Part – I
Swami Vivekananda & scientific temper
We will try to understand what Swami Vivekananda means by scientific temper, for that is a term that was very dear to him. In our attempt to understand this interesting term, we will discover what is meant by Rational Thought. Without understanding the process of rational thinking, we will not understand what Swamiji meant by scientific temper.
What is rational thought?
Thinking can be systematic, or haphazard. If it has to be systematic, then it must follow certain principles. Over the last few thousand years, many sets of principles for thinking have been developed by mankind, at various times, in various cultures. One popular set of principles is the ‘Principles of Theological thinking’. This has been developed separately by Christians and Muslims, and they are applicable to their respective scholars. The thoughts in one particular book are considered as absolute and inviolable. The method for understanding the thoughts presented in that book is to seek for elaborations from other thoughts in the same book. By doing so, sometimes we may arrive at conclusions that seem absurd to us, but, they are nevertheless considered as right conclusions, since we have followed the principles of theological thinking for arriving at those conclusions. This is the main reason why the Bible and the Quran have such a hold on millions of people.
There is another kind of thinking that arose in Europe during the late 16th century AD. A set of amazing principles was adopted as the guidelines for thinking. These principles referred to the universal laws of human thought, which are together called Reason or Rationality. The thinking that arose from following these principles was called Scientific Temper. Thus, scientific temper is a very particular type of thinking, which is based on universal laws of human thought or rationality.
Principles of rational thinking:
There are at least five principles laid for thinking in this school of thought. They are:
- Occam’s Razor
- Cause is always present within the effect
- All correlation is not causation
- Repeatability, or falsifiability
- Extraordinary explanations need extraordinary evidences
We will look at each of them, one by one. We need to clearly understand these five principles in order to understand scientific temper.
Occam’s Razor: This is a heuristic that was developed by a medieval Christian monk called Father William of Occam. There are many versions in which this principle can be stated. If a phenomenon has more than one possible explanation, we need to prefer the simpler one. We must note that it is a principle for preferring the simpler one of the many plausible explanations. This principle does not specify that the simpler one is the correct explanation. The veracity of the explanation will depend on other principles too. Occam’s Razor merely guides us on identifying and sticking to the simpler explanation, on which the other principles of thought can then be applied, and conclusions can be drawn.
As an example, we can consider the famous phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree. Why does an apple fall down from an apple tree? Suppose we say that a ghost throws it down. This is as good an explanation as any other. However, the problem with this explanation is that, instead of explaining the phenomenon, it raises many more questions. It will not be enough to say that a ghost throws down the apple from the tree to the ground. Doesn’t the ghost feel, once in a while, to throw it up? How does the system work – is there one ghost per tree or do ghosts have territories – all trees in this region are mine, and trees beyond this boundary will be handled by my friend-ghost? Can a ghost that handles apples, also handle other fruits, or they fruit-specific? We see that all fruits fall down, not just apples. What is the gender of these ghosts? You can see how absurd the situation becomes with this answer. Endless speculation will ensue. Anybody’s guess is good enough, and no one will ever have any certainty with this answer – a ghost makes the apple fall from a tree.
Newton gave an answer to this phenomenon. He said gravitation is the reason for an apple to fall down from a tree. Again, many questions arise from this answer. And in each case, Newton gave answers that satisfied the principle of Occam’s Razor – simplicity. All the answers he gave for all the subsequent questions belonged to universal characteristics. What is gravitation? It is the attraction that one object feels for another in this world. Matter attracts other matter. This quality of attraction is the reason why the apple falls down, and it is also the reason why the moon revolves around the earth, or the earth revolves around the sun.
We see one more aspect of Occam’s Razor in this explanation. When we have multiple explanations for a single phenomenon, we need to select that explanation which explains the phenomenon from within itself, and not depend on something outside it to explain it.
Effect is the cause in a different form: We all understand that things and events are bound in a chain of cause & effect. Everything is a cause of something and is in turn an effect of something else. But, we human beings have an uncanny ability to separate causes from its effects. We are somehow capable of visualizing the effects as something entirely different from the cause that was its origin.
This is a simple enough principle. This ability to separate effects from their causes is wrong. Effects are nothing but the cause in another form. Therefore, if we look closely enough, we will be able to see the cause inside its effect. This is true in every case.
For instance, the marks that a student will score in an exam is directly proportional to his studies. This is an invariable law. The repeated hours of practice and study that a boy has put in will emerge as marks in his exam. There is no escape from this law. Yet, we find students in every generation trying to break away from this law. When we were students, in Bangalore, we used to visit the Temple in Ramakrishna Math, Bangalore before going to our school for major exams. It was a ritual with us. We would go to the Temple, pray to Sri Ramakrishna there, and go to our school or college for writing the exam. Once, when I and some of my friends came out of the Temple and were moving towards the cycle stand, we met Swami Chidanandaji, who was the President of the Math. He asked us, “Exams, eh?” We said, “Yes, Swamiji. And today is a tough subject. We need Sri Ramakrishna’s blessings.” He said something very interesting. He said, “Swami Yatiswaranandaji used to say in such situations, ‘I hope you have studied properly. That is your only hope. You know why? Because Sri Ramakrishna doesn’t know Maths at all!’” So, your performance in the exam is a direct function of your preparation throughout the semester or year. God, unfortunately, has nothing to do with it.
Correlation is not necessarily causation: This is another very important principle of thought. If we need to think properly, we need to be really in touch with reality. More often than not, our imagination runs away with our ability to judge properly. A multi-million dollar industry of astrology-palmistry-numerology stands on the very opposite of this principle. I knew a friend in college. He would wear a broken wrist watch for every exam. I could make no sense of it. I asked him, ‘Why not wear a proper watch? You have one. You wear it on regular days. And on exam day, when you really need to know the time, you wear this sorry excuse of a watch. What’s with that?’ It turned out that this watch was used by his grandfather, and his father and his two elder brothers, all of whom were successful engineers! It was a lucky charm! All of them wore this same watch to their exams and they had all topped their universities. So, he believed that correlation is causation!
We find another interesting phenomenon in Indian houses. Suppose a child gets fever and pneumonia. The child’s mother approaches a medical doctor, who prescribes antibiotics. The child’s grandmother approaches an Ojha (local witch-doctor) who performs some shady black-magic stuff on the child. The child’s great-grandmother approaches a Brahmin priest who performs an elaborate Sitala-Maa puja to ward off the pestilence from the house. In a week’s time, the child gets cured. Now, a serious discussion ensues within the household. What exactly cured the child?
Repeatability:Our explanation of a phenomenon ought to give us the ability to make accurate predictions regarding the same phenomenon. If it is really gravitation that is the cause for an apple to fall down, this knowledge ought to enable us to predict the tides in the ocean. This principle also can be expressed in various popular forms, just as Occam’s Razor could be expressed in multiple forms. This principle is also called the principle of Falsifiability.
Take the case of Narendranath approaching Sri Ramakrishna with his question ‘Sir, have you seen God?’ Sri Ramakrishna’s answer was a textbook example of this principle of rational thought. He said, “Yes. I have seen God. And if you wish, I can make you see, too.” If a phenomenon can be repeated, that means we have gained access to the hidden process, the hidden cause, which leads to the desired effect. This principle has led to the great democratization of knowledge in the modern world. Gone are the days when people monopolized knowledge.
Extraordinary explanations need extraordinary evidences: This is another very important pillar on which rational thought depends. We can claim any sort of explanation for a phenomenon. The absurdity need not bother us. For, often we see, truth is more bizarre than fiction or imagination. But, all our explanations must be backed by evidences in their favor or evidences against their opposite.
Take the example of the heliocentricsolar system, as explained by Copernicus. Nothing in our daily experience tells us that earth revolves around the sun. Every fact of daily life tells us that sun moves around the earth. We all see the sun rise at morning in the east and set in the evening in the west. How can someone claim that it is the other way around? So, evidences have to be given that will support this seemingly absurd hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. Planetary motion was one such evidence. An aberration in the path of sun light reaching earth wasanother evidence for the Copernicus model. Calculations for naval navigation became highly simplified based on this model.
Origin of rational thought
Rational thought and scientific thinking originated in ancient India. The ancient Rishi Kapila was the father of rational thought. Vedanta was an outcome of Kapila’s principles of thinking. Buddhism took rational thinking to Middle East. Islam introduced rational thinking to Europe. Modern world is an outcome of rational thought. From Europe, rational thought has come back to India. Evidence-based thinking trumps assumptions-based thinking in the modern world. Any country, any civilization, any culture, that adopts rational thought, makes tremendous progress in all walks of life. Adopting the rational method of thinking, as opposed to other methods of thinking, is a conscious and collective decision among people. Over the last few millenniums, different countries and civilizations have successively adopted and rejected rational thought. Whenever a people adopted it, they applied it to various fields of human thought and action, and reaped incredible benefits. Later on, when they rejected it, they had to stagnate or degenerate. Hindus of India and Muslims of Europe are the best examples of this social dynamic. Muslims adopted and developed rational thinking in a big way through their philosophers such as Averroes and Avicenna in Spain. They belonged to a prestigious Islamic school of thought called ‘Mutazilites’. With the growth of this school, Islam’s power and prestige grew to incredible heights. Later, when Muslims rejected Mutazilite thinking, they lost land, power, and prestige and stagnated, often retrogressing in all fields of human endeavor – science, military, politics, arts, etc. with the Hindus, the dynamic was much more severe in its impact. When the Hindu society was based on rational thought, it was the global leader in every field. Then, it replaced rational thinking in all fields other than religion, and the society became debilitated and was under foreign rule for centuries at a stretch. The ups and downs in the long history of the Hindu society can be very closely mapped with its dalliance with, and rejection of, rational thinking.
Swamiji once made an amazing statement regarding India. He said, “What we need is western science, coupled with Vedanta, with Brahmacharya as the guiding motto, and Shraddha or faith in oneself.” Note how he says that we Indians need both western science and Vedanta. Why do we need both? We will now look into that aspect of this topic.
Part – II
Science & Religion – their variance
Why are science and religion at variance today?
Religion is very old. Origins of religion are pre-historic. The oldest known civilizations have had religion. Same can be said about science also. But what we call science today has a relatively recent history. Man has always had to deal with this world. The duty of making sense of this world lay with religion for a very long time in mankind’s history.
What is life? What is death? What is disease? What is natural disaster and calamity? Why does the sun move? Why does the moon have phases? Why does water flow downwards? Why do seasons occur? What is this world? Who created it? When and how was it created? Why are there so many types of living beings? All these and many more questions have plagued man forever. In all countries, in all civilizations, people came up with answers to these questions, and they were all in some way or the other connected to religion. In fact, comparative mythology shows that many of these questions have similar answers across cultures. Take the example of the great deluge. This is an event featuring in the mythology of many religions – Hindu, Jewish, Greek, Chinese, Native American, Viking, etc.
The period between 16th century and 18th century AD was a major disruption in the history of mankind. This period saw the rise of a unique worldview. Rational thinking grew during the Age of Reason, leading to massive changes in the outlook of people. This had its ripple effect on every aspect of human life and society. This worldview has been called Science.
The mandate of Religion has been, and still is, ‘here & hereafter’. Religion aims at directing a man’s life both here and hereafter. The mandate of Science is ‘here & now’. Science concerns itself with problems that can be dealt with right now. It keeps questions concerning the hereafter in abeyance. It does not claim to know about the hereafter. It does not speculate about the hereafter. Religion too, strictly speaking, does not speculate about the hereafter. Religion, on the other hand, claims to have access to sources of knowledge that reveal the secrets of the hereafter. But this access is open to only a handful of people throughout history. But, when this handful of people with access to the beyond articulate their knowledge, the rest of the people start claiming that uncommon knowledge as their own, and this phenomenon leads to major complications. We then have great masses of people arguing about things that none of them have direct access to the knowledge about which they are arguing. Obviously, in such a situation, no consensus can ever be reached, and most often, the interactions end up in bloodshed.
Against this peculiar dynamic of religion, Science comes forth as a breath of fresh air. Science says we shall deal only with those things about which we are sure, as far as humanly possible; not speculations and then arguments arising out of speculations and bloodshed. So, from the 16th century onwards, a fundamental schism arose between two worldviews – that of Religion and that of Science. With amazing speed and accuracy, Science has grappled with the problems that torment human beings, one after the other, over the last 400 years. And the solutions that Science provides to these problems are way better than the ones proposed by Religion. This has led to a deep variance between Religion and Science, which we shall analyze under 7 distinct categories.
- Rationality vs unverified assumptions:
As we have noted elsewhere, the rock foundation of Science is rationality. To put it very precisely, rationality is a manner of thinking that depends fully on information obtained from the senses, and processing that information within certain very clearly spelt out framework. So, Science is based on well-defined sources of information and well-defined boundary conditions of speculation. Modern Science began with the study of motion. Things move. Why do they move? Religion says that everything moves due to the Will of God (Deo Volente). Science says things move because things have something called Energy, and that energy has a way of changing its location between things and their surroundings.
What is the difference between these two explanations?
