In2-MeC

Prague, Czech Republic
27 June 2004

Smilin' Jag Welcomes You to In2-MeC!

The method of modern susksa-jnanis

The jnanis of Western civilization do not adhere to Vedic knowledge. But they do aim to change the position of man in the world through the cultivation of scientific and philosophical knowledge, and they consider mental speculation to be the sine qua non of that cultivation. Indeed, they believe the core essence of human consciousness is mental speculation. "Abstract, theoretical or scientific thinking, which we call reason, constitutes the main content, the nucleus of man's consciousness," said Dr. Assen Kojarov in his address to the 1973 World Congress of Philosophy.

Now, human speculation is not perfect. How is truth to be distinguished from error? "Sometimes there may be errors," writes Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose, "but the errors are correctable. What is important is the fact that there is an impersonal (ideal) standard against which the errors can be measured. " Penrose is saying our speculations must reduce to an impersonal truth. This is an axiom, a "given" given by nobody, a rule that should not be questioned.

Thus modern systems of knowledge are founded upon an ideology of impersonalism. An ideology is a set of axioms that we are barely conscious of. It silently directs our efforts to give shape and coherence to the world. Dry philosophers both East and West are directed by the same ideology. Another common feature is their false humility. The Eastern jnani seems to humble himself before the Vedic teachings, but his intent is to exploit Vedic knowledge for changing his position from man to God. The Western jnani seems to humble himself before the natural cosmos. But his intent is likewise to become God.

Francis Bacon was one of the first "modern" thinkers; though he lived four centuries ago (1561-1626), his writings on knowledge and how to get it are still celebrated today. In a book entitled The Phaenomena of the Universe, he argued that humility demands mankind to submissively peruse the "volume of the creation" with a mind well-purged of opinions, idols and false notions. Similarly, the learned T. H. Huxley (1825-1895) advised men to sit down before the fact of the natural world and humbly follow "wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. " This another axiom of the modern method of knowledge: a person can know the truth only if he opens his mind. What is meant by opening the mind? Emptying it of personal values like good and evil, holy and unholy--thus reducing consciousness to a space that is to be occupied by material knowledge.

The conceit of the "open mind"

The mind must be opened because it has a big job to do. Like the mouth of a tremendous python, it has to swallow, bit by bit, the whole universe. The more it engorges the universe, the more the mind puffs up with "knowledge. " A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace (1749-1827) makes clear that this is indeed the agenda of the Western jnani:

A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces by which nature is animated and the position of all the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast enough to include all these data within his analysis, could embrace in one single formula the movements of the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future and the past would be equally before his eyes.

Clear enough: the mind should be "vast" so as to engulf "the movements of the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest atoms. " Thus sciences hopes to attain God-like knowledge and mastery over nature. But the data my mind swallows comes from my matrix of experience. The data your mind swallows comes from your matrix. Undoubtedly one person's experience of the universe is similar in many ways to another's. But significant differences always remain. No matter how humble we try to become before the creation, my data and yours can never be identical. No matter how much I try to purge my mind of opinions, idols and false notions, what I think about the cosmos and what you think about it will never be the same. As I write these words, I have before me the May 1997 edition of Scientific American. On page 14 is an article entitled "Vanishing World," about a debate between astronomers as to whether a planet discovered in 1989 orbiting the star 51 Pegasus is real or a mirage. Whose macrocosmic data is true and whose is false?

<< Back