Understanding the scopes of science and spirituality

Talk to IIT & NIT students at Kolkata

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So I will talk from 18.20 to 22 in the Bhagavad Gita, which talks about knowledge in the three modes, knowledge in Sattva guna, knowledge in Vyajoguna and knowledge in Tamoguna. So 18.20 talks about how one sees that within all living beings there is an imperishable essence and that knowledge is considered to be knowledge in the world goodness. Then that knowledge which sees only the difference according to the species that one is in.
That means that knowledge which sees only the bodily covering, that is knowledge in the mode of passion. And that knowledge which focusses, obsesses on this one tiny fragment of reality, that is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So, sarvabhuteshu yenaikam bhavam avyayam ikshatem, avibhaktam vyubhakteshu, tyajnanam nidhi sattvikam.
So avibhaktam, avibhaktam vyubhakteshu, vyubhakteshu, there are many different living beings and all of us are different. But avibhaktam, despite our differences there is something which we have in common. In that sense, although we appear separated, there is something which unites us all.
And what is that? sarvabhuteshu yenaikam, all living beings ekam, that is one. Bhavam avyayam ikshatem, bhavam avyayam, there is an imperishable nature that can be seen. That is knowledge in the mode of ignorance, sorry, in the mode of goodness.
What is that one thing that is common among all living beings? Krishna is not alive. Sorry? He is not alive. Yes, we are all part and parcels of Krishna, yes.
We have that atma-tattva. Bhavam avyayam, the word bhava here means nature. There is something which is avyayam, imperishable in all living beings.
So knowledge, if you see the atma-tattva, that is called knowledge in the mode of goodness. Then there is knowledge in the mode of action. Krishna talks in 8.21 where he says, prathakve tu yajnanam, nana bhavan prathakvidhan, viddhi sarveshu bhuteshu yajnanam, viddhi rajasam, prathakve.
Prathakve here means to see differences. Tu yajnanam, that knowledge which sees differences. Nana bhavan prathakvidhan.
So one sees bhavam, one sees different natures. So for example, one sees, oh, this person is fair, this is dark, this is South India, this is North India, this is Bengali, this is Maharashtrian, this is Indian, this is African, this is European, this is Australian. So one sees that the body is the nature.
One identifies the person entirely according to the body. So prathakve, one sees separate bodies, and one sees that there are separate natures. Nana bhavan prathakvidhan, viddhi sarveshu bhuteshu.
In this way one sees different living beings. Tadhyanam viddhi rajasam, that is knowledge in the mode of passion. And knowledge in the mode of ignorance is, yad tu krushnavad ekasme, karye sattvam ahaitukam, atatva dhvatanpam jyotattamasam udabharitam.
So, yad tu krushnavad ekasme. Krushnavad means complete. That knowledge which thinks that one thing is everything.
Krushnavad ekasme. One looks at one thing and thinks that one thing is everything. Karye sattvam ahaitukam.
And one becomes obsessively, compulsively attached to that. Karye sattvam ahaitukam. Without properly considering cause and effect.
Atatva dhvatanpam jyotattamasam udabharitam. One does not have tattva dhvatanpam, one does not have proper philosophical knowledge. Alpam jyotattamasam udabharitam.
Alpam means the knowledge is very immediate. Tattvam ahaitukam jyotattamasam udabharitam. That is knowledge in the mode of ignorance.
So to think of one thing to be everything. So to see the spirit is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. To see the body and to see everything is different at the bodily level, that is knowledge in the mode of passion.
And to see one thing to be everything, is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. Now what does this mean practically? To understand this point, first let’s understand what the modes are. How many of you have heard of the three modes of material nature? Okay.
So the modes, there are many things. But for our purpose we can say that they are subtle forces that shape the interaction between consciousness and matter. The modes are subtle forces that shape the interaction between consciousness and matter.
They are also the building blocks of material existence. The world is made of modes. The world is made of modes.
So material nature is made of modes. So for example, depending on one’s nature, depending on which mode one is influenced by, one will perceive things differently and respond differently. So there is, in a general sense we can say there is vision and there is action.
One sees, observes, knows things and then one acts. So when there is vision, followed by action, there is understanding, thoughtful behaviour, followed by intellectual action. That is goodness.