Anyone of us can understand the language of energy and hence can study motion and predict motion and manipulate motion. Not one in a million amongst us can know the Will of God. As long as we don’t know the Will of God, we can only explain motion, by hindsight, after the motion has occurred, as being due to God’s Will. We will never be able to predict God’s next move. But, if there is anyone amongst us, who can talk to God, and hence know God’s Will, such a person can indeed predict God’s next move, and hence can manipulate motion effectively. We see such instances only in the life of genuine Mystics. Unless we ourselves are genuine Mystics, we cannot imitate Mystics. We cannot extrapolate the knowledge of Mystics and claim to know God’s Will. But, every time and everywhere, people try to do that, and that phenomenon is called Superstition, or unverified assumptions. Science is accessible to the common man; religion is accessible only to a Mystic.
Hence rationality and superstition is a major point of variance between Science and Religion.
- God and the source of this world:
A question that has haunted humanity ever since man started thinking is ‘Who created this world?’ Religion gave a unanimous answer – God. We need to understand that this answer is worse than useless, and is in fact a positively dangerous answer. Why? It is impossible to attribute a unique, invariable meaning to the word ‘God’. That word can mean anything to anyone. The meaning of that word depends heavily on the culture of the people in which the discussion occurs. To people belonging to different cultures, and therefore to different religions, this word God means totally different things. Some thinkers have even said that ‘God’ means all things to all men. Again, this is a useless definition, for it is a generalization that doesn’t serve any purpose. The terms used by religion are meaningless words for all except to a genuine Mystic.
Science avoids this term ‘God’ by confining its attention to things and events which it can see and conceive in its cause and effect form. By confining itself to this boundary of cause and effect, Science ignores that which it cannot understand at present. As the boundary of causes and effects expand, there is a possibility of reaching the ultimate cause, but until then, we need not bother about it. For now, we shall confine ourselves to that boundary of causes and effects which we can see, conceive and understand.
Men of religion, who said that this world is the creation of God, actually saw what they articulated. They are the Mystics. The rest of us, parrot the words of the Mystics and create no end of confusion. This point is best brought out in the first two meetings between Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda:
From his spiritual words and ecstatic states he (Sri Ramakrishna) seemed to be a man of genuine renunciation; and there was a marked consistency between his words and life. He used the most simple language, and I thought, “Can this man be a great teacher?” I crept near him and asked him the question which I had asked so often: “Have you seen God, sir?” “Yes, I see Him just as I see you here, only in a much intenser sense.” “God can be realized,” he went on; “one can see and talk to Him as I am seeing and talking to you. But who cares? People shed torrents of tears for their wife and children, for wealth or property, but who does so for the sake of God? If one weeps sincerely for Him, He surely manifests Himself.” That impressed me at once. For the first time I found a man who dared to say that he had seen God, that religion was a reality to be felt, to be sensed in an infinitely more intense way than we can sense the world. As I heard these things from his lips, I could not but believe that he was saying them not like an ordinary, preacher, but from the depths of his own realizations.
The following is the description of the next meeting given by Narendra to some of his brother-disciples:
I did not realize then that the temple-garden of Dakshineswar was so far from Calcutta, since on the previous occasion I had gone there in a carriage. The road seemed to me so long as to be almost endless. However I reached the garden somehow and went straight to Sri Ramakrishna’s room. I found him sitting alone on the small bedstead. He was glad to see me and, calling me affectionately to his side, made me sit beside him on the bed. But the next moment I found him overcome with a sort of emotion. Muttering something to himself, with his eyes fixed on me, he slowly drew near me. I thought he might do something queer as on the previous occasion. But in the twinkling of an eye he placed his right foot on my body. The touch at once gave rise to a novel experience within me. With my eyes open I saw that the walls, and everything in the room, whirled rapidly and vanished into naught, and the whole universe together with my individuality was about to merge in an all-encompassing mysterious void! I was terribly frightened and thought that I was facing death, for the loss of individuality meant nothing short of that.
Unable to control myself I cried out, “What is it that you are doing to me! I have my parents at home!” He laughed aloud at this and stroking my chest said, “All right, let it rest now. Everything will come in time!” The wonder of it was that no sooner had he said this than that strange experience of mine vanished. I was myself again and found everything within and without the room as it had been before.
When Naren asked Sri Ramakrishna if he had seen God, the latter replied that he had indeed seen God. Was that assertion false? No. Sri Ramakrishna had indeed seen God. But, what he meant by God and seeing God was totally different from what Naren meant by God and seeing God!
Anyway, the question – ‘who/what is the source of this world?’ can be answered by a genuine Mystic, but cannot be answered by Science, as yet. If we are to confine ourselves to only that knowledge that we really know, and if we are not to borrow knowledge of others, then the answer to this question will always be a point of variance between Science & Religion.
Is it possible to have a religion which doesn’t posit the existence of God who is creator and sustainer of the world? In India, we had two such experiments in the form of Samkhya-Yoga Religion of Maharishi Kapila and the Religion of Buddha. It is not surprising therefore that these two forms of religion are gaining popularity with the rationalists with each passing day.
- Ethics & morality vs utility:
Ethics and morality have always ensued from religion. The etiology is simple: God created this world, with all its things, beings and humans. Hence all human beings are related to one another as brothers and sisters, children of the same God. Hence man must do justice with his fellow human beings.
Science says something totally different. We are all competitors here in this world; competing for common resources; the stronger one wins; and the winner propagates his genes, and rules the world.
In fact, devoid of a religion, with its God who is the common creator of all that exists, one does not find a basis for morality and ethics in society. Utilitarianism takes the place of morality in society. Why should we adopt a particular method of action? Not because it is the right thing to do; but, because it leads to the greatest good to the greatest number of people! How do we arrive at what exactly is the greatest good to others? By mere extrapolation of what is good for me! But, this can never be the case universally.
Despite all its sophistication, Science has not yet answered the vital question – why should a particular action be done by us? Science is not yet capable of justifying right action from wrong. That is the reason why anything that is discovered by science turns out to be a boon as well as a curse to the world today. The tussle between morality & utility ends up as the eternal tussle between self-sacrifice & self-assertion, and this will always be a point of variance between science and religion.
Is it possible to develop a system of ethics without referring to God? That is the challenge before the modern world.
Science accepts mainly two sources of knowledge: sense perception and inference. Facts need to be gathered. Those facts need to be verified by multiple observers over an extended period of time. Then, we need to evolve a model that will explain the fact, consistently with a lot of other things that we already know.
Religion accepts three sources of knowledge: sense perception, inference, and inspired revelation. The highest value is given to inspired revelation.
This 3rd source of knowledge is a major point of variance between science and religion. Mystics see beyond the senses. They gather facts from beyond the senses, then apply rational thinking to accommodate those new facts into models of thought that already exist. Most of the people, who buy into those modified models of thought developed by the Mystics, themselves do not see anything beyond the senses. Science considers such behavior as hypocrisy.
Is it possible to evolve a religion without claiming access to facts beyond the senses? In most cases, claims to all such access of knowledge beyond the senses are exclusive – I know, and you should believe in what I saw. Is it possible to accord universal access to knowledge beyond the senses? If that is done, modern science should have no problem in recognizing such knowledge as valid.
- Power & its renunciation:
Science is the study of energy. Religion is the study of the possessor of all energy – God. Science aims to study various forms of energy in minute detail, in such a way, that thereafter, it will be possible to manipulate that form of energy for the benefit of mankind. Religion aims to establish a relation with God, and then, use his influence to manipulate any form of energy for the benefit of mankind, for all energy belongs to God.
Science is as yet incapable of handling many forms of energy, especially those energies that lurk within a human being. Science is best in handling the grossest forms of energy in the world, especially in 4-5 forms such as gravitation, electromagnetic, nuclear & atomic, chemical & thermal, etc. Why only these few forms of energy? Because the language used to communicate with energy is Mathematics, and certain fundamental restrictions in the syntax of this language precludes science from dealing with many forms of energy, as yet.
The philosophical religions of India have another problem with power. While they do subscribe to the view that all power belongs to God, they aim to experience their identification with God. Total identification with God is possible only when God is divested of all powers, and remains as pure consciousness. Thus, the higher forms of Indian religion, also known as Advaita Vedanta, prescribe renunciation of all power, thereby cutting off any chance of an interaction between science and religion.
The approaches to dealing with energy and power in science and religion are another major point of variance between these two fields.
- Study of a living person: the outside-in vs inside-out approach:
As we noted above, science believes firmly in studying things from a 3rd person perspective. The object of study is out there. I will observe it. The observer and the observed are different. This method of study is very effective in every case, except in the case of a human being. If we study a man in this manner, we end up with erroneous, garbled, self-contradictory information.
Religion believes in studying man from within. This is the 1st person perspective. If I need to study man, to study the constituents of a man, I don’t need a man ‘out there’ for my study. I myself am a man. I can very well study myself. I can apply all the principles of rational thought in this study of myself. To take a gross example: if I need to know if a particular frequency of sound is irritating to human beings, I don’t need a test-specimen human to know the outcome. I can expose myself to that sound, and analyze how I feel. If I feel irritated, well, there you have the outcome.
This issue is a major point of variance between science and religion. One of the important aspects of rationality, according to modern science, is the total elimination of all subjectivity from a study. Only those issues are therefore being studied in science today, which can allow this kind of near-total elimination of the subjective factor. We shall get to see sometime later in this article that this condition is self-imposed by modern science and is not a necessary condition for rational thinking.
- The question of consciousness:
This self-imposed condition of elimination of the subjective factor is best seen in the utter confusion that modern science enters into when facing the issue of consciousness in man. Keeping true to the condition of objectivity, consciousness will be studied as manifested in a test-specimen man ‘out there’.
What results from such an objective study of consciousness is very bizarre. We find that if a man is kept starved from food and water, his consciousness keeps waning until he becomes a mere vegetable, just breathing, incapable of any sign of life, beyond basic breathing. Detailed studies can be made on the test-specimen man to find out how food & water helps in enabling him to manifest life. Further, if you can somehow stop the test-specimen man ‘out there’ from breathing, something happens to him, and he becomes matter, with no signs of life, not even breathing. Therefore, consciousness is clearly an outcome of food, water and air. In other words, consciousness is a derivative of matter and energy.
Compared to this bizarre study of modern science about man’s consciousness is the childish explanation of religion, which says variously that there is something called consciousness totally separate from matter and energy. In man, matter, energy and consciousness combine. When food, water and air are cut off from a man, ‘dust returns to dust’ and consciousness returns to God, who is the repository of all consciousness. This explanation is good for kids, who revel in fairy tales. But it lacks logical rigor since we all know that things of totally opposite nature can never come together. Matter and energy have been demonstrated to be the same by modern science and hence we can see how they can come together. But, if consciousness is different from matter and energy, how can they come together?
This issue of consciousness in man is a major point of variance between science and religion.
Given the deep divisions in the outlook of science and religion, it is hard to see how they will ever reconcile. We contend that this reconciliation has been effected by Swami Vivekananda. When Swamiji uses the term religion, especially the Hindu religion, he always means the Vedanta. Now, Vedanta, as used by Swamiji, is not the popular version of Hindu religion. What common Hindus understand by Hinduism is not even remotely close to Vedanta. How exactly this is so, will be explained shortly; but, we note that the reconciliation between science and religion can happen only when religion is used to mean Vedanta. No other form of religion – Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, the many popular forms of Hinduism – none of them can reconcile with modern science.
Part – III
Science & Religion – their history
Science and Religion are two very important fields of study for human beings. Yet, all through history, these two seem to have been at loggerheads. They don’t seem to meet and agree on anything. Let us try to understand their troubled relationship in some detail.
Science:
There are many ways of looking at science. Modern science is our subject of interest here. Modern science is primarily western science, since it grew out of the collective and cumulative thought of Europe between the 16th century and the present.
Science can be understood as a systematic study of anything, starting from facts observed universally by human beings. Given the constraints that the study has to be based on universally observed facts, and not on opinions or conjectures, many fields of human interest are left out of the purview of science. That is the reason why the systematic study of human society or human history or even human psychology is not yet considered as proper science. In these three fields, for instance, facts are highly subjective or biased. So, we can safely conclude that science deals with the systematic study of matter and energy. If any field of human interest can be reduced to either matter or energy, science has developed a beautiful method of studying it. We will be considering this definition of modern, western science for our deliberation: a systematic study of matter and energy.
Science is not too much bothered with certainties. What we mean is – science is comfortable with uncertainty. Science is comfortable with saying ‘I don’t know’. The subject matter of science being matter and energy, science is not greatly bothered with the question of who created matter and energy, or how matter and energy came into being. These questions crop up again and again, but, science is not going to speculate answers. Science will wait and see, as to what facts are available concerning these questions. Then, based on available facts, a viable thought model will be created and presented as a plausible answer. Even the best and most popular answer in science is subject to revision and rejection later on, based on newer facts. In all types of thinking, except the rational method, as soon as these questions arise, some kind of answer has to be speculated. Otherwise, thinking does not proceed. It is only in the rational method of thinking that such final questions need not be answered in order to deal with lower order questions. Rational thought leads to enormous autonomy in the thinking process.
So, we don’t need to know the final answers in order to deal with things here and now. We need to study motion of objects around us. We do not need to know about God and how God created things and objects, in order to systematically study how and why things move. We don’t need to know the final destination in order to start our journey.As long as we are able to see the very next step clearly, science is satisfied with that much for now; later things can come later. One step at a time – this is the motto of science. But the underlying rationality is supreme and non-negotiable.
