Science & Spirituality Historical Philosophical & Individual Perspectives

https://soundcloud.com/chaitanya-charan/science-spirituality-historical-philosophical-individual-perspectives

This is an AI-generated transcript and it might not be fully accurate:

Hare Krishna Krishna

great to be here with all of you today and so today I’ll discuss on the topic of science and spirituality I’ll start with specifically science and god and then we will move towards science and spirituality and I will talk about this from three different perspectives historical then philosophical And then personal personal needs or you can say individual is how can we as individual seekers what does it mean for us you know so when I talk about historical I’ll primarily talk more from the western history because western history has affected the way we see modern science and uh then when I talk about philosophical I talk from a vic perspective more and then we’ll go a little to history but we’ll focus more more on the concept So when I was introduced to bacti about

so let’s start with the historical before we get to the philosophical and the individual. Are all of you able to see this from here? Maybe you can move a little bit the other side. So when I was introduced to Baki, I was introduced about almost 30 years ago 1996 and I came from a very rational background. I was born in the Brahman family and our parents were pious. We’re not really very religious but we were quite pious and I had read the Bhagat Gita or you could say I had memorized a few Bhaga verses to please my parents but I never saw bhagita as a book of wisdom. I saw the bhagita more as a book of piety that this is what we should memorize uh to to be like a good person. So when I was introduced to Krishna consciousness what fascinated me was the rational and the scientific presentation of Krishna consciousness or rather of the Bhagavita wisdom specifically and that’s what has drawn me throughout. So I have a fairly rational approach to spiritual ity I’ll talk about that when I come to the individual aspect but why am I talking about this is that we all approach Krishna or spirituality in general if we consider in one sense we might say that there are two views of looking at spirituality say like today morning as class we say we say that Krishna is at the top of the mountain and then we are climbing up the mountain and then there are different religious traditions, different spiritual paths which are like different parts of the mountain.

This is one way of looking at spirituality.

Now this is this is more like there are like fixed finite paths. You you cannot have infinite paths going up the mountain. Now the other understanding is that Krishna is like an ocean and each individual approaches Krishna from a different part of the desert that is the material world. So we all have our individual experiences. We have our individual we may all be Indians but still we have our individual upbringings we have our individual samscaras we have our individual samscar impressions and conceptions and we have but we all can say we have anas we all have We have deal with lust, anger, greed but we all have our specific challenges. So in one sense ultimately Krishna is an individual we are individual. So it’s like each one of us has has an individual path to Krishna. So because ultimately each one of us will have an individual relationship with Krishna. So Krishna is like an ocean and we approach that ocean from different directions. So somebody might say somebody might approach this to just get some indication. Somebody might approach from a very ritual perspective. I’m not using the word ritual in negative sense but for them you know doing this they grew up with seeing their parents do some puja in the temple nearby and that’s what they love doing now somebody may approach from a very philosophical perspective where their primary rasa in spiritual life is analysis contemplation discussion. Mhm. Somebody may approach from a very introvert perspective. That means no, they just like to be alone in in seclusion. They want to think about Krishna. They want to read alone. They want to they love to go on pilgrimages alone. Somebody may come from a very extrovert perspective. That means even if they want to study scripture, they want to find somebody and let’s read the books together. they flourish even if they read something after that they have to talk about it someone they delight in the association of devotees so now everybody needs association but my point I’m making is Krishna is all attractive means different people can come from very different perspectives so so some people can come very much from a heart perspective hard means you know they they love devotees they love they love Now and love can use many different ways but is filled with emotion.

Somebody can come from a very head perspective.

Head means they they want analysis. They want logic

and they come from that perspective. Then sometimes the the heart and the head the two devotees may not be able to get along with that’s why one principle in bi is that we need likeminded association. Sati sana Sajatya means this jati nowadays it refers to cast jati but sajatya means like the same kind of mind the simil likeminded so intellectual devotees will naturally assoc flourish in the associ intellectual devotees those devotees who love rituals know somebody they will probably become pujaris they will love that service and then they will want to associate other devotees who are in that service and in that they will flourish. So Krishna is large enough to attract many different people from different backgrounds. So why are we starting with this here that the point I was making is that when we approach this topic of science and spirituality now for so I found that I was very attracted by science and spirituality but he mentioned in the introduction that I came with Raju same with Adi Janu that’s Raja was by Shik Sha Guru. I came out he he was the person who I was intellectually most attracted to. Uh he was came 1992. I came 96 97. So he was already a preacher by that time. But so when I came there I was interested in science and spirituality and he was interested in science and spirituality.

Remote remote

the remote is here. So but nobody else was interested in science and spirituality. So in one sense when many all of us we’ve been several devotees from my batch in college we joined together but you know this subject it didn’t interest anyone else. So now Radishu that I saw that I was interested so then he he we would spend a lot of time talking he would answer many of my questions. But so this is this was both a need and interest model I needed that as a conviction for myself and was interest because I had a curiosity in that direction so the topic we’re going to discuss today will be a bit technical subject and not uh everybody will among you also when you’re coming to spiritual path generally for some of us initially we may need this for our own conviction h for our own clarity our own conviction later on if this becomes your interest and this becomes your service or one of your services then you can explore it further. So that individual part which I said I going to talk later as a conclusion but I want to start it off cuz I want to start off. So this was my interest and this is still one of my interests but it is not my main interest right now. So with this contextualization let’s move to the historical perspective. So first I’ll talk from the western historical perspective then I’ll come to India. If we know how things worked out in the west See in the west there was what they call as the scientific revolution. So now we when we talk about the west we often think of a west as materialistic but previously everything in the west also it is quite religious. So the scientific revolution was the time when science really took off and before that in India the religious conception were not similar but still there are some similarity. Before that the idea was it was almost as if this world we are living in here this world is a temporary place and the primary thing is just live over here and get out of this world and go to God that was the primary focus the in the Bible also the word doesn’t come but the idea is that this world is a veil of tears that this is also a place of distress that was there and yes Life was tough pre-cientific time there were wars and famines and diseases and all those things were there life was tough but through there were three two historical movements before that then what they call the renaissance renaissance was where people started changing their view of the world so roughly this is end of the 15th century you could say precise dates vary but around 15th 16th century this happened all this happened between 16th to 17th centuries So there’s the Ressa, there was a reformation and there was the scientific revolution. So Reena was basically what people started focusing on this world also that the point is not just to tolerate this world and go back to God. The point is we want to understand this world. We want to explore this world. So as a time art started exploding, beauty started art, music, it became much more you could say inclusive, not just about God all the time. And that’s when people started looking at nature with a view of curiosity. And then at that time the religious influence was still there. So we’re going to consider Galen Leo or Newton most of these pioneers of science they were all grew up in a religious environment and they themselves were religious in many ways. So then as started exploring nature the idea started coming that because these people were religious and they were exploring nature. So the idea came that Can we appreciate the glory of God through nature? So although the in history you know they talk about that Galileo was persecuted by the church because of the the idea that he said that the earth is not at the center of the universe.

But you know that was more of a political institutional struggle. It was not that Galileo was against God. Galileo himself always believed in God. So it was more of a the technical word uses theopolitics. Theopolitics is politics associated with religion. So it is more of a political than a philosophical stuff. But Galileo had this idea. He pioneered it. The scientist continued it that God speaks to us through scripture and God also speaks to us through nature. And he said these are the two messengers of God. Now this idea is there in our tradition also where we have the 11th candle there 24 gurus. By observing nature there are various lessons that are learned. If you’re at Radharat Maharaja’s journey home and he also goes into the Himalayas he studies he observes and he learns

this is not a but the idea was this is not just learning general life lessons from nature that his idea at that time was scientific insights or you could say scientific discoveries for them where actually spiritual insights. What do I mean by that? That understanding how the world works was the idea that understanding how God makes the world work. So originally it started with a very theistic orientation. So now this quote is attributed to Lebnets or Galio or Newton different people but basically said that oh father I think thy thoughts after thee. I think thy thoughts after me. What it means? The thought that you put in in making this world. I am discovering that thought. It’s like some if the parent makes a father makes a toy at home for a child. The child is playing with the toy. The child starts figuring out how was this toy made. Oh, this one is put like this. This is put like this. So then it’s like I think thy thoughts after thee. So the idea became at this time Science was very clearly a theistic endeavor not atheistic but a theistic endeavor and it’s interesting how they saw science and spirituality at that time their ideas if you consider the incident that is said to have started of science there is a I was in Cambridge a few months ago they spoke there on the existence of god so there they show passing by there is what is called a Newton tree so not the original tree under Newton’s hat and apple but But the idea is that many universities in the west they have like descendants of that tree or you could say replicas of that tree and the idea is those trees they’re considered to be like contemplation spots. So they are pilgrimage places for scientists. So you go there you can watch a brilliant insight over here. We’ll also get to come somewhere inside over.

So

so now when Newton sat under that tree and he that apple fell on his head and then he thought okay what makes this apple fall.

So when he wanted to understand what made the apple fall he was not interested in the execution God made the apple fall. Now he believed in God but his interest was what is the mechanism by which the apple fell.

So basically the idea is that every event that happens you can find explanation that multiple levels. So for example, right now this projector stopped working. So the projector stopped working. It could be that maybe the connection here is wrong.

Maybe the power supply has gone off.

Maybe the the tablet has stopped working in terms of being able to project it. Maybe the projector has stopped working.

So we could go from one and one bigger bigger experience. If projector if the projection is stopping the first expression we’ll go to is not oh this projector is defective. Let me throw away the object. No. So we generally whenever we look for an explanation we start from a smaller explanation and then we move towards a bigger explanation and the idea is that there could be multiple explanations for the same event. So if the projector is working that means all things are working together. This connection is right the cap pro the tablet has the capacity to project the projector is working. H the wire is working. So when something works, there are multiple causes that contribute to it working. And when something is not working, we may see what exactly is not working. Isn’t it? So if somebody’s watching some some people, you know, there are uh there is a psychological defect called catastrophizing.

Catastrophizing means what? That when something goes wrong, people think everything has gone wrong.

