Gita key verses course 6 – Do animals have souls? Are humans just evolved animals? – Gita 2.30

So, today we are continuing our session on the Bhagavad Gita, and we are having the sixth session now.
In this session, till now, we have been discussing how the Bhagavad Gita’s thought flow progresses and how we are taking the concepts accordingly.
First, we talked about the concept of Dharma, then we talked about the concept of identity. After that, I talked about the results of understanding one’s identity—how the soul transmigrates, how we can see the departure of a loved one with a spiritual vision, and in the last section, we discussed how this philosophical understanding of the Bhagavad Gita relates to today’s conceptions of spirituality.
Today, I will talk about another question. Moving from spirituality specifically to the soul, today’s discussion will focus on two main questions:
Do animals have souls, and are humans just evolved animals?
We will discuss these questions sequentially, verse by verse, based on the Gita. This is Gita 2.30, where Krishna speaks about the soul being present in all living beings. He says that the embodied soul has two characteristics: one is nityam (eternal), and the other is avadhyo (indestructible). He says, “Therefore, Arjuna, for all living beings, do not lament their demise; it is inevitable at the physical level, but at the spiritual level, the soul will always continue to exist.”
So, broadly, we will discuss these two questions: Do animals have souls, and are humans just evolved animals? I will first discuss the conception of the soul (the first half), and in the second half, I will talk about humans and what distinguishes human beings.
Now, how can we know if animals have souls? One basic symptom of the soul is the presence of consciousness. Wherever the soul is, consciousness is present. Many materialistic or reductionistic attempts have been made to explain consciousness in physical terms, but none of them have been successful. Consciousness, if we consider it at a simple logical level, arises from something non-material. Matter is ultimately made up of atoms, molecules, and fundamental particles, and none of them have consciousness; a mere combination of them won’t produce consciousness.
So, consciousness must come from a non-material source—the soul. This is a reasonable inference. Wherever there is consciousness, we can infer there is a soul.
Now, how do we know if consciousness is present? Broadly speaking, we can see it through the presence of emotions. There are many aspects to consciousness, and emotions are one key aspect that is more easily perceivable. Consciousness also has intentionality: we observe something and, with conscious intention, decide to act. Consciousness also includes the capacity for higher-level abstract thinking—not just sequential thinking, which even computers and machines can do.
A symptom of the soul is the presence of consciousness, and animals also experience pain, joy, and sorrow. Perhaps the animals in which we can most clearly see this are those that are closest to us. For example, in Indian culture, it could be the cow; in American culture, it could be the dog. We can observe that these animals also have emotions.
To say that animals have consciousness is, therefore, a reasonable point to make. And if animals have consciousness, then it is also a reasonable conclusion that they have a soul.
There is a school of thought called solipsism, which claims that we cannot know if anyone else is conscious except ourselves. According to this view, other animals—and even other humans—could be like programmed machines or robots that are made to appear conscious.
At one level, this argument is absurd because we can sense and relate to people, and we can sense their emotions and consciousness. But from a rigid, scientific point of view, consciousness itself is not quantifiable. We can measure brain waves, but we cannot measure consciousness itself. Sometimes, when discussing abortion ethics, the question arises: when does the embryo become conscious? Strictly speaking, science cannot answer when an embryo becomes conscious, as there is no way to measure even the consciousness of the mother.
We do talk about a person being unconscious at times, and when we say they are unconscious, what we essentially mean is that they are not responding to us or to physical stimuli, and their brain waves are in a particular pattern. But these are essentially the results of consciousness.

