Reality: Is it Personal or Impersonal or both?
Bhakti Madhava Puri
We have already pointed out that scientific observation proves that life comes from life, while Darwin 's claims have never been substantiated by any scientific evidence.[1] More evidence is being accumulated every day that substantiates the fact that life is a non-material principle that cannot be explained away in terms of matter and energy. We are compiling that evidence and, from time to time, presenting some of it here in this list. We will establish a separate website to archive all this scientific evidence in order to assist in the research of any theistic scientist who would like to take up this service.
To ignore Darwin is simply to ignore the major atheistic argument that is influencing the youth and older generation today. First we must show scientifically that Darwin is wrong. Then the question of God becomes significant for the materialistic scientists. We are concerned with them because they are influencing the whole society toward godlessness. Everyone knows what Richard Dawkins, and others are doing in this regard.[2] And this is being propagated in the schools, with the result that students are losing their faith due to this teaching. So it must be stopped, and genuine science must be taught that will encourage faith in God.
To understand God is not difficult. Before the age of Darwinism, everyone was able to understand God throughout the whole history of human civilization. The greatest philosophers and sages all understood God, and the common people also easily understood God. Our entire modern civilization, East and West, arose on the basis of faith in God. Civilizations do not arise and are not preserved for thousands of years merely on the basis of primitive superstitions. This is shallow mindedness to barbarian proportions. Mankind is not stupid. Human beings have always had reason, and the greatest rationalists in human history have all concerned themselves with the existence and central importance of God. Modern civilization, government and science as we know it would not have existed without this fundamental foundation rooted in God. Only an uneducated brute who had not studied history and the great literature and philosophies of the world would be ignorant of this fact.
It is the greatest arrogance to think that those great philosophers who lived before us were all unscientific and superstitious fellows who could not understand the natural reality in front of them. Rather, we should be more modest and realize that the modern conception of scientific materialism has only existed for less than 300 years, and already it is showing signs of decay and degradation in society and the environment.[3]. Despite whatever advances have been made by modern science, we have all experienced that it has also created disastrous consequences for Mankind and the Earth. What was preserved by thousands of years of a faithful humanity, is being destroyed by the myopic and godless impersonalist vision of materialistic science.
But this does not mean that science is itself to blame. Science was gloriously practiced for hundreds of years by the previous civilizations in India . The evidence for this in writings and in archeological finds is quite conclusive on this point. There has never been a problem of doing science on the basis of a theistic conception of reality. And there is no problem with doing science on a theistic basis today. Rather, it will lead to a further advance of science, beyond what the materialistic viewpoint can produce, because it is based on a proper understanding of the personal nature of reality - that includes both the Science and Scientist. Thus our publication bears this name. http://scienceandscientist.org
In conclusion, we have to consider this one point: Is Reality personal or impersonal?
We look out around us and we see substantial things: mountains, trees, stones, bodies, etc. The naive view of the world sees only objects or bodies. Basically, it sees only the World. But, as we have already mentioned in previous post [1], what about the seer? The subjective seer is also part of the picture; he/she is also part of the world. The substantial world is not the only reality. There is also the subjective knower, the soul, who is a vital part of reality, and not only ourselves, but all the other subjective beings in the world, including man, animal, and other living creatures.
Here the importance of understanding that Darwin is right or wrong comes in the picture. If Darwin is accepted, then Reality is impersonal because all life is reduced to matter according to that theory. If Darwin is wrong, then Life is an irreducible principle of reality, and reality itself is subjective Life, as much as objective substance or matter.
So whether Darwin is right or wrong will determine our most fundamental understanding of Reality: is it Personal or Impersonal.
If Reality is fundamentally Personal, then Life is an irreducible feature of Reality. Where there is Life there is consciousness, thought and personality or person. This elemental consciousness may appear covered or revealed to more or less degree, leading to the display or manifestation of the various life forms or creatures in creation.
