Don’t let astonishment over mystical or technological marvels distract from bhakti
Thank you Krishna Good morning we are continuing our discussion on Vishwa Vibhagavatam the pastime of Kardamuni manifesting an extraordinary palace at the request of Devahuti and particular words that we are discussing today Kardamuni is the palace that is described that it had natural and artificial beauty both so it had natural pigeons and swans and also had artificial pigeons and swans and the artificial looks so real that it is not just people mistook them even the birds themselves pigeons and swans they also mistook it so it is said that in art art is often said to be an illusion that helps us to understand reality art is an illusion that helps us to understand reality what does that mean that means that say if a picture is depicted of something or if a statue is made of something or if some drama is made or if some movie is made now the real thing is not there it is a replica of the real thing but when that real thing is not immediately accessible then the replica helps us to experience the real thing even when it is partial so now of course when we talk about art that is depicting Krishna then it is not an illusion Prabhupada said the pictures that we have of Krishna they are windows to the spiritual world but still it is not that they are exactly the spiritual world so art is a creation when it is depicting something in this world it is not exactly that thing that is an illusion but it is an illusion that helps us to experience reality and now the extent to which that illusion can help us to experience reality depends on how matching to the real the illusion is that means if somebody is performing a drama and sometimes small children perform drama and they are suddenly doing some action and they start laughing in between so they alternate between the drama role and the real role so what happens that may cause some humour but that interrupts the effect of the drama so a drama becomes more and more real in the sense of having a real influence on us when that drama replicates reality as much as possible and then we get absorbed in it and we experience that reality also so the test or the exaltedness of the palace that had manifested by Karnamuni that was that the artificial birds that were there they looked so authentic that even the real birds thought that these are real birds so that is the extent that is one indication of how wonderfully designed that palace was and further it is stated that Karnamuni himself was astonished when he saw how magnificent the palace is now when we talk about mystic powers Karnamuni himself he had been a simple serious spiritual seeker living in a simple hermitage and he knew that by the practise of his spiritual austerities he would have acquired some mystic powers but till now he had no reason to exhibit those mystic powers, he had no reason to use those mystic powers he was focussing on the spiritual path and on the spiritual path his goal was ultimate realisation of the lord so the mystic powers are often seen as distractions in the spiritual path Bhakthira Samarth Sindhu explains this very clearly and in fact Patanjali Yoga Sutra also says that the mystic powers are they may come but they are distractions yogi should not get distracted, yogi should move straight towards realisation of the indwelling supreme now who that supreme is Patanjali Yoga Sutra is silent about that, Yoga Sutras are a book which are written for, they are basically guidelines for the practise of yoga and they are written in a culture where who is the Ishwara is already known so it says Ishya Pranidhana Ishwara Pranidhana surrendered to Ishwara but who is the Ishwara, Patanjali doesn't go into that, see every talk or every book is written in a particular context, for example this is Bhagavatam class now in the Bhagavatam class we are not going to give a basic introduction of say what is the Bhagavatam or who is Krishna, in a particular forum a particular kind of knowledge is assumed and then knowledge develops from that assumed level of knowledge so like that in the Yoga Sutras who is Ishwara is not a subject of discussion, the focus is on how Ishwara is to be surrendered to how Ishwara is to be realised, now this non elaboration about who the Ishwara is that allows some impersonalists to interpret the Yoga Sutras as impersonalists but if we see it does talk about Ishwara quite explicitly and in that sense there are several verses which talk about personal aspect of the absolute the relevant point for us is while moving towards spiritual realisation which is ultimately a personal spiritual realisation yogic powers are distractions on the path so that's why serious seekers don't use the yogic powers but they have them and if they require it, they use it at times so here Karnamohini because he felt that my wife has served me so well and I should do something for her therefore he decided to use his mystic powers he just summoned the mystic powers he just exercised the mystic powers and the result that came, that astonished him also so here the way mystic powers work is something which we need to appreciate to appreciate their difference from modern science and scientific or technological capacities which may do in a small way similar things so Srila Prabhupada in the nectar of devotion compares mystic powers to technological abilities say by a particular by say anima, a person may become lighter and start floating an aeroplane also people may start floating so like that he compares the 8 basics of these and he says they are basically also achieved through technology and the essential point he uses it over there to state is that therefore there is no need to get excited about these things these are not themselves spiritual they are actually distractions in the spiritual path so both the mystic powers and technological powers both are material at the same time there is some difference between the two say mystic powers they come as the word very mystic indicates how they are happening it's a mystery so how they come is if we do this this this this this then this is what results and then do this and this happens so now even the yogis who are very expert at doing things they don't know systematically this is what happens this is what happens and this is how this thing happens so it's more that the supreme lord has made an arrangement and this arrangement is at the subtle level there are three levels of reality there is the physical reality or what Sri Prabhupada uses as gross material reality there is the mental reality or what Prabhupada calls as the subtle material reality and there is the spiritual reality so modern science