So like somebody sits down to watch TV and and they can’t hear anything and what has happened is they sat on the remote and they press the mute button and they can’t hear thing think oh I’ve gone deaf so that a small problem go to a huge level that’s not required is it so so but what happens is why am I talking about this multiple levels of explanation so we can focus on two levels that one is when the apple fell so this is the event the apple Apple fell. So broadly there could be two levels of explanation is one is the level of mechanism. Now another is the level of the system being created. Systems source we could say that okay this is the mechanism by which it works. But when mechanism come from.

So the ultimate explanation is God.

But when Newton was wanted to know what made the apple fall, he was not interested in the ultimate explanation.

He was interested in the mechanism by which it happens. So that mechanism he came up with that was gravity. That was a brilliant insight.

So since that time now interestingly uh new neither Newton nor Galileo They called themselves the scientists. The word science itself came in the 18th century. So they called themsel technically as natural philosophers. If you know the name of the book that Newton wrote it was it was about the book of natural philosophy. That natural philosophy means there’s no unnatural philosophy. What you meant by natural philosophy is philosophy obs through the observation of nature. So they so the word science itself scheme leader. H so they observe nature and they philosophize about how nature works and when their approach is scientific they’re focusing on one particular way of looking at nature and this their natural philosophers. So the thought system that they came up with was naturalism. Naturalism means that we want to understand how nature works and we want to understand natural causes for the natural phenomena. But by natural again here the opposite of natural is not unnatural but supernatural. So God now this natural we could say we could roughly equate it material. Now there’s a difference between material and materialistic.

Like this material is just functionally observing matter. Materialistic is pursuing material as source of pleasure.

So, so, so science basically was in that sense focused on material reality. So, naturalism is the idea that we want to look for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Now, those natural explanations ultimately come from God. That was understood. But that God was not the primary focus. The focus was the material mechanisms, the natural mechanisms. So, this naturalism had had two distinct aspects to it. There was methodological naturalism that there might be other explanations but we are interested in the in in seeing what is the natural explanation for this phenomena and then there is metaphysical naturalism that means this is the only mechanism and there’s nothing more that is there. So initially it was that this explanation is also there this explanation is also there but science focus was on finding this explanation. So this is naturalism focus of science but this was what methodological naturalism. Now when when metaphysical naturalism comes in metaphysics is the study above physics the higher reality

so when metaphysical naturalism started coming then science started becoming atheistic and I’ll talk about that shortly

but the point is that for originally For the scientists or those who are the pioneers of science, there was no contradiction between science and God. In fact, we could say far from a contradiction between science and God. It was that they were seeing nature as a means to appreciate the glory of the God who had designed nature. Uh who had designed could be one word for it or who had made the mechanisms by which nature works. Mhm. So now there was no conflict in this at all. But as science started explaining more and more and more things so science started evolving. So or we can say devolving. So what happened was there are three broad schools of thought. There is theism, there is atheism and in between there is dismis. So let me explain what these are. See there is God as the creator and God as the controller. So the role of God. So in theism God is both the creator and the controller. That the idea is the principle of gravity. Newton’s idea was it came from God and it is sustained by God. Now as science started explaining more and more material phenomena through scientific methods.

Then the idea started coming that in the operation of the universe there is no scope for God that now the whole universe works according to natural phenomena. So if I throw this phone down why would he throw this phone down? It’s foolish. But if if the object is thrown down it breaks. Now how that phenomena exactly happens there is no role for God to play it

depending on the force with which I throw it and the kind of surface that is there below because that that much it’ll get damaged or if it’s a ball it’ll bounce. So a material event can be exhaustively explained without needing God. That became the idea and this was dism Dism is God is the creator but not the controller. So we could consider for example look at that clock over there. Now a clock clearly has a designer. But is that designer controlling the clock now?

No. The clock clearly works according to mechanism. The clock could not have come by chance. But now its current working is entirely by design. By its mechanism it design. So now if we can understand its mechanism then we can tweak it. Isn’t it okay we can tweak it in the sense that okay it’s gone behind we want to make it come ahead or if we want to mislead someone we can change the time only so we can do what we want with it so so God is the source God is the creator but God is not the controller the controller is who the laws of nature now this itself was a question So Newton himself was Newton and other scientists they were theists there was a philosopher who also does his name is Spininoza he was a primary proponent of dism there are many others but their idea became that now the if God is not the controller that itself is a problem for religion that that means if you pray to God is not in control so what is the use of praying to him now Now there is a so there are some the theologians who came up with the idea that they try to separate the domain there the personal and the public. So God can’t really events in the outer world happen by laws of nature

but God can praying to God can change your mind can give you more positivity. So basically the personal and the public spheres were separated and that’s how faith in God was preserved. But then as science started advancing further and science started coming up with mechanical explanations or at least science thought it is coming up with theories that could explain the origin of the universes and when that happened then God was not the controller and God is not the creator. So this is primarily post Darwin. Now Darin himself was not exactly an atheist. Darvin wanted to actually become a priest but then his daughter died his child died because of a disease and he felt very distanced from God and he immersed himself thereafter in traveling and observing nature and then he came up with his theory of evolution. So now what evolution claimed was that everything that we see in nature is a result of natural benefit. And if it is a result of natural phenomena then there is no need for God. Now still Darwin at that time even evolution itself let’s move forward. So so currently the mainstream science uh yeah the mainstream idea that is associated with science is that within the scientific worldview we don’t need God as the controller. We don’t need God as the creator. Now we could say call this technically as atheistic but science primarily is non-theistic. Now atheistic means we don’t believe in God. Non-theistic means we don’t need God. God may exist but for explaining the working of the universe or even explaining the origin of the universe we don’t need God. Now the the difference between non-theism and atheism is subtle. But it’s a significant difference. That’s why you can’t say that all scientists are atheists. That’s not true at all. But in the world view of science, there is no place for God. As of now, currently the way it is. So now with respect to Darwin also with respect to evolution, there are two aspects of evolution. There’s what is called as biological evolution and there is chemical evolution. So biological Evolution is basically the various life forms various species that exist. So from unisellular organism came multisellular from multicellular came various complex living beings including the whole life form that we see. Now chemical evolution is where from chemicals the first life form came.

Now with respect to scientific evidence itself the evidence for biological evolution is stronger and the evolution for chemical evol evidence for cucular evolution is weaker. The stronger doesn’t mean is is it really strong enough to prove it? We’ll discuss that later. But relatively speaking, even within the scientific world, chemical evolution is much much on weaker grounds than biological evolution. Now what how biological evolution itself may not be a very strong grounds but we’ll talk about that. But chemical evolution is definitely a much weaker grounds. However, for an alternative worldview to be created that is that there is no room for God in science and there is no need for God at all. For that chemical evolution also has to be true.

So basically that with respect to origin there are three questions which when you say God as the creator so in origin there is the origin of the universe then there is the origin of life and there is the origin of humans. So now why we differentiate life and humans? Because in the Christian worldview at least humans are seen to be special. So in Christian worldview the soul is present only in human beings and the idea is that only humans are Jesus came to save human beings. Human beings have the light of reason. What we call as Brahma they call it the light of reason. Thomas Aquinus talks about that that only they can perceive God. and they can pursue God. So humans exist in a special category. So there are three questions. The origin of the universe, origin of life and ultimately the origin of humans. So now the origin of universe was explained by science through the big bang. The origin of life was explained through the idea of chemical evolution and origin of humans was explained through biological evolution. Now how much this explanation is actually coherent? How much is defensible that we can explore. But this is how science historically became associated with atheism that this is the claimed understanding that we don’t need God at all and for most people. So now the like you you probably before we talked about this you may not even have thought about the or heard the terms or thought about the difference between non-theism and atheism isn’t it?

So So, so if we ask really serious scientists even today, they will say that science is non-theistic but the common conception is that if you are really scientific, you should not be believing in God and all this stuff that they associate with atheism. So now going back to our point of this is the history of science and that is how where we are right now. So um one more point I’ll make on the historical perspect perspective. Before we go to the philosophical perspective that is there were thinkers including some philosophers who thought that science and God will be in inverse proportion. What what do they mean that as science grows what will happen is

belief in God will go away. So So that was the idea. So there was Frederick Misha was a prominent philosopher. He famously said God is dead. So his idea was that now he did not say it in a cheerful sense.

He said that God is the center of the conceptual universe that humans have and if God is no longer existing then humans will become very scattered and society will become very disorganized. So he did not celebrate that but still his point was that science when we said God is dead what he meant that that the concept of God itself is irrational. So God never existed in one sense. But the world view that allowed people to believe in God that worldview has been destroyed by science. And therefore in that sense God is dead. So this was what they expected. As science advances the idea was belief in God will die. In that sense God as a concept will die. So I was in Australia about six seven years ago and there was an inter interfaith panel discussion and I was pres president Hinduism over there and the topic was why hasn’t God typed till now so what it was that there has been a remarkable resurgence in religion if you consider the whole globe we consider the whole globe the Middle East if you consider it is quite religious now we can We can question if it’s fanatical or whatever but it is religion has come back and it’s not that people there are unscientific completely there is the whole oil technology is there somehow science education is there now we often think of America as materialistic but America the central America and the southern America they are all very aggressively Christian the coastal America is both coast east and west coast they are much more materialistic so Hollywood is in the west coast So America in the western world America is the most religious country and that’s why I mean I was going to New Zealand so one TV person was talking where do you all where do you travel and speak I said I go spend three to four months a year in America he said oh America the religious nuts who elected Trump so their idea is in the western world America is seen as a two religious country

so America is so France is probably the most atheistic country uh England is also quite atheistic. Australia is also quite atheistic. Relatively speaking, there’s still significant amount of religious practice. But now Africa is also quite religious. Africa is more or less divided almost 50% is aggressively Muslim, 50% is aggressively Christian. 50 40 10 about 20% is originally the Native American religions are there. Now if you consider India, religion is resurging over here. So basically religion has had a remarkable staying power and the the biggest religious resurgence has happened in Russia or former Soviet Russia. So after the fall of communism all these countries they started becoming more and more religious. So the idea that simple narrative that oh belief in God is irrational and as science progresses rationality progresses people will become more atheist. that has not actually happened in society in general. So this is the history. Mhm. Now let’s move forward to the philosophical part. So when I talk about philosophy, what do I mean? That in the current worldview, the current worldview is that science through nature by the studying nature by understanding the laws of nature can explain various things and Therefore, there is no need for God. Now, you could say there is two different things. There is no need for God and there is no place for God. So, no need for God is non-theism. No place for God is atheism. So, science what it says. So, now at a conceptual level that says there’s no need for God. that are no place for God. Now technically speaking, science is more precisely where? Here. This is non-theism. So science is technically over here. But no place would be atheism. So what has happened is that across the world both at a mass level people have a need for religious practice. So in fact in Europe there’s a lot of aggressive atheism propagated after 911. 911 was the time the twin towers fell in America and after that there was atheistic atheistic writers wrote books saying that God is the that religion is the source of all evil. God is a delusion like that many books came on but they found that no matter how many one atheist who wrote a book that he said if you’re a religious person I’m giving you a warning don’t read this book cuz And if you read this book by the time you finish reading this book, you will get a least. So that was the level of not confident with arins.

