Western Questions Eastern Answers: A Collection of Short Essays - Volume 1: Western Questions Eastern Answers

Preface

The problems I write about have very broad ramifications. I’m referring to the questions of meaning and morality, the issues of free will and determinism, the problems of indeterminism in science, the issue of semantics in computing and mathematics, and the question of the origin of life and the universe. Much of the appeal for such problems often fades in the modern rush of life, when people believe the questions are merely intellectual curiosities and that even if we were to find those answers nothing much would change in our day-to-day lives.

Whatever little interest remains for such topics today, the prospective reader list is further slimmed by the choice of the viewpoint from which I write about these issues. First, my perspective is drawn from the personalist school of Vedic philosophy, quite different from Advaita or impersonalism, with which most people are familiar. Second, most people are naturally turned off by reference to a ‘religious’ philosophy. Third, by speaking of the problems that most academics are working on, outside mainstream academia, I rule out a large number of intellectuals who could have been potential readers. And yet, this is the viewpoint that I believe holds the greatest promise for answering the biggest outstanding problems. Having observed the utter failure of Advaita attempts to recast science in a new mold, as well as the materialist attempts to subsume new problems such as mind, meaning, and consciousness under the current physical worldview, I am convinced that a different view of nature is necessary, which is logical-empirical and yet not materialistic.

Over the years, I have written several books, the details of which you will find at the end of this work. To introduce these books, and as a result of the ensuing discussions with readers, I wrote several blog posts. This book collects these posts. Ideally, I should have inserted these discussions back into the books that originally led to these discussions. But given that revising a book is much harder, I have just collected the posts here.

The ‘market’ for such topics is incredibly small today, constrained both by a lack of interest and by unfamiliarity with modern science. It includes those who have a good understanding of modern science and its problems, coupled with the awareness of the historical evolution of Western philosophy and the problems that caused that evolution, combined with an interest in understanding Vedic philosophy, and conjoined with the curiosity in the relevance of that philosophy to modern thinking. If any of the above prerequisites fails, the readership tends to reduce dramatically. Clearly, these books and posts are not therefore byproducts of economic considerations.

These books and posts were written for a very simple reason: I wanted to read such books and posts myself, but I could not find them anywhere. So, I studied, digested, and assimilated what I wanted to understand. Having reached a certain point, I also wanted to write it down, just because writing makes things clearer. Over time, however, I also thought that there might be some people interested in similar topics—knowing fully well that the likelihood of running into someone with that interest is almost next to zero. But, of course, the world is big! Next to zero chance multiplied by a very large number of people still produces a few interested souls. These are the readers who have constantly encouraged me through their appreciation, amazement, and kind words. That encouragement has kept me going on this journey.

Why did I choose to name this collection Western Questions, Eastern Answers? Philosophy and science in the West have largely been practiced with the aim to understand the present world. A number of theories have been propounded, none of which are free of problems. Philosophy and science in the East (specifically the Vedic tradition) has always been practiced with the aim to transcend the world. Vedic texts provide many theories, but always in answer to a transcendental question. On one hand, therefore, we have questions that haven’t found good answers. On the other, there are very good answers that haven’t been connected to the burning questions of mankind today.

Combining them makes a lot of sense from both sides, although I believe this type of approach to a ‘synthesis’ of religion and science hasn’t been attempted before. Clearly, to repeat the same answer but in response to a different question, and the answer to still make a lot of sense, we must understand not just the questions and answers, but also the other answers that were earlier given for the same question, and how the new answer is better. That is not just a demand on the author; it is an equally difficult demand on the reader as well. But that’s the price to be paid if there is indeed a long history of incorrect answers which have to be rejected before a correct answer would be accepted. After all, we might still do the right thing, if only as the option of last resort.

My aim is to provide the answers that were previously given in response to radically different questions, but now in response to the questions that currently remain unanswered. Many people have tried to marry the intellectual and ideological views of East and West, sometimes with hilarious and disastrous results. This attempt is therefore not without considerable risks, although the effort is worth the trouble.

The books and posts are my personal journey into a subject that is very difficult, and rare by modern standards. I do hope to make it a tad bit simpler for others by showing the path that I have treaded. If you would like to discuss this further, do reach out to me through email or other ways available on my website. I wish you a fruitful journey.

