Science and spirituality occupy mutually exclusive domains at the apparent observation. This exclusiveness is existent in multiple aspects such as object, method, foundations, application and so on. As is known, science is related to the empirical world while spirituality is related to something transcendent, something ‘beyond’ this material world.
Science acquires the knowledge of the external world through empirical, scientific method whereas there is no fixed method of spirituality. Evidence is the foundation of scientific knowledge whereas personal intuitive experience is the foundation of spirituality. Application of science is universal while it can hardly be claimed in the context of spirituality can it be said, on this basis, science and spirituality are opposite to each other? There is no categorically negative answer to this question. There are diverse claims and diverse explanations about the enigmatic relation between science and spirituality.
One of the specimen views is that of Jaina tradition which claims that the highest knowledge acquired by the spiritual masters supreme is scientific. Unlike other religious traditions, Jainism does not assume a life between science and spirituality nor does it hold that spiritual is superior and scientific is inferior (which is the most widely held approach), but to a certain extent, it equals spiritual with scientific.
Present paper proposes to examine the Jaina perspective towards the relation between science and spirituality and is divided in three sections. Section 1 deals with enigma and problems arising out of the complex relationship between science and spirituality. Section 2 gives exposition of the Jaina perspective. Section 3 offers the examination of the Jaina view and also states the problems emerging out of the Jaina view.
(I)
In introduction, the relation between science and spirituality is said to be enigmatic because the claims of these two refer to two exclusive realms of reality. As known by everyone, science claims to know the external, empirical world. It tries to give causal explanation of the event in the external world. The knowledge of the external world gained by science is claimed to be objective and verifiable. As against this, the claim of spirituality is related to some transcendent realm which is said to be beyond the external, empirical world. Spiritual knowledge is demonstrative of the ‘Ultimate Reality’, not the causal or any other explanation of that reality. The claims of spiritual masters about the nature of ultimate reality are so diverse that it can hardly e said that there is any objectivity or universality in spiritual knowledge. And that the spiritual knowledge is not empirically verifiable will be emphasized by the spiritual masters themselves.
Moreover, the strengths and weakness of both of them bang upon each other in revertive manner. That is to say, the strength of science is the weakness of spirituality while the weakness of science is the strength of spirituality. To give an example, objectivity is the strength of science, which spirituality lacks and limit of knowledge is the weakness of science which is overcome by spirituality which claims to know the highest truth in an infallible manner.
On the background of this diversity of these two realms/disciplines, it can be justifiably asked about the propriety or reasonability in finding out any relation between the two. A very strong answer to this question is hidden in the pursuits of both these disciplines. Science and spirituality aim to know ‘Reality’, whatsoever and by whatever relevant method. And in order to find out the relation between the nature of reality as found by science and as found by spirituality, the above mentioned question plays very important role.
Another strong answer to this question lies in multidimensional nature of human being. Science is the product of reasoning enterprise of human being while spirituality is the product of trans-worldly nature of human being. To use Karl Poppers world, science belongs to the second world, i.e. the world of objectivity and rationality, while spirituality belongs to the third world, i.e. the world of ideals, attitudes. P. F. Strawson uses the terms ‘r’ predicate for science and‘s’ predicate to indicate spirituality. However, even though the two levels are shown to be distinguishable, they are not shown to be entirely separable, as they are outcome of human endeavours. And the knower himself is curious to find out the justifiable relation between the two dimensions of his personality.
What is that relation? There can be a minimum three responses to this question.
Scientific is true, spiritual is imaginary the response of the advocate of science.
Scientific is inferior, spiritual is superior, the response of the advocate of spirituality.
Scientific and spiritual are two sides of the same coin – the response of those who seem to recognize the importance and relevance of both. To decide or discuss whether these responses encompass all the views about the relation of science and spirituality is the issue beyond the scope of this paper. Let’s examine the Jaina view about this relation.
(II)
Jainism is a religion from sramana tradition which holds that ascetic way of life is ideal path for spiritual liberation. As a religion, it is identified with Ahimsa and as a philosophy, it is identified with Anekantavada. Ahimsa, Anekantavada, Aparigraha and Tapas are the four pillars of the Jaina religio - philosophical tradition. The main teachings / basic principles of Jainism are based on the intuitions / and experience of the spiritual masters, i.e. Tirthankaras in the tradition, who are known as Omniscient’s in the tradition.
Being an ascetic tradition the life of renunciation is regarded as the ideal one while the mundane life is of secondary importance. The supreme goal of human being is the spiritual liberation and only an ascetic is worthy of it. The others, i.e. the householders are expected to walk on the lines that are set by the masters and make their lives pure. The ideals and the path are indicated in the teachings of Tirthankaras that are included in the scriptures, i.e. Aayamas of the Jaina tradition. Aqamas are known to be the infallible word in the Jaina tradition. However the extent of infallibility and the applicability of omniscience are some crucial issues which the tradition faces in the age of advanced science and technology.
