Efforts to relate science and religion are exacerbated by the fact that modern science views matter as the sole reality, and aims in principle to exclude any role for a world-transcending God or immaterial souls.

Thus, most discussions between science and religion invariably argue over scientific theories such as Big Bang and biological/chemical evolution in modern science, which deny any role for God and soul.

It is quite usual for those who take to “spiritual life” to feel that we should focus on God and soul/consciousness, not matter. I argue for a different approach to the science and religion dialog in this article. I am trying to bring a concept of matter from Srimad Bhagavatam, the main scripture of Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta (GVV) tradition, within modern science.

LOGIN for free to read more

This letter focuses on some foundational issues that should be understood, if at all we wish to demonstrate the scientific nature of Bhaghavata descriptions of cosmology.

In everyday thinking we assume that the objects we are accustomed to see around us are real, i.e. exist in the world apart from our experience. It is impossible for people in general to give up this belief. We believe that fire will burn when we touch it, or the bus will run us over if we don't move out of its way. How could we practically survive even for a moment in the world, if we were to take “fire” to exist only as a function of our perception?

Quite in opposition to this common sense pragmatism, Lord Krishna says, “the non-permanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, 0 scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.” (Bhaghavad Gita As It Is 2:14)

The word “sitosna” in the above verse refers to heat and cold. Lord Krishna says that these arise only as a result of “sense perception”', which is a difficult technical concept, since "senses" are different from the organs of perception that our bodies have. But what is definitely meant is that heat and cold, and indeed all sense phenomena, are not objectively real in the usual everyday sense in which we regard the word ''real". Krishna says we must learn to tolerate them, i.e. ignore them. In other words, the Bhaghavata viewpoint rejects commonsense pragmatism from the very outset!

Science too is based on accepting the reality of everyday sense experiences at the level of observations. This makes present scientific conceptions of reality as suspect as our present everyday notions of reality. People in general embrace scientific truth too, only pragmatic usefulness, i.e. technology.

A consequent feature of science is that nothing in current science is proven. Indeed, the “round earth” hypothesis in science is just that, a hypothesis, which has proved most adequate for predicting a wide range of observed phenomena. Neither that predictive success, nor even seeing a round earth from a space ship have any relevance to how earth is structured in reality. In science, any idea or model is judged solely by its empirical content, i.e. its power to predict some chosen observations accurately, not how far it is in accord with our sense experiences, or even reality. At the time of Copernicus and today, we see only the sun going around the earth. Yet, scientists have embraced the idea that the earth is going around the sun, and it has enabled them to make certain predictions about celestial motion. If tomorrow we were to fly outside the solar system and observe that sun is indeed going around the earth, still on earth the use of the heliocentric model would be justified on pragmatic grounds. It is the current, working model. That is the meaning of saying that science first and foremost predicts phenomena.

Srila Prabhupada himself accurately pointed this out: “Science means observation and experiment. You observe the rules are working, and when you practically bring them into experiment, then it is science.” (Room Conversation, 9 May 1975, Perth)

Most physicists, including the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Newton, also accept this view of science. Hawking too said: “Physical theory is just a mathematical model. It is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality. All that one can ask for is that its predictions should be in agreement with observation.” [place an order to read the full article]

What Does Bhakti Have to Do with Vedanta? Nothing, said a letter to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. This reply shows that the integrated Bhaktivedanta tradition is an older and more authentic tradition than the monistic school which insists on separating Bhakti and Vedanta.

The letter began with, “Bhakti assumes a dualistic relationship between the devotee and the Lord whereas Vedanta is 'advaita', or nondualistic. Therefore, I am confused by the name of your institute, 'Bhaktivedanta', since according to my understanding the words 'bhakti' and 'Vedanta' refer to separate teachings, with fundamental differences, that employ different methodologies. My confusion is further augmented by the fact that there was a well-known swami, Swami Prabhupada (who also went by the name A.C. Bhaktivedanta), who founded the Hare Krishna movement. As you no doubt know, the Hare Krishna society is a modern religious movement totally unrelated to traditional Vedanta.

