By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

Any theory intended to explain a phenomenon must make use of a variety of descriptive terms. We may define some of these terms by combining other terms of the theory, but there must inevitably be some terms, called primitive or fundamental, that we cannot so define. In a mechanistic theory, all the primitive terms correspond to numbers or arrangements of numbers, and scientists at present generally try to cast all their theories into this form. But a theory does not have to be mechanistic to qualify as scientific. It is perfectly valid to adopt the view that a theoretical explanation is scientific if it is logically consistent and if it enables us to deal practically with the phenomenon in question and enlarge our knowledge of it through direct experience. Such a scientific explanation may contain primitive terms that cannot be made to correspond to arrangements of numbers.

In our remaining space, we shall outline an alternative approach to the understanding of consciousness-an approach that is scientific in the sense we have described, but that is not mechanistic. Known as sanätana-dharma, this approach is expounded in India’s ancient Vedic literatures, such as Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam. We shall give a short description of sanätana-dharma and show how it satisfactorily accounts for the connection between consciousness and mechanism. This account is, in fact, based on the kind of entities described in statements (1) and (2), and sanätana-dharma very clearly and precisely describes the nature of these entities. Finally, we shall briefly indicate how this system of thought can enlarge our understanding of consciousness by opening up new realms of practical experience.

By accepting conscious personality as the irreducible basis of reality, sanätana-dharma departs radically from the mechanistic viewpoint. For those who subscribe to this viewpoint, all descriptions of reality ultimately boil down to combinations of simple, numerically representable entities, such as the particles and fields of physics. Sanätana-dharma, on the other hand, teaches that the ultimate foundation of reality is an Absolute Personality, who can be referred to by many personal names, such as Kåñëa and Govinda. This primordial person fully possesses consciousness, senses, intelligence, will, and all other personal faculties. According to sanätana-dharma, all of these attributes are absolute, and it is not possible to reduce them to patterns of transformation of some impersonal substrate. Rather, all phenomena, both personal and impersonal, are manifestations of the energy of the Supreme Person, and we cannot fully understand these phenomena without referring to this original source.
The Supreme Person has two basic energies, the internal energy and the external energy. The external energy includes what is commonly known as matter and energy. It is the basis for all the forms and phenomena we perceive through our bodily senses, but it is insentient.

The internal energy, on the other hand, includes innumerable sentient beings called ätmäs. Each ätmä is conscious and possesses all the attributes of a person, including senses, mind, and intelligence. These attributes are inherent features of the ätmä, and they are of the same irreducible nature as the corresponding attributes of the Supreme Person. The ätmäs are atomic, individual personalities who cannot lose their identities, either through amalgamation into a larger whole or by division into parts.

Sanätana-dharma teaches that a living organism consists of an ätmä in association with a physical body composed of the external energy. Bhagavad-gétä describes the physical body as a machine, or yantra, and the ätmä as a passenger riding in this machine. When the ätmä is embodied, his natural senses are linked up with the physical information-processing system of the body, and thus he perceives the world through the bodily senses. The ätmä is the actual conscious self of the living being, and the body is simply an insentient vehiclelike mechanism.
If we refer back to our arguments involving machine consciousness, we can see that in the body the ätmä plays the role specified by statements (1) and (2). The ätmä is inherently conscious, and he possesses the sensory faculties and intelligence needed to interpret abstract properties of complex brain states. In fact, if we examine statements (1) and (2) we can see that they are not merely satisfied by the ätmä; they actually call for some similar kind of sentient, intelligent entity.

We can better understand the position of the ätmä as the conscious perceiver of the body by considering what happens when a person reads a book. When a person reads, he becomes aware of various thoughts and ideas corresponding to higher-order abstract properties of the arrangement of ink on the pages. Yet none of these abstract properties actually exists in the book itself, nor would we imagine that the book is conscious of what it records. As Figure 5* shows, to establish a correlation between the book on the one hand and conscious awareness of its contents on the other, there must be a conscious person with intelligence and senses who can read the book. Similarly, for conscious awareness to be associated with the abstract properties of states of a machine, there must be some sentient entity to read these states.

*[Figure 5 has the following caption:

Conscious awareness of the plot and imagery of the story

Plot
Themes and character descriptions
Basic ideas
Sentences
Words
Letters (ink on paper)

Fig. 5. The relation between consciousness and the physical structures of a book. When a person reads a book, he becomes aware of higher-order abstract properties of the patterns of ink on paper that are not directly present in these physical structures. One can similarly understand the correlation between consciousness and abstract properties of structures in Figure 4 if we posit the existence of a nonphysical agency with the sensory and cognitive faculties of a conscious person.

At this point one might object that if we try to explain a conscious person by positing the existence of another conscious person within his body, then we have actually explained nothing at all. One can then ask how the consciousness of this person is to be explained, and this leads to an infinite regress.
In response, we point out that this objection presupposes that an explanation of consciousness must be mechanistic. But our arguments about machine consciousness actually boil down to the observation that conscious personality cannot be explained mechanistically. An infinite regress of this kind is in fact unavoidable unless we either give up the effort to understand consciousness or posit the existence of a sentient entity that cannot be reduced to a combination of insentient parts. Sanätana-dharma regards conscious personality as fundamental and irreducible, and thus the “infinite regress” stops with the ätmä.

The real value of the concept of the ätmä as an explanation of consciousness is that it leads directly to further avenues of study and exploration. The very idea that the conscious self possesses its own inherent senses suggests that these senses should be able to function independently of the physical apparatus of the body. In fact, according to sanätana-dharma the natural senses of the ätmä are indeed not limited to interpreting the physical states of the material brain. The ätmä can attain much higher levels of perception, and sanätana-dharma primarily deals with effective means whereby a person can realize these capacities in practice.

Since neither the Supreme Person nor the individual ätmäs are combinations of material elements, it is not possible to scrutinize them directly through the material sensory apparatus. On the basis of material sensory information, we can only infer their existence by indirect arguments, such as the ones presented in this article. According to sanätana-dharma, however, we can directly observe and understand both the Supreme Person and the ätmäs by taking advantage of the natural sensory faculties of the ätmä. Thus sanätana-dharma provides the basis for a true science of consciousness.

Since this science deals with the full potentialities of the ätmä, it necessarily ranges far beyond the realm of mechanistic thinking. When the ätmä is restricted to the physically embodied state, it can participate in personal activities only through the medium of machines, such as the brain, that generate behavior by the concatenation of impersonal operations. In this stultifying situation, the ätmä cannot manifest his full potential.

But the ätmä can achieve a higher state of activity, in which it participates directly in a relation of loving reciprocation with the Supreme Person, Kåñëa. Since both the ätmä and Kåñëa are by nature sentient and personal, this relationship involves the full use of all the faculties of perception, thought, feeling, and action. In fact, the direct reciprocal exchange between the ätmä and Kåñëa defines the ultimate function and meaning of conscious personality, just as the interaction of an electron with an electric field might be said to define the ultimate meaning of electric charge. Sanätana-dharma teaches that the actual nature of consciousness can be understood by the ätmä only on this level of conscious activity.

Thus, sanätana-dharma provides us with an account of the nature of the conscious being that takes us far beyond the conceptions of the mechanistic world view. While supporting the idea that the body is a machine, this account maintains that the essence of conscious personality is to be found in an entity that interacts with this machine but is wholly distinct from it. Furthermore, one can know the true nature of this entity only in an absolute context completely transcending the domain of machines.

We have argued that the strictly mechanistic approach to life cannot satisfactorily explain consciousness. If we are to progress in this area, we clearly need some radically different approach, and we have briefly indicated how sanätana-dharma provides such an alternative. Sanätana-dharma explains the relationship between consciousness and machines by boldly positing that conscious personality is irreducible. It then goes on to elucidate the fundamental meaning of personal existence by opening up a higher realm of conscious activity-a realm that can be explored by direct experience. In contrast, the mechanistic world view can at best provide us with the sterile, behavioristic caricature of conscious personality epitomized by the computerized Mr. Jones.

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

Modern scientists regard the brain as the seat of consciousness. They understand the brain to consist of many different kinds of cells, each a molecular machine. Of these, the nerve cells, or neurons, are known to exhibit electrochemical activities roughly analogous to those of the logical switching elements used in computer circuitry. Although scientists at present understand the brain’s operation only vaguely, they generally conjecture that these neurons form an information-processing network equivalent to a computer’s

This conjecture naturally leads to the picture of the brain shown in Figure 4. Here thoughts, sensations, and feelings must correspond to higher levels of brain activity, which resemble the higher organizational levels of a complex computer program. Just as the higher levels of such a program are abstract, these higher levels of brain activity must also be abstract. They can have no actual existence, for all that actually happens in the brain is that certain physical processes take place, such as the pumping of sodium ions through neural cell walls. If we try to account for the existence of human consciousness in the context of this picture of the brain, we must conclude (by the same reasoning as before) that some entity described by statements (1) and (2) must exist to account for the connection between consciousness and abstract properties of brain states.