So, is there any objective parameter by which we can infer the presence or absence of consciousness?
We could have another set of parameters, which would refer to looking at what happens to the body when consciousness is present. Essentially, we see that the body undergoes certain changes whenever consciousness is present, and the normal physical structure, when contrasted with a body containing a living being, shows some essential fundamental differences in how the body functions.
So, normal matter undergoes primarily three changes, whereas matter that is “ensouled” undergoes six changes.
I’m sharing the screen now so you can see this.
Matter without consciousness basically goes through three phases: creation, deterioration, and destruction. For example, if we build a house, it is created, but if it is not taken care of, it deteriorates faster; even if it is maintained, it will still eventually deteriorate and be destroyed. However, matter with consciousness exhibits three more changes.
After birth, there is growth. No matter how sophisticated a robot is, it doesn’t undergo growth. Then, in addition to growth, there is maintenance. Maintenance can be due to homeostasis or processes like clotting. If, for example, the arm of a chair breaks, it just stays cracked, but if our skin is cut, it heals itself over time; clotting happens immediately, and healing occurs gradually. So, whenever the soul is present in a body, that body has the tendency to maintain itself. The soul, as we discussed earlier, is eternal, and wherever it stays, it strives to maintain and continue existing in that body. So, maintenance is another characteristic.
One way the soul tries to continue its eternality is through reproduction. If I can’t live on, at least my progeny can. Reproduction is something that no matter how sophisticated matter is, it cannot achieve. Computers, for example, can process information much faster than humans, but we don’t have computers that reproduce themselves.
The remaining two changes are similar: there is birth, which is similar to creation; aging, which is similar to deterioration; and death, which is similar to destruction at a physical level.
So, we can consider that consciousness, and thus the soul, is present wherever these three additional changes are happening. These changes occur in animals, plants, and even microbes, and therefore we can reasonably conclude that there is a soul present in animals as well.
Now, this may raise the question: Why would the idea that souls are present only in humans come up at all? If consciousness is the symptom, then animals have consciousness.
This notion, as I said, comes from the fact that certain terms are used by all theistic traditions or spiritual traditions. For example, the word soul might be used, and the word God might also be used. However, the specific conception associated with these words may differ. The term might be the same, but the concept might vary.
In the Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—there are many differences within them, but there are also overarching similarities. One similarity is with respect to the conception of the soul.
In these traditions, especially in Christianity, the idea is largely what we can call anthropocentric. Anthropos means human, and centric means centered around. So, in Christianity, to some extent, humans are placed at the center of creation. For instance, Jesus descends to deliver humanity, and God made humans, feeling that creation was complete. Humans are considered the summit of creation.
Within this worldview, the belief is that humans alone are special and can be delivered.
I talked about how the same term may have different conceptions. The difference between humans and animals in the understanding of the Bhagavad Gita is seen as a difference in degree, not in category. In Christianity, however, especially from where the idea of the soul comes up, the belief is that the difference between humans and animals is in category, not in degree. According to this view, animals don’t have souls, and only humans have souls that can attain eternal life after being delivered.
Christianity is a very large religion with many different theological conceptions. Some Christians may differentiate between the terms spirit and soul, and some may say that animals have spirits but not souls.
When Srila Prabhupada wrote his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he wanted to be unambiguous and thus used the term spirit soul—the two are not separate. So, according to his understanding, animals do have souls, though they may not have the kind of soul that humans possess, the kind of soul that can attain eternal life.

So, why would they think like this?
At one level, there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I will elaborate on the difference between degree and category, but first, let’s try to understand different conceptions of the soul.

Broadly speaking, the Christian conception is that human souls are created at birth and then live forever in heaven or hell. The idea is that, with respect to the soul’s existence, there are two terms: reincarnation, which refers to the soul coming back in another body, and pre-existence, which refers to the past lives of the soul. Reincarnation applies to future lives, while pre-existence pertains to past lives. This entire process is called transmigration.

Now, I’m referring to mainstream Christianity; there may be specific Christian sub-sects with different beliefs, but broadly, their idea is that when a man and a woman unite, a soul is created. After creation, the soul is eternal, and this is why their definition of eternity is more like semi-infinity. Eternity, in their view, doesn’t mean no beginning and no end, as the Bhagavad Gita says. The Gita says, “There is no birth and no death, no beginning and no end.” But the Christian idea of eternity is that there is a beginning, but no end. So, from now onward to infinity, to eternity, to forever — it’s semi-infinity.

