X-Sender: bala@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 1 3); 24 Dec 2001 23:30:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 29907 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2001 23:30:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2001 23:30:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sydneywerks.com.au) (203.22.101.2) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2001 23:30:42 -0000
Received: from bala (nas0ppp29.sydneywerks.com.au [203.22.103.39]) by sydneywerks.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA28719; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:30:29 +1100
Message-ID: <013201c18cd2$e061a140$6201a8c0@bala>
To:
Cc:
Subject: Is Modern Science A Challenge To Religion?
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:29:41 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "Bala Pillai"
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1292804
X-Yahoo-Profile: gandhi mind
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14234
http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/messages/scichalrel.htm
IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?
By SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA
The subject that has been suggested is somewhat
an involved one, and I
do not know how far this would be a very
appropriate theme to discuss
before an audience of this kind who are basically
devotees of God and
aspirants of the spiritual ideal of life. However,
all visions of life
can be consolidated into a system of integrated
organisation, and
nothing conceivable can be regarded as extraneous
to the methodology to
be adopted in the pursuit of the spiritual ideal.
"Is there a conflict between the scientific
method and the religious
aspiration of the soul?" is a moot question.
Generally, when people
speak of science, what the common populace
understands is the comfort
that has been provided by applied science, such as
fast travelling,
telephone, telegraph, Internet, satellite, and
television. These are the
things that are in the minds of people when they
speak of the
technological advance science has made; but
science does not mean
technology. It is a vision of life itself.
What clashes or appears to come in conflict with
religion is not the
comfort that has been brought to us by these
technological inventions of
applied science, but the theory of science, which
is something very
deep, and bordering upon philosophical and
metaphysical foundations of
life itself.
That the world is external to everyone is the
basic foundation of all
scientific perception. Observation and experiment
being the methods of a
scientific process, it goes without saying that
what is observed and
experimented upon has to be outside. The
outsideness of the world is a
very important aspect to be considered here, but
we may put a question
to our own selves: "Is the world really outside
us, so that what happens
in the world does not affect us in any way, and
the world does not care
for what is happening to us in our own internal
operations? Are the
individual and the world, the two principles of
consideration here,
segregated from each other? Has the world nothing
to do with the
individual, and has the individual nothing to do
with the world?" It
looks that there is no communication possible
between the individual and
the world. The world may not know at all that some
individual is dead
and gone, and the individual is not concerned in
any manner if a star in
heaven cools down and extinguishes itself. Let
anything happen to the
heavens; what does it matter to us? But, "Is it
so?" is the question.
This supposed conflict between physical science
and religion may be
said to have begun somewhere toward the end of the
nineteenth century,
when the geocentric interpretation of the heavenly
bodies was replaced
by the heliocentric concept on the discovery of
Copernicus. This
discovery clashed with the biblical belief and
tradition, which holds
that the earth is the foundation, and the sun and
the moon and the stars
move round this earth.
The second thing that opposed religion as it was
understood in those
days was that the world was created, according to
the biblical
tradition, some four thousand years ago, but the
scientific discovery
declares that the beginning of the world must be
traced back to aeons
and aeons of time process earlier, and the earth
is several millions of
years old. This again was a challenge to the
medieval concept of
religion.
But the third thing is most important. When
Newton discovered the law
of gravitation and concluded that everything that
is happening in the
physical world can be mathematically deduced by
the logical process of
conclusion drawn from premises, and the world
which is physical in its
nature is contained within the cup of space and
time, and when his
successor or follower Laplace wrote the five
volumes on 'Celestial
Mechanics,' the war between science and religion
appeared to have
commenced. We are told that the writings of
Laplace were presented to
Napoleon for his consideration. Napoleon seems to
have declared,
"Monsieur, I do not see God in your scheme"; and
the answer of Laplace
seems to have been, "Your highness, I have used
the best of telescopes,
but I have not found God anywhere." This is
classical science: God has
to be seen in order to be believed.
Does it follow then that whatever we see with our
eyes really exists?
