In several previous articles relating to science in the Veda has received a response that was quite interesting in several forums and blogs neighbors. Particularly one that addresses the issue of creation of the universe and the creation of Black Hole theory hypothesis and White Hole. Indeed, I must admit that the response that appears is not always positive or at least a form of criticism which can build up, but many also pushed the issue of negative skeptical. No half-hearted in a blog there attacking the institution and my alma mater.
Indeed, I must admit that in writing the article science and its correlation with Veda, I do not always use the scientific methodology as writings journals of scientific research results that are commonly used in the world of science today. Why is that? Because it must be recognized that the starting point of religion (in this case the Vedas) and science are very different. Metologogi approach in attracting the "truth" of these two areas are not at all comparable. Therefore, in order to respond to problems arising from the articles I and to the perception and mindset, I hope the following will be able to give some idea.
Told that there were five people who have been blind since birth so it did not ever feel this world with the senses of vision. They only interact with their environment using the sense of touch, hearing, taste and smell. One day they're busy joking under a tree at the edge of a river. At that moment an elephant Gone adults who are often wallow near their resting. One of the blind man shouted; "Oh .. my friends there was an earthquake, there is something very big was trying to destroy the earth, let us examine the source from where this vibration". Shortly after it was finally right the first blind person holding the belly of the elephant lying. After fumbling a while, suddenly he says; "Well it turns out objects that can vibrate the world exactly like a wall, a huge body and the skin is rough and hairy rare". After the second blind man approached and curiously groping the elephant. But she held was not the same as the first blind man, but he's holding certain trunk. So of course this second person shouting denied what was said by his friends; "No, this animal just like a big snake, he may have tried to make a big hole in the earth we are making our land tremble". The third blind man eventually came out of curiosity. But again, unfortunately he was not feeling part of the same elephant with her friends, but she is holding elephant ivory. Finally the third blind man who is trying to give intermediate conclusion by saying "No ... not like a wall or a big snake, you are wrong. This animal is very subtle but very loud, just like a big iron rod tapered smooth ". But the fourth blind man came again and right holding the tail of the elephant. Finally blind people also get another conclusion by saying; "These animals such as fans pine for arati (ceremony for the fans and also the past often used to fan a King)". Then the blind latter also approached, but again it turns out he felt part of which is also different to what his friends earlier conjecture. He touched the feet of the elephant. Finally he said; "You are all wrong, the animal was like a tree trunk that is alive and able to move. Maybe he already jumping and pounding our planet that vibrate ".
After observing the elephant satisfied only with his senses are imperfect, they finally returned to sit under a shady tree.However, due to differences in the conclusions that they get, discussions fifth blind man became increasingly hot and never found conclusions. Each of the blind man as evidence suggests in fact experience an authentic conclusion. Quasi insistent with their conclusions. Intermittent some time, eventually Gone someone who turned out to be an elephant handler who could they hold. The handler smiling listening to the debate not done by the end of the blind man. In the heart of the handler said; "Basic blind fool, why they do not ask questions directly and receive an explanation of normal people who can see the whole course of the elephant?". The keeper had even then finally approached and tried to reconcile the dispute. The handler tried to explain as much detail as how the actual condition of the animals they problem. Unfortunately, it was faced with the blind fool not always easy. Only one person among the blind man who accepts the explanation given by the handler, while the four other blind people remained adamant in his stance and said that opinion most correct.
Of the cases of the five blind men and the elephant above, actually has a very close analogy with the phenomenon of the Vedas and the science that seeks I described in this article. We are not is like a blind man who was trying to get to know the nature around us. Because our curiosity was great, we always try to do a variety of research. Perform trial and error,and finally draw a conclusion that this conclusion is always changing and updated in accordance with developments in science.
In obtaining the truth, today people rely on two types of approaches, namely non-scientific and scientific approach. Which is included in non-scientific approach is, among others; common sense, prejudices, intuition, chance finds (trial and error),receiving the opinion of an expert charismatic. While the approach of the so-called scientific approach and glorified by the world of science is an approach that the conclusion is ready to be tested by anyone who wishes to test it. So that in the scientific stages of the researchers should follow the stages of formulation of the problem, propose and formulating hypotheses, testing hypotheses and the last is the conclusion. All this must be done in a systematic, continuous and within the framework of rational thinking. It means that any evidence submitted to be accountable and prove by our senses or justification through mathematical calculations were justified. Scientific approach such as this is also known as inductive empirical. Meanwhile, in the language of the Vedas, the scientific method is referred to by the term pratyakña(observation and direct vision) and anumäna (concluded based on signs and empirical evidence).