The Motivation Behind My Work

Published Date: 2014-06-03

Science has, since its inception, suffered from the mind-body divide that Descartes created. The divide forced sciences to pursue an ideology of matter opposed to the existence of the mind, which makes an understanding of the mind impossible. Attempts in current science to explain sensations, mind and intelligence based on matter have failed. An alternative view of matter compatible with the existence of the mind is needed, to solve the myriad problems of their interaction.

Such an alternative ideology is found in Sāñkhya philosophy, which constitutes the Vedic theory of matter. In Sāñkhya, mind and matter are not two fundamentally different kinds of realities. They are rather the successive stages of development of meaning, that are abstract and contingent. The original primordial meaning is the most abstract reality. This reality expands into more contingent realities. The mind is one of the many levels of this expansion, as is the body. However, the bodily expansion follows the mental expansion, so, the mind is more fundamental than the body, although it is not the most fundamental.

All these abstract and contingent realities are expressed as symbols of meaning. Such symbols are akin to the words in a language, although this language is not the speech we hear and speak–which is phenomena. The language here is the fundamental forms of meanings that consciousness can potentially understand and expresses to externalize itself as an artist expands the ideas in his mind into works of art. According to Sāñkhya philosophy, during the manifestation of the universe, the original primordial meaning is gradually expanded into morals, intentions, judgments, concepts, sensations and, finally, external objects.

To understand the relation between the body and mind, science needs two important changes. First, matter should be described as symbols not as things; in modern science, this entails that objects should be known as types rather than as quantities. Second, the interaction between material objects must be understood as the interaction between types involving the laws of type interaction rather than forces of modern science.

These basic applications of Sāñkhya have wide-ranging implications for science, including mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. In mathematics, this requires a new way of thinking about numbers as types instead of quantities. In physics, objects need to be seen as symbols rather than physical properties. In chemistry, molecules have to be seen as semantic propositions rather than merely physical complexity. In biology, these propositions produce a functional and intentional system so living beings must also be described as functional and intentional systems rather than just objects. The semantic view dramatically changes our approach to thinking about matter in science.

The motivation behind my work lies in Sāñkhya philosophy, and I hope to bring its insights into modern science. To bring new ideas, we must identify the problems in modern science where new ideas are required. The description of such problems requires no reference to scripture; they just require a deeper understanding of science beyond the facade of successes. Once these problems have been identified, we must also understand the history of attempts to solve them, which have failed. At this point, it is possible to introduce a new idea that overcomes the problems and sidesteps the issues with previous failed attempts. The new ideas are inspired by Sāñkhya philosophy, but they can be presented in response to questions that science poses rather than questions that were previously asked by spiritualists.

To an extent, the understanding of meaning cannot be completely obtained by studying the external world, even though there are meaningful objects in the external world too — such as music, art, books, and science itself. To better understand the nature of meaning, one also looks inwards rather than just outwards. In short, the new insights in science will come not from the study of objects through experiments. They will rather come to those who have a better understanding of senses, mind, intellect, ego, etc., or the perceptual apparatus. To study this apparatus, one must withdraw their consciousness from the external world inwards, and those who can do that are better suited for developing alternative sciences. Their results will be accessible to those who study the external world, but their insights won’t be.

Innovator’s Dilemma in Science

Published Date: 2014-06-10

The main goal of today’s academic research is to keep the pretense that the situation is, after all, not all that bad.

I say this because, if you happen to take a closer look at the biggest outstanding problems facing academic research you will find problems that require not just a patch; they require a drastic overhaul, a fundamental revision to conceptual foundations. But scholarship aims to show that it’s not that bad. That we can continue extending what we already know, and we will thus solve today’s problems.

If you are wondering which problems I’m referring to, here is a brief list:

• In mathematics, it is the incompleteness of all number systems.

• In computing theory, it is the inability to comprehend natural language.

• In physics, it is probability and uncertainty.

• In chemistry, it is the inability to formulate predictive laws.

• In biology, fundamental questions about information replication and translation are unanswered.

These are all ‘hard’ sciences based on fact and experiment. Their problems are even harder.

