Indian Darshanas: Windows to the Universe PDF

# Chapter 2 ## Windows to the Universe: Indian Darshanas ### Introduction The ancient temples of South India are adorned with stone-carved windows that captivate the eye and the mind. These windows, with their intricate patterns, not only frame the outside world, but also shape our perception of...

# Chapter 2 ## Windows to the Universe: Indian Darshanas ### Introduction The ancient temples of South India are adorned with stone-carved windows that captivate the eye and the mind. These windows, with their intricate patterns, not only frame the outside world, but also shape our perception of it. They act as mediators between the observer and the observed, inviting us to explore different ways of knowing and being. The remarkable diversity of these windows, found in the temples of Pallavas, Chalukyas, Cholas, and others, may also mirror the rich epistemological pluralism that characterises Indian culture, a culture that celebrates multiple paths to reality. Pointing out the organic relationship between epistemology and science, Albert Einstein said: "Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled." ## Epistemology and Science A notable instance is natural theology, which views the world as a masterpiece created by a divine designer. According to this theory, the world is like a clock or a watch, and God is the master Watchmaker behind it all. The sophistications and intricateness of the workings of the world (watch), are understood as reflections of the intelligence of God (watchmaker). This philosophy has inspired scientists and thinkers to explore the complexities of living things, believing they were evidence of a grand plan by a divine creator. However, when Darwin's theory of evolution came along, it proposed something different. Evolution showed that life's diversity and complexity could arise from a process without any guiding hand - like a watchmaker who doesn't need to see what they're making - a 'Blind Watchmaker'. Natural theology faced a serious dilemma. Instead of a deliberate designer evolution revealed a 'Blind Watchmaker' at work - where changes in living things are driven by factors like the environment, genetic variations, and survival pressures over time. This revelation shook the foundations of natural theology, leading to cling to ideas like 'Intelligent design' and 'Creationism' in an attempt to reconcile science with their theological beliefs. Another instance comes from Marxism and the Soviet Union. Pierre Duhem (1861–1916), was a physicist and a philosopher of science. He presented a unique perspective in his book, "The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory". Instead of seeing the laws of physics as definite truths, he viewed them as close approximations. Duhem described these laws as neither completely true nor false but rather as symbolic representations that capture aspects of reality in a more or less precise manner. Later developments in Physics revealed that Duhem had actually touched the heart of a problem that physicists would debate passionately in the coming decades. For example, Louis de Broglie, famous for his equation of particle wavelength, saw the work of Duhem as "a beautiful and great work where physicists of today can still find numerous topics worthy of reflection and study." This acknowledgment reveals the relevance and impact of Duhem's ideas. However, Vladimir Lenin (1870 - 1924) disagreed with this view, and regarded it as containing "the beginning of the falsity". In 1908, Vladimir Lenin wrote a concise work called 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism'. In this work, Lenin critiqued and judged prominent scientists and philosophers of science of his time, including Alexander Bogdanov, Pierre Duhem, and Henri Poincaré. Lenin's work set a standard where every scientific discovery and theory had to align with the specific ideology of marxism, with "correctness" determined by ideological commissars. This approach escalated into a state-controlled investigation during Stalin's rule, leading to the persecution of geneticists and the condemnation of Mendelian genetics as non-science, resulting in the imprisonment, torture, and execution of geneticists. So epistemological diversity is not just an abstract notion, a much needed one for the post-Darwinian and post-Newtonian Physics societies which value advancement in knowledge. This can be illustrated with two contrasting examples: When Lenin wrote 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism', New Physics¹ was dawning. Science was well nearing what would be the epicentre of quantum revolutions. So the signs were clear to the direction into which science was moving. Lenin's assertion that science should align with dialectical materialism³, even with reservations, reflects a rigid and dogmatic, even reluctant akin to religious beliefs. This perspective suggests science should conform to predetermined ideological framework , endorsing theology or ideology, rather than allowing for open-minded exploration and discovery. On the other hand Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) considered religion to submit itself to the methods of science mercilessly. Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other concrete science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion? In my opinion, this must be so, and I am also of the opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross would be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Yet his Vedanta could provide a framework that was far more visionary and holistic than the framework of dialectical materialism which not just strangulated science but sent scientists to gallows and labour camps in the USSR: Take anything before you, the most material thing- take one of the most material sciences, as chemistry or physics, astronomy or biology-study it, push the study forward and forward, and the gross forms will begin to melt and become finer and finer, until they come to a point where you are bound to make a tremendous leap from these material things into the immaterial. The gross melts into the fine, physics into metaphysics, in every department of knowledge. The statement was made in 1896. It would be 29 years later, and 23 years after the samadhi of Vivekananda, that Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg would come up with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which would disturb Einstein enough to make the statement that, "God would not play dice with the universe". Einstein would collaborate with physicists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, which in turn would unveil stranger non-localised quantum phenomena. But all that would be in the future. Much before any of those developments, this monk from a colonised world could predict the direction science would take in the next century. Now let us briefly consider three traditional Indian knowledge frameworks (or epistemologies) and see how they could be used to view developments in modern science. Let us consider briefly three instances of how the Indic frameworks provide us ways to explore and view the problems and discoveries of science respectively. ## Vedantic Satkaryavada Have you ever thought about how a tiny seed can hold potential to become a majestic banyan tree? When you plant the seed and it grows into a tree, you are not creating something new or separate from the seed. Instead, you are helping to bring out the hidden potential that was there all along. This is the idea of Satkaryavada. It suggests that the essence of banyan tree is inherent in the seed, meaning that the essence or possibility of the tree already exists within the seed. The cause (the seed), but rather a transformation or manifestation of what was already present in a latent form. Satkaryavada is the idea that cause is already present in effect and the effect is present in the cause. Understanding the concept of Satkaryavada provides a specific kind of view of how cause and effect are interconnected. It is an integral part of three out of six schools, the Six Darshanas, Yoga, Vedanta, Samkhya. Through various metaphors, proverbs and philosophical discussions, this notion has become ingrained in the collective consciousness of Indian society, making it very easy for the Indian mind to embrace the concept of evolution. Unlike the ongoing conflicts in the West between religious fundamentalists and proponents of science education, India has a smoother acceptance of evolution due to the seamless integration of Satkaryavada into its cultural and philosophical framework. Swami Vivekananda suggested the significance of Satkaryavada in the context of biological evolution. He proposed that evolution is not a simple process of new forms emerging from pre-existing ones, but rather a manifestation of what was already present in a latent form. He believed that evolution presupposes involution, meaning that the potential for evolution is already present in the original cause. Interestingly, Swami Vivekananda also criticised the concept of ‘Social Darwinism', which was popularised by British philosopher Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinism is the application of the principles of natural selection to society, suggesting that the strong should prevail over the weak. Vivekananda rejected this idea and proposed the concept of "Infilling of Nature" (Prakrtyapurat), which emphasises the harmonious development of all living beings. Similarly, Sri Aurobindo also recognized the relevance of Satkaryavada in the context of evolution. He would literally sing evolution into his mystic English verses of Savitri, where he described evolution as a process of rapid and sudden outbursts of manifestation from the unmanifest. The perspectives of Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo align closely with the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium proposed by Stephen Jay Gould. Punctuated equilibrium is based on the idea that species remain relatively stable (equilibrium) for extended periods, showing little morphological change, until a rapid burst (punctuation) of evolution results in the emergence of a new species. This theory challenged the traditional view of evolution as a slow and gradual process, suggesting instead that most evolutionary changes occur rapidly during speciation events, with little change happening between these periods.. It is not that Vivekananda and Aurobindo "discovered" or "knew" about punctuated equilibrium before Gould. It is about how they offered the Indian mindset a conceptual foundation and comprehensive worldview to understand such concepts when they were introduced. They provided a framework that resonated with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, emphasising sudden bursts of change and manifestation from the unmanifest, akin to the punctuated shifts in evolutionary development described by Gould. Despite these insightful parallels, the