Let us continue with the gravitation example to understand this unique characteristic of modern science. Sometime in 1600 AD, Newton gave a satisfactory answer to the question of why things fall to the ground. By repeatedly studying the distance travelled while falling against time taken for the fall to the ground, Newton deduced the inverse-square law for gravitation between objects. This simple mathematical equation was powerful enough to describe an apple falling from a tree, as well as to describe why and how planets revolve around the sun. For about 250 years nobody questioned the understanding behind Newton’s explanation of gravitation, until one young genius asked the question ‘How does one object inform another object that it exists, and hence the other object should feel gravitational attraction from it?’ Newton himself had asked this question, and many others after him also had raised this query arising out of his explanation of gravitation. And in each case, the answer given was – the mere existence of an object informs all other objects in the universe that they should all feel its attraction! This phenomenon was called ‘Action at a distance’. Newton and his successors brought in theology to account for such instantaneous interaction by saying that since everything was created by God (as mentioned clearly in the Bible), such instantaneous interaction was possible! This answer appears spooky. Information takes time to travel. Information cannot travel instantaneously. Just because an object exists, it does not follow that it would have informed every other object in the universe of its existence and hence instructed them all to feel attracted towards it. This was clearly an illogical portion in an otherwise robust theory that had been proposed by Newton for gravitation. The young genius who seriously questioned this portion of the theory was Einstein. He understood that although the math was right, Newton has somehow got the theory wrong. Einstein simply could not accept the theological explanation for ‘action at a distance’. He corrected the whole thing by imagining a different geometry in which space-time operated and was able to deduce a more precise equation for gravitation. It turned out that the inverse-square law as just a special case of the more general equation that Einstein had deduced, and that was the reason why Newton’s equation had worked in most cases. The handful of cases where Newton’s equation had shown errors with physical verification were rectified when Einstein’s equation was applied. So, science believes in ‘one step at a time’.
This same Einstein gave another amazing demonstration of this motto. It was during the famous Copenhagen meetings between Bohr and Einstein that the latter pointed out an unverified assumption which Bohr and his colleagues had made with regard to their interpretation of quantum phenomenon. The exact phenomenon was called the ‘entanglement event’. When a quantum particle splits into two constituent parts, they fly away from each other at nearly the speed of light. The constituent parts will have complimentary spin characteristics. If the spin of one of the constituent parts is measured and is found to be, say, ‘Up’ spin, then we know that the other part will be of ‘Down’ spin; and vice-versa. Thus, we would have known the characteristic of a quantum constituent without having actually measured it. The measurement can occur a long time after the splitting happens, which means that the constituent parts would have flown a great distance away from each other. Thus, information is seen to be independent of distance. Bohr and his colleagues pointed out that this meant that ‘action at a distance’ was indeed correct. Einstein objected by saying that with regard to knowing a thing, actual physical perception takes precedence over inferential knowledge. In this case, our knowledge of the spin of the other constituent part is inferential. It is not a perception. Even at its best, inference is an assumption, although based on invariable cause-effect relationships. So, science is not really bothered about knowing everything before trying to understand the smaller, minute things.
Things are fine with science so far as it goes, as we have described above. The trouble starts when we try to study the phenomenon called man, or any living being, or life. Man is not just matter and energy. Man is conscious. Man is filled with something distinct called life. Science accepts only one method of obtaining facts, that is, from the outside, from the objective standpoint only. It is also called the 3rd person perspective. When man is studied from outside, that is, when I study you, the facts appear to be strange. Why strange? When I study life as found within you, it appears as though life is a derivative of matter and energy. Suppose you are sitting on a chair. Very clearly, you and the chair are categorically different. Chair is matter & energy combined. What are you? You too are matter and energy combined. But, there is a 3rd something in you, distinct from matter and energy. We call that 3rd something as life. You exhibit the presence of life in you, which the chair does not. Now, let me study life, as exhibited in you. I find that life that is present within you is an outcome of matter and energy. If I stop feeding you food and water for 10 days, you will become just like the chair you are sitting on; you will be reduced to just a combination of matter and energy. Life would have been snuffed out from you. This conclusion of science with regard to life, and consciousness, is a dead-end. It has two problems.
One: it is not satisfying to me (or anyone who is making the study). This conclusion snuffs out all beauty, charm, adventure, creativity, initiative, and freedom from my life. I have studied you. My conclusions that I derive from that study will apply to me too. Hence, the problem; somehow, I find it extremely disturbing and unsatisfying that I am a derivative of matter and energy.
Two: if I wish to study life and consciousness, then, if my study is confined to studying only you, if my study is confined to studying life and consciousness out there only, that study is partial. I myself am alive and conscious. Should I not study life and consciousness within me, for the study to be complete?
The stand of science seems to be the following: we do not as yet understand the roots and origin of matter and energy; nor do we make complete sense of this phenomenon called man. But, that does not mean we have to posit assumptions about such final questions. We have some facts at hand. They are incontrovertible. We have a wonderfully developed language (called Mathematics) that can deal with the available facts that we observe. We shall proceed onwards, one step at a time. Our progress may not be phenomenal or glorious. But, every step we take is resting on truth, on certainty. In due course, we hope to make sense of everything.
It is against the background of this situation that Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda have made incredible contributions. We shall look into that aspect in some detail.
Religion:
There are many forms & definitions of religion. Generally what we understand as religion today conforms to a specific format – the ‘One Book-One God-One Prophet’ format. This is in fact a very efficient method for rapid spread of the ideas enshrined in the Book about God, as revealed to the Prophet. The major drawback with this format of religion is its extreme resistance to rational thinking. As we saw above, rational thinking depends heavily on personal perception of facts. Personally perceived facts are then treated according to some broad principles of thought, and conclusions can then be drawn, which will be universally valid. The problem with religion today is the absence of personal perception of facts. We have to depend entirely on the perceptions of a man who lived centuries ago. Based on facts revealed by him – the prophet – we can then apply semi-rational thinking on those facts and derive conclusions. While doing so, we will need to make some assumptions that border on the absurd in order to fit in all facts which are available before us through proxy. The end result is something that is hideous, repulsive to the thinking man, and most often highly exclusive.
Take the example of Christianity. A major dogma of this religion is that we have to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ. Now, Immaculate Conception is an absurd concept. Why do we need to believe in it? Long before Jesus Christ, it was revealed to another Prophet that God created Adam and Eve, and this couple ate the fruit of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, against the direction of God. This transgression was the primal sin. Since all mankind is the offspring of Adam and Eve, human beings contain the seed of primal sin within them. Man has no escape from this primal sin, which he inherits from Adam and Eve. Man can get freed from this primal sin only by resorting to the grace of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Now, if Jesus Christ is to be capable of freeing man from primal sin, Jesus himself must be free from primal sin. If Jesus is to be free from primal sin, he should not have been born to man and woman by copulation, but should have been conceived by his mother, independent of man’s intervention. Hence it is essential for us to assume that Jesus Christ was conceived immaculately by his mother Mary. If Jesus himself was the product of copulation of a man and a woman, like the rest of us, then Jesus himself would contain seeds of primal sin within him, and that would render his own revelations about himself meaningless; revelations such as ‘He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father’, ‘Come to me, all ye that are heavily laden’, ‘None can reach the Father except through the Son’.
Now, please go through the line of argument mentioned in the above paragraph. The conclusion that has been drawn – the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ – is absurd. Why? It follows logically from the concept of primal sin, the concept that primal sin transmits hereditarily from parents to children through copulation, and from the revelation that Jesus Christ can set us free from primal sin. In order to evaluate where the absurdity arises from, we will need to call into question each of these revelations and assumptions, one by one. It will then be clear that the root of all this confusion about Immaculate Conception arises from the borrowed revelation of the Biblical Prophet which said that God created Adam and eve and then prohibited them from eating the fruit of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. If we reject that data, however, the entire thought edifice that we built up falls down!
This is the problem with religion today.
We cannot apply rational thinking to religion at all. If we do so, we will be clearing religion of all its absurdities one by one, and nothing of religion (as we know it today) remains after that. So, people who are invested in religion will resist against rational thinking tooth and nail.
The Vedanta of Hinduism:
It is most interesting to note that Swamiji presents a religion that is completely outside this ‘One Book-One God-One Prophet’ format. He calls it Vedanta. It is not easy to discern if this Vedanta is the same as, or different from, what we generally understand as Hinduism. It is indeed embedded in the Upanishads, the Holy Book of Hindus, and hence it must be Hinduism. Yet, this Vedanta that Swamiji presents as religion is completely outside the standard format of a religion. It has many books and yet has no book as its source. It has no God, but accepts all Gods of all forms. It has innumerable Prophets, and yet does not have a single Prophet who can be identified as its founder. The Vedanta that Swamiji presents clearly seems to have been derived from Hinduism, but he categorically states that Vedanta is present at the core of all religions.
Swamiji presents religion as the rational study of consciousness within me. What can rational study of consciousness mean? If I wish to study life and consciousness, I need not study them in you. I don’t need a 3rd person perspective of life and consciousness. I myself am alive and conscious. I can study life and consciousness within me. I can have a 1st person perspective of life and consciousness.
The Mundaka Upanishad gives the Two-Birds imagery to explain this 1st person perspective. The English translation of the mantras is as follows: Two birds, united always and known by the same name, closely cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other looks on without eating. Seated on the same tree, the jiva moans, bewildered by his own impotence. But when he beholds the other, the Lord worshipped by all and His glory, he then becomes free from grief. When the seer beholds the self – luminous Creator, the Lord, the Purusha, the progenitor of Brahma, then he, the wise seer, shakes off good and evil, becomes stainless and reaches the supreme unity. [1]
The essence of these three mantras is completely lost in translation. In English, the imagery is that there is a tree out there, on which two birds are sitting. Basically, the translation comes off as a 3rd person perspective. I am here, watching the tree with the two birds out there! The original Sanskrit says something totally different. I am the bird on a tree. I am aware of myself, as sitting on the tree, and I am also simultaneously aware of another bird, exactly similar to me, also sitting on the same tree, merely witnessing everything, doing nothing. I eat fruits, some sweet, most of them bitter. When I eat sweet fruits, I feel life is wonderful. When I eat bitter fruits, I feel helpless, and look up and see the bird sitting like a lord, unconcerned about anything, merely being the witness, but utterly satisfied with its own self, wanting nothing. I progress towards the witnessing bird with each bitter experience, and finally, I find that I have always been the lord, the witness, unconcerned about everything in the world. Now, it feels like a dream that I was a helpless bird, dissociated from myself, roaming like an unfulfilled ghost among the branches of this vast, dense tree. This is how rational religion is presented by Swamiji. This is a standard imagery from Vedanta.
How do we reach to the supreme unity? Vedanta accepts and incorporates every valid means of reaching the supreme unity, most of which appeal to the emotional, irrational and intuitive faculties in man. But, what distinguishes Vedanta from all other known religions is the recognition it accords to the rational faculty in man in reaching the supreme unity. In this method, we do not begin with a God, or use devotion to God as the starting point of spiritual transformation. We begin from the other end. I start by closely observing and studying myself. I start by observing the constituents of my person. I have a body. I have a mind which pervades my body and controls my body. With a little analysis, I find that my body and my mind are basically the same; they are literally the same, although mind appears to be totally different from the body. Then there is awareness in me, which is closely associated with my body and my mind, but is different from both. Awareness in me, clearly, has many levels. I am now awake. I have a strong, working awareness. Sometime later, I will sleep. As I slip into a stupor, I will start dreaming. That is another level of awareness. I still have awareness, but, not like when I am awake. Dream awareness is more intense, not always illogical butmore remote from logic. Then I slip into deep sleep, where I am aware of nothing at all. But, during all these three distinct states of awareness, there is one layer of awareness that is always awake, and working the various organs of my body. That never stops. That is done by me, and not by anybody else. So, I find within me a little bit of conscious or aware life energy, a little bit of semi-conscious or semi-aware life energy, and a whole lot of unconscious or unaware life energy.
So, with some effort and observation, I can see that there is one more entity within me which can be called Prana, or living energy. Prana is the glue that connects my body with my mind and with my awareness. While body is dead matter, mind is highly refined matter, consciousness or awareness is not matter at all. Prana is the connecting link among all three. Prana is the essential me. Depending on the quality of prana, my body, mind, and awareness function at different levels of efficiency, and undergo perceptible transformation. Hence he was never tired of pointing out that religion is realization. Perceptible and permanent transformation of personality is the touchstone of religion, as presented by Swamiji.
Swamiji propounds a religion that is a deep rational study, and involves a progressive refinement, of Prana at the beginner’s level, and one that involves a deep rational study, and transformation of consciousness alone at the advanced level. In so far as his version of religion involves dealing with Prana, all practices of all religions can be accommodated within its scope – animism, theocratic, polytheistic, monotheistic, atheist, etc. And in so far as it involves the study of consciousness within me, to the exclusion of Prana, it is Vedanta, as developed in India in the last 1500 years, especially in its Advaita form.
Science & Religion:
So, what we have seen till now can be summarized as follows:
Science is the rational study of matter and energy (in the form of non-living energy). Religion is the rational study of energy (in the form of living energy, within me) and consciousness. You will notice that both these studies, which appear as entirely exclusive of one another, have two things in common; both involve dealing with energy, and both involve rational thought. So, Swamiji opened up a possible meeting ground for both, which we shall explore in detail later on.
