THE SCIENCE OF PRESENTING RELIGION

Srila Prabhupada’s Profound and Novel Instructions

Rasaraja Dasa (Prof. Ravi Gomatam, M.E., Ph. D)

Srila Prabhupada advocated scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness according to the scientific method, without mentioning Vedas and Puranas. Popular presentations to general public based on the former can follow. What did Srila Prabhupada say about the term in vogue, “scientific preaching”?

His Divine Grace Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

“We have formed the Bhaktivedanta Institute for organizing scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness. This party is our most important preaching arm.”

[Letter to Dravida, April 2, 1977]

Readers interested in the subject matter may correspond with

The Institute of Semantic Information Sciences and Technology www.insist.ac.in [email protected]

The Bhaktivedanta Institute www.bvinst.edu [email protected]

© Ravi Gomatam. All rights reserved

THE SCIENCE OF PRESENTING RELIGION

n this paper, we describe two kinds of scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness: one to scientists, and the other to the general public. The forum for presentations to scientists is technical papers published in peer‐reviewed journals, science conferences and the like. The forum for popular presentations is general articles, popular science books, multimedia presentations, etc. We will show that the second kind of scientific presentations must follow, i.e. be necessarily based on, and grow in proportion to how the first category of scientific presentations to scientists are done and have been accepted by scientists. We will propose that such scientific presentations are what Srila Prabhupada wanted, by supplying quotes. At the Institute of Semantic Information Sciences and Technology, and the Bhaktivedanta Institute at Mumbai and Berkeley, we have been carrying out these two kinds of scientific presentations diligently and with great success. We will also significantly learn that Srila Prabhupada himself never used the phrase ‘scientific preaching’, and instead only called for the two kinds of scientific presentations mentioned above.

Nevertheless, we will point out, a third kind of presentations that has been so far conceived and carried out in our movement under the banner of ‘scientific preaching’. It is, for the most part, not work of the first kind, namely presentations to the scientists within science, about scientific issues. And, even as a preaching tool to non‐scientists, when carried out independent of scientific presentations of the first kind, it has the potential to be incorrect both siddhanta‐wise and science‐wise. Indeed, it could stymie the proper development of B.I. when it takes the place of scientific presentations to scientists as the Institute’s goal.

Krishna Consciousness is a Science in the Modern Sense of the Term

Srila Prabhupada called Krishna Consciousness as a science. In doing so, he did not expect the B.I. to show that Krishna Consciousness is a different kind of science, at least as far as scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness are concerned. Indeed, in the following important conversation regarding BI, Srila Prabhupada says that we (i.e., B.I.) can prove that Krishna Consciousness is a science according to the modern scientific way:

Dr. Sharma: And there is a lot of scientific data in our ancient scriptures which I told them that if they go through from their point of view they will find lot of things in Puranas, in Srimad‐ Bhagavatam, in many Vedic...

Srila Prabhupada: No, apart from Puranas and Vedic literatures, scientifically it is the modern science, according to their way, we can convince. Puranas you may not believe the authority. I may not believe. But scientific truth has to be accepted.

[Conv. March 31, 1977, Mumbai]

It is to be emphasized that Srila Prabhupada made the above remarks specifically with respect to what Bhaktivedanta Institute will do.

His Divine Grace also wrote in this regard: “We have formed the Bhaktivedanta Institute for organizing scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness. This party is our most important preaching arm.” [Letter to Dravida, April 2, 1977] On the same day, His Divine Grace also wrote to Rameswara:

Svarupa Damodara has received very good response here in India from the scientific community and there is good hope that many others will join him. He is returning to America for preparing some publications and when these are completed I have asked him to tour vigorously throughout the world lecturing with his other colleagues at all major institutions and universities.

We can easily understand the following from the above: a) “scientific presentations” of Krishna Consciousness are to be made to the scientists, and b) based on Vedas and Puranas (i.e. scriptures) but without mentioning them. In other words, the target for scientific presentations are the scientists, and it is not possible to “lecture at major universities and colleges to scientists” unless one gets invited. Such invitations will not come unless one publishes in scientific journals, papers that offer solutions to outstanding problems within science, based on Krishna Consciousness but without mentioning the scriptures explicitly.