The infinitesimal consciousness of the living entities, or souls, implies that they must exist in a universal consciousness, which we may call Brahman or God, or the spiritual side of Reality. There is also a science corresponding to that spiritual side of Reality, and there we can learn about the differentiation within the spiritual world, and the more exact understanding of the Personality of Godhead as described by the saints and sages of the Vedas, etc. The science of God must also be learned, and the suggestion that we make a systematic study of the Bhagavad-gita, and other basic scriptures is essential. But this does not mean that we can neglect the negative side that is covering the personalistic nature of Reality that leads to a scientific understanding of God.
So the basic principles are laid out here:
1. We must answer the question: Is Reality personal or impersonal or both?
2. We observe both subjects and objects in the world, and they must exist within a super-subject or God.
3. Therefore, Reality consists not only of the world, but also souls, or conscious observers, and God. Thus Reality is both personal and impersonal.
4. The universal Person or God is the foundation and source of the World and souls.
5. Thus all matter and life comes from God.
6. How matter or the world comes from God has to be understood through scientific and philosophical thought - i.e. diving deep into reality. In this way one has to search out the source and ground upon which everything depends - the Divine Personality of Godhead.
[1] BM Puri, my post to this list on 1/19/2010, and similar posts.
[2] James Shapiro of Fermilabs in a recent (Jan 22, 2010) lecture said: Genes are not in the driver’s seat of life, Shapiro urged; rather, the organism is. Biology needs to understand how organisms intelligently modify their genomes in response to challenges. Genetic change is not random, but controlled. Shapiro repeatedly contrasted his ideas with neo-Darwinism, and had nothing but scorn for Richard Dawkins, whom he said “lives in a world of fantasy.” Richard Dawkins is also the recent author of books like "The God Delusion."
[3] Leo Marx, (1992). Environmental degradation and the ambiguous social role of science and technology, Journal of the History of Biology, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Vol. 25 (3), pp. 449-468.
Bhakti Madhava Puri
Dear Panchan Pramanik,
You sent this list an interesting challenge to some of the points in my post on the above mentioned topic in the subject line. Unfortunately the formatting did not show properly the difference between my statements and your critique. For that reason I am posting it here, along with my replies in a way that the content hopefully appears more clearly.
You wrote:
>
Dear Sir why are you misleading the truth scientific findings,
>
Quoting me from my previous post:
>>
We have already pointed out that scientific observation proves that life comes from life, while Darwin 's claims have never been substantiated by any scientific evidence.[1]"
>>
You commented:
>
The reference 1 is your opinion . What Darwin showed a trend of changes of anatomy and physiology of life species through time (evolution ). He could not answer rightly the cause of this gradual changes - i.e formation of higher animal from single cell . All the studies are substantiated from fossils ( Palenteological studies ).You better request biology department of many of the eminent universities like University of London , Harvard University and others .Now also some of their studies are coming in TV. organised by London University .
It is very sarcastic to find that most of the religion is against Darwin . Similar situation happened against Galileo- now no body dares to challenge him because of NASA.
>
My reply:
That life comes from life is not my opinion. It is an observed fact of everyday life. The opinion of Darwinists is that life comes from matter, and this is not an experimentally verified fact, but a mere conjecture. If someone says, “The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West” would you claim that to be an opinion? It is observed in everyday life. Likewise, if someone said, “The Sun rises in the West and sets in the East” we would immediately expect that person to be confused or insane. Yet, when someone claims against the daily observed truth that life comes froms life, and proclaims that life comes from matter, we call him a “great scientist!” Thus we must conclude this so-called great scientist, and the people calling him that, are both confused or insane. This is the unhappy fact today.
You want to claim that Darwin merely “showed a trend of changes of anatomy etc.” But this is not a fact, and Darwinists today accept that the theory of evolution also involves abiogenisis, i.e the evolution of matter into life forms. Darwin, himself, clearly held this opinion. In a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker (1871), on the possibility of a chemical origin for life, it is well-known that Darwin wrote:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Charles Darwin)
Then you claimed that, "All the studies [on evolution] are substantiated from fossils (Palenteological studies).."
