Bridging Religion and Science

Swami Samarpanananda

I
t has become fashionable for many to divine? Going by the present definition of science
denounce religion and praise science. Some this is impossible, since science is all about the
have even turned this denunciation into a world, while religion is all about transcending the
career! The general argument is that religion has world. Science teaches us how to turn the wheel
no scientific basis and hence is wrong. It matters of the world; religion teaches us how to stop our
little if most people know nothing of religion, or inner wheel. Hence, no advancement in science
for that matter how science truly works. can ever encroach upon the realm of religion.
The modern division between science and The crucial difference between the approaches
religion may be attributed to René Descartes of science and religion lies in science being re-
(1596–1650), who first brought in the concept of ductionist—the whole is equal to the sum of its
the divide through his x-axis and y-axis. This div- parts—and religion being holistic—the whole is
ide was later called Cartesian, and it was through more than the sum of its parts. Who is right is the
this divide that people started looking at matter debate that has been raging since ancient times.
and mind, God and world, science and religion Science depends on models, which help it ad-
as separate. The persecution of the scientific yet just new data and findings, while religion does not
religious minds, such as Giordano Bruno and require a scientific model to explain God, though
Galileo Galilei by the church, did not help mat- it uses a doctrine to explain the universe—the
ters. Then one saw Voltaire adding to the grow- principal goal of religion is not to explain the
ing discord between the two. By the eighteenth universe but to make an individual divine, here
century God had become a ‘hypothesis’ for the and now. It is a fact that religion mixes spiritual
scientific community. truths with religious myths to produce a potable
Swami Vivekananda tried to bridge this div- concoction for the masses. But science also mixes
ide. It is through his works that one can under- facts with scientific myths! Without propagat-
stand the underlying unity between the two. ing these myths scientists will fade from public
During his travels in the West, he met not only memory, and their funding will stop. Many con-
religious leaders but also some leading scientists clusions of science are still theories, and it is inter-
and inventors like Nikola Tesla, Hiram Maxim, esting to read ‘decisive’ statements from scientists
Lord Kelvin, and others. and non-scientists on these topics.
Scientific theories are developed in two ways.
A Closer Look at Religion and Science One is by reaching a conclusion through a string
The Mundaka Upanishad categorizes knowledge of successively derived statements from initial
into para vidya, higher knowledge, and apara theorems known as axioms. These axioms can be
vidya, lower knowledge. All the sciences belong arbitrary, or even absurd, though mutually con-
to apara vidya. Para vidya is the knowledge that sistent. When we say that science is born of logic
makes a person divine. Can science make one and reasoning, we forget that there are limitations

PB May 2013 345

 40 Prabuddha Bharata

of the reasoning processes, which are the mech- it is true and free from doubt. Being of the nature
anisms of the proofs and theorems of science. of fullness, this knowledge does not evolve. Only
Kurt Gödel (1906–78) mathematically proved when a person has gained, in samadhi, the know-
the limitations of mathematical reasoning, and ledge of pure Consciousness or God can he or
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) argued that she become truly competent to talk about God.
both language and thought have definitive limits. Hence, while science evolves to better and
Religion, on the other hand, is never axiomatic, better models, religious knowledge does not
derived, imagined, or thought out. The prophets have to evolve because it does not offer theories
speak what they experience. Hence, if we declare based on sensory or observed facts. Every reli-
that the experiences of a pure mind are wrong, gion is firmly entrenched in the intuitive know-
then what right have we to consider the percep- ledge of God, as described by its prophets and
tion of an emotionally coloured mind correct? sages, and therefore it develops its explanations
The other method used by scientists is to relate backwards from what the prophets and sages
observed phenomena through a theory. In most experienced in the depths of their meditation.
cases, however, these theories are not laws but Scientists raise questions about the supercon-
mere models, which undergo a change once dif- scious realizations of the sages. Yet scientists for-
ferent kind of data come in. For example, the get that many famous inventions and discoveries
clockwork universe of Issac Newton was defini- belong to the realm of either instinct or intu-
tive till it was overthrown by Albert Einstein’s ition. For example, much scientific knowledge
universe of space-time’s fourth dimension and has come serendipitously, such as that of the
the unity of matter and energy. Today’s universe dynamite by Alfred Nobel (1833–96) or antibi-
of quantum physics is probabilistic. otics by Alexander Fleming (1881–1995). Discov-
How does religion gain its knowledge? There eries sometimes come through dreams, as that
is a near total misconception about this even of Friedrich Kekulé’s (1829–96) structure of the
among scientists. In general, scientists think benzene molecule. Even James Watson’s (b.1928)
that religion and religious perception is about discovery of the dna’s double helix structure was
extrasensory perception. This idea is completely not solely due to logical processes.
wrong. Extrasensory perception and all other Religions in general, and Vedanta in par-
such hocus-pocus may be anything else, but are ticular, rely on the validity of pratyaksha, dir-
not religion. These are mere attention-grabbing ect perception, and anumana, reasoning, the
antics by the charlatans of religion. Every reli- two mental tools that are essential for scientific
gion has its roots in the transcendental experi- growth. Acharya Shankara, the great exponent of
ence of the major and minor prophets, mystics, Vedanta, repeatedly asserts in his commentaries
and sages. When these great teachers of human- that the validity of direct perception cannot be
ity give up all worldly connections and desires, negated by even a thousand scriptural utterances.
their minds become pure. It is in such a mind The third method of knowledge is known as
that they experience the light of God. Hindu- shabda, knowledge gained through the words of
ism describes this state as transcending the mind, the scriptures. The ideas about God, soul, rebirth,
as in this state the mind does not function the creation, and so on cannot come through direct
way we understand it. This transcendental state is perception or reasoning, hence one must depend
known as samadhi, and the knowledge gained in on what the sages have said about these. The sages