They also have the idea that the soul is inseparable from the body, which is connected to the concept of resurrection. Many of Jesus’ followers are said to have seen him in the same body after his crucifixion, which is the idea of resurrection. Resurrection means coming back in the same body, while reincarnation means coming back in a different body.

Christian belief is that the soul will be resurrected in the same body. Of course, they acknowledge that the body will be destroyed, even if carefully preserved in a coffin. But they believe that, by God’s arrangement, the same body will be reunited and reconstructed. So, although the terms may seem similar, the Christian view holds that the soul is created and eternal thereafter, and the soul and body are inseparable in some sense.

The point here is not to delve into specific Christian theology but to understand the origin of the idea that animals don’t have souls.

Now, let’s examine the balance between two extremes in the understanding of the soul, as per the Bhagavad Gita. Think of a pendulum, which swings between two extremes. One extreme is the Christian conception, which holds that only humans have souls, and we are entirely different from animals. The other extreme is the modern scientific or evolutionary view, which states that no living beings have souls — we are just evolved animals, mere physical creatures.

Between these extremes — that only humans have souls and that no one has souls — the Gita offers a balanced understanding. The Christian view is that humans are special because they alone have souls, while the evolutionary view claims there is nothing special about humans; we are just more evolved animals.

The Gita’s perspective is that humans are special, not because we have souls, but because our souls are more evolved than those in animals. There is a distinction between the idea that humans have souls and the understanding that living beings are souls. Although, for convention’s sake, we sometimes say we “have” souls — for example, “Put your heart and soul into your service” — this is a non-literal usage of the word soul. Similarly, when we say “the soul of America was shattered when the twin towers fell,” it is understood to mean the spirit of America.

When the Bhagavad Gita speaks literally, it refers to the soul as a distinct being, different from the body. So, technically, we don’t say we have souls; we say we are souls and we have bodies. This is important because, although non-literal usage can be understood in context, the literal use of the word refers to the soul as the true self.

Thus, the specialty of human beings is not a matter of category — it’s not that we have souls and others don’t — but a matter of degree: the souls in humans are more evolved than those in animals.

Now we move on to the second question: Are humans just evolved animals?
The idea that humans are different from animals has struck thinkers throughout history. What exactly differentiates humans from animals? From a Western intellectual perspective, Aristotle proposed that humans alone have reasoning ability, that humans consciously seek knowledge and desire to increase understanding, and that this distinguishes us from animals. Descartes went further, saying that humans not only seek knowledge but also have reasoning faculties to understand things rationally. Immanuel Kant further argued that we have free will and a moral sense; we can distinguish right from wrong and act accordingly, whereas animals merely follow their instincts.

These observations are true. We do seek knowledge, we do rationally understand things, and we do have a moral sense. A tiger, for example, sees a deer and, if hungry, pounces on it. The tiger does not think about the ethics of eating meat or whether it should control its impulses, such as fasting on Ekadashi. Animals lack this moral sense and free will, which allows us to control our impulses.

This brings us to the question: Are humans just evolved animals? Let’s now look at the broad Vedic conception of this difference, with the Gita as part of the Vedic knowledge.

A well-known verse from the Mahabharata, which appears in other Indian texts as well, states:
Ahara Nidra Bhai Maithunamcha Samanya Meetat Pashubhya Naranam
Dharmohi Tesham Adhiko Vishesho Dharmena Hina Pashubhi Samaanaha.

This verse describes four basic activities — eating, sleeping, mating, and defending — that all living beings engage in. These are biological activities that all humans, like animals, must do. However, the verse continues:
Dharmohi Tesham Adhiko Vishesho — it is Dharma (righteousness) that distinguishes humans from animals.
Dharmena Hina Pashubhi Samaanaha — without Dharma, humans are just like animals.

