OMEGA INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION Vol.7 No.2 December 2008

S

I

S

E

H

T

N

Y

S

N

I

S

I

H

T

U R T

“I have a deep interest in the close relationship between modern science and the study of the internal dimensions of the human mind, which I consider to be spirituality [...] The material well-being of human beings, especially now, is an outcome of science and technology [...] However, science and technology have not yet found a way to eliminate the worries and unhappiness or painful experiences on a mental level. Thus I consider warm-heartedness, compassion, karuna as very importat. [...] So obviously we need science and Institute of Science and Religion technology but we also need spirituality.” Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India. From the Foreword by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Phone : 0484 2623437, 2626204 ANTHEM PRESS E-mail : [email protected] www.anthempress.com URL: www.lfseminary.org/htm/omega.htm Contents

The Editorial 3 The Editorial Articles Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson The year 2009 is the bicentennial of Darwin’s birthday, and Jacek Tomczyk, Grzegorz Bugajak 6 sesquicentennial of the publication of his epoch-making work, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection. Darwin and evolutionary theory are Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue: once again making headlines in the academia as well as in the news Some Preliminary Remarks and Ground-making Searches media. The evolutionary theory has come a long way since its original Martin Sebastian 22 appearance. More than a theory that is concerned with the origination Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution: of species and the associated environmental factors, the subsequent Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and Contemporary Religious Systems developments have been able to situate this theory in a wider scientific František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes 41 and natural framework, pregnant with several philosophical and theological underpinnings. Metaphysical evolutionists extend the idea of  evolution to include the mind, the soul and the entire universe. Evolution        is no more limited to the scientific realms but it becomes essential in the C. D. Sebastian 71 context of religion. Evolution becomes, in their hands, a cosmic Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction phenomenon shaped either by divine forces or by mysterious emergent Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker 104 tendencies that operate from within the forces themselves. The Undivided Universe Throughout the history of the interaction between science and Richard D’Souza 115 religion, evolutionary theory presented a paradoxical situation whereby The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self: the proponents as well as the opponents of the science-religion dialogue An Indian Philosophical Reading exercised their hermeneutical skills to adapt the theory to their theoretical Manoranjan Mallick 138 positions. As for Richard Dawkins, “it was only with Darwin that one could be a fulfilled atheist.”1 In contrast, for Cole Turner “(T)heories of Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God: A Study in Contrast evolutionary biology do help us understand more precisely, the shape Joseph Mathew 161 God’s purpose takes in the world.”2 According to Aubrey More, “Darwinism appeared and under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a Review Articles friend...”3 Gone are the days when the claims of evolutionary theory sat Dancing to Diversity: Science-Religion Dialogue in India awkwardly with religious belief. Rather, evolutionary biology paves today S. George Valumkal 184 the way for a revised theological anthropology with its startling assumptions of our intrinsic connectedness to the world, of the vital Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India processes of the fecund earth, of the complexity, autonomy and self- Shibu K. Jose 190 creativity of matter, etc. By implication, evolutionary biology, disproving the matter-spirit dualism and expounding an elegant, aesthetic and re- by the mystical and spiritual teachings down through the ages, which enchanted universe, spells out the alphabets of an organic theology. speak about the experiential aspect of fundamental interconnectedness of all things and that the microcosm contains the macrocosm. Conversely, Three articles in this issue of Omega focus on an uptodate and Richard D’Souza shows that Bohm’s ideas of wholeness and the contextual discussion on the evolutionary theory from philosophical and implicate order in this undivided universe has all the ingrediants in it to theological points of view. Jacek Tomczyk and Grzegorz Bugajak in the transcend any theory of quantum mechanics and reach out to philosophical opening article contends that although in the course of the last 150 years and religious domains. discussions between proponents of the theory of evolution and advocates of the creationist view of the origin of human being have been frequently The paper titled, “The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self: fraught with mutual hostility and accusations, it was all unwarranted. An Indian Philosophical Reading,” by Manoranjan Mallick attempts to Viewing this period with hindsight, it becomes clear, however, that the show that the Wittgensteinian notion of happy life is comparable with theory of evolution prompted both scientists and theologians to address the Vedantic notion of . The self of  represents anew the phenomenon of the human. This challenge seems to remain the metaphysical subject – the subject which has transcended the mundane actual still. The second and third papers are rare attempts at the elucidation world while living in the world. In the final paper titled, “Aristotle, Newton of the true insights of the evolutionary worldview of the unique Indian and Aquinas on God: A Study in Contrast,” Joseph Mathew obtains a mystic and philosopher, Sri Aurobindo. The rereading of Aurobindo is all blend of philosophy and science on the perennial problematic religious the more an imperative nowadays given the prime importance he ascribes issue on the nature of God. The paper compares and contrasts the to the idea of evolution. Martin Sebastian shows that Aurobindo’s theory concept of God according to Aristotle and Aquinas and Newton. of integral knowledge and reality can shed new light on contemporary meta-reflections on science-religion theories, though a full justification In general, this issue of Omega, while addressing the historical of this claim is possible only with an examination of his theory of reality. sensitivities in science and religion, also caters to the contextual and Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Mikes discuss the visions of Sri Aurobindo contemporary challenges posed by them. and Teilhard de Chardin for human development toward a new Prof. Dr. Job Kozhamthadam transcendent level from an emergence standpoint. IISR, Pune. The next three articles dwell on certain hermeneutical domains at the interface between quantum mechanics and religious philosophies. Our authors are careful to avoid superficial parallels and uncritical Notes juxtapositioning of science and religion which are constant temptations 1. Dawkins. Denyse O’ Leary, By Design or By Chance – The Growing of the science-mysticism writers. C. D. Sebastian’s paper unravels the Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe (Minneapolis: Augsburg similarities in the concept of reality expounded in Mdhyamika Buddhism Books, 2204), p. 57. and Quantum Physics. The paper attempts an epistemic exploration of 2. Ronald Cole Turner, “Genetic Engineering: Our Role in Creation,” in John the analogical parallelism between Mhyamika Buddhism and Quantum M. Mangum (ed.), The New Faith-Science Debate - Probing Cosmology, Physics in terms of the concepts ofand complementarity. The Technology and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 72. author thinks that there is an unforeseen congruence between the philosophical framework of of the Mdhyamika Buddhism and 3. Aubrey Moore, “The Christian Doctrine of God,” in C. Gore (ed.), Lux Mundi complementarity of Quantum Mechanics. and Complementarity (London: Murray, 1891), p. 73. are clearly against philosophical dogmatism. Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker holds that the findings of quantum world as evidenced for Bohm’s concept of “interconnectedness” and “undivided wholeness” is also evidenced 4Omega June 2008 5 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson Omega feelings about publishing his work. In a letter to Charles Lyell he wrote: VII (2008)2, 6-21 “I treat you as the lord of natural sciences, therefore I beseech you to revise, after reading the whole text, the titles of the last section wherein I recapitulate. With great anxiety I am waiting for your judgement concerning the balance of arguments for and against my book” [back translation from the Polish edition].3 Darwin’s doubts resulted from his awareness of challenging the former vision of the human. In the light of Between Evolution and Creation: his theory, human being was but one of the biological species which was A Forgotten Lesson subject to the same biological laws as other organisms. His anxiety about the possible conflict was then quite well-founded, but it is very unlikely - Jacek Tomczyk1 that in his even most daring thoughts he could foresee the fact that the - Grzegorz Bugajak2 theory of evolution would be the proverbial bone of contention for the following 150 years. Time and again, natural scientists, theologians and Abstract: Heated debates stemming from the confrontation of scientific philosophers engage in debates which take up the issues of evolution. knowledge with the biblical picture of the creation of man, which had Quite often, such discussions facilitate the casting of new light on some followed the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution, became far old problems. However, there are also many fruitless controversies, which th less prominent in the second half of the 20 century. This was due to two not only fail to provide any new answers, but on the contrary, breed factors: first, the theory of evolution was partly accepted in theological more confusion. circles and at the same time biologists showed a growing awareness of the limited epistemological scope of the competence of the natural 1. The Theory of Evolution and the Creation of the Human sciences. This lesson from the history, however, seems to have been forgotten by many who now and again return to controversies which Until the second half of the 19th century, the natural sciences more often than not are caused by ideological quarrels over religion, accepted without any exceptions the theory of the fixity of species, with true scholarship being too easily lost from sight. which assumed the stability and invariability of all species. According to Key Words: Origin of Man, Evolution, Creation, Genesis, Original Sin, this theory, all living creatures, including human beings, have always Monogenism. existed in the same forms as the ones which were known at the given time. Any findings of extinct animals were instantly explained away as Introduction the evidence of great catastrophes and never led to the suspicion that the species could change over time.4 The concept of the fixity of species Human beings as a species belong to the world of animate nature allowed Linneus to classify all living organisms; the results of his taxonomic but we have always been convinced of our unique status in this world. endeavours were published in his monumental work: Systema naturae. The theory of the stability and invariability of species, accepted until the The scientific theory of the fixity of species co-existed then peacefully 19th century, placed humankind at the “top” of the animate world. The with the theological concept, according to which all creatures emerged biological vision of the stability of species was perfectly compatible with in the act of divine creation. This creationist thought was founded, on the biblical image of the creation of the world. The Book of Genesis the one hand, on the literal understanding of the first chapters of Genesis presents people as special creatures, made in the image and likeness of and, on the other, on the scholastic principle of causality (nihil reducitur God. The second half of the 19th century saw the rise of Charles Darwin’s de potentia ad actum nisi per ens actu); this principle took for granted theory of evolution. It is worth to note that Darwin himself had mixed such a relation between cause and effect which made it impossible to

6 Omega December 2008 7 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson conceive the rise of a more perfect (“greater”) being from a lesser one. different from our own. Rather, they believed that the remains from Both the scientific and theological view seemed so perfectly Belgium and Gibraltar belonged to diseased or mentally handicapped complementary that the theory of the fixity of species was for many people. By accident, in 1856, the next ancient human remains were centuries identified with the theory of creationism.5,6 This seamless found in Neandertal, Germany. Herman Schaaffhausen, an anatomy concordance ended in the second half of the 19th century. professor from Bonn, wanted to give the remains a new taxonomic name different from Homo sapiens,10 because they displayed features The juxtaposition of the scientific theory of evolution with the significantly different from those of our species, and in his opinion they theological concept of creation was one of the reasons for the heated had to have belonged to a primitive pre-human being. His approach, controversy, raised by Darwin’s famous On the Origin of Species, however, was totally alien to the way of thinking of most anthropological which was first published in 1859. The discussions between theologians authorities of the day. Carter Blake, an amateur-anthropologist, was and scientists, which immediately followed this publication, were all based convinced that the bones belonged to an idiot.11 In the opinion of a on the false assumption that if the theory of evolution was true, then the physician, Bernard Davis, the big skull with prominent brow ridges bore biblical idea of creation had to be rejected. Nobody noticed that Darwin traces of pathological changes.12 Schaaffhausen’s proposal to classify did not contest in his work the theological idea of the creation of the the Neandertal fossil as a new species was also criticized by August human, but only opposed the biological concept of the fixity of species. Franz Mayer, who came to the conclusion that the remains belonged to From what he claimed himself, it clearly follows that he did not intend to a Cossack who reached Germany in January 1814 when the Russian reject God as the creator of the humankind. He was only convinced that army was attacking Napoleons’ troops. Also Rudolph Virchov, a famous 7 the scientific concept of the fixity of species was wrong. German pathologist did not accept Schaaffhausen’s thesis. In 1873, at The theory of evolution gave an impulse for a revised scientific the International Anthropological Congress in Wiesbaden, Virchov interpretation of the human fossils which had already been discovered presented the results of his own research. In his opinion, the Neandertal at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1829 Phillipe Charles Schmerling remains belonged to a human being who had suffered in his/her childhood excavated three human skulls at Engis (Belgium). The first was destroyed from rickets and certainly could not be remains of our ancestor! He during exploration, the second one was huge and massive, it was similar repeated this opinion in Ulm in 1892. Furthermore, he claimed that the to a skull of modern human. The third one, which once belonged to a “cripple” from the Neandertal Valley could not have survived without child, was characterized by archaic features. Schmerling inferred that help from his companions, and altruism is characteristic only of modern people had been undergoing a morphological transformation over human beings. If, therefore, Neandertals were altruists, they had to belong centuries.8 Charles Lyell, who visited Belgium in 1833, examined the to the species of Homo sapiens. Virchov was a pathologist so he often child’s skull, but completely rejected Schmerling’s suggestions. In Lyell’s examined human bones affected by syphilis or rickets, and he knew the opinion, the skull was ordinary. Under criticism, Schmerling then sold changes effected by these diseases. It is, therefore, surprising that he the Engis fossil to the University of Liége. Almost twenty years later, in should have recognized symptoms of rickets in a fossil that did not show 1848, another human skull was found in obscure circumstances in Forbes’ any signs of the disease! Virchov continued to defend the old concept of Quarry (Gibraltar). It had a prominent brow ridge and a flat forehead. the fixity of species according to which modern man could not have 13 Unfortunately, the find from Gibraltar was treated only as a natural oddity primitive ancestors. 9 and handed over to the Royal Museum of Surgery in London. Potentially He died in 1902, and until the end believed that the fossil from important findings were neglected because of the concept of the fixity Neandertal belonged to an ill individual who certainly could not be of species. Biologists were unable to face the idea that the recovered classified as a separate species – Homo neanderthalensis. Only after fossils could belong to ancient people who should be assigned to a species Darwin’s publication could all these findings be finally recognised as the

8Omega December 2008 9 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson remains of some earlier forms of Homo. Darwin provided many examples These lines of reasoning were pursued further by other theologians which proved the fixity of species concept invalid. His thesis was that all who, in the light of new discoveries (further evidence of the gradual forms of life were related by ancestry. This meant that all species, extinct development of human being were found in the meantime: and living, descended from a single ancient ancestor. Excavations carried Pithecanthropus erectus near Bejing in 1890/1891, Neanderthal in La out in Asia and Europe at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries were in Quina in 1908 and Saccopastore in 1929, Australopithecus africanus line with the theory of evolution and not that of the fixity of species. in Taung in 1924), could no longer reject the idea of evolution. It seems Paradoxically however, the fact that the re-interpretation of old discoveries that the first theologian who tried to reconcile creationism with the natural corroborated Darwin’s controversial hypothesis raised even more fear sciences was Hubert Junker, according to whom the story of the creation among theologians. of the First Parents was a narrative designed to illustrate the truth about human nature and dignity, rather than a historical report on the Many theologians saw Darwin’s theory as a dangerous threat to consecutive phases of the creation of humankind.19 the idea of divine creation. They maintained that evolutionism inevitably led to atheism, therefore they could not accept it. For example, Joseph In this way, Junker followed the directions included in Pope Leon Pohle insisted in his textbook on dogmatics that the description of creation XIII’s encyclical Providentissiumus Deus (published in 1893). The pope in Genesis was a realistic and literally true story, and therefore he claimed declared that the Bible was the source of infallible knowledge about that Darwinism offended God who created the body of the first human salvation and no conclusions other than theological could be derived being.14 Similar views were expressed by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, a from the biblical stories. In this document we can read: “Now, the authority very influential person in the Catholic Church of the time.15 On the 30th of the Fathers, by whom after the apostles, the growing Church was June --1909, the Papal Biblical Council issued a special document which disseminated, watered, built, protected, and nurtured, is the highest reminded Catholics that the basic truths of faith included the following authority, as often as they all in one and the same way interpret a Biblical concepts: 1. God is the direct creator of the first human; 2. Woman text, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals.”20 originates from man’s body; 3. Humankind has one beginning.16 Another attempt at reconciling the theory of evolution with the Scientists in turn, who were frequently accused of forging their Christian vision of the origin of human being was undertaken in the 20th evidence, tried to reinforce their claims by arguing that biblical statements century by a French Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. As a theologian contradicted scientific discoveries and inferring that the theological and a scientist he always supported the idea of evolution. In his opinion, concept of the creation of human being was simply false. the natural sciences did not have to conflict with theology because the former employed a different, that is biological, concept of causality, However, it was already at the time of this bitter confrontation which simply defined a chain of subsequent events. Theology, on the between theology and the sciences that the first attempts to formulate other hand, deals with ontological causality, that is with the dependence different views on the process of hominization appeared. For example, of a lower being on a higher one. The creative act of God, which takes L. Janssens in his “Summa Theologica” stated that God was directly place beyond time, cannot be identified with temporal and immanent involved in the creation of human being, but he also argued that from the causes. One can therefore both accept the theory of evolution and believe theological point of view it was not important how the human body was in the idea of creation.21 first made.17 Likewise, Bernhard Bartmann did not reject the possibility of the evolutionary origin of human being, when he maintained that God The works of such thinkers as Junker and Teilhard de Chardin created human soul from nothing and human body from existing matter.18 initiated the process of separating theology from natural anthropology. A possibility of solving the conflict between the idea of creation and the

10Omega December 2008 11 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson theory of evolution appeared when theologians and the Church authorities Evolution or Fixity of species accepted that scientific theories should not be evaluated according to the biblical texts or theological knowledge. In other words, the solution Scientific ground was found in the peaceful area of separation. It is quite another matter, Creation or Anti-creation however, if such a solution, although methodologically sound and correct, can also be genuinely satisfactory.22 Theological ground

Doctrine-wise, the conflict between the theory of evolution and Fig.1: Scientific vs. theological approach to the problem of the origin creationism ended in the 1950s. In 1948 Cardinal Achille Lienart of human being pronounced the view that God created the human when human body was connected with an immaterial soul. Theologians agreed that the 2. Monogenism and Original Sin Scriptures and theological knowledge cannot be used to question a scientific concept such as the theory of evolution.23 In 1950, Pius XII, in The Book of Genesis presents in a very vivid way the sin of the his encyclical “Humani generis”, wrote: “For these reasons the Teaching First Parents. The consequences of their fall affect all humankind. This Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the biblical image served as a basis for the assumption that all people have a present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and single pair of ancestors: Adam and Eve.26 The literal understanding of discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place the Scripture resulted in linking the doctrine of Original Sin with the with regard to the doctrine of evolution….”24 These statements closed concept of monogenism. Up to the 1940s, nobody paid attention to the the debate on the agreement between the Revealed Truth and the theory fact that the theological truth about Original Sin should not follow from of evolution, which eventually ceased to be perceived as a threat to any biological hypothesis. Many theological texts from the beginning of faith. the 20th century still referred to the single ancestry of humankind, that is to a concept proper to natural sciences. For instance, Franz Diek-amp The Church and theologians should remain interested in this theory, described monogenism as a necessary condition for accepting the doctrine as it is advised in pope John Paul II’s address to The Pontifical Academy of Original Sin.27 Theology accepted then the following syllogism: if all of Science: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of people are burdened with the stigma of Original Sin, then all people must that encyclical [Humani Generis], some new findings lead us toward have one ancestor, i.e., an individual called Adam, whose story is narrated the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. The magisterium in the Book of Genesis.28 of the Church takes direct interest in the question of evolution because it refers to man who, according to the Revelation, is created in the image In 1941, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical “Divino afflante and likeness of God.”25 It appears, however, that the importance of ‘the Spiritu”, wherein he rejected the literal understanding of the narrative question of evolution’ for theological thinking has yet to be discovered about the creation of human being, and recommended its re- by many theologians, who either neglect this issue completely, or, when interpretation.29 One of the issues undertaken in the studies that followed challenged, chose to reply the old and outdated tune of evolution being a the papal advice was the problem of Original Sin. It was pointed out that ‘mere hypothesis’, or even go back in their thinking to the time when Original Sin was universal, i.e., every human being was subject to it. Darwinism was being perceived as the most hostile enemy of the true This conclusion bears special significance in theology because it accounts faith. One would wish that the history of the late 19th and early 20th for the necessity of salvation. At the time when it was formulated, century disputes had been learnt better. however, it also appeared that the belief in the existence of a unique

12Omega December 2008 13 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson Adam and Eve, the very first and only pair of parents of all humans, was should support the idea of monogenism. Teilhard stressed the fact that indispensable for sustaining this teaching. Looking for evidence to support the ‘hypothesis of monogenism’ was not scientific, and pointed out that this hypothesis, some theologians turned to the anthropological notion of whenever anthropology speaks about ‘the first man’ the concept should monogenism as an opportune concept to suit their aims. They interpreted always be understood as referring to a population and not a single this notion in the way which answered their needs: it was assumed that individual. As a scientist, Teilhard was well aware of the fact that all at the very beginning of humankind there must have existed a single and species originated in the process of speciation, which is always a group unique pair of people who were “everybody’s parents.” This raised an phenomenon, and this is why all mankind could not descend from one obvious objection among scientists because paleoanthropology speaks couple. In his opinion, monogeneity and poligeneity were purely theological about the beginnings of humankind only with regard to population, and concepts and, as such, they remained scientifically unverifiable.34 therefore cannot accept a view that the entire species evolved from a single couple. What is a real scientific issue is the problem of mono- or An encyclical, “Humani generis”, issued by Pius XII in 1950, did polycentrism, i.e., the question if humankind could have evolved from not help much in this matter. The pope explicitly rejected the view that one or many different populations. But even if this issue could be decided after Adam there could have existed some humans who did not descend in favour of monocentrism, it still would not be the solution required by from him as a common ancestor, nor did he accept the idea that the theologians. A population of people could not have committed a sin which, word Adam may refer to many ‘fathers’. The encyclical says: “When, according to the traditional teaching, was committed by a single Adam however, there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely and then was ‘inherited’ by his descendants. polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy the liberty [of opinion]. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains Various attempts in the 1950s to reconcile the theological teaching that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not on Original Sin with scientific findings prove this issue to be a difficult take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first one. Vittorio Marcozzi, for instance, claims that biology cannot deal with parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. the problem of monogenism.30 M. Schmaus, in his textbook of We do not know how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which “Dogmatics,” does not see the possibility of proving monogenism on the the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority ground of natural sciences, either. At the same time, Schmaus proposes of the Church propose with regard to Original Sin, which proceeds from three theses: 1. The evolutionary process which resulted in the origin of a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through human being was intended by God; 2. Evolution affected only the soul, generations, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”35 not the body; 3. All humankind derives from one couple.31 Similarly, Karl Rahner supported the explanation of the universality of Original Sin on The issuing of the encyclical caused divergence of opinion among the grounds of the monogenic origin of humankind, although he tried to theologians who disagreed on the weight of the Pope’s pronouncement. prove it by means of metaphysical, not scientific concepts.32 In his Some, like Charles Boyer, were convinced that the encyclical contained exegetical exposition of the Book of Genesis, Stanisław Styś writes that a papal doctrinal statement which definitively solved the problem of the 36 the biblical text cannot imply either the creation of one human couple or single origin of the human. Others argued that the encyclical contained many couples, since the biblical word Adam simply denotes “a human no definitive or irrevocable decision. A Jesuit priest, Leon Renwart, wrote being” in general.33 that the form used by Pius XII did not imply a promulgated doctrinal definition. Moreover, he pointed to the lack of consistency in the The problem became even more serious when not only interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis. On the one hand, theologians anthropologists but also some theologians, like for instance P. Teilhard rejected the literal understanding of the text and unanimously accepted de Chardin, criticised the demand raised by the theologians that science the possibility that the human body could undergo evolution as postulated

14Omega December 2008 15 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson by the natural sciences. On the other hand, however, they still literally The controversy lasted until late 1950s because theology could interpreted the same passages with regard to the existence of the single not free itself from biological lines of reasoning. For quite a long time couple of the First Parents.37 A similar objection was raised by A. Galin theologians remained anxious about the fact that a resignation from a who asked if monogenism was really implied by faith. biological support for monogenism would diminish the reality of Original Sin. It was believed that the biblical interpretation of Original Sin called However, both theologians and scientists who were involved in for a complete rejection of scientific arguments which denied monogenistic this debate on Humani generis failed to pay due attention to the fact origins of our species. that the Pope referred to monogenism in the context of a sin of a ‘real human being’ (“there existed on earth a true man”). Pius XII was then What eventually helped to reach a solution was the growing concerned with describing human being from the perspective of Christian awareness of vital differences between scientific and theological anthropology, not that of the natural sciences, for the latter do not have discourse. The interpreting of the biblical texts largely depends on any comprehensive or scientifically verifiable definition of human being, recognising their unique literary and narrative character. As Erich and therefore cannot identify the spatio-temporal point where the first Auerbach once stressed, Hebrew prose is distinguished by the following “true man” appeared. We should remember that the picture of the past, features: first, clear emphasis falls on some parts of the narrative while drawn in contemporary paleoanthropology, is a joined effect of three others are left in the background; second, there are sudden interruptions different research methods: the morphological, the archaeological and or unexpected beginnings of new plots and, last but not least, one must the genetic. Each of these has produced its own definition of a ‘human’. take into account an exceptionally wide range of meanings and semantic Different preliminaries of knowledge about contemporary human thus nuances of terms used in biblical texts. This is why the exegetes’ task result in different scenarios of the Homo sapien’s history. For the consists mainly in retrieving those senses which the author of the text proponents of the morphological method such criteria of belonging to the outlined or implied in a manner proper to him. Also, when biblical authors species of Homo sapiens as: the growth of the braincase accompanied spoke about the universe and human being, they did not articulate a by the evolution of its shape, the reduction of the facial part of the skull scientist’s or a philosopher’s point of view, but they spoke from the and the ever more gracile skeleton, remain crucial. Those who prefer perspective of believers who wished to glorify the good and powerful this approach will seek the origins of our species in the past reaching the hand of God, the Maker of all, by praising the beauty of the visible Middle Pleistocene.38,39 world.43 A different picture of our past emerges from the accounts The aforementioned discussion, concerning the relation between proposed by the proponents of the archaeological approach who argue monogenism and the truth about Original Sin, seems to have come to an that the history of Homo sapiens is only about forty thousand years end with majority of theologians recognizing and admitting that whenever long. In this period, known as Upper Paleolithic, we come across such natural sciences speak about “the first man” they always mean by this evident traces of human existence as cave paintings, decorations and term a representative of an entire population.44 In 1968, Pope Paul VI in quite sophisticated tools.40 All such evidence clearly point to the his Credimus, defined monogenism as a theological truth without which development of abstract and symbolic thinking, which is of course unique the teaching about Original Sin would be hardly defendable, although at for Homo sapiens. Last but not least, the genetic method places the the same time he admitted that one should not demand from the natural origin of man in the past dating back to 200 Ka.41 So the way in which sciences any evidence in favour of the theological concept, whose main the history of human evolution is presented clearly depends on the choice task was to illustrate the claim of the universality of Original Sin.45 In of a particular research method. Each of the above mentioned methods other words, monogenism is a theological thesis concerned with the origin results in a different description of the beginnings of man.42 of sin, and as such it cannot be referred to on the same grounds as

16Omega December 2008 17 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson monocentrism, which is a scientific thesis concerned with the origins of scientists deemed themselves competent to interpret the Book of Genesis. Homo sapiens. The teaching about Original Sin does not explain how it Viewing this period with hindsight, it becomes clear, however, that the first came into the world and how it is transmitted – this will always be theory of evolution prompted both scientists and theologians to address a part of misterium iniquitatis – but rather concentrates on the fact of anew the phenomenon of the human. This challenge seems to remain human disobedience and, implied by it, the necessity of Redemption.46,47 actual still. Today, although an official statement of the Church voiced by John Paul II has finally put an end to some misunderstandings, it Similarly, the teaching about the creation of the world should not cannot be granted that all problems have been definitively solved. be identified with a temporal moment of coming into existence. The main sense of the dogma is that the world has been created by God. In Notes other words: whatever exists, is continually sustained by the Creator and owes to him its existence. What is at stake then, is not the temporal 1. Jacek Tomczyk lectures at the Institute of Ecology and Bioethics, beginning of the world, but its continuous dependence on God with regard Department of Anthropology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski Universit, Polland. to its existence. 2. Grzegorz Bugajak lectures at the Institute of Philosophy, Department of the Philosophy of Nature, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski Universit, Polland. Monocentrism or Policentrism 3. Michael White, John Gribbin, Darwin (Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka, 1998), Scientific ground p. 210. 4. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Kent: Mackays of Chatham, 1998), Monogenism or Poligenism p. 7. Theological ground 5. Bernard Hałaczek, “Man Between Biological and Theological Thinking,” in Śląskie Studia Historyczno-Teologiczne, 33 (2000), p. 165. Fig.2: Scientific vs. theological approach to the problem of human roots 6. Jacek Tomczyk, “Paradigm of Anthropology as Causes of Taxonomic Final Remarks Controversies,” in Przegląd Antropologiczny-Anthropological Review, 65 (2002), p. 83. In the course of the last 150 years, discussions between proponents 7. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Kent: Mackays of Chatham, 1998), of the theory of evolution and advocates of the creationist view of the p. 369. origin of human being have been frequently fraught with mutual hostility 8. Erik Trinkaus, Pat Shipman, The Neandertals of Skeleton, Scientists and and accusations. Many theologians, who felt threatened by the scientific Scandal (New York: Vintage, 1994), p. 39. interpretation of human prehistory, rejected the theory of evolution, 9. Louis Leakey, Vanne Goodall, Unveiling Man’s Origins (London: Methuen considering it a view which contradicted the biblical narrative and the & Co., 1969), p. 81. principle of causality, and therefore was offensive both towards God 10. Herman Schaaffhausen, “On the Crania of the Most Ancient Races of Man,” and humankind. Natural scientists, on the other hand, frequently accused in Natural History Review, 2 (1961), p.151. by theologians of forging the evidence, tried to turn the tables on their adversaries and were thus determined to prove that certain biblical 11. Carter Blake, On the Cranium of the Most Ancient Races of Man, in statements contradicted the results of their research, and concluded Geologist, 6 (1862), p. 206. therefore that the vision of the origins of human propagated by theologians 12. Gustav Schwalbe, Der Neanderthalschädel (Bonn: Univeritatäts was contrary to scientific truth. In brief: in their eyes it was false. Thus Buchdruckerei von C. Georgi, 1901), p. 56. both theologians and scientists confused the spheres of their competence. 13. Rudolf Virchov, “Untersuchung des Neadertalschädels,” in Verhandle Theologians formulated verdicts in matters of biology whereas natural Berliner Ges Anthropologie Ethnologische, 4 (1872), p. 163. 18Omega December 2008 19 Tomczyk, Bugajak Between Evolution and Creation: A Forgotten Lesson 14. Joseph Pohle, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, t.I (Padeborn: Schöningh, 1908), p. 32. Karl Rahner, “Theologisches zum Monogenismus,” in Schriften zur 424. Theologie, 1(1954), p. 318. 15. Ernesto Ruffini, La teoria dell’evoluzione secondo la scienza e la fede 33. Stanisław Styś, “Biblijne ujęcie stworzenia świata wobec nauki,” in Studia (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1948), p. 150. Biblijne, 19(1959), p. 29. 16. Pontifical Biblical Commission, “De charactere historico trium priorum 34. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper capitum Geneseos, Sul carattere storico dei tre primi capitoli della Genesi,” Perennial, 1955), p. 206. in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1(1909), p. 568. 35. Ed Schomelzer, Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorium (New York: 17. Laurentius Jansens, Summa Theologica, t.I (Freiburg: Herder, 1912), p. 673. Crossroad Pub Co., 1998), sec. 2327-2328. 18. Berhnard Bartman, Lehrbuch der Dogmatic, t.I (Freiburg: Herder, 1911), p. 36. Charles Boyer, “Les Leçons del’Encyclique Humani generic, in 251. Gregorianum, 31(1950), p. 256. 19. Hubert Junker, Die biblische Urgeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung als 37. George Vandebroek, Leon Renwart, “L’Encyclique ‘Humani Generis’ et les Grundlage der alttestamentlichen Offenbarung (Bonn: Hanstein, 1932), p. sciences naturelles,” in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 73(1951), p. 349. 40. 38. Leslie C. Aiello, “The Fossil Evidence for Modern Human Origins in Africa: 20. Ed Schomelzer, Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorium (New York: a Revised View,” in American Anthropologist, 95(1995), p.73-96. Crossroad Pub Co., 1998), sec. 1943-1953. 39. Christopher B. Stringer, Jean J. Hublin, Bernard Vandermeersch, “The 21. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans in Western Europe,” in Fred Smith, Perennial, 1955), p. 154. Frank Spencer (eds.), The Origins of Modern Humans. A World Survey of 22. Johannes Hessen, Das Kausalprinzip (Augsburg: Filser, 1958), p. 16. the Fossil Evidence (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1984), p. 51-135. 23. Achille Lienart, “Der Christ und die Entwicklungslehre,” in Stimmen der 40. Richard Leakey, The Origin of Humankind (London: Phoenix, 1995), p. 100. Zeit, 142 (1948), p. 84. 41. Rebeca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, Alan C. Wilson, “Mitochondrial DANN 24. Ed Schomelzer, Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorium (New York: and Human Evolution,” in Nature, 325(1987), p. 31-36. Crossroad Pub Co., 1998), sec. 2327. 42. Jacek Tomczyk, “The Origins of Homo sapiens In the Light of Different 25. John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Science: On Evolution,” Research methods,” in Human Evolution, 21 (2006), p. 230-213. in L’Osservatore Romano 1 (1997), p.18. 43. Erich Auerbach, “Odysseus’ Scar,” in Mimesis: The Representation of 26. Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (London: Harvard Univ. Reality in Western Literature, (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968), Press, 2005), p. 9. sec.1.1. 27. Franz Diekamp, Katolische Dogmatik nach der Grundsätzen des heiligen 44. E.g. Rene Lavocat, “Reflexions d’un paleontologiste sur l’état originel de Thomas, t.I (Münster: von Dr. Klaudius Jüssen, 1918), p. 105. l’humanité et le péché original,” in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 89 (1967), p. 584. 28. Peter Morant, Die Anfänge der Menschheit. Eine Auslegugng der ersten elf Genesis-Kapitel (Luzern: Röber, 1960), p. 135. 45. Ed Schomelzer, Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorium (New York: Crossroad Pub Co., 1998), sec. 1968. 29. Ed Schomelzer, Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorium (New York: Crossroad Pub Co., 1998), sec. 2293-3830. 46. Henryk Pietras, Grzech pierworodny (Kraków: WAM, 1999), p. 50. 30. Vittorio Marcozzi, “Poligenesi ed evoluzione nell origini dell’ uomo,” in 47. Raymund Schwager, Erbsünde und Heilsdrama. Im Kontext von Evolution, Gregorianum, 29(1948), p. 343. Gentechnologie und Apokalyptik (Münster: Lit-Verlag, 1997), p. 116. 31. Michael Schmaus, Katolische Dogmatik (Münster: von Dr. Klaudius Jüssen, 1954), p. 408. 20Omega December 2008 21 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue Omega University Professor, C. Mackenzie Brown projected Aurobindo Goshe VII (2008)2, 22-40 as a twentieth century proponent of Avataric evolutionism.2 Avataric evolutionism, in Brown’s view, is “is the notion that the ten traditional incarnations, or avataras, of the Hindu god Vishnu foreshadowed Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.”3 While on the one hand Brown deserves appreciation for his interests in widening the frontiers of the dialogue to include Indian thought, his text, nevertheless, on the other hand, invites some very important critical considerations. In this article we will first Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue: offer some critical remarks on Brown’s representation of Aurobindo, Some Preliminary Remarks and Ground-making Searches and then introduce Aurobindo’s theory of integral knowledge wherein he actually tries to integrate scientific epistemology and religious - Martin Sebastian1 epistemology.

Abstract: Sri Aurobindo is one of the most prominent of the modern Aurobindo and Avataric Evolutionism: An Unhelpful Move Indian thinkers and for that reason an indispensable resource in any hermeneutical interplacement of science and religion from the Indian Brown fixes the origin of avataric evolutionism in the latter part point of view. The rereading of Aurobindo is all the more an imperative of 19th century and traces its different stages of development in the nowadays given the prime importance he ascribes to the idea of evolution, works of Kesub Chunder Sen and Blavatsky.4 Then, he continues to and rightly, he has been seriously discussed by the science-religion expose and critique the development of the theory of avataric evolutionism theorists in India. In this article the author first offers some critical in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. At this stage of his remarks on Brown’s representation of Aurobindo as an exponent of reconstruction of the history of Avataric evolutionism, the works of avataric evolutionism, and then introduces Aurobindo’s theory of integral Narayana Bhavanrao Pavgee (1854-1935) and Aurobindo Goshe (1872- knowledge wherein he actually tries to integrate scientific epistemology and religious epistemology. The author shows that Aurobindo’s theory 1950) are his main resources. One of his main arguments, as far as our of integral knowledge and reality can shed new light on contemporary topic is concerned, is that an examination of the Hindu thinkers’ meta-reflections on science-religion theories, though a full justification approaches to evolutionism does give us a clear picture of the nature of of this claim is possible only with an examination of his theory of reality. religion-science encounter in India. Referring back to his own quick, Key Words: Aurobindo, Evolution, Avataric evolutionism, Surface selective reconstruction of the history of ‘colonial and post-colonial cognition, Subliminal cognition, Integral epistemology. elaborations of avataric evolutionism,’ he declares that all Hindu thinkers, from Kesub Chunder Sen to some anonymous internet writers in our times, develop a model which affirms India as ‘the original homeland of Introduction all science and technology’ and ‘ultimate source or inspiration even for Western science.’5 In other words, the Indian thinkers, as Brown Ever since the publication of The Life Divine, Aurobindo has understands them, first of all, differentiate on the one hand and somehow been widely regarded as one of the major representatives of the Indian on the other hand interrelate higher or spiritual science and lower or thought in the modern world. Given the prime importance he ascribes to material sciences; and then, make an explicit claim of absolute superiority the idea of evolution, he has been studied with questions in the field of in the field of spiritual science, and by implication, in the other field as science-religion dialogue in view. Many articles have appeared in the well. Apart from making out a ridiculous reductionist game involved in journal Aurobindo already in 1960s and 70s. Recently, a Trinity

22Omega December 2008 23 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue the elaboration avataric evolutionism, Brown also assesses Indians’ claim inherently problematic thought construct that happened to be counted as to superiority as unfounded. For, in his view, efforts to contextualize the typically Indian. To put it bluntly, Aurobindo is not a proponent of what ancient insights, such as avatarhood, must be preceded by a related Brown calls avataric evolutionism. None of Aurobinod’s major works effort to settle important epistemological questions. He deems an would support such an evolutionary reading of avatars. Brown is not epistemological inquiry mandatory because avataric evolutionism, which completely unaware of this truth; he writes in reference to The Essays in his reading is an important issue in the field of science-religion dialogue on Gita: “Aurobindo’s purpose in elaborating his avataric ideas in Essays in India, is badly enveloped by many ‘cultural, political, philosophical, on the Gita was primarily to clarify how the Divine comes into the and theological issues’ that always call for ongoing critical interpretation. world, not to address issues of Darwinian evolution, despite the frequent use of evolutionary terminology. In any case, the ‘avataric evolutionism’ An array of questions and concerns arise at once: is the doctrine found in the Essays is hardly the robust version of a Pavgee, Keshub, or of avatar the central aspect of Hindu thought so much so that it can give Blavatsky.”6 How come then Brown still views Aurobindo as “a worthy us a clear picture of science-religion interactions in India? Can the so heir of the romanticized and revivalist Aryan/Vedic tradition of called avataric evolutionism be considered as an established and widely Dayananda, Vivekananda, and Pavgee and the intuitionist ideals of the subscribed doctrine in a very loosely bound religio-philosophical tradition first two.”7 as Hinduism? Is the evolutionary reading of the sequential appearance of avatars a warranted interpretation? However, leaving the general In our opinion, Brown is engaging in an inadequate hermeneutical questions as these behind, we shall turn our attention to some precise activity. He seems to fixate Aurobindo as a comparative evolutionary concerns pertaining to Brown’s representation of the life and thought of thinker who neither accepts the full implications of Darwinism nor does Aurobindo. Is Darwin the chief conversation partner of Aurobindo while remain consistent in an evolutionary interpretation of avatars. But, as he develops his theory of evolution? What then about the influence of matter of fact, Aurobindo’s central concerns are not about Darwinism vedic-upanishadic idea of evolution and Bergson’s idea of emergence in or the evolution avatars. On the contrary, his major achievement is the the making of Aurobindo’s theory of knowledge and evolution? What is insight he gained in regard to the reality of the involution of the Divine Aurobindo’s central doctrine, the evolution of avatars?, or, the evolution and the evolution of all the rest towads the divine. The crucial flaw of of consciousness which presupposes an involution of consciousness? Brown’s interpretation is the lack of attention given to the epistemological Can Aurobindo’s theory of consciousness-evolution be properly specificities of Auorobindo’s thoughts, which, in the order of cognition, understood except against the background of his integral epistemology give rise to and, in the order of factuality, remain implied in an evolutionary of consciousness? In fact, as mentioned earlier, Brown himself has noted ontology. What exactly was the place Aurobindo accords to scientific that an epistemological inquiry must precede ontological claims about knowledge is not a major concern for Brown, although he refers to the physical and supra-physical realities. He has rightly pointed out that topic in passing. He remains contended with his partial diagnosis of the proponents of what he calls a Vedic Darwinism have never taken pains prejudices of the Indian thinkers whom he groups in terms of colonial to ‘critically analyze the assumptions of the theory.’ But, does Aurobindo and post-colonial experiences. For Brown, the history of Indian deserve this critique? elaborations of the idea of evolution is simply a story of some proud Indians’ uncritical intellectual warfare against colonization, earlier in the Avataric evolutionism is obviously an objectionable theoretical form of British political imperialism, and later in the form of intellectual construct. Our aim is not to save this problematic elaboration of the imperialism of the entire West: “With the gaining of independence in doctrine of avatarhood. Rather our aim is to resist all attempts to let 1947, Indians no longer needed to use avataric evolutionism as part of some original and sound intellectual achievements of the Indian tradition any nationalistic agenda against British political imperialism, although it be lost in the course of a cross-examination and eventual dismissal of an is still invoked against an alleged colonialist intellectual imperialism. The

