[Advaita-l] Modern Science and Vedanta

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Rajaram:

Why traditionalists fear science per say has always puzzled me.  Only think I have been able to asses is that most of them have not studied science and thus refuse to accept in the fear that their view point may get shaken.

Science is wonderfully described in GaNesha atharva sheerSha.

sarvaM jaagaadidaM tvatto jaayate
sarvaM jagadidaM vtattashTati
satvam jagadidam vtayi layameShyatii
sarvaM jagadidaM vayo pratyetii

How close is this to Hypothesis (based upon existence knowledge), Experimental Evidence (observations), conclusion and then repeating this cycle for arriving at the Hypothesis that can be validated.  Here everything is pratyaksha.  All depends on how the individual can become "ONE" with the knowledge.  Is this not what we say "R^itaM vacmi satyaM vacami."

Here R^ita also meanms truth and satya also means truth.  Why "TWO Truths" are said has very important application, we all know that there cannot be more than one truth.

R^ita - Observed Truth  and satya - absolute truth.

So, one observes and then confirms it.

I tend to look at this as Weight and Mass


If I weigh 100 lbs on the Earth I would weigh only 20 lbs on the Moon. in both cases observed truth is true and are directly dependent on the gravity in two different places.

Therefore, one can say that R^ita is  WEIGHT
satya is MASS


Hope this illustrates the point how pour ancestors may have dealt with their observational evidence.

I do not agree with the second pint you have mentioned.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Few bad points of modern science:
	* It is not possible to accept subjective experiences (e.g. vision of a divine being)
	* It is not possible to accept non-repeatable events (e.g. astrological prediction that may work sometime but not always) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Why should one accept anon-reproducible observation.  Though such observation do get recorded in Medicine and scientists re-visit them when they occur again.


Once, I was asked what is my religion.

I told that  "My religion is science and I do my science religiously."

In science I believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and for this reason science constantly tries to improve their measurement techniques for detecting smallest possible amount accurately.

Example:  Atomic absorption and ICP gives the ability to measure Arsenic at 1 ppm, where as ICP-MS one can detect 0.1 ppb. 


On the point of Astronomy and astrology I have major issues on the way it has been and is being practiced..

I am not an expert in this area but Dr. Sunil Bhattacharya and others can deliberate this point in more precise manner.  I only know that no two astrologers  agree on anything the other person is saying.  This often dependent on various nakshtra calculations and the time of birth of the person.

a. How do I we know that the clock my dad was using at time of my birth was accurate?
b. If this is wrong then everything about the patrika will be wrong.
c. If one refers to various panchanga's available in India the that really sends my head spinning.  Tilak Panchang and Date's Panchang and Rajandekar's panmchang all major festivals occur at different times sometimes it varies by by a month. Do you really want to believe this imperial shady approximations and call it "jotiShya vij~naana"?

If they say it is all approximate then I have problem is accepting that point of view.  Some of the resent discussions on the subject of Mahabharat Date between so called scholars are nothing short of profane insulting language. Finally, I started using the spam filter for avoiding clutter in  my INBOX.


Best regards,

Dr. Yadu



________________________________
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Dr. Yadu Moharir <ymoharir at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Modern Science and Vedanta


The philosophy of modern science is perhaps closest to vaisheshikas? There is a lot of intelligent work done in modern science to establish objective knowledge and avoid all subjective experiences. There are merits and demerits with the approach. It would be good to discuss that from the point of view of how our acharyas dealt with this. 
 
Few good points of modern science:
 
	* We have to test an hypothesis of how things work and upgrade it to a theory after we have "sufficient" evidence and no evidence to the contrary. This separates knowledge from "opinions" and "beliefs". 
	* A theory should be "falsifiable" meaning that it is testable. This allows you to verify empirically. 
	* A mathematical theory should be based on deductive or inductive logic - so builds on data as a founddation and valid as long as underlying assumptions are valid . This allows you to speculate about unseen entities. 
Few bad points of modern science:
 
	* It is not possible to accept subjective experiences (e.g. vision of a divine being)
	* It is not possible to accept non-repeatable events (e.g. astrological prediction that may work sometime but not always) 
The "bad points" are not aimed at removing delusions and intentional cheating but nevertheless limit knowledge.