So what exactly is Dharma? It’s often translated as “religion,” but is it just religiosity or religious rituals? Would it mean that humans can perform religious rituals that animals cannot? If so, could a chimpanzee or a robot, trained to move an aarti plate, perform a religious activity? This would challenge the idea that religiosity is what differentiates humans from animals.

To understand Dharma, we must go to its etymological root. The word Dharma comes from Dhris, which means “to sustain.” Dharma is that which sustains our existence — that which enables us to live in harmony with the nature and purpose of our existence. It is what allows us to live harmoniously with our true nature and purpose.

For example, if we drive on the wrong side of the road, our existence will be unsustainable. Dharma, in its foundational sense, is what sustains us and helps us align with our higher purpose.

Either the cops will pull us over, or some other vehicle will hit us.
If we have to sustain ourselves while driving, we must drive properly.
We need to drive on the right side of the road, and roads are meant for driving.
If someone starts performing a dance on the road, unless they have special permission, they will not be able to sustain it.
They will be pulled off the road, or they will be knocked down.
So when we are on the road, it is meant for a particular purpose, and we need to function in harmony with the nature and purpose of the road.

Similarly, when we live in the cosmos, we must live in harmony with our nature and purpose.
That activity sustains our existence.
That is Dharma.

Now, Dharma is what sustains our existence. It involves metaphysical inquiry — first to understand the nature of life, the nature of our existence, and why we are living, followed by purposeful religious activity. I’ll explain what this means.

Dharma can refer to religious activity, but it is not just ritualism. It is done to raise one’s consciousness.
Let’s examine metaphysical inquiry.

To differentiate between humans and animals, this is the Vedic or Dharmic understanding, and I previously discussed the contemporary or Western understanding. Let’s see if these two can be reconciled.

If we observe animals, they use their intelligence to fulfill their bodily drives, and humans do the same.
We also think about where we can find good food, where we can sleep peacefully, how we can find the best mate, etc.
But then, we also ask the question: Why should we fulfill our bodily drives? Why live at all?
This “why” question is the womb of spiritual growth. Based on this “why” question, we have the capacity to delay physical gratification for higher realization.

This capacity to delay gratification for higher understanding is essential for progress in any area of life.
When Newton saw the apple fall, some say it fell in front of him, others say it fell on him, but either way, when it fell, he could have just grabbed the apple and eaten it. Instead, he asked, “What made this apple fall?”

This ability to delay gratification for greater understanding — for a deeper comprehension — is critical in all areas where humans differ from animals.

There are many other ways humans differ. Some thinkers claim that language differentiates us from animals.
We have a sophisticated system of communication using language. Although we use language commonly, it is very complex and abstract. Certain sounds are associated with meanings, which are in turn connected to visual marks. It’s a very complicated system.
The evolution of language has stymied thinkers, even reductionist scientists, for decades.

Language is another example of something that differentiates humans from animals. But language also demonstrates something else:
Learning a language requires the capacity to delay gratification for something higher.
A baby could just be eating food and playing, but to learn a language, the baby must put in effort. Parents and teachers also invest significant effort to teach the language.
When language is learned, a whole new universe opens up. This ability to delay gratification is defining for human beings.

We will discuss this topic further in the third chapter when we explore the concept of yajna (sacrifice).
But the key idea is that Dharma involves metaphysical inquiry followed by religious activity.
The underlying universal principle is that we can delay some pleasures in the present to secure a better future.
That better future could be through acquiring scientific knowledge, learning a language for communication, or creating art that, after significant effort, can bring pleasure to many.
But underlying it all is the impulse control required to achieve these goals. The critical question is: Why do we have this capacity?

That brings us to something deeper: As I said earlier, the “why” question is the womb of spiritual growth.

