Many spiritual and philosophical concepts are generally considered off limits for any scientific analysis and evaluation, as the modern scientists consider that science has developed its ideas from the observation of matter, be it in gas, liquid or solid form. This is far from the truth. There are several examples where philosophical concepts dominated the development of scientific ideas. Some of the contradictory attitudes may actually stem more from historical conflicts between religion and the empirical development of scientific principles than a real divergence between the philosophical concepts and scientific ideas. In fact, a sympathetic approach to understand the interconnection between science and spirituality/philosophy reveals more commonality and synergism than conflict and mutual exclusivity. This article will elaborate on this issue, taking examples of some of the most fundamental concepts such as the origin of the universe and time on one hand and understanding the yuga cycle on the other.

MATRIX OF MAYA

In 1993, a mainstream scientist and Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick, wrote a book called The Scientific Search for the Soul. It indicated that scientists are interested in the question of the deeper basis of the operation of this universe even as they are disillusioned with their search for the most fundamental particles constituting the elements. There is an indication that a mental game theory is taking shape from the ancient wisdom of saints and sages in terms of the exploration of Maya.

Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy was published in 1942—after he had published Business Cycles in 1939. These books contrast sharply. While Capitalism can be read fairly easily by interested laymen, even experts find that Cycles is hardly readable in its totality. Cycles represents Schumpeter's research efforts during the 1930s to integrate theory, history, and statistics in order to explain business cycles as reflecting the process of capitalist economic evolution. Its architecture can be compared with that of a Gothic cathedral: out of an initially simple structure emerges an enormous degree of complexity. In comparison, Capitalism's treatment of the topic of the destiny of capitalism has a functionalist architecture.

The preparation of the relatively straightforward treatment of the problems of capitalism started in parallel with the production of Cycles and it was completed between 1939 and 1942. Therefore, Capitalism has sometimes been interpreted as the outcome of Schumpeter's need to relax. This interpretation explains the writing style and the provocative formulations that have served to make Capitalism his most-read book. It also explains why Schumpeter defensively told Paul Samuelson (2003, 465) that he had produced an “off-the-cuff pot-boiler”—that is, a rough sketch that is written to make money. The famous economist Lionel Robbins drove the idea of relaxation to the extreme by suggesting, in a conversation, that the book provides “supremely intelligent after-dinner talk” (quoted by Elster, 1983, 112).

This paper attempts to highlight the Ayurvedic tradition as a model that can serve as a platform to synthesize science and spirituality in the context of healing. Before venturing to examine this proposition, we need to understand the epistemological foundations of Ayurveda upon which a theoretical structure has been erected that encompasses the methods of both science and spirituality. As we proceed with this daunting task, we will realize the need to define and differentiate science and spirituality in the first place.

When we begin to familiarize ourselves with ancient methods of knowledge-building, the rigid compartments that dichotomize science and spirituality begin to dissolve. It becomes clear that the ancient knowledge systems did not profess such distinctions in the sense that we do today. What we encounter is a matrix in which these two approaches have blended naturally, so much so that it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two. It is when we impose our modern ideas of the scientific process and spiritual method that we are able to discover a theoretical framework that has fused these two seemingly conflicting approaches so spontaneously.

We have to discriminate between religion and spirituality to ward off misconceptions that may arise when we look at science and the scientific method. Religion is to spirituality what technology is to science. In other words, we can say that religion is the technology of spirituality.

He may not have succeeded in reinterpreting and implementing the core tenets of Islam as per the needs of the compulsive circumstances; however it is indubitable that Sir Sayyid's life and writings have been subjected to contending interpretations. For both Muslims as well as non-Muslims, he is the repository of a difficult heritage. There are not few in the subcontinent for whom he remains the progenitor of Partition; for many more he nurtured the irrevocable Bidad (a reprehensible religious innovation) and thus sprinkled salt on the wounds of South Asian Muslims who had not yet recovered from the agony engendered by the dispossession of power and privilege. The extinction of the Muslim rule had caused great pain and anguish 48 Science and Spirituality and with Sir Sayyid's radical intervention challenging long cherished values and belief systems in the religious sphere, the pain was further accentuated.