Furthermore, if we closely examine the current scientific world view, we can see that its conception of the brain as a computer does not depend merely on some superficial details of our understanding of the brain. Rather, on a deeper level, the conception follows necessarily from a mechanistic view of the world. Mechanistic explanations of phenomena are, by definition, based on systems of calculation. By Church’s thesis, all systems of calculation can in principle be represented in terms of computer operations. In effect, all explanations of phenomena in the current scientific world view can be expressed in terms of either computer operations or some equivalent symbolic scheme.

This implies that all attempts to describe human consciousness within the basic framework of modern science must lead to the same problems we have encountered in our analysis of machine consciousness.2 To account for consciousness, we shall inevitably require some entity like the one described in statements (1) and (2). Yet in the present theoretical system of science we find nothing, either in the brain or in a digital computer, that corresponds to this entity. Indeed, the present theoretical system could never provide for such an entity, for any mechanistic addition to the current picture of, say, the brain would simply constitute another part of that mechanistic system, and the need for an entity satisfying (1) and (2) would still arise.

Clearly, then, we must revise the basic theoretical approach of modern science if we are adequately to account for the nature of conscious beings. If we cannot do this in mechanistic terms, then we must adopt some other mode of scientific explanation. This brings us to the question of just what constitutes a scientific explanation.

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

We are interested, however, not in categorizing patterns of behavior as “conscious” or “unconscious” but rather in understanding the actual subjective experience of conscious awareness. To clearly distinguish this conception of consciousness from the behavioral one, we shall briefly pause here to describe it and establish its status as a subject of serious inquiry. By consciousness we mean the awareness of thoughts and sensations that we directly perceive and know that we perceive.

Since other persons are similar to us, it is natural to suppose that they are similarly conscious. If this is accepted, then it follows that consciousness is an objectively existing feature of reality that tends to be associated with certain material structures, such as the bodies of living human beings.
Now, when a common person hears that a computer can be conscious, he naturally tends to interpret this statement in the sense we have just described. Thus he will imagine that a computer can have subjective, conscious experiences similar to his own. Certainly this is the idea behind such stories as the one with which we began this piece. One imagines the computerized “Mr. Jones,” as he looks about the room through the computer’s TV cameras, actually feeling astonishment at his strange transformation.

If the computerized Mr. Jones could indeed have such a subjective experience, then we would face the situation depicted in Figure 3. On the one hand, the conscious experience of the computer would exist-its subjective experience of colors, sounds, thoughts, and feelings would be an actual reality. On the other hand, the physical structures of the computer would exist. However, we cannot directly correlate consciousness with the actual physical processes of the computer, nor can we relate consciousness to the execution of individual elementary operations, such as those in Figure 1. According to the artificial-intelligence researchers, consciousness should correspond to higher-order abstract properties of the computer’s physical states-properties described by symbols such as thought and feeling, which stand at the top of a lofty pyramid of abstract definitions. Indeed, these abstract properties are the only conceivable features of our sentient computer that could have any direct correlation with the contents of consciousness.

[Here follows Fig.3 with the following explanation:

Conscious awareness of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions

“Ego”
“Thoughts”, “feelings”, and “perceptions”
Elemental sensory constructs
Sophisticated mathematical procedures
Higher operations
Elementary operations

Fig. 3. The relation between consciousness and the physical structures of a hypothetical sentient computer. If we assume that the computer is conscious, then both the contents of the computer’s consciousness and the physical hardware of the computer are real. However, the contents of consciousness can correspond only to higher-order abstract properties of this hardware. These properties are represented within the tinted section by a hierarchy of symbolic descriptions. Such properties exist only in an abstract sense-they are not actually present in the physical hardware of the computer.]

Since consciousness is real, however, and these abstract properties are not, we can conclude only that something must exist in nature that can somehow “read” these properties from the computer’s physical states. This entity is represented in Figure 3 by the arrow connecting the real contents of consciousness with higher levels in the hierarchy of abstract symbolic descriptions of the sentient computer. The entity must have the following characteristics.

[Here follows Fig.4 with the following explanation:

Conscious awareness of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions

“Ego”
“Thoughts”, “feelings”, and “perceptions”
Elemental sensory constructs
Sophisticated mathematical procedures
Higher operations
Elementary operations

Fig. 4. The relation between consciousness and the physical structures of the brain. Both the contents of consciousness and the physical structures are real, but the contents of consciousness can correspond only to higher-order abstract properties of these structures. As in Figure 3. these properties are represented by the hierarchy of symbolic descriptions enclosed within the tinted section.]

(1) It must possess sufficient powers of discrimination to recognize certain highly abstract patterns of organization in arrangements of matter.

(2) It must be able to establish a link between consciousness and such arrangements of matter. In particular, it must modify the contents of conscious experience in accordance with the changes these abstract properties undergo as time passes and the arrangements of matter are transformed.
There is clearly no place for an entity of this kind in our current picture of what is going on in a computer. Indeed, we can conclude only that this entity must correspond to a feature of nature completely unknown to modern science.

This, then, is the conclusion forced upon us if we assume that a computer can be conscious. Of course, we can easily avoid this conclusion by supposing that no computer will ever be conscious, and this may indeed be the case. Aside from computers, however, what can we say about the relation between consciousness and the physical body in a human being? On one hand we know human beings possess consciousness, and on the other modern science teaches us that the human body is an extremely complex machine composed of molecular components. Can we arrive at an understanding of human consciousness that does not require the introduction of an entity of the kind described by statements (1) and (2)?

Ironically, if we try to base our understanding on modern scientific theory, then the answer is no. The reason is that all modern scientific attempts to understand human consciousness depend, directly or indirectly, on an analogy between the human brain and a computer. In fact, the scientific model for human consciousness is machine consciousness!

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

Although the square-root program of Figure 1 may appear to be a formless list of instructions, it actually possesses a definite structure, which is outlined in Figure 2. This structure consists of four levels of organization. On the highest level, the function of the program is described in a single sentence that uses the symbol square root. On the next level, the meaning of this symbol is defined by a description of the method the program uses to find square roots.

This description makes use of the symbol squared, which is similarly defined on the next lower level in terms of another symbol, sum. Finally, the symbol sum is defined on the lowest level in terms of the combination of elementary operations actually used to compute sums in the program. Although for the sake of clarity we have used English sentences in Figure 2, the description on each level would normally use only symbols for elementary operations, or higher-order symbols defined on the next level down

Figure 2:

1. Find the square root of X.
2. The square root of X is one less than the first number Y with Y squared greater than X.
3. Y squared is the sum of Y copies of Y.
4. The sum of Y and another number is the result of incrementing that number Y times.
   Fig. 2. Levels of organization of the program in Figure 1. The program in Figure 1 can be analyzed in terms of a hierarchy of abstract levels. The level of elementary operations is at the bottom, and each higher level makes use of symbols (such as squared) that are defined on the level beneath it.
5. 
   These graded symbolic descriptions actually define the program, in the sense that if we begin with level 1 and expand each higher-order symbol in terms of its definition on a lower level, we will wind up writing the list of elementary operations in Figure 1. The descriptions are useful in that they provide an intelligible account of what happens in the program. Thus on one level we can say that numbers are being squared, on another level that they are being added, and on yet another that they are being incremented and decremented. But the levels of organization of the program are only abstract properties of the list of operations given in Figure 1. When a computer executes this program, these levels do not exist in any real sense, for the computer actually performs only the elementary operations in the list.
6. 
   In fact, we can go further and point out that even this last statement is not strictly true, because what we call “the elementary operations” are themselves symbols, such as Increment (3), that refer to abstract properties of the computer’s underlying machinery. When a computer operates, all that really happens is that matter and energy undergo certain transformations according to a pattern determined by the computer’s physical structure.
7. 
   In general, any computer program that performs some complex task can be resolved into a hierarchy of levels of description similar to the one given above. Researchers in artificial intelligence generally visualize their projected “intelligent” or “sentient” programs in terms of a hierarchy such as the following: On the bottom level they propose to describe the program in terms of elementary operations. Then come several successive levels involving mathematical procedures of greater and greater intricacy and sophistication. After this comes a level in which they hope to define symbols that refer to basic constituents of thoughts, feelings, and sensory perceptions. Next comes a series of levels involving more and more sophisticated mental features, culminating in the level of the ego, or self.
8. 
   Here, then, is how artificial-intelligence researchers understand the relation between computer operations and consciousness: Consciousness is associated with a “sentient” program’s higher levels of operation-levels on which symbolic transformations take place that directly correspond to higher sensory processes and the transformations of thoughts. On the other hand, the lower levels are not associated with consciousness. Their structure can be changed without affecting the consciousness of the computer, as long as the higher-level symbols are still given equivalent definitions. Referring again to our square-root program, we see that this idea is confirmed by the fact that the process of finding a square root given on level 2 in Figure 2 will remain essentially the same even if we define the operation of squaring on level 3 in some different but equivalent way.
9. 
   If we were to adopt a strictly behavioristic use of the word consciousness, then this understanding of computerized consciousness might be satisfactory-granting, of course, that someone could indeed create a program with the required higher-order organization. Using such a criterion, we would designate certain patterns of behavior as “conscious” and others as not.
11. Generally, a sequence of behavioral events would have to be quite long to qualify as “conscious.” For example, a long speech may exhibit certain complex features that identify it as “conscious,” but none of the words or short phrases that make it up would be long enough to display such features. Using such a criterion, one might want to designate a certain sequence of computer operations as “conscious” because it possesses certain abstract higher-order properties. Then one might analyze the overall behavior of the computer as “conscious” in terms of these properties, whereas any single elementary operation would be too short to qualify.

