Science and Mysticism: Who are the Madmen?

Proof of Life

There is no scientific proof for the existence of God. I looked it up. You can try Google and get the same results. Ideas that skirt the narrow area of  “proof,” however, may still be true. After all, truth is stranger than fiction. Just look at 2016.

Love defies proof as does existence itself. I cannot prove that I am conscious. The conversations I entertain in dreams are every bit as real as the ones I have when awake. You cannot prove that matter or the world exist, as Bishop Berkeley demonstrated.

The skeptical philosopher Hume once quipped that while Berkeley’s arguments admit not the slightest refutation, they inspire not the slightest conviction. One suspects that his remarks were inspired by bitterness. Hume set out to disprove God. God was skeptical and Hume no longer exists.

Certain mysteries elude science: The origin of the universe, gravity waves, a cure for cancer, the unified field theory, a theory of everything. The problem of consciousness is one such mystery.

Theology attempts to solve the puzzle, but theology is only a special department of thought produced by the mind by working on a particular aspect of the materials presented to it by the senses.

As we have seen as a consequence of the work of Kant, mental religion functions at the level of rational consciousness; this is more or less the method as well as goal of the investigation of empiric moralists, theologians and scientists. Empiric criticism of the Bible and all mental treatment of the subject of religion, are vitiated by the adoption of so-called reason. And since, as we have pointed out, proof is wanting, “reasonable” theology is a faulty method of exploring the question at issue. For a deeper understanding of reality one must go beyond reason.

At first glance the idea of going beyond reason is anathema to the logical brain. The greatest scientists have made their best discoveries by doing exactly that and asking “what if?” even when “what if?” defies logic. Such “thought experiments” fire the imagination of scientists and science fiction writers both. Great minds have arrived at elegant solutions to mathematical problems by reasoning backwards from a vision of reality. 20th Century philosopher Edward de Bono calls this form of seeing solutions “lateral thinking.” Those for whom God is self-evident call call this kind of vision “faith.” Thought experiments go beyond logic and reason and open the door to imagination. Much of science after the 20th Century including Einstein’s relativity theory, quantum physics, and the discovery of black holes relied heavily on “thought experiments” that went beyond logic. Einstein asked us to imagine traveling in an elevator at the speed of light. Schrodinger asked us to posit a cat in a box that lives or dies acccording to our own subjective perception. The author of the Cogito, Rene Descartes imagined the physical world as an elaborate illusion and asked how we could be sure that it’s real. Plato reminded us that just as prisoners in a cave see shadows flickering on a wall and perceive reality, we are often deluded by senses and mind in our empiric interpretation of phenomenon. How can we know what is real?

The precious logic we use to construct technology fails when we apply it to existence. Our vision of reality can only be fragmented, as the thousands of images on the eye of a bee. With such fragmented vision how can we see the ultimate reality? How can we see the self with the eye of reason?

Rational thinking and analysis is deconstructive. It breaks things down. Breaking things down and reassembling the pieces is the job of a factory worker. Analysis is a primitive function of the mind. To understand the nature of consciousness and God it is necessary to go beyond analysis, to go beyond reason.

The ability to transcend reason has always been a quality of visionaries. Even speculative fiction writers have been able to go beyond the strictures of ordinary ratiocination to create alternative worlds that capture our imaginations. The inventive mythology of Star Wars, for example is so compelling that atheists prefer that universe to our own. Writers imagine possibilities through thought experiments that only later become realities. What was fantasy during the time of Jules Verne: submarines like the Nautilus, space rockets to the moon, and 80 day trips around the world are commonplace today.

Science fiction writers like Ray Bradbury, Stanislaw Lem, and Philip K. Dick writing in the 1950s re-imagined our world as missions to Mars, time travel, and dysfunctional future worlds populated by subjects of the surveillance state, videophones, androids, and self-guided cars. Asimov wrote the rules for robots and Arthur C. Clarke worried about artificial intelligence long before the microprocessor was used in any meaningful way. These men created the mythology of science fiction in the days before color television, when NASA was using slide rules to calculate rocket trajectories.

