How science and God go together as mechanical and personal explanations of reality

[Talk at Auckland, New Zealand]

Video

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So today morning, we’re discussing from the Srimad Bhagavatam the remarkable pastime where Krishna in the form of Varaha is rescuing the earth from the atrocities of Hiranyaksha. So today and tomorrow, I will speak on the theme of how the Lord keeps us afloat in material existence.
We are also sinking, drowning in this ocean. So here, Prabhupada in the Parpot writes that how has Varaha, the earth which has sunk into the ocean, is lifted up by Varaha and he keeps it. But it doesn’t sink again.
It stays afloat. Now, how does it stay afloat? The Bhagavatam says that it is because the Lord invested his power in it. His own existence from that impotency by which it started staying afloat.
And Prabhupada says, how can this happen? This may seem impossible. So I’ll talk today three main points on this. How the laws that act in the world require an explanation.
The second point will be that how the Lord explains both the laws and transmits the laws. And the third point will be how that applies to us in the balance of justice and mercy. So firstly, when something is floating, like the planets are floating, the scientific explanation is that there are the laws of nature, the laws of physics, the law of gravity specifically.
So the laws are used to explain the behaviour of natural phenomena. And yes, they are an explanation to some extent. But the laws themselves require an explanation.
What does it mean? That laws, why should the laws exist at all? It is that laws don’t themselves anywhere exist. If you consider there’s a law in different parts of the world, either you drive on the left or drive on the right. And this law does not exist on its own.
So atheistic scientists, they try to say that laws are intrinsic to matter. That what they say is that you just give us one assumption and with that assumption we’ll explain everything. But what is that assumption? That assumption is that matter along with the laws of nature exists forever.
Now, why should it exist forever like that? And anyway, even science now says the universe is not eternal. So when Newton had just been to London where he saw the same tree where Newton saw the apple falling. Some people say the apple fell in front of him.
Some people say it fell on him. Whichever way, that tree is now preserved. It’s like a pilgrimage place for scientists.
They go and cherish it. Oh, how brilliant was Newton. He got that inspiration over there.
Now, certainly at one level it’s his brilliance. But Newton, when he was himself asked, many scientists at that time criticised the law of gravitation. They said, this is just spooky.
The planet, the moon is somewhere far away, the earth is far away. How does this force radiate through space? How does it act? And Newton said, I’m not going to talk about the origin. I don’t know.
He said that the mechanism, I do not know. I’m only giving a mathematical equation for observed phenomena. That objects fall on the ground.
How do they fall? With what force? He got some idea and he proposed that. Now, at one level, Newton also believed in God. And he said that, oh father, I think thy thoughts after thee.
That means he saw his scientific discoveries as spiritual insights into the way God had fashioned the universe. That means the laws are there, but how do the laws come? God has arranged it. So, oh father, I think thy thoughts after thee.
A famous Indian mathematician, Srinivas Ramanujan, he said that an equation for me has no meaning unless it represents a thought of God. An equation, E is equal to mc squared. Why should it be equal? That’s because it’s a thought of God.
So, there are many scientists who recognise the laws of nature and don’t explain themselves. Their existence requires some other explanation. Now, broadly, science has three alternatives.
First is that the laws exist as they are. The second is that now the laws are so specific that they can’t have come by chance. They say, maybe there are multiple universes and in each universe there are different laws.
And in our universe, the laws happen to be like this. And the third explanation is the laws come from some intelligent design, from some higher organising principle. One of the biggest, greatest scientists of the last century, Einstein, preferred the third explanation.
The first explanation, if you consider the laws just exist, there’s no explanation why they should just exist. Matter is insentient. How does matter organise itself according to precise laws? Then the other explanation is that there are many, many universes and there are laws in all the universes, different laws.
And it’s like you throw a dice. If you throw six dices, then one will fall six. So, like that, there are millions of universes and in one of us, one of them, the laws have come out right.
But, although this theory is proposed by scientists, the theory itself is not very scientific. Because these parallel universes have no evidence at all. And in fact, by definition itself, you cannot observe them.