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

We can most easily understand the operation of a computer by considering a simple example. Figure 1 illustrates a program of computer instructions for calculating the square root of a number.1 The thirteen numbered statements correspond to the list of coded instructions stored in the computer’s memory. (Here, for clarity’s sake, we have written them out in English.

Figure 1:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Write 0 in(2)
2. Increment (2)
3. Write 0 in (3)
4. Copy (2) in (3)
5. If (4) equals 0, go to step 12
6. Decrement (4)
7. Copy (2) into (5)
8. If (5) equals 0, go to step 12
9. Decrement (4)
10. Copy (2) into (5)
11. If (5) equals 0, go to step 5
12. Decrement (5)
13. Increment (3)
14. Go to step 8
15. If (3) is not greater than (1), go to step 2
16. Decrement (2)
17. 
    [Then follows Fig. 1, an illustration with the following explanation:Fig. 1. Computer program for computing the square root of a number. To simulate the operation of the computer, place the number in box (1) and follow the instructions, starting with step 1. When step 13 is completed, the square root of the number (rounded down to an integer) will be in box (2). (In these instructions, “increment a number” means to add 1 to it, and “decrement a number” means to subtract 1 from it).]
18. 
    The five boxes correspond to areas in the memory that store data and intermediate computational steps. To simulate the operation of the computer, place a number, such as 9, in box (1). Then simply follow the instructions. When you have completed the last instruction, the square root of your original number will be in box (2). In a computer, each of these instructions would be carried out by the CPU. They illustrate the kind of elementary operations used by present-day computers (although the operations do not correspond exactly to those of any particular computer).
19. 
    The method of finding a square root given in our example may seem cumbersome and obscure, but it is typical of how computers operate. In fact, the practical applicability of computers rests on the observation that every fixed scheme of computation ever formulated can be reduced to a list of simple operations like the one in our example. This observation, first made by several mathematicians in the 1930s and ’40s, is commonly known as Church’s thesis. It implies that, in principle, any scheme of symbol manipulation we can precisely define can be carried out by a modern digital computer.
20. 
    At this point, let us consider our hypothetical sentient computer. According to the exponents of artificial intelligence, the intricate behavior characteristic of a human being is nothing more than a highly complex scheme of symbol manipulation. Using Church’s thesis, we can break down this scheme into a program of instructions comparable to our example in Figure 1. The only difference is that this program will be exceedingly long and complex-it may run to millions of steps. Of course, up till now no one has even come close to actually producing a formal symbolic description of human behavior. But for the sake of argument let’s suppose such a description could be written and expressed as a computer program.
21. 
    Now, assuming a computer is executing such a highly complex program, let us see what we can understand about the computer’s possible states of consciousness. When executing the program, the computer’s CPU will be carrying out only one instruction at any given time, and the millions of instructions comprising the rest of the program will exist only as an inactive record in the computer’s memory. Now, intuitively it seems doubtful that a mere inactive record could have anything to do with consciousness. Where, then, does the computer’s consciousness reside? At any given moment the CPU is simply performing some elementary operation, such as ”Copy the number in box (1687002) into box (9994563).” In what way can we correlate this activity with the conscious perception of thoughts and feelings?
22. 
    The researchers of artificial intelligence have an answer to this question, which they base on the idea of levels of organization in a computer program. We shall take a few paragraphs here to briefly explain and investigate this answer. First we shall need to know what is meant by “levels of organization.” Therefore let us once again consider the simple computer program of Figure 1. Then we shall apply the concept of levels of organization to the program of our “sentient” computer and see what light this concept can shed on the relation between consciousness and the computer’s internal physical states.

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

It has become fairly commonplace for scientists to look for correspondence between modern physics and ancient Eastern thought and to find intriguing suggestions for hypotheses in the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad-gītā. and similar Vedic texts. The Bhagavad-gītā in particular gives a description of universal reality in which the phenomenon of inspiration falls naturally into place. Using some fundamental concepts presented in the Bhagavad-gītā, we shall therefore outline a theoretical framework for the description of nature that provides a direct explanation of inspiration, but that is still broad enough to include the current theories of physics as a limiting case. Since here we are offering these concepts only as subject matter for thought and discussion, we will not try to give a final or rigorous treatment.

The picture of universal reality presented in the Bhagavad-gītā differs from that of current scientific thinking in two fundamental respects.

(1) Consciousness is understood to be a fundamental feature of reality rather than a by-product of the combination of nonconscious entities.

(2) The ultimate causative principle underlying reality is understood to be unlimitedly complex, and to be the reservoir of unlimited organized forms and activities. Specifically, the Bhagavad-gītā posits that the underlying, absolute cause of all causes is a universal conscious being and that the manifestations of material energy are exhibitions of that being’s conscious will. The individual subjective selves of living beings (such as ourselves) are understood to be minute parts of the absolute being that possess the same self-conscious nature. These minute conscious selves interact directly with the absolute being through consciousness, and they interact indirectly with matter through the agency of the absolute being’s control of matter.

In modern science the idea of an ultimate cause underlying the phenomenal manifestation is expressed through the concept of the laws of nature. Thus in modern physics all causes and effects are thought to be reducible to the interaction of fundamental physical entities, in accordance with basic force laws. At the present moment the fundamental entities are thought by some physicists to comprise particles such as electrons, muons, neutrinos, and quarks, and the force laws are listed as strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational. However, the history of science has shown that it would be unwise to consider these lists final. In the words of the physicist David Bohm, “The possibility is always open that there may exist an unlimited variety of additional properties, qualities, entities, systems, levels, etc., to which apply correspondingly new kinds of laws of nature.”12

The picture of reality presented in the Bhagavad-gītā could be reconciled with the world view of modern physics if we were to consider mathematical descriptions of reality to be approximations, at best. According to this idea, as we try to formulate mathematical approximations closer and closer to reality, our formalism will necessarily diverge without limit in the direction of ever-increasing complexity. Many equations will exist that describe limited aspects of reality to varying degrees of accuracy, but there will be no single equation that sums up all principles of causation.

We may think of these equations as approximate laws of nature, representing standard principles adopted by the absolute being for the manifestation of the physical universe. The Bhagavad-gītā describes the absolute being in apparently paradoxical terms, as simultaneously a single entity and yet all-pervading in space and time. This conception, however, also applies to the laws of physics as scientists presently understand them, for each of these laws requires that a single principle (such as the principle of gravitational attraction with the universal constant G) apply uniformly throughout space and time.

The difference between the conceptions of modern physics and those presented in the Bhagavad-gītā lies in the manner in which the ultimate causal principle exhibits unity. The goal of many scientists has been to find some single, extremely simple equation that expresses all causal principles in a unified form. According to the Bhagavad-gītā, however, the unity of the absolute being transcends mathematical description. The absolute being is a single self-conscious entity possessing unlimited knowledge and potency. Therefore a mathematical account of this being would have to be limitlessly complex.

According to the Bhagavad-gītā, the phenomenon of inspiration results from the interaction between the all-pervading absolute being and the localized conscious selves. Since the absolute being’s unlimited potency is available everywhere, it is possible for all varieties of artistic and mathematical creations to directly manifest within the mind of any individual. These creations become manifest by the will of the absolute being in accordance with both the desire of the individual living being and certain psychological laws.