Where scientists insist on rigorous proof for the existence for consciousness and the mind, they are intellectually sloppy when it comes to time travel, warp speed, and cold fusion. These possibilities are not ruled out, since they are “sexy” research projects. God is not a sexy research project. So while no “proof” exists, no proof is sought. But scientists are not immune to creative ideas where philosophy meets science fiction. As long as they don’t cross the line between scientific inquiry and mysticism.

This is why modern thinkers have no difficulty discussing such ideas as whether robots are intelligent or whether androids have rights. The popular cult classic Bladerunner is based on a Philip K. Dick story, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” It’s ironic that in an age when humans have fewer rights elite academics discuss the rights of machines. Have we already reached the age of Terminator where robots rule? Is artificial intelligence possible? Or is intelligence a human characteristic by definition. What about time travel? What is the nature of space and time? Science fiction nerds love the Matrix films. But isn’t the Matrix really an extension of Plato’s metaphor about the cave? And isn’t Plato’s cave a concrete way of explaining the age-old Eastern concept of Maya, or the illusory world. Isn’t the Matrix an example of how we are tricked by the subjective universe of Maya?

Inventor Ray Kurzweil developed the OCR technology we use at the supermarket. Every item that has a bar code on it owes something to Kurzweil. At Stevie Wonder’s suggestion he developed text to voice readers to reproduce books in spoken form. Kurzweil also developed the synthesizer into the modern keyboard. Recently he developed the idea that in the future we shall live forever by “uploading” ourselves into the cloud and thus becoming immortal.

Of course, scientists and science fiction fans are open to these conceits. But try to discuss the soul, transcendental life, or God, and the window closes. Ideas of God and faith are irrational, mere superstition, not worthy of discussion. It’s fine to talk about wormholes in time or thinking robots, but talk of divinity is indulging in the “woo woo” factor. Living in a computer-generated virtual reality is cool; realizing that one’s eternal self is somehow involved in a temporary illusory world called maya is not cool.

Science fiction and mad speculation that goes “beyond reason” is cool, as long as it takes place in a film, on a screen, or on an iPhone. Princess Lea is cool. "The Force Be With YOU" is cool. Devotional spirituality and mantra meditation is unreasonable madness, fanaticism, perhaps even dangerous terrorism.

There is a fine line between genius and mysticism, between mystics and madmen. For this reason, saints often appear to be madmen. Since the lateral thinking and faith of the great saints goes beyond reason, it often appears to be madness. Saint Francis, when he appeared before the Pope and asked him to follow the simple life, was considered a dangerous madman as was Jesus Christ when he overturned the stalls of the money-changers in the Great Temple of Jerusalem.

In the language of Vaishnavism, a great saint who has the outward appearance of a madman is called an avadhuta. Such persons defy normal social conventions and challenge our rational thinking. Gaura Kishore Dāsa Babaji was an elevated saint and was recognized by scholars as a deep thinker. While many gurus constructed temples and spent lavishly on meditation centers, Babaji lived in poverty under a boat on the banks of the Ganges. He scrupulously avoided materialists and hypocrites. While his honesty and scholarship were unquestionable, Gaura Kishore considered mystic devotion to Krishna superior to wisdom and morality. He was well-acquainted with the conclusions of scripture, but spent his time absorbed in taking the holy name.

Gaura Kishore Das Babaji

At that time in India there were many gurus and mystics who were also experts in logic and reason. Many of these elite teachers were candidates for acharya, the next important teacher in the line. To most casual observers, Gaura Kishore Dās Babaji appeared to be a madman, an avadhuta. And yet, In spite of Babaji’s apparently irrational behavior and eccentric outward appearance, the highly learned Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati accepted him as his guru, considering that he was the true continuation of the Gaudiya line. While Bhaktisiddhānta himself was a distinguished astrologer, Sanskrit scholar, and Bhagavatam commentator who would go on to publish thousands of books, he esteemed Babaji Mahārāja’s devotion above his own scholarship and rational analysis.

Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati as a young scholar