Science Versus Faith

[Guest guest]

Namestay to all:

For several months I have been silently sharing the wonderful

thoughts of fellow advaitins and developing a very self-realizable

feeling of "oneness of all". Only when I saw the ugly head of duality

appeared in the form of "Science Versus Faith" controversy, did I

wake up from my sweet slumber.

 

Both science and faith are tools in the hand of an awakened person in

the pursuit of Ultimate Reality. Although their approaches may be

different, their struggles are bound to help each of us to realize

the same Ultimate Reality. Therefore, I will take courage to say that

both science and faith are simply the two sides of the same coin or

"truth seeking".

 

When Shankara felt the "oneness of all" through Advaitin philosophy,

and when the famous physicist, Feynman discovered the dance of

subatomic particles within a unified field of energy, both must have

realized the bliss of Ultimate Reality in different ways.

 

Some say God is Love, some say God is the Law (physical/spiritual

laws combined). Both could be right. One finds the truth through

faith and the other finds the truth through the study of the laws of

interrelationships between all entities. When Christ said,"Lord and I

are one" and when Einstein proclaimed the relationship "E=mc^2", both

must have danced with heavenly joy.

 

So let's continue to follow the lessons of Adaitin philosophy and

Vivekanand's eternal faith in pure knowledge while struggling to

find ways to lessen the miseries of fellow beings either born with

infirmities or not yet enlightened.

 

Roshan L. Sharma, Adjunct Professor, SMU, Dallas

 

Roshan L. Sharma <rsharma

214-691-6790 <voice>

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

In my original post in response to Robert's original question,

I stressed faith (in advaita) and purity of heart make one recognize

what he/she is. In a way, it can be addressed as science versus faith,

although putting them as two competetive words ( I am uneasy about

the word 'versus' here) is not what I was thinking. Shri Ram Chandran

correctly pointed out the limitations of science.

 

My feelings on the topic are the following:

 

Faith (we have addressed this question on this list: see correspondence

between yours truly and shri Madhava on this sometime ago) is when we

go beyond the belief stage. Faith is a stage when we look for internal

re-affirmation of the concept that we hold. We are not looking for

external confirmation, only internal re-affirmations. If we look at

any quotation on faith, we see faith cannot be proved by logic. Faith

does not correspond to what our sense organs grasp and transmit to the

mind and intellect for processing.

 

Science depends on faith for its advancement. Faith is a fore-runner

to any advancement in science. The cutting-edge of science depends on

faith. Once the advancement is made in science, science becomes practice

and not science any more. Thus the so-called science only tends to the

limit of faith, never reaching it. Faith is always ahead of science.

 

Trying to *mentally* capture 'all is one' [this, I understand, is the

original question by Robert] is like making science to reach the level

of faith. It can never be done. Science is an intellectual exercise.

Faith is beyond what an intellect can satisfactorily explain.

 

When Lord Krishna says in bhagavadgItA, 18th chapter "surrender to Me,

I will take care of you", He is saying: have faith in Me. He is not

asking Arjuna to logically deduce in the mind that Krishna is the

SELF of all; but He is asking Arjuna to make that leap of faith beyond

what the intellect can see and beyond what the intellect, with its tool,

the logic, can grasp. That is faith.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>In my original post in response to Robert's original question,

>I stressed faith (in advaita) and purity of heart make one recognize

>what he/she is. In a way, it can be addressed as science versus faith,

>although putting them as two competetive words ( I am uneasy about

>the word 'versus' here) is not what I was thinking.

 

For whatever it's worth, it isn't what I was thinking either. I'm sorry I

ever mentioned the word science at all, because it was not necessary to the

point I was trying to make. I could just as well have referred simply to the

consensus view: that we are biological organisms, that our awareness is the

product of our physical being, and that consciousness as a whole is derived

from physical existence rather than vice versa. This point of view can

certainly be identified long before the birth of what we now call science.

My statement was that, although Advaita is certainly plausible, there is a

great deal of evidence for the consensus view also, which is plausible as

well. Therefore plausibility does not equal truth. There need be no element

of science versus faith in this statement.

 

[...]

>Science depends on faith for its advancement. Faith is a fore-runner

>to any advancement in science. The cutting-edge of science depends on

>faith. Once the advancement is made in science, science becomes practice

>and not science any more. Thus the so-called science only tends to the

>limit of faith, never reaching it. Faith is always ahead of science.

 

Your statement is certainly true as far as it goes, but it leaves out one

crucial detail. It's true that insightful, creative hypotheses run ahead of

established knowledge, but many (probably the majority) of these hypotheses

never reach the stage of 'truth' because they can't be confirmed. This just

underscores the fact that a point of view can be elegant, insightful, and

plausible without necessarily being true.