The soul is always attached to the body in any species. I previously mentioned that the soul in the human body has the most evolved consciousness.
What does it mean to have evolved consciousness? Is this just an anthropocentric statement, asserting that humans are better than animals simply because we are humans?
No, it’s not an anthropocentric view. It’s an obvious reality that, physically, we humans stand nowhere near animals.
There are lions, tigers, rhinos, and elephants that are much bigger than us.
In terms of speed, many animals are faster than us.
When it comes to weapons, our nails and teeth are barely functional, while many animals, like birds and cats, have sharper claws.

Physically, we are puny and powerless compared to many species, yet we rule the Earth now.
So clearly, there is something that differentiates humans from animals. It’s not just an egocentric idea of human superiority.

So, when we say that humans have more evolved consciousness, what does it mean in terms of understanding the soul?
Let’s explore various characteristics or symptoms that indicate our consciousness is more evolved. We can look at human culture — language, art, science — which testifies to our evolved consciousness.
We also observe that humans rule the Earth, despite being physically inferior, which further testifies to the evolution of our consciousness.
But what does this mean philosophically?

Consider this: The soul is attached to the body. Normally, whenever the soul enters a particular body, it becomes attached to that body and identifies with it.
This identification is present in all species. The soul functions as though it is the body.
This identification leads the soul to think that gratifying the body’s impulses is the way to pleasure.

I repeat this point because it is very important: Not only when we identify with the body — but how do we know if we’re identifying with the body or not? The key is, do we consider the body’s definitions of pleasure as our definitions of pleasure?

For example, if we consider eating, sleeping, mating, and defending as sources of pleasure, then we are identifying with the body. Even if we can philosophically explain that we are not the body, but the soul, the soul’s conception of happiness becomes equated with the gratification of the body’s drives.

However, there is a key difference: Although the soul is tied to the body, like in all species, the soul wants more pleasure than what the body can provide. This is a key difference between humans and animals. Animals and all living beings eat food, but animals are satisfied with whatever food is provided by nature. A cow, for millennia, generation after generation, will eat the same grass.

But humans want better food than what nature provides. That’s why we don’t just take what’s in nature — we cook it. And not only do we cook, we have hundreds of cuisines across the world, each with hundreds of items and delicacies.

The point here is that although humans identify with the body’s gratification as our source of pleasure, we want more than what the body provides. And that’s why we try to increase bodily gratification.

Now, this sometimes has unfortunate consequences. Generally, animals don’t suffer from obesity and the host of diseases that come with it, because they eat only when they are hungry. But we humans eat even when we are not hungry.

Animals, when the mating season arrives, the urge within them compels them to mate. But humans mate even when we don’t have the urge to reproduce. In fact, much of modern civilization and social culture separates physical union from reproduction. There is even a whole branch of science dedicated to separating the two.

The point is that we want more pleasure than the body can provide. We seek this by eating more than the body needs. We seek it by mating more than the body’s imperative. For humans, mating is not just a physical drive; it becomes a constant psychological obsession.

So, our longing for more pleasure than the body can produce or provide — this also differentiates humans from animals. It is a symptom that our consciousness is more evolved.

When we seek more pleasure, we begin to think, “How will I get this more pleasure?” One way, of course, is through scientific and technological advancement, where we try to create better arrangements for eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. But another way could be by distancing ourselves from the body and realizing our soul.

The evolved consciousness we have is provided to us so that we can inquire about spirituality and grow spiritually.

I mentioned briefly earlier the Genesis account, which is the first book of the Bible in the Old Testament, about how God created all living beings and then created humans, after which He was satisfied, saying that creation was complete. There is a similar account in the 11th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, but with a significant twist.

It is said that the Supreme Being created all living beings and then finally created human beings. The Bhagavatam says human beings had the capacity for philosophical inquiry and for knowing the purpose of life. After creating humans, the creator was satisfied.

So, the purpose of existence is to inquire about the purpose of existence — first to inquire, and then later to fulfill that purpose. Only humans have the capacity to inquire about the purpose of existence, and this is what differentiates us from animals.

