Is seeing believing 3 – Resolving science-spirituality conflicts

[Talk to IIT Kharagpur students, Kharagpur, India]

Podcast

Podcast Summary

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. Jai.
Jai. Jai. So science is like a map, which is very powerful.
But the map is not the territory. And it offers, science itself offers us two maps. There is one map through quantum physics and another for relativity.
And just as the same territory may have different maps, the spirituality also offers us another map. And that map is a map of, which is more inclusive, which divides reality into physical, subtle, physical, mental and spiritual domains. And consciousness originates from the spiritual domain and comes streams through the mind, the mental level to the physical level.
Now, in this session, I’ll talk about two main things. One is, how do we see if there are some, there seem to be some contradictions between science and spirituality. And secondly, what is spiritual, what do we mean by the spiritual realm itself? This is the time when Galileo was imprisoned by the Catholic Church because he had a particular theory of the earth as, of the solar system as heliocentric, not geocentric.
That time onwards, this idea has come up in the cultural imagination of the world that science and religion are in conflict. However, if we look at that history, it was not primarily because of his, although the way it is portrayed historically, that conflict was not because of science and religion. At that time, the Catholic Church had its own political pressures going on, that there was a reformation movement that was coming.
And the reformation movement was challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. And when Galileo wrote a book in which he depicted, he explained his theory, he had three people having a conversation. And he basically was a provocative kind of person.
And he had one person representing the scientific position, one person representing the enquiring position and one person representing the Catholic position. And in that book, he basically lampooned the Catholic position. And if you read the whole argument, he didn’t have to do that.
But he somehow ends up doing that. And because the Catholic Church was already under the pressure, that its authority was being challenged by the Protestants, they felt Galileo was also challenging that authority. And that’s how they took strong action against him.
Of course, many centuries later, the church apologised for the action that it took. But if you consider, actually, the heliocentric, the geocentric model, that doesn’t come from the Bible. That is an accretion which was got from Ptolemy and other Greek thinkers, whose thinking, whose ideas, many Christian thinkers are integrated with biblical theology.
So, science and religion, we could use whatever words we want. Science and spirituality, I’ll talk about the difference between the two. They primarily talk about different domains.
And these different domains would mean that, as I said, science talks about the outer world and how to operate, how to function in that world, how to operate that world. The correlation between that world. Science does not answer ultimate questions.
Now, scripture may also talk about the outer world. But that is not the primary thrust of scripture. When Arjuna is going to ask, let’s consider two scriptures.
One is the Bhagavad Gita, the other is the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita is spoken on the battlefield and Arjuna is confused about his duty. He says, Krishna, I am asking you, what is dharma? What am I meant to do? So, on a battlefield, Arjuna is not asking for comprehensive knowledge of everything.
In fact, Arjuna is defined as, is primarily known as archer. The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t contain a single word about archery. So, Krishna did not tell Arjuna any archery knowledge.
The Bhagavad Gita was, OK, when there is a confusion about what to do in our life, not just what to do, that’s not the only thing that Krishna tells. On what basis do we decide what to do? So, it uses the world view for that. The Bhagavatam is spoken to Parishad Maharaj who is about to die.
When we are about to die, how many of us, especially if we are spiritually minded and we understand the importance of remembering God, how many of us will be interested in cosmology and geography and history? To the extent they remind us of Krishna, to that extent we will be interested. But we won’t be interested in geographical, cosmological facts and figures. So, in the Bhagavatam also cosmology is described.
But if you look at the context, the purpose of description of cosmology, the section on cosmology, they conclude, they start and conclude by saying, by meditating thus, we can understand the glory of Lord Hari and become more devoted to Him. So, the purpose is not to give an exhaustive description of cosmology. The purpose is to actually envision the cosmos in a way that helps us remember the Lord.
And even in the Indian tradition, there have been different models of the cosmos. One branch of the Vedas is called Jyotish Shastra. Jyotisha is astrology and astrology is very much based on astronomy.
So, the model of the universe that is given in the Jyotish Shastra is very different from the model that is given in the Bhagavatam. So, Puranic cosmology or Bhagavatam cosmology is different from Jyotisha cosmology. And even traditional Indian astrologers or for that matter astronomers like Aryabhatta or Bhaskaracharya, they have used primarily the Jyotisha model.
When they are observing the cosmos, they are trying to correlate things in the cosmos. So, they didn’t use the Bhagavatam cosmology. So, traditionally itself, the Bhagavatam cosmology was used primarily for meditational purposes.
It is a model. Now, how exactly it correlates with observed reality, that is a complicated question. Just like yesterday I discussed how quantum physics correlates with observed reality.
That’s difficult to know. Bhagavatam cosmology was traditionally not used to challenge Jyotisha cosmology. Even our own traditions, Acharya, like Krishna Acharya Thakur or Bhaktasinath Sri Thakur, if they had to do astrological calculations of horoscopes for anyone, either Krishna or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or anyone else, they did not use Bhagavatam cosmology for that.
They used Jyotisha cosmology. So, basically, there is no need to put scripture in competition with science. Because they are talking about two different bodies of knowledge.
When we position scripture as a competitor of science, we devalue scripture. When we position scripture as a competitor of science, we devalue scripture. What do you mean by devalue? Scripture is giving us higher knowledge.
It is giving us knowledge about the values and purposes of life. It is giving us knowledge about the spiritual dimension of life. Now, there is material knowledge in scripture.
But that is not the essential, that is not the most primary knowledge in scripture. And traditionally also, that material knowledge has not been put in competition with the material knowledge that has been given in scripture. Material knowledge that was available from other sources.
So, if we consider scriptural knowledge to be like a big circle, then there will be some parts of it which agree with modern science or modern ways of acquiring knowledge. Some part of it may disagree with it. But the major part of it is that which transcends.