So, it’s more of a speculation to avoid the third conclusion. The third conclusion is there is some intelligent organising principle behind the laws. So, this understanding is very important.
God is not the explanation for the unexplainable. God is not the explanation for the unexplainable. The typical atheistic narrative is that, oh, in the past, people did not know how rains would happen.
That’s why they thought there must be some god of rain. People didn’t know how the plants grew. That’s why they thought there must be some deity of the forest.
In this way, because of ignorance, people imagined some gods. But now, science knows the explanations. Therefore, there is no need for God.
See, one vision of looking at it is that God is the explanation for the unexplainable. That what we can’t explain, we attribute to God. But the way we are discussing over here is, not that God is the explanation for the unexplainable.
But rather, God is the explanation for explainability. God is the explanation for explainability. That means, why is anything explainable? You might say, okay, the planets are flowing because of gravity.
The plants grow because of photosynthesis. Okay, that’s fine. But where did this mechanism come from? So God is not like a magic wand, an explanation for everything.
No, whatever explanation we come up with, what is the basis for that explanation? Why should nature obey God? So God is the explanation for explainability. And if you understand these two different approaches, that means what is it? So science is giving some knowledge. And some people think that there is a conflict between science and religion.
As scientific knowledge increases, religion will decrease. Because as science explains more and more things, then there is no need for God. But that is not the vision we are talking about here.
That it is whatever science is able to explain, why is science able to explain that? On what basis? So what it means is, let’s consider the example of gravity itself. So what is gravity? Oh, it is a force that keeps planets afloat. Okay, what keeps planets afloat? That’s gravity.
Where is the explanation here? Gravity is simply a name we have given to an observed phenomenon. So naming an observed phenomenon is not explaining that phenomenon. Now naming could be a part of the explanation.
Just like say, if somebody is, if a child is walking normally and suddenly the child falls down. Why is the child not able to walk? That’s what, maybe 20, 40, 45 years ago. And I was just one.
I was walking one day. My parents told me this. And I just fell down.
And then I just couldn’t walk. They rushed me to the doctor. And they found that I had got polio.
So now polio is a name given to the disease. That okay, the leg is no longer functioning because of polio. But that doesn’t explain where polio came from.
You need to know what happened. Where did the germs come from? So in my case, what had happened was that the doctor had given some vaccine to prevent the polio. But the vaccine was defective.
And the vaccine, instead of preventing the polio, gave me the polio. So the point is that there is naming a phenomenon and explaining a phenomenon. So the inability to walk is caused by polio.
That’s an explanation. But that’s only one level of explanation. A set of symptoms.
You can give them the name polio. But that doesn’t explain. And it’s not clear.
It’s not clear? Okay. Yeah, I also felt that. Is it better now? Hare Krishna.
Is it better? So were you able to understand what I spoke till now? Or should I repeat it? Okay. So I was basically saying that naming a phenomenon doesn’t explain the phenomenon. We need some further explanation.
Okay, there’s polio. But where did polio come from? So like that we may say, what keeps the planets afloat? That’s gravity. But where did gravity come from? So the point is that we don’t position science and God as in competition.
If science explains something, God becomes redundant. No. If science explains something, how does science get the ability to explain that? Why is nature explainable at all? So God is not the explanation for the unexplainable.
He is the explanation for explainability. Why is anything explainable at all? Why are there laws in nature? Where do those laws come from? If we understand this, then we don’t envision this conflict. In fact, the more science advances, the more we see God’s glory in the advancement of science.
That’s why it was Pascal who said that a little of science takes man away from God. But immersion in science brings them back to God. So a little science, I know this, I know this, I know this.
Why don’t need God? You go deep into science, why are things the way they are? Why is science able to explain things? We come back to God. So that is the first and second point I made. The laws of nature require an explanation and God is the explanation for that.
Now, how exactly is God the explanation? That the world is organised by divine will. When people use the word God, they may have some religious connotation or this image in the temple or this particular figure in history or whatever. Let’s not start with that figure.
Let’s start with the concept. The concept is that there is an organising principle. Now, what is the nature of that organising principle? So is that just like a presence or is that personal? So there are two visions of the universe.
