advaita.org.uk - Quarterly Journal 04 Special Edition - January 2010

[Guest guest]

Journal of advaita.org.uk - no. 04 - January 2010

 

 

Science and the Nature of Absolute Reality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Features:

Science is necessarily always objective

‘Consciousness’ is the subject and cannot be investigated objectively

The world is mithyA

States of Consciousness

Experimental versus Transcendental Method

Science is not a pramANa(means of knowledge)

Conclusion – Testimony is the only means for knowledge of reality

 

'As an adolescent...I craved factual certainty and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life - so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.' (M. Cartmill)

There seems to have been a growing trend (since the publication of Fritzjof Capra’s book The Tao of Physics in 1975) to claim that science is both willing and able to investigate and understand the non-dual status of reality. More and more, science-based books and essays are appearing, but none seem to be actually founded in the proven methodology of advaita.

This is understandably symptomatic of the present time, in which science is seemingly able to supply all of our needs – if not already, then at least as a promise for the near future. Philosophies such as advaita on the other hand are based on ancient scriptures, written in Sanskrit which no one can understand. ‘Where is the contest?’ the uninformed seeker is clearly going to ask.

But there is a parallel here with the other recent development: neo-advaita, in which claims such as ‘there is no seeker, no teacher and no path’ and ‘this is it, here and now’ have direct appeal to those looking for instant gratification. In both cases, the approach is doomed to failure. I have addressed the neo-advaita issue in my book Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle. In this article, I would like to examine some of the reasons why science cannot, and never will be able to demonstrate in any way the non-dual nature of reality.

 

 

 

There is also a parallel with neo-advaita as regards language. Neo-advaitins use a language which can be learned and exploited without really understanding what is being said. A skilled but unscrupulous practitioner can hold forth at satsangs and give the appearance of making profound statements whilst not really appreciating their import at all. Similarly, theoretical physics is now so abstruse that few really understand it at all. Recognition of names such as Heisenberg and Schrodinger, in the context of uncertainty and cats, can easily give the impression (which might be quite erroneous) that the speaker actually understands something about quantum mechanics. I am actually afraid that science may be more of a threat than neo-advaita. Many seekers may be sufficiently

familiar with traditional advaita to be able to appreciate the problems of neo. But this familiarity will not so easily enable them to see through the smokescreen of quantum mechanics and neuroscience! Even if the author does understand what he is talking about, it is highly likely that the reader will not. It is easy to ‘blind someone with science’ in both domains! And though I do not lay claim to understanding much quantum mechanics, I do have an honors degree in Chemistry and did actually take a course in quantum mechanics as part of this degree. So I have at least some direct experience here. Most seekers will not have the benefit of this background and so will be in even less of a position of being able to know whether or not what is being said has any merit at all.

My opinion is that any claims that quantum mechanics and advaita are saying the same thing rely on this fact: that very few people actually understand it. For example, it is true that Heisenberg realized that such things as electrons could not be observed without the very presence of the observer affecting the state of the electron. But this is at the level of fundamental particles. At the gross level of the world, the statistics of large numbers swamp this effect and make it irrelevant.

Science is necessarily always objective

One reason that science can never provide any ultimate answer is that, by definition, it always involves a subject trying to find out about an object. If you can see it (says Shankara in his commentary on Gaudapada’s kArikA on the Mandukya Upanishad (2.4)) – i.e. if it can be objectified – you can be sure that it is not independently real! Whatever I investigate is always an object, with ‘I’ as the subject. I cannot make ‘I’ the object because I am the subject. This would then necessitate another subject to do the investigation –and this leads to an infinite regress. Physics looks into the smallest with the help of electron microscopes and the largest and most distant with the help of the Hubble telescope. At both extremes, knowledge merges into yet further ignorance. And there are vast areas of the visible universe about which science still knows little – the ocean depths are an obvious example. Totally new species of life forms are being discovered every year but there are believed to be many more yet to be discovered. Neuroscience may be able to look into the physical brain and equate aspects of this with mental phenomena but is still at a loss to explain which causes which. Because there is no explicable mechanism that could link a material brain with a non-material spirit, the classical Cartesian distinction has fallen into

disrepute. But a satisfactory alternative explanation for our experience has still to be found. Biology and biochemistry, together with their more specialized disciplines, endeavor to find out more about living things. But they are still totally unable to explain what, exactly, life itself is. Basically, science knows about and can explain very little. And, the more they discover, the more there seems to be requiring an explanation.