Can we establish logically or scientifically that
the world exists at
all? Which scientific procedure can establish the
truth of the
externality of the world? Science is against any
kind of hypothesis and
taking for granted anything unproved. But is there
any proof to
substantiate the belief that the world exists,
except the assertion that
it is seen? The senses come in contact with what
we call the panorama of
the external world. That is the proof!
Here, science fumbles. It is trying to cut the
ground from under its
own feet. Taking anything for granted is not the
beginning of science.
We cannot even take for granted that the world
exists unless we prove
that it exists. One cannot prove one's own
existence even. How do you
know that you are existing? Where is the syllogism
by which you have
deduced the consequence of your existence from a
premise? What is the
proof that can establish the truth of your own
existence? Bring the
argument and let us see what it is that tells you
that you really exist.
It was the French philosopher Rene Descartes who
took up this question
of doubting the existence of his own self: "Some
devil may be working in
my mind. It may be telling me everything in a
topsy-turvy way. The world
may not be there. I may not be here. Everything is
doubtful. There is no
certainty of anything. I can doubt the validity of
anything and
everything." But he went deeper into this
phenomenon of doubt and
discovered that doubt is not possible unless there
is someone who is to
doubt; if the doubter also is to be doubted, the
very fact of doubting
loses its meaning. Nobody can be an utter sceptic,
because that defeats
the very purpose of scepticism. I am thinking and,
therefore, I must be
existing. This is Descartes' conclusion.
What sort of existence is mine? I am conscious
that I am existing. What
is that consciousness? "I am an individual; I am
Mr. so-and-so," is my
consciousness of existence. Is the consciousness
of the existence of a
personality a complete acceptance of the truth of
life? He concluded
that this cannot be the ultimate truth of life
because there is a
longing to break the boundaries of personality in
everyone.
No one can tolerate finitude. The finite
consciousness, which is proved
by the very fact of my knowing that I am,
establishes the validity of
there being something which is not finite. What is
it that is not the
finite? It should not be a multitude of finites;
it should be the
Infinite. My existence as a finite being,
substantiated by the
indubitability of this assertion, also brings
about a wider unexpected
consequence,-namely the Infinite also should
exist; therefore, God
exists. If I am existing, God has to exist,
because the concept of God
is only a cosmic correlative of the acceptance of
one's own being as a
finite individual. The finiteness of individuality
proves the infinitude
of the Truth of life. This smashes the erstwhile
concept of the
externality of the world, and the dichotomy that
is seen between the
perceiver and the perceived.
Now I am touching upon the threat that
theoretical science poses before
religion. Here, it is also necessary to understand
what religion is.
Though we are trying to analyse the practical and
theoretical aspects of
science, do we know what religion is? Religion
basically is a longing
for what is above oneself. There is something
transcending myself; but
for that fact, I would be a most happy person in
this world. I would be
carefree, secure ultimately, and perfect in every
sense of the term. But
no one feels that one is perfect. There is always
a complaint that
something is wrong, something is inadequate,
something is insufficient.
Finally, there is a threat of extinction of the
existence of the
individual himself. Death comes upon oneself.
These are the fears of the psyche, which have a
basis and a
truthfulness in the sense that they indicate the
possibility of the
existence of some realm where these insecure
conditions are overcome
completely.
The truths of life seem to be in several layers
of self-transcendence,
one rising above the other, and the lower does not
satisfy until the
next higher one is reached. We can never be
satisfied with anything in
this world because satisfaction cannot arise from
that which is totally
outside us. The outsideness of the values of life
and the objects
supposed to bring us satisfaction defeats the very
attempt at acquiring
any kind of permanent joy and satisfaction in this
world. That from
which we seek satisfaction, namely the objects of
sense, are incapable
of contact by the perceiver because of the fact
that they are outside.
We have already dubbed the world as something
totally external to us,
unconnected with us, and therefore, we can expect
nothing from the
world. Nevertheless, man runs after the pleasures
of life in the form of
contact with objects which are totally outside.
Here is a contradiction
in the very operation of desire itself. It is a
self- defeating attempt
of what we call human desire.
