The Scientist and the Saint
The Limits of Science and the Testimony of Sages
By Avinash Chandra
www.indicabooks.com/product/the-scientist-and-the-saint/
Reviews in Amazon
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 12 February 2019 by Borroheart
A Unique Reference Work
The Scientist and the Saint juxtaposes the arguments of scientists and the testimony of saints and sages to contrast two opposing world views. But what is invaluable in this compendium of quotations is that the literally hundreds of scientists cited often put into very question the modern popular scientific paradigm and in doing so reveal the shakiness of its foundations in the realms of its method, models, totalitarian impact on nature, technology and materialism, its theories of evolution and reductionism, and its physicalist view of consciousness.
The second half of the book reveals how the study and understanding of consciousness has been the preeminent field of enquiry in Indian thought for millennia, delving, as it does, into inner states of consciousness to elucidate their many layers. The result of this is knowledge of the nature and the role of the Intellect and the path to its purification as borne out by the experience of saints and sages.
This is a very useful, thorough and unique work for all seeking an authoritative critique of modern science and a better understanding of the things science cannot explain such as being, consciousness and happiness.
Review in the USA on 7 January 2019 by Woodtrush
A very well-researched and coherently presented contrast
of the traditional and modern worldviews.
This is a work that could be “classified” according to different rubrics—history of science, history of philosophy, metaphysics, religion, cosmology, sociology—because it concerns several fields. But its importance in fact goes far beyond the rather limitative criteria of current academic categories. The substance of this work is a contrast of worldviews. [A worldview cannot be “proven”. In considering various data, different minds may well arrive at different conclusions. One has only to think of the classic visual image of a water tumbler: is it half full or half empty?] At issue here is the difference between what may be called the “traditionalist” worldview, which was universal among humankind—although manifesting itself in different modes—until about the time of the Renaissance in Europe with what we will call the “modern” worldview. [In simplified terms, according to a traditionalist worldview, the physical world around us is only the lowest and most gross degree of reality; it is an emanation of and is subject to various superior or “vertical” degrees, including psychic and spiritual degrees of an order that are beyond the limitations of time and space. Note also that we are setting aside here current academic, philosophical definitions and define “modernism” in this context as the view that the world is a product of physical, psychological, historical, quantitative and basically “horizontal” causes. According to this worldview, only sensorial, scientifically “measurable” data are admitted as valid.] The modern worldview has in fact become so all-pervasive, that many of our contemporaries are not even aware that it is a relatively recent development and one which has far-reaching and serious consequences for how we see the world around us and for our relationship with it. The fact that there is a valid worldview which predates and can replace “modernity” will come as refreshing information to those who sense the limitations of the conventional wisdom of today’s world. The author has done a very thorough job of delineating the differences and the ramifications of the two.
The initial premise of this work is that “Any form of thought starts out from a basis of premises and unconscious axioms we take for granted. Thus, every culture has its own axioms and principles, which we only become conscious of when confronted with other forms of thought. . . Thus, modern thought is also based on a veritable ‘mythology’, and unconsciously takes for granted many metaphysical principles. However, this mythology and these mythological principles are not recognized as such, while at the same time other peoples have their visions criticized. . .” [Avinash Chandra, The Scientist and the Saint, Archetype, Cambridge, 2018, p. 31.] The author then proceeds to describe what the principles are of the “modern mythology”. He follows through with comparing and contrasting it with the “traditionalist” perspective. It is clear from the outset that the author’s perspective is that of tradition, but this is not a work undertaken in the spirit of a polemic. Indian philosophers have been characterized for centuries for their dialectical skills: the ability to approach a question through an intellectual process of discussion and reasoning. [It is crucial to underline that in this context the “intellect” is not limited just to ratiocination. As Meister Eckhart said: “There is something in the soul that is uncreated and uncreatable, and this is the intellect.”] By presenting the premises of differing standpoints and examining all the consequences of those premises, one can then arrive at an evaluation of which perspective offers the most comprehensive and convincing response to the question or questions posed.
One of the indications of the thoroughness of how this approach has been applied is the range and number of authors cited, conveniently listed in an “Index of Proper Names” at the end of the book. Included are names ranging from Plato and pre-Socratics, to philosophers, sages, saints, poets, statesmen, scientists, contemporary theologians and other writers from many different countries, eras and civilizations. An observation is called for here: in setting out to delineate and defend the traditional worldview, Mr. Chandra has included quotations from quite an eclectic scope of authors. Overall, this adds to the credibility of his presentation. The reader must bear in mind, however, that for this very reason, the authors cannot be of equal quality, depth and consistency. It is also worth noting that statements from “the opposition” have not been left out.
