Filed under: Uncategorized
“Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this Divinity within by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, worship, psychic control, or philosophy - by one, by more, or all of these - and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, dogmas, rituals, books, temples, or forms are but secondary details.”
Swami Vivekananda, Raja Yoga
I begin, fittingly, with a quote from Swami Vivekananda, whose writings have inspired and shaped my thoughts on the basis of spirituality. His own thoughts were shaped by Sri Ramakrishna, within the larger framework of Hinduism. However, anything that is truly spiritual transcends the boundaries created by human belief, and thus can be generalized to all spiritual movements.
Ever since science has emerged as the dominant paradigm for interpreting the world, the cynics have been predicting the end of religion. Where religion has survived, it has been derided as “the opiate of the masses”, and where it has been studied it has been broken down into sociological and psychological mechanisms. Yet despite this, religion has been tremendously resilient, and as the age of science progresses onwards, we see more and more people reconciling their religious beliefs with the scientific paradigm. How are scientific ideas reconcilable with the religious? Religion, as it is taught around the world, is said to be based purely on faith and belief. How can a baseless faith withstand the onslaught of reason? There are many who sidestep this issue by simply claiming different spheres for religion and science. Yet this approach becomes increasingly invalid as science creeps towards the domain of religion in asking questions about the nature of life, reality, and consciousness. Already there have been clashes over the origin of our universe, with lines drawn along science and religion. Therefore if one wishes to reconcile science and religion, one must peer deeper, and look to the origin of both science and religion for the answer.
All scientific knowledge has experience as its basis. From this experience certain conclusions are drawn. By stating certain conclusions, the scientist does not ask for faith in his words, but is appealing to his experience. When this experience is replicable by others, it tends to become accepted in the scientific community. In the scientific paradigm all of knowledge must be borne out by experience. Religion often claims the opposite for itself, trusting in faith and belief, rather than attempting to appeal to some universal experience. This is why it is difficult for much of religion to face the challenge of reason. This is also why one often finds religions in conflict with each other. A basis of faith and belief allows for theories that are validated simply by their own assertions, and are thus often conflicting with each other. From this perspective, religion becomes impossible to justify. Yet the resiliency of religion to the challenges it faces from modern beliefs attests to a deeper, stronger foundation than simple faith and belief. Going back to the beginning of every religion, we find that their appeals to universal belief are originally based on appeals to universal experience, and therein lies the strength of religion.
In religions today, there exists a great deal of diversity of teaching. Yet in all of these religions there remains one constant, that the truths they teach are based on the experiences of particular people. Buddha experienced certain truths, he preached them to the world, and thus Buddhism was created. Similarly, the basis of Christianity is Christ, upon whose experience Christian teachings are based. In Hinduism also, all doctrines are based on the experiences of the Vedic Rishis and the various incarnations and gurus that came after them. However, most modern religions seem to have seized upon the peculiar claim that such experience is not repeatable at the present day. It is this claim which leads religion to be at odds with science, and it is this claim which requires a foundation of universal belief rather than experience. It is this claim in particular that one finds to be unreasonable. If religion and science are to concur, and if we are to find a reasonable basis for religion, then it is this assertion which must go. If, there is to be a basis for universal belief in religion and spirituality, it must follow that the spiritual experience should be repeatable by anyone, or there is no basis. Any religion that claims this basis of experience, yet does not admit its followers capable of such experience is nothing more than a baseless mass of assertions, and often does more ill than good.
One might ask, why is this claim about the repeatability of experience so important in reconciling science and religion? As I have stated earlier, the scientist, when stating his conclusions, appeals to a universal basis of experience. If a scientist conducts and experiment, and observes certain occurrences, but these occurrences are not found to be repeatable, then the experiment is determined to be faulty. However, the opposite is deemed to be true in religion. If a person has certain experiences, they are deemed to be true, precisely because others have not had such experiences. This is seen as proof of the person’s unique qualification as a spiritual leader.