 

>Trying to *mentally* capture 'all is one' [this, I understand, is the

>original question by Robert] is like making science to reach the level

>of faith. It can never be done. Science is an intellectual exercise.

>Faith is beyond what an intellect can satisfactorily explain.

 

No, that's not what I was trying to do. In my original question I

specifically acknowledged that realization can't come through the intellect

alone. But my question was on behalf of those like myself who are not

realized, and are groping for something to bring Advaita out of the realm of

the merely plausible and into something more vital and living. I never asked

for proof, logical or otherwise, but just for something to make Advaita

'real' to those who are not yet realized.

 

>When Lord Krishna says in bhagavadgItA, 18th chapter "surrender to Me,

>I will take care of you", He is saying: have faith in Me. He is not

>asking Arjuna to logically deduce in the mind that Krishna is the

>SELF of all; but He is asking Arjuna to make that leap of faith beyond

>what the intellect can see and beyond what the intellect, with its tool,

>the logic, can grasp. That is faith.

 

Not all truth is accessible to logic, even in everyday life, and I have

never thought otherwise. But as honest human beings we still must retain at

least some critical standards, including the ability to discriminate between

the merely plausible and the true. Anyone who has surveyed the history of

philosophy knows that many views have been propounded beyond the consensus

realism that I mentioned and Advaita, and that a large number of these views

have a high degree of plausibility, at least internally. So, in the absence

of realization, we need something to elevate one plausible view above all

the others, do we not? Some may make this selection based on tradition

alone, but for those of us who were born into Western culture, taking this

approach obviously does not make Advaita a leading option.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

 

Robert Watson [niche]

 

But my question was on behalf of those like myself who are not

realized, and are groping for something to bring Advaita out of the realm of

the merely plausible and into something more vital and living. I never asked

for proof, logical or otherwise, but just for something to make Advaita

'real' to those who are not yet realized.

 

[Madhava Replies:]

 

Sorry to interrupt you, but I am curious... What exactly are you asking for?

 

 

Yours,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

The Gita verses 21-23 in Chapter VII clearly say that it is the Lord

alone who gives us the necessary faith when pursuing even worldly goals- such

as science- and it is in obeyance of the the Lord' laws that the our efforts

bear fruit. Krishna does not condemn such finite goals outright. However,

He is quick to add that these fruits are all finite, whereas those who, with

no other goals in mind, pursue Him alone are rewarded with the highest prize

of all. Hari Om.

 

- Raju Chidambaram.

[Guest guest]

Madhava K. Turumella <madhava

advaitin <advaitin >

Saturday, July 22, 2000 4:13 AM

RE: Science Versus Faith

 

>

>Robert Watson [niche]

>

>But my question was on behalf of those like myself who are not

>realized, and are groping for something to bring Advaita out of the realm

of

>the merely plausible and into something more vital and living. I never

asked

>for proof, logical or otherwise, but just for something to make Advaita

>'real' to those who are not yet realized.

>

>[Madhava Replies:]

>

>Sorry to interrupt you, but I am curious... What exactly are you asking

for?

 

If I knew exactly what I'm asking for, then I probably wouldn't need to ask.

Let me put it this way: I hold the members of this list in very high regard

as intelligent, literate, and insightful human beings. I observe that they,

in most cases presumably in the absence of realization, are able to sustain

a belief in Advaita, probably throughout their lives. I find myself unable

to do so, at least for any unbroken length of time. So then I begin to

wonder, What do they have to go on that I am missing? What is the factor

that brings Advaita out of the realm of plausible opinion, one among many,

and into living reality?

 

And please, let's drop the science versus faith motif, which I never

intended to provoke. The question could just as well be framed in terms of

various Indian schools of thought, all of which existed before the birth of

science as we know it.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

>From what I know:

 

Atma-Anaatma Vichaara and the Limitation of Objective Sciences:

 

There was interesting discussion on the role of Science that encompasses

mechanics including Quantum and Relativistic mechanics. To understand the

limitation of objective sciences or logic one has to understand the role of

PramaaNa or means of knowledge.

 

Our seers have placed a great emphasis on the epistemological aspects before

they discussed the Ontological aspects. That is, they inquired first into

the means of knowledge – PramaaNa-s before they tried to analyze the nature

of Reality. They have classified the means into six types – but most agree

that they are at least minimum of three types, namely Pratyaksha, direct

perception, anumaana(inference or logic) and Shabda (mostly Sruiti or

Vedanta). The definition of PramaaNa is very precise - It should be:

Anaadigata abhaadhita (phalavat) arthabodhakam pramaaNam.