Scientific Presentations to Scientific Community

By the term ‘science’, we can only first mean the hard sciences. The most fundamental of all hard sciences is physics. All other sciences are scientific only to the extent they are based on physics. Such fields include chemistry, biology, medicine and all engineering fields. We are obliged to point out straightaway that thus far, “scientific presentations” in the above sense within hard sciences have been conceived and carried out only by me via the Bhaktivedanta Institute in Mumbai and Berkeley (www.bvinst.edu) and the Institute for Semantic Information Sciences and Technology (www.insist.ac.in). These are in the fields starting from physics, and going on to chemistry, biology, medicine, computer science. Some recent papers have been:

“Is Physics Truly Empirical, Currently?”, will be presented at a conference organized by the German Physical Society

“Toward Placing the Concept of ‘Chemical Element on a New Quantum Footing” which was presented at a chemistry conference at the London School of Economics “The Central Dogma, Quantum Theory and Objective Semantic Information” to be presented at a philosophy of biology conference in July in Brazil

We have nearly fifty published papers in peer‐ reviewed scientific journals and scientific conferences on hard scientific topics in a variety of scientific fields. These papers are based on Krishna Consciousness, but never mention the connections explicitly, as instructed by Srila Prabhupada. They are meant for laying the basis for the acceptance and study of our scriptures by demonstrating positive contributions to science by identifying and solving problems within science. Indeed, a famous physicist said the following, one year after the above conversation of Srila Prabhupada with Dr. Sharma:

Now the test, for a scientist, of whether these [Maharishi] people have something to contribute [to science] is to ask them not to interpret what we have done already but to tell us what is going to happen next. If they can tell us the mass of the Higgs Boson [a new theoretical particle], and if we find it there, we are all going to learn their philosophies. We will all go and sit at the feet of Maharishi if he tells us where the Higgs Boson is to be found. (John Bell, May, 1978, Omni interview) In his purport to SB 3.26.34, Srila Prabhupada pointed out how that verse could solve problems in science:

This verse is the potential basis of great scientific research work, for it explains how subtle forms are generated from the ethereal element, what their characteristics and actions are, and how the tangible elements, namely air, fire, water and earth, are manifested from the subtle form.

We have now published many scientific papers in peer reviewed journals and anthologies to present this point. We have more papers in preparation.

Solving problems in science is what is to be accomplished in scientific presentations. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada wrote that “The Institute will be primarily for those who have not entered our temples.” [Letter to Svarupa Damodara: 30 September, 1975]. That is almost 99% of the human population. Thus, the Institute’s work, when properly carried out, can exponentially increase the reach of direct Krishna Conscious preaching.

Indeed, our work in making scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness apart from presenting Vedas and Puranas is already so successful that a Nobel Laureate in physics has said that “perhaps this is how we should be doing science”. Numerous other international scientists have also appreciated our work.

The Place for Popular Scientific Presentations

There is, however, a place for taking advantage of the high‐class scientific work done in the realm of scientific presentations to scientists (that does not mention Vedas and Puranas), to make presentations of Krishna Consciousness to the general public, school and college students, etc., which explicitly refer to Vedic knowledge. Such presentations can be called popular scientific presentations, and this will be accepted by scientists provided it is based on the genuine scientific work such as is being done in our two institutes that has received scientific acceptance. Such ‘popular presentations’ of new scientific work is done by scientists and science journalists all the time. However, two primary conditions for such popular scientific presentations are, (i) it must be based on accepted work within science, and (ii) thus be made only after and in proportion to the scientific work in question. Here, a very new point enters, which I shall now discuss.

Two different Presentations, Two Different sets of Ideas from Bhagavatam!

Scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness are for two different groups of audiences (scientists and non‐scientists), and thus will involve two different presentation styles. This is true even in the existing scientific tradition. However, an even more striking difference between these presentations is one that is unique to the science that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to develop based on our Siddhanta. However — and this is new — the points of our Siddhanta that need to be invoked to present to scientists within science are opposite to the points of our Siddhanta that would be invoked in general preaching to the public. Yet, both these opposing sets of points sit comfortably together within our Siddhanta because our Siddhanta is Achintya bheda‐abheda philosophy, or simultaneous oneness and difference.

Let me illustrate this point with one important example.

In preaching to the general public, we emphasize the point that consciousness is fundamentally different from matter. We say consciousness is non‐material. Srila Prabhupada has developed these arguments. But if the general public say, “but scientists say consciousness is not different from matter”, how should a general preacher respond? A lot of material has been developed to argue that scientists are wrong, they are fools. We say this because Srila Prabhupada, while preaching to the general public and general class of devotees, did constantly emphasize that consciousness is different from matter. He said we cannot accept the thesis that consciousness arises at some point from matter. He also called scientists speculators, fools and rascals. Yet, would he summarily dismiss the idea that consciousness is not different from matter? We don’t have to speculate. Here is an amazing conversation.

Revatinandana: There is some distinction, between the nature of the soul and the nature of the body.

Prabhupada: That distinction is inconceivable. You cannot make clear distinction. Therefore it is called acintya.

Revatinandana: The distinction between the soul and the body?

Prabhupada: …You cannot make a clear distinction. Therefore it is called acintyabhedabheda‐tattva, inconceivable one and different, simultaneously...

Revatinandana: Sometimes people ask...

Prabhupada: These questions are not to be discussed in public. These are very higher understanding. For public should be, “This is matter, this is spirit.” That's all.

[Room Conversation, August 17, 1971, London]

Here Srila Prabhupada makes the amazing points that (a) our philosophy accommodates both views and (b) the understanding that scientists in fact seek is part of the higher aspect of our siddhanta, not lower!

Srila Prabhupada explicitly draws this conclusion out in CC Adi Lila:

“Sometimes scientists argue that matter and spirit are one, with no difference between them. Factually, in a higher sense, there is no difference between matter and spirit.” [CC, Adi 14.32]

Of course, the scientists are not thinking that consciousness exists and that it is both one and different from matter. They are simply trying to reduce consciousness to matter. To that extent they are wrong. However, if we simply reject their position as wrong without knowing how they could be seen as grasping at a higher view of the relationship between consciousness and matter, as Srila Prabhupada does above, then we are certainly wrong. The point is, once we understand that the scientists’ position that consciousness is not different from matter is not entirely opposed to our Siddhanta, and that it is one that we can co‐opt within our Siddhanta carefully, we can then and only then make scientific presentations to them that a) they will relate to, b) they will consider as scientific, and c) will help them to come toward our Siddhanta.

This is the special approach based on which our Masters and Ph.D. programs in Consciousness Studies are taught. Sometimes, this effort has been misunderstood as catering to mundane science. But that view is wrong. It is important to see that our approach is unique, in that it is at once scientific, siddhantic and presents a higher understanding, for both scientists and devotees alike.

The same goes for our efforts in creating the new field of semantic information sciences and technology too.

We can therefore easily and justifiably say that we are the only ones who have actually understood and implemented all of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness which is suitable for both scientists and general public alike. Yet, it has been difficult to understand our effort. Why?

On the conception of ‘Scientific Preaching’

It is worth adding that are many other such ‘opposite’ viewpoints from our Siddhanta that can be presented only through rigorous scientific presentations, and not in popular presentations. For example, in popular presentations, we are apt to accept that the material world of objects is real. However, SB 1.1.1 clearly says that in a special sense, the material world is unreal, and this point is crucial in modern science. Similarly, in simple preaching, we are apt to emphasize that consciousness is what makes experience possible; but in scientific presentations, we will focus on the contribution of matter to make experience possible, as detailed in Bhagavad Sankhya. In part‐3 of this article, I shall elaborate on these points more. But as Srila Prabhupada himself said, these are specialized points about deeper aspects of our Siddhanta and require much effort to properly grasp. Presentations to scientists through technical papers require us to present these advanced Bhagavata ideas and we are doing it.