The four hundred and fifty strong academic community in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, one of the premier institutions of science and technology in the country, include some of India's leading scientists and technologists, who have won reputed national and international awards for excellence in their respective fields of specialization. In an institution that prides itself on its ‘pursuit of excellence’, and where almost every faculty can boast of a Young Scientist Award if not a Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, the honours, distinctions and accolades won by academics should hardly come as a surprise. A conspicuous inclination towards spirituality, often but not always interchangeable with religion, is the surprise element. A significant number of academics, both senior and junior, appear to be ‘spirituality-friendly’, though some might not wear the signs of their faith as visibly as others.

But scientists and technologists at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur demonstrate the dichotomy usually observed between scientific pursuit and religious or spiritual practice. The scientists' practice of the ‘rational–scientific’ method in their respective disciplines and fields of specialization appears to have nothing to do with their personal beliefs, in which they inevitably posit their faith in the ‘intuitive–spiritual’ (Randrup, 2002). The scientists and technologists seem to have resolved the contradiction between the two sub-systems through clearly compartmentalizing their personal and public lives. While functioning within the rational–scientific mode in their professional activities, they slip into the intuitive–spiritual robes of their chosen faiths in their personal lives with considerable facility.

We can most easily understand Schumpeter's early move from the Walrasian system to his theory of economic and social evolution within capitalism on the background of elite theory. His knowledge of this kind of theory is beyond doubt. Thus his former student Eduard März (1991, 58) emphasised that “[a]nyone who knew Schumpeter personally can testify that he had a thorough knowledge of theories of the élite of the late nineteenth century (Nietzsche, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Le Bon) and took pleasure in flirting with such ideas.” Actually, März's conclusion is that Schumpeter's “own theory of development was an attempt to give concrete economic substance to the vague theories of his time.” This conclusion can also be reached by reading Entwicklung I, as when McCrea (1913, 526), in his review of this book, suggested that it “offers a super-man interpretation of economic progress”. The theories of the elite were based on the contradistinction between the masses and the elite, and so were many of Schumpeter's early formulations. For him, economic agents can be divided into two groups that are characterised by different levels of competence and will:

• The masses: “Most people tend to their usual daily business and have enough to do at that. Most of the time such people are on slippery ground and the effort to stand straight exhausts their energies and suppresses all appetite for further exploration. … The daily work keeps them down, organization as well as the influence of their colleagues inflict untearable chains on them. This is the masses.” (S1912a, 412–13; Entwicklung I, 162–3)

• […]

Modern science was introduced to India under the shadow of colonialism. This means that neither was its progress in India simply a matter of European discovery and imperial dissemination, nor was there no ‘science’ in India prior to the British conquest of India. However, what is important to observe is that between modern science and traditional science, there was a marked disjunction as there was between traditional knowledge and ‘English education’. Because these gaps have still not been properly studied, let alone bridged, the history of modern science in India is inextricably linked with the history of colonialism as well. All the same, the trajectories of the two are neither coextensive nor conterminus. While colonialism rose, reached its peak, then declined and officially ended, modern science has enjoyed a steady and incremental rise since its inception. In fact, after independence its claims to an exalted social, political and cultural status have risen dramatically, especially with the heavy investment and continuous monitoring of the Nehruvian state in its growth and development. In his Introduction to Science, Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity, Ashis Nandy called science ‘a reason of state’ and in Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India, Gyan Prakash labels the second part of his book ‘Science, Governmentality and the State’. Both authors regard science as very much a part of how the Indian state seeks to see or project itself, deriving legitimation and political advantage from it.

INTRODUCTION

The Western study of consciousness has progressed very rapidly in the last century but it is still stuck in the mould of mind–body dualism. This is best brought out in the words of a recent Time magazine quote (Time(1), p.35):

What constitutes this ‘indivisible continuum’? We are going to look at this in terms of the Vedas in this paper. As we will see, this leads us to the larger picture of consciousness as it is presented in the East and we will compare this with the Western contemporary concepts of Multiple Universes or Multiverses and the theory of Infinities.

It's a great opportunity to reflect on some of the best scholars' and scientists' discussion on these themes. It is also an opportunity to reflect on some areas where Eastern and Western spiritualities and modern science might engage in trialogue. One possible subject could be evolution and the future. However, since there is no consensus within spiritual traditions on this theme, we might begin our discussion with two authors from the Hindu and Christian traditions who include evolution as an integral part of their visions. Specifically, we would like to examine the writings of Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin in the light of newer scientific theories, which may provide insights into the mechanisms of evolution.