 

(phalavat) meaning utilitarian or usefulness is added later by

Praabhaakara-s to justify their philosophy.

 

The meaning is that a pramaaNa must reveal knowledge of an object

(arthabodhakam) and such that it must be, anaadhigatam, which cannot be

known by any other means of knowledge or pramaaNa, abhaadhitam, which cannot

be contradicted by any other pramaaNa and phalavat, useful.

 

Objective science rests squarely on anumaana pramaaNa that is logic that

includes deductive logic and inductive logic. But knowledge based on the

logical deductions one way or the other have to be confirmed by Pratyaksha

pramaaNa – which we can translate in terms of sciences as experimental

verifications, directly or indirectly.

 

Shastra is considered as separate pramaaNa that is a valid means of

knowledge to gain knowledge that is not possible to gain by any other

pramaaNa. Here we refer to shaastra or sRiti, that is Veda pramaaNa. I do

not have to go to Sruti to learn that ‘there is fire where there is smoke’

an example which is commonly used to illustrate anumaana pramaaNa. There is

fire on the distant hill because I see smoke there – is logical statement

based on prior consistent observation – ‘yatra yatra dhuumaH, tatra tatra

agniH’ – based on perceptual knowledge, that wherever there is smoke there

is fire – called vyaapti Jnaanam.

 

For analysis to be valid, the conclusion, vyaapakam, that we base our

analysis must be concomitant with the data or vyaapyam that we collect. I

cannot say that there is fire in the kitchen since I see smoke on the

distant hill – the data refers to the hill and the conclusion of fire refers

to the kitchen. This is shushhka tarkam or duHsh tarkam or logic applied

wrongly. Basically it is unscientific to make a deduction of one thing

while collecting data from another thing. If I collect data from moon and

make conclusion about Mars, it is illogical and unscientific. Here it is

not the data that is questioned but the conclusions that one makes based on

the data. By repeated experiments scientists first confirm the validity of

the data. Once the data is considered valid, theories to explain the data

are put forth. The theories are questioned and not the data any more.

There are always better theories to explain the data in full.

 

Now let us apply this to the objective sciences including highly

sophisticated quantum mechanics. Vedanta as pramaaNa points out that there

is Atma that is different from the body. Idam – this – that we can point

out is different from ‘aham’ I, the one who is doing the pointing. Idam or

this is different from aham or I, the subject. The whole universe including

the objective sciences come under the category of Idam or anaatma. Sciences

deal with anaatma, however sophisticated that science may be – that include

the quantum and relativistic mechanics including uncertainty principles etc.

Essentially the data that science collects are related to anaatma –

therefore using that data one can only conclude about anaatma. If I make

conclusions about aatma based on the data of anaatma then that logic is in

error or called shushhka tarka. This is in vedantic terminology – data is

looukika and the vyaapakam is aloukika .

 

To make conclusions about aatma one has to have relevant data. But where do

you collect data from, for the aloukika or aatma

Since it is subjective experience, one can get only subjective data. But

subjective data being subjective, the reliability of the data is always

questionable, since there is no means to evaluate the validity of such data,

since all the means are in the realm of anaatma or loukika. If one has

faith in that particular subject that the data that he provides is valid

then one can proceed on that basis. But that requires faith on that

particular subject. But if one wants somewhat universally applicable or

agreed upon at least by all those who are investigating into the realm of

aatma, then there is some common basis.

 

Hence Shruti PramaaNa is considered as the valid pramaaNa. Shruti’s are

considered as revelations to the sages in contemplation which is repeated

confirmed again and again by many of the sages who have investigated in that

path that is pointed out. Hence Shruti alone provides a valid data to

investigate in the subjective realm. Hence it is independent means of

knowledge which cannot be known by any other means or PramaaNa.

 

We came make the following corollaries from the above analysis.

 

1. Objective Sciences or all science that are based on loukika anumaana or

objective data, which fall in the realm of anaatma can never prove and also

disprove aatma. One has to clearly understand the limitations of sciences.

There are scientists who are trying to analyze ‘consciousness’ as an object.

Our sears have declared repeatedly that “naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya” –

one can never prove logically the existence of supersensious things

including aatma.

 

2. But logic can be used and has been used in the discussions of Vedanta –

because (a) Vedanta to be valid means of knowledge or PramaaNa should be

abaadhikam that is cannot be negated by logic or other pramaaNa-s. That is

Vedanta is logical and not illogical. (b) Logic is also used to dismiss

logically the arguments put forth against Vedanta – by showing the

application of logic to prove Vedantic declarations is illogical or shushhka

tarka. – This is done extensively in the Brahmasuutra Bhaashaays or

commentaries of Brahmasuutra-s.

