36. ŚĀSTRA AND SCIENCE
D: The purāṇa-s speak of the sun’s chariot being drawn by seven white horses. How are we to reconcile such statements with the discoveries of science?
A: Such statements are not to be taken literally. In fact, the large size of the sun is mentioned in jyotiṣa-śāstra. Hence, it is clear that such statements are to be interpreted figuratively.
D: The purāṇa-s speak of an inhabited candraloka (world of the moon) to which departed souls go. Man has landed on the moon. His visit has falsified the claims of the purāṇa-s. How are we to accommodate the view of the purāṇa-s?
A: Even in the purāṇa-s, different descriptions of some heavenly region, such as Vaikuṇṭa, are found. Thus, we can infer that symbolism has been resorted to. It would matter little even if the description of candraloka were falsified. The reason is that the aim of such descriptions is to indicate that there is life after death and that rebirth need not take place in this world alone.
D: Apparently contradictory stories regarding the same person or incidents are encountered in the ancient scriptural texts. For instance, Kapila is regarded as the promulgator of the Sāṅkhya philosophy, which does not admit the existence of Īśvara. On the other hand, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa describes Kapila as admitting the existence of Īśvara. In the Mahābhārata, no mention is made of Uddhava leaving for Badrinath in his last days, he having been given permission by Śrī Kṛṣṇa to cast off his body in yoga. As opposed to this, in the Uddhava-gītā of the Bhāgavata, it is specified that Śrī Kṛṣṇa directed Uddhava to proceed to Badrinath. What is one to conclude upon seeing such discrepancies?
A: The Kapila referred to in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is different from Kapila, the promulgator of the atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophy. In this particular case, a direct explanation can be given. But there are many cases where this cannot be done. Some people advance the explanation that the dichotomous incidents occurred in different, previous kalpa-s (cycles of creation) but this explanation does not appeal to Me. A more rational explanation is that something took place and the narrator penned an interesting account of it, with additions, subtractions and changes. The touching up was done to make the stories interesting so as to induce people to follow the stories and imbibe the morals therein; the morals are obviously important. It is, for instance, mentioned that Rāma was born to Daśaratha after thousands of years. This could be the poet’s way of saying that Rāma was born after a long time.
D: We learn from science that man evolved from animals. Thousands of years ago, man was living in caves. Cooking too was unknown to him. How could the Veda-s have been there at that time? Further, how could the people then have lived as per the dictates of the Veda-s?
A: Let us suppose that you have a dream in which you see yourself as a ten-year-old boy. Should you not logically conclude that you must have been a child earlier?
D: Yes.
A: Did the dream start from the time you were a babe?
D: No. The dream begins suddenly revealing me as a ten-year-old boy.
A: That is, even though it suits logic to say that in the dream you should have been a small boy initially, in reality it was not so. Do you agree?
D: Yes.
A: It is not proper to extrapolate backwards in time since the dream started suddenly. The contention of the scientists is also not proper. Some of them may contend, “We see a person in a particular position now. Many years ago, he should have lived in a cave because he would not have had this much knowledge.” However, just as a dream begins suddenly, this world has arisen suddenly. So, here also, it is improper to extrapolate the time element backwards.
D: Scientists say that life has evolved from matter. They also say that consciousness is produced when the elements of matter evolve into a particular form, such as that of a cell or a brain. Is such an opinion wrong?
A: This indeed is the philosophy of the Cārvāka-s. It is not a proper school of thought at all. Why does a scientist say that consciousness arises from inert entities and that there is no distinct entity called consciousness?
D: Since consciousness is seen only where the body or cell or brain exists. Where the body is absent, we do not find consciousness.
A: Such logic is not proper. Let us take an example. Wherever light is present, objects are seen. Further, everybody is aware that an object will not be seen in the absence of light. Therefore, is it correct to say that perception is a quality of light?
D: How can perception be a quality of light? It cannot be.
