Show me your vedic science

Forums Forums Philosophy of Science Show me your vedic science

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #14473
    Sunil Sharma

    Hi Ashish

    While debating with people who don’t agree to the incompleteness of modern science, I came across a person who straightaway said to me “Show me your vedic science”. How and what should we reply to such people?

    Ashish Dalela

    I will divide the answer into multiple stages, and hopefully, that will serve better.

    What is Vedic Science?

    Vedic science is a science that is based on qualities as opposed to modern science which is based on quantities. Quality science differs from quantity science in every conceivable aspect. Here I will try to list down some of these aspects.

    In quantity addition (A + B) + C = A + (B + C) but in quality addition it is not. The order is very important. For example, if you fry a potato and then boil it, the result would be different from boiling a potato and then frying it. The order in which we add spices while cooking is very important. If I give you good news before the bad news, the effect is different than bad news before the good news. Appreciation before criticism has a different effect than criticism before appreciation. There are hundreds of examples of quality combinations where the effect is order dependent.

    Then there are issues due to conceptual overlap. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 in quantity arithmetic. But if you already have an idea, and we give you the same idea again, you don’t gain anything. In such cases, C + C = C. This is why it is said that if you remove the complete from the complete, the balance is still complete. That is because the complete is an idea. You can add that complete idea to the complete idea, and the result with be exactly that complete idea, not “twice” that idea.

    Then there are issues of location. For example, you and I can have the same idea, so the idea is the same, however, it exists in two places. This is related to the quantum problem where one particle can be in two places simultaneously because it is just like an idea in two minds. Then, if I impart an idea to someone, I don’t become ignorant. Rather, the idea spreads from one mind to another. So, ideas are not moving like particles. They are spreading like waves. This is related to the quantum wave-particle duality; it is in one place like a particle and it spreads to other places like a wave. Once it has reached the other place, it is still in the original place.

    Then there are issues of mixing different ideas. For example, if you mix left-wing politics with right-wing politics, the result will be something between left- and right-wing politics. People sometimes call this “centrist politics”. In quantity addition, A + B = C, and C is never in between A and B. But if A and B are ideas, and we combine them, then the result is always something in between A and B.

    Due to this alternative property of quality addition, the quality space is closed and finite. You add two qualities, and the result is always in between them, never beyond them. In contrast, the quantity addition is infinite, hence, quantity space is infinite. Likewise, the quality time is cyclical and finite. You add two quality times, and the result is in the future, but also a repetition of the past. In contrast, the quantity time is infinite, because quantity addition is infinite. Hence quantity universe is infinite.

    Likewise, quality space is hierarchical, while quantity space is linear because qualities must be organized hierarchically in an inverted-tree structure. For example, color is quality and red is another quality. But color is logically prior to red, and red is derived from color. This hierarchy creates many peculiar properties in space such that the lower quality is both inside and outside the upper quality. For example, red is a color, but the color is not red. Since red is a color, therefore, red is inside color. But since color is not red, therefore, red is outside color. The same thing is inside and outside, due to two different but mutually compatible reasons.

    Since red can be subdivided into multiple shades, therefore, red is itself a space. And this space is inside a higher space, and outside that space. The hierarchical space construction achieves this, leading to new peculiar properties.

    The net result of hierarchy is that you can go “out of this space” but that is yet another space due to nesting of spaces. Since the superspace is outside the subspace, therefore, you cannot access the superspace from the subspace. However, because the subspace is inside the superspace, therefore, actions in the superspace can control the subspace’s reality. This is why things that occur in the subspace can never be traced to any cause in that subspace because the cause is in the superspace. If you try to explain the subspace events based on things in the subspace all the causal models will be incorrect. That is, they will seem to work sometimes, and then they fail at other times. You also cannot perceive the superspace from within the subspace, hence, empiricism collapses.

    Then, if there are two opposites X and not-X, they can coexist, but one will be dominant and the other subordinate. For example, there is some socialism within capitalism and some capitalism within socialism. What was inside comes outside after some time and swallows what was outside such that it goes inside. They go in and out of each other. We cannot explain this in quantity notions of space because the outside is bigger and it cannot fit inside the smaller. Likewise, X and not-X cannot co-exist in binary logic. Only one of them is true, and only one can exist.