And we come to scripture primarily to gain the knowledge about transcendental reality. Vishwaprabhupada talks about the Vedic scriptures. In the Vedic scriptures, there is a description of Vimanas.
So, Ravana had a Pushpaka Vimana. These kind of descriptions are there. But when Prabhupada travelled all over the world, he used the aeroplanes which were made in modern technology.
He did not say this technology is false and we will only fashion aeroplanes with Vimana technology given the Vedic body of knowledge. And I will fly only by that. No.
There is a body of knowledge called Ayurveda which talks about medicine. So, Prabhupada usually preferred that. But he did not mandate that for everyone.
That time he took allopathic treatment also. See, as far as functioning in this world is concerned, whatever tool is useful for functioning in the world, we use that. So, if allopathy helps us to improve our health, good.
If Ayurveda helps us to improve our health, good. If naturopathy, homoeopathy, Unani medicine, whatever, in this world we just function by using whatever is helpful. So, the principle in the practise of spiritual life is that anukulyasya sankalpa prathikulyasya varjana.
Anukulyasya sankalpa means accept that which is favourable and avoid that which is unfavourable. So, whatever is favourable for our spiritual growth, we accept that. And what is unfavourable, we avoid that.
So, in today’s world, science and technology are useful and in many ways essential for functioning in the world. So, we use it. But growing from science and technology, there is a whole world view.
There is a scientistic world view. Not scientific. A scientistic world view.
The world view going from scientism. And that is a non-theistic. That may be atheistic.
And that, we don’t accept that. So, even in science, not all science is equally authoritative. Normally, how do we define science? That itself is a big question.
And basically we could say the scientific method involves observation. Then we make some inference or propose a theory from that. Then we do some experiments to check whether theory is correct.
And then we arrive at a conclusion. Newton saw the fruit falling, does observation. Made a postulation, a theory.
This is a law of gravity. Then he had many, he tried many, throwing different objects up and down, seeing whether they come down or dropping them from various places, see whether they fall, how they fall, how fast they reach the ground. That sort of thing he did.
And then he came to a conclusion. So, now, most of science dazzling successes which have come to us in the form of technology are in the field where this kind of experimentation is possible. Say, physics, as we say, physics and chemistry for example, they talk about the world as it exists today.
And most of theories over there can be experimentally verified or disproved. But when science goes to the question of origins, how life came about, how the universe came about, these are not replicable in any way. So, if scientists say that, oh, life came from chemicals or the universe came from a big bank, now that, what experiment can you do to do it? You can’t tell the universe, please recreate yourself, I want to observe you now.
You can’t tell life, recreate itself. So, for that, the scientific method of induction, where they can do repeated experiments, practically no controlled experiments are possible. Now, there are some experiments like the Miller’s experiment, which is said to have produced some of the building blocks of life in atmosphere that is similar to the atmosphere that are supposed to have been present in the earth long, long ago.
But later it has been problematised and they said that whether that was atmosphere present over there, that itself is debatable. And even if that atmosphere was present, this getting a building block of life is not the same as getting life. So, this is not to discredit science per se, but just to explain that all science is not born equal.
All science is not born equal means Newton’s laws of gravity or certain postulates of observational physics. They stand on much stronger footing than theories about how things came about in the long, long past. Theories which cannot be replicated.
So, especially with respect to question of origins, we just can’t know for sure. Not even know for sure, know even with a reasonable amount of certainty. Why? Because we can’t replicate it.
So, if you can’t do any experiments about how the universe came about, then science uses another method which they call as the method of abduction. Abduction means, in science broadly there are three broad ways of acquiring knowledge. There is deduction, induction and abduction.
Duction means it’s mathematics logic. You have postulate and the postulate is always true. 3 plus 7 is 10.
The square of 6 is 36. These are statements which are true. Three parts of a triangle make a 180 degrees.
These are all we could say axiomatic statements. That is deductive knowledge. The inductive knowledge is where we make repeated experiments and arrive at an inference through induction.
So, induction itself is not as reliable as deduction. If the axiom is true, then it’s always going to be true. But induction is, in future some findings may come up which may contradict the inference that we have done.
But with respect to ancient times, science can use neither deduction nor induction. So, it uses a method called abduction. Abduction doesn’t mean kidnapping.
Abduction basically means that it’s called the inference to best explanation, IBE. So, a simple example to illustrate this. Let’s suppose a person has been murdered.
And now the investigators want to find out who murdered them. Then that person was in the room and a friend went to meet him at 3 in the afternoon. It was fine.
At 9 pm, the maid went to see him and he was dead. And he was stabbed in the stomach. Now, who killed him? Now you may have a camera at the door.
And then who went inside? This maid had gone inside at around 4 o’clock. This maid was in that area. She had gone at 4 o’clock but she just went to another part of the room.
She did not really see him. But she is too old and she is not strong enough to put that knife into the stomach. There is a grandson.
And the grandson went inside also at around 6 o’clock. The grandson was a small boy. He couldn’t have killed him.
And then there is a butler who is 21, who is young and healthy. And he went in at around 7. So, maybe the butler murdered him. Now, there is no direct evidence for that.
But in the given situation, it is the inference to the best explanation. That’s what the evidence points to. Now, when we make an inference to the best explanation, it depends on how much knowledge of the situation we have.
Suppose in the house where this person was murdered, there is under a closet a trap door. And that trap door goes to a distant place nearby. And from there the murderer had sneaked in, killed and gone back to the trap door.
Now, this analysis doesn’t include that at all. Because they are looking from a different perspective. Similarly, for us, we have to understand that when science looks at historical origins, at that time, it is basically trying to solve a whodunit mystery.
