In2-MeC

New Delhi, India
10 December 2003

On the afternoon of 6 December I landed in Delhi after flying from Auckland with stopovers at Brisbane (Australia) and Bangkok (Thailand). Here in Delhi I've been staying at 62 Sant Nagar, the former office building of the Srila Prabhupada Centennial, which from the early 'nineties through 1996 was directed by HH Lokanatha Maharaja and managed by HG Gaura Sundara Prabhu, my Godbrothers. Since then Gaura Sundara Prabhu, who is Lokanatha Maharaja's cousin-brother, retained several floors in this building, which is ten minutes walk from the ISKCON temple in Delhi. At present Gaura Sundara Prabhu is in the USA. His nephew Haridas is overseeing the place. I am staying in a room on the fifth floor; my disciple Rasa-lila dd lives in the rooftop apartment.

"Rasaji" or "Rasinkaji" as she is affectionately known comes from Bulgaria, where she joined ISKCON at age 15. But since 1997 she has lived in Dehli where she learns and performs Indian dance. She received a B.A. in Bharat Natyam studies from Delhi's Ganesh Natyalayam school and is now enrolled in a different school to learn Katak.

Rasaji is the perfect "independent woman." She is not married and has no plans to be, she earns her own bread by a private business in photography, she serves her lovely Deities Sri Sri Radhika-Vrajabihari (which she sculpted herself, as she is an artist), and she is quite happy living by herself in a big Indian city, especially one that is so close to Sri Vrndaban Dhama. She's become something of a celebrity in Delhi, often having her picture in the newspaper; yet her reputation is spotless. The Indian people respect her as "the beautiful nun" because she firmly abstains from the four pillars of sinful life, yet she is popular because of her talent and her vivacious, outgoing personality.

Rasaji and her older sister Abhaya-mudra dd (who is an artist working under the direction of my Godbrother Nara-narayana Prabhu in California) are daughters of a (now-retired) principal of a Bulgarian school for gifted children. Their upbringing was exceptionally intellectual and cultural. Not only is Rasaji a naturally talented dancer (in Bulgaria she graduated from an elite academy for Bulgaria folk dance), she is also thoughtful and philosophical and often voices startling insights into tattva.

A couple of days ago Rasaji and I had quite an involved talk about consciousness and language. The first thing we considered was a rainbow. Everyone considers a rainbow to be a real thing for the reason that many people are able to see a rainbow at once. (If out of a group of people only one person sees something that he claims is real, a thing that remains undetected by the others, the doubt of the others will fall on this one person that he is deluded, hallucinating, etc. The requirement that a thing be perceivable by the mass of people in order to be considered real is called consensus reality.)

Yet while we accept a rainbow as real, we do not consider it as real as, for example, a tree. Why? Because when we see a rainbow, we know that our consciousness is playing a major role in the rainbow's appearance. If human consciousness is subtracted, then all that is left of a rainbow is sunlight streaming through water droplets in the air. The rainbow's colorful shape appears in the human mind; if humans are not there to view it, then it isn't "there", is it? We can't argue that birds flying by also see it because nobody knows if a rainbow appears in the minds of non-human observers.

A tree, on the other hand, is "there" all the time, whether humans are around to see it or not. Birds nest in the tree. Its existence obviously isn't limited to human perception. This is called objective reality.

But when the findings of modern physics are brought into the discussion, the tree also fades into the same "half-real" state as the rainbow! A tree is made of molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are, simultaneously, "waves" and "points" in space. In the final analysis of modern physics, the true characteristics of subatomic particles are revealed by mathematical formulas. Where do mathematical formulas exist? In the human mind! The inescapable conclusion: to argue a tree is more substantial than a rainbow is "naive realism." Bring in science, and we are forced to admit that, like with the rainbow, the human mind contributes a great deal to the "existence" of a tree.

This contribution of the mind to the existence of things around us is called participatory reality. It is not a concept of reality that is yet widely admitted in the Western world. In the West we are conditioned to think of reality as either "consensus" (as per the rainbow) or "objective" (as per the "naive" understanding of a tree). Typically we suppose consensus reality presides over the "humanistic" side of life while objective reality presides over the "factual" side of life.

But as Rasaji pointed out in our talk, in either case--consensus or objective--the starting point is the presentation of "something" (either a rainbow or a tree) to us by the mind. It is actually a re-presentation. The mind "represents" sunlight, air and water droplets to us as a rainbow. The mind "represents" subatomic particles, atoms and molecules to us as a tree.

Here is where language comes in. Representation is metaphorical. This is how the dictionary defines the word metaphor:

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in a sea of troubles or All the world's a stage (Shakespeare).

2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: The high-rise garbage repository is a metaphor for both accomplishment and failure (Richard Sever).

Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy informs us that the whole material world is a metaphor. It is a "perverted reflection" (Srila Prabhupada's phrase) of the spiritual world. Reflection means representation. Moreover, Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy informs us that the representation of the world, appearing in our consciousness as feelings, visible forms, tastes and smells, begins with the input of sabda (Vedic sound, i.e. the original language). Thus this representation is literally metaphorical! In ancient Greek philosophy also, the background of the world was understood to be logos, "the word." This philosophy carried over into Christian theology: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..."

That's religion, but what about science? Werner Heisenberg, a famous German physicist, wrote: "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." This simply means that we cannot go beyond words and thoughts in our understanding of the world. The world presents itself to us in accordance with our interest in the world, or "in other words" (metaphor!), according to our philosophy of the world. If our interest, our philosophy, is that the world exists to be controlled and enjoyed, then the world presents itself to us as if it can be controlled and enjoyed. But that is not the world itself!

The Vedic sound from which the world arises is the emanation of the breathing of Maha-Visnu. That sound is itself a re-presentation of the sound that fills the eternal Spiritual Sky--the transcendental sound of the glorious, unlimited names, forms, qualities, activities and loving relationships of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Quite apart from the Vedic re-presentation of the glories of the Lord as sabda-brahma, the original transcendental sound of His glories directly appears in the material world in its own unrepresented, unmetaphorical form...as the mahamantra Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare/Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare; and as the sound incarnation of the Lord known as Srimad-Bhagavatam (pravistah karna-randhrena svanam bhava-saroruham--Bhag. 2.8.5).

"In other words" (metaphor again!), the material world is a symbolic representation of the spiritual world. In the most fundamental way, that world is represented in consciousness by language. Consciousness participates in language; as the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein stated, "Words are the vehicles of thoughts." Indeed, words are thoughts. Thus the Wittgensteinians say their acarya's aphorism is best understood as "Words are the vehicles of words." And I, Suhotra Swami, say "Words are the vehicles of the world." Words carry our thoughts of the world, and words carry the world itself.

Although what I've related above is the Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy, I find that most ISKCON devotees are not comfortable with it. They prefer to conduct themselves as per consensus reality and objective reality...which are not "really" realities at all! Of course, the consensus reality in ISKCON is that you just have to put a tilaka stamp on the foreheads of these realities, then voila! They are transformed into "Vaisnava concerns" and thus become valid realities that devotees have an obligation to spend their lives grappling with: ISKCON social and political issues, for example. (Yawn.)

From their lingering preoccupation with consensus and objective realities, ISKCON devotees are troubled by so many "difficult questions." These questions are simple impotent thoughts...thoughts that are impotent because they do not move with the vehicles of 1) the all-powerful Vedic language (all-powerful because that language alone, the sabda-brahma or brahma-vac, is source of creation), and 2) the all-blissful language of the Holy Names and the Bhagavatam (all-blissful because the Name and the Bhagavatam are the transcendent Lord Himself, even higher than His vac-sakti by which the world is created, maintained and destroyed). Impotent thoughts means impotent words. Impotent words are words that are not mantras. Such impotent words and thoughts represent a world that is not real...hence it baffles us.

A significant percentage of the ISKCON population does not understand (although I think most at least believe) that the answer to all doubts is

1) Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare/Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare (see Kalisantarana Upanisad verse 6--"no other remedy is to be found in all the Vedic sastras); and

2) "The Bhagavatam is the Answer to All Questions" (see Bhag. Canto 2 Chapter 10).

When I was in Wellington, New Zealand, a devotee repeatedly asked me "how can we understand the tremendous difference between the modern scientific account of the world, and the account of the Vedic scriptures?"

I gave him a simple answer, as I usually do when I get questions from persons who are very "reality challenged." I told him that modern science stands on a most uncertain and contradictory idea of what is real. (I spent a little time describing Newtonian "reality", Einsteinian "reality" and quantum "reality", and pointed out that these three together form the basis of the scientific view of the world, although each is profoundly incompatible with one another, as admitted by scientists themselves.) I concluded by saying that devotees who are not educated in the deep contradictions of the scientific worldview sometimes allow themselves to be over-awed by scientific propaganda. They think that science is a monolith of facts written in stone. But that massive front of stone is only an empty shell. Look inside the shell, you'll find there is nothing but speculation. The only thing "hard" about science is technology. Technology began (and still begins today) as the effort to "re-present" theories of the world in mechanical models. For example: the famous "clockwork" mechanical model of the solar system built by Sir Isaac Newton. But here again is the problem: a mechanical model is designed according to fundamental theories of time, space, mass, energy and relationship. What if there are different schools of such fundamental theories, and what if between these schools there is an unbridgeable "reality gap"? That is exactly the case today in modern science. The fundamental theories of Newtonian classical physics are incongruent with Einstein's theory of relativity; and both of these are incongruent with the theories of quantum physics. Yet all are useful in different, albeit limited, areas of application. What we must never forget is that scientists have no overarching TOE (Theory Of Everything), although they are quick to claim credit for "working on it."