A: That is, the object is seen only when there is light. The object is not observed when there is no light. Still, sight is not a quality of light. Similar is the case here. Consciousness is seen where the body is present. It is not perceived where the body is absent. Just because of this, will it be correct to say that consciousness is an attribute of the body? It will not be correct at all. The body may be required to reveal that consciousness exists but it is improper to assert that consciousness is a quality of the body.
Further, some have experienced exorcism. A ghost does not have a body like us, but it has consciousness. Many wonderful incidents are taking place through divine grace. Even scientists cannot say that they have not taken place unless they have preconceived notions or wish to deliberately conjecture an alternative explanation. From these, we can know that what is not material does exist.
The śāstra-s are the highest pramāṇa (means of knowledge). There is no finality in our logic. One reason may appear to us to be right and unassailable but if a highly intelligent person were to argue against it, we may be forced to admit that what we thought right is really wrong. Yet another logician may falsify the arguments that led to our changing our views. Mere logic is thus quite insufficient. We require the foundation of the śāstra for finality in our reasoning. The Veda-s were taught by the Lord. They are very sacred. In the Veda-s, it has been mentioned that the body is different from consciousness. Therefore, we should accept that. The realisation of the jñānin-s of the Ātman as pure consciousness is in complete accord with what the śāstra-s say. In fact, the Ātman is beyond the ken of scientific investigation. So, there is no question of Its existence being disproved by any such investigation.
Can a scientist conclusively prove that consciousness was produced from just matter? It is impossible. So far he has not done it. If asked whether he will do it in the future, the answer is in the negative. Let us suppose that a scientist says that he has created life in his laboratory. How can it be proved beyond doubt that consciousness was not present in a latent form in the material used by him? That cannot be proved at all. Consciousness could have been latent initially and, then, could have manifested. As it cannot be conclusively proved that consciousness is born of matter, there is no need to subscribe to the materialistic views of such scientists.
Of course, there are many advantages that we get from science. There is no doubt at all about it. But it is not necessary to accept what some scientists conclude through imagination and faulty logic. At any rate, there is absolutely no rule that just because one is a scientist, one should be an atheist. Many great scientists were theists and even now there are many scientists who believe in God. Thus, dedication to science does not necessitate the denial of consciousness other than matter.
Our śāstra-s state and also give numerous reasons to show that the Ātman is different from the body. Therefore, we should never entertain any doubt in this regard.
★★★★
❑ Discourses of Acharyal
The Truth Beyond Space and Time - A benedictory discourse delivered by Acharyal.
Every object in this Universe has a delimitation of the form, “It is found here, but it is not found there.” However, Brahman, which is bhūmā (big), is devoid of any spatial delimitation. Whatever place you conceive of, It is there.
Therefore, there is no area where It is not. It is beyond dik or spatial direction. Strictly speaking, spatial direction cannot be specified in an absolute sense. For a man in Madurai, Madras lies in the northern direction. However, for a man dwelling in Visakhapatnam, Madras lies to the south. If it be asked, “Per se, does Madras lie in the northern direction or in the southern direction?”, the answer would be, “It is neither. It exists. That is all.” If we proceed to Visakhapatnam, relative to us, Madras is in the south. On the other hand, if we were to go to Madurai or Tirunelveli, the direction of Madras, relative to us, would become north. Therefore, dik or spatial direction is something that is relative. Even in a relative, rather than an absolute sense, Brahman cannot be specified as existing in the northern or southern direction.
The case of time is similar to that of spatial direction. With respect to some specific delimiting factor, we speak of a day. What exactly is a day? It is something we determine with reference to the movement of the sun. We now see the sun rising. The time interval between our current and next sighting of the rising sun constitutes a day. When the rising sun is next seen, the next day begins. If this be the case, what is the position if we do not sight the sun? In other words, what is time, measured in terms of a day, independent of the observed movement of the sun? Time exists but the question, “What time is it?”, cannot be answered without reference to something like the movement of the sun. Hence, a measure of time, such as a day, loses its significance without reference to some delimiting factor. A day is thus something relative and not absolute.
