SCIENCE AND LOGIC

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Petitioner (P): You have to speak every spiritual concept within the limits of the scripture (Veda) based on ancient Indian logic alone. Do not bring science in o philosophy.

Mediator (M): Ancient Indian logic is as good as science. The Mithya Vada is exactly same as the present theory of relativity.

Respondent (R): Logic and science deal with the same subject, which is the study of the analysis of various items of the world. In the ancient logic also they were referring to experimental proof in the name of experience (Anubhava). The only difference between science and logic is that science needs experimental proof in every step, whereas in ancient logic (Tarka) the experimental proof is inadequate. Therefore, certain points like propagation of sound in vacuum as per the ancient logic are proved wrong in science. Of course, certain concepts like relativity established by Shankara based on ancient logic are good since the same theory of relativity is established in science in-to-to. This means that ancient logic has both defects and merits, where as science has all the merits only. The ancient spiritual preachers have taken the logic (science) that was developed up to their times. Why should I not take science (logic) developed by this time, when the subject of logic and science is one and the same? I have not deviated my self from the tradition of those ancient preachers in anyway. If you object my science, you have to object the logic of those preachers also for the same reason. You want to roam in the scripture based on the old underdeveloped logic so that you will be constantly revolving in the vicious circle only that never ends. This is the reason for the quarrels between the followers of those preachers which never end. If you are based on the present developed logic (science), the quarrels will end since the difference is not in the statements of scriptures but is in the logical interpretations of those statements.

P: We do not want either ancient logic or the modern science because Brahman (God) is above logic as per Veda (Scripture). Therefore, we have to confine to the scripture only regarding the discussions about God.

R: If scripture alone is to be followed, what is the reason for these quarrels? When the scripture is one and the same for every body, there should not be any difference in the interpretations. Therefore, logic is essential to examine the validity of these interpretations to find out the correct interpretation. We agree that God is above logic or science because science or logic cannot cross the dimensions of space. Science or logic can never touch God who is beyond space. But certain items of creation like awareness, energy, energetic form, statue etc are projected as God by various schools. These items are defined by the spatial dimensions and therefore can be rejected to be God. Science is required to examine these items to decide whether they are beyond space or not. Therefore, science is useful to identify the non-God items, projected as God. If any one of these is proved to be beyond space, then it must be God. Therefore, science is useful not only to reject the non-God items directly but also to establish God indirectly.

God And Space

P: You have straightly entered in to Advaita Philosophy. Veda says that the space was produced from Atman or the soul (Atmana Akasah…). The word Atman is fixed in soul only and thus it is also Rudha-word. The root meaning of this word is also satisfied in the soul because the awareness pervades all over the body (Atati Iti…) and thus it is yoga-word and thus it is the Yoga Rudha-word. Therefore, the soul is beyond space since the soul is the cause of space and thus the soul is God.

R: Very good. You have also straightly walked in to the correct path. You have given the root meaning of the word Atman and applied it. Thus, Atman is fixed in the soul only (Rudha) through the application of its root meaning (Yoga) in the case of soul. Any thing pervades the space either directly or indirectly. The fragrance pervades the space directly. Current pervades the wire and since the wire pervades the space, current is pervading the space indirectly. Similarly the soul (awareness) pervades all the body and the body pervades the space. This means that the soul pervades the space indirectly. For pervading the space directly or indirectly, pre-existence of space is required for the object that pervades the space directly or indirectly. This means that the pre-existence of space is required for the soul to pervade the body. If the space exists even before the soul, how the soul can be the cause of space? The soul cannot be beyond the pre-existing space. Therefore, in this statement, the word Atman cannot mean the soul. It must mean some other item which is the cause of space and exists even before the generation of space.

P: If you are negating the soul, you must define the meaning of the word Atman in that statement. Neither you define nor allow anyone to define it!

R: You are taking some thing leaving the present topic. The statement says that the meaning of the word Atman should be beyond space because it is the cause of space. Within the limits of the present situation of the meaning of Atman, how can you define the meaning of Atman? Definition needs the pre-understanding of the item. The understanding capacity of the brain cannot cross the spatial dimensions. It can define any item limited to the spatial dimensions only.

M: That which cannot be understood need not exist also. How can you rule out this possibility?

R: This possibility is ruled out because the existence of God, who can be never understood, is proved through miracles. The miracles prove the existence of some item which is beyond our understanding limits. It must be beyond space since scientists (If not common people) can understand any item which is defined by spatial dimensions. The scripture also says that only the existence of God is proved (Asteetyeva ...).

P: This means that you have proved the meaning of Atman to be God. Veda says that an individual soul is Brahman (Ayamaatmaa ...) or God. Therefore, the individual soul must be above space and hence must be God.

