Science and Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all seekers,

 

There was a time when an Advaitin regarded even great philosophies

such as Nyaya and Vaisesika, Samkhya and Yoga, as purva-paksha. But

today there is increasing tendency among Advaitins to use science to

justify the truths of Vedanta. From whence has come modern science as

an ally of Advaita Vedanta? Why is modern science not a purva-paksha

to Vedanta? Have we established that its theories are in full

conformance with Vedanta, or are we merely seeking corroboration for

our faith from a body of knowledge that has come to have public

approval? The seeker of ultimate knowledge must have the courage to

question and strip bare and investigate every theory that confronts

him rather than accept a theory as an ally howsoever plausible its

truths may appear. The ally may well turn out to be the foe. I

present here some words that I had once written for Nitya Kalyan

group which reflects my conviction that something is amiss when an

Advaitin tends to lean on science, which is a provisional and

positivist set of theories, in his or her quest for the ultimate

knowledge which is eternal and unchanging through the tides of time.

 

 

SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE

---------------------

 

We have today abolished Vedic education from our universities and

have installed in its stead scientific education. But how many of our

students would suspect that the foundations of science are really

shallow? How many of them would come to know that it is here in India

that rationality has been carried to its ultimate limit, going far

beyond the juvenile explorations of science, far into deep realms

where lie the subtlest distinctions of thought from which it

formulates concepts about the world? Most of us would hardly know this

because our modern education does not tell us that such things exist.

Our educational system does not even bother that the foundation of

Western science has never been established with veridical certainty.

 

Why was it that Immanuel Kant felt compelled to establish the

validity of science after David Hume wrote his 'Treatise on Human

Understanding'? What was this thing called 'synthetic apriori

judgment' that he tried to justify so that science may have a

foundation to stand on? Why was it that the Logical Positivists, a

group of scientists and philosophers that belonged to the Vienna

Circle, try to establish a set of verifiability criteria for science?

And why was it that experiments with the verifiability criteria came

to a disastrous end?

 

Etymologically the word 'science' means 'to know'. Unfortunately,

this meaning of the word that is pregnant with an unbounded sense of

knowing has undergone a dramatic change as a result of Baconian and

Newtonian conceptions of knowledge until we are left with a 'science'

that tells us that the love we feel in our hearts is a chemical

called testosterone. Today, science has come to mean 'to know in a

certain manner', to wit, through narrow channels of

paradigmatically bound methods that have appropriated the name of

science. The result of this historical constriction in human

epistemology is a divide between philosophy and science, between the

immediacy of experience and the alien-ness of scientific theories

that are constructed to explain the facts of experience. It is true

that the paradigm of science has changed after the advent of

Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory, but unfortunately again, it is

a change of direction that has forged ahead without attempting to

analyse the very conceptions that our intellect uses as the

paraphernalia for constructing the edifice of science. The method of

science is model-construction, whereas the meaning of the

word 'knowledge' points to revelation - to revealing a thing's

nature - and not to knowledge as something to be constructed. I am no

opponent of science, but I am saddened by the awe that it evokes

today in the minds of people and obstructs the free use of their

intellects. Science today has become the opium of not only the masses

but also of the scientists. I do not deny that science has something

great in it that is truly scientific - the ability to predict

phenomena and to construct, through the employment of these

predictive models, wonderful artefacts that are put to human use. But

there is another respect in which science is nothing but a mere

perpetuation of the primordial ignorance that has brought us down

from our Divine Home into the prison of samsara - the inability to

discriminate between sameness and difference. Socrates, that valiant

Athenian, spent his life in stemming the tide of this sophistry, but

ironically it is from the very soil of Greece where he lived that the

seeds of science sprouted to grow forth in Europe to mask all that

was once higher knowledge with that which is lower. For science is

built on the very aporia (Sanskrit viparya) that has brought about

the fall of the soul, and this aporia surfaces in the arena of

science as the inability to discriminate between correlates and

identities. Science violates the first law of logic – that a thing is

identical to itself. Science has thus lost its right to speak about

the immediacy of human experience as it unfolds to us truly in the

light of pure consciousness - it cannot speak truly, for example,

about the moment after sundown when, below the canopy of the night,

the moonlight shimmers on the midnight stream like a thousand

diamonds dancing to the mystery of the night. Why is there a schism

between the panorama of fluid experience and the geometrical nets of

scientific theories that we lay over experience, so much so that the

romance of experience dries up in the denuded desert of scientific

explanation?