One is that it is mechanical and the second is it is personal. Now, the mechanical and the personal visions can both work together also. Just like, say, if you go to somebody’s house for a programme and they have got some item which is delicious over there.
Now, you may want to know two things. Who made this and how did they make it? So now the recipe and the cook are not two contradictory explanations. They are complementary explanations.
The recipe describes the mechanism by which it is made. And the cook is the personal agent who made it. So what science discovers is the recipe.
Okay, how do things operate in the universe? That is the mechanical explanation. So the recipe is the mechanical explanation. The cook is the personal explanation.
And both the mechanical and the personal explanation can work together. Now, just because we have a recipe does not mean that there is no need for a cook. And just because there is a cook does not mean there is no need for a recipe.
So God exists. So God is like the cook for material nature. And the law of gravity is the recipe.
So why do things operate the way they are? The laws are the mechanical explanation. And that’s also valid. We don’t deny that the mechanical explanation is valid.
But God is the personal explanation. And now this brings us to an important point. That if we see only the mechanical explanation and make it absolute.
Say if somebody wants to make a dessert, you want to make halwa. And we have got a particular recipe by which the halwa is made. And then the halwa tastes very good.
But suppose today some of those ingredients are not available. If somebody were working simply on mechanical principles, they would say, we can’t cook that today. But somebody who is an expert cook will say, okay, what ingredients do you have? Maybe with the other ingredients, we can still cook something which may taste just as good.
It may not be identical, but you want a delicious dessert. We can have a delicious dessert, but with some ingredients. So the mechanical view restricts us to the mechanical process alone.
Whereas the personal view focusses on the purpose. And the process is subordinate to the purpose. The process is important.
But if somehow that process is not possible, then the purpose can be served in some other way. So that is the expertise of the cook. So if sometimes without using the recipe, a cook makes a delicious dessert, a delicious halwa.
Now, if somebody says, you’re actually tasting the halwa. No, this halwa is not possible. Why? The recipe was not followed.
Well, the product is there. No, no, it’s not possible. It’s already done.
No, not possible. So now, for example, here, the earth is floating on the ocean. Now, how can the earth float on the ocean? That’s not possible.
But the earth is floating. How? It’s not possible. So yes, you could say the normal laws of gravity won’t allow it to float.
But gravity is like the recipe. The product is flotation. So now the Lord can get things to float.
He may use a standard particular mechanism for making the planets float. But that doesn’t mean he is stuck with that mechanism. If he wants, he can get that same purpose served without using that process.
So normally, objects don’t float on the water unless, say, they are constructed of a particular material, constructed in a particular shape. And that’s how they may float. But that floating also needs an explanation.
That explanation is that God has arranged that mechanism. And just as a cook can bypass the recipe and still make a good item, similarly, the Lord can bypass the process and still provide the result. That’s why miracles are not against science.
Miracles are above science. We don’t reject science. We don’t say, oh, science is all wrong.
Miracles are about science. They are an explanation which is above the mechanical level of explanation. The mechanical is real.
We don’t deny the reality. And scientists work very hard to understand the mechanisms by which nature works. And that’s also their hard work, their intelligence can be appreciated.
But where they go wrong is when they make the mechanical explanation the complete explanation. And they say there is no explanation except the mechanical explanation. That is where they go wrong.
And this principle applies in our lives also. How I talk of the third point I’ll talk about is that we can talk about the laws of physics. Science uses the word laws of nature and Shri Prabhupada uses the word laws of nature.
And they use it in quite different senses. When Prabhupada uses the word laws of nature, for example, Prabhupada has a book called the Laws of Nature. That book is talking about the, which law? Is he talking about gravity? What is he talking about? Karma.
Yes, thank you. So he’s talking about the laws of karma over there. Now science may not accept the laws of karma.
But science itself does not explain everything. So, but either way, we can talk about the laws of karma also. There are also laws.
And that law essentially is that whenever there is action, there will be a reaction. There is a law of motion also just similar. But that does not involve consciousness.
That does not involve personal agency. But the principle is that by God’s will, the laws of karma occur. And by God’s will, those laws can be suspended also.