    Then, there are consequences of quality combinations separate from their effects. The consequence is delayed, while the effect is immediate. The net result is that you cannot completely account for the observed events based on the immediate previous events. You can only explain it based on past events. In contrast, the sequence of quantities constructs a path that just depends on present events. Thereby, there are no consequences in quantity science but they exist in quality science. Karma depends on the past because it is a science of qualities.

    These qualities are like questions and answers (or problems and solutions). Some answers to a question will not work in some situations, although they would work in other situations. Context plays a huge role in deciding whether the answer is good or right. In one situation we have to do things in one order (e.g., give one answer to one question), and in another situation, we have to do them in another order (a different answer to the same question). The question and answer may not be right or wrong, good or bad, individually. But they are right and good or wrong and bad in a certain sequence. The sequencing gives rise to the judgments of right and good and then allows us to frame new kinds of laws that determine the consequences of these sequences. However, this also necessitates the use of complete sequences or the past/history to determine consequences. If we replace with quantities, then there are no consequences, and the past is totally irrelevant.

    The above are examples. Vedic science is hundreds of unique properties of quality combinations. In a simple sense, there is only one difference: quality vs. quantity. But in a more sophisticated sense, logic, arithmetic, space, time, causality, change, and laws are all different. All notions of inside and outside, bigger and smaller, before and after, are overturned in the process. Likewise, all the notions of non-contradiction, mutual exclusion, and identity used in binary logic are overturned.

    Understanding and Explaining Vedic Science

    Understanding Vedic science can be presently divided into four steps:

    First, we can explain the necessity of quality science based on the world around us. We can show that the world around us (especially as described through ordinary language) necessitates the use of non-binary logical quality combinations, along with alternative ideas of space, time, causality, and laws. If you are not trained in modern science, you can get by easily due to quality science, because everyone knows it. Modern scientific education destroys that innate understanding.

    Second, we can separately prove that quantity science is either incomplete or inconsistent. Incomplete means that its predictions are probabilistic and its explanations are indeterministic. Inconsistent means that if you try to fix these issues, you will get contradictions. Probabilities and indeterminism are permanent.

    Third, we can connect this incompleteness-inconsistency to the fact that nature is qualities: Quality science involves non-binary logic which seems like contradictions in binary logic, and if we try to solve the contradictions, then by removing the non-binary properties, then it becomes incomplete. Therefore, you have a problem, a solution, and a clear connection between the problem and the solution.

    Fourth, we can explain every Vedic idea that contradicts modern science in terms of a science of qualities. Thus, you get a common framework for both the material world and a transcendental world. You could call this science, or religion, or neither, or both. It is not modern science, and it is not a Western religion. And yet, it is rational and empirical, based on different rationality and experience.

    We can do all of these today, and I have done these things through my books, posts, answers, and videos. It is accessible to everyone if they spend the time.

    Creating a New System of Reasoning

    Modern society has become accustomed to thinking of reasoning as a set of rules. Binary logic has some rules, and so does arithmetic. You can apply any rule to any rule to produce novel conclusions. Modern society expects that we convert our way of thinking into a system of rules and logical derivations. When they say “show me your science” they mean showing them pages of logical symbolic proofs.

    This requires a non-binary logical system to do quality arithmetic. This is something we are not able to do right now because it requires some more time to develop. Such a system hasn’t existed in the past either because people used their minds to compute the answer, rather than computing it on paper. I have no doubt that this can, in principle, be done. But I’m not sure whether it should be done at all.

    I am also caught in the midst of so many things that I don’t know what to prioritize. Should I try to bring intelligent people to understand basic things? Should I focus on writing books to demonstrate its usefulness in more subjects? Or should I isolate myself to develop non-binary logic? I am not able to decide, and by going back and forth, the result is mixed and tentative outcomes. It contributes to the issue.

    I also wonder if a system of rules will make things better because people are struggling even with the simple ideas. Just because you can prove something doesn’t mean you understand what it means. Most people cannot think in terms of qualities and concepts. They always think in terms of objects. Object thinking uses binary logic and the addition of quantities. So if people are accustomed to thinking about objects, quantities, and binary logic, then they cannot understand qualities.

    But even if we develop a formal framework for non-binary logic and quality arithmetic, it will take decades before it is taught in schools and children grow up with new thinking and discard the present ideas. Alternately, people have to dedicate a lot of time to thinking in other ways, although they are not prepared to do so. They want everything to be understood in 15 minutes tops.

