Science and Philosophy

Swami Bhoomananda Tirtha

 

[The following is the text (approximate reproduction) of the talk Swamiji gave at the first annual conference of the Indian Association of Biomedical Scientists, at Madras, on the 11^th of July 1980.]

 

It is strange that an august body of scientists like yours comes to sit in front of a Swami like me, who generally represents a way of life and thinking which is often considered opposed to, or dissimilar to science and scientists. May be, your General Secretary, Dr Sarada Subrahmanyam and the few others, due to their special interest and familiarity with people like me thought it desirable to bring you and me together like this. It clearly reveals that in their view there exists a close bond between science and scientific thinking, and philosophy and philosophical way of living. Let us see if this is so.

I wondered as to how the sponsors hit upon the caption ‘Science and Philosophy’. The questions naturally arise : What is science, its why and how ? What is philosophy then ? Are the two in any way alike, or different ? If alike, in what respects ? If different, in which areas ?

Does philosophy, especially the philosophy relevant to one like this Swami, become relevant to science and scientists, and on which account ? Let these questions, considerations, be the broad lines in which we shall discuss the subject for today.

Science deals with and answers progressively the quest for knowledge. From beginning to end, science is all knowledge. It is a process of knowing, invariably aided by the methods and instruments inevitably linked with knowledge, its gaining. In gathering or evolving knowledge, how does science proceed with the task ? All of you must be knowing the process well enough. Even then, let us restate it for our purpose here.

We generally observe or interact with things to be known, enquired into and studied, through our senses, the organs of knowledge – the eye, ear, nose, tongue and skin. Let us name this as sensory observation. In Sanskrit we describe it as the pratyaksha phase of knowledge, meaning interaction in the level of the senses, in and through them. For the senses to interact, the objects should be clearly outside the body and in front of or before the senses. The senses have no power to look into, within the body, and observe anything at all.

Following the pratyaksha process, the intelligence in us begins to study the facts and phenomena, with a view to arrive at efficient reasoning and conclusions. This second part is done fully through the intelligence, without the aid of the senses. Senses having done their task, the reasoning begins its. To supplement or aid reasoning, you may make further observations through the senses; that is all. In the case of scientific methods, the senses are helped again by subtle and sensitive instruments like the microscope, telescope, etc.

In science, do you have anything more or different as part of the process or investigation ? The reasoning and inferring part we call anumaana. So pratyaksha and anumaana are the only venues for scientific knowledge, its pursuit and promotion.

Well, philosophy too makes use of these two processes. In fact, there is no other method of interacting with anything in this world. In as much as this is so, philosophy is as much scientific, as is science philosophical. The only difference between science and philosophy arises because of the basic difference between the subjects they deal respectively with. Philosophy does not make use of objective processes or aids, as does science, due to the very nature of its investigation. Its probe does not allow for any objectivity as is usual with science.

I shall explain the point further. Any existence, any form of it, becomes so only when it stands observed by us, to be interacted with. This instantly implies our objectivisation of it. In other words, you cannot see or know a thing unless it is first made an object before you, by you. Think further. No object, no knowledge of any kind, about that object, can ever arise unless you become the knowing person or the Knower first, which means that you make it an object for you, the subject, to be known by you.

Thus all the knowledge we speak of in science relates to things which are identified as objects by us. Therefore the entire scientific knowledge is the knowledge of objects, and objects alone. The objects can be gross, solid, external or visible. But, if you enquire more deeply, you have to admit that there also are objects which are internal, subtle and invisible. The presence of all of you is something gross before me, before my eyes. But inside me equally are present the impressions, thoughts and imaginations about you all. These latter are quite different from the former. If one is external and gross, the other is internal and subtle. Whether gross or subtle, the object is object no doubt. It’s status is always object’s. In this way, even the knowledge and memory we store in our brain cells is done by making them objects before us, the subject of theirs. Knowledge. Its entire kind and measure, thus becomes an internal subtle object within me, to me, thereby ‘I’ being the one subject of them all.

So the entire science, no matter what subject it relates to, all the knowledge science gathers and preserves, becomes the knowledge of only objects. Objectude is the range of science, scientific investigation and results. Can science grow into anything more ? Is there basically any scope for it ?

Even when science has fulfilled its purpose, role, every time and succeeded in gaining the knowledge it looks for, something will always have been left aside as unassailable, uninteracted with. The subject of the scientist, in front of which the object field of investigation remained as that, enabling itself to be dealt with and known, from which proceeded all examinations, to which again receded all the results thereof, will have remained a full field, making itself unknown and unthought of. Apparently, as much as the object-knowledge in one grows, so much also the magnitude of the subject-field expands, to contain the whole lot of information gained.

The importance of this subject – let me put it in capitals – THIS SUBJECT – can never be overlooked or understated. It is, if at all, more important than all the objects put together. An object becomes an object only when ranged against this subject. I have to call you ‘you’, in order that you will become so. At the same time, ‘I’ is not bestowed upon by anything or any one. Even in the absence and memory of all objects, the ‘I’ in me remains intact, making itself known independently.

In deep sleep, even in instances of loss of memory, again in the states of unconsciousness, etc. we do have a full awareness of this subject, this ‘I’. If not, how do we wake up to say ‘I lost sense’? The subject-cognition, therefore, seems to be quite free and independent.

