I sometimes run into the "Science vs. Religion" debate in articles, books and conversations. Often these end up being polemics that are "for" one viewpoint or "against" another. I have also skimmed through an interesting book titled "Science of Spirituality" by Lee Bladon. I feel both these titles do not address the core question. So in this article I address a slightly different question of comparing Science with Omniscience, because this comparison will in fact subsume the comparison of Science with Religion and Spirituality and thus shed light on both.
What is Science? While there is of course no single answer to this question, I will start with a provisional definition. Science is a systematic means of appercepting reality by a set of rules (by no means fully enumerated or agreed upon) that constitute the so-called scientific method for observing and explaining phenomena that is now widely accepted in different disciplines. The classical natural sciences (physics, chemistry and biology) and the social sciences (from which I exclude psychology) relate to the phenomena that constitute external reality (by external, I mean external to the mind, and note that the brain is not the mind). I place mathematics in the next category by itself for it does not necessarily have to deal with reality. In the third and final category I place psychology and cognitive science because they are the closest that modern science comes to dealing with internal reality and internal states of the human being. It is important to recognize that even scientists cannot agree on the exact meaning of science, and the definition of what is acceptable science and acceptable use of the scientific method varies widely between disciplines, and even between scientists within the same discipline. It is useful to bear these points in mind as we compare Science to Omniscience, or even religion or spirituality for that matter.
And what about Omniscience? This can be difficult to grasp for many, so let me try to explain this by means of an analogy. In the days before modern flight and space exploration, the only way to travel was by land or sea. So by walking, riding or water transport a human being could map out the geography and topography of their locality. Depending on the range of transportation, humans were expert in mapping out the areas local to their habitation: so someone from near Alexandria would be expert in that part of Egypt, and so on. All this knowledge was confined to the surface of the Earth, i.e., knowledge on a two-dimensional surface. Similarly, the way of knowing through Science is limited by the mind and sense organs (yes, we use very precise instruments to measure certain phenomena, but in the end the knowledge we gain about the phenomenon relies on the human mind and sense organs). The localities that are mapped out are the domains of the natural and social sciences, mathematics, and psychology. Now when space exploration became a reality we could see the Earth from an entirely different perspective. The NASA Landsat pictures gave a viewpoint and perspective of Earth that was impossible to obtain through travel on the Earth's surface. When ordinary ways of knowing through the mind and senses are transcended through sAdhanA, it becomes clear that there is another way of knowing that one may call Gnosis. Science is limited to exploration of external reality solely by means of a particular way of knowing through the mind and senses, whereas Omniscience refers to a way of knowing that can be conceptualized as knowing on another dimension.
In the MunDaka Upanishad, the householder Shaunaka approaches the sage Angiras in the proper manner and asks him
kasminnu bhagavo vijnAte sarvamidam vijnAtam bhavati iti
Sir, what is that through which, if it is known, everything else becomes known?
To which Angiras replied
dve vidye veditavye iti ha sma yad brahmavido vadanti parA caivAparA ca
Two kinds of knowledge must be known, this is what all who know Brahman tell us, the higher (parA) and the lower (aparA) knowledge.
The parA vidyA, or higher knowledge was also described as Brahma vidyA: "that by knowing which all else is known". SwAmi RAma calls it the knowledge of the far shore, which is beyond birth and rebirth in the sea of samsAra. The only means of gaining the higher knowledge (parA vidyA) is through Gnosis. The aparA vidyA (lower knowledge) that Angiras refers to included the VedAs (yes, and more on that later!), the sIkshA (phonetics), kalpa (ceremonial), vyAkaraNa (grammar), nirukta (etymology), chandas (metre), and jyotisha (astronomy). Modern science would join this group of lower knowledge because it too is obtained through the mind and the senses. The fact that it is lower does not make it unimportant. The lower knowledge was recognized as necessary in order to function in the external world and to earn a livelihood. But the MunDaka Upanishad goes on to point out that the higher knowledge cannot be obtained by the same means (mind and senses) that were used to obtain the lower knowledge. In the KaThopanishad, Yama the God of Death tells Naciketas:
naishA tarkeNa matirApaneyA
This (The Self) is not attained by argument (reason, logic) or through the intellect
Here mathematics can be of some help in understanding how there can be things to be known that are not accessible to the mind and senses. I placed mathematics in a different category from the sciences because it has the special privilege of not needing to explain or conform to external reality, whereas the natural sciences are bound by this requirement. As a result, mathematicians can imagine things that scientists would not bother with. This kalpanA, or imagination (coming from the Sanskrit root verb klrp [kalpate], to imagine) can be a great asset on the spiritual path for it enables the sAdhaka to conceive of higher knowledge. In probability theory, there is the concept of a set of measure zero. In other words, there are events that can have zero measure. This is a very useful concept for a sAdhaka. Using this one can conceive of knowledge that has zero measure when 'measured' or mapped by the mind and senses. As a simple example, consider an event space that consists of (1) a fragrant flower, (2) a sweet mango, (3) a painting, (4) a light breeze, and (5) a musical instrument playing. Now for a blindfolded person, the painting is a set of measure zero because that object cannot be apprehended by the senses available to the blindfolded person. Although this object cannot be apprehended by the blindfolded person, that does not mean it cannot exist. In this way the power of mathematics can be used to convince oneself that knowledge can exist that is beyond the mind and senses.
