Is a symphonic fusion of science and spirituality possible?
By Roar Bjonnes

The relationship between science and religion in contemporary society has often been riddled with conflicts. While science hails itself as the great discoverer of truth, religion claims to be the grand generator of meaning. On the one hand, science criticizes religion for being steeped in the dark ages of myths and dogmas, while on the other, religious fundamentalists often flatly deny broadly accepted scientific truths.

The modern world’s incredible advances in science and technology have created a global network of industrial, economic, medical, scientific , and informational systems. Yet this brave new world is in itself devoid of meaning and deeper values. Science is a neutral tool, its proponents informs us. Modern science invents new gadgets, medicines, and food products at a breathtaking speed. Yet while these scientific changes often effect our lives dramatically, science maintains that all it can do is tell us what electrons, atoms, electricity, and digital data bits are, and how these resources can be used to create new things. Based on these “truths” science invents and exploits the world. But science is unable to tell us whether these inventions or exploitations are good or bad. For science, in the most basic sense, is neutral--science is valueless. It is a hollow, meaningless machinery. How the new things discovered and invented by science are utilized and consumed by society is determined by political, ethical, religious, and economic considerations and agendas.

Contrasted with the valueless world of atomic energy and digital data bits, religion still endures and give meaning to billions of people. Religion survives, even though many of its most important myths and dogmas have been declared false by the piercing rays of scientific truth. Indeed, religion survives--in its most fundamentalist forms--by flatly denying the significance or reality of many scientific facts. American creationists, for example, still literally believe the world was created in six days, and some religious zealots die needlessly because religious dogmas prevents them from seeking medical help.

Although there was a time when science and religion enjoyed a more harmonious relationship, with the advent of Western Enlightenment, this wondrous co-existence was dramatically halted and radically transformed. The scientific materialism in the seventeenth century declared religious or spiritual experiences to be either nonexistent or a product of fantasy and myth. This, as discussed earlier, was both the disastrous effect and greatness of modernity. While dispelling many superstitious myths, science also denied the deep spiritual insights professed by religion. The result was that science became an omnipresent force in society from which everything else was judged. Scientific materialism, which declared that only sensory perception was real, could therefore affirm that the Great Chain of Being--that is, that reality consists of a hierarchy of physical, mental and spiritual realms--no longer existed. Science--in the name of rationality and sense inference--rudely announced that the three realms of body, mind and spirit could be effectively reduced to one reality, namely that of the body (or matter). The universe, it had suddenly been “discovered,” was composed of nothing but material elements. As a result , the modern West was the first civilization to openly deny the importance of the religious, or spiritual realm altogether.

While the Enlightenment rightly denied any validity to the many religious myths, it also denied any validity to the essential truths of all religions. That is, science did not accept that there is any credible evidence that direct spiritual experiences are real. However, if we take a closer look at the spiritual claims of the perennial philosophies, we may discover that they are not only real, but that understanding them may hold the answers to a possible reconciliation between science and spirituality.

According to the spiritual outlook, as described in all the great wisdom traditions, there are three levels of existence: physical, mental, and spiritual. For scientific materialism, however, the spiritual reality does not exist. Although scientism accepted that there are mental processes, it argued that they are simply biochemical processes within the brain itself. Hence, the only mode of knowing the real, it was held, was by observing the objective, physical world through sensorimotor empiricism. Gradually, however, this extreme, one-dimensional view was declared a myth, a superstition, by both scientists and philosophers alike. Because, any scientist who uses mathematics knows that reality is not just sensory.

Mathematics, for example, which is purely an internal activity, is considered not only rational, but also quite scientific. The following editorial quote from an editorial in The Nation, written in 1929, illustrate the uniquely conceptual and interior realm of mathematical science: “[Einstein’s ideas] starts from a certain established formulae which have reference to the electromagnetic field and by a manipulation of these symbols, so ingenious that only four or five persons can understand them, [which] demonstrates that the original formulae are identical with others which refer to gravity; but never once does it emerge from abstraction...”
For science, there is thus both an objective (external, physical) and a subjective (internal, mental) reality. And today, some scientists have openly declared that the spiritual realm is a genuine aspect of that interior or subjective mind. But is it possible to understand these internal realms in a scientific, empirical way?

Expanding empiricism
The word “science” is borrowed from the Latin scientia, which comes from the word scire, meaning “to know” or “to discern.” The New Webster’s Dictionary definition of the word empiricism is “the belief that knowledge is derived from experiment or experience alone.” Scientific empiricism, then, basically means “to know or discern through experience.” A notion which scientific materialism has prided itself on being a staunch follower of. As we will see, there is nothing in this definition, in this demand for experiential experience, that is in fundamental conflict with perennial philosophy in general, nor the Tantric view in particular.

