Scientific knowledge as a projection of Spiritual Knowledge

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I would like to make an attempt to interpret and understand scientific knowledge as something that has a basis in spiritual truths.

I have long held that knowledge gained through scientific enquiry need not be at odds with what we know as spiritual truths. I claim that the latter is the source of what all we know from Science. In any attempt to acquire knowledge we strive to arrive at the truth, truth being something that is not contradicted. Science arrives at the truth by using reasoning as a thinking tool and restricts its scope to the physical world.

Now if we look at our scriptures we will find that God is the source of the physical world. If we take God as representing spirituality, the above statement means, the spiritual is the source of the physical. This is what I would like to explore in some detail. I will continue to write on this and request the members to share their views.

Specifically I would like to take up some of the basic laws of science and see if they can be interpreted cogently as derivatives of spiritual truths.

( To be Continued)

 

[DR.C.NARAYANI]

Hello Sir, A Good OP start ,hope for waiting to get more information. Thanks in advance.ray:.

 

[sangom]

I would like to make an attempt to interpret and understand scientific knowledge as something that has a basis in spiritual truths.

I have long held that knowledge gained through scientific enquiry need not be at odds with what we know as spiritual truths. I claim that the latter is the source of what all we know from Science. In any attempt to acquire knowledge we strive to arrive at the truth, truth being something that is not contradicted. Science arrives at the truth by using reasoning as a thinking tool and restricts its scope to the physical world.

Now if we look at our scriptures we will find that God is the source of the physical world. If we take God as representing spirituality, the above statement means, the spiritual is the source of the physical. This is what I would like to explore in some detail. I will continue to write on this and request the members to share their views.

Specifically I would like to take up some of the basic laws of science and see if they can be interpreted cogently as derivatives of spiritual truths.

( To be Continued)

Dear Shri Sravna,

While I welcome your initiative neutrally, let me express some of my views on this topic.

Firstly, I don't think there is anything that can be called spiritual knowledge except what we may generalize as scriptural or religious knowledge. Religion and religious knowledge (call this as 'spiritual knowledge', if you so like), has as its very purpose, the furtherance of that religion. Still, it is not uncommon to find in the religious scriptures, here and there, some small pebbles which may appear as scientific truths.

For example, and this readily comes to my mind, when we consider the terms like brahmāṇḍa (ब्रह्माण्ड), possibly one may get overwhelmed by its similarity to the spiral galaxy; but if you notice that our ancient's idea was that of a flat earth supported by the diggajas (दिग्गज - दिग्दन्ति शुण्डादण्ड उत्तम्भिते - digdanti śuṇḍādaṇḍa uttambhite, is what we recite with religious care, in the mahAsamkalpam). Hence, the attempt should be to find out if there are even the very primitive seeds of science in our religious thought processes and whether they have not been nullified by erroneous or primitive beliefs at another level.

Wishing you all the best,

 

[SANDHYAV]

more words: kriya karma isha

An Introduction to Isha Kriya by Sadhguru - A Free Guided Meditation - YouTube

 

[sravna]

Dr.Narayani, Shri Sangom and Sandhyav, thanks for your views.

Let me restate my hypothesis that scientific knowledge has a deeper basis.

I will try to show that,

1. What we see as established scientific truths represent only the periphery of truths and that deeper truths exist.
2. Both the shallow and the deep truths are equivalent but each cloaked to a different extent.
3. The cloaked truths are falsified i.e., the cloak is removed and the real import understood and only the deepest truth endures as such.

 

[auh]

Interesting attempt, but why do you think there is only one truth?

Will watch this thread.

 

[sarang]

Good topic. Sri Sravana. my views.

I have no problem in accepting multiple domains of knowledge. What we currently call scientific is just one sub set of the 'whole knowledge'; each knowledge group, say spiritual, tantric, devotional, physical, evolve within the constraints they have accepted. It is futile and illogical to try to prove two knowledge streams agree or disagree unless one is a subset of the other.

