The real issue lies not between religion and science, but between belief and experience. Both disciplines ought to be understood in the light of man’s search for permanent truths. Both, however—and to some extent surprisingly so—have relied too heavily on dogmas and dogmatism. In science, revolutionary scientific ideas are often laughed out of court by “the old guard”—to be accepted in time, however, after old dogmas have been replaced by new discoveries—becoming in their turn, of course, new scientific dogmas.
In one respect the difference between science and religion is noteworthy: Scientific circles have yet to form bodies of hoary elders whose self-appointed role is to dictate absolutely what shall and shall not be accepted as the right beliefs. The pressure of accepted opinion, however, is almost as strong in science as in religion, and acts with as much authority as any church.
For dogmatism is a phenomenon of human nature, not of human activity. The search for truth must move from blind belief to direct experience. Up to the present time, modern science—perhaps mainly because it was born of fresh seeking and not of oft-repeated formulae—has had the upper hand. I myself, on the other hand, am someone who began his search for truth through the sciences, but I gradually shifted my focus to the quest for God. And I have thought much about the comparative value of seeking truth outwardly, rather than inwardly. Let me add here, however, that I myself am not particularly religious. That is to say, I am not much interested in rituals intended only to propitiate God.
The first point of difference between the so-called mystic and the scientific is that logic, without feeling, can never be wholly satisfying. Logic watches, whereas feeling absorbs itself in the experience of what has been watched. A computer can be programmed to reason clearly, but it cannot be made to enjoy any of its conclusions. Nor can it be programmed to ask the deeper questions of life: the “whys.” Calm feeling is not an emotion, and, instead of prejudicing reason, clarifies it. Logic can make a reasonable case for almost any argument, but only calm feeling can know whether that reasoning is true or false. Logic—speaking for the moment musically—can find the notes, but only feeling can arrange them in a satisfying sequence of notes, chords, and rhythms.
The materialistic sciences, in their search for abstract facts, cannot easily arrange those facts in the order of their importance to mankind. There is, moreover, another and equally important difference between the mystic’s and the materialist’s search for truth: the materialist tries to eliminate self-awareness as prejudicial to clear judgment. The true mystic, on the other hand, tries to clear his sense of selfhood from prejudices by saying (I think more honestly), “Without self-awareness, where can one even begin the search for what would be interesting to anyone?”
An ice-covered lake would be difficult to break through by the application of pressure to the whole surface. By drilling at a single point, however, the ice can be penetrated easily, to reach the water underneath it. Science may indeed penetrate the coating over reality at any number of points, but without the ego-self as a point of reference, all that anyone can arrive at is a hodgepodge of irrelevant facts. It is unrealistic to try to eliminate either feeling or self-awareness from any investigation into reality. The ancient Greek saying, “Know thyself (gnothi sauton)” remains the ultimate and highest definition of any sincere search for truth.
Scientists tend to believe that truth is infinitely complex. In this belief, there is a present-day dogma which claims that computers will someday become sophisticated enough to be self-aware. What, however, can be simpler than the common earthworm? If one touches the worm with a pin, however, the little creature will try (because it is self-aware) to squirm away; and, because its awareness is centered in feeling, it will obviously desire to escape the pain of a pin prick.
The definition that the ancient Indian yogi-sage Patanjali gave of yoga (the supreme union of absolute understanding) was this: “Yogas chitta vritti nirodha. Yoga is the neutralization of the vortices of feeling.” A “vritti” is an eddy or whirlpool. “Chitta” has been translated—inadequately, however—as consciousness. I say “inadequately,” because what the word really refers to is the feeling aspect of consciousness.
Science does not concentrate on feelings. It merely explains things. Logic alone, moreover, doesn’t inspire enthusiasm for anything. Science tries to eliminate all emphasis on the self, as well as on feeling, but without self-awareness, one’s efforts would lack any focus. The mystical search for truth is an inquiry into one’s true place in the great scheme of things, and into ways of fulfilling one’s role here on earth.
Many years ago, a man in Australia said to me, “I am an atheist. How can you explain God to me in such a way as to make me respect, or even listen to, what you are saying?”
I replied, “Why don’t you try thinking of God as the highest potential you can imagine for yourself?”
For a moment the man looked taken aback. He then commented somewhat grudgingly, “Well, yeah, I think I can live with that!”
In the context of this article, it doesn’t really matter whether or not God exists, any more than it matters how high a mountain slope rises above any low mists hanging overhead. True mysticism seeks to climb ever upward, until endlessness is achieved. Materialistic science so far has been interested only in examining rocks on the slopes beneath us. Whereas true mysticism is motivated by upwardly aspiring ideals, materialistic science tries, instead, to keep man satisfied with objects he sees already on the hillside.
Someday, true science and true religion together, in their desire for truth, will discover those eternal verities that alone possess the secret of unity in a single vision.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
yes, a glimpse of truth.