So just as the Lord, you could say, he made a different mechanism by which the earth floated, even if by normal gravity, it shouldn’t be floating. But the earth was floating. So the purpose was to get the earth to float.
Similarly, the law of karma also has a purpose. The purpose is not just to punish people. You did this, so you’re going to get this.
You did this, so you’re going to get that. The purpose is not punitive, but reformative. It is not to punish people, but to transform people.
And that is why when somebody takes up the practise of bhakti, somebody surrenders to the Lord. At that time, what does he do? He says that whatever wrongdoings he may have done, I will protect you from those reactions. So there is justice and there is mercy.
So justice is law-bound. You could say justice is somewhat mechanical. You did this wrong, you’ll get this consequence.
You did this wrong, you’ll get this consequence. So justice is mechanical. Mercy is personal.
Where the Lord sees that somebody is sincerely trying to reform themselves. That person is trying to come to me. He’s trying to live a better life.
Then what happens in that person’s life is not necessarily only according to the laws of karma. Now again, this doesn’t mean that the laws of karma don’t act. The laws of karma also act in a devotee’s life.
But it is not just the laws of karma acting. It is Krishna overseeing personally and making sure that whatever happens is best for that devotee’s spiritual evolution, for the growth of the devotee’s consciousness toward Krishna. And how does Krishna do this? Krishna does it by acting not just externally but also internally.
Externally means externally events will happen in our life. Even for a devotee, things will go wrong. Sometimes that’s the nature of the world.
Sometimes people may let us down. Sometimes we ourselves might make some embarrassing mistakes. Sometimes if nature is cold, the devotees will also feel cold.
There are exceptions to that. So at the level of nature, things will happen in many ways similarly to how they happen to a non-devotee. But the Lord, of course, the Lord can orchestrate things externally also.
And that is wonderful when he does it. But more importantly, the Lord acts internally. Internally to guide the devotee.
How is this favourable for my emotional success? How can, what is this meant for? How can this take me toward Krishna? So, for example, Krishna Prabhupada was diligently trying to assist his spiritual master’s mission by running a big business and he wanted to offer the proceeds from that business to his Guru Maharaj. But it was just not working. He tried once, tried twice, tried in one city, tried in another city, then tried in third city.
He tried first in Kolkata, then he was in Mumbai for some time, then he went to Prayag, Allahabad, trying so many, nothing was working. And finally, because of various issues, including betrayal by a servant, business collapsed. Now that was a disaster.
But Krishna from within the heart, Krishna through the association of a devotee, told Prabhupada that, To those whom I give special mercy, I take everything away from them. So that they have nothing except me to turn to. Now we may say, what is this all mercy? Now God should be giving things to us.
Yes, to give resources to us is God’s mercy. But to give resources to us is God’s mercy. But to give himself to us is his greatest mercy.
And sometimes the resources can take us to Krishna. Say, if we have financial stability, if we have good health, if we have good relationships, then all that stability can help us go towards Krishna. But sometimes when that is taken away, then we have nothing except Krishna left.
So Krishna’s mercy can come in different ways. And essentially a devotee has to become expert at the art of translating life events in a way that they are favourable to our bhakti. So we need to translate life events so that they are favourable to our bhakti.
Okay, this has happened. To my vision, this is a terrible, terrible happening. Why did this have to happen? But then I use my intelligence.
I consult devotees. I pray to Krishna. And then we get that wisdom.
Okay, why is this happening? This is how it is favourable for my bhakti. This is how I can move toward Krishna. This is how it is ultimately for my God.
So in tomorrow’s class, I’ll talk more about this principle of translating life events so that they are favourable to our devotion. To some extent, in the afternoon seminar also on overcoming discouragement, I’ll be talking about a similar theme. But this particular theme, I’ll be continuing in tomorrow’s class.
I’ll summarise what I spoke today. I spoke on the theme of how Krishna keeps us afloat in material existence. The background is that the earth which is sunk into the ocean is lifted by Varaha Dev and is kept on the ocean so that it stays afloat.