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

The requirements that this process of choice must meet are strikingly illustrated by some further examples of mathematical inspiration. It is very often found that the solution to a difficult mathematical problem depends on the discovery of basic principles and underlying systems of mathematical relationships. Only when these principles and systems are understood does the problem take on a tractable form; therefore difficult problems have often remained unsolved for many years, until mathematicians gradually developed various sophisticated ideas and methods of argument that made their solution possible. However, it is interesting to note that on some occasions sudden inspiration has completely circumvented this gradual process of development. There are several instances in which famous mathematicians have, without proof, stated mathematical results that later investigators proved only after elaborate systems of underlying relationships had gradually come to light. Here are two examples.

The first example concerns the zeta-function studied by the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann. At the time of his death, Riemann left a note describing several properties of this function that pertained to the theory of prime numbers. He did not indicate the proof of these properties, and many years elapsed before other mathematicians were able to prove all but one of them. The remaining question is still unsettled, though an immense amount of labor has been devoted to it over the last seventy-five years. Of the properties of the zeta-function that have been verified, the mathematician Jacques Hadamard said, “All these complements could be brought to Riemann’s publication only by the help of facts which were completely unknown in his time; and, for one of the properties enunciated by him, it is hardly conceivable how he can have found it without using some of these general principles, no mention of which is made in his paper.”8

The work of the French mathematician Evariste Galois provides us with a case similar to Riemann’s. Galois is famous for a paper, written hurriedly in sketchy form just before his death, that completely revolutionized the subject of algebra. However, the example we are considering here concerns a theorem Galois stated, without proof, in a letter to a friend. According to Hadamard this theorem could not even be understood in terms of the mathematical knowledge of that time; it became comprehensible only years later, after the discovery of certain basic principles. Hadamard remarks “(1) that Galois must have conceived these principles in some way; (2) that they must have been unconscious in his mind, since he makes no allusion to them, though they by themselves represent a significant discovery.”9

It would appear, then, that the process of choice underlying mathematical inspiration can make use of basic principles that are very elaborate and sophisticated and that are completely unknown to the conscious mind of the person involved. Some of the developments leading to the proof of some of Riemann’s theorems are highly complex, requiring many pages (and even volumes) of highly abbreviated mathematical exposition. It is certainly hard to see how a mechanical process of trial and error, such as that described by Poincare, could exploit such principles. On the other hand, if other, simpler solutions exist that avoid the use of such elaborate developments, they have remained unknown up to the present time, despite extensive research devoted to these topics.

The process of choice underlying mathematical inspiration must also make use of selection criteria that are exceedingly subtle and hard to define. Mathematical work of high quality cannot be evaluated simply by the application of cut-and-dried rules of logic. Rather, its evaluation involves emotional sensibility and the appreciation of beauty, harmony, and other delicate aesthetic qualities. Of these criteria Poincare said, “It is almost impossible to state them precisely; they are felt rather than formulated.”10 This is also true of the criteria by which we judge artistic creations, such as musical compositions. These criteria are very real but at the same time very difficult to define precisely. Yet evidently they were fully incorporated in that mysterious process which provided Mozart with sophisticated musical compositions without any particular effort on his part and, indeed, without any knowledge of how it was all happening.

If the process underlying inspiration is not one of extensive trial and error, as Poincare suggested, but rather one that depends mainly on direct choice, then we can explain it in terms of current mechanistic ideas only by positing the existence of a very powerful algorithm (a system of computational rules) built into the neural circuitry of the brain. However, it is not at all clear that we can satisfactorily explain inspiration by reference to such an algorithm. Here we will only briefly consider this hypothesis before going on to outline an alternative theoretical basis for the understanding of inspiration.

The brain-algorithm hypothesis gives rise to the following basic questions.
(1) Origins. If mathematical, scientific, and artistic inspirations result from the workings of a neural algorithm, then how does the pattern of nerve connections embodying this algorithm arise? We know that the algorithm cannot be a simple one when we consider the complexity of automatic theorem-proving algorithms that have been produced thus far by workers in the field of artificial intelligence.11 These algorithms cannot even approach the performance of advanced human minds, and yet they are extremely elaborate. But if our hypothetical brain-algorithm is extremely complex, how did it come into being? It can hardly be accounted for by extensive random genetic mutation or recombination in a single generation, for then the problem of random choice among vast numbers of possible combinations would again arise. One would therefore have to suppose that only a few relatively probable genetic transformations separated the genotype of Mozart from those of his parents, who, though talented, did not possess comparable musical ability.

However, it is not the general experience of those who work with algorithms that a few substitutions or recombinations of symbols can drastically improve an algorithm’s performance or give it completely new capacities that would impress us as remarkable. Generally, if this were to happen with a particular algorithm, we would tend to suppose that it was a defective version of another algorithm originally designed to exhibit those capacities. This would imply that the algorithm for Mozart’s unique musical abilities existed in a hidden form in the genes of his ancestors.

This brings us to the general problem of explaining the origin of human traits. According to the theory most widely accepted today, these traits were selected on the basis of the relative reproductive advantage they conferred on their possessors or their possessors’ relatives. Most of the selection for our hypothetical hidden algorithms must have occurred in very early times, because of both the complexity of these algorithms and the fact that they are often carried in a hidden form. It is now thought that human society, during most of its existence, was on the level of hunters and gatherers, at best. It is quite hard to see how, in such societies, persons like Mozart or Gauss would ever have had the opportunity to fully exhibit their unusual abilities. But if they didn’t, then the winnowing process that is posited by evolution theory could not effectively select these abilities.

We are thus faced with a dilemma: It appears that it is as difficult to account for the origin of our hypothetical inspiration-generating algorithms as it is to account for the inspirations themselves.

(2) Subjective experience. If the phenomenon of inspiration is caused by the working of a neural algorithm, then why is it that an inspiration tends to occur as an abrupt realization of a complete solution, without the subject’s conscious awareness of intermediate steps? The examples of Riemann and Galois show that some persons have obtained results in an apparently direct way, while others were able to verify these results only through a laborious process involving many intermediate stages. Normally, we solve relatively easy problems by a conscious, step-by-step process. Why, then, should inspired scientists, mathematicians, and artists remain unaware of important intermediate steps in the process of solving difficult problems or producing intricate works of art, and then become aware of the final solution or creation only during a brief experience of realization?

Thus we can see that the phenomenon of inspiration cannot readily be explained by means of mechanistic models of nature consistent with present-day theories of physics and chemistry. In the remainder of this article we will suggest an alternative to these models.

By Dr. T. D. Singh (Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami) and Sadäpüta däsa

Let us carefully examine the arguments for such a mechanical explanation of inspiration. This question is of particular importance at the present time, because the prevailing materialistic philosophy of modern science holds that the mind is nothing more than a machine, and that all mental phenomena, including consciousness, are nothing more than the products of mechanical interactions. The mental machine is specifically taken to be the brain, and its basic functional elements are believed to be the nerve cells and possibly some systems of interacting macromolecules within these cells. Many modern scientists believe that all brain activity results simply from the interaction of these elements according to the known laws of physics.

No one (as far as we are aware) has yet formulated an adequate explanation of the difference between a conscious and an unconscious machine, or even indicated how a machine could be conscious at all. In fact, investigators attempting to describe the self in mechanistic terms concentrate exclusively on the duplication of external behavior by mechanical means; they totally disregard each individual person’s subjective experience of conscious self-awareness. This approach to the self is characteristic of modern behavioral psychology. It was formally set forth by the British mathematician A. M. Turing, who argued that since whatever a human being can do a computer can imitate, a human being is merely a machine.

For the moment we will follow this behavioristic approach and simply consider the question of how the phenomenon of inspiration could be duplicated by a machine. Poincare proposed that the subliminal self must put together many combinations of mathematical symbols by chance until at last it finds a combination satisfying the desire of the conscious mind for a certain kind of mathematical result. He proposed that the conscious mind would remain unaware of the many useless and illogical combinations running through the subconscious, but that it would immediately become aware of a satisfactory combination as soon as it was formed. He therefore proposed that the subliminal self must be able to form enormous numbers of combinations in a short time, and that these could be evaluated subconsciously as they were formed, in accordance with the criteria for a satisfactory solution determined by the conscious mind.

As a first step in evaluating this model, let us estimate the number of combinations of symbols that could be generated within the brain within a reasonable period of time. A very generous upper limit on this number is given by the figure 3.2 x 1046. We obtain this figure by assuming that in each cubic Angstrom unit of the brain a separate combination is formed and evaluated once during each billionth of a second over a period of one hundred years. Although this figure is an enormous overestimate of what the brain could possibly do within the bounds of our present understanding of the laws of nature, it is still infinitesimal compared to the total number of possible combinations of symbols one would have to form to have any chance of hitting a proof for a particular mathematical theorem of moderate difficulty.