Our hearts long for this. Perhaps scientists find themselves In this calm upper region of conciousness after enthusiasm and deep thoughts have ascended higher and become enchantedly stilled.
But, do they ask all the right questions; do they crave to truly know the whys as well as the hows?
Have they the valor within their pioneering spirits to capture, to trust, absorb, and find contentment in the answers that appear?
When one rises above the fog; cleared of preconceived notions, will they turn blissfully inwardly, and let the intuition reveal all?
They do so much of the hard work, and then don’t gather in all of the rich treasures loosed.
Dear Swamiji,
Thank you for the inspiring article.
I enjoyed how you said chitta is the “feeling aspect” of consciousness. It’s so refreshing to hear discussion of feeling in science. Do you think scientists will continue to embrace their feeling quality more and more to balance reason?
Love & Blessings,
narayan
I find myself continually disappointed in the understanding of basic scientific principles demonstrated by contributors to what is supposed to be a “science and spirituality” forum. This time we find ourselves confronted with the old canard that once upon a time people resisted proposals from the likes of Einstein or Galileo and therefore science types should be more open minded to new ideas because they’ve been wrong to dismiss hypotheses before.
Completely overlooking the fact that these were both examples of science working the way it is *supposed* to work. Science is skeptical by design, and for good reason. You are not entitled to simply stroll in with a new hypothesis that sounds interesting and have everyone instantly take you seriously. You WILL be challenged, vigorously and ruthlessly. Your idea WILL be required to bring evidence to the table to support it… the more “revolutionary” it is the higher the bar will be set because the more currently established evidence it must call into question and require re-interpretation of and we don’t just do that willy nilly because someone thinks “wouldn’t it be neat if…” That would result in limitless wastes of everyone’s time to the detriment of the entire process. Sagan summed this principle up most succinctly with his observation that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
You will notice that initially harshly challenged these revolutionaries may have been.. but they were given opportunity to make their cases, and when that was done their ideas were relatively rapidly accepted, incorporated, and built upon. If you have a revolutionary idea that is actually correct, then you can find the evidence to demonstrate that and you can present it, and your hypothesis will undergo *and survive* all the testing and challenges and attempts to falsify it which it will then be endlessly subjected to and science will continue it’s march forward with your new idea tucked firmly in with the other theories and hypotheses which have met the very deliberately harshly rigorous criteria science sets for claims to knowledge. If you cannot bring that evidence to the table then your idea will rightly be marched right over top of and ground underfoot.
To imply that the proper and deliberate application of the critical review required by the scientific method is nothing more than the stubborn clinging to of “old dogmas”, and to attempt to draw any degree of relation between this and the resistance to contradictory information encountered in the confines of religious teachings and church hierarchies demonstrates a profound lack of familiarity with how science operates and why it enjoys it’s unparalleled success at uncovering new information about the world while slaying erroneous or just plain useless ideas one after another.
Swami Kriyananda very clearly address the real issue here, that science always supports finding truth by trying to eliminate feeling and self awareness as something that has to be shunned. But without first understanding the self, one cannot go much farther in understanding everything else, because truth has to explain the self too. Science can have newer and profoundly intellectually satisfying theories but these will go on and on as the human evolution also progresses. Science can only attest to spiritual truths by newer and newer findings but spiritual truths are eternal.
Spirituality can never be ‘scientified’ completely because of the emphasis of science on exclusion of feeling and awareness. When that does happen, science will be spirituality itself.
No matter how much one tries to exclude feeling in order to have an unprejudiced view of reality, there eventually is that part of feeling and awareness involved in any scientific pursuit.
Swami Kriyananda gives a headway to those “stuck” in this dilemma in a scientific pursuit to truth.
True religion IS scientific. One of its tenets is to “test the spirits,” another way of saying don’t accept any old claims without supporting evidence. The best explanation of how to do this, as well as the no-nonsense illumination of the unity between spirituality and science, can be found in Swami Vivekananda’s late-nineteenth-century lectures on Raja Yoga. Swami Vivekananda was the first true yogi to expound Vedanta in the western hemisphere, and he himself became such only by ruthlessly rejecting anything that even smacked of nonsense unsupported by hard evidence. He put his guru, Sri Ramakrishna, to rigorously skeptical tests pertaining to human realization of God. It was only after the master had thoroughly demonstrated proof (“fruits of the spirit”) that he was indeed 100% authentic that Vivekananda accepted the hypothesis that humans can transcend nature and be freed forever into the uncaused beyond. That he explained science and religion so clearly is supporting evidence of his own lucid understanding as bequeathed him by his peerless mentor.
I can’t say I enjoyed this article really. It seems to want to de-value science in the light of the richer understanding offered by spirituality. This is not progressive in my eyes; science and spirituality are like kids standing on either side of the room each demaning the other be more like itself. But science and spirituality are both of great value, and should accept eachother for what they are instead of demanding each be more like the other. Both are ways of finding truth, both have things to offer which the other does not. Completely discounting one in favour of the other would be stupid in my opinion. Just my thoughts.