But this all‐important task of making scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness has been derailed after 1977 by a popular notion of “scientific preaching”. It is very important to note that Srila Prabhupada himself never used this term. We could not find any reference to Srila Prabhupada using this term in the Vedabase. On the other hand, His Divine Grace carefully used only the term “scientific presentations” while speaking about B.I., and has explained its scientific nature, as already cited.

Yet, the term “scientific preaching” has gained immense currency within our movement. It is used in the sense of presenting Krishna Consciousness to non‐scientists, directly referring to Vedas and Puranas. Such preaching is either unaware or ignores the deeper, higher aspects of Srimad Bhagavatam that Srila Prabhupada has pointed out, and simply presents points fit for general public. The problem with such an approach is this. When we have failed to develop our own position within science that scientists accept, scientific ‘preaching’ would have to depend on current science. Current science has been opposed to the theistic viewpoints. As a result, such ‘scientific’ preaching is invariably in terms of pointing out defects and short‐comings in current science, particularly with respect to understanding the origins of universe and life, and presenting Vedic alternatives. Thus, although it is called scientific preaching, it is invariably anti‐scientific preaching and is seen as such by scientists.

Certainly, Srila Prabhupada himself presented repeatedly simple, logical arguments that have convinced all of us. Devotees also have repeated such arguments in their preaching, and find that reasonable persons accept it. Such types of preaching are certainly reasonable and accepted methods for ‘preaching’ in ISKCON. But we must remember that Srila Prabhupada also established a separate scientific institute. And for that scientific Institute, Srila Prabhupada emphasized that rigorous, scientific presentations which accept the method of the scientists, and do not refer to Vedas and Puranas should be done. We should therefore not ignore his instructions and claim that simple scientific ‘preaching’ is the only thing that is to be attempted. Especially in the context of this essay, the vision must go past simple scientific ‘preaching’ to understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted for his scientific institute. The words scientific and preaching, especially based on scriptural authority go ill‐together. Srila Prabhupada indeed asked: “As soon as we say from sastra, they will say it is all mythology. Then how you'll meet?

[July 3, 1976; Washington D.C.]

Science does not believe in preaching, nor does it accept an authority system. Even if a scientist has created a new field of science, he or she is apt to be challenged by other scientists and superseded. Thus, scientists and the general public alike will regard the term ‘scientific preaching’ as an oxymoron. Indeed, such “scientific preaching” effort has derailed understanding of and support for the actual work of scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness.

If we ‘repeat’ Srila Prabhupada’s arguments without understanding his other utterances that are in a different direction, wouldn’t we run the risk of imitating his preaching style without having absorbed his oeuvre fully?

We are not suggesting devotees should stop giving the simple and valid arguments against science that Srila Prabhupada himself used, but we are only bringing to attention that there are other dimensions to scientific arguments that are in Bhagavatam, which Srila Prabhupada has emphasized. Adding such dimensions to their arsenal, especially based on the scientific work we have already done, can also enhance their general preaching in the context of science. I shall just give one example. In simple commonsense scientific preaching, we might directly argue against the claim that Big Bang created the material world, and try to present arguments that it is God or Lord Krishna who created that material world. This has indeed been our style. We believe that Srila Prabhupada made this argument. If indeed Srila Prabhupada made this argument, then we will be no different from creationists who are coming from other religions. But if we carefully check in Vedabase, we will see that Srila Prabhupada almost always qualified the term “world” by saying “phenomenal world”. The word “phenomenal” has been emphasized very many times by Srila Prabhupada in his books. It has a technical meaning in modern philosophy and science, and Bhagavatam has a different technical meaning for the word which is even more deeper. It is beyond the scope of this introductory article to go into the real scientific meaning of the word ‘phenomenal’. Also, it needs to be fully brought out within science first.