If we attempt to elaborate a line of mathematical reasoning, we find that at each step there are many possible combinations of symbols we can write down, and thus we can think of a particular mathematical argument as a path through a tree possessing many successive levels of subdividing branches. This is illustrated in the figure below. The number of branches in such a tree grows exponentially with the number of successive choices, and the number of choices is roughly proportional to the length of the argument. Thus as the length of the argument increases, the number of branches will very quickly pass such limits as 1046 and 10100 (1 followed by 100 zeros). For example, suppose we are writing sentences in some symbolic language, and the rules of grammar for that language allow us an average of two choices for each successive symbol. Then there will be approximately 10100 grammatical sentences of 333 symbols in length.

• An Illustration is here: [Explanation of illustration:] The relationship between different possible lines of mathematical reasoning can be represented by a tree. Each node represents a choice among various possibilities that restricts the further development of the argument.
  Even a very brief mathematical argument will often expand to great length when written out in full, and many mathematical proofs require pages and pages of highly condensed exposition, in which many essential steps are left for the reader to fill in. Thus there is only an extremely remote chance that an appropriate argument would appear as a random combination in Poincare’s mechanical model of the process of inspiration. Clearly, the phenomenon of inspiration requires a process of choice capable of going more or less directly to the solution, without even considering the vast majority of possible combinations of arguments.

A Conversation with
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupāda

In the following conversation His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, founder-ācārya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), and Dr. Gregory Benford, a professor of physics at the University of California, Irvine, discuss the Vedic concepts of the self and consciousness as they relate to the views of modern science.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: By “scientific advancement” do you mean the advancement from bullock cart to motorcar? If we can advance from the stage of the bullock cart to the stage of the fine mechanical arrangement of the motorcar, you take it to be advancement of science, do you not?

Dr. Benford: It is advancement of technology.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Technology or science, it is the same thing. Our problem is the advancement of the spirit soul. So what is the scientific knowledge about the spirit soul?

Dr. Benford: There is virtually no scientific knowledge about the spirit soul.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Therefore there is actually no advancement of scientific knowledge.

Dr. Benford: Well, scientific knowledge is a different class of knowledge. Out of many different classes of knowledge, you may feel that one type of knowledge is better than another, but that is a different question.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Perhaps. There are different departments of knowledge. For example, in medical science there is one department to study the physiology and anatomy of the body. That is one department of knowledge. But beyond this body there is mind and intelligence. That is studied by psychology. That is also science, mental science.

Dr. Benford: It is science at a very crude stage of development.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That may be, but it is still accepted as science, is it not? Psychology and metaphysics deal with the mind and intelligence. And beyond that there is the spirit soul. There are so many departments of knowledge: the medical study of the body, the psychological study of the mind, and ultimately there is spiritual, transcendental knowledge. The body and mind are simply the coverings of the spirit soul, just as your body is covered by this shirt and coat. If you simply take care of the shirt and coat and neglect the person who is covered by this shirt and coat, do you think that this is advancement of knowledge?

Dr. Benford: I think that there is no category of knowledge that is useless.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: We don’t say that this scientific knowledge is useless. Mechanics, electronics-this is also knowledge. But different departments of knowledge differ in their comparative importance. For example, if someone wants to cook nicely, this is also a science. There are many different departments of knowledge, but the central point is the knowledge of the soul, ātma-jñāna.

Dr. Benford: I feel that you have advanced a position I cannot agree with entirely, but I think it is certainly logical. The only form of knowledge that is verifiable-that is, verifiable in the sense of getting everybody to agree with it-is that which can be proved logically or experimentally.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The science of the spirit soul can be verified logically.

Dr. Benford: How so?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Just consider your body. You once had the body of a child, but now you don’t have that body anymore; you have a different body. Yet, anyone can understand that you once had the body of a child. This is a fact. So your body has changed, but you are still remaining.

Dr. Benford: I am not so sure it is the same “I.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, you are the same “I.” Just as the parents of a child will say, after he has grown up, “Oh, just see how our son has grown.” He is the same person: his parents say so, his friends say so, his family says so-everyone says so. This is the evidence. You have to accept this point, because there is so much evidence. Even your mother will deny that you are a different person, even though you have a different body.

Dr. Benford: But I may not be the same being that I was.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Correct. “Not the same” means, for example, that a young child may talk nonsense now, but when he is grown up and gets an adult body he does not speak foolishly. Although he is the same person, along with his change in body he has developed different consciousness. But the spirit soul, the person, is the same. He acts according to his body, that’s all-according to his circumstances. A dog, for example, is also a spirit soul, but because he has a dog’s body he lives and acts like a dog. Similarly, the spirit soul, when he has a child’s body, acts like a child. When he has a different body, the same soul acts like a man. According to circumstances, his activities are changing, but the person is the same. For example, you are a scientist. In your childhood you were not a scientist, so your dealings at that time were not those of a scientist. One’s dealings may change according to circumstances, but the person is the same.
Therefore, the conclusion is, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā [2.13], tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhiras tatra na muhyati: ”When this body is finished, the soul gives it up and accepts another body.” Tathā dehāntara. Dehāntara means “another body.” This is our Sanskrit knowledge from the Bhagavad-gītā. When the spirit soul is injected into the womb of a woman, it forms a little body. Gradually, through the emulsification of secretions, the body develops to the size of a pea, because of the presence of the spirit soul. Gradually the body develops nine holes-eyes, ears, mouth, nostrils, genital, and rectum. In this way the body is developed to completion in seven months. Then consciousness comes.

Dr. Benford: At seven months?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. The child wants to come out. He feels uncomfortable, therefore he prays to God to kindly release him from this bondage. He promises to become a devotee of God when he gets out. So he comes out of the womb after ten months. But unless his parents are devotees, due to circumstances he forgets God. Only if the father and mother are devotees does he continue his God consciousness. Therefore, it is a great good fortune to take birth in a family of Vaiṣṇavas, those who are God conscious. This God consciousness is real scientific knowledge.

Dr. Benford: Is it true that the children of all such parents are somewhat spiritually superior to the children of other parents?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Generally, yes. They get the opportunity of being trained by the mother and father. Fortunately, my father was a great devotee, so I received this training from the very beginning. Somehow or other we had this spark of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and our father detected it. Then I accepted my spiritual master. In this way I have come to this stage of sannyāsa. I am very much indebted to my father, for he took care of me in such a way that I became perfectly Kṛṣṇa conscious. My father used to receive many saintly persons at our home, and to every one of them he used to say, “Kindly bless my son so that he may become a servant of Rādhārāṇī.” That was his only ambition. He taught me how to play the mṛdaṅga, but my mother was not very satisfied. She would say, “Why are you teaching him to play mṛdaṅga?” But my father would say, ”No, no, he must learn a little mṛdaṅga.” My father was very affectionate to me. He never chastised me. Therefore, if by his past pious activities one gets a good father and mother, that is a great chance for advancing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Dr. Benford: What will happen to you next?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: We are going back to Kṛṣṇa. We have got everything: Kṛṣṇa’s name, Kṛṣṇa’s address, Kṛṣṇa’s form, Kṛṣṇa’s activities. We know everything, and we are going there. Kṛṣṇa has assured us of this in the Bhagavad-gītā [4.9], tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so ‘rjuna: “Upon leaving the body, he does not take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.” And not only the devotee attains this, but anyone who understands Kṛṣṇa. This is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā [4.9], janma karma ca me divyam evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ: “One who knows Me in truth, scientifically,” Kṛṣṇa says, “is eligible to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Dr. Benford: How do you know that people return in some other form?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: We see that there are so many forms. Where do these different forms come from? The form of the dog, the form of the cat, the form of the tree, the form of the reptile, the forms of the insects, the forms of the fish? What is your explanation for all these different forms? That you do not know.

Dr. Benford: Evolution.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: There may be evolution, but at the same time all the different species are existing. The fish is existing, man is existing, the tiger is existing, everyone is existing. It is just like the different types of apartments here in Los Angeles. You may occupy one of them, according to your ability to pay rent, but all types of apartments are nevertheless existing at the same time. Similarly, the living entity, according to his karma, is given facility to occupy one of these bodily forms. But there is evolution also. From the fish, the next stage of evolution is to plant life. From plant forms the living entity may enter an insect body. From the insect body the next stage is bird, then beast, and finally the spirit soul may evolve to the human form of life. And from the human form, if one becomes qualified, he may evolve further. Otherwise, he must again enter the evolutionary cycle. Therefore, this human form of life is an important junction in the evolutionary development of the living entity.