largely operates at the level of gross material reality or physical reality whereas the yogic powers function at the level of subtle material reality or in subtle level of matter consists of mind, intelligence and ego but sometimes in shorthand all of them all the three of them are collectively referred to as mind so there is a physical reality at which largely modern science operates and yoga operates at the mental level so this mental level is not limited by the laws of physics as the physical reality is limited so by these mystic powers the exact mechanism how they work that is not conceivable by us through our senses or even through our intelligence the result we can understand the broad principle we understand that the supreme lord has arranged things in such a way that those who follow a particular process they are endowed with certain powers but we cannot analyse in a step-by-step this and this and all these things happen that is not given in the yogasutras also so the exact mechanism by which the mystic powers produce the result that is not known so when the result comes out even karda muni is amazed how has this come out this is so astonishing actually speaking even to some extent the similar principle applies at the level of physical sciences at the level of physical reality also not exactly the same way but in a similar way that today it is very easy to become dazzled by the mind-boggling power of technology when anybody from any part of the world they just press a few buttons and then talk with anyone in any other part of the world or just press a few buttons and summon any information from anywhere in the world so it's quite impressive now this impressiveness may lead us to think that ok if science and technology can do such things maybe in future they can tell us about soul also they can tell us about god also and if science and technology they see or if science seems to say that god doesn't exist or soul doesn't exist then how can they be wrong you know we may just by seeing the power of technology we may feel if technology works and works so well then how can science from which technology is developed how can that be wrong and are we really justified in saying that science is wrong so here we have to understand two different points first is the nature of science and second is the scope of science the nature of science means how does modern material science work and scope of science means what all does it deal with and what it does not deal with so just as here Kartam Muni is astonished we may also by seeing the products of technology become amazed how does this work like this so and we also do use the products of technology whenever if our service requires we do use those products of technology quite often and here Kartam Muni's astonishment does not lead him to just appreciating the mystic powers and forgetting god he appreciates the mystic powers but then he doesn't get carried away by that he doesn't get distracted from god by that similarly as devotees we may use technology and we may appreciate when technology works well but we don't have to get enamoured by that we don't have to get distracted from our spiritual purpose by that so how does science work technology which is what we are discussing then we will discuss about science that the whole functioning of technology is based on the tapping of existing mechanisms in nature those mechanisms themselves are not created by scientists they are already existing in nature so for example if we have telecommunications by which we are able to communicate with anyone anywhere so then telecommunication first of all requires silicon with its semiconductor effect that semiconductor effect is not created by scientists that is already present in nature similarly that requires electromagnetic waves to be present and to be propagated through the atmosphere and there is a particular layer of the atmosphere called ionosphere through which the electromagnetic waves are propagated that is also not created by scientists so both the mechanism for converting information into electronic signals and the mechanism for transmission of those electronic signals of that converted information through the atmosphere both these are already existing in nature the mechanisms now what scientists have done is they have tapped those mechanisms and for having tapped those mechanisms they have worked hard, they have used their intelligence and where credit is due it should be given but where credit is due it should not be extrapolated beyond its scope so certainly those who develop computers or mobiles or whatever they do use their intelligence and they use it very diligently so we give credit where it is due there is a conversation with Prabhupada now I answer questions on my website that is theskillscientist.com so one time one new devotee is a professor in IIT he said that I have always been brought up in a Vaishnava family and I I became introduced to ISKCON and I found that the understanding whatever I had culturally I have now got it much more intellectually and philosophically here but he said I feel very uncomfortable when ISKCON criticises scientists he says science is my profession and if I have to do this profession Krishna also said swakarmanatam abhyarju through your work worship it shouldn't I have a healthy respect for my profession is it that that because I am a devotee I have to criticise science and I cannot respect the profession that I am having so then in the response I just quoted a conversation of Prabhupada where it's a morning walk it is a part of the conversation that has come as the book life comes from life but it is not that life comes from life life comes from life is an edited version of the conversation that Prabhupada had on LA beach so what has happened is so there are devotees are discussing and Prabhupada says that one devotee says scientists have done so much Prabhupada says yes they have done so much that's fine and then they say that by our spirit by the scientific exploration of knowledge they have discovered so much so Prabhupada said we are not against their spirit of knowing we are not against their spirit of learning we are against their atheism we are against their atheism so that means if scientists observe nature and try to learn how mechanisms by which nature works we are not against that what we are against is the atheism that is extrapolated from the observations of nature so science is simply a tool for observing nature and understanding how nature works and science itself makes no categorical or conclusive statement about spiritual truths whether God exists or God does not exist science cannot tell us anything conclusively theists