Science is constantly trying to analyze things into their constituent parts to try to understand how they are made up, how the separate bits come together and function. But there are no ‘separate bits’ in reality; everything is but name and form of one essence which is itself part-less and changeless. Swami Muni Narayana Prasad (Ref. 2) says that:

All our sciences attempt to attain the truth by dividing the little visible tip of the great iceberg into different fields of inquiry. Each science gives stress to a specific aspect of it. Some of these sciences are again subdivided into various fields of specialization. This way of inquiry, which concentrates its attention on specific aspects of the little visible portion of Truth, and divides it again into special fields, helps only to lead us away from the entirety of Truth, rather than reaching it. So, whatever is known to science is only a little of the total Truth. The more specialized a science is, the further away we are from the total Truth. The entirety of Truth is never known as a specific item of knowledge. So it is said, 'It is not specifically known

to those who understand specifically.'

(Kena Upanishad II: The man who claims that he knows, knows nothing; but he who claims nothing, knows. Who says that the Spirit is not known, knows; who claims that he knows, knows nothing. The ignorant think that Spirit lies within knowledge; the wise man knows It beyond knowledge. Ref. 1)

The scientific method is also bound up with the notion of causality; it is constantly looking for causes to explain the observed effects. But, as Gaudapada points out in his kArikA on the Mandukya Upanishad, turIya, the non-dual reality, is kArya karaNa vilakShaNa – it has nothing to do with cause and effect. It is beyond, or prior to, space, time and causality. Consequently, a scientifically based inquiry into reality is a contradiction in terms:

Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes and are irresistibly tempted to ask and to answer questions in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics and leads philosophers into complete darkness. Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Bryan Magee, in his excellent book, Confessions of a Philosopher, says that:

Russell understood clearly – what many people to this day fail to understand – that science of itself does not, and never can, establish a particular view of the ultimate nature of reality. What it does – and this is one of the supreme cultural as well as intellectual achievements of mankind – is reduce everything it can deal with to a certain ground-floor level of explanation. Physics, for example, reduces the phenomena with which it deals to constant equations concerning energy, light mass, velocity, temperature, gravity and the rest. But that is where it leaves us. If we then raise fundamental questions about that ground floor level of explanation itself, the scientist is at a loss to answer. This is not because of any inadequacy on his part, or on

science’s. He and it have done what they can. If one says to the physicist: ‘Now please tell me what exactly is energy? And what are the foundations of this mathematics you’re using all the time?’ it is no discredit to him that he cannot answer. These questions are not his province. At this point he hands over to the philosopher. Science makes an unsurpassed contribution to our understanding of what it is that we seek an ultimate explanation of, but it cannot itself be that ultimate explanation, because it explains phenomena in terms which it then leaves unexplained.

And, if that were not already sufficient, Magee goes on to point out that:

In 1931 Gödel published his famous proof that in any consistent formal system it is possible to formulate propositions whose truth or falsity is undecidable without reference to criteria outside the system. This dealt a death-blow to our hopes of being able to establish a coherent and self-contained explanation of anything, let alone everything.

Science and the method that it embodies are excellent for looking into objects and mechanisms in the apparent world. Its ingenuity in the most unpromising of circumstances is seemingly endless. And some of these investigations are of value in the investigation into what we are not; i.e. the 'neti, neti’ practice of traditional advaita. Thus, for example, the experiments of Libet and Wegner into the nature of volition have thrown valuable information into the arena of the discussion on fate and free will. (See akhaNDAkAra Journal number 3.) But even though science is good at investigating objects, even there it is doomed to fail - because the essence of objects, too, is ultimately the same non-dual reality. As Atmananda Krishna Menon puts it, in his Notes on Spiritual Discourses (Ref. 5): 'As long as the least trace of subjectivity remains, objectivity cannot disappear. And until objectivity disappears completely, the real nature of the object can never be visualized. This is the fundamental error committed by science as well as philosophy, both in India and outside, in trying to approach the Truth through the medium of the mind.' (Notes, 1386)

