Subjective Evolution of Consciousness— Darwin’s Missing Link

by Swami B.K. Giri



Dear Sriman Muralidhara Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

I appreciate your timely response and hope you will excuse my belated one.

I am preparing a new edition of Subjective Evolution of Consciousness and was thinking to use that quotation either as a sub title or a blurb describing the book. The book is currently out of print and I believe it is one of the most useful tools at our disposal for establishing the supreme role of consciousness as the instrument not only of evolution but of origin over any mechanistic model.

This fact is very akin to self-evident. Therefore, I have no sympathy for Darwin who’s religious background, regardless of how inadequate it may be, offered sufficient support for understanding that only God can create anything, period, whether originally or subsequently (origin or species).

Charles Darwin could have sought help from Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas or similar philosophers and theologians who would have provided far better clues to the truth underlying origins and variety of species than material science could ever offer due to the inherent insurmountable defects of illusion, cheating, mistakes and imperfect senses present in all empirical scientific investigation.

Darwin chose to swap logic for illogic, rationality for irrationality and sanity for insanity. He is a good example of curiosity killing the cat.

Leaving the pursuit of Absolute Truth, with His concomitant Absolute Knowledge, through a mature and rational appreciation that we are suited only to be servants of God (a concept even a casual reader of the Bible would acquire), always existing as insignificant parts of His domain, demanding thereby, that true knowledge will only come through His grace, Darwin chose to indulge in the childish fantasy that he could become master of the world of relative truth where one is forever bewildered by his surroundings which he can only observe as various apparitions born of his own delusions.

Blinded by his egotistical demeanor, and in defiance of his theistic upbringing, he established himself in the history books and books of “science” as another poster boy for the “Blind Leading the Blind” campaign.

Darwin left aside one “dogma of his Anglican… background” to lay the foundation for a far more destructive dogma that seduces, no, demands one’s acceptance of atheistic principles.

Now those who do not accept such principles are branded as troglodytes or labeled by some similarly offensive designation marking them as heretics of the new worldwide church of materialism and relegating them to positions suitable for such ignoramuses.

Thus, the modern Pseudointellectuals, who would rail against the mistreatment of the “untouchables” by the brahmins of India, have imposed their own religious social rules intended to identify, subjugate and shun the untouchables created in the test tubes of the scientists who would dare speak of, or even modestly believe, the world to be a product of Divine construction.

In my homeland almost nobody I know believes in the Bible’s view of creation. People here want to believe in a God, it is true. But they can’t see how God exists since there is no evidence that God exists. They are searching for “God” but they can’t find him. It is sad.

The Bible’s view of creation is not inadequate in its foundational principle, God created the universe (the heavens and the earth). The fault is with some of its proponents who demand sentimental acceptance without offering sufficient or reasonable philosophical, i.e. real scientific, support.

Philosophy stands at the pinnacle of all scientific investigation. All mechanistic hypothesis derive from philosophical origins. The idea is always first. Then comes the rationale, philosophy, for investigating the truth of the idea and the means by which the validity of the idea (whether it is true or false) can be verified.

The origin of the universe, origin of self, origin of species, in short, all the big questions, are beyond the jurisdiction of the measuring approach and mechanistic explanation of material science.

There are Christian philosophers who are very adept at dealing with the issues just described. They are quite capable of proving the useless pursuit of answers to the big questions via material science and thus establishing God as the only possible resource for answers to these questions.

Where the Christians fall down is their limited understanding of God. It is here where their understanding and explanations are deficient.

It would be sad if those searching for God could not find Him. I do not accept this hypothesis. It indicates a deficiency is present in either one or both of those who we believe do not have such deficiencies, the jiva and Krishna.

For the condition to exist that a jiva [soul], in search of Krishna, could not find Him, a logical fallacy would have to exist that violates the Absolute Truth of om purnam adah purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate, all parts of the perfect are also perfect. Such a condition [logical fallacy] is not possible.

The other flaw I see with your proposition “They are searching for ‘God’ but they can’t find him.” is that it indicates an imperfection exists with God. Either He is unaware that one of His parts is attempting to reunite with Him and therefore can’t help, or that He is cruel or indifferent towards His parts and parcels. We reject all these negative attributes of Sri Krishna Who we know to be suhrdam sarva-bhutanam the benefactor and well wisher of all conscious entities, which means every entity, since all entities are individual units of consciousness.

Appreciating your position for what I know it to be, an instinct to provide relief to the suffering of all souls, be they in human form or some other, I am sure it will serve not only as impetus to continue programs for the distribution of sukrti, the Holy Name, transcendental literature and so on, for the purpose of affording an opportunity, not only for the sincere seekers but also for those who have yet to be awakened to the desirability of pursuing such wealth as we have been so fortunate to have received, but also to develop and expand such programs to the fullest extent possible.

I agree there are many persons searching for God. Our prime duty is to give all possible help to them in their search.

I am also trying to do my small part. As I mentioned, I intend to print a new edition of Subjective Evolution of Consciousness, a most valuable book that provides what has been lacking in various religious attempts, both a sound philosophical basis for origin and development of all things, and the most comprehensive understanding of God along with the means to attain to His Divine association and His abode, our eternal home.

I am seeking donors to cover the costs of printing and distributors of the completed book. I would very much appreciate any such help you might be prepared offer.

I pray this finds you well in all respects.

With sincere regards,
Swami B.K. Giri