The fundamental question at issue is: what is the origin, structure and determining principle of the universe, and concomitantly of the human state? Focusing on the human side of this, the author adds this question: “If man were nothing more than a rather special animal, generated by accident and the blind forces of evolution, why should he be in a quasi-permanent state of dissatisfaction? Why could he not live in peace, content to do no more than eat, sleep and reproduce? . . . And yet, we see many who live in modern developed societies, with all their material needs satisfied to the fullest, sunk to states of frustration, depression or existential crisis.” [Chandra, op. cit., p. 45.]
Among the hallmarks of people belonging to the traditionalist perspective one finds: 1. the sense of an Absolute principle; 2. flowing from this, a sense of certitude regarding what the cosmos is and what man’s place in it is; 3. deriving from the preceding two, serenity—differing in degree and lucidity according to the scope of the individual. The author summarizes it this way:
“In a world in which nothing certain seems to be left, no refuge, nothing to hold onto, there is still one thing that has, always and everywhere, been considered true, having been explained and corroborated by the experience of many saints and mystics. It is what is known as the perennial philosophy, the sophia (wisdom) perennis, composed of the nucleus of metaphysical doctrines belonging to every place and time. . . . Religions differ from one another, as do spiritual paths, and even many mystical experiences diverge. But although their expressions and emphases are necessarily different, what humanity’s most eminent sages have said ends up, in its essence, being identical or at least convergent. Saint Augustine spoke of that ‘uncreated wisdom the same now as it always was and always will be’.” [Ibid., p. 39.]
“What humanity’s most eminent sages have said” are not merely mental constructions imposed upon credulous minds. They are principles woven into the very substance of existence. Only this can account for the fact that for millennia, people of the most diverse ethnic backgrounds and civilizations—from illiterate nomads to the most sophisticated town-dwellers—have espoused the same principles and found their life’s fulfillment in them.
The size of the book may seem a bit daunting a first glance, but the scope of the subject requires it; and not every reader will feel a need to study each page of the text. A one-page, summary “table of contents” provides an initial orientation to the issues dealt with and is followed by a more detailed and itemized table of contents. This enables the reader to focus on the topics of most interest to him or her. Some readers may not have the practice of paying much attention to introductions, but the one in this book is extremely helpful. It outlines the basic issues that are dealt with in detail later in the text. As the author mentions, much of the content is not from his own pen; rather, he has been the organizer and presenter of a great deal of information from very different sources, but all of which are brought to bear in a very cogent way upon the discussion at hand.
This book is very well-researched, coherently presented and highly recommended.
Review in Paradigm Explorer 2018/2, pp. 43-44, by David Lorimer
This magisterial work can be unreservedly recommended to serious students of the relationship between science, spirituality and mysticism. Immense in scope and drawing on a wide range of literature, including French, Spanish and Italian as well as English, the book is a brilliant and cogent statement of perennial philosophy in relation to the materialistic metaphysics of modern science. The eleven parts address major themes in terms of worldviews, the ideology of science, evolution, the nature of consciousness — also in Indian thought — spiritual knowledge or gnosis, the testimony of the sages, esoteric and exoteric religion, death, evil, and finding the way out of the labyrinth. There are nearly 70 pages of notes and references, along with 25 pages indexing proper names — also an extended table of contents.
The author has a thorough grasp of the perennial philosophy, mysticism and the mystical path, metaphysics, evolutionary biology, consciousness studies, parapsychology, spiritual traditions, ethics, epistemology and levels of knowing, and the literature around death and near-death experiences — in other words, of many of the central concerns of the Network and its members. His critical analysis of the limits of scientism is acute, and goes to the heart of the existential vacuum of our time in terms of meaning. He points out the fundamental division between those who espouse the materialistic view of random chance and accidents and those who see a deeper intelligence at work — these include people like Max Planck. He shows how the loss of the contemplative dimension in Christianity led to a more propositional approach to faith and belief and ultimately to the eclipse of the intellect or higher mind by discursive reasoning. Kant went as far as denying that such unitive knowledge was possible. The knowing of the intellect is immediate and direct, through the eye of the heart, where there is no separation between knower and known. Nor is there a distinction between knowledge and love — the ultimate human experience unites being, consciousness and bliss as in sat, chit ananda, as pointed out by many perennial philosophers such as Guenon, Schuon and Nasr.
