Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga

by

Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.

Bhaktivedanta Institute

www.mahaprabhu.net/harmonizer 

jaga.suresh@gmail.com

Mob: +91-9748906907

How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the beginning of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry, modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and conclusive answer. The 125^th anniversary issue of Science (2005) identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer. Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)

Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern science but the query "What is Life?" is still incessantly forcing many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency is creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product. Linus Pauling said, "In connection with the origin of life, I should like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to define it" [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6] do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, "Rather than trying to define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their understanding of life by studying living things" [7]. A very prudent question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order to understand life? [8]

In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems inherent in those views.

What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?

There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so called the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction, metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as: "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions, homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution. Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as "An open system of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific enzymes which are themselves products of the system."

A few definitions based on movement against a force (like, locomotion or, in the case of most plants, growth against gravitational force) can be found in [10] and [14]. According to science, metabolism can be identified as a process of consumption of some raw material and the excretion of waste materials [8]. This transfer of matter is also an often used criterion in science to define life [11] and [15].

The Views of Scientists Concerning the Drawbacks of Existing Definitions of Life

Scientists have argued that the aforementioned definitions of life have their own drawbacks and they can be described as falling into three different cases, (i) A few living entities do not exhibit all the classical properties of life (growth, reproduction, metabolism, motion, and response), (ii) Sometimes matter exhibits a few of the classical properties of life, and (iii) There are cases with jarring characteristics and thereby they repel cases (i) and (ii.)

The most popular example found in modern science for case (i) is a non-reproducing mule. Many seeds, spores and insects are found to lie dormant for long periods of time (years together) and exist without exhibiting any symptom of the so-called classical properties of life. Even though following some of the above definitions may lead one to infer that a mule, many seeds, spores and insects are dead matter, we all know that they have life [8].

Similarly, scientists have cited the example of a forest fire to satisfy case (ii.) Scientists have argued that fire also grows, moves, metabolizes (consumes, transforms, and excretes matter), reproduces and responds to stimuli (example, wind.) Scientists have also cited the example of crystals in a saturated solution that grow and reproduce more of their kind [8].

Virus is a popularly cited example in scientific literature satisfying the case (iii.) Following one definition we have to accept that a virus is dead matter and on the other hand, following some other definition we have to accept a virus as a living entity. For example, since a virus has to use the metabolic machinery of the cells of the host body to reproduce, it is reported that, "Viruses are not living organisms since they are incapable of independent existence" [5]. In contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, "It seems unreasonable to deny that viruses are living just because they need help to do so."

As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control of energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an appalling veracity that modern science doesn't have any solid definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great confusion in the studies on life [8].

Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the question "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" cited in the 125^th anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life and what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.

Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater detail.

The Most Confidential Knowledge

All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain activities which are absent in matter. We witness that life exhibits distinctive qualities such as free will, thinking, acting, intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, self-control and calmness, pleasure and pain, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy. Moreover, we also notice that life exhibits some supernatural (beyond the laws of physics and chemistry) activities that we do not find in matter. The cow eats the grass and transforms it into milk, a mother has spontaneous love for her child. Bats, birds, and especially insects, easily use extremely sophisticated aerodynamic mechanisms for generating the forces necessary for flight; the small seed of banyan tree has the intelligence within to transform itself into a huge banyan tree and many such examples. A detailed scientific discussion of these issues can be found in Life, Matter and their Interactions [17].

Science develops certain theories, which they use to calculate different parameters such as forces. Scientists not only measure some features to get the results, but they plug those features into an equation. They feed certain suitable numbers to the parameters in the equation to get certain desired output. This is the general practice science has adapted to explain the entire reality.

This very approach is quite questionable. How we can use this method to equate the qualities that a living being exhibits such as free will, thinking, acting, intelligence, knowledge, pleasure and pain. When we talk about qualities such as beauty, motherhood, friendship and so forth we can't insert any numbers into an equation to explain them. But we all know that such things exist, we experience them everyday in our own life and there is no need for a scientist to break his head to come up with an exciting theory to educate us that such things exists. Scientists have to think seriously that whether the limited approach based on numbers feeding to an equation will help us to know the full extent of reality. Thus a question that genuinely comes to one's mind is, why so many scientists who posses a high level of intellect have continuously failed to understand the difference between life and matter?

In Srimad Bhagavad Gita [18] (here after BG.) 9.2, it is mentioned that 'raja-vidya raja-guhyam pavitram idam uttamam'. The meaning is that, the knowledge about the difference between matter and life is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. The declaration "most secret of all secrets" is incredibly momentous. The apparent and open scientific evidence or the practical example of this deep revelation from the BG is modern science itself.

In the splendid record of modern science, many great intellects and stalwart scientists have made incessantly failed attempts for last 200 years to comprehend the disparity between life and matter. Leaving aside the knowledge of higher realities of life, the research of 200 years with the expense of billions of dollars could not even help modern science reach a position where it could assertively confer us the lucid definitions for matter and life. Since modern science is in darkness, hence it is palpable that it cannot edify the society with this most clandestine knowledge about the difference between matter and life. According to the BG this education is the king of education. Hence, modern science has to school itself first with this most confidential knowledge to reach a position to educate the society with the same.

References

---

[1] Phalguni, Banerjee and P. Suresh, Kumar. Life and its deeper reality. Science and Scientist - Inquiring into the Origin of Matter and Life. Newsletter, Bhaktivedanta Institute, October, 2007 (www.scienceandscientist.org).

[2] Ref: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226

[3] Ref: http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html

[4] Linus, Pauling. The Origin of Life on Earth. A. I. Oparin, ed. New York: MacMillan, 1938.

[5] Orians, Gordon H. The Study of Life: An Introduction to Biology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.

[6] Simpson, George and William S. Beck. Life: An Introduction to Biology. New York: Harcourt, 1965.

[7] "Life." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1983.

[8] Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/potter_life.html

[9] The Random House College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1984.

[10] "Life." Collier's Encyclopedia. New York: MacMillan, 1982.

[11] "Life." Encyclopedia Americana. Dlnbury: Grolier, 1983.

[12] MacIver, Robert. Life: Its Dimensions and Bounds. New York: Harper, 1960.

[13] "Life." Encyclopaedia Britanica. Chicago: Benton, 1968.

[14] "Life." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1983.

[15] "Biology." Encyclopaedia Britanica. Chicago: Benton, 1968.

[16] Feinberg, Gerald and Robert Shapiro. Life Beyond Earth. New York: Morrow, 1980.

[17] T. D. Singh, Life, Matter and their Interactions. 2006 (http://www.binstitute.org/index.php?pr=Book_Store).

[18] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Prabhupada. Bhagavd-gita As It Is. 1972 (www.asitis.com).