Whenever we make an effort at knowing – through observation or inference – we are in fact breathing a subjective process to the Consciousness in us – Chetana is the word we use for Consciousness, prajna is another word – by which it is divided into three components, as it were. The unitary Consciousness gives rise to a mutation, change, by which a part of it, as it were, becomes the Witness or Knower; another part stands to get impressed with the thing to be known (observed or inferred); then a third part linking the two to establish the knowing process. The outcome born out of this connection between the knowing part and the knowable part goes by the name knowingness, knowledge.

I said this only to show how the knowing itself is a process taking place within us, and how the whole event is yet something objective. All knowledge gained by observation and inference remains as a subtle object in our brain. That is why we are able to draw, take it from our memory, as we will an item from the office room or kitchen store. Due to age or disease, the memory is at times lost. Even when this takes place, the loser of it still survives, and the ‘I’ notion in him is not lost at all.

Think now whether there can be any distinct process by which you can take up the search into this Subject, its field, and if there is, how will it be described scientifically.

Like fine arts, which are to be pursued in the form of repeated practice, this subject investigation and the results to follow are a pursuit to be attempted and practiced repeatedly. Philosophical pursuit is thus more a discipline and Saadhana, than a mere subject of study or an act of memorization.

However, it should be clear to you by now that the Consciousness in us can never pose itself as an object, like the so many things of the world, to be observed and investigated into externally. At the same time, its existence is doubtless and we have to come face to face with it by some means or skill.

Philosophy defines itself in three ways: It is the search for discovering the Ultimate Substance or Reality of the whole world, universe. Let me say, it tries to find out the pre-first and post-last substance of the world-compound. It equally tries to find out the very source of all knowledge and sensation. Thirdly it tries to unearth the very root and nature of one’s personality – what is the basis of the ‘I’ notion prevailing in us?

In dealing with the properties and natures of substances, in studying them minutely, all of you, scientists, have a large role to play. In fact, you are valued for what you have achieved in this field. But when it comes to a question of finding the Ultimate Substance, it is yet to be seen whether objective science can vindicate the role. The Ultimate Substance is that which follows the total destruction or disintegration, and dissolution of the entire universe. Equally so, it is that primordial existence from out of which space, objects within it, and then the so-called measure called Time, derive their presence and power. The need to posit such a Substance is obvious, if you think of the triple concepts – space, object and time – deeply. At present the space gives us its notion only in the background of our perception of objects. We see so many objects around us, and the sight naturally registers in our brain the idea of something existing in between every two of them. Objects being numerous, the in-between presence also becomes infinitely ranged. The idea thus of space is dependent upon the objects. At the same time, we say objects exist in space. Does space inter-lie objects, or objects exist within space? Is there any clear answer?

About the operation of Time, the understanding of Time, the situation is equally indefinite and dependent. The consistent changes in the objects alone give rise to our idea about time, its divisions into fractions and sections, into cycles. If there was no object and no change ever took place in it, wherefrom could the idea called Time have been there?

The whole three thus have their doubtless dependence on one another. They are therefore inter-dependent. Naturally something not dependent should first have been there, making these three mutually dependent. What is that causal factor? Will science be able to discover it by scientific methods, as they are known? You may answer the question yourselves, or try to at least.

The idea of the pre-first and post-last substance, called the Ultimate Reality, thus becomes clear. It is for philosophical thoughts and investigations to gain access to the realm and bring out the required verdict.

Vedantic thoughts have been very specific and final in the field of philosophy. Vedanta always has held that Consciousness, to which alone belongs the status and potential of the Subject, is the only independent existence. Vedanta has its own reasoning to arrive at this conclusion. The objects we perceive derive their status and forge their perception only because of the perceiving Consciousness in us. While the Consciousness allows a modification to give rise to perception, it can as well remain without perceiving and fully devoid of objects. In deep sleep, the Consciousness in us is fully disassociated from the objects. If the objects depend upon the Consciousness for their status and for being perceived, the Consciousness itself does not similarly depend upon the objects for its existence or for being recognized. Even in pitch darkness, when there is no object to be seen, the Seer feels the presence of himself as well as his eyes. Dealing with Consciousness, making use of it, we have to philosophically arrive at its subject dimension and magnitude and realize our identity with it. That will mean a full compliment to our scientific propensities and a victory and crowning for our life as humans.

Such a philosophical pursuit is an ever-pressing need for any and all scientists. As is the field of music, dance, dramatics, etc., so also is the field of philosophy for the scientist. As the scientist will be well-versed in the knowledge of his object, he must also be versed in the knowledge of his own Subject. He will have to be a scientist alike in the object knowledge and Subject realization. By philosophical pursuit and what it brings for him, the scientist will become a ‘double’ scientist, scientist squared, or scientist raised to the power of infinity.

Is it not a welcome accomplishment? Is it not alluring? Is not such a position enviable and crowning in all respects?

I am happy that we could discuss, though in a small way, some of these fundamental points underscoring the bond science has with philosophy. If the discussion has been helpful to you, in any way, I think all of you owe gratitude to Dr. Sarada Subrahmanyam, Dr. Ramamurthi and the others who were particular that an opportunity like this should be made available.

I wish you all effectiveness and progressive fulfillment in your lives and pursuits.

Harih Om Tat Sat.

Back to 'Spirituality at Workplace' Index