may infer the existence of God from the observations of science, atheists may infer the non-existence of God these are both inferences and neither of them is conclusive so usually the inference that is drawn from the scientific evidence that cannot convince a sceptic but for those who already have faith the scientific evidence can actually scientific observations they can actually deepen the appreciation of God and talk about how this happens but suffice it to say that in our approach to Prabhupada's teachings quite often there is a tendency towards sensationalization sensationalization means when we want to quote Prabhupada we want to quote those statements, those incidents you know which can draw the maximum attention so if Prabhupada says fools, rascals this that then oh when we quote that it's so sensational but the very nature of sensational sound bites when they are quoted is that they don't represent the full reality so Prabhupada has used strong words to criticise scientists, to criticise impersonalists but that is not the only thing that he has done Prabhupada has spoken many things and sometimes we take the most extreme things and because those are what are most quoted in the classes we think that is the default position that we have to take or that was Prabhupada's position but it is not like that so I did once a research say Prabhupada uses the word fools and rascals but how often does he use it in his different in his different works so he uses fools and rascals almost like say in his conversations something like 500 times I have the exact statistics here but I will just give you roughly in his letters he uses it maybe 300 times in his lectures around 200 times in his published works he uses it only 50 times and in the works that he wrote for publication there is a difference in the published works means the science of self-realisation life comes from life Prabhupada did not dictate them to come as books, devotees took them and made them into books, what Prabhupada dictated specifically to come out as books are nectar of devotion nectar of instruction Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam, CC Krishna book in these rascals doesn't even come more than 15 times now what does this mean in 1976 one devotee wrote a letter to Prabhupada, he said Prabhupada to understand your teachings I want to transcribe all your lectures so that I can study them and surprisingly Prabhupada said that's not necessary that will be prayas he said I have given you what I want to teach you in my books, just study my books that will be enough now this does not mean that his lectures should not be transcribed what this simply means is that Prabhupada stressed his books as the primary carrier of his message and when we present everything that Prabhupada has spoken including the conversations which were private conversations he was having a small group of people who were already inside us and when we present them, when we put them in the public domain and present them as Prabhupada's words we may well end up misrepresenting Prabhupada so Prabhupada if we see he is, so what happens now when Prabhupada uses the word rascals and fools we have to understand the context for it, firstly it is not that now words have different meanings at different times the same word has different meanings 20-30 years ago if somebody said I went to a gay party at that time gays simply meant cheerful now say I went to a jolly party but today if somebody says I went to a gay party that means gay refers to sexual orientation and people get a different idea when you say that you went to a gay party so words and their meanings change over time in fact the catholic church has a whole committee which retranslates the bible every 25 years because the meaning of words change and if you want to have the meaning of the bible to be conveyed properly they have a, they retranslate the bible, why because words and their meanings change so if we, Prabhupada learned his English in the 1920s and at that time the word rascal was having a very different meaning from what it has today at that time rascal was simply an affectionate form of reproach it was an affectionate form of reproach that means sometimes a mother may tell to a naughty child hey badmash kya kar raha hai now if somebody else you know in an office one colleague says to him hey tu badmash hai that has a very different meaning there is one lecture where Prabhupada says a devotee prays to Krishna Krishna all these rascals are suffering in material existence so please give their mercy to them so that they will come to you so here rascals does not convey any value judgement at all.
Prabhupada is praying for the rascals so today when the word rascal is used and today quite often if we use the word rascals it is not an affectionate form of reproach in today's usage it is a very strong statement of condemnation and Prabhupada did not use so the first point is rascals itself was not a did not have the connotations then that it has now secondly even that word rascals Prabhupada did not use so often in his written works which was what he meant primarily to be transmitted widely so we have to be cautious otherwise we end up alienating people unnecessarily so we shouldn't present the philosophy in a way which makes it more difficult than necessary for people to take up the philosophy there is enough difficulty in surrendering to Krishna for all of us conditioned souls so we don't have to increase the difficulty by an unnecessarily alienating presentation so the first point I was talking about our understanding of science and talking about the nature of science and while talking about the nature of science I am talking about what was Prabhupada's position so Prabhupada's condemnation was primarily of atheism and atheism that was derived from science but science itself does not talk about science doesn't talk about God directly see what is science science basically as it is used today in the mainstream academia science is basically a method of knowledge where natural explanations are sought for natural phenomena by natural when science uses the word nature it means matter so science uses the word nature it means matter, so natural explanations for natural phenomena means science looks for material explanations for material phenomena what does science do it looks for material explanations for material phenomena. So, for example, if a fruit, Newton saw a fruit falling. Now, Newton had to have some spirit of knowing, some jignasa.
Now, millions of people may have seen fruits falling before him and after him. They just picked up the fruit, ate it and went away. Isn't it? So, Newton had some enquiry spirit in us.