Desire is the longing to possess that which is
not within oneself, but
which is outside. But the outsideness of the
object prevents its coming
in contact with the experiencing consciousness. So
every desire ends in
tragedy, frustration and utter defeat, and no one
ever goes from this
world with the satisfaction that the attempt has
succeeded. Everything
is lost. The conclusion of the old man who is
about to depart is that
the whole life has become futile, and there is no
value or worth in
anything, because he has lived a life of pursuing
that which one cannot
expect in a world that is totally outside.
The religious ideal is not based on the concept
of the externality of
the world, or the internality of anything. The
world is neither outside
us, nor is it inside. We are integrally related to
the world; so is the
case with the world in respect of our own selves.
We are not sitting
outside the world, we are in the world, but not
inside the world as
something contained in a pot. The relationship
between the individual
and the cosmos is of an organic whole. To put it
in a more plain way, we
may say it is something like the organs of the
body getting related to
the bodily organism itself. Though the hand and
the feet can be
perceived by oneself as objects of sense, they do
not remain as external
objects. They are organic parts of the whole body,
which is the
transcendence of the limbs. Thus, religion rises
above the classical
scientific notion of the externality of the world
and touches upon what
we may call the universal concept of the truth of
life.
The Truth, which is the ultimate aim of the
religious pursuit, is an
all-comprehensive universal inclusiveness, and
here it does not go hand
in hand with classical physics which requires the
world to be totally
outside. The clash between physical science in its
classical form and
the religious ideal lies in this fact that on one
side it is asserted
that the fact of life is a universal
inclusiveness; on the other side,
it is asserted that it is totally outside.
Later, towards the middle of the twentieth
century, the theories of
science got modified systematically, and more
considerate and
investigative scientists found that it is
impossible to know anything
unless there is a relationship between the knower
and the known. A
totally disconnected object, as the world is,
cannot be known by any
individual consciousness. The involvement of the
object of perception in
the subjective operation of visualising is
necessary in order that
perception can take place at all. There must be an
en rapport between
the perceiving consciousness and the perceived
object. The two stand
parallel to each other. Neither is the world above
the individual, nor
is the individual above the world. They are coeval
in time and space. We
are of the same stuff as the world is made of, and
we are living in a
realm which is just the physical realm of the five
elements. The world
is a constitution of the five physical
elements,-earth, water, fire,
air, and ether, which also are the building bricks
of the individual
body. The very substance of our physical existence
is the same as the
substance of the physical world. The building
bricks of the cosmos are
the building bricks of our own personalities.
Then, if that is the case,
what is it that makes us feel that we are
different from the world? It
is an interference of a particular unintelligible
phenomenon called
space and time. Though classical physics from the
point of view of
Newton considered that space and time have nothing
to do with the
contents of the world, it was later discovered
that space and time are
vitally connected with every physical event in the
world.
It is in the Taittiriya Upanishad that we hear of
the evolutionary
process of the cosmos. Tasmadva etasmadatmana
akashah sambhutah: From
the Universal Absolute, the Selfhood of the
cosmos, space emanated.
Here, we must realise that even space has a
connection with the
Absolute. Akashadvayuh; The principle of air
emanated from the
vibrations of space. Vayoragnih; Friction created
by the movement of air
created heat, which is fire. Agnerapah; The
condensation of the heat of
fire produced the liquid condition of the world,
which is water. The
solidification of water became the earth
principle, Adbhyah prithivi.
Prithivya oshadhayah: From the earth arise all
herbs, plants and trees,
which are the foodstuff of animals and human
beings. Oshadhibhyannam;
All that we eat arises from the plants and trees
and vegetables and such
edible articles produced by the earth.
Annatpurushah; The human arises
as a latecomer in the process of evolution. This
physical body is
annamaya, constituted of the foodstuff which is
the earth principle,
which again is an evolutionary consequence of the
water principle, that
again of the fire principle, the fire principle of
the air principle,
the air principle of the space principle, and the
space principle is
rooted in the Universal Existence.
