VEDANTA AND MODERN SCIENCE
According to John Dewy, the American
philosopher, the traditional notion of truth is nothing but instrumentalism and
there is nothing like truth that is static and final, perfect and eternal. He
derived this view of truth from science which, according to him, has no
fundamental basis and said that, scientists generally take a proposition to be
true if it is found to work. If it does not work, they reject it outright and
start looking for a new truth. One finds this view of John Dewy absolutely
correct. He also finds that science, as a matter of fact, is nothing but an
aggregate of certain hypotheses and if a hypothesis is found to be capable of
explaining certain experimental observation, to some extent, scientists accept
it as a scientific truth.
When Newton succeeded to explain the planetary motion with the help of
his theory of gravitation, scientists readily took it as a fundamental truth of
nature, even though it failed to explain the complex motion (or perihelion) of
Mercury. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein, by his
General Theory of Relativity, could show that nobody attracts any other body and
when a body moves with constant acceleration, it seems that it is being
attracted by another body, and with the help of his new theory he could succeed
to explain the planetary motion including the said complex motion of Mercury,
scientists at once rejected Newton’s theory and accepted Einstein’s theory
as a fundamental truth of nature.
Up to the end of nineteenth
century, Newton’s laws of motion found to be absolutely true. But later on, it
was found that, although they were capable of explaining crude facts, failed
miserably to explain microscopic phenomena like
structure of the atom, its interaction with energy and so on. In 1920s
and 1930s, Heisenberg with his Matrix Mechanics and Shrodinger with his Wave
Mechanics could attain partial success in explaining atomic phenomena but at the
expense of the notion of causality, which had so far been considered the essence
of science.
Those who are not intimately
connected with science generally believe that science can do everything and
explain everything. But they will be amazed to know that modern science is an
outcome of the efforts of the scientists to manage somehow the observed
experimental facts. A few examples would make the point clear. The real nature
of light is still unknown to the scientists. Sometimes they treat light as a
stream of electromagnetic waves and sometimes they treat it as a stream of tiny
corpuscles of energy called photons, and they accomplish their tasks by
considering it either a stream of waves or a stream of corpuscles as and when
they feel it necessary.
About fifty years ago, scientists used to believe that an atomic nucleus
is made up of protons and neutrons, commonly known as hadrons, and they also
believed that these hadrons were elementary particles. But to satisfy some
theoretic considerations, M. Gellemann and G. Zweig in 1964, postulated that
hadrons are made up of still smaller particles called quarks. They also
predicted the existence of six types of quarks in nature which were said to be a
thousand times smaller than the hadrons. But nobody has yet been able to isolate
a quark. Today, some of the nuclear scientists apprehend that quarks are made up
of still smaller particles because some theoretical investigations lead to such
a possibility. But it is beyond the scope of present science to isolate such
extremely small particles and examine their properties for all time to come. To
explain some nuclear phenomena scientists are in need of a very small particle
called neutrino. But the real nature of this particle is awfully
perplexing to them as a neutrino must have to possess angular momentum
but no mass.
Hydrogen and helium are
fuels that keep a star burning. And when a star cools down due to shortage of
fuel, it gradually turns into a ‘red giant’, a ‘white dwarf’, a
‘neutron star’ and finally into a ‘black hole’ (one should not be misled
by the term ‘hole’). Matter in these bodies condenses to unbelievable
densities. In a neutron star it reaches a value
of 1014 or one hundred million metric tons per cubic centimeter and
it is still higher in a black hole. It is well beyond the scope of today’s
science to describe the properties of matter in such a dense and tremendously
condensed form. They can only say that matter in such a dense form is completely
different from matter on the Earth. In this context it may be mentioned here
that there have been no fundamental discovery in theoretical physics after
1930s, and today’s fascinating scientific marvels are nothing but practical,
or rather, technological applications of those previous discoveries.