But I can at least indicate the contours of a simple argument that general devotees would be able to make even now to the public who argue in favor of Big Bang, making use of our scientific presentations to the scientists, which uses higher aspects of our siddhanta (practically unknown to the larger devotee community). It could run as follows:

The ‘world’ that scientists say the Big Bang created is the “external world”. It is not a real world, but a conceptual construction of the human mind. Thus, it is little surprise that God did not create this world. The world that our Vaishnava scriptures say that God created is not the external world but the “phenomenal world”. External world is thought to exist objectively, i.e. independent of all conscious observers, whereas in Western philosophy, the phenomenal world is what each of us experience as conscious perceivers of that external world of objects. But, modern quantum physics requires that the idea of the external world of objects be given up. But physicists are yet to come up a needed new understanding of the material world. Our scientists at InSIST (and Bhaktivedanta Institute) have cracked this within science (based on Bhaghavatam, even if that basis has not been so far explicitly mentioned). Several scientists internationally have very favorably assessed this solution. Our scientists’ papers are in fact part of the curriculum in many secular universities. So, we are not merely trying to ‘disprove’ Big Bang and evolution using current science. We have a scientific alternative view of matter and material world which points to our novel proposal that the world of matter created by God is different from what Big Bang purports to explain. So, our religious ideas are not only not threatened by your science, but it is also helping solve some of your problems about matter that you are unable to solve. Thus, strictly speaking, we are not a religion but a science! You can study our scientific and theological literatures to understand more.

This is also a simple, direct preaching in the context of science, but it would encompass both the simple and higher aspects of our Siddhanta that Srila Prabhupada tirelessly taught. It is to be noted that our work can help general devotees present Srila Prabhupada’s assertion that Krishna Consciousness is a science, something that “scientific preaching” which criticizes modern science from outside and gives Vedic alternatives has not achieved, and can never achieve. How important this work is! Yet, in this movement this landmark work is languishing. Indeed, we can train general devotees more in many more such simple direct preaching arguments to counter the atheistic propaganda, based on science being done the Bhagavata way, provided our leaders understand the above material and properly facilitate our work as Srila Prabhupada wanted.

Devotees might wonder how exactly the point that Srila Prabhupada has made, namely that it is an higher aspect of our philosophy that consciousness and matter are non‐different is to be understood. They may also wonder how it would lead to superior preaching arguments, than those based on the idea that consciousness is fundamentally different from matter. To fully delineate what little I have understood and applied by the mercy of Srila Prabhupada himself, will require pointing many more radically new and profound arguments Srila Prabhupada has given that has escaped general attention but are essential for scientific presentations. I can go into those aspects only after they are fully applied within science. However, in the next penultimate section, I shall give one example of how Srila Prabhupada’s ‘higher aspect’ of our philosophy has been applied by us in science, and how it will alter our general preaching arguments regarding the nature and origin of life.

Modern Molecular Biology, Genetic Information and Physical Basis of Life

Five centuries ago, a series of physical scientists culminating with Newton contributed greatly to understand matter, specifically motion of material objects, in an entirely naturalistic manner. This phase of modern science announced that at least in explaining both celestial and terrestrial motion, one does not require invoking any role of God. Even so, the existence of matter was a given in this achievement, and theists could yet hope that scientists would not be able to explain how matter came about, in the first place. And there was this other point, how did life originate?

Two centuries ago, Darwin made a major contribution to the cause of accounting for at least the origin of species. His concept of biological evolution was still not sufficient to account for how life itself originated in matter. He recognized that a theory of the chemical origins of life itself was needed. Solving that mystery in entirely physicalistic terms received a tremendous fillip when Watson and Crick invented the structure of DNA in the 1953. The DNA was thought to be the blueprint of life or even the secret of life. For example, when cell division took place, the DNA also split into two, and each half in the daughter cells could reconstruct itself fully using the parent DNA as template. It remained chemically unchanged throughout its life, and seems to be passed wholly intact from one generation to other, enabling the inheritance of basic phenomenological characteristics. Very importantly, it seems to carry information that is essential for life to develop out of matter. Thus, modern biologists on the whole believe and advocate that the DNA is the physical basis of life.