According to Tantra, knowledge within the three levels of reality--physical, mental and spiritual--can be acquired through empirical experience. Thus, when Indian sage P. R. Sarkar declares spirituality an intuitional science, he means that certain mental and spiritual experiences are achieved with the same rigor as a scientific experiment. Moreover, just like a authentic scientific experiment, spiritual experiences are also repeatable. Thus, the satori of a Zen Buddhist monk from Japan and the nirvikalpa samadhi of a Tantric yogi from India are spiritual realizations that have been recurring, over and over again, for the past several thousand years in the interior laboratories of followers of these particular paths. Such experiences have been documented in the respective tradition’s oral teachings, as well as in numerous written texts. Moreover, as Zen-Buddhist and Tantric history has confirmed, there are very specific, proven, and universally applicable exercises prescribed by master to disciple for achieving such experiences. Such achievements can be gained, it is said, by anybody with the perseverance to pursue them. In fact, the only requirements to attain these highest and most “real” of all human experiences, claims Sarkar, is to follow a genuine path and teacher, as well as have a firm desire for spiritual realization.

Scientific materialists have for long protested that it is impossible to prove the authenticity of such spiritual experiences. Yet, as the following “kitchen analogy” will show, spiritual and physical/sensory experiences have more in common than not: When making cherry pie, we follow a recipe. After all the ingredients have been selected and mixed in the right proportions, the pie is baked in the oven at the right temperature. Finally the pie is served and tasted. Although the pie basically looks and tastes the same to everybody eating it, it is impossible to explain to someone who has never eaten cherry pe sensory bliss by eating a delicious pie or taste the highest ecstasy of spirituality as the culmination of prolonged meditation, both encounters are empirical in the broadest sense of the term. So, just because it is impossible to test the subtle realms of spirituality through the use of crude sensory experiences, science has no justifiable reason to claim that spiritual experiences do not exist. That is, no more reason than a person, who has never tasted cherry pie, can justifiably deny the existence of this home-made delicacy.

Because of the rarity and subtlety of the most advanced spiritual experiences, both Buddhist and Hindu Tantra is teeming with examples of how masters have given their doubting disciples a taste of the ultimate truth. Vivekananda, the world famous disciple of the indian guru Ramakrishna, author and charismatic lecturer on the philosophy of Vedantic nondualism, told the following story. It took place at a time when he experienced intense doubt about Ramakrishna’s proclamation that “God is everywhere.” In the middle of a heated discussion Vivekananda had with a fellow disciple, Ramakrishna walked up to him, calmly held his hand and “transferred” his spiritual powers through it. In an instant, Vivekananda experienced samadhi (ultimate union with the Divine, with God). His mind, he said later, “underwent a complete revolution,” and he realized “that there was nothing whatever in the entire universe but God. I remained silent, wondering how long this state of mind would continue. It didn’t pass off all day. I got back home, and I felt just the same there; everything I saw was God. I sat down to eat, and I saw that everything--the plate, the food, my mother who was serving it and I myself--everything was God and nothing else but God.” (Ramakrishna and His Disciples, Christopher Isherwood, Simon and Schuster, 1965, p 206)

Naturally, a skeptical materialist will deny such experiences by saying that they cannot be validated by science. And, it is true, of course, spiritual experiences cannot be validated by the injunctions--the tests, the rationale-- of modern, scientific empiricism. The reason for that is simple: we cannot understand or experience spiritual reality by employing the injunctions of physical reality. We cannot attain God realization by looking into a microscope or following a recipe for making cherry pie. We can, however, if lucky, as in the case of Vivekananda, be touched by a saint like Ramakrishna, and get a free ride to heavenly bliss. But not everyone is so fortunate, most of us will have to walk the long, windy road of spirituality alone, and diligently follow the decrees given by the spiritual masters, before we can experience such hights of spiritual rapture.

What is emerging, then, is that in order to fully understand ourselves and our world, we need an expanded empiricism, a scientific world-view that includes all aspects of existence. That is, science must expand its own universe to include the three levels of existence--physical, mental and spiritual. Consequently, there are three kinds of empiricism: sensory empiricism relates to scientific observations in the sensorimotor world; mental empiricism includes logic, mathematics, and phenomenology; and spiritual empiricism is the spiritual path itself and its related psychic and spiritual experiences.

What is also emerging is that many religious belief systems cannot survive the scrutiny of expanded empiricism any more than they can survive the truths of scientific materialism. There is no room for literal interpretations of mythological illusions or illogical fundamentalism, neither in the world of science nor in spirituality. The dogma among certain Hindu sects, for example, that only men can attain spiritual emancipation, or the Christian admonition of a “burning hell” for non-believers, are neither scientifically nor spiritually acceptable.

