Extra-terrestrial life – Scientific and scriptural approaches to the subject

Today we discuss the concluding sections of the Bhagavatam's description of creation.

In this talk, I will primarily focus on the purpose of creation as understood by science, the Abrahamic traditions and by Bhagavatam in our first class. In second class, we discussed about the nature of the difference between humans and animals. Here, in today's class, I will focus on the conception of life.

Life as it exists. Here the Bhagavatam talks about so many different varieties of life forms. Whereas, the mainstream scientific understanding is somewhat different.

And we will look at the approaches towards acquiring knowledge which causes differences. And we will see whether these differences are reconcilable or not. So here, the Bhagavatam describes that there are two kinds of creations.

Prakrita and Vaikruta. So, Prakrita primarily refers to the evolution of natural elements. Whereas, Vaikruta refers to the creation of biological forms of the different species.

So, Prakrita means that which is related to Prakriti. That's all. So, now, from the empirical observation, we can find that there are essentially two components in existence.

There is matter and consciousness. Now, the scientific approach has always been to begin with matter. And then to try to agonise or try to speculate how consciousness came about.

And although that is the mainstream approach, there are even scientists who have questioned the validity of this approach. For example, I think it was Pascal or was it Kelvin, he said, one of them, he said that, you know, we worry, we try to speculate how consciousness came from matter. But we might well be like a person who has lived throughout one's life in darkness.

And then when such a person suddenly comes to light, the person starts thinking, how did the darkness produce light? So, the point is, we move from our experience to that which is beyond our experience. And that is the natural way in which knowledge will grow. But when we move from darkness to light, at that time, it may well be that we are moving not from cause to effect.

It is not that light is produced from darkness. The relationship between the two may be not just a cause and effect, but it may be a categorical difference. That the two are two distinct categories of objects in existence.

Or in the case of light and darkness, of course, it is that the absence of light is what is darkness. So, the modern scientific approach is largely matter-centred. They try to look for material explanations of things.

And this is not necessarily because science has an anti-religious or anti-God bias. No, that is just the operational methodology of science. At least most versions of science.

And scientists have their reasons for saying that don't bring anything supernatural, don't bring any soul, don't bring any God into the picture. So, we will discuss their reasons and their validity and also where those reasons no longer are valid. So, for example, in Europe, in the mediaeval ages, around 15th-16th century, there was a black lake.

Now, it took a toll of almost somewhere between one-third to one-fourth of the population of Europe at that time. So, now there were shamans, false priests and all those different kinds of people. Some of them said that, what is the cause of this plague? They said, maybe there are some evil spirits.

There are some evil spirits who are causing this black lake. The scientists give this as a standard example. They say, if science had accepted that supernatural explanation, that the black lake is caused by evil spirits, then we would not have been able to identify the germs which caused the plague, we would not have been able to develop medicines and we would not have been able to cure the plague.

So, often they argue that bringing in supernatural, supernatural means explanations beyond the natural, bringing in supernatural explanations into the world of science will lead to stopping the progress of science. And therefore, they say, we should look for natural explanation for natural phenomena. So, for example, their argument would be, if Newton had just been satisfied, how are the planets moving? They are moving because God has arranged it.

So, if we have just accepted God as the answer, then we would not have understood the law of gravity and we would not have understood the laws of motion and we would not have been able to make all the automobiles which are there today. So, their argument is that bringing supernatural explanations acts as a stopper of scientific progress. And that's why we should not bring in supernatural explanations.

Now, this has its validity and we shouldn't think that even in the Vedic culture, people did not look for natural explanations. So, for example, there is a whole branch of Ayurveda and Ayurveda doesn't say if you have got a stomach upset, sometimes God is upset with you. If you have got a stomach upset, Ayurveda also gives you some practical medicines and those medicines are made of natural products.

So, for natural causes, for natural phenomena, natural causes are found and natural counters or natural cures are prescribed. So, it is not that the Vedic scriptures are jumping for supernatural explanations for every small thing that is happening in nature. So, natural causes are also recognised and they are also dealt with adequately.