If the purpose of the modern scientific knowledge is to explain physical phenomena, philosophy to explain behaviour, emotions and mind related which are not measurable, and spirituality is what is beyond and what is to be experienced and attained - there is a distinct delineation of purpose, method and goals. Our sanatana dharma does not dissuade acquisition of any knowledge, and does not put down any knowledge as unworthy or demands banning.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh

I will take up the point you raised in my discussions.

Dear Shri Sarang,

Thanks for sharing you views. We can always have a healthy discussion and broaden each others views.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

My answers in blue:

Let me restate my hypothesis that scientific knowledge has a deeper basis.

I will try to show that,

1. What we see as established scientific truths represent only the periphery of truths and that deeper truths exist.

Dear Sravna,

This applies to any knowledge..even in the evolution of prayer we see that the men first worshiped forces of nature and later deified them and the men started to feel that there is more that lies beneath the surface and finally deeper understanding emerged which even the end product is not really 100% known to anyone.

It is like a Syadvada(note I am not referring to Syadvada of Jainism here).

When I say Syadvada...it means Syat(probably) Vada(a doctrine).

Every sort of knowledge known to us is a doctrine of probability till a new finding disproves the old theory.

So every thought of ours is just a probability and not a certainty.

2. Both the shallow and the deep truths are equivalent but each cloaked to a different extent.

There is only TRUTH..the whole truth and nothing but the truth....no such thing as shallow or deep truth..its is our understanding that is either shallow or deep.

The cloak is our inability to decipher the truth what religious text love to call as ignorance.

I prefer to us the word "inability to decipher" which sounds more polite than ignorance.

3. The cloaked truths are falsified i.e., the cloak is removed and the real import understood and only the deepest truth endures as such.


Nope...the clocked truth are not falsified...that would make God a Liar.

The cloak as I said above is our inability to decipher.

Only when the ability to decipher dawns upon us we would realize that technically there was no cloak after all.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

You will have to wait till I am totally done to get my answer. But I urge you to share your thoughts then and there so that I can take them into account

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

I was a trained Physicist once.

Let me tell you that your premise is not correct in one particular way.

Scientific knowledge is obtained from the observations of senses and logic. So, from the spiritual perspective of the Hindu philosophy, it is relegated to the 'material' world, or 'Prakriti'.

Spiritual knowledge is different. From the viewpoint of our religion, it belongs to a space that is 'above' this physical plane, yet encompasses it. So, while in that sense while the spiritual plane includes the sub strata, because it operates in a different plane, it can not deny the logic of the physical plane to be true in that plane.

Because of such metaphysical differences between Science and Religion, it is better to keep them apart, to explain both factors in our lives: Those that are sensed physically (Science) and those that are faith based (Religion). Hope I am making sense.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

while the spiritual plane includes the sub strata, because it operates in a different plane, it can not deny the logic of the physical plane to be true in that plane.


Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

I am happy you brought up the point. I was about to state my first axiom which is related to the point. Kindly check it out

 

[sravna]

First I will talk about the nature of the laws of science. I will start with an axiom.

Axiom : Laws of science are universal

I will elaborate on this soon.

 

[sravna]

Dear folks,

I am sorry I am not able to spend a long enough time to write more detailed posts. It is also the nature of the topic that requires you to mull a lot to make some sense, that is responsible for my short posts. Kindly bear with me. I will try to make a sincere attempt.

 

[auh]

There could be two categories:

1) Something that follows the known laws of science : gravity, acceleration, specific heat etc.
2) The unknown : thoughts, emotions, existence, creation - where the laws of science do not apply.

I feel that spirituality has more to do with pt 2 than with 1.