Do you know that Darwin's theory of evolution is derived from the Newtonian worldview? Do you know that from the standpoint of the quantum physical worldview, Darwinian evolution stands upon no scientific foundation whatsoever?

Because Rasaji has such an interesting brain, I was able, in my talk with her, to go deeper into the question "how can we understand the tremendous difference between the modern scientific account of the world, and the account of the Vedic scriptures?"

Now, we have already seen that science takes us beyond "naive realism", the assumption that a tree exists all by itself, as opposed to a rainbow that exists with a good deal of help from human consciousness. Speaking scientifically, a tree looks and feels like a tree because our minds participate with nature in representing "tree-ness" out of "not-tree" ("not-tree, not-tree" i.e. neti-neti) elemental ingredients (molecules, atoms, etc.). That is science, no?

Yes.

But science proposes to tell us what the world was like before human beings lived in it...like what it was like back in the Jurassic Age, for example, more than a hundred million years ago. (Keep in mind that right now, for argument's sake, we are embracing the chronology of science: there were no Homo whatevers before 500 thousand years ago.) Untold millions of modern people have seen Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park movies and believe that's the way the world was before mankind walked the earth. Furthermore, science proposes to tell us how the world began, with the Big Bang. Science even proposes to tell us what existed before the Big Bang!

All this telling about a world before man existed means what, at the bottom line?

"Uh..."

What does it fundamentally mean, you ISKCON version of Rodin's statue, The Thinker?

"Oh, ummm, well, er, ha-ha, I guess it means...well, I'm not sure..."

It means language!

"Oh, yes, of course..."

The scientists use language to describe a world that (according to them) existed when there was no language.

The scientists talk about "giant prehistoric reptiles." They talk about "a landscape rent by violent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions." They talk about "an original land mass thrusting up above the waves from the ocean bottom." They talk about "protoplasmic life emerging from the chemical soup that once covered the entire surface of the Earth." They talk about "a gigantic fiery globe that spun off the Sun to be caught by gravity in a heliocentric orbit, which then shrank and cooled to form Planet Earth."

What the scientists describe is what we would have seen had we been there to see it. The problem is, if (according to them) there was no consciousness in the prehistoric world, then how would visible forms exist? How would audible sounds exist? How would tactile feelings exist? How would flavors of smell and taste exist?

How would what their words describe exist?

There may have been an invisible menagerie of unrepresented elemental particles floating in empty space--the same menagerie that is calculated to exist right now in the so-called "microworld" (the world that is too small for us to see, the world where atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, photons and so on are envisioned at quantum play). But these particles would have existed like water droplets in air pervaded by solar rays, without human minds to participate in the process of representing the droplets, air and sunshine as a rainbow. Imagine a whole world manifest from the "stuff" of a rainbow. Then subtract one of the necessary ingredients: consciousness.

How could such a rainbow world without consciousness be represented in language?

Yet that is what scientists propose to do when they talk about "the world before Man."

"Humbug!" Srila Prabhupada would say.

And why are you listening to such humbug, and thinking about it, and getting worried about it, and then asking, "how can we understand the tremendous difference between the modern scientific account of the world, and the account of the Vedic scriptures?"

YOU CAN ONLY UNDERSTAND THE WORLD THROUGH THE VEDIC SCRIPTURES.

Why?

BECAUSE THE VEDIC ACCOUNT IS AN ACCOUNT OF ETERNAL LANGUAGE AND ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS. THE SCIENTISTS DO NOT ACCEPT THE ETERNALITY OF EITHER. AT THE SAME TIME, BY THEIR OWN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE THINGS OF THE WORLD ARE REPRESENTED TO US, THEY ARE HAMPERED FROM DESCRIBING THE WORLD APART FROM CONSCIOUSNESS AND LANGUAGE. YET STILL THEY OFFER SUCH A DESCRIPTION. THIS IS CLASSICAL WORD JUGGLERY. THIS IS NONSENSE.

Why are you still listening to their nonsense, and thinking about it, and worrying about it, and asking "how can we understand the tremendous difference between the modern scientific account of the world, and the account of the Vedic scriptures?"

Do you even understand the problem?

When I discuss this problem with many ISKCON devotees, I find they don't. Or if they do, they "understand" for as long as the discussion lasts, then they forget it.

At least Rasaji understands. Hope!

If you want to really understand the world and its history from beginning to end, you have to give submissive oral reception to the language that reveals the world and its history from beginning to end. That is the metaphysical language of the sruti and smrti, and the pure devotional language of Srimad-Bhagavatam and the holy names of Krsna, transmitted by the tattvadarsis who have realized that language in their hearts.

<< Back