Comparative Studies of Science and Vedanta

Comparative Analysis of Science and Vedanta

Delivered on 09 December 2024
Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Abstract

This analysis examines the relationship between Science and Vedanta through the perspectives of ontology, epistemology, the view of the Self and the world, theories of creation, the ultimate goal of life, the utility of attaining that goal, notable exemplars in each field, and whether these two fields coexist harmoniously or conflict discordantly.

In terms of Ontology, science perceives reality as material and anything observable, while Vedanta asserts it is immaterial and transcends sensory perception. Their Epistemologies also differ significantly: science depends on empirical evidence, experimentation, and logical reasoning, whereas Vedanta prioritizes introspective inquiry, scriptural wisdom, and direct experiential realization.

The Self, in science, is a biological-cognitive entity, but in Vedanta, it is the eternal Ātman, distinct from the transient body-mind. Science sees the world as physical and governed by natural laws; Vedanta considers it an illusory projection (Māyā) over the reality (Brahman).

The Goals of Life further contrast: science seeks mastery and understanding of the material universe, while Vedanta aspires to liberation (moksha) from attachment to the material world through Self-realization. Their practices reflect these divergent aims, with science relying on empirical and experimental methods and Vedanta employing disciplines such as meditation, worship, self-inquiry and selfless service.

In terms of Utility, science enhances material progress, innovation, and practical comfort, while Vedanta offers spiritual fulfillment, inner peace, and ultimate freedom from suffering. In conclusion it can be shown that both science and Vedanta can coexist harmoniously, not just in  the society but also within an individual, by focusing on their core aspects notwithstanding their contrasting methodologies, goals and practices.

About the presenter

Srikanth Srigiriraju has been associated with Vedanta Society of Providence (VSP) since 2002 when he was a Doctorate student of Engineering in Solid Mechanics department at Brown University. After graduation, he worked in different companies for about 15 years in corporate roles. Srikanth has been a regular attendee of classes and lectures in VSP besides volunteering in various activities until 2020 when he moved to India. There he attended a one-year residential Vedanta course offered by Chinmaya International Foundation (CIF) where he was taught a few Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures. After his studies, he worked at CIF as an administrator for more than a year. Currently, Srikanth's focus is to learn scriptures and also conduct study sessions to those interested in scriptural studies.

Comparative Studies

A comparative analysis between Science and Vedanta will be presented in this essay through the perspectives of ontology, epistemology, the view of the Self and the world, theories of creation, the ultimate goal of life, the utility of attaining that goal, notable exemplars in each field, and whether these two fields coexist harmoniously or conflict discordantly.

Why have such an analysis? 

There has been and continues to be a continuous tussle between science and religion - across regions and eras. History is replete with instances of such a conflict - sometimes even violent. Nowadays, the debate between the two fields is more commonly seen in discussions forums - offline, online or televisions, or closer at home within a family, friend and social circles and more importantly, the closest it can get to, i.e., within oneself. This debate also morphs into reason vs faith debate with reason advocated as the primary tool for science and faith for religion. As Prof. Sukalyan-ji pointed out in his introduction, this tussle is generally thought to be confined only to Western civilization, but even in India, the conflict between these two is not seen infrequently. While Prof. Sukalyan-ji presented one side of the story of scientists refusing to take up anything related to religion, the other side is also equally true - religionists refusing to use any scientific method to get rid of superstitions that are passed out as religious practices. Why is this so? 

1. Refusal to go beyond the comfort zone due to force of habit

2. Lazy to go far that disturbs their current position

3. Peer pressure to stick to the current ways of thinking and doing

A comparative analysis between Science and religion is not to provide a definitive conclusion of which field is better, or to provide arguments so that one can win debates over others in this topic, but to present facets of both the fields so that we may take advantage of applying the best of both the fields in our lives and enrich our experience. Before we go further, let's make it clear what we mean by science, religion and Vedanta.

What is Science?

Merriam-Webster dictionary: Science is Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

A scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Physical and natural Sciences (observation and experimentation - physics, chemistry, biology), Social Science (human behavior - psychology, societies - sociology, and cultural dynamics - anthropology) and applied sciences (technology).

Focus of this talk will be on physical and natural science along with the applied sciences.

What is Vedanta?