 

Hence Shankara declares in VivekachuuDamani,:

 

Na yogena na saankheyana karmanaa no na vidyayaa|

Brahmaatmaikatya bodhena mokshaH sidhyati naanyathaa|

 

Neither by yoga nor my sannkhya (yoga and saankhya are two Philosophical

approaches which are mostly based on logic), neither by action nor erudition

one can gain liberation. To this list we can add Scinces since all scinces

are based on anumaana PramaaNa or on logic or inference. Only in the

teaching of oneness of Brahman and Atma can one gain liberation.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am grateful to shri Sadananda garu for the excellent clarification

in his article. We both agree on the limitation of objective science

or logic in Atma vicAra. In discussing the means of knowledge, pramANAs,

you have stated their importance and classified them into three types

(pratyaksha, anumAna and shabda) and defined the characteristics of

a pramANa.

 

My question is: in Atma vicAra, should we not go beyond these pramAnAs

(even the shruti pramANa), guided only by unswerving shraddha?

 

AtmavidyA is aparoksha, beyond what the pramANAs show us. The

pramANAs are there only to guide us in the proper direction.

The journey is to be done by the sAdhaka, alone, based on shraddha

and taking the direction shown by the pramANAs. If we stop at what

the pramANAs take us, we are only part-way there because Atma-vidyA

cannot be that proven by the pramANAs. Shruti (kaTha upanishad, for

example) says the 'journey' is still there and the journey is harsh.

Even the guru can only point the direction. The sAdhaka, with intense

shraddha has to do the 'journey'.

 

I would be grateful for your comments.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Shree Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

 

 

>My question is: in Atma vicAra, should we not go beyond these pramAnAs

>(even the shruti pramANa), guided only by unswerving shraddha?

>

>AtmavidyA is aparoksha, beyond what the pramANAs show us. The

>pramANAs are there only to guide us in the proper direction.

>The journey is to be done by the sAdhaka, alone, based on shraddha

>and taking the direction shown by the pramANAs. If we stop at what

>the pramANAs take us, we are only part-way there because Atma-vidyA

>cannot be that proven by the pramANAs. Shruti (kaTha upanishad, for

>example) says the 'journey' is still there and the journey is harsh.

>Even the guru can only point the direction. The sAdhaka, with intense

>shraddha has to do the 'journey'.

>

>I would be grateful for your comments.

 

First thanks for your kind words.

 

you are absolutely right - Vedanta as pramaNa provides the saamanya Jnanam

of the Brahman - the nature of the reality and shows the path through

tatasta and swaruupa lakshaNa-s. One can see the truth pointed by Vedanta

if one's mind is ready. Description of Brahman is not realization of

Brahman. One has to see oneself by oneself through oneself - that is the

teaching of Vedanta too. This is the teaching of Uddalaka to his son

Swetaketu -

aitadaatmyaa idagam sarvam, tat satyam, sa atmaa, tat tvam asi swetaketo|

This entire universes is nothing but the self - that is the reality of the

world and that is the truth and that atma is yourself, you are that - Oh

Swetaketu

 

That vedanta is providing a teaching that lifts one mind to that state -

where one sees the truth as the truth - tat satyam - Thus Vedanta is pole of

the pole walt to go beyond the pole- that beyond is aparoksaanubhuuti - like

contacting live electic curent - no description can provide any knowlege of

that state other than meaningless expressions of - aaahaa huuhuu mantras!

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

 

 

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Robert Watson wrote:

> [...]

>

> If I knew exactly what I'm asking for, then I probably wouldn't need to ask.

> Let me put it this way: I hold the members of this list in very high regard

> as intelligent, literate, and insightful human beings. I observe that they,

> in most cases presumably in the absence of realization, are able to sustain

> a belief in Advaita, probably throughout their lives. I find myself unable

> to do so, at least for any unbroken length of time. So then I begin to

> wonder, What do they have to go on that I am missing? What is the factor

> that brings Advaita out of the realm of plausible opinion, one among many,

> and into living reality?

>

> [...]

> Robert.

>

 

 

namaste.

 

I trust this post will not be viewed as my harping on the same point

again. If it is viewed that way, my sincere apologies. But I came

across, in my readings of last night, a passage from Prashna upanishad

which has relevance to what we were discussing and I thought I should

bring it to the attention of the List.

 

Prashna upanishad 1.10 says

 

.... tapasA, brahmacaryeNa, shraddhayA, vidyayA AtmAnam anviShya ...

 

Seek that Atman by austerity, by practice of chastity, by unswerving

faith and Knowledge.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----