{"id":3716,"date":"2013-07-13T01:50:40","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:50:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3716"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:50:40","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:50:40","slug":"06-science-philosophy-and-yoga-vol-04-fourth-series-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/letters-of-sri-aurobindo\/04-fourth-series-1951\/06-science-philosophy-and-yoga-vol-04-fourth-series-1951","title":{"rendered":"-06_SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND YOGA.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\nSECTION TWO <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND YOGA <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe Gulf between the Methods of Physical
\nScience and Yoga<\/font><\/i><\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWHEN the scientist says that "scientifically speaking,  God is a hypothesis which is no longer necessary" he is talking arrant nonsense\u2014for the existence
\nof God is not and cannot be and never was a scientific
\nhypothesis or problem at all, it is and always has
\nbeen a spiritual or a metaphysical problem. You
\ncannot speak scientifically about it at all either pro
\nor con. The metaphysician or the spiritual seeker
\nhas a right to point out that it is nonsense; but if you
\nlay down the law to the scientist in the field of
\nscience you run the risk of having the same objection
\nturned against you. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs to the unity of all knowledge, that is a thing
\nin posse,<\/i> not yet in esse.<\/i> The mechanical method of
\nknowledge leads to certain results, the higher method leads to certain others,
\nand they at many points fundamentally disagree. How is the difference to be
\nbridged? For each seems valid in its own field; it is a
\nproblem to be solved, but you cannot solve it in the
\nway you propose, least of all in the field of physics. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-63 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIn psychology one can say that the mechanical or
\nphysiological approach takes hold of the thing by the <\/i>blind end and is the least fruitful of all\u2014for psychology is not primarily a thing of mechanism
\nand
\nmeasure, it opens to a vast field beyond the physical
\ninstrumentalities of the body-consciousness. In
\nbiology one can get a glimpse of something beyond
\nmechanism, because there is from the beginning a
\nstir of consciousness progressing and organising itself
\nmore and more for self-expression. But in physics
\nyou are in the very domain of the mechanical law where process is everything and
\nthe driving consciousness has chosen to conceal itself with the greatest
\nthoroughness\u2014so that, "scientifically speaking", it does not exist
\nthere. One can discover it there by
\noccultism and Yoga, but the methods of occult
\nscience and of Yoga are not measurable or followable
\nby the means of physical science\u2014so the gulf remains
\nin existence. It may be bridged one day, but the
\nphysicist is not likely to be the bridge-builder, so it
\nis no use asking him to try what is beyond his
\nprovince. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n5-12-1934<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-64<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/a>Mind <\/b> and Consciousness in Metaphysics and
\nPsychology<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nMETAPHYSICS deals with the ultimate cause of things
\nand all that lies behind the world of phenomena.  As regards mind and
\nconsciousness, it asks what they are, how they came into existence, what is
\ntheir relation to Matter, Life, etc. Psychology deals with mind and
\nconsciousness and tries to find out not so much their ultimate nature and
\nrelations as their actual workings and the rule and law of  these workings.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n9-10-1933 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/a>Science and Philosophy\u2014Humanity’s Readiness for
\nModern Scientific Discoveries*<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTHE article reads as if it had been written by a
\nprofessor rather than a philosopher. What you <\/font><\/p>\n

\n                                                   
\n<\/font><\/u><\/p>\n

\n* This is in reply to the points raised by a disciple in the following  letter to Sri Aurobindo: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"On p. 511 of The Listener<\/i> of March 28 there are a couple of
\nsurprising assumptions\u2014first, that metaphysics is one among the