 

There is something the matter with science, this unruly daughter of

European philosophy, that has made the intellect of man servile to

its call. Is science truly knowledge? How can it be so when it has

not still recognised the first principle of knowledge – that

knowledge is intrinsic and not extrinsic? For, how indeed do we know

something if not by the innate stamp of knowledge within us? Without

this stamp of truth within us as the measure of things, it would be

meaningless to talk of knowledge for there would be nothing within us

that would ever fix a thing as being true and free from doubt. True

knowledge is unshakable. It is the re-attainment of the stamp of

truth in our soul after the soul has journeyed far and wide in its

quest for truth and returned home to find that very truth in the

nativity of its soul. We must ultimately return to our ancient home

for the fulfilment of our quest. But look at what we have done when

we had set out over foreign waters. Have we not made the Earth alien

to us and constructed theoretical webs of 'knowledge' that we lay out

over Her bosom?

 

All theoretical constructs are nothing more than analogues – they are

not what are seen in experience, but what are constructed to explain

experience. The cool breeze that flows over the fields, the riot of

colours spread out by the twilight sun, the bloom of a thousand

flowers in the vale – these are the inviolable truths of nature for

they are simply the way they are in the immediacy of experience. When

they are seen through the stilled mind, they tell us the one

apodictic truth of what She is as She brings Herself forth to our

consciousness. We must learn to be in the solitude of our souls when

we experience this world. That alone is the true science if we are to

go by the true meaning of the word 'science'. But through this thing

we today call 'science' we have become alien to our Mother that has

given birth to us and nurtured us through this life. Science has

given us a surrogate for this Beautiful Earth. It has waged war

against Her who has given us the cool breeze and the fresh grapes

from the warmth of Her bosom. No, we do not need science to conquer

Her, we need eyes to see that She is us – that She is the blood that

flows within our bodies, the air that we breathe, and the thoughts

that we think, and even the war that we wage against Her. She is all

of everything that is. It is better to be a fool amongst people that

are tethered to the pole of science than to be tethered oneself. I

had once quoted these words of Rumi here before, and I quote them

again, for painfully do they echo in my heart:

 

Ah, Love, could thou and I with Fate conspire

To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,

Would not we shatter it to bits – and then

Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

 

 

With love and regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Sri Chittaranjan:

 

Since you have raised an important and interesting question of

interest to the core of advaita, I suggest that you lead this topic

for our monthly topic. The topic title couls be one of the following

or one of your own choice:

(1) Advaitic point of view of Science and Knowledge

(2) Consciousness, Science and Knowledge

 

since you have lead one of the previous monthly topic with

distinction, discussion in this area with your leadership can

certainly throw some new insights.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste to all seekers,

>

> There was a time when an Advaitin regarded even great philosophies

> such as Nyaya and Vaisesika, Samkhya and Yoga, as purva-paksha. But

> today there is increasing tendency among Advaitins to use science to

> justify the truths of Vedanta.

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

-----------------------------

 

I think personally that science is used to justify the advaita or more

broadly what westerners call the Philosophy of the East because Science is a

link between east and the west.

If we see that the use of science to explain the spiritual facts took force

when Swami Vivekananda, Paramhansa Yogananda and Maharshi Mahesh Yogi

travelled travelled to USA in roughly about 1900, 1925 and 1950

respectively.

Although those yogis never needed science to understand those facts they

knew that to make westerners understand they had to use a tool that

westerners feel most comfortable to use.