For a moment, let us step back from the argument, and see what placing experience at the center of spirituality does for us. It is important, not only to establish whether or not it is the basis, but also what effect this has on religion as it is now established. What this abstract idea of experience means at the individual level. Simply put, this means that each and every religious seeker must go to the fountainhead of their religion, and learn, understand, and experience those truths themselves. It means that in spirituality, no one can be content to simply accept a formulaic doctrine. It means that no one can be spiritual by simply mentally assenting to beliefs concocted by others. If there is a God, then you and I must see him. If there is truth, then it must be seen. The truth must be something that we can eventually verify, not something that can never be proven one way or another. That is what it means to have an experiential basis.
However, currently religion is said to be based on faith. Despite its resiliency and long history, we often hear complaints about modern religion, from almost every quarter. A number of problems are spotlighted in such discussions, even when held entirely apart from the ongoing discourse between science and religion. One of the major concerns has to do with the alleged misuse of religion. All over the world, we see conflicts occurring, with religion often used as a justification for both sides. This concern highlights two separate, but interrelated, problems, that of determining authority within religion, and that of quarrels between religions. Other questions related to those of authority and interfaith relations are the questions of religious conversion and doctrinal uniformity. These are not the only questions that arise, but they serve as a sufficient basis for our discussion on the effects of promoting an experiential basis of religion.
In today’s world, the problem of religious extremism and fanaticism seems to be highlighted. What appears most problematic is not recent religious tension, conflict, and violence, but that this story is old news. Religious conflict has shaped much of history, and religion has been associated with horrible atrocities. Apologists claim that zealots seize upon ideas, without any consideration for the deeper principles, while the fanatics claim that they are in fact reviving the true meanings of their religion. Here we see the problems of authority at work. Who determines what is right and what is wrong? At its base, the question of fanaticism boils down to an argument about authority. So how do we determine who or what constitutes authority?
The question of authority has been addressed in various ways in the past. Authority has been a constant issue within religion, sometimes addressed to a greater, and sometimes to a lesser extent. Often, it has been claimed that ultimate authority rests in scripture, the written record of the experiences of the founders of the religion. This claim brings with it a distinctive set of difficulties. For one matter, there is a limitation to the written word. Without the actual author present, it becomes difficult to discern what the original intent was. Words can be twisted into interpretations far removed from the original meanings. A good example of this is the relationship of the judicial system and the Constitution in America. The judicial system, constantly seeks to interpret and apply the original intent of the framers of the Constitution to their decisions. Yet, despite having many resources to shed light on this original intent, and a history of previous decisions based on this intent, the court is still forced to operate with doubt about what the exact motives and ideas of the framers were. Legal documents were (at one point at least) intended to be clear and leave little of their meaning to doubt, yet we are still often unable to recognize their original intent. The meanings of religious scripture are often far more opaque. So the appeal to religious scripture often leaves the question of authority open, for who is to interpret said scripture?
The question of interpretation of scripture is often where the lines are drawn in the battle over religious authority. In many cases the question of authority is resolved by the creation of a religious hierarchy. The issue of religious hierarchy also has its own associated set of problems. Often it is religious hierarchy, rather than religious doctrine, that prompts conflicts over religion. The creation of a hierarchy also leads to questions dealing with the interests of the hierarchy. After all, such a hierarchy would wield a tremendous amount of power; it is only natural to question the purity of motive of such a powerful organization. The creation of such a hierarchy also requires the creation of mechanisms to ensure that the organization places the message of spirituality above its own existence. Otherwise there is the possibility of corruption and abuse of power. Traditionally religious hierarchies have attempted to keep their motives pure simply by selecting people who are committed and dedicated to the cause of spirituality. However, it is obvious that this approach has not always worked. We are all painfully aware of the abuses perpetrated by religious hierarchies and organizations. This is one of the reasons that such organizations are being attacked by modern thinkers. One of the chief objections is that, although the hierarchy was created to solve the problem of authority, from where does it derive its own authority? Here, once again we find an appeal to higher source, outside of the hierarchy itself, in order to validate the existence of a hierarchy. So once again the question of authority remains unanswered.
