LIFE DEFINED

              The most curious aspect of life, probably, is that it can be lived and experienced but difficult, almost impossible, to define. The early human beings realized that the world could be divided into two categories of entities namely animate or living and inanimate or nonliving. Intense observations on these two categories led them to draw certain essential differences between the two.  However, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) the legendary Greek philosopher believed that such clear cut distinctions were not possible in nature. Despite intense scientific investigations and observations even modern scientists agree with Aristotle in that it is indeed difficult to arrive at a close distinction between living and nonliving, although it is easy to distinguish an animal as living and a stone as nonliving on a cursory observation.

       All definitions of life in modern science are concerned with the properties of life rather than the principle called life. Accordingly physiologists define life as any system capable of eating, metabolising, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, and reproducing and constantly responding to external stimuli.  Metabolically life is the property of any object surrounded by a definite boundary and capable of exchanging materials with its surroundings. A single celled amoeba and a bacterium are examples of such systems. Biochemically life subsists in cellular systems containing both nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and proteins (enzymes). A geneticist may define life as something that belongs to systems which are able to perform complex transformations of organic molecules, construct copies of themselves from raw materials and are capable of evolutionary changes through natural selection. However, all these descriptions fall short of the actual definition of the principle that makes a system living and performing.

       Indian sages recognised this life principle as Atman which is the “unborn, eternal, everlasting entity that never perishes when the body ceases to exist” (Katha Upanishad, 2.18). The same is expressed in the Bhagavad Gīta as well (2.20). It is that principle which enlivens all organ systems of organisms: “It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech indeed of the speech, the breath of the breath, and the eye of the eye” (Kena Upanishad, 1.2). “It moves (when the organism moves); it does not move (because it is everywhere); it is far away (as it is beyond the comprehension of common intellect), yet it is so near (as it is within every living thing); it is the eternal spirit of everything that we know” (Īṡāvāsya Upanishad, 5). However, ‘life’ is such a phenomenon “which has no definite shape, neither beginning nor end” (Bhagavad  Gīta, 15.3). Although it is true that life has no definite shape or structure, it assumes the structure of the body through which it is expressed. It may appear as a minute bacterium or as a big blue whale which can easily accommodate a full grown elephant in its belly. It may manifest as small as an alga or as a giant peepal or redwood tree. In other words life manifests itself in innumerable shapes and sizes and numbers as animals, trees, shrubs, grasses and a host of other forms, both ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate;’ it may also express itself through emotions, thoughts and feelings. However, “when it is existing in a living body or departing from it (at the time of death) this principle cannot be comprehended through ordinary means of perception, but only through the eye of wisdom” (Bhagavad Gīta, 15.10). It is beyond the comprehension of the sensory system of human beings, but could be experienced by super sensory perception through yogic practices. All ancient Indian scriptures vouch for the fact that the principle of life is eternal entity without a beginning or end and is not destroyed along with the destruction of the body. One interesting aspect of life is that various words in different ancient languages used to denote life has something related to breathing. The etymological roots of ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ mean ‘breath’ in many antique languages. The words used for ‘soul’ in Sanskrit (atman), Greek (psyche) and Latin (anima) all mean ‘breath.’ The same is true for the word for ‘spirit’; in Latin (spiritus), in Greek (pneuma) and in Hebrew (rwab) all meaning ‘breath.’ Of course, breathing is the immediate visible expression of life in a living organism.

SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY OF SOUND

Sound is the subtlest symbol of Brahman, the Absolute Conciousness. Hence it is called ‘.Sabdabrahman’. Sound consists of two divisions or classes : articulate , also called alphabetical and inarticulate or intonational sound. Articulate sound can be recited in the letters of the alphabet. It deals with knowledge or understanding by the intellect. Inarticulate sound deals with feelings, emotions, of the mind. Articulate sound has a limited application because it can be articulated by only those who has sufficient training and knowledge of a particular language. Language is the medium of communication. However, even if one does not know the language of another, emotional expressions such as cries and laughter will communicate the sense of sorrow or happiness. This is the universal way even babies communicate and this method exists in other animal species as well. Music is another example of intonation which has great positive effect on all living organisms. The symbol OM (AUM) is both articulate and inarticulate. Mere chanting of OM has extraordinary effect on human beings. The two aspects of OM together help an individual to realise Brahman, God of the Upanishads.

