Synthesis of

January 2007

Views from the GaudiyaVaishnava Perspective

Science and Spirituality

Issue 02
a subject opposed to an object. This nitized the unity or drew a boundary within the original innite relation (the armative identity) producing a nite subjectivity opposed to a nite object. Once this breakdown became established the object took on a signicance as being independent of the subject, while the subject was conceived in a likewise independent and nite form as a subjective ego - the cogito or I think of Descartes cogito, ergo sum. This led to what has become known as the Cartesian dualism between res cogitans and res extensia - thinking and extended being. Spinoza conceived thinking as an a ribute of the Absolute, but thereby misconceived the Absolute as merely Substance because a ribution meant that there was a failure to overcome the nite egoic perspective of the cogito and thus a failure to comprehend the inherent activity of the Absolute as thinking Subject. This was later corrected by Hegelian philosophy. Thus careful consideration is to be given to the re-establishment of the subject/object unity within the scope of scientic knowledge. We nd this original unity not only at the foundation of Western science in Greek and especially Aristotelean philosophy, in which the unity of form and ma er played a central role, but it is also preserved in our language when we consider, for example, the relation that words such as thinking and thing bear to each other. In Eastern Sankhya philosophy, which most closely corresponds to the Western philosophy of empirical science, we also nd an integration of subjective with objective elements as concisely summarized, for example, in the Bhagavad-gita (7.4) where subjective elements such as manas, buddhi and ahankar (mind, intelligence, ego) are equally considered along with bhumih, apah, analah, vayu, and kham (earth, water, re, air and ether) as comprising the substance or energy of divisible ma er (bhinna prakriti). To understand the historical development that has led up to our present conception of empirical science requires the study of the history of philosophy. Only a very abbreviated summarization of that development has been provided above, merely to indicate the direction that research may take in gaining a more comprehensive perspective that incorporates much of what has been erroneously excluded and ignored in the philosophically uncritical development of modern science.
(end of article)

Recovering the Subject/ Substance Unity in Scientic Knowledge

Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D. - Material nature displays itself to us in two antithetical ways: (1) as a contingently dispersed multiplicity (chaos), and (2) as a necessarily systematic unity (cosmos). When we look up at the stars, the rst or immediate thing we see is (1) the contingently dispersed multiplicity. But through the intermediation of rational reection, an insight is gained into the necessity (laws) that connect or govern the otherwise disparate perceptions of experience. In this way (2) a uniformly systematic unity is revealed as, for example, the solar system. It is through this thoughtful mediation we call scientic thought that we understand reality to be a cosmos rather than a chaos. That Nature does conform to rational necessity or law is what makes science possible. Faith in the rational nature of reality is what rules the entire scientic endeavor. But there is an ambiguity that arises here that is not seriously addressed within the philosophical viewpoint of empiricism. The ambiguity is this: does the rational law-like nature of reality merely belong to the nature of human knowing, or is rationality an intrinsic characteristic of Nature itself. It is from the la er - a faith that an objective Reason does exist - that religion nds its basis, the same foundation upon which modern science has been established. The dierence between these two elds of knowledge is based on the historical philosophical development of the epistemological/ontological relation, which is basically what we are calling in this article the subject/substance unity. The laws of Nature that human reason as science discovers are assumed to be implicit within the very substance of the natural world. Nature conforms to laws that are not merely considered man-made but discovered as constituting what is essential to the way the world is. As the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras once concluded, nous (reason) rules the world. In the age of modernity this was also Hegels conclusion, and he considered his own philosophy to be a more systematic elaboration of Aristotles. So modern science has its roots deep within the historical development of Western thought. What is required is to uncover the origin of empircism as the philosophical viewpoint that presently rules science,

