Sankara And Modern Physics
Sankara and Modern Physics
By N. Subramanian
CONTENTS
1. Foreword
2. Author's Preface
3. Nature of the Phenomenal World
4. Nature of Knowledge
5. Relationship between Subject and Object
6. Causality and Determinism
7. The Nature of the Absolute
8. Bibliography
Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam,
Sharada Peetam, Sringeri - 577 139 (KARNATAKA)
Shri N. Subramanian has submitted his work on "Sankara and
Modern Physics" for blessings. To go through such an original
study and comparative treatment of Advaita philosophy and
well-developed thesis of modem physics is in itself stimulating.
Shri Subramanian has done commendable hard work in endeavouring
to give a comparative valuation of Sankara Bhagawatpadal's
expositions and the assertion of modern physicists. The
extensive quotations that the author has made from
Bhagawatpadal's writings and those of well-known modern
physicists reveal the wide and intensive and earnest study made
by the author. What Shri Subramanian has done in this work is
something original and His Holiness, Sri Sankaracharya
Dakshinamnaya Sri Sarada peetam, feels happy in giving His
blessings to this book and to Shri Subramanian and His Holiness
expresses the fervent hope that the book will have a large
circulation in all circles of philosophers and physicists in
this Country as well as many Countries abrond where such
comparative studies will attract keen attention. His Holiness is
further happy to note the generosity of Shri Subramanian in that
he has said the proceeds of this book will go to the Sankara
Hall and Sankara Institute of Philosophy and Culture, Calcutta,
a unit of Sri Sarada Peetam, Sringeri which is doing valuable
work from Calcutta for the propagation and understanding of
Sankara Bhagawatpadal's life and writings.
With Narayana Smaranams,
Giridhara Sastry
Private Secretary to His Holiness the Jagadguru
Sri Sankaracharya Dakshinamnaya
Sri Sarada Peetam
Sringeri
Camp: Puri
26-6-1977
FOREWORD
The book is a pioneering attempt at a scientific evaluation of
Sankara's philosophy. The tenets of Advaita philosophy are
subjected to the rigorous tests of the philosophy of science.
Without being unduly biased in favour of Eastern philosophy or
Western scientific culture, the author has attempted the
comparative study in the spirit of the ancient seekers of truth
and the modern research scientist. With copious citations from
Sankara's writings and the writings of modern physicists, the
author has attempted a comparative evaluation of the basic
points of agreement between the two schools of thought,
separated in space and time and has discovered a unity between
the two. It is a book which reveals the deep interest of the
author and his keen sense of the fundamental unity behind the
divisions of time, space and consciousness and his earnest
desire to understand the forces currently influencing the
people's life.
The author has analysed fundamental questions of philosophy,
ethics and higher understanding of basic concepts of life and
drawn out solutions that will impress enlightened minds.
In a short span of about 100 pages the author has discussed
problems of great significance. The arrangement of matter is
logical, starting from what we see going on to what we think we
see and what makes us see and finally to the identification of
the seer and the seen and the entire universe into one. The book
is in the best traditions of our culture and shows evidence of
the vitality and inquisitiveness which characterised our
thinking in the past and which show a way to developments in the
future. We commend the book to all students of science, to all
students and savants of philosophy and culture and to all those
who seek truth and understanding.
The intense effort put in by the author with commendable
devotion needs appreciation on all hands and we are happy that
we are able to bring out this publication of enduring value
under the auspices of Sankara Hall and Sankara Institute of
Philosophy and Culture. If, as the author has expressed in his
introduction, the book creates a desire in the mind of the
reader to make a deeper study of the subject, the author's hard
work and the publisher's objective in regard to the publication
will be more than amply rewarded.
We also gratefully acknowledge the author's gesture in donating
the sale proceeds of the book to Sankara Hall and Sankara
Institute of Philosophy and Culture.
P. Subrahmaniam
President
Committee of Management Sankara Hall and Sankara Institute of
Philosophy and Culture
Sringeri Sri Sarada Peetam Sankara Hall
93 Southern Avenue
Calcutta - 29
26th June, 1977
PREFACE
"When we view ourselves in space and time our consciousnesses
are obviously the separate individuals of a particle picture,
but when we pass beyond space and time they may perhaps form
ingredients of a single continuous stream of life. As it is with
light and electricity, so it may be with life. The phenomena may
be individuals carrying on separate existences in space and time
while in the deeper reality beyond space and time we may all be
members of one body". These sentences from the book "Physics and
Philosophy", by Sir James Jeans form the point source for this
book. In the same book Sir James Jeans raises the following
questions also. "Are we for instance automata or are we free
agents capable of influencing the course of events by our
volition? Is the world immaterial or material in its ultimate
nature, or is it both? If so, is matter or mind the more
fundamental? Is mind a creation of matter, or matter a creation
of mind? Is the world we perceive in space and time the world of
ultimate reality, or is it only a curtain veiling the deeper
reality beyond?
2. These questions have agitated the minds of the Indian
philosophers for the past several centuries. There have been
discussions and counter discussions on these questions. Thanks
to the acquaintance in early life with many learned pundits, I
have been myself asking these questions may be in different
form. Learned scholars have been discussing these questions and
giving answers or partial answers from the Hindu Scriptures and
Philosophical treatises. I have been fortunate to attend many of
these discourses, but these took place so long ago and too early
in my life when I could not pursue these questions for a more
detailed and concentrated study. But the background was there in
my mind which was occupied by these questions.
3. When later on in life I turned to the books on modern physics
and the philosophical implications of the developments, I could
recapture and recollect the points discussed in the Hindu
Philosophical treatises. There is a lot of similarity between,
the thoughts and declaration of idealist physicists like Sir
James Jeans, Arthur Eddington and the idealist philosophers of
the East like Sri Sankara, Vidyaranya and others. Some of these
sentences from the books of the idealist physicists almost
recall the identical sentences found in the Upanishads and the
Advaita treatises of Sri Sankara. For Eg., "all matters as
originally understood is an illusion, nothing exists in reality
except mind". Again the assertion, "that methods of physics
cannot reveal absolute truth or even fragments of absolute
truth, concedes the main point that knowledge obtained by them
is absolutely subjective". These two are essentially the tenets
of Sri Sankara's philosophy of the idealistic universe. "Again
the recognition that philosophical knowledge is structural
knowledge abolishes all dualism of consciousness and matter.
Dualism is based on the belief that we find in the external
world something of a nature incommensurable with what we find in
consciousness. But all that physical science reveals to us in
the external world is group structure and group structure is
also found in consciousness". This almost tallies with the view
of Sri Sankara that the essential nature of the world is the
same as appearing to consciousness both in dream and reality. It
is only the difference in the nature of consciousness that makes
the difference in the degree of reality.
4. "There is no reality different in kind from that we associate
with a mere mental concept. The mental concepts are the pure
thoughts of a thinker. We have reduced the whole of nature to a
mental concept". These sentences uphold the concept of Sri
Sankara that the phenomenal world is only an idea in the super
mind and is real only to that extent. In the sentence, "matter
as originally understood, the matter of solid objects and hard
particles, has no existence in reality and only appears to exist
through our observing non material things in a confused way
through the bias of our human spectacles" is an echo of the Maya
Vada of Sri Sankara.
5. The above will show that the idealists among the modem
physicists hold almost similar beliefs as the ancients held. In
fact the developments in modem times in modern physics and the
philosophical implications of the theories bear a close
resemblance to the speculations and declarations found in the
Upanishads. What the present day physicists have found by
observation, experimentation and inference, the ancients were
able to intuitively infer from mere thought processes. In fact
idealists have declared that all fundamental laws of physics
which operate in the world can be deduced from purely
epistemological considerations.
6. Though there are many fields of developments in modem
physics, the principles which have considerable philosophical
implications are in the field of micro physics and macro
physics. The classical laws of physics propounded by Newton,
Kelvin and Kepler, still continue to govern the ordinary levels
of day to day experience. The following principles of modem
physics among others have very deep philosophical implications:
1. Hiesenberg's uncertainity principle
This principle states that the position and
velocity of an electron cannot be observed simultaneously and
accurately at any particular point of time.
2. Pauli's exclusion principle:
This principle states that no two electrons
in the outer orbit of an atom can occupy the same level of
energy or the same orbit at any particular point of time.
3. Mach's universal principle:
This principle states that the position and
velocity of a particle in the universe is dependent on the
position and velocity of the other particles in the universe.
4. Bohr's principle of complementarity:
This principle states that a rigorous causal
sequence for individual processes cannot be realised
simultaneously, the one or the other must be sacrificed. In fact
later on Mr. Bohr extended this principle to other similar
concepts which are complementary in nature.
5. The principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light: This is one of the aspects of Einstein's
theory of relativity. It states that velocity of light is the
same to all observers in the universe irrespective of his
position or motion in the universe.
6. Planck's quantum theory itself, which
states that energy or action takes place or is transmitted in
small finite quantities and not by a continuous process.
7. There are other principles and concepts in the developments
in modem physics which have deep philosophical implications. But
making a list of these principles will serve no purpose. When
the fundamental questions are discussed, the relevant principles
or ideas in modem physics will be touched upon.
8. The structure of the atom has now been explored and the most
common and elementary view is that the atom consists of a hard
core with a positive charge of electricity with some loose
electrons orbiting it and carrying a negative charge of
electricity. There are two views about the status of these free
electrons. Observation and study have led to the inference that
the behaviour of this free electron is far too much complicated.
There is a 'spin about its own axis which cannot be accounted
for. The spectral effects of this electron cannot also be
accounted for. Sometimes the electron jumps from one orbit to
another without any apparent reason. The orbit of its revolution
around the nucleus cannot also be accurately traced. The
presence of the negative charge in the electron combined with
the positive charge residing in the nucleus, operates against
the stability of the atom. Therefore, many adjustments and
modifications have been made to the fundamentals of this theory
in attempts to account for the stability of the atom. In some
such attempts, particles of antimatter have been advocated. The
last word has not yet been said on the structure of the atom.
Physicists themselves are divided into two groups according to
their view of the electron as a material particle and they
explain some of the phenomena on the basis that the electron is
a material particle. The other physicists like Schrödinger view
the electron as having a wave pattern and they explain some of
the other phenomena observed. Thus loosely it may be stated that
the electron behaves as a particle sometimes and as a packet of
waves at other times. In a way of saying, it is sometimes stated
that the electron is a particle on Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays. It is a group of waves on Tuesdays, Thursdays and
Saturdays. The electron is not known on Sundays because it is a
day when the Lord takes rest. These are some of the problems and
ideas found in the field of microphysics.
9. Similar questions in the area of macrophysics are the
concepts of expanding universe, the origins of creation and
other such topics. The theory of motion of galaxies, the speed
of recession of the stars and the theories of stability of the
universe raise many questions about creation, sustenance and
destruction of the phenomenal universe. The nature of the
concept of time and of biological processes such as ageing,
birth and death are also to be considered. In this context the
theories of Hoyle, Eddington are significant. The theory of
expanding universe, the steady state theory, the bang theory of
creation will all be considered in the relevant places in the
text.
