Science is also search of truth : Criticizing Science just as dissection is absurd.

An extract of discussion at Eranakulam Theosophical Society on 13th January 2015 was posted by Lijin Thamban and a discussion took place in facebook.

Lijin Thamban posted on 14th January 2014 in Group " Madhuvanam Winter school alumni"
There has been discussion among us about the criticism against science and scientists leveled by spiritual leaders including Osho.

Krishnan Kartha said : " Many spiritual leaders seem to have an antipathy towards Science and scientists. All of them avail all benefits of development of Science has accorded to mankind in their day-to-day life.Using the state-of-the art technology in even sound system, they simply abhor the science. Even coveted masters have criticised scientist's mind and its eagerness to dissect. We should understand that Science has not developed anything impossible to Nature. Whatever the Nature can give the mankind, the science is extracting one by one. Nature has a treasure of valuable features for man's comfortable living on this planet. The scientists are in the probe of bring them to light for the use of the entire mankind. They devote their life for the great search just like any spiritual aspirant do. They forget their families, passions, possessions etc for this search. They are hence Samnyaasins. They have renounced the world for their search. Sometimes they are more true to their search than a spiritual aspirant, who is drawn back by faithlessness at every step. The scientists has faith and he thus go ahead. So he cannot be criticised simply. And Science has brought out only what the nature contained already. Aristotle has said that 'Art is imitation" . It should be seen in this parlance. Art involves all manifest forms of human endeavour. Science is also an Art. The Science is imitating the nature. It follows the available paths in the nature and results in inventions. That invention is a verily a possibility of nature. If it was impossible there cannot be such an invention! Another man comes and develops further and invents new additions to this invention. That is also a possibility. So inventions are really discoveries. Dis - cover means unveiling. Unveiling the possibilities of nature. Unveiling the treasure the Nature has kept for the matured human being... Thus science will proceed to understand spirituality in a scientific way when the times comes. We are fools if we judge the intent of the science now, in an immature way. Spiritualists and seekers have a common distaste for science and hence the spiritual teachers criticise science for the follower's' bouquets. Treat Science and scientists as Man's well wishers like the so called spiritualists. That is the need of the hour"


Return to Index on Topics under discussion with Krishnan Kartha
The discussion followed in facebook as under:-

Baiju NT on April 5 2015 :Chennai :

"Science will proceed to understand spirituality in a scientific way, when the time comes." - krishnan Kartha

Spk Sudhin:  I don't think science will "understand" spirituality... It may understand the limitation of human intellect and our logic system and go beyond that...

Krishnan Kartha :  To Spk Sudhin. Limitation of human intellect is relative. One cannot rule out the scope of human intellect beyond pre fixed limits. The foolishness of the so called spiritualists is that they maintain stupid ideas like human intellect or logic system is limited! Buddha was human being. Jesus was a human being. They all posssssed human brain and logic. But they travelled beyond the limits you have set. Why cant a scientist accomplish a vivid picture of truth. He is also in meditation when he probs into the secrets of nature. He need not come to your coroprate spiritual centres. He sacrifices his sleep, comforts etc for his probe like an ascetic. In a way the quality of sacrifice is more in his case than his peer in one of your ashrams. So he has every right even now to go into the realms in the scientifc way. It is only a question of choice. I mentioned about the 'time to come' was when such an option us exercised .....

Spk Sudhin:But our logic system is works on set of postulates and rules which is formed by past experiences and knowledge he gained. Which itself a limitation. Any system of ideas which is spiritual or physical is acceptable only when it satisfies that set of rules. The idea of God is "Logical" to a devotee but same time "Illogical" to a scientist depending upon this set of rules. I think jesus,Buddha and all others used their logic to deduct the the truth that truth can be found beyond this set of parameters. Buddha used meditation to transcend that limitation.... Ramana Maharshi used "Self enquiry" for the same process. Human intellect will push you to the top of mountain and jumping to the unknown is our choice................ Now regarding science, I am not saying scientist can't grasp the truth. What I am saying that he can't explain it in scientific terminology. Because it's purely subjective experience. When I read Sam Harris "Waking Up" that limitation is clearly reflecting in his words. Scientific way is about objective experimentation and universality. I hope Pranav can add more about this because he is trained as a physicist..
Krishnan Kartha sir can you correct if there is any mistake?