\nexperimental sciences and has a darkened séance<\/i> room for its laboratory \u2014and secondly, that survival<\/i> need not be distinguished from <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-65<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nspeak of is, I suppose, a survival of the nineteenth
\ncentury scientific contempt for metaphysics; all
\nthinking must be based on scientific facts<\/i> and the
\ngeneralisations of science, often so faulty and ephemeral, must be made the basis for any sound metaphysical thinking. That is to make philosophy the<\/font><\/p>\n

\n                                                           
\n<\/font><\/u> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nimmortality.<\/i> In the interests of clearness, most philosophical thinkers
\nhave made this distinction; it is odd that it should be ignored
\nwhen such a polemic is being launched against them. … Of course,
\nif one has a turn for practical experimenting in science,<\/i> it is no doubt admirable to employ it in psychical investigation\u2014but (unless it is assumed that all cultured human beings, or all
\nphilosophers at least, should possess and cultivate this gift) why
\n<\/i>are the majority of philosophers to be blamed for finding the results
\nup-to-date obscure and meagre and for following their bent in’
\nconfining themselves to metaphysical<\/i> studies proper?" <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(Regarding a dream about a long-distance-telephone conversation with an acquaintance) "In actual life I think a telephone can
\nbe far less satisfactory than an exchange of letters. Is there not
\nsomething very symbolic about the emergence of telephony and
\ncinematography just at an epoch when human behaviour and relationship is breaking down? Owing to falsehood and callousness and
\nself-centred indifference to others, each person is to every other
\nmore and more a meaningless shadow and a deceptive voice. In
\nThe Manchester Guardian’s<\/i> musical critic’s remarks on an Elgar
\nMemorial Concert there are some good points about ‘the reaction
\nworking against nobility and tenderness in art’. I fail to see any
\nfurther need for human beings either as creators or enjoyers of such  ‘art’ as can still fall within the canons of fashion; perhaps,
\nhowever, in an Asuric civilisation, men are anyhow superfluous
\nand only ‘incarnated Asuras’ are required?" <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-66<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhandmaid of science, metaphysics the camp-follower
\nof physics and to deny her her sovereign rights in
\nher own city. It ignores the fact that the philosopher
\nhas his own domain and his own instruments; he
\nmay use scientific discoveries as material just as
\nhe may use any other facts of existence, but whatever generalisations science offers he must judge
\nby his own standards\u2014whether they, are valid for
\ntransference to the metaphysical plane and, if so,
\nhow far. Still in the heyday of physical science
\nbefore it discovered its own limitations and the
\nshakiness of its scheme of things floating precariously in a huge infinity or
\nboundless Finite of the Unknown, there was perhaps some excuse for such
\nan attitude. But spiritualism glorified under the
\nname of psychical research? That is not a science;  it is a mass of obscure and ambiguous documents
\nfrom which you can draw only a few meagre and
\ndoubtful generalisations. Moreover, so far as it
\nbelongs to the occult, it touches only the inferior
\nregions of the occult\u2014what we would call the lowest vital worlds\u2014where there is
\nas much falsehood and fake and confused error as upon the earth
\nand even more. What is a philosopher to do with
\nall that obscure and troubled matter? I do not
\ncatch the point of many of his remarks. Why should
\na prediction of a future event alter our conception <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-67<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\u2014at least any philosophic conception\u2014of Time?
\nIt can alter one’s ideas of the relation of events to
\neach other or of the working out of forces or of the possibilities of
\nconsciousness, but Time remains
\nthe same as before. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe dream is, of course, the rendering of an
\nattempt at communication on the subtle plane. As
\nfor the telephone and cinema, there is something
\nof what you say, but it seems to me that these and
\nother modern things could have taken on a different  character if they had been accepted and used in
\na different spirit. Mankind was not ready for these  discoveries, in the spiritual sense, nor even, if the
\npresent confusions are a sign, intellectually ready.