R: For this reason only, we want to use the separate word “Para Brahman” for God. This word means that God is beyond Brahman. We can take this sense according to the grammar also. This word is used in Gita (Anaadimat…). Even your Shankara has used this word and He gave clear meaning of this word also. He stated that this word means the item which is indicated by silence (Mounavyakhyaa …). When words fail, it means that it is beyond the capacity of understanding limits of intelligence and hence it is beyond space.

M: In that case you have to give the meaning of Brahman, which must be other than God. Such meaning should satisfy the definition of Brahman given by other Vedic statements also. Veda says that Brahman is the generator, maintainer and destroyer of this world (Yatovaa…) and that Brahman is this entire world (Sarvam Khalvidam…).

P: The respondent has no answer here. Veda says that Brahman is God who generates, maintains and dissolves this world. Same Veda says that the individual soul is Brahman. This clearly concludes that the individual soul is God.

R: The petitioner must give chance to answer the mediator before concluding like this. When we have separated God from the word Brahman to avoid the danger of becoming the soul, it clearly means that no more Brahman can mean God. The word Brahman cannot be fixed in one item only, since it is used in the sense of several other items also. Gita uses this word (Brahman) to mean Veda also which is greatest among the scriptures. This clearly shows that the word Brahman is not fixed in one item (God) only. The root meaning of the word Brahman shows that it is the greatest. In a particular category, an item can be the greatest. It is not necessary that the word greatest should only mean the greatest item of all the categories. God is greatest among all the categories of items of the world, since God is greater than even the entire world. But within the limits of the category an item can be also the greatest. Within the limits of the category of scriptures, Veda is the greatest. Therefore, from the point of the applicability of root meaning of the word (yoga), Brahman can be used to mean various items. Thus, the word Brahman is not Yoga Rudha like the word Atman. The word Brahman is only Yaugika which can be used in any item provided its root meaning is applicable. Therefore, you cannot fix the word Brahman in God only as you fix the word Atman in the soul only.

M: Accepting your argument let me confine to one possibility of Brahman being fixed in God only. Anyway, you are not denying the possibility of the God to be the meaning of Brahman, since the root meaning is applicable to God also. In that case, you have to answer for the other Vedic statements, which indicate God. You cannot object the meaning of God for Brahman, since you have yourself stated that Brahman can mean various items based on the application of the root meaning. Since, God is really the greatest, we also mean God only as the real meaning of Brahman in the present context which also supports our possibility.

R: First you have to see that the Vedic statements quoted by you can mean any other item also, which can be the greatest among a category and thus happens to be called as Brahman. We have no objection to call the soul as Brahman (greatest) in the entire world. The soul or awareness has a specific quality of knowledge. By this special quality the soul can be Brahman among all the items of this world. God can be also Brahman who is greatest because He is greater than the soul. Thus, you need not jump to the conclusion that the soul being the greatest in the world should mean God only. But the Vedic statements quoted by you cannot be applied to the soul. The soul is not creator, controller and destroyer of this world and this is absolutely against to the practical experience. Similarly, the soul is not the entire world. Similarly, an individual soul cannot be every soul. Thus, all the statements quoted by you (Yatovaa, Sarvam Khalvidam and Ayamaatmaa…) fail in the case of the individual soul. But these statements can be applicable to the basic inert energy. The entire world is generated, maintained or controlled and dissolved by this infinite ocean of inert energy. This entire world is essentially the inert energy only. Any individual soul is basically inert energy only as proved in the deep sleep and since it is proved that the awareness or soul disappears when the inert energy (produced by oxidation of food) is not supplied. But the inert energy cannot generate the awareness directly without the help of the other components of the nervous system. Thus, inert energy cannot design the world. But awareness as inert energy in the basic sense can be selected. But unfortunately, the awareness is discontinuous and cannot be the entire world. The other defects of awareness like the inability to create etc., also are to be remembered here. Thus neither you can mean the inert energy nor can mean the awareness nor can mean the awareness in the basic sense of inert energy in this context.

M: Since you are saying that God is unimaginable, suppose we say that an infinite ocean of inert energy in the form of awareness is God, there is no harm. Such continuous awareness being unimaginable is invisible in this world.

R: Such continuous awareness is invisible in this world. Invisible need not be unimaginable always. The continuity, energy and awareness are imaginable items in their isolated state. You have created the invisible continuous awareness-form of inert energy but that should be also imaginable though it is invisible in this world. When the components of your created item are imaginable, how can the composite of such components become unimaginable? When the individual components are defined by spatial dimensions, the composite of such components must be also defined by the spatial dimensions. In such case, it cannot be the cause for space because the cause for space should be beyond the space and cannot be defined by spatial dimensions.