ṠRUTI   AND     SMRITI

The spiritual or religious literature of any society consists of two sections: one section containing the eternal truths which are applicable to the human society anytime, anywhere in the world; the second section deals with a certain set of rules, regulations and procedural details of religious practices. These are often dogmatic but are liable to get transformed in due course according to the local requirements and commitments of the society at a particular time. Ancient Indian spiritual knowledge also is divided into two sections: ṡrutis and smritis. These are the two types of truth in Indian thought highlighting the permanent aspect as well as the aspect of the religion that undergoes transformation. Ṡruti consists of eternal truths and messages for humanity as a whole, beyond the vicissitudes of time and space. Vedas and Upanishads belong to this category of spiritual wisdom, whereas the various literature concerning the practice of religion, Manusmriti for example, and epics (Mahābhārata and Ramāyana) and a plethora of religious literature of the ancient Indian society constitute what are called smritis. Ṡruti is apourusheya, sans beginning, eternal and of unknown authorship. These are also called Sanātana dharma, ‘the eternal religion’ so as to distinguish them from smritis which are called Yugadharma. Sanātana dharma is the foundation of the so called ‘Hindu’ religion and way of life. The word ‘Hindu’ is a misnomer, a misrepresentation of the word ‘Sindhu’, by Muslim invaders from Persia who conquered the western banks of Sindhu river in 8th Century C.E. Even the word ‘India’ is derived from the Greek word ‘Indus’ for the Sindhu River. The real name of the country is Bhāratam meaning the land of great enthusiasts in learning and wisdom. ‘Bhā’ in Sanskrit means ‘light’ or illumination and ‘rati’ is inclination, desire or special consideration. Hence the ancient Indian religion is Sanātana dharma, the eternal religion which is still being practised, of course with modifications, in independent India. Sanātana dharma is universal in character and eternal in nature and is not restricted to any special community and region. Yugadharma, on the other hand, is for a particular people at a particular age. These two aspects of a religion exist side by side and usually they complement each other. However, in case there is a conflict between ṡruti and smriti, the ṡruti will have an upper hand. “When there is a conflict between ṡruti and smriti, ṡruti alone will remain.” Truth alone will remain, not dogma. This golden rule envisaged by the Indian sages thousands of years ago has been the strength of India’s culture and civilization. Such bold convictions are unparalleled in world literature and religion. Many a time this conflict between eternal and ephemeral in religions and an over- emphasis of the dogmatic aspect of religion are the basic reasons for religious intolerance and violence.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: EMERGENCE OF A CONFLICT

    The science that Indian sages developed through the inputs of wisdom acquired through  super-sensory experiences during meditation, for the further evolution and spiritual emancipation of mankind, is Vedānta enshrined in the Upanishads. Science is any system of systematic knowledge acquired through observation, inference and often intuition which are verifiable through experimentation.  Both the words ‘Veda’ and ‘Science’ mean knowledge. ‘Veda’ is derived from the root word ‘Vid’ meaning ‘to know’, so also the root word of ‘Science’ is ‘Scientia’, the Greek word meaning knowledge. However, modern science is the knowledge of physical matter acquired through sensory perception compartmentalized in various sections such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Neurology. It has to be remembered that these physical sciences of today were part of the natural philosophy until 17^th century C.E. when it was distinguished into Physics and Metaphysics by Descartes. Then started the great divide and distrust between these two branches of knowledge as evidenced by the endless conflicts between religion and science that was the hallmark of Western World history of the middle ages and thereafter.