‘Consciousness’ is the subject and cannot be investigated objectively

If ‘I’ am trying to understand the nature of the objective universe, that universe has to include everything – all other persons and even ‘my own’ body and mind. The only reality, of which I can be absolutely certain and take as given in this investigation, is ‘I am’. This ‘Consciousness’ is presupposed in all acts of knowing. There is a well-known verse, used in Hindu rituals, which occurs in three of the major Upanishads (kaTha (V.15), muNDaka (II.ii.10) and shvetAshvatara (Vi.14)): 'There the sun does not shine, nor the moon nor the stars; neither does the lightning manifest. How, therefore, can this earthly fire (used in the offering)? Everything shines only by virtue of Him that shines. This whole world is

illumined with His light.'

Without Consciousness, nothing can be known. But Consciousness itself cannot be an object of knowledge, just as in a totally dark room, a torch may illuminate everything but itself. Knowing requires both knower and known. For Consciousness to be known, it would have to be a knowable object but it is the knowing subject. We ‘know’ Consciousness because we are Consciousness. Consciousness is our true nature. The ultimate observer (which is who you essentially are) is simply not amenable to any type of objective investigation at all – who could there be beyond the ultimate observer to do the investigating? This seemingly paradoxical state of affairs betokens a confusion of ‘levels of reality’. At the level of the world, which is the domain of science,

investigation is carried out by the mind (which is a reflection of Consciousness) into objects such as the brain. The world is the province of the knower-known duality. From the standpoint of absolute reality, there is only Consciousness. The world is only a manifestation of name and form, never actually separate from that Consciousness. But clearly Consciousness itself can never be ‘investigated’ by the mind at the level of the world. A poor metaphor might be trying to get an ocean to ‘wet’ the wave, when both wave and ocean are both always only water. What is gained from science is ‘information’ rather than knowledge. There is no end to it – the more that you find out, the more there is to find out. And any given theory is good only until more information comes along to discredit it. ‘I am’ is not information. It is absolute and irrevocable. You do not need anyone to tell you this.

Advaita is not seeking to enquire into the nature of reality in this way at all. It functions by removing the ignorance that prevents us from realizing that ‘I am that non-dual reality’. Science, on the other hand, accepts that the world is real as an axiom and uses the mind to analyze things with respect to other supposedly known facts, looking for the truth ‘out there’. It aims to demonstrate such things as that Consciousness is an ‘epiphenomenon’ of matter, somehow arising as the brain increases in complexity, in the way that a lung might develop as a fish evolves to live out of water. The idea that everything might be an appearance in consciousness is one which is totally alien to the scientist, who in all probability would not even know what this might

mean. Advaita asserts that the world is mithyA (see below) and accepts the statements of the scriptures, in reference to the non-dual Self as the only reality. The truth is to be found in the observer himself, never outside in the world-appearance.

The idea that Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter is not, it may surprise the reader, an invention of modern science. This same view was held by the chArvAka-s (a materialist philosophy) in the time of Shankara (around 8th century AD) and Shankara rejects their position in his commentary on the Brahmasutra (III.iii.54). He says that Consciousness must be distinct from the body since it does not exist in a dead body, whereas all of the other attributes persist (for a time, at least!) Furthermore, we can perceive other attributes, such as form and color of the body but we cannot see Consciousness. Nor can we see its non-existence (e.g. it might transfer to another body at death). So, if it does not consist of material elements, what else is

there (since materialists deny that there is anything else)?

Science and most people in the West believe that ‘who-we are’ is, if not a by-product of, at least located in the mind, or the physical brain. The ‘transplanted brain’ story that I used in Book of One (Ref. 8) illustrates this. Consequently, scientists are focusing their attention upon the brain and expecting to discover something relevant to the Self. But identification with the physical body (the ‘sheath’ made of food – annamayakosha) or with the mind or intellect (manomayakosha and vij~nAnamayakosha) is precisely part of our problem. Who-I-really-am is none of these, which are described in the teaching as ‘coverings,’ (kosha-s) or points of misidentification, which ‘as though’ mask my real nature. As

a result of this identification, the mind mistakes the real nature of myself, mixing up the real (Consciousness) with the apparent (the coverings).