Vedanta literally means the end of Vedas - here the word end implies the pinnacle of the knowledge within the Vedas but not the literal end of the Vedas. It deals with the reality of everything - all entities - the perceived, the perceiver and the creator of both. Various streams of Vedanta exist - Dvaita (the creator is different from the creation), vishihishtha advaita (the creation is a transformation of the creator), advaita (there is no creation and hence no creator, but only the reality which appears as the creation). We call Vedanta and other such knowledge streams as darshana but not philosophy only to make it clear that it is not an intellectual analysis, but an experiential one.

Focus of this talk is advaita vedanta.

What is religion?

Religion is a body of beliefs and practices based on the experience of one great founder of that religion or of numerous sages who bring forth the Truth in its various facets thereby reinforcing what has been already established and practised. 

Every religion has some underlying philosophical truths which it holds to be fundamental and eternal - an equivalent of axioms or laws of science. Religion is simply an application of these truths in life so that by practicing them they can be actualised in life. So the religion of Sanatana Dharma is an application of Vedanta darshana leading to its realisation of Vedantic principles. 

That’s the fundamental difference between applied science and religion. In applied science, the scientific laws are taken for granted and they are used to develop technology or gadgets that enhance the comforts of life - the focus is on the end product of material benefit. While religion has practices that are application of Vedanta darshana, its goal is in fact to use those very practices to realise the very Vedantic truths which formed the basis for such practices - although popular religion still looks for material benefits like applied sciences. So rather than a comparison between Science and Religion, a fair comparative study would be between Science and Vedanta which we will proceed to do.

Ontology - Nature of Reality

Science

• Materialism: Reality is all observable by the senses or instruments that are used by them - this includes matter and energy which even science has concluded are equivalent and we can call this equivalent entity as mass-energy continuum. This perspective assumes that all phenomena, including life and consciousness, can ultimately be explained through interactions of matter and energy. This materialistic focus enables science to investigate the observable universe systematically. 

• Realism: Science predominantly operates on the principle of scientific realism, which asserts that the universe exists independently of human observation. According to this view, the entities studied by science—such as atoms, stars, and forces—exist whether or not they are directly observed.

• Reductionism: The ontology of science often leans on reductionism, the idea that complex phenomena can be explained by understanding their simpler, constituent parts. For example, biology is explained by chemistry, which in turn is grounded in physics. Reductionism has led to tremendous scientific progress, particularly in fields like molecular biology and quantum mechanics.

• Dynamic and Relational: Science recognizes that reality is not static but dynamic and relational i.e. new discoveries can change what one understands about reality. Quantum mechanics, for example, suggests that particles do not have definite properties until measured, implying that the act of observation is integral to defining their existence. 

Vedanta

The biggest contrast is this: reality in Science is an object to be perceived by the senses and mind while Vedanta boldly states that such an objective reality is unreal due to the very fact that it is objectified. 

The core teaching of Vedanta is that the true essence of the perceiver and the perceived is the same reality - this is the remarkable deviation from science which maintains the distinction between the perceiver and perceived as sacrosanct.

First thing to note is that Vedanta states all the experience of the objects in the world are modifications of mind (antahkarana) within. So is there really a world out there to be perceived - this is not knowable, but what we can be certain about is the mental modifications in us which we call as experiences of the world. Vedanta proceeds to study these experiences. 

Consider the perception - this chair is, etc. This experience has two components: one is the sensory characteristics of the chair, with sound-touch-form-taste-smell properties called nama-rupa, and the other is the more subtle existence attribute which renders the chair to exist. So also in experience of every object - I am, you are, she is, etc. 

The common feature in all these experiences is this is-ness or existence attribute while the object characteristics of I, you, she, chair, etc. vary. The object characteristics vary with object while this existence attribute is the same in all experiences. This existence attribute is a qualifier of the object - that's why it is an adjective when we state “existent chair” “existent plant” etc. But the more abstract pure existence devoid of any object is the substance or noun or वस्तु. This pure existence is not experienceable by senses and mind, while the existence attribute, the pure existence associated with an object, is experienceable. Also the object characteristics change with time, whereas the existence attribute remains the same. Example: A lighted room, and you see your hand - here the experience is both of the hand and the light in the room. In fact the hand is seen only due to the light in the room. And the light is perceivable only due to the hand illuminated by it. Now remove the hand from focus, is the light perceivable? No. But the absence of the object is noted due to this pervasive light again. So even when the hand does not exist, the light still exists which is unperceivable by senses and mind directly. In the same way, the object is experienced only due to the pure existence manifesting itself in it as an existence attribute. Even when the object is destroyed, the pure existence continues to be manifested as the space where it was because even that space has this existence attribute (space exists). So the qualified of the existence attribute changes but the quality of existence attribute, which is pure existence, is unchanging. Applying the criterion of reality which is unchanging, every object experience is essentially the unchanging existence attribute which is pure existence and the changing object characteristics are a mere superimposition on it. 