In this paper, we will offer some of our initial reflections on this subject. We will begin with a brief introduction to the scientific fields of chaos, complexity and emergence theories and the possibilities they may offer for examining our spiritual traditions and looking to the future. These theories could actually be seen as sub-theories under the overarching theory of evolution. These new fields try to show the mechanisms by which short-term increases in complexity and long-term evolution to new entities can take place. Ultimately, we would like to show how a Divine element may be active or involved in evolution in a non-interventionist way. We want to develop a picture, which does not conflict with scientific knowledge, but may go beyond it, especially in looking to the future.

This book brings together a number of papers on the theme of ‘Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India’ which were first presented at a major international conference held in February 2006 in New Delhi. Some of the papers presented at this event have already been published in 2006 in a volume called Science and Spirituality in Modern India. The conference itself was organized under the auspices of the Project on Science and Spirituality in Modern India at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and funded by Global Perspectives in Science and Spirituality (GPSS). The principal collaborators in this conference were Samvad India Foundation, the Indian Council of Cultural Relations and the Indian Council for Philosophical Relations, whose role I gratefully acknowledge.

In this book most of the remaining unpublished papers from the conference have been brought together, along with some new ones. One of the major premises of this exploration of the relationship between science and spirituality in India is that spirituality played a key role in the construction of Indian modernity. The role of science as a modernizing agent in non-Western countries has already been documented. For instance, in both China and Japan a conscious absorption of European science along with other forms of Western knowledge helped create elites who in turn brought major social and political transformations. Though India was no exception to this broader pattern, what makes it somewhat special is that spiritual leaders also played a key role in the modernization of India.

PRASTAVANA (INTRODUCTION)

Gandhiji's vision of life unmistakably shows a remarkable blend between the scientific (avidya) and the spiritual (vidya) aspects of knowledge – the interdependence and mutual inclusiveness of which is characterized by the centrality of truth and non-violence (satya and ahimsa) in Gandhiji's theory and praxis for ethical existence. For Gandhiji, science and spirituality have to be yoked together within an ethical framework of values to usher in the beautiful in human life. His holistic vision of life was, therefore, grounded in a new aesthetics of moral existence.

My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. To see the universal and all-pervading spirit of truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of politics, and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing is do with politics do not know what religion means (Gandhi, 2003, p.463).

Even if ‘politics’ in the preceding statement is replaced with ‘science’, the overall ethical import of Gandhiji's vision will remain intact and unaffected. In other words, in the Gandhian world view 136 Science and Spirituality a scientist and a spiritually motivated seeker will both pursue Truth – the former does so in order to maximize human comfort, happiness and abolish external pain and miseries; the latter does so in order to experience the spiritual oneness or unity of being through ahimsa, Swaraj (self-rule) and satyagraha (soul or truth force).

When the Austrian-American economist Joseph A. Schumpeter died in 1950, he had received many forms of recognition. He was Professor of Economics at the famous Harvard University in the USA; he was the most cited scholar in the whole field of economics (Samuelson, 1981a, 1); he had recently served as the President of the American Economic Association and had just been elected to become the first President of International Economic Association. This exceptional status was based on Schumpeter's contributions to all major parts of economics and to other social sciences, his all-encompassing network of scholarly contacts, and his ardent support for the new generation of ambitious economists. However, as pointed out by Paul Samuelson, Schumpeter was not satisfied with the status he received. According to Samuelson, who considered himself to have been both Schumpeter's friend and pupil, he was sceptical about his “Popeship” because this was not what he had strived for. From his youth, Schumpeter's main ambition had been to become one of the great economists, and he thought that such economists are not orthodox Popes, but radical scientific innovators. Since he did not succeed in his attempt to renew the science of economics, Samuelson (1981a, 1) suggested that Schumpeter “would have traded his Popeship for a Keynesian revolution”. This does not mean that Schumpeter would have liked to promote an arbitrary scientific revolution. Instead, he wanted to trade his position within the economic establishment for an evolutionary-economic breakthrough, which he had tried to obtain throughout his academic life.