As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā [9.25]:
yānti deva-vratā devān
pitṝn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ
bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā
yānti mad-yājino ‘pi mām

“Those who worship the demigods will take birth among the demigods; those who worship ghosts and spirits will take birth among such beings; those who worship ancestors go to the ancestors; and those who worship Me will live with Me.” There are different lokas, or planetary systems, and you can go to the higher planetary systems where the demigods live and take a body there, or you can go where the Pitās, or ancestors, live. You can take a body here in Bhūloka, the earthly planetary system, or you can go to the planet of God, Kṛṣṇaloka. Whatever you like, you can achieve. This method of transferring oneself at the time of death to whatever planet one chooses is called yoga. There is a physical process of yoga, a philosophical process of yoga, and a devotional process of yoga. The devotees can go directly to the planet where Kṛṣṇa is.

Dr. Benford: Undoubtedly you are aware that there are a few people, both in Eastern and Western society, who feel that it is a bit more intellectually justifiable to be completely agnostic about matters of theology. They feel, more or less, that if God had wanted us to know something more about Him, then He would have made it more easily apprehendable.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then you don’t believe in God?

Dr. Benford: I don’t not believe in God; I’m just not forming an opinion until I have some evidence.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But do you think that there is a God or not?

Dr. Benford: I have a suspicion that there may be, but it is unverified.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Suspicion, doubt. That means you are not quite confident.

Dr. Benford: Yes.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But you think sometimes that there may be God, do you not?

Dr. Benford: Yes.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: So you are in doubt, suspicion-you are not certain-but your inclination is that you think there is God, is it not? Your knowledge being imperfect, you are in doubt, that’s all. Otherwise you are inclined to think of God. That is your position. But because you are a scientific man, unless you perceive it scientifically you do not accept. That is your position. But from your side, you believe in God.

Dr Benford: Sometimes.

Śrī1a Prabhupāda: Yes. Sometimes, or all times, it doesn’t matter. That is the position of everyone. As long as one is in the human form of life, whether he is civilized or uncivilized doesn’t matter: everyone has dormant consciousness of God. It simply has to be developed by proper training. It is just like anything else in life. For example, you have become a scientist by proper training, proper education. Similarly, the dormant consciousness of God, or Kṛṣṇa, is there in everyone. It simply requires proper education to awaken it. However, this education is not given in the universities. That is the defect in modern education. Although the inclination to be Kṛṣṇa conscious is there, the authorities are unfortunately not giving any education about God. Therefore people are becoming godless, and they are feeling baffled in obtaining the true joy and satisfaction of life.
In San Diego, some priestly orders are going to hold a meeting to investigate the reasons why people are becoming averse to religion and not coming to church. But the cause is simple. Because our government does not know that life, especially human life, is meant for understanding God, they are supporting all the departments of knowledge very nicely except the principal department, God consciousness.

Dr. Benford: So of course, the reason is that-

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Reasons there may be many, but the principal reason is that this age is the Kali-yuga. People are not very intelligent, therefore they are trying to avoid this department of knowledge, the most important department of knowledge. And they are simply busy in the departments of knowledge in which the animals are also busy. Your advancement of knowledge is comprised of four things-eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. For example, you are discovering so many lethal weapons, and the politicians are taking advantage of it for defending. You are discovering so many chemicals to check pregnancy, and they are using them to increase sex life.

Dr. Benford: What is going to the moon?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is also sleeping. You go there and sleep and spend money, that’s all. Otherwise, what can you do there?

Dr. Benford: You can go there and learn.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: You go there and sleep, that’s all. Sleeping. You are spending billions and getting nothing in return.

Dr. Benford: It seems worth more than that.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, nothing more, because these four principles-eating, sleeping, mating, and defending-are the background. If you have no knowledge beyond this body you cannot go beyond this bodily category. You have no other jurisdiction of knowledge. It may be very gorgeous polished bodily knowledge, but your whole range of activities is within these four principles of eating, sleeping mating, and defending. This knowledge is prevalent among the lower animals also. They know how to eat, they know how to sleep, they know how to have sexual intercourse, and they also know how to defend.

Dr. Benford: But they don’t know anything about nuclear physics!

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That does not mean that you are improved over the animals. It is the same thing, only polished, that’s all. You are improving from the bullock cart to the motorcar, that’s all. It is simply a transformation of material knowledge.

Dr. Benford: There is knowledge about the structure of the physical world.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But it is a waste of energy, because in your activities you cannot go beyond this bodily jurisdiction of eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. You may make a very nice apartment for sleeping, but when you sleep you get the same quality of enjoyment as when the dog sleeps. The dog may sleep on the ground, and you may sleep in a very nice apartment, but when you are asleep your condition and the condition of the dog are the same. You may be sleeping in a nice apartment and he may sleep on the grass, but both of you are forgetting everything. You forget that you are sleeping in a nice estate or in a nice skyscraper building, and the dog forgets that he is sleeping on the ground. But what is the use of this nice apartment? When you sleep there, the dog and you become one. You may have so many electrical appliances and other material conveniences, but when you sleep you forget everything. Therefore this gorgeous sleeping accommodation is simply a waste of time.

Dr. Benford: You seem to place emphasis on what knowledge does for you. What about the sheer joy of discovering how nature works? For example, now we think that we understand matter like this [he indicates the grass on which they are sitting]. We think that we know from experiments, theory, and analysis that it is made up of particles that we cannot see, and we can analyze the properties of it through experiment. We know that it is made up of molecules. We understand some of the forces that hold it together, and this is the first time we knew this. We didn’t know it before.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But what is the benefit? Although you know every particle of this grass, what benefit is derived out of it? The grass is growing. It will grow with or without your knowledge. You may know it or not know it, but it will not make any difference. Anything you like you may study from a material, analytical point of view. Any nonsense thing you take you can study and study and compile a voluminous book. But what will be the use of it?

Dr. Benford: I seem to view the world as-

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Suppose I take this grass. I can write volumes of books-when it came into existence, when it died, what are the fibers, what are the molecules. In so many ways I can describe this insignificant foliage. But what is the use of it?

Dr. Benford: If it has no use, why did God put it there? Isn’t it worthwhile studying?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Our point is that you would rather study the insignificant grass than the God who has created everything. If you could understand Him, automatically you would study the grass. But you want to separate His grass from Him, to study it separately. In this way you can compile volumes and volumes on the subject, but why waste your intelligence in that way? The branch of a tree is beautiful as long as it is attached to the main trunk, but as soon as you cut it off it will dry up. Therefore, what is the use of studying the dried-up branch? It is a waste of intelligence.

Dr. Benford: But why is it a waste?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Certainly it is a waste, because the result is not useful.

Dr. Benford: Well, what is useful?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: It is useful to know yourself, what you are.

Dr. Benford: Why is knowledge of myself better than knowledge of a plant?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: If you understand what you are, then you understand other things. That is called ātma-tattva, ātma-jñāna, self-knowledge. That is important. I am a spirit soul, and I am passing through so many species of life. But what is my position? I don’t wish to die, because I am afraid to change bodies. Therefore, I am afraid of death. This question should be raised first: I don’t want unhappiness, but unhappiness comes. I don’t want death, but death comes. I don’t want disease, but disease comes. I don’t want to become an old man, but it comes anyway. What is the reason that these things are coming by force, despite my desires to the contrary? If I am forced, what is that force and why am I under this force? Who is enforcing these things? These things I do not know, but these are the real problems. I don’t want excessive heat, but there is excessive heat. I have to take shelter of electric technology-a refrigerator, a cooler. Why? Who is enforcing these things? Why are they being enforced? I don’t want this heat; what have I done? These are real questions, not just the study of foliage and writing volumes of books. That is a waste of energy. Study yourself: You don’t want suffering, but why is it forced upon you? Who is enforcing? Why am I forced? These things you do not know.

Dr. Benford: Is it worthwhile, then, to try to stop excessive heat, say, or disease?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: You may want to stop the heat, but you cannot. Your scientific knowledge is not so perfect that you can stop the heat. Therefore, somebody is enforcing this. This is the right subject matter for thinking: Why am I being forced? Who is the enforcer? I don’t want this heat, therefore I shall make an air conditioner. But this is only a temporary arrangement. You are scientifically advanced enough to manufacture nice medicine, so why can’t you stop disease?

Dr. Benford: We don’t understand it well enough.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Therefore you are a fool. As soon as you don’t understand, you are a fool.

Dr. Benford: Can you stop yourself from being an old man?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Not immediately, but we are undergoing the process to stop it. Just like a man who is being treated for some disease-he is still suffering, but the fact that he is being treated means that he is going to stop it.

Dr. Benford: Well, that is our aim also. We would like to stop disease and even stop death.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Everyone would like to, but you are not practicing the real procedure for stopping it.