10. These developments and ideas in physics have implications on
the following five questions of philosophy:
1. The nature of the world and the relation
of the phenomenal world to the observer.
2. The nature of knowledge and the source of
knowledge.
3. The role of causality and determinism in
the universe,
4. The relationship between the subject and
the object.
5. The nature of the absolute.
These will be discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book.
11. Though there is a lot of similarity between the views of our
ancient philosophers and the philosophical implications of the
principles mentioned above, it may be pointed out that it is the
Advaita philosophy expounded by Sri Sankara that comes close to
the recent, developments of physics. In modem physics the
principles can be stated in precise terms and more or less
understood by those who have had training in appreciating the
terms and concepts involved. But the principles of Sankara's
philosophy cannot be stated in such compact language. They have
to be gathered by a study of the large volume of his writings
and treatises. 1 must confess 1 have not made a detailed study
of all his writings. But I have tried to gather the relevant
portions from his writings which will serve our purpose of a
comparative study. This is done with the hope that before long
there will be reconciliation between the scientific philosophy
of the West and the speculative philosophy of the East.
12. Having outlined the scope of the latter chapters of this
book, I must now attempt to answer the question, why this book?
Some of the science scholars who have a good training in science
and who also have some acquaintance with philosophy have
frequently stated that both in science and philosophy there is a
concept that an iron law holds over the world. In the Eastern
philosophy it is known as the law of "karma", or in other words
the principle of Fate. In Western science it is known as the
principle of determinism. The first principle states that man is
a result of past actions. What he enjoys today is a result of
his past karma and what he does today is further performance of
karma which will lead to further action. In other words, what he
does now is a result of past action and will also determine his
future. Therefore, he is in a prison (whether of his own making
or of God's will, which, we do not know) and he has no means of
escape. If that is so, why philosophy and why science? Why
ethics and restraint? Why not freedom to act as the mind and
instincts tell you to do and either enjoy the consequences now
or in the future as and when they come. Correspondingly, the
scientific principle of determinism also states that all of
man's action is controlled by his environment or the operation
of forces beyond his control. He is at the mercy of either
internal or external forces. He has no choice in the matter of
actions. Everyone does according to his past upbringing or
background and will enjoy what his actions decide for him.
Freedom of action is a myth and therefore do as your instincts
tell you and take the consequences when they come.
13. This line of argument also serves as a defence to the
libertine and to the indolent. It supports the evil and the
sadist. It also robs life of all purpose and meaning. There is
no direction in life. There is no encouragement to the good, to
the gentle and to the pious. It sets at naught all the
exhortations of the Ten Commandments and the imperatives of the
Upanishads like Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara, Ahimsa Paramo Dharma
etc. This line of argument among the youth has given rise to
movements like escapism, rejection of social constraints and
others. There is no moral, social, or ethical basis for the
conventions of society. Each one as he pleases instead of as he
wills becomes the rule and the motivating force. Restraint and
control lose all meaning and thus humanity is slowly being led
to chaos.
14. The leading scientists both in the field of pure science and
applied science do not discuss these problems in their treatises
except for some of the idealist physicists whom I have mentioned
above. This is probably because they are not trained to discuss
these fundamental questions of life and find the answers for the
same. Perhaps they feel they are incompetent to discuss such
questions. They think that these questions do not belong to the
culture of science. The philosophers who can and do discuss
these questions do not command the same authority as the
scientists, because the philosophers are dismissed as armchair
speculators who are not actively involved in the world and whose
views cannot form a basis for day to day conduct in this strife
torn world. There are very few scientists who have studied
philosophy and there are fewer philosophers who have studied
science. There will be less who have studied modem physics and
Eastern philosophy. Though I cannot claim to have made any
detailed study of modem physics or of Eastern philosophy, I have
some acquaintance with both these subjects and have made as far
as practicable the study of these two streams of thought.
15. But the doctrine of free will and freedom of action does not
answer some other questions like the inequality in the status of
men and the squalor obtaining in real life. We also see
frequently that goodness and honesty, decency and morality are
not rewarded. We see only the dishonest and the impure thriving
in life. There is a fundamental dilemma. It is not easy to give
a solution or convincing argument in favour of either theory.
But the truly scientific spirit requires that we must understand
and appreciate the evidence available in favour of either
theory. It is not proper to expect a ready and acceptable
solution. The limitations of science and philosophy should be
understood.
16. Though these ideas have been in mind for some years, they
could not find expression until recently when there was a talk
under the auspices of the C. P. Ramaswamy lyer Foundation in
January, 1974. Some of the persons who attended the talk made a
request that the ideas may be expanded and may be published in
the form of a book. This gives the background and the genesis
for this endeavour.
17. If the thoughts expressed and discussed here lead to a
further attempt at a deeper study of the points raised, both by
the scientists of the West and the philosophers of the East, I
would consider my efforts amply rewarded. It is in this spirit
of service to the aspirants and earnestness of the student of
philosophy, that I place this book at the hands of the readers.
NATURE OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD
According to Sri Sankara the phenomenal universe has no
substance. The impression of the universe which we get is
through the five senses of perception and it is recognised by
consciousness with the help of the mind. He says that the
subjective impressions which we get are the only realities.
Objects in themselves are not known to us and cannot be
comprehended by the human being. This version of Sri Sankara's
explanation of the phenomenal universe is sometimes
misinterpreted. It is stated that according to Sri Sankara the
whole world is an illusion and a myth. Since this clashed with
our day today experience, it is stated, that Sri Sankara is too
obtuse, and his theory is not based on reality or on experience.
This interpretation of Sri Sankara's Mayavada is based on a
misconception of his philosophy. Perhaps, the professional
interpreters of Sri Sankara's philosophy have erred in stressing
on this aspect of the phenomenal universe.
When we compare Sri Sankara's views about the unreality of the
objective universe with the advanced theories of modern physics,
we find striking resemblances. The comparison may therefore
start with the nature of the phenomenal universe according to
Sri Sankara and according to the latest developments in modem
physics.
According to Sri Sankara the true nature of things is to be
known personally through the eye of clear illumination and not
through a sage. What the moon exactly is, is to be known with
one's own eyes, can others make him know it? (V.C. 54).
The universe does not exist apart from the sense perception and
the perception of its separateness is false like the quality of
blueness in the sky. Has a superimposed attribute any meaning
apart from its substratum? It is the substratum which appears
like that through delusion. (V.C. 235).
What Sri Sankara says here is that the sky which is perceived as
blue is not really blue in its nature. The blueness of the sky
appears to the observer. He, therefore, argues that the blueness
of the sky has no meaning or existence apart from the substratum
viz. the atmosphere.
Another favourite analogy of Sri Sankara is that of clay or of
ether. All modifications of clay such as a jar, which are always
accepted by the mind as real are nothing but clay.
Akasha divested of the hundreds of limited adjuncts such as a
jar, a pitcher, a receptacle for grains, or a needle is one and
not diverse (V.C. 251 and 385).
None of the objects that are made of clay such as pots, and jugs
is eternal, for they perish and cease to be. But the clay
remains at all times. (S.V.S. I7)
Perceptions arise as a result of consciousness only. But there
being different kinds of perceptions (like sound, colour etc.)
these must have some external existence apart from
consciousness. Since these changes themselves are felt by
consciousness it, itself, must be changeable. Since
consciousness itself perceives and recognises the differences it
must be changeless: otherwise, the differences themselves will
not be be cognised by a changing entity. Just as a rope snake,
the water in a mirage and such other things are found to be non
existent except only as the knowledge by which they are known,
so the duality experienced during the waking and dream has
reasonably no existence except as the knowledge by which it is
known.
Here Sri Sankara means to convey that according to some of the
observers, phenomena have no real existence but as long as
phenomena are observed as appearing to be real we apply all the
tests of reality. He applies this principle to everyday
experience also. Thus, Sri Sankara propounds his doctrine of
superimposition. There is a basic substance which constitutes
phenomenal universe. But on this basic substance, which is
common and which is universal each percipient puts on a gloss
and imagines the Mea of the phenomenal universe. But a thing in
itself can be known to the mind only through the doors of
perception. The theories as to the understanding of the universe
also vary. The perception of the individual also varies from
time to time and varies with the different levels of
consciousness, perceptions and appreciation. Basically, the
nature of these perceptions is the same. There is no reason to
attribute different degrees of realities to the different levels
of observations and perceptions. The waking state is as good or
as realistic as dream state and the super conscious state.
Let us now examine the theories of cognisance or how things
manifest to the observer.
Here Sri Sankara says that observation or perception is itself a
Yagna or a sacrifice (V. C. 168). He says that the mental sheath
is the sacrificial fire which fed with the fuel of numerous
desires by the five sense organs which serve as priests and set
ablaze by, sense objects, brings about this phenomenal universe.
It is the veiling power or the power of Tamas which makes things
appear other than what they are. But for delusion, there can be
no connection of the self which is unattached, beyond activity
and formless with the objective world.
As in the case of blueness etc. with reference to sky, it is the
mind that produces all the sense objects.
As the place, time, objects known etc. called up in dream are
all unreal so also the world experienced here in the waking
state, for it is all an effect of one's own ignorance.
What is erroneously supposed to exist in something is, when the
truth about it has been known, nothing but that substratum and
not at all different from it. The diversified dream universe
(appears and) passes away in the dream itself. Does it appear on
waking as something different from one's own self? On waking the
external and internal universes, are now perceived to vanish.
When the mind functions are merged in the absolute, none of
this, the phenomenal world is seen.
This apparent universe has its root in the mind and never
persists after the mind is annihilated.
That which is superimposed by the grossly ignorant can never
taint the substratum. The great rush of waters observed in a
mirage never wets the desert tracts.
Objects of knowledge exist in the intellect as long as it is
there but they do not exist in the opposite case. The knower is
always the knower. Duality therefore has no existence. Rest and
motion are in the intellect.
Difference is caused by adjuncts is posited by false knowledge
and is not absolutely real.
As dream and illusions are observed to be unreal, even so all
this universe of duality in its entirety is seen to be unreal.
Sri Sankara then discusses the three levels of consciousness
viz. Dream state, Waking state and super conscious state.
According to him, perceptions in these three states are
basically same. Only the level of consciousness and level of
appreciation varies.
The dream state is a state distinct from the waking state where
it shines by itself. In dreams Buddhi by itself takes on the
role of the agent and the like, owing to various latent
impressions of the waking state.
In dreams when there is no actual contact with the external
world, the mind alone creates the whole universe. Similarly in
the Waking state also all this phenomenal universe is the
projection of the mind.