Part-IV
Science & Vedanta
Competing theories can co-exist:
An important similarity between modern science and Vedanta is that both systems of thought accept competing theories to co-exist. Let us see this in some detail.
Overview of the Physics of motion:
Modern science can be understood to have begun with the study of motion. Why do things move? This question was asked by man from pre-historic times. As civilization grew, and as man began to think systematically, he grappled with this question deeply. We find detailed analysis of this question among the ancient Greek thinkers. Plato and Aristotle gave their seal on the answer that things move due to the will of God. They did analyze motion quite deeply, but the final reason they gave for motion was that it was the will of God that things should move. This was the official stand for hundreds of centuries. Then the Greek civilization was overrun by the Romans. They were not as great thinkers as the Greek, and hence adopted the Greek conclusions without much struggle. The Romans were then overrun by the Christians. The Christians too adopted the Greek stand in toto, since the will of God made great sense to the Christian thinkers too, especially since they had developed an elaborate theology to support it. The Christians in Europe were then overrun by the Muslims or the Moors. Prophet Mohammad, the founder of Islam had encouraged his followers to embrace all learning as sacred. The pursuit of knowledge was therefore considered as sacred duty by the Spanish and European Muslims. Great thinkers like Averroes dug out the ancient Greek texts of Plato and Aristotle and translated them into Arabic. In Alexandria, the Muslims had access to the great thought of the Hindus and the Buddhists. The philosophy of the Hindu Samkhya, along with the philosophy of the Buddhists, got melded with the Greek philosophy in the hands of the Muslims and gave rise to a huge spurt in rational thought.
What emerged in Europe as a result was something extremely wonderful and had incredible impact on the future of mankind. The principles of rational thought developed by the Samkhya got mixed with the worldview of Buddhists that matter and energy are self-sufficient, and that there is no need for God to be brought in to explain this world. The result of these two systems of thinking was then applied to the Greek system of analyzing this world and its activities. This happened in the Europe of the 16th century and gave rise to modern science.
The 1st topic to be studied by this new method was motion. Galileo looked at falling objects and swinging objects, and found out that there is an intimate connection between the distance covered by an object in the time elapsed in that journey. We may consider this discovery by Galileo as the first major achievement by the new method that had evolved from the intermingling of the Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic philosophies in Christian Europe. Galileo said that no matter what object falls, no matter when it falls, and where it falls, there is an invariable connection between its distance of fall and time of fall. The church objected to Galileo’s language, for it removed God from the picture. The church instituted strictures on Galileo and asked him to either recant or bring in God into his explanation of motion. He was kept under house arrest by the church for this grievous sin of eliminating God from motion of objects. Newton followed Galileo, but he had learned the politically correct language. He explained all motion in terms of time and distance, but added that God had willed all motion to be governed by a few simple mathematical laws. Newton was deeply religious. Unlike Galileo, Newton might have seriously thought that God was indeed behind everything in this world, while ordaining that things move according to invariable mathematical laws. The study that was initiated by Galileo reached maturity in Newton, who formulated the universal laws of motion. Three simple mathematical equations, governed the motion of apples and mangoes, as well as planets and stars. These three equations, with sufficient modifications, could explain light and heat too, for everything is but motion of something. Newton assumed that there were corpuscles of light which moved, and that is why we ‘see’ things. Similarly, there were corpuscles of heat which moved and created temperature differences. Was Newton correct in assuming these ‘unseen’ packets of light and heat? For, didn’t the new method of studying this world, require that you can deal only with things that you see? The new method also said that if predictions based on assumptions were ‘seen’ or observed to be correct, then we were justified in making those assumptions.
It was amazing how much we could know about motion of objects without knowing anything about the ‘why’ of the motion. Newton’s equations predicted motion with great accuracy, but, nobody knew why an object takes a particular path, as if someone were willing it to take it. For instance, when water flows down a mountain, there are infinite paths it can take. But it takes a very particular path. Why? Who decides? Thinkers who followed Newton understood that there was something lurking behind everything in this world, which instigated things to move in particular paths. Lagrange and Hamilton evolved a theory that there was something called ‘Energy’ embedded in everything in this world, which made things move. Things always move in such a way as to minimize energy losses or conversions, or maximize energy retention or conservation. With the introduction of the concept of energy, the elimination of God as the motive force from the picture was complete. Lagrange and Hamilton a set of equations for motion, of which, the Newton equations were a special case. So, now, if someone were to ask what equations govern motion of objects, the answer would be that in general, objects move as governed by the Langrangian or the Hamiltonian, but, mostly, the large, solid objects move as governed by Newton’s equations. Then the question arose as to how do extremely minute objects and extremely large objects move; are they also governed by these three sets of equations?
Fresh observations were made to study the motion of atomic and nuclear scale particles and the motion of planets, stars and galaxies. It was found that the Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian equations could not describe these extreme object motions accurately. This observation, coupled with certain other discrepancies in the older theories led Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, and Schrodinger to come up with a new set of equations that showed that the older set of equations were only special cases of this new set of equations.
We have described many developments in science to show the trend along which scientific theory moves. One set of observations are made. Someone comes up with a theory and its mathematical equations that will account for all those observations. Those equations are then tested on all sorts of situations. The more the number of situation which will be explained by those equations, the more robust is that theory considered to be. Then somebody makes an observation that does not conform to the known theory and the known set of equations. Others now try to tweak the existing theory and equations to accommodate the deviant observations. Joint and parallel efforts result in a new, modified, theory and its own set of equations that correctly accommodate the new, aberrant observations. But, this new set of equations must be more general than the previous set of equations, in the sense that, the older set of equations must be a special case of the new, more general ones. Thus, theories once established, even in a limited scope of situations, will continue to be valid, when newer theories get developed. The newer theories cannot be a complete break-away from the past, limitedly valid theories, but can be an expansion of the older ones. Thus, individual facts need to be categorized into generalizations, and there must be an ever widening area of generalization, so that all observable facts can be accounted for.
Overview of the Upanishads:
The Upanishads are a unique set of holy books of the Hindus, which contain discoveries in the spiritual realm, made by successive generations of holy men and women, spanning about 10,000 years of continued history. The Hindus learnt long ago to recognize a category of very special persons, who appear once in roughly 1500 years amidst them, and rejuvenate the entire humanity. The impact of this very special category of persons is felt beyond the Indian borders too. In fact, this very special category of persons is considered as the true ‘history-makers’ by the Hindus. They have been called by various names such as Rishis, Acharyas, Yuga-Purusha, and Avatara. Their duty is two-fold: to halt ‘Dharma-glaani’ and to bring about ‘Dharma-samsthaapana’. These are two special terms which we shall try to understand before proceeding further.
Role of zeitgeist in philosophy:
When we study epochs in world history, we notice a trend. In a certain period, all over the world, people subscribe to a broad set of ideas about Man, World, and God. Take a look at Europe, for instance. For over 1000 years, until the Muslim conquest of Europe, all people living in Europe subscribed to the worldview of Catholic Christianity. What is that worldview? God is extra-cosmic; God creates man and the world out of nothing; having created everything with his bare hands, God decides and runs everything; all events in the lives of people and all motion in this world is purely by the Will of God. Each zeitgeist leads to its own set of implications affecting all aspects of human life. Arising out of each such paradigm, we have variations in modes of human activity, in economy, in social arrangement, in politics, in Art & Culture, in physical sciences, in technology, in human interactions with Nature, in philosophy, and in our approaches to our understanding of Man, God, and the Universe. An Avatara, who is actually an ‘Epoch-maker’ in Swamiji’s words, takes birth when a particular zeitgeist has led to enormous changes in all aspects of human life in such a way as to make him forget how to go back to God. So, a fresh impulse is infused into this world by an Avatara, which effectively re-establishes man’s journey to his spiritual destiny. This impulse then works itself out in bringing about immense changes in man’s outlook towards everything and in a period of the next 500 to 1000 years, again, so much change would have come about in every aspect of human life that man would have again moved away from his journey towards God, and again, the situation warrants the birth of the Avatara, and so on.
Each such cumulative change that brings man away from God or disrupts man’s journey to his spiritual destiny is called ‘Dharma-glaani’. And each such corrective force infused by the Avatara is called ‘Dharma-samsthaapana’. The Avatara has certain conditions under which he has to work. The Avatara, when he infuses the corrective power, has to perforce declare that all previous worldviews were right, that all revelations of previous Avataras were true and that the present worldview that he was presenting is meant for the present age, completely in consonance with everything that happened in the past. The Avatara is duty-bound to do this. Why?
Culture & religion: their interconnectedness:
The sum-total of all modes of human thought, human feelings, moods and emotions, of human actions, traditions and routines is called Culture. Culture therefore defines man. When the Avatara initiates new modes of thought, feelings, moods, emotions, actions, traditions and routines, basically, he is initiating a new culture. The new culture can only survive if it is an organic growth over the old culture. The fallen tree rots and fertilizes the new vegetation. The Avatara’s war cry will always have to be ‘we have done well, we will now do better’. It can never be ‘all that we did was wrong, we will now do the right thing’. That is the reason all Avataras have proclaimed ‘I come to build, and not to destroy’. The Upanishad Rishis said this, Krishna, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, all have said this too. All of them, without an exception, have said this on record. In many cases, their followers did not understand the vital importance of this proclamation of their master. They have claimed uniqueness of their master’s message, and are still continuing to do so. This is the sole cause of all bloodshed in the name of religion.
In the Upanishad, therefore, we find all sorts of worldviews, lying next to one another. To a simple question such as ‘how was this world created’ or ‘what is the real nature of man’, we have innumerable answers. Most of these answers are not compatible with one another. Yet, there is no attempt to erase all answers except the latest one. No. All previous answers are allowed to remain in the Upanishadic record. The Bhagawad Gita, for instance, enumerates all the previous zeitgeists that preceded Krishna. So, this world is the permutation & combination of the three Gunas, it is also the inverted Ashwattha Tree, it is also the material transformation of God, it is the evolution of God’s power, etc. All previous zeitgeists are acknowledged. Now, a new worldview will be given by Krishna, as a necessary course correction only, not as a refutation of all previous worldviews.
Each of these worldviews is a religion by itself. The present Avatara gives yet another religion, a new religion, if you may say so. But the new religion cannot be a refutation of all the older religions, rather, it will be an organic growth from all former forms of worldviews. So, as recorded in the Upanishads, india saw a series of new religions propping up from the impetus given by a succession of Avataras, each of them honoring the ‘code of conduct’ of the Avataras, so to speak. The new religion that is initiated by the new Avatara gets its proponents from among the dissatisfied followers of the previous religions. But these adherents of the new religion were all taught to see their new worldview as an extension of the previous worldviews and the religions that sprang from those previous worldviews. While propounding the new paradigm, customized for the requirements of the present age, the Avatara would add a phrase such as “Etat vai Tat”, or “Tadapyesha shloko bhavati” or “Iti shushruma dhiraanaam yenas tad vichachakshire”, etc. Then the followers would immediately understand that their new paradigm was not really new at all, and that it was but the same old wine, but in a new bottle, and that they had nothing to hate other worldviews or religions or the followers of other religions, and that everyone was free to subscribe to a worldview or religion as per one’s predilection, and even though others hold beliefs different from mine, I ought to tolerate, respect and accept others with their different beliefs and opinions. I will not force them to accept my beliefs and opinions, while others too cannot force their beliefs and opinions on me.
As a result of the unique circumstances in India, which allowed this land and its people to be exposed repeatedly to successive infusions of divine power through its unending slew of Prophets, India developed a unique understanding of society and religion. India understood that when huge numbers of people live together in society, many worldviews will exist simultaneously. Each such worldview will be the fount of a different religion, with its complete set of Prophet-teaching-book-rituals-routines-philosophy-practices, etc. They should not fight with one another for superiority or dominance but should be allowed and enabled to live harmoniously with one another. Competing religions will always exist side by side. The set of ideas that will enable this harmonious co-existence of different worldviews, religions and philosophies is called Vedanta. India developed its Vedanta early on in its hoary history. The immense power of Vedanta enabled India to survive repeated onslaughts of foreign civilizations, and it is continuing to do so. And now, the time has come when the whole world needs to borrow this technique from India.
Anyway, the reason why India has been able to survive any number of impacts of foreign cultures is Vedanta. It is not exactly Hinduism. It is the Vedanta of Hinduism that has enabled this incredible resilience in India. We will now see the most important aspect of Vedanta, which will help us in harmonizing science with religion.
Part – V
The Vedanta of Hinduism
Reality is two-fold: Consciousness & Power
A fundamental idea in Vedanta is the dual nature of Reality. Where did Vedanta get this conception from? The successive Avataras (or Rishis of the Upanishads, followed by Ramachandra & Krishna) categorically saw and proclaimed that Reality has a dual nature. Reality comprises of Consciousness and Power. Philosophically, this may be troublesome, but then Reality trumps philosophy. If philosophy cannot provide a logical framework for the facts that have been gathered by man, then philosophy must beat a retreat and keep quiet. Questions will certainly arise such as ‘can Power be derived from Consciousness?’ and vise-verse. Vedanta is bold enough to declare that it doesn’t know exactly which derives from which, but Vedanta categorically proclaims that it is possible for man to grow certain faculties within him that will enable him to perceive that Reality has a dual nature – Reality is Consciousness and Power simultaneously.