Now I’ll discuss one more concept and then conclude this discussion.

What I’m trying to do now is answer the question: Are humans just evolved animals? To do this, I’ll integrate both the Western and contemporary understanding of the difference between humans and animals, as well as the Vedic and Gita understanding.

To explain this difference, I use an acronym, SCID, which can help us understand both contemporary terms and also guide our spiritual growth.

There are four differentiations:

1. Self-awareness
2. Conscience
3. Imagination
4. Determination

Let me explain these.

1. Self-awareness: This means the question, “What am I doing? What am I feeling?” We can become aware of our urges. Among all living beings, we have the capacity to abstract ourselves from our body, look at ourselves, and reflect on our actions and emotions. For example, I could be sitting here, and I could visualize myself from above, asking, “What is this person doing?” We can introspect about our feelings, actions, intentions, and thoughts.
2. Conscience: From self-awareness comes conscience. Conscience means being aware of right and wrong, but also feeling the emotional response to our actions. For example, if we do something wrong, we might feel guilty or regretful. Conscience is not just about knowing what’s right or wrong, but also the emotional reaction to it.
3. Imagination: Imagination is the ability to visualize alternatives. For instance, I might realize that I acted poorly, and then imagine a better way to act in the future.
4. Determination: This is the ability to act on what we visualize. It’s not just willpower, but the capacity to take the steps necessary to change or achieve our goals.

Determination is the ability to choose to act in a particular way. As I mentioned earlier, animals can’t consciously restrain their bodily urges. While they might fast due to a lack of food or water, they don’t make a conscious decision to restrain their urges for a higher purpose. But humans have the ability to do that.

Self-awareness is understanding our emotions, while conscience is a sense of right and wrong. Animals don’t usually have this sense — they simply act according to their bodily urges. They live instinctively and follow their drives without a moral evaluation of their actions.

Imagination is a huge differentiator between humans and animals. Even if something doesn’t exist, we can visualize it. For example, we can look at a pile of concrete and imagine, “I want to build a house like this.” Animals, like birds, may create nests, but they typically create the same type of nest generation after generation. While their nests might be impressive, they lack the variation and creativity that humans exhibit in their art, music, and innovations — all products of our imagination.

Then there’s determination. We humans can commit to something, set aside our urges, and act on a higher purpose. This is where the concept of Dharma comes in. Dharma is not just about going to a temple or performing religious rituals; it’s about philosophical inquiry and purposeful religious activity. We understand that there is a difference between humans and animals, and we can analyze this difference in terms of self-awareness, conscience, imagination, and determination.

For spiritual life, we must first develop self-awareness. What kind of urges and desires do we have? Only when we become self-aware can we recognize our impure desires. We also have a sense of conscience — the inner feeling that tells us what’s right and wrong. Our spiritual growth lies in sharpening this conscience, so that we can say, “I shouldn’t do this, I should do that.”

Imagination plays a crucial role in spirituality. Our imagination is sparked by hearing spiritual texts and learning about the spiritual experiences of great saints. These experiences reveal joys far greater than what the body can provide. This in turn leads to determination — the resolve to withhold certain physical pleasures in pursuit of spiritual fulfillment, ultimately leading us to spiritual realization. That’s how we grow spiritually.

To summarize what I spoke about today: I addressed the question of whether humans are simply evolved animals and whether animals have souls. We discussed how we can know if someone has a soul or not by two key characteristics: the presence of consciousness (which can be seen through emotions) and the difference between matter with and without consciousness. Animals do have souls, and we also discussed why some believe that animals do not. This belief stems from the Christian tradition, which asserts that only humans have souls that can attain eternal life.

In contrast, the Bhagavad Gita teaches that there is something special about humans, but the difference is not in category, but in degree. The human soul is more evolved. This evolution is reflected in our ability to gain knowledge, our reasoning faculties, our moral sense, and our capacity for willpower and determination.