Whereas when there is only action without vision, when one acts but does not think, it is impulsive. That is passion. And when there is neither vision nor action, there is simply paralysis.
That is ignorance. A standard example is that if someone sees, people are in a movie theatre watching a movie, suddenly a fire breaks out over there. So some people just petrify.
Fire, fire. They just can’t move. They get frozen.
They can’t move because of paralysis, panic, paranoia. But there are others, majority will fall in this category. They just start rushing out towards the door to get out.
And often, for example, danger happens in a crowded place. Quite often, more damage is caused by the stampede than by the original danger. So panic.
Stampede when you are there and the children, the mother is carrying the child, the child falls off and others just stamp on the children and go, the child will go. So that panic, that is action without contemplation. Action without thinking properly.
And when there is goodness, the person will look, okay, where is the fire? Extinguish it. Immediately move there. You go and extinguish the fire.
So when there is contemplation and action, there is goodness. When there is action without proper contemplation, there is passion. When there is either action or contemplation, that is ignorance.
This is just one way of looking at it. The modes are subtle and there are different factors involved in it. So another way to put it is that some people make things happen, some people watch things happen and some people wonder what happened.
Those who make things happen are in goodness. Those who watch things happen, they are in passion. They are trying to do things, but oh, this is going wrong, that is going wrong, that is happening.
What to do? This is not going wrong. Like that, watch things happen. And those who wonder what happened, they just don’t understand anything.
They are in the mode of ignorance. So now, here, we see the point of this analysis is to enable us to become situated in goodness and then gradually move towards transience. Bhagavad Gita encourages us when we first situate ourselves in goodness.
So now the modes are subtle forces that shape our interaction between matter and consciousness. So in these modes, Krishna talks about how knowledge can be in the three modes, how intelligence can be in the three modes, how determination can be in the three modes. So knowledge in the three modes means what? That, just as we talk about, say, attitude, some people are optimistic, some are pessimistic.
The same glass of water some people take is half empty, others take it half full. That’s a change. The outer reality is the same.
But the way of seeing is different. Just as they can have positive-negative attitudes, optimistic-pessimistic attitudes, similarly there can be these attitudes also, which are shaped by the three modes. The perception changes.
See, all of us, we may see the same thing, but we may not all see the same thing. So, for example, I can give another example to further come to the point of the modes. If, Chanakya gives the example of this relativity, he says that the same woman may be seen by a lusty man as a sense object, by a small infant as a source of maternal affection.
The same woman may be seen by a sage as a display of an illusory energy. And the same woman may be seen by a tiger as a lunchbox. So, not lunchbox, lunch itself.
Lunchbox. So, now, which is true? Well, the woman is her own person, but depending on one’s frame of reference, one’s perspective, one will see two different things. So, now there are two different things which should not be conflated.
There is perception, and there is perspective. Perception is what we see, rather, what we focus on when we see. The change of perception means, don’t see the glass as half full, as half empty, see it as half full.
That’s perception. Perception means what we see, what we focus on when we see. Perspective means from where we see.
From where we see, from what position, from what vantage point are we seeing. So, for example, Chanakya’s example is of seeing from different perspectives. So, a man’s perspective is different from a child’s perspective, different from a jay’s perspective, from a saint’s perspective.
It’s different from a tiger’s perspective. So, perspective is from that. That is dependent on where we are situated.
Whereas, perception is not just where we are situated, but in that object only, where we are looking. So, I’m focussing on the empty water. Emptiness of the glass or the fullness of the glass.
Now, the modes shape both. And here Krishna is saying that when a person is in goodness, one is not too enamoured by changes in temporary things. It’s like, if somebody, a child goes for the first time in an ocean or in a boat, a boat is constantly shaking.
So, the child is becoming titillated or restless because of the constant shaking of the boat. Down, up, up, up, down. Now, that is the reality.
The boat is always shaking. And one may also feel one’s moving up and down, moving up and down. But, a person who is seasoned a seeker, that person is aware that the boat is shaking, but is not conscious of it, much.
That is the reality, but that is not the focus. So, those who are in passion, they are very much enamoured by the changes in the soul. Thinking, okay, this change will lead to a lot of positive things.