It tries to infer the best explanation. And the inferences are always going to be highly subjective and speculative. Therefore, scientists themselves acknowledge that when it comes to remote pasts, scientific theories are not as reliable.
Say for example, the value of g, the gravitational constant, it doesn’t change so much. On earth, it is more or less the same all the time. But if you consider with respect to fossils, now where did the first human being come about? What is the age of the human species? Just look at the last 20 years, there have been so many revisions in that theory.
That’s simply because it’s based on inferences. And if new evidence comes up, the inference changes. There is no experiment possible over here.
So, that’s why the point which I am making over here, I was telling earlier, if we position scripture as a competitor of science, we devalue scripture. So, I was saying, we are discussing in the session about how to address conflicts between science and scripture, if at all they occur. So, I was saying that in scripture if there are some theories or some aspects, some teachings or some descriptions which seem to contradict science, in the tradition itself they were not positioned as competitive to either empirical forms of knowledge.
So, we don’t have to aggravate that conflict. And now if in science there are some things which contradict scripture, then we have to say that all science is not equally authoritative. So, Newton’s laws of motion or any findings which are based on induction, they are considered much more reliable than findings which are based on abduction.
So, it is usually the findings, the ideas, you cannot even call them findings, they are postulates which are based on the principles of abduction such as theories about origins, that may sometimes conflict with the scriptural teachings. Having said that, even they need not conflict with scriptural teachings. Because scriptures describe a higher reality.
So, what do I mean by higher reality? The scripture acknowledges that there is a material mechanism by which things work. But it also acknowledges that there are factors beyond the material mechanism. So, for example, say modern science tells us how do rains occur? The sun evaporates the water, forms clouds and the clouds will never reach.
Now, scriptures tell us how do rains occur? They did by under Lord Indra’s supervision. Now, if we consider are these two contradictory? What do you think? Are these two contradictory? Sorry. No, I gave an example yesterday which can reconcile that.
Yes, good. So, we could say that science is showing one picture. I would not necessarily say one is complete, the other is incomplete.
This is broader perspectives of things. Yesterday I gave the example of billiards. How the motion of the ball can be explained in terms of mechanical forces.
And the mechanical forces explanation is correct. But the motion of the ball can be also explained in terms of the expert player. So, a conflict between science and spirituality would be, say that science and scripture would be that there is no player involved if science says.
And this ball went into the hole only because of the laws of physics. Well, that’s not correct. But another conflict could be that there are no laws of physics.
The ball went into the hole because the player is so expert. Fine, the player is expert, but their expertise has to be manifested in this world in some way. So, the two explanations can go in parallel.
And that’s why when scripture describes certain sections which deal with natural phenomena also, it’s not necessary that those natural phenomena have to be manifested independent of the mechanisms. For example, one of the common questions which scientists use to try to say that scripture cannot be true is, scripture talks about miracles. Say, can you think of some miracles which are described in our scripture? Something which scientists will find it difficult to believe.
There is a picture in this room itself of a miracle. Yes, Govardhan. Picture behind.
Krishna lifting up Govardhan. Now you say, how can a mountain be lifted up? Yeah, it’s a logical question. Normally, a mountain is a huge object.
It is rooted to the ground and how can you lift it up? And it’s interesting that even the Vrajavasis ask this question. Sometimes scientists say that, not scientists again, I am using the word sceptics, atheists or those who want to criticise scripture. They say that in the past people did not have knowledge of science.
Okay, they did not have knowledge of science as we know it. They say they are not very logical or rational. So some stories were told, people just believed them.
That was their idea. Now it’s interesting that the Vrajavasis experienced Krishna lifting up the Govardhan. But still, the next chapter of the Govardhan Lila describes, the Vrajavasis ask Krishna’s father, Nanda Maharaj, how did Krishna lift up the Govardhan? Now what does it mean they are asking, how did he lift up? That means it’s unusual, it’s not normal.
So they also understand that a child cannot lift up things like this. But then, Nanda Maharaj says, actually when Gargamuni, he came to do the naming ceremony of Krishna, at that time he told that Krishna is a special child. He is as good as Narayan.
Gargamuni did not tell that he is Narayan. He says as good as Narayan. So, oh, he is as good as Narayan, then he can lift this up.
So basically, it is not that they were illogical, ready to believe anything. But they were open for an explanation of a different kind also. The question, this is unusual, this can’t be done so easily.
How was it done? That question came to them also. So, one area of difference which could come up is, many scientists think of the laws of nature to be absolute. To be absolute, independent, universal and inviolable.
That means basically they consider the laws of nature to be like God. So, God is everywhere, the law of gravity is everywhere. So, the law of gravity is God.
Is it? Not exactly. So, what happens? Some scientists, especially those who go towards the scientistic world view, they ascribe the properties of God to the laws of nature. So, they think the laws of nature are absolutely inviolable.
Yes, the laws of nature are not normally violable. They are very strict. But at the same time, the laws of nature, as we discussed earlier, they don’t explain themselves.
Why are these laws present at all? So, this happens at a much subtler level. But this principle, if you and I drive above the speed limit, we will get caught. If you and I drive through a red signal, we will be punished.
I once saw a joke. There is a person, he was driving over the speed limit. And the cop catches him.
Didn’t you see the speed limit? I saw the speed limit. I just didn’t see you. So, the idea is, if you can break the speed limit and not get caught, there is no problem.
So, now our laws may be such that we may get away by violating them sometimes. But sometimes we will be caught also. So, now we, when we make the laws or when we are following certain laws, you and I can’t violate the laws.
We will get penalised for that. But if an ambulance is taking a person to save their life, they can break all the traffic signals. In fact, when you get a driving licence, one of the things that we learn is that if you hear the ambulance sound from behind, you just move aside your car immediately.