But the question that the Vedic scriptures ask us is that are natural explanations a complete explanation? They are a part of the explanation. Are they the complete explanation? That means, see, nobody argues that if God is acting in this world. Yes, Chidambaram tells us that all our senses are controlled by demigods.

Everything is controlled by demigods. But it is not that the demigods have to intervene by supernatural means. They can act through natural means also.

They are the controllers of the natural phenomena. So, they don't have to intervene by some supernatural means in the functioning of natural mechanisms. So, here, often, this is a subtle point and to explain this I will give a related example.

Now, there is one approach which religionists use for trying to prove the existence of God. And that approach can turn out to be a mistake. What is that? Sometimes the religionists, they point out all the things that science has not yet explained.

They say, see, science doesn't have an answer for this, science doesn't have an answer for this, science doesn't have an answer for this. And therefore, you need God. So, many times religionists posit God as the explanation for the unexplained.

Now, this is not a very sound approach. Because what science has not explained today, it may find an explanation tomorrow. And because of this, when faith in God is made dependent on the unexplainable in science, then when science explanations expand, then the room for God starts decreasing more and more.

And then, sceptics call this as the God of the gaps argument. That means there are gaps in our knowledge. And you say that those gaps require God to explain.

But then, as the gaps in our knowledge will decrease, then you know what space left for God. So, now, this is not a sound approach. To say that we need God to explain the unexplained.

No. Actually, God is the explanation for explainability. I'll explain what I mean by this.

God is the explanation for explainability. That means that, yes, we are able to find natural causes for natural phenomena. But who created the system by which causes produce effects? So, now, what we are saying here is, not that just God causes the planets to move.

Scientists may say, no, no, God doesn't cause the planets to move. There is a certain mechanism which causes the planets to move. There is a law of motion.

And based on the law of motion, the law of gravity, you say God is causing the planets to move. That's fine. What we are asking is, there can be a mechanism.

But who set that mechanism? So, this is not the same as what is often called as the design argument. This is a much deeper philosophical question. See, one of the characteristics of this universe, as described in the Bhagavatam, is the ratio of which it is Poornam.

So, the absolute truth is complete, the world is complete. And whatever comes from the complete is complete in itself. That means that from the functional point of this world, God does not have to intervene at every moment to set things that go wrong to set them right.

The Prabhupada himself said, you know, good management means that everything seems to be managed and nobody is running around doing the management. And systems are set up so well that things move smoothly and you don't have, oh, do this, do this, do this. You have not done that, do that.

No, no, no, no, no. There is efficient management. So, Krishna has created systems like that.

Now, those systems involve demigods. Those systems involve even his presence as supreme controller. And he is the supervisor.

But he does not need to intervene in a supernatural way at every moment. The world operates according to laws. And those laws are created by God.

So, the question is, if we say, a very common strategy in debates, a very common strategy for defeating your opponents is to misrepresent their arguments. Now, that is called in logic as straw man argument. Now, straw man argument means what? Now, suppose you have to go and fight a boxing match with a big, very well built boxer.

You don't have the strength to fight with him. So, you get to create a straw representation of that. And he is pounded.

And he is knocked out. See, I have defeated you. So, that is called a straw man argument.

So, misrepresent the opponent's argument so that it seems very weak. And then knock it out. And then see, I have defeated you.

So, when atheists say that God is a, bringing God is a progress stropper. But they are misrepresenting what the scriptures tell us, what Bhagavatam tells us. Bhagavatam doesn't say that God intervenes at every single moment and supervises it.

He supervises it. But that supervision is more of observation. Udaseena vadaseekam.

He is situated as if detached. So, Krishna has created mechanisms for how the system works. How material nature works.

And the mechanisms are created in such a way that they are purna. So, if we, now the conventional design argument was that the specific designs in this world are made by God. Now, many times when we use this argument, we use two arguments together.

We say design requires designer, law requires lawmaker. Let me say, if a rose is very exquisitely designed, that design must have come from God. If there are Newton's law, there is Mendeleev's law, if there are so many laws, those laws must have come from a lawmaker.