And I talked about three points in the class that the laws of nature which are told by science, discovered by science, themselves require an explanation. That when science comes up with mechanisms, those mechanisms, it’s intelligent to discover that. But where do those mechanisms come from themselves? So either scientists can say the mechanisms exist in nature itself, matter and the laws are eternal, or they have come by chance.
But they are so complicated that they could not have come by chance. Even scientists acknowledge that. They say there are many different universes and like a dice being thrown.
In this universe, the laws have come out to be like this. Now among these three explanations, science itself has now shown that the universe is not eternal. So the laws of nature had to have come from somewhere.
Then what about parallel universes? There is no evidence for that. So it’s more science fiction than science. And then what is the explanation left? That God, that it is from some higher organising principle that the laws of nature have come about.
So even Newton, when he proposed the law of gravity, what he gave was a mathematical formulation for an observed phenomenon. He did not actually tell about the causal mechanism by which things happen. The origination of how it comes about.
So we discussed that science can name phenomena, but naming is only a part of the explanation. It’s like if somebody can’t walk, you can say it’s because of polio. But giving a name polio doesn’t explain how polio came about or how polio came to that person.
Similarly, saying that apples fall because of gravity or planets float because of gravity doesn’t explain where that mechanism of gravity came from. So and the second point I said is that God is the explanation for the operation of the natural laws and for the transcendence to the natural laws. So we talked about how there can be for the same thing, a mechanical explanation and a personal explanation and both can go together.
They can be cooking, a delicacy. There can be the mechanical explanation, the recipe and the personal explanation, the cook. And both go together.
So in this understanding, God is not the explanation for the unexplainable. It is not that because we can’t explain things, so we have to attribute it to God. So God and religion are not in the tension.
God and science are not in the tension, that as science explanation increases, there’s no need for God. God is the explanation for explainability. Why do the mechanical explanations work? That’s because there’s a personal organising principle underlying them.
And that’s why the more we study scientific advancement, the more our understanding of God’s glory also increases. Now with this understanding of the mechanical and personal explanations, this is a cook might be able to cook a similar tasting item even with those ingredients are not there. The cook is not necessarily stuck to the process, to the recipe.
The cook focusses on the purpose. Similarly, when the Lord wants, even without the natural laws of gravity, the mechanism, that particular mechanism, the Lord can get the product. What is getting the earth to float on the ocean? So God, if we focus on only the mechanical explanation, then we can’t explain miracles.
But if we look at the personal explanation, then we can explain the normal functioning and we can explain miracles also. Miracles are not against science, they are above science. And then lastly, I talked about how this principle can apply in our lives.
That there is the principle of karma, which is like the mechanical explanation. We do something, we get something in return. But along with that, there’s a personal explanation.
The purpose of the Lord in instituting the laws of karma is not punitive, it is reformative. Not that he wants to punish us, but that he wants us to reform, raise our consciousness, to come to him. And if somebody is doing that, the Lord can withdraw or suspend or adjust the laws of karma.
So when devotees go through distress, it’s not that it is not karma, but it is something more than karma. The Lord is orchestrating the principles of material nature so that whatever happens is favourable for the devotee’s spiritual evolution. And for us to understand that, how is this favourable? We need to have a prayerful service attitude.
A devotee needs to become expert at translating life events so that instead of seeing them simply as distressful, we see them as opportunities to move closer to Krishna. When Prabhupada lost his business, he saw that Krishna is taking everything away so that he can give himself to me. So similarly, if we learn to translate life events so that they are favourable for the practise of our bhakti, for our spiritual growth, then we can stay afloat and cross over this ocean of material existence.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Any questions or comments? Yes, please.
So what happens when we start doing the personal process of bhakti, such as chanting mechanically? Because our existence, you could say, is multi-dimensional. The body, the mind, and the soul. So from the soul, consciousness comes.
But the body is more or less mechanical. The mind is material, but it’s not exactly mechanical. It’s subtle.
But we could say it’s somewhat mechanical. We have impressions, they are like programmes, and they keep coming in the same way. So because our existence is, you could say, three-level presently.
Body, mind, and soul. And out of those two components, body and mind are mechanical. So that’s why the default tendency is to go toward mechanical behaviour.
