CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Any Indian student of Philosophy has double task. He has to stay rooted in

Indian Philosophy and then get connected to Greek/Western Philosophy

since the academic circles revolve round the Western ways of doing things.

When we make a distinction between oriental and occidental philosophy, the

difficulty multiplies; as many smaller Western thought systems become

associated with Indian systems which are otherwise influenced by Indian

ways of knowing directly or indirectly.

The West is entirely different. Their ways of doing history is simple, straight

forward and maintain record. That is where historiography develops for the

West. Michel Danino in his The Lost River: On the Trail of the Saraswati,

speaks differently of the Indian methodology of referring to history1. He

suggests that Indians create legends to remember history and the legends

remain through generations. He gives the example of the shifting course of

the river Yamuna and story of Balarama. This creates a challenge of

deciphering legends; which is indeed a challenge of scholarship. When we

think more about it, we experience the ciphering and deciphering

methodology in Indian epistemology.

181
Yet another major challenge arises at the level of conceptualization.

Categories and concepts those used in Western Philosophies can be entirely

different in Indian systems. Names of the categories and concepts may be

the same, but the set of meaning built into concept with same names can be

drastically different.

We, in India, also have some practical difficulty. Overwhelming influence of

western Philosophy arises out of mainly two of our draw backs. One; we are

not very well trained in Indian Philosophy. This springs out of another

inadvertent mistake; we are already used to methodologies of the West and

never have been introduced to Indian methodology or Indian epistemology.

Here, Western categories are blindly used, Western epistemology is

erratically applied and we hardly get an opportunity to internalize the Indian

knowledge system. The second difficulty is from Colonial rule and the still

remaining colonial hangover. India that had a distinct and autonomous

system for education is nearly forgotten. Our education system has been

replaced with the Western education system as the English language

replaced Sanskrit that had been a linga franca and language of the educated

ones.

In short, let us not hesitate to say that we became practical hybrids in

philosophy. Indians with much Indian philosophical insight profoundly are

using Western philosophical categories to discuss Indian Philosophical

concepts. What is more, this difficulty has come to stay with us. It is rather

182
impossible to get rid of hybrid categories and concepts and we have to travel

very difficult path. Our condition cannot be better explained than as quoted in

Katha Upanishad2.

Concept of Science in the West suffers from historical peculiarities. Europe

which is generally called the West had long period of darkness of religious

domination. Whatever not sanctioned by the religious authorities were

forbidden. For them, during that long period, religion was a hindrance to

knowing. Even philosophy is used to be theology. That is why we come

across St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Anselm of Canterbury etc. When that

dark age ended, Science slowly emerged. Subsequently, Europe made a

swing from one extremity to another. There emerged euphoria of science in

Europe. They started to believe that Science was going to replace God and

Religion. The Western kind of scientificity, Positivism, Existentialism,

Modernism, Post Modernism and the very existence of Social Sciences are

the aftermath of this European scientific euphoria.

On the contrary, in India, which has a unique epistemology of co-existence,

Science coexisted with transcendental Spirituality. No knowledge whatsoever

was ever forbidden, but at the same time, it used to be clearly instructed that

knowledge must only reach receptive mind and proper receptive mind. The

183
story of Bhasmasura is a striking example here. Indian knowledge system

contained Lokayatas like Charvakas, Texts like Kama Sutra of Maharshi

Vatsyayana, Natya Sastra of Bharata Muni etc.

What we see here is a perfect blend as well as coexistence of scientific

knowledge and the transcendental aspirations. Therefore, we find many

scientific insights built in to the Upanishadic Mantras that could only be

deciphered with transcendental intelligence using methodologies yet not very

clearly known. In the West, the dichotomy between Science and Religion

became settled as the dichotomy between empirical and non-empirical.

Scientific investigation went on through the knowledge of causality, cause

effect relationship, experiment based on the observation and the like. After a

point, Scientists started realizing what Aristotle said: The limit of assimilation

is the limit of knowledge. With the methodology available in the West,

Scientists failed to go beyond a point.