In an attempt to bring credence to their authority, often religious hierarchies and organizations attempt to bring about a doctrinal uniformity within their own religion. Here, once again we see a treatment of the symptoms, rather than the disease. Hierarchy that claims to derive its authority from scripture has a vested interest in keeping that scripture uniform, and its interpretation uniform. However there is a more seductive appeal to doctrinal uniformity, and this is where the question of absolute faith or belief comes in. If we place the authority of our religion in the texts or scriptures, the question of interpretation appears. However, if we enforce a specific interpretation of these texts, then the conflict becomes suppressed. However, the enforcement of a uniform doctrine ultimately rests only in faith. What argument does one pose to those who simply have no faith? Thus, the problem of authority, relative to those outside the faith, remains.
As we just illustrated, the question of authority is not just a problem within religions, but often defines conflicts without. Issues that arise between religions often beg the question of authority, but are shaped by it nonetheless. There is a great deal of diversity of teaching in religion today, and there is no generally accepted authority to resolve philosophical differences between the various traditions. On the one hand, there are claims that the attempts to convert people from one religion to another are, in essence, violence, and, as such, should be ended. On the other hand there is the argument that people should be free to choose the ‘correct’ religion. Conversion is near to the extreme end of interfaith conversations, but such questions arise even from more moderate dialogues. For example, let us take up the question of how to resolve basic differences in conduct. For a Hindu, the use of carved images in the form of various deities is a natural form of a religious expression. However, the same practice may be condemned by a Muslim or Christian. While the Christian or Muslim may claim that this practice is sinful, the Hindu does not feel compelled to accept the authority of their arguments. This is because the authority of their arguments is rooted in the attempts to determine authority within the religion. Whatever acceptance the authority of religious literature or hierarchy may find within a religion is not compelling to the follower of another religion. For this reason, in moderate interfaith discussions, rarely are questions of substance debated. More often they are presented, with no attempt to resolve differences. When there is an attempt to resolve differences, it is generally done in a one-sided, dogmatic sort of way. This, instead of resolving differences, serves to aggravate them in the minds of the audience. Despite this, the conversion argument, in asking someone to forsake one religion and join another, when it attempts to be logical, appeals to an authority beyond that of its own religion. Logical attempts to convert people from one religion to another do not appeal to the authority of the religion, but to the authority of human reason. Ironically, those who might defend the authority of scripture or hierarchy the most zealously, often appeal to a different sort of authority.
Thus, we see, within and without religion, the problem of authority arises everywhere, but no feature of religion can resolve it. The authority of scripture is rejected outside the religion, as is religious hierarchy. Even within a religion these two do not resolve anything. Some people learn to accept authority by acculturation or indoctrination, yet most follow some mix of their own intuition and the words of various people respected in society. (this may be priests, community leaders, etc.) Faith is a moot point for those who simply have none, and thus there seems to be no recourse to resolving the problem of religious authority.
As this question of authority seems to have no satisfactory resolution in the common attempts to resolve it, some people have concluded that there is indeed no satisfactory resolution. Some have come to a stance of relativism, believing that no idea can be said to be better than any other. Yet even the relativists have some standards of behavior, and some standard for their own decision making. This standard must derive from some idea that they feel is true. The question then is why they feel it is true. The idea that it is a purely personal decision is unacceptable, because as social beings, we are compelled to interact with each other. If our behavior should be based purely on personal choice, we may very well be unacceptable to others, who by their own personal choice may force us to stop. So there still must exist some arbitrating authority for conflicts between people, even for relativists. Socially we see this question resolved into various forms of government.