Dr. Benford: But I don’t want to suffer. Why is this necessary?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: It is because of the laws of nature. We are stealing from Kṛṣṇa, trying to enjoy independently of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we are being punished by the laws of nature. It is not that Kṛṣṇa wants us to suffer. He does not like to punish us, but it is necessary in order to reform our character. A thief does not very much appreciate the police department, and he is thinking, “Why do they stop me from stealing?” But it is required. The government knows that the police department is necessary in order to curb the thieves and rogues. Although the thieves may not like it, the police department is nevertheless perfect. It is required.
Devotee: But why can’t the police department just explain to the thief what he is doing wrong?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Because he is a rascal. He will not listen. Law and order are for everyone, and to keep the citizens in order the police department is necessary. When a policeman at an intersection signals the traffic to stop, everyone must stop. He is not a highly placed officer, but because he is the representative of the government, you must stop, even if you are a very rich and important man. That is law and order, and everyone must obey. Similarly, the laws of nature are enforced by the demigods as representatives of Kṛṣṇa. Everyone must obey or be punished. You may not like it, but it is the law. Therefore there is so much pain.

Dr. Benford: Well, then, why is all this happening? What are we trying to attain? Why are we going through so much pain?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Because you are not advancing beyond the bodily conception of life. You are simply advancing from one pain to another pain. But if you want to get out of pain, then you have to take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness and surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is our proposition: Don’t suffer pain after pain; stop it and surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is our proposition. Everyone is trying to stop pain, both animals and man, in science and in ordinary work also. That is the real struggle. There is pain, and the struggle is to stop pain. And people take this struggle as happiness. But real happiness, real ecstasy, permanent ecstasy is there in the spiritual world, where there is no pain. This material happiness is called māyā, or illusion. Actually, people are not happy.

Dr. Benford: Why does a person like me, who is trying to understand the world rationally, find no way in which to do so?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, you are trying to know the world rationally, but you are not going to the proper teacher.

Dr. Benford: There are learned men in the world who simply study nature.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Still, you require an experienced teacher. Of course, you can learn anything from nature, but not everyone is so intelligent that he can study nature properly. For example, if you study nature, why do you speculate that everything is void after death? Nature is not void-it is full of varieties. Therefore your study of nature is imperfect. Nature is not void, for we are sitting here surrounded by varieties-varieties of flowers, varieties of leaves, varieties of plants. If you say that nature is void, then your study of nature is not perfect.

Dr. Benford: I guess we don’t understand it yet.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is your ignorance, but you cannot say it is void.

Dr. Benford: Well, we feel that our-

Śrīla Prabhupāda: You feel, you feel, but not others. Don’t say “we.”

Dr. Benford: We scientists.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But there are other scientists who understand things differently. You are not the only scientists.

Dr. Benford: But I feel that if I study the world, there is a way to check my conclusions. You study the world and you think that you understand the physical process, and then you perform experiments, you verify your ideas, and then you see if you can apply the physical process in the world.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is another ignorance, because you do not know that you are imperfect.

Dr. Benford: Oh, I know that I am not perfect.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then what is the use of your researching in this way? If you are imperfect, the result will also be imperfect.

Dr. Benford: That’s true.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. So why waste your time in this way?

Dr. Benford: But there doesn’t seem to be any other way of finding knowledge.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Therefore you have to approach the right teacher, who will show you. In order to become a scientist you have to go to the university and find a professor who can instruct you.

Dr. Benford: I could have done it by reading books.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But a teacher is required also, or you cannot get your degree. Is it not?

Dr. Benford: Yes.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: So, when you want to learn something, you have to approach a teacher, and if the teacher is perfect, then you get perfect knowledge. This is the process. If the teacher is only another rascal like you, then whatever knowledge he may give you is useless. The teacher must be perfect; he must have real knowledge. Then he can teach. Therefore, the process is that you have to find out a perfect teacher. If you are fortunate, and you get such a perfect teacher, then you can learn everything. But if you approach a teacher who is as blind as you are, then you don’t learn anything.

Dr. Benford: Are there many perfect teachers?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. Otherwise, there is no question of accepting a teacher. The first perfect teacher is Kṛṣṇa, and others are those who have learned from Him. For example, you are a scientist. Suppose I learn something from you. Even if I am not a scientist, because I have learned from you my knowledge is perfectly scientific.

Dr. Benford: I don’t understand.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Suppose a child goes to a mathematics teacher, and he says, “Two plus two equals four.” The child is not a mathematician, but if he accepts the teacher’s teaching, “Two plus two equals four,” and repeats that, then his knowledge is perfect.

Dr. Benford: But how does one know when the teacher is perfect? It seems to be very difficult.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, it is not difficult. A teacher is perfect who has learned from a perfect teacher.

Dr. Benford: But that merely removes the problem a step.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, it is not a problem. There is a perfect teacher, Kṛṣṇa, who is accepted by all classes of teachers as their teacher. In India, the Vedic civilization is conducted by Vedic teachers. All these Vedic teachers accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme teacher. They take lessons from Kṛṣṇa, and they teach the same message. That is the process.

Dr. Benford: So everyone I might meet who accepts Kṛṣṇa as the perfect teacher is the perfect teacher?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, because he is teaching only Kṛṣṇa’s teachings, that’s all. It is the same as the example we gave before: they may not be personally perfect, but whatever they are speaking is perfect because it is taught by Kṛṣṇa.

Dr. Benford: Then you are not perfect.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, I am not perfect. None of us claims to be perfect; we have so many faults. But because we don’t speak anything beyond Kṛṣṇa’s teachings, our teaching is therefore perfect. For example, the postman may deliver to you a money order for one thousand dollars. He may not be a rich man, but if he simply delivers the envelope to you, you can cash the money order and be benefited. He may not be a rich man, but his dealings as a postman are perfect, because although he is not rich he can give you the thousand dollars. Similarly, our quality is that we are not perfect. We are full of imperfections, but we don’t go beyond the teachings of Kṛṣṇa. That is our process. Like the same example we have given before: this small child is not a mathematician, but because he takes the teaching of a perfect mathematics teacher, “Two plus two equals four,” his presentation is also perfect: “Two plus two equals four.”

Dr. Benford: Why has Kṛṣṇa not told you everything about
Himself?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: He has told everything; everything He has told. If you will study the Bhagavad-gītā, everything is there.

Dr. Benford: Well, if everything is there, why are we learning things we never knew before? I am speaking purely of science now. Why is science not written in the Bhagavad-gītā?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Therefore, that so-called science is foolish. That is the conclusion. Actually, material science is foolish. The scientists are in darkness about so many things. What good is your science? There are so many things they do not know. In spite of all their imperfections they are claiming to have perfect knowledge. That is another foolishness.

Dr. Benford: Does it bother you that-

Śrīla Prabhupāda: We don’t bother with the scientists. We simply take instruction from Kṛṣṇa. We have no business to take anything from the scientists. I don’t decry your scientific discoveries. We welcome you. You are a scientist, and we appreciate your labor. But we criticize you only because you forget Kṛṣṇa. That is your problem. At the present moment your value is zero. Otherwise, if you remember Kṛṣṇa, when Kṛṣṇa is added you become 10, which is unlimitedly more valuable. That is the verdict of Nārada Muni:

idaṁ hi puṁsas tapasaḥ śrutasya vā
sviṣṭasya sūktasya ca buddhi-dattayoḥ
avicyuto ‘rthaḥ kavibhir nirūpito
yad-uttamaśloka-guṇānuvarṇanam

“Learned circles have positively concluded that the infallible purpose of the advancement of knowledge-namely austerities, study of the Vedas, sacrifice, chanting of hymns, and charity-culminates in the transcendental descriptions of the Lord, who is defined in choice poetry.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.22] Now, you are a scientist-physicist or chemist?
Dr. Benford: Physical.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: So, by your study of physical laws, if you try to prove there is God, that is your success.

Dr. Benford: It can’t be done.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then that is your imperfection. You are a physicist, and as I said, if by your physical laws you can prove there is Kṛṣṇa, then you are perfect. You would give better service than we give. When we speak of Kṛṣṇa, there are so many persons who take our statements as sentimental religion. But if a scientist like you would speak of Kṛṣṇa, they would hear. If you do this, you will do greater service than I. But if it is a fact that by your physical laws you cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, then your science is imperfect. When you can come to understand Kṛṣṇa by studying these physical laws, then your science is perfect. Because He is the ultimate source of everything, if you can come to Kṛṣṇa by studying your physical laws, that is your perfection. Therefore, our proposition is that you remain a physical scientist, but you should try to explain Kṛṣṇa. Then you will be perfect. Don’t think that we are decrying you or that we are decrying science. No. We are simply insisting that you accept Kṛṣṇa. Otherwise, you are zero. You have no spiritual value. Kṛṣṇa is like 1, and if you accept Kṛṣṇa, your value instantly becomes 10-unlimitedly increased. So, bring Kṛṣṇa into everything, and He will increase its value. That is real scientific discovery-to find out Kṛṣṇa. Find out how God is working in the physical and chemical laws, how His brain is working. Everything is working by His brain. There are chemical and physical energies, but everything is going on by God’s brain. These chemical and physical laws are acting in such a subtle way that we see everything as coming automatically. There are chemical and physical laws, but how these laws are working you do not know.