How will devotees respond to this challenge to their theistic beliefs about the nature and origin of life? They could still point out that for any DNA transfer from one generation to another, natural or artificial, a living cell is a pre‐condition. One could thus still argue, life comes from life. And believe that we are defending Srila Prabhupada’s statement. But “life comes from life” is not all that Srila Prabhupada said in this regard. He also wrote, in Srimad Bhagavatam:

“The modern theory that life evolves from matter is to some extent supported in this verse.”

[Srimad Bhagavatam, 5.5.21, Purport]

For ‘scientific preaching’ to general public, one could ignore the above point of Srila Prabhupada and argue that soul is the basis of life. But for scientific presentations one has to deeply understand the above point of Srila Prabhupada about life could be understood to some extent in terms of matter and apply it within science. It is one more example of how Srila Prabhupada has pointed out seemingly opposing viewpoints. He understands perfectly Acintya Bhedabheda philosophy. Thus he gives one aspect (life comes from life) for preaching to general public, and indicates another opposite idea (compatible with the atheistic idea that life comes from matter) for presentations to scientists.

The following excerpts from a paper proposal submitted to in an international conference in Biology demonstrates this scientific application for the first time.

The Central Dogma, Quantum Theory and Objective Semantic Information

Ravi Gomatam

Institute of Semantic Information Sciences and Technology, Mumbai, India In trying to give an entirely physico‐chemical account of the DNA functioning in a living cell, Watson and Crick felt obliged to appeal to the idea of “information flow”, and emphasized it did not signify chemical transformations, but instead expressed the transfer of genetic information. Crick called the idea as the “central dogma” of molecular biology. Crick used the term dogma, in the sense of a belief that cannot be questioned. Why ‘dogma’? Because it is said to involve non‐physical causation. As a result, there is a continuing debate over the status of the concept of information in biology. Separately, the idea of ‘quantum information’ (QI) has emerged in physics. Here too there are questions as to what is its fundamental nature. I shall survey the views here, and then motivate a new notion of “objective semantic information” (OSI) as a tenable alternative conception of quantum information and draw out its potential implications for biology. We will propose OSI to be complementary to present genetic information.

It is beyond the scope of this introductory article to explain the scientific content of the above paper, and how it is entirely based on Srimad Bhaghavatam. The general non‐scientist can just consider the point that we are proposing an alternative, scientific conception of genetic information, called Objective Semantic Information, or OSI. It is a new concept about matter that is objective, yet theistic because it is based on Bhagavatam, and presented entirely within science, “without mentioning Vedas and Puranas”. All this is exactly what Srila Prabhupada wanted scientist‐ devotees to achieve within science. We are the only ones who have accomplished this within science. What it shows is that to scientists we can just talk about matter and yet distance ourselves from the atheistic viewpoint. OSI is the scientific conception of the Sankhya conception of five elements and their interaction. This work introducing OSI is exceptionally important because there is no other way to introduce Bhagavata siddhanta within modern science. Indeed, all other scientist‐devotees can only build on it.

Conclusion

‘Scientific preaching’ in our movement has been operating in its own vacuum, presenting arguments which are scientifically unacceptable and even wrong siddhanta‐wise, because they present one aspect of our philosophy without full appreciation of its inter‐ relation to a higher, opposite aspect of our philosophy. Indeed, there is no recorded instant of Srila Prabhupada ever using the phrase ‘scientific preaching’ in the Vedabase. We accordingly follow instead, Srila Prabhupada’s vision for “scientific presentations” which is different and explained adequately in this essay. We have also illustrated, how two of the most important tasks that Srila Prabhupada gave for B.I. — namely to defeat Big Bang and Darwinian theories scientifically — are already achieved more or less effortlessly by our scientific work, by giving scientific alternatives to those theories that scientists can accept, and which even general non‐scientist devotees can present in public. It would seem that time has come at least now, for the leadership of this movement to not remain indifferent, and properly support this scientific work as Srila Prabhupada wanted.