So, let us look again at religion as a science, and let us see what this does for resolving the question of authority. Science derives authority from experience and reasoning. A clear methodology of reasoning is presented to a student in the attempt to teach a subject. This reasoning is open to challenge. The challenge is that one may attempt to replicate the experiment, given the same initial conditions. If one does not find the experiment to be replicable, and it is no fault of experimental conditions, then one may discard the reasoning and posit one’s own reasoning. In the teaching of science, normally the student does not challenge everything, but experiences the truth of the teaching enough so that he has faith in it. Once again this faith is not the faith of religion, that one is expected to keep without possibility of verification. Every belief a scientist holds can eventually be proven right or wrong. If religion worked in such a way, then the problem of authority would no longer be a problem. Every teaching could be subjected to rigorous questioning, and testing. Every belief would simply be a judgment pending verification. No longer would conflict reign over scripture, hierarchy, and the beliefs of the people, because the authority would be a clear line of reasoning based on truth that could be experienced and verified by all. If one were to challenge an interpretation of scripture, the defender would have to appeal to an authority beyond the mute text, and justify himself in a realm acceptable to all. If a hierarchy attempted to propagate a certain teaching, it would be forced justify itself on a universal basis, rather than simply by its own existence. Certainly, this sort of transformation would ease tensions between the world’s religions. Conflicts, instead of leading nowhere, could lead to a greater mutual understanding, and an actual meaningful dialogue could take place.
Having a basis of experience simplifies questions of authority, because the experience itself becomes the authority. This is what provides the basis for scientific inquiry. This is the approach necessary for spiritual inquiry. When the question of scriptural interpretation comes up, it can be resolved by appealing to direct experimentation. For example, if two people are debating the consequences of a spiritual state, they can follow the process outlined, attain to the state, and see for themselves. No more need we blindly seek the truth. If we debate about the nature of God, we can follow the path, see God for ourselves, and understand where we were right and where we were wrong.
A basis of experience also addresses the question of doctrinal uniformity. In such an environment, some level of uniformity enforces itself. Just as in science, where hypotheses are accepted upon verification, and can only be challenged by evidence to the contrary, a similar spiritual body of knowledge can be developed. Here, however, we will not see absolute uniformity of expression, but a uniformity of theory behind the expression. Just as a scientist can express light as a particle or a wave, and realize both, so a spiritualist may express God in one form or many, and realize both. This approach solves the problem of interfaith dialogue and conflict resolution in the same way.
Another benefit of placing scientific inquiry at the center of religious thought is the greater relevance of religion to the individual. In traditional methods, a devotee of a particular religion is called upon to assent to certain beliefs, to follow certain rules, to live their life in a particular way. Here the choices are made externally, and the devotee is merely asked to carry them out. The problem of choice created by freedom is circumvented by bowing to an external authority. However if scientific inquiry is to prompt our religious experience, then onus of decisions regarding beliefs and ways of life lies with us. Each person must make it their goal to personally understand and express their religion. Others may provide us with their observations and teachings, but the final responsibility lies with us.
So far we have only seen what reconciling science and religion does for us. Such a thought exercise is of course irrelevant if one cannot place religion on the same basis as science. So it is an important question to ask if it is possible to scientifically and systematically explain religion.
Analyzing the possibility of a scientific explanation of religion is of course more difficult than simply challenging the problems of religion. Fittingly, the analysis of the possibility of a scientific explanation of religion may itself be formulated as an experiment. If a religious theory may be formulated that is consistent with reason and is verifiable in practice, then it may be taken as a scientific basis for religion. The development of such a theory is well beyond the scope or ambition of this essay. I will however, in brief, provide a short description of one such a theory, advaita vedänta.
Rather than providing my own synopsis, I will refer to one of advaita vedänta’s leading modern exponents, Swami Dayananda Saraswati:
The vision of advaita vedänta is an equation of the identity of the individual self (jéva) and the Lord (éçvara). This vision of oneness is not available for perception or inference. Nor is the oneness that is unfolded by vedänta contradicted by perception or inference. Therefore, oneness is purely in terms of understanding the equation. Vedänta does not promise salvation to the soul. In its vision, the soul is already free from any limitation. This freedom from limitation (mokña) is a fact and the release of the individual from his sense of limitation is the outcome of understanding the equation. Therefore, the entire vedänta can be expressed in one sentence, ‘That thou art’ (‘tat tvam asi’). All other sentences in the üpaniñads are only to prove this equation. The proof consists of a number of methods (prakriyäs) adopted by the üpaniñads and the teachers in the tradition to communicate the vision of this sentence that reveals the self.