When you have to go to the opposite lane, make a signal and go to the opposite lane. These ambulance vehicles or even police vehicles, if they are going on a chase, something like that. If they are going in emergency, so normally the laws can’t be broken.
But in exceptional situations, the laws which are not violable by us are violable in exceptional situations. So, when there are miracles described in scripture, the miracles are not against science. They are above science.
What do I mean by above science? Science observes the world and tries to find out the laws of nature. Find out correlations between observed phenomena in the world which it calls the laws of nature. That is the domain of study of science.
And in that it is very powerful in many ways. But there can be factors beyond that which also come into the picture at times. And when they come into the picture, at that time we understand that something more is going on.
So, if somebody asks, how did Krishna lift up Govardhan? Govardhan is such a big mountain. Krishna had to lift it up with his finger. If I say to suppose, I have to lift up this laptop with my finger.
Or even if I have to lift up my phone with my finger. First of all, my phone has to be strong enough. But not only that, I have to place my finger right at the centre, isn’t it? So, I have to place it at the centre of gravity.
If I place it over here, it will fall off. If I place it over here, it will fall off. So, it was a big mountain.
How did Krishna find the centre of gravity? He could put his pinky over there and lift up. Now, Krishna does not have to find the centre of gravity because he is the source of gravity. He is the source of gravity.
And when he wants, he can suspend gravity. Just as the ambulance, when it is moving, the government can suspend the normal laws of traffic and let it flow. Let it just go by.
So, the point is that this does not, just because Krishna lifted Govardhan hill, does not mean that there is no law of gravity. So, ambulance breaking the law of traffic does not mean there are no traffic laws. It’s just that there is some other principle in operation over there.
So, similarly, when we understand that miracles are not against science, they are above science. So, science looks at certain cause-effect correlations. And those cause-effect correlations, in broad contours, are accepted even in the tradition.
Heavy objects can’t be lifted. That’s accepted. But, they are open to explanations beyond what science looks at.
As I said, science looks only at the billiards table. This is how it works. But, there are other factors which are also involved.
So, the idea that the laws of nature are universal, inviolable, absolute and independent, these are assumptions. These are not necessarily, anyway, proven truths. Many scientists also argue that there are parallel universes.
And in those parallel universes, there may be another set of laws which you don’t know about at all. So, therefore, the principle is that when we talk about spiritual reality, spiritual reality exists at a different level. But, there is the possibility to intervene at the material level.
And such intervention is not a rejection of the material laws, but it is their temporary suspension for a higher purpose. It is not a rejection. Somebody is saying that, oh, you know, if you start accepting miracles, then you might as well give up science.
You will believe anything and everything. No, not like that. Bhagavad Gita also acknowledges that there are laws of nature in this world.
That this world works under the supervision of the Lord. That means, it works under him. Supervision means, he doesn’t normally interfere.
If you see, the good supervisor, the good supervisor is such that they will not need to regularly intervene. They allot the work to people and those people do the work. So, similarly, with respect to the way God has arranged the world, in the first session I talked about how an efficient manager is one who makes his role almost invisible.
Everything goes on smoothly and there is no need for the manager to be intervening. Oh, do this, don’t do this. Everything is going on smoothly.
That is the way Krishna has organised this world. But when he has to serve some higher purpose, he may intervene. And such interventions are not against science, they are about science.
So, the spiritual arena of reality, I finished my section on the discussion on the conflicts which might be there. And now to go a little bit more into the spiritual domain of reality. What is the spiritual domain and how does it work? Actually, if we look even in this world, we are all animated by the desire for love.
We want to love and be loved. We are all relational creatures. And even scientists who propagate whatever theories they want, even atheists who want to propagate atheism, they all also want to be loved and loved.
That’s what they are doing, whatever they are doing for. So, this longing for love is fulfilled at the spiritual level. So, the Bhagavad Gita explains, the Bhakti tradition broadly explains that this longing for love comes from our consciousness.
Now, here I am talking about, when we say we move from the visible to the invisible realm. So, we are now looking at the spiritual realm. How much can we infer about the spiritual realm? And what do we need to learn from scripture? So, we could say there is, if we consider spirituality, there is rational spirituality and there is revelational spirituality.
Rational spirituality is the aspects of spirituality which we can arrive at through reason. And revelational spirituality refers to those aspects of spirituality which we have to learn through revelation. So, by rationality, we can infer that there is some higher reality, there is some higher organising principle.
And that organising principle obviously has intelligence. Their intelligence is manifested fragmentally as the intelligence of our minds. And then it is manifested as the order in the universe.
Now, the nature of that intelligence, the nature of that organising principle, is that a power, is that a person, that is something which we cannot conclusively infer. But reasonably what we could infer is, that in the world around us, we have personal and impersonal forces. We have personal beings and impersonal forces.
Law of gravity is impersonal force. You and I, all of us are personal beings. So, if the ultimate reality has sourced everything that exists now, then that ultimate reality must have these features also.
So, first and foremost, the observed world around us has consciousness. So, the source of the observed world must also be conscious. And we are not just conscious beings, we are personal beings.
What is the difference between being conscious and being personal? There is a school of thought called impersonalism, which holds that the ultimate reality is impersonal. Now, what they hold is, say right now, I am looking at you. You are looking at me.
So, now when we are looking at each other, there are three things going on, three factors involved. There is the subject of consciousness. Say, if I am looking at you, I am the subject of consciousness.
You are the object of consciousness. And in between us is the stream of consciousness. So, the subject, object and stream.
And this is how conscious perception occurs. So, when there is an object to be perceived, when there is a subject to be perceived, and there is a stream of consciousness that connects the two, then perception occurs. Now, what the impersonalist idea is that, the subject and the object both are illusion.