PERCEIVED = PURE EXISTENCE = UNCHANGING

This analysis is wrt objects perceived, now lets move to the perceiver.

It is obvious that the perceiver and the perceived are distinct as per our experience in the current state of awareness - this experience Vedanta also admits and calls it as an impermanent transactional reality (vyavaharika-satta). It is impermanent because the perceiver as an individual and the perceived as the world are changeful in nature - e.g. both are dissolved in deep-sleep. Vedanta further states that the awareness of both the perceiver and perceived in a subject-object relationship in both the waking and dream states and the awareness of the absence of both in deep sleep state is due to the self-luminous Brahman illuminating all the three states (illumination means bringing into awareness). Brahman, being Consciousness, illuminates all experiences by its mere presence with no active involvement in such an illumination - just as the sun merely shines while all entities and activities on earth get illumined in its very presence. Brahman, in this context of illumination of the perceiver, the perceived and the act of perceiving, is called साक्षी - the witness consciousness. This ontological status of साक्षी is the absolute reality, i.e. paramarthika satta.This witness consciousness is like the existence attribute seen in the perceived object. The witness consciousness as a quality is pure consciousness, just as the existence attribute is pure existence, but that very pure consciousness wrt perceiver it is the witness consciousness due to the experiences being witnessed, just as wrt object, the pure existence manifests itself as existence attribute of that object.

PERCEIVER = PURE CONSCIOUSNESS = UNCHANGING

So we showed that the perceiver is the Pure Consciousness in essence and the perceived is the Pure Existence in essence. So how are they the same? The third part remains to show is Pure Existence is Pure Consciousness. Suppose they are not:

Pure Existence is not Pure Consciousness, then it becomes inert or materialistic, subject to changes, and hence destruction also. That means pure existence can become non-existent - its a contradiction.

Pure Consciousness is not Pure Existence, that means Pure Consciousness can become non-existent, and to even state that it has become non-existent, you need Consciousness to exist to illuminate that as a fact, and hence again a contradiction. 

Therefore Pure Existence is Pure Consciousness is I - this is the reality in Vedanta.

In fact, now Vedanta goes further to state that an objective reality does not even exist. Why? Any experience, which is non-existent prior to its being existent, and will be non-existent post its annihilation, is also non-existent even when it is experienced by the sense-organs and mind as existent in the midst of two phases of its non-existence. Existence can never be non-existent and that which is non-existence can never be existent. Therefore, all objects, which are non-existent before their creation and will be non-existent after their destruction are therefore also non-existent even though experienced by the senses and mind. 

We have to be careful to note - Vedanta asserts that the objects, experiences, etc. including the individual perceiving them are unreal and non-existent but the existence and consciousness upon which they subsist is non-negatable.

Reality has these characteristics:

• Spiritualism: In Vedanta, Brahman is described as:

  • Immanence: Brahman pervades all existence; it is the substratum of the universe. The essence of every phenomenon, from the smallest particle to the vast cosmos, is Brahman.

  • Transcendence: Despite being the ground of all existence, Brahman is beyond all concepts, dualities, and limitations. It cannot be confined by the categories of the mind or senses.

The universe, as we perceive it, is considered a superimposition (adhyasa) on Brahman, arising due to Māyā—the illusory power that veils the true nature of reality. Māyā creates the appearance of duality (subject-object, self-other), leading to the perception of a fragmented world.

• Monism: Vedanta’s monism (non-duality or Advaita) asserts that Brahman alone exists, and everything else that is observable and changeable including the perceiver (jiva) is a superimposed entity on it with a name and form. This monistic view rejects the notion of duality between the creator and creation, self and other, or subject and object.

• Holistic and Holographic: Vedanta employs a holistic methodology, emphasizing that the study of the transient and impermanent can lead to an understanding of the eternal and unchanging. The whole gamut of all observable phenomena is holographic - i.e., by analyzing any of the impermanent aspects of life—such as the body, emotions, and mind—one can arrive at the unchanging reality, Brahman. Vedanta often uses the technique of "not this, not this" (neti-neti), systematically negating all transient phenomena to uncover what remains as the eternal substratum. Thus Vedanta posits that every entity and experience, no matter how small or insignificant, points to the larger truth of unity.
  