Like Iron manifesting as sparks through contact with fire, the
Buddhi manifests itself as Knower and known through the
inherence of Brahman. As these two (knower and known) the
effects of the Buddhi are observed to be unreal in the case of
delusion, dream and fancy; similarly the modifications of the
different Prakrithi from egoism down to the body and sense
objects are unreal.
In the dream state one feels with body and experiences peculiar
pleasures and pains. But none of these can make the dream real.
In the same way, the delusion of time and space of the universe
and Ishwara which are the products of Maya should be deemed to
be unreal. In as much as waking and dreaming are correlative, if
one of them is unreal what is the guarantee that the other is
also not unreal. (S. 764).
Both waking and dreaming are subject to the illusion that
intellect imposes on us. In this respect, there is no difference
between them. In both these levels of consciousness, there is
the triple distinction among the knower, the known and the means
of knowledge. The waking moment is also as unreal as dream.
Both these levels of consciousness are the products of our
ignorance. In both these states of awareness, the triple
distinction among the seer, the seen and process of seeing
should be regarded as being unreal.
In deep sleep both the waking and dreaming cease to exist. Both
these levels of consciousness should be regarded as unreal.
Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived (in waking and dream) by
those only who are ignorant, the whole of this universe is an
outcome of ignorance and therefore is unreal.
Man's experience is distinguishable into three states. Waking
(Jagrat), dream (Swapna) and deep sleep (Sushupthi). In dream,
he creates an inner world of images and imagines that he is a
denizen thereof. In sleep, the sense of plurality is lost and
there is awareness without awareness of anything. Waking is only
a segment of experience. As dream and illusions are observed to
be unreal even so all this universe of duality in its entirety
is seen to be unreal.
Sri Sankara says that there is a basic reality and the
phenomenal world is an abstraction from this basic reality
according to each observer's predilections, make up and capacity
of abstraction. In V.C. 135, he says "The supreme self different
from the Prakrithi and its modifications, of the essence of pure
knowledge and Absolute directly manifests this entire gross and
subtle universe in the waking and other states as the substratum
of the persistent sense of egoism and manifests it as the
witness of Buddhi, the determinate faculty.
Upon the evidence of visual perception, people say 'This is a
jar'. But when we examine it, we find there is no jar. For all
that there is, is a form of clay.
Again and again Sri Sankara refers to this analogy of the basic
substance viz. clay taking its forms according to the capacity
of the maker and use to which the person wants to put it.
Owing to its connection, with the superimpositions, the supreme
self even though naturally perfect and eternally unchanging
assumes the qualities of the superimpositions and appears to act
just as they do like the changeless fire assuming the
modifications of the iron which it turns red hot.
Neither this gross, nor this subtle universe is the Atman. Being
imagined they are unreal like the snake seen in the rope and
like dreams. Perfectly eliminating the objective world in this
way by means of reasoning, one should next realise the oneness
that underlies Eswara and the Jiva.
The disc of the sun is caught between the forefinger and thumb.
But the dimensions of the sun are million times this. What is
perceived by the senses cannot be said to be final.
The universe undoubtedly exists in its own real nature. At no
time is it Sunya or the void. Just as a banyan tree is at first
a seed and then a sprout, so also this whole universe unfolds
itself as the effect of manifestation from that which was the
cause of it. In the stage of deep sleep, there are no objects of
knowledge and there is no mind to comprehend them.
If consciousness is changeless then why are there the states of
dream and waking? The mere fact that consciousness is able to
differentiate between the two states shows that the substratum
is unchangeable. The difference arises only at intervals and not
persistent. In deep sleep there is no consciousness of
knowledge. There is no argument, there are no objects of
knowledge but knowledge itself exists and does not cease to
exist.
Sri Sankara then examines the nature of substratum or the basic
matter of the phenomenal universe. All the sensual happiness is
in reality nothing more than the reflex happiness of the mind.
The insentient objects by themselves cannot confer happiness.
'Every attribute is of value in so far as it distinguishes any
one object from another. 'Whatever is an object of knowledge
whether it is conscience or the intellect or the gross world
around us, whether it is understood mediately or immediately has
its basis in ignorance and has no existence, apart from it. That
which is supremely real is non duality. Through Maya it appears
as diverse even as the plurality of moons on account of
defective eyesight or the rope appearing differently as snake,
water streak etc. In reality the self is partless. Duality which
is of the nature of difference is said to exist because it is
perceived and is practically useful. Therefore, perception,
practicability are not the criteria for the reality of duality.
In modem physics the consensus of opinion is that the
impressions of the phenomenal world which we get is through our
sense perceptions. Though we try to make measurements and codify
the working of nature, the laws of physics tell us only about
the relationship between the sense impressions which we get
about the outside world. Things in themselves are not available
to us for direct perception. We will now examine the views of
the leading modem physicists.
Sir James Jeans has made a special study of the philosophical
implications of the developments in modem physics. He says that
our impressions can never step out of the prison house to
investigate the real nature of things which inhabit this
mysterious world beyond our sense organs. We are acquainted with
such things only through messages we receive from them through
the windows of our senses and these tell us nothing as to the
essential nature of their origin. We can never understand the
true nature of reality. Speaking about the quantum mechanics, he
says that the quantum mechanics contains a statement of facts in
abstract mathematical form whereas the wave mechanics consists
of pictorial representation of these facts in which the
pictorial details may or may not correspond truly to the
realities of nature. In Heisenberg's model the electron dropped
altogether. It had to because it exists only as a matter of
inference and not of direct observation. For the same reason the
new theory contains no mention of atoms, nuclei or protons or of
electricity in any shape or form. The existences of these are
matters of inference. The p and q of the uncertainty relations
ceased to be mere quantities of any kind, each becoming a whole
group of quantities.
Radiation cannot be pictured as particles when it is travelling
through empty space. Similarly, electron cannot be pictured as,
waves when it is travelling through empty space. The electron
inside the atoms remains unobserved and unobservable and there
is no solid justification for supposing that it resembles the
electrons we see or so nearly see outside. The electron is a
moving particle. We see that no experiment can fix both its
speed of motion and its position in space with complete
certainty. High up in the vault of the head inside the brain,
the world comes to light. Sensations, perceptions, memories
weave their images. In that tiny tenement all experience comes
to focus. Is this moving picture a projection of a real world
existing outside or is the picture itself the whole stuff of the
world?
The new physics disenchants us as to the firmness and fixedness
of substance. The quantum mechanics does not deal with things
whose laws we seek to discover, instead from observations we
constitute things. Atomic physics deals with the nature and
structure not of atoms but of the events which we perceive when
observing the atom.
The particle picture is obviously more suitable when radiation
is falling on matter and the wave picture when it travels
through space. The wave picture and the particle picture do not
show two different things but two aspects of the same thing. The
space of protons is ordinary physical space while the space
traversed by the waves of the undulatory theory is a conceptual
space. Indeed it must be since the waves, as we have seen are
mere mental constructs and possess no physical existence. John
A. Young writes "In some sense we literally create the world we
speak about. Our physical science is not simply a set of reports
about the outside world. It is also a report about us and our
relations to that world whatever the latter may be like".
Physicists themselves have come to recognise this and have found
themselves forced to adopt principles as they say of relativity
and indeterminacy. The point to grasp is that we cannot speak
simply as if there is a world around us of which our senses give
information. In trying to speak about what the world is like, we
must remember all the time what we see and what we say depends
on what we have learnt, we ourselves come into the process. The
word 'atom' or 'electron' is not used as the name of a piece. It
is used as part of the description of the observation of
physicists. It has no meaning except as used by people who know
the experiments by which it is revealed.
Heisenberg in speaking about the philosophical problems in
nuclear physics says, that if the quantum theory is correct the
elemental particles are not real in the same sense as the things
in our daily life e.g. trees, stones, etc. They appear as
abstractions derived from observed materials which in a literal
sense are real. The modem physics in the final analysis has
already denied the concept of the truly real. The elementary
particles of modem physics are defined by the requirements of
mathematical symmetry. They are not eternal and unchanging and
they can hardly be therefore strictly termed real. And the
mathematical Pattern is in the final analysis an intellectual
concept.
D'ABRO, another writer who has codified the latest developments
in modern physics says that it is nonsense to accept the theory
of relativity on the one hand and to deny the fourth dimension
to the world continuum on the other. Only when we wish to
discuss the underlying reality which may manifest itself in one
way or other according to the conditions of observation must the
impersonal four dimensional conceptions be adopted. We may say
that the corpuscular aspect of the electron is brought into
existence by our observation of the electron's position. We must
suppose that the electron comes into existence as a corpuscle
only after an observation has been made. If notwithstanding this
fact we erroneously attempt to assign a position to the electron
before the observation, we shall be attempting to give meaning
to a meaningless concept. The particle aspect and the wave
aspect must be viewed as complementary and as exhibiting two
different aspects of the same underlying reality according to
Bohr.
The waves of Schrödinger’s theory are regarded as mere
mathematical symbols so that the wave picture cannot claim any
physical reality. Ultra violet radiations are in all truth
observable only indirectly by the effects they produce and in
order to connect the effects actually observed with the
invisible ultra violet radiation. The fact that the co-ordinates
of the potential energy etc. are now represented by Matrices
shows that these magnitudes have lost their original meaning and
that a tremendous step has been taken towards increasing
abstraction. Practically, all physical magnitudes lose their
familiar association, so that we seem to be penetrating into a
new world whose abstruseness baffles the imagination. The source
of our knowledge of the physical world resides in the sensations
of light, heat, sound, touch and the like which we experience
directly. In the new quantum theory the observed magnitudes are
connected by an elaborate mathematical superstructure of the
most abstract type. It can be visualised only when we represent
it in a space which has an infinite number of imaginary
dimensions.
In the theory of relativity, Einstein says" Geometry sets out
from certain conceptions such as 'plane', 'point, 'straight
line' with which we are able to associate definite ideas. The
concept 'true' does not tally with the assertions of pure
Geometry as it is not concerned with objects of experience. A
stone dropped from a moving train appears to fall in a straight
line to the passenger in the train. The path appears to be a
parabola to the stationary observer. Considered logically the
concepts of space, time and event are free creations of human
intelligence. The attempt to become conscious of the empirical
sources of these fundamental concepts should show to what extent
we are actually bound to the concepts. In this way, we become
aware of our freedom of which, in case of necessity it is always
a difficult matter to make sensible use. There is no such thing
as empty space i.e. space without a field. Space time does not
claim existence on its own but only as a structural quantity of
the field.
De-Broglie says "the wave aspect should also be exhibited by
matter. But these waves are not material waves which transfer
energy because their velocity is greater than that of light".
Continuity and discreteness seem to be the antithesis of each
other and appear incompatible. But De-Broglie, by interpreting
the discreet stable orbit of Bohr's theory by means of a
condition of stability imposed on continuous waves showed that
the two opposites could be reconciled. Why indeed should waves
of light be regarded as symbolic and photons as real? In any
case when we pass to the higher atoms with their several
electrons the introduction of the hyper space cannot be avoided.