Many people wrote and refuted his book and other things. But the we found out that despite there’s a lot of intellectual debate, people didn’t really become atheistic in mass. So now atheists have sort of re changed their strategy. Now there are whole whole like religion for atheists. There is religion for atheist. meditation for atheists, yoga for atheists, prayers for atheists. So the idea is that so that their their reasoning is what that religion fulfills some psychological needs of people.

Psychological need is people want to belong to a community. People want to do some shared activities. People want to do some practices that connect them with some higher reality. So we want to provide that within a atheistic framework. So I was in Stanford and there they had they had created something called a meditation helmet. No, they’re not created. They’re trying to create. So what has happened is that science has very strongly found evidence that meditation is very good for mental health.

Now mental health there is a subjective component to it that people I feel better after meditating

but there is a objective component to it in terms of neural imaging like with various brain scans. If a person is say for example addicted then their brain wires are the brain neurons as we call them they are wired in particular ways. So now we cannot know what a person is addicted to but if a person is addicted to some extent through neural imaging we can understand a person is if a person is very angry a person is very dist is in great pain to some extent neural imaging can indicate that now how accurate that’s open to question but Basically neural imaging has shown that people who meditate regularly their brains are structurally and chemically healthier. The brain wirings which associated with those areas which promote happiness, peace, acceptance, those are all forgiveness things like that. So now so what they’re trying to do they are trying to say that okay we will create a helmet which will give electrical stimuli which will activate those parts of the brain that are associated with feelings of wellness. So whatever effect comes through meditation you can have that by wearing the helmet. Now this project has not been successful much and it’s like see this is where there’s a fun fundamental oversimplification of spirituality. This is see science operates on a principle of reductionism. Reductionism means what? That a complex reality can be reduced to simpler components like say if this tablet is working. So how does the tablet work? Okay, it has a monitor, it has a CPU, it has a keyboard, it has this this and each of them has a particular role and when all of them combine together then the overall effect comes.

So now reductionism is very useful as a tool for understanding complicated realities. However, does reductionism work everywhere? So can reductionism for example explain people’s behavior? People’s personality. So what do you mean that? What do you mean by people’s personality? That There are there are conscious life forms. So if a person each of us has a particular individual nature. Now we could say that we are shaped by our past karma. We are shaped by our parents. We are shaped by our environment. We are shaped by our we are shaped by our uh uh our education. So many factors are there who we are. But can we reduce an individual down to like tangible physical factors their entire behavior. We cannot like two people may grow in the same neighborhood like the most drastic example for this is so reductionism works for things. Reductionism does it work for people? So the most dramatic example in science for this is what is called as identical twins. Now twins are those people who are the two people who are born more or less at the same time. But identical twins are where the same zygote splits into two. In that case, the two twins are genetically not just similar but identical. And sometimes you may have seen two twins. They don’t look like they don’t look similar at all because they’re non identical twins. But they are identical twins. They are genetically not just similar. They are identical. Now, if we are just made of our genes, Then both these genetical twins gen identical twins rather they should be completely identical in their personality especially if they lived together you know they went to the they stay in the same house they had the same parent they went to the same college you know I know two twins in America they are they’re both scientists they both PhD they’re both in the same field so like since the time they were born they have always been together they studied also together in junior college, in senior college, in PhD, they’re working also in the same job. Okay? So, they always been together. But still, if you spend about 10 minutes with them, you’ll see that they’re very different personalities.

So, then the question comes up, where does this difference come from? If a living being could be divided, if a living being, human being could be explained in terms of the parts. Now, we talking about biological parts, heart and kidney and that kind of thing. Okay? That the behavior and personality By what factors? The factors the same. But again, can we explain human beings solely in terms of material factors? So now from our understanding, we understand that the each person is a soul and the soul has its own samscaras from previous life. More importantly, the soul has free will. So reductionism does not work. So philosophical person now see this again I’m not this is not a criticism of science this is a philosophical evaluation of one of one particular operating principle of science so I talk about methodological naturalism we want natural explanation of natural phenomena so how do we come up with natural explanations we look at a particular thing and try to divide it into its components and then see how those components contribute for its explaining something but can a thing be more than its parts. So that is a fundamental question and we do see so reductionism does not work so well in terms of in in explaining our lived reality in explaining how we function in the world today. Science is a very powerful tool but science as a tool has fabulous success in explaining some aspects of reality. But does it explain all of reality? So can it explain human nature? Can it explain why is a partical person having a particular personality? Can if everything we’re working about the laws of nature, one of the features of the laws of nature is that it’s predictable. Predictable means if I throw an object down with a particular force, then you can predict how long how soon it will fall away. So if everything were explainable by science then and human beings are also if human beings can also be explained through methodological naturalism. So nature can be explained can human beings and human behavior and human nature be explained through methodological naturalism. If that were true then human behavior should also be predictable. Isn’t it the object of Like in the cosmological bodies we can predict okay this particular plant is over here now this particular star is over here 50 years down the line it will be over there. So nature and natural objects are predictable. Why is you are human beings not predictable like that? And if they are not predictable that’s our obvious experience. So is this nonpredictability where does it come from then? So what I’m talking about here is We are trying to look at from a philosophical perspective. Does science leave room for other bodies of knowledge? We’re not talking about God primarily right now. He’s talking about other bodies of knowledge. So there is science and there is scientism. So have any of you heard this word scientism? It’s not very common. So scientism is a combination of two words science

plus imperialism. Now imperialism is for example in Britain it had its imperial power expansion it conquered India. So that colonization the specific act of conquering but imperialism is we are supreme. So when science tries to claim that either we are the supreme body of knowledge or we are the only body of knowledge. So science and scientism are not the same thing. Science at one level is a tool. So a tool means what? It’s not a like within science you could have physical tools like microscopes and we can have large headron colliders and all those very sophisticated tools we can have. But science is more of a intellectual tool a particular way of looking at the universe to understand how things work. Now scientism is not a tool. Scientism is a thought system. You could call it an ideology. It is more of a thought system. So there is now within science itself there is no experiment or any theory also within science which proves scientism. Scientism is what? Science can provide all explanations. Science can answer all questions. Science can explain all of reality. See when science started with methodological naturalism, what does it mean? We are looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Now, now how can science explain all questions? There are two ways that apart from natural reality, there’s no other reality. That’s one way. And the other is that if there are some other realities, they still arise from natural realities. And then they are the scientific What is epiphenomena? There’s a phenomena and something arises from that that is epipenomena. Like if a car if a if a if a if a cold train is driving, smoke comes from it. So the brain driving is the main phenomena. The smoke coming out of it is epo epenomena. So sometimes scientists try to propose that the brain is the phenomena and consciousness is like the smoke coming out from the brain. That’s epi phenomena. Now that’s a super simple istic explanation and it really doesn’t work and I won’t going to why it doesn’t work but my point is these are two ways it can work that only everything that exists only nature or whatever exists simply comes from nature but this does not explain our lived reality what do I mean by lived reality see this is the world let’s put it this way this is the world of science The world of science means that what starts, what science studies, what science explains. And we could say this is the human world. The world in which human beings live. What do I mean by the world in which human beings live? That see there are many things in the human world which science in one sense not only does not explain it actually doesn’t even address them. What are those things? Let’s consider pain. Now one one purpose of medical science is to prevent pain or to cure pain. But with all our scientific advancement there is no such thing as a penometer. Now scientists may have some scale of pain but it’s more like more subjective. Okay. How much failed to feel you know they’re tolerable it’s like something I I saw one cartoon where you know why the person has got a faction account emergency and the doctors ask me patient on a scale of 1 to 10 how much is your pay

the patient says what 10,000 so now the idea is that there is no such thing as a pain omter now pain is a big exp experience. It’s not a desirable human experience but still it’s a huge human experience and know science approaches the body basically biochemically