Some clarification is in order regarding the phrase "that by knowing which all else is known". Going back to the earlier analogy, just as the Landsat pictures show how each part of the Earth is mapped out, similarly accomplished yogis and jnAnis who follow the path of the Seers and Rshis of yore know how the different forms of lower knowledge (aparA vidyA) are obtained through the mind and senses. Also just as the Landsat images do not show every alley in every small town, the Seers and Rshis did not claim to be experts in every topic of aparA vidyA. They knew how the lower knowledge was obtained, but they did not claim to know every detail of aparA vidyA in their day, or of modern science for that matter. Many people misunderstand Omniscience to literally mean knowing every detail about external reality but this is not the import of the Upanishad. To some extent this misunderstanding has been actively fostered by those who want to reclaim the lost glory of Vedic India by claiming that all modern science is contained in the Vedas. The sincere aspirant need not waste time in these theories. Even well-meaning saints like SwAmi VivekAnanda tried to connect the Vedas and Upanishads to modern science in an effort to engage the youth in India, but unfortunately this has often been counter-productive. When I was young I was initially turned off by this "pseudo-science" in his writings on account of my ignorance, although I was still inspired by other aspects of his message. In time through sAdhanA I came to understand why he was trying to connect his message to modern science, and his life left no doubt in my mind that he was an enlightened soul. When any seer tries to couch the insights obtained in the non-dual state in the language of the dual-conditioned world, then there is bound to be some misunderstanding. Each seer's message will appeal to some and not to others because of the inherent duality in the world.
Now when I examine some of the major religions of the world such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Islam, then there are usually one or more Seers who has perceived Reality in ways beyond our usual ways of knowing through the mind and senses. In Christianity it was Jesus Christ, and in Islam it was the Prophet Muhammad and other saints like Jalal-ud-din Rumi and Shams of Tabriz. Now the religion itself evolves from a set of beliefs that are formulated around the path or teachings of this Seer or Seers. But because most followers of the Seers were themselves unable to perceive Reality differently, these teachings have been misinterpreted, misused, and misrepresented out of the ignorance of the followers. I think it is extremely important to not confuse the original vision of the Seer with the so-called religion that evolves around it. There is always value in the original teachings of Jesus Christ or Rumi, but I cannot say the same about the religions that claim to follow these Seers.
Now every religion has an exoteric aspect that is concerned with its public face, rituals and organized religiosity. Some also have an esoteric aspect where a few attempt to directly practice the teachings of the Seer. So there are levels of religious belief. At one level some may regard God as a person out there who can be apprehended by mind and senses and who is the Creator of the Universe. At the next level a person may have a closer and more personal relationship to God. At yet another level a person may feel God is in fact in them and every person. At a deeper level a person may recognize that God is an archetype or stand-in for a principle of Consciousness that is omniscient, omnipresent, immanent and transcendent. This may lead to a concept of a principle such as Brahman, which is the material and efficient cause of Manifestation (as opposed to Creation). I am neither for nor against religion. Religious belief in all these forms can be useful as a stepping stone to successive levels of knowing leading eventually to Gnosis. However, blind religious belief without practice or sAdhanA can also be counter-productive.