Krishnan Kartha Well said Spk Sudhin though not rightly said. Here you limit the past exerience also. You mean the experiences since the birth of the body and that is a limitation you set to the process of experience. The brain can go beyond this lmit and examine the ecperiences the mind has undergone in the 'pasts'. Ultimately. the memory of the bliss experienced in the original being is the driving force behind all these Buddhas and Maharshis. This is for your second comment.
                                  Who told that 'he cannot explain things in scientific terminology" ? I havent read the books which you refer to, but I know Sam Harris is not the ultimate scientist. Limiting possibilities with such a person's calibre is alien to scientific spirit.. limiting again. (This is for yur third comment Spk Sudhin)

Spk Sudhin: I am not limiting it to his caliber but how "That can explain?". The moment you are verbalizing you are coming to the lower level.

Krishnan Kartha  No. Verbalising is a reduction. Agreed. But the books you read contain just verbalisation.. no ?So there are ways and means of explaining things.


Spk Sudhin: Of course. That's why everyone is saying reading books not make you realized. They used poetical language and similes to get a glimpse of reality...But even that is not possible in the case of science.Sir, Can you explain about "ways and means" through which the truth can be transmitted?

I think upanishads used words more intelligently... they pointed out the things "That" is not. If you eliminate all which is not "That" you finally reach "That". In my experience it's the highest extend words can be used... But still it's difficult if stick on logical system which we are accustomed to...

Krishnan Kartha  Who made this classification.? Poetry has science it it. Science has poetry in it too. Drop the compartmentalusation and accept the whole. Otherwise you will either become a poet or a scientist. Not a Buddha.

Spk Sudhin: Sir, I am not compartmentalizing sir. What I am saying is in order to make a theory acceptable by scientific community it need to pass some stages. It is a method or procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.. Krishnan Kartha Sir,  Can you please tell me What you meant by "Scientific Way"? May be I thought it as wrong.

Pranav Manangath:  I didn't read all the comments. but Sudhin asked me the following question in message "What is the possibility of expressing a subjective experience in scientific terminology" . I am writing a quick answer that came in to mind .If it is relevant write back to me.

"

subjective experience ipol verbal aayi paranjalum a scientist will ask to express in an objective way. that is in mathematical way. in that case others can look in to that and critisize or find the faults. but the problem will come when you cannot express it in mathematical or in a 'logical' (Aristotle) outfit. then the scientist will not accept that and tell it is out side the domain of scientific methods. it can be told as a prejudice or premeditation."  

He also asked "I remember during one conversation you mentioned that if there is such thing as higher truth human intellect is incable of taking it..Do you remember?"

my answer was "I think I said that on the premise that a higher truth may be hidden in a higher temporal or spacial dimension which is not conceivable with current human intellect. And keeping in mind the short life span of a human it is impossible for him to understand it. May be in a very advanced future where we find a way to experience higher dimensions and can do experiment on it it may be possible. But you have to keep in mind that I fall in the subcatagory of 'Materialist' according to Paddy's classification "

Baiju NT സുദിന്റെ സംശയം വളരെ നിസാരമാണ്. അദ്ദേഹം പറയുന്നത് എന്താന്ന് വച്ചാൽ, any system of ideas, which is spiritual or physical, is acceptable only when it satisfies a set of rules set by scientific community. To call an idea scientific, it needs to pass some criteria, such as 1. it should be supported by evidence and facts. 2. It should be observed, tested or measured. If an idean hasn't been proven yet, it is called a hypothesis. ആത്മീയത വ്യക്തിഗതമാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ, അതിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുന്ന ഒന്നിനെയും ശാസ്ത്രത്തിന്റെ വസ്തുനിഷ്ഠാപരമായ ചട്ടക്കൂട്ടിനുള്ളിൽകൊണ്ടുവരിക എളുപ്പമല്ല. ഈ പരിമിതി കണക്കിലെടുക്കുമ്പോൾ, ശാസ്ത്രം എന്നെങ്കിലുമൊരിക്കൽ ആത്മീയതയെ യുക്തിപരമായോ ബൗദ്ധികമായോ മനസിലാക്കും എന്ന് കരുതാനാവില്ല. ഇതല്ലേ സുദിൻ പറയാൻ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചതിന്റെ രത്നച്ചുരുക്കം?