anatomically, physiologically whatever but from a materialistic perspective. Now we can say there is some subjective dysfunction of the body which leads to pain and that is true and science can try to address that but pain is a subjective experience. Now is it a real experience? Yeah, it is definitely real in the through pain you tell them your pain is in signature you know they say I’ll make your existence and so it’s a real experience but similarly if we consider love you know nowadays that if you see the top 10 fears of people every psychologist try to find out the 20th century what are the top 10 fears 21st century 19th century as far as they can find out So among the top 10 fears of 21st century two fears have come up. One is the fear of terrorists specifically terrorists not just fear of attackers but fear of terrorists and second is the fear of rejection that like somebody in a relationship and people use the word break up they use but there’s no up it’s break down. So now people have a lot of insecurity and fear. So now say if a boy proposes to a girl please tell me. The girl says, “Okay, why do you I love you.” The girl says, “Okay, here’s a love. Let me let me see if you really love me.” No, no, you cannot do that. We all want to love and we all do have felt loved at times. But if somebody asks us, you know, does your mother love you? Of course. No. Is what is the scientific proof that your mother loves you? You know, I don’t need scientific proof. Is I have hundreds of experiences by which I know that my mother loves me. But science cannot quantify that. Science cannot measure that. Science cannot prove that. So there is much in the human world that is not within the scope of science. Now can the scope of science advance to enter to include that? That’s a different question. Let’s put that aside. But the fact is the human world and the world of science They are two different worlds and there are many things in the world of science that make no sense within the human world. So for example the quantum world. Now now if you see that the world that we experience it’s a world of objects. I’m touching this. I can touch this. It’s a world of objects. But if we try to see quantum physics works phenomenally well. and the accomplishments with the quantum computing coming up. What quantum computing do it’s phenomenal? So it is certainly a theory of nature which works in some way. But originally science was supposed to be an explanation or supposed to provide explanation of observed reality. Okay. An apple fell. Why did the apple fall? So now it is supposed to help us make sense of the observed world. Isn’t it? That was the purpose of science. We see and we try to like we do observe and then we do a theory. We do experiments. That was the purpose of science. So within science there are two main schools of thought. There is empiricism. Empiricism is something similar to praman as we say empirical evidence and the other is rationalism. Rationalism is more or anantra that it’s rational means you have a theory explaining it. So now ideally the empirical and the rational should go together that we observe with our empirical senses and with our mind we come up with a rational explanation for that and say Newtonian physics brought both of these together that Newtonian physics was what we observe objects falling and then we come up with explanations for okay why do the objects fall why do the planets move the new theory add elegance to it and the same phenomena which can explain an object fall can also explain the movement of planets so the the simplicity and the comprehensiveness of the theory was was astonishing so basically it helped people get a coherent worldview to some extent but then if we consider as science started studying things more and more empiricism and rationalism they started going in different even opposite directions. So the biggest split between empiricism and rationalism happened with quantum physics. So Neil Bore was a prominent proponent of quantum physics and Einstein was proponent of relativity. So now according to quantum physics now What I’m giving is a very simple explanation of quantum physics. You know it’s technically it’s so complex. There’s one quantum physicist he said that if you think you have understood quantum physics that is the proof you have not understood quantum physics. So the world is not only stranger than what you what you imagine it is stranger than what you can imagine.

That’s their idea. So now so what is it according to quantum physics at a very simple level? There is no object existing at all. There’s no such thing as a bar existing. It’s all like there is a quantum wave function and when there is an observer that presence of the observer and the act of observation leads to the wave function collapsing. Again very simple explanation. It may not be very precisely accurate. It’s a nontechnical explanation. That’s when an object comes in perception. So now Einstein had criticized theis I would like to believe that the moon continues to exist even if I’m not looking at it. No actually quantum physics it doesn’t exist. Now you may say that that’s ridiculous. How can objects are there? What do you mean by quantum wave function collapses and objects come into perception and then the perception?

That makes no sense. And that is true. You can say quantum physics makes no empirical sense. And yet quantum mathematics Quantum physics, quantum calculations work like crazy. They work so precisely that with quantum physics, a spacecraft high up in the sky, if there is a coin fallen on the street in New York, whether that is a $1 coin or a $5 coin, a quantum with quantum technology can observe and we can measure that. So there is a so it works at one particular level. So it works at a rational level. So that’s why one one one quantum student quantum student asked a famous quantum physical professor sir how do I make sense of quantum physics so his professor famously stop thinking start calculating so the maths works fantastically but to get like a sensory picture of what this means that this doesn’t work that’s why I said that much of the world of quantum physics so the world of science is quite different from the human human world. So there is much in the human world that science can’t explain and there is much in the quant science world that the human mind can make no sense of. So that’s why these two worlds are not completely identical and one of the things that has happened that because of the split between quantum physics and relativity we move forward relativity to at some extent at least make some sense in empirical terms also. So one of the things that have happened is science also has had to develop some humility. What do I mean by humility that see these two theories like Newtonian physics? It was one integrated theory that seems to explain much of the observed universe. But relativity and quantum physics these are two hugely different theories and bringing them together has been almost an impossible. task. So there are some scientists who tried to do it. They so Stephen Oing was a prominent pioneer in trying to do that. So what he he there’s a grand unified theory Gut call it or theory of everything TOE. So now spiritual uh so Stephen Hawking toward the end of his life he said that I am happy to announce that humanity’s quest for knowledge will never end.

Now it sounds very attractive. But what he meant to say that so any Guardian had told the news that even Stephen Hawking admits failure that we will never come up with a theory of everything that so the idea is that let me explain this now this is where philosophically where there is hope for science and spirituality that if we consider this is a territory or let’s put it this is a reality I’ll come to the territory example This is reality. Now the current mainstream understanding of science is that all that we can have are models of reality. That all that we can science can provide us not an explanation of reality but a model of reality and that model of reality explains some aspects of reality. So the idea that One model can explain all of reality or one model can include all models. I hope the word model is clear.

What do I mean by model? Model is like a conceptual framework which can explain things. So currently the idea is even mainstream physics it’s accepted that there will never be any one model that can explain all of reality. So another way to understand this is if this is a territory We put it over here. This is the territory. Now for a territory, we can make different maps of the territory. So we can have a physical map, we can have a political map. So now in one sense physical map means there’s a river over here, there’s a hill over here, there’s a there’s a there are farms over here. Political map could mean that okay this country ends over here, this district is over area of the state is over here. Now we can have a mineral map where which are the areas, what kind of top soil is there. We can have different maps and each map is a tool for understanding the territory. But there are two different things that the territory and the map are different. And no matter how exhaustive the map is, there’ll always be there something in the territory that is more than what can come in the map.

So, science offers us maps of the territory of natural reality. Now, maps are very powerful. If you don’t have a map and we are searching to find a particular place, it will be very difficult. So, maps are extremely useful. You can say even essential. But still, the map is not the territory. Is it? The map is not the territory. So, I can If I can if I am here and I have a friend over here. Now I can know through the map the path that I should follow to get to the home of my friend. But just moving my finger on the map is not going to give me the joy of meeting the friend. Isn’t it actually I have to move in the territory and then I will reach that particular place and meet my friend. So now if I say the more I follow a map now with this philosophical framework. Let’s go back and look at the history of science. Now what we understood that say if from here I’m supposed to go to some nearby city. Say if from here I’m going to drive to Hyderabad. So then I how long is 6 hours drive? 8 hours 8 hours.

8 hours drive. So now initially I take a map and the map says turn left and then you’ll come to a bridge then go straight and then you’ll come to a hill then go right. Now you’ll come to a river. that the more I follow the map the more my faith in the map will increase if I encounter the same things that are predicted in the map and that’s good but if I’m going to Hyderabad to meet a friend and as I keep moving forward my faith in the map increases and then I go to the my friend’s house and I knock on the door and my friend opens hey welcome so nice to see you you and I look at my map say you don’t exist in this map

therefore you don’t exist

friend will say your brain doesn’t exist so see it it is it is important to have faith in a tool but it’s also important to recognize that we can’t reduce reality to the tool so we respect science but scientism reduces all of reality to the model created by science. So that is where the problem comes in. So now if we consider this multimodel reality that if there are multiple models so then this leaves us opening can spirituality also be one model that explains reality like science has different theories. which can explain reality. So can spirituality also be one one model. So then if you move forward this is now we are going towards the individual aspect of it. But the idea is that there is a territory and now there is one model which is the model of science. Another model is the model of spirituality. Now broadly science and spirituality. Now how do we define this? The science is the study of matter. Spirituality is the study of what matters. Of what matters? What is really important in life? When when Parishit Maharaj was cursed to die in 7 days at that time he is not primarily interested in getting a PhD. in cosmology. He knows he’s although there is some description of the cosmos. No, his interest is in knowing what is the most important thing that we should focus on. What really matters Arjuna also had his kind of technology as we may or may not believe in it but that’s the different question. Arjuna had his kind of technology but the point is when Arjuna was studying the Bhagwat Gita he was not interested in the study of matter. He was interested in the study of what matters. On one side is fighting which will give me the kingdom but that will cause me to lose my relatives especially I’ll lose Bishma and Dura. On the other side is not fighting but if I don’t fight then Duryod will rule the world. Dur will persecute me, persecute my family, persecute my loved ones. So what is important to what really matters? So that is the question. their spirituality answers. So if we understand that reality is very complex and reality can be explained by different models each of which serves a different purpose then multiple models can can coexist. Not only can coexist they can actually complement and reinforce each other. So now how this will happen. I will just give two three examples of this and then I’ll conclude and we can have some question answers that there are two problems like I I gave a rough explanation. Science is the study of matter and spirituality is the study of

matter what matters. Now there could be two ways this science and spirituality coming together can is some harmony or at least coexistence possible. One is that science claims to explain everything. On one side, science gives all explanations or science claims to give all explanations and leaves no room for spirituality and the other is spirituality claims to have all explanations and leaves no room for science. Both ways what can happen is there can be a conflict. So till now we discussed about how science going towards scientism has happened but scientism itself is not a scientifically proven idea. It’s it’s not a scientifically proven theory. It’s more like what we may call a thought system or ideology and some some scientifically minded people may believe that but that is their belief. So we discussed how this It doesn’t have to be like this. Now we can go to the other side. Does spirituality claim to have all answers and therefore spirituality leaves no place for science? So can this happen? This is where happen when there are superstitions. So what are superstitions? Let’s take two three examples of this like Now Christianity is spread all over the world like Islam is second religion. Christianity is the number one religion. So Christianity also has many many different variations and some of them are more hardline. There are just like Islamic fanatics are there. Sometimes there are Christian fanatics also. So there is one group of Christianity very fringe. They’re not prominent but that’s an example of spirituality. I’m using spirituality in general term sense of going against science. That is so they have the idea that All your sufferings are because of your original sin. And if you if you accept Jesus as your savior, then you will be freed from all sins and you will have no suffering thereafter. So, so there was for example somebody has glasses. So you accept Jesus as your savior all your problems will be healed. Sometimes you may have heard about faith healing like you know have you heard of the of faith healing.

Yeah.

Some Christian priest come somebody in crutches comes on the das and they throw some sprinkled water and the person just throws away the crutches. I am healed Jesus. Glory be to Jesus. I’m saved. So now this has been analyzed quite a bit and not all of it is simply fake.

Some of it is definitely fake. There people people are not crippled at all. They’re healthy people who seem to walk on crutches and they just throw away the crutches. But there are few cases. So it’s just a show. But sometimes what happens is that that some have you heard of this thing called uh placebo effect?

Yes.