Common people also believe
that, though science is unable to explain so many things today, but after
passage of time , or attaining more perfection, it would be able to explain
everything. But they will be extremely disappointed to know that, according to
the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg, there is a definite limit of subtlety
beyond which it would remain impossible for human beings to know any further
secret of nature for all time to come. Any human effort to know anything more
refined is destined to be a failure and such finer aspects of nature would
always remain obscure to human intelligence. Following P. A. M. Dirac ,
scientists consider such finer aspects of nature that can never be verified by
scientific experiments, are kept aside and declared to be outside the domain of
science. Some examples would make the point clear.
It is well known that when a beam of light is allowed to pass through a
narrow slit, it produces a diffraction pattern consisting of alternate bright
and dark bands. It very easy to explain the phenomenon considering light to be a
stream of electro-magnetic waves, while it is an impossible task to explain the
same phenomenon considering light to be a stream of photons or tiny corpuscles
of energy. It is impossible for the scientists to predict which photon, after
passing through the slit, is going to strike which portion of the screen to
produce the bright and dark bands. Such a prediction needs actual tracking of
the individual photons, but the refinement required for such a tracking lies
well beyond the limit set by the said Uncertainty Principle. In fact, such an
attempt would destroy the diffraction pattern itself.
When the Danish
physicist Niels Bohr put forward the quantum model of the atom, he said that it
was more or less like the solar system – the nucleus at the centre and the
electrons were moving round the nucleus in circular orbits. But, later on, the
scientists could discover that it was impossible for them, by means of any
experiment, to ascertain the shape of the orbits of the electrons. Such an
attempt would require tracking the electrons which was again prevented by the
Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg. So, now-a-days, they have given up the idea
of an orbit and say that electrons occupy permissible energy levels.
Previously scientists used to believe that any object cooled down to -273oC,
its atoms or molecules come to rest and hence their kinetic energy reduces to
zero. But later on, it was found that measurement of such a minute quantity of
energy lies well below the limit set by the Uncertainty Principle and the
outcome of such a measurement would always lead to a minute quantity of energy
known as the ‘zero point energy’.
For a better understanding we may look to this
Uncertainty Principle from a different viewpoint. The very process of
measurement disturbs the system, to whatever minute extent it may be, on which
the measurement is carried out. In ordinary cases (or in cases of very crude
systems) this disturbance is too small to produce any observable effect and
hence escapes our recognition. But in cases of very delicate systems, this
disturbance is quite appreciable and falls under the purview of the Uncertainty
Principle. For example, if we try to ascertain the position of an electron, at
least one photon, after striking the electron, must reach our detecting
instrument. But as soon as the photon strikes the electron, so much disturbance
is created that the electron gets displaced from its position. And for
This
reason it is not possible to determine the course of an electron in an atom and
to track the photons in a diffraction experiment. Similarly the ‘zero point
energy’ is noting but the energy created by the disturbance of the measuring
process itself.
Scientific measurements show that the diameter of a ordinary atom is of
the order of 10-8 cm, or ten millionth part of a millimeter. As
electrons are nearly massless, scientists believe that the entire mass of the
atom is concentrated in the nucleus, whose diameter is hundred thousandth times
smaller than the atom itself. So it can be said that the entire mass of an atom
is concentrated within 10-15 part of its total volume. Furthermore,
if we accept the existence of quarks, the mass of the atom seems to be
concentrated within a still smaller volume, a volume which is only 10-24
times the total volume of the atom. So, it is really amazing that
the entire mass of any object is concentrated within 10
24 part of its volume, while the remaining part is void. This means
that the entire mass of this planet Earth could be accommodated within a sphere
of radius as small as 30 cm.
So, one may imagine the
subtleness needed to distribute such a small volume of matter over the entire
planet of radius about 4000 miles. Scientists frankly confess that it is totally
impossible for them to get even the slightest idea about the real nature of
matter that exists in such a subtle form, occupying such a small volume, or no
volume at all. In this context, it would be relevant to mention a verse of the
Mundaka Upanisad that says, Brahma by Its divine power inflated Itself and thus
matter evolved (I-i-8).