This insight means that ethics are integral to the unitive state of identity with the Source, where modern thinking has divorced knowledge from love and produced an amoral and manipulative technology that also serves as a noisy distraction from the silence required for serious spiritual work. In this sense, the focus of the book is on the inner, the sacred and the qualitative, providing an essential corrective to the outer, quantitative emphasis in the contemporary world. The stress is on transformation rather than information, the surrender of the ego and the journey from self to self as described in the testimony of the sages. The author reminds us that modern people tend to look up to the economically successful as role models, while in more traditional societies the Sage or Saint has been as the centre as a source of spiritual inspiration. Their witness arrests to the primacy of consciousness and the reality of inner knowing and subtle worlds. It is mere metaphysical prejudice to dismiss saints and sages as deluded dreamers. However, in order to gain access to subtler perceptions, training is required, as it is in all disciplines. The section on spiritual knowledge explains this in detail with its insistence on an ultimate identity between being and knowledge whereby the logos “is at once the intelligibility of God and the agent of man’s intellection, mediator of knowledge” — this is traditionally understood as Light, but a Light that is also Love, as experienced by mystics and some of those near death. The revival of the term intellect as the medium for immediate contemplative knowledge is in my view a vital part of any metaphysical revolution.
The section on subjectivity, mind and consciousness clarifies why consciousness is such a problem for materialistic science that insists on primacy of matter and the more or less epiphenomenal nature of consciousness: “consciousness is only a problem when it is not considered as a primary reality” (p. 193) and explanatory attempts are made only from the bottom up or from the outside in. Maintaining the materialistic metaphysic entails ignoring the causal powers of consciousness as demonstrated in parapsychology. Raimon Panikkar is quoted as saying that the world is neither subjective nor objective, but rather the point at which objectivity and subjectivity meet. It is here that the Indian view of mind and consciousness is very helpful, as also expounded in the work of K. Ramakrishna Rao. Indian thought does not confuse consciousness with its contents, and distinguishes pure witness consciousness from the mind. Atman is this pure consciousness, which is also the source and goal of self-realisation in unitive knowledge. The Atman is ineffable, transcending concepts and duality. However, as already indicated, in order to achieve this devoted sadhana or practice is required. This can be summed up in the quotation “know that by which you know yourself” or in the phrase of Clement of Alexandria “if a man knows himself, he shall know God.”
The sage or saint is one whose sole being is in God, whose identity is surrendered as an instrument of the eternal spirit — Swami Ramdas provides a comprehensive description (p. 335). They all insist that our phenomenal reality represents only one level, and that there are other more real levels to be perceived beyond the limitations of the physical senses and personality. Sage exemplify both love and wisdom, having overcome any sense of separation. They also emanate peace and joy — people are transformed in their presence. As St Catherine of Genoa writes: “my being is God, not by simple participation, but by a true transformation of my being…my Me is God, nor do I recognise any other Me except God Himself.” (p. 375)
The chapter on religion and religions quotes William James as saying that the life of religion consists in a belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto. He might have said experience rather than belief. The language of religion is symbolism, and we live in a symbolically illiterate culture characterised by fundamentalism and literalism in both the sciences and religion. The author points out that there are traditionally four levels of reading Scripture — literal, moral, spiritual and finally anagogical. The distinction between the esoteric and the exoteric can be characterised as that between the spirit and the letter, essence and form. Bede Griffiths was one modern mystic who realised the importance of Dionysius in incorporating the esoteric wisdom of Platonism into Christianity and the need to revive the Christian contemplative tradition, also manifest in the work of John Main and Laurence Freeman. I could add here the work of the Bulgarian Mystic Peter Deunov (Beinsa Douno, 1864-1944) who, although not mentioned, represents a further testimony from a sage; also the work of Walter Russell (1871-1963).
Moving towards the end of the book, the author considers the importance of understanding the nature of death in relation to the meaning of life and spiritual practice. Here he also discuss transmigration and reincarnation, as well as the metaphysical significance of evil and suffering. In the final chapter, he returns to the question of the significance of worldviews and limitations of the current materialistic metaphysic. He is clear that science should not be discarded but rather valued within its limits and domain of jurisdiction, and that science as a method of knowing should be distinguished from scientism as an ideology; this will be a familiar thought to many readers. Hence the conflict is not between religion and science as such, but between dogmatic materialism and an equally dogmatic literalistic and fundamentalist religion. The author calls for a resacralisation of the world and transformative practice informed by what Bede Griffiths calls ‘fides formata’ — transforming faith opening to the divine and working by love. This brings him back to the essence of spiritual life and the supreme goal returning to the Centre, Origin or Source and embodying the integration of love and wisdom. This profound and erudite book is not only highly informative and topical, but also challenges the reader to remember and live out the essential spiritual purpose of life.