Finally, Shankara points out that matter is an object of perception. If Consciousness is only matter, then we have the contradictory state of affairs that Consciousness is ‘acting on itself’. This, he says, cannot happen. For fire, though possessing heat, does not burn itself, nor does an actor (or acrobat), trained though he be, ride on his own shoulder. And it cannot be that Consciousness which is an attribute of the elements and their derivatives, (and hence is one with them), will perceive those elements etc… Hence just as the existence of this perception of the elements and their derivatives is admitted, so also must its separateness from them be admitted.

Moreover, though perception takes place when light and other accessories are present, but not when they are absent, it does not follow that from this that perception is an attribute of the light etc. That being the case, it does not follow that Consciousness should be an attribute of the body just because it occurs where the body is present and does not occur where the body is absent… (Ref. 7)

One other point in respect of science’s idea that Consciousness arise in the brain is that this would explain nothing. Conversely, advaita’s explanation that everything arises in Consciousness explains everything.

The world is mithyA

The universe and everything in it, including the objects that are being investigated, the person doing the investigation and the discipline of science itself are all mithyA – they are not themselves real at all. Here is a short definition of mithyA that I give in the new edition of Book of One (Ref. 8):

Literally, the word means ‘incorrectly’ or ‘improperly’ and this refers to our treating things as independently ‘real’ when they are not. The word ‘independently’ is important here, because we are not saying that the chair on which you are presently sitting is illusory – obviously it is not! What is being pointed out is that it is not a substance-in-itself. It is probably made of pieces of wood, connected together by special joints and adhesive. The final form is designed to be suitable for sitting upon comfortably. In theory at least, you could disassemble the chair and use the pieces to build a table. ‘Chair’ is simply the name that you give to this particular form. The actual substance is wood. Or at least that is what seems to be the case

at first sight. But, as was described in the example of the gold ring, wood is not actually a fundamental substance either. It is a mixture of cellulose fibers and proteins and chlorophyll (or whatever!). These, in turn, are molecules made up of atoms, which are made up of particles… The same analysis may be applied to anything in the universe. It is more difficult to apply to subtle things such as thoughts and emotions but the same principle applies. What advaita says is that everything in the universe, indeed the universe itself, is only name and form of one, non-dual, fundamental reality called brahman (or Consciousness or Self etc.) The word for reality is satyam. Every (seeming) thing else is mithyA. Another definition, therefore, for mithyA is ‘dependent’ reality. Things have no reality of their own; there are no other ‘substances’. Every seemingly separate thing is actually just a name and form of brahman. Thus, the chair has no independent existence of its own; it depends for that existence upon the wood. The wood does not depend in any way upon the chair and so could be regarded as real with respect to the mithyA chair. But when we look at the wood, we discover that it depends for its existence upon cellulose etc. so it has to be regarded as mithyA from the vantage point of the cellulose. And so on. The only thing that can be regarded as ‘truly’ real or satyam is that which is not dependent upon anything else for its existence. This ‘reality’ cannot be further broken down in any manner whatsoever – it is irreducibly real. This description is simply not applicable to any material object. All objects are made up of something else and can be

further divided or reduced. So, if the ultimate reality cannot be an object, it can only be a subject. ‘I’ am the final, independent reality – Consciousness; the non-dual ‘background’ reality of all of the apparent creation. And satyam can never be investigated (as an object) because it is non-dual. It can only be pointed to, using the proven techniques of advaita, and eventually recognized as one’s own self.

Advaitins understand that reality is non-dual, but are nevertheless able to accept and make use of scientific findings at the level of the world. But, as long as scientists continue to think that their findings have some validity from the standpoint of absolute reality, they will get nowhere at all in understanding the nature of that reality. The mithyA universe has no independent existence so that any data obtained from it can tell us nothing about satyam.

States of Consciousness

One of the key teaching methods in advaita is known as the avasthA traya prakriyA – the three-state teaching. Advaita regards all three states of Consciousness, namely waking, dreaming and deep sleep states, as equally valid from an experiential point of view. They are also mutually exclusive, so that it is not meaningful to investigate the dream state, for example, from the vantage point of the waking state because the dreamer ego and its dream world no longer exist. It is not true to say that the dream world is unreal – it is perfectly real from the vantage point of the dreamer and, indeed, from that vantage point, it is the waking world that is unreal. Science, however, regards only the waking state as ‘real’ and believes that it is perfectly valid

for the waker to inquire into the other states.