Now, these two arguments we use in parallel quite often. But they are not the same argument. In fact, the second argument can be used to counter the first argument.

Laws require lawmaker can well be used to counter design requires a designer. What do I mean by this? You know, if there is a well-made pot, then you can say this pot requires a potter. But, if we create a mechanism, a machine, say by which a wheel moves at a particular speed, the wheel is arranged in such a way that a certain amount of clay goes into it, and a certain amount of oil goes into it, a certain amount of other additives or whatever is required goes into it.

Then, by that mechanism, the unit may produce pots. And then, the specific design of the pot is not coming from a designer. The design is coming from a law.

The law is, ok, you put in this much ingredients, you get it to move at this speed, the pot's design will emerge. So, the law, now, the question which we are raising when I said that God is, so, when I said earlier, when religions try to argue that God is the explanation for the unexplained, what that means is, ok, certain pot's design is so complicated that it could not have come by a mechanism. So, we say this must have been caused by God.

But, what about the remaining? Is the remaining not caused by God? And then, if science finds a mechanism for this, then we say that is no longer caused by God. What we are saying is, God is not the explanation for the unexplained, God is the explanation for explainability. Explainability means, ok, this pot is coming out by the system, but who set the system? Now, scientists themselves don't have an answer to this question.

Where did the laws of nature come from? If the universe exploded in the beginning through a big bang, that's how everything came about. And the question comes up, that matter was just disorganised. So, if the matter was disorganised, now, what made that matter obey certain laws? The matter just came out of an explosion.

Why should that matter obey any laws, like say, F is equal to gm1m2 upon r2, Newton's law is equal to mc2, Einstein's postulation. So, why should that obey that? So, that means the scientific and the scriptural explanations don't necessarily have to be contradict. In some cases, they may be contradict.

That is a special case, but that's not the point. The point is, scripture is addressing issues at a deeper level than what science does. Science looks for material causes for material effects.

Scripture asks the question, what created the system of material cause and effect? So, who or what is responsible for the system of cause and effect, which we try to analyse. That's why, sometimes if we unnecessarily position science and scripture as a confrontation, then we alienate a lot of people who have faith in science and who have benefitted by science. And we may end up seeming hypocritical also, because we also use the products of science.

So, there are definitely certain scientific principles which work. That's why I say, for example, we are using loudspeaker, I am using a laptop. And there are devotees who are hearing this lecture on radio.

So, to say that scientific knowledge is wrong is also incorrect. It's because it works and we are such users, so it may be hypocritical. So, we don't have to inherently position science and scripture as opposite.

The point is, that they are offering explanations at different levels. Science with its material methodology. Material methodology means, with its methodology of looking for material causes for material effects.

Science cannot go to ultimate causes. It cannot just go. Although some scientists may make some statements about the ultimate causes.

But those statements are not scientific. They are statements coming from their own philosophical biases. Some scientists may go, can this theory prove that there is no God? No, no theory can prove that.

Because science studies only material phenomena. And God is not a material object. So, science can never disprove God.

If I have to give a simple example. If somebody goes for fishing. And that person uses a net for fishing.

Which has say, you know, one centimetre holes in it. So then, what is going to happen is, Anything that is, all the fishes that are smaller, all the creatures in the ocean that are smaller than one centimetre. They are never going to be caught by that net.

So, now, that fisherman may put in the net and keep it for maybe 100 hours there. And he draws it out. And he says, I didn't find a single fish that was smaller than one centimetre.

Therefore, I conclude that all the fish in the ocean are bigger than one centimetre. No, the methodology was used in such a way. That the approach, the net is such that it cannot look for anything smaller than one centimetre.

So, like that, science cannot make any ultimate statements about the existence or non-existence of God. But, by finding, by looking closely at what science shows us. We can make inferences.

So, the question, where the system of material cause and effect, where the laws came from, that has no answer within science. And for that, we have to look beyond science. Now, that brings us to, with this background, let's look at now, this particular statement.

When Bhagavan is saying that in the universe, there are so many different life forms. Now, there are Siddhas, there are Charanas, there are Devas. And, there are all these living beings.

