W. Penfield, one of the top neuroscientists of the century, said in an article called Science, the Ox, and the Spirit:
"The physical basis of the mind is the brain action in each individual. It accompanies the activity of the spirit, but the spirit is free. It is capable of some degree of initiative. The spirit is the man one knows. He must have continuity through periods of coma and sleep. I assume then that the spirit must live on somehow after death. I cannot doubt that many make contact with God and have guidance from a greater spirit. If he had only a brain and
not a mind, this difficult decision would not be his."
The tendency to see the human mind in terms of the latest technology of the times is an old one. In earlier times mind was thought of as a steam engine, as a clock, and before that as a catapult. Today the attempt is to
equate mind with the brain.
But here is something from Ludwig Wittgenstein
from his Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology: "Nothing seems more possible to me than that people some day will come to the definite opinion that there is no copy in the nervous system which corresponds to a particular thought or to a particular idea of memory."
Szent-Gyorgyi, the Nobel laureate biologist, said,
"I went through my entire scientific career
Searching for life, but now I see that life
has somehow slipped through my fingers
and all I have is electrons, protons, and particles, which have no life at all. So in my old age I am forced to retrace my steps."
So we can try to think that the great advantage of discussing the notion of the conscious self within our scientific paradigms is that we can actually enlarge our
framework. In order to do that we need help, and I don't think that anyone can deny that the Vedic literatures are the single most vast body of literature that seriously deals with this topic.
Science, as long as it remains bound to empirical reductionism, can say nothing about the conscious self. Many in the contemporary world have tried to define perception such that it fits into their existing paradigms, but this has only made our problems more acute. Time has come to redefine scientific procedures such that they explain the conscious self. We need as many new ideas as we can get. If we are so foolhardy as to reject the entire wisdom preceding us, such as the Vedic paradigm, then what assurance do we have that our present-day knowledge will not similarly be rejected by future generations?
Science is rooted in observations, and our conscious self is the very tool by which we observe. Even the strongest giant cannot lift the platform on which he stands. As great as scientific knowledge is, it cannot explain the conscious self within its present observational framework. To experience it is to observe it.
Replies