24 Omega December 2008 25 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue older nationalistic feelings fed into ethnic and cultural pride in India’s in science–religion interactions, I insisted on specifying such mediation ancient achievements. Almost invariably proponents of avataric as precisely hermeneutical. It is in this field of hermeneutical mediation evolutionism today are motivated by pride in the prescience of the ancient that Aurobindo can offer something in light of his theory of integral Vedic or Puranic sages in anticipating the discoveries of modern knowledge. In the following we will briefly expose Aurobindo’s science.”8 In his final evaluation; avataric evolutionism is used for three epistemological theory, which we hope will help us to rethink a project unwholesome purposes: (a) “to confirm the modern and scientific nature that takes Aurobindo into science-religion dialogue. of Hinduism and the Vedic tradition, often illustrated by noting the insight into the unity of humans and animals manifest in the traditional avataric Integral Epistemology of Consciousness myths;” (b) “to show the superiority of the Hindu to the Abrahamic It is in the context of two widely held conceptions of reality, namely, religions that insist upon a radical uniqueness of humankind”; and, (c) subjectivism and materialism, that Aurobindo establishes the justifiability “to critique Western science and materialism, because the avataric of an integral approach. In our re-reading of Aurobindo’s texts with sequence goes beyond mere organic evolution to include a more ‘holistic’ science-religion interactions in view, subjectivism and materialism will vision of human destiny that encompasses the spiritual as well as the be reconceived as representing religious epistemology and scientific physical (and cultural). Sometimes embedded in such critique is a negative epistemology respectively. Aurobindo does not reject subjectivism and evaluation of scientific epistemology, or at least a positing of the equality materialism as totally baseless; rather he brings out their inner flaws and or even superiority of intuitive and yogic modes of perception that go assigns to them certain partial function in his integral vision of reality and beyond the rational and sensory.”9 knowledge. Reality of things resides in something within, which is neither A reconstructive hermeneutical procedure as this can cause created by the mind, nor affected by its interpretations. An ordinary enormous damages to the development of an ancient religio-philosophical state of mind cannot integrate the details of the essence of things into its tradition whose many domains are still unexplored by the modern knowledge-bank. It is achieved by mind’s counterpart in an upper intellectuals. Certain urgency of a true, comprehensive understanding hemisphere, namely, Supermind or Truth-Consciousness. This is possible and explanation of the Hindu thought-structures is apparent to most of for Supermind because, in essence, all objects are creations of the Indian academicians. However, our defense is very modest. We will consciousness which is one with being. As regards the latter reconsider the thought of Aurobindo in the context of science–religion epistemological approach, in Aurobindo’s view, a materialistic conception dialogue. Our overall argument is that one cannot place Aurbindo on one of the nature of reality and knowledge “starts from the idea of physical or the other fence of science–religion exchanges; and much less, view existence as the one fundamental existence and the relegation of him as a weak proponent of a naïve eclectic construct such as avataric consciousness, mind, soul or spirit to the position of the temporary outcome evolutionism. Further, to put it constructively and more concretely, a of the physical energy in its cosmic action, - if indeed soul or spirit has project that aims to take Aurobindo into science-religion dialogue must any existence.”11 Thus, materiality becomes the criterion of reality and start with an effort to explicitate his integral epistemology of external verifiability the criterion of truth. In contrast to such exclusively consciousness. However, in order to accommodate an integral subjectivist and materialist perspectives, Aurobindo’s integral epistemological programme, science-religion theorists need to focus their epistemological project seems to go beyond the confines of traditional attention on a real, specific domain between science and religion. In an logic and ordinary methods of knowledge. He has founded his integral earlier article I have argued in favour of redirecting science–religion thought on some fresh insights into the functional capabilities of certain dialogue towards the ‘between’ between science and theology.10 Basing emerging methods in logic and cognition. However, Aurobindo has not myself on an assumed, if not established, role of philosophical mediation spelt out the foundational insights of his epistemology in an independent

26Omega December 2008 27 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue section in any of his works. It is left to the students of his woks to bring Pure Self –Consciousness out the logical base-structure of his epistemological approach, and also

S

to decode the secrets of his cognitional methods. What follows is an u

b

l

i attempt in this direction. Identity Identity S

m

u

i

r

n

f

a Humans, according to Aurobindo, basically know themselves, their a

l

c

c

e

o Intimate Direct Contact Intimate Direct Contact

interior movements, the world and the varied objects in it in two different C

g

o

n

g ways: by identity and by separation. Each of these fundamental ways of i

t

n

i

o knowing has one derivative each. From the way of knowing by identity, i

n t

Direct Separative Contact Direct Separative Contact i

o

b

n a way of knowing by intimate direct contact derives, and similarly, from y

b

the usual way of knowing by direct separative contact, yet another way y of knowing by indirect separative contact derives. Thus, there is a fourfold Indirect Separative Contact Indirect Separative Contact order of knowledge that results from four different methods of knowing: Knowing by Identity, Knowing by Intimate Direct Contact, Knowing by Surface Cognition of the Inside World Direct Separative Contact, and Knowing by Indirect Separative Contact. These four different methods of knowing can be pursued in two The Knowledge by Identity can be illustrated only by the direct different levels, outer and inner. This is possible because the being of the awareness of one’s own existence. The content of such knowledge is knower has two planes, a surface plane and a subliminal12 plane; i.e., self and being, and nothing else. Only the self and being can be known humans have the capacity for surface cognition as well as subliminal by pure identity. In the case of the knowledge of the processes of thinking cognition. Surface cognition comprises the above listed four kinds/methods and feeling, there is indeed a certain element of awareness by identity. of knowledge, whereas subliminal cognition when pursued in a methodic This happens when one projects oneself with some sort of identification isolation,13 beyond the range of the surface mind, can take the knower into the process of thinking and feeling. For instance, consider the case to an experience of supramental realization that provides him/her with of, as Aurobindo notes, “an up rush of wrath which swallows us up so gnosis, by making him/her a gnostic being. Such supramental realization that for the moment our whole consciousness seems to be a wave of 14 attained by an integral epistemological search, is greater than all spiritual anger.” Thought also occupies the thinker in a similar manner. But, experiences that the human soul can have. It is still deeper and a very along with this identification, a part of the knower accompanies and rare ontological realization of the new and higher state of being within observes the process of identification. This accompanying observation the human species. What works behind all these epistemological and is made by means of another distinct cognitive method of intimate direct ontological attainments is an evolution of consciousness, locally contact. While a part of the knower becomes the thought or the passion accelerated by the Yogic sâdhana of the individual conscious seekers of by a process of inner identification, “another part of us either the Divine. In brief, because being has two planes, knowing too necessarily accompanies it with a certain adherence or follows it closely and knows has two dimensions. In the surface plane, knowing proceeds in four it by an intimate direct contact which falls short of identification or entire 15 ways, but in the subliminal plane, in addition to the four ways pursued in self oblivion in the movement.” a depth-level, there is a perfect identity and oneness experienced as Thoughts and feelings are the becomings of one’s being – pure self-consciousness. “determinations of our mind-stuff and mind-energy, of our life-stuff and our life-energy.”16 Therefore, it is possible for humans to separate their being from its becomings and then to observe them, to control them, to

28Omega December 2008 29 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue permit them to grow or to prevent them from further manifestation. In However, this three-tier intuitional interpretative construction of short, one can be ‘the witness, the knower and the ruler’ of one’s own the object does not give the knower the complete knowledge of the interior movements. Thus, along with an intimate direct contact with self object, because this subsequent method of intuitive cognition is obviously and being, a detached observation, but with a power of direct contact, of working on, in Aurobindo’s own words, “an image, a sense document, their determinations is also possible. and indirect evidence” and not upon “a direct contact of consciousness with the object.” 20 Therefore, an intervention of reason becomes These two cognitive methods, namely, knowing by intimate direct inevitable. “Man has had perforce to develop his reason in order to contact and knowing by direct separative contact have their basis in make up for the deficiencies of his sense instrumentation, the fallibility each knower’s double identity constituted by a self of thought and self of his physical mind’s perceptions and the paucity of its interpretation of of life: “there is a self of thought which observes and persists the passion its data.”21 Thus, finally, human knowledge of the external world can be for the sake of experience, - or is obliged by some life stress to permit it conceived as made up of three functions, viz., a summary documentation – and there is a self of life which allows itself to be carried along in the of the sense-image, an intuitional interpretation of the documented data 17 movement of Nature.” by the sense-mind, life-mind and perceptive mind, and a supplementary But, in the case of the cognition of the external things it is not correction and co-ordination by reason. possible for the consciousness to have a direct contact with its objects. Yet, after using all the means and ways ‘to complete the The intimacy, immediacy and directness that one can experience while incompleteness,’ human knowledge of the external world remains “a knowing one’s interior movements and the observable physical half-certain, half-dubious accumulation of acquired indirect knowledge, movements are absent in the knowledge of the objects in the world and a mass of significant images and ideative representations, abstract their movements because such knowledge lacks identification of the thought-counters, hypotheses, theories, generalizations, but also with all 18 knower and the object of knowledge. that a mass of doubts and a never ending debate and inquiry.”22And, Surface Cognition of the External World although the knowledge by identity is more reliable and complete compared to the world knowledge gained by indirect separative contact, In the process of knowing the objects in the external world, there in effect it serves no better function in the case of knower’s self- is an instrumentation of the senses. However, in this way of knowing the knowledge. This is because it is “stultified by its restriction to the surface senses are not having a direct contact with the objects. On the other of our being, by an ignorance of our true self, a true source of our hand, their contact with the objects projects an image of the object, nature, the true motive forces of our action.”23 Consequently, for want creates a vibration corresponding to the object’s energy and thus provides of the proper use of fundamental means of knowing, humans lack real the knower with a vague suggestion regarding the nature and power of world-knowledge and real self-knowledge. the object. Thus, evidently the impression given by the senses is not Besides the surface body consciousness, humans as knowers have complete. And, this deficiency is solved by three kinds of intuitions; sense- an inner consciousness that comprises of a larger mental consciousness, mind intuition, which seizes the suggestion of the image or vibration and vital consciousness and subtle physical consciousness. Once the knower equates with the object, vital intuition, which seizes the energy or figure has access to this inside world, he/she can know clearly “the inner being of power of the object through another kind of vibration created by that secretly thinks and perceives in us, the subtle physical being that sense contact, and the intuition of the perceptive mind, which at once receives and responds to the contacts of things through our body and its forms a right idea of the object from all this evidence.19 organs.”24Although the tendencies of the physical parts of the self are found mixed together and confused on the surface, in the depths of

30Omega December 2008 31 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue one’s being they can be seen and worked upon independently as well as by its mental, vital and subtle-physical sheaths. However, the subliminal in a harmonized form. This ordering and harmonization are the works of has a circumconscient, an environing part of its consciousness, through the mental being in all, the leader of life and body, manomanyah which it comes into contact with the world. Now, the subliminal has a  of the Mundaka Upaniad,25 the psychic being or the peculiar and sure ability “to widen indefinitely this circumconscient envelop subliminal being, to put it in Aurobindo’s words. This inner psychic being and more and more enlarge its self projection into the cosmic existence has two special faculties, the capacity to distinguish between what around it.”28 originally rises from within and what comes from outside, and the ability to control them. The entry into cosmic consciousness has its effects on the side of knowledge as well as on the side of action. Since “the universal Spirit Although the elements of knowledge in surface cognition and knows itself as the Self of all, knows all as itself and in itself, knows all subliminal cognition are same, the latter has a greater pragmatic value. nature as part of its nature,” Aurobindo argues that “cosmic When one begins to know by the inner psychic being, through the primary consciousness of things is founded upon knowledge by identity.”29 means of identity, one will have the possession of the whole conscious Therefore, once the individual knower assumes cosmic consciousness mental being and life being, arrives at a close intimacy of direct penetrating and begins to know through it, be it even some knowledge by separation, contact with the total movement of energy, and thus become fully alive whatever is known is known by identity. 30 to all the becomings of the individual self. Compared to surface cognition, subliminal cognition can make a more direct and effective instrumentation As to the side of action, when one’s being enters into cosmic of these means of knowledge. consciousness, one begins to know, what is otherwise unknowable to the surface mind, about the constant movement of cosmic energies. The Subliminal Cognition: Variety and Methods cosmic energies are moving, says Aurobindo, “in masses, waves, currents constantly constituting and reconstituting beings and objects, movements Consciousness is one in the object and the subject. This essential and happenings, entering into them, passing through them, forming identity awakens in the self the knowledge of the object outside. Although themselves in them, throwing themselves out from them on other beings this knowledge may seem to be something acquired to the surface mind, and objects.”31 An individual is a receptacle of these cosmic forces and it is in fact pre-existent within; “it arises in the subliminal as a thing seen, a dynamo for their propagation that “there passes from each to each a caught from with in, remembered as it were.”26 But, the surface mind constant stream of mental and vital energies and these run too in cosmic considers the knowledge it possesses as wholly objective an impression waves and currents no less than the forces of physical Nature.”32 And, imposed on it from outside, a mentally constructed scheme of the object by the very fact of individualization, there is certain selection, that is not there in the very being of the knower. This happens because concentration and canalization of the cosmic energies. as ordinary knowers humans have a very serious handicap. While the knowing mind can come into contact with its objects in the external Therefore, spiritualization at just a normal mental level cannot world through the senses, it has no instrument whatsoever to see what is bring out the complete action of the cosmic being. To understand the happening within its own inner self. This weakness is worsened by what method of knowing by identity in its purity and originality, one needs to Aurobindo calls a double veil; “the veil between our inner self and our get in touch with the two extreme ends of the subliminal. The Subconscient ignorant surface self and the veil between the surface self and the object and the Superconscient are those two terminal points. The lower contacted.”27 This handicap that hinders humans from a better and fuller Subconscient has its basis in the Inconscience where knowledge gained knowing can be remedied by a conscious entry into the cosmic by identity is instinctive and obscure. The superior superconscient ranges consciousness. Humans’ inner being is separated from the cosmic being of human existence base themselves on the spiritual consciousness, which is in contrast to the Inconscience, free and luminous. And it is there in 32Omega December 2008 33 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue the superconscient ranges of one’s existence resides the original power spiritual consciousness into the human way of consciousness with the of knowledge, and from there originate the two distinct basic ways of help of three concepts that correspond to the three functional aspects of knowing or the kinds of knowledge by identity and by separation. their spiritual self-sense; inclusion, indwelling and identity.37 This knowledge according to Aurobindo is perpetual and inherent and exists Subliminal Cognition of Self-Consciousness intrinsically, self-evidently and automatically. Any act of knowledge has no role in the generation and perpetuation of this kind of knowledge. In its supreme timeless existence consciousness is one with being. This essential oneness of consciousness and existence is known by means Subliminal Cognition by Identity in Intimate Direct Contact of spiritual experience. They are not identical twins. Rather, consciousness is the self- awareness inherent in existence. Although it In the fundamental self-knowledge of the Being, consciousness is self-awareness, there is in fact no act of knowing involved there, can manifest a regard, which brings in another status of the supreme because consciousness, which is the means of knowledge, is one with spiritual consciousness. This is the status where knowledge in the ordinary this state of existence. “Being is self-evident to itself: it does not need to sense begins. There is an act of knowing, which presupposes a distinction look at itself in order to know itself or learn that it is.”33 This self- between subject and object. In this state of the self-knowledge, the Spirit knowledge of existence-consciousness is not gained by “an act of itself becomes the subject and object. Thus, this knowledge is still a self- knowledge formulated in self-regard, a self-observation but by the same evident and intrinsic kind in the list. It is gained by an inner act of identity. inherent awareness, it is intrinsically all conscious of all that is by the very fact all is itself.”34 This inherent self-awareness of the pure existence Knowledge by identity takes its first origin when the self-knowing could be conceived as transposed to ‘an essential self-evident automatic subject draws a little back from itself as object. In such knowledge it is consciousness of universe.’ In such a transposed state/knowledge, Spirit the identity itself that constitutes the knowledge. Identity is “the spiritual is the knower and knowledge, for, “it is everything and every thing is its intimate vision, a spiritual pervasive entry and penetration, a spiritual being.”35 feeling one sees all as oneself, feel all as oneself, contact all as one self.”38 Thus, knowledge by identity is not the end result of a thinking Between the pure existence and cosmic existence there must be process and much less the result of any such mental operations. On the a few other possible transposed states as well. An ontological exploration other hand, to put it in Aurobindo’s own words, “there is a spiritual into these ranges would simultaneously be an epistemological investigation conception […] which brings out the intrinsically known from oneself regarding the intermediary ways of knowing. This is so because and places it in self-space, in an extended being of self-awareness, as consciousness, according to Aurobindo, can be equated with being as an object of conceptual self-knowledge.”39 He further qualifies it as well as with knowledge. spiritual emotion, spiritual sense, an intermingling of oneness with oneness, consciousness with consciousness and delight of being with delight of Subliminal Cognition by Identity being. Thus, there is an intimate separateness in identity. The awareness by identity is the very stuff of cosmic consciousness, The supreme consciousness has infinite powers. These powers Spirit’s self-knowledge, as well as of pure existence. When this primal are not created and organized instruments of Spirit’s self-knowledge, and final self-knowledge by identity admits a subordinate but simultaneous rather they are the integral and essential aspects of the Spirit that manifest awareness by inclusion and indwelling there emerges along with the in different ways. Aurobindo conceives them as “the luminous self-aware original knowledge a new distinct way of knowing/kind of knowledge.36 substance of the Spiritual Identical made active on itself and in itself, However, this knowledge is not yet an act, it is again a state of being Spirit made sight, Spirit vibrant as feeing, Spirit self-luminous as perception conscious or awareness by identity. Aurobindo translates this status of

34Omega December 2008 35 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue and conception.”40As a result, practically speaking, the Spirit’s self- Subliminal Cognition by Identity in Indirect Separative experience moves between pure identity and multiple identities. Contact

Subliminal Cognition by Identity in Direct Separative Contact When there is on the surface a complete separateness or division into self and not-self, there is the need to deal with the not-self. But When the intimate separateness is pushed into its extreme, a sense humans have no direct means of knowing the not-self. One comes into of differentiation overpowers the sense of identity. And, thus, a distinct contact with it indirectly through the physical sense-organs, nerve system separative knowledge arises. and mental operations. Consciousness has no other way than relying on The knowledge of identity and by identity becomes over-structured, these means. It cannot act directly on its objects. The messages gathered then submerged and finally replaced by a knowledge through interchange by such indirect means are put in order by reason, intelligence and and contact that it figures as a secondary awareness as if it were a intuition. result, and no longer the cause of the mutual contact. Finally, identity These inferior means of knowledge are obviously insufficient and disappears - it is still there but not experienced - its place is taken by inefficient. In fact, insufficiency and inefficiency are inherent in the very direct seizing and penetrating contact, intermingling interchanges. nature of humans’ material existence that emerges from the Inconscience. However, there is not yet an entire separateness. It is only a diminished Although Inconscience is an inverse reproduction of supreme consciousness that operates by division, effecting certain closeness and Superconscience, “instead of luminous absorption in self-existence,” says not oneness. “The power of inclusion of the object in the consciousness Aurobindo, “there is a tenebrous involution in it, the darkness veiled is there, but it is the inclusion of now externalized existence which has to within the darkness of the g Veda, tama asit tamasa gudham, which be made an element of our self by an attained or recovered knowledge, makes it look like Non-Existence, instead of a luminous inherent self- by dwelling of consciousness upon the object, a concentration, a taking awareness, there is a consciousness plunged into an abyss of self-oblivion, 41 possession of it as part of the existence.” Similarly, the power of inherent being but not awake in being.”43 Similarly, the involved penetration is also there, but it has no natural pervasiveness leading to consciousness is a concealed knowledge by identity and it acts first as identity. It just gathers the details of the object and carries them to the energy, not as consciousness. He says; “all this state and action of the subject. However, at this state the knower is not totally deprived of Inconscient corresponds very evidently with the same state and action direct knowledge. Depending on the extent of the contact, Sri Aurobindo of the pure superconscience, but translated into terms of self-darkness says, “there can still be direct and penetrating contact of consciousness in place of original self-light.”44 with consciousness creating a vivid and intimate knowledge.”42 Corresponding to the level of contact between the subject and the object Closing Remarks there can be a direct sensing, mutual penetration, and certain push towards union by reciprocal inclusion, perversion and mutual possession. Making some concluding remarks at the moment would be a pre- It is according to these actions and interactions that a knower by direct mature venture. We have only made a brief expository survey of contact arranges his/her relation with the world. And, here there is the Aurobindo’s critical-creative assimilation and elaboration of the basic origin of the knowledge by direct contact of consciousness with its objects. means of knowledge. What remain to be urgently explored next are This is the normal method of knowing employed by the inner being. The Aurobindo’s reflections on evolutionary ontology. Once such an same is employed imperfectly in surface cognition too. examination of his theory of reality is also complete (which we will realize in another essay) we can begin to bring out the implications of Aurobindo’s life and works for the hermeneutical tasks involved in interrelating scientific knowledge and mystical knowledge. However, it

36Omega December 2008 37 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue is our intuition that Aurobindo’s theory of integral knowledge and reality Being is integral. But one can have a selective knowing. However, such can shed some new light on contemporary meta-reflections on science- selection is only strategic, not real. In fact, knowledge is also integral and religion theories.45 hence its methods too. But until the integral reality or knowledge is seized fully, the knower or seeker will not have the ability to become conscious of the integral nature of his/her search. Thus, to make a very subtle distinction, - and this distinction discloses the secret of divine life on earth - although Notes the methods of knowing and the object of knowledge, i.e., knowing and 1 Dr. Martin Sebastian conducts research in Religion and Science at Catholic being respectively, are both integral, integrality becomes really manifest in University, Louvain, Belgium. the experience of realization and subsequent translation of the same in 2 C. Mackenzie Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric actual living and lingual expressions. Evolutionism,” Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 42, no. 3 (2007). 14 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 525. 3 Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism,” 15 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 525. p. 715. 16 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 525. 4 C. Mackenzie Brown, “The Western Roots of Avataric Evolutionism in 17 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 526. Colonial India” Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 42, no. 3, (2007), pp. 423-447. 18 The Life Divine I, SABCL, pp. 18, 528: “We do not identify ourselves with external objects, not even with other men though they are beings of our 5 Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism,” own nature; we can not enter into their existence as if it were our own, we p. 743. can not know them and their movements with the directness, immediateness, 6 Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism,” intimacy with which we know, - even though incompletely,- ourselves and p. 732. our movements. But, not only identification lacks, direct contact also is 7 Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism,” absent, there is no direct touch between our consciousness, our substance p. 737. and their substance, our self of being and their self-being.” 8 Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism,” 19 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 528. p. 741. 20 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 528. 9 Brown, “Colonial and Post-Colonial Elaborations of Avataric Evolutionism,” 21 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 529. pp. 741-742. 22 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 529. 10 Martin Sebastian, “Between Theology and Science: On the Mediatory Role 23 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 530. of Hermeneutics in Religion-Science Interactions,” Omega: Indian Journal of Science and Religion, vol.6, No. 2 (2007) pp.38-64. 24 However, Sri Aurobindo does not rule out the possibility of external impacts. He does admit their role, but his point is that inside in a clear vision one can 11 Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine II, Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library see the separate sources of all thoughts and feelings. See, The Life Divine (SABCL), (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1973), p. 647. I, SABCL, pp. 18, 533. 12 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 560: “The subliminal […] comprises the INNER 25 Mundaka Upanişad. 2.2.8; The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 534. BEING, taken its entirety of inner mind, inner life, inner physical with the soul or PSYCHIC ENTITY supporting them […]The subliminal proper is no 26 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 1540. more than the inner being […].” 27 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 541. 13 The phrase methodic isolation needs some clarification. There is no actual 28 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 541. isolation, and no actual isolation is ever possible in the case of being. 29 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 542.

38Omega December 2008 39 Martin Sebastian Taking Aurobindo into Science-Religion Dialogue 30 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 542-543: “Here then is a large universal identity Omega containing smaller identities; for whatever separative cognition exists in or VII (2008)2, 41-70 enters into cosmic consciousness must stand on this double identity and does not contradict it. If there is any need of a drawing back and a knowledge by separation plus contact, it is yet a separateness in identity, a contact in identity for object contained in part of the self of that which contains in it.” 31 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 543. 32 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 543. 33 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 545. Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution 34 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 545. Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and 35 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 545. 1 36 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 545: “[…] there is another status of spiritual Contemporary Religious Systems awareness which seems to us to be a development from this state and František Mikeš2 power of pure self-consciousness, perhaps even a first departure, but in Geraldine Edith Mikes3 fact normal and intimate to it.” 37 He derives these notions from the triple knowledge formulated in the Abstract: The essay will examine evolution from three perspectives: 1) Upanişads: 1. He who sees all existence in the self, 2. He who sees the self scientific definitions of evolutionary mechanisms, 2) the writings of two in all existence, 3. He in whom the self has become all existence. twentieth century sages who envisioned the future evolution of 38 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 546. humankind, and 3) the current state of religions to inspire global spiritual growth. Contemporary models of evolutionary mechanisms 39 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 546-7. frequently use either a systems theory approach, e.g., using emergence 40 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 547. and complexity as criteria for advancement, or a biological approach 41 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 548. involving genetic and social parameters. The visions of Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin for human development toward a new 42 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 548. transcendent level will be discussed from an emergence standpoint. The 43 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 550. present state of religions will be examined from a biological perspective 44 The Life Divine I, SABCL, 18, 550. – asking whether they have the dynamism and holistic information content to inspire the global community. Some parameters for possible 45 Whether or not his theory of consciousness can engage in first order reactivation of frozen plasticities in religions will be suggested and interactions with contemporary theories in the field of cognitive examples of their functioning given. neuroscience is indeed a worth probing research question. But, what readily intrigues an-d assures sure results, as far as I can see, is an effort that looks Key Words: Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard de Chardin, Consciousness, for what Aurobindo can bring in to a science-religion joint research avenue Evolution, Emergence, Attractor, Genetics, Epigenetics, Frozen plasticity, in the field of epistemology and hermeneutics. Omega point, Supermind.

Introduction

While it is interesting to know the evolutionary path which brought us to this moment in history and to imagine future possibilities, our primary 40Omega December 2008 41 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives concern should be to augment evolution in the present age with our lower level description. The combined parts and interactions on the lower active participation. We are especially concerned with the global task of level define a new entity on the higher level (e.g. molecules cell, dialogue between science and the major religious traditions, and whether cellsorganism). It may be seen in many stages of evolution. A these religions might be frozen in an evolutionary sense. An examination chronological list of 28 emergence examples from the beginning of the of the conditions under which biological evolution can become unfrozen universe through the appearance of humans and their capabilities has and made plastic might offer hints for religious revitalization. The been presented by biophysicist/biochemist Harold Morowitz6. Theologian importance of this approach is to facilitate openness in religious traditions and philosopher Philip Clayton7 argues that mind is an emergent state toward a new paradigm. This new dynamism might also open a space but questions those who propose emergence of deity as the next step. within which movement toward Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s visions of 8 new emergence steps could proceed. The following diagram shows the basic features of a simple emergent step from a lower level, simpler system to a higher level, We will begin with an overview of some scientific theories for more complex system. The material composition at the two levels is the mechanisms by which evolution may proceed. A systems approach, same, but the total characteristics or quality of the upper level, as an involving emergence and complexity concepts, will then be considered entity, exceeds that of its constituent parts. As the lower level components as a framework for examining the writings of Aurobindo and Teilhard begin to self-organize, new properties emerge in the developing upper about evolution and the future. Finally, new biological theories for level, which in turn provides feedback to the lower level. evolutionary growth will be offered as models which might inspire contemporary religions. 1.0 Evolutionary Mechanisms – Systems and Biological Upper Level - More Complex System Theories New Organization is more than parts - e.g. Protocell

Current theories of mechanisms by which evolution takes place often employ either: 1) a Systems Theory approach, or 2) a Biological/ Feedback Emergence Physical description. We will briefly outline both approaches and how   they define evolutionary steps. Lower Level - Simpler System 1.1 Systems Theory Description of Evolution – Emergence Self Organization of Parts - e.g. Molecules Mechanism

4 Influence of Causation Effects on the Emergence Process, System theories study the organization of phenomena by and Importance of Attractors describing principles common in many situations, and include a number of research areas from cybernetics, to chaos, self-organization, and Self-organization leading to an emergence step may entail effects complex system theories. Emergence theory5 then builds on many of which can be described as Upward Causation (Bottom-Up), and these earlier theories, concentrating on features which describe Downward Causation (Top-Down). In Upward Causation, components relationships between complex systems at different levels. Emergence and organization on the lower level control development of the next may be defined as a process where parts interact in a dynamic way, higher level. In Downward Causation, a higher level may influence a creating a new higher level, having properties which are greater than lower level. Claus Emmeche9 and coworkers have evaluated three the sum of the individual parts, and which could not be predicted by a

42Omega December 2008 43 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives potential forms of Downward Causation, which they label as Strong, expressed (dominant) than the other (recessive), 3) factor pairs may Medium and Weak. They reject, as unscientific, the possibility of “Strong segregate independently of other factors. Mendel apparently had a copy downward causation” where the upper level could have effects which of Darwin’s book, but Darwin and most scientists were unaware of disrupt or alter the laws of nature on the lower level, e.g. miracles. But Mendel’s work. It wasn’t until 1900 that Mendel’s research was “Medium downward causation” might be acceptable, when the upper rediscovered and duplicated. Mendelian genetics and Darwin’s theory level governs or influences processes on the lower level which adhere of natural selection and gradual evolution were later incorporated into to laws, e.g. a cell’s ability to govern biochemical processes taking place the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” which is the current paradigm in in it. In “Weak downward causation,” organizational properties of the evolutionary biology for most biologists. upper level are emphasized. The higher level may be conceived as an organizational level into which the lower level constituents are being Based on increasing knowledge of cell structure and arranged - a phase-space where all the possible states of a system are macromolecules like proteins and nucleic acids, it had become clear by mapped - an attractor basin or multipoint attractor. 1950 that the determining hereditary substance was DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), not proteins, located in chromosomes in the nuclei Emmeche et al. did not draw any spiritual conclusions from their of cells. The famous breakthrough by Francis Crick and James Watson observations, but we might suggest that an upper level “attractor” could in 195312 of the double helix structure of DNA suggested a “possible be related to the gentle luring or attracting field experienced by lower copying mechanism” by which genetic information could be duplicated. level entities. In our later discussion of Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s Since then, molecular biology has made great strides, including the Human concepts, we will suggest that Omega Point and Supermind have Genome Project, where the sequence13 of DNA molecules in the human properties resembling an Attractor, although our understanding of this genome (24 chromosomes: 22 non-sex chromosomes plus the X and Y term may exceed some scientific definitions. sex-chromosomes) was determined by two groups and initial results published in 2001.14,15 1.2 Biological/Physical Descriptions of Evolution - Genetic, Social, and Information Mechanisms Let us now return to the question of mechanisms by which multi- cellular organisms evolve, acquire new characteristics, and develop into When evolution is mentioned, we most often think of biological new species. The Modern Synthesis (or Neo-Darwinism) considers both evolution and Darwinism. Nearly one hundred and fifty years ago (1859), natural selection and genetics as determining factors. However, Charles Darwin published his theory10 on a mechanism by which evolution microbiologists and macro-biologists may differ in the relative importance could proceed, namely by natural selection, where individuals with they give to these factors and how they define natural selection. There favorable characteristics (the fittest) are more likely to survive and was a major debate during the last thirty years between paleontologist reproduce. He also emphasized that evolution appeared to proceed by Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) and microbiologist Richard Dawkins small gradual steps. On the other hand, with no knowledge of modern (also born in 1941) over this question. Dawkins began his arguments genetics, he could only speculate on a biological mechanism by which from a genetic (bottom-up, reductionist) viewpoint and Gould from a new physiological characteristics might appear. more holistic (weak top-down) viewpoint. Seven years after Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species, Dawkins stated his position in “The Selfish Gene,”16 where he Czech biologist Gregor Mendel published (1866) his results11 on argues that selection is at the level of genes, not the organism. From the experiments with pea plants, showing that inheritance of traits followed gene’s viewpoint, it wants to increase the number of its copies in the certain laws: 1) an organism usually has two copies of factors for a next generation, irrespective of the well-being of the individual carrying specific trait, 2) when the two copies differ, one is more likely to be it. This would explain altruistic behavior, which may harm the individual, 44Omega December 2008 45 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives but increase a gene’s likelihood of continuing through his relatives. He isolated group might perish, or it might develop significant new coined the terms “replicator” and “vehicle” to describe the functions of characteristics which could bring into existence a new species. It has genes and organisms, respectively. He also coined the word “meme” as “plastic” potential. In a small group, DNA mutations are more likely to an analogous unit for cultural evolution, i.e., a cultural trait (idea, belief, be preserved, due to inbreeding, especially when the mutations are custom), which can compete, mutate and propagate like genes. beneficial. Then, as the group grows and increases in genetic variance, it will become more “frozen”, with new mutations less likely to be From a background in geology and paleontology, Gould approached preserved. We will discuss Flegr’s theory in greater detail in section 3. evolution from an entirely different angle. By careful study of the fossil record, one sees that evolutionary change seems to occur very rapidly, The important field of epigenetics which studies the way genes followed by a long period with negligible change. Together with are expressed should also be mentioned briefly. It is still a young research paleontologist Niles Eldredge, Gould developed the theory of “punctuated field – even more complex than genetics – and potentially as relevant to equilibrium”17 to explain this phenomenon. The novelty of their theory inheritance as genetic mutations. Epigenetics is primarily concerned with was emphasizing the reality of evolutionary “stasis” (sameness) for long regulatory mechanisms21 involved in cell differentiation and embryo periods, in contrast to Darwin’s prediction of continuous, gradual evolution. development, which turns genes off or on, by hiding or exposing DNA They observed that the composition of fossil layers remained basically segments. There are hints that some epigenetic changes might be passed uniform (no gradations) after the first layer in which the new species on to future generations22 but more research in this area is needed. with new features appeared. They combined their findings with the theory 23 of Ernst Mayr18 on speciation (evolution of new species or taxons), In their recent book “Evolution in Four Dimensions,” biologists which states that rapid evolution occurs most often under allopatric (other Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb discuss genetic and epigenetic dimensions place) conditions, where an isolated group is separated from the parent in detail, and then mention two other dimensions, behavioral imitation species. and symbolic systems, which are also important, particularly in human inheritance. Morowitz24 would probably call the latter dimensions Evolutionary biologist Jaroslav Flegr expands on these ideas in his emergence stages, as in toolmaking and languages. The passing on of new book “Frozen Evolution” 19 with his description of mechanisms which information through non-genetic means (i.e. social learning and language) may explain the stasis seen in large populations, and innovations in small has been more important than minor genetic changes during much of isolated groups. He coins three useful expressions: “frozenness” for human history and will remain central in our future. stasis (stagnation) in large populations, “elasticity” for variability/flexibility in large populations without permanent changes, and “plasticity” for a We will now examine how evolution might be understood from property in small isolated groups, allowing them to evolve through religious and spiritual perspectives. innovative permanent changes. In a large population there are some 2.0 Future Evolution Envisioned by Aurobindo and Teilhard genes which are seldom expressed – the population has “genetic variance”. Some of these “extra genes” may be neutral and never used, A Darwinian perspective of continuous evolution provided some others may be helpful in stressful conditions which require “elasticity”. of the inspiration for Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s writings, but it was the However, the large population is basically “frozen” to major permanent potential for future emergent levels, rather than past evolution, which changes, i.e., no evolution. But a small population, which is permanently dominated their thinking. The authors present us25 with two visions for (or for many generations) separated in a new challenging environment, humanity’s future, where human effort and a Divine Attractor may will have to make the best of its limited inheritance (reduced genetic cooperate, drawing us toward a supramental state or into the eternal variance) and/or take advantage of new genetic mutations20. This small sphere of the Divine. On this path, they recognized the importance of

46Omega December 2008 47 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives individual growth and cooperation within the community, placing significant and transcendence. His theological and philosophical works were hope on the United Nations which came into being in 1945. It should be eventually published in 13 volumes (books), first in French31 and then in emphasized that Aurobindo and Teilhard developed their ideas English, after his death in 1955 in New York, where he spent the last independently. Aurobindo was completely unaware of Teilhard’s work four years of his life in exile. Because religious authorities did not allow and Teilhard might have been informed a year or two before his death publishing of his non-scientific writings, most of his ideas were written about Aurobindo’s ideas.26 down in shorter essays and correspondence with friends and family. Only his major works “Phenomenon of Man”,32 “Divine Milieu”,33 and 2.1 A Few Biographical Notes “Man’s Place in Nature”34 were written as complete manuscripts, and later issued as separate volumes. The remaining ten volumes are Aurobindo (1872-1950) lived in England for fourteen years, from compilations of essays and letters. age seven to twenty-one, studying Western languages and literature, before returning to India in 1893. He was a leader for Indian independence 2.2 Consciousness, Evolution, and Emergence in the early 1900’s, before turning his full attention to a spiritual vision for all humankind. After extensive preparation in Hindu literature and yoga The following presentation of Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s ideas practice, he began publishing his insights in the monthly journal, Arya, in on evolution and emergence illustrates how consciousness is a central 1914. During the next six years, many of his most important writings factor in these processes which lead toward the attractors of Omega were presented in serialized form, and later published with some revisions Point and Supermind. Teilhard also emphasizes the importance of in book form, including his major works: “The Divine Life”27 and increasing complexity.35 “Synthesis of Yoga.”28 His ideas were further developed in his Pondicherry ashram, in conversations with his spiritual partner Mirra Alfassa Richard 2.2.1 Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga and Supermind (The Mother), and in correspondence with his disciples. We will begin with a few words on Aurobindo’s view of early Teilhard (1881-1955), born in France, was interested in geology evolution,36 because it reveals the origin of Supermind, the state or attractor and religious life since childhood, and became an archeologist and Jesuit toward which we are evolving. Aurobindo’s description of the cosmos priest. His experience as a stretcher bearer during World War I (1915- begins with a prelude, namely the process of involution. In the involution- 1919) had a very significant affect on his thinking. In the midst of war, creation, the Absolute chooses to become the Many, perhaps for Its his vision of an evolving world began to accelerate and unfold - life has own delight, while still maintaining Its Oneness. It divides Its qualities a purpose and direction, “more hidden and mysterious than history into three forms: Sat, Çit, and nanda (Satçitnanda), also described reveals.”29 His archeological work began in China in 1923 and centered as Existence, Consciousness-Force, and Delight, which in turn create there for most of the followed decades. Between 1929-1930, he played the Supermind (Truth-Consciousness). It is in a plane below the Absolute, a major role in finding and interpreting the Peking Man fossils. Most of in the Supermind, where the major events of involution begin. Here the his scientific publications were written in French, and not translated into Consciousness-Force is divided into Consciousness and Force. The English. Ten volumes of his scientific papers, plus a volume of maps, Supermind creates a Plane for Mind below itself, which assists in the were compiled in “L’Oeuvre Scientifique” by Karl and Nicole Schmitz- separation of Force into Knowledge and Will. Then when Knowledge Moormann.30 During his early years in China, he also composed some begins to act on Will, a Plane for Life is formed but not filled. Knowledge of his most spiritual writings, “Divine Milieu” and “Mass on the World,” continues to be self-absorbed into Will and becomes Energy. When this and began a series of essays on evolution of the human species, Plane of Energy is released, the Universe and Evolution begin. Space mechanisms underlying this process, and potential for future evolution and time come into existence in the process.