Okay, what made this fruit fall? And from that, from that observation of the natural effect, of the natural phenomena of a fruit falling, he wanted a natural cause. Natural cause means a material cause here. And he came up with the idea of gravity as an explanation for that cause.
So, now there are material mechanisms which, which the Lord has arranged for the administration of this world. So, mayadhyakshena prakriti suyatesa characharam hetu naanena kaunteya jagad viparivarti. Now, when Prabhupada would quote this verse, this is the most quoted verse by Sri Prabhupada, that life comes from life.
And another point related with this only, that Bhaktisarva Damodar Maharaj told me that he did not, although the life comes from life, was a conversation between, he was there at that time and he said that, Prabhupada talked about science and scientists extensively. He said, I will never give this book to scientists. He said, because that was a conversation with disciples.
And Prabhupada, when the devotees organised the 1976 conference, first life comes from life conference in Vrindavan. So, Prabhupada told them that you should be polite, you should be polite, you should be courteous and you should criticise the atheism. But he did not say that when you are asking scientists to come for a conference, you use fools and rascals.
No. So, the point is, we have to present our knowledge in a way which can appeal to people. We don't have to make it more difficult.
So, anyway, the point is, life comes from life. Prabhupada quotes this verse, mayadhyakshena prakriti, this is the most frequently quoted verse. And the point of this verse is, nature doesn't work on its own, above nature, there is God, who is overseeing it.
But at the same time, the word is very precise. Overseeing. Mayadhyakshena prakriti, adhyaksha.
See, an overseer or a supervisor is not one who does things. There are others who do things and the supervisor oversees. So, the second part of this verse is, mayadhyakshena prakriti, sunyate saccharacharam, hetu nane na kaunte, jagat mi parivartate.
Hetu nane na means, by its rule, by its rule, by its function, there are changes that happen. Creation and destruction takes place. So, material nature has its own mechanisms.
And by those mechanisms, material nature functions. And these mechanisms are supervised by Krishna. But Krishna is not directly involved in the mechanisms.
So, what this means is, that science, when it looks for material explanations for material phenomena, it is going to find the mechanisms. It is not going to find anything beyond that. Because it is looking for mechanisms and Krishna is not directly involved in the mechanisms.
So, when a fruit falls, it falls by gravity. The gravity is supervised by Krishna. But Krishna is not directly involved in gravity.
So, what happens? The mechanisms which science discovers, now there is a fundamental question that comes up, where did these mechanisms come from? Where did these mechanisms come from? And atheism has no answer. It is just, basically they give different variants of the answer that they are just a part of nature. They just exist as it is.
As the famous atheist who wrote a book, you know, How Everything Came From Nothing. And it is a very bombastic book. But the essential point in the book is not an explanation of how everything came from nothing.
It is simply, the essence of the book is essentially a redefinition of nothing so that nothing is something. So, you just cannot explain how everything can come from nothing. So, where do the mechanisms come from? Atheism has no answers to it.
And science does not enquire about those things. Okay, nature is there. How from nature we can explain natural phenomena, that is what science deals with.
So, now, when science finds mechanisms to explain things, what it does is, there is observation, there is control, and then there is prediction. Science observes to try to understand, and then we try to replicate those mechanisms. For example, laws of motion are there.
We understand based on how things are moving. And then we create mechanical engineering. And then we create machines.
So, what happens is that science understands the mechanism that is tapped. It does not create the mechanism, but you understand the mechanism that it taps. So, the tapping of the mechanism is very different from creating the mechanism.
So, to give an example for this, say if a person is a tribal who does not know about agriculture, who does not know about irrigation. So, suppose that tribal has only eaten whatever is grown in trees and shrubs. And then they come to a place where agriculture is happening, where say orchards are there, and then that person says, what is this? This person is transforming mud into mangoes.
This person, they take a seed, they put it in the ground, they water it, and then a big mango tree and many mangoes come out. So, they have created mango trees in their own garden, in their own house. But I have to go in the forest and search for mangoes.
This is a miracle. How did you produce mangoes over here? Now, what the fruit farmer has done is, the seed of the mango is already existing. The intrinsic potentiality in the seed to grow into a tree and eventually produce mangoes that is also already existing.
What the mango farmer has done is, they have provided the system for tapping what is already existing. You bury the seed, you water it, and then protect it from predators, protect it and help it to grow and use fruits. So, the farmer can be given credit for tapping the potentiality of the mango seed.
They have not produced mangoes from nothing. They have produced mangoes from the seed and from the seed which has the mechanism, which has the potentiality to grow into a tree. So, due credit should be given.
What is due credit? That you took a seed and you helped it to grow into a tree and produce mangoes. Why do they say that I produce mangoes from nothing? That is not true. So, there is due credit and there is undue credit.
So, what science can take credit for is, like a farmer who starts with a seed and makes a tree and then produces mangoes. So, like that there are pre-existing mechanisms that are there in science, that they are there in nature and science taps those mechanisms and produces various kinds of technology. And for that science can be given credit.