  

• Absolutism: In Vedanta, reality—Brahman—is described as unchanging and absolute. Unlike the material universe, which is subject to constant change, decay, and transformation, Brahman is the eternal constant behind all phenomena.

  • Unchanging Substratum: While the universe undergoes cycles of creation, preservation, and destruction (srishti, sthiti, pralaya), Brahman remains unaffected. It is the unchanging ground upon which all impermanent realities are superimposed.

  • Timeless and Eternal: Brahman exists beyond time (kalatita), meaning it is neither created nor destroyed. It does not evolve or devolve but remains the same across all states of existence.

  • Absolute Reality: Vedanta distinguishes between relative reality (vyavaharika satya), which pertains to the empirical world, and absolute reality (paramarthika satya), which is Brahman. Only Brahman qualifies as absolute because it does not depend on anything else for its existence.

The objective reality of classical mechanics in science has been shaken up by many other discoveries in science itself.

1. Special Theory of Relativity - time and space are dependent on the observer’s speed of travel relative to the speed of light. Objective reality that is perceived is very much dependent on the instrumentation of senses and mind that is used to perceive it. What is perceived as reality is only the mind’s reading of it, but what actually the reality is, is unknowable by mind.

2. Quantum Physics - A quantum system can simultaneously be in superposition of its multiple states and the observer’s measurement of the state of the system makes all other states collapse into the measured one thereby proving that the observer contributes to the observation in every objective measurement.

3. Artificial Intelligence - If machines can be made to independently think, emote, self-learn, function, etc. exactly as a human being, then how is human being any different from such a machine? There is no difference between the nature of the observer as an individual and the nature of that which is observed.

Epistemology - Methodology to Comprehend Reality

Albert Einstein’s quote: “How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty?’ That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.”

Simply put - a good student should know the domain of applicability of the method to realize the goal.

Two kinds of relationships:

• Determine the method & Define reality - The nature of reality depends on the methods and instruments used

• Define reality & Determine the method - The nature of reality determines what methods and instruments to use

SCIENCE – Determine & Define

VEDANTA – Define & Determine

Science

• Induction:  

  • A reasoning process that involves drawing generalizations based on specific observations or evidence. 

  • Creation of laws that govern the processes. 

  • It moves from the set of specific observations to generalization over a range of phenomena beyond what has been observed.

  • Because it involves extrapolation, it is susceptible to change if new evidence is found to have violated the law.

  • Example: The sun is rising

• Deduction: 

  • A logical process in which a conclusion about an observed phenomena is derived from a set of laws that are assumed to be true. 

  • It is an explanation of phenomena using the laws created by induction.

  • It moves from general law to a specific observation

  • The conclusion is a certainty as long as the laws that have been identified to govern it hold true.

  • Example: There is smoke in the air, therefore, something is burning.

• Abduction:

  • This is a postulation where one chooses the best logical explanation for an observed phenomena.

  • It is also an explanation of phenomena using the laws created by induction.

  • It moves from general law to a specific observation

  • The conclusion is a plausible one among the many possible laws that govern the phenomena. It cannot be as sure as deductive reasoning as this is an educated guess.

  • Example: the grass is wet in the morning - dew or rain is most plausible.

Vedanta

• प्रत्यक्ष - This is a means of acquisition of knowledge through direct perception using senses and mind.To become an object for pratyaksha, the object should have at least one of the properties of being able to be heard (शब्द), touched (स्पर्श), seen (दृश्य), tasted (रस), and smelt (गन्ध).

• अनुमान - Inference from the observations using past experiences. What is required for this is लिङ्ग -  a unique characteristic for identification which connects with the final conclusion/inference called anumiti. There is an invariable concomitance between the linga and anumiti called anvaya vyatireka and this relationship is universal and hence is vyapti. Example: यत्र यत्र धूमः तत्र तत्र अग्निः, wherever there is smoke, there is fire.

• उपमान - It is an understanding through a simile. This method requires सदृश्य a similarity between what is expressed in an analogy and what the implication of the analogy is. Example - गोसदृशो गवयः, gavaya is similar to cow.