On the other hand, any attempt to uncover that mystery is prevented by
the said Uncertainty Principle, and hence scientists are allowed to obtain only
an overall view of nature so as to get a crude knowledge of this creation. In
this context it would be relevant to mention one conclusion of the Nyaya school
of Indian philosophy originated by Rishi Akshapada Gautama. It says that our
experience of nature is just like observing a forest from a great distance, and
hence we can get an overall view of the forest only, while the individual trees
with their branches and leaves
remain obscure to us.
II
In 1905, Einstein by his Special Theory of Relativity has shown that matter can
be converted into energy and vice versa. Previously scientists considered matter
and energy to be two separate and distinct fundamental entities of nature. But
after the said discovery, the fundamental constitution of this universe has been
reduced to one, either matter or energy. Matter is nothing but energy in
condensed form, while energy is nothing but disintegrated matter. In fact,
matter in its most delicate and subtle form is hardly distinguishable from
energy and no detecting instrument is able to ascertain whether it is condensed
energy or matter as such. For this reason it is a common practice among the
particle-physicists to express mass of an elementary particle not in terms of
grammes or kilogrammes but in units of energy like ev, Kev,Mev, or Gev and so
on.
It may be mentioned here that conversion of mass into energy is the
source of all sorts of nuclear energy and conversion of energy into mass occurs
in scientific laboratory when a particle like a proton or an alpha particle is
accelerated to very high kinetic energy and a part of their energy gets
converted into mass. The conversion of energy into mass also occurs when a high
energy photon decays into a particle and its anti-particle.
As a summary of the above discussions it can be said that the 92
naturally occurring elements, of which this universe is composed, are
made of 92 different kinds of atoms, while these 92 kinds of atoms are nothing
but 92 different conglom-erates of only two kinds of elementary particles,
namely electrons and quarks. And since electrons and quarks are simply energy in
condensed form, the ultimate reality of this creation is one and that is energy,
and various forms of matter are nothing but manifestations of the same ultimate
entity, energy.
At the same time, the ultimate reality of this creation is destined to
remain obscure to human intelligence as the idea of seeing, touching or smelling
an electron or a quark is not only fantastic but also impossible according to
the Uncertainty Princip-le. It would be relevant to point out here that the
subtle process called life would also remain obscure to human intelligence and
outside the domain of science, as it is well below the limit set by the
Uncertainty Principle, for all time to come. Or in other words, scientists would
never be able to ascertain which of the two seeds would germinate by means of
laboratory experiments.
Furthermore, we have seen above that causality is
not maintained in modern science, as it used to be in Newtonian Mechanics or in
19th century physics. So the French physicist Louis de Broglie says,
“Even the notions of causality and of individuality have had to undergo a
fresh scrutiny, and it seems certain that this major crisis, affecting the
guiding principles of our physical concept, will be the source of philosophical
consequences which cannot yet be clearly perceived”(Matter and Light-The New
Physics; Dover, p-36).
In this context, it would be
relevant to mention here that the entire edifice of Marxism, as elaborated by F.
Engels in his ‘Dialectics of Nature’, is based upon the 19th
century physics of causality, which has been rejected by the scientists quite a
long ago. Moreover, according to Bertrand Russell, it is highly unethical for
the Marxists to claim their creed to be scientific, as their entire thought is
concentrated on human beings, a tiny fraction of all the living beings of this
planet Earth, which is an insignificant portion of this vast universe.
III
The entire Hindu culture, religious ideas, social customs and the way of
life etc. are based on the single belief in the existence of one absolute and
imperishable Being Brahma. Vedanta says that imperishable (sat) is Brahma, while perishable(asat) is the entire phenomenal world. In this universe at large and
in every being, there is a ground for that absolute Being, which is impervious
to change. It would be relevant here to quote Yajnavalkya while he explains
Brahma to Gargi in the Brihadaranyaka
Upanisad. He says, “Gargi, that which is above the sky, which is below the
earth, which is in between the sky and the earth – that which men speak of as
past, present and future, that is woven on space, wrap and woof”(III-8-7).
“Gargi, that is what the Brahmanas call the Imperishable. That is not coarse,
not fine, not short nor long, not red nor adhesive. It casts no shadow and It is
not darkness. It is not wing nor is It space. It is not attached to anything. It
is not without energy (tejas) or life
(prana). It is no force or measure. It
has no within or without. Nothing does it consume nor is It consumed by
anyone” (III-8-8).