Most religious believers take an anti-science stance because they try to apply their belief systems to explain phenomena in the external world, usually related to cosmogony. As the Vedic tradition clearly shows, this is not the proper domain of religion. Science and the scientific method have been very valuable to man in dispelling blind belief and superstition. However, it is not Science itself, but rather the power of discrimination, which is the human faculty that is responsible for this benefit. So when on the other hand, advocates of science bring belief into science by hoping that all matters that are currently unexplained by science will eventually be explained by it, they throw out the power of discrimination and fall prey to the same folly as the religionists. This belief is quite unwarranted in my opinion. Just because science works reasonably well at explaining some physical phenomena in the external world is no reason to make it into another Religion. I find the Religion of Science to be as counter-productive a movement as the Pseudo-science of Religionists. The fault is not with science or religion, but with the minds of those who take these stances.
In my opinion the report card for science should not be exaggerated, as it is often done in recent times. Please bear in mind that I speak from the perspective of someone who has studied engineering and science in depth and I continue to be actively engaged in teaching it. Therefore, my viewpoint is a sobered reaction to the over-exuberant optimism I see among my academic colleagues regarding science. This point should not be taken out of context and recast as a reactionary stance. I am not against science in education for the masses. There are a still too many who are not fortunate enough to get a solid background in science even in school. There science does serve a very important role in dispelling superstition and blind faith by encouraging the faculty of discrimination, application of the scientific method, and cultivating prudent skepticism. I am also not advocating teaching creationism in favor of evolution in school science classes. To the extent that scientific theory provides the best available systematic explanation of phenomena in the external world, it should be taught as a practical form of knowledge to earn one's livelihood. However, Science is a relative newcomer in terms of being a form of enquiry into questions that have been around for thousands of years. While one cannot deny man's progress in understanding the external world through Science, it is really the faculty of discrimination and prudent skepticism when applied in the context of the scientific method that has enabled this progress. But modern science is reductionist in nature, leading to a high degree of specialization. Combined with its limited means of knowing through the mind and senses, this leads to a situation where depth is always traded for breadth. The natural philosophers of earlier times considered all the questions of natural science and philosophy together. They had breadth, but again because their means of knowing were limited to the mind and senses, they had less depth. Modern science has given us many excellent theories in physics, but as we move into chemistry and into biology, its performance is increasingly less reliable. No one can argue that modern medical science is inexact when compared to say the kinetic theory of gases in physics. One observes that as the systems get more complex with numerous interconnected parts, modern reductionist science has a harder time coming up with solid theories and explanations. Its reductionist beginnings betray its predictive power when applied to complex systems that demand a holistic approach. But so many people want to believe that science will give all the answers. The High Priests of Science have made Science into God. Therein lies the problem: the refusal to accept the limits of science. When discrimination gives way to blind belief, even famous scientists look like fools.
The discriminating sAdhaka will recognize that the debate of Science vs. Religion is a useless argument to enter into. One cannot convince creationists of the futility in trying to explain the details of external reality through religious belief that contradicts scientific fact. Neither can one convince the hard-core rationalists who refuse to accept the limits of science. This is particularly hard at the stage of sAdhanA where one has an intuitive glimpse of these limits, but no direct experience that gives the firm conviction to rebut either argument. One can take note that the truly great scientists such as Newton and Einstein were in fact very humble. Newton was aware that he had only found a few shiny pebbles on the beach, and Einstein was aware that it was not simply his individual effort and brilliance that enabled his scientific insights. Without a glimpse of other ways of knowing, the promise of science and rationality to explain everything can be seductive. I was myself very enamored of evolutionary psychology and the writings of Robert Wright (The Moral Animal) and the thinking of people like Richard Dawkins. Later, through my own experiments in my inner laboratory informed by Yoga science, I realized that the evolutionary psychologists try to force-fit man's behavior into an instinctual, animalistic mould. However, Yoga science gives greater insight into these matters. SwAmi RAma is correct in calling Yoga a science, because just as science is a systematic approach leading to experiences that are verifiable and reproducible, so also is Yoga. Too often people are too lazy to actually stick with the program and dismiss the claims of Yoga science as mere fabrication. This is a serious error. If one is not able to take the test in an Ivy League school we are prepared to say the student was not good enough. But there are any number of so-called 'scientific' critics of Yoga and other means of knowing who have no experience whatsoever in these matters, and yet feel qualified to comment on the validity of these means of knowing. It would be better for the greater good if those without experience in these matters at least refrained from airing their ignorance. But with sincere practice this direct experience of Gnosis can be obtained and it gives a firm and unshakeable conviction that many of life's eternal questions are beyond both Science and Religion (insofar as religion is informed by belief and not direct experience). The aspirant realizes that rather than condemn human behavior to mere instinct driven by genetics as the evolutionary psychologists try to do, Yoga shows that there is a deeply intuitive side to the human being that comes from an evolved state of consciousness. SwAmi RAMa delineates the difference between the instinctual aspect of the human from the intuitive aspect quite clearly in his book on 'Yoga and Psychotherapy'.