This formulation is completely consistent with the requirements for a scientific basis for religion. A theory, along with certain proofs, is presented. All that is required is for us to test the theory by evaluating the proofs.
As stated earlier, the final burden of validation lies with the individual. Each individual must themselves assess the truth of various theories, and come to their own conclusions. It remains to be seen whether the conflict between faith and reason escalates, or is resolved. I remain hopeful that those of the faith will have faith enough to see their beliefs tested, and converted into knowledge. However, only time will tell.***
…We see that in the study of this …Yoga, no faith or belief is necessary. Believe nothing until you find it out for yourself; that is what teaches us. Truth requires no prop to make it stand.
- Swami Vivekananda
*** A note of caution is added with regards to experience and evaluating the validity of religious theory. I have, generally emphasized placing the experiential basis of science at the basis of religion. However this unqualified attempt would be, in my opinion, a grave mistake. In writing this essay, I have, perhaps, neglected the proper epistemological arguments necessary to talk about science and religion. Science is the study of ‘external’ objects, and as such is available for a certain range of independent means of knowledge. Direct perception and inference are the two key independent means of knowledge applied in science. Religion is perhaps not as well defined, as it often overlaps with science in explanation of external phenomena. However, religion is also concerned with subjects not available to the means of knowledge applied in science. For example, if instead of studying the object, we study the subject, ourselves, we are no longer able to apply these traditional scientific methods. An object is available for direct perception by an observer, however the observer could only be available to another observer, thus becoming an object again. Since an observer cannot observe itself, the subject is not itself available for direct perception. Inference presupposes some knowledge about the object of inference. Without any direct means of knowledge available for the subject, it is useless. Another popular subject for religion is the existence of God, a supreme being. In most religious contexts, God is by definition infinite and perfect, thus again not being available for objectification. If one objectifies God, then one is violating the very principle that one seeks to prove. However, if God is not defined in such a way, then in principle God is available as an object for traditional scientific inquiry. Overall, this leaves us with a quandary, because if even some of the subjects of religious thought are not available for scientific inquiry, then it would not be possible to place them on the same basis. Obviously this would negate the usefulness of my entire argument. However, in the case of vedäntic religious theory at least, my argument holds water due to the introduction of another independent means of knowledge, the scriptures. The acceptance of scripture as a means of knowledge may seem to contradict my earlier stance. However, here it must be emphasized that religious scriptures, through this theory, are seen as the means of knowledge, and not the knowledge themselves. Despite this, the problem of authority of interpretation still remains. It is here we may return to science. In science, direct perception is not taken to be knowledge, but a means to obtain knowledge. Before an observation becomes knowledge, it is tested by reason, according to the scientific method. Thus, it seems we would be best served to cite reason, not experience, as the arbitrating factor in both religion and science. Again, it seems we are treading a fine line here, because reason has been used and abused greatly in the arena of religion. However when we combine reason with the scientific method of inquiry and test, we are closer to the mark. In vedänta, the proof of the fundamental equation is arbitrated by reason (buddhi) and lack of conflict with the other independent means of knowledge.
I do not expect to fully resolve these problems here, merely to perhaps provoke some thought in others, and to organize my own thoughts on the matter. However, despite the flaws in my argument (and I’m sure others will find more), I feel that it is sufficient to challenge the shaky basis of blind faith that most religious seekers currently rely on. I also feel that a more scientific or ‘vedantic’ attitude would serve us all well in our spiritual journeys.
** Note: Some of the font embedding did not work, and thus the sanskrit words are not coming out right. I will endeavour to fix this.
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
[...] on the Basis of Spirituality Site Administration Login Essay Posted Thursday April 20th 2006, 4:24 pm Filed under: News, Vedanta,Reflections [...]
Pingback by swamidigital.com 04.20.06 @ 4:24 pm