Hyper space is obviously a mathematical fiction.
In Heisenberg’s theory the position, the orbit and the motion of
electrons in the atom are assumed to be unobservable and so no
use is made of such magnitudes in the theory. On the other hand
the frequencies, intensities and polarizations of the radiations
emitted by the atoms as also energy levels are claimed to be
observable.
Dirac’s theory of the electron is an abstract mathematical
theory which combines wave mechanics and the theory of
relativity. Dirac’s relativistic wave equations of an electron
in an electro magnetic field is compatible with two kinds of
solutions those in which the kinetic energy of electron is
positive and those in which the kinetic energy is negative.
Experiments demonstrated that the atom is stable and that it
consists of a nucleus and electrons and that it can emit rays if
its state of equilibrium is disturbed. These rays have strictly
definite wave length. Bohr's scheme gave no indication about
what happens to the electron during the jump or so to say in its
flight between the two stationary states. But at some instant it
struck him that the electron just never happens to be 'between'
stationary states, it simply does not possess such a property.
And what was there? There was something that he did not as yet
know how to call, but was sure that it should depend only on to
where and from where the electron jumps. The point is that we
cannot perceive an atomic object directly by means of our five
senses. Instead we employ accurate and complicated instruments
that have been invented.
The atom does not possess such separated properties. An atomic
object is some thing entirely different and not simply the sum
of the properties of waves and particles. This 'atomic'
something is imperceptible to our five senses but it is real
nevertheless. The electron has no definite position within the
atom. When we deal with a separate atom we can never be certain
where its electron is; where it will be in the next instant and
what will happen to the atom as a result. No single word of our
speech is capable of accommodating all the diversities and
complexities of this concept. We have constructed an image of
the atom for ourselves.
Relativity involves an analysis of how measurements depend upon
the observer as well as upon what is observed. From relativity
emerges a new mechanics in which there are intimate
relationships between space and time, mass and energy. Together
with special relativity, the wave particle duality is central to
an understanding of modem physics. The true nature of 'light' is
no longer something that can be visualised in terms of every day
experience.
The consequences of uncertainty principle are:
Electron cannot be present within the nucleus. The certainties
proclaimed by Newtonian mechanics are illusory. Instead of two
sets of physical principles, one for microscopic universe and
one for the macroscopic universe, there is only a single set and
quantum mechanics represents our best efforts in formulating it.
For the sake of convenience, the physicist speaks of just one
concept of current. Strictly speaking, Bridgeman believes we
should recognise different concepts, each defined by a different
operational procedure of measurement. If the customary procedure
among Physicists is followed the various concepts of current
will be replaced by one concept The concept "electron" is so far
removed from simple direct observations that it is best to keep
it theoretical, open to modifications by new observations.
SUMMARY:
According to Sankara, there is an objective universe outside of
ourselves. But we have no means of observing or of inferring
such an existence. We can accept it as a fact on the basis of
revelation or on the strength of Sruti or Smriti. The universe
which an embodied individual perceives or infers does not
represent the reality of the external universe. Our inference
and understanding are based on our state of knowledge, of
consciousness and of the capacity of perception and
understanding and finally on our sense of discrimination between
the vital and the insignificant.
In modem physics also the consensus is that the physical laws do
not give a description of the universe. Physical laws are
devised to explain our understanding of what we see as
phenomena. They have sense and meaning only to those who
understand the experiments that are to be done to appreciate the
concepts and the process involved. Physical laws do not govern
the events which we observe but are only our mental constructs
employed to explain and convey our understanding of the external
universe. Thus it follows that the state of our knowledge of the
external universe depends on our capacity to construct mentally
the concepts involved. Thus each one is free and at the same
time constrained to conform to his understanding of the external
universe and no one version can claim to be more real or more
objective than another.
NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
While discussing the nature of knowledge available to an
observer of the universe, we find striking resemblances between
the conclusions to be drawn from the latest developments in
physics and the original Advaita theory of the philosophy of
Sankara. In many places, Sri Sankara has described the nature of
knowledge available to a man and how futile his enquiry into the
source of knowledge which resides in the external universe. He
says that mere observations will not be enough without the
straight forward perceptions. Very often he asked the question
whether the knowledge obtained by an observer is within himself
or is external to him. While discussing this, we may consider
also the Gestalt theory of psychology. It is while discussing
the theory of knowledge that Sri Sankara propounded the theory
of super imposition. It is wrong to say that Sri Sankara denies
objects in themselves or the existence of an objective universe.
What he says in effect is that it is the sense of perception
that makes the difference between one observer and another. In
this context we may also refer to the theory of relativity which
also proclaims this difference according to the position in
space and time of different observers.
Sri Sankara's observations with reference to the real knowledge
and ignorance relate to the realisation of fundamental truth
which we may call Brahman. He says that knowledge of Brahman is
intuitive and based on instant perceptions.
In (V. 55). He says that who but one's own self can get rid of
the bondage caused by the fetters of ignorance desire, action
and like even in a 100 crores of cycles.
Neither by Yoga nor by Sankhya, nor by work, nor by learning but
by the realisation of one's own identity with Brahman is
liberation possible. (V. 56).
Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without
knowing the truth of self, how is one to achieve liberation by
the mere utterance of the word 'Brahman'. It would result merely
in an effort of speech. (V. 63).
Avidya or Maya called also the undifferentiated is the power of
the Lord. It is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only
from the effect that it produces. It is Maya or Avidya which
brings forth the whole universe. (V. 108)
Sri Sankara says that the objective knowledge which one
presumes, one gets, is the creation of one's own mind. It
therefore depends on the state of one's mind, the training which
one gets, one's level of perceptions attained by the mind and
the intellect.
One, is overpowered by ignorance mistaking a thing for what it
is not. It is the mistaking of transitory things as real that
constitutes bondage and imperfect knowledge (V. 138).
All the defects of knowledge is the evil of superimposition. (V.
179).
What is erroneously supposed to exist in something is, when the
truth about it has been known, nothing but the substratum and
not at all different from it. The diversified dream universe
(appears and) passes way in the dream itself. It does not appear
on waking as something different from one's own self (V. 253).
Sri Sankara also raises the question as to how one can deny the
existence of the universe of which we infer from our
perceptions. He raises the relevant question, "Is not sense
perception one of the valid means of the knowledge?" (SVS. 273).
He says that sense perceptions are really valid means of
knowledge. But one cannot rely only on the sense perceptions for
getting at the truth or the reality of substance of the
universe. He says that (SVS. 287) upon the evidence of visual
perception, people
Say 'this is a jar'. But when we examine it we find that there
is no jar, for all that there is is a form of clay. What he
means is that what is given generally by our senses are only the
realisation of the forms of things. It is only the world of Nama
and Rupa which is available to the senses but beyond this
universe of Nama and Rupa is fundamental reality which knowledge
cannot be obtained by sense perceptions. Such knowledge is
available only by constant training of the mind and by
developing the intuitive perceptive power.
Sri Sankara also develops the theory of different levels of
consciousness. The three levels of consciousness are the Dream,
or the illusory world, the waking world and the super conscious
world. While he places the first two at par, it is the third
level which gives the insight to the real nature of things. In
(SVS 766) he says that both the levels of consciousness are the
products of our ignorance. In both these states of awareness the
triple distinctions among the seer, the seen and the process of
seeing should be regarded as being unreal.
Neither by means of mind (SVS. 771) nor by words is the ultimate
known.
One should turn to Sruthi with the help of reason and ascertain
the truth of the Atman. (SVS. 816).
One should have all one's doubts cleared by means of continuous
thinking until one realises the nature of that which is to be
proved. The object is the gradual removal of this ignorance.
Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived (in waking and dream) by
those only who are ignorant, the whole of this objective
universe is the outcome of ignorance and therefore is unreal.
While discussing the observations made in Physics and the nature
of inference drawn from these observations we also come to the
conclusion that the inference which we draw are only attributes
of our minds and the training which the physicists receive. The
observations and laws of physics do not say anything about the
things in themselves. The laws of physics are only laws which
our thought processes employ to visualise and explain the
observations made by our senses. And this has been achieved by
the training given to and understanding between the physicists.
Sir James Jeans says that nothing but mechanical explanation can
be satisfying to our minds and such an explanation would be
valueless if we attained it. We see that we can never understand
the true nature of reality. Our studies can never put us into
contact with reality and its true meaning and nature must
forever be hidden from us. We find that there is something in
reality which does not permit of representation in space and
time. Space and time cannot contain the whole of reality but
only the messengers from reality to our senses. Questioning our
own mind is of no use. Just as questioning nature can tell us
truths about nature so also questioning our own minds will tell
us only the truths about our own minds. The tools of science are
observation and experiment; the tools of philosophy are
discussion and contemplation. The Philosopher tends to think in
terms of what the mathematician calls finite differences,
whereas the Scientists think in terms of infinitesimals. Past
and present no longer have any objective meanings since the four
dimensional continuum can no longer be sharply divided into
past, present and future. The world lines are merely constructs
we draw for ourselves. The space time frame work of the
classical mechanics is inadequate for the complete
representation of natural phenomena. The so called electric and
magnetic forces are not physical realities, they are not even
objective, but are subjective mental constructs which we have
made for ourselves in our efforts to interpret the waves of the
undulatory theory. Energy may be transferred from place to place
but the waves and electric and magnetic forces are not part of
the mechanism of transfer, they are part simply of our efforts
to understand this mechanism and picture it to ourselves. Before
man appeared on the scene there were neither waves nor electric
nor magnetic forces.
The medieval philosopher Hume writes. 'Our knowledge of the
outside world consists entirely of sensations.' We now
understand that there are in physics as in other spheres of
thought un-askable which is to say meaningless questions. e.g.
What is the location of electron when it jumps from one orbit to
another? Is the orbit of its destination already determined at
the instant of jump? What happens to the radiation if the
process is interrupted before the emission of one quantum is
completed? Many intuitively obvious notions have turned out to
be untenable such as that of a material corpuscle having an
individual identity. Nature is much queerer than we can suppose.
It does not mean however that nature is capricious or that
causality is dead. There can be no talk of a final verdict.
According to Galileo, in medieval system there was always an
un-surmountable boundary separating the two realms of truth.
There was an immanent and transcendent truth, a human and a
divine truth, a truth of reason and a truth of revelation. As
soon as we have reached the real truth according to Galileo, the
truth of mathematics this artificial fence breaks down.
Mathematics is indivisible. Galileo insists that if there is any
truth, this truth must be one and indivisible. Cassirier.