Regards,

 

[sravna]

I assume that the big bang model explains the creation of the universe. It is said that at the time of the big bang universe was confined to a single point. If space did not exist at that time, then that extremely small "point" should then not have possessed the properties of space. It should be something else than space. If it did not possess the properties of space and all of space, time, matter and energy was contained in it, is it not reasonable to conclude that the physical world made of space, time, matter and energy had a non-physical origin?

 

[auh]

Big bang and other models are not proved conclusively? Probably it may be a best fit, just like the theory of evolution.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh,

I think the big bang model can be assumed to be correct regards a definite beginning of the universe. For example universe cannot be said to be without beginning because if time stretches infinitely back we could not have reached the present point in time.

 

[auh]

Hi Sravna,

But then, we are introducing another premise - that the universe has to have a beginning - and that has to be proved first. Is it not?

For example universe cannot be said to be without beginning because if time stretches infinitely back we could not have reached the present point in time.

How can the fact that time progresses be used to conclude that the universe has to be a beginning? I am not sure if this conclusion could be reached. For your consideration please.

 

[renuka]

Big bang and other models are not proved conclusively? Probably it may be a best fit, just like the theory of evolution.

Agreed..that is why I call all these Syadvada (doctrine of probabilities)..cos nothing is conclusive.

 

[sravna]

Hi Sravna,

But then, we are introducing another premise - that the universe has to have a beginning - and that has to be proved first. Is it not?

How can the fact that time progresses be used to conclude that the universe has to be a beginning? I am not sure if this conclusion could be reached. For your consideration please.

Dear Shri Auh,

OK assume time has no beginning. Let us consider the present time and a time million years ago. So it would take a million years from that time to the present. But time we have assumed did not start million years ago. Assume another million years before the first million years. From that time it would take 2 million years to the present. But if according to our assumption , time has no beginning you have to keep pushing back the past and so the the present could possibly be not reached. In other words I would assume infinite time is a contradiction as time would never seem to move.

So universe needs to have a beginning and space and time must have begun to exist only at that point.

 

[sangom]

Every sort of knowledge known to us is a doctrine of probability till a new finding disproves the old theory.

So every thought of ours is just a probability and not a certainty.

Therefore,

There is only TRUTH..the whole truth and nothing but the truth....no such thing as shallow or deep truth..its is our understanding that is either shallow or deep.

must also necessarily be only a probability and not a certainty. There may be one TRUTH, but of necessity, we will never be able to "understand" or realize that.

We will be just wasting time. LOL.

 

[renuka]

Therefore,
must also necessarily be only a probability and not a certainty. There may be one TRUTH, but of necessity, we will never be able to "understand" or realize that.

We will be just wasting time. LOL.

Yes...you are right...so that means everything including the so called Truth is a probability...

this reminds me of Nasadiya Shukta:

इयं विसृष्टिर्यतऽआबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | योऽअस्याध्यक्ष: परमे व्योमंत्सोऽअंग वेद यदि वा न वेद || 7 ||

'Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know.'

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Auh,

OK assume time has no beginning. Let us consider the present time and a time million years ago. So it would take a million years from that time to the present. But time we have assumed did not start million years ago. Assume another million years before the first million years. From that time it would take 2 million years to the present. But if according to our assumption , time has no beginning you have to keep pushing back the past and so the the present could possibly be not reached. In other words I would assume infinite time is a contradiction as time would never seem to move.

So universe needs to have a beginning and space and time must have begun to exist only at that point.

If time is infinite, then we will not be able to reach the beginning of time (beginning of the universe) - not the other way around.

Possibly, you are at the beginning point of time and are unable to reach to the present. LOL!!

 

[sangom]

Yes...you are right...so that means everything including the so called Truth is a probability...

this reminds me of Nasadiya Shukta:

इयं विसृष्टिर्यतऽआबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | योऽअस्याध्यक्ष: परमे व्योमंत्सोऽअंग वेद यदि वा न वेद || 7 ||

'Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know.'

Even this may be a probability. He may know but yet He may not know.

Again LOL!!