Krishnaswamy Iyer had this to say on the topic (Ref. 10):

Life presents three independent aspects commonly recognized as the three states of the soul, viz. waking, dream and deep sleep. A notion of Reality derived from the observation of the waking consciousness alone must be necessarily imperfect and hence involve endless contradictions. Our knowledge obtained by intuition of the other two states should be placed side by side with that of our waking experience to ensure its correctness. Vedanta has done this in its own inimitable manner, and claims for its dictum both infallibility and finality.

And:

Sleep, dream and waking are independent experiences. Each is essentially reality in its entirety, being an expression of the real. But the world and the egos appearing in each have a real value only within the state and none beyond it. Although the dream world is stultified now, it was real at the time, our sense of reality having since passed on to the present waking world. Hence the dream-world is regarded as a mere hallucination while waking life is looked upon as unquestionably real. This reality, however, cannot be the ultimate reality, since waking life is but one expression of life which runs through all the three states. The highest reality is to be found in the Pure Consciousness of sleep which is usually identified with unconsciousness. But the fact is

that while Pure Consciousness remains entire and unchanged throughout the three states, yet in waking and dream it splits itself up into subject and object; and waking and dream must derive their genesis from Pure Consciousness alone, as apart from it there is and cannot be any other reality.

Experimental versus Transcendental Method

Narain (Ref. 6) differentiates between the Experimental or Induction method for philosophical investigation and the Transcendental Method used by advaita. The former method, used by science, aims to analyze the Self as though it were an object. Narain points out that: 'The most pernicious character of this method is its constant and obstinate "objective attitude of mind" resulting in the decentralization of the Self so that the Self instead of being presented in its real aspect is identified with the pseudo egos or the spurious selves, as they are called, such as the intellect, the mind etc. …the "subject’"being the transcendental condition of the "object" cannot be identified with it.'

The Transcendental method recognizes the subject as the basis of knowledge and that it is forever separate from any object that might be under investigation and, in particular, 'all distinctions, whether between the subject and the object or between the objects themselves, are within Consciousness itself.

'The Self, therefore, is the prius, the foundation and the precondition of all empirical and transcendental knowledge.' ‘I’ am always the one who knows, but I cannot ever know ‘I’ in an objective sense, since I am prior to all knowledge. But, despite this fact, nothing is more certain than that I exist. This is direct and immediate, self-evident knowledge. Shankara explains this in his commentary on the Brahmasutra (II.iii.7):

Any idea of the possibility of denying the existence of the Self is illogical, just because it is the Self. The Self is not an adventitious effect of any cause, it being Self-established. For the Self of anyone does not require to be revealed to anyone with the help of any other means. For such means of knowledge as perception etc., that are taken up for proving the existence of other things that remain unknown, belong to this very Self. ...And it is not possible to deny such a Self; for it is an adventitious thing alone that can be repudiated, but not so one's own nature. The Self constitutes the very nature of the man who would deny it. (Ref. 7)

Note that all of this is not to say that advaita proceeds in some sort of intuitive or illogical manner, as opposed to the rigorous and repeatable methods of science. Indeed, the scientific approach, using reason and observation, is intrinsic to advaita. Atma vichAra – the inquiry into oneself – embodies the best of the ‘scientific method’, in so far as this refers to those principles. Similarly, the methodologies of advaita – the prakriyA-s that are utilized by qualified teachers based upon the material in the Upanishads – are totally reasonable and able to be validated through one’s own experience. Furthermore, lest there should be any doubt about this, advaita makes use of the mind just as much as science. The mind may be the

source of our problem but it is also the only means for solution – enlightenment itself takes place in the mind (see Issue 1 of this journal).