Hegel: 1770 1831

and this will reveal why the above mentioned ambiguity concerning reason has arisen. Empiricism refers to the experience of the senses as the primary epistemological basis of knowledge. This involves the uncritical presumption that the senses can directly produce ideas or concepts within the mind. Because of the uncritical and unproven acceptance of this principle, the opinion that we are able to directly perceive reality through the senses is called naive realism. Opposed to empiricism is rationalism, which considers ideas or concepts to be necessarily prior to experience. Thus, for example, does a stone produce a concept of itself within the mind when it is experienced, or is the prior concept of a stone necessary to the experience of it? A third alternative combines empirical experience and rational concept as an original unity, basically uniting the universality of the concept with the singularity of the sense experience. This type of unity of subject with object, or form with ma er is found, for instance, in the philosophy of Aristotle and Hegel. Generally, the ancients conceived epistemology and ontology as being identical - thought determined the ontological essence of being. In the modern concept these have become entirely distinct and dierent. Despite Aristotles elaborate description of this original unity, two parallel philosophical developments, or should we say, displacements occurred. The original subject/object uid unity was reied and conceived as a juxtaposition of

-1-

January

Synthesis of Science and Spirituality

The Monthly E-zine of the Bhaktivedanta Institute

Lord Brahma, the rst created cosmic living being, denes Isvara, God, as the Supreme Original Personality (Adipurusa). His transcendental body is made of three spiritual elements: sat (eternity), cit (knowledge) and ananda (bliss) saccidanandavigraha. He is the origin of everything, animate and inanimate, and is the cause of all causes sarvakaranakaranam. He is the Supreme Controller and the prime mover of all cosmic manifestation. He has Universal Consciousness and He is the well-wisher of every living being. He is beyond the perception of the material senses; however, His symptoms are visible in the eects (products) of His creation. The well-known physicist Max Born once stated, I saw in it (the atom) the key to the deepest secrets of nature, and it revealed to me the greatness of creation and the Creator. He is Supreme Eternal among all eternals and Supreme Consciousness among all consciousness nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam (Katha Upanisad 2.2.13). He can only be understood by the science of bhaktiyoga, the devotional path bhaktya mamabhanati (Bhagavad-gita 18.55). In fact, the goal of Vedanta terminates in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord. The individual living being, or soul, is called jiva in the

2007

Summary of the The Origins Dover trial based and Meaning of on the opinions VEDANTA of three scholars in academia
Vaikunthanath Das - In September of 2005, a US Federal court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania began the hearings of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trials, to decide if the concepts of intelligent design should be included in the curriculum of the Dover area school district. In November of the previous year, the Dover school board ordered that the discrepancies in Darwins theory of evolution should highlighted in class, and intelligent design should be oered as an alternative. Eleven parents, including Kitzmiller, led a suit against the district, claiming that this was a violation of the necessary separation of church and state in lessons. In the history of similar trials that were carried out before, this received the most public a ention and its outcome would inuence similar discussions in future. At the end of the six week trial, it came to pass that intelligent design is not a bonade science and could not be taught in the class rooms of the Dover school district. The following is a summary of the trial based on the opinions of three scholars in academia: Robert T. Pennock, a Professor of Philosophy, computer science, ecology, evolutionary biology and behavior at Michigan State University; Steve Fuller, a Professor of sociology at the University of Warwick in Coventry, England and Alvin Plantinga, a John A. OBrien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. While Dr Pennock feels that this verdict is enough reason for intelligent design advocates to lay down their swords, Professor Steve Fuller and Professor Alvin Plantinga feel that the basis of the verdict is awed. According to Professor Pennock, proponents of Intelligent Design

(Excerpted from an article by Dr. T.D. Singh)