• अर्थापत्ति - Postulation or an educated guess based on various plausible explanations that govern the observed phenomena. (पीनो देवदत्तः दिवा न भुङ्क्ते रात्रे भुङ्क्ते वा) - A fat Devadutta who does not eat during daytime, so must be eating in the night. Difference between arthapatti and anumana is: 

  • In anumana, cause is right at that time as the effect, while in arthapatti cause is at some other time than the effect. 

  • Also arthapatti is an educated guess among many possibilities, while anumana there is no alternative explanation.

  • Anumana has anvaya-vyatireka between linga and anumiti, whereas arthapatti has no such relationship. Becoming fat is not only due to eating - anvaya absent. And not becoming fat implies no eating either - vyatireka is absent So there is no vapti also in arthapatti unlike in anumana.

• अनुपलब्धी - Ascertainment through non-perception (अदर्शन). You are ascertaining the non-perception of the object. What is called conspicuous by absence. Not seeing a pot, you ascertain that the pot is not there. 

• शब्द - The scriptural evidence which is based on the experience of past practitioners. 

In Vedanta, all the methods fall short in comprehending Brahman, due to Brahman being अप्रमेय - incomprehensible by the means of knowledge using senses and mind.

• प्रत्यक्ष - Brahman has no sense object characteristics.

• अनुमान - Brahman has no लिङ्ग as it has no unique indication that can be used to comprehend.

• उपमान - it is not comparable to anything because there is nothing else to compare it with.

• अर्थापत्ति - Brahman has no incongruence to be referred to understand it.

• अनुपलब्धि - There is no absence of Brahman to note its absence.

• शब्द - Scripture reveals Brahman by indicating that it cannot be objectified and can be realised by negating all objectification. In a way shastra reveals Brahman, but it is not by objectifying, but by negating objectification and therefore revealing that it is the Self.

Induction in Science is pratyaksha, Deduction is anumana, Abduction is arthapatti. The laws that are formulated by induction in science can be equivalent to shabda of Vedanta. The difference being that the scientific laws are subjected to change based on new observations while the scriptures in Vedanta are unchanging.

Another contrast is that the means of knowledge are used to understand the reality in Science while the five means of knowledge in Vedanta are used to deny the objectification of reality. In other words, the means of knowledge are used to assert objectivity of reality in Science while the very same are used to negate objectification of reality.

The methods in science thus confine themselves to the realms of sensory experience or empiricism due to the reality being within that realm. Hence, Science ignores anything that does not fit within this paradigm. Swami Vivekananda:“Since the dawn of history, various extraordinary phenomena have been recorded as happening amongst human beings. Witnesses are not wanting in modern times to attest to the fact of such events, even in societies living under the full blaze of modern science. Surface scientists, unable to explain the various extraordinary mental phenomena, strive to ignore their very existence. They are, therefore, more culpable than those who think that their prayers are answered by a being, or beings, above the clouds, or than those who believe that their petitions will make such beings change the course of the universe. The latter have the excuse of ignorance, or at least of a defective system of education, which has taught them dependence upon such beings, a dependence which has become a part of their degenerate nature. The former have no such excuse.”

But then there are others who go a step further to claim that anything beyond the sensory realm is untruth. That's where the conflict arises with Vedanta and other religious thoughts. Such people, I would call them as half-baked scientists, who have no grounding of epistemology in science. In the words of Richard Feynman:“There were a lot of fools at the conference – pompous fools – and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are alright; you can talk to them and try to help them out. But pompous fools – guys who are fools and covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus – THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is alright. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

Schroedinger says: It is relatively easy to sweep away the whole of metaphysics, as Kant did. The slightest puff in its direction blows it away, and what was needed was not so much a powerful pair of lungs to provide the blast, as a powerful dose of courage to turn it against so timelessly venerable a house of cards.

But you must not think that what has then been achieved is the actual elimination of metaphysics from the empirical content of human knowledge. In fact, if we cut out all metaphysics it will be found to be vastly more difficult, indeed probably quite impossible, to give any intelligible account of even the most circumscribed area of specialisation within any specialised science you please. Metaphysics includes, amongst other things — to take just one quite crude example — the unquestioning acceptance of a more-than-physical — that is, transcendental — significance in a large number of thin sheets of wood-pulp covered with black marks such as are now before you… A real elimination of metaphysics means taking the soul out of both art and science, turning them into skeletons incapable of any further development.