Myth and metaphor in science and spirituality
Even though religious myths may not be acceptable to science, they are sometimes effectively used in explaining or shed light on both scientific knowledge and spiritual wisdom. That is, when myths are used as representational forms or concepts, not literal definitions.
Ilya Prigognine, for example, who won the Nobel Prize for advancing his theory of "dissipating structures," used the Tantric symbol of the dancing Shiva to explain his vision of structure and change. "Stillness in motion" was the phrase he used to describe his new, thermodynamic theory. This idea asserts that stable structures maintain their stability while still being in continuos movement.

A copper sculpture of the dancing Shiva is clearly not identical to the dissipating structures of Prigognine's science. But this symbol adds artistic beauty, depth, and context to an otherwise dry and abstract concept. The dancing Shiva, with his oriental arms and legs in perpetual balance between life and death, stillness and motion, is an apt metaphor. It describes the continuos change in physical structures that outwardly appear to undergo no change. Science is thus no longer simply viewed in isolation and accepted on its own technical, non-human terms. It is viewed in relation to our own art and history and to the perennial value system of spirituality. The use of such metaphors breaths soul and color into the scientist's sterile laboratory. It establishes a creative and personal link between the scientist and his or her objects of observation. Prigognine's new laws of thermodynamics provides us with the facts, and the dancing Shiva provides us with the deeper, non-rational meaning behind those facts.

Similarly, spiritual practitioners sometimes employ icons, idols, and myths as gateways to reach the higher realms of the transcendental. Sarkar explains that the various gods and goddesses of the Tantric pantheon were actually developed to arouse “the finer sensibilities of the human mind.” (Discourses on Tantra, Volume I, p 179) These gods and goddesses are therefore not literal reflections of the Divine; they are simply symbolic reminders of higher states of consciousness. The Indian mystic poet Ramprasad beautifully expressed this in a poem about Tara--a famous Tantric deity used by both Buddhists and Hindus alike:

The lotus will bloom, the darkness of my mind will disappear
I shall roll on the earth with the holy name of Tara on my lips
All sorts of distinctions will vanish
All the afflictions of my mind will disappear
Thus the scriptures are right when they declare that Tara is formless

In higher lessons of Tantric meditation symbolic forms are used to focus the mind in deep contemplation and devotion, but the objective of these meditations are clear: to walk through the doorway of form and merge the mind in the formless ocean of bliss. Ramakrishna, who was a Hindu Tantric and a devotee of the goddess Shakti in the form of Mother Kali, describes, in no uncertain terms, how he finally had to sacrifice form in order to reach the formless: “So I sat down to meditate again... I cut Mother in two pieces with that sword of knowledge. As soon as I’d done that, there was nothing relative left in my mind. I entered the place where there is no second--only the One.”(Christopher isherwood, Ramakrishna and His Disciples, p 118) This was the first time Ramakrishna attained nirvikalpa samadhi--the highest of all meditative experiences. For the remainder of his relatively short yet remarkable life, he was known to drift in and out of this sublime state at will.

Five ways of knowing
Western epistemology (the theory of the origin of knowledge) can be divided in three categories: authority (religion), inference (science), logic (philosophy). For centuries, Greek philosophy has infused Western civilization with its logic and philosophy, science has given us its inference-based materialist empiricism, and the Church has provided us with authoritative answers to the perennial questions of life, death, and morality. For Sarkar there are not only three but five ways of knowing the real: sense inference, reason, intuition, authority, and spiritual union. If we divide these five categories into the three realms of being--physical, mental and spiritual--the following, three-tiered system evolves:
1.MATTER: Physical realm=the eye of flesh=sense inference=sensory empiricism=relative knowledge
2 .MIND: Mental realm=the eye of mind= reason, intuition, authority=mental empiricism=relative knowledge
3. SPIRIT: Spiritual realm=the eye of spirit= =spiritual empiricsm=spiritual union=absolute knowledge

Before we look at the various stages of knowing, we need to establish a scientific way of inquiry into these stages. In other words, how can we check that the information we receive through these various means is correct. Scientific inquiry can be divided into three basic categories: 1. Instrumental injunction, which tells us what to do in order to obtain a certain result: “If you want to see a virus, look into this microscope. If you want to experience inner peace and better concentration, meditate in this position using this mantra and these visualization techniques.” 2. Direct apprehension: After the injunction has been followed, you, the observer or practitioner, will have an experience, apprehension or illumination (“I can see the virus,” or, “I feel inner peace and deep concentration”) which will confirm the promises of the injunction. 3. Communal confirmation (or rejection): After the injunction and the apprehension stage, the data or the evidence acquired is checked by a group of peers or experts who also have completed the injunctive and apprehensive phase.