As a result, some Scientists started working towards a different methodology

to investigate into the still unknown. Actually they were unknowingly

reinventing the wheel; the Indian methodology which was established long

before. But some other Scientists understood that Indian knowledge system

has a distinct methodology. They started learning them through the Vedas

and Upanishads. People like Louis de Broglie, Albert Einstein, and Werner

Heisenberg, Schrdinger etc are examples for this.

184
From the last chapter we have seen beyond doubt that both the systems of

Advaita and New Science come in to terms very often. It is unquestionably,

more than accidental. It is surely over and above certain cases of incidental

occurrences of alikeness. New Science appears to be slowly but steadily

moving towards the pioneer, Advaita Vedanta. They are not plain parallels

because parallels never meet. It seems that New Science is approaching the

estuary where it shall meet and dissolve itself into the Ocean of Advaita

Vedanta. Once the final destination is set for New Science, the only task that

remains now is to cite the reasons for this dissolution.

5.1.1. Origin in Curiosity

First of all, both Vedanta and Science are born out of human curiosity- a

curiosity results from the dissatisfaction with whatever is empirical and

material. Had the human spirit been contented with the physical appearance,

the exploration (either internal or external) of the reality would not have been

possible. Being not satisfied with the reality as it appears to our sense

experiences, Vedantin and the Scientist went further and we have two

systems that lead us to Truth- Advaita and Science.

5.1.2. The Seekers

Advaita and New Science imply the hard work of thinking minds. They are

indebted to highly concentrated thinking process like reasoning, meditation

etc. Being truth-seekers, both Advaita and New Science essentially love

185
knowledge. They have one aim, one business, one desire. For them,

knowledge is everything- the ultimate goal of inquiry.

Advaita has its series of Maha Rishis, Gurus and Acharyas (like Adi

Sankaracharya, Govinda Bhagavatpada, Gaudapada Acharya etc; )

whereas, New Science has its Philosopher Scientists (like Bohr, de Broglie,

Schrdinger, Einstein etc; ). Both the groups use somewhat similar methods

and inevitably find similar results. This is the direct outcome of Science

becoming New Science.

5.1.3. The Method

The New Science does not bother to trouble itself by getting down into the

old format of proceedings that involve data collection, data classification,

hypothesis formation and the experimental verification of the hypothesis that

leads to its final acceptance as a fact.

Once it gave up the passion for determinism, renounced the age-old pattern

of experiment-observation-inference and relayed upon intuition and

meditation, New Science began to realize more.

This does not imply that New Science changed its path of exploration from

the known to the unknown. It still believes in ex nihilo nihil (nothing comes

out of nothing).

The New Scientist is still concerned about the cause since there is the effect.

The difference in his stand point is that he is no longer worried about the

186
correlation of his intuition with experience. Einstein, Heisenberg, de Broglie,

Schrdinger etc did not wait for experiments. (Actually, the era of

experiments ended with Rutherford.) Once they became bold and fearless

enough to proclaim their insights, experimental evidences graciously

followed.

Likewise, the Upanishad also is aware of the inadequacy of the sense organs

to see the Reality3.

(The eyes do not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know it.

We do not understand how anyone can teach it. It is different from the

known; it is above the unknown. Thus we have heard from the Rishis who

taught it to us.)

Undeniably, Advaita Vedanta, like Science, proceeds from the known to the

unknown, from the darkness to light4

187
It never takes up theology to finish things off in all on a sudden. It boldly

marches forward to the unknown. (We may blame even science for keeping

quiet for 300 years after Newton). It analyses the observable Universe,

including the observer himself. It goes behind matter, even behind mind

before it declares the ultimate Reality, the Supreme Consciousness,

Brahman. For instance, let us consider the debate that occurs between Aruni

and Svetaketu in Chandogya Upanishad. Here, Vedanta declares Brahman

as the reality behind the appearance of the Universe but not before analyzing

whatsoever is analyzable including the analyzer himself.