    So, even if we give them a formal reasoning system, what good is it going to do? They will still not read and understand anything, and they will not want to spend the effort to do so. On the other hand, those who can and will spend the time, may not need a formal reasoning system. So it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

    How Modern Science Operates

    Scientists in the West know that there is no truth in any of their scientific theories. They know that they cannot establish the reality of their so-called knowledge. They also know that there are hundreds of unsolved problems, to which they have no answer. They have tried, and all the attempts have failed. They don’t use words like truth and reality anymore. They only use words like models and evidence.

    But they will never accept that there is a problem. Why? Because science is an issue of cultural prestige for them. They invented it, they own it, and they will protect it. If you question it, you are attacking their prestige. They will fight for it till the end. So, it is not a rational discussion. It cannot be. We are not adding one more formula to their pantheon of formulas. We are saying that everything you are doing, and have done, is false. It is not going to go down well. It is not expected to.

    Science has replaced truth with popularity, which is the antithesis of what we consider the truth to be. What is truth? In science, that which is popular. They call it “consensus”. In most cases, it is “compliance” rather than “consensus”. Either you agree or you will be evicted. Compliance is created by a system of rewards and punishments. If you are rewarded for repeating what others have said before, and punished for disagreeing with them, then you will become compliant.

    Rewards generally come as a result of technological success. If you give people technologies, if you help them create new gadgets, which they can sell to other people for money, you will be rewarded. You will have money and power. And you can buy influence with that money and power. Then you can drown out the opposition by employing that influence. Thereby, academics becomes a structure of power, wealth, and influence, rather than a structure of truth and certainty.

    If you tell modern-day scientists about fundamental problems, and they will try to deflect the issue by talking about technological successes. If you point out other non-fundamental issues, they will drag you through the mud of paperwork. This technique is used by lawyers, by drowning their opponents in piles of paperwork to find a needle in a haystack. Even if you find the needle, they will say: Oh, it is a small issue, a needle in a haystack, and you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Challenging modern science on these terms requires the challenger to produce new technology. New miracles, gadgets, stunts. And then make it accessible to everyone to create popularity. That is contrary to our goals. We don’t give knowledge to everyone. We don’t consider popularity as the yardstick of truth. And we don’t consider gimmicks and tricks as a path to perfection. Thereby, modern science will remain popular as long as it keeps giving gadgets that people want, and people can afford it. Modern science will collapse when the cost of new gadgetry exceeds what people are prepared to pay for it. It may be because the value is not high enough. Or, it may be that that people cannot pay a high price for that gadgetry. When costs exceed the price at which you can sell something, then the system of costs and prices collapses. This is a system that is propped up by ever-increasing investments and ever-decreasing returns. It will take time, but it will collapse on itself.

    Western and Eastern Visions of Truth

    The Western vision of truth is that truth forces itself upon you. The Eastern vision of truth is that truth reveals itself to those who are desperately seeking it. If someone does not desperately seek the truth, then the truth is hidden from their vision. Without the truth, they remain confused. Due to that confusion, they commit incessant mistakes. Due to the mistakes, they suffer endlessly. When they suffer, they argue non-stop about how to overcome suffering, but they do not get any clarity. Ultimately they become hopeless and desolate. When one sees endless suffering and hopelessness, they seek the truth and it starts to reveal itself.

    Under the Western vision, technological dazzle must be pushed to convince people of science. However, because this technology is based on false theories, therefore, it can only give you probabilistic predictions and indeterministic explanations. Even though every single idea is false, you make it look like truth by giving probabilistic answers. With probability X, one thing will happen. With probability Y, another thing will happen. And you don’t have to explain what will happen when, to whom, why, or how. Thereby, we don’t know who should do what, when, where, how, and why.

    When we force quantity science, the world will be dominated by probabilities and statistics. You don’t get a precise answer to any question. And those probabilities change with time. So, people will start on one path thinking that the probability of flaws is low. But just as they go down a path, the probabilities change, and the probability of the flaw that was low becomes high. They will just say: We realize our mistake with the benefit of hindsight. We did not know that such things could happen when we started on this path. But it will happen over and over until they are totally exhausted by statistical and probabilistic answers and seek definite ones.

    Therefore, we don’t “show” the truth to anyone unless they “seek” it. This is due to a different vision of truth: It is not that which forces itself upon you, but that which reveals itself to you if you seek it. If you don’t seek it, it is hidden, and the result is confusion, mistakes, and suffering. Those who are asking us to “show” the truth, are conditioned by Western ideas of truth. Those are not our ideas of truth.