As according to Vedanta,
this phenomenal world is nothing but innumerable manifestations of the same
imperishable One. Rishi Shandilya in Chhandogya
Upanisad says, “The whole universe is Brahma. Let man in all tranquility
revere It as Tajjalan- or That from
which all other things are born, into which they dissolve and in which they
breathe and move” (III-14-1). “All works, all desires, all scents, all
tastes belong to It. It encompasses the whole universe and does not speak and
has no care” (III-14-5). “As a spider emits and reabsorbs its threads, as
plants grow upon the earth, as hair grows on the body and head of a living
person, so does everything on earth arises from This Imperishable” (Mundaka, I-1-7). “All things pervading is that Blessed Lord. He is
the beginning and penetrating everywhere” (Svet,
III-11). “All this world is He and what was and what is yet to be” (Svet,
III-15). “It is He alone, who approaches every womb, in Him alone does this
universe grow together and dissolve” (Svet,
IV-11).
So, in scientific terms, Brahma is neither matter nor energy. It is the
eternal, absolute, imperishable Being which is impervious to any change. This
Divine Being is the primeval substance of all contingent beings, very subtle –
finer than the finest. It embraces the entire space and time and at the same
time , is invariant to any transformation of space and time. Science is the
process of knowing two fundamental entities of nature, namely matter and energy,
with the help of senses. Furthermore, according to Einstein, these two entities
reduce to a single entity, either matter or energy. But Vedanta says that the
fundamental constituent of this universe is neither matter nor energy, but an
absolute Divine Being, that cannot be perceived by the senses. Matter and energy
are nothing but two aspects of that Divine Being. Scientists indirectly admit
the existence of this Divine Being when they say that the elementary particles,
the ultimate constituent of matter, will always remain mysterious to human
intelligence as they are point masses occupying no space at all.
The responsibility of
science is only to describe microscopic phenomena as far as possible and not
enquire about their cause. It is well beyond the scope of science to investigate
by what laws these phenomena are being guided.
Science can only say that, when a particle collides with its anti-particle,
their annihilation produces a high energy gamma ray, but it cannot say why a
particle and its anti-particle are oppositely charged or how the matter of these
two particles gets converted into energy. Science can only say that when an atom
comes down to a lower state of energy, it emits a minute quantity of energy as a
photon particle, but it cannot say how it occurs. In this regard Vedanta says,
“Brahma is sat (imperishable). It is Chit (conscious). It is Ananda (divine
bliss). According to Vedanta, this cosmic consciousness is the ultimate cause
behind every physical phenomenon. “This is the Lord of all. This is the
Omniscient. This is the inner controller and both the origin and the end of all
contingent beings” (Mandukya- 6). “Maker of all is He, all knowing source of
selves. … The Lord of the constituents of nature, is the cause of the
universe” (Svet, VI-16). “The one
Lord in all contingent beings hidden, pervading all, in all beings the innermost
self, of all works the overseer …(Svet,VI-11). “What is here. That is there. (Katha, II-1-10). Or in other words, the Divine Consciousness that
controls the microscopic phenomena here, also controls the distant cosmological
phenomena there.
According to Vedanta, this Eternal and Divine Consciousness is the
primeval constituent of this material world- “Beyond this Consciousness there
is nothing whatsoever, no other thing. No one is more minute than He, no one is
more vast; like a sturdy tree firm-fixed in heaven, He stands. The one, the
Person, this whole universe fulfilling” (Svet,
III-9). “More subtle than the subtle, in the midst of chaos of all things. He
emanates- how manifold His forms” (Svet,
IV-20). It cannot be comprehended by the eye, by speech or by any other
senses” (Mundaka, III-1-8).
“Eternal among the eternals, Consciousness among the consciousness, the One
among the many” (Svet, VI-13).
IV
On
being asked about the existence of a God, Einstein once replied that he believe
in the God of Spinoza, the philosopher of the 17th 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.
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
|
|
|
|
copyright@2007 radhasyam brahmachari |