This change will lead to a lot of negative things. This change, oh, it will be catastrophic. This change can be revolutionary.
They invest a lot of stock in change in the material level. Thinking that that is what is going to define that happiness or deadness. Whereas, in goodness, one sees beyond the material level.
Material level, okay, it’s there and it’s important, but it’s not all that is important. And one sees this focus on the unchanging. So, with respect to our frame of reference, which is background, we look at the method.
I talk in the morning about science and spirituality. So, let’s come to that point. Science is its primary methodology is in the mode of passion.
And scientism, scientism often tends towards the mode of ignorance. So, science operates by a strategy called as reductionism. Reductionism means to reduce.
At one level, if somebody gives you a watermelon to eat, the watermelon is so big you can’t eat it all. So, what we do is, we cut it into small manageable pieces. And then we eat them.
So, like that, when science observes the world, it is big, it is complex. So, we can’t manage all of it. So, we reduce it.
Reduce it means, first of all, within the big world, we focus on some set of phenomena, which we can observe. And then we focus on measuring, analysing and understanding. And one of the main strategies that scientists use to analyse and comprehend things is to reduce things to their components.
Take something and reduce it to its components. Now, at one level, this strategy seems fine. Yeah, that’s how, if I want to understand this computer, I analyse its components and then I can analyse, okay, this function, this does this function, this does this function, and together when they come, they do these functions.
It’s fine enough. The problem comes when we encounter something irreducible. So, irreducible, irreducible means that which cannot be reduced down to something further lower.
So, for example, now, if a child, sometimes when people are playing with children, small children, then people may come and tickle the child’s belly. And they tickle the child’s belly, the child will start laughing. Now, when the child starts laughing, is that laugh that happens? Well, you could say, yeah, the child is laughing, there is some entertainment over there, but that is not really happiness.
Now, if that were happiness, then all of us would have our own perpetual tickling machines. And we could all be tickling us and then be happy lifelong. After all, we want to be happy in life.
So, why not everyone get a perpetual tickling machine and be happy? No, that is, we understand, is superficial. So, it is basically, that laughter is a biological reaction to a particular biological stimuli. And that doesn’t touch our heart.
So, although, so, the point I am making is that to reduce happiness to laughter, it makes things incomplete. Laughter is a part of happiness. But laughter by itself is not happiness.
So, happiness is a higher reality which cannot be reduced down to merely the physical act of laughing. So, similarly, now if somebody says, you are a fool. Now, look at that.
If I look at that child, I might feel angry. Why is somebody calling me a fool? Now, if that same child, you know, if you are a fool, there are certain letters over there and those letters create some emotion within me. But, and if I had not got that child, I would not have felt angry.
Or, if I had got a child with some other notice, I might not have felt annoyed or angry. So, certainly, that child is associated with my experience of anger. But that child alone is not, child by itself is not angry.
It is simply a set of patterns on paper, some black pages on a white paper. So, where is the emotion of anger? That emotion, is it located in my brain? Now, if I see what happens when I see that child with a message on it, is that the brain secretes certain electrochemical signals, secretes certain chemicals. Some parts of the brain, some synapses take place and some parts of the brain get activated.
And the activation of the brain basically secretes some electrochemical signals. So, we could, in a relatively simplistic analysis of what happens in the brain, just as there is a pattern of ink on the paper here, similarly, there is a pattern of electrochemical signals in the brain, which happens corresponding to the, whatever I have read. But again, that is simply electrochemical signals.
Just as there is someone needed to read this message, and it is that person who feels the emotions. Similarly, the brain signals are basically a pattern. There is somebody needed who will read that pattern and make some sense out of it.
So, the brain chemicals, secretion of certain chemicals in the brain, that alone does not comprise our emotions. They are limited part. As long as I am in the body, and I am acting to the body, whatever I do will have some bodily channel, some bodily expression.
But that body, just as laughter alone is not happiness. Similar, the movement of the face in a particular way is not happiness. Similarly, the secretion of certain chemicals in the brain, in and of itself is not happiness.
So, to give another example, to illustrate this point, certain things cannot reduce human. Suppose, we hear some nice music. Now, we could say that music is nothing but certain combination of certain sounds.
So, from the Vedic perspective, there are rasas. Those sounds are combined together to make music. That is true.
