Does matter acquire form only when there is observing consciousness?
Is it that matter acquires form only when there is a soul observing or present? Without consciousness, is it that matter is just shapeless, unmanifested matter in the form of Pradhan? Looks like a little agorithm.
Yeah, is it true? See, this is basically the idea that matter does not exist with consciousness is one idea that is talked within quantum physics. Quantum physics has the idea that everything is just waves and when there is a conscious observer, the waves collapse into tangible objects. So there are different devotees who try to sort of find some sort of relationship between science and scripture and for that different ways things may be proposed.
Different ways things may be proposed. Now none of these are definitive. Because ultimately scripture has not talked about science as we modern scientists analyse the world.
Scripture analyses the world in a different way. So that's one frame, this is a different frame. And how that frame will relate with this frame, that is something which we cannot have any authoritative judgment about it.
Because unless our authority is Guru Sadhu Shastra. So if Guru Sadhu Shastra has not explicitly said something about how that interfaces with this, to make a definitive statement, we will have to have a lot of sound reasoning for this. So from our perspective, matter and spirit are both energies of Krishna.
That is very clear. 7th chapter talks about it, 3rd canto also talks about it. And now does matter have a form independent of the presence of souls? That is usually when the souls are withdrawn at the end of the Brahma's day or Brahma's life, at that time even the material form also gets withdrawn.
That is talked about. So in that sense we could say that the purpose of the material existence is to facilitate the souls engagement over there. So if the souls are not there, the purpose of having forms and having everything manifested in the material world, there is no purpose over there.
That could be a valued reasoning. But to just say that form itself or matter will not have any form if there is no soul. There is no correlation and there is causation.
Correlation means that there are two factors which occur together. So for example somebody says that cleaner cars stay workable longer. So now there is the workability of cars and cleanliness of cars.
Now these two are correlated. But are they causing? Is it that the cleanliness of the car is causing the workability of the car to be longer or is it that people who keep cars clean also maintain their cars well and the other things also, they do regular oiling, regular managing of the cars and that's why the cars last longer. There is a correlation and causation.
So correlation means the two things go together but one is not caused by the other. There is some other factor involved which is causing both of them. So correlation is not causation.
So just because cleaner cars last longer doesn't necessarily mean that cleanliness causes the car to last longer. So we could say it's true that as per the Vedic analysis of matter and spirit, matter manifests form when there are souls who want to enjoy this world or at least live in this world. And when the souls are not there, matter also manifests.
That is true. But that is a correlation. To say that matter itself does not have form when souls are not there, that would seem to imply a causation that it is the conscious soul which causes the soul to manifest form which I would say is doubtful because ultimately the soul doesn't have the power to manifest form of matter.
Both are arranged by the Supreme Lord. So we could say there is a correlation. In an absolute sense, if the souls were not there, matter would also not have form.
But it is not causal. The connection is not causal and it is quite different from what quantum physics talks about. Quantum physics talks about matter as the form doesn't exist itself.
So the Vedic concept is very different. Once the material nature is manifested, suppose if the universe is annihilated, the earth is annihilated by some, what do you say, some atom bomb or something, annihilated hypothetically, annihilates all life, it is not that the earth's form itself will get collapsed. It is not intrinsically causal like that.
There is a correlation but not causal. And I would say that trying to refute Darwin's theory why this is a little, it is going to be convincing only for the convinced. See when I have to try to persuade someone else, I have to consider the reasoning that is intelligible and acceptable to that person.
If I use reasoning that that person doesn't accept on me and if a person does not believe in Shastra and if I want to tell him God exists and I say God exists why? Because Bhagavad Gita says so. That is not a reason that is going to be acceptable for them. So we have to find out what forms of reasoning are intelligible to which people and present our scriptural principles or scriptural conclusions in that form of reasoning.
Then it will be intelligible for them. Is that clear?