Only the stream of consciousness exists. Their idea is, subject and object are illusion, only the stream of consciousness exists. But the problem with this idea is, now, ok, stream of consciousness is there, but what would that stream of consciousness do? Just observe for all of reality, and observe what? So, who is to be observed and who is to observe? The only stream of consciousness, if we say, oh, we have to go out of this world and become liberated.
Well, if we just join that stream of consciousness, then will we be existing to realise that we are liberated? Because there will be no object remaining, no subject remaining. So, there is an organising principle to this world. So, what can we infer? I’ll conclude with this point about inference, that Jiva Goswami is one of our prominent acharyas, and he has written a book called Shastra Sandarbhas, where he describes the conclusion of the teaching of the bhakti tradition.
So, there he says, we can infer progressively about some things. If we look at the world around us, we can, oh, there are things that are changing, but we all aspire for something unchanging. So, to understand there is some unchanging reality beyond this world, that is the first step in spiritual realisation.
So, that is the time when the spiritual reality is having three features. This is what revelational theology tells us. Revelational theology is the bhakti tradition tells us.
Revelational spirituality, it has three features called Brahman. Does anyone know the features? Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagwan. Yes.
So, now Brahman refers to simply existence. There is some eternal existence beyond this world. So, that is the idea that there is a stream of consciousness which exists.
So, there is this world, and this world is constantly changing, but beyond this world there is something bigger. It’s also there. And Paramatma is, Jiva says this is the first step in realisation.
Yes, there is something eternal beyond this world. We all have a longing for eternal life. So, where does that longing come from? It’s because of something eternal exists.
And second is, we discussed that how this world is operating according to certain organising principles. That means that eternal is not just existing at another level of reality, but that eternal also has the capacity for cognition. The eternal has the capacity to observe the world, to oversee the world, and to infuse it with organising principles.
So, this is when we see that there is a stream of consciousness, but a stream of consciousness has the potency to supervise the material world. That means it has material potencies. Material potency means potencies to control the material world, to manage the material world, to oversee the material world.
So, this is the understanding of Paramatma. So, Brahman is simply stream of consciousness. Paramatma is stream of consciousness plus a conscious being with material potencies.
With the potency to oversee the material world. So, by observing that there is both conscious and there is both personal and impersonal forces, we can observe the third level of inference. The first level of inference is, there is consciousness in this world.
There must be consciousness coming from another category of reality. That’s how we come to Brahman understanding. Second is, we see this world is governed by some kind of intelligence.
Therefore, there must be that level of consciousness must have some capacity to govern this world. But then we also see over here that in this world there are personalities and there are personal reciprocations. So, therefore, we could infer that that spiritual reality also has spiritual potencies.
That there is conscious reciprocations between the two. So, he says that in the spiritual realm there is God and there are his pure devotees. And they reciprocate love with each other.
This is something which we can tentatively infer. But beyond that we have to actually turn towards scripture for realising it. You know, when Apshila Prabhu was an early disciple, I agree with Prabhu.
He was an English professor at Ohio State University. I just spoke at Ohio a few months ago. So, he started the college programme over there.
So, he was teaching English at that time. And then along with his English teaching he would talk about, because he was a Krishna devotee, he would talk about Krishna bhakti also. So, one day his principal called him and he says, I heard that you are talking about God in your English classes.
He was a young impetuous little cheeky. So, he said, I didn’t know there was any rule against talking about God. He said, no, but you are talking about a strange conception of God.
He said, ask, what is your conception of God? He said, I have no conception of God. If you have no conception of God, then how can you say my conception of God is strange? He said, no, no, no, you are saying that God is black. At that time there was a racial tension between blacks and whites going on.
That is the time when Martin Luther King’s movement was at its peak. So, I said, God is black. He said, no, he is blue.
I psyched him out completely. And he says, you are saying God is a cowboy. You know, they have those western movies with cowboys going out in the forest.
He said, no, he is a cowherd boy. Then, but what does he do? He plays a flute. He was completely psyched out.
Because they had no conception of what God is in terms of any revelation about the positive features of God. So, this idea that there is a supreme being who is bluish black in colour, who plays a flute, who wears a peacock feather, this is something which you can never infer. We could infer that there is consciousness, that there is consciousness with the capacity to supervise reality and there is consciousness which you reciprocate love with other conscious beings.
This we can infer from the world view. The specifics we cannot infer. The specifics are a matter of revelation.
So, this is a difference between the scientific world view and the spiritual world view. But this does not make the spiritual world view unscientific. Rather it makes it scientific in a different category.
In some scientific theories, there are just no experiments possible. Just like the Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution. We may do some experiments which will point towards certain things.
But we cannot replicate the Big Bang. We cannot replicate the origin of life. So, similarly, there are certain things which are beyond our capacity to control.
Science focusses on doing controlled experiments. If this object falls down, is there any other force, is there a magnetic force, no other force? Then it must have fallen because of gravity. We try to do controlled experiments.
But in spiritual realm, we cannot do controlled experiments. Actually, spiritual science is not so much experimental as experiential. Experiential means the consciousness is a laboratory and there we can experience the change.
What is the change we can experience? Actually, spirituality transforms us internally. It gives us methods by which if we practise them, the negativities within us will go away. The anger will decrease.
The critical mentality will decrease. The pessimism will decrease. The fear will decrease.
These negativities which are there in our heart, they will go down. With all the best technology that we have, anger is a terrible thing. In America, when you go to universities, I had gone to one university to give a class.
And just before that class started, I was just waiting. And there they had this squad going regularly. They had a whole drill of what to do if a gunman comes into your class.
You must have heard about it. In American schools, the guns are very easily available. So, there are gunmen who come in and they shoot.
And it’s a great fear. It’s not just one or two or three. Hundreds of people are being killed by these gunmen.
