Spiritual Knowledge Embraces Science

There is something really great about our scriptures. Every single theory is well validated. Every single principle is validated. They do not just give arbitrary rules and say that — do these and you will go to heaven.

If you see procedural books, it may be limited to that. But then if you want to go deeper, you will see serious effort in validating everything. For example, if you take Kalpa books, then you will see only procedure. But if you want to see the validation, you should refer to Purva Meemamsa books.

Our acharyas wanted proof for everything — even the existence of God. That is what they wanted proof for before everything else — that God is there. Only if there is God, then there is relevance to the rest of it. So, they first proved that there is God.

They would not accept one method. They wanted proof through multiple methods. Then only they would agree. The primary darshanas, or philosophies, would debate among themselves and find lacunae in each other's methods of proving that there is God. So much thought goes into everything.

I would say, we can blindly go with what our acharyas have said, unless you want to reinvent the wheel. They have done everything and come to conclusions.

One thing you have to be clear about — scientific knowledge or what we consider as modern means of knowledge is not incorrect knowledge. It is only incomplete knowledge.

The problem is in the approach. The scientific approach is to compartmentalize, isolate. But spiritual knowledge is the whole picture. So, if you see conflict between spirituality and science, then the problem is in what you have understood as spiritual knowledge.

Incomplete knowledge has to be part of the complete knowledge. Incomplete knowledge is only a small piece of complete knowledge. They should not contradict each other.

There is a painting. I am a chemist or chemical engineer who is concerned about the paint, the color used in making that painting. I am only concerned about its composition, materials used, its properties, how to improve its quality — I do not understand anything about art, the artistic value.

That does not mean that the painting as a whole — in whatever I do — has no relevance. In the painting, there is the artistic side, there is the material side, there may be a commercial side. All these when added together become the painting.

So, if you are confident that spiritual knowledge is complete knowledge, then it has to include material knowledge also. Material knowledge or scientific knowledge cannot be separate and away from spiritual knowledge. The natures of these both may look apparently different.

There is a bus. There is a seat inside the bus. The bus moves, the seat is fixed with reference to the bus as a whole. That does not mean that the seat is not part of the bus, or the seat does not move. When the bus moves, the seat also moves.

Scientific knowledge is incomplete knowledge. Science has just begun. Spirituality already has everything in it — including science.

Scientists are not our enemies. We do not say that they are wrong. We only say, learn more. Before that, do not take a stand that only we are right, what we say only is right.

Our spiritual knowledge — whatever science has discovered — that is already a part of spiritual knowledge. So this division itself is wrong — that spirituality is supernatural and science is natural. Science is part of spirituality. Science is a small part and included in spiritual knowledge. This has to be clear in the mind.

So, if you take knowledge that is mantra shastra, then it has to be validated by authentic and correct scientific knowledge also. Otherwise, mantra shastra cannot be valid. If it does not stand the test of science, then mantra shastra will not be valid.

The difference is that for mantra shastra to be valid, it has to stand the test of not only science but so many other branches of knowledge also. It has to be validated by so many other branches of knowledge also.

Like a tenth standard student appearing for a board exam. He or she cannot just clear one paper and say that I have passed. There are multiple papers, multiple subjects. You have to clear all of them. Then only you can say that you have passed.

There is only one problem here — what if the scientific postulate itself is wrong. They keep on changing. They keep on falling. It is a young branch of knowledge, like a young boy learning cycling. When you learn cycling, falling is natural.

But science has a false pretension. That is one problem with scientific people. I am not talking about the real scientific people. They are the most wonderful kind of people, who understand the scope and limitations of what they are doing. They are the most humble people you can find on earth — almost on par with some of our saints. I am talking about those people who do not understand science and talk about science — who see a new feature on a mobile phone, are flabbergasted, and think technology is the whole life. I am only talking about such people.

But under pressure, even people who are involved in science and technology, they have to make so many compromises. Even if they fall flat on their face, slip and fall flat on their face, they would say, I am just trying to inspect the ground.

They have so many things to cover up. They do not have the liberty to accept a failure. Because scientific knowledge is commercially driven. If the grant has to come, then you have to cover up so many things.

This is because science has created an impression that — no, we cannot fail, we are without fault. Now they become victims of this themselves. This is a compulsion of science, because it is commercially driven, only because it is commercially driven. Because they have to justify cost to their bosses.

Spiritual knowledge has no such compulsions, meet deadlines. Success and failure are accepted with equanimity in the spiritual spectrum. Failure is not inferior to success in spirituality. The aim of spirituality is not maximization of success and minimization of failure. Spirituality integrates both.

So what we are saying is that, if mantra shastra is valid, then it has to satisfy the principles of modern science also, provided the scientific principles you are using are correct. We will explore this more and more as we proceed.

Ramaswamy Sastry and Vighnesh Ghanapaathi