P: Since you have fixed the word Para Brahman for God, the word Brahman should have the alternative meaning. It is your responsibility to show the alternative meaning for the word Brahman because you have separated God from the word Brahman.

R: We said that the word Brahman can be applied to several items which are greatest in their categories. We have not opposed the application of the word Brahman to God also because God is highest being higher than the entire creation. The context has to be carefully analyzed whenever Brahman is used to mean God. We are using the word Para Brahman for God to avoid this confusion. But we cannot undo the usage of the word Brahman to God which was already done in the scriptures. If the scholars of scriptures are competent to take the meaning of God for the word Brahman in the correct context, the word Para Brahman is unnecessary. When you are analyzing the statements, some times you can take awareness and some times you can take the inert energy as the meaning of the word Brahman according the context. Since Brahman has several meanings, such possibility cannot be objected. Even while understanding the statement like “Ekameva Advitiyam…”, which means that Brahman is only one without any second item, it still can mean the inert energy because all the items of the world are modifications of the same single inert energy. Therefore the inert energy has all the merits except one defect that it cannot design the universe being inert. The awareness has all the defects except one merit that it can design some thing. The existence of awareness as continuous inert energy having all the merits of both awareness and inert energy can solve all the problems. But such item being a composite of spatial modifications cannot be beyond the space. God must be beyond the space being the generator of the space.

M: You are not giving the alternative meaning of the word Brahman which happens to be your inevitable responsibility. You are beating around the bush.

R: There is no problem to give alternative meanings to the word Brahman, because continuous inert energy, awareness, Veda etc., are several items that can stand as the meanings of Brahman. We can take these alternative meanings for the various Vedic statements if considered independently. For example, we can mean awareness when it is stated that Brahman designed the Universe, over looking the impossibility of the design for awareness in absence of the pre-existing components (any soul can design based on the knowledge of pre-existing items only by choosing a new possibility of mixing the concepts of existing items. For example, a new design of animal having eight legs and two tails is based on the pre-existing components like leg, tail etc. But the design of this universe is done in absence of any pre-existing item and therefore the possibility of God to be the awareness is ruled out because the soul is not having such original creativity of entirely new design). In the case of all other Vedic statements we can mean the inert energy which is continuous. But the problem here is that if Brahman means God in the case of all these statements, there should be multiple Gods. At least two Gods become inevitable which are awareness and inert energy.

P: The design cannot be done by the inert energy and only awareness can do the design. The original creativity can be assigned to the special awareness which is unimaginable being beyond the space. The other statements indicate the inert energy. Since awareness is basically the inert energy, awareness can be continuous since we have concluded that this awareness is special which is beyond space. The conclusion is that this special awareness beyond space has both the meritorious aspects of awareness and all pervading inert energy, which satisfies all the Vedic statements and also the oneness of it.

M: We can say that the unimaginable special awareness can have all the unimaginable and contradicting properties and the oneness of such unimaginable item can be maintained.

R: As long as you conclude it as awareness and basic inert energy simultaneously, the unimaginability cannot exist. If it becomes imaginable, it cannot be beyond the space and thus cannot be the generator of the space. Therefore the only solution here is that the item is unimaginable and special. Due to its unimaginable specialty, it can have all the contradicting properties. In such case there is no need of calling it as awareness or inert energy and thus make it definable by spatial dimensions. In fact, such unimaginable special item, called as God is the source of the entire creation. All the items and the properties are generated from God only. The items are associated with certain specific properties by the will of God only. In such case God can design without being awareness. God can create etc., without being the continuous inert energy. The awareness is associated with designing capability only by will of the God. In such case why should you doubt when I say that God directly designs. If God wishes the awareness may be dissociated form such capability and become inert energy. When Lord Shiva stared at Indra, he became unconscious block of inert energy. Therefore, you can doubt the awareness to have always the property of will, but not God who will be the source of any property at any time. Thus, all the capabilities of inert energy can be assigned to God directly without making God as the inert energy. If God wishes, even the inert energy may loose its inherent properties. The fire could not burn a dry blade of grass by the will of God. Therefore, you are more secured in God about the properties than the created items possessing those properties. You will never fail in your conclusion if you say that due to will, it must be God. Some times you may fail if you infer the awareness through the will. Moreover, the failure of original creativity in the case of the awareness can be also avoided in the case of God. Since God is not awareness such failure need not occur in the case of God. Since, God is neither awareness nor inert energy nor a composite of both, God can be perfectly above the space because all these items are defined by space. Thus, from all angles to correlate all the Vedic statements, the acceptance of God without being any item of the creation and thus becoming perfectly unimaginable being beyond space is only the best solution.

(This T.V. serial continues after a break)