Those who are beyond religious belief may think that at the next level the worthwhile comparison is between Science and Spirituality. Lee Bladon has written a very interesting book titled "The Science of Spirituality" that "integrates the individual systems of science, psychology, philosophy, spirituality and religion into a unified system that describes the multi-dimensional nature of man and the universe." He says he learned much through reading the works of the late Henry T Laurency, the late Arthur Powell and the late Charles Leadbeater, and also acknowledges the theosophists: Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey and Annie Besant. While the book in itself is an admirable effort in terms of being an effort to bring in the concept of consciousness into science, from the perspective of parA and aparA vidyA I feel this mixing is somewhat unnecessary. And as I pointed out earlier, all attempts to bring insights from the non-dual state to dual-conditioned reality are liable to misinterpretation. The wiser approach is to recognize that different means of knowing are appropriate for different kinds of knowledge. Just as we use our feet to play football (soccer for Americans) but then do not come home and eat with our feet, what great surprise should there be that we use science to answer questions in the external world while we use Yoga and sAdhanA to gain parA vidyA. The rules of the game of football require that we use our feet, while it makes sense to eat with our hands. To me there seems to be no problem in reconciling this obvious fact.
Now if we agree that even the comparison of Science and Spirituality has no real value, then we can begin to address the real question of where Science stands relative to Omniscience. Before the advent of modern science, human observation of external reality was limited to the time and length scales that are accessible to the sense organs. The Rshis of the Vedic period recognized these limitations and realized that the fundamental limitation to knowing is the processing power and perceptual limits of the mind. This fundamental point has yet to be grasped by many highly regarded people of science today. The ancients not only realized this point but they went beyond. Today even though through modern science we have made instruments to measure very short as well as very long time scales, in our daily life we forget these simple points and take anything that lasts as long as our lifetime as essentially eternal. We have not learnt from science. In fact, Yoga science tells us that a considerable mastery over the mind is obtained when it is able to concentrate on the infinitesimally small or the infinitely large.
paramANu parama-mahattva antah asya vashikarah (Yoga SUtra 1.40)
When the mind develops the power of becoming stable on the smallest size object as well as on the largest, then the mind truly comes under control.
While we have learnt to measure these things through instruments, we have not learnt to expand our cognitive process to truly encompass these concepts. Recently I learnt that we are now generating so much data through high performance computing that even if all the humans on earth tried to read this data for their entire lifetimes, it will not be exhausted. We are not putting our efforts in the proper direction of understanding. Even the natural philosophers gained more insight with far fewer tools than we ever will from all this data. So what is the solution?
The Vedic Rshis realized that there are vastly different time scales at play in the Universe. They realized that our reckoning of time is closely linked to the mind, and the way it organizes thoughts. So they literally went beyond the mind. By making the mind one-pointed, they learnt to transcend it. Now many people can practice some kind of concentrated monomania, but it does not lead to wisdom. Even very bright scientists and mathematicians concentrate intensely, and sometimes with disastrous results. The lives of Boltzmann and Godel are stark reminders that sheer concentrated power of the mind without proper balance does not lead to wisdom. Boltzmann committed suicide because his theory was not acknowledged by the scientific community, and Godel became so paranoid that someone was poisoning his food that he died of starvation. The road to Gnosis and true wisdom lies on a razor's edge that divides the heights of profound joy from the depths of psychosis that is termed madness by modern psychology. Now while the lives of scientists are not uniformly inspiring, the lives of Seers always are. Science can lead to knowledge about one specific thing, but it does not teach man how to live life. It cannot teach how a person should act, how to interact and relate to others, and how to love. The main problem with people today is that they have abdicated their responsibility to finding the answers to these questions, but have conveniently handed them over to the science of psychology and psychiatric counseling. Modern Western psychology has much to learn from Yoga science, and if sufficient wisdom prevails this will happen in due course of time. Already Western medicine is starting to recognize the benefits of Ayurveda and meditation. The ancient holistic approaches to the internal states of man are vastly superior to what modern science has to offer. But that is only the beginning. Yoga science offers a systematic approach to concentrating the mind so as to eventually transcend it. But for this to be done safely and successfully, the Bhagavad GIta points out that one must cultivate certain qualities, such as humility, etc. When these qualities are cultivated, then concentration of the mind leads to a point which is the convergence of mind fields where the aspirant can understand everyone's thinking process: this is a form of omniscience. When these qualities are not cultivated, the concentration of the mind leads to a divergence into a highly isolated mind field: that of a paranoid psychotic who is so disconnected that he may contemplate suicide.