Now, scientists may say that, no, we have used our space, we have used our telescopes, we have used our astronauts. We have gone outside, we have not seen anyone over there. So, now, this is a, first of all, very simplistic understanding.

If we look at the Mahabharata, if we look at the Ramayana, even at the Bhagavata, there are many incidences we have seen that the Devatas, if they appear also, that unless the Devatas grant vision, humans are not able to see the Devatas. So, generally, when fire sacrifices are performed for satisfying certain Devatas, at that time, there are two levels of fulfilment of those sacrifices. That means, the priest, the king will sponsor the sacrifice.

The priest will perform the sacrifice. And then, as the smoke goes up, goes up, goes up. And then, the priest will, the whole fire goes on unimpeded.

Then the priest will say that, yes, Devatas have come. If there is no impediment to the sacrifice, that itself is an indication that the Devatas have come and accepted the sacrifice. Now, in some cases, when the Devatas are very pleased, at that time, they may make themselves visible.

They may grant their vision. And Arjuna is going around, making preparations for the Rajasuya Yajna, which Yudhishthira wanted to perform. So, the four Pandava brothers went in the four directions.

Arjuna went to the north. And he went up the Himalayas. And he came to a particular point.

At that time, he came, it is said, to the area which began the area of the Celestials. And the Celestials stopped him. Arjuna, you are a human, you cannot go any further.

And he heard an invisible voice. He couldn't see anything at all. And then further they said that even if you are able to go by the force of your arms, still you will not see anything.

Because the Celestial regions cannot be perceived by humans. So, the point which I am making is, when the Bhagavatam states that there are life of different forms, that form is not just referring to biologically different form. Yes, that is there.

But it is also, constitutionally it is made of different materials. So, the Devatas have bodies which are made of subtle matter. And those bodies cannot be seen by us.

Sometimes, if we have too simplistic understanding of what the scriptures are teaching, we misrepresent the complexity of scripture. I will give two examples to this. First is, say, people, wherever people believe in heaven, they say that heaven is up.

Now, people in Australia say heaven is up, people in Europe say heaven is up. If the earth is around, up is in two different directions. So, which is up? So, that up, when we say heaven is up, or Krishna says, that is not a simplistic geographical up.

That is a karmic up. No, when we say the heavenly planets are higher, it is not that it is like upper story and lower story building. It is not as simplistic as that.

Although sometimes, because we want to depict things in three dimensions, things may be depicted like that. But it is a karmic up. A karmic up means that souls who have done better karma, they go to heavens.

And correspondingly, they who live in heavens over there, they have different kinds of bodies. Their modes themselves are different. So, if, as I said, the point is, if we look at scripture very simplistically, then we misunderstand what scripture is teaching and misrepresent it to others.

And intelligent people say, you people believe in mythology. Please enter in mythology. But that is not true.

What scripture is talking about is much more sophisticated. Similarly, when we say, for example, yajna produces rains. Now, this in principle is true.

But you have to also understand what the principle is. Now, does yajna produce rains? Does it mean, literally speaking, that, as devotees, we don't accept the mechanism by which rains are produced? Is it that, say, from the ocean, the sun takes in water and forms clouds. And the clouds, they move because of wind and the clouds condense and rains come.

Is it that we don't accept that? No, obviously, we accept that. The Bhagavatam itself gives so many places examples of how a charitable person is like the sun, who takes in water from the ocean and then sprays over the water on the places where there is no water. So, the Bhagavatam also exhibits an awareness of this basic natural phenomenon.

And yet, the Bhagavatam also says that yajna produces rains. So, the point again is that the natural explanation is not rejected. The Bhagavatam is saying that there is something more than the natural explanation.

The natural explanation is not rejected, but it is complemented. Now, for this complementary, so if we start saying, we believe that you sing, you play some kirta, do some, sing some sound and that is going to produce rains. Yes, we do accept that, but there is a principle underlying that.

And if we don't explain that, we will open ourselves to ridicule. So, what is the principle? The principle is that this universe is not governed by chance. And we are expected to live in harmony with the higher forces that are there in the universe.