The Mahabharata explains that Dharma is the capacity for philosophical inquiry followed by purposeful religious activity. Humans, unlike animals, seek more pleasure than the body can provide, which drives us to create art, science, language, and ultimately, to grow spiritually. We yearn for a greater kind of pleasure, which leads to spiritual growth.

By integrating the Dharmic perspective with the contemporary understanding, we can see that self-awareness, conscience, imagination, and determination are the key traits that differentiate humans from animals. These traits can be utilized systematically for our spiritual growth.

Thank you for your attention. Let’s now address any questions you may have.

Is it simply because of upbringing? Sometimes, the same parents may have one child who is very spiritual and another who is very materialistic. This can even happen with twins, even identical twins. While the material factors — like upbringing and genes — are the same, they can be radically different. Why is that?

One possible explanation is that the soul is completely unaffected by material factors, and it’s the mind that influences our behavior. As we discussed earlier, the soul, mind, and body are connected. It’s true that the impressions in the mind are carried over from one life to the next. But when we talk about the soul functioning in the material world, we are considering the soul and mind as a combined unit. The soul itself isn’t perceivable to us, and if we were to claim the soul is unaffected by anything material, we would also be saying it is inaccessible and unobservable.

So, what we are really trying to understand is whether there’s something non-physical that differentiates various species. While the physical bodies of animals and humans are different, their non-physical components — the soul and the mind — also differ. For all practical purposes, the soul and mind are tightly intertwined. The way a soul lives in a particular body shapes the impressions it carries. In this sense, a more evolved soul means the impressions surrounding it in the subtle body are more receptive, making it a better channel for spiritual inquiry.

Now, you might ask, “Do cats and dogs eat only out of instinct, or do they eat for pleasure?” Again, this isn’t a simple black-and-white matter. Animals do eat beyond their basic instinct, and they can even become obese. But animals don’t create cuisines or make complex arrangements for food. However, when animals are in human environments, they may adopt behaviors like overeating or even mimic human activities — such as smoking — if they associate with humans who engage in such habits.

The key point is that humans have a higher intelligence, which leads us to pursue pleasure beyond the instinctual needs for food or reproduction. We make complex arrangements for eating because the pleasure derived from these biological instincts is not enough for us. Animals, on the other hand, only eat as much as is necessary to sustain themselves and are guided by their instincts.

Regarding the question, “Can we understand animals’ languages? How do we know they don’t make conscious decisions?” It’s important to distinguish between perspectives. Are we analyzing this from a contemporary rational perspective, or are we approaching it from a Vedic perspective?

In a contemporary rational context, animals do not have languages like humans. While animals can produce sophisticated guttural sounds, these are not considered languages in the human sense. For example, a bird may chirp in different ways to convey messages, but language, as we understand it, involves three components: verbal sounds that convey abstract concepts, the associated meanings of these sounds, and a system of writing or physical depiction. Animals do not possess this system.

Ethologists, who study animals in their natural habitats, have observed that while animals can communicate in complex ways, they do not engage in abstract conceptualization or written language. They communicate primarily through sounds and gestures, which are tied to their immediate environment and instincts.

Animals have been studied for centuries, and there is no evidence that they possess anywhere near the sophisticated communication system that humans call language. This isn’t just about whether animals have consciousness or whether they are thinking deeply and making decisions — that’s a different matter entirely. How could we even know? The only thing we can rely on is evidence.

From the perspective of tradition, we sometimes encounter stories of talking animals, such as in the Ramayana, where monkeys talk. However, these aren’t ordinary monkeys; they are Vanaras. In the cosmic hierarchy, Vanaras are considered to be, in some ways, superior to humans, though not always. These aren’t simply monkeys as we know them; they belong to a different species.

While animals certainly have systems of communication, they lack the complex systems that characterize human language. The level of thinking animals are capable of is inferred from their actions, and as far as we observe, they do not engage in activities that display advanced consciousness, which is a characteristic of humans.

