anyone else's.

But we're on a path to, you know, and I hope I'm blessed that I have the opportunity to work with devotees and to continue this discussion. So, thank you very much Jitendra for giving this opportunity. Congratulations in your summarising.

My thanks to you for having such a, I mean, I would say it's philosophically rigorous. At the same time, you could say devotionally compassionate discussion. Thank you very much.

I look forward to having a discussion again in the future soon. I hope we get to meet up again very soon. Hare Kṛṣṇa.

All glories to your service. All glories to your service also. Thank you, Prabhupāda.