Another writer of modem physics John. J. Young, says that our
naive way of talking about a world distinct from man and
divisible into pieces of matter enduring in time is not
adequate. All that the uncertainty relations convey is that
direct measurements cannot furnish a simultaneous knowledge of
position and momentum. The wave picture merely symbolises the
scheme of probabilities which issues from our more or less vague
knowledge of actual conditions. In particular, our Hydrogen Atom
must be associated with a single De-Broglie wave in a
configuration space of six dimensions. This complication itself
proves the symbolic nature of the waves. The method for
obtaining the wave equation is extremely symbolic and appears to
have no physical interpretation. It is strange to find that the
abstract mathematical scheme founded on such slender clues
(Matrix Algebra) should be capable of giving definite answers to
physical problems. Here is an instance which shows that the
abstract mathematical concept can lead to interpretation of
observable phenomena. This mathematical concept can never be
attained by any untrained and unperceptive mind.
Owing to the uncertainty principle, the limit of accurate
knowledge has already been reached in the quantum theory. Beyond
lies a fog of uncertainty due to the peculiarities of nature
herself. All that we can know are probabilities. There was a
permanent wall in the way of total knowledge, a. wall built by
the inherent nature of the universe itself. Here again we find
striking echo of Sri Sankara's statement that by merely
intellectual argu-ments and reasoning we can never understand
the reality of the world or the nature of Brahman.
The existence of uncertainty need not be a source of humiliation
for science. To know the limits of the knowledge is itself an
item of knowledge of the first importance. Any truly profound
phenomenon of nature cannot be defined uniquely by means of the
words of our language and requires at least two mutually
exclusive or incompatible complementary concepts to define it.
This is the principle of complementary of Neils Bohr. The
quantum mechanics is a mathematical scheme which enables the
physically measurable characteristics of atomic phenomena to be
calculated. The power of science is in its capacity to discover,
understand and make use of the laws of nature and not in
violating them. Quantum mechanics is a system of formulas,
concepts and images that enable the observed properties of
atomic objects to be pictured, explained and predicted.
We must suppose that the electron comes into existence as a
corpuscle only after an observation has been made i.e.
observation is a creation. Each observer is a creator and is a
unique one at that. Again, the world is subjective. The world is
a reality only if we want it and mind wills it. The uncertainty
relations apply to waves as well as particles. The former is a
mental concept and the latter a physical concept. Both are
equally affected by the uncertainty relations. This shows that
the uncertainty relations are a constituent of knowledge itself
at the ordinarily level of experience. They affect only
knowledge which is subject to occur in pairs viz. position and
time, energy and time, action and time. This also shows that
only if we have two different concepts like the pairs mentioned
above, we come across the uncertainty relations. Once we get
over these pairs of opposites and go to the truth directly and
intuitively, there are no limits to our knowledge like these
uncertainty relations. This is the truth which has been
repeatedly emphasised by Sri Sankara and other philosophers, of
Advaita.
Speaking about the duality point of view, of Bohr, we may say
that every physical entity be it a light quantum, an electron or
any other atomic particle presents two sides of a medal. On one
side it can be treated as a particle on the other side as a
wave. The reality, he feels can be reached only when we talk
about pairs of opposites like pain and joy, hot and cold. As
soon as we go over to the symbols of physics, temperature and
the like, the reality thins out. This is Riezler's judgement of
the nature of the physical laws. The construction of a physical
theory is not limited by man's power to visualise, in fact modem
physicists had moved steadily away from what can be directly
observed and imagined. The total system of physics is no longer
required to be such that all parts of its structure can be
clearly visualised. If there is an electro magnetic oscillation
of a specified frequency, then there is a visible greenish blue
colour of certain hue. Here something observable is connected
with a non observable micro process. There is no answer to the
question "exactly what is radiation"? Does it reside in the
unobservable electro magnetic oscillation? Does it reside in the
visual perception of colour or does it reside in the brain of
the observer? There is no way a theoretical concept can be
defined in terms of observables.
From the above discussion, it appears that Sri Sankara's theory
of knowledge compares well with the theories of perception of
modem physics. Both the systems agree that all knowledge resides
in the observer. If there is no intellect or capacity to draw
inference from observations then pheno-mena have no meaning. It
is therefore correct to say that the reality of the external
universe has meaning only in the presence of Chitta or the
intellect. In the absence of Chitta the inanimate universe has
no meaning or existence. Events in the outside world have
meaning only when they are cognised by the faculties of man.
Then which description of the nature of knowledge is correct?
Does knowledge constitute mere perception and the mere recording
of what is there outside of us? Or does knowledge reside in the
combination of perception, conception and interpretation of
events. Oscillations of different wave lengths give rise to
different sense perceptions. The meaning and interpretation
which an individual cognising entity ascribes to external
phenomena vary according to the capacity, training and level of
attainment of the individual Chitta. Does this mean that
knowledge ultimately resides in ones own Chitta and not outside
of one? The representational theory of perception says that what
is given to an observer is only a cross section or carving out
of external phenomena. The Gestalt theory of perception says
that perception occurs when the mind comprehends as a whole what
is given to it in fragments. Whatever theory of perception
appeals to a person depends on the stage of his development and
there is no single theory of perception which is universally
applicable. The same holds good for theories of knowledge also.
It is in this sense that it is the observer who creates the
objects and that there is no difference between the subject and
object and process and cognition. This will be discussed in the
following chapter.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT & OBJECT
Sri Sankara was the first philosopher in the East as well as in
the West who denied the separate existence of subject and the
object. He was the first person who made the bold statement that
in the highest reaches of philosophy the distinction between the
subject and object is very thin. Very often he raised the
question whether the subject who sees and the object which is
seen has any inter relationship or are they completely
independent of each other. He also examined the question whether
the self can be an object of knowledge and if so, in that case,
what is it that the observer is and what is that that was
observed. Of course he extended this question of the
relationship between the subject and object to the ultimate
relationship between the individual self and the world at large.
In V. 183, He says that the mental sheath cannot be the supreme
self because it has a beginning and an end, is subject to
modification and is characterised by pain and suffering and is
an object whereas the subject can never be identified with the
objects of knowledge.
That which is perceived by something else has for its witness
the latter. When there is no agent to perceive a thing, we
cannot speak of it as having been perceived at all.
In V. 239, He says that the sages realise the supreme truth,
Brahman in which there is no, differentiation of knower,
knowledge and the known which is infinite, transcendent and the
essence of knowledge Absolute.
Perfect discrimination brought on by direct realisation
distinguishes the true nature of the subject from that of the
object and breaks the bond of delusion created by Maya.
Like iron manifesting as sparks through contact with fire, the
Buddhi manifests itself as knower and known through inherence of
Brahman. As these two (knower and the known) effects of Buddhi
are observed to me unreal in the case of delusion, dream and
fancy, similarly modifications of Prakriti from egoism down to
the body and all sense objects are unreal. In the state of deep
sleep there are no objects of knowledge and there is no mind to
comprehend them.
Both waking and the dreaming are subject to the illusion that
intellect imposes on us. In this respect there is no difference
between them. In both these levels of consciousness, there is
the triple distinction among the knower, the known and the means
of knowledge. The waking moment is also unreal as the dream.
Both these levels of consciousness are the products of our
ignorance.
In both these states of awareness the triple distinction among
the seer, seen and the process of seeing should be regarded as
being unreal. When ignorance is destroyed, knowledge destroys
the effects of ignorance.
Brahman is an object of knowledge when it is endowed with the
attributes of existence, knowledge and bliss. But reality is not
an object of knowledge and transcends knowledge.
The knower is external knowledge only. The knower and knowledge
are not different as they are in argumentative philosophy.
The objects of knowledge exist in the intellect as long as it is
there, but they do not exist in the opposite case. In BSB, He
says that there is no difference consisting of the object of
knowledge the knowing subject and the knowledge process which is
a projection of nescience.
Duality which is of the nature of difference is said to exist
because it is perceived and is practically useful. Therefore,
perception, practically are not the criteria for the reality of
duality.
It is amazing that the idealists among the physicists also
propound this view that the process of observation affects both
the observer and the observed.
Here is what Sir James Jeans writes :
“The complete objectivity can only be regained by treating
observer and the observed as parts of a single system. It now
appears that this does not consist of something we perceived but
of our perceptions. It is not the object of the subject object
relationship but the relationship itself”.
The waves of electron cannot have any material or real
existence, apart from us. They are not constituents of nature
but only of our efforts to understand nature. The waves of
undulatory theory of light and the waves of wave mechanics are
now seen to represent our knowledge about electrons. Both sets
of waves are mental constructs of our own; both are abrogated in
conceptual spaces.
If the waves of a free electron or photon represent human
knowledge, then what happens to the waves when there is no human
knowledge to represent? The simple but surprising answer would
seem to be that when there is no human knowledge there are no
waves. We may always remember that the waves are not a part of
nature but of our efforts to understand nature.
The complete closed world consists of three parts, substratum,
phenomenal world and the observer. By our experiments we draw up
activities from the substratum into the phenomenal world of
space and time. But there is no clear line of demarcation
between subject and object and by performing observations on the
world we alter it. Dirac in his theory introduces operators of
an abstract mathematical kind, to represent the effect of
dragging an activity up to the surface.
The world is given to me only once and not one existing and one
perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between
them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent
experience in the physical science, for this barrier does not
exist Furthermore, the theoretical possibility of the cognitive
act being realised must always be taken into consideration when
we wish to gauge the nature of the disturbance generated by a
measurement. It is the disturbance generated which is controlled
by the uncertainty relations of Heisenberg. The truly isolated
system is represented by the entire universe where the observer
and his measuring devices are contained within the system. Here
the distinction between subject and object becomes confused and
so observation is impossible.
Heisenberg in his lectures had also discussed this problem. "The
chain of cause and effect could be quantitatively verified only
if the whole universe was considered as a single system, but
then physics has vanished and only a mathematical scheme
remains. The partition of the world into observing and observed
systems prevents a smart formulation of the law of cause and
effect".
In the classical scheme clear cut separation between subject and
object was deemed to be justified. But in modem theory the
outside world is deeply affected by the actions of the observer.
A clear cut distinction between the knowing subject and the
passive object ceases to be possible. In Atomic physics the
phenomenon and its observations are inseparable from each other.
Essentially, an 'observation' is also a 'phenomenon' and far
from being one of the simplest. The concepts of 'phenomenon' and
its 'observation' exist independently only in our minds and even
then only with restricted accuracy. Observation destroys the
primary phenomenon.
In fact Heisenberg was bold enough to say that all statements in
physics are relative to the means of observations used. The
Science of quantum mechanics does not deal with things whose
laws we seek to discover and instead from observations we
constitute the things. Atomic physics deals with the nature and
structure not of atoms but of the events which we perceive when
observing the atom. Galileo, the medieval physicist insisted
that if there is any truth then this truth must be one and
indivisible.
John Young, another writer of modern physics thinks on the same
lines. He says "our naive way of talking about a world distinct
from man and divisible into pieces of matter enduring in time is
not adequate. In some sense we literally create the world we
speak about. Our physical science is not simply a set of reports
about an outside world. It is also a report about us and our
relationship to that world whatever the latter may be like.