When one studies traditional Vedanta, one learns that there is a clear distinction made between absolute reality (paramarthika) and empirical reality (vyavaharika). In this context, science is the study of empirical reality…

I am impressed that you have a highly competent staff, and I am puzzled by the philosophical inconsistencies that appear in the material you sent me.”

Prof. Ravi Gomatam replied, stating

“THE WORD Bhaktivedanta is not at all incongruous, popular understanding of bhakti and Vedanta notwithstanding.

There are two traditions of Vedanta—the impersonalist or the monistic school, and the Personalistic or the Vaishnava school. Both have existed since time immemorial. Sripada Adi Sankaracharya is the best-known modern Acharya (teacher) of the impersonalist school, and Sripada Ramanujacharya, Sripada Madhvacharya, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are the best known modern acharyas of the Vaishnava school…

When the impersonalists speak of Vedanta, they generally refer to the Sariraka-Bhasya of Sripada Adi Sankaracharya. But this is not the only bhasya (commentary) on Vedanta-sutra. There are outstanding commentaries by Vaishnava acharyas, such as the Sri Bhasya of Ramanujacharya, Govinda Bhasya of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and Tatparya Nirnaya of Madhvacharya…

…Every bona fide Vedic tradition is directly based on Vedanta. The two schools, therefore, are not jnana and bhakti, as you mention, but Mayavada (impersonalist) and Vaisnava (personalist). It is therefore untrue that those who perform bhakti are devoid of knowledge…" [place an order to read the full article]

“What does the Bhaktivedanta Institute at Berkeley and Mumbai do?”, asked C, a retired community college teacher, holding an M.S. in physics from University of New Mexico…

“In fact I wonder”, he continued, “Why anyone would want to try to prove God’s existence through science. Isn’t that tantamount to reducing God to something material?”

“Why do you think we are trying to prove the existence of God through science?” I asked him. He was silent for a while, and then said, “Well, I have asked some devotees in the temple, and that is what they told me.”

I said, “It is said God or Krishna can be known only through love.” He said heartily, “yes, that is the process of Bhakti”.

“However, everything is connected to God. Nothing in creation is without connection to God”, I continued. “Srila Prabhupada thus said by studying any aspect of this creation in sufficient depth, one will come to know God. Matter is also an energy of God, and therefore God can also be approached by studying of matter.” He agreed.

“Furthermore, trying to know God by studying matter need not necessarily mean we are reducing God to the material realm either”, I added. “For example”, I said, “I can try to know what kind of sweets you like. That doesn’t mean I am in any way reducing you to just a sweet-consuming machine. Sure, I am studying just a limited aspect of you. But even in that limited inquiry, I am studying you, I am not reducing you in any manner to the nature of sweets.” “Similarly, a proper study of matter can also be a study of God, without reducing Him to be a material principle.

Nor is it the case that such a study of matter to understand God or Krishna is a material pursuit. It is indeed a spiritual pursuit. That is why a good part of Canto III in Srimad Bhagavatam describes matter in great detail. It is called Sankhya philosophy. It is only when matter is studied and presented in a way not connected to or connectible to Sri Krishna, it is a material, and hence illusory activity.”

The physics teacher nodded his agreement thoughtfully. But he now had a new question. “Modern science aims to study matter independent of God. So, accepting there is a study of matter to approach to God in the Bhagavatam, how can it be connected to modern science?”, he asked… [the answer is given in the article] [place an order to read the full article]

Our modern age is the era of science and technology. Significant advancements in a variety of fields have made possible apparently great improvement in our physical well being. Indeed, based on these attainments, mechanistic science is hoping to be able to eventually explain even the origin of the universe and the nature of life. The general notion is that if scientific progress is vigorously pursued, then practically limitless improvement in the standard of life and knowledge can be achieved in due course. This optimism notwithstanding, it will not be out of place to note that the very developments which have brought science unprecedented prestige have also brought science to its most critical crossroads yet. I refer here to problems in both physical and metaphysical application of science. [place an order to read the full article]