So it’s not unexpected. Of course, because it is expected doesn’t mean it is desirable. But we don’t have to be too hard with ourselves when we gravitate toward mechanical behaviour.
Because that’s just the way we will become. Because currently our existence as embodied beings will mean that we will do some things mechanically. So what transforms a mechanical action into a personal action is the investment of consciousness.
The investment of consciousness. Just like, say, if your phone or your computer is not working and you call customer support of the company and you get a very sweet machine voice. Now it might be sweet, but, you know, if you want this, do this.
If you want this, do this. If you want this, do this. If that’s all we keep hearing, soon we get irritated.
We want to hear a person. So when there is no investment of consciousness, that’s what makes it mechanical. Personal is when there is investment of consciousness.
So if we don’t invest our consciousness in the practise of bhakti, then what happens is the Krishna connection is not very strong. It is not that it is not there at all. It is still there, but it is very minimal.
And when the Krishna connection is minimal, then when difficulties come in our life, the Krishna connection is not there to guide us. The Krishna connection is not there to illuminate us. Say, for example, if we are chanting mechanically, if we are practising bhakti mechanically, and then some temptation comes in our life.
Then, or some trouble comes in our life. Now when the temptation comes, we can look at it in two ways. One is, oh, this is an opportunity for me to enjoy.
Nobody’s watching, let me enjoy. Or you can say, oh, this is an opportunity for me to show my devotion to Krishna. Krishna, I can have this, but I want you, and I want you more.
Therefore, I choose not to turn towards this. So now if we are remembering Krishna, if during the practise of our sadhana bhakti, we have strived to establish a personal connection with Krishna, then, Krishna in 1515 says in the Gita, I will give you remembrance or knowledge of forgetfulness. So when we have personally invested in connecting with Krishna, then Krishna will give us remembrance.
This is a test. You can grow in this situation by showing your devotion. But if we have not made that personal connection, then we will not remember that.
So when we need to remember Krishna, we won’t remember him. Similarly, when trouble comes, life is so terrible. Maybe Krishna doesn’t care for me.
Krishna doesn’t even exist. That kind of thoughts may pop up within us. And not only will they pop up, they will stay on.
And they will drain our consciousness. But if we are devout, if we are practising bhakti personally, then what will happen? At that time, the right thought will come. See, Krishna has told in scripture that this world is a place of distress.
And now I’m experiencing this distress. Krishna’s words are true. But the same thing can actually increase my faith in Krishna’s words.
Krishna has also said that if you become absorbed in me, you can transcend distress. So let me see if that works out. So one, scriptural teachings can be broadly classified into two.
One aspect is that this world is a place of distress. The second aspect is that by taking shelter of Krishna, we can go beyond distress. So when we experience distress, we can think, oh, see, the first aspect, I’ve experienced it now.
I can see this world is a place of distress. Now let me try to experience the second aspect. By taking shelter of Krishna, can I tolerate and transcend my stress? So the same distress can increase our faith in scripture and Krishna, or the same distress can decrease our faith in scripture and Krishna.
So the mechanical practise of bhakti impedes in the personal reciprocation that we can have with Krishna. And the personal guidance that Krishna can give us, we block it. So, teśāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ vajadāṁ priti-purukam tadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ tam yena māṁ pāyānti te.
Krishna says, buddhi-yoga, I will give you intelligence. But when? When? Vajadāṁ priti-purukam. When we are practising bhakti affectionately.
If we are practising bhakti mechanically, or worse still, resentfully, then our consciousness becomes, say, Krishna, we are here, Krishna is here. Now the pathway between us and Krishna has to be like a conductor. And our personal practise of bhakti makes that pathway like a conductor.
But when we are mechanical or resentful, then that pathway becomes like an insulator. And Krishna’s guidance cannot reach us. And that’s why we will blunder through life.
We will face small problems and we’ll act in ways that make the small problems worse. But when problems come, if we have invested in personally connecting with Krishna, we’ll act in a way that can deal with the problems maturely. Does that answer your question? Any other questions? One question.
So thank you very much. So what is the relationship between scriptural knowledge and scientific knowledge?