challenge lies in how these Indian perspectives were often overlooked or underutilised in favour of non-Indic frameworks, reflecting a broader societal inclination towards external influences rather than drawing from indigenous philosophical traditions. Consider the following verses of Aurobindo in Savitri. What better way to introduce an Indian student, of any discipline of science and arts, to the wonder of evolution than through a panel depicting the phylogenetic tree of life with these verses? > If in the meaningless Void creation rose, > If from a bodiless Force Matter was born, > If Life could climb in the unconscious tree, > Its green delight break into emerald leaves > And its laughter of beauty blossom in the flower, > If sense could wake in tissue, nerve and cell > And Thought seize the grey matter of the brain, > And soul peep from its secrecy through the flesh. > How shall the nameless Light not leap on men, > And unknown powers emerge from Nature’s sleep? *Savitri, Canto IV: The Dream Twilight of the Earthly Real* ## Jain Saptabhangi Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you and your friend disagree about something, but both of your viewpoints seem valid? That's where the Jain concept of Syadvada comes in! Syadvada is all about understanding that truth can be relative and depends on the perspective and context. The term "syādvāda" comes from the Sanskrit roots "syāt" (meaning "may be" or "perhaps") and "vāda" (meaning “assertion" or "discussion"). In this context, "syat" is often translated as "in some ways" or "from a perspective", emphasising the conditional and relative nature of the truth claim. This approach suggests that every statement or belief should come with a reminder that it may only be true under certain conditions. By doing this, we can understand that apparently conflicting ideas might actually both be valid when viewed from different angles. So next time you and your friend have a differing opinion, remember Syadvada - it might help you understand each other better! Syadvada is a philosophical concept in Jainism. It emphasises the relativity and conditionality of truth. It suggests that all philosophical statements should be predicated with the word "syat", indicating that the statement is true from a certain perspective or under certain conditions. For example, 1. The sky is blue, perhaps. 2. Maybe the pot is big. 3. Perhaps, the tree is tall. 4. Perhaps the river is flowing. *While addition of 'syat' (Perhaps or maybe), seems unnecessary here, the philosophy of 'Syadvada'asserts possibilities recognising that things may have many characters and can be perceived from different points of view. The old story of the blind men describing an elephant is one example.* The theory of Syadvada is manifested in Saptabhangi. "Sapt' means seven, and "bhangi" means "propositions" or "aspects". In the place of a binary truth table, this system of philosophy provides the seven possible states of any instance of reality. 1. Syād-asti ("in some ways it is") 2. Syād-nāsti ("in some ways it is not") 3. Syād-asti-nāsti ("in some ways it is and it is not") 4. Syād-avaktavyah ("in some ways it is indescribable") 5. Syād-asti cha avaktavyascha ("in some ways it is and also indescribable") 6. Syad-nāsti cha avaktavyascha ("in some ways it is not and also indescribable") 7. Syad-asti nāsti cha avaktavyascha ("in some ways, it is and it is not and also indescribable") Have you heard of Schrödinger's cat, in quantum mechanics? According to the principles of quantum mechanics, until someone opens the box that contains the cat and observes the system, the cat can be considered to be both alive and dead at the same time. Do you think that a person who is familiar with Saptabangi will be able to appreciate the cat problem more easily? Haldane, the polymath biologist, was so intrigued by this epistemological system that he attempted to create 'logical classification of animal behaviours' based on this Saptabhangi model. Ever cautious, at the end of the paper, Haldane stated, "It is foolish to pretend that ancient philosophers anticipated all modern intellectual developments. And I believe that we, today, can do more honour to their memories by thinking for ourselves, as they did, than by devoting our lives to commentaries on them." And then he said, "But if we do so, it is our duty to point out cases where it turns out that our own thought has run parallel to theirs. I was unaware of Bhadrabahu's existence when I wrote the paper to which I refer. The fact that I reached a conclusion so like his own suggests that we may both have seen the same facet of many-splendored truth... If on the other hand, the contemplation of one's own mind, and that of the minds of animals, lead to similar results, such results are perhaps worthy of serious consideration." It was not only Haldane who was enamoured by the Saptabhangi and Syadvada. Bio-physicist Dr. GN Ramachandran was the one who discovered the triple helical structure of collagen. It was he who developed the famous "Ramachandran Plot" which is used in the investigation of peptides, the building blocks of proteins. He also developed a vector matrix based on Saptabhangi. In his paper on Vedanta and modern epistemology, Dr. Ramachandran pointed out in simple terms the relevance of Syadvada and Saptabhangi to the method of science: For example, Newton's Laws of Motion were taken to be the absolute basis for physics, and a nineteenth-century scientist would have answered the question 