The classical texts of Jainism such as scriptures or philosophical texts hardly record any categorical statement about how science matters to the tradition. But, in the later period, the followers and champions of Jainism have made emphatic claims about the scientificity of their tradition. Following are examples of some such claims:
The sages, omniscient beings of the ancient times knew all the discoveries and inventions of the modern science by their superhuman knowledge, but they, without disclosing them, only delineated the beautiful path of the advancement of soul. The reason was that they definitely knew that by the new inventions of the science of matter, there will be terrible destruction, degeneration of the soul, wanton annihilation of innocent life, waste of money and loss of precious time.
In the Jaina scriptures, there were references to aeroplanes (vimanas) flying in the air. When these things were ready by us, we considered them to be idle talks. But when actually the aeroplanes started flying, we came to know that the statements in our scriptures were entirely true.
When Dr. Jagadischandra Bose proved to the western world, with the help of scientific apparatus that trees, plants, creepers have life and experience pleasure and plain, the modern world began to believe that there was life in the vegetable kingdom. But in the ancient Jaina scriptures, these truths have been explained in detail.
With the help of a very powerful microscope Captain Scorsby proved that there are 36,450 living organisms in one drop of water. The Jaina masters have taught that in addition to the moving organisms there are innumerable immobile organisms also in a single drop of water. Modern doctors have been propounding that in a small space of the size of a pea, there are innumerable T.B. germs. The omniscientists had declared that there are an infinite number of lives in the tip of a needle.
That there was life in water, that vegetables had life, potency of sound, radio, atom bomb, photography and many such other things which existed in the Jaina scriptures, are now put before the world by means of science. Modern scientific research is still carried on everyday and the scientists have to change their views on and often. On the other hand, omniscientists had no need of any instrument or apparatus to know the reality. There was no necessity for them to resort to speculative thing or to do any material research. By means of their perfect knowledge and perception, the omniscient saints have spoken about the mobile and the immobile world.
All these claims which proclaim superiority of spiritual, intuitive knowledge and incompleteness of scientific knowledge lead to one conclusion and that is, spiritual experience brings in all the perfect knowledge and it cannot be even dreamt of by scientific inquiries. If observed carefully, above mentioned claims apart from being one-sided, give rise to many conceptual and practical issues. It is quite possible to make a counter-claim to each of these claims. But instead of doing so, the issues are mentioned –
1. If every scientific invention, discovery were known spiritually, why was not it made open to all? Secrecy is justified in spiritual matters, not scientific ones, because science itself uncovers the secrets of nature. So, the claim that everything was known to spiritual masters is unconvincing. It may be regarded as the glorification of spiritual powers on the basis of faith.
2. If there is contradiction between a scientific claim and a spiritualist’s claim about the same matter, how will that be resolved by a tradition?
3. Scientific truth is subject to evidence and hence, can change as per the available conditions, but spiritual truth is matter of conviction and hence unchanging. But if considered carefully, the two truths belong to two different planes. Conflating the demarcating line between them to put them under one umbrella is highly irrational.
4. Lastly, the tradition regards material world, ordinary life worth discarding for the attainment of spiritual salvation. If this is so, why the tradition is insistent in showing that the spiritual masters knew everything about that world which they are supposed to renounce? Is this the connotation of the word ‘Omniscience’? Does it consist in the complete knowledge of the external world? If that is the case, there is internal inconsistency in the above claims. Spirituality assumes transcending of the external world, and the above claims proclaim the accurate knowledge of the external world. So, instead of strengthening the case of spirituality, these claims create problem for it.
(III)
This is the view expressed by the contemporary scholars, followers and advocates of Jainism, not the one expressed in classical literature of the tradition. The extremeness and dogmatism with which the above examples are filled are quite unusual in the classical Jaina tradition. It is not the case that the Jaina masters were unaware of the problem of the relation between materials and spiritual of course, they were unfamiliar with scientific developments which were not existent in their time. But, they were well aware of the situation that what is known empirically and what is known spiritually is not one and same. This was indicated in the epistemological theory of Jainism.
Jaina tradition talks of five varieties of knowledge, viz. Empirical (Mati), Verbal (Sruta), Clairvoyance (Avadhi), Tetepathy (Manahparyaye) and Omniscience (Kevalajnana). Of these five, the former two are classified as indirect, i.e. Paroksa and the later three are classified as direct, i.e. Pratyoksa. Paroksa means that knowledge which is acquired through some instrumentality (such as sense organs, mind and intellect) and which depends on some other knowledge for origin as well as authenticity. As against this, Pratyaksa is that knowledge which is acquired without any instrumentality and which doesn’t assume any other knowledge for its origin and authenticity. Through to these meanings of the terms Pratyaksa and Paroksa, the Jaina epistemologists have recognized all varieties of cognitions, ordinary and extra-ordinary.