Unquestionably, as the scientific quest was limited to the external world, the

Advaitin went after both the external as well as internal. Swami

Mukhyananda remarks: Now when the Science limited itself to the external

observable universe, it committed one big and fundamental mistake. It

divided the universe into two, by leaving out the person who observes it with

his all inner equipment of mind, intelligence, etc from its purview. Thus it

observes a SEMI-VERSE and not a UNI-VERSE, one part observing another

part. It did not take the investigator himself into consideration, who also is a

part of phenomena as much as what he observes. There are two things in

every investigation or observation, the object and the subject. The subject

also is of as much importance as the objectrather more important, since

the subject is the knower who confers validity on the object. So far, Science

had neglected this aspect of investigator himself. 5

188
The Classical Physics always asked the fundamental questions like: What is

it? What is its real nature? etc. But it forgot one question who am I? that is

more important than all these. Science must have, at least, considered who

is asking all these questions. In addition, it disregarded those who tried to go

for internal quest by refusing to accept Psychology even as a branch of

science.

All through the history, Classical Science was greatly in favor of

experimentation, the misuse of which, led to the exploitation of all kinds.

Thousands of years ago, the Vedantin had realized this danger. To him, the

world is not something to be experimented, but to be experienced. Totality of

the experience includes the experiencer along with the experienced.

Science, with its mere external view lacks sufficient amount of data since it

fails to incorporate the internal. This could be the explanation for the

imperfect, insufficient results of almost all the scientific theories.

The New Scientist never waited for the experimental verification of his

theories and simply got going on his way. He followed the meditation like

process called Mathematical Speculation, if not meditation itself. Einstein, for

instance, put forward his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. However, its

experimental verification came later when the scientists observed the light

from a star as bending towards the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919. Had

Einstein waited for the experimental evidence of his intuition, the General

Theory of Relativity would not have been made possible by him. We have no

189
means to know how many of the Scientists, in the long history of Science,

have abstained from putting forward their innovatory visions for the fear of

ridicule from the devotees of Empiricism and Positivism, who actually have

nothing much to do with New Science.

From the Vedanta point of view, the one who investigates the external world

must investigate himself also. He must know who the knower is. In Science

we have certain imperfections: Again to quote Swami Mukhyananda, the

Universe we observe is only a part of our experience. It relates only to our

waking consciousness. When we are awake, we have the experience of this

external Universe with this our familiar personality; but when we go to sleep

and dream, we go into another Universe altogether, of a different and private

nature and our personalities too change. And again we find, when we go

into deep sleep, both the waking and dream Universes melt away along with

our mind and personality, and only pure awareness is left. Thus, every one of

us has three states of consciousness and experience, of which we are the

witnesses. This fact is universal. We have to analyze this total experience

also, and not confine ourselves merely to the general external experience of

the waking state, if we want the real truth. We have to find out the real Man,

the real Person, who witnesses and experiences all the three states of

consciousness, including that of the waking state. 6

190
5.1.4. Intuition

Intuition is now very important for the New Science. To the dismay of

Empiricists and Positivists, the concept is gaining more and more ground.

This pushes the Empiricists and Positivists out of the frame from the Science

of this century, since their presence makes no meaning there. For New

Science, Space is not a something that can be measured with a rode and

Time is not a something that can be measured with a clock.

Heisenberg was the first to challenge the Empiricists and Positivists with his

Uncertainty Principle and the following thought experiment. Once he stated

that process of experiment/observation itself alters the results at the micro

physical phenomenon, the experiment/observation/inference notion of the

Positivism sounded meaningless.

Todays physicists are not struggling with experimenting apparatus and

measuring rods. They are after something abstract and intuitive. Their main

tool is Mathematics. Mathematics is the language of the abstract and the first

imaginative science created by Man.

Einstein viewed Mathematics as the only tool to grasp the super sensory

reality. This way, he thought Physics would transcend the Empiricism. The

creative principle resides in Mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold

it true that pure thought can grasp really as the ancients dreamed 7.

191
As Heisenberg points out the importance of the observers mind, the Nobel

Physicist Eugene Winger declares: It is impossible to give descriptions of

Quantum Mechanical Principle, without explicate reference to

consciousness 8.

Einstein who eventually became an advocate of the power of pure thought or

intuitive leap bases all his discoveries on intuition. Whatever Science has

achieved from Albert Einstein, they all are the results of intuition. Heinz. R.

Pagels opines: If Einstein had remained a Positivist, I doubt he would have

discovered General Relativity 9.