Science is not a pramANa (means of knowledge)

While philosophy may remain satisfied with the conceptual comprehension of the absolute and science with the never-ending search for it, religion points out the way to its immediate apprehension. Swami Satprakashananda (Ref. 11):

Science relies on making observations as its fundamental starting point. From these, inferences may be made, theories postulated, predictions made on the basis of those theories and experiments devised to test those predictions. But, again, those experiments rely upon further observations. No definite, conclusive statements may be made because further observation might show them to be false. A classic example of this was the belief that swans were white. So entrenched was this belief up to the end of the eighteenth century, because every swan that anyone had ever seen had always been white, that one text book on logic used the statement "All swans are white" as an example. And then an exploration to Australia found a black swan…

The findings of science will always be subject to modification in the light of further observation. This is the nature of the method. But the recognition of my Self as non-dual is not objective knowledge. It is directly known, not thorough the medium of any sense, not requiring any reasoning process, and not subject to correction. It is final and absolute.

Basically, science itself is not a means of knowledge; it relies on the other pramANa-s, principally perception (pratyakSha) and inference (anumAna). And, as Ayers pointed out in his Language, Truth and Logic, it is never possible conclusively to verify any statement based upon these because its validity may be overturned by future experience.

Perception is necessarily restricted to things in the visible, external world; things that have color, form, mass etc. Inference relies upon these perceptions, and the historically perceived relations between them, and so is similarly restricted. The other classical means of knowledge accepted by advaita, apart from shabda pramANa – knowledge from scriptures or other trusted source – are also dependent upon perception. Accordingly, since Brahman is not something that can be perceived or inferred, it cannot be accessible to science. It can only be known directly, in the sense of ‘I am That’. And, since we are already That (there is nothing else!) but do not realize it, the only way that we can discover it, is for someone or something to tell us. This

‘someone or something’ has to be reliable, someone in whom we have complete trust, namely our guru or the scriptures.

According to advaita, words tell us about one of four things:

 

jAti or species (e.g. we can talk about a ‘bristlecone pine’ which we haven't ever seen, when we understand what a ‘tree’ is);

guNa or property (e.g. we can refer to the ‘blue’ car with the ‘dent in the bonnet’);

kriyA or function (e.g. we can ask the ‘waiter’ to call the ‘manager’);

sambandha or relationship (e.g. the ‘father’ of the ‘bride’).

But Brahman is not a member of any species, has no properties, does not do anything and is not related to anything else. So, not only can we not perceive or make inferences, comparisons or suppositions about it, we cannot speak about it either. The kena, muNDaka and kaTha upaniShad-s all state that neither eyes, speech or mind can reach Brahman. Brahman is that which enables the eyes to see etc. and every thought depends upon Consciousness but Consciousness cannot be the object of thought. As Swami Dayananda points out (Ref. 4): We cannot truly say that the self (Atma) is beyond the mind and intellect since it is the very consciousness in which they have their existence. Some uninformed people wonder how they can transcend the mind and intellect to reach the Self. Some say that a special experience is required, and some believe this. But this Upanishad (i.e. the kena) says it is not so. To call the Self the ‘ear of the ear’ is a beautiful way of revealing the self that is already self-evident. There is no need to reveal its presence because nothing is away from the Self (Atma). Everything depends on it, while it is independent of everything.

Conclusion – Testimony is the only means for knowledge of reality

The bottom line has to be that science functions in the realm of ‘not-Self’ (anAtman), and makes use of perception (pratyakSha) and ‘worldly’ inference (laukika anumAna) while inquiry into and knowledge of the Self (brahmavidyA) functions in the realm of Atman, using inference based upon the scriptures (shAstrIya anumAna) as a means of knowledge.

The Vedic scriptures should not be regarded as ancient musings (in a dead language) by people who were ignorant of the findings of modern science. The teaching of advaita had no hidden agenda of establishing a hierarchy of priests who might profit from the gullibility of the masses. On the contrary, they provide a record of the truth directly realized by generations of past sages and of the methods and teachings that can help us to the same understanding.