Physicists themselves have come to recognise this and have found
themselves forced to adopt principles as they say of relativity
and indeterminacy. The point to grasp is that we cannot speak
simply as if there is a world around us of which our senses give
information. In trying, to speak about what the world is like,
we must remember all the time that what we see and what we say
depends upon what we have learnt, we ourselves come into the
process. The word "atom' or "electron" is not used as the name
of a piece; it is used as part of the description of the
observations of physicists.
Another writer viz. Harold Schilling says, "The world in which
natural science operates is that part of the world that science
community has carved out for this particular attention and study
that it has extracted or abstracted from the totality of reality
and existence and for the exploration of which it has developed
special techniques. This world has become far remote from the
public domain of everyday life from the world of experience and
thought of the common man. According to Prof. Williams, "All
knowledge without exception is derived from a critical
interpretation of what has come in human experience".
CAUSALITY AND DETERMINISM
The Central problem in philosophy both eastern and western is
the problem of causality and determinism. In the medieval ages
both eastern and western philosophy accepted the principle of
determinism. This principle also ruled the scientific world.
Those were the days of classical mechanics of Newton and it was
a period of discovery and inventions. Man found himself
limitless and he was flushed with discovering, the explanations
for all the workings of nature. Man thought that he had
discovered the principles underlying the phenomena of nature.
While that was the trend in western philosophy, and culture, in
the eastern philosophy also the principle of determinism held
sway until the advent of Sri Sankara in the 8th century. In
fact, the earlier scriptures were all in favour of determinism
though there were occasional dissents from this principle.
The question of causality and determinism is fundamental to
philosophy and ethics and in fact rules the conduct of man in
all spheres. The doctrines of Karma and transmigration of souls
also appeared to favour this principle. In fact, this principle
is the central philosophy of Gita. Modernists who have studied
Gita superficially raise these questions. Man is a creature of
nature. He is bound by his upbringing and the social set up in
which he finds himself. All his actions are predetermined
because he is merely an instrument to work out the commands of
Providence or God by whatever name one calls it. If a man does
good according to Providence or God, he also does evil according
to the same commands. Therefore, he has no responsibility.
Action is neutral towards the question of evil and good. In fact
if man is a mere instrument then evil is as much part of man as
the good. He cannot become responsible if he does evil action.
It is as much part of working out God's will as doing good. If
this is so, what is the role of ethics? Why should a man do good
actions? What happens to man if he does good or evil? What
determines what is the motivation to do a good or to choose
between good and evil? What is the role of retribution? These
are all the central questions of philosophy which have been
asked down the ages and even in the present day. Philosophy as
such has no answers, for such questions. Each one has to
discover the answers for these questions for himself. In any
case, the modem developments in physics have dealt the death
blow to the principle of scientific determinism. The strangle
hold of the law of determinism or the second law of Thermo
Dynamics which held sway two or three centuries ago has been
driven away from the scheme of physics. The new theory of
expanding universe or oscillating universe has also questioned
the principle underlying the theory of evolution, propounded by
Darwin. Modem physicists no longer believe in the iron law of
nature. Quantum mechanics has questioned the principle of
uniformity in natural phenomena.
Sri Sankara also examined the theory of creation, the principle
of causality and determinism. In his times, the principles of
Karma and transmigration of soul were so much accepted
principles of Hindu Religion and philosophy, that he could not
dare attack these principles. Therefore, his writings on these
questions are not extensive but here and there he has raised
these fundamental questions.
He says, "As you who are possessed of consciousness you exist
for yourself and are not made to act by any one else. For an
independent conscious being is not made to act by another as it
is not reasonable that one possessed of consciousness exists for
the sake of another possessing consciousness, both being of the
same nature like lights of two lamps.
There is no real causation; the world is but an illusory
appearance; even as the snake is in the rope". Sri Sankara
tackled the question of causality and determinism with his
theory of superimposition. According to him nature itself and
the observed phenomena are the projection of minds. Once this
principle is accepted the question of causality is meaningless.
In fact, he says, Vivartha Vada, the theory of phenomenal
appearance is against the Parinama Vada, the theory of
evolution. The experience of men is because of the conditioning
principle of Maya. Since Maya is indeterminable (Anirvachaniya)
the question of observation and inference of causality has no
meaning. In Mandukya Karika Bhasya he says, those who theorise
about creation think that creation is the expression of God.
Those who are intent on the supreme truth, however, do not
support the creation.
In another place, he says that the theory of creation is futile.
No world either evolving or dissolving exists. If this is so,
what about the portions of Vedas regarding the creation etc.
Sri Sankara says, "The creation texts are not true but only for
teaching the oneness of self, one and only source, identity of
all objects etc".
In another place, he raises the central problem of Ethics. He
refers to some people saying 'I cannot but make it, I am not
independent. I am made to act by someone else'.
In another place he says, "If it be so, why do the Srutis speak
of diverse ends to be obtained their means, and so forth, as
also the evolution and dissolution of the world".
Sri Sankara's answers to these questions are given in V. 47. He
says it is through ignorance that the one who is Supreme self
finds oneself in the bondage of non self. The fire of knowledge
bums the effects of ignorance.
In short, he says that these questions of creation, causality
and determinism, questions of ethics etc. are only for the lower
levels of advancement in theology. Once a person advances in
knowledge, all these questions lose importance, and are no
longer fundamental to the problems of philosophy. This is also
the finding of modern physics on this vexed question.
It is on discussing this question of causality and determinism
that all the writers of modem physics have spent lot of time and
thought. Idealist, physicists like James Jeans, Arthur Eddington
have tackled this question in their earlier writings. Heisenberg
and Schrödinger were asked these specific questions. Einstein
was also specifically asked these questions.
According to the law of Rutherford and Soddy atoms of radio
active substances broke up spontaneously and not because of any
particular conditions or special happenings. We find that the
atomicity of radiation destroys the principle of uniformity of
nature and the phenomena of nature are no longer governed by a
causal law or at least if they are governed the causes lie
beyond the series of phenomena as known to us. If we wish to
picture the happenings of nature as still governed by causal
laws, we must suppose that there is a substratum lying beyond
the phenomena and so also beyond our access, in which the
happenings in the phenomenal world are somehow determined. The
law of causality acquires a meaning for us only if we have
infinitesimals at our disposal with which to observe the system
without disturbing it. But this requirement goes against Mach's
universal principle. This principle states that the position and
velocity of any one particle in this universe, depends on the
position and velocity of all other particles in the universe.
Also at least one quantum of photon of light is immediately
necessary for observing the phenomena. If both these principles
are true then we cannot observe the position and velocity of an
isolated particle in this universe so that we can follow its
movements in space and in time, and so arrive at the causal
link. Since these two principles are fundamental to nature and
to limits of human observation, the law of causality has no
meaning and can neither be proved nor disproved by observation
or by laws of physics.
Another theory viz. "the half life period theory" of radio
active substances also makes it impossible to locate and
identify the particular atom to disintegrate and the mode of
disintegration. Einstein supposed that the standing house of
cards could not only be knocked down by the impact of radiation
but that they could sometimes collapse of themselves in the same
way and according to the same laws of atomic nuclei collapse in
the radio active disintegration, the rate of collapse being
entirely independent of environment and physical conditions.
Every atom in the universe is not only liable to spontaneous
collapse but also does collapse at frequent intervals. Thus the
abdication of determinism appears to be complete, not only from
the domain of radio activity but from the whole realm of
physics.
On the man-sized scale and indeed far below, nature is to all
appearances strictly deterministic. But in the realm of atomic
and sub atomic phenomena the principle of determinism
disappears.
Exhaustive studies by many investigators have shown that the
fundamental laws of nature do not control the phenomena
directly. The laws are our mental constructs said to explain and
understand the workings of nature. The substratum activities A,
B and C lead to corresponding phenomenal activities a, b, c and
also to composite activities AB, BC and AC and have no direct
counter parts in the phenomenal world. AB may give rise to a or
b but never to both, and there is a definite probability as to
whether a or b will appear. After elaborate mathematical
discussion Dirac reaches a formal theory of a very complex kind.
The matrix mechanics of Heisenberg and the wave mechanics of
De-Broglie and Schrödinger are then shown to be included in the
theory as special cases. It is an essential feature of Dirac's
theory that events in the phenomenal world are not uniquely
associated with events in the substratum. Thus uniformity of
nature is jettisoned and causality disappears from the world we
see. The mathematical equations of both forms of the new quantum
theory, the wave mechanics and the matrix mechanics are
completely deterministic in form. (This relates to our knowledge
of events but not of events themselves). Causality disappears
from the events themselves to reappear in our knowledge of
events. But since we can never pass behind our knowledge of
events to the events themselves, we can never know whether
causality governs the events or not. This is in striking accord
with the views of Sri Sankara. According to Sri Sankara also the
question of causality and determinism is a subject of
controversy only as long as our knowledge is limited. Once we
rise above these limitations of knowledge, the question loses
its importance.
The central controversy in modem physics is between the particle
picture and the wave picture. Both these pictures apply to the
electron and the process of radiation. For explaining some
phenomena the particle picture is used. For explaining some
other phenomena the wave picture is useful. This also explains
that the laws of physics are laws which apply to our mental
processes to understand and explain the laws of nature. Nature
itself is not governed by these laws. Particle picture is
indeterminate. The more trustworthy wave picture gives us
determinism. The wave picture does not show the future following
inexorably from the present but the imperfections of our future
knowledge inexorably from the imperfections of our present
knowledge.
According to Schrödinger, Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle
can be interpreted as a flat denial of causality in the atomic
domain. It does not merely state that the causal links at this
level are beyond man's power of detection, it clearly implies
that the links do not exist. The indeterminacy principle has
ostensibly ruled out precisely definable conceptual models. Bohr
proposed as a substitute the use of complementary pairs of
imprecisely defined concepts viz. position and momentum, wave
and particle and so on. Schrödinger raises these fundamental
questions. What is determinism and what is indeterminism? What
is the meaning of the word 'Cause'? Is it a hypothesis, a
principle or a law? Is it an indispensable crutch of thought? Or
is it a mere fashion of speaking? How is causality related to
determinism? His answer is "the causal idea emerges from the
fact that imagination and understanding cannot escape the
constraint of association and the force of habit. It is because
the formulas of Leibnitz and Laplace which made predictability
the criterion of causality that we still cling to this meaning
of causality. According to Max Planck, although predictability
is an infallible criterion for the presence of a causal nexus,
we must not infer that predictability is equivalent to
causality.
According to Cassirier, every genuine causal proposition, every
natural law contains not so much a prediction of future events
as a promise of future cognition. According to Planck, quantum
theory exploded the notion of continuity, it created a special
body of laws for small things inapplicable to large things; it
dethroned determinacy and made randomness king, it made
philosophers take to heir beds and physicists to flee to
insanity. Quantum mechanics is a statistical discipline. It
presents no exact description of an individual particle and
makes no exact prediction of its behaviour.