Methods base should be highlighted as a weakness of scientific methodology is rule Accumulated. Science is a set of facts, theories, laws, etc. in collected bit by bit. If there rule wrong, then it will be replaced with Siwak Siwak correct.So basically the science of truth is relative and temporal, not the absolute and final truth, and thus science is dynamic and open. The scientific method is no different than the blind man who was debating animal elephant as we said above.Understanding of the blind elephant will be growing little by little to rely on their business conduct searches and verification. They must go through a wide range of conclusions incorrect or incomplete. Although one day they could get a picture of the elephant correctly.
But what is offered by Veda is contrary to the scientific method. Veda using the deductive method, namely the hereditary process of those who already know the science it perfectly to his followers. Exactly like blind men who are willing to accept the explanation of the handler gives a detailed explanation about the elephant on top. The blind man is of course much easier to accept the truth of what is conveyed by the handler as people who already know the truth than to have to do experiment and debate is not it?
Veda as the Hindu holy book, repeatedly affirmed that human life is not perfect because human physical senses are limited and imperfect, tends fantasy, cheat and do wrong. Therefore learn and understand what is conveyed by the Vedas, especially the spiritual and transcendental can not be done pratyakña (observation and direct vision) and anumäna(concluded based on signs and empirical evidence). Veda said that the teachings of the reach of natural human logic is better understood as a word-pramäëa, heard from a source that is true and valid ie from teachers spirituality (Acharya) inParampara (process menuru / inductive) in a line of college (sampradaya ) legitimate and obvious (note the Bhagavad Gita 4:34 and 4.2). This method is the same as an example of a blind man who would accept an explanation handler in the story above analogy.
Only, they are narrow materialistic character, often reject the word-pramäëa as suggested by Veda. They say that the wordrequires the believer blindly, obedient and subject to the dogma, adhering to the belief without foundation or imaginary.According to them, the word can not be trusted because it is not science that is not supported by empirical evidence that can be seen. Such an attitude may arise as a result of the bitter events that ever befell mankind. The clergy of specific religious groups engaged a bloody dispute with a group of scientists who question the truth proclaimed by the religious scriptures, particularly about whether the earth is really flat. Based on various evidence, it is true that the conclusions of the clergy are based on scripture is exactly what is wrong, so that it is automatically pushed many scientists to be skeptical and do not believe anymore in the religious scriptures concerned. Like it or not, like it or not it must be recognized that not all religions are the same. And maybe not all religions born from the Creator. Or maybe there are some religious teachings that have been distorted so that a discussion should produce the same conclusion if approached in a scientific (empirical inductive) based on the conclusions of religion (empirical deductive) can not be achieved. For a complex case which is difficult to be concluded by the observation of the senses, is certainly not easy to say the wrong conclusion religion. But for a case that is very easily observed, but contrary to what was stated by the teachings of religion are certainly his religion unquestionable.
What about the Vedas? If someone wants to know something empirically, Veda has also provided a philosophical systemSäìkhya to examine Apara-Vidya (the science of materials) are still affordable by the observation of the five senses, although very limited. With the system Säìkhya this, what the Vedas are ready to be tested and empirically questionable deductive. However, if it has been talked about para-vidya, the knowledge of God and Jeva the non-material, the empirical process of deductive this is simply not going to be used again as spiritual things are very different and are not touched by the theories of materialistic that only applies in the material world.
The picture above shows the imperfection of our senses because it affected the optical illusion
Basically Religion and science also have common ground. Religion discuss the material and the spiritual and material science to discuss things that can be observed by human senses alone. Not all of the material described by religion because it is the ultimate goal of a religion is a spiritual realm, however, in all slices problems turns often discussed by the religious realm is a problem similar to that addressed by science. At this point, the real science and religion can collaborate. At this slice can control the religion of science or otherwise, science proves the validity of a religion.
Regarding the discussion of how to assess the truth of a religion may be read further in the article "How to judge the truth of a religion?"
So on the elaboration of the above, basically though it may discuss the same thing, between religion and science has a much different approach. Unfortunately, as of this fundamental difference is often not realized by someone. An educated academically too nourish their ego by saying that the knowledge they have developed empirically inductive is the most powerful and always superior to deductive empirical method. They always shelter behind "scientific clothes" in monopolizing the truth. When in fact there are some areas that simply can not be touched by the world of science and can only be explained by the realm of religion and vice versa.
from : http://narayanasmrti.com