346 PB May 2013

 Bridging Religion and Science 41

had no ulterior motive to mislead people—they for Albert Einstein to work out independently
had the purest of characters. They were also su- the equivalence of matter and energy in his now
premely unselfish and had brilliant minds. The famous equation E=mc2.
strife between science and religion lies in that sci- Interestingly, scientists of Einstein’s generation
ence will not accept the scriptures as valid sources ridiculed him for trying to find out the unifying
of knowledge, nor would religion give up the principle of nature. The same ‘Nasadiya Sukta’
scriptures. Interestingly, scientists keep swearing throws up its hands in despair at the impossibil-
by ‘the sages of science’, even when some of these ity of finding out the truth behind creation and
sages are proved wrong. concludes with this question: ‘Ko addha veda ka
iha pravochat kuta ajata kuta iyam vishrishti; who
Creation, Life, and Death verily knows and who can here declare it, whence
Creation is a difficult area for science and religion. it was born and whence comes this creation?’3
People want to know where they have come from This inexplicability of creation is a standpoint
and where they are going. The most popular an- accepted by every religion and religious philoso-
swer by religion is that we come from God and go pher, whose most common answer to the ques-
back to God. The popular answer by present-day tion of creation is that ‘it is God’s will’—or, in
science is that we are here because of the Big Bang other words, ‘I do not know the answer’. Acharya
and are going towards infinite expansion for ever. Shankara says that if the goal of the scriptures
The Vedas also speak of creation; the ‘Puru- had been to describe creation, then all of them
sha Sukta’1 states that creation came out from the would have described exactly the same thing,
Purusha; the ‘Nasadiya Sukta’ (10.129.1–7) takes which is not the case. According to him, the one
up the concept of the subtle becoming gross, and only aim of every scripture is to teach human
which then acts on itself—prana, the cosmic en- beings their divine nature.
ergy, hammers at akasha, the finest primal matter, A lot of confusion between science and reli-
to produce the universe. Almost every teaching gion is caused by the concept of a single creation,
of creation in Hinduism—except the ajatavada, popular in Semitic religions. What scientists can-
the philosophy that there is no creation—can be not believe is in a God who sets the world in mo-
boiled down to these two hymns. tion at some point of time. According to Biblical
Swami Vivekananda was fascinated by the con- calculations, creation took place sometime in
cept of creation in the ‘Nasadiya Sukta’, which 4000 bce. But is it conceivable that the infin-
says: ‘Anidvatam svadhaya tadekam: that one ite God will create something that is hopelessly
thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature’ limited in time and space? Well, only the naive
(10.129.2). Swamiji translates it as ‘it vibrated with- can believe this story, and that is why many West-
out vibrations.’ 2 From this Swamiji explained the ern thinkers, including Immanuel Kant (1724–
concept of prana and akasha emerging from a 1804), refused to accept this kind of theology for
common source, the dyu loka, electric sphere, ‘in schoolboys. There is a doctrine in Hinduism and
which the Prana is almost inseparable from Aka- Buddhism maintaining the idea of cyclic creation.
sha, and you can hardly tell whether Electricity is According to it, an infinite number of universes
force or matter’ (5.102). Nikola Tesla (1856–1943) are created, destroyed, and are existing at any given
was fascinated by these ideas of Swamiji in 1896, point of time. The idea of a multiverse and cyclic
but humanity had to wait for another ten years creation has just started seeping into science.