ഇനി, കൃഷ്ണേട്ടന്റെ ഉത്തരത്തിലേക്ക് കടക്കാം. അദ്ദേഹം പറയുന്നതനുസരിച്ച്, നാമീ കാണുന്ന ബൗദ്ധിക പരിമിതി ആപേക്ഷികം മാത്രമാണ്. മനുഷ്യന്റെ സാധ്യതകളെ ഇത്തരത്തിൽ തളച്ചിടുന്നത് വിവരദോഷികളായ ആത്മീയവാദികളാണ്. ബുദ്ധനും, യേശുവുമൊക്കെ സാധാരണക്കാരായ മനുഷ്യരായിരുന്നിട്ടും, പരിമിതകൾ അതിലംഘിക്കാൻ അവർക്ക് കഴിഞ്ഞില്ലേ? അവർക്ക് കഴിഞ്ഞെങ്കിൽ മറ്റുള്ളവർക്കും കഴിയാതിരിക്കുമോ? തീർച്ചയായും കഴിയും, പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് ദിനരാത്രങ്ങളെന്നില്ലാതെ ഊണും ഉറക്കവുമില്ലാതെ സത്യം കണ്ടെത്താൻ അക്ഷീണം പരിശ്രമിക്കുന്ന ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞന്മാർക്ക്.

ഭാഗം രണ്ട്

സുദുൻ: I am not saying scientist can't grasp the truth. What I am saying that he can't explain it in scientific terminology.

കൃഷ്ണൻ കർത്ത: Who told that "he cannot explain things in scientific terminology"? there are ways and means of explaining things...

Can spirituality be explained in "scientific way" or scientific terminology? കൃഷ്ണേട്ടൻ പറയുന്നു ആവുമെന്ന്. സുദിൻ ആവില്ലെന്നും. ചർച്ചയുടെ അടുത്ത ഘട്ടം ഇവിടെ നിന്ന് തുടങ്ങുമെന്ന് പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നു. Krishnan Kartha Spk Sudhin

Spk Sudhin: ചുരുക്കി പറഞ്ഞതിനു നന്ദി ചേട്ടാ... അത് മറ്റുള്ളവര്‍ക്കും ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ വരാന്‍ സഹായകമാകും... എന്‍റെ സംശയങ്ങള്‍ ഇവയാണ്... 1. എന്താണ് "Scientific Way" എന്നത് കൊണ്ട് അര്‍ത്ഥമാക്കുന്നത്? 2. സത്യത്തെ വാക്കുകള്‍ കൊണ്ട് പറയാന്‍ സാധ്യമല്ലല്ലോ. എങ്കില്‍ എന്താണ് "Ways and means to explain truth" ? Krishnan Kartha sir മറുപടി നല്‍കുമെന്ന് പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.....

Krishnan Kartha   To Spk Sudhin You have asked about the ways and means. The fact that there will be a time when the Scientists will be broadminded enough to 'scientifically' prove the metaphysical experiences, is a prophecy. It belongs to future. Just like you travel to the past there is possibiltiy for travelling to the future also.Mind can do it. But there is one condition.You can travel to the future but no travelogues are permitted. All factors of the future cannot be explained in the present since it will sabotage the basic structure of time. Whoever violates this law are subject to severe consequences. These include sooth sayers and astrologists. . ..........................The comment about ways and means had come after my comment " No. Verbalising is a reduction. Agreed. But the books you read contain just verbalisation.. no ?" So the intended comment was as follows : " No. Verbalising is a reduction. Agreed. But the books you read contain just verbalisation.. no ? So there are ways and means" But before I complete you came jumped with another comment " Of course. That's why everyone is saying reading books not make you realized." hence the confusion arises.My request is to kindly wait for the replies to come fully before jumping into judgements and making further comments. ..........................................Now coming back to the post. You have quoted Tao etc to emphasis that Truth cannot be explained in words. But you should consider the fact WORD is the first to emerge from the formless ,attributeless Truth. So it is the nearest possibility. It is not because they cannot explain in words that Masters are silent about their experience. But they will wait for the right recipient to come.Till then they will go on saying that Truth is inexplicable, beyond words etc. Only a person is mature enough to digest the reality will be imparted the Truth. Hence this is called "Guhyaath Guhyatharam" in Sanksrit in Indian books. I have heard that whenever Milarepa resorted to Marpa, the latter used to tell, that he is not prepared to easily transfer the learning which he has acquired from India with much effort. This is the fact. The ways and means will be ready when the time comes. That calls for the faith and surrender of the disciple in the Guru. . ...............................This can be explained further as follows. You have your sceince with all possible means and ways to communicate and convince.. Can you communicate this to a child? .