So, just like at one level, I can say, how does rainwater come? Or how does water come in my house? I turn on the tap, the water comes. Now, the child may say, I turn on the tap, the water comes. That's true.

But the mother may say, no, you have to go to the water supply board and you have to pay a bill over there. A child may say, you know, usually the water supply board, I don't see any water over here. This is simply office.

So, and you are giving some money over here. What has this money got to do with the water that is coming through the pipeline? Now, to a superficial reason, there may seem to be no connection. Now, when we, when the mother tells the child that the water is coming because we pay the bill, she is not rejecting the fact that the water is going to come through a pipeline, through a tap.

The two explanations are complementary. They are not contradictory. They are not exclusive.

So, when we pay the bill to the water supply board, what we essentially are doing is, we are harmonising with the principle of governance, with the way the water is going to be supplied. So, there is a mechanism by which the water comes, that is the pipeline. But along with that, overseeing that mechanism is a system.

And we have to cooperate with that system also. So, yajna, fire sacrifice, is not as an explanation and substitute for the mechanism by which rains come. It is an addition.

That, yes, how do clouds move from here to there? How do, where do clouds condense? How do the rains exactly come out? Where do they come out? All this is controlled by higher beings. And when we chant Hare Krishna, it is not, when we do yajna, it is not that we just utter some vibration. That some vibration is actually a means by which we express our willingness to harmonise with the cosmic government.

In a sense, we pay our cosmic dues. We pay our taxes. And therefore, we, then both explanations have to work in parallel.

Even if I pay my water supply tax, but if the pipeline is broken, then the water will not come in my house. The pipeline also has to be fixed. But just the pipeline being fixed, the pipeline is perfectly functioning.

But if I have not paid the bill, water will not come. So, there are many times when what happens is that over many areas, clouds come in the sky. And the clouds have water, but the clouds don't rain on me.

Just stay there, sometimes for hours, days, weeks the clouds are there in the sky, but the rains don't come. And then finally, when the clouds are condensing, suddenly some wind comes and the clouds go elsewhere. And the rain falls elsewhere.

So, the point is that the material mechanisms themselves, they are an explanation, but they do not alone determine where exactly rains are going to come. So, there are multiple factors involved. So, these two explanations are complementary, not contradictory.

I will give one example, and then I will conclude with the topic of further, one more little bit elaboration on extraterrestrial life. So, conceive a billiards board. On a billiards board, there are balls of various colours and there are players who are hitting with sticks.

When they hit with sticks, then as far as the movement of the balls on the billiards board, we can say all of it is determined by the laws of mechanics. Now, why did this ball go into this hole? Because this player, or this particular stick, hit it at this angle, and then this angle caused the ball to move like this, and the ball moved like that, and that hit over there. Now, from the point of view of mechanics, that's the correct explanation.

But, if we were watching the billiards board from an overhead camera, where we saw only the balls and the sticks, then we would say that's all that there is. But if you are watching the billiards game, you will see that behind the sticks, there are hands. And those hands belong to players.

And those players are hitting the balls with precision. With the right angle, right force, and right accuracy. And that's from the balls of the players.

So, the mechanics that is there, that does not contradict the skill of the player. The laws of mechanics are an explanation, and the skill of the player is also an explanation. And both these explanations are complementary, not contradictory.

So, similarly, the natural mechanisms for explaining natural phenomena, that is an explanation. And a devata supervising, ultimately Krishna being in control, mayaadhyaksha nipakarthi, that is also an explanation. Now, the Bhagavatam, at many places, states that Krishna is inconceivable.

What is Krishna? Atma is achintya. That means, it is not that the atma can simplistically, if I just open the heart and look, do I see a soul over there? No. You don't see a soul like that.

So, the explanation that the Bhagavatam gives of God and the system of demigods, that is complementary to whatever is formed by science. It is not contradictory. Now, coming to extraterrestrial life.

So, when science says that we are not found in the life forms anywhere else, this operates on a presumption. The presumption is that all life has to be the way we know life to be. Now, when scientists actually research other planets, what do they actually look for? It is not that they go every single millimetre on every celestial object to see whether there is life or not.