At no time are we asked to accept anything that is contrary to reason or in conflict with our own experience. Gaudapada and Shankara both insist that ‘that which is stated by the scripture and supported by reason is true and nothing else’. (Gaudapada Mandukya kArikA (3.23).) The truth of the scriptures has been verified innumerable times over the several thousand years since they were written down. This can also be realized by anyone who desires enlightenment above all else and is willing to follow the discipline of developing control of the mind and senses, dispassion and discrimination. It is true that the scriptures were written in a language which is now accessible only to a few, so that ideally one should commit to a prolonged course of study from a

teacher who is both enlightened and is able to interpret and utilize the methodology that has been proven to work. Disciplines alone will not achieve the desired end; only Self-knowledge can remove ignorance. Science can obviously never substitute for this process because it knows neither the reality itself nor any means of uncovering it in the mind of the seeker. It is truly a case of the blind leading the blind, without even having any clear idea of the destination.

The scriptures point to, but do not attempt directly to describe the reality, knowing that this is beyond the power of words or thought. The aim, in fact, is not to ‘know’ at all but to ‘be’, as John Grimes explains in this final extract (Ref. 9):

Thus it was said that religious discourse is a conceptualization of that which is destroyed as soon as it is conceptualized. It seems to both reach its object as well as to miss it. Because both the subject and object are present in an act of knowledge, a gap exists which cannot be bridged. There is no such thing as knowledge of an object, ‘as it is’, independent of its relation to the knowing subject. Any act of observance changes the object observed. This is a fact which philosophy has long known and even the physical sciences are now coming to recognize. For any knowledge to occur, there must exist the subject-object polarity and it is this very polarity which distorts what is known. Never can the subject get over the gap between itself and the object. The

subject cannot keep its subjectivity ‘out’ of the object. And yet this is exactly what religious discourse attempts to achieve. By stating the fact of their Ground of Being, their dichotomy is overcome.

Identity statements are the best examples of this attempt because there is no separation between their meaning and the Reality to which they refer. All other types of statements use words to define objects which may be then grasped by the mind, but in doing so, a gap is opened between the object understood and the meaning created by the word. An object as understood is not the same as the object ‘as it is’. Therefore one may say that language both reveals as well as conceals. The uniqueness of religious discourse is that it transcends itself when it refers to the Reality beyond the split between the subject and the object. Language truly becomes religious discourse whenever it facilitates the act of knowing into the state of being.

Science should accept that it is irredeemably limited to the realm of objective investigation. This is its strength and, if some scientists wish to provide useful input to the spiritual search, they should restrict their endeavors to the ‘net, neti’ stage of the path. The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg clearly demonstrated that there comes a point in one’s investigation into the increasingly subtle behavior of matter, when the irreconcilable conflict between subject and object prevents any further data from being gathered. Science needs to accept that this is its terminus. Consciousness itself is the subtlest of the subtle, beyond even observation, when the subject-object dichotomy itself disappears. No one goes there by definition.

References

Special thanks to Durga for providing some valuable comments and suggestions. See her section at the website.

 

The Ten Principal Upanishads. Put into English by Shree Purohit Swami and W. B. Yeats. Faber and Faber Limited, London 1970. ISBN 0-571-09363-9.

Kena Upanishad. Swami Muni Narayana Prasad. D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd., New Delhi 1995. ISBN 81-246-0034-1.

Confessions of a Philosopher. Bryan Magee. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1997. ISBN 0-297-81959-3.

A Collection: Talks and essays of Swami Dayananda, Sri Gangadhareswar Trust, 1999. No ISBN.

Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda taken by Nitya Tripta, 2nd Issue not yet published. Electronically available from advaita.org.uk.

The Fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta, K. Narain, Indological Research Centre, 2003. ISBN 81-88260-00-2.

Brahma Sutra bhAShya of Shankaracharya. Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Advaita Ashrama, 1996. ISBN 81-7505-105-1.

The Book of One, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2010. ISBN 9781903816417.

An Advaita Vedanta Perspective on Language, John Grimes, Sri Satguru Publications, 1991. ISBN 81-7030-250-1.

Vedanta or the Science of Reality, K. A. Krishnaswamy Iyer, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, 1930. No ISBN.

Methods of Knowledge according to Advaita Vedanta, Swami Satprakashananda, Advaita Ashrama, 1965. ISBN 81-7505-065-9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enlightenment: The Path through the Jungle

by Dennis Waite

On the teaching of Advaita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Meet Yourself by Dennis Waite

Introductory book on Advaita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to the Truth by Denis Waite

Advanced book on Advaita