    Truth is never forced upon anyone. Rather, nature forces suffering if you don’t seek the truth. This is the alternative vision of truth. Under this vision of truth, we do our job of presenting the truth, to those who are sincerely seeking it. For those who don’t seek it, there is a perfect arrangement of misery. We just have to be careful to separate ourselves from their destiny. Then, we also try to present the truth as best as we can and wait patiently for when the truth will reveal itself. We are not going to force its appearance. We will wait for it to appear on its own when it wants to.

    The Vedic Vision of Truth

    The Vedic vision of truth is different from both Western and other Eastern visions. In the Vedic vision, truth is not a formula, a mathematical theory, a brainchild of our minds, like in the West. But unlike other Eastern versions of truth (in which truth is an idea that reveals itself to a seeker), truth is also not just an idea. There is an original idea called knowledge. But it is embodied as a person. We cannot separate knowledge from that person, and we cannot impersonalize knowledge.

    Wherever that person goes, as His effect, our minds are reorganized to think differently. He comes when He wants to. We can call Him, beseech, implore, entreat, and request His appearance. But we wait. If you try to force knowledge, you are entering the Western mindset of truth forcing itself upon you. If you try to get the truth as an idea, you are entering other Eastern mindsets of truth. Truth and religion become identical in the Vedic vision, because the complete truth is a person.

    Even Veda is an incarnation of God. This is why Veda is worshipped. We are not worshipping paper and ink. We are worshipping God because by its effect, our minds will be reorganized, and we will be able to see the complete personification of knowledge. If we are opposed to personalism, then truth will elude us, and the Veda will not be understood. Therefore, to bring that understanding of Veda, we have to bring God into people’s lives. Knowledge and Veda will go where God goes. That is because they have the same effect, and because God is the complete truth. Therefore, Veda appears again and again through devotees in whose minds God appears. Every materialist, voidist, or impersonalist is necessarily ignorant.

    So, we have to ourselves become devotees to get knowledge. And we have to make others devotees if we want them to understand. If they are not devotees, they cannot understand Veda. Again, we have to understand that knowledge is a person. It goes where it wishes to go. Like God, knowledge is shy. Like God doesn’t force Himself upon everyone, knowledge also doesn’t appear to everyone. Therefore, Sri Chaitanya describes knowledge as a vadhu, or a newly married bride.

    Serving Knowledge vs. Using Knowledge

    So, anyone who wants to challenge can keep at it. We don’t tell them anything. Nature has a perfect system of misery for them. We tell people who are seekers, not because we cannot argue with people, or our arguments are bad, or we don’t have arguments. But because we know that even if we argue, we can defeat their view but they will still not be able to understand our view. Our view can be understood if knowledge walks up to them because they are eager to serve it. We cannot own knowledge. You have to want to serve it before we even get a glimpse.

    Serving knowledge means advancing knowledge, without advancing ourselves. In the present society, every scientist is thinking about his citations, career, tenure, money, and awards while publishing a theory. Then, they think about technology, patents, and businesses developed from that theory. And if they get citations, career, tenure, money, awards, technology, patents, and businesses, then they don’t care about the truth. This is why publishing papers has become a business. It is not about the truth. It is about the advancement of careers. This is advancing yourself without advancing knowledge. We have to give up this attitude of advancing ourselves. Just advance knowledge, without trying to advance yourself.

    The Brahmanical culture was about leading a simple life and advancing knowledge. No citations, career, tenure, money, awards, patents, businesses, etc. Teach for free. And if someone gives something in charity accept it humbly. It is a total contrast to the Western idea of academics. Knowledge appears to Brahmanas because they want to serve knowledge rather than exploit or use it. They will sacrifice their personal and material well-being to spread the truth to those who are seeking it.

    Therefore, personalism is very important for knowledge. Don’t treat it like some idea in some book that you can grasp in your mind. Don’t treat it as a means to respect, money, power, technology, business, etc. If you cannot renounce these, then you will never get to the truth. If we want to use knowledge, then knowledge eludes us. If we think that we can grasp the truth by our minds, because the truth is an idea rather than a person, then it is the ultimate impersonal stupidity. Treat it like a person who will come to you only if He knows He will be served properly. This is why it is called descending knowledge, like an avatar of God where He descends to our level.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.