Up to Krishna’s period, this was the dominant idea in India – Reality is two-fold. After a long period after Krishna came Buddha, the next Avatara. Buddha seems to have given a message that predominantly says that Reality may be whatever it is, but it is Power that is palpable Reality, and we are affected by the Power aspect of Reality the most, and hence we ought to deal with Power; once Power is brought under control, we can then deal with the consciousness aspect of Reality, if at all it does exist as such. Buddha, of course, did not say this explicitly, but his message lends itself to this interpretation and over the centuries, this became the dominant form of Buddhism. Effectively, the schism between Consciousness and Power was a post-Buddhistic development in Hindu philosophy. Nowhere in the Upanishads or in the Bhagawad Gita do we find anything like this.
If the Hindus had to remain relevant in society, if the Hindu religion had to remain in currency, somebody had to come up with a refutation or at least a decent rebuttal. The first step in this Hindu response to Buddhism came in the form of the development of Tantras. A whole school of thought was developed, initiated by Matsyendranath and Gorakshanath, which primarily studied Power. This study was truly Upanishadic in its content because the Power that the Tantras study is not divorced from Consciousness. According to Tantras, Reality is dual-natured, but Tantras study the Power aspect of Reality, ever acknowledging the intimate connection between Consciousness and Power. This school developed into the status of a religion of its own, but, since it was wholly consonant with the pre-Buddhistic Hinduism, it was always seen as a sect within Hinduism. Buddhists made extensive use of images, idols, geometric figures such as Yantras and Mandalas, which the common man found very attractive. The Tantric Hindus also made extensive use of these ‘modern’ tools of religion. The consequence of this development was that if someone came up to the Hindus and said that their religion was dry and lifeless, always harping on consciousness, the ‘modern’ Hindus showed them their Tantric religion which also dealt with Power primarily and coopted the use of all ‘modern’ tools that the Buddhists had invented.
Simultaneously, there developed another important school within Hinduism called the Patanjala Yoga. Buddhism revolved around control of the mind, or to be more precise, around control of the personal energy within man called Prana. Again, the Hindus delved deep into their Upanishadic literature and drawing extensively from extant Hindu spiritual practices, developed an amazing psychology of spirituality called Yoga. Since the Tantras too developed around that period, these two schools amalgamated at the fringes and gave rise to a powerful school called ‘Raja Yoga’. This was the most practical form that Hinduism would ever take in its millennia long history. It was very rational in its approach, since it derived its philosophy directly from the Samkhya school, founded by the Father of Rationality – Kapila. And yet, it was extremely practical, since it did not bother about consciousness, but dealt directly with Power, the power lodged within each man. Again, the Buddhists could not claim superiority of their religion, since the Hindus came up with more that one religion that dealt primarily with Power. These developments healed the schism in Indian society to a great extent.
But Buddhism was largely re-absorbed back into the Hindu body politick. Before these developments happened, Buddhism had already gained solid ground in south-east Asia and in middle-east Asia, especially along the silk route. The Buddhist emphasis on the Power aspect of Reality was passed on to the people of the middle-east Asia, and was carried into Europe by the Christians. Later on, the same impulse enlivened the Muslims, and the Muslims re-awakened the worship of Power among the Christians leading to the Age of Reason and Renaissance. This portion of history we have already delineated in the pages above.
Meanwhile in India, the reclamation of society by the Hindu religion was still incomplete. So intense and pervasive was the Buddha’s influence on India. Acharya Shankara added one more important step in this reclamation process. He brought out the Upanishads, hidden within extremely closed social circles and broadcast them to the learned intelligentsia in the society. He also re-awakened the national memory of its own religious history by revivifying the Bhagawad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. For reasons best known only to him, Acharya Shankara did not harmonize the Tantras with the renewed Hindu religion, although he did incorporate into mainstream Hinduism, the important rituals that had sprung from the Buddhist influence. Shankara’s version of the Upanishads, the original fount of the Hindu religion, emphasized the Consciousness aspect of Reality. The Power aspect was relegated to an agnostic position. Swamiji makes the following observation in this context: In India it (monotheism) could not hold its own because of the Buddhists, and that was the very point where they gained their victory in ancient times. They showed that if we allow that nature is possessed of infinite power, and that nature can work out all its wants, it is simply unnecessary to insist that there is something besides nature. Even the soul is unnecessary.[2] Where Buddha had relegated the Consciousness aspect of Reality and emphasized the Power aspect of Reality, Shankara did the opposite. But, Shankara’s job of re-establishing the Upanishads back at the top of the Hindu scriptural hierarchy was unassailably done.
Shankara established incontrovertibly that Consciousness was one. All consciousness, wherever it exists, in whatever form, was one. And rationally speaking, consciousness alone exists. If you perceive Power, it is your own aberration of vision. Correct your vision and you will clearly see that Consciousness alone exists.
Elsewhere, in Europe, strenuous attempts were underway to unify Power, just as Shankara had done with Consciousness. But the job of unifying Power is still incomplete. This is due to some inherent constraints in the European conception of Power. It is impossible to unify all aspects of Power if we assume that Power is devoid of consciousness. The constraint in studying Power in all its aspects is the exculisve use of Mathematics as the language for the study. Noted German mathematician Emma Noether has showed that Mathematics can only study those phenomena that conform to symmetry. In her famous Noether’s 1st Theorem, she states, “If the physical theory has a continuous symmetry, then this theorem guarantees that the theory has a conserved quantity, and for the theory to be correct, this conservation must be observable in experiments.” This theorem describes the boundary of physical universe that can be mathematically studied. If continuous symmetry is not observed in a physical system, mathematics has no capability to study it. The energy that is in man, or any living being for that matter, which is called Prana in Vedanta, does not possess this continuous symmetry property. Hence, modern science in its present formulation, can never study this important form of Power.
Vedanta however declares that all Power can be studied, accessed and manipulated by means of language. Depending on the type of Power being considered, the language changes. If it is physical Power that we are studying, such as the energies acting on matter, which show absolutely no signs of life or consciousness, then the language best suited for the study is Mathematics. If the Power we are studying is associated with life or consciousness, then the language best suited for the study is Prayer. Let us note that both mathematics and prayer are but different languages. They are tools, meant to deal with Power in its various aspects.
Thus, Vedanta has developed a comprehensive method of dealing with Power in all its aspects by positing the Consciousness-Power continuum. Traditional Advaita Vedanta, an off-shoot of Buddhism, studies Consciousness exclusively, as devoid of Power. Modern Science, an off-shoot of the Islamic impact of Buddhism & Christianity, studies Power exclusively, as devoid of consciousness. Swami Vivekananda brings about a course-correction in both Science and Religion by positing that Reality is dual-natured; it is Brahman & Shakti together that we ought to study, not Brahman alone or Shakti alone. Hence he famously said, “What we need is western science, coupled with Vedanta….”
In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, we find one point being raised repeatedly by the Master: Brahman and Shakti are non-different. He raises this issue ad-infinitum. The reason lies here: pursuit of either one of them, to the exclusion of the other, is bound to confound man. The Upanishadic approach was the integrated one, which Sri Ramakrishna is trying to reinstate among people.
The Religion of Vedanta:
The Religion of the Upanishads is also called as Vedanta. We will now look briefly at this much-talked-about but least-understood Religion of ancient India. In the Upanishads, an incredibly bold attempt was made to study Religion without any reference to God. This is not true of all Upanishads, but only of some Upanishads, and only about certain portions of some Upanishads. The line of thought in these select Upanishads was something as follows:
We need to study the origin of this world we live in; we need to study the sun and the moon and the stars; we need to study life-forms on earth; we need to study the rivers and the mountains; we need to study society and economics; but, this means that our study will never end, since there are an infinite number of these things! Now, the object closest to our perception is myself; I too am a part of this universe; if I can study myself with the greatest detail, then I should be able to extrapolate that knowledge to the entire universe. Hence, let me study myself in great depth. Having studied myself in the greatest possible depth, let me share my findings with all who are interested in knowing the truth.
Note the clinching point in this line of thought. If I can study myself with the greatest detail, then I should be able to extrapolate that knowledge to the entire universe. Our Rishis came upon a couple of such ground-breaking ideas that transformed human thought forever. This vital point was a lynchpin of the rational method of thinking. We start with the particulars, then rise to the generalized categories, and then reach the universalized thought. Thus, if we know one thing perfectly, everything in the universe will be known.
If we doubt the veracity of this particular point, Vedanta is not possible. Is this point true? Is it really true that if we know one thing perfectly, in all its aspects, we will be able to know the entire universe? It is a matter of extremely subtle psychology that unless sufficient purity in developed within a person, he/she will never be able to see the truth of this assumption. As the mind and heart becomes gradually purified, i.e. integrated, and not scattered, this assumption will start appearing as reasonable. It is a matter of great good fortune that our Rishis cultivated purity for its own sake, alongside their novel research into themselves. Else, they would never have reached the incredible conclusions that they did.
Let us briefly delineate the other interesting points that our ancient Rishis adopted in their line of thought that enabled them to discover Vedanta:
- Assumption-1: As mentioned above, the shift from the world-centric and God-centric paradigm to the man-centric or self-centric paradigm was vital for the development of Vedanta.
- Assumption-2: Suppose this universe has a cause; that cause must necessarily be embedded within the universe; because the cause is always present within the effect. The effect is always the cause but in another form. In fact, every act of creation is but a transformation of the cause into something else that we cause the effect. This idea is vital for developing Vedanta.
- Assumption-3: There can be no motion in a straight line; straight line, no matter how long, is but a truncated form of an arc of a circle. This idea might seem absurd to our intuition. But, this idea, if we accept it as true, transforms our sense of time. To our normal perception, we feel that time is unidirectional and moves forward in a relentless straight line. But, if this assumption is true, then, time is circular; events that have happened once, will repeat again, ad-infinitum. This idea is vital for developing Vedanta.
- Assumption-4: What is true of a man’s experience in a cycle of 24 hours is also true for that man’s experience in a cycle of birth and death. And that logic again holds good for the entire universe. Therefore, just as a man wakes up, works during the day, starts dreaming, then goes into deep sleep, then dreams again, and wakes up, similarly, a man lives a lifetime, then enters a state of limbo for a period, then remains in a state of utter inaction, then enters limbo again and takes birth anew. This cycle is apparently unending. This idea is vital for developing Vedanta.
- Assumption-5: The microcosm and the macrocosm are built on the same plan. The difference is only in scale and not in constituents. Of course, this assumption in Vedanta applies only to the human personality (as the microcosm) and the universe (as the macrocosm). Swamiji says:[3] If I know one lump of clay perfectly, I know all the clay there is. This is the knowledge of principles, but their adaptations are various. When you know yourself you know all. Further, this assumption was backed by serious revelations that the rishis had to this effect. But, the leap in thought in this respect was very bold and was vital for developing Vedanta.
- Assumption-6: Another very interesting idea that the rishis adopted in their journey of developing Vedanta might appear to be childish. They assumed that food is fundamental in this universe. In what sense did they assume this? If there is something existing in this world, it must have eaten something and have been nourished by it. Else, it couldn’t have come into existence. Of course, this is a round-about way of speaking about cause and effect; everything that exists is the effect of some cause, and is in fact, the cause itself in another form. But, making this assumption in this format allowed the rishis to do away with a Creator God. This idea is vital for developing Vedanta.
- Assumption-7: Suppose there is a Creator, a person, who created this universe. Insofar as we are talking of inanimate things being created, it is possible to imagine such a Creator. For, a living, conscious person can indeed ‘create’ lifeless, inanimate things, external of himself/herself, just as we see potters and goldsmiths doing so. But, if a conscious thing has to be created, it must be a transformation of oneself, for life alone can create life, and that too by self-transformation. Never can life be created ‘out there’ even by a living being. Hence, if I get to know myself, I would actually have known God, if God does exist, for I am alive and conscious, and if I were created by another being, I must be a transformed effect of the cause, i.e. of God. This idea is vital for developing Vedanta.
- Assumption-8: Everything that is created by man is done so in order that it may be ‘used’ by man. The ‘use’ may denote utility or aesthetic. The rishis assumed a-priori that everything in this body and mind is meant to be used by someone ‘residing’ within this psycho-physical complex. This someone, the owner or user of all these things within this body-mind complex creates every cell within the complex. This idea is vital for developing Vedanta.
Swamiji says: Whether the external conforms to the internal, or the internal to the external, whether matter conforms to mind, or mind to matter, whether the surroundings mould the mind, or the mind moulds the circumstances, is old, old question, and is still today as new and vigorous as it ever was. Apart from the question of precedence or causation — without trying to solve the problem as to whether the mind is the cause of matter or matter the cause of mind — it is evident that whether the external was formed by the internal or not, it must conform itself to the internal for us to be able to know it. Supposing that the external world is the cause of the internal, yet we shall of have to admit that the external world, as cause of ours mind, is unknown and unknowable, because the mind can only know that much or that view of the external or that view which conforms to or is a reflection of its own nature. That which is its own reflection could not have been its cause. Now that view of the whole mass of existence, which is cut off by mind and known, certainly cannot be the cause of mind, as its very existence is known in and through the mind. [4]
Some of these assumptions (for instance, assumptions 2 & 6), the Upanishad Rishis must have inherited from the Samkhya philosophers. But the rest of the assumptions must have been their own and these were incredibly bold assumptions to make. Swami Vivekananda says: Science and religion are both attempts to help us out of the bondage; only religion is the more ancient, and we have the superstition that it is the more holy. In a way, it is, because it makes morality a vital point, and science does not. [5] Note this observation carefully. Morality is personal purity. Control over one’s senses and mind is the first step of purity. When this self-control becomes habitual, the perception of the person undergoes a change. Integration of personality ensues. Integration of thinking ensues. Thinking becomes convergent. It is extremely interesting to note that even an academic inquiry into Vedanta requires that the student must exert himself to become pure.