Mad gunmen who just come along. So, they have these drills going on. Now, why do these gunmen come and kill like that? They are all angry with the world and they use it to take it out at the world.
And they find out the easiest way to take it out at the world is to hit out at schools. In schools, there are small children or there are kids. And you shoot them.
It’s horrible. But the point I am making is, there is a big big concern about this in America. And anger is a terrible thing which makes people do all kinds of crazy things.
So, now with all the technology that we have, do we have a medicine or a pill or injection you give? Persons are angry. Take that pill. Your anger goes away.
Anti-anger pill. Now, what we could do is, especially in mental asylum, when somebody goes angry, they give sleeping pills. But after they wake up, this anger is still there.
So, there is a need for inner change. And this inner change is something spirituality can provide us. So, spirituality is also a science in the sense that it is a science of inner transformation.
If we practise spirituality, every one of us can be transformed. In science, there is theory and there is experiment. Similar in spirituality, there is philosophy and there is religion.
Philosophy is like the theory aspect of science. Religion is like the experiment aspect of science. Theory tells us, ok, this is like this, this is like that.
Philosophy tells us, this is like this, this is like that. There is a soul, there is God. And religion gives us the practical activities which we can do to realise the philosophy.
So, if there is a God and connecting with him gives us the supreme satisfaction, then how can we connect with him? That is described through the religion. That is actually achieved through the religion. We chant Hare Krishna, we participate in kirtans, we glorify Krishna, we worship Krishna.
By all these means, we grow towards Krishna. So, every one of us can experience this transformation. That inner transformation of the negative emotions within us, the negative drives within us going down.
And we experience inner peace, inner strength. That is a change which everyone can observe. So, in that sense, spirituality is repeatable.
Whoever among us we may be, every one of us can be transformed. And it can transform even very negative emotions within us. The first time when I went to America in 2015, I was at a university, there I spoke on the topic of regulating our mental diet.
It was vegetarian society. They said just be careful about what we eat, be careful about what we take in also. And after that one American boy came and told me that just before the class, he had been contemplating suicide.
He had been in a relationship with a girl and she had broken up with him. So, he was shattered. He was wandering gloomily in the campus.
Suddenly, he saw a poster of my programme. He said, go for this programme. Now, after coming to this programme, now I understand that it was not I who wanted to commit suicide.
It was my mind. Commit suicide, commit suicide, commit suicide. So, I told him, this is a precious insight you have got.
If you can understand the difference between you and your mind, it can not only save your life, but it can make a huge difference throughout your life. So, I encouraged him to read the Bhagavad Gita. They had the Bhakti Yoga Club over there.
I connected him. I didn’t… I connected him with him and then I write on the Bhagavad Gita daily at gitadaily.com a small 300 word article. I give the practical application like that.
I encouraged him to read that. And then every year when I go to America, I try to meet him. I meet him and we talk.
So, last year when I had gone, at that time he met me and told me he had gone through a almost similar situation. He had been in a steady relationship with a girl for quite some time. And then suddenly, unilaterally, he sent a message saying that I am breaking up with you.
I am blocking your phone. Don’t try to contact me in any way. He was just shocked.
He couldn’t understand. What is happening? The stupor just went to his room and closed the door, closed the windows, pulled down the drapes, turned off the lights and he loved music. So, he liked to play violin.
So, he picked up his violin and he said, for 6 hours, I was simply chanting Hare Krishna. He said, for 6 hours, pouring out my heart, calling out to Krishna. And he said, actually at that time, I felt as if I was bathed in some sublime light.
It was dark externally, but my heart was here internally. He said, I felt as if I was in the presence of some healing, comforting reality. So, I felt the presence of Krishna.
So, that which could have been the most depressing period of my life, that turned out to be one of the most enriching experiences of my life. So, for him, what had happened? When something wrong happened in the relationship, breakup happened, he was disappointed. He was distressed.
But whereas earlier, he would have been suicidal, now he became spiritual. So, that was the inner change that took place. And that inner change not only saved his life, but also actually helped him experience a higher side of life.
So, this capacity to change our inner self, to change our default negative responses, that happens by spiritual practise. And spirituality in this way equips us internally. So, science can make things better externally.
Spirituality can make people better internally. Science can make things better. Spirituality can make people better.
Makes people better by changing their negative default responses, replacing with healthy responses. And this way for functioning in the external world, we may use science. For growing internally, we use spirituality.
And thus we can use both in a harmonious way for our all round growth. I’ll summarise. I spoke today about two things.
I addressed any possible conflicts between science and spirituality. And then I talked about what the spiritual realm actually contains. So, I started by saying that science and scripture, which is the primary source of spiritual knowledge, their thrust is different.
Science looks for how to what are the mechanisms by which the world operates. Scripture talks about the purpose of life. What is it that Arjuna is asking? What is dharma? What am I meant to do in life? And Parikshit Maharaj is asking, what am I meant to do when I am about to die? So, the questions, defining questions themselves are very different.
And that’s why there needn’t be any essential contradiction. If there is any contradiction, that is often because of extraneous factors which are brought into the equation, into the discussion. So, in scripture, there might be some description of material reality.
But they are one model of reality. So, the Bhagavatam description of cosmology or Bhagavatam description or chronology of how species come out, that is primarily for meditational purposes. And that is not seen as competition in Jyotish.
There are two different bodies of knowledge and both are accepted. So, the material description in scripture don’t have to be necessarily seen as competitive to scientific descriptions of the world around us. Because when we position scripture as a competitor of science, we devalue scripture.
Conversely, if some science comes up with some theories that seem to go against scripture, then, we have to see that all science is not born equal. That scientific theories which are based on induction are much more reliable than theories which are come up with through abduction. Abduction is about things which are not repeatable or experimentable.
