Occam's Razor and Aesop's Contributions

[Guest guest]

Srimati Madhusudani Radha dasi prabhu (Mill Valley, Calif.) comments on

the lamentable tendency of some Vaishnavas to fixate on unimportant

minutiae as if the whole of our philosophical outlook on life and our

relationship with Sri Krsna and our spiritual masters depended on it:

 

> I frankly don't understand this preoccupation with the moon....

> As far as I've seen, this moon paranoia has never brought anyone

> closer to developing love for Krsna. Rather, it puts devotees

> in touch with a whole bunch of crazy, marginal elements of society

> and, not surprisingly, this gets us in trouble at times.

 

=================================================

 

Sriman Dvaipayana Vyasa das prabhu (Belgrade, Serbia) confirms this:

 

> We can see in ISKCON's everyday life that indeed such things as

> "moon paranoia" or anything out of common sense did never bring

> anyone "closer to developing love for Krsna". This is a hard fact.

> And only ones I ever saw in ISKCON who were attracted because of

> such things were for sure "a whole bunch of crazy, marginal

> elements of society". So we may discuss teachings as long as we

> like, but facts are facts. And such "crazy elements" did bring

> ISKCON in trouble at times, it was a fact as well.

 

> If we ask modern scientists to give good proofs for what they say

> and if we blame them for cheating when they are wrong (or sometimes

> intentionally cheat) then we must apply the same system for our set

> of knowledge and beliefs. We can't ask that others accept what we

> say without any evidence, yet ask scientists to give a complete

> evidence for everything.

 

> If "accept it as it is" is not "blindly", then what is "blindly"? Blind

> acceptance is when one accepts something without asking for any evidence,

> either a direct, substantial evidence that can be observed (pratyaksha)

> or an evidence of logic and reasoning (anumana) or in religious case an

> evidence from the knowledge which came from God (sabda).

 

> ... One who starts accepting things blindly will sooner or later

> accept as truth something which isn't....

 

> That would not be good for preaching. In such a way, ISKCON would not

> attract intelligent people who are useful to themselves and who could be

> useful in the service of the Lord. Blind accepting is more likely to attract

> potential fanatics, who will in the course of time do more damage than good.

 

> Sadaputa prabhu did offer an explanation, but not much proof for it.

> I have read [his] book. While multi-dimensional world is an interesting

> theory ... any exact data (eg. how big is the distance from Earth to Sun

> and Earth to Moon) must be proved if anyone wants to accept it as anything

> more than just another theory.

 

> And it is, so far, completely unproved theory, which means it is not

> on the level with current scientific data about distances to Sun and

> Moon which are reasonably well proved and anyone with a basic knowledge

> of trigonometry can calculate distances for himself.

 

=================================================

 

Bravo, prabhu! A cogent analysis indeed.

 

Unfortunately, most North Americans receive only a few months of

trigonometry, and only in grade 12. Maths is also not a compulsory

subject in most states and provinces at that level, so ignorance of

mathematics is widespread at least in the United States and Canada. The

situation in Europe, Japan and China is probably not so bad, because the

secondary schools there are more rigorous.

 

But the ill effects of lack of formal training in mathematics and

physical sciences are manifested in the unspecific, nearly pervasive,

disparagement of science on the part of many ISKCON devotees. In this

context, a pseudo-scientific approach which contains a thinly disguised

attack on the scientific method will sway only people who are gullible

and easily led about, or those who flavour their preaching with an

anti-science agenda of their own and who voluntarily blinker themselves

to the marvellous discoveries of science.

 

When we read "athato brahma jijnasa," this is an appeal to reason, not

the diktat of a closed mind. This, together with the archaryas'

widespread use of analogy to demonstrate philosophical concepts,

indicates that the Vedic literatures, literature in pursuit of the Vedic

version, and awakened gurus and sadhus, are not prima facie opposed to

science, as some Vaishnavas apparently believe.