But when from this some atheists extrapolate that God does not exist, then that is not a scientific conclusion. So, science is a tool for acquiring knowledge. Sometimes people say that there is a conflict between science and religion.
Actually, the conflict is not between science and religion. The conflict is between materialism and spirituality. And science is a tool which spiritualists can use, which materialists can also use.
So, atheists may misuse science to propagate atheism. And that is, so at that time what needs to be criticised is that atheistic misappropriation of science. Science itself need not be criticised.
Science is simply a tool for acquiring knowledge and the products of that tool even we spiritualists can use it and we are using it. So, when we use scientific, when we use technology and then we criticise technology, then we may say yukta vairagya, but yukta vairagya for an outsider seems like a very self-serving rationalisation. So, for outsiders when you criticise technology and then use it, this is double standards.
You criticise it, do not use it. You use it, do not criticise it. So, we have to be careful what we are criticising.
When philosophical outreach, it has to be like a laser, not like a machine gun. Machine gun means you shoot down anyone and everyone. Laser means we pinpoint the target and hit the target.
So, our target is atheism. Our target is not science. Now, we are neither pro-science nor anti-science.
We are pro-Krishna. And if science can be used to serve Krishna, we use science. And if science is used to take people away from Krishna, we will counter that aspect of science.
So, we do not have to make science as a target. Now, why I am talking about this is, the relevance of our topic is that science can also produce astonishing results. And when science produces astonishing results, we do not have to let that create doubts spiritually for us.
Spiritual knowledge is a different category of knowledge. Science can either make statements for it, conclusive statements for it or against it. And it is a tool and that tool can be used.
Now, sometimes when we talk about say ancient civilisation and we talk about modern civilisation, there is often a tendency to criticise modern civilisation in favour of ancient civilisation. And as I say that, Prabhupada says now people use plastic, in the past they used to gold vessels. Now, that is a valid form of criticism, but we also have to know for whom this criticism is intelligible and for whom the criticism is not intelligible.
Every argument is based on certain premises. So, for example, say if a devotee wants to do scientific outreach and they say that, okay so and so scientific theory is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because my spiritual master said it is wrong.
Well, we cannot tell that to scientists, because scientists do not accept the authority of their spiritual master. So, whenever we are having a discussion with anyone, any debate with anyone, any argument with anyone, we have to find out what are the common sources of authority that are there. And then we have to present arguments based on that source of authority.
So, for example, we may use logic or sometimes we may use science itself to appease the scientific mind of people. So, now the point which I am making here is that when we have scriptural descriptions of phenomenal prosperity in ancient times, and we use that to criticise modern conceptions of prosperity. Now, for that is fine for those who accept the authority of scripture.
But for those who do not accept the authority of scripture, if we use this kind of criticism, their basic counter is, okay, what do you have to show right now? You say that there is all this advanced technology in the past, all these advanced programmes, what do you have to show right now? And unfortunately, the reality is we do not have much to show right now. Maybe we will be able to develop things in the future and we will be able to show. But right now, show material prosperity in terms similar to what was there in scriptural times.
We do not have that right now. So, science, the special strength of modern science is not just in the product that it delivers. The special strength of modern science is that it offers a process by which the product can be delivered.
And that process can be used by anyone. So, for example, it is not just that science tells us we can communicate with anyone anywhere. But there is a process of manufacturing mobiles and anybody who learns that, anybody can manufacture the mobiles.
So, science gives us a product that anybody can talk with anyone, anywhere, but there is a process in use. Now, when we come to scripture, scripture tells us about the products. At that time, there are mystic yogis who could communicate or who could do this, who could do that.
But that process is not available to us. We may say, okay, people in Kali Yuga are not qualified enough to do all those strategies and to acquire those things, which is fine. Again, this is, whom is it intelligible to? Is it intelligible to a sceptic? No.
So, what happens is, for, we say, one of the offences to the holy name is to not instruct faithless people about the glories of the holy name. Now, one understanding of this offence is also that we should not tell people things which they will have difficulty having faith in. One is to not instruct faithless people in the glories of the holy name.
That also means that, that we should know what level people are at and what they can have faith in. And we don't tell things to people which they don't have, which they can't have faith in. Say, somebody is from a traditional background, somebody has already faith in scripture, then we tell them about the phenomenal prosperity that is described in scripture, then their attraction to modern prosperity may decrease by that.
Or all this we already had it and we had something higher to do in our life. That's why we did not get involved in this. That's how they may find it intelligible.
But for those who have always gone and got up in the modern, modern logical sceptical attitude and then they have no faith in scripture and then we talk about scripture and scripture for prosperity, they will say, you know, according to history, there was no such problem. So much prosperity was not there and they may just get more reason to disbelieve in scripture. So, teaching scripture or preaching is not just a matter of telling the truth.