It’s simply an inference about remote historical event that we know. And those may or may not be true. Further, even with respect to induction, if there seems to be some contradiction, it’s not contradiction, it’s complementation.
Miracles are not against science, they are above science. In spiritual circles, we do not deny that there are laws operating in the material world, such as the laws of physics. But these are not omnipotent.
These are not absolute. They are not imbibable. Normally they function, but in exceptional situations, the source of those laws can suspend those laws.
So, miracles are not a rejection of the principle of a law-governed universe. They are the temporary suspension of those laws for some higher purpose. And then, what does the spiritual realm contain? I talk about rational spirituality and revelational spirituality.
By rational spirituality, we can conclude that there is an eternal consciousness beyond this world, that consciousness has the capacity to supervise this world. Consciousness existing beyond this world is Brahman. Consciousness in the capacity to supervise the world is Paramatma.
And consciousness who also has personal interactions, just as we have a loving interaction in this world, that is Bhagwan. Specific features of Bhagwan, that’s something which we can’t know from any kind of inference. That’s what we have to learn from the revelation given in scriptures.
And then lastly, I talked about the essence of spirituality is to raise our consciousness to the spiritual level. Spiritual knowledge is not just propositional. Oh, this exists, this exists, this exists.
Spiritual knowledge is transformational. It is meant to transform our consciousness. And in that sense, it is also repeatable.
Anybody who practises spirituality, they can find their negativities going down. They can find their fear, anxiety, stress, anger, criticality, such things going down. And often, science and technology don’t offer us tools for eliminating these.
But spirituality does offer. So, spiritual knowledge, science can make things better, spirituality can make people better. We can change our default responses.
I talked about this boy. Earlier, when there was a breakup, he wanted to be almost suicidal. But then, later when there was a breakup, he became more spiritual.
So, in this way, by changing our default responses, spirituality can make us better. By using science to function as required in the outer world, and by using spirituality to understand the purpose of our life, and to achieve that purpose, by bringing out our higher side, we can resolve any tension that might be there in science and spirituality and use both these sources of knowledge for our all-round growth. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. So, are there any questions or comments? Yes. Guruji, you told today that accept that which is favourable for spiritual growth and avoid the unfavourable.
Yes. So, is it somewhat contradicting to what we were taught in previous classes, that we should not manipulate the scriptures and it is like cutting the golden egg giving hen. Cut the front part.
Okay, good question. So, he is saying that we accept that which is favourable and avoid that which is unfavourable. Can we apply this to scriptural knowledge? Isn’t it like cutting the half-hand logic where we take the back part of the hand but not the first part? When I said apply the principle anukulya sankalsa pratyakulya sevarjanam, what do I mean by that? I don’t mean that we reject scripture.
But we focus on particular aspects of scripture. See, for example, Prabhupada says that there is the description of the Rast Nila which Krishna performs and it is described in the 10th Canto. And Prabhupada also gave that description in the Krishna book which he rendered as a summary study of the 10th Canto.
Now he said when you read the Rast Nila, that is actually very elevated. It is a very elevated pastime. And Prabhupada himself says that if you hear the Rast Nila, the lust within you will go away.
And actually, when we understand the pure love and reciprocation between Radha and Krishna, whatever selfish desire is there within us, it will go away. But if somebody hears it and that doesn’t happen, rather the lust increases, then Prabhupada says, don’t read it right. That means that is not right enough favourable for your spiritual growth.
We are not rejecting the Rast Nila. We are saying that it is not favourable for our spiritual growth. Similarly, if we find that the descriptions of cosmology in the Bhagavatam are too difficult to make sense for us, then we can say, okay, I won’t focus so much on those specific descriptions.
And even if you read Sri Prabhupada’s purports in those sections, Prabhupada doesn’t go into the specifics of cosmological dimensions. There also he focusses on the principles of spiritual life. What are the principles to be applied in our life and how to grow in our life by applying those principles.
That’s his thrust. So, it’s not that we are pratikulya se varjanam. What that means is when it is applied to scripture, it is simply that we have a purpose and whatever helps us to fulfil that purpose, we focus on that.
We are not rejecting scripture. We are just choosing to focus. That’s why I talked elaborately about how there are different models of reality.
We are not saying that this part of scripture is wrong. We are not rejecting it as mythology or something like that. What are we saying is that that is a different model of reality.
It has a particular purpose. How that model of reality correlates with the observed reality that we have, that is a difficult challenge. And those who are want to go into that field and specialise and learn, they can do it.
But for others, whether analysing the cosmology in the Bhagavatam is going to nourish one’s devotion, that is a question which is for specialists it may, for others it may not. So, we come here to increase our devotion to Krishna, to increase our understanding of life’s purpose. So, we focus on that purpose.
So, it would be half-hand logic if we started rejecting certain sections of scripture. We are not talking about rejecting scripture. We are talking about contextualising various sections of scripture in the light of the purpose of scripture.
And then focussing on which aspect of scripture helps us to fulfil that purpose. It’s like if I have been given a big map, there are so many roads described over there, so many areas. Now, if I have to go to the destination, I will look at the route which takes me to the destination.
If I was sitting in a geography class where I needed to understand the geography of the country, then I may look at all the cities over there. But if I am not sitting in a geography class, if my purpose is simply to get to a destination, then it’s not that I reject all the other places that are existing. I simply focus on where I am going.
So, for us, if we want to go towards Krishna, we focus on those sections, studying which helps us move towards Krishna. So, gurukul kids don’t use any technology or any different gadgets. But I said science makes things of bhakti better.
I didn’t say science makes things of bhakti better. I said science can make outer things better. And those things may be usable in Krishna’s service.