So placebo effect is what that sometimes a person may may be given this sugar sugar pills not instead of giving medicine by doctor but because they think I have been given a medicine they get cured. So now how does it work? The idea is that the current scientific explanation is that body itself has its natural healing mechanism and that is activated when our mind believes that we are being treated. So if we believe that we are being treated then we then the body heals itself

even without needing the aid of chemicals. Now placebo effect does happen but that doesn’t mean placebo is a replacement for medicine isn’t it?

That doesn’t mean that oh you just believe you’re being treated and you’ll be cured of terminal cancer. It’s not going to happen.

So like that sometimes some people when they believe that oh I got sacred water sprinkled on me now Jesus has saved me Jesus healed me so then for some time even people who are crippled you start walking like normal but like there are many cases where you know the mind can temporarily with you can say what a hormonal rush can go beyond the normal limitations of the body like it has happened sometimes If a if a mother or a father sees like a big car has fallen on their child, you know they’ll suddenly be able to get superhuman force and push out the car. Now we may say in movies heroes doing that but that’s different. Now at that particular time see the mind because of its emotions can suddenly generate a burst of energy and for a few moment they can do that. They can’t do it regularly but so the so sometimes it may be true that some people may seem to be healed But if any religion starts claiming that because we are healing you, you shouldn’t go to doctors at all. And if you go to doctors, that the sign that is a sign that you lack faith in God, then this is where what is happening is spirituality is infringing into the domain of science. The body works according to certain phenomena, certain mechanisms and to some extent medical science whether it is natural Y alopathy ayurveda that tries to understand the mechanisms and address the mechanisms. So the thing is that spirituality can also start infringing into the domain of science and if that happens then that is also a problem. Now there could be many examples of spirituality infinite to the domain of science but Technically speaking this does not have to happen. So if we can understand that both of them have their scope. So how do we put it? Again this is very simple but let’s take it in terms of the science can improve through technology our outer world. Spirituality can improve our in our own field. This is this is as I said this is a very simplified understanding but broad principles that if I want to go from here to America because I’m a spiritual person doesn’t mean that I’ll refuse to take a plane isn’t it that’s for outer world the outer world technology can help us navigate the outer world but my inner world in terms of understanding what kind of desires are there What kind of anas are there? Who am I really? And how can I manifest my core self for that inner world is spirituality. Now again this is not that simple and there are areas where there are conflicts and those conflicts will have to be addressed. So for example science has psychology and more precisely psychiatry. Psychology is more talk therapy. Psychiatry is more chemical based. You describe the pill. that talks about the inner world also. So that is some area we’ll have to explore. The spirituality will also give you some outer prescriptions. So out of prescriptions means say for example what kind of food we should eat, how we should live, how society should be organized. So there will be some areas where particular things might have some conflict and they need to be navigated. So for example, I say currently uh okay I’ll give two two examples of this is some uh I was in America about a couple of years ago and one prahua disciple told me that the brahapa said don’t sleep more than 6 hours and you sleep more than 6 hours that’s tamoka he said that for 50 years 50 years yeah almost for more than 50 years I slept for four four and a half five and a half hours but recently he said that my doctor told me you your body needs 7 hours sleep. I said I cannot do that. He said no message he said you do it you’ll be able to do better service and he said that I I’ve been sleeping 7 hours now and he said my medical bill every year has decreased by almost $15,000 cuz I was taking so many pills and my body just needed some rest. So now different bodies are different.

So I’m not saying all of us 7 hours

but this is the particular particular case of what spirituality tells and what science tells. Now this is something which has to be individually navigated and there is that much scope for individuality. There’s that much scope for individuality. Now this is relatively simple. I’ll take one more example. I’ll conclude with this. When I go to Los Angeles, I stay with one devotey couple. So the mat gi is a evolutionary scientist. She’s a PhD and she teaches evolution. So then I asked her, you know, how do you reconcile your your belief in evolution with with with what you learned from what your what you what your job and your spirituality? How do you reconcile it? So she told me I stopped trying to reconcile it. This is my job and this is my spiritual Now this is now I so then I have talked with many different devotees. This is one approach. This is basically like like this is my different hats I this is the hat of my profession and this is the hat of my spirituality

now. So then I talked with one senior sasi guru. So I asked him that if somebody believes in evolution can they still practice bi. So he said where does Krishna say that I disqualify you from practicing biolution? So then now the question comes up. This is where it’s a little dicey and I won’t say that I have a clear answer for this. That’s why I said there’s individual aspect of it. So that there are some if somebody’s super specialized in a particular area. So this math is just telling me evolution that’s obviously true. I see it happening all the time in the sense that like when we had the covid at that time the virus mutates and that’s why if you get one anti one one vaccine the virus itself may mutate another variant might come and the previous vaccine will not work that things mutate that’s something which you observe constantly and why does it happen it’s evolution that’s now you say that’s not actually evolution but that’s where what I’ll try to discuss so what does evolution mean so evolution can mean three different things and evolution can refer to an observed phenomena what does observed phenomena mean that as I said that life forms change that even one of the skills that 24 skills that Krishna learned 64 skills that Krishna learned at his kusandi pali’s guruki one of them is planned breeding planned breeding means what you bring this plant bring that plant together and then you you bring a red rose you bring a rose and you made a another new color rose so now what is this this is you could say what one idea of evolution so that when you bring two species together there some combined variation combination comes up so do we do we as devotees have to say that I don’t believe this it’s happening over there isn’t it we don’t have to falsify that

so that is very much true you know if you read it the the life comes from life that’s a conversation that written the there’s a book like that published but that’s only selected selections of the conversation if you go deeper and you read the full anabish conversation with prahupad and the devotees at that happened in ven beach in Los Angeles it’s a much more nuanced conversation so and there’s a whole conversation that praupad had on darin the charms and that’s published in dialectical spiritualism but then also what is published is a version if you go and read the full unabage version When prahubad is presented some evidences for example this particular life form this we have found fossils of this particular life form and it seems to be like a hybrid between humans and animals or it seems to be like a hybrid between reptiles and birds or whatever. Now Brahobad is not saying that this is false evidence. He’s trying to he’s giving various possible explanations for how such a life form could exist. So at the level of observed phenomena we have no problem with it that in our understanding in our understanding what is it that nature is created in such a way that nature is mutable. Mutable means nature is changeable and if Krishna himself learned plant breeding what does that mean that you can interbreed different species and they can have some changes. Now beyond observed phenomena there is a inferred mechanism. So mechanism M means here we have the theory of evolution. The inferred mechanism evolution as a theory which explains not just say how we if we have normal apples of this size we can have apple this big or you can have apple this small a grape was of this small size we can have this big grape also. So how does this happen? This is evolution and if evolution is that is what it means this is called as micro evolution. Now with respect to micro evolution this This is basically what is explaining variation within species. Now when you talk about macro evolution that is the variation across species that means from one species another species comes. So now is there evidence for micro evolution? Well archaeologists will say there is.

And We’ll have to look at it. Now the mainstream body of science says that evolution there is sufficient evidence for it. There is a significant minority of scientists and not all of them are major scientists. Even secular scientists they say that evolution is is not a sufficient explanation. So now assuming let’s without getting the merits what I’m trying to do is here individually each one of us

in our particular field will have to find out how we can reconcile science and spirituality or even whether we need to reconcile

and this particular mathemat I don’t I’m not worried about it I have my faith in Krishna and I have this is the tool which I’m using for my job it doesn’t trouble me now sometimes somebody that it doesn’t trouble you troubles me you know why that’s between her and Krishna why does it trouble you So see during prahuad’s times this is a very important point that during prahuad’s times there was this hope because there was a claim that man had gone to the moon and there was the claim that now see the moon mission whether whether it happened or not what it represented is more important what it represented was like a almost the unlimited promise of science to achieve everything and To some extent that is not the case today like for most people today people are still excited about science people are still excited about getting the latest smartphone or getting the what is the newest AI going to do people are more alarmed and excited about AI right now because the feeling is that we’ll take away our jobs but whatever it is you know see right now for most people there is no inherent tension between science and spiritual that for most people today whether the theory of evolution or the big bang theory they don’t see it as a threat to their spirituality if they meet spiritual people if they if what they speak makes sense they become attracted to it so it’s like many times I don’t know in IC how it works but most places when we do our discover yourself courses you know first we have to tell people what is the big bang theory and then we have to tell What is wrong with that? Isn’t it? Is it? So that means the big bang theory is not an obstacle for them to come to Krishna. It’s like we are assuming it’s obstacle and we are so we are in swapping them up the obstacle and then we’re removing the obstacle. So so now for many people evolution also is not an obstacle for their spirituality. Especially in the west what has happened there are there are Christians and there is a one very vocal brand of Christians they call as young earth creationists young earth creationist based on some verses from the Bible they hold that the earth was created 6,000 years ago just 6,000 years ago and that is like violently opposed to evolutionary theory not just opposed to evolution theory it’s opposed to much of history also And then what happened there were so they made a whole master plan. These young creationists they had they they sent about in one particular university or many universities they sent about about 100 200 students who were all completely convinced of young earth creationists. They hid it all hid their young earth creationism. They went and all got PhDs in evolution. And after they got the PhD then they started using their PhD to criticize evolution. And they tried to use some scientific evidence in their own. See the human mind can come up with anything. So they tried to come up with their theory said that everything all of reality can be explained in 6,000 years. And now so this really irritated scientists and they say that that you are using science to try to prove your irrational ideology. That is an abuse of science. So they say what is the difference between a scientist and a religious scientist? They said The scientist is this is the evidence. What is the theory to explain the evidence? And what is a religious scientist? This is the theory. Where is the evidence to support the So if you are a religious scientist, you are already biased. Now it’s not that simple because every scientist when he comes up with a theory, they will look for the evidence for the theory. Isn’t it?

And they will try to sideline the evidence that doesn’t support their theory. So that is normal operational procedure but it can go to an extreme bias. So this is where so so basically what has happened evolution to some extent has become in the western mind associated with younger earth creationism not evolution criticism of evolution has become associated with younger earth creationism. That means if you criticize evolution that means you believe the earth is 6,000 years old. How could you be so irrational as to believe that? So in the western world what we find is Evolution is not an obstacle for people to come to Krishna consciousness. Criticism of evolution is obstacle. You get that because when we criticize evolution, what they start thinking is oh you are like those younger creationists and I don’t want to join those religious nuts.