Anyway, the rishis, at some point of time, started studying their own personality in depth. This is actually studying man in depth, not from outside, but from the 1st person point of view. I study myself. This was the ground-breaking approach that enabled the ancient rishis to discover Vedanta. Hence, the religion of the Upanishads takes the 1st person view of consciousness. I will study the consciousness that is within me. They made detailed studies of the three distinct states in which consciousness operates within us – waking, dream, and deep sleep. Then they started studying death, and discovered that death is also a state of consciousness. This conclusion can come only when we study consciousness from the 1st person perspective. Otherwise, as we have shown above on page….of this article, if we attempt to study death from outside, we will end up concluding that consciousness is the product of matter and energy. The 1st person perspective of consciousness leads us to the conclusion that death is a distinct state of consciousness, since none of us is able to imagine our own death, in the sense of utter annihilation of our own awareness.
But the most original breakthrough for the rishis happened as a consequence of the purificatory exercises they had undergone from childhood. These purificatory practices had a cumulative effect in them, resulting in a wonderful state of consciousness called Samadhi. This state of consciousness allowed them to exist in a state of pure, unalloyed awareness, with every sort of physical and mental activity sublated utterly. The achievement of this state of consciousness became the gold-standard of religion in India. Refined and subtle thinking became secondary. Purity and Samadhi became the touchstone of religion. Hence Swamiji says repeatedly ‘Religion is realization’. No amount of thinking or philosophy can ever satisfy us. It is experience alone that satisfies us. Consciousness that is inextricably mixed with power and matter within us has to be extricated and isolated. This experience alone can satisfy us.
This incredible study of the consciousness within oneself led the rishis to conclude that Reality can exist as pure consciousness, utterly devoid of all Power and activity. But, in all other states of consciousness, Reality is essentially two-fold: Reality is consciousness and Power, at the same time. Awareness and Power are not two different entities. They are two faces of the same coin. When Reality exists as consciousness alone, Power is sublated. Reality also has the tendency to exist as Power, in which case, consciousness will exist in varying degrees of manifestation, leading to situations in which it appears as though consciousness is completely absent. But, consciousness is never fully absent; it is merely sublated or hidden, ready to spring forth at the least possibility for its manifestation. This interplay between consciousness and Power is the entire story of this world, including that of man.
In this context, Swamiji says: Ideas as matter, force, mind, law, causation, time, and space are the results of very high abstractions, and nobody has ever sensed any one of them; in other words, they are entirely metaphysical. Yet without these metaphysical conceptions, no physical fact is possible to be understood. Thus a certain motion becomes understood when it is referred to a force; certain sensations, to matter; certain changes outside, to law; certain changes in thought, to mind; certain order singly, to causation — and joined to time, to law. Yet nobody has seen or even imagined matter or force, law or causation, time or space. [6]
The rishis encapsulated this discovery in their famous two-bird imagery, found in many Upanishads, which we have explained in detail in page……. Swami Vivekananda puts these ideas very beautifully: God is neither outside nature nor inside nature, but God and nature and soul and universe are all convertible terms. You never see two things; it is your metaphysical words that have deluded you. You assume that you are a body and have a soul, and that you are both together. How can that be? Try in your own mind. If there is a Yogi among you, he knows himself as Chaitanya, for him the body has vanished. An ordinary man thinks of himself as a body; the idea of spirit has vanished from him; but because the metaphysical ideas exist that man has a body and a soul and all these things, you think they are all simultaneously there. One thing at a time. Do not talk of God when you see matter; you see the effect and the effect alone, and the cause you cannot see, and the moment you can see the cause, the effect will have vanished. Where is the world then, and who has taken it off? [7]
Vedanta – the Science of Religion:
Swami Yatishwarananda enunciated the ‘Laws of spiritual life’ based on the discoveries of our Upanishads Rishis, as follows: [8]
- Whatever we take to be real for the time-being, affects our whole personality, thoughts, emotions and actions. Our whole being responds to this reality.
- Our concept of reality depends upon our concept of ourselves; i.e. man’s conception of God evolves with the evolution of his consciousness.
- Spiritual awakening is the transformation of one’s consciousness, which means moving from a lower center to a higher center of consciousness.
- Though distinct from the moral imperative, spiritual aspiration must be supported by it. The practice of concentration (meditation), if not preceded and followed by purification of mind and sublimation of instincts, is likely to lead the aspirant astray.
- Each aspirant must first understand where he is and begin from there; but making the best use of the protection and support given to him during the early years of his life, he should outgrow them and stand upon his own legs, drawing his sustenance more from the Divine than from men and institutions. This is essential in spiritual growth. It means that an aspirant can move forward in the spiritual path only if he is prepared to abandon the supports which helped him in the earlier stage.
- The realization of the Absolute – the transcendental Reality – lies always through the realization of the immanent Divine Principle. The holy Personality (Ishta Devata) is a manifestation of this Divine Principle.
- The more our consciousness expands, the more we see the Divine in all people and the more spiritual we become.
What Vedanta really achieved was this: The Rishis applied the principles of science to the personal, human phenomenon; the rishis gathered facts about themselves and about the world, and analyzed them, and put them all together into a meaningful framework of thought. The rishis purified their body and mind and gathered more and more facts by direct perception. Purification allowed the rishis to experience that the awareness within us is not a static; it is dynamic; it can grow and expand, or it can become dull and contract, or it can remain apparently unchanged. Since time immemorial, man has been studying his own body and his own mind; this has happened everywhere, at all times. But these Upanishad Rishis were unique in studying their own consciousness! They found out amazing things there. Consciousness, although a given since birth, is capable of growing, of evolving. And this evolution of consciousness is distinct and can be mapped. And the Rishis did it.
The rishis found out that consciousness can be experienced as being completely welded with this body-mind complex. When in this stage of evolution, it is impossible not to be aware of an overarching Power dominating over this world and over one’s own life. The common word used for this great Power is God. In this stage we are sort of aware that there is or ought to be God, and God governs this world and my own life. The Rishis then found out that consciousness within us can grow and evolve. The 1st step in this direction was calming down the mind, rejecting the various desires and the concomitant mental waves that arise from them. In other words, the path followed by the rishis was that of purification. This allowed them to concentrate consciousness within a very tiny space within their personality, and not allow consciousness to be spread all over the body. Once consciousness had reached this stage of extreme concentration within the human personality, the rishis experienced a flip in their consciousness. What was till now experienced as only out-going consciousness or awareness, started becoming inward gazing! This was a tremendous breakthrough. At this stage too, man is keenly aware of an overarching Power apart from him own self. Further purification, further concentration led the Rishis to experience a marked expansion of consciousness where they started experiencing that everything was suffused with the overarching Power, even they themselves were infused through and through with that Power, and that everything was somehow a direct transformation of the great Power. This was a tremendous experience indeed, but this was not all. Further purification, further concentration led the rishis still further and they began to experience a most blessed state in which they became identified with the great Power and found that their essential nature was pure consciousness and Power was entirely latent or potential. All these different states of consciousness were called Samadhi, different types of Samadhi, and this last state was called Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the summum bonum of life. For, once this state of consciousness was achieved, the man felt supremely powerful, supremely satisfied, and supremely joyful and all kinds of fear vanished from him forever. Nothing was capable of shaking that man. All questions about oneself, one’s life, about the world and its creation, about God and God’s whims and fancies – all questions stood answered in one go. Everything made supreme sense. Again, was this the final experience possible for man? The rishis found out that they could consciously control this movement of consciousness within their personality, and that they could have yet another state of consciousness. The post-Nirvikalpa Samadhi state of consciousness is real fun. It is the state of real blessedness. It is the goal of human life.
Let us listen to Swami Vivekananda explain that state of blessedness in his characteristic poetic words: The next question is to know what comes after realization. Suppose we have realized this oneness of the universe, that we are that one Infinite Being, and suppose we have realized that this Self is the only Existence and that it is the same Self which is manifesting in all these various phenomenal forms, what becomes of us after that? Shall we become inactive, get into a corner and sit down there and die away? “What good will it do to the world?” That old question! In the first place, why should it do good to the world? Is there any reason why it should? What right has any one to ask the question, “What good will it do to the world?” What is meant by that? A baby likes candies. Suppose you are conducting investigations in connection with some subject of electricity and the baby asks you, “Does it buy candies?” “No” you answer. “Then what good will it do?” says the baby. So men stand up and say, “What good will this do to the world; will it give us money?” “No.” “Then what good is there in it?” That is what men mean by doing good to the world. Yet religious realization does all the good to the world. People are afraid that when they attain to it, when they realize that there is but one, the fountains of love will be dried up, that everything in life will go away, and that all they love will vanish for them, as it were, in this life and in the life to come. People never stop to think that those who bestowed the least thought on their own individualities have been the greatest workers in the world. Then alone a man loves when he finds that the object of his love is not any low, little, mortal thing. Then alone a man loves when he finds that the object of his love is not a clod of earth, but it is the veritable God Himself. The wife will love the husband the more when she thinks that the husband is God Himself. The husband will love the wife the more when he knows that the wife is God Himself. That mother will love the children more who thinks that the children are God Himself. That man will love his greatest enemy who knows that that very enemy is God Himself. That man will love a holy man who knows that the holy man is God Himself, and that very man will also love the unholiest of men because he knows the background of that unholiest of men is even He, the Lord. Such a man becomes a world-mover for whom his little self is dead and God stands in its place. The whole universe will become transfigured to him. That which is painful and miserable will all vanish; struggles will all depart and go. Instead of being a prison-house, where we every day struggle and fight and compete for a morsel of bread, this universe will then be to us a playground. Beautiful will be this universe then! Such a man alone has the right to stand up and say, “How beautiful is this world!” He alone has the right to say that it is all good. This will be the great good to the world resulting from such realization, that instead of this world going on with all its friction and clashing, if all mankind today realize only a bit of that great truth, the aspect of the whole world will be changed, and, in place of fighting and quarrelling, there would be a reign of peace. This indecent and brutal hurry which forces us to go ahead of everyone else will then vanish from the world. With it will vanish all struggles, with it will vanish all hate, with it will vanish all jealousy, and all evil will vanish away forever. Gods will live then upon this earth. This very earth will then become heaven, and what evil can there be when gods are playing with gods, when gods are working with gods, and gods are loving gods? That is the great utility of divine realization. Everything that you see in society will be changed and transfigured then. No more will you think of man as evil; and that is the first great gain. No more will you stand up and sneeringly cast a glance at a poor man or woman who has made a mistake. No more, ladies, will you look down with contempt upon the poor woman who walks the street in the night, because you will see even there God Himself. No more will you think of jealousy and punishments. They will all vanish; and love, the great ideal of love, will be so powerful that no whip and cord will be necessary to guide mankind aright. If one millionth part of the men and women who live in this world simply sit down and for a few minutes say, “You are all God, O ye men and O ye animals and living beings, you are all the manifestations of the one living Deity!” the whole world will be changed in half an hour. Instead of throwing tremendous bomb-shells of hatred into every corner, instead of projecting currents of jealousy and of evil thought, in every country people will think that it is all He. He is all that you see and feel. How can you see evil until there is evil in you? How can you see the thief, unless he is there, sitting in the heart of your heart? How can you see the murderer until you are yourself the murderer? Be good, and evil will vanish for you. The whole universe will thus be changed. This is the greatest gain to society. This is the great gain to the human organism. These thoughts were thought out, worked out amongst individuals in ancient times in India. For various reasons, such as the exclusiveness of the teachers and foreign conquest, those thoughts were not allowed to spread. Yet they are grand truths; and wherever they have been working, man has become divine. My whole life has been changed by the touch of one of these divine men, about whom I am going to speak to you next Sunday; and the time is coming when these thoughts will be cast abroad over the whole world. Instead of living in monasteries, instead of being confined to books of philosophy to be studied only by the learned, instead of being the exclusive possession of sects and of a few of the learned, they will all be sown broadcast over the whole world, so that they may become the common property of the saint and the sinner, of men and women and children, of the learned and of the ignorant. They will then permeate the atmosphere of the world, and the very air that we breathe will say with every one of its pulsations, “Thou art That”. And the whole universe with its myriads of suns and moons, through everything that speaks, with one voice will say, “Thou art That”.[9]
Part-VI
Conclusion
Swami Vivekananda’s Science – Religion continuum:
Swamiji says: What we want are Western science coupled with Vedanta, Brahmacharya as the guiding motto, and also Shraddha and faith in one’s own self.[10] Note the specific mention of Western Science and Vedanta. It is not one or the other. It is both that we need. Why? Study of consciousness alone, to the exclusion of power, is Vedanta (as understood traditionally). Study of Power alone, to the exclusion of consciousness, is Western Science (as understood today). If we can train ourselves to study the integral reality, whose two phases are consciousness and power, then, there is no dichotomy between science and religion.