48Omega December 2008 49 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives Soon after the beginning of evolution, some of the energy separates There is no fixed protocol for a seeker using integral yoga - the and concentrates into Matter, where Knowledge is hidden. Matter is details of a path must be found individually. But there are broad outlines unconscious, but contains the potential or seed for consciousness. for an approach, and multiple suggestions were given by Aurobindo in Eventually, out of unconscious matter, emerges an animated form with his replies to disciples’ letters. His integral yoga synthesizes the essence rudimentary consciousness. And as life becomes more and more complex, of several forms of yoga, especially karma (works), bhakti (love), and it increases in consciousness. Finally, with the appearance of humans, jnna (knowledge). But the individual may concentrate on whichever there emerges a conscious reflective mind. Through man, evolution can approach is most helpful for his/her unique being. Each approach now continue further from mind to a supramental state. encourages the seeker to unite with a particular aspect of the Divine, so that he can experience its totality. In each path the steps should include Evolution has reached a stage where all humans have attained a a sequence of “aspiration, rejection, surrender” 39 – aspiration for the lower level of Mind (ordinary or normal mind), and some have begun the divine truth, rejection of anything which obstructs fulfillment of the ascent to higher levels of Spiritual Mind (higher states of consciousness). aspiration, and surrender to the divine in every part of one’s being. There are four main levels of Spiritual Mind: 37 There are also three transformations40 which need to take place  Higher Mind is the first state above normal mind. It is the state in individuals and the community, in order to achieve the next stage of of a Spiritual Thinker or Sage. “Relations of idea with idea, of evolution. These are psychic, spiritual, and supramental transformations. truth with truth, are not established by logic but pre-exist and In the Psychic Transformation, the psychic being, or essence, which is emerge already self-seen in the integral whole.” normally veiled, has to be brought forward. The Spiritual Transformation is primarily the process of growth through the upper layers of  Illumined Mind is the next stage. It is that of the Seer or the consciousness discussed earlier (of Higher, Illumined, Intuitive, and Over- Illumined Mystic. It “does not work primarily by thought, but by Mind). Finally, when the Psychic and Spiritual changes are essentially vision.” It needs “no verbal representation.” complete, the most difficult stage of all can begin, the Supramental  Intuitive Mind is the third ascent. Here “consciousness of the Transformation. subject meets with the consciousness in the object and sees, feels It is at the Overmind-Supermind interface that the Supramental or vibrates with the truth of what it contacts.” Transformation can take place, but initiation of the Transformation process  Overmind is the fourth stage. It has “a power of cosmic to the new state is not easy. Aurobindo and the Mother spent decades consciousness, a principle of global knowledge.” examining the interface from the Overmind side. Aurobindo describes two events which might occur at the interface: 1) the Overmind could Overmind is the highest stage that we can attain at our current go further (upward) “by an opening of the gates of the Spirit into the level of evolution – i.e., in the “lower level” of an emergence step (as upper hemisphere and a will to enable the soul to depart out of its cosmic depicted in our earlier diagram). Overmind “cannot lead Mind beyond formation into Transcendence,”41 or 2) there could be a Supramental itself.” It is “the Supermind alone” (in the level above) that has the Transformation, “a descent of Supermind into the terrestrial formula … power to bring about that Transcendence. We will discuss this process penetrating with it and transforming the unconsciousness of the material and other features of the Overmind-Supermind interface a little later. basis.” 42 The first process resembles moka and the second reveals the First we will mention Aurobindo’s suggestions for an Integral Yoga38 possibility for Divine Life on earth. Supermind alone has the direct power that can prepare us for the next step. to bring about the Supramental Transformation.43 In the Divine Life, or

50Omega December 2008 51 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives new state or level, even the physical body might be transformed and consciousness (within) and of size and complexity of brain (without), divinized. There would be: reflective thought can appear for the first time on earth. Consciousness a greater identity of being and consciousness between individual can now see itself as an object, to know that it knows. Teilhard describes and individual, unified in their spiritual substance, feeling the emergence of human mind in this way: “by a tiny ‘tangential’ increase, themselves to be… of one self-existence, acting in a greater the ‘radial’ was turned back on itself and…an infinite leap forward” unitarian force of knowledge, a greater power of being. There achieved.48 He further states “that the access to thought represents a must be an inner and direct mutual knowledge based upon a threshold which had to be crossed at a single stride” and where “we find consciousness of oneness and identity, a consciousness of each ourselves transported onto an entirely new biological plane.”49 He sees other’s being, thought, feeling, inner and outer movements, a this new plane as the location where reflective thought (human mind) conscious communication of mind with mind, of heart with heart, 44 has emerged and also the beginning of a new layer (a thinking envelope), a conscious impact of life upon life. which will develop through “noogenesis” and eventually encircle the earth as the “noosphere” - a prediction fulfilled with the arrival of the 2.2.2 Teilhard’s Concepts of Complexity-consciousness and internet. Omega Point Is the noosphere the end of the process? If we recognize that the Teilhard begins his major work, Phenomenon of Man, with a universe is becoming, not static, then there is reason to expect evolution detailed description of evolution on earth from simple molecules to the to continue. We are aware that consciousness has continually increased human and other species, based on scientific knowledge available during from the very beginning. And “consciousness is a dimension to which it the early 20th century. His major goal is to show that, with all its branches, is inconceivable…to ascribe a ceiling.”50 However, in order to convince there is one main axis of evolution, where increasing complexity and humanity that this process is true, and to exert energy to move it forward, consciousness eventually leads to homo sapiens. At the lowest end of they need to trust that there will be a “super-life” in the future, that the axis in non-living matter, he already acknowledges an extremely evolution will continue to develop toward the Next Level, toward Omega limited kind of consciousness or psyche. “The term ‘consciousness’ is Point. Teilhard senses the reality of a Presence which is drawing (inviting) taken in its widest sense to indicate every kind of psychism, from the us toward Itself, and tries to describe It. most rudimentary forms of interior perception to the human phenomenon Teilhard’s definitions of Omega and Omega Point vary somewhat of reflective thought.”45 He says that each entity has a “without” (with between his scientific and spiritual presentations. They include: 1) the its observable connections and measurable dimensions) and a “within”. convergence of the noosphere at the end of time, 2) an attractive focus He then describes two forms of psychic energy, the “tangential” and toward which evolution is drawn, 3) the final union of human souls with “radial”, which are associated with the “without” and “within” of things, Christ as its center. With reference to his 3rd definition, he states that respectively. “Tangential energy links an element with all others of the each human is a unique center and it is this essence which Omega must same order as itself.” “Radial energy draws the element toward ever reclaim after our death. Omega must “reassemble in itself all greater complexity and centricity – in other words forward.”46 consciousnesses…each particular consciousness remaining conscious Viewed from “within, evolution is seen as the continual growth of of itself…each particular consciousness becoming still more itself and “radial” (psychic) energy, beneath and within the “tangential” (or thus more clearly distinct from others, the closer it gets to them in Omega.” mechanical) energy, and “arrangement” is the “co-efficient which In its final structure, Omega can be seen as “a distinct Center radiating empirically expresses the relationship between the ‘radial’ and ‘tangential’ at the core of a system of centers.” There is a grouping in which energies of the world.”47 When evolution reaches a critical degree of “personalizations of the elements reach their maximum without merging,

52Omega December 2008 53 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives under the influence of a supremely autonomous focus of union.” It is Aurobindo - Evolution of Consciousness, Teilhard - Evolution toward this “central focus” which Teilhard recognizes as “Omega Point.”51 Supramental Transformation Omega Point Tha Absolute Omega Point From an emergence perspective, Teilhard emphasizes the critical importance of love, universal love, in the noosphere’s convergence toward (Truth- Consciousness) Moksha Omegasphere Supermind Emergence Omega. If we can experience a source and object of love “at the summit Upper Level Noosphere Hominization Increasing 52 of the world above our heads,” or ahead of us, which we sense as Lower Level Complexity- Biosphere Consciousness personal and real, then the atmosphere created can unleash dormant Overmind Supramental Intuitive Mind Transformation Geosphere energies of attraction between us and toward the source. He also Illumined Mind Higher Mind describes an upper boundary for current evolution where Omega is present “at the end of the whole process”, and “movement of synthesis In summary, Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s visions of evolution and culminates.” But “Omega still only reveals half of its self. While being emergence have strong parallels, although the next level which Teilhard the last term of its series, it is also outside all series. Not only does it envisions may be beyond our space-time, while Aurobindo envisions crown, but it closes.” At this “conscious Pole of the world” (another transformation on our level by cooperation with an attractor from the synonym for Omega), we observe that it not only “emerges from the next level. We will not try to evaluate these visions from a scientific rise of consciousness,” but has also “already emerged.” Thus, it escapes viewpoint. We are all – scientists, atheists, and people of faith – on an from the “time and space which it gathers together.”53 emergence level where we can not see above our ceiling. Some aspects Teilhard distinguishes between the potential of humans to evolve of Reality may remain hidden forever from our knowledge, or until we further and the limitations of other animals. Only humans can attach achieve transcendence, or there are new scientific breakthroughs which themselves to the Omega Pole, because they have evolved as centers we cannot predict today. However, if a new emergent state is to develop, which can respond to the Center of centers, continuing their evolution, it will not occur spontaneously but require our participation and this is converging toward that Center. the theme of the next section. When consciousness broke through the critical surface of 3.0 Present Day Participation of Religions in the hominization, it really passed from divergence to convergence Evolutionary Process – Becoming Unfrozen and changed…both hemisphere and pole. Below that critical ‘equator’ lay the relapse into multiplicity; above it, the plunge Even before Aurobindo and Teilhard accepted evolution and into growing and irreversible unification…By death in the animal, incorporated it into their religious systems, it was Swami Vivekananda56 the radial is reabsorbed into the tangential, while in man it escapes and is liberated from it. It escapes from entropy by turning back who saw an urgency for overall cooperation between religions, and called 54 to Omega: the hominization of death itself. for their global convergence at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. However today, more than 100 years later, some religious The following figure summarizes some of the main features of traditions seem frozen in their development, even though a new facilitator Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s concepts on the evolution of consciousness. appeared in the second half of the 20th century, namely science-religion A comparison with stages of spirituality envisioned by other mystics can dialogue. The quest for globalization of spiritualities - co-spiritualization57 be found in the work of Ken Wilber.55 - has been thoroughly studied as a global phenomenon.58 Sastrapratedja59 spoke about the emerging of religious consciousness in Asia in the 1980’s. But somehow the richness of research in the area of science-religion

54Omega December 2008 55 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives has not been influential in a visible way among believers. M. Sebastian60 Another major voice in inter-religious dialogue, particularly in the even claims that in Europe the science-religion dialogue is stagnating. Christian-Hindu dialogue, has been Raimond Panikkar (scientist, priest and philosopher). He emphasizes that at its deepest level, it is an “intra- It was the Western Christian tradition which for centuries religious” dialogue70 – within the spiritual dimension at an existential, marginalized various complementary aspects of ancient Eastern religious humble and mystical level, where the whole person encounters another. experience, denying any influence or enrichment (inculturation) from “Intra-religious dialogue…does not begin with doctrine, theology and them, often brutally and with punishments. These mistakes could be diplomacy. It is intra, which means that if I do not discover in myself the seen today at the root of “devolution”, e.g. the growing of religious terrain where the Hindu, the Muslim, the Jew and the atheist may have 61 fundamentalisms and anti-semitism. This is a negative response to the a place—in my heart, in my intelligence, in my life—I will never be able prediction and warning of historian Arnold Toynbee: to enter into a genuine dialogue with him.”71 We might add that this is It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning true, not only between religions, but also within a tradition, between its will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction communities. of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way.62 In addition to the challenges mentioned above, here are some other issues which catalyzed us to look for an answer in a general The philosopher Jacob Needleman also emphasized the importance evolutionary theory: of interreligious dialogue:  The rapid decrease of practicing believers in organized Christian The Dialogue with Oriental religions and culture…will surely be even churches in Western Europe, and in countries formerly ruled by more earth shaking, and even more enriching, than the Judeo-Hellenistic communistic regimes, particularly the Czech Republic. encounter.63  The recent use of evolution by neo-atheists as a strong claim The task mentioned above is important – but how to bring people against religion/spirituality. Unfortunately their media to the dialogue? Isn’t something missing, quite basic, embedded deep in presentations72 show limited openness toward those scholars who nature? In the 1960’s, the motto of our Czech clandestine theological study the link between evolution and religion/spirituality, and who 64 faculty was: “there is no theology unless it is studied on a biological already include evolution in their belief systems. horizon”.65 Based on our experience, cybernetic terminology66 was also advantageous. This concept was later applied by us in Israel in formulating  The rising influence of adherents of Intelligent Design,73 also among the “Essential Idea”67 of Neve Shalom – Wahat al Salaam, the first, and scientists, and their avoidance of dialogue with scholars who include to date only, existing settlement where Jews and Arabs choose to live in evolution in their religious/spiritual concepts. the same community. For religious systems living in hostility, dialogue is a necessary element for achieving the goals outlined in Hans Küng’s  Recent work on the phenomena of frozen plasticity, elasticity, and three step guide to crisis management: “No survival without a world stasis, where Flegr updates our understanding of evolutionary ethic, no world peace without peace between the religions, and no peace mechanisms. Some of these ideas are worth applying as valuable between religions without dialogue between the religions.”68 But how metaphors to facilitate the science-religion dialogue. Flegr’s theory can this be achieved? Isn’t one prerequisite in each religious system the thus seems beneficial for religions in general and for the authors’ development of the facilitator science-religion dialogue as a condition Christian tradition in particular. sine qua non? India is already contributing significantly to both the science-  The urgency of addressing global challenges with as many tools religion and East-West dialogues.69 as possible, in order to improve interreligious and science-religion 56Omega December 2008 57 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives understanding. Astrophysicist Martin Rees emphasizes the critical are not evolving, but in stasis. Based on paleontological data, Flegr state of our situation as follows: “We live in the most abnormal, estimates that the period of evolutionary plasticity for a new species is unpredictable, and dangerous age of history…there is a 50% about 20,000 years, which corresponds to 1-2% of the life span of many probability that mankind will not see the end of the 21st century.”74 species. He suggests that the mechanism for the remaining time of frozen plasticity could also be applied in other areas.77 He further suggests that Is the problem just one of communication, where cybernetics could evolution stops when a sufficient amount of genetically determined be helpful on a semantic level, or is it deeper, where the rigidity of systems variability accumulates in the gene pool. He states that the gradual and lack of plasticity restrict openness and movement toward novelties? evolution proposed by Darwin is not valid, nor is the theory of “selfish At this stage of human evolution, can large religious systems be revitalized gene” developed by Dawkins. and prepared for dialogue, or is a new form of happening necessary to facilitate the plasticity? To answer this, we need to understand why A species or system can respond to natural selection pressure there is stagnation in religious traditions. For this task, we might borrow only during the very short period of evolutionary plasticity, when new concepts from evolutionary biology and see whether there are analogies phenotypic traits can evolve. The period in which we now live is in between biological and religious processes, and if there is some similarity stasis - species can only accumulate a few changes, mostly by genetic between the condition responsible for stagnation in biological systems drift and molecular drive.78 The novelty of Flegr’s model is to illustrate and that which maintains status quo in religious systems. the “vanishing heredity” of phenotypic traits and biological fitness in large out-crossing populations. The plastic phase tends to occur in small What are the biological parallels which might help explain inbreeding populations and in their growth phase. frozenness in the evolution of religions? Outline of Evolutionary Frozenness as an Analogy in An initial response to this question was attempted by one of us in Religions another essay,75 where terms were borrowed from systems theory and physical chemistry to describe systems far from thermodynamic From the methodology of natural sciences, it is known that no equilibrium. It was demonstrated that a suppressed religious system, on definitive proof can be presented for any theory. This premise is also the outskirts of society, could be dynamic, and produce novelties. valid for borrowing the theory of frozen plasticity as a helping tool to Expressions from chaos theory like strange attractor and “butterfly explain the behavior of religious systems. Because each religion has its effect” were helpful in characterizing the phenomena seen in creative own period of formation and development - and sometimes of small groups, separated from the equilibrium or stasis of larger static disappearance - legitimate questions may be asked. When did a specific communities. In the current presentation, we would like to draw on religious system originate, flourish in its development, and evolve? Is analogies or metaphors from the biological sciences to help us increase there a period of stasis, and a danger of drifting away of the phenotype, our understanding of the evolution of religions within social systems. e.g. of dying out? What is the consequence when large numbers of believers, informed by science, start leaving religious systems and Flegr’s Theory of Frozen Plasticity traditions, which have often become fossilized? What happens when a religious system is losing its plasticity, its ability to inspire? An enormous From our earlier discussion of conditions which facilitate genetic decrease of sympathies for the Catholic Church was demonstrated in evolution, we can borrow some terms from Flegr’s theory of mechanisms the Czech Republic in the decade 1993 to 2003, as religiosity decreased which explain Gould-Eldredge’s Theory of Punctuated Equilibria.76 It by 12% in the population. involves the theory of frozen plasticity. Flegr states that 99% of all species which reproduce sexually are today frozen in their development. They

58Omega December 2008 59 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives The start of religion in humankind can be traced back about 60,000 our demonstration regarding the ability of a large religion to release a years, even to the Neanderthals, based on archeological findings, creative spore - usually unintentionally. Under this type of formation, a especially at burial sites. This finding indicates the outset of religion long small part splits off from the maternal species and develops far from the before the more described periods of humankind, i.e. Paleolithic (-20,000 center of its origin, away from the center of power, far from equilibrium. to -8000 years), Neolithic (-8000 to -4000), Early civilization (-4000 to - In other words, in order for novelties to be formed and tested, and elasticity 800).79 Then began in humankind a period which could be described to be transformed into plasticity, the branch must be shielded away from analogically to evolutionary plasticity - the Axial Period (-800 to -200).80 the maternal religion, even with the risk that mistakes may be made It had key significance in the history of religions. During this period during the evolution phase. Otherwise, under situation (a) novelties may emerged the major religious traditions of the East: in China Confucianism survive for only a very short time before elasticity in the maternal species (Confucius -551 to -479) and the author of Dao-te-ting, in India Hinduism pulls them back. They may influence the religious system only marginally. (Upanishads) and Buddhism (Buddha -563 to -483), in the Near East Under situation (c), a small group may experience plasticity, and remolding monotheism (editing of Torah completed, the great Hebrew prophets can take place. appeared between the 8th and 6th centuries BC). In Greece, it was rationalism (Socrates -469 to -399, Plato -427 to -347, and Aristotle -384 Parent Species New Species appears to -322). Then begins the Postaxial age (-200 to +1500) with the origin a) of Christianity, and in the 7th century, Islam. Today we are living in a period called the Big Western Transformation (1500 – 2000+) with various historical milestones: e.g. Protestantism, enlightenment, scientific b) revolution, world wars, increasing atheism - which made marks on religious traditions, and the outcome today is the rapid decline of c) membership in many organized religions. To better understand the conditions under which a system may Sympatric speciation – new species appears within area of change, or remain frozen with only elastic variations, the figure below is parentVicariant Allopatric speciation – separation of new species provided, based on Flegr’s descriptions.81. It depicts the three basic types from parent by geographic barrierPeripatric Allopatric speciation – of speciation, which could be analogically mirrored for religions. The top small part of parent group splits off, forming a new species third (a) indicates Sympatric Speciation, representing an attempt to form a new species within the area occupied by the parent species, e.g. a Examples from the History of Religious Systems. In the new religious branch originating within a maternal religion. The members following examples, we would like to point out some selected milestones of the old and new species can meet during sympatric speciation but the where active plasticity, elasticity, and frozen plasticity are exhibited. developing species can not enter its plasticity phase, and every attempt to break out and start a novelty is only elastic, i.e. after a certain period  Emergence of Christianity – period of evolutionary it is falling back into the sameness of the maternal species. The next (b) plasticity. The short period (1.5 or 3 years, max.) of Jesus’ example is Vicariant Allopatric Speciation. The formation of new activities in Galilee (30’s AD) had to take place outside the center religious characteristics is enabled by separation of a community into of power, Jerusalem - although he grew up near a small urban separate parts by a geographic barrier, where the parts are often similar center, Tzippori (Sephoris), 6 km from Nazareth. His brief activities, in size (e.g. Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews). The last example (c) is in order to be plastic, had to be carried out in a series of signs, Peripatric Allopatric Speciation. This is the most important one for teachings and happenings, by which he disturbed the status quo.

60Omega December 2008 61 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives When he transferred the same behavior to the center of Roman  Innovative small catholic community in Czechoslovakia – occupational power, where some Sanhedrin members cooperated plastic under peripatric conditions. Working clandestinely with the occupiers, any novelty or openness for the truth was behind the iron curtain, a small Czech diocese, community and rejected by the top religious authorities and, in collusion with the college83 developed peripatrically in relationship to the maternal brutal Roman occupying power, led almost immediately to his church outside. As in communist China today, this community was execution. However his small peripatric group (Nazareans) a second line or underground church, sympatric in relationship to survived, maintained its plasticity, and grew. (Development of the first line or communist state controlled churches within the Rabbinic Judaism might be seen as allopatric after destruction of country. After the fall of communism, the maternal church rejected the 2nd Temple in 70 AD.) innovations evolved under the repressive regime by the underground community (e.g. worker-priests), and tried to st th  Development of Christianity 1 to 4 century – still primarily transform its plasticity into elasticity by administrative means84 or plastic. The major development continued, as most Christians by waiting for a biological solution.85 lived far away from the center of power in Rome. No hierarchical order, analogical to the Roman Empire, was yet in existence.  After creative beginning, Latinization of Malabar and Christianity was far from homeostasis, and creativity was Malankara Catholics86 - from plasticity to elasticity. The welcomed. Inputs were selected without a powerful structure, presence of Malabar Christians in southern India is recorded from without censorship. Problems were solved within communities, the 4th century, but tradition speaks of St. Thomas founding Christian governed by leaders chosen by the local communities (see Acts communities there already in the 1st century. Significant in New Testament). independence was experienced until the arrival of Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century. The forceful latinization of the  Evolution of Catholic Church slows. Already during the Syro-Malabar liturgy resulted in gradual loss of freedom by the nd th Patristic period (2 - 8 centuries) plasticity is becoming frozen, Malabar Catholics to develop their own rich Syro-Malabar changes are made only slowly, and elastic moves can be reversed. spirituality, and led to a loss of identity. This could not be easily Vatican II (1962-1965) was a sympatric event in the history of reversed and is not completely solved to date. A similar situation the Church bringing some innovations, particularly the Declaration occurred in the Syro-Malankara Church, though it was latinized on Religious Freedom, liturgical changes, opening towards the less. modern world, etc. Pope John Paul II on March 12, 2000 tried to heal some shortcomings of the past when he apologized with 7  Aurobindo and Teilhard envision possibilities for a new Mea Culpa (My Guilt) for evil done by the church during the last emergent state of consciousness – developed under 1700 years82. peripatric conditions - plastic. Aurobindo chose to develop his vision in a small ashram where he had the necessary quiet for  Historical use of Old Slavonic Language in liturgies in Great long periods of mediation and writing, while remaining informed Moravia, followed by forced latinization - elasticity by reading and correspondence. Teilhard was isolated from exhibited. In 863 two Greek brothers Constantine the Philosopher teaching and publishing by Church authorities. However, he (Cyril) and Methodius came to Great Moravia. (Moravia is part continued to write in notebooks and letters, refining the description of the Czech Republic.) They obtained permission from the Pope of his vision as it evolved, confident that any novelty appearing in to use the local language in liturgies. After their deaths, Bavarian humankind could never be suppressed. bishops were able to reverse this decision and liturgies returned to Latin for the next 1100 years (until Vatican II). 62Omega December 2008 63 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives Looking toward the Future: Can Contemporary Religions Notes become more Plastic? 1. A preliminary presentation on this theme was given at the international symposium on “Intersecting Science, Philosophy & Religion” in Kochi, In this discussion, we have analogically borrowed parameters from India, on June 15, 2008. evolutionary theory which describe plastic and frozen phases in the evolution of higher species, in order to help us understand the “dynamic” 2. František (Frank) Mikeš, Ph.D., is the founder and director of the Center for Dialogue between Science & Religion at the Cyril-Methodius Theological in humankind and religious systems. The importance of religious evolution Faculty of Palacký University, Univerzitní 22, CZ-771 11 Olomouc, Czech was also mentioned by Mahatma Gandhi: “We have not realized religion Republic, and on leave from Eastern Laboratories, Springfield, MA. in its perfection… Religion of our conception, thus imperfect, is always subject to a process of evolution and re-interpretation. Progress towards 3. Geraldine Edith Mikeš, Ph.D., is president and research biochemist at Eastern Laboratories, Springfield, MA. Truth, towards God, is possible only because of such evolution.”87 Gandhi also stressed deepening one’s own religious tradition – “a person who 4. For a picture of all system theories leading to emergence theory see: J. matures in the substance of his own religion, matures to the substance Goldstein, “Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues,” Emergence, of other religions.”88 We agree, and have added an emphasis on activity Journal of Complexity Issues in Organization and Management, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1999): 49-72. Includes diagram with 25 system theories between cybernetics at the community or leadership level, in order for a religious system to and emergence of self-organizing systems. evolve, by suggesting models from evolutionary biology. It is not easy to achieve change in a large group unless it allows input from smaller 5. J. Holland, Emergence: from Chaos to Order (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, creative sub-groups. So the task is: what operation might encourage 1998). maternal religious systems to welcome creation of some peripatric groups, 6. H. Morowitz, The Emergence of Everything: How the World became e.g. research institutes, as in science. What is currently missing is a Complex (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). dialogue with innovative units about novelties, sometimes even those 7. P. Clayton, Mind and Emergence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). used in the past. We believe that the application of evolutionary theory We do not see Aurobindo’s and Teilhard’s concepts of the next emergence to religious systems, as already included in science-religion studies for step as emergence of deity (like a new creation), but rather cooperation with over a half century, should be extended to the leadership of all major pre-existing Transcendent Mind or Ultimate Reality. streams, particularly the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity 8. It should be emphasized that the transition from simple molecules to the first and Islam. Without this, warnings for the future expressed by Toynbee, protocells involved other intermediate emergent steps, including autocatalytic Needleman and Reese might be fulfilled. Davidek identified the danger metabolic cycles, spontaneous membrane formations, etc. in closed religious systems as a cult of Tradition and warned us against 9. C. Emmeche, S. Koppe & F. Stjernfelt, “Levels, Emergence, and Three Versions it. Instead, western religions should without fear communicate at a deeper of Downward Causation,” in Downward Causation. Minds, Bodies and level with eastern religions, and all then with sciences and creative Matter, ed. P.B. Andersen, C. Emmeche, N.O. Finnemann & P.V. Christiansen offspring emerging today in each religious tradition. Only in such way (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2000), 13-34. can humankind advance on a journey of universal evolution as envisioned 10. C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: by Teilhard and Aurobindo. John Murray, 1859). 11. J.G. Mendel, “Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden,” Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines, Abhandlungen Brünn, 4 (1866): 3-47. First English translation: C.T. Druery & W. Bateson, “Experiments in plant hybridization,” Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 26 (1901): 1–32.

64Omega December 2008 65 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives 12. J.D. Watson & F.H. Crick, “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acids,” of Chaos, Complexity and Emergence, and the Spiritual Visions of Teilhard Nature 171 (1953): 737-738. de Chardin and Sri Aurobindo,” Acta Universitatis Palackianac Olomucensis, Theologica Olomucensia 8 (2007): 95-111. Some material from 13. Sequencing in gene-containing regions of the human genome is about 99% this earlier publication has been revised and included in this essay. percent complete to “finished accuracy” (fewer than one error per 10,000 letters, and highly contiguous). But some non-gene sequences are difficult 26. U. King, Towards a New Mysticism: Teilhard de Chardin & Eastern to determine with current technology. Thus total sequencing is about 93% Religions (New York: Seabury Press, 1981) 97. Teilhard, after reading a few complete. chapters from The Life Divine, reportedly said: “This is comparable to my own work, but is for the Indian tradition.” 14. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, “Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome,” Nature 409 (2001): 860“921. 27. S. Aurobindo, The Life Divine (Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus Press, 1990). 15. J.C. Venter et al, “The Sequence of the Human Genome,” Science 291 (2001): 28. S. Aurobindo, The Synthesis of Yoga (Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus Press, 1996). 1304“1351. 29. J. Grimm & M.E. Tucker, “Teilhard de Chardin: a Short Biography,” in Teilhard 16. R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (London: Oxford University Press, 1976). in the 21th Century, ed. A. Fabel & D. St. John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 19. 17. N. Eldredge & S.J. Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria: an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism,” in Models in Paleobiology, ed. T.J.M. Schopf (San Francisco: 30. N. Schmitz-Moormann & K. Schmitz-Moormann, L’Oeuvre Scientifique Freeman Cooper, 1972) 82-115. (Olten, Freiburg im Breisgau: Walter-Verlag, 1971). 18. E. Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 31. All French editions were published by Editions Du Seuil, beginning with Le Press, 1963). Phenomene Humain in 1955. 19. J. Flegr, Frozen Evolution (Prague: Charles University Press, 2008). See also 32. P. Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper J. Flegr, “On the Origin of Natural Selection by Means of Speciation,” Rivista Colophon, 1975). A new translation appeared in 1999 (by S. Appleton-Weber, di Biologia/Biology Forum 91 (1998): 291-304. Available online at The Human Phenomenon, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, UK), but www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/pdf/origin.pdf and www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ referenced quotations are from the earlier translation. Polygen.php. 33. P. Teilhard de Chardin, Le Milieu Divin (London: Collins, 1957). 20. Mutations can occur in DNA via copying errors during cell division, exposure 34. Man’s Place in Nature is a shorter version of material similar to the to radiation, some chemical agents/mutagens, or viruses. Phenomenon of Man, which Teilhard hoped would be acceptable to religious 21. It often involves binding of small chemical groups (methyl, acetyl) to authorities who rejected the earlier book, but it also was denied publication. chromatin material (DNA and proteins) in cell nuclei. 35. Teilhard’s law of complexity-consciousness. 22. M.E. Pembrey et al., “Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in 36. S. Aurobindo, The Life Divine, 685-711. humans,” European Journal of Human Genetics 14 (2006): 159-166; G. Kaati et al., “Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during 37. Ibid., 973-990. parents’ and grandparents’ slow growth period,” European Journal of 38. S. Aurobindo, The Synthesis of Yoga; and chapters in The Life Divine. Human Genetics 10 (2002): 682- 688. 39. S. Aurobindo letter to the Mother, in Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library 23. E. Jablonka & M.J. Lamb, Evolution in Four Dimensions (Cambridge, MA: SABCL, vol. 25 (1972) 6-8. MIT Press, 2006). The four dimensions are genetics, epigenetics, behavioral imitation, and symbolic representation. 40. S. Aurobindo, The Life Divine, 924-954. 24. Morowitz, 155-162. 41. Ibid., 990. 25. F. Mikes & G.E. Mikes, “Human Evolution viewed through Scientific Concepts 42. Ibid., 991.

66 Omega December 2008 67 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives 43. Six years after Aurobindo’s death in 1956, the Mother announced that the 63. J. Needleman, Lost Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1980) 108. “manifestation of the Supramental” had begun. Supramental is synonymous 64. F. Mikes, “Biskup Felix Maria Davidek – jeho multidiscilinární teologie a øád with Supermind in most cases, as in supramental descent. Supramental praxe” (Bishop F. M. Davidek – his Multidisciplinary Theology and Order of Transformation often refers to transformation of a group and Praxis), in Zivot se tvori z pritomne chvile (Life is created from the present supramentalization to transformation of an individual. moment – Czech Catholic Theology after the 2nd World War), ed L. Karfikova, 44. Ibid., 1079. A. Kristan, J. Kure (Brno: Center for study of Democracy and Culture, 1998) 81-102. 45. P. Teilhard, Phenomenon of Man, 57. 65. From the biological sciences, professor Davidek introduced anthropology, 46. Ibid., 65. psychology, neurology and physiology into his theological concepts. 47. Ibid., 143. 66. Cybernetics describes control and communication systems, using 48. Ibid., 169. terminology without emotional content, e.g. feedback, input. 49. Ibid., 172. 67. F. Mikes, “Application of Cybernetics in Israeli Interreligious Dialogue,” in 50. Ibid., 231. Matematika a teologia, ed. I. Kiss (Bratislava: EBF UK, 2002), 6-11. 51. Ibid., 261-263, includes all quotes in this paragraph. 68. H. Küng, Global Responsibility – In Search of a New World Ethic (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1993). 52. Ibid., 267. 69. Institute of Science and Religon (ISR, Aluva), Indian Institute of Science 53. Ibid., 270-271. and Religon (IISR, Pune), and Omega, Indian Journal of Science and 54. Ibid., 272. Religion. 55. K. Wilber, Integral Psychology (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2000) 209- 70. R. Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue, Rev. ed. (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 211. 1999). 56. S. Vivekananda, Chicago Addresses (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2007). 71. R. Panikkar, “Eruption of truth: An interview with Raimon Panikkar,” Christian Century (August 16, 2000): 834-836. 57. Word first coined by P. Teilhard de Chardin. 72. See recent conferences: Beyond Belief 1 (2006) and Beyond Belief 2 (2007) 58. Science and the Spiritual Quest was an international program conducted at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. San Diego, CA, USA. http:// between 1996-2003 by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/ Berkeley, CA, USA, in collaboration with several partner organizations. 73. An international conference “Darwin and Design: A Challenge for the 21st 59. M. Sastrapratedja, “An Asian Perspective on interreligious Encounter,” Inter- Century,” supported by the Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA, USA., took Religio 5 (1984): 5-7. www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/ place on October 22, 2005 in Prague, Czech Republic. Questions were selected miscPublications/I-R/pdf/05-Sastrapratedja.pdf only in favor of the Intelligent Design organizers. 60. M. Sebastian, “Between Theology and Science - On Mediatory Role of 74. M. Rees, Naše posledmí hodina – přežije lidstvo svůj úspěch? (Prague: Hermeneutics in Religion-Science Interactions,” Omega, Indian Journal of Argo, 2005) 16. In English: M. Rees, Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning Science and Religion 6, no. 2 (2007): 38-64. (38-39 on stagnation) (New York: Basic Books, 2004). 61. This was seen recently in activities of neo-Nazi groups in the Czech Republic, 75. F. Mikes, “Spiritual and Religious Evolution via Chaos and Emergence e.g. in a march near a synagogue in Prague. Processes - Czech Examples under Communism and Freedom,” Omega, 62. A. Toynbee, “Foreword” to Sri Ramakrishna and His Unique Message, by Indian Journal of Science and Religion 5, no. 2 (2006): 71-87. Swami Ghanananda (London: Ramakrishna Vedanta Centre, 1970), vii–ix.

68Omega December 2008 69 František Mikeš, Geraldine Edith Mikes Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives 76. S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, “Puncuated Equilibrium Comes of Age,” Nature Omega 366 (1993): 223-227. VII (2008)2, 71-103 77. J. Flegr, “Where is Modern Evolutionary Biology Heading - the Theory of Frozen Plasticity and Biological Psychiatry,” Psychiatrie 11, Supplementum 2 (2007): 11-13. 78. Genetic drift involves changes in allele frequencies between generations, due to probabilities. Molecular drive involves spreading of a variant gene through a population. Mdhyamika Buddhism and Quantum Physics: 79. K. Armstrong, A Short History of Myth (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003). An Exploration of the Similitude between 80. Axial Period – a term coined by Karl Jaspers for the global period of nyat and Complementarity innovations in religions and philosophies between -800 and -200 BC. - C. D. Sebastian1 81. J. Flegr, Frozen Evolution, 83. Abstract: The paper attempts a constructive exploration of the 82.http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/jubilevents/ analogical parallelism between Mdhyamika Buddhism and Quantum events_day_pardon_en.htm Physics in terms of the concepts of nyat and complementarity. 83. F. Mikes, see footnotes 64, 75. Ngrjuna (c. 150 C.E) is the founder of the Buddhist philosophical school called the Mdhyamika or the Middle Way. His magnum opus is 84. J. Ratzinger, T. Bertone, “On Bishops and Priests Ordained Secretly in the the Mdhyamika Krik and in which he says, “Whatever arises Czech Republic“ (Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the dependently/relationally (prattyasamutpda) is pronounced to be Faith, February 11, 2000.) http://www.cin.org/docs/czechpriest.html nyat. It is nothing but a thought construction (or provisional name) 85. N.N. “Tschechische Geheimkirche: Biologische Lösung statt (prajapti), for complementarity (or mutuality) is indeed the Middle Integration?“Katholische Nachrichtenagentur (KNA), 29 (30.7.1995): 7. Way” (MK 24: 18). The concepts of ‘complementarity’ and ‘interactions’ of modern Quantum theory proposed by Niels Bohr et al do verbalize 86. W. Bugel, “Cesty a scestí reformy syrsko-malabarské liturgie na pozadí the same language and import. This paper tries to unravel the indického kontextu,” (Ways and deviousness of reform in Syro-Malabar similarities in the concept of reality expounded in Mdhyamika liturgy on background of Indian context), Studia Theologica 5, no. 3/13 Buddhism and Quantum Physics. (2003): 44-54. Key words: M dhyamika Buddhism, Quantum Physics, N g rjuna, 87. M.K. Gandhi, Young India (bulletin) 2.10.1930; Included in a compilation by    nyat , Complementarity. R.K. Prabhu published in limited editions: Truth is God: Gleanings from the   Writings of Mahatma Gandhi (Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1955 first edition), chapter 20; available online http://www.forget-me.net/en/ Sarvam ca yujyate tasya, śūnyatā yasya yujyate (For him who Gandhi/truth.txt. is in concord with śūnyatā everything stands in conformity/harmony). 88. J. Pyronnet & C. Legrand, 15 dni s Mahatma Gandhim (15 Days with – Ngrjuna’s Mādhyamika Kārikā 24: 14 (a). Mahatma Gandhi), (Brno: Cesta, 2002) 19. Original quotation from M.K. Gandhi, Lettres a l’ashram (Paris: Albin Michel, 1989). The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. – Niels Bohr2

70Omega December 2008 71 C. D. Sebastian  1. Introduction to each other. All such (interdependent) distinctions obtain their meaning only in contextual relation to each other, and they are nya or Late in his life Niles Bohr (1885– 1962), the exponent of meaningless of any ontological standing.10 ‘complementarity’ in Quantum Theory, remarked: “I think that it would be reasonable to say that no man who is called a philosopher really 2. Complementarity and Quantum Physics understands what is meant by the complementarity descriptions.”3 If Ngrjuna (c. 150 C.E) were to hear this desperate statement of Bohr, Of all the developments of the last century physics, one of the he would have sympathized with Bohr, as his own philosophy of nyat most heated debates were on “quantum revolution,” in which Niels could not get appreciated by majority of his friends and foes during his Bohr’s theory of the atom was the springboard from which the new own time or even later. There is an unforeseen congruence between atomic physics gathered momentum. Bohr’s interpretation and conceptual the philosophical framework of nyt of the Mdhyamika Buddhism framework of quantum mechanics became the most accepted view in and complementarity of Quantum Mechanics. According to both the theoretical physics, and he called this new framework 11 philosophical stances there is no fundamental essence/core of reality, “Complementarity”. Bohr’s Complementarity as a new framework 12 and if reality is to be construed, it is to be in the relative, dependent and resolved quantum paradoxes, and at the same time it was an interacting dynamics of nature (prattya-samutpda). This paper is an “epistemological lesson” pertinent to all description of nature. attempt to map the similitude of the philosophies of the two great past 2. 1 Quantum Mechanics: An Introductory masters, who were really lovers of highest wisdom (praj): one is Ngrjuna, the great Buddhist philosopher who is considered to be “the The word ‘quantum’ was used in Latin as a relative and second Buddha,”4 and the other is Niels Bohr,5 a great philosopher interrogative adjective, adverb, or pronoun, to mean ‘how much’ or ‘how physicist and Nobel laureate. many’. Before the twentieth century it was occasionally used in English, as in German, to mean a definite amount of something. It was in this At the outset itself let me make a couple of quick points. Modern sense that in 1900 Max Planck spoke of ‘elementary quantum of physics (especially that of quantum mechanics) and M dhyamika  electricity e”, meaning ‘the electric charge of a positive univalent ion or Buddhism bring forth to us an important philosophical issue: the an electron.’13 Five years later, Albert Einstein, building on Planck’s relationship between language and reality. In modern physics, work, conjunctured that all electromagnetic radiation consists of ‘energy physicists become conscious that they have to employ ordinary language quanta (Energiequanten) localized at points in space, which move to establish a visual understanding or presentation of the events which undivided, and can only be absorbed or generated as wholes’ satisfying could be expressed by a package of mathematical formulae. However, the condition.14 Henceforth, ‘the word ‘quantum’ was increasingly used the ordinary language and its derived concepts, made use of in traditional as a noun to designate the minimum amount in which some physical or classical physics, cannot adequately interpret some of the findings of quantity is found in nature and by multiples of which it increases or quantum mechanics.6 The same predicament is there in M dhyamika  decreases, as well as an epithet for hypotheses, theories, and the like, as well.7 N g rjuna denies that words acquire meaning by referring to   that imply the reality of such quanta and, in particular, the ‘quantization’ something outside or external to the language system of phenomenal of energy in accordance with equation’.15 level (savti). For words in language are savti distinctions which have meaning only in their contextual relation to each other, and are not Quantum physics is loosely referred to as the Old Quantum pinpointing to any ontological status. He brings to light that all distinctions Theory, as today Quantum Mechanics is vogue.16 Though the Old we make, such as, subject and object, seer and the seen, cause and Quantum Theory can be traced back to the work of Planck (1900) and effect,8 or even motion and rest9 are interdependent, and they are relative Einstein (1905) as mentioned above, it began to be known earnestly

72Omega December 2008 73 C. D. Sebastian  with Bohr’s three-part series, ‘On the Constitution of Atoms and Bohm writes in this regard that “the mere uncontrollability and Molecules.’17 By that time it was generally agreed that matter consisted unpredictability of quantum phenomena does not necessarily imply that of atoms of a number of (the order of 102) different kinds. Atoms were there can be no quantum world, which would in itself be determinate.” 22 supposed to have parts, and Bohr wrote that it was “necessary to It is also true that the quantum rules of combination on probabilities are introduce in the laws in question a quantity foreign to the classical not compatible with the idea that each phenomenon is strictly determined electrodynamics, i.e., Planck’s constant, or as often it is called the by other phenomena that we happen to just ignore. In other words, the elementary quantum of action.” 18 In Bohr’s new scheme of things an ‘ignorance interpretation’ of quantum probabilities is ruled out as long atom of a given element can exist in different “stationary states” in as one sticks to the plane of phenomena. This does not say anything which each electron circulates around the nucleus at a characteristic about the ‘ultimate laws of nature’ beneath the level of phenomena. energy level. The electrons absorb or emit radiation only during the This does not either say anything whether quantum indeterminism is brief transition from one stationary state to another.19 epistemological or ontological.23 There are the ultimate laws of nature, and at same time they remain unpredictable to a great extent. Further, 2.2 Indeterminism and Complementarity: Conjectures in “there exists a class of processes undergoing chaotic motions, which is Quantum Physics both ruled by deterministic laws and remains unpredictable. Microphysics, thus, does not point towards strict, intrinsic, indeterminism; it rather It is commonly accepted that the birth of quantum mechanics illustrates the undecidability of ontological positions by science, be marks the triumph of ‘indeterminism.’ The “uncertainty” or about the determinist or indeterminist status of the ‘ultimate laws of “indeterminacy” principle was formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 nature.’”24 while working in close collaboration with Bohr. This principle played a crucial role in clarifying Bohr’s own ideas about complementarity. The relation between complementarity and uncertainty principle “However, it can be documented that Bohr was already well on his way is important that they both supported the idea that the task of science is to the ideas of complementarity well before Heisenberg made his merely to develop a mathematical formalism to predict observed discovery.”20 Bohr did not formulate complementarity merely to explain phenomena. They do not make any claim about the nature of atoms or or justify the departure from strict determinism which was the ideal of nature itself, instead they merely predict the phenomena which will be classical framework, but his intention was to resolve the quantum observed in specified experimental conditions. Thus, this is an ‘anti- paradoxes by adopting a new framework. This led him to expect that realistic’ view of science, and Einstein whose opinion carried great weight classical goals may have to be abandoned. The uncertainty principle at the time almost expressed his distaste for the uncertainty principle.25 implied that the classical ideal of causality, strict determinism and the However complementarity has had tremendous influence on the like had to be replaced by an adequate description of the behaviour of a development of twentieth century physics, “in spite of the opposition to system that expressed statistical determinism.21 The “uncertainty” Bohr’s views by some leading physicists like Einstein and Schrödinger relations express the mathematical consequence of the quantum the vast majority of physicists accepted the complementarity mechanical formalism that it is impossible to define the state of a physical interpretation in general without reservations, at least the first two system by precise values of the canonically conjugate parameters which decades after its inception.”26 define its classical mechanical state. 2.3 Complementarity: An Elaboration But indeterminism does not mean that everything is in chaos. It means that in quantum mechanics there is, in general, no strict The most influential philosophy of quantum mechanics is the predictability of phenomena. Predictions are only probabilistic. As David “Copenhagen interpretation” put forward by Niels Bohr in Como at the