In religion too we have practices that don't stand the test of principles of the religion itself:  illogical arguments given to highlight one’s own teacher or a founder of one’s own sect to be the greatest ever or an avatara, focus on miracles, competition to be more well-known in media and have large number of follower including influential ones, fanaticism, etc. Swami Vivekananda therefore espouses scientific reasoning in the field of religion too: “Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation, which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion? In my opinion this must be so, and I am also of the opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific — as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry — but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has.”

So religion and science can have a very healthy exchange of learning so that both can benefit from such an exchange.

Summary of Epsitemology in Science and Vedanta:

Creation

Science

There is no definitive creation theory of how this world has come about. Although a majority of scientists gog by the big bang which is still a topic of research. In this theory, the creation of this world is attributed to the big bang from a singular point of high density and temperature where the space-time continuum is broken. There are alternative theories of the multiverse and also inflation-deflation of the universe cyclically.

Further observations of measuring the motion of galaxies, supernovae etc. have given rise to postulation of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. 5% of mass-energy is usual matter, 27% is dark matter and 68% is dark energy. Dark matter isn’t simply dark: it’s invisible. Light of all types seems to pass through as though it’s completely transparent. However, dark matter does have mass, which we see by its gravitational influence. Dark energy is hypothetical energy that has negative pressure and is accelerating the galaxies to move further away. All these are still an ongoing research topic.

There is theory for creation of life too.

Vedanta

Religion has given a wide range of theories about creation by keeping an extra-cosmic god as the creator. Vedanta provisionally admits various creation theories to explain how that changeless reality has given rise to this changing multiplicity. Their provisional admission, however, is not an approval or denial of the veracity of these theories - there is nothing uniquely right or wrong about any creation theory in Vedanta. Vedanta wants one to focus on any one particular creation theory and then deny the specificities of such a creation theory to realise one’s true nature as that reality itself. In Vedanta, the microcosm of individual experiences and the macrocosm of universe events are interlinked and therefore, cosmological and psychological studies are intertwined. Because a microcosm of an individual has the same nature as the macrocosm of the universe - the studies of either lead to the same result. That's why Upanishads have questions: “Willed and directed by whom, the mind falls (for its objects); joined with whom, the foremost breath goes (to function); willed by whom, (people) utter the speech; which effulgent being directs the eye and ear (towards their respective objects)?” and “What is that knowing which all is known?”

Upon realization of the true nature of oneself, it is seen that all the creation, the changing impermanent vyavaharika satta or jagat, is a mere superimposition on the substratum of the unchanging eternal illuminating paramarthika satta or Brahman. This mysterious inexplicable power of superimposition upon the substratum is termed Maya which is also called nescience. It is not non-existent as its effect is experienced as I’m an individual different from the world, but it is not existent either, if so then it will be absolute and permanent and that status which belongs to Brahman alone. Hence Maya is said to be anirvacaniya, inexpressible. Thus it is said that Brahman without undergoing any change appears as this creation itself due to this inscrutable power of Maya.

Goal of Life

Science

The goal of science: quest for truth in the physical realm. It involves one of the following:

• Answers questions such as “how, why, when, what” - of a phenomenon or entities involved in any such phenomena.

• Apply the scientific laws to improve the comforts of human beings that involves protecting all nature.

Vedanta

The goal of Vedanta is in the realm of noumenon or Brahman - the unchanging and indestructible and to realise our true nature as Brahman, i.e. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss which is beyond any sense perception and mental conception. Currently, due to ignorance of our true identity we consider ourselves to be individuals ab thus undergo repeated births and deaths to experience the results of past karma and also to create new karma to experience as future births and deaths - thus the cycle of birth and death as an individual taking up various bodies of different kinds continues infinitely. This is called samsara. Vedanta provides a solution to break this cycle - and it is a very simple one. Just realise our true identity as Brahman and not the mistaken notion that I am this individual.

Vedanta is so bold that it says even the Vedas are considered lower knowledge while the knowledge of reality as one’s true nature is the higher knowledge. In this way, Vedanta even puts scientists’ efforts in their pursuit of study of objective reality in the realm of faith as personal experience of the fundamental reality in Science is not a requirement.

Practices in realising the goal

Science

Key Principles Underlying Scientific Practices

1. Empiricism: Knowledge is derived from sensory experience and observable evidence.

2. Skepticism: Questioning assumptions and requiring evidence for claims.

3. Falsifiability: Ensuring hypotheses can be disproven through experimentation.

4. Objectivity: Minimizing personal bias in research.

Practices:

• Understanding the phenomena through existing laws

• If not applicable, frame a law that explains it

• Predict some other phenomena using the law and suggest experiments to falsify or verify it.