The connecting link between science & religion is rational thought, also called the scientific temper or scientific approach. Sir Francis Bacon coined the term ‘Scientific method’. Swamiji says: This then is another claim of the Vedanta upon modern Western minds, its rationality, the wonderful rationalism of the Vedanta. I have myself been told by some of the best Western scientific minds of the day, how wonderfully rational the conclusions of the Vedanta are. I know one of them personally who scarcely has time to eat his meal or go out of his laboratory, but who yet would stand by the hour to attend my lectures on the Vedanta; for, as he expresses it, they are so scientific, they so exactly harmonize with the aspirations of the age and with the conclusions to which modern science is coming at the present time.[11]
Our starting point of study is not one – either the external world, or the internal world exclusively. As Swamiji puts it, whether the external conforms to the internal, or the internal to the external, whether matter conforms to mind, or mind to matter, whether the surroundings mould the mind, or the mind moulds the circumstances, is old, old question, and is still today as new and vigorous as it ever was. Apart from the question of precedence or causation — without trying to solve the problem as to whether the mind is the cause of matter or matter the cause of mind — it is evident that whether the external was formed by the internal or not, it must conform itself to the internal for us to be able to know it.[12] We need to start simultaneously at two fronts – both outside and inside. We need to study this world and the power working in this world in its myriad forms. We also simultaneously need to study our internal world, and come to grips with the power working there in its ubiquitous myriad forms. In other words, we need to study Power. We need to study, understand, & control power. External power can be studied, understood and controlled using the language of Math. Internal power can be studied, understood and controlled using the language of prayer. Both are simultaneously required. Pursing one to the exclusion of the other has been the bane of mankind. Swamiji says that by constantly meditating on the infinite Power outside of ourselves, we have hypnotized ourselves to be puny and helpless. We become full of fear. There is a very intimate connection between these so-called two categories of power-internal and external. When, by the judicious use of prayer & other spiritual practices, internal power comes under our control, we gain access to all external powers!
Again, in the words of Swamiji: Past, present, and future knowledge, all exist in all of us. We discover it, that is all. All this knowledge is God Himself. The Vedas are a great Sanskrit book. In our country we go down on our knees before the man who reads the Vedas, and we do not care for the man who is studying physics. That is superstition; it is not Vedanta at all. It is utter materialism. With God every knowledge is sacred. Knowledge is God. Infinite knowledge abides within everyone in the fullest measure. You are not really ignorant, though you may appear to be so. You are incarnations of God, all of you. You are incarnations of the Almighty, Omnipresent, Divine Principle. You may laugh at me now, but the time will come when you will understand. You must. Nobody will be left behind.[13]
Swamiji gives a new worldview that will enable us to amalgamate Science & Religion in an integral experience, when he says: ‘Art, science, and religion are but three different ways of expressing a single truth. But in order to understand this we must have the theory of Advaita.’[14]
Implications arising out of Swamiji’s thoughts on science & religion:
Swamiji says: I would say one thing more in connection with this philosophy. In the old Upanishads we find sublime poetry; their authors were poets. Plato says, inspiration comes to people through poetry, and it seems as if these ancient Rishis, seers of Truth, were raised above humanity to show these truths through poetry. They never preached, nor philosophized, nor wrote. Music came out of their hearts. In Buddha we had the great, universal heart and infinite patience, making religion practical and bringing it to everyone’s door. In Shankaracharya we saw tremendous intellectual power, throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything. We want today that bright sun of intellectuality joined with the heart of Buddha, the wonderful infinite heart of love and mercy. This union will give us the highest philosophy. Science and religion will meet and shake hands. Poetry and philosophy will become friends. This will be the religion of the future, and if we can work it out, we may be sure that it will be for all times and peoples.[15]
Correction of religion:
- The Vedanta is the rationale of all religions. Without the Vedanta every religion is superstition; with it everything becomes religion.[16] This statement of Swamiji summarizes the course correction that religion urgently requires. He further adds: Until your religion makes you realize God, it is useless…[17] The hour comes when great men shall arise and cast off these kindergartens of religion and shall make vivid and powerful the true religion, the worship of the spirit by the spirit…[18]
- Richard Feynman in his famous lecture ‘The Pleasure of finding things out’ said: I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. Swamiji says: We should, therefore, follow reason and also sympathize with those who do not come to any sort of belief, following reason. For it is better that mankind should become atheist by following reason than blindly believe in two hundred millions of gods on the authority of anybody. What we want is progress, development, realization. No theories ever made men higher. No amount of books can help us to become purer. The only power is in realization, and that lies in ourselves and comes from thinking. Let men think. A clod of earth never thinks; but it remains only a lump of earth. The glory of man is that he is a thinking being. It is the nature of man to think and therein he differs from animals. I believe in reason and follow reason having seen enough of the evils of authority, for I was born in a country where they have gone to the extreme of authority. [19]
- Vedanta too adopts this method – I don’t have to know the answers to the final questions, and yet I can keep on gathering facts and making sense of what I perceive. If I gain access to higher orders of perception, as a result of systematic purification of the body & mind, I would be evolving towards answering the final questions. But I will not speculate or put the cart before the horse. I will wait till I get relevant facts. I will struggle on till higher faculties open up within me, giving me access to higher orders of perception. The senses alone, or the thinking faculty alone does not satisfy me. This line of approach is urgently needed to be infused into all religions.
- Religion has to be seen as a systematic study of the energies lurking within us. The study of these energies must be from the 1st person perspective, through self-introspection. The advantage of approaching religion as a study of human energies is that the knowledge that is thereby gained can be immediately put to use. As Swamiji puts it: This infinite power of the spirit, brought to bear upon matter evolves material development, made to act upon thought evolves intellectuality, and made to act upon itself makes of man a God.[20] Note that in this paradigm, religion subsumes science, as a valid and indispensable subset of itself.
- Swamiji is of the firm opinion that the ‘scientific method’ ought to be applied to religion. He says: Believing certain things because an organized body of priests tells him to believe, believing because it is written in certain books, believing because his people like him to believe, the modern man knows to be impossible for him. There are, of course, a number of people who seem to acquiesce in the so-called popular faith, but we also know for certain that they do not think. Their idea of belief may be better translated as ‘not-thinking-carelessness’. This fight cannot last much longer without breaking to pieces all the buildings of religion. The question is: Is there a way out? To put it in a more concrete form: Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation, which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion? In my opinion this must be so, and I am also of opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific — as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry — but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has.[21] Further he says: I believe in thinking independently. I believe in becoming entirely free from the holy teachers; pay all reverence to them, but look at religion as an independent research.[22]
- Swamiji speaks glowingly about Vedanta, presenting it as the Science of Yoga as follows: The science of Yoga claims that it has discovered the laws which develop this personality, and by proper attention to those laws and methods, each one can grow and strengthen his personality. This is one of the great practical things, and this is the secret of all education. This has a universal application. In the life of the householder, in the life of the poor, the rich, the man of business, the spiritual man, in every one’s life, it is a great thing, the strengthening of this personality. There are laws, very fine, which are behind the physical laws, as we know. That is to say, there are no such realities as a physical world, a mental world, a spiritual world. Whatever is, is one. Let us say, it is a sort of tapering existence; the thickest part is here, it tapers and becomes finer and finer. The finest is what we call spirit; the grossest, the body. And just as it is here in microcosm, it is exactly the same in the macrocosm. The universe of ours is exactly like that; it is the gross external thickness, and it tapers into something finer and finer until it becomes God. [23]
- Then, Swamiji proposes a theory he has, which is quite interesting, and equally utilitarian in its outlook: Now, I shall tell you a theory, which I will not argue now, but simply place before you the conclusion. Each man in his childhood runs through the stages through which his race has come up; only the race took thousands of years to do it, while the child takes a few years. The child is first the old savage man — and he crushes a butterfly under his feet. The child is at first like the primitive ancestors of his race. As he grows, he passes through different stages until he reaches the development of his race. Only he does it swiftly and quickly. Now, take the whole of humanity as a race, or take the whole of the animal creation, man and the lower animals, as one whole. There is an end towards which the whole is moving. Let us call it perfection. Some men and women are born who anticipate the whole progress of mankind. Instead of waiting and being reborn over and over again for ages until the whole human race has attained to that perfection, they, as it were, rush through them in a few short years of their life. And we know that we can hasten these processes, if we be true to ourselves. If a number of men, without any culture, be left to live upon an island, and are given barely enough food, clothing, and shelter, they will gradually go on and on, evolving higher and higher stages of civilization. We know also, that this growth can be hastened by additional means. We help the growth of trees, do we not? Left to nature they would have grown, only they would have taken a longer time; we help them to grow in a shorter time than they would otherwise have taken. We are doing all the time the same thing, hastening the growth of things by artificial means. Why cannot we hasten the growth of man? We can do that as a race Why are teachers sent to other countries? Because by these means we can hasten the growth of races. Now, can we not hasten the growth of individuals? We can. Can we put a limit to the hastening? We cannot say how much a man can grow in one life. You have no reason to say that this much a man can do and no more. Circumstances can hasten him wonderfully. Can there be any limit then, till you come to perfection? So, what comes of it? — That a perfect man, that is to say, the type that is to come of this race, perhaps millions of years hence, that man can come today. And this is what the Yogis say, that all great incarnations and prophets are such men; that they reached perfection in this one life. We have had such men at all periods of the world’s history and at all times. Quite recently, there was such a man who lived the life of the whole human race and reached the end — even in this life. Even this hastening of the growth must be under laws. Suppose we can investigate these laws and understand their secrets and apply them to our own needs; it follows that we grow. We hasten our growth, we hasten our development, and we become perfect, even in this life. This is the higher part of our life, and the science of the study of mind and its powers has this perfection as its real end. Helping others with money and other material things and teaching them how to go on smoothly in their daily life are mere details. The utility of this science is to bring out the perfect man, and not let him wait and wait for ages, just a plaything in the hands of the physical world, like a log of drift-wood carried from wave to wave and tossing about in the ocean. This science wants you to be strong, to take the work in your own hand, instead of leaving it in the hands of nature, and get beyond this little life. That is the great idea. [24]
Fulfilment of Science:
- Science needs to free itself from the memory of the oppression it faced from the Catholic Church and the Asharite-Mullahs. This deep psychological wound is making even the right-thinking minds of Science to be blind towards the limitations of their ‘scientific approach’ and to facts that do not hover near their already existing theories.
- Bertrand Russel states: “It is science that has made the old creeds and the old superstitions impossible for intelligent men to accept. It is science that has destroyed the belief in witchcraft, magic and sorcery. It is science that has made it laughable to suppose the earth the center of the universe and man the supreme purpose of the creation. It is science that is showing the falsehood of the old dualisms of soul and body, mind and matter, which have their origin in religion. It is science that is beginning to make us understand ourselves, and to enable us, up to a point, to see ourselves from without as curious mechanisms. It is science that has taught us the way to substitute tentative truth for cocksure error.” [25]
Russell claimed that he was more convinced of his method of doing philosophy than of his philosophical conclusions. He held science was one of the principal components of analysis. Russell was a believer in the scientific method, that science reaches only tentative answers, that scientific progress is piecemeal, and attempts to find organic unities were largely futile. He believed the same was true of philosophy (organic unity is the philosophical idea that a thing is made up of interdependent parts. For example, a body is made up of its constituent organs, and a society is made up of its constituent social roles). Russell held that the ultimate objective of both science and philosophy was to understand reality, not simply to make predictions. Russell also held the strong opinion that scientific understanding should be for the betterment and further survival of humankind and our planet. While acknowledging the great power of science, Russell was under no illusions to its potential misuse and limitations stating: “Science in itself appears to me neutral, that is to say, it increases men’s power whether for good or for evil.” [26]
- Science needs to awaken to the concept of self-introspection as a valid and powerful method of ‘scientific approach’.
- Mathematics is not indispensable. Rational thought is indeed indispensable. Mathematics is just one form of rational thought, albeit an extremely precise form. It was the rigorous insistence of rational thought by the ancient Rishis that allowed them to reach perfection in this very life. It was the rigorous insistence of rational thought by the Mutazilite-Mullahs (such as Ibn-Sina & Ibn-Rushd) that gave birth to modern science in Europe. Self-introspection and internal self-talk in the form of auto-suggestions and prayer are as valid means of studying and tapping the internal energies of oneself, as mathematics is for the energies playing around in this universe. Swamiji says: The word used is Prana. Prana is not exactly breath. It is the name for the energy that is in the universe. Whatever you see in the universe, whatever moves or works, or has life, is a manifestation of this Prana. The sum-total of the energy displayed in the universe is called Prana…[27] Experience is the only source of knowledge. In the world, religion is the only science where there is no surety, because it is not taught as a science of experience. This should not be. There is always, however, a small group of men who teach religion from experience. They are called mystics, and these mystics in every religion speak the same tongue and teach the same truth. This is the real science of religion. As mathematics in every part of the world does not differ, so the mystics do not differ. They are all similarly constituted and similarly situated. Their experience is the same; and this becomes law. [28]
- Jacob Bohme once said: “Everything we see in nature is manifested truth; only we are not able to recognize it unless truth is manifest within ourselves.” [29]
Jakob Böhme was a German philosopher, Christian mystic, and Lutheran Protestant theologian. He was considered an original thinker by many of his contemporaries within the Lutheran tradition, and his first book, commonly known as Aurora, caused a great scandal. In contemporary English, his name may be spelled Jacob Boehme; in seventeenth-century England it was also spelled Behmen, approximating the contemporary English pronunciation of the German Böhme. Böhme had a profound influence on later philosophical movements such as German idealism and German Romanticism. Hegel described Böhme as “the first German philosopher”.”