74Omega December 2008 75 C. D. Sebastian  Volta centennial conference of 1927, and further elucidated and be understood. In accepting this viewpoint we should be prepared to elaborated by him in numerous lectures and papers. Later on other revise radically the position of the “customary viewpoint” on the outstanding physicists like Heisenberg,27 Born,28and von Weizsäcker29 relationship between the description of phenomena in natural philosophy equated their view with Bohr’s. Bohr extended his philosophy from and the nature of physical reality. Besides that, “Bohr’s reference to microphysics to biology, psychology, and cultural anthropology. In its complementarity as a “general viewpoint” should not mislead us into most general version it turns around the idea that no single coherent thinking that it is an arbitrary construction of thought.” 36 Or else system of human concepts can cope with the complexity of things, complementarity could be said in this way: Complementarity could be so that in each field of intellectual endeavour we must resort to understood as a method or “mode of description” using two or more pairs of concepts that afford mutually inconsistent but mutually exclusive concepts of a specific realm (classical physics) to complementary perspectives (e.g., “thoughts” and “feelings”, “instincts” explain a phenomenon of another realm (quantum physics) that cannot and “reason”).30 In its specific application to quantum physics Bohr’s be completely explained by any one of these concepts. Bohr’s favourite conception of complementarity achieved a quite definite and, for most Latin expression suggests a lot in this regard: Contraria non practicing physicists, quiet convincing formulation. Thus, in his book on contrdictoria sed complementa sunt (“contrary is not contradictory Bohr, the distinguished particle physicist Abraham Pais says, “Bohr’s but complementary). Or it could be stated as contraria sund exegesis of the quantum theory is the best we have to date.”31 According complementa (‘contrary is complementary’), which is also the motto Pais, though bit exaggerated, Bohr became in effect, through his idea of inscribed on the emblem of Bohr’s Coat of Arms.37 Bohr writes that complementarity, the successor to Kant in philosophy.32 complementarity provides “a widening of our conceptual framework for the harmonious comprehension of apparently contrasting There is a tacit link for Bohr with Kant, if we closely look at phenomena.”38 complementarity principle. Let us recall that Kant had maintained that natural phenomena can be perceived and described as such only if the Complemetarity does not say anything about the ontological sense impressions that disclose them are combined and ordered under status of the being. It is basically epistemological, and it does not refer concepts, the most general of which are contributed by human reason. to an ontological duality at all.39 It is not at all concerned with the questions Kant distinguished two kinds of rational principles controlling the like ‘what is there?’ or ‘why there is something rather than nothing?’ It constitution of human experience, namely, the “mathematical” principles is all about “how” to map and measure, and then to know the objective of the “axioms of intuition” and the “anticipation of perception,”33 and world phenomena or reality. In this sense it believes in realism.40 In the “dynamical” principles of the “analogies” of experience.34 The Bohr’s own words: “In fact, it is only the mutual exclusion of any two former presides over the determination of distances, areas, and volumes experimental procedures, permitting the unambiguous definition of in space and of intervals in time, and prescribe the continuity of all complementary physical quantities, which provides room for new physical intensive magnitudes. The latter regulates the world wide web of causal laws, the coexistence of which might at first sight appear irreconcilable relations, subject to major conservation principles and resting on the with the basic principles of science. It is just this entirely new situation universal interaction of all things. This conception of experience as regards the description of physical phenomena that the notion of beautifully fits Newtonian science, as it was shaped in the eighteenth complementarity aims at characterizing.” 41 and early nineteenth centuries.35 The use of particular framework of concepts to describe certain Let us return to the discussion on ‘Complementarity’ per se. phenomena entails presupposing that the phenomena in question are of Complementarity should be treated as a “general viewpoint” from within such a nature that they can be described by these concepts. Further, we which the description of physical phenomena in natural philosophy is to see unless the presuppositions governing the applicability of concepts to the description of nature are periodically criticized and revised, the 76Omega December 2008 77 C. D. Sebastian  expansion of knowledge into new domains will generate paradoxes and believed that the shifting of the distinction between subject and object inconsistencies. could cause problems in psychology46 and biology.47 Further he writes: “Actually, ordinary language, by its use of such words as thoughts and Bohr says two things when he speaks of complementarity that sentiments, admits typical complementary relationship between conscious “certain fundamental concepts are unavoidable for describing all experiences implying a different placing of the section line between the phenomena, and at the same time calling for a wholesale revision of the observing subject and the object on which attention is focused.”48 Bohr conceptual framework within which such descriptions are expressed.”42 skillfully avoids grounding objectivity in either object’s contribution or It might seem that such a position is inconsistent, but the apparent problem the subject’s contribution to the formation of the experience, but insists is removed when we recognize the distinction between the empirical on complementarity. He writes in this regard, “in complementary reference and the theoretical meaning of a term within a conceptual descriptions all subjectivity is avoided by proper attention to the framework. And again, “the essential inadequacy of the customary circumstances required for the well-defined use of elementary concepts.” viewpoint of natural philosophy for a rational account of physical 49 Bohr does not have any interest to treat objectivity problem vis a vis phenomena … entails… the necessity of a final renunciation of the experience, that is an “ontologically distinct orders of an objective natural classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards world and a subjective conscious mind.”50 Furthermore, he is least the problem of physical reality.”43 Here it is the revolutionary call for a interested in the objectivity description in the reductionist way, attempting fundamental change in our philosophical understanding of the scientific to describe consciousness on a purely physicalist footing. The beauty description of nature. of Bohr’s view is that science as concerned with the description of ‘Objectivity of physical observations’ emphasizes the ‘subjective ‘nature’ does not refer to a domain of independently real physical objects; character of all experience’. Bohr is very much aware that the and at the same time he does not abandon any attempt to know the requirement of objectivity imposed on the scientific description of nature nature of the world that exists external to human experience. Bohr is in paradoxical contrast to the subjective status of the experiences on wrote: “The main point to realize is that all knowledge presents itself which such a scientific description is based. Bohr writes: “Yet occasionally within conceptual framework adapted to account for previous experience just this ‘objectivity’ of physical observations becomes particularly suited and that any frame may prove too narrow to comprehend new to emphasize the subjective character of all experience.”44 The experiences.”51 ‘objectivity of physical observations’ emphasizes the ‘subjective character To sum up this section on complementarity: What is of all experience’. Thus, the understanding framework is complementarity? Let me quote here Henry J. Folse, the author of the complementarity. It is neither objectivity nor subjectivity. When the monumental work, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework objectivity claim of classical physics was challenged by Bohr, there of Complementarity: arose hostile critics to Bohr’s complementarity interpreting complementarity subjectivistically. Bohr reiterated that his .. complementarity is a conceptual framework designed to replace complementarity should not be understood as subjectivity, as he wrote: that of the classical physics because it is precisely the failure to “the decisive point is that in neither case (with reference to quantum come to grips with this fact that has led to such misunderstanding physics and relativity) does the appropriate widening of our conceptual of Bohr’s view. Thus the failure to understand complementarity framework imply any appeal to an observing subject, which would hinder as a framework has led somewhat absurd situation that each of unambiguous communication of experience.”45 It is so because, as we the various schools of philosophy of science of this century (20th) has, from one philosopher to another, claimed Bohr as know, the experience is always the experience of a subject, while the both ally and enemy. He has been championed as a positivist, a phenomenon experienced will always be an object of event. Bohr even realist, a materialist, an idealist, and a pragmatist, and at the

78Omega December 2008 79 C. D. Sebastian  same time criticized under many labels. .. the confusion is are derived by affirming or denying both at once. Thus, they are both basically the failure to understand the nature of his philosophical Sat and Asat (both ‘Being’ and ‘Non-Being’) and neither Sat nor Asat viewpoint.52 (neither ‘Being’ nor ‘Non-Being’). Thus there are four and only four views possible. These four alternatives formed the basis of Catukoi Complementarity is a philosophy. It is to be the whole of Bohr’s of Ngrjuna’s dialectic.  is tetralemma or quadrilemma and philosophical contribution, and complementarity includes not only the it is also called the four-cornered negation. If we name them in terms of framework itself, but also the arguments for generalizing the classical modern logic, there is first the positive thesis (S), then opposed by the framework to produce a new one, the “epistemological lesson” that negative counter-thesis or antithesis (Non-S). These are the basic adopting this framework teaches about the presuppositions for the use alternatives. They are conjunctively affirmed to form the third alternative of concepts, and the ontological repercussions generated by viewing (both S and Non-S) and they are disjunctively denied to form the fourth physical reality in the atomic domain from this framework. “It seems one (neither S nor Non-S). appropriate to call this conjunction of ideas a ‘philosophy’ and to speak of Bohr’s philosophy of complementarity.”53 The Mādhyamika dialectic is the rejection of the differences. Even the four different alternatives are rejected. Caukoivinirmukta 3. Mdhyamika Buddhism and the Philosophy of nyat is Mādhyamika dialectic. Ngarjuna used the Catukoi to examine The name of the school of Ngarjuna is Mādhyamika, meaning the opponent’s philosophy and show that anything as being, as non- “follower of the mdhyamā pratipad, the Middle way or Path.” There being, as both being and non-being, or as neither being nor non-being, is is little doubt that the term is taken from the first sermon of Buddha, untenable and should be ruled out. The Mādhyamika contention is that where the Middle Path is preached. But the old meaning was we cannot know anything as real except by rejecting the appearances transformed, and for Ngarjuna it was the middle path between asserting or the several views, and not by holding on to them or by their addition. the real existence of dharmas and denying them in the sense of negating The Mādhyamika dialectic rises above affirmation and negation, and it a possible real. The Philosophy of ūnyatā by Ngarjuna, the greatest is a path for removing dualistic thinking.57 Mādhyamika (c. 150 CE), has come down to us more through It might be thought that in avoiding the two extremes, the misunderstanding and misinterpretation than through an accurate appraisal Mādhyamika takes a middle position, in between the two. No, he does and appreciation of its fundamental contention. The learned scholar not hold any position at all. In his analysis of these four alternatives, Professor A. K. Chatterjee wrote some three decades ago about the Ngarjuna exposed the disconcerting implication of each alternative, philosophy of ūnyatā: “It is a philosophy which is much feared and  and thus brought the antinomies of Reason to the sight. He demonstrated abused but little understood, a philosophy more sinned against than the impossibility of construing a metaphysical position on the basis of sinning.”54 The history of the influence of the great Indian thinker rationalism. This was his dialectic. This was his critical method. This named N g rjuna is even today far from over. Karl Jaspers had listed   critical method is the reductio ad aburdum (in Sanskrit it is called N garjuna among the “great philosophers.”55 Let us have a brief  prasanga) of all opposing theories. It consisted in convincing an opponent account of what is implied by ūnyatā.  of the falsehood of his own thesis, without at the same time offering any 3. 1  Tarka and its Rejection counter-thesis or stance. Four alternative views are possible on any subject.56 The basic The Mādhyamika dialectic is the rejection of views by reductio alternatives are two: Sat and Asat or “Being” and “Non-Being.” They ad absurdum. This is a series of reductio ad absurdum arguments are ‘the Affirmation’ and ‘the Negation.’ From these two, two others (prasangāpādanam). Every thesis is turned against itself. The

80Omega December 2008 81 C. D. Sebastian  Mādhyamika is a prāsangika or vaitaika, a dialectician or free- 3. 3 ūnyatā: An Elaboration lance debator.”58 Prasanga is not to be understood as an apagogic 65 proof59 where we prove an assertion indirectly by disproving the opposite. The pinnacle or zenith of the Mādhyamika dialectic is ūnyatā. But prasanga is only disproof, without the least intention to prove any The Mādhyamika dialectic has its origin in Buddha himself. There were thesis. In rejecting one thesis the Mādhyamika does not accept its well-known questions, which Buddha declared to be avykta, meaning, 66 counter-thesis.60 The reductio ad absurdum of the Mādhyamika does the answers, to which, were inexpressible. Buddha’s silence made not establish any thesis. It accepts a particular thesis hypothetically, and Ngarjuna to ponder deeply and he came to the conclusion that reason by educing its implication discloses the inner contradiction which has of Buddha’s studied silence to fundamental questions was that Reality escaped the notice of the opponent.61 was transcendent to thought and verbal constructions. And the purpose of the dialectic was to disprove the views advanced by others, not to 3. 2 Relative Nature of Conceptual Constructions prove any view of one’s own.

The bedrock or the main principle of the Mādhyamika dialectic, Is the Mādhyamika ūnyatā, which criticises all theories but as I have discussed elsewhere,62 is that “all is relative”(pratītya- another theory? Can anyone criticise without having a position of his samutpanna). Nothing is in itself. Any fact of experience, meticulously own? Criticism of theories is not a theory. Negation of positions is not a analysed, reveals that it is what it is in relation to other entities or events. theory at all. Dialectic, as an analysis, does not bring anything new, but It depends on others. This process thus proceeds indefinitely and leads it brings out and reveals. It does not distort also. It is a reflective to a regress. This notion of ‘relativity’ is the bedrock of Mādhyamika awareness. Ngarjuna himself says that ūnyatā is not a theory or dialectic and it is enunciated in almost every chapter of the Mādhyamika view, and those who think it as a theory, they are unrecoverable.67 Again Kārikā. Ngarjuna reminds us that ūnyatā should be comprehended correctly, otherwise it does great harm as the snake is caught at the wrong end.68 Relation itself has to perform two mutually opposed functions: Ngarjuna had warned all those who misunderstood nyat. Here he identity and difference. Relation as connecting the two things, rather does not want to prove any view of his own.69 The Mādhyamika making the two things relevant to each other and it has to identify the distances himself from all positions and does not take a position of his two. But it has the function to differentiate the two as well. Thus, own. It might sound absurd and strange, but it is possible. The cause and effect, substance and attribute, whole and parts, subject and Mādhyamika does not have a thesis of his own. He does not construct object, motion and rest, and so on and so forth are mutually dependent syllogisms and presents arguments or examples of his own.70 The 63 and relative. Thus nothing is in itself, but all is relative. dialectic was directed against the dogmatists and rationalists who Thus whatever is relative is unreal. All the categories we make maintained a definite view about Reality. By exposing the hollowness of are conceptual devices (prpañca). With the help of these categories, their logic and the inner contradiction in their arguments and assumptions, our reason (buddhi) tries to comprehend the Real. But that Real cannot Ngarjuna wanted to disprove the claims of reason to apprehend Reality. be categorised and made relative. Reason cannot apprehend the Real, One can pose the question how can one free oneself from the for it is said buddher agocaras tattvam. If there is the Real or Tattva, conceptual by indulging in the dialectical play which is conceptual it should be something in itself, self-evident, and self-existent. It should unreservedly. The answer is that through the application of the dialectical 64 not be dependent or relative. method one convinces oneself that everything is inter-dependent, and one reaches a special kind of insight or intuition (that is, Praj) into the nyat itself. “This insight has no content – i.e., its content is void. It is

82Omega December 2008 83 C. D. Sebastian  nonsensuous and nonconceptual, although it is rational in the sense that used faulty methods, and indulged in sophistry. But presumably the critics it is developed through a rational procedure.”71 are not themselves importing anything of their own to their critique of the Mdhyamika. They are rather engaged in pure disinterested analysis The Mdhyamika does not say anything about reality, as I have of the Mdhyamika position in a completely detached and dispassionate 72 discussed it elsewhere. He was an ardent opponent of canons, and to manner. This is precisely what the Mdhyamika is striving to do. He is claim that he had a specific canon of his own will be self-contradictory. not an ‘other’ to metaphysics, but metaphysics becomes self-aware. Otherwise it would be only another metaphysical construction; its oblique We can refute the Mdhyamika only by being Mdhyamika, and not references to reality (aparapratyaya, etc.) are all negative. To say from outside. The critics are all in this respect ‘crypto-Mdhyamikas.’ that nothing can be said is not really to say anything, but only a ‘façon Let us bear in mind that after all the vicissitudes of misreading, de parler,’ pretence to speak. misinterpretation and the misconception of the Mdhyamika, his The kind of language which we employ for the description of philosophy of nyat nevertheless survives, for “his arguments have a 75 things is that which possesses subject-predicate model. Without referring lasting philosophic value,” and that is the real worth of the to the nature of predicates, Ngrjuna points out that not only the Mdhyamika. predicate creates problems for us but the very mould of predicate Having said so, now we move on to the next section of the paper 73 language is prone to engender certain problems for us, because any to make an investigation to the parallelism between the Mdhyamika predicate qua predicate is intended to bring out common, shareable or and Bohr. The nyat of Ngarjuna will become clearer as we make similar characteristics of things. According to Ngrjuna, the things in the comparison and contrast in the following pages. the world are uniquely particular (svalakaa) and such that no two of them are similar or identical. On the logico-linguistic level, nyat would 4. Complementarity and nyat: Strange Similitude amount to accepting the utter incompetence of predicate language, where every predicate implies a common property, descriptively used Though in different realms of human thought and enterprise they to usher in the nature of a uniquely particular thing. stand, Complementarity framework of Bohr and nyat philosophy of the Mdhyamika bring home strange but surprising similitude. As we The Mdhyamika never points out an incommunicability of our have seen above, “for neither is there a fundamental core of reality, knowledge in any language whatever, rather he points out its rather reality consists of systems interacting objects.”76 Both are incommunicability through the language we normally have.74 Syntax disapproving the substantialistic and monolithic metaphysical dogmatism and semantics are linguistic phenomena which come into play only when of philosophy and science. Let us have a brief survey of this philosophical there is a language. Mdhyamika does not have a first-order language, dogmatism which the Mdhyamika and Bohr tried to disapprove of. or it would be vitiated by the same fallacies that it seeks to refute. But this refutation is itself expressed and communicated, and thus utilizes 4. 1 Disapproval of Dogmatic Substantialism in Philosophy linguistic equipment so there have to be a syntax and a semantics for his and Monolithic Mythology in Science use of language. Sentences have to be ‘well-formed’ (syntax) and have Substantialism is the hallmark of traditional metaphysics. According to say something (semantics) even if only about its own incompetence. to this position there is an inner core of things, which is permanent and Language creates pictures of reality and these pictures hold us in thralldom the one. It has independent existence, something unchangeable, eternal or bondage. So we utilize language to break out of it. and existing by itself. What is ultimately real is that which underlies When critics characterize Mdhyamika as skepticism, positivism, properties, what “stands under” (sub-stantia) and remains continuously negativism, nihilism or whatever, it is possible that Mdhyamika has

84Omega December 2008 85 C. D. Sebastian  present throughout all changes. Both in the East and the West it prevailed world of becoming.86 Further, in the second part of Plato’s Parmenides, and still prevails. we see him distinguishing between singular objects which exist exclusively through participation, and ideas which exist on its own.87 A The Upaniadic tradition and the allied schools of thought trace of this same could be seen in Aristotle’s ‘primary substances.’ An propound a substantialist position in Indian philosophy. The Upaniadic independent being by itself could be seen in the scholastic philosophers, text goes like this: “He who understands thus this Self as All, rejoicing in in Descartes’ res extensa and res cogitans, Spinoza’s ‘substance’, and the Self, playing in the Self, copulating with the Self and enjoying the others upto the time of Kant with his noumena. In traditional metaphysics, Self, such one becomes autonomous; he traverses all the worlds freely. such an independent highest substance is understood as God. Thus we But those who know otherwise than this are subject to heteronomous come across the “substance ontology”88 which is called the “metaphysics rules; they have perishable worlds; they move fettered through all of presence”89 in all the critiques of philosophy in Continental tradition. worlds.” 77 Further is said: “This Self is indeed Brahman. It consists of knowledge, it consists of mind, of breath, of seeing, of hearing, of earth, There is a monolithic official mythology of modern sciences. We of water, of wind, of ether, of heat, of no heat, of desires, of anger, of no find in the scientific naturalism the presuppositions of “physical stuff” anger, of right and of wrong; it consists of all things.”78 This is the One– and the holding on to a definite sort of dogmatism. In the name of all–animating Brahman,79 and the sage vetaketu teaches his son the objectivity and verifiability etc., modern science has created and same as, “in the beginning, my dear son, this (All) was just sat, one only impressed upon us some sort of monolithic official mythology, say in the without a second.”80 “The one dwelling in the world is different from theory of relativity, causality, space, laws of nature, etc. which we are the world, whom the world does not know, whose body is the world, not able to challenge. We have accepted them in toto, for we have no who controls the worlds from within: he is your Self, the inner ruler, the other option at all. Let us take Newton’s law of gravitation: it remained immortal.” 81 This is the “Imperishable” that Yjavalkya speaks of to a useful scorecard of gravity, but it neither explained the mechanism by Grgi.82 This is the One “whence these beings are born, live, into which which gravity is effected nor permitted time to play any role in gravity’s on dying they enter in peace.”83 This metaphysics of one eternal reality action. Let us not forget also the fact that the concepts such as the laws was termed as the tmavda by the Buddhists, which is an extreme of nature or absolute space were directly derived from belief in standpoint as opposed to the annihilationist standpoint of everything omnipotent and omnipresent God of Semitic religions. Again, the dominant perishes. realist-representationist philosophy of science was clearly favoured by creationism associated with theological foundationism.90 Let us also When we turn to Western philosophy, we find that substantialism remember that the dogmatism of classical physics was challenged due is at the centre of traditional metaphysics, beginning with pre-Socratics. to the tensions, difficulties and paradoxes in the modern relativistic and We find Parmenides who speaks of one eternal unchanging permanence quantum physics.91 and Heraclitus with his panta chorei, “all flows,” implying that ‘everything is in flux.’ Heraclitus had affirmed a One that is a contradictory union of Having said so, let us have a perusal of what the Mdhyamika opposites, Parmenides affirmed a One that apparently admits no and Bohr wanted to communicate. The leitmotiv in all their writings opposites.84 When we come to Plato,85 we find his substantialist was the divesting of all sorts of dogmatism, philosophical or scientific. metaphysics. Plato’s theory of ideas, or forms, is generally regarded as For the Mdhyamika one must avoid holding on to any extreme positions, the belief in eternal, unchanging, qualities or principles, existing whether that of eternalism or of annihilationism, or of any other views, independent of the changing world of phenomena. The most famous and for Bohr it was the avoidance of the monolithic official mythology account of the theory of forms by Plato himself is in the Republic, of modern sciences. where the intelligible world of being is distinguished from the sensible

86Omega December 2008 87 C. D. Sebastian  4. 2. Similitude: An Elaboration observation possible we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement, not belonging to the system, an Here we try to find the stunning parallelism in Mdhyamika and unambiguous definition of the state of the system is naturally Bohr. Let us take the concept of ‘causality’ or ‘causation’ for instance. no longer possible, and there can be no question of causality in “Causation is one of the central problems of philosophical controversy, the ordinary sense of the word.101 and much of the crucial discussion in Indian thought clusters round this In his framework, causality, space and time have comprehensible cardinal notion.”92 Causation implies that things change and also that meaning when one understands complementarity. He made it clear by this change is subject to laws. Philosophically speaking, if things were saying, “the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union unchanging, we would have a wedge universe, static and lifeless, and it of which characterizes the classical theories,” and they shall be regarded would be absolutely irrelevant to speak of causation in such a scheme “as complementary but exclusive features of description.”102 of things.93 This very conception of ‘causality’ or ‘causation’ was contested by both the Mdhyamika and Bohr. The Mdhyamika Ngarjuna speaks of mutual dependence and equates that with Krik, the magnum opus of Ngarjuna, opens with a critique of nyat.103 He speaks of a lack (emptiness/nyat) of inherent/ causality.94 Cause and effect relation is critiqued here. All the views on indepenedent existence or own-nature (svabhva).104 There is no cause and effect which are mutually exclusive and collectively ontology of relations, ‘neither a connection, nor connected, even no exhaustive, try to explain the causal relation through one or other of the connector’ exist.105 There is only interacting events which are relational thought patterns, namely, identity, difference, existence and non- and neither momentary nor permanent. “This suggests that both the existence, or a combination of them or denial of them.95 Through this ontological constitution of things and our epistemological schemes are rigorous analysis of causality, the point Ngarjuna makes is that just as relational as everything else.”106 In Quantum Mechanics also causation is a relational concept between cause and effect, and, as the relational structure of knowledge is emphasized. Quantum Mechanics such, it is inexpressible, like the illusory appearance.96 Thus, for the gives “the relative character of the nature (reality). It abandons the Mdhyamika “all theories of causation are conceptual devices and representation according to which the structures of relations are makeshifts”; and “practice does not entail the acceptance of any univocally determined by certain connections of things in space and theory.”97 time, and shows their being dependent on the way an observer takes cognizance of the system.”107 Ngarjuna also made similar critique on ‘motion’ and ‘rest’.98 Three factors are essential for the occurrence of motion, namely, the There is inadequacy of all the conventional views to present the space traversed (moved in), the moving body, and the movement itself. reality as it is. Bohr wrote in this regard that “the essential inadequacy Again, without motion the division of space into traversed, yet be of the customary viewpoint of natural philosophy for a rational account traversed, etc., cannot be made. Motion cannot be understood without of physical phenomena … entails … the necessity of a final renunciation these distinctions.99 Further, motion and mover are relational.100 of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of our attitude Nagarjuna denies motion and rest, as each is nothing in itself, but relational towards the problem of physical reality.”108 Here it is the revolutionary to each other. call for a fundamental change in our philosophical understanding of the scientific description of nature. Ngarjuna also asked us to revise and Bohr also opined about causality in the similar fashion. For him, make a fundamental change in our attitude. The sole aim of Ngarjuna … according to quantum postulate, any observation would be is to free the human mind of the net of concepts (vikalpa-jla) and impossible, and, above all, all concepts of space and time lose verbal elaboration (prapaca). That is why Ngarjuna ends his their immediate sense. On the other hand, if in order to make magnum opus by bowing to Buddha who taught the sublime truth of

88 Omega December 2008 89 C. D. Sebastian  getting rid of all the false views (sarvadiprahya).109 Prapaca “… in no place in Bohr’s writings - including both published essays and or vikalpa is used in the Mdhyamika system for verbal and linguistic private letters and manuscripts – have I ever found any reference to constructions of mind. It is the ‘verbal proliferation’ which does not such an alleged “principle” or “theory”, much less to an explicit statement have any worth in the above said system. Such verbalization or of any such principle or theory.”115 Bohr wisely avoided such terms, description by language is a sort of distortion of what is real (paramrtha for speaking in this way would tend to produce misunderstanding satya), rather perceived or experienced. Such verbal, linguistic and regarding the sort of a thing he intended complementarity to be. theoretical constructions (termed as di in Mdhyamika) contaminate Nagarajuan’s nyat is also referred to as nya-vda (‘doctrine of the pristine purity of the real, for the real is nirvikalpa and niprapa emptiness’) by many opponents and supporters in the past and present. ca (or indeterminate). With his rejection of all views, of all constructive But the term vda or ‘doctrine’ could never be found in any of the presuppositions and metaphysical biases, Ngarjuna has advocated writings of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna have stated unambiguously that he the elimination of all dogmatic views (nyat srava dnm).110 does not have a theory to advocate, as we read: “Nsti ca mama pratij Further, Ngarjuna asserts that the heart of Buddha’s teaching is the ”, ‘I have no proposition’, or anything to put forward, for when all disposal of prapaca (world).111 Prapaca is deceptive and illusory, things are appeased (atyantopanta) and by nature isolated and by saying this Buddha meant nyat.112 (praktivivikta), how can there be a proposition?”116 The attitude in philosophy consists in being beyond any views 5. Conclusion and theories, and remaining critical of all rational speculations and verbal constructions of language. It demonstrates the falsity of every The Mdhyamika position on motion, rest, causality, being and philosophical language without claiming to be another. It practices the non-being, etc., may seem similar to Bohr’s. Furthermore, the view of ‘silence’ of Buddha, which the Mdhyamika upheld, in just observing Ngarjuna that the application of whatever can be said and the nature of things without uttering a single word, as it is said by conceptualized is prapaca and relative, also finds similarity in Bohr’s Candrakrti, “paramrtho hi rym tumbhva” (Freedom is philosophy. Again, by refusing to define objectivity with respect to how silence).113 experience originates, Bohr does not go in line with the whole tradition of representationalistic epistemology. The Mdhymika also never nyat and Complementarity are clearly against philosophical attempted to define anything. There is neither origination and nor dogmatism. Bohr had argued that accepting the quantum theory implied cessation of the factors of existence,117 and there is neither existence abandoning the classical descriptive ideals, and he believed that an nor non-existence.118 They all are dependent and relational; and in this alternative framework was available in complementarity and that this sense they are unreal. Everything is the dependent arising new framework removed of the paradoxical character of quantum theory, (prattyasamutpm)119 and whatever is dependently arising or relational any retention of the older framework seemed to him a dogmatic obstacle in origination, is nothing but nyat.120 Thus, nyat is the mutuality to the further understanding of nature. Ngarjuna also said of all of being or complementarity, and it is also called the middle path of philosophical positions as dogmatic, and hence one should get rid of all avoiding the extreme positions. 121 extreme positions (nyat srava dnm ).114 “Whatever arises dependently/relationally (prattyasamutpda) Another similarity between Bohr and Ngarjuna is that both of is pronounced to be nyat. It is nothing but a thought construction (or them never wanted to call their philosophy a theory or a principle. provisional name) (prajapti), for complementarity (or mutuality) is Although Bohr’s defenders and others refer to the “principle” or “theory” indeed the Middle Way”122 A ‘reciprocal co-belonging of the concepts of complementarity, in no place in Bohr’s writings one finds such an of subject and object ‘was term used by E. Cassirer of Marburg school, alleged “principle” or “theory.” Henry J. Folse writes in this connection:

90Omega December 2008 91 C. D. Sebastian  the most renowned school of neo-Kantian philosophy in Germany.123 Mind: The Classical Indian Perspective, Hyderabad Studies in This is closer to Mdhymika position. It is exactly what Ngarjuna and Philosophy no. 5 (New Delhi: Decent Books, 2008), Pp. 33 - 50. Bohr communicated through their philosophies. In nyat “there is 8. The Mdhyamika Krik’s first chapter entitled Pratyaya-park deals nothing removed from man’s being and his activities, nothing nihilistic or with causation. voided in his ordinary existence.”124 Both are not defined, but at the 9. The Mdhyamika Krik’s second chapter entitled Gatgata-park same time both are not rejected. Both are relative to each other and deals with motion and rest. complementary. Thus nyat and complementarity drive home so much of similitude in philosophical reflections of Mdhyamika Buddhism and 10. This very position is upheld by Fredrick J, Streng in his Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1967). Quantum Physics. 11. Complementarity proposed by Niels Bohr refers specifically to the use of the two seemingly contradictory concepts in physics, namely, ‘particle’ Notes and ‘wave’, to explain the behaviour of a particular entity, light. Wave 1. Dr. C. D. Sebastian is Associate Professor of Philosophy in the and particle are mutually exclusive concepts in classical physics. As per Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Indian Institute of the classical physics understanding, wave possesses some features that Technology, Bombay. particle does not have, like reflection, refraction, diffusion and 2. Quoted in Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution interference. Likewise, particle also possesses some distinct in Modern Science (London: enguin Books, 1990), p. 102. characteristics that wave does not have, like occupying certain space. However, quantum physics has discovered that in some experiments, 3. Archives for the History of Quantum Physics, Interview with Professor light “behaves” as wave, whereas in other in behaves as particle. The Niels Bohr, conducted by Thomas Kuhn et al, November 17, 1962, results of experiments, thus, suggest that neither ‘wave’ nor ‘particle’ transcript, p. 3, given in Thomas S. Kuhn et al, Sources of History of can fully or adequately explain the quantum phenomena. Quantum Physics (Philadelphia: American Philosophical society, 1967). 12. See Berthold-Georg Englert, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics: Perturbed 4. “Indeed, so far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned Nagrjuna stands Evolution, Vol. 3 (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2006), pp. out as the giant among giants who laid the foundation of religious and 7 – 31. philosophical quests. His supreme position has stood firm for centuries … He was, in short, considered to the second Buddha and he always 13. Max Planck, Physikalische Abbandlungen und Vorträge, Vol. 1 occupied the second position in the lineage of Buddhist patriarchs in the (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1958), p. 706. various sectarian developments of Tibet, China and Japan.” Kenneth K. 14. Albert Einstein, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2 (Princeton, Inada, Nagarjuna: A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarika with NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 149 – 169. an Introductory Essay (Delhi: Sri Satuguru Publications, 1993), p. 3. 15. Roberto Torretti, The Philosophy of Physics (Cambridge, Cambridge 5. Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist, made fundamental contributions to University Press, 1999), p. 308. understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, and he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. 16. Quantum Physics is used in the general sense, and Quantum Mechanics (QM) is used for the theory formed in the late 1920s by the conflation of 6. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Heisenberg’s “matrix mechanics” of 1925 and Schrödinger’s “wave Science (London: Penguin Books, 1990), pp. 115 – 174, 188 – 189, see mechanics” of 1926. especially p. 167. 17. “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules” was Niels Bohr’s landmark 7. For a detailed exposition on this see C. D. Sebastian, “Language and paper in three parts appeared in Philosophical Magazine, 26, 1913, pp 1 Mind: A Madhyamika Perspective”, K. S. Prasad (Ed.), Language and – 25, 476 – 502, 857 – 875. This monumental work marked the definitive

92Omega December 2008 93 C. D. Sebastian  break from using classical physics at the atomic level. Richard Rhodes 24. Michel Bitbol, “A Cure of Metaphysical Illusions: Kant, Quantum writes: ”‘On the constitution of atoms and molecules’ was seminally Mechanics and Madhyamaka,” in B. Allan Wallace (Ed.), Buddhism and important to physics. Besides proposing a useful model of the atom, it Science (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004), p. 348. demonstrated that events that take place on the atomic scale are quantized: 25. Bohr – Einstein debates went on for a long time. An analysis of these that just as matter exists as atoms and particles in a state of essential debates could be seen : C. A. Hooker, “The Nature of Quantum graininess, so also does the process. Process is discontinuous and the Mechanical Reality: Einstein versus Bohr”, in Robert G. Colodny (Ed.), ‘granule’ of process- of electron motions within the atom, for example- is Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge on the Plank’s constant. The older mechanistic physics was therefore imprecise; Quantum Domain (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972), pp. though a good approximation that worked for large-scale events, it failed 67 – 302. to account for atomic subtleties… Bohr was happy to force this confrontation between the old physics and the new. He felt that it would 26. Max Jammer, Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (New York: John Wiley be fruitful for physics. Because original work is inherently rebellious, his & Sons, 1974), p. 247. paper was not only an examination of the physical world but also a 27. Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976) was one of the founders of Quantum political document. It proposed, in a sense, to begin a reform movement Mechanics, and acknowledged to be one of the most important physicists in physics… “On the constitution of atoms and molecules,” so proudly of the twentieth century. He is best-known for discovering one of the and bravely titled- Part I mailed to Rutherford on March 6, 1913, Parts II central principles of modern physics, the ‘Heisenberg Uncertainty and III finished and published before the end of the year- would change Principle’ and the subsequent Quantum Mechanics for which he was the course of twentieth-century physics. Bohr won the 1922 Nobel Prize awarded Nobel Prize in physics in 1932. in Physics for the work” (Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, (London: Penguin Books, 1988), pp. 69 -75. 28. Max Born (1882 – 1970) was a physicist and mathematician; he also was instrumental in the development of Quantum Mechanics. He won Nobel 18. Niels Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules”, Philosophical Prize in Physics in 1954. Magazine, 26, 1913, p. 1. 29. Carl von Weizsäcker (1912 – 2007) was a physicist and philosopher, one 19. Cf. Roberto Torretti, The Philosophy of Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge of the young associates of both Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. University Press, 1999), p. 311. 30. Niles Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: Wiley, 20. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of 1958), p. 27. Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), p. 19. 31. Abraham Pais, Niels Bohr’s Times: In Physics, Philosophy and Polity (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 435. 21. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), 32. Abraham Pais, Niels Bohr’s Times: In Physics, Philosophy and Polity p. 20. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 23. 22. David Bohm and Basil J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological 33. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, (second edition of 1787 with Interpretation of Quantum Theory (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 25. corrections) N. Kemp Smith (Tr.) (London: Macmillan, 1933), pp. 202-207. 23. For a detailed study see Michel Bitbol, Schrödinger’s Philosophy of 34. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, (second edition of 1787 with Quantum Mechanics (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996); corrections) N. Kemp Smith (Tr.) (London: Macmillan, 1933), pp. 218-219. and Michel Bitbol,, L’aveuglante proximité du réel, (Paris: Flammarion, 35. Cf. Roberto Torretti, The Philosophy of Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge 1998), chapter 8. University Press, 1999), pp. 76-96.

94 Omega December 2008 95 C. D. Sebastian  36. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of 45. Niels Bohr, “Quantum Physics and Philosophy,” in Essays 1958-1962 Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: John Wiley & p. 10. Sons, 1963), p. 7. 37. As referred by Lai Pan-chiu, “Buddhist – Christian Complementarity in 46. Niles Bohr, “Como Lecture,” Atomic Theory and Description of Nature the Perspective of Quantum Physics,” Buddhist–Christian Studies, 22 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 91; and also Niels (2002), (University of Hawaii Press Journal), p. 150. Bohr, “The Atomic Theory and the Fundamental Principles Underlying the Description of Nature,” in Atomic Theory and Description of Nature, 38. Niels Bohr, “Physical Science and Man’s Position”, Philosophy Today, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), pp. 116 – 117. 1957, p. 67 47. Niels Bohr, Physical Science and the Problem of Life,” Atomic Physics 39. For a detailed account on this see: James L. Park, “Complementarity and Human Knowledge (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1958), pp. 97- without Paradox: A Physicist’s Reply to Professor Austin,” Zygon 2 (1967), 102. pp. 365-381. 48. Niles Bohr, “Physical Science and Study of Religions,” in Studia 40. There are many forms of realism: stronger or weaker. Realism, roughly Orientalia Ioanni Peterson, (Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1953), speaking, is the holding on to the position that there exists an objective pp. 389. world out there independent of our observations. Further, there are a number of varieties in realism: ontological, semantical, epistemological, 49. Niels Bohr, “Quantum Physics and Philosophy,” in Essays 1958-1962 axiological and mythological. Ontological realism studies the nature of on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: John Wiley & reality, particularly the problems regarding existence. It questions which Sons, 1963), p. 7. entities are real, and also enquires whether there is a mind-independent 50. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of world. Semantical realism is concerned with the relation between language Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), and reality. It also questions whether ‘truth’ is an objective language- p.200. world relation. Epistemological realism looks at the possibility, nature and scope of human knowledge. Axiological realism is interested in the 51. Niels Bohr, “Unity of Knowledge”, in Bohr’s Atomic Physics and Human aims of any enquiry on such a subject. Methodological realism examines Knowledge (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 67 (the entire the best and the most effective means of attaining knowledge. For details article is in pp. 67-68). see: David Vernette and Michelle Caponigro, “Physical Quantity and 52. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Physical Reality in Quantum Mechanics: An Epistemological path”, arXiv: Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), quant-phy/ 0612036v1, 5 December 2006, 1-3. p. 18. 41. Niels Bohr, “Can Quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be 53. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of considered complete?”, Physical Review, 48, 1935, p. 700 (This entire Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), article is from pp. 696-702 p. 29. 42. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of 54. A. K. Chatterjee, “The Mādhyamika and the Philosophy of Language,” Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), in Our Heritage: Bulletin of the Department of Postgraduate Research, p. 16. XIX (1), 1971, Calcutta, Sanskrit College, p. 21. 43. Niels Bohr, “Can the Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality 55. Karl Jaspers, Die grossen Philosophen, Vol. 1, Munich, R. Piper, 1959, pp. be Considered Complete?,” Physical Review, 48 (1935), p. 696. 934-956. 44. Niels Bohr, “Introductory Survey”, in Atomic Theory and Description of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 1.