The sounds are combined together to make music. But the experiencer is not present in the combination of the sounds. The experiencer, who appreciates the music, has to be different.
And without that experiencer, the music will not produce a different. So, there is a connection between the stimuli that is perceived, or the music heard. But by analysing the message into its components or the music into its component sounds, one does not come to the phenomena of the experiencer.
The experiencer is different. So, if all the sounds are too complicated, don’t worry too much about it. The simple point is that in our day-to-day experience, there are things that are irreducible.
Suppose there is a brain surgeon and he comes home and his wife is upset. Now, will you say, let me do a brain scan to find out what’s wrong with you? No, you cannot, if somebody is upset, talk with that person and find out what has caused that upset. So, there are many things in life which are not reducible simply to the biochemical level.
And this is not just a matter of inadequacy of technology. It’s a matter of principle. It’s not a matter of detail.
It’s not a matter that we cannot perceive to this level. No matter how detailed the pattern of electrical signals that we can map in the brain, that pattern itself will just be like the pattern of ink on paper. Maybe much more detailed, much more complex.
But ultimately, it’s that. Who is the interpreter of it? Who is the experiencer of it? So, there is to our there is to our another way to understand this reducibility is that if we look at atoms or we look at the component, the electrons. Now, electrons don’t have taste.
They don’t have smell. They don’t have fragrance. And yet, from those electrons, as we move upwards, upwards, upwards, upwards, we come to the sensory world which has all these.
So, we are not only talking about spiritual reality, we are talking about material realities. So, in philosophy, there are two things. There is phenomena and there is nomena.
So, phenomena is that which is observable to our senses. Nomena is that which the thing actually is, irrespective of whether we can see it or not. So, science operates on a fundamental belief, on a fundamental faith that the world out there is actually real and that we can really observe it.
When we say, what is the faith in that? Isn’t it obvious? That the world is out there and I can observe it. But can we really? Because if we look at the atomic theory, everything is made simply of atoms. And atoms are most of it is a space.
So, now if something is this empty space, how does it become solid? You may say, because of the bonds. Yes, bonds are fine. But, if we go deeper, now quantum physics says everything is just waves.
If everything is just waves, how does matter come about from it? Einstein, one of the things he did not like about the quantum theory and he strongly opposed it, was the fact that quantum theory did not accept the idea of two solid things existing. So, there is one famous quote of physics that says, I would like to believe that the moon continues to exist even when I am not looking at it. So, according to quantum theory, actually, everything is just waves.
But, when there is an observer, then the wave-like structure collapses into a physical structure. And that’s how we perceive things. Quantum theory is very complex, and I won’t go into it over here.
But, suffice it to say that, I would like to believe that the moon continues to exist even when I am looking at it. That means the moon is not just some amorphous wave, which collapses into an object only when I look at it. Moon is actually out there.
Now, whether it is there or not, this is something for which science is a choice based on faith. Science believes that there is a world out there, and that world is perceivable by our senses, and that the perceptions we get of the world are reasonably accurate. Is this really true? Because more and more our science is moving towards relativity and quantum physics.
They are not very easily reconcilable. In fact, in some fields, they are entirely reconcilable. And that’s why the researchers are more and more moving towards the idea that what science gives us is a map of reality, not reality itself.
A map of reality means, let’s say, if I want to go from here to my home, so I have got a map with me. Go like this, go like this, go over this bridge, go to this expressway. And suppose I go, I have to go to my apartment, meet X, Y, Z person.
And then, every time I use the map, it’s reliable. It says, come to this point and turn left. Then we come to this point, go up this much distance, go up.
Go around, go left, go right. So I do that, and the more I do that, each time I am guided rightly by the map, my faith in the map increases. This is good.
It works. And finally, I reach my destination. I knock on the door of the person I want to meet.
And then that person says, I open the door. That person says, oh, hello, come. Welcome.
I look at my map. And I see in the map there is no mention of X, Y, Z person. So I look at him.
You don’t exist. What? He says, my map, it has been corrected now. I believe in my map.
And the map doesn’t show you. Therefore, you don’t exist. If I justify and say, your internet doesn’t exist.
So, a map is a replica of reality focussing on a certain set of factors within reality. The map is not the territory. The map is not the territory.