There’s also the divide between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. The latter include psychology, economics, sociology, linguistics, etc. Soft sciences acknowledge an explicit role the choices of persons in studying their subjects, but the hard sciences don’t.

This conflict can only be solved in one of two ways. One, if it turns out that there is indeed a mind and the mindless description of matter is false; this will falsify most of the ‘hard’ science theories. Two, if there is no mind and we are simply zombies who think that we think; the irony is now inescapable: to think that we think, we must still think about ourselves. In the former case, the world is different than we have thought so far in science. In the latter case, we don’t exist in the sense we believe we do.

Scientists have, over the last several centuries, relentlessly pursued a reductionist approach to the observer, while denying that this means we are zombies. In other words, scientists do not accept that there is a problem, but claim that the current approaches will eventually solve it. Science is in the throes of what technologists call the Innovator’s Dilemma. The dilemma is that an established system will not disrupt itself. The establishment will argue that new approaches are not needed because the current approach – when pursued to its logical limits – will over time fix all issues.

The problem is slightly more acute in science because science is an elite community and not too many people outside this community understand the nature of the problem, let alone question it. Unlike technological disruption where consumers make up their minds about what products they like, in science the ability to decide is limited. Technology works on the principle of fail fast by trying and rejecting things quickly. Science uses the converse principle of building things incrementally but at a much slower pace. It is harder to get a new idea accepted, and if it has been accepted, much harder to throw it away.

Most scientists today believe that there is no mind apart from the brain. The brain is nothing more than cells, which are molecules, that can be described by physical theories. How can such a theory of matter explain the mind? Reductionists claim that the mind-body divide is misconstrued since there is actually no mind apart from the brain. The mind is a phenomenon (and not a separate type of reality) created as a by-product of chemical reactions, although we cannot say what in the reactions makes it mind.

I believe that we have misconstrued the nature of matter. Matter has to be redefined in a way compatible with the existence and interaction with the mind. This thought is so scary for most scientists that it will be very hard to find patrons for it within the mainstream. Like technological disruptions happen on fringes, it is possible that science too will a see a revolution outside the mainstream.

Areas of Semantic Research

Published Date: 2014-06-10

There are many path-breaking areas of research at the nexus of meaning and matter. I am particularly interested in the following areas, with the specifics described below.

Quantum Physics

The problems of quantum physics are legend, but the solution to these problems is still not known. My angle to research in quantum theory is that quanta are not things, but symbols. Symbols have semantic properties that make them behave like concepts, rather than things. The paradoxes of quantum theory vis-a-vis classical physics are problems in understanding how concepts behave differently than classical particles.

I believe that current quantum theory requires a new mathematical formulation that derives the physical aspects of quanta from their semantic aspects. This new semantic theory will come from attempts to incorporate meanings within mathematics.

Number Theory

There is no area in science where the problems of meaning can be stated more succinctly and demonstrated more clearly than mathematics. The history of mathematical development is replete with paradoxes such as Gödel’s Incompleteness, the Burali-Forti Paradox, Zeno’s Paradox, Tarski’s Undecidability, etc. These paradoxes arise through a curious mingling of everyday concepts and numbers. Mathematics uses many notions about numbers but is unable to distinguish between them.

I believe that mathematics requires a new theory of numbers where numbers are known as types rather than quantities (types in everyday language denote concepts rather than quantities; numbers should also be treated as types – i.e. concepts). Attempts to include types in mathematics have led to paradoxes because types are derived from quantities, based on the idea that the world is primarily objects from which we construct meanings. The inverse proposition – that the world is meanings from which objects are created – is free from paradoxes and represents a different foundation for mathematics.

The Nature Of Chemical Law

The central dogma in modern chemistry is that it can be reduced to the study of atoms. However, in quantum theory, the atoms are not fixed entities. Rather, their electrons can float from one atom to another, and what we commonly called ‘atomic bonds’ are replaced by ‘molecular orbitals’. In short, we can no longer treat a molecule as an aggregation of individual atoms; we must rather treat the molecule as an ensemble of particles with some total energy which can be divided in many ways, producing different structures.

