Tattva

The intent of this essay is to delineate the use of scientific method in core Sanatana Dharma. By core  Sanatana Dharma I mean the practices that are encapsulated in source texts such as the Vedas. I have borrowed the thread of argument from the integral philosopher Ken Wilber (1).

I am going to make a statement:  Sanatana Dharma is scientific. The spiritual techniques under the umbrella of Sanatana Dharma follow the strict definition of science. The whole purpose of this essay is to prove this.

Such a proof requires me to clarify a few things. I say ‘Sanatana Dharma  is scientific.’ This means I must explain the fundamentals of scientific method. I must also furnish proof that  Sanatana Dharma follows these fundamentals. Obviously to furnish such a proof for all the practices termed Sanatana Dharma would be impossible in one essay or even in one lifetime (those cognizant with their sheer variety, breadth and all-encompassing nature will appreciate this fully)! However to attempt a theoretical proof, accompanied by an illustration for some of the broad paths in Sanatana Dharma, is what is going to be attempted here.

Scientific method can be divided into three distinct strands. A scientific method is used to solve any problem the investigator is interested in. Now let us say we are interested in the problem ‘What are the features of human red blood cells (erythrocytes)?’ To scientifically answer this question, we must do the following:

1. Postulate an injunction (rule) that helps us see the features of red blood cells.
2. Follow the injunction and gather empirical evidence.
3. Check our gathered empirical evidence with a community of the adequate, i.e. people who have performed steps 1 and 2. This is the check against any contrary evidence being available (falsifiability) (2).

So, for the purpose of answering our question, we do the following:

1. Postulate injunction: Procure a microscope; also enlist the aid of a biologist familiar with the features of human red blood cells, to help interpret what we see with the microscope.
2. Follow the injunction; look through the microscope, and record our empirical evidence; if possible get the biologist to look through the microscope himself/herself.
3. Check with other people who have viewed human red blood cells through a microscope, and make sure that there is no one out there whose empirical evidence runs contrary to our own.

Having performed all three steps with due diligence, we can say we have scientifically answered the question ‘What are the features of human red blood cells (erythrocytes)?’

Now, in the above scientific method, there is no stipulation anywhere that the objects on which the method is performed must be ‘matter’. What is it that we perceive as matter? Something that our senses tell us has a physical presence. Now why are the frequencies that are perceptible to the human sensory apparatus sacrosanct in any way? Why are those things that we can sense (see, hear, taste, smell, touch) any more real than something we cannot? We know that infra-red radiation exists, yet we cannot sense it. This does not make it any more real, and moreover not being able to sense it does not make it any less worthy an object of scientific endeavor.

The key idea I want to express through this earlier paragraph is- any question the researcher asks, can be answered using the three strands of scientific method. Of course the answer may not be what we want. Even ‘there is no answer’ or ‘we cannot currently address this question’ are answers.

Now, I ask a question in the spirit of the ancient Vedic Rishis: ‘What is my true nature?’ Recognizing that this is open ended, and that to explore such a question in the context of a specific path would make the three strands of scientific method more intelligible, I modify the question to ‘Is it possible to cognize one’s true nature by using a specific method delineated in the  Vedic texts?’

Let us apply the three strands of science to this modified question.

1. Postulate an injunction that helps ascertain our true nature. What is meant by true nature? What exactly do we seek to fathom here? One definition of true nature could be - that experience of yourself when you experience fullness, completeness, wholeness? Something is true if it is never false. Hence, one’s true nature must always be true. We have the consensus opinion of many spiritual masters that when established in our true   nature, we experience a feeling of wholeness, completeness, fulfillment. There is no violation of scientific method in accepting a consensus definition of a term from a community of the adequate (people who have already scientifically investigated what one seeks to scientifically investigate). Hence, we seek now to postulate an injunction that helps establish us in an experience of wholeness, completeness, fulfillment. Again, the community of the adequate informs us that one way in which this can be done is by focusing one’s attention on the brow center (Ajna Chakra). Hence our injunction is: Focus your attention or awareness systematically and unremittingly on the brow center until you
experience wholeness.

2. Follow the injunction. The injunction asks us to focus our attention on the brow center, so we do this. This must be done by each researcher according to his/her own capacity. Just as listing out the features of human red blood cells may not be done at one sitting, so also, it may not be possible to fathom one’s true nature in one session of being aware of one’s brow center. However, the researcher systematically schedules this experiment, and each time focuses attention on the brow center and each time records the results. Has wholeness been achieved? Yes/No? What was experienced as a result of the experiment?

3. Next, the researcher checks with a community of the adequate. Find other people who have centered their attention on the brow center. Compare your results with theirs, and look for a case where wholeness has not been achieved by a researcher who has systematically and unremittingly centered their awareness on their brow center. This would be falsifiability check.

It will be found that in totality, Vedic literature simply states either many different injunctions, or many different sets of empirical evidence. For instance, each of the eleven principal  Upanishads are sets of injunctions along with the empirical evidence in their favor. If the practitioner/researcher is serious about scientific enquiry in this regard, then one way forward would be to take up one Upanishad and practice the injunction therein with due diligence, and then compare notes with the  Upanishad itself, and with a community of the adequate if one is not satisfied. Given the constraints of time and space, I cannot exhaustively prove that each and every statement of the Vedas follows the three strands of science. However, I do invite the reader to perform such tests themselves. I have tried it in the case of some of the principal  Upanishads, and their teachings conform to scientific method. Similarly, many teachings from the  Vijnana Bhairava Tantra (a portion of the Shiva Rudrayaamala Tantra (3)) conform to scientific method. This text includes 112 different techniques (injunctions!) to achieve transcendence that were taught by Shiva to Parvati. The different methods delineated in the  Bhagavad Gita (4) conform to scientific method, and all corroboration of this is available to anyone who reads about its effect on different people through history. Authoritatively saying that the entire content of these texts conforms to scientific method is the work of several lifetimes. This does not weaken our thesis in any way, since the scientific validity of Vedic teachings has been affirmed by consensus. However, if the nature of the researcher is such that he/she accepts only those teachings that one has proved himself/herself, then the way forward is this. Choose those portions of Vedic literature that you want to test for scientific rigor. Then apply the three strands of science to these portions. Do not be surprised if you spend your whole lifetime doing this. A researcher who is not sincere, for instance, will find his efforts frustrated for years on end. A consciously sincere researcher may not have the innate ability to delve into spiritual enquiry immediately, and may take years to follow the postulated injunctions due to their state of being.

Once you have applied the three strands of science to the portions of Vedic literature that attract you, you can authoritatively say – ‘these portions of the Vedas I have personally affirmed as being scientific.’

References
1.  Wilber K. (2005) Spirituality and three strands of deep science (talk available
online at http://in.integralinstitute.org/live/view_leadership.aspx)
2.  Popper K. R. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery Routledge Publishers.
3.  Author unknown (Vedic antiquity: Date unknown) Shiva Rudrayaamala Tantra.
4.  Vyaasa V. (~5000 BCE) Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

Jayant Avva is a PhD student working in the Case Complex Systems Biology Center at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

 Email This Post

 

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 10th, 2010 at 12:11 am and is filed under Spirituality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.