Preaching scripture is a matter of telling the truth in a way that attracts people to the truth. It's about telling the truth in a way that attracts people to the truth. So, we should focus on telling people those things which will attract them, which they can have faith in and by that they can come closer to Christ.
And later on, whatever they will have difficulty in faith in, they will have practised the process to some extent, they will experience some change in their life and they will have some basis for having some faith in other things in scripture which are difficult to believe also. So, this whole phenomenal description of prosperity that is there in the Bhagavatam in various places, that need not be the primary thrust of our preaching. Now, I'll conclude with one conversation of Shri Prabhupada.
Happened in Hawaii. So, some disciples are asking, Prabhupada, when we tell the scholars that Maharaj Ugrasen had some billions of bodyguards. So, they start laughing.
They start making fun of us. They said, where were they living? Where were their houses? Where were the toilets? How was it possible? Now, one answer we can give is Krishna has inconceivable powers. Krishna can do anything.
Krishna can maintain the whole world on the tip of a needle. You can give an answer like that. And that is, this is a convincing answer for who? One who has faith in the ambitions of Krishna.
But for those who don't have that, Prabhupada could have said they are faithless people. Prabhupada did not use that argument here. What did Prabhupada say? He said, out of all the thousands of verses in the Bhagavatam, was it the only thing that you found to talk with the scholars? Was it the only thing you found to talk? Bhagavatam is about essential principles.
The conversation of Prabhupada with Professor Hopkins in the Leela Amrit. And there, he asked Swamiji, if somebody wanted to study the essence of your teachings, in a very short form, what would you call as the essence of your teachings? And what did Prabhupada quote? Prabhupada quoted 1.2.8 and 9 from the Bhagavatam. He always talks about what? What is the purpose of Dharma? What is the purpose of life? What is the purpose that we are meant to live for? Prabhupada said, this is the essence of my teachings.
So, there are universal principles about the higher purpose of life. Science, no matter how much it tells us about nature, it cannot tell us about the purpose of life. What are we meant to live for? What is it that the ultimate purpose of life is? This science cannot tell us.
And that is what scripture can tell us. So, by understanding scripture in the right spirit, understanding science in the right spirit, we can avoid unnecessary confrontation between the two and attract intelligent people, who presently are attracted by science, towards the scriptural wisdom and help them enrich their lives and enrich the world with scriptural wisdom. So, I will summarise.
I started by talking about how the art is about creating an illusion that helps us to experience reality. And the better the art, the more real is the replica of the reality that it creates. And here we see that Kardamani's mystic palace that he had created, that had artificial birds, which were so good that even real birds mistook them to be not artificial birds, but real birds.
And then from there, we discussed about how Kardamani's mystic powers created astonishment within him. So, mystic powers are distractions in spiritual path and that is why we do not exercise them unless there is some serious requirement for them. And when Kardamani exercised it, he was astonished.
So, he did not know how it works, it just worked for him. And today, some of us may also get astonished by seeing how technology works. But Kardamani does not get distracted from God because of seeing the mystic powers.
Similarly, we do not get distracted from God because of seeing the marvels of technology. Then we discussed technology is developed by science and science taps pre-existing mechanisms in nature, which it does not create, such as semiconductor effect or the electromagnetic wave transmission through the atmosphere. And for the tapping of mechanisms, scientists and technologists need to be given credit.
But to extrapolate atheism from that is an invalid extrapolation. That can actually be discussed how Prabhupada was not against science per se. He was against atheism extrapolated from science.
And Prabhupada used the word rascal quite conservatively in his written words. And even when he used the word rascal, he learned it at a particular time in English history, in the history of the English language, when it was an affectionate form of reproach. It was not a strong statement of condemnation.
And that is why for us to use it may alienate people unnecessarily. And science is simply a tool for acquiring knowledge. And theists can use it, atheists can use it.
And what does science do? It tries to find natural explanations, natural means material explanations for material phenomena. And these material mechanisms, which science tries to uncover, they are created by God. That is what the Bhagavad Gita tells us.
But the mechanisms themselves are not involving God immediately or directly within them. So, from those mechanisms, atheism and theism both can be extrapolated by people. But there is no conflict between science and religion per se.
It is between materialism and spiritualism. And science becomes a tool that is misappropriated sometimes by atheists. And lastly, I talked about how when technology works amazingly, what we should see that this is actually the tapping of the mechanisms.
Like a farmer may tap the mechanism of the mango tree, mango seed and produce mango fruits. And when we talk about science and spirituality, our focus is on spiritual knowledge. And so, spiritual knowledge means knowledge about the ultimate purpose of life, knowledge about who we are.
And when science, when we find certain material facts, material figures, material description in scripture, we do not have any mechanism to replicate them right now. And that is why if we use them to condemn modern prosperity, that will be convincing only for those who accept scriptural authority. And it will be alienating from others.