What they look for is, whether what is required for sustaining life, such as equitable temperature, oxygen, water, whether these are present or not. But, if you look at the characteristics of the atma described in the Bhagavad Gita, the atma is completely spiritual. And it is not damaged by anything material.

nainam chinnam shastrani nainam dharthi pavakana chennam pleni antyapona shoshetima arutam Nothing material can damage the atma. That means, the atma can exist in any material environment. And it can get a body that is appropriate for that material environment.

So now, for extraterrestrial life, I made two points. First is that, that devatas have bodies, or devatas are other beings, they have bodies that are not visible to us. So, that's why with our instruments we cannot find them.

And secondly, in principle, the soul can exist anywhere. And it will get an appropriate body for that environment. So again, the scientific approach makes it science with its methods has not found life on other planets.

But that, to extrapolate from that, and say that there is no life on other planets, that is not a scientific statement. That is a value judgemental statement, which goes beyond what science can tell us. So when the Bhagavad Gita says that the universe is populated with different kinds of beings, it is talking about different levels of existence.

And at these different levels of existence, different beings exist with different kinds of bodies, which may not be observable according to our perceptions. So when science operates, see, often we tend to think of all science as equally credible. Now sometimes, we may say that, okay, science works in very impressive ways.

Now I use a, I just type something on my computer, or on my handset, on my cell phone, and somebody millions of miles away gets the message within a fraction of a second. It can be very impressive. And the science has done this.

So impressive. And if science says there is no God, there is no soul, then how can I disagree with that? Scientists are very intelligent people. How can I disagree with that? So now, there are two important points to recognise in this.

First is, not all science is equally authoritative. Because not all science uses the same methods. What do I mean by this? See, there are certain phenomena which are constantly happening in nature, which are observable and experimental.

For example, you use laws of motion. Or for example, if you go into medicine. Now in medicine, there are bodies, and you put, say, this medicine into a body, in this particular biochemical environment, it produces this result.

Now we can do hundreds of tests, thousands of tests to experiment that. So, these are phenomena which happen repeatedly, and they can be observed. And most technology that we have is based on science study of observable and repeatable phenomena, and its postulation of mechanisms thereof.

That means we observe hundreds of times, we do experiments, based on that we come up with a mechanism. And then we conclude certain things. And here, science has phenomenal strength.

But, when science goes towards questions of origins, then science cannot use this approach. So, the approach where science makes many many observations, and then it makes inferences based on those observations, then it makes experiments, this is called the method of induction. Induction means, I make 100 observations, and then I extrapolate from that.

For that, if 100 times, I drop a ball, and it finds out. So, 101st one time also, when I drop it, it will find out. That is a reasonable extrapolation.

It's a reasonable inference. The science uses this for repeatable, observable phenomena. But, when we go back to history, when we go back to questions of origin, science cannot do anything repeatable or observable.

If the universe came about by an explosion, as science proposes, and nobody was there around to observe it, and nobody can repeat it. You cannot create a new universe by explosion. So, when science tries to find explanation for things in the distant past, there is no possibility for observation, experimentation, repetition.

Science uses another approach, which is called as abduction. It cannot use induction in this. Abduction normally means kidnapping.

But, that is not the meaning over here. Abduction is a kind of philosophical reasoning, where in abduction, scientists basically progress like an investigator in a good on it novel. That means, for example, say a person in a house was murdered.

Now, if there is no security camera in the house, the investigators cannot tell a murderer, you please come back and murder once again, so that we will know who did it. They can't do that. So, how do investigators find out? They try to eliminate various explanations.

So, they say, okay, we had a security camera at the entrance of the house, and there are only three people who went in. So, one person was a small child. That person could not have had the strength to put in a knife and kill this person.

The other person who went in was a 75-year-old lady. She also could not have had the strength. And the third person was a young man of 25, and he observed three days ago that he had a very heated argument with this person.

So, then they may conclude that, okay, this person is our prime suspect. So, now, it may seem a reasonable inference, but by no means is it a certain inference. Because we cannot repeat that.