According to Heisenberg, what are the implications of the
uncertainty principles? Does it contain the denial of causality?
Heisenberg's specific answer was 'Yes'. As a matter of principle
we cannot come to know the present in all its determinative
factors. Many physicists share this opinion. We must not ask of
the notion of cause more than it can give and we must not
misapply it. Not only is a test of rigorous causality excluded
for practical reasons, but it is also seen to be impossible in
theory at least in this world of ours.
A rigorous space time description and a rigorous causal sequence
for individual processes cannot be realised simultaneously the
one or the other must be sacrificed. This, in essence is the
principle of complementarity of Bohr. This principle does not
require that in all cases strict causal connections for
individual process be impossible. The principle merely denies
the possibility of our picturing with accuracy a sequence of
causally related events in space time. A test of rigorous
causality is impossible in mechanics.
It appears that Einstein was much perturbed by the abolition of
the principle of determinism in modem day physics. He was not
satisfied that the affairs of the world should be carried on
with the principle of indeterminism. That this will lead to
chaos was his considered opinion. He thought that the abdication
of determinism in the affairs of the world is only a passing
phase. But those who have contributed most to the development of
new quantum mechanics resist Einstein's views and insist that
rigorous causality is a myth.
Bohr's principle of complementarity mentioned above is today
generally accepted by the leading quantum theorists. It is a
compromise between classical causality and indeterminism. The
uncertainty relations may be derived from phenomena involving an
individual process and so are not due to vagueness involved in a
statistical outlook. There is no causality in atomic physics.
Most physicists do not accept determinism in the strict sense in
which the term is used.
The question of causality and determinism has important
consequences in man's conduct and in the field of Ethics. Can a
man choose between different possible actions or is his feeling
that he has freedom of choice a delusion? Without causality in
the world there could be no point in educating people, in making
any sort of moral or political appeal.
These questions are not direct consequences of the uncertainty
principle. The uncertainty in quantum theory is so very much
smaller than the uncertainty in daily life arising from the
limitations of knowledge. Here is a man in a world as described
by classical physics. There is a man in a world as described by
modem physics. There is no difference in the two descriptions
that would have any significant effect on the question of free
choice and moral behaviour. In the macro world with which human
beings are concerned, the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics
plays no role. For this reason, it is a misconception to suppose
that indeterminacy on the subatomic level has any bearing
on the question of free decision. However, a number of
prominent scientists and philosophers of science think
otherwise.
It is wrong to suppose that the principle of indeterminacy
relates to the actual process of measurement. It is also
erroneous to think that with more refined instruments the
principle will vanish. The indeterminacy is inherent in the
nature of things and is the absolute limit to the knowledge that
can be obtained by a man by ordinary physical processes.
The spectral line emitted by the atom is because of the
disturbance in the path of free electrons. The spectral line or
radiation is observed by means of light or other form of energy.
Which is the source of observation of a spectral line, is it in
the electron? Or in the means of observation? or in a
combination of both? In other words, this means that either the
electron which emits the spectral line is observed directly or
the process of observation brings into the field of vision the
spectral line. The dimensions of electron is of the same order
as Planck’s constant or photon. This means that electron cannot
be observed or measured by an equi dimensional thing, viz.
light. This is because the unit of measurement must always be
smaller than the object to be measured.
It is pertinent to note here that the uncertainty relations
apply to waves as well as particles. It has been mentioned
earlier that the waves are mental concepts, whereas the particle
is a physical concept. It is seen that both are equally affected
by the uncertainty relations. This shows that the relations are
constituents of knowledge at the ordinary level of experience.
They affect only knowledge which is subject to occurrence in
pairs, viz. position and time, energy and time and action and
time. Once we get over these concepts which occur in pairs, the
uncertainty relations do not come into the picture. This is
exactly what Sri Sankara proposed in his Advaita theory, viz.
that when one transcends the idea of opposites or pairs then the
limitations of knowledge vanish. There is direct intuitive
perception.
There is another way of looking at the principle of causality.
The concept of cause and effect arises because of the passage of
time between two events. Naturally with the changes in the
concept of time, the concept of causality also will change. If
we are to apply different concepts of time, we arrive at
different theories of cosmology and theories of creation of the
world, stability of the universe and other related subjects.
This problem is related to the theories of steady state
universe, expanding universe and oscillating universe. These are
different theories prevalent in cosmology.
According to Shri Jagjit Singh,* if instead of kinematical time,
't' the observer adopted Milnes Dynamical time 'T', the time
recorded by say the rotating earth, we would find that the
universe is not expanding nor was it created at some finite
past. Time would appear to stretch backwards and forwards
forever in agreement with the common sense world view. But this
system of time reckoning forces a modification of our concept of
space which is no longer Euclidian but Hyperbolic.
The concept of time and flow of time is central to the theme of
causality and determinism. The concept of time, in its turn is
linked with the concept of light and its measurement. The
essence of Planck's theory is that energy x time is a constant.
The bang theory of creation of universe supposes that to start
with it was infinite energy. At that instant time was zero.
Therefore, the product viz. infinity and zero was the constant.
This same constant is being maintained by the decrease of energy
and with the passage of time. In other words, this supports the
steady state theory of universe which states that the universe
will continue for ever in the steady state. But then this is
inconsistent with the concept of passage of time. At this stage,
the law of Entropy comes into operation. This means that the
energy level of the universe will become zero and there will be
death of universe. This idea was prevalent in the early years of
this century. This prospect of the death of the universe was not
to the liking of many scientists. Therefore, a group of
scientists had advanced the theory of creation of extra matter
or stores of energy. There are difficulties in accepting this
theory also. If matter is to be created afresh then from what is
this matter created and what is the process of creation? It
therefore appears that the theory of expanding universe will not
suit the state of knowledge existing at present. There is
another difficulty with the theory of creation. If there is
creation there must be destruction also. This action leads to
the death of the universe. These conflicts arise because of the
fundamental assumption viz. Energy x Time is a constant. In an
attempt to get round the difficulties created by this concept, a
group of scientists led by Milne propounded a new theory of time
which will provide for variations and interpretations of these
fundamental conclusions. With the modified concept of time, the
concept of creation and the concept of destruction vanish. This
is also the theory of Sri Sankara who says that the theories of
creation and destruction are because of the limited concepts
available to our limited knowledge. Once we transcend this limit
of knowledge the concept of creation, existence and destruction
vanish.
The conclusions which one can draw from the above discussions
are that the principle of causality and determinism. the
principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg, the principles of
complementarity of Bohr are all applicable only to certain
spheres of knowledge available to man. Once we transcend these
limits these concepts will not come into operation and man will
be able to achieve the miracle. The miracle is what may be
termed as understanding of nature of the absolute or the nature
of ultimate principle which man can perceive but which he cannot
observe. This leads us to the next chapter where we will discuss
the nature of the absolute according to Sri Sankara and the
nature of the absolute according to the modem developments in
physics.
THE NATURE OF ABSOLUTE
The main question in Philosophy is about the nature of the
absolute. Is there any unifying principle underlying the
phenomena of nature? Is there any unity which binds the living
creatures with the objects found in nature? What is the nature
of the universe? Was the universe created; if so, is there any
end to the universe? These are questions which have attracted
the attention of philosophers in the West as well as in the
East. In fact, we may say it is the difference in the
interpretation of the relationship between man and God that
distinguishes one religion from another and one philosophy from
another. Therefore, no discussion of the philosophical problems
will be complete if we do not discuss the nature of the
absolute, or the fundamental principle operating in the
universe.
The theory of philosophy propounded by Sri Sankara is known as
Advaita theory. According to Him, there is no difference between
man and the external universe. Since he denies anything
external, to man, the other questions mentioned above do not
really call for a detailed discussion. According to him when man
reaches certain stages of evolution then all these questions
cease to agitate his mind and they lose their importance. At
that stage, he attains supreme bliss and there is perfect union.
In V. 125. He says. "There is some Absolute Entity, the eternal
substratum of the consciousness of egoism.
This Atman is a self cognised entity because It is cognised by
Itself. Hence the individual soul is itself and directly the
supreme Brahman and nothing else.
The Universe does not exist apart from the individual's soul and
the perception, of its separateness is false like, the qualities
of blueness in the sky. Has a superimposed attribute any meaning
apart from its substratum? It is the substratum which appears
like that through delusion.
That which is untouched by the six fold wave meditated upon by
the Yogis heart but not grasped by the sense, organs, which the
Buddhi cannot know.
In S. 761 He says, 'Inasmuch as Brahman is not an object of
thought, It is devoid of all attributes and transcends all
verbal definitions. Tranquil in itself, it is without beginning
or end. It is infinite in nature subject to no modifications
incomprehensible by means of reasoning transcending thought and
beyond the reach of knowledge.
It can be reached neither by means of mind nor by word.
Seer, seeing and the Seen is a false notion.
In essence, Sri Sankara says that the universe which the person
observes is only the universe which he thinks he sees. The
process can be compared to the observation of a snake in piece
of rope. When a person thinks that he sees a snake, does the
process of seeing consist in the object which is the piece of
rope or does it reside in the cognitive process of his mind? If
the question is to be decided by perception, then the person
does see the snake but the snake has no reality and never
existed. Once knowledge dawns on him, the idea of snake leaves
his mind. But the very idea of snake can occur only if there is
something there on which he superimposes an idea of snake. Does
this mean that there is objective existence which corresponds to
rope? According to Sri Sankara there is such an objective thing.
In other words, the universe has an objective existence apart
from the observer as long as the observer accepts the
difference. Real knowledge consists in getting rid of this
notion of the acceptance of a thing apart from one's self.
Earlier we have discussed this question and we have observed
that the process of seeing, seer and the seen have no
independent existence. If a person crosses the boundary of
sensual perceptions then the question of an objective thing
existing apart from the consciousness does not arise. This is
the fundamental truth which had been repeatedly stressed by Sri
Sankara. He also says that this realisation of truth can never
be achieved by observation or by reason or by intellect.
In S. 841, He says, 'I am not limited either by the body or the
sense organs, or the intellect'.
In S. 773 he says. 'Thou art not the physical body, nor the
vital forces nor the sense organs, nor mind, nor the intellect
nor the ego. Thou art not any of these either individually or
collectively. That Supreme witnessing consciousness Thou art
that'.
In Mandukya Karika Bhashya He says 'It is not as if the snake
that is assumed illusorily in the rope existed there in fact and
then was removed through discrimination. And non duality is the
supreme truth. No world either evolving or dissolving exists'.
Pure conscious self is self existent. No one can disprove its
independence of other things inasmuch as it never ceases to
exist.
Sri Sankara says that the consciousness is the only reality in
the universe. Consciousness exists always and every person is
aware of this consciousness. Therefore, there is no need to
prove the existence of consciousness. All other consequences
follow from the mere existence of consciousness.