96Omega December 2008 97 C. D. Sebastian  56. Four types of views are invariably formulated in the Mādhyamika texts. 62. For a detailed exposition of Mādhyamika dialectic see: C. D. Sebastian, It very clear in the Mādhyamika Kārikā 27 entitled Di-parīkā. Even “Dialectic Philosophy East and West: The Pre-eminence of the we can see the same division in Āryadeva’s Catu atakam 14:21. Mādhyamika ūnyatā” in The Philosophical Quarterly, X (1-4), 2004, pp. 75-88. 57. The opening verses of the celebrated work of Nagarjuna, the Mādhyamika Kārikā (1:1-2) go like this: “Anirodhamanutpādam anu- 63. “Pratītya yad yad bhavati na hi tāvat tad eva tat,” The Mādhyamika cchedamaśāśvatam, Anekārthamanānārtham Anāgamamanirgamam. Kārikā 18: 10. See also MK 7: 16, and MK 24: 18. In MK 24:18, Pratītya- Ya pratītyasamutpādam prapañcopaśamam śivam, Deśayāmāsa samutpāda is equated with ūnyatā. sambuddhastam vande vadatām varam. (= No origination and no 64. “Aparapratyayam śāntam prapañcair prapañcitam; Nirvikalpam extinction, no permanence and no impermanence; no identity and no anānārtham etat tattvasya lakaam.” – The Mādhyamika Kārikā 18:9 difference, no arrival and no departure. I salute the Buddha, the foremost (= “The Tattva is transcendent to thought, non-relative, non-determinate, of all teachers, for He has taught the doctrine of dependent co-arising quiescent non-discursive and nondual”). (origination), the cessation of all conceptual games”.) 65. ūnyatā is the most central doctrine in the entire Buddhism. ūnyatā is 58. T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (New Delhi: Harper not understood in the same way in all the schools of Buddhism. Early Collins, 1998), p. 131. Buddhism took the meaning of śūnyatā as ‘pudgala-śūnyatā’, that is the 59. It is also a reduction to absurdity, but indirectly a proof is made, or substance and the whole are unreal, they are void of reality (śūnya). The something is proved, by showing the falsehood of the opposite. All the dharmas are real here. The Mādhyamika went further and established arguments, which Kant offers to prove the thesis and the antithesis in pudgala-śūnyatā and dharma-śūnyatā. Unreality, or the essence-less- his Antinomies of Reason are well known examples of the apagogic proof. ness, is not confined to any particular aspect of experience; experience In Indian Philosophy we have the Sāmkhya Satkāryavāda starting with itself is śūnya. The term connotes not only unreality, but also reality. the famous “asadakaraāt” to disprove the opposite theory of Reality itself is śūnya being inexpressible through verbal constructions Satkāryavāda as a good example of it. (di-śūnyatā). The Yogācāra too advocated śūnyatā. There is only consciousness. Consciousness itself is not śūnya. ūnyatā pertains only 60. All the chief Mādhyamika teachers like Ngrjuna, Āryadeva, to its mode of appearance as objective. Consciousness is infected by the Buddhapālita, Candrakīrti and āntideva adduce prasanga arguments. subject-object categories. This infection is unreal (grahadvaya-śūnyatā). But there was a sub-school of the Mādhyamika, called the Svatantra Mādhyamika school, which believed in advancing counter-thesis. 66. Candrakirti enumerates them in his Prasannapada (Commentary on The Bhāvaviveka, the author of Tarkajvāla, is the chief of this school. Madhyamaka Karikas ) of MK 22:12, “Iha caturdasa avyakrta - vastuni bhagavata nirdistani…”, which means ‘The Lord announced fourteen 61. We could see the application of Mādhyamika dialectic in the magnum things to be inexpressible…”, and he mentions them . opus of Ngrjuna entitled Mādhyamika Kārikā, and also in his Vigrahavyārtanī. In the Mādyamika Kārikā there are 27 chapters and 67. “ūnyatā sarvadinām proktā nisaraam jinai, Yeām tu śūnyatā each chapter is a dialectical analysis of different topics or viewpoints, distānasādhyān babhāire.” – The Mādhyamika Kārikā 13:8 starting with Causality. It is really exciting to read and understand how 68. “Vināśayati durdā śūnyatā mandamedhasam,Sarpo yathā dughīto Nagarjuna refutes each view with its own inherent contradiction. Though vidyā vā duprasādhitā.” – The Mādhyamika Kārikā 24:11 the Vigrahavyāvartanī is only a small work in form, as regards its contents it is a fundamental text of Mādhyamika, as well of the early Indian 69. Ngrjuna states in his Vigraha-vyāvartanī: 29 that he has no view of dialectical tradition. It not only admirably illustrates the dialectical method his own. It goes like this: Yadi kācana pratijñā syān me tata eva me followed by Ngrjuna, but also it clarifies the idea of ūnyatā which so bhaved doa,Nāsti ca mama pratijñā tasm naivāsti me doa. often been misunderstood not only in modern times but also in the time 70. The Vigrahavyāvartanī : 29 goes like this: “Yada kācana pratijñā syānme of N g rjuna himself.   tata ea me bhaveddoa; Nāsti ca mama pratijñā tasmānnaivāsti me

98Omega December 2008 99 C. D. Sebastian  doa.”(= “If I had any proposition /syllogism, then this deffect would Socratic search was concerned with other than sensible things. For it be mine; I have, however, no proposition/syllogism. Therefore, there is was impossible for a universal definition to be that of a particular sensible, no defect that is mine”.) since sensibles are forever changing. It thus came about that he called 71. Karl H. Potter, Presuppositions of India’s Philosophies (Delhi, Motilal this kind of reality Forms (eide) and maintained that sensibles exist side Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1991), p. 238. by side with them and are named after them. 72. C. D. Sebastian, “Language and Mind: A Mādhyamika Perspective”, K. 86. Plato, The Republic VII: 1-3 (R. E. Allen (Tr) (New Haven: Yale University S. Prasad (Ed.), Language and Mind: The Classical Indian Perspective, Press, 2006). Hyderabad Studies in Philosophy no. 5 (New Delhi: Decent Books, 2008) 87. Plato, Parmenides (Dialogues of Plato, Vol. 4, Plato’s Parmenides, R. E. pp. 33-50. Allen (Tr.) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). 73. M. P. Marathe, “Ngrjuna and Candrakrti on nyat,” Indian 88. A detailed exposition on this could be found in Dorothea Frede, “The Philosophical Quarterly, VII (4), 1980, p. 533. Question of Being: Heidegger’s Project,” in Charles B. Guignon (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger (Second Edition) (Cambridge: 74. A. M. Padhye, The Framework of Ngrjuna’s Philosophy (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1988), p. 82. Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 42-69. 75. Bimal Krishna Matilal, Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian 89. Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theories of Knowledge (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1986), p. 49. Theory of Signs, D. Allison (Tr.) (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. 25-26; and also see Wolfgang Walter Fuchs, 76. Christian Thomas Kohl, “Buddhism and Quantum Physics” in http:// Phenomenology and Metaphysics of Presence: An Essay in Philosophy ctkohl.googlepages.com/ of Edmund Husserl (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 976). 77. Chandogya Upnaiad 7:23 – 25 90. From the end of the middle ages to the first half of the eighteenth century, 78. Badrayaka Upaniad 4: 4: 5, and also Isopanaisad 5. Western science was give its impetus by Christian theologies and more indirectly by simplified versions of Jewish and Islamic metaphysical 79. atapatha Brhmaa 9: 2: 3 speculations. For a detailed study on this topic see: Amos Funkenstein, 80. Chandogya Upnaiad 6: 2 Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986). 81. Badrayaka Upaniad 3: 7: 3 91. Michel Bitbol, “A Cure of Metaphysical Illusions: Kant, Quantum 82. Badrayaka Upaniad 3: 8: 9 Mechanics and Mādhyamika,” in B. Allan Wallace (Ed.), Buddhism and 83. Taittirya Upnaiad 3: 1 Science (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004), p. 338. 84. Francs Macdonald Cornford, Plato and Parmenides: Parmenides’ Way 92. A. K. Chatterjee, Facets of Buddhist Thought (Calcutta: Sanskrit College of Truth and Plato’s Parmenides (London: Routledge, 1980), p. 28. Research Publication, 1973), p. 5. 85. Aristotle in his Metaphysics A, 987 a 30 gives us a report of how Plato 93. A. K. Chatterjee, “Sautrntika Theory of Causation,” in nvkik: arrived at the theory of Forms: From youth on, Plato had first been a Journal of Philosophy , I (1). 1987, (Varanasi, Centre for Advanced study disciple of Cratylus and his Heraclitean opinions: that all sensibles are in Philosophy, Banaras Hindu University), pp. 51-52 ever in a state of flux, and that there is no knowledge concerning them. 94. The first chapter of the Mdhyamika Krik, is Pratyaya Park dealing These theories he held later also. While Socrates was preoccupied with with causality. There are other chapters that deal with causality in the Ethics and not at all with nature as a whole, yet in the former he sought text, namely, the fifteenth chapter Svabhva Park, the twentieth chapter for the universal and was the first to reflect upon definitions. Plato, who Smagr Park, and the twenty-first chapter Sambhava Vibhava had accepted the theories of Cratylus, was thus led to believe that the Park.

100Omega December 2008 101 C. D. Sebastian  95. The Mdhyamika Krik, first chapter Pratyaya Park (1:1-14) is the 112. Tan m moadharma yad yadi kim tatra muyate;Etat tktambhagavat critiquing of causality. nyat-paridpakam. - The Mdhyamika Krik 13: 2 96. The Mdhyamika Krik 7:34. 113. A.K. Chatterjee, “The Mdhyamika and the Philosophy of Language,” in Our Heritage: Bulletin of the Department of Postgraduate Research, 97. T. R. V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (New Delhi: Harper XIX (1), 1971 (Calcutta: Sanskrit College), p. 29. Collins, 1998), p. 178. 114. The Mdhyamika Krik 13:8. 98. The Mdhyamika Krik, second chapter Gatgata Park (2:1- 25) is the critiquing of the notions of ‘motion’ and ‘rest.’ 115. Henry J. Folse, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Personal Library, 1985), 99. The Mdhyamika Krik 2:14. p.18. 100. The Mdhyamika Krik 2:18. 116. For details see Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyvartan : 29 and its subsequent 101. Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of the Nature (Cambridge, commentary (The Dialectical Method of Nagarjuna: Vigrahavyvartan, Cambridge University Press, 1934), p. 54. Kamaleswar Bhattacharya (Tr.), E. H. Johnston and Arnold Kunst (Ed.) 102. Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of the Nature (Cambridge: (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1998), pp. 113-114. Cambridge University Press, 1934), p. 54. 117. Yadaiva sarvadharmmutpdo nopapadyate, Tadaivam sarvadharm m nirodho nopapadyate. – The M dhyamika K rik 103. Mdhyamika Krik 24:18     7:29. 104. Mdhyamika Krik chapter 15 with 11 verses. 118. Astitvam ye tu payanti nstitvam clpabuddhaya, Bhvnm ten a 105. Mdhyamika Krik 24:8 payanti draavyopaamam ivam. – The Mdhyamika Krik 5: 8. 106. David Vernette, Punam Tandon, and Michele Caponigro, “Approach to 119. Yah prattyasamutpdam…. The Mdhyamika Krik opening verse. Physical Reality: A Note on Poincaré Group and the Philosophy of Nagarjuna” in arXiv:0704.1665v1 (Physics.gen-ph) 13 April 2007, p. 1. 120. Yah prattyasamutpda nyatm tm pracakamahe. - The Mdhyamika Krik 24:18 (a) Sa prajaptirupdya pratipat saiva 107. G. Hermann, Les fondements philosophiques de la mecanique quantique madhyam - The Mdhyamika Krik 24:18 (Presentation par L’ Soler), Vrin, 1996, p. 116 as quoted by Michel Bitbol, “A Cure of Metaphysical Illusions: Kant, Quantum Mechanics and 122. The Mdhyamika Krik 24:18. Madhyamaka,” in B. Allan Wallace (Ed.), Buddhism and Science (Delhi: 123. E. Cassirer, H. Cohen, & P. Natorp, L’ecole de Marbourg, Editions du Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004), p. 351. Cerf, 1998, p. 247, as referred by Michel Bitbol, “A Cure of Metaphysical 108. Niels Bohr, “Can the Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Illusions: Kant, Quantum Mechanics and Madhyamaka,” in B. Allan be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 48 (1935), p. 696. Wallace (Ed), Buddhism and Science (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004), p. 340. 109. Sarvadiprahaya ya saddharmam adeayat; Anukampmupdya 124. Kenneth K. Inada, Nagarjuna: A Translation of his tam namasymi Gautamam. The Mdhyamika Krik 27:30. Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Introductory Essay (Delhi: Sri 110. nyat sarvadnm prokt nisaraam jinai; Yem tu ntyat Satuguru Publications, 1993), p. 14. distnasdhyn babhire. The Mdhyamika Krik 13:8. 111. Sarvopalambhopaama prapacopaama iva; Na kvacit kasyacit kacid dharmo Buddhena deita. - The Mdhyamika Krik 25:24 - The Mdhyamika Krik 13: 2

102Omega December 2008 103 Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction Omega Introduction VII (2008)2, 104-114 An ideal explanation of science-religion relation should be such that it benefits at all levels of society, from local to global. We are aware that both science and theology provide models that have profound influence on human behavior. In this article, an attempt is made to explain David Bohm’s quest for unity. He was troubled by the ‘fragmentedness’ Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and of scientific theories. His quest for ‘unity’, which is often discussed in theology has been the central concern in his life. And he made an attempt Science-Religion Interaction to see ‘unity’ via diversity in a scientific world view, which led him to - Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker1 develop a new model of reality known as “Holographic Paradigm”. This model has profoundly influenced the thinking of theologians, sociologists, Abstract: Both science and religion seek to explain reality, relating its scientists, psychologists and philosophers as well. The model is also diversity and unity. David Bohm’s quest for unity, forced him to redefine understood as one of the best models for showing the complementary the frame of reference within which scientific research is carried out. nature of science and religion. Having done that Bohm developed a new model of reality known as the “Holographic Paradigm”. This Bohmian model of reality is grounded In this article, after situating Bohm’s interpretation in his scientific in the profound ontological hypothesis, which requires the broadening and philosophical vision, I want to offer some critique an appreciation of of permissible epistemology beyond the bounds of science. The conception Bohm’s profound notions of “undivided whole” and ‘interconnectedness.’ of this holographic paradigm was facilitated by the paradigm shift from It may be noted that though this paper is mainly descriptive, it tries to classical to quantum mechanics. Findings of Quantum world as find the significance of the holographic paradigm propagated by Bohm, evidenced for Bohm’s concept of “interconnectedness” and “undivided specially for science and religion interaction. wholeness”. This is also evidenced by the mystical and spiritual teachings down through the ages, which speak about the experiential aspect of Paradigm Shift: From Classical to Quantum Physics fundamental interconnectedness of all things and that the microcosm contains the macrocosm. The ‘holistic’ interpretation of reality in this There is an agreement without hesitation, that fragmentation paradigm gives it an edge over other scientific interpretations. fundamentally influences the way we see the world and is often the Key Words: Paradigm, Quantum, Holograph, Interconnectedness, source of conflict. On further reflection, we perceive that the source of Reality; Wholeness, Unity, Super-Implicate, Implicate, Explicate, conflict is not “out there,” but originates within us, in our fragmented Diversity. thinking. The mechanistic worldview that dominated the contemporary science and society, led to a state of increasing fragmentation, both with the experience of individual human beings and in society as a whole. I do not know why matter should be unworthy of the divine nature, Bohm feels that, “a major source of fragmentation presupposition that since outside God no substance can exist from which the divine the process of thought is sufficiently separate, from and independent of nature could suffer... Therefore, in no way whatever can it be its content, to allow us generally to carry out clear, orderly, rational asserted that... substance extended... is unworthy of the divine thinking, which can properly judge this content as correct or incorrect, nature, provided only that it is external and infinite. rational or irrational, fragmentary or whole, etc”. As a theoretical physicist, – Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) he never abandoned the scientific worldview. Opposed to the fragmented world of mechanistic philosophy, Bohm’s quest for unity, made him

104Omega December 2008 105 Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction question the philosophical grounds of scientific theories prevalent during mechanics, he observed that the essential characteristic of this dynamic that time. Fortunately, for Bohm, the process of Paradigm Shift from universe is its ‘interconnectedness’ which is revealed in the sub-structures classical to quantum mechanics had already begun. In this process, many of matter. The results of various experiments convinced him that, the concepts and philosophical ideas in which these concepts are rotated existence of level within level of smaller and smaller kinds of entities, come under severe scrutiny. Classical mechanism had a philosophy of each of which helped, to constitute the sub-structure of entities above it. mechanisms, which in turn was based on Cartesian rationalism. Due to Further, each of these smaller kinds of entities, at least approximately mechanistic philosophy, the scientists in general and physicists in particular explain by means of its motions, how and why of the latter’s qualities. claimed that enormous diversity of things found in the world, both in The qualities of the entities above it are what they are under certain common experience and in scientific research, can all be rigorously and conditions; and also how and why they can change in the fundamental unconditionally reduced to the effects of some definite and limited general ways when change- Bohm also noticed further that properties of each frame work of laws. kind of entity depend not only on this sub-structure but also on what is happening in their general background. This evidenced Bohm’s intuitive One of the consequences of this classical mechanics was that it idea of “interconnectedness” in the universe at both the micro and macro professed hard determinism, leading to the idea of a physically closed level. universe. With the emergence of quantum physics and Einstein’s theory relativity, mechanical philosophy was questioned in many ways. Bohm Within the scientific worldview and having faith in the quantum in his celebrated work. Causality and Chance in Modem Physics physics Bohm explains: (1957), observes that the historical development of physics could not confirm the basic assumptions of mechanistic philosophy, but rather ... all action was in the form of what is called discrete quanta. For example, one found that the orbit of electrons around the nucleus would have to continually contradict them. Further, he notes that, the definite and limited be discrete, as there were no allowed orbits in between, and yet, somehow, general framework of laws as absolute and final is not required because the electrons jumped from one to the other without passing in between the possibility is always open that such framework may have only a -according to [one] view. In addition, the light shown on these things relative and limited validity. Bohm also felt that, acceptance of such a was also shown in the form quanta, and in fact, every form of convection framework would mean disagreement with the whole spirit of the scientific of energy was in the form of quanta. Therefore you could think of it as an method. Thus he rightly observed that physicists should adopt the notion interconnecting network of quanta weaving the whole universe into of “qualitative infinity of nature”, which will free scientific research from one, because these quanta were indivisible of the universe...2 irrelevant restrictions. By doing so, he argued for a change in the frame Bohm again seeks evidence for his ontology of “oneness” from of reference in the scientific research. One must accept the fact that the dual nature of matter and energy when either they behave like a David Bohm was both a seer and a scientist. As a seer he had a vision particle or like a field incase of a wave-according to the treatment they and as a scientist he had the scientific method to overcome the difficulties get in an experiment. Bohm infers that everything can show either a and challenges posed by our fragmented perception. wave like or a particle like character according to the context of the Findings of Quantum World as Evidence for Bohm’s Concept environment - matter or energy are quite like an organism, because of “Interconnectedness” and “Wholeness” organisms are very dependent on their context. Next, the peculiar new property of non-locality -the fact that there can be connections between Bohm’s philosophical insights guided him in his quest for truth and the particles at considerable distances-also strengthens “interconnected unity; and in this spirit, he unpacked and revealed the epistemological wholeness”. However. Bohm observed that two pillars of the modem foundations of science. Throughout the development of quantum physics – quantum mechanics and relativity theory – actually contradict

106 Omega December 2008 107 Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction each other. The disagreement is at the fundamental level because, sine qua non for such laws.4 An inquiry into the nature of order is an quantum mechanics requires reality to be discontinuous, non-local and inquiry into the very epistemological foundations of science itself. non-causal, whereas relativity theory requires reality to be continuous, According to Bohm, we create categories, through our perceptions of local and causal. similarities and differences and these categories are precursors to order. The concept of order “is generally experienced in number of different In order to find a solution to this problem, Bohm, inquired into situations and contexts. For example, there is the order of number of what the two conflicting theories had in common and he discovered that points on a line, of space and time, of a movement of a particle, through they had the concept of “undivided wholeness”, in common. Later through space and of functions of machines. But order need not be only the concept of “holograph” Bohm illustrated this aspect of our universe, mechanical or restricted to inanimate systems. There is also the order of showing that microcosm (reality at micro level) and macrocosm (reality growth of an organism, of a language, of thought, of music and art and at macro level) are identical. of society in general. Indeed, it can be truly said that whatever we do 5 Bohmian Model of Reality as “Undivided Wholeness” presupposes some kind of order.” In order to understand the concept of order in science, we may Bohm’s model of reality consist of a dynamic holomorement that refer to Newtonian mechanics. It is well known a fact that, in Newtonian has three basic realms or levels of manifestation- the implicate order, mechanics the order of space and time was taken as absolute and thus the explicate order and the super-implicate order. It is significant to had retained something from old Aristotelian order. As a result, within recognize that these terms (implicate- explicate) were not originated by the new mechanical order, was embedded something of the eternal order, Bohm, but by Nicolas of Cusa about 1450 C. E. Cusa proposed a similar because Newton maintained that, space was ‘the external sensorium of idea several centuries ago. He introduced three terms, “implicatio God’ and time flowed equally throughout the Universe. However, Einstein (enfolded), explicatio (unfolded) and complicatio (all folded questioned this idea of a time that flows universally across the whole together).”According to Cusa, God is enfolding in so far as all things are universe, and showed that the flow of time depends on the speed of the in Him and He is unfolding in so far as He is in all things.3 observer. Further, with the advent of the quantum theory, greater changes However, Bohm’s interpretation as a theoretical physicist differs in order occurred and the whole basis of mechanical order was called from Cusa’s. Bohm maintains that there are gradations of implicate order into question. The notion of order is context dependent. Further, order is and there are gradations of explicate order as well and in fact they neither subjective, nor objective, because when a new concept is revealed, parallel one another throughout evolution. The ‘implicate’ order is given then a different notion of order appears. a connotation of being more real, more fundamental and more basic Bohm firmly was of the opinion that the concept of order in science than the explicate world of manifest entities. Bohm used the following must be expanded and revolutionized – it stayed the same in quantum metaphor to describe this: the explicate order is analogous to the waves mechanics and relativity theory as its use in classical physics (Newton, of the ocean; the implicit order is the ocean itself In fact, they alternate, Galileo). He further proposed that a hidden order might be present in i.e. what is implicate at one level of consciousness becomes explicate at what appears to be random. This means there may be many subtle the next. orders in reality that science has yet to recognize. Thus we observe that The concept of order is the central theme in David Bohm’s work. in Bohm’s epistemological foundations of science, various types of orders His concept of undivided wholeness questioned the prevailing assumptions are discussed – the implicate, the explicate, the super-implicate, the eternal, of “fragmented worldview.” Since essence of science is a quest for the generative and so on. The relation between the implicate and explicate natural laws of general applicability, the existence of natural order is order is that of enfolding and unfolding as mentioned above. The possible

108Omega December 2008 109 Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction focus for the super-implicate order may be highly complex, subtle and connection of very distant elements, but also because the state of the difficult to conceive in terms of ordinary concepts. Bohm speaks of an whole is such that it organizes the parts. The name ‘holograph’ is based eternal order which is a super-implicate order and that lies beyond the on Greek words ‘holo’ meaning whole and ‘graph’ meaning to write. domain of time. As such the eternal order is not static and not everlasting The holograph writes the whole- In other words, ‘wholeness’ refers to but is outside of time altogether and is ever creative. As this creativity whole being present in the parts. For example, in photographic hologram, filters down to tower implicate orders, it tends to become manifest in “the entire picture is wholly present in each part of the photographic time, i.e., it enters a temporal order. plate, so that it would not be true in this case to say that the whole is made up ofparts.”7 Intimately connected to Bohm’s concept of order through the casual interpretation of quantum theory, Bohm developed the concept of Like Einstein, Bohm was also unhappy about the current quantum potential—which is a wave like information field that provides interpretations of quantum mechanics and so he proposed a hidden order a kind of guidance to the electron. Bohm cites an analogy of an airliner at work, below the apparent chaos and lack of continuity of the individual that changes its course in response to the navigational radio signals. The particles of matter described by quantum mechanics. For Bohm, “the radio waves do not and cannot provide the energy required by the airliner world we live in is multidimensional. The most obvious and superficial to change its course, but rather they provide active information to which level is the three dimensional world of objects, space and time which he the airliner responds by changing its course under its own power. Bohm terms the explicate order. Its matter is composed of a dense grade, and maintained that the electron responds in an analogous manner to the although it can be described by reference to itself alone ... it can neither quantum potential. He also introduces the concept of the superquantum be explained nor clearly understood in this way”?. But an understanding potential, which is far more subtle and complex than the quantum potential, of this is “possible, only by going to a deeper level—the implicate order, which pervades all space and provides direct connections between which is the all encompassing background to our experience: physical, quantum systems. psychological and spiritual. This source lies in a yet subtler dimension called ‘the super-implicate order’. Beyond this we can postulate “any The superquantum potential, quantum potential, the super implicate such orders, merging onto an infinite n-dimensional source or ground.”8 order, the implicate order all comprise one whole. According to Bohm, Bohm confesses that the ultimate super super-implicate order we cannot life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order. The grasp in thought, but when that is personalized, it is called God. However, generative order is “primarily concerned not with the outward side of without personalizing also, one may try to understand it. development, and evolution in a sequence of successions, but with a deeper and more inward order out of which the manifest form of things Comments on Bohm’s “Interconnectedness” and can emerge creativity.”6As such, life and consciousness are present in “Wholeness” the varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter – including supposedly “inanimate” matter such as electrons and plasmas. He suggests that In this “wholeness” there appears to be a higher level and a lower there is a “proto-intelligence” in matter, so that the new evolutionary level. The higher level contains the lower ones, i.e. the higher level is the developments do not emerge in a random manner but in creatively as whole and the lower level is the unfoldment in the linear fashion, of that relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. whole. The higher level is mathematically non- linear, beyond time and space and has an order of its own. One of the corollary of this wholeness This model of reality is developed for a new paradigm, which is is that the strict distinction between materialism and idealism disappears. known as the “holographic paradigm”. As a soft deterministic model, The whole is like the Aristotelian notion of the ‘form’ which enter into an the whole actually organizes the parts, not merely through the strong energy, further gives rise to determinate activity and finally to a

110Omega December 2008 111 Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction determinate structure of matter. This is not a reductionist approach works. However, it is also observed that, in scientific community, the because, for Bohm every content is form and every form is content at scientists preference for one paradigm over another is determined by a the same time. It is the unity, which has its own logic to connect the host of non-scientific and non-empirical factors and this fact is well manifest diversity.9 The holographic model became a topic for discussion brought out by Thomas Kuhn. Gerard ‘t Hooft, a physicist and nobel among new paradigm thinkers. There appeared varied interpretations of prize winner, is skeptical of this paradigm. For he maintains that, various relationship between mind-body or mind- matter-consciousness, where conflicting interpretations of quantum theory add to the confusion, thinkers attempted to fit their model of mind-body relationships in the regarding the understanding quantum phenomena and there cannot be “holographic” paradigm. Karl Pribram, the famous neurosurgeon, one final single theory explaining the reality. In spite of this skeptical developed a model of the brain based on the holographic principles. The view it is pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that argues for holographic paradigm also has found fruitful application in brain physiology the dominant fragmented scientific worldview over Bohm’s hypothesis and human consciousness. Psychiatrist Stanislav Grof developed of undivided wholeness. Scientific evidence may be of help to certain cartography of human consciousness that summarizes his extensive extent, with regards to holographic paradigm, as its conception is grounded research into non-ordinary states of consciousness. The Tibetan master in a profound ontological hypothesis—opening up an entirely new way – Sogyal Rinpoche – noticed that there are striking parallels between of understanding the fundamental nature of the physical universe, as Bohm’s model and the three ‘kayas’ in Buddhist ontology. This model is glimpsed through the data and laws of physics. Bohm found theoretical present in many versions in Indian philosophy and theology, which was precedent within physics for a subtle realm that lies beyond physics. His conceived thousand of years ago. As mentioned earlier. Nicolas of Cusa, greatest contribution to science in general and physics in particular is who intuitively developed analogous ideas prior to Bohm, wrote in very that the holographic paradigm does show that physics can be rigorously mathematical and scientific terms, but included God in it. consistent with the existence of higher realms of truth, order, existence and eternity. Kerry Gorden finds the new holographic paradigm as effectively reformulating the project of science, and conceiving of existing as an Conclusion interpenetrating web of co- evolving and co-creative relationships. Gorden mentions that Kabbalah is a tradition whose focus is demonstrably The Bohmian model of reality has become a part of the wholistic and non-linear and was an energetic, innovative, cultural force, interpretative framework, unifying science and spirituality. This four hundred fifty years before the advent of western science. It is a holographic model provides the information about how the universe tradition which believes in constant becoming, evolving and ascending functions. This is evidenced by the mystical and spiritual teachings down and “begins with the realization that creation is not a fait accompli, an through the ages, which speak about the experiential aspect of object made by God nor is it a singular event that occurred at same time fundamental interconnectedness of all things and the fact that microcosm in the primordial past. Rather it is the immediate, ongoing process of somehow contains the macrocosm. The broadening of permissible continuous emergence.”10 Thus, one observes an integration of Science epistemology beyond the bounds of science is a prerequisite to find ample and religion throughout human history. precedent for a unitive holographic understanding of reality- Based on this perspectives, there is, indeed evidence to prefer Bohm’s holographic Critique of Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm paradigm over other views of reality those dominate science today.

While theologians, psychologists and philosophers along with some scientists and neurosurgeons embrace this holographic paradigm, there may be some hardcore contemporary scientists who have ignored Bohm’s

112Omega December 2008 113 Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker Bohm’s Holographic Paradigm and Science-Religion Interaction Notes Omega VII (2008)2, 115-137 1. Dr. Kamladevi R. Kunkolienker is the Head of the Department of Philosophy at P.E.S.S.R.S.N College of Arts and Science. 2. David Bohm, Wholeness and Implicate Order (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1980), p. 18. 3. David Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modem Physics (New York: Harper The Undivided Universe Torch books, 1957), p. 137. - Richard D’Souza1 4. David Bohm, Unfolding Meaning (London: Routledge, 1985,) p. 6. 5. David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order and Creativity (London: Abstract: In this article, the author explores David Bohm’s formulation Routledge, 1989), p. 111. of quantum mechanics providing us deterministic non-local quantum 6. I bid., p. 151. theory. Though this theory is a radical departure from the Copenhagen approach, the theories cover the same domain and are exact in their 7. Bortoft Henry, The Wholeness of Nature (New York: Lindse Fame Books, phenomenological predictions. It remains to extend the experimental 1996), p. 5. domain to those areas which can differentiate between the two 8. Weber Renee, Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity interpretations. With Bohm’s new formulation of quantum mechanics, he (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), p. 25. introduces various new concepts such as that of active information, and that of wholeness. In trying to interpret his new theory within the 9. I bid., p. 25. conventional Hilbert space, he introduces the idea of the implicate order 10. Gorden Kerry, “Worlds within Worlds: Kabbalah and the New Scientific and develops this into his ideas on holomovement. For him, the implicate Paradigm,” in Zygon, Vol.37, And No.4, December 2002, 986. order is primary and is a new way of understanding and exploring the universe. Thus the universe is an undivided whole. However Bohm’s ideas of wholeness and the implicate order in this undivided universe, the author hopes, will transcend any theory of quantum mechanics. Key Words: David Bohm, Quantum Formalism, Hidden Variables, Implicate Order, Holomovement.

1 Introduction

Quantum Mechanics has proven to be a highly successful theory. It predicts with great accuracy experimental results and covers a wide range of phenomena. In fact the quantum revolution at the beginning of the 20th century has taken the world by a storm and today’s technology thrives on its results and applications. And yet a study of the quantum formalism is in itself deeply unsatisfying. There remain a number of basic questions of fundamental significance which continue to remain elusive. Most modern textbooks of quantum mechanics fail to reproduce

114Omega December 2008 115 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe the enigmatic nature of the theory and the questions which the founding Along with his student Yakir Aharonov, he discovered the Bohm- fathers of quantum mechanics grappled with. M. Gell-Mann, a leading Aharonov effect showing how an electro-magnetic field could affect a physicist of our times, once said, “Quantum mechanics, that mysterious, region in space in which the field had been shielded, although its vector- confusing discipline, which none of us really understands but which we potential did exist there. This showed for the first time that the vector know how to use.” potential, hitherto a mathematical convenience, could have real physical (quantum) effects. One of the advantages of an alternate theory is that it exposes our blindness as well as it tests the underlying philosophical and Bohm was highly impressed with the philosophical ideas of hermeneutical assumptions in a theory. Quite often theories adopted by Krishnamurti, and in later years through a series of dialogues tried to scientists are a result of deliberate commitment to a particular worldview. integrate many of his own view of quantum mechanics with the reality Diversity of opinions always has a liberating dimension to it. The concept of the world. of Wholeness and the implicate order arising out of Bohm’s formulation of quantum mechanics has that liberative dimension. As opposed to 1.2 Problems with the Quantum Formalism contemporary human’s fragmented view of the universe, we begin to David Bohm after writing his classic text on Quantum Mechanics2 appreciate and understand the Undivided Universe. was left dissatisfied with the theory. Later he would outline his main This paper is divided into two major parts. The first will explore objections of the quantum formalism3 : Bohm’s formulation of quantum mechanics as opposed to the Copenhagen 1. Though the quantum theory treats statistical ensembles in a approach, while the latter part will introduce us to its implications: namely satisfactory way, we are unable to describe individual quantum the concept of wholeness, implicate order and his ideas on consciousness. processes without bringing in unsatisfactory assumptions, such as 1.1 David Bohm (1917-94) the collapse of the wave function.

David Bohm was one of the foremost theoretical physicists of his 2. There is by now the well-known nonlocality that has been brought generation. Born in Wiles-Barre, Pennsylvania on December 20, 1917, out by Bell in connection with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen he studied under Einstein and Oppenheimer and received his Ph.D. in experiment. physics at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1943. He worked at 3. There is the mysterious ‘wave-particle duality’ in the properties Berkeley on the theory of plasma as well as the theory of synchrotron of matter that can be demonstrated in a quantum interference and syndrocyclotrons until 1947. From 1947-1951 he taught at Princeton experiment. University as an Assistant Professor and worked on plasmas, theory of metals, quantum mechanics and elementary particles. 4. Above all, there is the inability to give a clear notion of what the reality of a quantum system could be. He was blacklisted by Senator Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunt trials while teaching at Princeton. Rather than testifying against his colleagues, The last reason is perhaps the most unsatisfactory of the lot. It he left the US. Bohm subsequently became Professor at the University converts the quantum formalism into an epistemological theory. Quantum of Sao Paulo, Brazil, then at the Technion of Haifa, Israel, and finally mechanics at best deals with only the phenomenon. It refuses to refer to settled at Birkbeck College, University of London. He was a Research the ontology of the problem. That is in itself beyond the scope of quantum Fellow at Bristol University; and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society mechanics. in 1990. Bohm lived in London and died in 1992.

116Omega December 2008 117 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe In many ways, quantum theory gives us a knowledge of how our division of the world into a part which is observed and a part which does instruments function. That is to say, as indeed Bohr and Heisenberg the observing. The result depends in detail on just how this division is have implied, that quantum theory is concerned only with our knowledge made, but no definite prescription for it is given.7 of reality and especially of how to predict and control the behaviour of this reality, at least as far as it is possible. Thus quantum theory primarily However Bohm in 1952 was able to construct a hidden-variable directed towards epistemology. It does not give us an ontology for a deterministic model that could successfully explain all the phenomena of quantum system. A description of reality, in contrast, would tell us what quantum mechanics. This led Bell to question von Neumann’s theorem 8 processes take place on the microscopic level that lead to the random of the intrinsic logical closure of quantum mechanics (i.e., no further outcomes that we observe. concepts, e.g. involving ‘hidden variables’, could be introduced that could make a more detailed description of the state of the system than that Another well known aspect highlighted by the EPR paper, Bell’s what is given by the wave function). What was immediately found suspect inequality and the experimental verification of by Alain Aspect, Jean is the assumption of locality in the Copenhagen formulation of quantum Dalibard and Gerard Roger4 has been to show that there is a definitive mechanics.9 non-local nature in quantum mechanics. This means that two or more distinct entities (e.g. particles) may be space-like separated and yet In view of the qualitatively epistemological nature of the inextricably linked to each other. Thus in a certain sense, this shows that Copenhagen formalism, Bohm’s theory can be best described as an 10 whatever be the interpretation behind quantum mechanics, there is a ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. His casual fundamental inter-connectedness in nature given by the wavefunction interpretation of quantum mechanics introduces the concept that the itself, which is not localisable. electron is a particle with a well-defined position and momentum that is, however, profoundly affected by a wave that always accompanies it. Einstein was a severe critic of the quantum formalism and the Bell would consider this seminal work of Bohm as a revelation. It was Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper did have the title: “Can Quantum the first construction of a system which eliminates indeterminism and Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? “ the vague division of the world into “system” and “apparatus”. Einstein on many occasions did express his dissatisfaction with the quantum theory: 2 Copenhagen Approach I am, in fact, firmly convinced that the essentially statistical Amidst the struggles to understand the new phenomenon at the character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed beginning of the 20th century, an interpretation of quantum mechanics to the fact that this (theory) operates with an incomplete 5 began to take shape and be generally accepted among the physics description of physical systems. community. The major proponents of this interpretation were Bohr and The work of J. S. Bell in 1964 has shown that the predictions of Heisenberg. According to them, quantum mechanics was based on two local hidden-variables models are incompatible with the predictions of postulates: (a) the indivisibility of the quantum of action and (b) the quantum mechanics.6 Reflection on some hidden-variables models of unpredictability and uncontrollability of its consequences in each individual David Bohm led Bell to prove the important theorem that no model that case. is local can agree with all the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. We can thus question the full assumption of locality, or more precisely This leads directly to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by pxh. This was taken not as a purely epistemological limitation of operations on a distant system with which it has been interacted in the our knowledge, but also as an ontological limitation on the possibility of past. Bell has also explicitly stated his dissatisfaction at the artificial defining the state of being of the observed system itself. Thus there is

118Omega December 2008 119 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe an inherent ambiguity in the state of being of the particle. Thus this constitutes in essence only knowledge about the statistics of the interpretation implies not only an epistemological uncertainty but a quantum phenomenon.15 fundamental objective uncertainty (independent of the observer) in the system. That is, there is no way of giving them a meaning beyond the Bohr would remark:”There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description. It is wrong to think that the limits set by the uncertainty principle. task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we In view of these results, Bohr called for a new way of describing can say about Nature.”16 an experiment in which the entire phenomenon was regarded as a single Further Heisenberg would state:”In the experiments about atomic and unanalysable whole.11 events, we have to do with things and facts, with phenomenon that are Few physicists have understood the import and the subtle just as real as any phenomenon in daily life. But the atoms or the elements behind Bohr’s thought. Indeed Bohr was very careful to elementary particles are not as real; they form a world of potentialities formulate what he precisely meant, and was very critical against phrases rather than one of things or facts.”17 used in the literature which were apt to confuse the basic issues. It is clear that Bohr is influenced by a positivist philosophy. This What is implied by considering the full phenomenon as a single has two important consequences. First, Bohr required that all the basic and unanalysable whole? This would mean that different experimental physical concepts be defined by referring them to specific phenomenon arrangements would give rise to different total phenomenon. The in which they are measured. This is a clear trait of a positivist philosophy experimental conditions are incompatible with each other. Together they where concepts have to be defined empirically, i.e., in relation to their provide a complete though ambiguous description of the ‘atomic object’. manifestation in observation and experience. Instead, as Bohm would While in the classical view, these complementary views can be combined later go on to show, we can derive the possible phenomenon as forms on into an unambiguous picture thus independent of the observer, in the the overall structure of concepts and their relationships. Secondly, a quantum mechanical description these complementary descriptions consequence of the positivist philosophy is the identification of “cannot be combined into a single picture by means of ordinary concepts, determinism with predictability and controllability. This has proven to be they represent equally essential aspects of any knowledge of the object false with the discovery of a great class of deterministic systems (i.e., in question that can be obtained in this domain.”12 those having unstable and chaotic motions) that are neither predictable nor controllable. Bohr’s position can be summarised as saying that all physical concepts must correspond to phenomenon, i.e. appearances.13 There 3 Bohmian Mechanics exists a correspondence between the physical reality and the phenomenon. Classically this correspondence may be unambiguous, but Bohmian mechanics differs from the usual Copenhagen this may not be so quantum mechanically. interpretation in the fact that apart from the usual quantum-mechanical wavefunction (x), there are the positions of the particles of the system. What then is the meaning of the mathematics of the quantum While in the Copenhagen interpretation, a complete state description is theory (which is very well defined)? Bohr describes this as the quantum given by (x), the complete state description in Bohmian mechanics is algorithm which gives the probabilities of the possible results for each given by ((x),x). Thus the position x takes the form of a hidden-variable. kind of experimental arrangement.14 Bohm would point out that this Thus the electron is a particle with a well-defined position x(t) which implies that the mathematics must not be regarded as reflecting an varies continuously and is casually determined. This particle is never independent quantum reality that is well defined, but rather that it separate from a new type of quantum field that fundamentally affects

120Omega December 2008 121 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe it.18 This field is given by (x,t)=Rexp(iS(x,t)/h).  then satisfies important to note that the quantum potential is independent of the strength Schrodinger’s equation so that it too changes continuously and is casually (i.e. the intensity) of the quantum field but depends only on its form. This determined. is in stark contrast to classical waves. Particles moving in empty space  under the action of no classical forces need not travel uniformly in straight  h2 ih——=——+V(q) (1) lines. Since the effect of the wave does not fall off with distance, even t -2m  remote features of the environment can profoundly affect the movement. The above Schrodinger’s equation is accepted not derived. By a mathematical transformation alone, Bohm was able to rewrite this Since only the form of the quantum potential is important in dynamical equation into an equation of motion of the particle determining the movement of the electron, this introduces the concept of active information. The basic idea of active information is that a dv 19 m —=-V-Q) (2) form having very little energy directs a form with much greater energy. dt The classic example to illustrate the ideas of quantum potential and active information is the double slit experiment. The electron passes through This equation of motion strongly resembles Newton’s equation. only one slit, while the pilot-wave is allowed to pass through both slits. However, this includes the classical potential V as well as the new The electron’s motion is guided - both in its choice of slits and its quantum potential Q. This means that the forces acting on it are not subsequent trajectory towards the screen - by the wave. The only the classical force -V, but also the quantum force, -Q given by: characteristic wave-interference pattern seen in the detection of the

h2 R electrons arises by considering that the guiding wave exhibits interference Q=—— —— (3) -2m R in the familiar classical way.

