GOD, Einstein and Vedanta

On being asked about the existence of a God, Einstein once replied that he believe in the God of Spinoza, the philosopher of the 17^th century and the most esteemed pantheist in the West. His forerunner Descartes admitted three fundamental entities- God, mind and matter. But according to Spinoza, there is only one entity, the one absolute Being, God, while mind and matter are nothing but different aspects of God. For Spinoza, individual souls and different pieces of matter are only different manifestations of the same Divine Being, which is wholly positive, absolutely infinite and possesses infinite number of attributes. So the absolute Being of Spinoza is quite different from Vedantic Brahma, as the latter is absolutely devoid of any attribute. Or in other words, the God of Spinoza possesses attributes such as love, affection, hatred, anger etc., like the biblical God, which Brahma does not.

   According to Indian school of thought, “Atma or Purusha  is ever free (mukta) and hence It cannot possess any attribute. Otherwise, He, being the subject of the attribute, would have been in intimate bondage with the attribute, as heat cannot be separated from fire” (Samkhya, I-54). The point may be explained by the following example. Suppose a man is holding the chain of a dog. The Western notion is that the man is free but the dos is bound to the man through the chain. But according to the Hindu view, the man becomes equally bound to the dog through the same piece of chain. From this viewpoint, Purusha, who becomes susceptible to changes as attributes are changeable, cannot possess any attribute.

                 Thus it becomes evident that the pantheism of Spinoza is quite different from the philosophy of Vedanta. Still one finds, in some occasions, striking similarity between the metaphysics of Spinoza and the philosophy of Vedanta. For example, when Spinoza says, “There is one kind of Being which is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself going out to any other, but invisible and imperceptible by any sense and of which the contemplation is grounded to intelligence only”, one finds similarity with some verses of the Upanisads.

 To conclude, we should quote a verse from the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, that says, “The face of truth is covered by a golden vessel; O Pushan (the lone seer), uncover it so that I, the seeker of truth, can see” (V-15-1;  also Isha, 15). Does this golden vessel refer to the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg? If so, it is not possible for physical science to uncover this veil, as it cannot be done with the help of senses. “Brilliant, more subtle than all subtle things; in it all world and all the world’s contents dwell. This is imperishable Brahma.  …  This is truth and immortality. This must be pierced my friend and pierce it” (Mundaka, II-2-2). Does science possess the capability of piercing it? No, as it is not perceptible by senses- “na chakshusa grihyate napi vacha nanyardevaih”.      

                  Furthermore, scientific measurements are possible so long as the object of measurement and the tool by which it is measured retain their individual identities, or they could be distinguished from each other. For crude measurements, this criterion remains unaffected. But in cases of very subtle measurements, the object to be measured and the tool by which it is measured become indistinguishable, rendering any scientific measurement impossible. Rishi Yajnavalkya explains this point to his wife Maitreyi in a beautiful manner. He says, “For where there is any semblance of duality, there does one see another, there does one smell another, there does one speak to another, there does one hear another, there does one think of another, there does one touch another, there does one understand another. But when all has become one’s very Self, then with what should one see whom? With what should one smell whom? With what should one taste whom? With what should one speak to whom? With what one should one hear whom? With what should one think of whom? With what should one touch whom? With what should one understand whom?” (Briha, IV-5-15).

                  Finally, it can be said that not in a single instance a scientific finding has ever gone against the conclusions of Vedanta, but on the contrary, it is assisting one to understand Vedanta in a better way. As a matter of fact, science is playing the role of a laboratory to investigate the truth contained in Vedanta. The basic task of science is to present a quantitative description of nature, but due to its inherent limitations it is unable to accomplish its task beyond a certain limit. According to de Broglie, philosophy is destined to guide human intelligence after this limit, but he failed to ascertain which philosophy is to play that role. Considering the entirety as well as completeness of thought, one is convinced that it is Vedanta which is destined to take that sacred and historical responsibility. Days are not very far away when science will have to admit the existence of divinity in every speck dust, in every atom and in every molecule, as visualized by the Vedantic seers thousands of years ago.  

            “From unreal lead me to real,

             From darkness lead me to light,

             From death lead me to immortality” (Briha, I-3-28).

*******

Briha          -  Brihadaranyaka Upanisad

Isha            -  Isha Upanisad

Katha         -  Katha Upanisad

Mandukya  -  Mandukya Upanisad

Mundaka    -  Mundaka Upanisad

Samkhya    -  Samkhya Pravachanasutram

Svet            -  Svetasvatara Upanisad