Now, some other investigator may come and find out. Sherlock Holmes stories are so popular because Sherlock Holmes comes up with some other alternative explanation which other people don't think about. So, now, you may not know that there is some secret trap door in the house, in some corner behind some cupboard or somewhere like that, and a thief came in from there.

Now, based on the investigators' evidence, whatever they investigated, you know, this person who came in, the third person who came in from the door, he is the prime suspect. But he may be completely innocent. So, the point is that when we use abduction, we can never be sure of a certain conclusion.

And the very nature of the data that we observe depends on certain assumptions. The assumption here is that, okay, the only entry point to this house is this door. But what if there is some other entry point which they don't know about? So, abduction is at best a speculative explanation.

So, when scientists go to origins, and they try to answer questions about origins, they always have to use abduction. They cannot replicate the event that happened long ago. And they cannot do repeated experiments to find out.

So, that's why we should not assume that when a scientist says that f is equal to gm, when scientists talk about Newton's law of motion, and then scientists say that everything came from nothing. Both are not equally credible. Because both have been arrived at by different methodologies.

And one methodology is credible, the other methodology is speculative. It is highly questionable. So, that's why I'll conclude this with one last point.

It is not that as devotees, we have to constantly position science and scripture as in conflict. Scripture offers us an explanation at a different level, at a more fundamental level as compared to science. And when they do seem to contradict, that time also, it is not that science is at its best.

Science at its best is a phenomenal tool for acquiring knowledge. But not all science is equally credible. And there are ways in which an intelligent devotee can use scripture for knowing what is the purpose of life and aspiring to achieve that purpose and use science as a means for living in this world, for going towards that purpose.

So, that way, even in the Vedic times, there was science of a different kind. If you look at the various astras and those things I've talked about, there was science of a particular kind. So, Arjuna did not hesitate to use that.

So, as devotees, we can also use that. But we don't have to see them necessarily as contradictory. And when they are contradictory, we can look so that there are intelligent answers by which we can get a balanced understanding.

So, to summarise, I started by this theme which we were talking about is the Bhagavatam talks about prakrita and vaikrita, the emergence of nature and the emergence of, the emergence of natural elements and the emergence of consciousness. So, I started by talking about how science assumes that things begin from matter. But that is like a person who has lived in the dark, assuming that everything comes from darkness.

So, when that person sees light, the question that person asks is, where did light, how did light come from darkness? So, scientists assume that everything begins from matter and then they ask where did consciousness come? How did consciousness come from matter? But the fundamental assumption itself is questionable. Then we discuss about how God is not the explanation for the unexplained. God is the explanation for explainability.

So, we don't say that God is the effect for, God is the cause for every effect that we see in this universe. No, there may be material systems of cause and effect. And as I said, Ayurveda also acknowledges these material systems of cause and effect.

But the question that we ask is, who set up the system of material cause and effects? So, if things operate according to laws, how did the laws come about? So, scripture looks for a fundamental cause, underlining the cause-effect connection chain and the laws for that which science investigates. So, scripture goes at a deeper level of explanation. And then we discussed about, further how they are complementary not contradictory.

We discussed the example of say, Yajna producing rings or several other examples like that. And the explanation of the Billions board example. They are complementary not contradictory.

And when they seem to be contradictory also, then at that time we have to know that we are not critiquing science person nor is scripture asking us to reject entire scientific methodology. What it is, science is not equally authoritative in all its branches of knowledge. So, extraterrestrial life as scripture talks about, it is talking about life of a different kind.

Science is not, that kind of life is not even in the horizontal sides. That which is having different kinds of subtle bodies and appropriate bodies for environments which science can't conceive how life is possible over there. And of course, those biological forms are invisible of the higher beings.

So, and lastly, I conclude by talking about difference between abduction and induction. How science may be very reliable when it is able to observe or repeat experiment. But when science goes to origins, at that time it does not have the capacity to observe repeatedly, to experiment repeatedly.

And that's why its explanations are very speculative. And scripture goes to the ultimate causes and gives us the knowledge of those ultimate causes.