The particle momentum is restricted to p=S. Since the quantum A further important implication of the notion of active information field  is single valued, the following quantisation result follows: is that in a certain sense an entire experiment has to be regarded as a single undivided whole. This arises because the effect of the quantum pdx=nh (4) wave does not fall off with distance, and thus even remote features of In a statistical ensemble of particles selected so that all have the the environment can profoundly affect the experiment. The motion of same quantum field , the probability density is P=R. Thus the function the particles can be strongly affected by distant features of the P=R has two interpretations, one through the quantum potential and the environment such as the slits and cannot properly be discussed in other through the probability density. According to Bohmian mechanics, abstraction from the total environmental setup. the more fundamental meaning of R is that it determines the quantum This can easily be seen in extending the theory to the many-body potential. In quantum equilibrium, it can be shown that || is equivalent system. Not only do we have a similar dependence on the environment, to the probability density. but in addition, the particles can strongly affect each other, and thus the The deterministic nature of Bohmian mechanics is visible above particles are coupled at long distances. Because of this coupling there in the fact that the dynamics of quantum mechanics can be put in the exists a definite correlation between the particles themselves and the usual Newtonian form F=ma, and thus it is called the casual interpretation. environment. Thus the interaction can be described as nonlocal. This However, it differs from classical mechanics in that the presence of the can be readily seen in the dependence of the quantum potential of an N- quantum potential which is determined by the wave function. The Body system: quantum potential thus is extremely sensitive to the environment. It is Q=Q(r1r2,...... ,rN,t) (5)

122Omega December 2008 123 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe Thus the behaviour of each particle depends nonlocally on the What we have seen is that nonlocal deterministic hidden-variable configuration of the others through the quantum potential, no matter theories are “fine”, in spite of the results of Bell’s theorem. The choice how far they may be. of the scientific community for the Copenhagen interpretation is deliberate. It would be best to quote Bell: This introduces a non-local dimension into quantum mechanics. However, such a non-locality, especially like that implied in the EPR But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be experiments, cannot be used to transmit signals and information faster introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of than the speed of light. However this non-locality brings about a surprising which the indeterministic description could be transformed into new dimension of quantum mechanics, which has been a radical a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the departure from the classical ontology. The quantum potential, Q, depends subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to on the ‘quantum state’ of the entire system. This relationship between the “observer”, could be eliminated. the parts brings about a new quality of wholeness of the entire system Moreover, the essential idea was one that had been advanced beyond anything that can be described by a mere spatial relationship already by de Broglie in 1927, in his “pilot-wave” picture. between particles.20 But why then had Born not told me of this “pilot wave”? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not Bohm has thoroughly emphasised the fact that perhaps the most consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing fundamentally new aspect of the quantum theory is this aspect of “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? When wholeness, i.e., the evolution of the system depends on the many-body even Pauli, Rosenfeld and Heisenberg could produce no more wave function. However, in real life, it is possible to attain approximate devastating criticism of Bohm’s version than to brand it as “metaphysical” and “ideological”? Why is the pilot-wave picture separation of the potential in spite of the quantum wholeness. And thus ignored in the text books? Should it not be taught, not as the the different parts can behave more or less independently. However it only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To must be noted that this is only an approximation. show that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical Bohr’s approach of quantum mechanics also focuses on something 21 choices? new in physics, i.e. the wholeness of the observing instrument and what is observed. However, Bohr insisted that this wholeness cannot be First of all, we note that we have two equivalent theories that analysed in terms of any concepts and thus it remains unintelligible. explain the same experimental results. This diversity may perhaps one Bohm’s approach while extending radically Bohr’s concept of wholeness day be resolved into a single theory of choice. Whether one chooses a maintains a deterministic version of quantum mechanics, and thus it is deterministic pilot-wave representation of quantum mechanics or the possible to gain some insights into the system within the limits set by the inherently indeterministic one, is again a matter of choice. That a theory. Thus the whole quantum process is open to our ‘conceptual particular theory has been forced upon us not based on upon logic and gaze’ and can therefore be analysed in thought. empirical adequacy is perhaps an unfortunate bias of history. However the knowledge that the question is still open-ended is in itself both revealing 4 Critique and liberating.

Both the Copenhagen and Bohm theories of quantum mechanics Many of the objections raised against Bohmian mechanics have operate with a common set of equations for making calculations. They little or no merit. A serious objection often raised is that Bohmian cover the same domain, and hence predict the same experimental results. mechanics cannot be made Lorentz invariant. This arises out of the fact Thus there is no way, at least for the present, to decide between the two that Bohmian mechanics is non-local. First of all considering all the theories, each have its own arguments to support their own base camp. objections, it must be noted that Bohmian mechanics is a non-relativistic 124Omega December 2008 125 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe quantum mechanics and hence cannot be extrapolated over the The notion of wholeness opens up new areas of research relativistic domain. However as it is being pointed out by James Cushing, characterised by cross-disciplinary work. It is these frontier areas of we must ask for Lorentz invariance from all the equations of fundamental research that will bring out the full import of this concept of wholeness. physics.22 5.1 The Need of a New Order In orthodox quantum mechanics, this has only been applied to the scattering regime, while completely ignoring other important aspects like We have seen that a consistent ontological interpretation of the collapse of the wave function. Secondly several ways of extending quantum theory is now possible. One of the characteristic features of Bohmian mechanics to quantum field theory have been proposed. Bohm this interpretation is the concept of wholeness which naturally arises himself extended it for bosons.23 While another proposal involves a from the quantum potential being sensitive to other particles and distant stochastic dynamics, according to which particles can be created and features of the environment. These notions introduce the concept of a annihilated.24 particle, in addition to that of the wave function. This implies that these basic concepts have to be expressed outside the notion of a Hilbert It must be emphasised that Bohmian determinism is highly non- space.27 However Bohm has postulated a new way of understanding classical and is a radical departure from the Newtonian picture.25 On the quantum theory which does not go out of Hilbert space. This new the other hand, Bohmian nonlocality differs also from that of the understanding includes the description of the particle trajectory within Copenhagen approach.26 the framework of Hilbert space. 5 Wholeness and the Implicate Order The basics idea is to introduce a new concept of order, called implicate order or enfolded order. Our usual concepts of order are The concept of Wholeness is one of the most important ideas associated with the classical Cartesian coordinate system. Such an order based on Bohmian formulation of quantum mechanics. Perhaps non- is appropriate for classical systems, but fares badly in the quantum domain. locality in the Copenhagen approach would also have brought us to a similar viewpoint, but it is all the more apparent and characteristic of the The classical Cartesian coordinate system is based on a mechanistic Bohmian formulation. Besides the primacy of wholeness has come from worldview.28 However this worldview has been challenged by such diverse traditions and from some philosophical investigations. contemporary developments in science especially relativity and quantum mechanics. The central feature of relativity theory is that primacy is Fragmentation is characteristic of modern humans. Human beings given to fields rather than particles. Thus we can no longer look at the consider it their prerogative to compartmentalise, divide, analyse the world divided into separate entities which interact among themselves. A natural environment around them. The foundations of analysis were particle would be best considered as a singularity where the strength of perhaps laid by the great Greek philosophers and reiterated by Descartes the field is infinite. Instead, from the concept of a field which extends up “Cogito” into the famous problem of the bridge. This fragmentation has to infinity we realize that the primary is undividedness and wholeness, of gone on to such alarming proportions causing vast scale problems within which the parts are but abstractions and approximations. Similarly the human society and the human psyche itself. quantum theory presents a far bigger challenge to the mechanistic The notion that all fragments separately exist is an illusion. The worldview. Bohm holds that it is not the statistical character of the laws concept of wholeness is therefore not merely a by-product of a physical of quantum mechanics and its inability to predict with exactness individual theory, but in a sense, is a liberative path to look at the world anew and future events that poses the greater challenge. Standing on his ontological reach beyond the limits of human endeavour which are primarily caused interpretation of reality, he holds that it is the internality of relations (or by our fragmented view of the world. its non-local structure) rather than indeterminism that poses the heart of 126Omega December 2008 127 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe quantum theory’s challenge to mechanism. In other words, it is the and unfoldment are quite common in our ordinary experience. For implicate order that is present in each event and thus affects it. example, the order of the whole universe is enfolded into each region and may be picked up in various instruments, such as telescopes, from And so relativity theory and quantum theory challenge the which they are ultimately unfolded to a conscious awareness of this mechanistic kind of order given mathematical expression in the Cartesian order. system. However these two theories seem irreconcilable with each other mainly because of the magnitude of orders they deal with. Bohm suggests What Bohm is proposing here is to turn the notions of order upside that a qualitatively new theory is needed “from which both relativity and down, say that the implicate order will have the kind of general necessity quantum theory are to derived as abstractions, approximations, and that is suitable for expressing the basic laws of physics, while the explicate limiting cases.”29 To construct a new theory, the best place to start is to order will be important within this approach only as particular cases of find out what these two theories, relativity and the quantum theory have the general order.30 in common. As we have seen, it is the undivided wholeness - that is, the internality of relations to the whole. The value of the wave function at x,t is the sum of the contributions from the whole of x’ at an earlier time t’ weighed with the factor K(x- Bohm calls this new type of order the implicate order. x’,t-t’). Thus we may say that the region near x enfolds contributions from all over space at other times. Vice-versa, each region near x’ will 5.2 Qualitative Introduction to Implicate Order unfold into the whole space x. In trying to understand this new concept of order, we take resort To explain enfoldment, Bohm referred to a particular device which to intuition and general experience and find suitable analogies to consisted of two concentric glass cylinders; the outer cylinder is fixed, understand the same. The Cartesian order finds its strongest support in while the inner one is made to rotate slowly about its axis. In between the function of a lens. What a lens does is to produce an approximate the cylinders there is a viscous fluid such as glycerine, and into this fluid correspondence of points on an object to points on its image. The is inserted a droplet of insoluble ink. As the inner radius is turned, a small perception of this correspondence strongly brings our attention to the element of fluid is drawn into a finer and finer thread. The ink in this separate points. For the implicate order, the best instrument which element will also be drawn out and will finally disappear. But on turning demonstrates its principles is the hologram (from the Greek words the inner cylinder back in the opposite direction, the ink droplet reappears meaning “whole” and “to write”). Instead of a direct correspondence, slowly to its original shape. If we continue to turn the cylinder in the each region of the hologram make possible an image of the whole object. same direction, it will be drawn out and will become invisible. Thus the Thus the information of the image is enfolded or coded into each region ink droplet can be enfolded into the glycerine. On reversing the direction, of the object. Thus any tiny part of the hologram can reproduce the the ink droplet is unfolded and reappears. image. However, in bringing each region of the hologram together, we get the same image with sharper resolution, more details and containing Bohm devised a series of experiments with this device to more points of view. demonstrate his ideas on enfoldment. He considered the enfoldment of a series of ink droplets. Each ink droplet is enfolded by n turns before The order in the hologram is thus implicate. The order in the the next ink droplet is inserted. If we do this for N times, then on reversing object, as well as the image, will then be unfolded and we call it explicate. the motion of the cylinder, these droplets will unfold and re-enfold one We are thus introduced to the corresponding terms of enfoldment (or after another. This gives the impression that there is a single persistent implication) and unfoldment (or explication). These notions of enfoldment droplet at the point in question. Nevertheless the droplet is being constantly recreated. This is an example of how forms that persist in the explicate

128Omega December 2008 129 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe order can arise from the whole background and be sustained dynamically a constant form is sustained as the unfoldment of a recurrent and stable by a movement of enfoldment and unfoldment. pattern which is constantly being renewed by enfoldment and dissolved by unfoldment. Thus the notion of a permanent existing entity exists in If the successive ink droplets are inserted at slightly different for far as this particle or field is part of the process of enfoldment and positions, then we obtain what appears to be a moving ink droplet. Thus dissolution. Everything else is at best an approximation. the different rates of ‘motion’ correspond to different enfolded distribution of ink in the whole fluid. This model shows us that it is inappropriate to 6 The Implicate Order and Consciousness talk of guidance, rather the motion of the ink droplet is global in origin and is enfolded in the whole. Bohm proposes this as a crude model of a The essential features of the implicate order is that the whole quantum ’particle.’ Similar demonstrations can be constructed for pair universe is in some way enfolded in every thing and that each thing is annihilation and creation.31 enfolded in the whole. However under ordinary experience the great deal of independence of things is the explicate order, which dominates In trying to extend the present theory to include a Hilbert space “common sense” experience, and is merely an approximation of the model, Bohm resorts to the demonstration of the ink droplets. He suggests more fundamental reality of the implicate order, i.e., the holomovement. that we give up the idea that the particle has a continuous existence and All things found in the explicate order emerge from the holomovement suppose instead that it is more like our ink droplet model which is and ultimately fall back into it. The existence is sustained through a continually unfolding and re-enfolding. These successive ‘droplets’ will constant process of unfoldment and re-enfoldment, which rise to relatively have a random distribution. However the systematic trend in this stable and independent forms in the explicate structure. distribution and its characteristic displacement brings about the average drift velocity of the particle. Bohm proposes further that to include this Such a sort of description is quite adequate when dealing with model into Hilbert space, we replace the droplets by converging and consciousness. The processes of the consciousness such as thoughts, diverging quantum mechanical waves. In this wave our concept of the feelings, desires, urges and impulses all flow into each and in a certain particle is now included within the implicate order as a particular form in sense enfold each other. A clear example of enfoldment can be seen Hilbert space.32 when listening to music. At a given moment, a certain note is being played, but the previous note is still ‘reverberating’ in our consciousness. The notion of a particle with permanent identity has now been And yet it is the simultaneous presence of the present note as well as replaced by that of particle with no permanent identity. Rather its basic the past reverberations that is responsible for our direct and immediate ‘elements’ are constantly forming and dissolving in succession. Over sense of movement, flow and continuity, and thus our apprehension of times much longer than between successive wave formation, the whole the general meaning of the music. This problem of music or even giving process approximates a trajectory. Such an approach is reminiscent of meaning to words is an active problem in Indian linguistic philosophy. the Doctrine of Momentariness (khanika-vada) in the Buddhist tradition. The essential point of holomovement is that the whole movement is present in the way at any given movement. 5.3 Holomovement Recent research into how the memory works reveals that it is The universe contains the whole of existence, i.e., not only all the closely associated with an implicate structure. There does not seem to fields that exist, but an indefinitely large set of further fields that are be a one-to-one correspondence between an object and the image stored unknown and indeed may not be known in their totality. The essential somewhere in the brain. Instead various aspects about the object is qualities of the field exist only in their movement. Everything out of the stored. In many ways the word “recollect” is an apt description of how explicate order arises from the holomovement. Whatever persists with the memory works. The content has to be recollected from various

130Omega December 2008 131 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe dimensions of the brain. This is seen in how the brain works with regard In the domain of quantum mechanics, we can similarly also extend to the association of words to a particular context. Perhaps another this notion of subtlety. If the quantum potential constitutes active dimension of this implicate order as mentioned by Bohm is that of Mozart information to guide the movement of the electrons, we can then postulate saying that the whole composition came to him almost in a flash and that a super quantum potential which unfolds and develops into the first order from there on he was simply able to play it or write it.33 quantum potential. The latter thus becomes now only an approximation and can be used only when the former can be neglected. We can continue Information in the brain is basically active rather than passive. this process and postulate a series of such potentials similar to the various The information in the mind acts in a way similar to that which operates levels of subtlety in the mind. in the action of the quantum potential. Thus there is a link between the physical and the mental. Active information serves as a kind of link or Bohm then goes on to suggest a relationship between the above ‘bridge’ between the two sides. The information in the mind relates both physical and mental processes. He proposes that they are not two the mental side as well as the physical (neurophysiological, chemical processes, but actually the same.35 and physical activity). This means that that which we experience as mind, in its movement In order to relate the physical and the mental through the bridge through various levels of subtlety, will, in a natural way ultimately move of information, we have to consider various levels of information and the body by reaching the level of the quantum potential and of the ‘dance’ their corresponding levels of mental activity. Thus we come to the concept of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap of barrier between any of that at each level certain information is surveyed by a form of mental these levels. Rather, at each stage some kind of information is the bridge. activity which in its turn forms information for another level of mental activity. Thus our thoughts can be considered as a material object (mental The content of our consciousness is then some part of this overall object) which can be “looked at” from a higher level. Out of this may process. That means that at each stage even at the level of particle emerge a yet more subtle level of information, whose meaning is an physics, there exists a rudimentary mind-like quality which becomes activity that is able to organise the original set of information into a more and more developed at each higher levels of subtlety. It is through greater whole. But even more subtle information can, in turn, be surveyed the process of enfoldment that each level of mind partakes of the whole by a yet more subtle level of mental activity, and at least in principle this in some measure. Thus each level is connected with the whole and take can go on indefinitely. part in the whole and in every part. The word ‘subtle’ brings to mind the metaphor for thought as a All this brings about a liberating wholeness for the human being: series of finely woven nets.34 Each net can catch a certain amount of the full mental and physical sides exist no longer in a dichotomy. There is information, but finer nets are able to be sensitive to much details of no real division between mind and matter, psyche and soma. Bohm form and content. In a way, each series of ‘finer’ nets contains in an considers the analogy of the poles of a magnet. In every magnet, there implicit way what is contained in the coarser nets. Thus we have an is a north-south pole which is essentially abstractions for the sake of implicate order in these series of inter-related levels. In this series the convenience. What exists in reality is an unbroken magnetic field that is mental side corresponds to what is more subtle and the physical side to present over all space. what is less subtle. And each mental side in turn becomes a physical For the sake of convenience and analysis we may focus on side as we move in the direction of greater subtlety. These levels of particular aspect or pole. Just as the concept of the north-south pole, subtlety can also be extended to the physical processes containing the there is a ‘mental pole’ and a ‘physical pole.’ In a sense these divisions notion of implicate orders. are artificial and are the result of our focus on only one dimension of the

132Omega December 2008 133 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe whole. However, there exist at every level of subtlety. Thus the electron conventional Hilbert space, he introduces the idea of the implicate order has a rudimentary mental pole, represented mathematically by the and develops this into his ideas on holomovement. He thus interprates quantum potential. Vice versa, even subtle mental processes have a the age old problem of the mental and the physical by postulating various physical pole. levels of subtlety in the form of a dialectic with corresponding mental and physical poles. For him, the implicate order is primary and is a new Thus the ontological description of quantum mechanics has brought way of understanding and exploring the universe. Thus the universe is about a change in the way we view reality. We have seen that the whole an undivided whole. universe can be considered as an undivided whole. As a consequence of this wholeness, we discovered the concept of the intricate order and the Only time will reveal which theory of quantum mechanics will complementary processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. Along with more successfully describe nature and reality. However Bohm’s ideas the active information present at every level, we have uncovered the of wholeness and the implicate order in this undivided universe will series of inter-related levels of varying subtlety, having the ’mind’ and transcend any theory of quantum mechanics. the ’physical’ as complementary poles or aspects of the same reality. Lastly we note that this organic view of the universe, that of Thus our consciousness and the mental processes are part of this overall wholeness, as opposed to the classical mechanistic view of the world, is process. This brings out the wholeness and the implicate order which synonymous with the teaching of Eastern traditions. They have always pervades this universe. Such a worldview offers us a liberative attitude emphasised the basics unity of the universe. For the Eastern traditions, to the world, and will help explore new dimensions of our reality. fragmentation or categorisation is only a state of ignorance or avidya: It has been argued by K.K. Theckedath that Bohm’s ideas of When the mind is disturbed, the multiplicity of things is produced, holomovement and the notions of subtlety is similar to the theory of but when the mind is quieted, the multiplicity of things disappears.38 dialectical materialism that matter, among its myriad properties, has an aspect which enables matter to evolve into a brain with consciousness.36 Lenin termed this property of matter as the “property of reflection.” Notes Bohm compared the various degrees of subtlety and the mental and 1. Richard D’Souza conducts research in Science and Religion at Jnana Deepa material poles at each stage to Hegel’s dialectic mode of thinking.37 Vidyapeeth, Pune. 7 Conclusion 2. David Bohm, Quantum Theory (New York, 1951). 3. D. Bohm & Hiley, B.J., The Undivided Universe (Routledge, 1993), p.1. In this article, we have explored David Bohm’s formulation of 4. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard & G.Roger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49: 1804, 1982 quantum mechanics providing us deterministic non-local quantum theory. Though this theory is a radical departure from the Copenhagen approach, 5. P.A.Schilpp, Ed., Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist (New York: Tudor, the theories cover the same domain and are exact in their 1949), p.666. phenomenological predictions. It remains to extend the experimental 6. Abner Shimony, The Reality of the Quantum World, Scientific American, domain to those areas which can differentiate between the two January 1988. Reprinted in Quantum Mechanics, Scientific Perspectives on interpretations. Divine Action, Ed. Robert John Russell,et al. Vatican Observatory and CTNS, Vatican City State, 2001, p.7. With Bohm’s new formulation of quantum mechanics, he 7. John S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, introduces various new concepts such as that of active information, and (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.124. that of wholeness. In trying to interpret his new theory within the

134Omega December 2008 135 Richard D’Souza The Undivided Universe 8. J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quanten-mechanik. Verlag 22. James Cushing, Determinism versus Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics, Julius-Springer, Berlin(1932), (English translation: Princeton University Press in Quantum Mechanics, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Ed. Robert 1955) John Russell,et al. (Vatican Observatory and CTNS, Vatican City State, 2001.) 9. This view was held by J.S.Bell. It led him to question the hidden assumptions 23. D. Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of of von Neumann’s proof. See John S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in “Hidden” Variables, Parts I and II. Physical Review 85: 166-193 (1952). Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.14. 24. S. D. Durr, Goldstein, R. Tumulka and N.Zanghi: Bohmian Mechanics and 10. D. Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of Quantum Field Theory. Physical Review Letters 93: 090402 (2004). “Hidden” Variables, Parts I and II, Physical Review, 85: 166-193 (1952). 25. James Cushing, Quantum Mechanics. 11. N. Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Science Editions (New 26. See the appendix of Robert Russell, Divine action and Quantum Mechanics, York, 1961), pp.50-51. in Quantum Mechanics, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Ed. Robert 12. Ibid., p.26. John Russell,et al. (Vatican Observatory and CTNS, Vatican City State, 2001). Russell compares the meaning of nonlocality and indeterminism in Bohm’s 13. D. Bohm. & Hiley, B.J., The Undivided Universe (Routledge, 1993), p.17. formulation and the Copenhagen Interpretation. However Bohr in Atomic Physics and Human knowledge, p.73, would define phenomenon as referring “only to observations obtained under certain 27. Hilbert space is a complex linear vector space of infinite dimensionality in circumstances whose description includes an account of the whole which the wave function is defined. experimental arrangement”. 28. David Bohm, Unfolding Meaning (Routledge: 1985). 14. N. Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Science Editions (New 29. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge, York, 1961), p.71. 1983), p. 176. 15. D. Bohm. & B. J Hiley, The Undivided Universe (Routledge, 1993), p.17. 30. Bohm, D. & Hiley, B.J., The Undivided Universe (Routledge, 1993), p. 354 16. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, (John Wiley, 1974), 31. Ibid., p. 351. p.204, quoting A. Petersen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist 19, 12 (1963) 32. Ibid., p. 367. 17. Ibid., p.205, quoting W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1958), p.160. 33. Ibid., p. 383. 18. The central ideas of Bohmian mechanics goes back to the work of Louis de 34. Its Latin root is sub-texere which means “finely woven.” Broglie in the 1920s on his pilot-wave theory for a one-body system. However 35. David Bohm, (1990) A new Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter the pilot-wave theory was strongly criticised by Pauli at the Slovay Congress Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 271-286. of 1927 mainly because it could not be applied coherently in a two-body scattering process. In 1952, David Bohm was able to resolve the issue by a 36. K.K.Theckedath, David Bohm and the Holomovement, Social Scientist, giving a consistent interpretation for the many-body system. Vol. 25, Nos. 7-8, July-August 1997, Vol. 25 19. D. Bohm. & B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe (Routledge, 1993). Bohm 37. David Bohm, Response to Schindler’s Critique of My Wholeness and the would compare the quantum potential and active information to a ship on Implicate Order, International Philosophical Quarterly, p. 330. automatic pilot guided by radio waves. 38. Ashvaghosa, The Awakening of Faith, trans. D. T. Suzuki (Open Court, 20. Ibid., p.58. Chicago, 1900), p. 78. 21. John S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.160.

136Omega December 2008 137 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self Omega because they do not assert anything about the world. Since, according to VII (2008)2, 138-160 Wittgenstein, language is not designed to express anything except the propositions of natural science and so on, the expression which is beyond the propositions of natural sciences has no sense. A distinction can be made between ‘how things are in the world’ and ‘how the essence of the world’ is grasped from the point of view of the ‘higher.’3 The higher– ‘the mystical’ is the subject of ‘transcendental domain’ and lies beyond The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self: the structure of language (logical syntax) and hence outside empirical An Indian Philosophical Reading discourse. If we want to speak the higher order then our expression cannot be anything significant but simply nonsense because there are no - Manoranjan Mallick1 objects for the signs of a proposition to correspond to it.

Abstract: This paper attempts to study the Tractarian notion of self by The correct method in philosophy, according to Wittgenstein, is to redefining the self as philosophical self in contrast to the psychological say nothing except what can be said, i.e., propositions of natural science’4 self. The philosophical self is interpreted as metaphysical subject. The and also claims ‘language is only identify with propositions of natural metaphysical subject is not in the world, rather with the world. The sciences.’5 By saying this, Wittgenstein has tried to draw both the limits paper explicates the significance of the ontology of self and its of language and the limits of philosophical activity, which is only a relationship with the world. The metaphysical self while living with the systematic description of how things are, was missed out by the world shapes the attitude of the psychological self and brings the moral metaphysicians which led them to cause ‘philosophical problems’. significance into the world. This association reflects the relationship between value and the world. Wittgenstein’s emphasis on moral values However philosophy has nothing to do with such propositions of natural is shown in living a happy life. The paper further attempts to show that science but by doing so philosophy can show something which is more the Wittgensteinian notion of happy life is comparable with the Vedantic significant. The main thrust of Wittgenstein’s entire philosophy is to exhibit notion of jivanmukta. The self of jivanamukta represents the metaphysical that there cannot be any significant metaphysical discourses in ethics, subject – the subject which has transcended the mundane world while aesthetics, religions, etc., because literally meaningful language is living in the world. restricted to represent possible state of affairs. Hence, the discourses Key Words: Self, World, Ethics, Science, Wittgenstein. on metaphysics are not false but merely nonsense because they don’t posses any kind of empirical content. In other words, they don’t describe state of affairs, for the pseudo-propositions of metaphysics fall beyond 1. The Self as Philosophical Self the domain of sense of propositions.

The world, according to Wittgenstein in Tractatus Logico- If the world had been taken as boundless then there would not Philosophicus2 is nothing more than what is the case i.e., the have been any anxieties in exploring something because there is no concatenation of contingent facts. But values–the ethical, aesthetic, and boundary. Then it would have been identical with the transcendental religious, are non-accidental, unconditional and are devoid of empirical reality; there would not have been such things as outside of world. But content. They are absolute. However, these remain mystery in these views cannot be accepted by a philosopher because a philosopher Wittgenstein’s works which claims that no proposition of moral judgment needs to have some different journey towards ‘life’. A philosopher needs of value can have sense. In this context, the expression ‘value-fact’ is a to make a boundary for exploring the significant issues of human life, contradiction. Therefore, value judgments are not qualified propositions which lies in transcendence. Wittgenstein is not interested in investigating

138Omega December 2008 139 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self the things in the empirical world rather explore ‘the world of essence, such as the problems of death, eternity, the notion happy life, and the the world of necessities.’6 His philosophy compulsorily leads us to another will. They are metaphysical issues, which do not assert anything sphere, which exhibits the transcendental, which lies beyond the natural empirically; rather they exhibit something deeper and higher that is neither sciences. As he claims in the beginning of the Tractatus, that the world true nor false. It has no sense and no theoretical content according to is bounded by the totaled facts and hence, there is no place for values in the rules of language. But it is purely absolute and eternal, and hence, the world. In fact, the matters of value, here, Wittgenstein has considered ineffable. For him, philosophy deals not only with meaning of world but as the ethical, aesthetic, and religion, etc., cannot be merely factual and also the meaning of life, death, eternity, etc. According to Wittgenstein, hence, they are inexpressible. The Tractatus ends with a silent acceptance ‘what is mystical is not the character of the world, but that there is a of the mystic domain of the inexpressible. This approach makes a clear world i.e. that there is anything at all.’10 He considers the inexpressible distinction between ‘saying’ and ‘showing’. And the most important part as the most valuable thing concerning the human life. The mystical and of the Tractatus is showing as what he claims in one of his letter to transcendental entities are the corner stone of our understanding of the Ludwig Von Ficker, writes ‘my work consists of two parts: the one essence of world. Wittgenstein’s notion of meaningful world deals with presented here plus all that I have not written. And it is precisely this eternal life, which leads with the vision of transcendental reality i.e., second part that is important. My book draws limits to the sphere of the addressing the questions what is the meaning life, what do we mean to ethical from the inside as it were, and I am convinced that this is the say living with happiness, etc. These are most significant issues, which ONLY rigorous way of drawing those limits.’7 Wittgenstein has raised in his notion of transcendental vision of reality. However, the traditional metaphysical philosophers had discussed these The unsayable part is more important than the sayable. It raises issues in different way. According to them, philosophy is an investigation and explores the question how to conceive the realm of the mystical into the principles of human thinking and getting more information about which lies outside the factual world? Language in this sense may mislead the human knowledge. Wittgenstein has rejected the possibility of any us if we try to express the mystical which is inexpressible. In the preface epistemological and psychological understanding about the transcendental of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein writes, ‘what we cannot talk about, we matters. However, Wittgenstein’s thought about these issues considered 8 must pass over in silence.’ In fact such silence is not of any one type. It as a new weapon to them. For him, ‘the sense of the world must lie may refer to various types and ways where one must remain silent. For outside the world.’11 It is clear from it that the sense of the world has him, ‘it is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it nothing to with material life rather its concern is the eternal life. The 9 exists.’ He considers the inexpressible as the most valuable thing eternal riddles are neither physical nor logically related with empirical concerning the human life. The mystical and transcendental things are world. The material life is bounded by material world where as sense of the corner stone of our understanding of the essence of the world. the world is non-accidental i.e. transcendental. Therefore, world is not the end of contingent things, for a philosopher, as there is something beyond natural sciences that cannot be represented The natural sciences only claims to have solution of the problems, in language. This is mysticism such as in ethics, aesthetics, religion, etc. which are dealt with things in space and time. These problems are Wittgenstein has reached such point where the mystical must be treated representable and consequently capable of being put into words. These as inexpressible. Therefore, they are merely the realm of metaphysical problems are bounded by the realm of the objectivity or representation issues. The mystical can only be shown but cannot be expressed in and even solution are also conditioned by the spatio-temporal objects in language. state of affairs. The questions and answers are possible from within the nature of language as such because the problem exists in space and Wittgenstein’s transcendental vision has nothing to do with empirical time. However, the problem of human existence cannot be put in language content rather unravel the most significant issues of the human existence because they are not conditioned by the sphere of objectivity. The riddles

140Omega December 2008 141 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self do not exist because they are not found in space and time. If they were scientific questions, then it cannot be expressed in language. The in space and time then questions and the answers would be found in the experience which is aesthetically miracle is called the mystical. It is textbooks of the natural sciences. But this is not the case, ‘we feel that something to ponder on and wonder at but it cannot be fully understood. even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, our life The mystical has nothing to do with questions and answers with the problems remain completely untouched.’12 The problem of life is resolved textbook exercises unlike science because the mystical are merely dealt when the self views the world as the limits of the whole. Therefore, he with the domain of the subjectivity rather than objectivity. has attempted to point out the transcendental problems of human existence, which he considers to be the most important problem of human Wittgenstein has indicated that answer of the problem of human existence. The core or basic problems of human existence are not related existence lies in it. The moment we come to see that the realm of the with material objects such as social, economical, and political, etc. The objectivity is distinct form the realm of human existence then we will core issues are to do with the problems of death, eternity, the notion cease to ask questions and also cease to expect any answer. We will happy life, and the will. They have nothing to do with the worldly affairs. stop looking for any objective guide to our lives and turn inward for the They are to do with the attitude of the subject that makes it live in the ground of the actions. Therefore, the source of the problem is subjectivity world. Wittgenstein writes, ‘when the answer cannot be put into words, or the realm of the human existence. The only solution to the riddle of neither can the questions be put into words.’13 Language is the only human existence is to be found in life itself. In other words, this solution description of the sphere of objectivity, which cannot directly reach out is to be found by unfolding of how one lives. It is ‘transcendental’ because to the inner sphere of subjectivity where the sources of human problem the problems are grounded in the willing of subject and the solution also arise. That is why; he says ethics is a way of living, which inculcates the lies there. Here, the problems of life are brought into relation to the attitude of every individual in better way. This awareness is evoked to problems of ethics, for which Wittgenstein considers ethics in a wider the attitude of the self which alters the world as a whole limited whole. sense so as to merge with aesthetics i.e. the meaning of life. The problems This kind of the evocation of the self is the awareness of the problem of take the form of a riddle, which get solved through life itself. The problems life. and their solution are within the subject itself. So it depends upon our attitude how to look at the world. It also depends on our ability to handle The problems like ‘what is the meaning of life’, ‘why life is wroth these problems of existence. So for Wittgenstein, life is an art or style of living,’ ‘why there is a world’, etc., may look like textbook questions, but living; it is looking into the world like an artist which depends on his these are not really what seem to be. And these are not questions because choice for accepting a particular course of action. The choice is quite they do not have an answer in the way that such textbook questions as independent and free from the logical necessity of the world. So value is ‘why does the sun rise in the east’ ‘why does the malaria infect by the intended to uphold an attitude of an individual to look or choose a particular Anopheles type of mosquito bites’ have answer. The problems of human course of action, which would help to realize the meaning of life. existence are pseudo problems because these are not really problems Wittgenstein’s conception of ethics is not logically and physically related but one must see that things must be so. The solution of the pseudo with empirical world. Now a question can be poised here that if value problems is its dissolution, its disappearance. This is the miracle, the lies outside of the world then how can the value enter to the world or the wonder, the mystical experience, as Wittgenstein understands it. It has world? If the ethical values are transcendental then who is the ultimate to do with insight or attitude of the subject. The mystical are not about bearer of such values like good, right, justice etc. how can these values the facts, if they were statements of facts then they would have been enter into the world? Here, the notion of self occupies central position in expressed in language. Only statements of facts, according to this transcendental framework of ethics which brings the moral Wittgenstein, can be expressed in language and statements about the significance of the world through feeling the world as a limited whole. mystical are not possible in language. If the mystical is not an answer to

142Omega December 2008 143 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self 2. The Self and the World one is only available to the part of the world. It has not philosophical relevance at all. But on the other hand, it could be held that there is a Wittgenstein’s notion of ethics is aimed at resolving the problem purely metaphysical self that transcends the world. It is this self that is of life. By redefining the self as ‘philosophical self,’ he makes an intriguing viewed for Wittgenstein, as the metaphysical self or ‘I’ which is placed claim that the ‘self is not in the world rather with it’. To that extent, the outside of the world and makes a room of the transcendental position for self or ‘I’ which is associated in relation with world, is itself a self without it. The metaphysical subject cannot enter to the world even though it is value because it is a subject of factual entity. Here, Wittgenstein has not the presupposition of the world’s existence. denied the self viewed as empirical but rather try to look into another dimension of the self as transcendental. It is the metaphysical self which The self and the world stand like two major pillar of the Tractarian shapes the attitude. So, it is the realization of ‘self’s consciousness’ 14 metaphysics. Here, the self is beyond the causal nexus and that is where the problem gets resolved and happiness can be attainted. Thus, ultimately independent of factual world. This notion of the self is not the it is the conscious self for Wittgenstein, which can not be equated with psychological self but it is a realm of metaphysical entity and hence, psycho-physical life. Wittgenstein has rejected the Humean notion of self that ‘the psychological self is the will as phenomenon.’17 For Hume, it is the source Now a question can be poised here that why does Wittgenstein of the psychological states which claims that the self is nothing rather bring the ‘I’ into philosophy and claims, ‘the philosophical self is not the bundle of the sense-experiences. In fact, Wittgenstein has introduced human being, not the human body or the human soul, with which the self or ‘I’ in more significant sense in philosophy than Cartesian and psychology deals.’15 In other words, does he try to give some special Humean nation of the self. That is why; he claims the self viewed as the status to the ‘I’ by delineating the ‘I’ as ‘the philosophical ‘I.” Here, the metaphysical or philosophical ‘I’. He defines the ‘I’ is the metaphysical ‘I’ is not found in the world as a subject of experience rather placed self, which alters the whole world as the limit-of-the-world but it does outside of the world. The necessity for the subject of experiences is not belong to it. The metaphysical self is the limit-of-the-world in the denied because the world does not posses subject as any kind of sense that it is outside it and makes it ‘my world’. Moreover, this is the independent items as experiences. In that extent, he says, ‘all experience willing self, something not in the world but rather a limit of the world. It is world and does not need the subject’16 and hence, the ‘I’ does not is the condition of the world viewed as limited whole rather than a part manifest itself as an object among objects of the world. That is to say, of it. If the self had been a part of the world then it would not have been the ‘I’ is not affiliated with any individual or the body and hence, it is not the metaphysical self. the perceptible objectification of the self. In this connection, Wittgenstein has claimed the Cartesian subject as illusory because there is no such In Tractatus, the ‘I’ is viewed as the locus of transcendental thing as the subject that thinks. There is no such thing as thoughts, ideas, position, a limited point for the world, makes world altogether as a whole imaginations, etc., floating as independent items of the subject because my world, but not alters it in any way whatever. Therefore, for the ‘I’ does not come under the worldly things. Wittgenstein takes the Wittgenstein, the self is not the empirical self rather the metaphysical anti-Cartesian position that ‘I’ itself cannot be part of the world but the self which makes the limits-of-the-world but not the part of it. The analogy ‘I’ is the presupposition of the existence of the world. Wittgenstein tries of the eye and its visual field is extended to thought and experiences of to show the uniqueness of the ‘I’ which is missing from the world. For person. From these thoughts and experiences we cannot infer a self; it him, the world is the object of thought and cannot therefore contain the cannot be said that there is any subject behind them. Thoughts and ‘I’ itself. Here, Wittgenstein holds the opposites reaction of the Cartesian experiences are subject matters of physical world which can be perceived notion of thinking self that there is no thinking self in the purely whereas the self exists beyond the physical world like eye and visual philosophical sense one hand. In fact, only the self which is psychological field. It is true that existence of any self or subject cannot be inferred

144Omega December 2008 145 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self from these thoughts and experiences. The moment the subject becomes world comes into the existence because of my self or ‘I’. So, it is the the part of the physical world then it loses its uniqueness. It is like, the search of myself in the world. This book includes stones, tress, chairs moment eye becomes the part of its visual field, eye loses its existence. and animals, etc. It also consists what I call my body. But does it include Therefore, eye remains independent from its visual field. Hence, from myself? Of course myself does not consist of the world and hence, visual field, eye cannot see eye itself as item. Similarly from the thoughts myself is not reduced to my body. That is why, no special importance is and experiences, self cannot infer self itself as an entity. Therefore, self given to human body over the bodies such as beasts, plants, tables, stones, exists independent of the empirical objects like thoughts and experiences. etc. So, he writes; Wittgenstein claims, ‘there is no such thing as the subject that thinks or If I wrote a book called The World as I found it, I should have to entertains ideas.’ 18 This idea of the self is missing out from the empiricist include a report on my body, and should have at say which parts notion of self. No such subject takes place as a constituent of these were subordinate to my will, and which were not, etc, this being thoughts and experiences is a non-psychological-self. Therefore, it is the method of isolating the subject, or rather of showing that in true that there is no such subject can be inferred to exist from those an important sense there is no subject; for it alone could not be 21 thoughts and experiences. If it occurs then it exists as a part of the mentioned in that book world. If it is a part of the world then it is extended and so on, it would In this statement Wittgenstein has reported only two items, my also be experienced. But no such subject exists as individual person body and my will and concludes that the self is not something as the which thinks and in order to justify this he suggests to observe the world experiences owned by this self rather keeps isolated from all kinds of and see whether there exists any such things as the subject of experiences. Neither the subject of experiences does find its place ‘The experiences. That is why, he says, ‘psychology is no more closely related World as I found it’ nor the subject itself does occur a part of it. to philosophy than other natural sciences.’19 Here, the question arises Wittgenstein has assured that both are not the part of the world. As he why he made anti-psychologist statement that the subject has independent points out that only the act of the will takes place in the book which is existence and it has no more such things as psychological entities occurred. executed by my will. But ‘the act of will is not an experience.’22 And so There is no reason except that his transcendental approach to reality far as, the human body is not concerned as a part of the subject when which is embedded with metaphysical self. However, it is not only rejected we consider subject is a metaphysical for Wittgenstein. The description the experiencing subject or knowing subject but also rejected the of the world practically neglects the self because the self itself is not a experiences of the subject. If the world is nothing rather than experience factual entity. Wittgenstein’s notion of solipsism claims that it is not the then what is required is the subject of the world and not the subject of reduction of the world to something in me (my sense data, my the experiences. The subjects of experiences in this sense is illusory, but representations) but rather uniqueness of myself. That is to say, ‘I’ as not the subject of the world. Therefore, Wittgenstein is not psychologist subject, as something not found in the world but it transcends the world of any kind. And he has also rejected the concept of the soul simply even if it is with the world. Therefore, Wittgenstein claims, ‘I’ objectively because it is a concept ‘with which psychology deals’20 and hence, confront every object. But not the ‘I’ because ‘I’ is not found in the rejected the soul as temporal immortality. world and ‘I’ itself is a class which cannot be experienced. Wittgenstein has claimed the subject is totally isolated from the What about the suggestion that the locus of the subject as a world and in order to justify this isolation of the subject from the worldly metaphysical limit, not a part of the world but transcending the boundaries? experiences he suggests us to observe the world and find out any such The subject cannot be extended; it is reduced to an extensionless point. thing occurs as the subject of experiences. He persuades us to write Another question arises, could it be considered that the world as a subject book with the title ‘The world as I found it’ which refers to perspective of experiences? In fact, it is not a subject of experiences; it is a subject of the solipsism. The solipsism holds that the world is my world and the of the world. Then is the subject considered as an owner who owns the