'Are Newton's Laws absolutely valid?' by a firm definite "yes". But twentieth century physics found it necessary to modify it, and replace it by Einstein's equations. In fact, nobody can say, even now, that Einstein's equations are the last word, because newer observations and theories can make still-further changes in them. In this sense, any theory (or any knowledge) derived from necessarily limited, incomplete observation of facts, can never be absolutely true. This purely philosophical concept, which is obviously a very valid one in epistemology, was put in a practical form by the Jain philosophers. Saptabhangi still awaits its integration into the science and arts education of the nation of its origin, so that Indians can frame the questions of exploration in science and experience the discoveries of science in a new light. ## Buddhist Pratityasamutpada Pratityasamutpada is also called 'dependent causation'. It is a fundamental concept in Buddhism that discusses how things happen because of a set of causes and conditions coming together. It helps us understand why things happen, and why it stops happening as well. "A substance does not exist in isolation," said Nagarjuna, taking the example of the sprout: "for the sprout does not exist in the seed which is its cause; it does not exist in each one of earth, water, fire, wind and so forth, which are agreed to be its conditions; it does not exist in the combinations of conditions, nor in the combination of causes and conditions, and it does not exist as separate from these, free from causes and conditions." Through this example, Nagarjuna reveals that nothing exists on its own. The existence of each and every phenomenon relies on a complex interplay of causes and conditions. Nothing can be isolated from its context. Perhaps, Pratityasamutpada provides one of the most comprehensive frameworks to understand the concept of coevolution. Coevolution is the adaptation and counter-adaptation of species, where they evolve together based on the pressures they impose on each other. This leads to complex interdependencies and specialised adaptations in the interacting species. Coevolution was familiar to Darwin. He wrote about "how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted in the most perfect manner to each other". The term ‘coevolution’ itself was coined only a century and five years after Darwin wrote those words in 1858. In 1964, Paul Ehrlich and Peter Raven studied plants eaten by butterfly larvae. They discovered the plants evolving chemicals to reduce the larvae attacks and larvae evolving resistance for the same chemicals. They termed it coevolution. Since their paper - 'Butterflies and Plants: A Study in Coevolution', scientists, particularly ecologists and evolutionists, have recognised coevolution as, "one of the most important processes shaping biodiversity". Another example of coevolution is the horse and the tundra grass. This coevolutionary relationship has been observed in cold arctic regions such as the tundras of northern America, Eurasia and Greenland. Here, the horses living in the cold, harsh tundra regions, that have sparse vegetation (other than tundra grass) developed specialized teeth and digestive systems over time, to efficiently process the tough, fibrous tundra grass. In response, the tundra grass evolved features like increased silica content and deeper root systems to withstand the grazing of the horse and maintain their presence in the ecosystem.. One wonders what example Nagarjuna would have given had he known coevolution. Just comparing this statement of Gregory Bateson¹, one of the greatest systems thinkers of our times, with Nagarjuna's statement shows the parallels: "the horse didn't evolve the field grass didn't evolve. It is the relationship that evolved. The horse and the tundra with grassy plains are interlocked. It's an evolution in which the grass needs the horse as much as the horse needs the grass." Nagarjuna's concept of dependent causation emphasises that things are shaped and defined by their relationships, rather than existing independently. Recognizing the interconnectedness of the world around us provides valuable insights that can advance our knowledge and improve our ability to solve problems. In this way, Nagarjuna's focus on dependent causation has important implications not only for philosophy but also for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. ## Maya and the 'World-Knot' Another great conceptual tool India has is its conceptualization or rather the discovery of Maya. In modern times, many have tended to dismiss Maya as just 'illusion'. Not only Westerners, even within Indian tradition when Advaita had to be caricatured, its opponents tended to call it Mayavada. There might be some justification to this criticism because of some later day institutional development of Advaita. However when one goes through the texts and the possible interpretative space they contain one can only wonder the expansive nature of Maya as a framework for doing and experiencing science. Maya is feminine and is at once both the interface and the co-creator of reality as we perceive it. Then she allows us to understand the reality between the apparent binaries. While maya has often been portrayed as a kind of illusion and even an obstruction to realising the reality, Adi Sankara clearly points to her being essential for the ultimate realisation. He speaks of Maya thus: > She is the undefined (Avyaktanaamnee) and the power of the Paramesa (Paramesa Sakthi); She is without beginning and is Avidya. She is the inner soul of three Gunas (Trigunaatmika). She is the highest inner Principle (Para); She can be inferred through the effects and can be done so only by those clear reasoning; Such is She, the Maya through whom emerges the entire existence.