The mati and sruta varieties of knowledge are ordinary cogritions, i.e. they are related to empirical world and/or acquired by ordinary ways. The remaining three are extra-ordinary cognitions, i.e. they are acquired by extra-ordinary ways. Out of these, avadhi and manahparyaya are the cognitions related to the ordinary objects while omniscience is related to extra-ordinary, transcendent object.
On the basis of this epistemological theory, the relation between material and spiritual can be delineated as follows:-
1. The Jainas assumes hierarchical relation among these five cognitions. Empirical cognition, i.e. matijnana is the lowest, most primary form of cognition which is available to all living beings. Omniscience is the highest form of cognition which is available to only ‘qualified’ human beings. In the case of empirical cognition, eligibility consists in cognitive apparatus available to the concerned being, while in the case of omniscience eligibility consists in the moral, spiritual calibre of a concerned person.
2. The hierarchy that is assumed in the five cognitions is not linear or straight one. That is to say, Sruta Jnana is a logical extension over empirical knowledge, but clairvoyance, the lowest form of intuition, is not such extension over verbal knowledge. So, hierarchy is conceptual, not substantive. Moreover, it is asserted that a person can have maximum four varieties of knowledge at a time, either first four or omniscience. Thus, in order to have highest spiritual knowledge, the person is supposed to forgo the empirical or this worldly knowledge. The conceptual hierarchy represents the relation of broken continuity.
3. The broken continuity among five varieties of knowledge reminds of the similar relation among the Purusarthas. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksa constitute entire human endeavour towards perfection. However, Dharma, Artha and Kama form one group and Moksa lies outside that group as the supreme god. The passage from the triad to Moksa is not automatic. Similarly the five cognitions asserted in the Jaina tradition encompass the human cognitive field in totality, but the passage from basic to perfect or from ordinary to extra-ordinary is not automatic for that one has to cross the border of one plane to enter into another one.
4. Does that mean that we are back to the square one position where it is held that there is no connection between science and spirituality or material and spiritual? At least from the Jaina position, it cannot be said so. There is an attempt to show that, howsoever enigmatic, there is a relation between material and spiritual as both are human pursuits. But then, this is a standard Indian position to recognize the existence of both. What is the uniqueness of Jaina perspective?
5. Uniqueness of the Jaina position emerges from Anekantavada, i.e. non-absolutism. Anekantavada holds that every pursuit towards reality possesses relative truth, without denying or condemning the equally relative truth of the other pursuit. Thus, on this view, science contains partial truth which will have to recognize the partial truth of spirituality and vice versa.
This is not merely saying that ‘all paths are equal ones leading to the same reality’ because in this contention, there is a possibility of all paths forming ‘windowless monads’. Anekantavada goes beyond this contention and prevents the paths from becoming ‘windowless monads’; on the contrary, it allows them to be interactive theories. Thus, science is a meaningful pursuit towards truth by respecting and recognizing the existence and meaningfulness of spirituality. And spirituality is a meaningful human attempt to know reality by recognizing and respecting the attempt of science. This is a view of mutual respect among all paths, rather than equality of all paths.
6. This paper ends by quoting two examples in the contemporary world which exhibit this view of mutual respect, one of a spiritualist and another of a scientist.
Gurudev Ranade, while delineating the pathway to God, very beautifully analysed the steps towards the highest state. But while doing so, along with the spiritualist’s vigour, he also shown the scientific concern by stating that intuitive experience possesses universality and objectivity. His concern was definitely not sprung out of the pride in supremacy of spirituality; his modern education had convinced him the necessity of analysing the intuitive experience through rational, systematic method rather than proclaiming it to be mystical. In the absence of such rational analysis, intuitive experience would have been discarded to be something like superstitious or that of a lunatic by rapidly developing modern science. Thus, Gurudev Ranade, by his prudent outlook, endeavoured to show the link between rational and spiritual – this is a spiritualist’s act of recognizing the significance of science.
Dr. Zang, a Chinese scientist in a Nuclear Physics the contemporary time, has expressed his concern for spirituality in a similar manner. He says scientists and spiritualists are climbing different mountains for their pursuit of truth. However, from the high attitudes they are appealing to each other and the need is to reduce the distance between them. It is because rationality is not the only dimension of human personality, but spirituality, intuitive potentiality is also significant dimension, which a scientist, same or other time in a life receives a glimpse of. Thus, a prudent scientist cannot afford to ignore spirituality.
This temper of mutual recognition and respect will bring in reconciliation between science and spirituality amidst of their enigmatic relation.
The Author is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Mumbai. The author presented paper at International Conference on ‘Science and Spirituality’ organised by Gurudeo Ranade Research Forum, Pune in June 2009.