How molecules change their forms, redistributing the energy and matter within the ensemble, is an area of indeterminism in science. The indeterminism is caused by the fact that quantum theory deals with the total energy in a system, but not with the distributions of this energy. The redistribution of energy is called the measurement problem, where, for instance, by changing the number of slits in the slit experiment we can reorder the quantum states. What corresponds to the slits in the case of molecules, where we do not have an observer? Unless this problem is solved, the structure of a complex molecule will remain a mystery, and chemical reactions will remain non-predictive.

The first step toward the solution of this problem is recognizing what the different molecular structures mean. This is possible if we treat the atoms themselves as symbols of meaning, such that the molecule becomes a complex meaningful proposition. Once these structures have been given meaning, then a chemical reaction would correspond to the transformation of meaning governed by the laws of meaning change. There can be many causes of these meaning changes, including observer interference, but the structures of molecules are like sentences that connect the words (atoms) into a grammatical structure. If physics is about the study of atoms or the words in language, then chemistry is about how grammar structures these words into meaningful sentences. The laws of chemistry are like the laws of grammar. You can use the same set of words to construct many different sentences, but which sentence is produced is governed by the meaning.

Biological Information

The central problem in biology is transcription and replication of genes through which heredity is produced. The transcription of genes is the classic example of how abstract information encoded in the DNA is expanded into contingent information in the proteins. Similarly, the replication of genes is a classic example of how the meaning in the mind is copied in the process of vocal expression. The person speaking the meaning doesn’t lose the mental meaning; rather, he or she creates a copy of that meaning and externalizes it.

Ordinary chemical molecules like water and salt do not replicate. What causes the DNA to replicate, and what type of phenomena does replication denote? Additionally, what properties in molecules make them descriptions of other molecules–such as the proteins in case of DNA? These are questions best answered by understanding biology in terms of meaning. Like the table of contents represents the book in a summarized form, similarly, the DNA represents the protein structures in a summarized form. The book expands from the table of contents, and although both the table of contents and the pages of the chapter are physical things, one is abstract and the other is contingent. The DNA is therefore the encoding of abstract information while the proteins are representations of contingent meanings.

I believe that DNA replication represents a new class of phenomena in which one molecule summarizes many molecules. Biologists freely talk about information in biology in the sense that the DNA encodes meaning, but the representational properties of meaning have no explanation. DNA replication and transcription correspond to a new type of property in matter that is best described as meaning.

Semantic Computing

The failure of artificial intelligence (AI) to elicit intelligent tasks such as language comprehension (leave alone creativity, problem solving and metaphorical thinking) has led most scientists to recognize that computers cannot deal with meaning. Why? Because a token in the computer has physical properties but no meaning; the programmer supplies that meaning during designing, writing and testing programs. In what way is the human mind able to design, write and test programs that a computer cannot? How does a human mind fix problems in a computer program when Turing’s Halting problem proves that it is impossible to write a program that will detect the program’s problems?

Advances in semantic computing depend on advances in mathematics and physics where a symbol can denote types. Computing theory has an important role in delineating the types for different classes of problems. In other words, semantic computing is about finding the elementary symbols and operations (i.e. language) using which any arbitrary semantic program can be written, compiled, and executed.

Is the Mind like the

Fluidity of Water?

Published Date: 2014-11-10

A common argument against the mind-body duality is that mind is an epiphenomenon of chemical reactions in the brain much like the fluidity of water is a consequence of molecular interactions. This argument seems appealing because if we reduce water to its molecules, we don’t see fluidity in each molecule; fluidity is only a property of the collection. The mind-brain reductionist similarly argues that the mind’s properties are features of the brain, although individual molecules that make up the brain don’t have these properties.

Theoretical Problems in Reduction

This still leaves theoretical gaps in understanding how reactions produce the mind (claims about mind-body identity are based on experimental observations). The problem is in drawing a parallel between the fluidity of water and mental experiences, because the mind describes the world (objects and other minds) while fluidity is a description of the water itself.

In this article, I will discuss the features of the mind and how they present problems vis-a-vis classical physics, followed by a discussion of how quantum theory presents a different view of matter that can explain the mind, although it would require us to eschew reductionism. Therefore, when reduction is used, the theory cannot explain the mind and the theory that can explain the mind must discard reduction.

I will conclude by describing a solution to the mind-body interaction problem based on some ideas from the Vedic theory of matter and discuss how the Vedic theory requires us to treat nature as information which is logically prior to material objects.