This lack of understanding about the difference between scientific presentations and scientific preaching has had many deleterious effects. For example, Srila Prabhupada wrote in the early days, for the purpose of developing B.I.: “In the meantime request all GBC's to send lists of all our disciples who have B.A., M.A. or Ph.D. degrees.” [Letter to Svarupa Damodara, 31 August, 1975]. We do not find the GBC following that policy currently. Every devotee with a science background is thought to be capable of doing scientific preaching on his own and does not need any training. The BBT also seems to be funding individuals on this basis.

Srila Prabhupada did not instruct the BBT to evaluate different scientific projects. He simply requested them to fund the B.I. for making scientific presentations to the scientific community, and said that the B.I. will simply give the accounts. Instead, the BBT has taken upon itself the task of evaluating scientific projects, for which it is not qualified. We hardly get any inquiries from the devotee community regarding the accredited M.A. / Ph.D. degree program in Philosophy (in affiliation with Mumbai University) which we are offering, because of lack of recognition and promotion of the novel and revolutionary content of our work by the leadership around the movement. But we have gotten students from around the world, who had had nothing to do with ISKCON and who have been very satisfied with our courses.

Finally, because of this lack of understanding of the special nature of scientific presentations which Srila Prabhupada called for, the funds earmarked for BI’s scientific presentations have been traditionally diverted almost exclusively into scientific preaching projects. We hope that this essay shows that the ‘scientific presentations’ we are making should at least have the priority for receiving the funding that Srila Prabhupada instructed BBT to make. Furthermore, if this vision is understood, appreciated and recognized by the GBC body, it is very possible that individual temples, as per their capacity, will also move to invest in getting popular presentation materials made by us.

As shown in this essay, so far the understanding of the difference between scientific presentations and the untenable notion of ‘scientific preaching’ has not been demonstrated by anybody else. Yet, I have been enabled by Srila Prabhupada’s mercy to understand this and steadily develop it over the past three plus decades, despite lack of support and even opposition. We have now actually made the necessary breakthroughs to present our Siddhanta scientifically, without referring to Vedas and Puranas, and scientists are accepting it.

We pray to Srila Prabhupada that the misunderstandings of scientific preaching may be dispelled, and that devotees can come together with a new understanding about what His Divine Grace wants regarding scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness.

THE FOLLOWING LIST OF TECHNICAL PAPERS EXEMPLIFY SRILA PRAHUPADA’S INSTRUCTIONS TO B.I. TO MAKE SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS BASED ON SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM BUT WRITTEN ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WITHOUT MENTIONING “VEDAS & PURANAS’

 Gomatam, R., (2017) Is Physics Truly Empirical, Currently? Abstract submitted at “DPG Spring Meeting of Matter & Cosmos Section (Smuk) with the division and working groups”, Bremen

 Gomatam, R., (2017) Objective Semantic Information‐ An Introduction, Abstract submitted at the “European Congress of Analytic Philosophy (ECAP ’09)” organized by European Society for Analytic Philosophy, Munich

 Gomatam, R., (2017) What is radiation,“really”? Abstract submitted at the British Society for Philosophy of Science (BSPS), Annual Meeting 2017, University of Edinburg

 Gomatam, R., (2016) Toward Relational Reality‐‐From Einstein and Tagore to Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta, Published in “Einstein, Tagore and the Nature of Reality”, Partha Ghose (editor), Pickering and Chatto Publishers (a division of Taylor and Francis/Routledge).

 Gomatam, R., (2015) Objective Semantic Information and Quantum Local Causality. Presented at the conference, “Causality in a Quantum World”, ugust 16‐ 21. This conference was part of a project at the University of Queensland entitled, “Causal Power of Information in a Quantum World”.

 Gomatam, R., (2015) Toward Avoiding Nonlocality (and Locality) in Quantum Physics, Proceedings of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol 34 (1), June 14‐17, p. 145.

 Gomatam, R., (2014) Toward Placing the Concept of ‘Chemical Element on a New Quantum Footing, Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry, July 7‐9, London

 Gomatam, R., (2012) How Do Classical and Quantum Probabilities Differ? Foundations of Probability and Physics‐6, Conference Proceedings Series, Khrennikov, A. (Ed.), American Institute of Physics, pp. 105‐110

 Gomatam, R., (2009) Quantum Theory, the Chinese Room Argument and the Symbol Grounding Problem, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, in Bruza, P. et al. (eds.), Volume 5494, Springer‐Verlag pp. 174‐183.