¹² Of primary importance is the use of the term 'Avyakta'. In the Vivekachudamani (crest-jewel of discrimination: verse 108) Saptabhangi or Syadvada of the Jains, 'Avyakta' becomes an important component. Of the seven states, four have Avyakta in them. Sri Lalita Sahasranama makes each of the defining names given by Adi Sankara to Maya, the name of the goddess Herself. Thus, she is Avyakta; she is Trigunaatmika; she is para; she is Avidya. In the sequence of names, while Avyakta is a separate name for the goddess, its opposite state, "Vyakta" is not so. Instead, it is 'Vyakta-Avyakta' - there is no manifest system that does not have undefinedness or Avyakta in it. What kind of visions can such a window help us see? In a 2018 article, neurobiologists Todd E Feinberg and Jon Mallatt outline a crucial problem in the study of consciousness – 'an epistemic barrier' called 'auto-irreducibility': > Auto-irreducibility means that we have no direct knowledge of what neural processes are causing our experiences. In other words, we have no direct access to our neurons, only to the experiences they create. This barrier was first pointed out by Gordon Globus who called this an aspect of the 'world knot', a term coined by Schopenhauer when trying to explain the enigmas that are confronted to describe the multiple enigmas that are confronted when trying to explain the relationship between the brain and consciousness.¹³ The authors have already seen this as an evolutionary development. According to them, subjectivity itself “evolved such that it can be objectively 'experienced'..."¹⁴ The quoted Prof. Gordon Globus, now a professor of psychiatry and philosophy, has pointed out, in his original paper, 'The nervous system has no sensory apparatus directed to its own structure'. On his 1973 paper he wrote: > The enigma of the relationship between mind and matter ... was termed by Schopenhauer the 'world knot' presumably because so many issues are tangled up in it. ... Mental events contain no information about any neural embodiments... Just as mental events contain no information about neural embodiments, the neural events per se contain no information that these events are neurally embedded. ¹⁵ He formulated two identities - one is the subjective (S) perspective of a mental event that he called psychoevent identity, and another, the perspective of observer (O) in which the "S's mental events are strictly identical with S's neural events (psychoneural identity)." These two perspectives should be treated using Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity to move forward, Gordon asserted: > Although equal in status, the perspectives cannot be applied concurrently and each provides different accounts of reality, just as light appears to be a wave or a particle depending on the method of observation, which methods cannot be applied simultaneously. Thus psychoevent and psychoneural identity are complementary in Bohr's sense... The relationship of the present application of Bohr's complementarity principle to the problem of mind and matter would seem to be deeper than a simple analogy to its application in quantum physics. Rather, both applications illustrate the use of a general philosophical principle. Indian physicist and educationist DS Kothari (1906-1993) too had pointed out in his last paper, how Bohr's complementarity principle is a larger darshana (big picture) that can be applied in many domains of science. He also pointed out how this resonates with traditional Vedantic and Jain approaches to seemingly opposite perspectives: > The core of the profound ethical and spiritual insights propounded in the Upanishads, Buddhism, and Jainism rests essentially on the complementarity approach to the problems of life and existence though the formulations may vary.¹⁶ Then, he quotes Sri Aurobindo's commentary on Isa Upanishad where the seer lists binary pairs starting from the conscious Purusha and phenomenal Prakriti and, among others, the one stable Brahman and the multiple Movement, being and becoming, the Active Lord, and the indifferent Akshara, Brahman, Vidya and Avyakta, etc. Particular emphasis of Kothari's paper is on Avyakta in the fourth predication of reality in Syadvada, which he applied to wave-particle duality. ## Conclusion Let us be cautious. This is not to say we had all the knowledge. Let us come back to the windows. It is not about Globus and approach to reality being right or wrong. More importantly it provides an instance of how the Indian Darshanas can provide impetus to do and experience science. One should remember here again that Niels Bohr's 'Copenhagen Interpretation' and David Bohm's ‘Pilot Wave Theory’ may be at odds with each other. But both Bohr and Bohm could use the framework provided by 'Eastern' traditions. Each Darshana and concept can thus become a window. We have a unique opportunity of a variety of windows, through which we can shape our personal lives, our intellectual quest, our explorations into nature, and our experience of the universe. Indian culture in its entirety is then the grand temple of ages, and what beautiful windows they have - ones worthy of being guarded by Gods themselves!