Two Fundamental Properties of the Mind

The mind exhibits two fundamental properties that cannot be reduced to material objects, as they were defined in classical physics.

First, classical physical objects only have properties that describe themselves; e.g., a particle’s mass is a property of that particle. The mind, however, describes other objects and its states are about the states of other objects. A material object’s properties are always about that object. This property of the mind is sometimes called intentionality or aboutness by which the mind describes other objects or minds; the reference constitutes knowledge or belief about the world. Material objects cannot have referential properties.

Second, the mind perceives and represents meanings in object collections that could not be reduced to individual objects. An example of this collective behavior is the ability to read a book and derive meanings beyond the measurements of the shapes or sizes of the squiggles in the book. Or the ability to understand that some frequencies collectively form a musical composition. Meanings are defined in object collections rather than in individual objects. While individual objects have physical properties, object collections have meanings. Since these meanings arise only in collections, and cannot be attributed to individual objects, they cannot be reduced to individual objects.

The idea, therefore, that there is a parallel between the fluidity of water and the mind is flawed because intentionality requires one object referring to another, and contextuality represents how an object acquires meanings in relation to other objects. The correct parallel between the mind and water would be if a pitcher of water was used as a pictorial representation of the ocean (intentionality) or if water was used a symbolic representation of a changing world in distinction to a stone which would symbolize permanence (contextuality).

Two Fundamental Problems in Atomic Theory

The problem in the mind-body reductionist argument, however, does not end with the issue of parallels between mind and fluidity. The problem is also that the argument assumes water’s fluidity to be entirely due to the water molecules. To see how water molecules should be understood in relation to the observed fluidity, let us take a short detour into understanding the basic differences between quantum and classical physics, at the level of theories. There are two fundamental differences between classical and quantum physics, which undermine the idea that water’s fluidity is a consequence of the properties inherent in individual water molecules.

First, in quantum theory, there isn’t a fixed set of atoms or molecules that exists prior to a measurement or observation (as was the case in classical physics, where particles detected during observation were the particles that existed prior to that observation). Rather, quantum theory describes an ensemble or collection which can be divided into parts in many ways—each represented by a different eigenfunction basis. In the case of water, atomic theory implies that the total amount of matter or energy could be divided into many different sets of molecules, depending on the specific type of observation being performed. The theory suggests that only the ensemble is real prior to the observation, while the molecules are ‘created’ by the observation setup. The idea, therefore, that fluidity is a consequence of molecules is false, because the molecules don’t exist unless observed, although fluidity (as an ensemble) can be said to exist.

Second, we cannot assert that different molecules in water exist at the same time because these molecules are eigenfunctions which can only be observed one after the other. In classical physics, objects in an ensemble can be simultaneously observed and hence they can be said to exist simultaneously. This leads to the idea that all particles are real even prior to the act of scientific observation. Since in quantum theory these particles can never be observed simultaneously, they can’t be said to exist simultaneously and hence fluidity cannot be explained as a consequence of many molecules because the atomic theory forbids us from assuming that all molecules exist simultaneously.

The idea, therefore, that water is made up of water molecules whose existence our experimental measurement reveals is inconsistent with quantum theory. The molecules are not only created during observation, they are also created one after another. The type of molecules created during observation depends on the experimental setup (the eigenfunction basis) and can be controlled by the observer. However, the order in which these molecules are created cannot be controlled (and hence cannot be predicted) in current theory.

Mind and Quantum Theory

The fact that the mind sees meanings in collections and the fact that, in quantum theory, the collection is more real than the parts can be used to connect the two: the connection is that the quantum ensemble represents meanings, which is then used to create individual objects. I have discussed this connection in my book Quantum Meaning, which interprets quantum theory as a theory of symbols rather than of objects. The ensemble is the meaning, as it exists prior to being expressed during an experiment. The order of the eigenfunctions represents the serialization of the meaning in an expression of that meaning, as in the case of a sentence that verbalizes some concepts.

This view of quantum theory upstages classically held ideas about matter including the notion of independent objects, reductionism, and even the realism of classical objects. Now, meaning is real and is converted into objects (symbols) during observation; this conversion appears as space-time events, quite like we might express (and serialize) the meanings in our minds into words that form a sentence.