 Gomatam, R., (2008) Quantum Realism and Haecceity, Materialism & Immaterialism in India & the West: Varying Vistas, in Ghose, P.(ed.), Munshiram Manoharlal Pub Pvt Ltd, 2010, ISBN 978‐81‐87586‐ 42‐5, pp. 853‐872

 Gomatam, R., (2007) Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation‐‐ Are the two incompatible? Philosophy of Science, December, 74(5), pp. 736‐748

 Gomatam, R., (2005) Popper's Propensity Interpretation and Heisenberg's Potentia Interpretation — A Comparative Assessment, HSPCIC: A Historical Perspective Of The Evolution Of Ideas In Science, Chattopadhyaya, D. P. and Sengupta, P. (Eds), Vol. XIII, Part 6 , Probabilities, Propensity and Corroboration, CSC: New Delhi, pp. 301‐312

 Gomatam, R., (2005) Do Hodgson's propositions uniquely characterize free will? Invited commentary on a target paper, "A Plain Person's View of Free Will" by David Hodgson, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(1), pp. 32‐40, Imprint Academic: UK

 Gomatam, R., (2005) Quantum Physics and Philosophy, Computer Science of India Communications, 29(6), December, p. 22‐28

 Gomatam, R., (2004) Physics and Common Sense‐‐ Relearning the Connections in the Light of Quantum Theory, HSPCIC, Vol. XI, Part I: Philosophical Consciousness and Scientific Knowledge, Chattopadhyaya, D.P. & Sen Gupta, A.K. (Eds.), CSC, New Delhi, pp. 179‐207… ……. ………  Gomatam, R., (1999) Quantum Theory and Observation Problem, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11‐12), p. 173‐190

 Gomatam, R. (1987), Real and Artificial Intelligence: Toward a hierarchical model of consciousness, intelligence, mind and body, Synthesis of Science and Religion, Bhaktivedanta Institute.

 Anderson, G.; Gomatam, R.; Behera, L. (2014), “Contradictions in the Quantum Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, p 490

 Sinari, R. A. (2001) "The Bipolar Weltanschuung of the Indian Scientist" a project report submitted to the Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi

 Sinari, R. A. (2001) "Reflections on John Searle's Philosophy of Consciousnesses" a paper published in the July Sept 2001 issue of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (JICPR, Vol. XVIII No.3) pp.91‐ 106

 Sinari, R. A. (1999) "The Internality of Consciousness Experience" Discussion and Comments appeared in JICPR, Vol. XVII No.1, September‐December 1999, pp 158‐163

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ravi V. Gomatam (a.k.a. Rasaraja Dasa) is the director of the Bhaktivedanta Institute (www.bvinst.edu), which offers the world’s first M.Phil. and Ph.D. degree programs in Consciousness Studies, in collaboration with BITS, Pilani. He is also the director of the Institute of Semantic Information Sciences & Technology, which offers M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in philosophy, in affiliation with Univeristy of Mumabi.

He holds a Master’s degree in electronics engineering, and a Ph. D. in foundations of quantum physics. He is also currently a visiting professor at the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Govt. of India New Delhi. He has more than forty research publications.

He is a pioneer of two new fields in science, Consciousness Studies, a new approach to macroscopic quantum mechanics, and the field of Semantic Information Sciences and Technology. He is introducing within contemporary science, the rich content of ancient Indian Vedic thought, as presented by Lord Chaitanya, called the Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta or GVV. Its chief modern proponent is Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, of whom this author is a student.

Your feedback on this essay is earnestly solicited via email to [email protected]

Other Articles by the Author on Related Topics

1. What Does the Bhaktivedanta Institute Do? 2. Matter is the Missing Link 3. Vedic Cosmology 4. Why Bhaktivedanta? 5. Chance and Causality