And preaching means not just to speak the truth, but speak the truth in a way that attracts people to the teaching. So, we should speak things that people can have faith in. And not speak things which people in our difficulty have to faith in.
So that we can gradually help them move upwards in their faith. And by not creating unnecessary alienation or provocation, we can attract the intelligent people who are presently attracted towards science, towards to the scriptural wisdom, which can enrich their life with meaning and purpose. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions or comments? Either way, do we have time? No, you will have time. So, somebody can tell me till what time should I go on? 15 minutes? Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for so nicely explaining the position of science.
What exactly science is and what it is. We should give credit for tapping the potential, but not creating the potential. Actually, I had a discussion on email earlier, I used to also, I would say, it's called the and there was one kind of scientist, particular kind of person who was arguing.
And he had a written communication. And he was saying that, I am relating this with your today's class. We say that science is working on gross material, gross material phenomena is its field.
But they on the other hand say that, what is spirituality? What are your expectations for the phenomena? So, he understood that our mostly expectations are based on mental and spiritual level, rather than the physical level. Because, one point he mentioned that anytime we ask how things happen, you say, you repeat the phrase, God made it, God made it, God made it. So, what happens, how does, how does it rain? God made it.
How does it, I mean, what's come to the tree? God made it. And so on so forth. And at max, we experiment some mental experiments.
For example, law of karma, or, you know, which works on mental and spiritual level. But when it comes to physical exploration, your books don't have any laws or equations or, you know, like the Kepler's laws, Newton's laws, you don't have such kind of laws. Nor do you have equations, nor do you have, so, so therefore, so now I am taking the time discussing that.
So, how do such people, such objections arise? So, if someone argues that scripture doesn't offer any physical explanations for physical phenomena, it only offers spiritual or the subtle mental explanations. So, for example, how did rains come? God did it, you say like that. Then, that does not really lead to the advancement of knowledge.
So, now, that is an oversimplification to the point of misrepresentation of scriptural teaching. Because if you see, at the basic level, there is Ayurveda. And Ayurveda doesn't say that, you know, why did you get a disease? Because God did it.
Why did it occur? God did it. It accepts the existence of God, Vishnu and then Manthari are accepted. But then, there are mechanisms.
Okay, why do you get this disease? Because the kapha has become more or the vata has become more. So, it is all material mechanisms. And then what is the means for treating it? There are material mechanisms described.
So, there is analysis of material nature in material terms also given in the Indian wisdom tradition. But how much of it is accessible today and how much of it is relevant today, that may be debatable. So, in the start of the Tattvasandarbha, Jiva Goswami, he says that most of the Vedas are lost today.
So, they are not available today. And then he is talking about today means 500 years ago. So, at that time they were not available, what to speak of now.
So, much of the material knowledge that is there, that was there in the past, that is not available now. So, now material knowledge is basically functional knowledge. So, today, if that material knowledge is not available, we may try to recover that material knowledge if it is available in some oral traditions.
For example, the knowledge about how agriculture is to be done or whatever, that kind of knowledge. Or we may use contemporary forms of knowledge. So, for example, if Ayurveda does not work, we can use allopathy.
And Prabhupada himself preferred Ayurveda, but there are a few occasions when he did use allopathy also. In London, once he was very sick, he did a small allopathic surgery. So, it is not that he made it an issue.
He did not make it a faith issue. You should have faith only in Ayurveda, not have faith in allopathy. Now, allopathy comes from modern science.
He used it and he was also pragmatic. Use whatever works. So, we need to understand that when we study matter or study the material world, what we get is models of reality.
So, Ayurveda offers one model of reality of the body and allopathy offers another model of the body. Now, if you ask within the allopathic model, what is the heat in the body? What is Yajnaragni? They don't have any conception of that because that is not in that model. So, sometimes some devotees, someone has asked me a question.
If you say Vedas contain all knowledge about everything, what do Vedas say about black holes? I explained that when you say Vedas contain knowledge about everything, you have to understand what it means. No book or no set of books can describe everything about everything. When they say everything, it means everything meant for a purpose.
Everything meant for living in a meaningful way in this world and everything meant for attaining life's ultimate goal. That's what the Vedas give us. So, within a particular vision of the cosmos that modern science talks about, there is a black hole as a concept.
Scripture talks about the universe in a different way. When it talks about the universe in a different way, in that conceptual universe, black hole as a concept doesn't come up. So, basically when we talk about Ayurveda or allopathy, both of them are models.
Now, the word model is a little abstract. To make it a little simpler, I can use the word map. When we talk about a map of reality, now if I consider the country of India, the political map.