So, you can know your connection with the
Ultimate Reality. We are sunk
deep in Ultimate Being. We are an automatic
evolute in the lowest form
of its expression, in its physical, material form,
which is the
spatio-temporal expression of the non-spatial and
non-temporal Supreme
Being which is Ultimate Consciousness: satyam
jnanamanantam brahma.
Lofty is this concept. Today, the more
understanding type of physical
scientists have practically stumbled upon this
great concept of the
Upanishads. Mathematicians who declared that the
world is only
equations, point events, and waves of probability,
or a continuum of
some indescribable stuff which is incapable of
description, have
inadvertently been forced to accept that existence
is indivisible. This
conclusion should be drawn by the consciousness of
the scientist
himself.
The great physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington, who
would not accept that
there is God or such a thing as consciousness,
fell upon this acceptance
inadvertently, unconsciously, as it were. In his
great book "The Nature
of the Physical World," he utters gospel truth:
"The stuff of the world
is consciousness."
Science misunderstood is a threat to religion; if
you consider it only
as a technological process of flying with great
speed, and working
through satellite, television and internet, that
would be a poor concept
of science. Science is noble investigative
procedure, which can take us
to the depths of the secrets of life, if
dispassionately we go with it.
Here is an unexpected discovery of science that
the stuff of the world
has to be consciousness. Why is it so? It is
because the world has to be
known in order that it may be accepted to exist.
Who is telling you that
the world is existing? Your consciousness is
telling this. How does the
consciousness know that the world is existing,
unless this consciousness
is pervading the world of perception? The
imbibition of the very
structure of the physical world into the structure
of consciousness is
the reason why we believe in the existence of a
world, and that it is
outside. So, there is finally no conflict between
the highest
discoveries of science and the noble aspirations
of religion.
By "religion" we are not meaning Hinduism,
Christianity, Buddhism,-this
"ism," that "ism," and all that. These are all
designated denominational
forms of the true meaning of religion. Religion is
the aspiration of the
soul for its ultimate destiny. It is a search of
the individual for the
Absolute. It is a longing of the spirit within us
for God Almighty. It
has nothing to do with any "ism," and no one can
be free from this
eternal longing for perfection, which may better
be called spiritual
aspiration rather than a religious longing,
because of the abuse of the
word "religion" in modern times, under historical
circumstances, and in
the studies in schools and colleges.
People who are now considering themselves as
scientists and very
advanced in logical thinking pooh-pooh religion,
thinking that it is an
old grandmother's story, because their idea of
religion is so poor, as
is their concept of science. There is a tragedy
that has befallen every
one of us in our not being able to be precise in
our knowledge of
things, whether it is scientific or religious.
There is no conflict. There was a time in the
Middle Ages when physical
science appeared to be clashing with the
theological doctrines of the
church. The church excommnunicated many
scientists, and they were
punished with severe indictments from the Pope. An
inquisition was set
up in the Middle Ages,-for us, very unthinkable,
indeed. People were
burnt, thrown into the flames by dogmatic
religious followers, and
science retaliated and disconnected itself from
the Pope.
Today we are in a different world altogether. The
conflict has ceased;
at least, it is appearing to be ceasing. Though it
was once said, "The
East is East and the West is West, and the twain
shall never meet," I
think today it is attempting to come together, and
is meeting. The West
and the East wish to shake hands with each other
and accept their common
heritage as human beings, rather than Westerners
and Easterners,
scientists and religious followers, seekers of God
and seekers of
material values.
There are several textbooks written these days,
where powerful
monograph have gone into the depths of this
harmony that is already
existing between the external and the universal.
Though the external may
be different from the internal, it cannot be
external to the universal.
The universal is a transcendent element which
rises above both the
subjective side and the objective side. We cannot
even know that there
is anything outside us unless there is a third
element which is not
ourselves, and not the object that is perceived,
also.
Because of the externality of the object of
perception and the
internality of consciousness, there is no
connection between the two,
and knowledge is impossible; no one can know that
anything is. But there
is a transcendent principle. Eastern thought
considers this as
adhidaiva, a spiritual principle operating as a
transcendental
element,-unknown and unperceivable, but operating
between the subjective
side and the objective side.