PB May 2013 347

42 Prabuddha Bharata

But one of the main questions placed by scien- Western science grew out of Christian theology.
tists is whether religion is rational and consistent It is probably not an accident that modern sci-
at all. The fact is that science assumes axiomatic ence grew explosively in Christian Europe and
truths, which may prove false, while religion left the rest of the world behind. A thousand
years of theological disputes nurtured the habit
begins with the words of prophets, which have
of analytical thinking that could be applied to
not been proved wrong. Religion, particularly the analysis of natural phenomena. On the
Vedanta, is consistent and does not suffer from other hand, the close historical relations be-
contradictions; it brings meaning to life and is tween theology and science have caused con-
universally applicable. Is this not scientific? To flicts between science and Christianity that do
give an example, we can look at the problem of not exist between science and other religions.5
infinity as seen by the Vedic sages who came with
the idea of ‘Purnasya purnamadaya purnam-eva- Various religious philosophies have tried to
avashishyate; taking the infinitude of the infinite relate the world of physics and what lies beyond
(universe) it remains as the infinite (Brahman) it in the form of metaphysics. One of the popular
itself. ’ 4 Interestingly, religion has contributed to explanations is by the Sankhya philosophy, ac-
the syadvada, probabilistic outcome, of Jainism, cording to which the world of experience evolves
and the neti-neti, process of negation, of Vedanta, from Prakriti through mahat, cosmic intelli-
which are the two powerful tools of reasoning. gence, and asmita, cosmic egoism. But Prakriti is
Commenting on the role played by religion inert, while Purusha is pure Consciousness. How
in the development of science, Freeman Dyson can one know pure Consciousness? Conscious-
(b.1923) writes: ness is eternal and unchangeable. It is beyond

Scientist's Last Supper, by Nick Farrantello

From left to right: Galileo Galilei, Marie Curie, J Robert Oppenheimer, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Stephen Hawking,
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Thomas Edison, Aristotle, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Charles Darwin
 Bridging Religion and Science 43

subject, object, or action. It is not the intelli- the discordant notes of religion and science is one
gence of the mind—though the mind acts as of Swamiji’s great contribution to humankind.
the best reflector of Consciousness. Everything
other than pure Consciousness belongs to the Bridging the Divide
realm of Prakriti, internal and external. Thus the In the Mundaka Upanishad we come across a
entire world of science belongs to the realm of question that has troubled the human mind for
Prakriti, while metaphysics takes one beyond it thousands of years: ‘Kasmin-nu bhagavo vijnate
to the state of pure Consciousness. sarvam idam vijnatam bhavati-iti; O adorable sir,
According to science, the intelligence that (what is that thing) which having being known,
we see around us is an evolutionary product of all this becomes known? ’ 7 Many wrongly in-
matter. Referring to this great chasm between terpret this verse saying that the knower of the
religion and science on this issue Swamiji says: Atman becomes sarvajna, all-knowing in the
worldly sense, but that is not the case. If a person
Every religion has the idea that the universe
comes out of intelligence. The theory of God, wants to know about all the possible forms that,
taking it in its psychological significance, apart for example, gold can take, then there cannot be
from all ideas of personality, is that intelligence an end to that knowledge, as there would be in-
is first in the order of creation, and that out of finite number of forms. However, if one realizes
intelligence comes what we call gross matter. that many ornaments are made of gold, then by
Modern philosophers say that intelligence is the knowing the characteristics of gold, one would
last to come. They say that unintelligent things know all that is worth knowing about the various
slowly evolve into animals, and from animals ornaments. That is what science is also trying to
into men. They claim that instead of everything
coming out of intelligence, intelligence itself
do. Swamiji says:
is the last to come. Both the religious and the Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As
scientific statements, though seeming directly soon as science would reach perfect unity, it
opposed to each other are true. Take an infinite would stop from further progress, because it
series, A—B—A—B—A—B, etc. The question would reach the goal. Thus Chemistry could
is—which is first, A or B? If you take the series not progress farther when it would discover one
as A—B, you will say that A is first, but if you element out of which all others could be made.
take it as B—A, you will say that B is first. It de- Physics would stop when it would be able to
pends upon the way we look at it. Intelligence fulfil its services in discovering one energy of
undergoes modification and becomes the gross which all the others are but manifestations, and
matter, this again merges into intelligence, and the science of religion becomes perfect when
thus the process goes on. The Sankhyas, and it would discover Him who is the one life in
other religionists, put intelligence first, and the a universe of death, Him who is the constant
series becomes intelligence, then matter. The sci- basis of an ever-changing world. One who is
entific man puts his finger on matter, and says the only Soul of which all souls are but delusive
matter, then intelligence. They both indicate the manifestations. Thus is it, through multiplicity
same chain. Indian philosophy, however, goes and duality, that the ultimate unity is reached.
beyond both intelligence and matter, and finds Religion can go no farther. This is the goal of
a Purusha, or Self, which is beyond intelligence, all science. All science is bound to come to this
of which intelligence is but the borrowed light.6 conclusion in the long run.8
This effort at the grand unification between (Continued on page 353)