Dr. Benford: We do not know why the laws are as they are.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, but Kṛṣṇa knows. Therefore, He is the creator. That is the difference between you and Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa can create a seed, a small seed the size of a mustard seed, and within that seed there is the potency to create a big banyan tree. That is also chemical composition, but you cannot do it. That is Kṛṣṇa’s brain … that is Kṛṣṇa’s brain.

Dr. Benford: But neither can you.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, I cannot. I have already said that I am imperfect. I do not claim unnecessarily that I am perfect. But I can say that the seed is created by Kṛṣṇa, and that you cannot do. That I can say. I can challenge you, that you cannot make this seed. Although I am imperfect, I can challenge you.

Dr. Benford: Essentially, however, you only know these things to be true because you have been told.

Śrīla Prabhupāda Yes, that is required. Therefore, our Vedic knowledge is called śruti. Śruti means “that which is heard.”

Dr. Benford: Then you cannot find out anything about Kṛṣṇa by studying science?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: There is nothing but Kṛṣṇa. There is nothing else except Kṛṣṇa.

Dr. Benford: But if we study the physical world, we study the work of Kṛṣṇa.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, but you don’t know Kṛṣṇa. You don’t say, as a rule, that you are studying the work of Kṛṣṇa, because you don’t know Kṛṣṇa. You avoid Kṛṣṇa.

Dr. Benford: But Kṛṣṇa made it.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, that’s a fact, but you do not know Kṛṣṇa. You simply know the grass. But I know the grass and Kṛṣṇa both. Therefore I am better than you.

Dr. Benford: Then we cannot find anything out about Kṛṣṇa by simply studying the grass?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then you are limited to grass, and know nothing beyond that.

Dr. Benford: Limited it may be, but is it not true?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: It is true, but limited, relative truth. In the Vedānta-sūtra the first statement is athāto brahma-jiñāsā: “Now, in this human form of life, let us inquire about the origin of everything.” Not to study the relative truth, but the Absolute Truth-that is the business of the human form of life.

Dr. Benford: But how do I know this is true?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That you have to learn from the teacher. That is the process.

Dr. Benford: But how do I know the teacher knows what is true?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That knowledge is also available. When you wanted to learn science, what did you do? You found out a suitable teacher. If you can find a competent teacher, then everything can be understood.

Dr. Benford: But can the teacher demonstrate what he says to be true by experiment?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, everything can be demonstrated by experiment- everything.

Dr. Benford: But you cannot demonstrate things about Kṛṣṇa by experiment.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, it can be demonstrated. It is demonstrated. When you get a seed and sow it, a big tree comes from the seed. This is demonstration. How can you say it is not demonstration?

Dr. Benford: It is demonstration that a seed grows.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, the seed is the cause and the tree is the effect. That is demonstration.

Dr. Benford: But where’s Kṛṣṇa?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa says, “I am the seed.” The seed is Kṛṣṇa. Bījaṁ māṁ sarva-bhūtānām: “I am the original seed of all existences.” [Bg 7.10] As soon as we see the seed, we see Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says, “I am the seed.” So how can you say you cannot see Kṛṣṇa? You can see Kṛṣṇa.

Dr. Benford: It’s true we see mystery in the world.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: It is not mystery; it is fact. Kṛṣṇa says, “I am the seed.” I have heard it from Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, when I see a seed I am seeing Kṛṣṇa. How can you say you are not perceiving Kṛṣṇa? You see Kṛṣṇa according to Kṛsṇa’s direction. Why do you persist in trying to see Kṛṣṇa in your own way? Kṛṣṇa says, prabhāsmi śaśi-sūryayoḥ: “I am the light of the sun and moon.” [Bg 7.10] As soon as you see the sunshine, you are seeing Kṛṣṇa. Why do you say you don’t see Kṛṣṇa? What is your reason?

Dr. Benford: I do not know that it is called ”Kṛṣṇa.” I do not know-

Śrīla Prabhupāda: There are so many things you do not know. Therefore you have to learn from the teacher, Kṛṣṇa. Because you do not know and you do not care for Kṛṣṇa, therefore your knowledge is imperfect. This is your mentality. First of all, you do not know, and second, you do not accept Kṛṣṇa as your teacher. Do you think that your knowledge is perfect? What is the value of your knowledge?

Dr. Benford: But I do not know that there is any perfect knowledge.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: You do not know so many things, but we can know, because we accept Kṛṣṇa as our teacher.

Dr. Benford: The thing that bothers me most is that it seems to be necessary to accept things blindly.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, because our brains are imperfect. The child, when he is learning mathematics from his teacher, has no power to question or to protest. How has two plus two become four? He doesn’t inquire. He simply accepts and becomes learned. That is the process. You cannot ask how Kṛṣṇa has made this seed, what is the chemical arrangement, the complete arrangement, so that the tree is coming out. It is coming out whether you understand or not. Therefore, you know that Kṛṣṇa is perfect. You cannot ask how the tree is coming out, nor is it within your power to understand how it is coming out. That is Kṛṣṇa’s power. You scientists are just like children. The child is asking, “How is it that from this tape recorder so many sounds are coming out?” He cannot understand it. It is useless for him to try to understand it at the present stage of his development. But it is a fact that behind the mechanical arrangement of the tape recorder is a big science and a big brain. Similarly, the seed is undoubtedly a wonderful arrangement. Even though you do not understand-cannot understand-how a big tree is coming out from a tiny seed, still it is wonderful. And there is a brain, a wonderful brain, behind all this. That you have to accept.

So, the main business of human life is to understand Kṛṣṇa. For that purpose there must be scientific method and understanding-then human society is perfect. That is our propaganda. We do not say that you must accept religion and God by sentiment. No, accept it through philosophical and scientific inquiry. That is our propaganda. You shouldn’t be a sentimental fanatic and accept blindly. You should try to understand this science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

So, I’m very glad to meet you, Dr. Benford. I want all scientists and philosophers to try to understand Kṛṣṇa in their own way. That will be the perfection of their learning. You are a real scientist when you explain Kṛṣṇa scientifically. That is your perfection.

Dr. Benford: I came today because I wanted to see if there is any similarity between your teachings and the findings of physics.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That you will learn if you associate with us. Svarūpa Dāmodara, here, is also a scientist, and he’s now learning the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Now you cannot deviate him from Kṛṣṇa consciousness; he’s become firmly convinced. Yet he’s also a bona fide scientist-he’s not a fool or a fanatic. Similarly, any reasonable scientist can understand Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Those who are dogmatic cannot understand, but those who follow our arguments-they will understand Kṛṣṇa consciousness. It is not difficult. We have books; we are not simply talking. We have dozens of books to help you understand.

Dr. Benford: As far as I can see, the universe is a thing that is striving to understand itself, and we are products of that attempt.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No. “We” means the body. The body is a product of this universe, and the universe is a product of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, the universe is not separate from Kṛṣṇa. The universe is also Kṛṣṇa. So, when you explain universal laws with reference to Kṛṣṇa, then it is perfect knowledge. The universe is one of Kṛṣṇa’s energies-the material energy. We living entities are also an energy of Kṛṣṇa-the living energy. The combination of the living energy and the material energy-that is the universe. So, in one sense the study of the universe is also the study of Kṛṣṇa, but as long as you do not actually come to the point of understanding Kṛṣṇa, your knowledge is imperfect.
Gregory Benford is Associate Professor of Physics at the University of California, Irvine. He received his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of California, San Diego, in 1967. He has published over forty scientific papers and has been a Woodrow Wilson Fellow. He was a Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University, England, in 1976. His research interests include solid-state physics, plasma physics, and high-energy astrophysics. His astronomical research centers on the dynamics of pulsars, violent extragalactic events, and quasars. He has also published numerous articles in Natural History, Smithsonian, New Scientist, and other major periodicals. His fiction includes several dozen short stories and three novels: Jupiter Project (1975), If the Stars Are Gods (1977), and In the Ocean oJ Night (1977). In 1975 he received the Nebula Award from the Science Fiction Writers of America for short fiction. He lives in Laguna Beach, California.