Although the map is a roughly correlated territory and it depicts some aspects of the territory. Similarly, what science offers us is not an understanding of reality. It offers us a map of reality.
It takes certain parameters and focusses on those parameters and explains, analyses and explains those parameters. And to the extent it does that, it is good. But, the mistake happens when I develop so much faith in the map that when I encounter something which is not in the map, instead of trusting the reality of my own experience, I trust the map and say that the person I am meeting doesn’t exist.
So, our consciousness, it is because we have consciousness that we are able to do anything. It is because we are conscious that we can seek knowledge and it is because we are conscious that we can develop any kind of knowledge, including science. But, unfortunately, there are atheistic scientists who say that consciousness doesn’t exist.
There are some statements which are self-contradictory statements. If somebody says, I can’t speak a word of English. Well, you already spoke six words.
Seven words. I can’t speak a word of English. It is a self-contradictory statement.
How can you say that? Somebody says, I don’t exist. You have to exist to say that you don’t exist. Similarly, to say that consciousness doesn’t exist, well, consciousness, the very rejection of consciousness is an assertion of consciousness.
The very rejection of consciousness requires acknowledgement of the reality of consciousness. Well, this computer or this desk, it cannot say that I don’t exist. Because it doesn’t have consciousness at all.
So even the denial of consciousness rests on the acceptance of consciousness. So consciousness is a fundamental reality that enables us to perceive the reality of everything else. And that consciousness is not reducible to anything else.
So science, when it focusses only on certain parameters, so science uses this strategy of reductionism, and reductionism is good as far as certain specific purposes are concerned. Just like a map is good, map is not bad, map is important. What makes a map problematic is if one believes more in the map than in the territory.
Similarly, science, by its strategy of reductionism, uses certain, focusses on certain parameters and gives us a model of reality based on those parameters. But when we assume that the model of reality is the reality and reject from reality whatever is not present in the model, then we make a serious blunder. And this is done all the more.
So science, in the mode of passion, it uses this as a strategy. Whereas in the mode of ignorance, scientism claims this to be an ontology. Ontology means that branch of knowledge which studies the reality, studies the nature of reality.
That is called an ontology. यत्तु कुच्छवरेकस्मि कारे सप्तमाहितुकम् अधप्वागवदल्पंचे तक्पामसमिदारतम् That branch of knowledge, that which claims only one thing and claims that one thing to be everything, that is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So there is functional materialism and there is fanatical materialism.
Normally people associate the word fanatic with religion. But fanaticism is not something suited only to religion. Materialism can also be fanatical.
So functional materialism means that matter is all that matters. Whereas fanatical materialism is matter is all that exists. There is nothing that exists beyond matter.
That is fanatical materialism. So Now suppose an India-Pakistan match is going on and the last ball is there, an Indian batsman and bowler bounces the bat from the swings and hits the ball and goes across the boundary, saves his sixer and they win the match. So now, with the laws of physics, we can describe okay, this ball came at this height, the bat was thrown with this force at this angle and this is how the ball in the bat contacted and because the ball contacted the bat at this angle, that’s why the ball was propelled over the fence.
So the laws of motion can explain how the ball crossed over the fence. How the ball was impacted by the bat and how it crossed over the fence. But the laws of motion don’t explain why the ball and bat existed in the first place.
The laws of motion don’t explain why the ball and bat contacted each other. The laws of motion don’t explain why the ball sailing over a particular line is so important and why the ball falling inside that line could be an entirely different result. So the laws of motion do explain a lot.
But there is much which is beyond the laws of motion. The problem comes when one thing is seen as everything. Scientism is the belief system that science has a monopoly on knowledge.
Science has a monopoly on knowledge and that nothing exists outside the purview of science. And that there is anything that is not scientific is not real. But there is not two.
There are certain things outside the math and they do exist. So Einstein himself said that one of the most dangerous things in humanity is for science to be generated by scientism. For science to claim a monopoly on knowledge.
He said that the sciences, the arts, the religions are all trees of the same human are all fruits of the same human tree of knowledge. The same human being has searched for knowledge in different ways. Some has come in arts, some has come in science, some has come in religions.