Once consciousness is developed to a high level then the other
questions of less importance lose their significance and
consciousness rules without being disturbed by other limiting
conditions. This, according to Sri Sankara, is the highest goal
which the conscious human being should always try to reach.
Almost identical is the core of the implications of the latest
developments in modem physics. The principles which have deep
philosophical implications are (i) Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle (ii) Bohr's principle of comple-mentarity (iii) Mach's
universal principle iv) the theory of relativity of which the
main feature is the constancy of the velocity of light for all
observers in the universe (v) the principle that radiation is
transmitted in discreet quantities called quanta.
Heisenberg has himself interpreted his principle thus. The chain
of cause and effect can be quantitatively verified only if the
whole universe were considered as a single system but then
physics has vanished and only a mathematical scheme remains. The
partition of the world into observing and observed system
prevents a sharp formulation of a law of cause and effect.
Bohr also comes to the same conclusion that the ordinary level
of perceptions will not give us an insight into the truth of
nature. He says, 'indeed we find ourselves here on the very path
taken by Einstein of adapting our modes of perception borrowed
from the sensations to the gradually deepening knowledge of the
laws of Nature. The hindrances met with on this path originate
above all in the fact that, so to say, every word in our
language refers to our ordinary perception'. The truly isolated
system is represented by the entire universe where the observer
and his measuring devises are contained within the system. Here
the distinction between subject and object becomes confused and
so observation is impossible. Bohr has interpreted his principle
as implying that an exact localisation in space time on the one
hand and rigorous causal relations on the other illustrate two
different aspects of reality. Reality itself is not depicted
correctly by the one or the other of these two modes if
considered singly.
D' Abro another writer says, 'In the sub atomic world mechanical
representations and classical concepts are no longer of much
avail except as props to a bewildered imagination which is
unable to feel at ease in its new surroundings. Waves and
particles seem to dissolve one into the other as though they
were the same and yet not the same. The thing to remember is
that the uncertainty principles set limit to the accuracy of
knowledge. Beyond lies a fog of uncertainty due to the
peculiarities of nature herself. All that we can know are the
probabilities. It is unnecessary at this stage to venture an
opinion on the merits of the new quantum philosophy for in any
case our conclusion remains unchanged. Absolute truth is beyond
our reach. We cannot give expression in words to new concepts
that differ widely from those of the common place level. Only by
perseverance and prolonged meditation can an idea of what is
implied forces itself upon us.'
The essence of modem physics lies in the capacity to measure and
interpret the measurement. Pressing logically to the end, we
come to the conclusion that there is a limit to the process of
measurement beyond which we cannot proceed. The only way whereby
we can measure the length between the two adjacent points is by
means of light. But light itself has a definite wave length. If
the two points are at a distance which is less than the wave
length of light, then the two points are observed as coincident.
It. therefore, follows that the physical means of measurement
must naturally limit the precision of measurement. Whatever we
may do we cannot overcome this limit. This is a physical limit
to the knowledge process.
If we analyse this point further, we come to the conclusion that
the old abstractions (like the point) position and instantaneous
velocity) have to give way to new abstractions. Naturally such
abstractions cannot be cast in the image of anything that we can
intuitively derive from our everyday experience of the
macroscopic world. This sets a limit to intellectual knowledge
of process and perceptions. Combined with the physical limits
mentioned above, these intellectual limits also reiterate the
observation of Sri Sankara that knowledge as such both physical
and intellectual cannot understand and describe the fundamental
truth.
Einstein in his theory of relativity says 'considered logically
the concepts of space and time and event, are free creations of
the human intelligence. An attempt to become conscious of the
empirical source of these fundamental concepts would show to
what extent we are actually bound to these concepts. In this
way, we become aware of our freedom of which in case of
necessity it is always a difficult matter to make sensible use.
There is no such thing as empty space i.e. space without field.
Space time does not claim existence on its own but only as a
structural quality of the field'.
Isaac Asimov in his book "Understanding Physics", says "in
actual fact a complete analysis is impractical even by present
day techniques because of the sheer difficulty of the
mathematics involved. There was a permanent wall in the way of
total knowledge, a wall built by the inherent nature of the
universe itself. The existence of uncertainty need not be a
source of humiliation for science. To know the limits of
knowledge is itself an item of the first importance".
In his book, "The Rise of new Physics" D'Abro says, "the
invariant velocity of light which is the basis of Lorentz
transformation becomes inter woven, as it were, into the very
fabric of the world. Both the theory of relativity and quantum
theory displace our attention from the infinite (whether great
or small) to the finite (great or small). "Discussing the
implication of wave theory, he says when we pass to the higher
atoms with their several electrons; the introduction of hyper
space cannot be avoided. Hyperspace is obviously a mathematical
fiction.
The power of science is in its capacity to discover, understand
and make use of the laws of nature and not in violating them.
The point is that we cannot perceive an atomic object directly
by means of our five senses. An atomic object is not simply the
sum of the properties of waves and particles. This 'atomic'
something is imperceptible to our five senses but is real none
the less.
Bohr's principle of complementarity says that 'Any truly
profound phenomenon of nature cannot be defined uniquely by
means of the words of our language, and requires at least two
mutually exclusive or incompatible complementary concepts to
define it. "Such complementary pairs of concepts are, wave and
particle continuity and discreetness, causality and chance,
phenomenon and observation. This principle may be compared to
the concepts of duality which according to Sri Sankara is
necessary to describe the phenomena of the world in the ordinary
levels. The strength of philosophy lies in overcoming these dual
principles and intuitively observing the oneness behind these
apparently incompatible dualities.
Knowledge of quantum mechanics is a certain emotional process
that compels one to go through its whole history again. The
abstract knowledge once acquired, irreversibly influences the
whole subsequent life of a person. It influences his attitude
towards physics, towards other sciences and even his moral
criteria. One realises that the questions concerning the
completeness of physical knowledge and the essence of phenomena
are not within the scope of physics and cannot be answered by
physical means. A.N. Whitehead expresses the same sentiment when
he said, 'I am impressed by the inadequacy of our conscious
thoughts to express our sub conscious. Only at rare moments,
does that deeper and vaster world come through into conscious
thought or expression".
In his book 'Concepts of Modem Physics' Arthur Biesler writes,
"Relativity involves an analysis of how measurements depend upon
the observer as well as upon what is observed. From relativity
emerges a new mechanics in which there are intimate
relationships between space and time, mass and energy". Together
with special relativity, the wave particle duality is central to
an understanding of modem physics. The 'true nature of light is
no longer something that can be visualised in terms of every day
experience. Speaking about the consequences of uncertainty
principles, he says that electrons cannot be present within the
nucleus. The certainties proclaimed by Newtonian mechanics are
illusory.
A detailed investigation of the sources of our ideas has shown
that there is only one type of model or picture which can be
intelligible to our restricted minds viz. one in mechanical
terms. Yet a review of recent physics has shown that all
attempts at mechanical models or pictures have failed and must
fail. For a mechanical model or picture must represent things as
happening in space and time while it has recently become clear
that the ultimate processes of nature neither occurs nor admit
of representation in space and time. Thus an understanding of
the ultimate processes of nature is for ever beyond our reach.
The true object of scientific study can never be the realities
of nature but only of our own observations of nature.
The new physics places two partial pictures before us, one in
terms of particles and one in terms of waves. Neither of these
can tell the whole truth. The pictures we draw of nature show
limitations, these are the price we pay for limiting our
pictures of nature to the kinds that can be understood by our
minds. In transcending space and time, the new quantum mechanics
finds a new background which makes for far greater simplicity
and so probably comes nearer to ultimate truth. So long as we
are concerned only with our sensations, it is all the same
whether we regard the world as a Mental Construct or as having
an existence of its own, independent of mind. The doctrine of
materialism asserted that this space and time and material world
comprised the whole of reality. It interpreted thought as
mechanical motion in the brain and emotion as a mechanical
motion in the body. The new physics suggests that besides matter
and radiation which can be represented in ordinary space and
time there must be other ingredients which cannot be so
represented.
Many philosophers have regarded the world of appearance as a
kind of illusion, some sort of creation or selection of our
minds which had in some way less existence in its own right than
the underlying world of reality. Modern physics does not confirm
this view. The new quantum theory has shown that we must probe
the deeper substratum of reality before we come to understand
the world of appearance. In addition to the dualism of
appearance and reality many pictures of the world have exhibited
a second dualism that of mind and matter or of body and soul.
The physical theory of relativity has shown that the electric
and magnetic forces are not real at all, they are mere mental
constructs of our own. The relativity theory of gravitation
because of its close association with pure mathematics seems to
carry us yet further along the road from materialism to
mentalism and the same may be said of most of recent development
of physical science. The final picture consists wholly of waves
and its ingredients are whole mental constructs. And now that we
find that we can best understand the course of events in terms
of knowledge, there is a certain presumption that reality is
wholly mental.
Sri Sankara says that the importance of the questions of science
lies in the fact that it stresses the questions about the nature
and meaning of life. These questions cannot be answered by
science alone. The men who have sought to conceive the world as
a whole have failed in the opinion of both science and
mysticism.
Heisenberg, while discussing the philosophical problems in
Nuclear physics says, "Modern physics in the final analysis has
already discredited the concept of the truly real. Matter exists
because energy assumes the form of elemental particles. The
elemental particles of modem physics are defined by the
requirements of mathematical symmetry. They are not eternal and
unchanging and they can hardly, therefore, strictly be termed
real. And mathematical pattern in the final analysis is an
intellectual concept.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SANKARA'S PHILOSOPHY:
1. Viveka Chudamani by Swami Madhavananda - Published by Advaita
Ashrama, Calcutta.
2. The Quintessence of Vedanta - Published by Sri Ramakrishna
Advaita Ashrama, Kalady, Kerala.
3. Sankaracharya by T. M. P. Mahadevan - Published by National
Book Trust, New Delhi.
MODERN PHYSICS:
1. Physics & Philosophy - Sir James Jeans
2. The Mysterious Universe - Sir James Jeans
3. Nature of the Physical World - Sir Arthur Eddington
4. One, two, three infinity - George Gamow
5. Thirty years that shook the world
6. Mind & Matter - Schrodinger
7. Science & Religion - Harold Schilling
8. Philosophical Problems in Nuclear Physics - W. Heisenberg
9. Relativity - Einstein
10. The Rise of Modern Physics
Other books and authors I have not mentioned by name.
Thanks are due to:
The Printers who have done such a good job so willingly and
wholeheartedly.
The C. P. Ramaswamy lyer Foundation, Madras, who first gave me
an opportunity to deal with my thoughts on the subject.
The stenographer Krishnan who has been responsible for typing
the manuscript.
My profound respects and pranams to the Jagadguru His Holiness
Sri Sankaracharya of Sringeri for His blessings to my first
humble endeavour.
N. Subramanian M.A. LLB. LRS.
Calcutta
26.6.77