Since events (or words) are produced from meanings, they are not independent. Like we can express a meaning through many different words, but not arbitrary words, there is freedom in measuring reality although not arbitrariness in reality. The meaning in a symbol depends on the other symbols, which are all given meaning collectively. Each symbol has physical properties, which are measured in quantum theory as frequency, phase and amplitude of a wave. But the same wave can also express meanings, quite like ordinary sounds denote meanings.

The crucial difference effected by this view of atoms is that the causality is given not by the frequency, phase and amplitude of the wave, but by the meaning represented by that wave. The same sound can denote different meanings in different collections, so the physical properties of the individual particle underdetermine the meaning. Since quantum theory only describes physical properties, it is incomplete. To complete quantum theory, we would have to describe the quantum waves as symbols of meanings. A semantic view of quantum objects allows us to reinterpret quantum observables as representations of contextuality and intentionality—as fundamental properties that can exist even within matter, and not just in the mind. I will refer the curious reader to the details in the book Quantum Meaning.

Do We Need the Mind?

The quantum reinterpretation, however, raises an important question: If matter has contextual and intentional properties, then why do we need the mind? Can we not say that contextuality and intentionality in matter itself create the mind?

The problem is that while information can be represented in matter, it cannot be created by matter. The problem of information (when information is a fundamental property of nature) requires a basic shift in our thinking because while matter (or energy) is always perceivable, information can exist as ideas which are not perceivable. Indeed, it is well-known that ideas are routinely converted into objects. This fact is widely recognized in mathematics as the immateriality of numbers, and other concepts such as distance and duration.

Ideas cannot be reduced to objects because ideas transcend objects and are found in many objects. A reductionist program can study objects, but how does it study meanings in many objects? We have to recognize that there is something that doesn’t reduce to the individual objects.

By writing a book, the ideas in the author’s mind are represented in the book. Similarly, as the books are printed many times over, the author’s mind is not duplicated many times, although the instantiation of the ideas are multiplied. The instance is different from the idea. Science studies these instances or objects, but it discards the ideas. It doesn’t realize that there is something in the instance, that is not limited to that instance because the same idea exists in many instances. Since information can exist in many instances, the instances are physical, and the idea is conceptual. The idea has a reality, but it is a different kind of reality than the individual things.

The Connection to Vedic Philosophy

The above semantic view of nature and its connection to quantum theory has a basis in Vedic philosophy which recognizes two kinds of matter—gross and subtle. Gross matter encodes information while subtle matter is that information. To encode information, the abstract information is converted into contingent information. Therefore, even gross matter is information, although it has been elaborated. For instance, the idea of a table can be elaborated into a form with color, shape, size, etc., which are also different kinds of information.

The subtle matter is abstract ideas and the gross matter is contingent ideas. Their interaction is not one between two kinds of substances — mind and body — but between a single type of reality (information) that has many different forms (abstract and contingent).

The treatment of matter as symbols of information is indicated by problems of indeterminism, inconsistency and incompleteness in science. When these problems are solved by a revision to the materialist view, the mind-body separation will not exist, and hence reduction will be unnecessary. This path represents a positive development in science, as it expands science to include a scientific study of the mind.

Reason and Faith

Published Date: 2014-11-15

In the Shrīmad Bhagavatam, a Vedic literature widely regarded as the culmination of Vedanta (which is in itself considered the conclusion of all knowledge), Sage Kapila elaborates the Sāñkhya theory of material nature to his mother Devahuti and concludes (SB 3.32.32):

Philosophical research culminates in understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead. After achieving this understanding, when one becomes free from the material modes of nature, he attains the stage of devotional service. Either by devotional service directly or by philosophical research, one has to find the same destination, which is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

This is a remarkable conclusion, because no serious scientist today believes they will discover God through an analysis of material nature. In fact, no one believes that by understanding the real laws of nature, we can be free of those laws.

We go to the university to learn about the laws of nature, not to become free of them. The above verse can thus be paraphrased as the following scientific proposition: A true understanding of the laws of nature will free you from the laws, or the cycle of cause and effect.

