Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga

by

Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.

Bhaktivedanta Institute

 

Dear Dr. Ashwini Otta,

Your comments are quite appropriate. The view point of our Bhaktivedanta Institute is that science is an essential part of knowledge. The e-magazine we have begun publishing, "The Harmonizer" clearly states in its sub-heading, that science, philosophy, religion and art are all accepted as branches of the same tree of knowledge.

Albert Einstein astutely observed that, "Science without religion is blind, and religion without science is lame." Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada similarly stated, "Science without religion is mental concoction, religion without science is sentimentality." Likewise, Immanuel Kant wrote, "Concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."

This relation forms an essential core of the Vedantic/Bhagavat conception we are attempting to present to the public, and it is necessary to understand it clearly for that reason and for any rational and complete comprehension of Reality.

There is nothing wrong with science as such, scientific thinking is an essential part of intelligent understanding. Scientific thinking relies on experience, and empirical science relies on sensuous experience. Science itself is not deluding, but our mis-interpretation of experience, or misuse of science may delude us. These are two quite different matters.

The main point about the use of science or scientific thinking is that it is based upon what we experience, i.e. what is objective to us. Now the "us" is important in that sentence. Science, because it refers to what is objectively experienced, necessarily leaves out the subjective "us" for whom the experience is an experience, in the first place. This is obviously a defect or lacuna in science.

But if we consider the situation even more minutely, we find there is yet another factor missing in objective scientific thinking, viz. the process by which the object is known. Thus, for example, when we speak of "seeing," the immediate implication is that there must be two additional aspects, viz. a subjective seer and an object seen.

The activity of "seeing" connects the subject "seer" to the object "seen." In the same way, the activity we call "knowing" connects a subject "knower" to an object "known." Now these three aspects of the single process we call experience, are essential to the possibility and actuality of experience. In fact, even for "experience" itself, we can say that a subjective 'experiencer" and the objective thing or event "experienced" are necessary aspects of what we call experience as a whole.

If we consider the philosophical attempt to comprehend the system of

knower – knowing – known

we can recognize the three primary fields of philosophy

theology – epistemology – ontology

The study of the "knower" belongs to theology, as the knower corresponds to the soul, according to the subjective perspective of modern day understanding (produced by the Enlightenment). Of course, theology is not so shallow-minded to think that the knower is the infinitessimal soul. The particularity of the soul is grounded in that which is universal, sometimes referred to as Reason, and even more fundamentally in Spirit, and more specifically in God. Thus the category of the "knower" is placed within the wider field of the study of theology, rather than in the more narrow field of what is referred to as pneumatology.

To be more explicit we might therefore delineate four aspects of a cognitive system as

superknower – knower – knowing – known

Careful inquiry will show that the "knower" in actuality turns out to be more of a witness than the active agent of knowing. But we will leave that for further discussion in the future.

The field of epistemology or the study of knowing or how we acquire knowledge, is also of great importance, and is left entirely out of consideration by empirical sciences. Philosophy must not make this mistake. The process of knowing is also of vital importance if we are to make any definite progress in understanding ontology or the known.

Each of these areas requires careful development on their own, and would each form a separate thesis. We want to develop each of these areas in detail. With proper guidance, it is hoped that those working in these areas will put together position papers on all these matters. We welcome the participation of intelligent scholars and scientists in this endeavor.

Just to conclude this particular post, it is valuable to consider the meaning of the statement, "Religion without science is lame."

The word "lame" refers to the legs, i.e. that which we stand on. The meaning is that religion does not have a leg to stand on if it is not confirmed by experience. Anyone can present an imaginative fairy tale, such as what has been called by the detractors of religion, the "flying spaghetti monster." The only way we know that the principles of religion are valid, is by their authentication in experience. Otherwise, what basis do we have for accepting them as true?

For example, it is said in the scriptures – and this is true for every scripture, not only Veda and its corralaries – that the world and finite spirits are created by God. Modern materialistic science opposes this fundamental creative truth affirmed by scripture, and counter-claims that the world and life arose from a gradual evolution of matter.

Either the world was created by God, as we say life and matter come from life, OR, the world and life arose randomly or accidentally from lifeless matter. If a creative process was involved in producing the world and life, we should expect to find evidence in our experience supporting that fact. If evidence exists that random agglomeration of inanimate material particles produced the world and life, then we will have to assume that the scriptures are incorrect. Scientific thinking and observation are therefore absolutely necessary to establish the grounds for the truth of scripture.

Modern materialistic science has presented what they consider the facts that support the evolution of life from matter or of the variety of species from some primordial life form.. These facts consist of fossils, genes, morphologies, etc. A large number of scientists accept these facts and claim that they support the theory of evolution of life from matter, contradicting scripture. On the other hand, modern spiritual scientists are showing that the fossil, genetic, morphological and other evidences are merely being interpreted to support evolution, but when considered in light of a creative paradigm they provide support for that view.

The most simple and obvious example is that life comes from life. Everyone observes this fact. This scientific fact confirms the scriptural truth that Life is the origin of other life. Materialistic science has yet to provide the scientific evidence for its claim that matter produces life. The only reasonable conclusion is that science confirms scripture. To say that "in the future" science will disprove scripture, is merely wishful thinking, but it is not science.

In this way, the spiritual scientist has no fear of science, but eagerly embraces it for the substantial ground it gives religion to stand on. The massive evidence that has been collected refuting evolution must be made available for spiritual scientists to do their work. We are in the process of accumulating that evidence for easy reference for those interested in pursuing study in that field. We are only a handful of devotee-scientists working on this, and so many more dedicated souls are needed to carry out this service.

________________________________

From: Ashwini Otta
To: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 12:20:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Complete Knowledge

Dear all,

It seems to me that many members of this group seem to suffer from (what may be called 'schrizophrenia' in a rude way, but not to mince the thought) a duality: using science to prop up the conceived notions of God or Divine existence and denouncing science in preference to the realm of Divine governance as is convenient.

Is it at all necessary to bring in this conflict in order to pursue spirituality?

Yours
Ash.O.