The book of Vedantasutra has four chapters (adhyayas), and there are four divisions (padas) in each chapter. The rst two chapters discuss the relationship of the living entity with the Supreme Lord. This is called as sambandhajnana, or the knowledge of relationship. The third chapter describes how one can act in ones relationship with the Supreme Lord. This is called abhideya-jnana. The fourth chapter describes the result of such action. This is known as prayojana-jnana. Each chapter contains a number of sutras, or codes. The total number of sutras in Vedantasutra varies in dierent commentaries. Sripada Sankaracarya presents 555 sutras, Sripada Ramanujacarya presents 545 sutras and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana presents 558 sutras. The Vedantasutra speaks of vefold ta vas truths or realities. These are: (1) Isvara, or God; (2) Jiva, or soul; (3) Kala, or time; (4) Prakrti, or ma er; and (5) Karma, or action.
have been planning for this ba le since the U.S Supreme Court ruled against creation science in the 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard case. Dierent creationist groups united to ght against their common enemy, which had evolution and not God in the center of creation. These groups wanted to establish their common belief that God was the center of creation. The Thomas More Law
See DOVER Page 3

Sanskrit language. It is also called as atma or atman. Every living being has a jiva, or soul, in it. In other words, all microorganisms, insects, aquatic living beings, plants, reptiles, birds and so on have souls. Vedanta proclaims with complete scientic and philosophical argument that all living beings not just human beings have souls. In this regard, Vedanta is unique and dierent from the scientic and theological views of many other world traditions. In the Bhagavadgita (15.7), we nd the following: mamaivamso jivaloke jivabhutah sanatanah, which means that all living beings are eternal and conscious particles of the Supreme Lord. In the pure spiritual form, the living entities are also transcendental and their bodies are also made up of the same three spiritual elements that make up the transcendental body of Isvara, God; however, the difference between Isvara, God, and jiva, the living entity, is that the consciousness of the jiva is localized. In the words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Isvara is Absolute Innity, and jiva is absolute innitesimal. In other words, the living being has the same spiritual quality as that of the Supreme Lord, but the capacity of the living being is limited whereas the capacity of the Supreme Being is unlimited.

Synthesis of Science and Spirituality, the monthy e-zine of the Bhaktivedanta Institute is published on the 15th of every month. All rights reserved. All materials are copyright of the Bhaktivedanta Institute. Copying or transmi ing of any materials published in this newsle er only by the permission of the Bhaktivedanta Institute. Published by Bhaktivedanta Institute. Please subscribe to this free monthly electronic newsle er at http://www.binstitute.org/newsletter/subscribe.html. Send your comments about the content of this newsle er to: editors@binstitute.org. For questions regarding the management, distribution or production of this newsle er, please write to: mohan@binstitute.org.

-2-

January

Synthesis of Science and Spirituality

The Monthly E-zine of the Bhaktivedanta Institute

2007

From DOVER Page 2

center, which calls itself the sword and shield for people of faith, defended the school board, and was supported by the Sea le based Discovery Institute. The Dover school board had originally consulted these two organizations before it decided to include intelligent design in their curriculum. The defendants had experts in the eld of intelligent design and hoped to expose the inconsistencies in the Darwinian concept of evolution. However, as the case proceeded, with evidence and expert witnesses, it became clear that the proponents of intelligent design could not win. As Dr. R.T. Pennock writes, They suered a rout. The judge seriously considered intelligent design to be a science, but found the evidence supporting it unconvincing. At the end, the court concluded, among other things, that intelligent design was not science but a religious belief. It was simply warmed-over creation science, and its proponents were trying to redene the meaning of science. The court also said that it violated old ground rules of science by invoking and permi ing supernatural causations. Furthermore, its negative a acks on evolution had been refuted by the scientic community. Professor Fuller, however, argued that the judge should have made his decision from a more objective stance. The motive and the method could be used as two criteria for dening science. The use of the motive would obscure the distinction between the reason for the scientic pursuit and the actual results. The use of the scientic method as propounded by Francis Bacon, the modern founder of scientic methods, is more objective and allows the evaluation of scientic merits independent of the drive behind the experiment. These two criteria work best apart; the validity of a scientic theory can be shared by those who may have a dierent motivation behind an experiment or scientic discovery. Judge Jones based his ruling on the reli-