The scientific notion that the laws of nature apply to everything in the universe is false in the Vedic view. The laws of nature can be overcome by those who truly know the laws. The laws hold sway over you only so long as you are ignorant of the laws. This freedom from the laws of nature is therefore the real (and unstated) goal of all knowledge.

By formulating laws that cannot be overcome and treating these as the final state of affairs in nature, science has created the illusion that we are here produced and bound by the laws of nature, incapable of getting out of them.

The real difference between science and religion is that the former accepts our current predicament as the final state of affairs while the latter wants to transcend this predicament. Science concludes that we yearn to know reality only to find out how it binds us. Religion concludes that we yearn to know reality to transcend it.

Before they differ in their ideas, science and religion differ in their values. The shift in our thinking cannot arise only from a shift in the theories; the shift also needs people who would value those ideas. While the ideas can be rationally understood and demonstrated to be superior, the values simply have to be chosen. This requires us to answer the question: Do we want to transcend our current predicament?

The acquisition of true knowledge serves not merely to satisfy the intellectual curiosity about the nature of reality. True jnana, the Sanskrit for knowledge, also has transcendence as the need underlying its search. That need makes the search for jnana a far greater personal prerogative than the satisfaction of intellectual curiosities.

In the Vedic view, one acquires knowledge because knowledge will set you free. By knowing the laws of nature, you can transcend the laws. In fact, the knowledge of the laws is incomplete unless you have transcended them. By that standard, the knowledge of natural laws in current science is incomplete; science only tells us how we can use the laws, but not how we can get out of them.

The central goal for both science and religion is the same according to Vedic philosophy—transcending the laws of nature. This goal can be achieved through devotion (bhakti) or through reason (jnana). Science and religion therefore differ in their methods but have a common goal.

Of course, the ability to transcend the laws of nature itself implies a different notion about the laws. The laws of nature cannot be mechanical forces. They must rather be laws of meaning and choice. Such laws entail a different notion of matter and its laws. This notion about natural laws is useful scientifically in so far as science is defined as the manipulation of matter. But this notion is also relevant to the ultimate goals of transcending the laws of nature.

Manipulating matter and transcending matter seem two contradictory goals today. These instead belong to a continuum in Vedic philosophy.

The Difference Between

Matter and Spirit

Published Date: 2014-11-15

Descartes created the mind-body divide and claimed these to be two different substances—the extended substance (res extensa) and the thinking substance (res cogitans). However, with the progress in science (and attempts to subsume thinking under matter), the distinction between mind and body gets hazier by the day. What is the difference between matter and spirit, if any at all?

Dualism in Western and Vedic Philosophies

Vedic texts describe two kinds of creations—material and spiritual. The material creation is said to be made from duality while the spiritual creation is said to be non-dual. The term duality or dualism, in this context, needs some clarification because the divide between matter and spirit in Vedic philosophy is different from the divide between mind and body in Western philosophy. In Western philosophy the mind-body divide is equated with spirit-matter divide. In Vedic philosophy, both mind and body can be material or spiritual. The mind itself therefore does not equate to spirit.

By dualism, Vedic texts mean that everything in the material creation is built from distinctions or oppositions. For instance, there is heat only because there is cold, there is sweetness only because there is bitterness, and there is dark only because there is light. Indeed, if you touch an object and call it ‘hot’, it is only because your hand is relatively ‘cold’. The universe of distinct objects would not exist if the distinctions between them did not.

This idea of object distinctness is different from that used in current science, where locations in space and time are a priori distinct and hence the objects at those locations are also a priori distinct. In Sāñkhya philosophy, however, the distinctness of locations and objects is created by dividing an undivided or unmanifest existence through distinctions. The consequence of this shift in thinking is that scientific theories cannot describe single isolated objects; they must always describe collections of objects, the smallest collection comprising only two objects.

Dualism and Mathematical Logic

A direct consequence of dualism is that the universe is never consistent because it comprises opposite types of entities. The universe can however be complete through a revision in the scientific foundations if these foundations are based on distinctions rather than objects. The completeness would follow from the fact that all possible objects in the universe can be constructed from some fundamental distinctions. Pockets of this universe can also be coherent (although not consistent) if similar types are aggregated in different parts of the universe. Dualism therefore entails a shift from consistency and completeness to coherence and completeness.

In a consistent and complete universe, proof entails truth.