So I have a talk you know don’t be a religious nut be a spiritual fruit. So don’t be a religious nut. So the idea is that now can evol ution be a inferred mechanism. You see this actually this world view threatens Christianity more than Krishna consciousness. Why? Because within the Christian worldview there is idea only humans have souls. So this is a little subtle concept but I’ll explain this. See what Christianity claims is that humans are a different category of being that all the animals are a different cateor. category and humans are a completely different category. So what Darwin said is that evolution will actually teach some Christians some humility.

What is the idea? You Christianity gives you the ego that you humans are completely special. You’re a different category.

But you know you are just an animal you know evolved animal. So be humble. Don’t think you are special. So now you see if in our philosophy So, so now in our philosophy, are humans special? Well, yes, but that specialtity is in the degree of consciousness being evolved. It’s not a different category. H that animals also have souls, humans also have souls. What differentiates humans is that the consciousness is more evolved.

But it is not that. So, in that sense, Christianity had to be believed that humans are in a different category from all animals

and Therefore the idea that humans evolved from animals that was an attack on at least many Christians thought is attack on the very core of Christianity.

But for Hinduism it’s not like that.

So the body is just a body and the body is not the soul.

Now this is I’m not saying that evolution is true but what I’m saying is even if in future some evidence is found which indisputably says that evolution is true. Even if it is found that does not threaten Krishna consciousness. Why? Because in our our philosophy God is also kala. Krishna comes as time. And what does that mean? See if a particular machine is designed like AI clearly has some intelligence behind it. But if you work with AI, if a particular user uses AI continuously, AI learns about that user. and adapts itself to that user.

Now if AI is adapting to the particular user and the environment in which the user works that does not prove that there was no designing intelligence that proves that the designing intelligence was so intelligent that it created self-arning capability within the AI isn’t it?

So for us if nature can evolve according to the environment and assume different forms we understand that God acts through nature as kala. So that does not threaten our concept of God. So it actually shows that God has nature intelligent enough that it can adapt to the environment. Now I’m not again saying that evolution is true. I’m saying that even if it is true, it does not threaten our faith in Krishna. Now we may say but the Bhagatam described that the particular Brahma was created and theas were created and there’s a particular sequence of creations. Yeah, that is true. But is any of that describing how life came on the earth? It’s describing how life came on the higher planets. Now does that mean that life came on the earth through revolution? No. But my point is again the bhagatam’s version and the scientific version they don’t have to be intrinsically contradictory. Just as say when we say the planets move according to the theory of Planets move or the objects move according to gravity. Now does gravity threaten our faith in Krishna?

No. So should evolution threaten our faith in Krishna? Well, possibly. Why? Because there’s a third level of emotion. I think the first level is inferred mechanism where it is you could say the jury is still open. That means it depends on evidence. So if there’s a devotey who is in the field of evolution and who feel that the the evidence is strong enough and the devotey accepts evolution. I don’t think it disqualifies the devotey for practicing bi now personally at this stage whatever I have studied I think there’s a lot of evidence that is lacking there’s a lot of evidence which which is uh um there’s some evidence but there’s a lot of evidence that is lacking and I could go into further into that if any of you interested but the third is that evolution is as an ideology as a almost like an all explaining ideology that means this is the worldview where because nature came from evolution therefore there is no place for God. So this we we this is unacceptable and almost all the times that not almost all the times when prahuad was presented evolution. He was always presented evolution as a atheistic evolution. That means evolution as an ideology that explains everything and therefore there is no room for God. So if somebody is claiming evolution as ideology then definitely we have issue with that. But there is a three-level explanation of evolution. So evolution as a observed phenomena, evolution as that we have no problem at all. Evolution as a mechanism it depends on the individual and evolution ution as an ideology definitely not. So that is if we we accept evolution as ideology then there’s no not need for God and no place for God then what are what do you mean you are Krishna conscious we don’t if in your you accept a world view where there’s no place for God then how can you be Krishna conscious so when I explained these three world three levels to this maj this is actually given me a lot of intellectual relief. So she said that I accept the first and the second but I would never accept the third. So then whenever we meet we discuss she’s very intelligent and uh we discuss I I have got her involved in scientific research which devotees are doing now is also creating scientific forums for doing researches in various fields. So she’s also exploring. So we hope in the next 10 15 years we will we as a movement will be able to to scientifically make a statement about what is the Krishna conscious position on evolution. Right now most devotees believe that evolution is wrong and scripture is right. But that is a oversimplified understanding and it’s not that we necessarily have to choose between the two certain aspects definitely we have to choose. We cannot accept evolution as all explaining ideology but this is the individual aspect. The individual aspect is that there are that each one of us depending on our particular interest in science, particular uh emphasis in science, depending on our particular interest in spirituality, depending on our particular emphasis in spirituality, we will have to find out our individual way in which we can bring science and spirituality together in our lives and our hearts. So it is there is a there is a social or a universal aspect of spirituality. But there’s also individual aspect of spirituality and this individual aspect is something which we may not have to encounter also we not if if we don’t have any interest okay this is one tool that I use for my daily life and spirituality is for the nourishment of my bi and that’s the that’s the calling of my life and we can move forward that way also so I’ll summarize what I discussed because I discussed three main points I talked about science and spirituality they’re relationship I talk about first from a historical perspective. So in the historical perspective I talk about two main things that phenomena can have multiple explanations. There’s the explanation of mechanism and there’s a explanation at the level of the source. So for Newton he was interested in mechanism but he also accepted the source. But as science started growing what happened was science had saying that God as a creator and God as a controller. So initially in the age of Newton there was theism where God is expressed was a creator and controller. Then with Spinoza and others it came to

dism where the laws of nature explained how the world works and therefore there is no need for God as the controller or there no place for God as the controller and then atheism came as neither is there. So now science became associated with atheism because of the science when you study this mechanism it has this methodological naturalism and that is fairly okay but from method here they came to metaphysical naturalism and that is a problem. So we also discussed what was predicted by some people was that as science grows the idea of god will die but this did not happen that it’s almost I say America is the engine of science but still also there also uh there’s belief in god so it has not happened like that so why has it not happened then we discuss on a philosophical level how do we make sense or how do we reconcile things so here I talked about how science is different from scientism scientism is the idea that science can answer all questions and we discussed this one concept that there is the world of science and there is the world of human beings. So they intersect the intersection is significant maybe this is not a fair depiction we could say there is a significant level of intersection but there is a significant area of non-intersection also So that we discussed about pain there is no painome meter. We discussed about love there is no love. There are many things about human life that say reductionism in science reductionism can explain things but it cannot explain people. It cannot explain human behavior. If we were nothing except products of the laws of nature then all of human behavior should be predictable but it is not. So and then Also we talk about here we have the whole quantum world that the quantum world is it just makes no sense as per how we we consume the word. So I talked about how in originally the empirical and the rational they were together in especially Newtonian physics. So basically physics brought it together but then what happened was rationalism and empiricism started diverging away and there is no theory of everything that can explain it. So especially if you consider quantum it just makes no sense. The current mainstream understanding is that we have reality and there are different models which explain different aspects of reality but there is no one model that explains all. of reality. There’s no one map that fully explains all the territory. So traveling the territory is always going to be different from understand the map. So then science offers various models but can spirituality also offer a model.

And that’s where we talked about that if you consider this to be the same concept. Science offers one model, spirituality offer another model. Science is the study of matter. Spirituality is the study of

what matters. What is really important in my life and with respect to this broadly we could say that science works the way we can broadly reconcile the two is that we can say science deals with the outer world for us. We navigate the outer world through science and we navigate the inner world till we realize our soul and we ultimately realize super soul within us through spirituality and the individual navigation the individual aspect of science and spirituality I talked about there are two extremes one is science claims is becomes all explaining and leaves no room for spirituality the other is so this this we discuss how scientism is wrong then spirituality becomes all explaining and it leaves no space

I discuss about how if faith healing happens. It can happen. But if they say that therefore there’s no need for medicine or that you should not take medicine, then that would be a problem. So the idea is we can’t reconcile both and we use again outer world and inner world. So I discussed two examples how one was about how much to sleep. Now normally sleep is we minimize it. But if a particular medical condition requires the persons to sleep more. It’s not that that you are violating your regulator principle in Baki by sleeping, isn’t it? And then I discussed about evolution. So can evolution be reconciled? We discussed three levels. Evolution as a observed phenomena, we have no problem with that. Evolution as a mechanism, well the jury is open. If somebody accepts it, that is up to them. But evolution as ideology that definitely can’t be accepted. So that way different areas of interaction with science and spirituality can be individually navigated. Thank you very much.

H Krishna Krishna.

Yes.

Thank you for such a wonderful and good explanation. And after one more the same is like regarding this domain of science and specialty deductive approach inductive approach. approach and abductive approach and especially in terms of relational and rational we encounter students in their conversations on this part. Can you just throw some light on?

Okay, excellent. Thank you for mentioning that. See this is uh when science seems to uh when can see the main area where science and spirituality conflict now is with respect to origins. That’s the main area and with respect to human nature and everything that is there. But here when it especially when it comes to origins almost every religion has its own narrative about how the origin came about and then that has to be reconciled individually. But when science goes to origins now how does science study origins that’s very important to understand. See all science is not the same in the sense that science also uses different methods. So broadly Science has three methods. One is the deductive method. Deductive means it’s largely maths based. So 4 + 9 will always be 13. There is no exception to that. H. Now that is deductive. This is the truth. And we reduce it from here. Most of science works on inductive reasoning. So inductive reasoning means what? We observe something, we make experiments and then we evaluate it. So for example, when Newton saw the apple falling, He experimented. Okay. Will a stone structure fall? Will a metal fall? Will it fall in Paris? Will it fall in Melbourne? Will it fall in New York? So the idea is that maybe not New York. New York was not there at the time of Newton. So okay, but whether it fall in different parts of the world. So is it repeatable? So if you can repeat it up to n times then n + one, we can say it will happen. So most of the success of science have come in the domain of inductive reasoning. Inductive way of appro approaching has led to lots of successes to science. So however induction requires repeated experimentation and induction is not possible with respect to historical events. Isn’t it that when life came or the universe came however it came we cannot tell the universe please come back again and start so I can observe. we can’t replicate it.