gious motivation of the theorys that every organism appeared as practitioners. This gave the false they are seen today, the propoidea that religious motivations nents of intelligent design believe were sucient in disqualifying in evolution. They simply disbean idea as scientic, though intel- lieve that the process was spoligent designs leading scientists radic without a designer. Dr. Plantinga had repeatedly also felt that stressed that the In China its OK to arguments made theological inspicriticize Darwin but not by the judge rations for their the government, in the about intelliwork were carUnited States its OK to gent design not ried out by sciencriticize the governbeing science tic means. Professor Alvin ment, but not Darwin. were not cogent. Plantinga, felt - Dr. J.Y. Chen, Chinese In the judges Paleontologist ruling, he stated that Judge Joness that intelligent verdict of intelligent was based on semantics design invoked and permi ed and was unsound. The courts supernatural causations, and was had ruled that the theory of intel- not testable, veriable or falsiligent design was creationism able. In rebu al, Dr Plantinga in a guise. Dr. Plantinga argued argued that this was commonthat, intelligent design cannot be place in science and testability a cover-up of creationism due was not necessarily a denite to fundamental dierences. The criterion to distinguish scientime scale elemental to the cre- tic statements from non-sciationism notion was a factor of entic statements. An example about 10,000 times less. Creation- he used to prove this point was ist believed that the World was from the statement, There is at only between 6,000 to 100,000 least one electron. Though such years old, while intelligent design a statement is scientic, it is not advocates acknowledge that it is veriable or falsiable. Theories about 4 billion years old. Also, involving electron conguration unlike creationists who believed are able to predict the probabil-

ity that an electron may be present at a particular time, but the statement itself is not veriable. This was analogous to intelligent design. Dr. Plantinga also highlighted that excluding the supernatural from science was based on the judges myopic denition of science. Scientist in the past, such as Newton, had accredited God or the supernatural in their explanations and they were never labeled as non-scientic. Science is the systematic and disciplined eort to nd the truth about the World and has signicant empirical involvements. By limiting the scope of science to the purview of the senses, phenomena that are induced from outside this scope, such as supernaturally, will be ignored and result in false conclusions. Though these are the opinions of only three authorities it seems as if the dierent parties do not thoroughly understand the viewpoint and reasoning of their opposition. Perhaps, eorts should be made by both parties to understand opposing arguments before the swords are raised again.

ABOUT THE BHAKTIVEDANTA INSTITUTE

Bhaktivedanta Institute is a not-for-prot organization working for the synthesis of science and religion for the benet of humanity. We hope to see spiritual reality accepted and incorporated into scientic research and advancements, and to have scientic principles and methods integrated into the practice of spirituality. The Bhaktivedanta Institute was founded to establish the objective scientic truth that life comes from life, and on this scientic principle, to make possible a synthesis of Science and Spirituality. As achieving this goal requires sweeping changes in the cultures and core beliefs of both the scientic and religious communities, we believe our mission could transform human consciousness for the greater good and lead to a global social covenant that would profoundly benet our planet. We organize dialogues We promote quality dialogue between scientic and spiritual leaders by organizing international conferences and local symposiums. We have organized four international conferences, including the most recent one on Life and Its Origin - Exploration from Science and Spiritual/Religious Traditions. We present our ndings We meet and discuss with scientists and scholars from around the world who are interested in the potentials of integration between science and spirituality for a better world and deeper understanding of the nature of reality. We publish these ndings in our books and annual journal. We perform outreach work As a part of our outreach program we visit universities conducting science and religion educational presentations. We inform students and faculty about ongoing global efforts on the synthesis of science and spirituality and the opportunities that close cooperation between the two may bring

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS FREE MONTHLY ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER AT: http://www.binstitute.org/newsletter/subscribe.html

VISIT OUR WEBSITE : www.binstitute.org

-3-