146Omega December 2008 147 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self world? What owns the world cannot be counted as an owner on the uniqueness it never becomes accounted as a part of the physical world. basis of mere experiences because the subject is not the part of the This means that there is no such thing as a subject of experiences in the world but ‘a presupposition of its existence.’23 This means that there is world. The subject is not a part of the world but presupposition of its not subject of experiences taken place either in the world or beyond it. world. Hence, ‘the thinking subject is surely mere illusion.’25 Therefore, What lies outside of the world is a presupposition of the world’s existence Wittgenstein’s notion of solipsism has reached a point where it can be but not the presuppositions of the experiences. described as ‘solipsism without that a knowing subject’ or it can be better to describe it as ‘solipsism without the solipsistic subject’. Wittgenstein’s notion of self is completely dissociated from the empirical world, which includes the body, mind and soul. Here, the self is 3. The Liberated Self not a matter of factual investigation. The self or ‘I’ who makes its uniqueness, shrink to an extensionless point. Suppose if ‘I’ or self is To consider the world as a limited whole is to be aware of another confronted with a world of objects and considered as an equal with all aspect of reality. The whole world which we experience as a combination others then self cannot realize the uniqueness of itself. In other words, if of contingences lacks values. Nothing in the world can have value. The the self is a part of the world and counted as equal to other members bearer of values like good, bad, evil, happiness, etc., must lie outside the then its uniqueness cannot be recognized. It is like if I say, ‘I have pain’ boundaries of the world. The willing subject is the bearer of these moral here by saying this ‘I’ we extend the self from non-physical to physical. values and the moral values enter the empirical world ‘through the The moment self or ‘I’ becomes a part of physical world then it looses subject.’26 Moral value belongs to the subject, and the subject is the its uniqueness like ‘eye’ and consequently counted as equal to others willing subject rather than thinking subject. The subject transcends the like animals, plants, stones, etc. Wittgenstein has attempted to give some worldly objects and determines the ‘boundary of the world’ that makes special status to self which cannot be equated with other physical entities. the actions good or evil. The action of ethical will cannot alter the casual He has rejected the radical understanding of the traditional solipsists’ laws of the world but what it changes is its attitude towards the world. approach to self and claims: the position of the self is not in the midst of So ‘in the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does physical world. Earlier he had talked about the scientific world, which is happen: in it no value exists.’27 Therefore, the subject remains only as a constituted by the totaled facts and now, he has talked about the solipsistic kind of spectator of what is happing in the world and is completely world that is constituted by the attitude of the self. That does not mean independent and ungoverned by ‘the casual laws.’28 The willing subject he has denied the possibility of the existence of the hard world. The self is capable of changing its attitude that entails changing of the boundary cannot be extended but it is reduced to extensionless point. That is why, of the world which makes it possible to look at the world as a limited self does not stand in the middle point rather outside of the world. The whole. Here, change in the dimension of the world is not influenced by moment the self extends it becomes a part of the physical world, which changing the facts of the world but it is to do with changing the subject’s is not the case. He states, attitude towards the world. This is a matter of adopting an attitude of indifference towards the happening of the world. And therefore, it involves The human body, in particular, is a part of the world among others, among animals, plants, stones, etc. Whoever realizes this will not a particular way of living in perfect harmony with world, as it is available want to procure a pre-eminent place for his own body or for the to us. The subject or self possesses within itself the capacities and human body. He will regard humans and animals quite naively as capabilities, which drive itself towards the attainment of the higher values. 24 things, which are similar and belong together This transcendental vision makes Wittgenstein to hold a metaphysical The self or ‘I’ exist, not merely as body, rather brings the uniqueness standpoint of projecting the self as a transcendental which is not in the of the self. That is to say, the moment the self knows its boundary and its world but with it. This does not imply that metaphysical self can exist if the world did not exist. The metaphysical self or ‘I’ being a limit of the

148Omega December 2008 149 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self world is necessarily related with the world someway. But still the with its. The very acceptance of the worldly objects need to have further metaphysical self is neither part of the world nor part of the limit-of-the- movement towards happy. Once we have accepted that we are bound world. If it had been a part of the world then the self would have been to have the material things, but still we feel that we are independent reduced merely to a psychological self. The will is an attitude of the from them. In a sense, we are affected by them, but in another sense subject totally in saying that it is a particular way of looking at world by they do not influence and cannot effect to our stability. For example, subject. The way of looking at the world that makes the will good is to sometimes our body gets pain due to different diseases but still they look at the world renouncingly. It means the good will is happy will, cannot vacillate the harmony. So we have accepted them as the part of which makes the attitudes towards worldly things very positives. life, so they can neither astonish nor hurt us. There is no way to escape from the accidents of life but the way of looking at them very positively The greatest consolidator of Advaita School of philosophy is is occurred by adopting an attitude of the world as a limited whole which akar, who claims that liberation is possible during ones life time. Wittgenstein identifies with ‘Das Mystische.’31 That is to say, ‘a man identifies with Brahman, in this very bodily life. Hence liberation does not require such things as going to another place.’29 Wittgenstein claims ‘there are two godheads: the world and my Self-consciousness leads a man towards liberation. Wittgenstein also independent I.’32 That is to say, there is world which is given to us claims that a man having the attitude to see the uniqueness of the self cannot be neglected but it is independent from us. A man should not transcends the empirical world and goes beyond it. In this context, both bother about something, which is not given to present time. Whatever is Wittgenstein and akar are concerned with the liberated self in a available to us in present time should not be denied. The moment we similar fashion. Here a question can be posed, is the happiness, deny the things, which are given to us in present then, we feel unhappy. Wittgenstein tries to speak of, different from akar’s conception of Those are happy, who ought to do good and those are unhappy who  or liberated self? desire to live happily, which even evil men desire. A happy man does not desire to live happily because he lives in present. The material happiness Renunciation does not mean giving up the worldly objects rather always gets lost in the changing temporal world of events. A man who to accept the objects, which is available in the present moment. That is lives in the present only lives a meaningful life. It means living happily, to say, good will maintain the coordination between the subject and the living in timelessness, living in desirelessness, living according to contingent facts which it finds in the world. A man with bad will lives conscience, etc. Wittgenstein claims, ‘only a man who lives not in time with a lack of coordination between his want and the contingent facts but in the present is happy.’33 To say, a man who lives in present means which he finds in the world. Here, a question can be posed, how can a he renounces himself from the temporal material objects, and perform man renounce from happening of the worldly facts though he lives with his action, which is guided by his or her intention. The subject’s intention it or how can a man be happy at all since he cannot avoid the suffering is always matter of present duration because it is a state being, which is and miseries in the world? Answer would be, being created the limit of neither beginning nor ending. The renunciation of the material world the world by self, it cannot be affected by any influence of worldly means transcending the psychological self towards metaphysical self, affairs and therefore, it is significant to say, self can renounce any which is the only way to incline our attitudes towards moral values. influence of world’s happenings. The self cannot involve in worldly affairs Hence, actions are the only sources to be taken here, of reflecting the and it remains completely independent of world. ‘In order to live happily integrity of the subject or self who lives in the present; otherwise there is I must be in agreement with the world. And that is what ‘being happy’ no alternative to know about a man who is living a happy life. means.’30 To be happy, one needs to accept with equanimity, whatever comes on his way. That is to say, ‘in living happy, I make myself agree More precisely, a man who lives in the present only lives a with whatever the world brings me but still the self or ‘I’ does not effect meaningful life. A happy man does not desire to live happily because he

150Omega December 2008 151 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self lives in present which is the total absence of the spatio-temporal entities. feeling of ‘I’, who is steady and zealous, who is unmoved by Therefore, Wittgenstein claims that what gives meaning to life or makes success or failure, whose mind is unattached everywhere, who has subdued his self and has no desires is worthy of becoming it a happy one, does not lie within the world rather it’s an attitude of the 36 self which makes the world as a happy place. In this regard, Tractatus one with God aptly says, ‘the world of the happy man is a different one from that of More precisely, renunciation means to engage with selfless work. the unhappy man.’34 Since, the happy man’s attitude is different from True renunciation is free from the cessation of mental fluctuation the attitude of an unhappy man. The worldly facts of both the happy (chittavrtti nirodha) such as desire, passion, motive, etc. and nothing man’s and the unhappy man’s world may remain same but their attitude else. To say, the man is with world but not in the world. The word to approach and live them could change. Here, Wittgenstein doesn’t ‘happy life’ does not mean renunciation of personal interest rather a give emphasis on the material happiness rather to ‘conscience’35 of the mystical feeling where there is no place of seeing any particular facts willing subject that refers to moral and transcendental. The way in which differently, any discrimination, desire, expectations, unequal, etc. So, the ethics changes the world and makes it entirely different is not by changing mystical feeling is the feeling which is not found in the experiencing any facts in it but by changing our attitude to it. In other words, the way facts but there is something outside of it which is inexpressible. But of seeing the world as the limited whole can be changed by the changing actually it is a mystical experience where we cannot make any of self’s attitude but not in change in the facts of the world whatever discrimination among facts of the world. And so, it is an experience of they are. However my world which is viewed as a limited whole is seeing all things in equal way which is beyond and outside of seeing any conditioned by attitude of the self. In one sense, of course the happy particular facts individually. man and the unhappy man do not live in different world, for the world in which they reside is, materially the same world. On the other sense, if It is a mystical feeling where there is no place of looking for someone looks at world and sees it looking back with a happy mode, personal interest, possessiveness, desire, expectations, unequal, etc. It is then his/her aspect of world is different from that of the person at whom a feeling which is above the sorry and happy, bad and good, right and the world is brute. wring, etc. In other words, it is not a state of seeing any particular facts differently but of seeing them all together. It is a matter of the good will The renunciation does not mean totally free from the happening which makes the world as valuable or meaningful. This is what of the world objects or go to some place which is quite segregated from Wittgenstein meant by saying ‘seeing the world aright.’37 When one the worldly things. But the point is that worldly things have no effect on sees the facts together in the right way, one sees them as the manifestation our stability. We are beyond and outside of the fluctuations of life. We of the divine will or good will. The facts are in themselves with no values may be suffered by poverty or have a recurrence of any kind of diseases, if they are seen together, sub specie aeterni. It also applies the sense of but this has not made any influence on our will or attitude. Once we life manifesting itself in the facts of the world. Wittgenstein understanding have accepted that we are bound to have these matters of things, but of the universal acceptance could be called ‘pantheistic’; the facts of still we feel that we are safe from them. This view is more close to the the world are not seen as brute facts but as significant of the divine will eastern concept of ‘Stiapraja’. In this context, the Bhagvad Gta and as such, to be accepted with equanimity whatever they may be says; available to us. Work of any kind should not be given up. Work has to be The metaphysical self feels itself identical with the whole world performed. But it should be done with surrender of all attachment and its happiness is the expansion of the whole world. That is why, the for the fruits. This does not mean that one should renounce duty. alleged oneness of life and world can be found to bring the moral It should be performed and only the fruits and attachment should be renounced. The doer who is free from attachment, who had no significance to world if we take the assertion to be metaphysical. Since

152Omega December 2008 153 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self a condition for existence of the world as Wittgenstein understands it is the world. So, that mystical experience can be realized when the self the presence of a conscious being such as a conscious subject is a views the world as limited whole and he claims in the Tractatus about presupposition of the existence of the world. That is ‘I am my world.’38 mysticism that feeling the world as a limited whole or the self views the Ethics makes the world and life meaningful by shaping the attitude of world as a limited whole sub specie aeternitatus. Here, the world is indifference towards the happening of the world. That is to say, the turned to be the world as a limited whole which is made by the attitude action of the self cannot alter the world but alter the limits of the world of the self. This limited world is not something quite segregated from the only. Therefore, Wittgenstein claims: ‘I cannot bend the happenings of world but is a unique limit of the world. This is equivalent to what is the world so in a certain sense master it by renouncing any influence on expressed by saying ‘I am my world’ and ‘the life and world are one’43. happenings.’39 The exercise of the self can make it its will is to change its attitude towards the world. Therefore, the attitude of the self can be 4. Interface with the Indian Vision of Self predicated as morally significant which makes its own i.e. the world as Wittgenstein’s concept of happy life seems to be similar to the limited whole. And the ethical values are shown in the actions of the self notion of Jvanmukta in Indian tradition especially akar philosophy. i.e., the way it responds to the happenings in the world. The willing The concept of Jvanmukta is a kind of liberation which can be attained subject is capable of changing its attitude that entails changing of the during the life. It means the individual self who lives in the phenomenal boundary of the world which makes it possible to see the world as a world and is embodied with ignorance (avidy) can be liberated only limited whole. The notion of values belongs to the ‘higher’, they all involve through knowledge of Truth during ones present life. seeing the world as a limited whole and ‘sub specie aeterni.’40 Here, change in the dimension of the world is not influenced by happening of akar makes a distinction between self and the world. Self, he the facts in the world but it is to do with changing the subject’s attitude says, is pure consciousness whereas world is unconscious (mithy). towards the world. Hence, ‘ethics must be a condition of the world, like The self which is known as ‘tman, is the same as Brahman’44 the logic.’41 It does not mean ethics and logic are one and same. The ultimate reality. The subject can not be objectively presented in the world difference is that logic makes the world possible and intelligible (in but only in relation with the world. Hence, all that is given as ‘object’ can language) where as ethics makes the world and life meaningful by shaping be experience but subject cannot be experienced. ‘The subject can never the attitude of indifference towards the happening of the world. The be objectively presented and the object can never function as the exercise of the self is not a priori and fixed but depends upon the attitude subject.’45 Therefore, the subject is different from object. When someone that is taken towards the world as a whole where as logic is fixed and a says, ‘I am in pain he is simply superimposing the contingent property of priori that is taken in terms of laws and principles which govern the body or mind to the domain of the subject. This gives an erroneous world. However, ethics is simply a matter of attitude one adopts towards concept of the self according. The self would cease to have uniqueness the world ‘with equanimity, whatever they may be.’42 And the ethical and perfection when it identifies itself as an object in the phenomenal values are shown in the actions of the self i.e., the way it responds to the world. This is called adhysa or illusion (my) due to ignorance. The happenings in the world. Therefore, the propositions of logic and ethics attributes which constitutes ‘mind-sense-body’ complex’46 are are two different kinds of ‘nonsense’. superimposed on the self due to illusion. The self or ‘I’ should not identify itself with it because self cannot be limited in spatio-temporal domain. Wittgenstein’s metaphysical journey draws the limits of the The Chndogya Upaniad says, ‘self is one and non-dual i.e. Ekam empirical domain of reality and arrives at a point where the mystical evdvityam’47 and also claims ‘this self is Brahman’ and it is the self of experiences cannot be expressed in language. In the Tractatus, man.’48 It seems that there are two layers of the self: one is the self Wittgenstein has suggested that ‘mystical’ constitutes a particular way viewed as empirical ego by saying ‘I am in pain’ when it is covered by of looking at the world as a whole or how ought to live in harmony with

154Omega December 2008 155 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self my and other is the self, when it is conscious, viewed as transcendental my, mine), then he is free even while he is alive; and he has no association ego by saying ‘I am Brahman’49 (Aham brahmsmi). In the conscious with anything in spatio-temporal duration. Such a person is called the state it is devoid of qualities and forms and is non-relational. Therefore, ‘liberated-in-life’53 (Jvanmukta). The vetvatara Upaniad says, the Katha Upaniad says that ‘the nature of Brahman is such that it ‘only by knowing him one passes over death; there is no other path for cannot be grasped by debates and discussion. It cannot be put into words. going there.’54 It means once a man realizes the true nature of the self It can be learnt by experiences alone.’50 However, due to ignorance then he himself transcends the psycho-psychical life where death is self sees itself related to the worldly objects and becomes Self-in-the- immaterial. It is close to Wittgensteinian notion of eternal life where the world which symbolizes attachment towards material objects. self passes over the death and it stands in state of timelessness. This is called eternal life where death does not occur and hence, has ‘no end in Like Wittgenstein, akar also makes a distinction between ‘Self- just the way in which our visual field has no limits.’55 The self according 51 in-the-world and Self-of-the-world.’ The self-in-the-world is not to akar, is placed in the domain of transcendental reality which cannot identical with the self viewed as pure consciousness rather associates be objectively given, but yet its existence cannot be denied like Tractarian with mind-sense-body complex. This kind of self is identified with having analogy of the ‘eye and visual field.’56 name and form; it is embodied with qualities so that it is objectively perceivable. However, another dimension of the self is viewed as Self- Problem would arise if we make two completely separate domains of-the-world which is non-relational to worldly facts. Similarly between value and fact or self and world. akar has tried to solve this Wittgenstein also uses the word ‘I’ or self in two different senses. In problem by pointing a difference between empirical world (vyvahrika) ordinary usages, the word ‘I’ refers to physical body (i.e. possessor or and transcendental world (pramrthika). The empirical world which owner). When I utter the statement, ‘I am in Mumbai,’ here, the word comprises of the contingent facts appears to be true due to ignorance ‘I’ refers to my body. But in another usage, the word, ‘I’ cannot refer to but they are not really what they appear to be. Whereas transcendental the human body or soul but rather it is counted as ‘the metaphysical world which is free from such duality, cannot be made intelligible in any self’. Therefore, the self lies not only beyond the realm of psychology linguistic expression. It is like Wittgenstein’s conception of world which but also the realm of physical world. It is the subject which is considered concatenates the facts and value which lies in the transcendental domain. as a ‘’philosophical ‘I’’ can neither get influenced by success nor by For akar, the external world is relative, finite and accidental but it is failure because it is beyond the worldly things. According to Bhagvad not absolutely true in the philosophical sense. Wittgenstein also suggests Gita, that values are to be taken in absolute sense which must ‘lie outside the 57 Once attachment for the objects of the senses is given a place in world.’ The empirical world is seen as mithyâ but not illusory because 58 the mind it will be disastrous. Because attachment gives rise to ‘it is true for all practical purposes.’ Thus, the external world is desire and desire breeds anger. The next step is delusion and the unavoidable because there is no place to move or act in our life except mind gets confused and understanding is lost. Destruction it. follows in its wake. So, the senses should be controlled, and the man into whom all desires enter as the waters enter the sea, attains ‘Way of seeing’ is that which situates the relation between self 52 peace and the world aright. Seeing all the things ‘unified’59 leads to the self towards glory or blissfulness. There comes the true acceptance of the Bondage is caused by the ignorance of bringing the false world in life and the self frees itself from worldly pleasure and sorrow. identification of the self with the body and the worldly objects. It conceals One moves from spatio-temporal existence to eternity. It is not merely (varaa) the true knowledge. For attaining liberation, knowledge of cessation of the dual nature of worldly facts but also a contemplation of the uniqueness of the self is required. If a man can remain himself without the supreme bliss– nanda. Therefore, in the case of all mystical identifying completely with mind-sense-body complex, i.e., ‘ego’ (‘I’, 

156Omega December 2008 157 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self experiences, language is useless because the mystical experiences are 17. TLP#6.423 the personal endeavor which is only showing rather than saying. Language 18. TLP #5.631 is merely a means to describe the empirical experiences but not the deeper or higher experiences. So, language has limitation and it can 19. TLP #2.022 describe the empirical experiences at the vyvahrik level. But the 20. TLP #5.641 moment we attempt to use language to describe higher and deeper 21. TLP # 5.631 experiences then the knowledge of it fails to communicate. According to g Veda, ‘at the stage of brahmagyan the distinction between word 22. NB, p. 89e and meaning disappears. Language has no place there.’60 23. NB, p. 79e 24. NB, p. 82e 25. NB, p. 80e Notes 26. NB, p, 79e 1. Manoranjan Mallick is a research scholar at the department of humanities and social sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai. 27. TLP#6.41 2. L.Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trs. by D. F. Pears and B. 28. NB, p.73e F. McGuineness (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), Henceforth 29.  (ed.) Badrayaka Upaniad with akarbhya, TLP. nandrama Sanskrit Series, no. 15 (Poona: nandrama, 1953), 4.4.7 3. TLP# 6.432. 30. NB, p.75e 4. TLP #6.53 31. TLP # 6.45 5. TLP #4.001, 4.116.WNP, p. 26 32. NB, p.74e 6. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Prototractatus, trs. by D. F. Pears and B. F. 33. NB, p.74e McGuineness (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971), p. 16. 34. TLP # 6.43 7. TLP, p. 3 35. NB, p.75e 8. TLP # 6.44. 36. Quoted from http://www.geocities.com/lavlesh/beliefs.html/ (accessed 10. TLP#6.44 September 21, 2008) 11. TLP#6.41 37. TLP#6.54 12. TLP#6.52 38. TLP #5.63 13. TLP#6.5 39. NB p.73e 14. L. Wittgenstein, Notebooks, 1914-16, eds. G. H. von Wright and G. E. M. 40. TLP #6.45 Anscombe, tr. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961), p. 79e. Henceforth NB. 41. NB, p.77e 15. TLP#5.641 42. Barry Stocker (ed.) Post-Analytic Tractatus (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), p. 53. 16. NB, p. 89e 43. TLP#5.621

158Omega December 2008 159 Manoranjan Mallick The Tractarian Notion of Philosophical Self 44. Chandradhar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy(Delhi: Motilal Omega anarsidass, 1987), p. 283. Henceforth CSI VII (2008)2, 161-183 45. S. Panneerselvam, The Problem of Meaning with Reference to Wittgenstein and akara (Madras: University of Madras, 1993), p. 143. Henceforth PMWS. 46. PMWS, p. 158 47. S. Radhakrishnan (tr.) The Principal Upanids (New Delhi: Harper Collins Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God: Publishers, 1994), p. 447. Henceforth PU A Study in Contrast 48. PU, p.695 - Joseph Mathew, OFM Cap.1 49. PU, p.168 50. Ashok Vohra, “Language Cannot Convey Spiritual Experience,” TheTimes of Abstract: The paper compares and contrasts the concept of God India, September 15, 2008, Spiritual section (The Speaking Tree), Mumbai according to Aristotle and Aquinas and Newton. The blend of philosophy edition. and science on the perennial problematic religious issue on the nature 51. PMWS, p.146 of God is achieved in this paper. Aristotelian, Newtonian and Thomistic concepts of God have their deepest foundation in their respective 52. Quoted from http://www.geocities.com/lavlesh/beliefs.html/ (accessed metaphysics. While Aristotle could reach only God as pure form and September 21, 2008) final cause, St. Thomas could affirm God as efficient cause and Creator 53. R. Balasubramanian, “Ramana Maharshi, The Liberated-in-life” in Indian of the world. In the absence of a comprehensive metaphysics, Newton Council Philosophical Annual, Vol. 17, 1985, p. 221. could barely affirm God as the first efficient cause of all motion in the universe. In spite of these fundamental differences in their ontologies 54. PU, p.727 and concepts of God, what these three thinkers have in common is that 55. TLP #6.4311 they affirm God as a transcendent Being. The transcendence of God is the ultimate consequence of conceiving God as efficient and/or final 56. TLP #5.6331 cause. 57. TLP #6.41 Key Words: Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, Nature of God, First Cause, 58. CSI, p.279 Efficient Cause, Creator, Transcendence. 59. Valerie J. Roebuck (tr.) The Upaniads (New Delhi: Penguin Group, 2000), p.405 1. Introduction 60. Ashok Vohra, “Language Cannot Convey Spiritual Experience,” The Times Aristotle’s division of causes into material, formal, efficient and of India, September 15, 2008, Spiritual section (The Speaking Tree), Mumbai final, serves as a useful conceptual structure in order to investigate God’s edition. relation to the world. According to this scheme, material and formal causes are immanent in the effect, whereas efficient and final causes are extrinsic to the effect, and so they transcend it. Some philosophers think of God as immanent in the world; God is thought to be the material and/or formal cause of the world. This is the way the relation between

160Omega December 2008 161 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast God and world is characterized in monistic and pantheistic systems of is based, are his notions of matter and form, act and potency, and final thought. For example, God is thought to be immanent in the world in the cause. All these categories are closely related. philosophies of Plotinus, Hegel and in Vedanta philosophy. In some way The origin of Aristotle’s concepts of matter and form can be traced or other, God is believed to be identified with the world. to his rejection of Plato’s doctrine of forms. Plato postulated forms or But there are other thinkers who consider God as transcendent to ideas, as the justification for universal concepts in human mind. He taught the world. In terms of Aristotle’s division of causes, one may say that that they exist in a transcendent, ideal world. This perfect world of ideas God is the efficient and/or final cause of the world. What Aristotle, or forms was contrasted with the world of matter which was thought to Newton and St. Thomas Aquinas have in common is that in their view be the root of all imperfection and evil. Thus in his metaphysics, Plato separated form from matter. Whereas according to Plato, abstract, God transcends the world as efficient and/or final cause. But there are eternal, immutable forms or essences beyond the sensible world of flux also some important differences among them. Whereas according to constitute reality, for Aristotle it is the concrete, individual things that are Aristotle, God is only the final cause of the world, and for Newton God real—particular material bodies, plants, animals, men, and their different is only the efficient cause, in the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, God states. Instead of separating form and matter, he placed form in matter is both efficient and final cause. These differences in their concept of itself, or abstract essence in the concrete thing. Whereas Plato affirmed God make the present investigation an interesting study in contrast. the transcendence of forms, Aristotle held that they are immanent in things. Thus Aristotle rejected Plato’s dualism between form and matter 2. Aristotle’s God: The Last Final Cause by denying the existence of the forms or essences in the transcendent world. According to him, the substance or essence of material things According to Aristotle, God transcends the world, as its final cause, which include living beings also is constituted out of matter and form. not as its efficient cause. This implies that God is neither the Creator of For Aristotle, natural thing is a unity of form and matter. The form of a the world nor its provident lord. The foundations of Aristotelian concept thing is immanent in it. Intelligible form and sensible matter—the universal of God as final cause lie deep within his metaphysics. Hence before and the particular—are united in the individuality of the thing. arriving at his notion of God as final cause, one must investigate his relevant metaphysical categories. The Aristotelian categories of form and matter are closely related to the concepts of actuality and potentiality: while matter is the principle 2.1 The Metaphysical Foundations of Aristotle’s Concept of of potentiality, form is the principle of actuality.3 The notions of act and God potency enable Aristotle to account for developmental changes in substances, such as the stages of growth from acorn to giant oak. As Aristotle was interested in biology which provided him with the the oak tree grows, the capacities or potentialities that are latent within ‘root metaphor’2 of his metaphysics—the basic insight of his worldview. the acorn are realized. The acorn is the potentiality that is actualized in He tries to explain everything in terms of biological, organic categories. the oak tree. The full-grown oak tree is the form towards which the Aristotle observed the growth of plants from potential stages to different matter of the acorn moves through its developmental stages from stages of actuality; from these observations he obtained his fundamental potentiality to actuality. Aristotle generalizes the biological categories of categories such as potency and act, matter and form. A consequence of actuality and potentiality to apply them to all material things: all particular this organic conception is that Aristotle’s metaphysics is teleological; things are tension-filled fusions of potentiality and actuality, and these everything in the universe and the universe itself develop as biological things seek to actualize their potentialities. Change for Aristotle is this entities in order to fulfill their purposes (telos) or ends. All things are actualization of that which is in potentiality. Form being the element of explained in terms of future purposes rather than past antecedents. The actuality in a thing, every change is an attempt to actualize form. organic categories of Aristotelian ontology, on which his concept of God

162Omega December 2008 163 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast The doctrines matter and form, and of potentiality and actuality, now. This something is the final cause—in this case, the intention of the enable Aristotle to conceive the universe as a hierarchy. As Lavine carpenter. In other words, the efficient cause is ultimately directed by remarks, for Aristotle, “the universe consists of a hierarchy of existence, the final cause. Hence the principle of finality: every agent in every of individual substances of the various eternal types and species, related action acts for the sake of an end. Thus in the Aristotelian conception, to each other as matter and form, potentiality and actuality.”4 That is, final cause is the ultimate category of explanation of all changes in the starting from pure actuality—God—extending through human beings, universe. It is the cause of all causes. animals, plants, inorganic beings and reaching up to pure potentiality down the ladder. All beings except those at both ends of the spectrum Now, in the activities of man, we can easily distinguish the four are composed of matter and form, each possessing a higher form than causes; but in natural things, such as plants and animals, these cannot be the one lower to it. At the top of this hierarchical order is the first principle, easily identified. It is evident that there is a material cause, namely, the God, who is pure actuality—pure form—without potentiality, and material element in a plant. Formal cause also can be easily discerned— consequently without change. The lowest level in the hierarchy is pure the form of the plant—that which distinguishes a plant from an animal. potentiality—primary matter—that represents a borderline concept which Now what is the final cause of a plant? In Aristotle’s view, the formal we can think, but cannot imagine, since it does not possess any actuality cause of a thing is also its final cause. Whereas form is the structure or actual properties. The categories of act and potency, matter and form considered as informing a particular thing, end or the final cause is the enable Aristotle to conceive God as pure act and pure form. same form considered as not yet realized in the thing, but as aimed at. The end or purpose of a natural thing is the full realization of its form. Another Aristotelian category that is important for understanding Form “expresses itself in organic functions, unfolds itself in matter, his concept of God is the notion of final causality. He employs four organizes, moulds and shapes matter, tends towards an end, which is the causes—material, formal, efficient and final—in order to explain the adequate manifestation of the essence, of the ‘idea,’ in the phenomenon.”6 constitution as well as the change of natural things. As we have mentioned above, matter and form explain the constitution and changes in things. Thus the formal cause of a horse is the specific form of horse, but To these two causes—material and formal—Aristotle adds also efficient this is also its final cause, in so far as the individual of a species naturally and final causes. Efficient cause is the external agent that determines strives to embody as perfectly as possible its specific form. Hence the the process of change; and final cause is the teleological principle, the purpose for which a thing exists is to realize its form as perfectly as purpose that governs the entire process. The concept of final cause or possible, that is, complete actualization of the form which is in potency. finality has a very important function in Aristotle’s teleological An oak tree, for example, has attained its end or purpose, when it has metaphysics. As Copleston comments, “this idea [of finality] is in one reached the perfection of its growth, that is, the perfect development of sense more fundamental than that of act and potency, since all reduction its form. Its final cause which is also its formal cause causes the from potentiality to act takes place in view of the attainment of an end, development of the acorn into the oak tree by drawing up, as it were, the and potency exists only for the realization of an end.”5 This means that acorn towards the term of its process of development. Thus in Aristotle’s all changes are ultimately governed by the final cause. Indeed, in any view, final cause is the mover that moves by attraction. “In Aristotle’s change all the four causes are involved. In the common sense example hierarchic universe, each particular thing has an inclination to realize its of carpenter making a table—efficient cause producing an effect— potentialities in the best way. There is, in all things, an ‘upward’ yearning. change consists in the fact that the efficient cause introduces a new Each thing’s purpose (telos) is the realization of its capabilities. The 7 form—the accidental form of the shape of a table into matter, namely, a actualization of the thing’s potentiality is, in this sense, teleological.” piece of wood. But this action of the efficient cause cannot ultimately Moreover, form is not only the final cause of a natural body, but explain the action of the carpenter. For the efficient cause as efficient also its efficient cause. For example, in organic substance, soul is the cause is indifferent to producing any effect anywhere. Hence it must be formal cause or determining element in the thing, while at the same time determined by something else to produce the particular effect here and

164Omega December 2008 165 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast it is also the efficient cause, the source of movement, and finally its final How can a being which is unmoved and unchanging, cause motion cause, since the immanent end of the organism is the individual in the world? How can anything cause motion without being moved? embodiment of the specific form. “This natural striving after the form For physical causation or movement implies mutual contact of the mover means that the final, formal and efficient causes are often the same.”8 and the moved, and therefore a reaction of the moved on the mover. In Thus form is the end of activity in a thing, and also its source. Hence Aristotle’s view, if God caused motion by efficient physical causation, every individual thing, whether living or non-living acts by virtue of its then God would be changed. God must act, therefore, as final cause. form as efficient cause with a view to its full development—that is, the “The unmoved mover must therefore cause motion in a non-physical development of the form. way, by being an object of desire.”11 He is “the source of motion, by drawing it, i.e., by acting as final cause.”12 For Aristotle, God is the 2.2 God as the Last Final Cause final cause of all changes that occur in the world. He is the highest purpose. All things in the world, material bodies, plants, animals and The whole weight of Aristotle’s concept of God as the last final men, change and tend to realize their forms because they are moved by cause is borne by his metaphysical categories explained above. Natural God—pure form—the ultimate final cause. Thus God is the end towards things in his hierarchical universe make transitions from potency to act, which all things strive. Nature is conceived as a hierarchy of beings, in that is, move in order to realize their forms as fully as possible. Now, we each of which form tends towards its full actualization drawn, by the may ask, what is the ultimate end of their motion? According to Aristotle, ultimate final causality of the supreme unmoved mover, which is itself the consideration of motion of natural things in order to realize their complete actuality, pure immaterial being or thought-—self-subsistent forms leads ultimately to the first unmoved mover. This is the gist of his and self-contained. Nature is thus a dynamical process of self-perfection cosmological argument which may be formulated as follows. We observe or self-development in which potency is reduced to act by the final around us things that move for realizing their purposes. By motion is attraction of ultimate actuality or pure act.13 here meant, not merely local motion, but transition from potency to act. One thing is moved by another, this by a third, and so on. Now, Aristotle’s It follows that according to Aristotle, God is only the final cause principle of motion is that whatever is moved is moved by another. For of the universe, not its efficient cause. According to Aristotle, “He [God] to be moved is to be reduced from potency to act and nothing can reduce is the cause of movement as final, not as efficient, cause.”14 Hence the itself from potency to act; in that case it would have to be in potency and first unmoved mover is not the Creator of the world. Ross observes: “If in act at the same time in the same respect, which is impossible. Hence the question be asked, whether Aristotle thinks of God as creator of the Aristotle argues that a thing cannot be reduced from potency to act world, the answer must certainly be that he does not. For him matter is except by something which is already in act. Now in a series of movers ungenerated, eternal; he expressly argues against a creation of the and things moved, we cannot go on ad infinitum, but must arrive at a first world.”15 At the same time, Ross notes also that “God is the efficient mover which moves the whole series, but is itself unmoved since it is cause by being the final cause, but in no other way. Yet He is the final pure act. This is the first unmoved mover who is the ultimate cause of all cause not in the sense of being something that never is but always is to motions in the world. In Copleston’s words, “every motion, every transit be.”16 Apart from this metaphysical explanation, the historical reason from potentiality to act, requires some principle in act, but if every for refusing to admit that God is also the efficient cause or Creator of becoming, every object in movement, requires an actual moving cause, the universe is that, having rejected the ideas of the transcendent world the world in general, the universe, requires a First Mover.”9 In other of Plato, Aristotle cannot permit to have ideas, not even in the mind of words, “the First Unmoved Mover, being the source of all movement, as God according to which He would create the world. final cause, is the ultimate cause why potentiality is actualized, i.e., why goodness is realized.”10 Thus there is the ultimate dualism between uncreated God and uncreated world in Aristotle’s philosophy; the world existed from all eternity without having been created. Moreover, since God is only the

166Omega December 2008 167 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast final cause of the universe, and not its efficient cause or Creator, it 3.1 The Cosmological Origins of Newton’s Notion of God follows that God is not its provident lord. There is no room for divine providence in Aristotle’s theology. Ross remarks: “Aristotle has no theory Whereas the ‘root metaphor’ of Aristotelian metaphysics was either of divine creation or of divine providence.”17 Only a God who organism, that of Newton was machine. Newton conceived the world created the world according to the ideas in His mind can be said to know as a giant machine running according to the laws of his physics. While his creatures, and thus be their provident lord. Aristotle did not think of Aristotle’s categories were derived from the concept of organism, those first unmoved mover as knowing the world or as exercising any of Newton were obtained from the notion of machine. Newton tries to providence. Copleston says: “He [God] does not know this world and no explain everything in terms of mechanistic concepts and laws. These Divine plan is fulfilled in this world: the teleology of nature can be nothing are the categories of matter, motion, space and time, which are thought more than unconscious teleology.”18 to be absolute realities existing independently of each other.21 These are radically different from the Aristotelian concepts of primary matter, motion, Finally, Aristotle’s concept of the nature of God too follows from space and time. his metaphysics. The first unmoved mover being pure form cannot perform any bodily action. His activity, then, must be purely spiritual, Newton rejected the Aristotelian doctrine that material bodies are and so intellectual. In other words, God’s activity is one of thought. But constituted out of matter and form. There is only matter without form in what is the object of His thought? Since the Platonic forms of the ideal his cosmology. He stripped matter of its form.22 That is, the substance world were rejected, there cannot be ideas in God’s mind as the object of material body is matter without form. Now, matter is the common of His thought. Moreover, God cannot have any object of thought outside name for all material particles which are the ultimate units out of which Himself, such as the things of the material world, since He has no ideas all the material bodies of the universe are constituted. Material bodies of about them, and since that would involve change in Him. Hence the our ordinary experience are the combinations of material particles. object of his thought cannot be anything other than Himself. God, Newton defines matter as full space. It is an “impenetrable something, therefore, knows Himself in an eternal act of intuition or self- which fills completely certain regions of space and which persists through consciousness. Aristotle, then, defines God as ‘Thought of Thought.’19 time even when it changes its location.”23 In order to highlight Newton’s God is subsistent thought, or thought-thinking-thought, which eternally concept of matter as full space, Èapek remarks that “the function of thinks itself. Is Aristotle’s God a personal God? According to Copleston, occupying space is not one of several properties of matter; it is its only “there is no indication that Aristotle ever thought of the First Mover as property.”24 Matter has certain other properties such as impenetrability, an object of worship, still less as a Being to whom prayers might profitably indivisibility and indestructibility, which can be derived from the concept be addressed.”20 If Aristotle’s God is entirely self-centered in the sense of matter as full space. For if matter is conceived as full space, then it is of thought-thinking-thought, then it would be out of question for men to impenetrable, indivisible and indestructible. This last property implies attempt to have personal relationship with Him. Aristotle’s God is not that the total amount of matter in the universe remains constant. This is the personal God of Judaism or of Christianity. He is not the loving the law of the conservation of matter. In the words of Èapek, “if the Creator of the world and of man, nor is He an object of worship. total cosmic mass is the sum total of the atomic masses, then the constancy of the atomic masses implies the constancy of the whole 3. Newton’s God: The First Efficient Cause mass of the universe.”25

In contrast to Aristotle, Newton thinks of God as the efficient Furthermore, there are the categories of space and time. These cause of the universe, and not as its final cause. Just as Aristotle’s concept too are different from the Aristotelian concepts of space and time which of God as final cause was founded on his metaphysics, so Newton’s have no extra-mental existence. Whereas for Newton space and time notion of God as efficient cause has its basis in his cosmology. Though are objective realities, existing independently of mind. Space is the inert Newton was a scientist, his science presupposes a metaphysics. container of matter, and time is the container of all motion in the universe.

168Omega December 2008 169 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast These are passive receptacles of matter and motion, but do not themselves moved, it is moved by another. Here motion is not self-explanatory, but initiate motion in the universe. Finally, there is the category of motion requires an explanation; and the ultimate explanation of any motion is which is the displacement of material particles in space and time. By found in the First Unmoved Mover. “In other words, there must be some motion is meant local motion, the movement of material bodies or particles sufficient reason, some explanatory principle which accounts for the in time and space, not transition from potency to act, as in the philosophy reality of change, and this explanatory principle, in order to avoid infinite of Aristotle. They move according to Newton’s three laws of motion. regress, must be something beyond change.”28 This is the core of the The first law, called the law of inertia, reads: A body at rest remains at Aristotelian proof for the existence of God. In contrast, according to rest and a body in motion remains in uniform motion in a straight line Newton, if a thing is moving, it will go on moving unless it is acted upon unless acted upon by an external force. Second law is: The acceleration by an opposing force; nor is the continuous presence of a mover needed of a body is directly proportional to the applied force and is in the direction for a thing to go on moving. Here motion is self-explanatory. It requires of the straight line in which the force acts. And the third law: For every no explanation because it is the nature of a moving thing to go on moving. force there is an equal and opposite force or reaction. Newton’s worldview can be synthesised as follows. The stage of Now what can cause motion? Matter cannot be the cause of the Newtonian universe, on which all physical phenomena take place, is motion because in the definition of matter as full space, the concept of the three-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry. This space is motion is not contained. Nor can space and time be the cause of motion absolute, empty container, independent of the physical phenomena since they are mere passive containers of matter and motion. Hence occurring in it. All changes in the physical world are described in terms only motion can cause motion. “Matter and motion being mutually of a separate dimension, time, which is again absolute, having no relation inconvertible, nothing but motion can be a cause of motion, and also to the material world, and flowing smoothly from past through the present nothing but motion can be an effect of motion.”26 This means that the to the future. The stuff of the Newtonian world which moves in this mechanical movement of a material body moves another body, this moves absolute space and absolute time are material particles—small, solid a third body and so on, in a never-ending series of actions and reactions. and indestructible objects out of which all material objects are made. Now, as soon as motion is recognized to be underivable from matter, The motion of particles is caused by the force of gravity which acts space, or time, it acquires the character of an independent, quasi- instantaneously over vast distances. The material particles and the forces substantial entity. This substantial character of motion is stated by the between them are of a fundamentally different nature, the inner law of inertia. According to this law, a body which is moving uniformly constitution of particles being independent of their mutual interaction.29 will go on moving, and a body at rest will be at rest. In other words, it is the nature of a moving body to go on moving. This implies that no new In Newton’s view, all physical phenomena are reduced to the motion can be initiated in the universe, nor motion be destroyed; hence motion of material particles, caused by their mutual attraction, that is, by the total amount of motion or energy in the universe is constant, or remains the force of gravity. The effect of this force on material bodies is described the same. This is the law of conservation of energy. In Èapek’s words: mathematically by Newton’s equations of motion, which are ultimately “Thus the quantity of motion must be constant just as the quantity of based on his three laws of motion. These are considered fixed laws matter is, and only its spatial distribution varies with time.”27 according to which material objects move, and are thought to account for all changes in the physical world. Such a universe functions like a This is in stark contrast with the Aristotelian position. The whole machine according to Newton’s laws. This mechanistic view of the philosophy of Aristotle is based on the denial of the constancy of motion. universe is closely related to rigorous determinism, with the cosmic According to him, everything which is moving moves only because, and machine completely determined. All that happened had definite causes, as long as, it is moved by some ‘mover.’ In other words, force is needed and give rise to definite effects, and the future of any part of the system to keep a body moving in the Aristotelian universe, but this is not so in could in principle be predicted with absolute certainty if its state at any the world of Newton. Aristotle’s principle of motion is, if something is time is known in all details. The position of the French mathematician

170Omega December 2008 171 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast Pierre Simon Lapalace regarding the determinism of nature is often Aristotle. Being a Christian believer, however, Newton thought that the quoted. world was created by God, and that it runs like a machine according to An intellect which at a given instant knew all the forces acting in his laws of motion. God, for him, is the Creator of the Universe, its first nature, and the position of all things of which the world consists— efficient cause. Capra observes: “Newton saw both the particles and supposing the said intellect were vast enough to subject these the force of gravity as created by God and thus not subject to further data to analysis—would embrace in the same formula the motions analysis.”33 of the greatest bodies in the universe and those of the slightest In his Opticks, Newton gave a picture of how he thought about atoms; nothing would be uncertain for it, and the future, like the 30 God’s creation of the world: past, would be present to its eyes. It seems probable to me that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such Newton’s laws of motion and gravity seemed applicable to all sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such objects, from the smallest particle to the farthest planet. This was a proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he harmonious structure of forces and masses, not a hierarchy of purposes formed them; and that these primitive particles being solids, are as in Aristotle’s philosophy. “It sug-gested an image of the world as an incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of intricate machine following immutable laws, with every detail precisely them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no 31 ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one predictable.” Burtt describes the experience of man in such a mechanical 34 world as follows: in the first creation. There is also an argument from design in Newton’s Opticks: The world that people had thought themselves living in—a world rich with color and sound, redolent with fragrance, filled with gladness, Whence is it that nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises love, and beauty, speaking everywhere of purposive harmony and creative all that order and beauty which we see in the world? How came ideals—was crowded now into minute corners in the brains of scattered the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for organic beings. The really important world outside was a world hard, what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in optics? . . . Does it not appear from phenomena that there cold, colorless, silent and dead; a world of quantity, a world of 35 mathematicaly computable motions in mechanical regularity.32 is a being incorporeal, living, intelligent . . . ?