So here science uses a third method called abductive reasoning. Now abductive reasoning is what that this has nothing to do with abduction. It’s a different word. Abductive means what? It is basically it is like a mystery novel. So if we know oh this person was murdered h this person was murdered. the the lucidity indicate that the person was motivated at 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. and 6 p.m. 6 3 to 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. somebody came to clean the house, wake that person up and they found him dead. 900 p.m. at night the person came to give him his food and water and then left night he was sleeping alone. So now you say okay is there a camera over here? Go came into the house. We can try to infer through that. Now we may say okay between this period There’s only two people who came to this house. One was a 5-year-old child and the other was a 90-year-old grandmother and neither of them was killed with this knife. Neither of them is strong enough to have put the knife in his body. So then there’s a butler in the room. Maybe the butler killed. Okay. So now this is a inference to the best explanation. This is never as reliable as inductive logic. So what happens over here? that when we make the inference this is also a method in science it’s called I beta inference to the best explanation now when we use inference to the best explanation this the when we say this is the best explanation there are three limitations with it the first limitation is maybe is there a better inference possible with my understanding I came up with this is the best inference but maybe there might be a better influence. Second is did I gather all the evidence? Maybe I overlook some evidence. Maybe there is somebody fourth person existing in a house I did not know about living in the house I didn’t know about. And the third is there might be future evidence that may come through. So maybe afterwards when the house is to be demolished because they want to make a new house over there then they find okay there’s a whole trap door in a tunnel under the house under the bed of the bus.

I mean somebody came in from there.

So the thing is that inference to best explanation is never as reliable as the product of scientific scientific theories that have come from inductive reasoning. Okay. So now for Example, laws of motion, they have come from inductive reasoning. But evolution, it has come from abductive reasoning, isn’t it? Say whether 5,000 years ago or 5 1 million years ago or 8 million years ago, whatever, how much do we know about how life was at that time? So what we know itself is limited and then from that how well we infer how things came about that itself is limited. So you know one of the biggest problem with using archaeology two main problems archaeology use using archaeology try to get a picture of ancient life is that that when people die at that time if they buried in the top soil the burial is not very deep then what happens the soil keeps getting eroded if it’s close to a river especially and and rivers also changing their paths. So even archaeologists acknowledge that there could be many fossil remains that are at the bottom of the ocean because sedimentation they got septic. And the second big problem with archaeology is in the Vic tradition bodies are burnt. So there could have been an entire civilization which existed and there would be no archaeological record of it. Cuz if people are burnt, the bodies are burnt. there no fossil remaining of it, isn’t it? So, so the point is that archaeology it gives us a very limited picture of the ancient world. So, it’s not that it is false but it’s a very limited and therefore when we make an inference to the best explanation this is always going to be very tentative. That’s why even when we say that I don’t accept evolution that does not necessarily mean I reject science. I am rejecting I’m questioning one particular theory beyond science and even if scientists may say no evolution there’s a lot of evidence for evolution but still evolution is never as strongly rooted as saying the law of motion

or the theories that have come from inductive reasoning that’s why questioning evolution does not make us anti-science it is that that’s why I started by saying all science is not having the same level of credibility I see that’s why in the west there was a lot of when this covid vaccine was made there’s a lot of opposition to vaccines because people felt that this is experimental vaccine almost they made it very fast and how much do you test it so those who oppose the vaccine they call it antivax you are like antivax people you are they said he said no I am not against vaccines I’m against this covid vaccine because it’s not very good so all all vaccines are not of the same level of research and level of uh safety.

So like that all theories in science are not at the same level of uh evidentiary strength. They don’t have the same level of strong evidence. So especially theories with regard to the origin, origin of human life, origin of life, origin of the universe, they are highly inferential and they not only almost not almost entirely they come from abductive reasoning. M

and that’s why we can be very confident in our acceptance of science and still our skepticism of this theory of origin. Okay. Is that clear? Do we have anything? Okay. There’s some question here.

Yes. Krishna, thank you so much for the wonderful class. Like before this class, I was just accepting okay this is times and this is a spirituality maybe we can’t merge that what because many of times in the class we will like when we heard keep like a small example which is coming in my mind keep the juice in the fruits comes from the uh moonlight so that moonlight so that time it was like little bit because we never read such kind of things in our like books and all these things so it’s a very hard to digest that but we know from this class also okay we have science has some limitations own limit or something like that. So there can be so many examples in which like it seems science and spirituality contradicts. So how do we in that situation how do we convince oursel or what should we our approach towards that

okay so if there are some examples where science and spirituality seem to contradict each other So for example the moons the the moonlight nourishes the fruits juiciness at the 15th chapter verse. So how do we explain this? Well first of all that even during Krishna’s time farming was happening. It is not that farmers would plant fruits and let the moon nourish it. So the point is that is this replacing the natural explanation the normal natural explanation like I said an event as an event can have multiple explanations. So there is no in no evidence in the historical record that the normal means of nourishing vegetation, nourishing plants, nourishing crops that was neglected in the name of this that’s the first point. So that means here spirituality is not infringing on the domain of science and saying that the scientific explanations scientific explanation is natural explanation that it’s invalid that there are many many metaphors in the Bhagwatam itself including Krishna’s teachings where it talks about how we need to we need to provide water to like in the modern Krishna’s teachings you can say the Chaitan is there that if you have a seed then you have to bakti you have to water it doesn’t say that wait for the moonlight to come so so the point is that that is not contradicting the natural explanation now could now this is also not a this is an additional explanation is Krishna saying uh so now exactly how does it work so see there is with respect to nature, with respect to gardening, with respect to uh with respect to anything that involves working with nature with even farming. There is a craft aspect of it and there is a art aspect of it. What do I mean by this craft and art aspect? That you could if somebody is having a orchard of say apples, then you can nourish the entire field where the orchard is there with the same kind of water, the same kind of fertilizers. You have the same kind of sunlight. Everything is the same. But still each apple is not exactly the same, isn’t it? Some apples are softer, some apples are harder, some apples are more juicy. Now we could say certain kinds of Apples are sweeter. Some some kind of apple is sweet. That is true. But within that each apple is individual. It’s not that every apple two roses may be very similar but each rose has a variation. So now why is it that some apples are softer and more juicy? Like when we buy mangoes, we all would like to have juicy mangoes. But you know we may buy the same shop, same rack, but one mango might be juicier and other not juicy. And then you know we give another mango and other person mango and you say I maybe I should have taken that mango I should this one you have like that.

So there is the craft aspect but there is by art aspect means that there is something which is not a craft. So when we talk about the juiciness of apples that is something which is a an additional explanation. The principle that Krishna is talking about over there is so the specific is that okay I become the moon and sustain and provide juice but The principle over there is that that when we exist in the world, what we need for the world, what we need for our existence is provided by factors beyond us. That is the emphatic point over there. There are different models of the body. The next verse so he says I am the digestive fire. Now according to alopathic there’s no such thing as a digestive fire. Whereas within ayurvea jhatrai is like the fundamental thing. If your jhatrai is strong your whole body will be good. Jhatrai is weak nothing will work. Everything else will fall apart. Now these are two different models of the body and models of how the body works. Now there is now there are some things which are similar except there is a heart there is a intestine there is a the organs are the same but I focus more on kafabat. with the alopathy focuses on more on biochemicals and how we can be balanced balancing things. So now these are like I said the reality can have different models. So I would say that Krishna when he is explaining things at that particular time he at the scripture is also spoken at a particular time. So he is explaining how to see God within the model of reality that was present at that time. So the point is not the model of real whether that model of reality is accurate or not or what the model of reality is. The point is that there is a way to see God’s hand within how we are being sustained. That’s why the section starts with 15.112 is with the eyes of knowledge we can see with the eyes of knowledge we can see the soul the spiritual side and we can see God both. So that is the emphasis over there. That’s why whenever you study scripture in scripture there are two things. There is the point being studied and there is the point of the point. Point of the point means why is the point being made. So the point is important but the point of the point is more important.

Isn’t it that what what is being said and why is it being said? So that’s Like Krishna may speak some things in scripture generally there are certain things which are descriptive and certain things which are prescriptive. What do I mean by descriptive and prescriptive that descriptive means Krishna is describing how things were at that time. So for example Chhattanam described that Hardash was not allowed in the Jaganat because he has born Muslim family. So now That is describing is Chaitananya Mahru prescribing that nobody should be allowed into if somebody’s from non-Hindu family they should not be allowed into temples no that’s not that’s descriptive so in scripture there are many things are descriptive so vidan sutra that scriptural statement that are imperative imperative means do this they are prescriptive statements so for example The soul can never be cut. The soul can never be burnt. That is a descriptive statement. Now, that is a prescriptive statement. So when descriptive statements come, they will come naturally based on that particular context. So Krishna doesn’t have to fight a war. Does that mean that all of us have to fight wars? There was one Indian I I was 2017 18 it was I was catching a flight and I saw one person reading a newspaper. Now you hardly see anybody reading newspapers physically but I saw that there some some person who had died and he said India’s greatest mistake after independence was that it did not follow the Bhagat Gita. I said wow that’s interesting. Then I Googled and found out and this person said that if India I will follow Bhagat Gita. As soon as India was partitioned India attacked Pakistan and conquered all that and that was following the Bhagita.

So following the Bhagavarita is fight you to fighting is a point in the Gita. But what is the point of the point? The point of the point is to harmonize with the will of God. Isn’t it? That’s why at the end of the Gita Arjuna said I will do your will. Now that will at that time happens to be fighting.