\nThe aesthetic downfall is perhaps due to other causes, a disappointed idealism
\nin its recoil generating its opposite, a dry and cynical intellectualism
\nwhich refuses, to be duped by the ideal, the romantic
\nor the emotional or anything that is higher than
\nthe reason walking by the light of the senses. The
\nAsuras of the past were after all often rather big
\nbeings; the trouble about the present ones is that
\nthey are not really Asuras, but beings of the lower
\nvital world, violent, brutal and ignoble, but above
\nall narrow-minded, ignorant and obscure. But this kind of cynical narrow
\nintellectualism that is rampant now, does not last\u2014it prepares its own end by  increasing dryness\u2014men begin to feel the need of
\nnew springs of life. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n24-4-1934<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-68 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/a>Materialistic Science and Mysticism<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI AM afraid I have lost all interest in these
\nspeculations; things are getting too serious for me to waste time on these
\ninconclusive intellectualities. I do not
\nat all mind your driving your point triumphantly
\nhome and replacing a dogmatism from materialistic
\nscience on its throne of half a century ago from which
\nit could victoriously ban all thought surpassing its
\nown narrow bounds as mere wordy metaphysics and
\nmysticism and moonshine. Obviously, if material
\nenergies alone can exist in the material world, there can be no possibility of a
\nlife divine on the earth. A
\nmere metaphysical "sleight of mind", as one might <\/i>call it, could not justify it against the objections of
\nscientific negation and concrete common sense. I
\nhad thought that even many scientific minds on the
\nContinent had come to admit that science could no
\nlonger claim to decide what was the real reality of
\nthings, that it had no means of deciding it and could <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-69 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nonly discover and describe the how and process of
\nthe operations of material Force in the physical front
\nof things. That left the field open to higher thought and speculation, spiritual
\nexperience and even to
\nmysticism, occultism and all those greater things  which almost everyone
\nhad come to disbelieve as impossible nonsense. That was the condition of
\nthings when I was in England. If that is to return or if Russia and her
\ndialectical materialism are to
\nlead the world, well, fate must be obeyed and life divine must remain content to wait perhaps for another millennium. But I do not like the idea of one of
\nour periodicals being the arena for a wrestle of that
\nkind. That is all. I am writing under the impression
\nof your earlier article on this subject, as I have not gone carefully through
\nthe later ones; I dare say
\nthese later ones may be entirely convincing and I
\nwould find after reading them that my own position
\nwas wrong and that only an obstinate mystic could
\nstill believe in such a conquest of Matter by the
\nSpirit as I had dared to think possible. But I am
\njust such an obstinate mystic; so, if I allowed your
\nexposition of the matter to be published in one of
\nour own periodicals, I would be under the obligation
\nof returning to the subject in which I have lost interest and therefore the inclination to write, so as to
\nre-establish my position and would have to combat <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-70 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe claim of
\nmaterialistic Science to pronounce  anything on these matters on which it
\nhas no means of enquiry nor any possibility of arriving at a valid decision.
\nPerhaps I would have practically to rewrite The Life Divine <\/i>as an answer
\nto the victorious "negation of the materialist"! This is the only explanation
\nwhich I can give, apart from sheer want of time to tackle the subject, for my
\nlong and  disappointing silence. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nMay 1949<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/a>Creative Power in Material Energy<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIF there were no creative power in the material
\nenergy, there would be no material universe. Matter
\nis not unconscious or without dynamism\u2014only it is
\nan involved force and consciousness that work in it. It is what the psychologists call the inconscient
\nfrom which all comes\u2014but it is not really
\ninconscient. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n23-1-1935<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-71<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/a>The Scientific and the Metaphysical Theory of
\nRelativity<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTHE Isha Upanishad passage is of course a much
\nlarger statement of the nature of universal existence
\nthan the Einstein theory which is confined to the
\nphysical universe. You can deduce too a much
\nlarger law of relativity from the statement in the
\nverse. What it means from this point of view\u2014for it
\ncontains much more in it\u2014is that the absolute
\nReality exists, but it is immovable and always the
\nsame, the universal movement is a motion of consciousness in this Reality of
\nwhich only the Transcendent itself can seize the truth, which is self-evident
\nto It, while the apprehension of it by the Gods (the
\nmind, senses, etc.) must necessarily be imperfect
\nand relative, since they can try to follow but none
\ncan really overtake (apprehend or seize) that Truth,
\neach being limited by its own view-point,* lesser
\ninstrumentality or capacity of consciousness, etc.