And yes, when advanced spiritual aspirants realize subtle truths they seek

more silence and see that GOD is far away from the jugglery of words and

hence never participate in debates about God.

Sankara as well as Guru Nanak and all other great saints/sages of the past

have said that talking about God is never ending. You can keep on juggling

with words...give clever analogies...but Infinite his HIS nature and hence

Infinite are ways of talking about HIM.

I am nowadays reading the Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Nanak says there is just

one word and that Word is the Wod of God which is God himself.

Bible says exactly the same thing.

Aum...Aum...Aum...may every breath of ours resonate with the 'naad' of

Aumkaar

 

 

On 10/4/05, Ram Chandran <RamChandran wrote:

>

> Namaste dear Sri Chittaranjan:

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote:

>

> I think personally that science is used to justify the advaita or

more broadly what westerners call the Philosophy of the East because

Science is a link between east and the west.

 

> I am nowadays reading the Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Nanak says

there is just one word and that Word is the Wod of God which is God

himself.

> Bible says exactly the same thing.

> Aum...Aum...Aum...may every breath of ours resonate with

the 'naad' of

> Aumkaar

>

 

Namste:

 

If we try to understand why they might have said this leads us to

the answer why AUM is so critical. All we need to realize that it

the fundamental tool vowel that hels us understand the root verbs

from any language, not just sanskR^ita.

 

That is why Pata~Njala munai says: tasya vaacakaH praNavaH ||

samaadhipaada 27 ||

 

Meaning - praNava is the designator of that (the true underlying

purhSha).

 

For the same reason taittiriiya aaraNyaka (2.11) says -

"ometi pratipaadyate etadai yajuH". That means here the suuktakaara

call the praNava as the yaj~na it self.

 

Now if we look at these two mantras in the light of what is said a

bhagavata puraaNa throws more light on this statement.

 

eka eva puraa veda: praNavaH sarvavaa~gmayaH || bhaa. pu. 9.4.49 ||

 

Thus, we can perform the yaj~na using the complete vowel OM to help

us understand the meaning that is expressed by our ancestors, and

that is what I like to consider as Veda.

 

For this reason Vedavyaasa says -

 

itihaasapuraaNaabhyaa.m veda.m samupabR^i.mhayet .

bibhetyalpashrutaadvedo maamaya.m prahariShyati || (ma. bhaa.

Adiparva 1.293-294)

 

Meaning - One must use itihaasa and puraana for furthering their

understanding veda (upabR^ihaNa). Here, Veda Vyasa calls (or

rather classifies) person who know veda but not the puraaNa as

being "alpashruta". He further goes on to say that veda is afraid

of them as if "they (veda)" are going to be attacked.

 

Finally, science is not the end point but the tool to acquire

knowledge until the trikaalaatiita sayta gets unveiled. When all

this is realized then it becomes the "advaita" is real sense, where

dnyaata, dnyaatru, dnyeya, and dnyaana including the tools of that

acquisition become "ONE". However, if we try to keep them isolated

& separate, then we keep on swimming the ocean of dvaita due to our

own ignorance.

 

Just my 1 & 1/4 Cents.

 

Hari OM tat sat

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Hi Chittaranjan-ji,

 

What a brilliant essay. Although you are already more than well represented

at my website (you have your own directory!) I would be honoured to add

this.

 

My own view has always been very straightforward. Science can never say much

about reality for the simple reason that it is an objective tool for

analysing the world (and us as body-minds). But all of that is mithyA. End

of story.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji,

 

-- In advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

>

> Hi Chittaranjan-ji,

>

> What a brilliant essay. Although you are already more than well

> represented at my website (you have your own directory!) I would

> be honoured to add this.

 

Thank you for your kind words Dennis-ji. As I have said before, I am

always honoured to have my essays on your website.

 

> My own view has always been very straightforward. Science can

> never say much about reality for the simple reason that it is

> an objective tool for analysing the world (and us as body-minds).

> But all of that is mithyA. End of story.

