Hinduism and Modern Science

This is my tentative theory; I may be incorrect in the assessment.

Many times the lack of scientific progress in India is blamed on the cultural make up of Indians. The fatalistic indifference towards of misery and poverty is held as a proof of Hindu ethos which are stagnant.
This in my view is unfair assessment of India, it may sound as an apology, but the effect of colonial period is underestimated by us.The colonization is pernicious not only because of loot of material wealth, but because it establishes a class of elites, who think like the (former) masters, who are unable of original though and instead evaluate any idea with the instrument of the erstwhile rulers, emulating anything which is endorsed by the dominant clique regardless of it's merit.

However there is a valid point which is that Europeans were able to rule over other civilizations because of superiority of their science and technology over rest of the world. Africa or Asia there was no match for their scientific advances. And yet India and Europe were at same level of technology and science till late 13th century. If we were to go back further 200 years back then Europe was no match for India as far as science was concerned. So what can explain the reversal of fortunes?

There are two aspects of this, First Islamic conquest of India. Despite the attempt to whitewash that period of time by our secularist historians, the period was a setback to Indian learning. Great institutions like Takshila and Nalanda were destroyed; the intellectual class was ruthlessly wiped out. The second factor was renaissance. The Europe saw a turn around with the resurgence of ancient Greek culture, the evolution of the medieval Europe was so drastic that from a backwater civilization, it became the leader of the world, which it remains to this day (I am counting US as a European civilization of course).

But there is another point of view. Indian civilization was facing a crisis, and in the words of John F Kennedy crisis means danger as well as opportunity.This meeting with Islamic and later European civilizations could provide an opportunity for a Hindu renaissance. This is not just a conjecture Europe rediscovered its Greek roots only after crusades and its familiarity with Islamic empire, indeed it would not be exaggeration to assert that Europe owes its current status to that period of conflict. This did not happen with India.

One of the reasons was political disunity of India. And yet, I think there may be a deeper reason behind this of which the political disunity might have been a most visible factor. Since the ascendance of Buddhism (or may be even before that, I have read that Buddhism derived from earlier schools) the Indian philosophy took a turn away from temporal matter.

Indian thinkers placed less emphasis on the material progress than on spiritual progress. The concept of Maya meant that Indian school of thought shunned "this world" (by which I mean the world which is manifest, which can observed, and which can be deduced by observation).

Here I confess my understanding of Maya is hazy, but approximately Maya to me translates into a phenomenon which is not the absolute truth, any statement which, to be meaningful or consistent, is dependant on a higher level of abstraction, and lastly any account which is subjective. Now I think it is clear that temporal world is not a self contained phenomenon, hence it is Maya. I do not think that at philosophical level this posits a problem, however for scientific progress it is a recipe for disaster, the reason being science demands engagement with the real world, a world which can be observed, property which can be deduced and to analyze logic which may not absolute. Even language which is required for everyday transaction is not a perfect medium, its symbols approximation to various degrees. This means that a scientific mind must deal with a world which is imperfect.

But Maya came to be understood as untruth and unreal, whereas in my opinion its correct translation should be partial truth and incomplete reality . In other words Maya became Mithya, such interpretation meant that any engagement with facts of lower order (that related to human perception and which are manifest) became incompatible with Indian philosophy.

This meant that India could not go far on rationalism and did not progress on empirical science.
On the contrary Europe which was descendant of Greek philosophy, which accepted dualism that is validity of both mind and the matter, this meant that there was inherent compatibility with development of modern science.

Does this mean that Indian philosophy is inherently incompatible with modern science? I do not think so. Again going back to what is written in Gita and Vedanta, the instruction is for engagement with real world. In fact, the call to follow Dharma relates very much to this world. The way to acquire knowledge (Jnana) or devotion (bhakti) is routed through the manifest world.
This is why so much emphasis was placed on the Karma. This is also the reason Indian religion do not prohibit worship of symbols, as symbols provided the real world form to behold Brahman. This was also the reason for proscribing four stages of life. The Karma Yoga is possible only by pursuing the material world.
The path to true wisdom goes very much from the reality, however incomplete it is and this is what should be followed.

Hinduism evolved because it is very much connected to this world. It was accepted because it demonstrated relevance to material life. In order to resurge it has to shun obscurity. Our spirituality has to be harmonized by science if Hinduism has to have future relevance.

This is why I have in so many previous post insisted that Hindus need to develop a scientific outlook if Hinduism has to progress.

The model of Europe is erroneous because European religion is incompatible with European science, such civilization no matter now great its achievement remains in eternal dilemma.


Here I will stress

1) I am not an expert on Hinduism much less on subject of Maya and Vedanta, my post is more or less a result of imperfect knowledge and speculation.
2) In that same way I am not an expert on Greek culture and renaissance, again it is speculation.
3) Ancient India made many technological advances in medicine, astronomy, metallurgy and ship building.
4) Modern science requires institutions, for that Hinduism may have to come up with something Nalanda and Takshila again. It can be called Vedic Maha Vidyalaya
5) Modern science requires temperament, which will mean something other than present education system has to be formulated.
6) Progress means nay requires dissent, Hindus have to argumentative or else Hinduism will ossify.
7) I have used Hindus and Hinduism, but that doesn't mean that it is closed to other religions or philosophies.
8) I will quote this again for those who think that empirical science is sufficient.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

Categories : Religion , Hinduism , India , Science , Civilization , History , Culture