So the point is often contextual. The point of the point is universal. So now if we want to explore I know a couple of devotees who are doing some research in this field that what was the that what are the factors that determine like when will you get a bounty of harvest there are many factors which are beyond what our simple mechanical worldview comes in. So like we said if a cow is loud she’ll give more milk. Now is that something which can mechanically mathematically demonstrate? Well it is experience but how do you know How can you measure a how much how much love a cow was given and how much milk you know you cannot really measure love isn’t it so there are certain things which make sense but they may not be scientifically measurable so I would say this is there are certain things of scripture which come from the world view at that time the model of reality prevalent at that time now is the model of reality prevalent at that time prescriptive for us not necessarily The point is through whatever model of reality you have you try to see the hand of God. So now if we look at in our model of reality there might be there might be pulsers and quazers and black holes and still if you if you see some of the telescopes and the pictures that they get from the laboratories recently there was a Hudson lab what was a particle lab they had a picture of the un it’s such a stupendously magnificent picture of the universe that It just fills you with aw and wonder which are amazingly complex and coordinated universe. It points to a higher intelligence. The point is that whichever model of reality we have we don’t necessarily have to reject that and accept some other model of reality. But through the model of reality see the pointers towards God. Like ayurveda and offer different models of reality. If we are to be Krishna conscious do we have to necessarily follow aya? Not necessarily. But we can still see pointers towards God. So now uh can you explain uh that how that metaphysical naturalism leads to with non-theism?

How metaphysical naturalism leads to non-theism? See metaphysical naturalism holds that natural reality is all that exists and therefore now God is not a natural reality. Natural means God is not a material reality. Whichever tradition we go to, most spiritual traditions, most theic traditions except that God is a nonmaterial being. And therefore, if reality is only natural, then there is no place left for a non-natural being. And in that sense, it at the very least leads to non-theism. It actually metaphor, meta Methodological naturalism normally leads to nontheism. Metaphysical naturalism will lead to atheism. So these particular world views whether they operational or ontological. Ontological means they are more of a nature of reality they will have some implications. Is that answer your question?

So if someone is not much bothered about science or evolution and just using technology as they are required. What effect will come after his rejection or acceptance of science to his spirituality? I think that’s very individual. You can’t really say for sure what will happen. Um ultimately Krishna doesn’t say that you have to reject evolution and come ultimately Krishna sees how much is the love of our heart.

So I would say that if it is not affecting a person’s uh connection with Krishna, commitment to Krishna, absorption Krishna, it should not have much effect. Yes.

Yeah. I used to wonderful class. So uh you see if you see evolution about uh there’s a stark difference in how uh science says the how because 65 million years ago this asteroid came and then destroyed dinosaurs and that is the timeline of this thing mainstream and sense. and our people our chhaturas and how to

yeah I agree with you that see once you talk about reconciling specifics will require a lot more careful research to reconcile and whether all the specific details are reconcilable that’s open to question I doubt whether all the specifics can be reconciled but my point is that it is not that the two are ically irreconcilable like I said that now with specific dinosaurs we do have fossils to indicate the existence of dinosaurs. Now when propad ask for dinosaurs prop dinosaur dinosaur dinosaur we are aasaur so so now there is one point is dinosaurs existed. Now does it necessarily mean that dinosaurs ruled the planet and humans couldn’t exist at that particular time.

It could be dinosaurs were on a different continent or a different part of the world. Humans in a different part of the world. And as again the point is that we said there we do not have fossils of humans when dinosaurs were there. It’s possible but that’s also because the human if if Vic civilization was there then that means there would be no burial there would be burn cremation. So there would be no fossils of that. So it’s possible that there could be an age of dinosaurs but that does not necessarily mean dinosaurs meant there no human beings. So I think specifics will require much more careful research if somebody has some interest in that field cuz see the interaction of Hinduism with science. Christianity has been having an interaction with science for at least four five centuries now.

Now Hinduism as a inter ual level it is largely postindependence but Hinduism’s interaction with science or with like not even science you could say the mainstream body of intellectual knowledge it has been more about defending specific criticism of Hinduism rather than presenting the Hindu worldview

that means say the cast system is it intrinsic to Hinduism or is it which is as which was a later accmission and deviation or dity worship that was criticized by Christianity more than science. But so Hinduism has focused on more on individual practices or individual social forms or specific social forms. So the broader dialogue between Hinduism and science that has not happened that much. So I think intellectuals will have to Hindu intellectuals, Vic intellectuals there’s a lot of scope for serious research in that area. and spec that’s that’s why that’s why I said there’s a whole individual scope of how do we how do we find out our particular reconciliation okay last two questions yeah

pro like we are saying uh we have 8.4 million species that’s it so but science science also says that same but they are

same I don’t think they use the same number

number is not same but Yeah species

multiple species but probably if they have existed before also and will exist also then where’s the question of extinction like which science talked about

extinction if we understand that the bodies are given to souls according to their natures sorry according to the nature of their desires specifically then the bodies are also the ways by the by which the soul interacts with particular enir environments and if the environment changes particular bodies may become unsuitable. Isn’t it? Say there will be a global uh cloth manufacturing company which makes say winter clothes which makes swe. But if it has a production unit in a country and the season is summer, it may no longer manufacture or market woolen products because they’re not needed at that particular time. Does that does that mean that whole products have become extinct? It can seem like that. So in the Vic world view the life forms exist everywhere and in particular places if the environment changes and particular environment is no longer suitable for particular bodies the bodies are like clothes. So then it can appear that they have become extinct. So when we say the 8.4 million species There is no categorical statement that all the 8.4 million species have to be there on each planet or that all of them have to be there on each planet at all times.

So it’s possible that some may not be present at sometimes.

Yes.

I have a question regarding free will. So in the context like in Bhagat Gita Krishna says that He knows the past, present and future of every soul

because it’s a different from our topic today.

Yeah, it’s a little little related.

Okay, you go ahead.

Also in the same context another place is said like all our actions are mostly governed by the modes of nature.

Okay.

So in that context isn’t every action or behavior as you said it is predator but isn’t if it’s future can be deduced isn’t that it’s predictable actually so where does free will exactly exist okay

according to your theory then I don’t have the free will to answer this question

yeah so the thing is that free will is a big paradox if somebody says is I have no free will. So the rejection of free will requires I have free will to reject free will. So it’s a it’s a bit problematic. I mean let’s go a little bit more about philosophy and technicality that let’s see what Krishna says about the mods in that particular verse 327 is often oversimplified in its understanding. What Krishna says is that Krishna says material nature is doing things. The soul who has too much anankar arrogance that thinks I’m the doer. So this verse might seem to say that we are not the doers at all. But then the whole purpose of the Bhagat Gita was to get Arjuna to do something. Isn’t it at the end of the Gita Krishna Arjuna deliberate and now do as you desire. Guru is now you do as you desire and then that is 1863 10 verses later 1873 Kajjuna says that I will do your will. So the Gita is saying I we are not the doer that is what it was saying then why is it telling a not do you as you desire so the reconciliation comes in 18.16 when Krishna says the says therefore this doer when somebody thinks I am the soul doer that is such a person is uninformed or incompletely informed in their intelligence. So the illusion is not to think that we are the doers The illusion is a thing that I am the soul doer. So we certainly play a part because we desire, we seek and then material nature is a machine that executes. So the Gita doesn’t say that everything is done by the modes. The desiring is done by the soul and the scope for free will within the three theory is that we can choose the we’ll be influenced by. So it’s like a video game. If you’re playing a video game, you come to a crossroad. You can go this way, you can go this way, you can go this way. So now the there are three options for you. You have to choose one among them. But still you choose one. So we could say that the gonas are like different means and we choose. So at each moment so right now you’re sitting now you’re sitting and hearing you know you could just lie back and relax and very gracefully From sata you can slide into sit carefully sit attend you can stand up and create some the point is we can we can choose among the choice might be a micro choice but each micro choice over a period of time can make a mega change. If continuously every day we wake up in the morning we are choosing satrona every every day every day every day.

So what will happen is gradually we’ll develop sensation so like that the Gita perspective of modes does not say that we have no freedom definitely lose scope for freedom. Now if somebody’s very much in tamuna then for them to choose might be difficult but they never to choose choose some frequency. So the range of options might be lesser or more for us but still we always have choice. Now with respect to Krishna’s knowing the future there are three ways of understanding it. First is that Krishna’s knowledge of the future is like our knowledge of the past. It is information without intervention. That I know that I woke up I wanted to wake up at 4:00 but I woke up at 4:50. I know that today but I can’t change that. It’s information without intervention. So Krishna also knows but Krishna does not change it. He can but he does not change it. That’s one level of understanding. The second level of understanding is that Krishna’s knowledge of the future is more the knowledge of the future options and the consequences of those options not necessarily the knowledge of the specific choices that we make. It’s like say Google has the whole territory mapped out. So now if I take this turn I’ll go over here. If I take that turn I’ll go over here. So Google has the whole territory mapped out and even if we take a wrong turn, Google can still get us back on the right track. Now Google may tell us to take make a vertical choice but Google is not controlling the choice we make. So if you see the overall context of that chapter, the point Krishna is making is the before that after that what the context is there is that that while we are in illusion Krishna is not in illusion and Krishna can therefore get us out of illusion. Therefore we so we may be lost but we are never lost to Krishna and Krishna can get us back. So when Krishna says I know the future it is more more to assure that whatever problems you may face in the future, I will help you deal with them. So it is not to say that the future is all pre-ordained and you are no free. Again, there’s a point and there’s a point of the point. So the point if you see of the Bhagat Gita is to assure Arjuna that it’s not just I’m here to guide you today but tomorrow I won’t be there. No, I will always be there with you. It is to assure Arjuna of that. Third point is that even if we say Krishna knows the future, The essence of life is not knowing but loving. If you consider the lea that happens in the spiritual world, uh Krishna knows what is going to happen. Krishna knows that try to tie me and I’ll run away and I’ll run and she’ll catch me. But through it all, Krishna experiences love expresses her Krishna expresses her love. But Sometimes somebody loves a movie very much then they may aspect particular scenes in the movie. They may watch those scenes again and again you know they know exactly which dialogue who is going to speak but there the point of watching it is not knowing the point is experiencing. So like that rasa is not about ghana rasa is about that means that even if Krishna knows for example we are going to go back to it only after 10 lifetimes assume still if we choose to love Krishna our life will be happier for those 10 lifetimes and if we choose not to love Krishna then we will stay away from happiness to that degree okay so let’s continue some other time thank you very much