 

Very succintly put - to speak of the world without seeing Brahman

(Reality) as its core is to speak about mithya (unreality).

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

>

> *My own view has always been very straightforward. Science can never say

> much

> about reality for the simple reason that it is an objective tool for

> analysing the world (and us as body-minds). But all of that is mithyA. End

> of story.*

 

*Precise and perfect....Thanks Dennis*

 

 

 

--

Humanity is one's only Religion

Breath is one's only Prayer

Consciousness is one's only God

 

Ishaan

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

So what could be the purpose of this exercise?

 

Thank you

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote:

>

> >

> > *My own view has always been very straightforward. Science can

never say

> > much

> > about reality for the simple reason that it is an objective tool

for

> > analysing the world (and us as body-minds). But all of that is

mithyA. End

> > of story.*

>

> *Precise and perfect....Thanks Dennis*

>

>

>

> --

> Humanity is one's only Religion

> Breath is one's only Prayer

> Consciousness is one's only God

>

> Ishaan

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

The purpose of the exercise may be to understand the

'Ananda-svarUpa' of That Reality (sat - chit), and Be That only.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> So what could be the purpose of this exercise?

>

> Thank you

>

> Dr. Yadu

>

> advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > *My own view has always been very straightforward. Science can

> never say

> > > much

> > > about reality for the simple reason that it is an objective

tool

> for

> > > analysing the world (and us as body-minds). But all of that is

> mithyA. End

> > > of story.*

> >

> > *Precise and perfect....Thanks Dennis*

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Humanity is one's only Religion

> > Breath is one's only Prayer

> > Consciousness is one's only God

> >

> > Ishaan

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram Chandran-ji,

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste dear Sri Chittaranjan:

>

> Since you have raised an important and interesting question

> of interest to the core of advaita, I suggest that you lead

> this topic for our monthly topic. The topic title could be

> one of the following or one of your own choice:

> (1) Advaitic point of view of Science and Knowledge

> (2) Consciousness, Science and Knowledge

>

> since you have lead one of the previous monthly topic with

> distinction, discussion in this area with your leadership

> can certainly throw some new insights.

>

> Warmest regards,

> Ram Chandran

 

 

Thank you for your words Ram Chandran-ji..... I am honoured to be

considered for leading this discussion. However, the task of

investigating science from the viewpoint of Advaita is an enormous

task because it entails tracing the origins of science as it evolved

in the course of European thought and then subjecting its key

assumptions to the investigative principles of Nyaya (because it is

Nyaya which is the formalism of philosophical discourse for Vedanta).

I have been meaning to write on this topic for more than ten years,

and if I should ever get down to doing it, I will send the article to

you so that it can form the basis for the discussion. But I am not

sure when I will be able to do it.... bread-earning is taking up too

much of my time.

 

Thank you once again....

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjan,

 

I am intrigued by your posting on "Science and Knowledge" (message

number 27920, 4th Oct 2005). In particular, there is the question

that you raise, about how far science is an ally of a spiritual

enquiry like Advaita and how far it may turn out to be a foe. As you

point out, with your usual eloquence, the answer depends on what is

meant by the word "science".

 

As I see it, there is a rather sad but widely prevalent confusion

here, undermining much of our modern education. On the one hand, we

use the word "science" in its older and basic sense, to describe a

correction of knowledge through investigating reason. But, on the

other hand, we also use this same word in a recently restricted

sense, which requires that reason should be tested and applied

exclusively through the calculation of objective predictions.

 

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

 

The trouble is that we habitually confuse these different meanings

of the same word "science". Through this confusion, it is

insidiously implied that all sciences must work like modern

physics, through calculation and prediction, in order to be truly

scientific. Thus it is taken somewhat slavishly for granted that

modern physics is our central and basic science, which other

sciences must somehow extend and imitate.

 

Essentially, the method of modern physics is designed to work

through the use of constructed machines. It standardizes

observation, information and technology in an external way, by

constructing theories and machines that eliminate the use of living

faculties.