If this is so, then why is the Cambrian Explosion and Burgess Shale Formation such a mystery to paleontologists, who find the sudden appearance of most of the major phyla of animals all present at once, without any trace of predecessor fossils. These fossil beds are estimated to be about 530 million years old. And many of the phyla found there are present on the Earth even today. This is hardly to be considered evidence FOR evolution. Rather, for any objective scientist it would be conclusive evidence AGAINST evolution. Yet why do Harvard and others market this type of hype? How many of their grants come from institutions that have a stake in maintaining the materialistic viewpoint of evolution, and any number of other similar factors. It is hardly indicative of an objective and impartial search for the truth. If that were the case, both sides of the question would receive equal attention and funding. But that is most definitely not the case, in spite of the evidence against evolution.
When I wrote:
>>
More evidence is being accumulated every day that substantiates the fact that life is a non-material principle that cannot be explained away in terms of matter and energy. We are compiling that evidence and, from time to time, presenting some of it here in this list. We will establish a separate website to archive all this scientific evidence in order to assist in the research of any theistic scientist who would like to take up this service.
>>
You replied:
>
[if] Life is [a] non material thing then why this cellular mechanism is needed by God . He could make life in rock or stone . Conscious field ( so called Chetan ) needs it and likes to follow a process of improvement . Please go thorough thew writings of Rishi Aurobindo.
>
My response:
Anyone can take a single cell and put it into a sterile test tube with all the necessary ingredients to sustain its life. If you then puncture that cell with a sterile needle, the contents of the cell will pour out into the solution. Even if you wait for hundreds of years, life will not be generated from those original biochemicals of the cell. This tells us that life is not simply cellular in nature. The life principle is the apriori formative cause of the cell or the body of any multi-cellular creature. We can see this in action by watching any seed or egg or embryonic zygote go through its development to maturity. Science cannot explain this development by simple reference to chemical activity. Much advanced research is being done today to verify this simple fact. [See the recent post on this list referring to Ben-Jacob's research.]
The scriptures (such as Bhagavad-gita) refer to para prakriti, a principle of life that is superior to matter (prakriti), as well as to the controlling energy of God that directs the activities of matter. It also explains that the living entity is different from its body. The Gita explains this very simply by pointing out that in one lifetime the soul continually changes bodies in going from childhood, to youth, to old age. Scientists also confirm that the cells in the body are in a constant process (metabolism) of construction, maintenance and destruction. Then how can the self, who maintains a single identity throughout his life, be considered identical with the changing cells or body?
Arubindo may be held in high regard by popular opinion, but we do not accept his authority in these matters. According to Gita, the material body is the source of birth, death, old age and disease (“janma mrithu jaravyadhi”). The life principle or atma is “sat-cit-ananda” by its original nature. Then how can he say that life “likes” the material body? This is a complete misunderstanding of proper spiritual knowledge. Such “liking” of material nature is called Maya in the scriptures - illusion that arises from ignorance.
Next, you quote me again,
>>
To ignore Darwin is simply to ignore the major atheistic argument that is influencing the youth and older generation today. First we must show scientifically that Darwin is wrong. Then the question of God becomes significant for the materialistic scientists. We are concerned with them because they are influencing the whole society toward godlessness. Everyone knows what Richard Dawkins, and others are doing in this regard.[2] And this is being propagated in the schools, with the result that students are losing their faith due to this teaching. So it must be stopped, and genuine science must be taught that will encourage faith in God.
>>
You replied:
>
It is an excellent deduction - Dawkins is one of the successor . I have gone through his writing . It is full of assumptions . It is not accepted by any of the eminent scientist of the world .. He has become famous for his book - but unfortunately it is read in any course of evolution- theory in any part of the world . In this respect you are really wise .
I feel you are competent to deny Darwin’s findings and present findings of evolutionist . Why do you not write a thesis and submit in international journal -which may help you to substantiate your theory and people will learn that Darwin is totally bogus.
