A Theory of Everything

Observations are one thing, but putting them together to make a coherent Theory of Everything is another. Regarding the latter, science has failed. Species struggle to exist and, arguably, evolve means to do so. But that says nothing about chemicals on their own strength becoming biological entities. With all the talk of biological evolution being the centerpiece of the puzzle of life, chemical evolution—the theory that chemicals evolve into biological entities—once a well-funded field of research, has gone broke. And on the other end of the spectrum, subjectivity—consciousness—remains very elusive, leaving a physicalist Theory of Everything with an explanatory gap that knows no bounds.

And for that matter, a physicalist worldview really has no justification for being at odds with religion as a made up meaning because in the physicalist worldview all meaning is made up and mere human convention—there is no actual right or wrong act or thought. Nor is there any real meaning to any sense of self-determination. Really, what is the point of debating with someone who “believes” that the outcome of the debate is already determined and there is nothing either side can do to change that?

Yes, modern science looks at the world and interprets what it finds. And so does the Bhagavatam, which in contrast to the dominant materialistic interpretation coming from science, finds purpose, will, meaningful action and rationality, atma, and Paramatma. Neither does the Bhagavatam rely only upon the senses for its conclusions derived from observation. Indeed, it teaches a method of stilling them that gives rise to experience unfettered by them, the experience of the experiencer. Go within or go without.

The Bhagavatam in Modern Times

The Gaudiya’s primary text is the Bhagavatam, the Vedic new testament. Although ancient Gaudiya commentators found the need, in their times, to connect it with the sruti and so on, and did so to the satisfaction of others in their times, Gaudiya’s today do not have the same academic necessity. Our necessity is different. We need to make credible the essence of the Bhagavata‘s theology and philosophy in light of the thinking in our times. And our Deity is the historical and spiritual Caitanya Mahaprabhu. It is in him and his life and ecstasy that we find all the evidence necessary to support the divinity of Krsna.

The Puranas in general are considered future revelation. That is their purpose. Among them the Bhagavatam stands out in every possible way, philosophy, theology, language, aesthetics, and so on. There is truly no comparison, and many of the other Puranas glorify the Bhagavatam in their own time. And today among all the Puranas the Bhagavata is by far the most popular in India and abroad. Most of the other Puranas are unknown by comparison and have no commentaries and those that do have one or two. There are more than 88 Sanskrit commentaries on the Bhagavatam and it has been translated into every Indian dialect and many foreign languages.

The Gaudiya position is that the other Puranas deal with the different modes of nature and thus appeal theistically to different psychologies. Whereas the Bhagavatam is the amala Purana, dealing as it does only with the nirguna.

The Bhagavatam is our Bible, Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita. That is sufficient. Gaura Krsna is our God, the Easter Savior. We take our stand there and go forward sharing the Gaudiya good tidings.