It is not that one branch of knowledge has a monopoly on knowledge. So when we equate the math with the territory, we take a danger in the under. And one major result of this in today’s world is that we as Martin Luther King said we live in an age of guided missiles and misguided men.
Guided missiles. We have developed phenomenal ability to control the outer world. Sitting here the army or the terrorists can press one button and a missile can throw in on a target with hundreds of thousands of men and hit the target.
So we have guided missiles. But because science reduces everything to gross reality not just gross reality but gross measurable reality So because science reduces everything to that that which is not gross, that which is not measurable that gets neglected. So for example the whole of medicine is meant to free us from pain.
But then what exactly is pain? There is no method within medicine to measure pain. If somebody has got a fracture, you can measure how much the bone has shifted. But you cannot measure how much pain somebody is in.
There is no painometer. There may be some scales which can infer indirectly this degree of pain means far greater pain. This degree means lesser pain.
But because pain is an internal experience. It is definitely correlated with outer structural damage. But it is not something quantified.
And yet it is a reality. So because science focusses on gross measurable phenomena those phenomena which are not measurable and those which are not gross, they are often neglected. So leave alone soul and God, even our emotions are neglected.
And that’s why even the emotions are not controlled. Emotions are not managed. And we have ideal resides in this kind of world.
So science can improve things. But it is spirituality that will improve people. Let’s make things better science.
You know that’s going on in physics. It’s fine. We can make things better.
But we need not just make things better, we also need to make people better. We need to make ourselves better. And that requires an understanding of our inner world which is subtle.
It is beyond the reductionist framework of science. And by being open to higher branches of knowledge, one can perceive one’s inner territory, bring order in one’s inner territory and then move towards higher knowledge of the imperishable side of the mass. So I’ll summarise.
I started by talking about knowledge in three modes. Knowledge you see is the imperishable spirit, the undifferentiated spirit beyond the surface differences. That is knowledge in goodness.
Knowledge which equates the surface differences with different natures. That is in passion. And knowledge which equates one aspect of reality with the totality of reality.
That is knowledge in the mode of ignorance. I talked about the three modes in terms of contemplation plus action is goodness. Action without contemplation is passion.
And neither action nor contemplation is ignorance. So the modes shape our perception what we focus on when we see and also our perspective from where we see. So accordingly the modes shape our knowledge.
So the scripture offers knowledge in the mode of goodness that focusses on the deeper realities. Whereas science is largely because it operates in the principle of reductionism and it gives us control over certain phenomena but reductionism often does not give us a proper understanding of reality just as consciousness is not reducible to a certain message that I have got from people. Similarly it is not reducible to certain patterns that are formed in the brain.
The experience is different. So consciousness is not reducible in terms of imagination. The experience we get from certain sense of objects.
That is not atomic level of course. Out of the atomic level one comes to the word of sense perception. How atoms which are colourless and fragrance-less they agree to things which have colour and fragrance.
Chemical fragrance comes. It’s fine. But that chemical also is just atom and molecules.
So how does a certain combination of atoms and molecules lead to the phenomena of experience? Everything is not reducible. Science operates in the faith that the outer world exists and that we can see the outer world with our senses. We can get reliable knowledge of the outer world with our senses.
But what our senses show us and what we are going to learn about what science focusses on is the gross measurable features of reality. So what science offers us is not reality but a map of reality. When we put more faith in the map than in the reality.
Like we go to a place to meet our friend using a map and we see the friend and we say that the friend doesn’t exist because he is not informed. So similarly if we have so much faith in science that consciousness which is fundamental to everything including science we start rejecting this reality just because that is not found within the framework of reductionistic science. So by acknowledging that science is a map, it’s a useful map, it’s a powerful map but still it’s a map and reality is bigger than what science is.
Then we can, this is not a disrespect of science, this is actually a tribute to the complexity of reality. Then that way we can avoid succumbing to the pitfall of scientism assuming that science has a monopoly of knowledge and it is something which even the greatest scientists have acknowledged that scientism is undesirable. And the Bhagavad Gita offers a higher knowledge of goodness and beyond goodness to a transcendent so that we can pursue spiritual reality and gradually we by that bring order in our inner life.
Then we don’t have the tragedy of guiding the science but misguiding them but rather we learn to guide ourselves and equip others so that they can guide themselves. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?