 

But other sciences work differently. They do not work externally, by

rejecting our living faculties in favour of objective machines.

Instead, they seek to clarify our living faculties, by investigating

back into a subjective knowing that these faculties express. That

reflective investigation is a questioning reason, which examines the

partial perceptions of our changing personalities, in search of

impersonal principles that are shared in common. The aim is to

realize an inner standard of knowing, which is at once subjective

and impersonal. That reason is aimed inwardly, at an impartial

standard which is both subjective and impersonal.

 

For example, take the science of linguistics, as it has long been

practised in many classical systems of learning. This science works

through a carefully reasoned analysis of pronunciation, grammatical

formation and semantic meaning. But this reasoning does not work by

calculating the various words we speak and by predicting the effect

on our listeners. Anyone who speaks like that, by attempted

calculation and prediction, is liable to speak in an absurdly

stilted and artificial way.

 

People speak well only when the analytic forms of pronunciation,

grammar and semantics have been internalized and thus used

reflectively, to cultivate and clarify their living capabilities of

expression and understanding. As we experience these capabilities

and use them for ourselves, they are not just driven mechanically,

by some machine that we operate externally. Instead, more

essentially, they arise by a kind of inspiration from within,

through a living energy that expresses feeling, thought and

intention.

 

That living energy can only be understood and examined reflectively,

through an expression back into the consciousness that inspires it.

Accordingly, the science of linguistics is essentially quite

different from modern physics.

 

In physics, the use of subjective reflection is expressly prohibited

from the testing and application of theories. Such reflection is of

course essential to the framing of hypotheses and hence to the

creation of theories. But once the theories are formulated, they

must be tested and applied through external instruments, rather than

through a reflection back into our living faculties. So the concept

of "prana" or "living energy" is essentially outside the scope of

modern physics. Physics can only conceive of an energy that acts

from one object to another. It cannot rightly conceive of a living

energy that is inspired subjectively, from underlying consciousness.

No science based on modern physics -- most certainly including

bio-chemistry and molecular biology -- can be a true science of

life, in the sense of "life" as involving an "expression of

consciousness".

 

I am not here denying that calculating models can be used to emulate

many instances of living behaviour. Nor am I denying that such

emulations have their use. I'm personally keen on computers and

would like to use them as far as I practically can. But I would

point out that no emulation can be more than a mimicry of external

form. It cannot in itself amount to knowledge, any more than a

parrot's mimicry or a tape-recorded voice can amount to the meaning

conveyed by a living speaker who understands what she or he is

saying.

 

To investigate the phenomena of life, there has to be a very

different kind of science from modern physics. There has to be a

kind of science whose application goes beyond objective calculation

and prediction, to include a subjective education of our living

faculties. And I would say that there have long been many such

sciences -- including those of medicine, mantra-chanting, ritual,

astrology, alchemy, linguistics, the humanities, psychology,

meditation, and philosophy.

 

Sadly, it strikes me that the inordinate prestige of modern physics

has currently resulted in a corresponding prejudice against the

other sciences, so much so that our modern education tends to keep

dinning it into our heads that these other sciences are not quite

scientific.

 

What has this to do with Advaita philosophy? It is the one science

that is completely educational. It works entirely through the use of

subjective reflection, to achieve an inner realization of true

knowledge. That knowledge does not depend at all on external

predictions or achievements, in order to prove its validity. All

external capabilities depend on it, but it does not depend on them.

 

ADVAITA AND MODERN PHYSICS

 

Does this mean that Advaita is "unscientific"? Not in the older and

more basic sense of the word "science". That basic sense comes from

the Latin "scire", which means to "know". In that basic sense, which

remains inherently implied by it today, the word "science" is

oriented basically to knowledge rather than to the achievement of

external objectives.

 

The trouble with external objectives is that they are narrow. They

result from partial perception, and they are achieved at the cost of

other things that have been left out. To rectify the partiality,

there has to be a subjective reflection back into broader and deeper

knowing. This is true of any science, most certainly including

modern physics. The success of modern physics has resulted from a

profoundly subjective questioning carried out by scientists like

Newton and Einstein.