>
My response:
There are many well qualified scientists who write books and journal articles confronting the false arguments of Darwin and his votaries. I am a retired scientist and a sannyasi, so it is not among my duties to engage in such activities. I leave that to those who are practicing scientists in their respective fields of expertise. My aim is only to give spiritual guidance and encouragement to such persons so that they may take up the task at hand, and not be fooled into complacent acceptance of false doctrines in the name of science that impede spiritual progress. I see the proper scientific understanding of the origin of life as essential to the spiritual development of humanity at large especially in this modern age of materialistic science. This is the objective we had in starting this list for scientists and others who are interested in this vital topic.
Then you quoted me again, I will give just the last part of that quote:
>>
But this does not mean that science is itself to blame. Science was gloriously practiced for hundreds of years by the previous civilizations in India . The evidence for this in writings and in archeological finds is quite conclusive on this point. There has never been a problem of doing science on the basis of a theistic conception of reality. And there is no problem with doing science on a theistic basis today. Rather, it will lead to a further advance of science, beyond what the materialistic viewpoint can produce, because it is based on a proper understanding of the personal nature of reality - that includes both the Science and Scientist. Thus our publication bears this name. http://scienceandscientist.org
>>
You replied:
>
Again you are misleading us . Are all philosophers denied material world? Can you ignore electricity , or medicine or your costly computer? Religion was always against science - cause is very simple . Science can show you atom , molecule - you cannot show any thing.
Science has given relief in many areas of civilization . Can you solve all these by chanting some holy name . This is why so many religion came and many of them vanished .
In India it is widely accepted that Swami Vivekanada and Rishi Aurobinda are two vast learned spiritualist who were not Unicorn .
Reality is personal or impersonal - this question have been rightly answered by them . These great men had realization . They knew what is God . I feel everybody should read their writtings because they knew what is GOD . They rightly explained why evolution is needed by nature or God.
>
My response:
No philosopher in his right mind would deny the existence of the material world, although there are some misguided ones who would try to convince others that it is all an illusion. We are certainly not denying the existence of the material world. And the scriptures do not deny its existence either.
If you have a material conception of reality, you can see only matter. Then what about those who have a spiritual conception of reality? What do they see? Just as the materialist sees matter, the spiritually awakened soul sees God. There is no difficulty for the devotee to see his Lord everywhere. As it is described in the scriptures: “atmavan manyate jagat” - as you are, so you see the world. As the supreme Lord Krishna states in the Gita, “bhaktya mam abhijananti” – “I can be known by devotion.” Thus there is no problem in seeing God for one who is properly qualified and purified of the material conception of life.
Aurobindo and Vivekananda may not be Unicorns, but they are certainly Monists – reducing everything to one, like the single horn of the unicorn. We reject the monist viewpoint of reality as abstractly one-sided. Rather, we find the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to be more rational. He taught the principle of “achintya bedha bedha tattva” - difference and non-difference together. Monist philosophers are under a misconception, for they cannot explain how differentiated personalities and varieties come from non-differentiated impersonal substance.
We are not interested in reading Aurobindo and Vivekananda. If you want to present a particular viewpoint of theirs we are interested in arguing their ideas. In fact, we find their message to be fundamentally lacking in proper understanding and substance. Since this list is dedicated to discussion of the relation of science to religion, unless you have a specific point in reference to a philosopher or rishi, general prosylitizing of sectarian preferences will not be posted here to avoid divergence from our main topic of concern. I have already mentioned in this post, that if the aforementioned gentlemen accept the theory of evolution then we are showing that they, along with materialistic scientists, are misguided in their understanding of scientific evidence, scriptural conclusions and ontological reality.
Finally, your claim that "religion was always against science" shows a complete lack of any understanding of what has transpired in this list, and a complete lack of knowledge of the history of science, or of the Vedas. If this is what you have to show for your enlightenment by Aurobindo and Vivekananda, then you show them to be extremely poor teachers.