In the political map, I may have say, okay this is Maharashtra, this is Karnataka, this is Andhra, this is Madhya Pradesh or whatever. Or this is this district, this is this district, all these borders will be described. Now, while describing these borders, if this is a political map, now if I take a topographical map of India, in that, okay here is a mountain, here is a plateau, here is a river.
Now, a very different description will be given. And then if I look in the political map, okay where are the Vindhya hills or where is this particular thing, the topographical features may not be described in the political map. Why? Because each map has a particular purpose and both maps are describing the territory, but with different foci, different focusses.
So, that is why these two maps, some features may overlap, some features may not be present, may not overlap. And some features may just not be there in the map at all. So, like that, modern science, now just like we can have different maps of the same territory, within modern science itself there are different maps.
For example, quantum physics offers one map of reality and relativity offers another map of reality. And in some ways, the two are violently contradictory. Now, according to quantum physics, there are no such thing as particles, solid objects existing.
All that exists is simply waves. And only when there is an observer who looks at things, the waves collapse into a physical object. Now, Einstein is considered to be the greatest scientist of the last century.
And Einstein was a proponent of relativity and he did not like quantum physics at all. He was quite strongly critical of quantum physics. So, he said, I would like to believe that the moon continues to exist even if I am not looking at it.
According to quantum physics, if there is no observer looking at the moon, the moon does not exist. Now, this seems to be completely illogical. But some calculations, many calculations done based on quantum physics work.
Many calculations done based on relativity physics work. These two are models of reality, models of physics. And both of them work at different levels.
And nobody knows how to reconcile them. So, what happens is, what do scientists do? They just are functionalists. Functionalist means they use whichever model works.
And that is why what science offers us is maps or models of reality. Science does not tell us about reality directly. So, just as scientists, even within the, for dealing with contradictions within their own field, what they do is, they are functionalists.
They use whichever branch of knowledge works. Similarly, when we are teaching scripture or living according to scripture, at that time, while functioning in the virtual world, we need to be functionalists. So, whichever model works, we accept it.
That is why, see, if we portray scripture as a competitor of science, you know, science says this and scripture says this. When we portray scripture as a competitor of science, we devalue scripture. Scripture is not here to tell us, you know, how to design a car by which you can go from Mumbai, from GV to Mumbai, or how to develop a plane by which you can go from here to America or whatever.
Scripture is here to tell us how to raise our consciousness to go to Krishna. Scripture may contain material knowledge also. But material knowledge is not the primary purpose of scripture.
Now, Parikshit Maharaj did not go to Shukadeva Goswami to learn material knowledge. He went to Shukadeva Goswami to learn how to remember Krishna at the time of death. He is trying to attain Krishna.
So, scripture has a purpose and that is to provide us knowledge for elevating our consciousness. So, when we present, when we position scripture as a competitor of science, first of all, we devalue scripture because scripture is offering us something much higher. And secondly, we put ourselves in a weak position because the material knowledge that is given in scripture, that is offered, that we cannot replicate much of it.
Not only not replicate it, we cannot even explain much of it in today's knowledge terms. That is why we have to be very careful about how we present scripture. We should not present scripture as a competitor to science.
By that we are devaluing scripture. Science offers a particular kind of knowledge, scripture offers another kind of knowledge. Now, some of the material knowledge in scripture also we may use today.
But that is functional purposes. It is not that those who do not use the material knowledge in scripture, they cannot use the spiritual knowledge and they cannot become devotees. Today, we talk about Varanasi, our traditional living, our eco-friendly living, that is important.
But it is not that to practise bhakti one has to live only in Varanasi. One may live in cities, one may use modern technology and one can still practise bhakti. So, for us, Varanashram or the traditional way of living, that is functional.
And urban, in cities we also live, that is also functional. So, just as that is practical, whatever works, we use that and move forwards. So, three points to answer to that question, that the broad scriptural tradition of knowledge does not, for material things, just give the explanation, God did it.
There are material explanations also given as in Ayurveda and many other branches of knowledge were there, but they are not available now. Secondly, if somebody says that whatever material knowledge is given in scripture is false, we say that it is actually a different map of reality. And that map of reality may not be intelligible in today's terms.
And it is not necessary that two maps of reality have to agree or have to be reconciled. That there can be valid maps of reality which are not reconcilable is evident even in science itself. Quantum physics and relativity, both are valid in the sense that equations and mechanisms made based on them work, but they are not reconcilable.
So, there can be non-reconcilable maps of reality, both of which may be valid. So, the material knowledge given in scripture is also a map of reality which is valid from a different frame of reference that we may not be able to understand. And for functional purposes, whichever map of reality works, we use that.
And that is why we are not against science when it is used for functional purposes while operating in this world. And to avoid giving that impression, we should make sure that we do not position scripture as a competitor of science. Science gives us knowledge of how we can functionally live in this world.
Scripture gives us knowledge of why we should live in this world. What is the purpose of living in this world?