\nThis is the familiar attitude of the Indian or at least
\nthe Vedantic mind which held that our knowledge,
\nperception and experience of things in the world and
\nof the world itself must be vyavahārika,<\/i> relative, practical or pragmatic only,\u2014so declared Shankara,\u2014 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n                                                
\n<\/font><\/u><\/p>\n

\n* The Gods besides are in and subject to Space and Time,
\npart of the motion in Space and Time, not superior to it. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-72 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIt is in fact an illusory knowledge, the real Truth of
\nthings lying beyond our mental and sensory consciousness. Einstein’s relativity is a scientific, not a
\nmetaphysical statement. The form and field of it
\nare different\u2014but, I suppose, if one goes back from
\nit and beyond it to its essential significance, the real
\nreason for its being so, one can connect it with the
\nVedantic conclusion. But to justify that to the intellect, you would have to go through a whole process
\nto show how the connection comes\u2014it does not self-evidently  follow. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs for Jeans, many would say that his conclusions  are not at all legitimate. Einstein’s law is a scientific
\ngeneralisation based upon certain relations proper to
\nthe domain of physics and, if valid, valid there in the limits of that domain,
\nor, if you like, in the general domain of scientific observation and measurement of physical processes and motions, but how
\ncan you transform that at once into a metaphysical
\ngeneralisation? It is a jump over a considerable
\ngulf\u2014or a forceful transformation of one thing into
\nanother, of a limited physical result into an unlimited
\nall-embracing formula. I don’t quite know what
\nEinstein’s law really amounts to\u2014but does it amount
\nto more than this that our scientific measurements
\nof time and other things are, in the conditions under
\nwhich they have to be made, relative because subject <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-73<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nto the unavoidable drawback of these conditions? 
\nWhat metaphysically follows from that\u2014if any thing  at all does follow\u2014it is for the metaphysicians, not
\nthe scientists to determine. The Vedantic position was that the Mind itself (as
\nwell as the senses) is a limited power making its own representation,
\nconstructions, formations and imposing them on the Reality. That is a much bigger and more
\nintricate affair shooting down into the very roots of our existence. I think
\nmyself there are many positions taken
\nby modern Science which tend to be helpful to that view\u2014though in the nature of things they cannot
\nbe sufficient to prove it. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI state the objections only; I myself see certain
\nfundamental truths underlying all the domains and
\nthe one Reality everywhere. But there is also a great
\ndifference in the instruments used and the ways of
\nresearch followed by the seekers in these different
\nways (the physical, the occult and the spiritual)
\nand for the intellect at least the bridge between them has still to be built. One can point out analogies,
\nbut it can be maintained very well that Science
\ncannot be used for yielding or buttressing results of spiritual knowledge. The
\nother side can be maintained also and it is best that both should be stated\u2014
\nso this is not meant to discourage your thesis. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n8-2-1934 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-74 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/a>The Yogic View and the Current Opinions about
\nSupernatural Phenomena<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIF I write about these questions from the yogic
\npoint of view, even though on a logical basis, there is bound to be much that is
\nin conflict with the current opinions, e.g., about miracles, the limits of judgment by sense-data etc. I have avoided as much
\nas possible writing about these subjects because I
\nwould have to propound things that cannot be
\nunderstood except by reference to other data than
\nthose of the physical senses or of reason founded on
\nthese alone. I might have to speak of laws and forces
\nnot recognised by reason or physical science. In my
\npublic writings and my writings to sadhakas I have
\nnot dealt with these because they go out of the range
\nof ordinary knowledge and the understanding
\nfounded on it. These things are known to some, but
\nthey do not usually speak about them, while the
\npublic view of much of those as are known is either credulous or incredulous,
\nbut in both cases
\nwithout experience or knowledge. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nDecember 1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-75 <\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION TWO   SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND YOGA   The Gulf between the Methods of Physical Science and Yoga   WHEN the scientist says that "scientifically…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-04-fourth-series-1951","wpcat-97-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3716"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3716\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}