The properties of the world that could be mathematically treated, Like Aristotle’s God, Newton’s God is primarily the ultimate namely, mass and motion—which John Locke called primary qualities— explanation of motion in the universe, though their principles of motion were alone considered to be characteristics of the real world; other are completely opposed to each other. For Aristotle, whatever is moved properties, such as colour, smell, taste, beauty—which Locke called is moved by another, and the ultimate mover is the prime mover. In other secondary qualities—were thought to be purely subjective, having no words, if a body is moving, it is moved by another, and so requires an existence outside the mind. This is the cold, hard, dead world of explanation, which in the last analysis is the first unmoved mover; mechanistic materialism. whereas according to Newton’s first law of motion, if a body is moving, it will go on moving, and any particular motion in the universe does not 3.2 God as the First Efficient Cause require an explanation. This means that from a given motion in the world here and now, the existence of the Prime Mover cannot be inferred, Newton was a scientist, not a theologian, not even a philosopher. since a prime mover is not needed as the ultimate explanation of the He did not have a comprehensive metaphysics on which to build his actual motion in the world. But the first origin of motion in the universe concept of God. Hence we do not find in his works any systematic was a problem for Newton. According to Newton, God is the Creator of metaphysical investigation of the concept of God, as in the philosophy of

172Omega December 2008 173 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast material atoms and the initial author of motion. But God is not necessary universe, but not its provident lord. This clockmaker-God made his clock- for the explanation of any particular motion in the universe. In contrast, universe, wound it, and let it run according to the laws of Newton. according to Aristotle, God is the ultimate explanation of the actual motions in the world. Thus for a given motion in the universe, there are two Thus though God was thought to be the first efficient cause of the contrasting ultimate interpretations—the one Aristotelian and the other universe, as the designer and Creator of the world-machine, it was Newtonian. difficult to explain divine providence and God’s continuing activity within a mechanical natural order. For God’s activity as efficient cause was In the Newtonian view, God created in the beginning the material believed to be over with the original creation of material particles and particles, motion or forces between them, and the fundamental laws of the initial thrust of motion. But there were various attempts to preserve motion. In this way the whole universe was set in motion, and it has the doctrine of providence. Newton believed that God has a continuing continued to run ever since, like a machine, governed by immutable active role in the physi-cal world. According to Newton, gravitational laws. This picture of a perfect world-machine implied an external Creator, attraction is not a power inherent in matter; he suggested that God may a first efficient cause who ruled the world from above by imposing his act either directly to make bodies attract each other by exact laws, or divine laws on it. Barbour remarks: “With final causality dismissed, the indirectly through an ether or a diffusion of very tenuous matter. idea of God as the Supreme Good toward which all things strive was Moreover, Newton thought that God has a continuing function in adjusting before long replaced by God as First Cause, understood as the initial the solar system. He believed that there is no scientific explanation for link in the chain of efficient causes.”36 God’s creation of Newton’s world- the pattern of the planets; that co-planar orbits with motions in the same machine and its motion could be graphically described as follows. In the direc-tion cannot be accounted for by natural causes. Attraction between enormous void of space inhabited by numerous and diverse objects, from planets would cause perturbations that would build up if God does not gigantic stars to minute dust particles—themselves creations of God— occasionally step in to correct them, perhaps through the action of comets. there was a time in distant past when the entire universe was without Finally, God somehow prevents the stars from collapsing together under motion, in a state of rest. God regarding in amazement the fruit of his gravita-tional attraction.38 In this way Newton manages to preserve the creation, gave the first impulse—motion—and breathed life into the world. doctrine divine providence, however inconsistently. Newton’s concept From then onwards, all the bodies in the universe began to move and of God as efficient cause is inadequate since it lacks the support of a interact according to definite laws. The number of such laws was great, metaphysics. but in the final analysis, they could all be reduced to the three laws of Newton. Thus “Nature is a complete and functioning machine that is not 4. Aquinas’ God: The First Efficient Cause and the Last Final itself striving toward any ends, and God is the original First Cause, not Cause the Final Cause.”37 Whereas Aristotle conceives God as final cause, and Newton as Charles Boyle considered the universe as a clock, and God as the efficient cause, for St. Thomas Aquinas God is both efficient and final divine clockmaker. A clock is not the work of chance, but is a skilful cause. Like Aristotle, the latter’s conception of God is rooted deep in his artifact by the clockmaker. But a clock once started, runs its own metaphysics. Though Aquinas’ metaphysics is primarily Aristotelian, he independent mechanical course, and so there is no room for present borrows heavily also from Plato’s ontology. Whereas his idea of God as divine activity. Newton’s God started the world-machine running, but final cause is grounded in Aristotle’s ontology, his concept of God as then ceased to do anything about it. Such a divine clockmaker or cosmic efficient cause is founded partly in Platonic, and partly in his own designer who started the world-machine is an impersonal and remote metaphysics. God, not a God who cares for individuals and is actively related to man. This is the God of deism which recognizes that God is the Creator of the

174Omega December 2008 175 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast 4.1 The Ontological Foundations of Aquinas’ Concept of God existence that are the last instances of potency and act, not matter and form, as in Aristotle. Hence in finite beings, beyond the matter-form Act and potency, essence and existence are Aquinas’ categories composition of material bodies, there is a more profound constitution: on which his idea of God as final and efficient cause is grounded. He they are composed of essence and existence. Essence is the potential borrowed the concepts of act and potency from Aristotle, and agrees element, and existence is the last actuality in a thing; essence is in potency with latter that finite beings stand in the tension between potentiality and to existence. Form determines or completes a thing in the sphere of actuality; and there is a dynamic interplay between what appears to be essence, but that which actualizes essence is existence. real, the actual, and what is latent, the potential. The tension is released, and dynamism manifested when change occurs, when latent potentialities On the basis of his theory of essence and existence, St. Thomas are actualized. The more potency there is in a thing, the more room for thinks of realities as contingent and necessary. Contingent beings are change; conversely, the more act is in a thing, the less possibility of finite; they possess an essence; their essence and existence are distinct; change. But in changing, a thing cannot reduce itself from potency to and so they do not have the reason for their existence in themselves. act; change can be effected only by an entity in act. Hence the principle Whereas in the necessary being, essence and the act of existing are of motion: whatever is changed or moved is, moved by another. As in identical. Any such being is unreceived existence, whereas in everything Aristotle, for St. Thomas too, this is the cosmological principle that points else existence is received in essence. No finite being exists necessarily; in the direction of God. It is presupposed in St. Thomas’ first way for the it has or possesses existence which is distinct from its essence. But existence of God—the way from motion in the world. necessary being does not possess an essence, but its essence is its existence; and so it has the reason for its existence in itself. Hence the Moreover, it is the theory of act and potency that is presupposed principle: a being which does not have the reason for its existence in in the concept of God as final cause. God is the supreme act and highest itself must receive it from another which has reason for its existence in good towards which everything moves and strives; and as such God is itself. This is the metaphysical principle at the heart of the third way for the end of all things. Furthermore, for Aquinas, as for Aristotle, the God’s existence—from contingency to necessity.39 universe is hierarchically structured according to various levels of act and potency—from God as pure act in whom all potentialities are 4.2 God as Efficient and Final Cause actualized, downwards to primary matter which represents the concept of pure potentiality without any actualization. Moreover, as in Aristotle, St. Thomas’ concept of God as efficient and final cause is ultimately this hierarchy of act and potency is concretely realized in finite entities based on his metaphysical doctrines outlined above. The first three ways according to the perfection of forms they actualize— inorganic things, for establishing the existence of God, his doctrine of the nature of God plants, animals, human beings, and spirits—a hierarchical order from the and his theory of creation are all founded on his theories of act and lower to the higher. potency, and of essence and existence. St. Thomas’ first three ways to prove God’s existence arrive at the concept of God as final and efficient Whereas for Aristotle, pure act is pure form—God—for St. cause. The first way is in fact a re-statement of Aristotle’s cosmological Thomas pure act is not pure form. Here we come to the highest peak of argument. As is well known, it starts from the fact of movement in our Aquinas’ metaphysics. According to St. Thomas, Aristotle did not explore world of sense experience, and concludes to the existence of a first the ultimate implications of the doctrine of act and potency. The unmoved mover, employing the Aristotelian principle regarding motion, Aristotelian investigation of the constitution of being terminates at the namely, whatever is moved is moved by something else. Aquinas’ second concept of essence; the essence of finite beings is constituted out of way for establising God’s existence rests on efficient causality. Starting matter and form, and the Infinite Being is identified with pure form. St. from the order of efficient causes we experience in the world around us, Thomas goes beyond essence to existence. For him, it is essence and it concludes that there must be a first efficient cause, which all men call God.

176Omega December 2008 177 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast The third way which St. Thomas places at the center of his five God works. Aquinas believed that natural processes can be explained in ways rests on his metaphysics of essence and existence. As we saw relative independence of any direct acts of God, and yet their functioning above, for him, essence and existence of finite beings are really distinct, depends on powers not inherent in them, but provided by God’s sustaining and the division of contingent and necessary beings is based on this activity. Divine concurrence is required for any-thing to happen. distinction. Whereas contingent beings participate in existence, necessary being is existence of itself. Now, St. Thomas discovers at the heart of all Furthermore, according to St. Thomas, God is not only the first finite beings a certain instability, a contingency or non-necessity. This efficient cause—the Creator—but also the last final cause. Following points to the existence of a Being which is the author of the constitution Aristotle, he holds that God is the supreme good, the ultimate end of between essence and existence, and which cannot be itself composed things. As the supreme good, God draws all things towards their appointed of essence and existence, but must have existence as its very essence, ends in the hierarchy of things, and finally to God Himself. The ultimate existing necessarily. As Copleston remarks, “St. Thomas saw deeper end of all creation can be nothing other than God Himself. For the than Aristotle: he saw that in every finite thing there is a duality of Creator could not have set for his creatures any ultimate end except principles, of essence and existence, that the essence is in potency to its himself. If God intended any end other than Himself, He would have existence, that it does not exist necessarily, and so he was enabled to been moved to create by the attraction of this end. But this is impossible, argue not merely to the Aristotelian unmoved Mover, but to the necessary for if God were to create for an end other than Himself, this would mean Being, God the Creator.”40 that God lacks something. Being infinite perfection, He lacks nothing. Hence there can be no ultimate end for creatures other than God Himself. St. Thomas’ notion of God as efficient cause is most clearly seen Thus according to St. Thomas, God is the first efficient cause and the in his doctrine of creation. In fact, this is the reverse position of the third last final cause of all things. way of establishing God’s existence—from contingency to necessity. Unlike the God of Aristotle, “the God of St. Thomas’s natural theology . We had traced God’s efficient causality to St. Thomas’ doctrine . . is first efficient cause and Creator, as well as final cause: He is not of essence and existence. The same doctine gives us the clue to His simply wrapped in splendid isolation, the object of eros, but He acts ad inner nature. In God there is no distinction between essence and extra, creating, preserving, concurring, exercising providence.”41 In order existence; He does not receive His existence, but is His existence; His to propound his theory of the creation of the world, Aquinas adopts St. very essence is to exist. St. Thomas was able “to discern the essence of Augustine’s doctrine of exemplarism.42 According to the latter, there God as existence, not simply as self-thinking thought but as ipsum esse 43 are ideas in the mind of God, and God created the world according to subsistence.” But it is not the essence of any creature to exist. these exemplars. Following Augustine, St. Thomas holds that the species Existence itself ipsum esse, is the essence of God. To say that God is of created things have their ideas or rationes in God. These rationes of ipsum esse is to give, as it were, His inner nature. Every other name is things are present in the divine mind from all eternity as the finite in some way inadequate. The names we employ in speaking of God are reflections of His infinite perfection. God from all eternity saw in Himself, derived from our experience of determinate form and express primarily as possible reflections of Himself, the things which He could create and those forms; “but the name He who is signifies not a determinate form, 44 would create. God created the world as finite imitation of His divine but ‘the infinite ocean of substance’.” essence, which He knows as imitable ad extra in a multiplicity of ways. 5. Conclusion Moreover, the Creator-God of St. Thomas is also its provident lord. According to him, God is the continuing ruler of the world, and not Aristotelian, Newtonian and Thomistic concepts of God have their merely its original Creator. Divine governance is an active power deepest foundation in their respective metaphysics. Aristotle could reach sustaining and working through the natural order. God is the primary only God as pure form and final cause, and not as efficient cause and cause of every event, but there are sec-ondary causes through which Creator, since he rejected ideas in the mind of God, and also since he

178Omega December 2008 179 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast lacked the doctrine of essence and existence. St. Thomas could affirm 10. Ibid., p. 53. Emphasis in the original text. God as efficient cause and Creator of the world, since he upheld ideas in 11. David Ross, Aristotle (London: Methuen & Co., 1923; University paperback divine mind, and distinction between essence and existence in finite things. reprint, 1974), p. 180. In Aristotelian metaphysics, the theory of act and potency ends with God as pure act, as pure form. Whereas in the ontology of St. Thomas, 12. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. I, part II, p. 57. this doctrine reaches its ultimate heights in the concept of God as pure 13. Ibid., p. 117. act, as existence itself. He explored the deepest implications of the 14. Ibid., p. 147. doctrine of act and potency, and so he could affirm God as Creator, as first efficient cause. In the absence of a comprehensive metaphysics, 15. Ross, Aristotle, p. 184. Reference to Aristotle : De Caelo 301 b31, 279 b12 ff. Newton could barely affirm God as the first efficient cause of all motion 16. Ross, Aristotle, p. 181. in the universe. In spite of these fundamental differences in their ontologies 17. Ibid., p. 184. and concepts of God, what these three thinkers have in common is that for them, God is a transcendent Being; He transcends the world. That is 18. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. I, part II, pp. 60-61. the ultimate consequence of conceiving God as efficient and/or final 19. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Ë 9, 1074 b 33-35, quoted in Copleston, A History of cause. Philosophy, Vol. I, part II, p. 58. 20. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. I, part II, p. 59. 21. One may note that the fundamental difference between the Newtonian Notes categories of space, time, motion and mass, and those of Einstein is that 1. Dr. Joseph Mathew is Professor of Systematic Philosophy at Vijnananilayam, whereas according to the former, they are absolute and exist independently Eluru. each other, for the latter they are relative and are intimately related to one another. In the special theory of relativity, Einstein connected the concepts 2. Stephen Pepper, “The Root Metaphor Theory of Metaphysics,” Journal of of space and time to obtain the notion of space-time; and in the general philosophy, 32 (July 1935), p. 369. theory of relativity, he effects a further connection: between space-time and 3. It is interesting to note that Aristotelian concept of potency which was mass-energy. Mass-energy is thought to be the result of the curvature of banished from cosmology by Newton has made a come back in contemporary space-time. cosmology, especially in quantum theory. Subatomic particles are often said 22. In fact, this constitutes the fundamental difference between Aristotle and to be in a potential state rather than actually existing. Newton. It is this modification of the concept of the constitution of the 4. T.Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophic Quest (New York: material body that makes all the difference between the cosmology of Aristotle Bantam Books, 1984; 1989), pp. 71-72. and that of Newton. All the other differences between the organicism of the former and the mechanism of the latter follow from this fundamental difference. 5. Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. I, part II (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1946; Image Book edition, 1962), p. 146. 23. Milic Èapek, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961), p. 54. Emphasis in the original text. 6. Ibid., pp. 116-17. 24. Ibid. Emphasis in the original text. In fact, ‘occupying space’ is nothing 7. Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje, A History of Western Thought, trans. Ronald other than extension or quantity. Thus Newton identifies matter with Worley (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 74. extension. Whereas for Aristotle, quantity or extension is an accident of the 8. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. I, part II, p. 55. material body composed of matter and form, for Newton quantity becomes the very essence of the material body. Once form is rejected as a constituent 9. Ibid., p. 56.

180Omega December 2008 181 Joseph Mathew Aristotle, Newton and Aquinas on God:A Study in Contrast element of the material body, the latter is nothing other than matter, defined philosophical and cosmological thought. Heidegger starts his An as full space. Introduction to Metaphysics introducing the ‘why’ question: “Why are 25. Èapek, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics, p. 58. there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?” (Introduction to Metaphyiscs, trans. Ralph Manheim (London: Yale 26. Ibid., p. 71. University Press, 1959), p. 7). Contemporary cosmologists are time and 27. Ibid. Thus in Newton’s universe two entities are conserved or remain again faced with the issue of contingency: for example, the contingency of constant: the total amount of mass and the total amount of motion or energy. cosmological constants. Even TOE (the theory of everything) which is purportedly to be a theory of necessity, showing why things are as they are, 28. Ibid., p. 73. Emphasis in the original text. Èapek comments: “Behind his cannot escape the bite of contingency. The question is: Why that TOE? As [Aristotle’s] reluctance to admit the substantiality of motion lay a deep- John Taylor remarks, “we do not seem to be able to find any way to justify rooted metaphysical prejudice which is common to all periods of Western TOE, yet feel cheated by being unable to answer the question ‘Why that thought… It was the prejudice that change cannot be something logically TOE?’” (When the Clock Struck Zero (London: Picador), 1993), p. 53). or ontologically self-sufficient and that therefore it needs an explanation.” (Ibid. Emphasis in the original text.) 40. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. II, part 2, pp. 145-46. 29. Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (Boston: Shambhala Publications,1976; 41. Ibid., p. 148. Bantam Revised Edition, 1984), pp. 43-44. 42. Here is the Platonism in Aquinas’ metaphysics. Exemplarism is nothing other 30. Quoted in Èapek, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics, p. than the Augustinian version of Plato’s ideal world. St. Augustine adopted 122. this theory from Plotinus who placed the world of ideas in the nous, the first stage of emanation from the One. Augustine being a theist posited the 31. Ian G.Barbour, Religion and Science (New York: HarperCollins, 1998; London: Platonic forms in the mind of God who created the world according to these SCM Press, 1998), p. 18. Emphasis in the original text. ideas. According to the theory of exemplarism, God knows His divine essence 32. E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (New York: not only as it is in itself, but also as imitable outside itself in a plurality of Humanities Press, revised edition, 1951), p. 239, quoted in Barbour, Religion creatures. Exemplarism explains both creation and providence. and Science, p. 19. 43. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. II, part 2, p. 146. 33. Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point (N. P., Simon & Schuster, 1982; Fontana 44. Ibid., p. 81. Paperbacks, 1983), p. 52. 34. Quoted in Ibid., p. 52. 35. Isaac Newton, Optics, 3rd ed. (London, 1721), pp. 344 ff, quoted in Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (London: SCM Press, 1966; Study edition, 1972), p. 38. Deletions found in the original quotation 36. Barbour, Religion and Science, p. 15. Emphasis in the original text. 37. Ibid., p. 20. 38. Ibid., pp. 22-23. 39. The question concerning the contingency of the world and the things therein is the ultimate ‘why’ question—”Why is there any thing rather than nothing.” At the deepest recesses of human existence, man asks this question. Interestingly, this question of contingency comes up in contemporary

182Omega December 2008 183 S. George Valumkal Dancing to Diversity: Science-Religion Dialogue in India Omega and spiritual aspects of the human being. In India, dance is an age-old VII (2008)2, 184-189 tradition. This vast sub-continent has given birth to varied forms of dancing, each shaped by the influences of a particular period and environment. All Indian dances portray some expression of life and almost every dance posture has a specific meaning. Different states in India have different Dancing to Diversity: and colourful folk dances, like Bharatnatyam, Kathakali, Manipuri, Odissi, Science-Religion Dialogue in India Kathak, Kuchipudi, Mohiniyattam, etc. To this we need to add the vibrant dance tradition of the tribal cultures, which makes metaphorically their - S. George Valumkal1 whole life a dance with nature.Thus the Indian situation is unique in the sense it affirms diversity and dances to its tune. Thus the contradictions Kuruvilla Pandikattu, ed., Dancing to Diversity: Science- and paradoxes are not subsumed or reconciled but lived harmoniously Religion Dialogue in India, Serial Publications, New Delhi, 2008. and existentially. pp. 246 +xvi, ISBN 978-81-8387-194-5. It is in this context of religious pluralism and cultural diversity that What is diversity and pluralism? Confronted with the phenomenon Indian Institute of Science and Religion, Pune, has organized twelve of diversity, how can we meaningfully and creatively respond? What week seminar, spread over three years, on “science, values and visions.” are contemporary scientific and religious responses to diversity and The seminar provided about thirty young scholars a chance to think pluralism? Given the postmodern ambience, how do we enrich ourselves deeply on issues of science, values, vision and religion and to interact through the plurality of scientific theories, religious experiences and innovatively so that they can contribute significantly in this field. These cultural references? These are some of the questions posed to some articles in this volume are by scholars who have worked intensely, reflected research scholars in the fields of science, religion and culture in a new deeply and shared creatively to relate critical science with creative volume edited by Kuruvilla Pandikattu and published by Serial Publishers, religions. The young scholars hailed from different parts of India, spoke Delhi. The articles in this volume contribute to science-religion interfacing different languages and possessed different faith and scientific traditions. in the Indian situation. These articles reflect some of their insights, many of them seminal, towards ushering a society where differences are cherished and creativity The Context: Diversity that is India fostered. The context of these articles is science-religion dialogue in India. Outline and Main Insights India is considered to be not merely a “melting pot of civilization,” that transcends the “clash of civilizations,” but a creative and amicable source The articles in this volume fall under four categories. The first of “unity in diversity.” Such a variety and diversity is easily noticed by a two introductory articles speak of the need and social status of science- student of Indian culture. The contemporary India is not merely a religion dialogue, since it has become a fast developing field particularly conglomeration of paradoxes, but a place where diversity is cherished, in the Indian scene. The next section carries four articles that deal with affirmed and even celebrated. nature and reality with its unity dimension. Two articles are on Bohm’s interpretation of reality, while another philosophical article deals with the Dancing to Diversity nature of nature in itself. The last article in this section draws parallels between the book of nature understood by Kepler and the Indian tribal Dance is a universal language, an expressive and vibrant art with traditions. This section has scientific basis and metaphysical implications. the capacity to unify the physical, mental, social, emotional, aesthetic, The third section focuses on diversity, relating heath, beauty and wonder 184Omega December 2008 185 S. George Valumkal Dancing to Diversity: Science-Religion Dialogue in India to it. Two articles in this section deal with the tragic Tsunami and the Perspectives.” In this article the author compares the understanding of need to preserve the rich biodiversity in India. The last section is nature according to Johannes Kepler and in the tribal religions. Both of application of science-religion dialogue in the Indian context. A statistician them have a religious reverence for nature and see the “image of God” survey on the relationship between health and spirituality is included. in nature. Such an understanding is crucial today, confronted with the Since the contemporary Indian situation is driven by bio- and information contemporary environmental problems. The theme of nature is further technologies, two articles focus on stem cell research which has taken up by Sonali Bagchi in her “Biodiversity: The Need for Today and significant influence in India and one deals with the possibilities opened Tomorrow.” It discusses the diverse types of life forms on this planet, up by artificial intelligence. the importance of their interactions with each other and the environment. The paper emphasizes that the very existence and perpetuation of various In the first article entitled, “Science and Spirituality: An Introductory species in its natural form is of immense importance for the sustainability Hindu Appraisal,” by M.S. Mudagi holds that science unravels the and perpetuation of the mankind on this planet. Religion and science, patterns and connections giving rise to the phenomenal world. Hence it both in their own ways, have been playing a very crucial role in is enormously relevant and reliable in our grasp of the world in the context conservation and protection of biodiversity since ages. Another of logical consistency and reference systems. The recognition of the challenging article takes up “Natural Disasters as the Diverse Steps of spirit enhances our awareness of the world of experience. The author the Cosmic Dance!” Here the author starts by asking the questions: shows in this article that in the search for a deeper understanding of life How do the disciplines of science and religion explain the natural and the universe, inclusion of spirituality within scientific research works disasters? Do these disciplines fail before the disasters of our times? can become a significant factor. In other words, science and spirituality The author argues that since science and religion are different in their / religion should be important partners in this most profound area of nature and function, a healthy tension is unavoidable but at the same human quest. time world will be a better place to live if the mutual complementary The next article by Shiju Sam Varghese, “Science and Religion relationship between the two can be encouraged. Dialogue: Insights from ‘Public Understanding of Science,” tries to situate M.J. Peter, a practising doctor, investigates “Science and Religion science-religion dialogue in a public understanding of science and show in Healing Processes Through Alternative Methods.” After having that Public Understanding of Science is a yet-to-be-explored theoretical analyzed the significance of various alternative methods of healing (like domain for science-religion dialogue. Another young scholar, Luke counselling, magneto-therapy, reflexology, homoeopathy, etc.,) the article George, deals with “Social Systems and Dual Realities: The Perspective explores the meaning of health and studies, the need for holistic health of System Philosophy.” This article starts with the premise that the and empathetic approach. The author implores that medical Science objective of philosophy is to integrate reality, worldview, human mind needs to widen its horizon of moving away from the trap of hard core and knowledge through a logical and reflective enquiry. Accordingly, rationality and verification to more Oriental methods of medical healing here presents a philosophical classification of our knowledge into eight practices which emphasize on holistic, psycho-somatic and spiritual divisions on the basis of the three competing worldviews – organic, approaches. To complement the above aspects of nature, another article mechanistic and process – of contemporary philosophy. The author deals with “beauty in science-religion engagement.” According to the maintains that the inherent drawbacks of these worldviews can be author, dialogue with the beautiful begins with an encounter in which the overcome through a unifying philosophy named here as System grandeur, stillness and preternatural beauty of the natural world affects Philosophy. an individual to such an extent that a kind of kinship is created with the From the perspective of indigenous people, Sonajharia Minz infinite variety of natural forms. This bonding becomes the source of focusses on the “Book of Nature:Comparing Few Keplerian and Tribal meaningfulness as the individual continuously seeks to penetrate the veil 186Omega December 2008 187 S. George Valumkal Dancing to Diversity: Science-Religion Dialogue in India that covers nature’s face. The journey in search of beauty is nothing but existence lest by tampering with it we should undermine the freedom the pilgrimage in search of unity in diversity, unity between the pursuit of and intelligence upon which this creativity depends. the mind and the odyssey of the spirit. The theme of beauty is carried on in another article on the wonders of nature. Tina Thomas in her “The The last article, “Stem Cell Research and Ethical Implications,” Wonder that We Are: Reflections on Being Human in the World” explores explores this topic further. Regarding stem cell research, the author warns the classical wonders and then enumerates the contemporary wonders us that we should develop a sense of human dignity and freedom. When of the world. Based on these studies, the author points to the fact the we are involved in research we should guard and protect life and wonder of wonder is truly the human being, who is able to wonder at contribute to human dignity. The preservation of human life and these marvellous wonders. The role of science and religion in deciphering environment in the present and future must be the supreme motivation these wonders is also studied. of all research. The goal of stem cell research should be to preserve, protect and revere life. It has to necessarily interact with the value Alice Thomas conducts a statistic study on “Spirituality and Living systems in order to foster a climate of life for all. Standards.” After trying to understand education, religion and spirituality the author tries to relate the spiritual values to the living standards of a Conclusion select sample of students (Hindus, Christians and Muslims) from a some The aim of these articles, which is to give young and aspiring prestigious college in Trichur, Kerala. After the statistical survey, the scholars a chance to relate science and religion constructively, we can author finds that there is an ambiguous relationship between spirituality say, has been achieved. . So these articles are primarily meant for educated and living standards. staff and students in the universities. The articles are characterized by Another interesting article on “Artificial Intelligence: Some religious rootedness and scientific openness. They reflect the emerging Challenging Possibilities,” authored by F D Kullu focusses on cognitive India which is young, dynamic, ambitious and at the same time socially and computer science. The author is of the opinion that AI raises some conscious. Another companion volume which will take up more focused serious philosophical, social and ethical issues – the dilemma of whether issues will come out shortly. we can impart ‘mind’ to any machine but our offspring and several other It is the editor’s fervent hope that this volume would contribute to social and ethical problems. The writer warns us that just like any other deepening the ambience of religious, scientific and cultural dialogue in scientific and technological advancement, it has possibilities and challenges the Indian psyche. It may be added that in keeping with his other books and could be used creatively or destructively. (Together, Towards, Tomorrow: and The Bliss of Being Human) the “The Revolution of Genetic Engineering: An Enquiry from the editor carries forward his quest for a meaningful and constructive science- Perspective of Science and Religion,” is studied by Antony Inico. This religion dialogue focused on Indian realities. We wish that more such article starts with some futuristic questions; What will our lives be like ventures will be undertaken by Indian authors to promote science-religion fifty years from now? What will we know about ourselves as humans, dialogue. and how will that affect our lives? In this article the author pleads for both cautious responsibility and creative respect. We need to be guided Notes by the principle of stewardship and creativity as we approach the 1. S. George Valumkal is the Human Resource Executive at Ajmeera Group, problems of genetic engineering and cloning. At the same time, we must Pune and has done specialized studies in theology, philosophy and zoology. use this creativity with profound respect for God’s existing creation and especially for our own biological, psychological and social mode of

188Omega December 2008 189 Shibu Joseph Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India Omega bring about the convergence between East and West and he does not VII (2008)2, 190-194 undermine the challenges and the opportunities such a convergence would expose. As the parameters of science and spirituality are entirely different, Prof. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, taking his inspiration from Upanishads, proposes logic as the middle term between science and spirit. For, Science, Spirituality and the Upanishads distinguish between para vidya (lower knowledge) and apara vidya (Higher knowledge). The lower knowledge deals with Modernization of India Vedas, grammar, etc., while the higher knowledge alone reaches the - Shibu K. Jose1 imperishable being. As this imperishable being cannot be subjected to the scientific experimentation, both spirituality and science can remain two closed worlds without any merging points. The author discovers the Makarand Paranjpe, ed., Science, Spirituality and the possible point of convergence between East and West in the philosophies Modernization of India, Anthem Press, New Delhi, 2008. pp. of Sankara and Hegel. The author points out a striking similarity between 271+ xx, ISBN 978-1-84331-748-7. Sankara and Hegel on the concept of pure being. And yet there are differences too. Science, Spirituality and Modernization of India is a collection of 15 articles edited by Makarand Paranjape. The articles in this book Javaid Iqbal Bhat discusses at length, how Sir Sayyed Ahmed were presented at an international conference held in Jawaharlal Nehru Khan rescues south Asian Muslims from the stigmatic experience of a University, New Delhi, in February 2006 on the theme of science, sudden bereft of power under the rage of colonialism. The colonial spirituality and modernization of India. This book offers a number of encounter with Islam did produce a good number of Islamic modernists, platforms where the seemingly contradictory domains of science and who, remarkably and constructively rescued Islam from the temptation spirituality can strike a dialogue. of seeking solace in their nostalgic past. Sir Khan, allowed himself not to fall in the same rut of the so-called modernist Muslims. Instead he Makarand Paranjape, explores the inner dynamism between demanded that a de-link be reserved for the Indian Muslims from the science and spirituality ever since modern science established itself on Umma of common belief and, so as to empower the Indian Muslims. the Indian panorama. Modern science in India is the brainchild of According to David Leylen, “the ultimate objective of his educative reform colonialism. But as colonialism had an origin, climax and exit, unlike was to produce a class of persons, Mohammedan in religion, Indian in colonialism, modern science gained momentum on the Indian soil, making blood and colour, but English in taste, opinion and intellect.” It was at a a steady progress. At the same time we cannot neglect the presence time when the study of English by a Muslim was considered equal to and growth of an indigenous science which had to bear the brunt of the embracing Christianity that Sir Khan chose to instruct his students in wide-spread modern science. Thanks to the influences of modern English. His radical stand earned him a good number of critics from his science, due to which, people like Ram Mohan Roy and Vivekananda, community itself and some of them even pronounced anathema. who, gripped by modern science, inspired people to fight against the social evils. Freedom struggle was more of a spiritual force, but secularism Susmita Chatterjee explains how Jagdish Chandra Bose alone could ensure a safe niche in the Indian constitution. Makarand transformed Upanisadic monism into a scientific idiom as he Paranjape believes that India has a crucial role of playing the host to experimented the responsive behaviour of the animate and inanimate

190Omega December 2008 191 Shibu Joseph Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India things to certain electric stimuli, which prompted him to conclude to the so he does not exclude the possibility of contradiction but considers this oneness of the animate and inanimate world. According to him this as an opportunity which eventually opens up a new vista where science oneness is explicit in the Mother Nature, but what accounts for the split and philosophy can work together. images of this mother (terror and graciousness of the same nature) depends on the veil of worldly things over the mind of the beholder. The Western science, including the medical science, is based on Hence it is to be believed that J. C Bose went beyond the constraints of the Cartesian compartmentalization of body and mind. Hence, treatment science to perceive the unity in diversity manifested in the empirical is directed and limited only to the bodily aspect, completely ignoring the reality. mental aspect. The author, Rajni Vyas, clarifies how health becomes a by-product of innate aspiration for transformation. On the contrary, if By contrasting Aurobindo and Krishnachandra Bhattacharya, ego is overwhelming it registers the degradation of the psychic being Raghuram Raju disproves the assumption that all Indian scholars strive bringing about disease or illness. for a convergence of science and spirituality. Aurobindo, exposing the limitations of Western science, calls for a synthesis of matter and spirit P. Ram Manohar proposes Ayurveda as a model that can serve in the light of evolution of consciousness as explained in Vedanta. as a platform to synthesize science and spirituality. We find the perfect Bhattacharya proves his thesis, distinguishing four grades of thought, blend of science and spirituality in Ayruveda whose spiritual aspect is namely, empirical, pure objective, spiritual and transcendental. Except often ignored by the present day medical practices. However, there is a the first all the other grades of thought belong to the realm of philosophy. growing tendency to integrate and apply the approaches of Ayurveda to Here the author offers two contrasting perspectives on the relation modern medical science. between matter and spirit. Bhaskar Vyas and Rajni Vyas, in their article, review the micro Frantisek Mikes, finds evolution and its future progress as a psi perception – clairvoyance, and the experiments done by the possible ground for a trialogue among East, West and modern science. Theosophical society especially by Annie Besant and E W Leadbeater. Keeping this end in view, he analyses Teilhard and Aurobindo as They conclude the article observing that “there is a dimension different representatives of West and East respectively and subject their findings from our ordinary perception. Such a perception could give an accurate to the scientific theories of self organization, chaos, complex systems description of physical reality that is ordinarily not accessible. This and emergence. dimension is accessible through some form of meditation.” Sudhir Kumar, depicts Gandhi as a person who blended scientific The Eastern mystics consider the mind and body as an indivisible (avidya) and spiritual (vidya) aspects of knowledge which gave shape continuum. Ravi Khanna discusses the question as to what constitutes to a new aesthetics of moral existence. According to Gandhi science this indivisibility in the light of Vedas which in turn is compared with the defeats its purpose if it destroys the soul instead of uplifting it. In other contemporary Western concepts. words, morally speaking, science is to evoke the best in us not the beast. Anjali Roy tries to shed light into the split evident in the mental Thus he concludes that our existence becomes ethical when there is a framework of the scientists of the renowned IIT Kharagpur. The co-existence between the rational and the spiritual for the good of all scientists’ adherence to the traditional ritual practices reveals their humanity. concealed spiritual cravings which are in drastic contrast to their scientific Balram Singh, gives a detailed account of the both the Indian convictions. Thus the stalwarts of science give a tacit approval to the (Yuga-cycle) and the Western (theories of Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum religious practices while they pretend to remain divorced to spirituality. Mechanics, etc.) ways of calculating the age of our planet. While doing

192Omega December 2008 193 Shibu Joseph Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India Ananta Kumar Giri, comes up with a new way of science- spirituality interaction, what he calls practical spirituality. He presents practical spirituality not as a monopoly of any religion but as the transformative struggles undertaken by religions, traditions, cultures, etc., to protect the dignity of human beings and it also includes the dialogues across borders. Thus he puts forward practical spirituality as a platform where science and spirituality can have a meaningful encounter and OMEGA enrich each other. INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION The domain of psychoses and spirituality is often blurred and it is extremely difficult to strike upon a delimitation programme in these fields. Vijaya Ramaswamy explores the rationale of spiritual hysteria, by Printer and Publisher undertaking a case study of parapsychic experiences of some Indian Dr. Augustine Pamplany women and thus he successfully presents spiritual emergence. Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101 It could be observed that this book clarifies many of the prejudices Ernakulam District, Kerala. of the scientists hindering their free interaction with spirituality. And for a believer, it clears the clouds of suspicion in which there is a fear of Editor being overtaken by the science. And in overall the book maintains a Dr. Job Kozhamthadam balanced perspective. De Nobili College, Ramwadi, Pune - 411 014

Printed at Notes Ayodhya Printing Press Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kerala. 1. Shibu K. Jose is the Dean of Philosophy at Little Flower Seminary, Aluva, Kerala. Place of Publicaiton Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva-683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.

Owner Dr. Augustine Pamplany Director, Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.

194 Omega December 2008 Editor-in-Chief Dr. Job Kozhamthadam Indian Institute of Science and Religion, Pune, India Associate Editor Dr. Ronald Cole-Turner Vice President,International Society for Science and Religion, Cambridge. Book Review Editors Dr. Miguel Farias Ian Ramsey Centre, Oxford University. Omega Dr. Martin Sebastian Catholic University, Leuven. Indian Journal of Science and Religion Managing Editor I JSR Dr. Augustine Pamplany Little Flower Seminary, Aluva, India Editorial Advisory Board SUBSCRIPTION RATES Dr. Nancey Murphy Fuller Theological Seminary, California. India Foreign Dr. Kasturiranjan National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore. 1 Year Rs. 100.00 $ 20.00 € 15.00 Dr. Bert Gordijn Dublin City Univesity, Ireland. Dr. Makarand Paranjpe Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. 3 Years Rs. 250.00 $ 50.00 € 40.00 Dr. Philip Sloan Notre Dame University, Indiana. Life Rs. 1500.00 $ 400.00 300.00 Dr. Georger V Coyne Director Emeritus, Vatican Observatory. Dr. K. Babu Joseph Former VC, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin. Subcription to be paid by Money Order, Demand Draft or Cheque. Dr. K. S. Radhakrishnan Sree Sanakracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. • Dr. John Brooke University of Oxford. • Make Cheque / DD / MO payable to “Manager, Omega.” Dr. Kuruvilla Pandikattu Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune. Dr. Varadaraja V. Raman Emeritus Professor, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York. • Add Rs. 15/- for outstation cheques (in India). Dr. Kang Phee Seng Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong. • Subscription could begin with any number. Dr. Heup Young Kim Kangnam University, South Korea. Dr. Pauline M. Rudd Dublin-Oxford Glycobiology Laboratory, Dublin, Ireland. Dr. Gerald Grudzen University of Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. Sarojini Henry Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, Chennai. Dr. Mathew Chandrankunnel Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore. All Correspondence to : Dr. Lieven Bouve Catholic University, Louvain Managing Editor, Dr. B. V. Subbarayyappa National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore. Omega, Little Flower Seminary, Dr. Roger Trigg University of Oxford. Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India. Dr. Taede A Smedes Catholic Univesity, Louvain. E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Nicola Hoggard Creegan Tyndale-Carey Graduate School, New Zealand. Dr. Jean Staune Interdisciplinary University, Paris. Dr. Shamsur Rahman Bangladesh Centre for Science and Spirituality, Dhaka. Typeset : D’Signs, Aluva.

Omega Indian Journal of Science and Religion is an interdisciplinary journal published biannually in June and December. The opinions expressed by the individual authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.