The subjective side is called the adhyatma, the
objective is
adhibhauta, and the transcendent is adhidaiva. All
the three have to
work together in order that there may be
perception at all. But we are
so poor in our understanding that we know little
of ourselves, and much
less of the world, and nothing at all of this
transcendental operation.
Gods are behind our eyes and ears, our nose and
tongue, and our
sensations. These gods which are the denizens of
heaven are the
operators of this mechanism called the physical
body with its sense
organs. It is a presumption on the part of the
egoistic individual to
think that he or she is working. The workers are
the great divine beings
which are transcendent adhidaivas,-gods in heaven,
as we call them. But
they are invisible. They are invisible because
they are neither inside
nor outside; they are "above."
Here is a path-finding direction for both science
and religion, so that
if they work together in harmony they can create a
world of joy and
satisfaction that life is worth living. Do you
want to depart from this
world with the tragic feeling that nothing has
been achieved? The world
has eluded the grasp of everybody. Kings have
come, empires rose and
fell, and the earth has not changed. It appears to
be so because of our
wrong evaluation of the historical process.
History is actually a
natural process of the cosmos. It is the total
operation taking place in
the whole of creation, even when a little event is
taking place
somewhere in a corner of the world. Our learned
speaker mentioned about
quantum mechanics and the discoveries of
relativity, etc., which
highlighted the astounding truth of sudden and
simultaneous action
taking place in the universe. Every event is a
simultaneous event. It is
not taking place yesterday and tomorrow; it is
just now, everywhere.
Did not the poet tell us that we cannot touch the
petals of a flower in
our garden without disturbing the stars in the
heavens? It is not
poetry; it is the truth. Every event is a
universal event. Anything that
is taking place anywhere takes place everywhere,
and we are living
throughout the universe, in all parts of the
cosmos. Our individuality
is not confined merely to this earth planet. It is
everywhere in
different parts.
Scientists today have discovered the possibility
of worlds within
worlds, and the possibility of many worlds, and
our being inhabitants of
all these worlds simultaneously. "Simultaneously"
is the word we have to
underline. We are not inhabiting these many worlds
in succession,-today
here, tomorrow somewhere else. At one stroke, in a
timeless manner, we
inhabit the whole cosmos, and we are world
citizens working in different
forms. Unknown to our own selves, one part of
ourselves is here on this
earth performing activities in this way, and
another part of our own
archetypal nature is in the heaven, even today.
Our higher self in the heaven is pulling us and
summoning us: "Come on.
You are not here, where you appear to be. You are
in the heaven." That
is why we are longing for the higher values of
life, and we can never be
satisfied; we are always unsatisfied because we
are not in this world.
We are really in some other world,-not only in
some other world, we are
in all the worlds. This universal operation of
individuals is a great
discovery of modern Quantum Mechanics, which is
quite different from
that science which appears to be in conflict with
religion. Science has
become spirituality; physics has become
metaphysics.
This is a wonder toward the end of the twentieth
century that we are
seeing; we believe that God shall come. The
kingdom of heaven is within
us; it is within us, because it is everywhere. How
can a large kingdom
be contained within our little frame of physical
existence? It is
because the inwardness of our existence is not
actually the physical
inwardness. The whole universe can be within us.
It is the Chandogya Upanishad which tells us that
whatever is happening
in the outside world is happening within us. If
the sun is shining
there, it is shining inside, also. If it is hot
outside, it is hot
inside, also. If it is raining outside, it is
raining inside, also. If
there is thunder there, there is thunder here,
also. But we are so
stupid that we cannot realise these events are
taking place within us,
commensurate with all the things that are
happening outside in the
world.
We are the world; thus, the discovery of science
today tells us. This
is what the great Yoga Vasishtha scripture tells
us. This is what the
Upanishads tell us. It is not merely the twain of
West and East that is
coming together; God and man are shaking hands
with each other in this
vast kingdom of universal creation.