But whether they need to be used, whether they make things really better, they are questions which can be discussed. So, for example, we have so much technology which makes communication, transportation, locomotion much faster. It also has a flip side, it causes pollution, it causes ecological problems.
So, in some ways, science and technology can make things better in terms of providing more comfort and facilities. Now, for those who need to use them, they use them. For those who don’t need to use them, they don’t need to use them.
It’s up to individual. Generally, there are some studies, especially people who do not have adequate amount of discernment. Discernment means capacity to understand what is important, what is not important.
Then, indiscriminate access to technology and now through technology to the web, that can be harmful. So, that is restricted. There is no principle that technology can’t be used.
But nor is there a principle that technology has to be used. We have to see what is required for one’s spiritual growth. So, the kids, if those kids have chosen to stay in the gurukul, that means they want to live a traditional way of life, that means they want to practise bhakti in a traditional setting, then they don’t need to have the products of modern technology.
But if somebody wants to practise bhakti in a modern setting, then they will need the products of modern technology. So, it’s a matter of being purpose-driven. What is required for fulfilling our purpose of serving Krishna and growing in his service, we use that.
It is said that God created the universe and human entities and also gave them to people. Besides, we have to set all living beings for suffering by controlling his urge to enjoy and not giving. Okay.
So, it’s said that God created all living beings so that he could reciprocate love and enjoy. If he had controlled that urge to enjoy, then nobody would have created and then nobody would have been suffering also. Yes, good question.
It’s said that, first of all, the word creation is something which you cannot use for God or for us also. One of our features is anadi, we are beginningless. That means that we are co-eternal with God.
So, rather than saying why we were created, we could say that same question that point is, why we exist? Existence is different from creation. It’s not that we were created at a particular point. At one point we were not existing and at another point we came into existence.
We are beginningless. Just as God is beginningless. The word Bhagavad Gita uses the word aja or anadi to describe our existence.
Now, God doesn’t need to enjoy. He is atmara. Atmara means He is self-satisfied.
There are two ways in which say, we may form a relationship. One is out of need to get something. Say, if I am hungry and I don’t have any food, then I may go to neighbour’s house.
If the neighbours are friendly, I may say, you know, we may go to friend’s house and say, can I have a meal at your place? Or sometimes a beggar may go and ask somebody for food. So, we may form a relationship or interact with someone out of need to get something. But suppose we have cooked so much food now.
Let’s say sometimes we have programmes over here and we all had prasadam and so much food is still remaining. Then we may go out to find someone to give food to. We may go to beggars.
In America, when you go, there is no problem of food being excess. What happens if there is food excess? Everybody has fridges and ovens. There are some students who come for our college programmes.
They come once a week and they take back food for the whole week. So, not the whole week, 3-4 days sometimes. So, the point is that when somebody is going out, in second case, they are not going out for a need to get something.
It’s need to share something. Of course, in sharing, we will also get pleasure. Somebody is hungry and we give them food.
They feel happy, we feel happy. So, when Krishna wants to form relationships, it is not because he is incomplete without relationships. He is not forming relationships to gain completeness.
He is forming relationships to share his completeness. He is filled with joy and he wants to share his joy with others. So, in that sense, it’s not exactly in the sense of neediness as we conceive it.
And as far as people misusing their free will is concerned, that possibility is always there. But just because somebody misuses their free will, does not mean that their existence itself is a problem. That way, when parents have children, so many times the children may go on the wrong track.
Then, is it that all parents should stop begetting children? Then no child will go on the wrong track. Well, no child will go on the wrong track because there is no child to have only. And what will happen? There is no human species continuing.
This is a big problem in the West. Parents don’t want to beget children. And that’s why in many cities in America among the Caucasian population, Caucasian means American population, the number of pet dogs is more than the number of children.
Because people feel that I don’t want to take responsibility for a child, but they have a need to nurture. They need to take care of someone. So, they will not take care of children and they will have dogs.
So, the problem is not that all of us exist. The problem is that some of us misuse our free will. So, it is not that our existence itself is the cause of our suffering.
It is not that Krishna is the cause of our suffering because Krishna has arranged for our existence. Rather, it is our misuse of free will that is the cause of our suffering. And Krishna provides us abandoned facilities for learning to use our free will properly.
To the extent we learn to use our free will properly, to that extent we grow in our spiritual life and we relish happiness. What time should I go on? I can’t hear you. So, one last question quickly.
When Krishna says we are parts of him, does it mean that we are once with him and then we are now separated from him? No, we are eternally in separated parts. Separated means we always have our individuality and see the word part can have many different meanings. It is like if I have a computer this computer may have a CPU in it, a memory disc a memory chip in it a visual graphics card in it.
These are all parts of the computer. Those parts are in here. But you could also use the part in a sense that say, if there is a team of people who are working on a project some especially nowadays international work is happening so, some members of the team may be in America some members of the team may be in India some may be in India at the client’s place some may be at the host’s place so, now there when you say we are a part of a team that part is not similar to the part over here this part of a team, the part has consciousness, it’s an individual and the team is not like one structure in which everything is inside, not a physical structure.
Team is disintegrated but they have a common purpose. So, when we say that we are parts of Krishna it is not like a machine part where is one physical unit in which all the parts are enclosed. It’s more the part in the sense of a team so, we are all having a common interest we love Krishna, Krishna loves us and we all eternally exchange in the reciprocation of love but sometimes we come under the influence of our mind and senses we come under the influence of our mind and senses we get misled and then we go away from Krishna because of that so, we are parts who eternally are individual and who eternally have free will but we are parts in the sense that we are meant to play our part in the whole.
We are meant to use our free will to harmonise with Krishna so, we are eternally separated and we are eternally related separated in the sense that we have our individuality. Related means we are meant to use our individuality to harmonise with Krishna Thank you very much