Yoga science shows that when the fundamental limitations of cognition through the mind and senses are transcended, then the Gnosis of the prajnA state can be attained. Then descends wisdom from the infinite library that teaches man how to act, how to relate to others, and how to love selflessly. When the mind is transcended, so is the ego or ahamkAra. Omniscience cannot dawn if one is wedded to one's own narrow viewpoint. Our modern approach to knowing through science breeds arrogance of the ego. Every scientist wants to prove that their way is right. This is not ever going to lead to Omniscience. I think it is plausible that someday it will be proved that Science operating through the mind and senses cannot reveal that which is beyond the mind and senses, in a manner analogous to Godel's incompleteness theorems in logic. The Truth that is learnt in the prajnA state is that we are merely actors in a never-ending play. Our costumes are our body and mind, but our true Self is of the nature of pure consciousness that never acts. We have taken our costumes too seriously and mistaken them for our true self. Science has taught us quite a bit about the props on the set in which our play is staged, but it cannot teach us our roles and lines. The sanAtana dharma that is intuitively known through prajnA is what teaches us our roles and lines. According to the Vedic tradition, this never-ending play is a repeating cycle of four acts, known as the Yugas. In the First Act (Satya Yuga), everyone knew their roles and lines and acted selflessly according to dharma that sustained the play effortlessly. As time wears on we are now in the Fourth Act (Kali Yuga). Now most actors don't know their roles and are plundering the set by rapaciously looting Mother Earth and fellow man. We can already see this chaos in our world. Whereas the Native Americans and Vedic seers had a great respect for the land and the environment, today there is not enough regard for these matters. Vedic wisdom tells us that it is not necessarily lamentable, but merely the cycle fulfilling itself. Others may hope for Science to provide them with answers to these larger questions, but I am happy to take the wisdom that is already available from other ancient sources. The path to those insights has already been clearly laid out by the Vedic Rshis for those who are inclined to follow it. While Science may prolong our act on the stage, it is not going to give insight into how we should act. And one may question what use is the prolongation of human life without knowledge of its purpose? Saints like Adi ShankarAcArya lived a brief 32 years but left an impact on the world that has lasted 1200 years. The reason is that they knew the purpose of life.
In closing I will say that I am neither for Science nor against it. It clearly has its place in the world, but to cling to it as a reaction against superstition and blind faith is foolish. Nor am I for Religion or Spirituality or against them. The mind that is endowed with discrimination can take what is useful from both Science and Religion or Spirituality. But neither Science nor Religion can teach discrimination. The ancient practice of Yoga does, but the schools of the wise who truly know Yoga are not accredited like the schools of science and engineering. When someone says they have a degree in physics we know that earning such a degree from a prestigious and accredited school has some value. Therefore, we do not attack Science itself when we hear a poor research seminar on science by a speaker who has not trained adequately. Similarly, applying the same principle fairly, we should not dismiss Yoga (or for that matter even Ayurveda or astrology), just because there are many charlatans who misrepresent these schools of thought. Only one who has genuinely explored these approaches is fit to comment on their validity, and regrettably there are very few such people. One should also understand that the nature of the path that leads to Omniscience is one of progressive reduction of attachment and ego. The Yoga SUtra says that when even the desire for this Omniscience is let go, then the Yogi attains kaivalyam, or Liberation. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ones who know more on this path have less desire to advertise their Omniscience. They know that trying to bring down their vision of Truth from the non-dual state only results in misunderstanding in the dual-conditioned world. As their experience deepens, they progressively incline more towards silence. So there are no news flashes about recent breakthroughs on Omniscience, even though many souls from the time of the Vedic Rshis have realized this Omniscient state. The aspirant who practices sincerely keeping these points in mind attains Yoga.