 

If modern physics is rightly understood, it is a deeply

philosophical subject, which advances by repeatedly and radically

questioning the assumptions that it has made. To understand

relativity and quantum theories, a physics student has to engage in

a profoundly reflective questioning of habitual assumptions about

the external world and about our measurements of space and time. So,

as Newton and Einstein both pointed out, physics cannot be defined

in a merely external way, through its achievement of external

objectives. It is essentially concerned with deeper principles -- on

which a physicist must reflect, as deeper ways are found of looking

at the world.

 

When modern physics is valued only for its external achievements, it

gets misused, to achieve narrow objects at a broader and larger cost

to the environment. The result is an environmental crisis and a

debilitating corruption of our educational systems. One way out is

to look more deeply at our sciences, in a way that takes their

subjective aspect into account. Then they can be seen more

positively, as allies of Advaita rather than its enemies.

 

SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE

 

In this context, I find it useful to question what is meant by the

words "subjective" and "objective".

 

In our recent usage, we often use the word "subjective" to mean

"personal". This usage follows from our habitual identification of

the knowing subject as a physical and mental person. But the word

"subject" has an older and more basic meaning that is the target of

Advaita questioning. That older meaning can be seen in phrases like

"the subject under consideration" or "the subject of enquiry". Here,

the subject is an underlying ground or an underlying principle to

which our considerations and our questions reflect.

 

This can also be seen from the etymology. The prefix "sub-" means

"under", and "ject" implies "throwing". The word "subject" thus

indicates an underlying ground or principle, from which various

considerations and appearances are thrown up.

 

In Sanskrit, the word "atma" means "self" in the sense of a "knowing

subject", and the word "atmiya" thus means "subjective". But the

word "atmiya" also means "spiritual", thus implying a purely

spiritual self that is the subjective ground or principle of all

differing and changing experiences. That pure self called 'atma' is

impersonal, in the sense that it is a common knowing principle which

stays the same, beneath the changes and the differences of

personality.

 

So our habitual identification of "subjective" and "personal" is

thrown into question, by the English word "subject" and by the

Sanskrit "atma".

 

A corresponding questioning applies to the words "object" and

"objective". The prefix "ob-" means "against" or "facing" and "ject"

again implies "throwing". As appearances are thrown up from the

knowing subject, they are perceived as opposing things which face in

front of it and thus throw a reflection back that it takes in.

 

What then is the ideal of scientific "objectivity"? What does it

mean to be "objective", in one's observation of the world? It

requires that objects are seen as objects, in opposition to the

subject that observes them. To take an objective view, the

observation must be made from a knowing subject that is utterly

detached from the objects observed.

 

In particular, the observing body, the observing senses and the

observing mind must be seen as objects. Since they are entangled

with their objects, they too must be seen objectively, by including

them in the objective world that is observed. Only then can

objectivity be found complete.

 

That completion is achieved by reflecting back into the knowing

subject, which is utterly impersonal. Then it turns out to be an

unchanging reality, expressed in all observations and all objects in

the world. The duality between subject and object is thus

paradoxically resolved -- by investigating that duality beyond all

compromise, until it reaches its non-dual conclusion.

 

But here, in considering how Advaita may be allied to the various

disciplines of science, I must confess that I need to remember

something that sets the practice of Advaita apart from other kinds

of enquiry. It simply cannot be institutionalized, in the way that

other disciplines may be. It is an enquiry that must be taught and

practised individually. It must essentially be learned from an

individual teacher and practiced by an individual sadhaka.

 

So, for an Advaita sadhaka, it simply isn't relevant to engage in

institutional or academic debates about what constitutes a science.

And where a sadhaka (like yours truly) does have an interest in

academic education, it is a very tricky problem how to report on

Advaita and its investigations in an academic or a public context.

So far as this problem is concerned, I must confess to being rather

at a loss.

 

Ananda