 

Srila Prabhupada once told me: "You have a good brain. Krsna has given

you a good brain. You must use it for His service. Don't just be blind

follower. A blind man must take direction from one who can see, and our

movement exists to train first-class intelligent people who can guide

this blind civilization." The tendency not just to shut down one's own

brain, but to actively promote such a withdrawn attitude among others, is

frankly embarrassing when one thinks that he often commended his

disciples in such words: "All my American and European boys and girls are

very intelligent. They are always drilling their brains to find ways to

serve Krsna nicely." The anti-science vendetta is like Aesop's fable of

the fox who, having lost his own tail in an accident, attempted to

convince the other foxes of how they should voluntarily cut off their own

tails to be like him.

 

=================================================

 

Dvaipayana Vyasa prabhu continues:

 

> And if you want to say that explanation A "far surpasses" explanation B

> you would first have to provide proofs that explanation B is, partially or

> as a whole, incorrect, and proofs that explanation A is correct as a whole

> or at least more correct (with [fewer] mistakes and closer to the truth)

> than explanation B.

 

> And it would not be the proof to say "explanation A is absolutely right,

> ergo, anything that differs from it must be wrong. And since explanation B

> does differ from explanation A it is therefore wrong and A being right

> and B being wrong, we conclude that A far surpasses B".

 

> While giving a proof one must observe all standard rules of logic, no

> self-proved things, no circular evidences, no "ipse dixit" or we will

> finish in an equivalent of Disneyland (where anything is possible and

> anyone may say anything) instead in a philosophical discussion with a

> goal to see what is the actual truth.

 

=================================================

 

A devastating but accurate assessment of the fallacy of "post hoc,

ergo propter hoc," and which often passes for logic within some

quarters of our beleaguered ISKCON!

 

Sriman Mahadyuti das (London, UK) suggested that sabda-brahma "in the

form of either person-bhagavat or book-bhagavat" is always superior to

the rational approach to knowledge acquisition. However, we have to apply

each process in its appropriate domain. For knowledge of Srimati Radharani

and the gopis, for descriptions of Sri Krsna's daily activities, for

philosophical understanding of the nature of the jiva and the

relationships

between jiva and Sri Bhagavan, for analysis of the problems of repeated

birth, death, old age and disease, and solutions to these otherwise

intractable problems, for developing loving relationships among jivas

based not on bodily identification but on mutual appreciation for freely

offered devotional service, there is really no alternative to srota-

pantha (learning by hearing from divinely inspired aauthorities.)

For such learning there is no substitute for the beautiful Srimad

Bhagavatam Purana and the writings of our acharyas, from the Six Goswamis

to Srila Prabhupada and his followers, on the subject.

 

Attempting to apply the otherwise essential srota-pantha in inappropriate

domains like physical science, for which direct observation and the

extension of our limited senses into the macrosphere by means of

telescopes,

radio astronomy, spectroscopy, etc., and into the microsphere through

microscopes, X-rays, etc.., is adequate and satisfactory, leads us to

external ridicule and disastrous internal disjunction between (alas, all

too uncommon) common sense and inflexible dogma. Give me Science, Nature

and Scientific American, please, not an idee fixe for which apologists

desperately and uncritically seek support in the writings of UFO kooks,

baffled know-nothings, conspiracy theorists and aura channellers.

 

Some devotees suggested that whilst modern science can predict eclipses

and other astronomical phenomena with astonishing accuracy, we

nevertheless ought to regard the alleged contribution of Rahu to equations

of motion and gravitation. With sufficient manipulation and number

juggling,

a random constant can be added at one place and subtracted elsewhere,

one supposes, if there is such an irrepressible desire to produce a more

complicated formula than necessary to account for observed events.

 

Such baroque astrological concepts are mostly harmless, as long as they

are not used in an attempt by unqualified counsellors to predict the

future or to purport to give advice. Unfortunately, the desire to provide

full employment for astrologers leads to much harm if people take their

prognostications seriously. I am reminded of Aesop's fable of the man

who advised the marketplace astrologer that his house had been burgled.

Immediately the astrologer ran home to ascertain what had happened. As he

was hastening home, he was asked, "Friend, if you are so good at telling

other people's fortunes, why do you know so little of your own?"

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada and to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu!

 

Best regards,

Ananda das