- In this context, Bertrand Russel made an interesting observation: “The fact that all Mathematics is Symbolic Logic is one of the greatest and most important discoveries of our modern age; and when this fact has been established, the remainder of the principles of mathematics consists only in the analysis of Symbolic Logic itself.” [30]
- The extent to which Mathematics has been stretched by modern theoretical physicists, it is clear that they constantly operate and manipulate on symbols, all mathematical ones, and Reality needs to be interpreted back from those mathematical symbols. This method of using mathematics is really useful in dealing with some of the energies of this world. Many forms of energies do not allow for such translation into mathematics, followed by manipulations under strict mathematical rules, and then re-translation back into Reality.
- Morality needs to be cultivated by all, especially by people of science. Due to various historical reasons, science seems to proclaim that all its investigations and activities are beyond the pale of morality. Personal practices of purification must be incorporated into the lives of everyone, whatever be his vocation. Ancient India insisted on this principle, by categorizing it as ‘Sarvabhauma Maha-vratam’ – compulsory practices for all. Without progressive purification of the individual, there is really no guiding light in a person’s life, no matter how educated one is, or how skillful one is, or how original a thinker one is. Swamiji cautions: The foolery of materialism leads to competition and undue ambition and ultimate death, individual and national. [31]
- Bertrand Russel declared: “I conclude that, while it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.” [32] “Science may set limits to knowledge, yet science should not set limits to imagination.”[33]
- It is imperative that persons involved in hard-core scientific research ought to be trained in personal purity. The psychology of spiritual unfoldment that Ancient India has discovered states that it doesn’t matter what line of activity is undertaken; but, if the performer of action is unselfish and is self-controlled, with a continued focus on the larger interests of mankind, over a period of time, higher faculties open up in that person. Without the express cultivation of these three qualities, the scientist might very well make great discoveries and further human knowledge, but human constitution is designed by evolutionary forces in such a way that higher faculties of perception will never open up. So, on the one hand, the person seems to be making great progress since he keeps on understanding newer and newer things about the world; on the other, he is stuck with the same old order of perception, and can’t proceed further. This incredible interplay of progress with stagnation in the human condition is called Samsara in Hindu spiritual literature. The way out of this cul-de-sac is possible only by the grace of God. The only viable alternative to grace of God is this triad of qualities – unselfishness, intense self-control, and continual focus on the general and universal entities of existence.
- Science walks along two major paths today. Along the 1st, it sincerely tries to understand this world by unraveling the underlying principles that operate in this world. Along the 2nd path, it is constantly trying to apply the principles it understands in inventing processes and gadgets that make life on earth easier for man. Hence the term Science & Technology. Let us consider the 1st path – science sincerely trying to understand this world. Where is Science today along this path? It has reached the sub-atomic level in its study. Here, the world has stopped making sense to the scientists. It has adopted a probabilistic approach in its study, for deterministic approaches have all failed at the micro-level. By walking along the probabilistic path, the scientists today do not understand the world at the sub-atomic level at all, but end up with stochastic equations which allow them to explain physical systems with a fair amount of accuracy. This is a serious development. So much dependence on mathematics for understanding the world is dangerous. Why? Through such an indirect approach, we might never really know what is happening, but we would have devised a method of manipulating what we haven’t really understood.
- Aldous Huxley sounded a prophetic note when he wrote: If the first half of the 20th century was the era of the technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of the social engineers — and the 21st century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World. The prophecies made in 1931 are coming true much sooner than I thought they would. The nightmare of total organization has emerged from the safe, remote future and is now awaiting us, just around the next corner. [34]
- This situation that Science is today encountering isn’t happening for the 1st time. Many centuries ago, in ancient India, we had a similar situation. An entire field of human endeavor called the ‘Karma Kanda’ had operated in similar fashion. They had devised mantras and Yajnas for obtaining anything and everything that they wanted. Tremendous dedication was needed even then, as it is now, to ensure that the mantras and Yajnas delivered desired results. But, knowledge of the Reality was sacrificed as a consequence. Everyone was busy getting ‘results’, which is basically the innumerable things that people have always wanted. Even during those days, once in a while, a great man, full of disinterested study into Reality would come up with a discovery, but these Karma Kandins would sideline him, for his understanding did not give ‘results’ the way their mantras and Yajnas did. It took centuries of serious effort by the Jnana-kandins to expose the selfishness and exploitation of the karma-kandins and establish the pursuit of Truth in India, and effort that flowered into the birth of Vedanta. Science will need to initiate a similar course correction if it is not to lose sight of the pursuit of Truth.
As a befitting end to this rather long article on Science & Religion, we will quote an amazing conversation between Swami Abhedananda, a great brother-disciple of Swami Vivekananda and Sir C V Raman, a Nobel Laureate:
Once Sir C. V. Raman came to meet Swami Abhedananda. After the meeting, he stated with great joy, ‘I thought I would be hearing only of religion from you. But I am truly awed by your detailed knowledge of the latest scientific discoveries and the fact that you consider scientific method as suitable to expound religious tenets. Till now, I have met priests and preachers of Hinduism as expounding only irrational ideas and blind faith in the name of religion. There is no trace of rationality or originality in them. I am truly charmed by speaking to you.’ In reply, Abhedananda told Sir Raman, ‘If you want to know the Great Cause of this Universe, you cannot confine yourself to the laboratory alone. You have to know the External Cosmic Energy too.’ … Later, in 1941, Sir C. V. Raman wrote from Bengaluru: ‘His [Abhedananda’s] services to India in popularising her culture and religion abroad were undoubtedly of a memorable character.’ [35]
It was the month of November,1932. Sir C.V. Raman, Nobel Laureate of 1930 in Physics came to Darjeeling with his wife for sightseeing and rest. His wife was a devotee of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Sarada Devi from her childhood. After a couple of days, they came to know that a direct monastic disciple of Sri Ramakrishna was staying there in an ashrama (Ramakrishna Vedanta Ashrama) established by him only. One day at 9 am. Sri Raman came to the ashrama and wanted to meet Swami Abhedananda. As his wife was not well, she couldn’t come.
He said to one sevak: “I have come to get darshana of Swami Abhedananda, My name is C.V. Raman. May I get his darshana?” The sevak escorted Sri Raman to the visitors’ room and informed Swami Abhedananda immediately. In the meantime, Raman went around the ashrama and saw all its departments. After finishing his breakfast, Swami Abhedananda came to the visitors’ room to greet him: “I am very glad to meet you. I have heard your name and great reputation for the Nobel Prize, you have owned. You have done a noble work in the field of science, and I believe that the world will remember your great service and name.” Sri Raman said with gratitude: “It is your blessings.”
Discussions between these two great souls continued for a long time, may be more than one hour as noted by Swami Prajnanananda who was present there all the time.
We will take out only a few important points of discussions which would benefit us in the present context. Before discussions started, Sri Raman went to the shrine and offered his pranams to the photos of Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Sharada Devi & Swami Vivekananda and commented, “Very peaceful atmosphere.”
Then they started talking.
Sri Raman: My wife believes that Sri Ramakrishna is an Incarnation of God. But I am always busy with science and believe that scientific enquiry is the only rational subject. For this reason, I want to know the fundamental principles behind this universe through science only.
Swami Abhedananda agreed and said though this was the age of Science, Science also accepted the existence of God as the root cause of this creation. Several noted scientists including Einstein, Eddington, Max Planck, James Jeans and Heisenberg had reposed faith in the existence of the Supreme Reality in their own ways.
He said: It is absolutely true that that there is no contradiction between Science and Philosophy. While in America, I visited the laboratory of Thomas Edison twice and talked at length with him about Vedanta.
He continued that there was ample unity and relationship between the following three: Science, Philosophy and Religion. “Where science ends, philosophy begins, and where philosophy ends, religion begins, and religion is but a logical sequence to, and step ahead of, philosophy.”
Sri Raman said smilingly: Yes, Swamiji, you are correct. There is a difference between the two in an ordinary sense, but in the ultimate analysis, there is no difference between the two, because both the subjects search after truth, which is fundamentally the same.
Then Sri Raman asked: Is it possible for the scientists to know the Absolute Truth as propagated by Vedanta?
Swami Abhedananda answered: Yes. But please mind that God can’t be investigated in the same manner as you probe and analyze gross, worldly truth. There is a different method for that purpose which you will have to follow. The fundamental idea is that you will have to go beyond our limited mind. This infinitely pure-natured Brahman can’t be realized with the help of this impure and vitiated mind and intellect. This mind has to be purified by giving up all desires. Then only the knowledge of Brahman is reflected on our mind. As Sri Ramakrishna used to say frequently that ‘Shuddho Mon, Shuddha Buddhi and Shuddha Atma are the same.’
After discussions were over, a sevak brought ‘prasad’ of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Raman accepted that with great humility.
Before leaving, Sri Raman asked with folded hand: May I ask you one question? Have you attained the state of Samadhi, and received Brahmajnana in your life?
Abhedanandaji replied: Yes, I have attained them through the grace of my Guru, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa.
When Sri Raman first met him one hour back, he offered pranams with folded hands but now at the time of his departure, he prostrated himself (Sastanga Pranam) before the Swami. Swami Abhedananda was very happy and said smilingly with folded hands: “Very happy to meet you today. I request you to come again with your devoted wife in the next time.” He also gave three books written by him: Scientific Basis of Religion, Religion of the 20th Century and Cosmic Evolution and Its Purpose to Sir C.V. Raman as a gesture of his deep respect to this gem of India. [36]
****************************
[1] Mundaka Upanishad: Part-III: Ch-I; Mantra-1 (Tr: Swami Nikhilananda)
[2] Complete Works: Vol-2: Practical Vedanta & other lectures: Practical Vedanta: Part-III
[3] Complete Works: Vol-5: Sayings & Utterances
[4] Complete Works: Vol-4: Writings: Prose: Fundamentals of Religion
[5] Complete Works: Vol-7: Inspired Talks: Entry on 6th Aug 1895
[6] Complete Works: Vol-4: Writings: Prose: Fundamentals of Religion
[7] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The Vedanta
[8] Meditation & Spiritual Life: Swami Yatiswarananda: Ramakrishna Math, Bangalore: Editor’s preface
[9] Complete Works: Vol-2: Jnana-Yoga: Ch-XIV: The Real & the Apparent Man
[10] Complete Works: Vol-5: Conversations & Dialogues: IX
[11] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The Mission of the Vedanta
[12] Complete Works: Vol-4: Writings: Prose: Fundamentals of Religion
[13] Complete Works: Vol-8: Lectures & Discourses: Is Vedanta the future Religion?
[14] Complete Works: Introduction: Our Master & his message
[15] Complete Works: Vol-2: Jnana-Yoga: Ch-VI: The Absolute & Manifestation
[16] Complete Works: Vol-5: Interviews: The Abroad & the Problems at Home
[17] Complete Works: Vol-1: Lectures & Discourses: Soul, God & Religion
[18] Complete Works: Vol-8: Lectures & Discourses: Is Vedanta the Future Religion?
[19] Richard P Feynman: The pleasure of finding things out: 2006: Basic Books Publishers
[20] Complete Works: Vol-4: Writings: Prose: Reply to The Madras Address
[21] Complete Works: Vol-1: Lectures & Discourses: Reason & Religion
[22] Complete Works: Vol-4: Addresses on Bhakti-Yoga: The Chief Symbols
[23] Complete Works: Vol-2: The Powers of the Mind
[24] Complete Works: Vol-2: The Powers of the Mind
[25] Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing, Essay One, The Art of Rational Conjecture, p. 11
[26] Bertrand Russell, Letter to W. W. Norton (27 Jan 1931), The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 2, p. 200
[27] Complete Works: Vol-1: Raja Yoga: Patanjali’s Yoga Aphorisms: Ch-I: Concentration: Its Spiritual Uses
[28] Complete Works: Vol-6: Notes of Class Talks & Lectures: Religion & Science
[29] Jakob Böhme was a German philosopher, Christian mystic, and Lutheran Protestant theologian. He was considered an original thinker by many of his contemporaries within the Lutheran tradition, and his first book, commonly known as Aurora, caused a great scandal. Böhme had a profound influence on later philosophical movements such as German idealism and German Romanticism. Hegel described Böhme as ‘the first German philosopher’.
[30] Bertrand Russell, Principles of Mathematics (1903), Ch. I: Definition of Pure Mathematics, p. 5
[31] Complete Works: Vol-6: Epistles-2nd Series: to Mary Hale, 28th April 1897
[32] Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science (1935), p. 243
[33] Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Ch. I: The Rise of Greek Civilization, p. 16
[34] Brave New World Revisited: Aldous Huxley
[35] Swami Abhedananda – A Yogi Par Excellence, pg. 217
[36] Swami Prajnanananda: Mon O Manush
Swami Vedatitananda 