Is there a soul present in everything? The Padma Purana mentions that the soul wanders through various species, rising from aquatic life forms to more evolved species. It doesn’t suggest that stones have souls, although there may be exceptions where certain stones could contain souls. The concept of consciousness being present in all things is part of a philosophical theory called panpsychism, which proposes that consciousness exists in all of existence. While we accept that the super-soul (God) is present everywhere, we cannot say for certain that individual consciousness is present in plants, stones, or other inanimate objects. Generally, stones don’t exhibit the biological processes like reproduction, which would indicate the presence of a soul.

What about the miracles of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, where animals are said to have danced, spoken, and sung holy names? While animals did sing the holy names, whether they actually spoke is questionable. When God is present, miracles occur. Krishna lifting the Govardhan Hill is a miraculous event, but that doesn’t mean every hill can be lifted by anyone. These are exceptional cases, not the norm. In general, animals have lower levels of consciousness, while humans have more evolved consciousness.

Does this mean that animals have consciousness? The fact that oysters, for example, don’t have a higher brain doesn’t mean they lack consciousness entirely. The soul’s consciousness is expressed according to the development of the body. If the body isn’t developed in a certain way, the consciousness won’t be either. So, while we could theoretically analyze the symptoms of consciousness in different bodies, we are speaking of a general principle — that consciousness is present where there is appropriate development.

What about animals participating in chanting, as Srila Prabhupada said? It’s possible for animals to take part in chanting, but the key question is whether they are doing it intentionally. Anyone can chant, but that doesn’t mean they are doing so with conscious choice or free will. Animals may engage in activities but may not be delaying gratification or acting from a higher level of awareness.

Are monkeys and apes lower-level human beings? Yes, apes and monkeys are biologically quite similar to humans, though their brains are less sophisticated. There are cases where the line between species may be difficult to draw, especially when there are biological similarities. In those border cases, careful analysis is needed to determine the exact distinction between species.

Is learning a sign of growth? And what about robots that learn? Learning is a sign of growth, but robots’ learning is different from human learning. Robots may be able to learn, but they don’t have the awareness to understand that they are learning. They are simply following programming and algorithms. We can discuss the distinction between AI and spiritual growth in a future session when we delve deeper into science and spirituality. For now, robots may appear sophisticated, but in essence, they are performing mechanical tasks — processing numbers, like an abacus used in the past for calculations.

Imagine we create an abacus as large as a palace, with numerous knobs, and have several people operating it at incredibly fast speeds. Even then, we wouldn’t say that the abacus has become conscious. It’s simply a physical structure with beads being moved around. Similarly, no matter how sophisticated a computer becomes, at its core, it’s still just performing number crunching.

There are three key differences between normal number crunching and what a computer does:

1. The speed — computers perform operations at incredible speeds.
2. The methodology — computations are done according to specific codes and patterns, but even those codes are ultimately just numbers.
3. The ability to simulate human actions — computers can simulate certain behaviors or actions, but simulation is not the same as the original action. There’s a categorical difference between them.

In the same way, animals may engage in activities that mimic human actions, but they don’t experience anything in the way humans do. This illustrates how learning in machines is fundamentally different from learning in humans.

For example, Garry Kasparov, the chess champion, was defeated by the computer Deep Blue in a famous chess match. Kasparov was devastated by the loss, but the computer itself didn’t understand that it had won. It simply functioned according to its programming. The creators of Deep Blue were thrilled with the result, but the computer had no emotion or awareness of its success. It played without knowing it was playing and learned without understanding that it was learning.

This highlights the categorical difference between the consciousness of conscious beings and the simulations of some of those conscious activities by machines.

Thank you very much. Are there any remaining questions? We will answer them in an audio podcast later. You can also post questions here or in our WhatsApp group, and we’ll try to answer them soon. Thank you again. Hare Krishna.