Hideke Yukewa, the Japanese Nobel Physicist who is undoubtedly brought

up in the Eastern tradition and who intuitively predicted the existence of pions

writes: The development of Physics since the beginning of 20th century has

taken this kind of course. In their kind of course, nothing can be done by logic

alone. The only course is to perceive the whole intuitively and see through

what is correct the fact remains that in order to synthesize contradictions it

is necessary first to survey the whole with intuition. In short, by

supplementing what he (the Scientist) already has with his imagination, he

produces an integral whole. If he succeeds in the attempts, the contradictions

will be resolvedfor us, the Scientist, the power of imagination is an

important ingredient 10.

192
We have seen that the ancient Maha Rishis and the Acharyas have

developed a number of concepts on Space, Time, Matter, Energy, Causality

along with the limitations of reason etc. and their conformity with the New

Science. Obviously, the Acharyas never have used equipments or even

experiments. They all, without exception, used the technique of meditation,

the technique that brought them closer to the Ultimate and blessed them with

intuition or pure imagination that transcends yukti. This intuition actually is

the culmination of reason that transcends reason.

As Swami Vivekananda puts it: Imagination will lead you to the highest,
11
even more rapidly and easily than reasoning Again, the Swamiji says:

Religion is above reason, supernatural. Faith is not belief. It is the grasp on

the ultimate, an illuminationstick to your reason until you reach something

higher; and you will know it to be higher, because it will not jar with

reasonInstinct is like ice, reason is the water and inspiration is the subtlest

form of vapor, one follows the other12.

5.1.5. Jagat Midhya

Universe was thought to be an infinite amount of solids, a vast ocean of

matter. Newtonian Model of the Universe made thing worse by making it

mechanistic. Now the things have changed and the Grand Machine model is

damaged beyond repair.

193
Visibly, the classical notion of the Mechanistic model of the Universe is giving

way to somewhat an idealistic interpretation. The grand Machine concept is

now being replaced by that of a grand thought. Matter, Energy, Space and

Time have lost their ancient glory since the advent of the Space-Time

Continuum. Causality, the very nerve of Laplacian Determinism is no longer

to be seen since every event is now ruled by the probability.

The Scientists exploration of the micro Universe of unpredictable Quantum

and the macro Universe of desperately relative Time implies the acceptance

of the Advaitic fact that the Universe, as we see it, is nothing but an

appearance. This conveys the impression that the motto seeing-is-believing

is no longer to be applicable here since the things are actually not what they

look like; but are mere appearance of Reality that is something else. As the

British Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington points out, In the world of Physics we

watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow

of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the

shadow paper. The frank realization that physical science is concerned with
13
a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.

Dr. Harsh Narain of Lakhnow (late) used to say that Indian Philosophy had

never received its due from the West. The fundamental reason to this is

because Indian Philosophy was never available to the West in its entirety.

There were always confusions created by equivocation of sets of meaning at

the level of categories and concepts. Overwhelming usage of Western

194
categories had rendered Indians themselves confused; naturally, the

situation of the Europeans could be much worse.

We really have to get ourselves trained in both methodologies: Indian as well

as Western. We have to stream line the equivocation of concepts and

understand in which sense, what is used where. Without properly using the

Indian concepts in the typically Indian manner, one cannot aspire to

comprehend Indian ways.

The Western Scientists adopting Vedanta as a methodology are able to

comprehend and explain many aspects which otherwise would have

remained obscure. But these Scientists are self-trained; and therefore, shall

be far from realizing the full results of their efforts. Indian Philosophy must

get revitalized through carving out the distinct epistemology and making

Indian methodology clearly public.

195
 REFERENCE

1. Michel Danino, The Lost River: On the Trail of the Saraswati, p11,

Penguin Books, London, 2010

2. Katha Upanishad 2.3.14, The Upanishads, The Blue Mountain Center of

Meditation, Canada, 2007.

3. Kena Upanishad 1.3, 1.4, Sixty Upanishads, Motilal Banarasidass, New

Delhi, 1980.

4. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28, Sixty Upanishads, Motilal

Banarasidass, New Delhi, 1980.

5. Swami Mukhyananda, Vedanta in the context of Modern Science, p.49,

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1997.

6. ibid, p.51

7. Albert Einstein, As quoted in The Cosmic code by Heinz

196