1. Sense inference. (physical, the eye of flesh):. On the physical level, knowledge is obtained through the five senses--hearing, touch, smell, sight, and taste. From pre-historic times, sense inference has been a basic way of learning about ourselves and our environment. As children we were told that if we put our hand in the fire, we will get burnt (injunction). When we did, either by accident or folly, we realized indeed that our parents were correct. (direct apprehension, communal confirmation). Through the sense of sight, Galileo made his monumental discovery that the earth was round and that it moved around the sun. Others, who, despite of the Church’s outrage, had the courage to follow his injunction concluded, by direct apprehension, that he was indeed right. This newfound knowledge, radically different from the one held by the authority of the Church, namely that the earth was flat, resulted in a new discovery. As Thomas Kuhn would have said, it resulted in a scientific paradigm shift--a change from one world-view to another. Consequently, knowledge based on sense-inference is not absolute knowledge, the various sciences undergo paradigm shifts as new discoveries are made.

2 Reason (mental, the eye of mind) : Through the purely mental pursuit of reason, a teacher of mathematics measure the diameter of a given circle, and describe a certain tangential point of the same circle. With the eye of mind, with logic, students, who follow the same injunctions as the teacher will apprehend the same data and get the same results as the teacher.

3. Intuition ( mental, the eye of mind): Through the practice of Tantra and other psycho-spiritual paths, it is possible to develop psychic or occult abilities such as clairvoyance and telepathy. Sarkar, and other spiritual masters, had the uncanny ability to obtain information through such means. Such information, although not obtained through sense inference or reason, can be tested, verified or rejected through the three strands of injunction, apprehension and confirmation. Sarkar was known to give lectures on numerous subjects, many of whom he had never studied, including biology, agriculture, linguistics, history, geology, etc. Much of this intuitively received information is now written down in books and can be checked and verified by science. When Einstein discovered the theory of relativity, he said that it was revealed to him--after an intense period of research and logical reasoning--in an “intuitive flash.”
Because of its trans-rational nature, it is very important that intuitive knowledge is rigorously tested, as dogmatic belief systems can easily be created if the intuitive information is only based on a hunch and not obtained through direct clairvoyant or telepathic experiences which meets the criteria of expanded empiricism.

4. Authority (mental, the eye of mind): Although most of us have never seen a virus in a microscope, we know they exist because of the overwhelming number of authoritative scientific documentations that describe them. Though we have never seen atoms, we know they exist for the very same reason. In this way, there are numerous scientific truths which we have never personally investigated or experienced first hand. We simply believe they are true because the facts presented by the authority of the scientific community makes sense to us. Since it appears the science community have followed the system of inquiry through injunction, apprehension and confirmation, we respect their authority. We may also respect the authority of the Church as it proclaims a certain dogma. But, as we know, religions often do not aspire to the same rigorous inquiry as science, thus many authoritative statements made by religions will not hold up to the scrutiny of expanded empiricism. On the other hand, the authority of a spiritual master’s claim that it is possible to realize God through contemplative practice, rings true because history is teeming with examples of mystics who independently have written and talked about their God-realizations in great detail. Not surprisingly, their descriptions are overwhelmingly similar. The long history of the various wisdom traditions is also full of written testimony from followers who have practiced their teachers’ injunctions and have--after reaching their spiritual goal--confirmed their data. .

5. Spiritual Union (spiritual, eye of spirit) There is overwhelming evidence that Buddha, Ramakrshna, Vivekananda, Sarkar, Aurobindo, and others, are correct in their claims of having achieved the highest spiritual realization of nirvana or nirvikalpa samadhi, or mystic union with God. The testimony from them and their enlightened disciples confirm they have all followed similar injunctions (meditative practice), received similar apprehensions (spiritual experience), and that the data acquired (the descriptions of these experiences) are similar. Thus it has been established by the spiritual community at large (group of peers) that the path of perennial spirituality--from a beginner’s first meditative practice to his or her full-blown enlightenment-- is a path of intuitional science, a path of expanded empiricism, and not simply a figment of someone’s imagination, nor the vivid narrative of certain religious dogmas and myths.

As we have seen, for a symphonic fusion of science and spirituality to occur, both the scientific and spiritual community will have to give a little. Scientists will have to expand their limited sense of empiricism to fully include the mental, intuitional and spiritual realms of knowing. Spiritualists, on the other hand, will have to openly embrace the scrutiny of scientific inquiry, and, most importantly, to shed any of its past or future traces of dogma. What will emerge then is a synthetic future, a marriage of the rational Enlightenment of the West with the spiritual Enlightenment of the East. As modern philosopher Ken Wilber writes: “Both Enlightenments offer freedoms that took evolution billions of years to unfold. Both Enlightenments speak of the kindest heart and highest soul and deepest destiny of a common humanity. Both Enlightenments cry out the best that we are and the noblest that we might yet become.” (The Marriage of Sense and Soul, Random House, 1998, p 211)

Copyright Proutist Universal 2000