Thirty days constitute a month and 365 days, a year. As other measures of time, such as a month and a year, are based on a day, they are also not on a firmer footing than a day; they too have meaning only with reference to some delimiting factor.
Time, space and objects are all conjectured by the mind. After all, but for our defining temporal terms, such as day with reference to the apparent movement of the sun in the sky, time would not be discernible as it is now. Similarly, but for our defining directions, as for instance, north with respect to the pole star, spatial direction would lose its value. As far as the objects of the universe are concerned, the answer to the question, “Are they limited by time?”, is, “Yes”; everything is limited by time. For instance, we make statements, such as, “We were born on this day. One day or the other, we will die. At present, we exist.”
If we consider the case of the body or some other object, it is clear that it did not exist prior to its origination at a certain point in time and that on some day, it will perish; thereafter it will cease to be. It is only between its origination and destruction that it appears, to an observer, to exist. That is to say, all objects are delimited by time.
What is consciousness or Brahman like? Before the birth of Rāma, there was the kṛta-yuga. Now the kali-yuga is in progress. Brahman is not limited by any such periods of time. It exists and that is all. The question, “When does It exist?” is inapplicable to Brahman, which is beyond time. Whatever point of time you conjecture, Brahman does exist at that time. Did It exist before the Kṛta-yuga? It did. It was there at the time of Rāma, It is there now and It shall be there even tomorrow.
Brahman is beyond the limiting influence of spatial direction, time and objects. However, though beyond space and time, it is not a void or an inert entity. It shines in the form of consciousness. If one were to get the direct realisation of this entity, one will attain the summum bonum of life. This is what the scriptures say.
Experience too is like that. The more absorbed we become in Brahman, the more does it seem, “So many things take place in the universe. All this is a mere illusory sport.” If the world be a mere illusory sport then what object is good and what is bad? For a person who has desire for the objects of the world, any object will seem to be good or bad depending on whether he sees it as a source of his joy or sorrow. On the other hand, for one who is devoid of attachment and aversion and whose mind is focussed on the Self, the position is, “I am the witness. That is all.” If such a person were asked, “Do you get happiness or unhappiness on account of the world?”, he would answer, “I see no reason to either laugh or weep over anything. I merely witness what comes before my eyes and do not even make an effort to experience anything.”
★ ★ ★ ★
Bacteria cause infection. It is so written in medical books. Bacteria cannot be seen with the naked eyes but can be seen with the aid of a powerful microscope. What is there inside curds? One can see nothing. However, if one were to use a microscope, one would see very odd things and would say, “Oh, how can I use this curd which has bacteria in it?” A ripe mango is palatable but if it were seen through a microscope, one would exclaim, “I will never eat this fruit,” because one sees strange creatures moving inside it. Thus there is difference between what we can see and what is actually there.
Why did not God give us the power to see bacteria? Because we have to manage our lives; what He has given us is sufficient for that. If one wishes to see more minutely then one may resort to a microscope. However, if one were to use the science of medicine and instruments such as a microscope to prepare good food, one will only fail. In other words, there is a time and place for everything. For instance, one must cook in the traditional fashion; thereafter one may use medical science to analyse the food.
To sum up, there is a proper way to do things. Merely because one does not readily recognise their significance, it does not follow that they do not have any. [Excerpted from Divine Discourses]
★ ★ ★ ★
❑ Parables of Acharyal
A person had a harmonium. When he played it, melodious music flowed out of it. Hearing the enchanting tunes, another man thought, “How does such sweet music come out of this? Probably, these sounds are present inside this instrument.” Getting very curious, he dismantled the harmonium and searched for the sounds in every nook and corner. However, much as he toyed with the internal parts, he could not get the original music out of them. “Ah, what a wonder! This instrument produces music out of nowhere”, he concluded.
While there are certain occasions when one should dismantle and analyse, there are numerous other situations where this technique will not be of any help. Analysis of the Ātman falls under the latter category.
★★★★