• Apply scientific laws to create technologies and gadgets to make human lives more comfortable.

Vedanta

Key Principles of Practice: sādhana-catuṣṭhaya

• Discernment – viveka

• Dispassion - vairāgya

• Control of mind - śama, control of sense-organs - dama, control of both - uparati, forbearance - titīkṣā, faith in scriptures and guru - śraddhā, focus - samādhāna

• Desire to be free - mumukṣutva

Practices:

Techniques in Vedanta to realise the Self or Brahman is called yoga. There are various kinds of yoga, but broadly they can be classified into the four categories as below based on the attitudes and the faculty of the inner instrument called antahkarana or mind, they employ.

Utility in realising the goal

Science

• Satisfaction in discovery

• Reputation

• Accolades

• Financial Rewards

But all these are temporary in nature.

Vedanta

Swami Vivekananda says: “What right has a person to ask that truth should be judged by the standard of utility or money? Suppose there is no utility, will it be less true? Utility is not the test of truth. What do we find in this question of utility? The ideal of happiness, that which brings man more happiness, is of greater utility to him. All the sciences are for this one end, to bring happiness to humanity; and that which brings the larger amount of happiness, man takes and gives up that which brings a lesser amount of happiness. With animals, and in the lowest human beings who are very much like animals, happiness is all in the body. No man can eat with the same pleasure as a famished dog or a wolf; so in the dog and the wolf the happiness is entirely in the body. In men we find a higher plane of happiness, that of thought; and in the Jnani there is the highest plane of happiness in the Self, the Atman. So to the philosopher this knowledge of the Self is of the highest utility, because it gives him the highest happiness possible. Sense-gratifications or physical things cannot be of the highest utility to him, because he does not find in them the same pleasure that he finds in knowledge itself.” 

In contrast to temporariness of the benefits of realisation of the goal in Science, the realisation of our true nature in Vedanta as unchanging is bliss which is permanent.

Happiness obtained through subject-object interaction - is the happiness in the subject or in the object - only two options available.

Happiness is not in the object:

• Does not give happiness always

• Not to all

• Requires liking by the subject

Then is happiness in the subject:

• It is not in mind - if it is in the mind itself then object is not required to be happy.

Where is it then? It is not in the subject who has the awareness of I am an individual or it is not in the object as something different from me to be enjoyed. Actual happiness when enjoying the object comes in a state of no-thought or no-mind when the division between subject and object is obliterated. Therefore, Happiness is YOU - your very nature. Object interaction simply removes the veil of individuality superimposed in ignorance temporarily.

In Science, the understanding that everything is only matter is confined to only at the level of intellect. If this understanding is taken deep into one’s core personality to make a behavioral transformation, then the person remains untouched by both pain and pleasure in the midst of all the changes. Because the person is aware that all is matter and subject to change and so why grieve or get excited for anything. Gita saying:

But there is a danger in such an understanding, one can become a cold materialistic person, perhaps devoid of grief, but also untouched by love, empathy, kindness, compassion, etc. So we perhaps should be happy that Science does not demand that the understanding of its reality should be a transformative one. 

Vedanta, on other hand, demands that the goal and practices need to be transformative in nature. While admitting that in the material plane everything changes and hence there is no need for grief or happiness, it goes one step further to state that the reality which is underlying oneness as Consciousness must in fact make one to be selfless. For example, if your left hand is unable to lift an object, your right hand spontaneously goes to assist it - there is no sense of “I am helping you” by the right hand and there is no gratitude of “I am thankful” by the left hand. The oneness of individuality makes such feelings redundant. So also the goal in Vedanta is to realise the whole perceived creation is I and there is no distinct separate individuality of me. But to achieve this realization from the current state of individuality, love, empathy, compassion towards all others need to be practiced to emphasize that underlying oneness which we are currently ignorant of. Practice of the ideal leads to actualisation of the same.

Harmony or Conflict

A clear demarcation of the nature of reality, the goal of life and the practical benefits of realizing the goal has been presented. There is no room for conflict between the two as there is no common area where they are applicable together. The choice is for the individual whether to accept both, reject both or accept one of them - but one should do so with the full understanding of the two fields.