PB May 2013 349

 Anuvratas as Social Ethics 47

economically, socially, and culturally. Acquis- if this moderation is so fluid, then these vows may
itiveness can be countered by the anuvratas. further change in the future. Such questions are
On the other hand, the anuvratas cry a halt to superfluous when we remember the Jain concept
unbridled hedonism that makes humans mere of the triratna, mentioned in the beginning of
pleasure-seeking beings. These codes constantly this paper. In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates speaks
remind us that we are travellers on the road to of morality as being the ultimate basis of just-
Truth. They become a means for removing hyp- ice and wisdom. This is also true in the ethics of
ocrisy in personal and professional life. Jainism, as one finds in the triratna—wisdom
The objective of the anuvratas is to exhort and knowledge are blended with morality. ‘Right
people universally to observe self-restraint and conduct’ means ‘right faith’ together with ‘right
to establish the values of friendship, unity, peace, knowledge’, blended through the observance of
and morality. Though the anuvratas seem meagre, the anuvratas. The observance of these vows puts
in them lies a tremendous power that can change individual and social life on a firm basis and leads
the world. A whole socio-philosophical structure people to the highest goal. P
can be raised on these practical vows. Many of
our actions, however high they may be, are under
the control of the ego, which makes all such ac-
tions worldly. But one who takes up the anuvratas (Continued from page 349)
becomes genuinely unselfish and cosmo-centric. It matters little what we call that state of unity,
Immanuel Kant’s idea of moral action or conduct but the fact remains that the goal of all know-
that is ‘duty for duty sake’ is a partial understand- ledge, philosophy, science, religion, and the goal
ing of the anuvrata code of conduct. These anu- of all endeavour is to find that unity. Consciously
vratas of conduct and actions are moral not only or unconsciously we are all moving towards that
because they do good to others but also because grand unification. At the more practical level,
they uplift one’s consciousness, leading one from one has to know that there is no Cartesian div-
the miseries of the world to spirituality. ide between matter and mind, God and world,
science and religion, and that by opting for a bal-
Dynamism of the Anuvratas ance between religion and science one can bring
The anuvratas are not passive but dynamic, and a high level of synergy in one’s life. P
to be an anuvrati sustained practice of the vows
is demanded. Most of the problems in individual References
lives are due to spiritual alienation. This fractured 1. Rig Veda, 10.90.1–16.
human psyche is healed with the maintenance of 2. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,
9 vols (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1–8, 1989;
the anuvratas, which bring peace and happiness.
9, 1997), 3.399.
A question may arise, whether the moderation 3. Rig Veda, 10.129.6.
of the mahavratas into the anuvratas for the laity 4. Shanti mantra of the Brihadaranyaka Upani-
is just a moderation or an ethical compromise. shad.
Does the toning down of the mahavratas dimin- 5. Freeman Dyson, ‘Is God in the Lab?’, New York
Review of Books, 45/9 (28 May 1998), 8–10.
ish their relevance to some extent? Again, one 6. Complete Works, 1.252.
can also question the basis for such moderation, 7. Mundaka Upanishad, 1.2.3.
which is the principle of anuvrata itself, and that 8. Complete Works, 1.14.

PB May 2013 353