    The triumph of the physical sciences in recent centuries, especially in the last one hundred and fifty years, is the victory of the spirit of inquiry over untested beliefs, prejudices and dogma. This unprecedented success of physical sciences heralded episodes of conflicts and clashes between science and its spirit of inquiry and forces of prejudice and blind belief in the form of religious dogmas. These unfortunate episodes are special features of history, especially of modern European region. Religion which reigned supreme during the period of pre-scientific era lost its authority and prestige and got almost discredited either as a ‘dangerous error’ or a ‘harmless illusion’. By the end of nineteenth century C.E. religion almost made an exit in the West. This triumph of science, the spirit of free inquiry and the acquisition of verified knowledge almost is an echo of what the Upanishad sages stated centuries ago. “Truth alone triumphs, not untruth” (Mundakopanishad, 3.1.6). Swami Vivekānanda traced the recurring conflicts of science and religion in the West to the absence of rational and experimental approach; in other words, the absence of scientific spirit in understanding and experiencing religion by the scientists and science by the religious bigots.

THE INDIAN POSITION

     Fortunately for India such conflicts and confusions never occurred because the ancient seers approached religion as well as science in an objective and dispassionate manner. Their spiritual as well as secular investigations aimed only at discovering the truth. They hardly had any interest in any dogmas or fantasies and prejudices either scientific or religious. They considered the secular as well as spiritual sciences as two sides of one coin, both complementing each other. Ancient sages of India through their investigations found out that man lives and functions in two fields, the external and the internal. Human life is the whole range of experiences from both these worlds. The sages realized that the study of one of these worlds gave only a partial picture of the whole phenomenon. They also knew that the result of investigations of one aspect of life is also relevant in understanding the other aspect. Swami Vivekānanda has beautifully elaborated this concept thus: “There are two worlds, the microcosm and the macrocosm, the internal and the external. We get truth from both of these by means of experience. The truth gathered from internal experiences is psychology, metaphysics and religion; from external experiences, the physical sciences. Now a perfect truth should be in harmony with experience in both these worlds. The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm and the macrocosm to the microcosm; physical truth must have its counterpart in the internal world, and the internal world must have its verification outside” (Complete Works, Vol II, p. 432). The sages and thinkers of ancient India studied human being in depth--his physical life, his nature as revealed by his consciousness, his thoughts, emotions and his ego in relation to the physical universe that surrounds him.

     Indian culture, philosophy and religion are all based on the supreme vision of the Vedic sages who accepted both the departments of science namely one dealing with the external world which is within the realm of sensory perception and the internal world which is in the realm of super sensory perception. Upanishad calls these sciences Apara vidyā and Para vidyā respectively. (Vidyā means science). Apara vidyā is ordinary science, what we call physical science, and para vidyā is what is called spiritual science. Apara vidyā or physical science operates at the sensory level dealing with objects. In Vedānta these are the vishayas whereas para vidyā or science of spirituality operates at super sensory level and deals with the perceiver of the objects. This perceiver in Vedānta is known as vishayi. The science that is revealed in the Upanishad is a comprehensive understanding of the vishaya and the vishayi. That is the whole of science that is there to be learned or realized. In India the spiritual science was never against the physical sciences, rather the former was a continuation of the latter. The continuation of these departments of science results in the synthesis of what is called Brahma Vidyā, the totality of reality. Upanishads declare that Brahmavidyā is ‘the basis of every other science’ (sarva vidyā pratishtha).  Upanishads deal with Brahmavidyā or Atmavidyā or the science of self. Brahman is the Self of the universe, and the universe itself is the manifestation of Brahman. Brahman deals with the totality of reality observed from outside whereas Ᾱtman refers to the reality seen from inside. The nature of Ᾱtman and Brahman is pure consciousness. Upanishad seers realized that “this Ᾱtman and that Brahman are one” . ("Tat Tvam Asi" , Chandogya Upanishad).