Early this month, while inaugurating the signature bridge in Delhi, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal made a case that temples and statutes impede scientific progress and temper. He appealed to the people attending the event not to vote the electoral candidates who build statues and temples, but to the candidates who build mohalla clinics, schools, bridges, etc. I support this idea – voting the candidates to power who talk about science and technology, who build hospitals and bridges – but the idea that temples or religious places are detrimental to science needs deeper exploration.
Did/does building religious shrines, statues, memorials, etc. contribute to India’s poverty and underdevelopment? Is it corruption or temple building? It will be a good idea to make an audit of how much money is invested in temple building in independent India and how much money is involved in corruption? How many temples were built in independent India in comparison to pre-independent India? We know the great temples of India were not built in the last 60 or 70 years. But was India poor and underdeveloped during those periods?
According to Angus Maddison, the British economic historian, in the 16th and 17th centuries, India’s share of world GDP was more than 20 per cent, which gradually declined to 16.1 per cent in 1820 and 12.2 per cent in 1870. In 2017, this share was below 8 per cent. We know many temples in India were built hundreds of years ago. It was India’s riches and wealth, not only material but also cultural and spiritual, that attracted traders and travelers from all over the world.
One of the ideal examples of the blend of religious spirit and scientific inquiry that comes to my mind is Srinivasa Ramanujan, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. Ramanujan was religious, and for him, ‘an equation has no meaning unless it is an expression of thought of God’. Ramanujan was scribbling mathematics on the temple floor. He believed that the Goddess was coming to him in dreams and revealing mathematical formulas. The Hollywood movie, ‘The Man Who Knew Infinity’ beautifully depicts his life including his religious beliefs and vegetarianism.
One of the greatest scientists, Isaac Newton, was both theologian and scientist. Though Newton was famous for bringing a new revolution to the field of science, his contributions to theology were not minimal. Newton was a devout Christian and wrote in Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, “In human affairs the father of a family or house is frequently taken for the common father of a kindred: here the whole creation is considered as one kindred or family so named from God, the common father of all.” In a letter he wrote, “When I wrote my treatise (Principia Mathematica) about our system I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” According to Steven E. Jones, a professor emeritus of physics at Brigham Young University, Newton hoped his scientific writings would lead people to think about and believe in God. Jones argues that for the great scientist there was a natural meshing of science and belief in God.
A religious person is insensitive to science or scientific inquiry is foreign to Indian thinking. When Madan Mohan Malaviya established Banaras Hindu University in 1916 on the day of Vasant Panchami, he had the vision that the new institute would promote scientific inquiry. He elaborated his vision in 1911: “The millions mired in poverty here can only get rid (of it) when science is used in their interest. Such maximum application of science is only possible when scientific knowledge is available to Indians in their own country.” One would come across Shri Vishwanath temple in the university campus. Banaras Hindu University was one of the best universities attracting bright minds, but later corruption and nepotism, and petty and party politics eroded its academic standards.
In universities in the USA and Europe, one would come across religious shrines within the campus. Top universities like Harvard, Yale and Oxford have churches. But that did not stop the university or its students to excel in diverse fields, and becoming world leaders.
True for the progress of a nation, the spirit of scientific inquiry is necessary. But it is naive to argue that to have scientific inquiry one must relinquish religious faith, or demolish or undermine religious institutions or achievements. Religion does not defy rationality. In order to establish institutions like Indian Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science or Defense Research and Development Organization, it is not necessary to break away from the old wisdom, or faith in God. One of the modern scientists in this context who comes to my mind is A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, who gave India’s defense a new direction. Kalam was reading Gita, while at the same time experimenting new technologies. Reading Gita, or going to temples, does not make an individual anti-scientific.
Do we, Indians, need more temples or hospitals? Hospitals, for sure. Do we need more schools or temples? Schools, for sure. Do we need more bridges or temples? Bridges, for sure. Our temples are our national heritage, and we need to protect them from erosion or destruction. They were architectural marvels, and they were also scientific marvels. As I was looking at the walls of the Meenakshi temple in Madurai during one of my trips, I wondered how could the masons build such a marvelous temple, without the aid of modern science and technology?
Mahatma Gandhi wrote in 1932: “If, on the one hand, hundreds of self-seeking men have misused mosques, temples and churches, on the other, millions have made good use of them. If you wish to test the truth of this statement, use your wonderful gift of imagination and suppose that a reformer razes to the ground in a single day all the churches, temples and mosques. Then picture to yourself the condition of those millions of simple good souls when they discover that the temples and mosques from which they daily derived consolation and support were no more. I see the truth of this every day.” Can we apply this Gandhian logic to thousands of religious places destroyed in India or elsewhere in the past?
What Kejriwal is arguing is not new. The Soviet socialist system ran on such a premise, and it collapsed. It emphasized a rigid divorce between science and religion and imposed a reign of terror on those who professed religion. While I have no problem with the philosophy of socialism and I truly believe that it has many good elements which states need to adopt, but the socialism of the Soviet type did not actually live up to the original promise. While aiming at establishing a higher brotherhood among the people, it, in fact, suffocated the inner fountains that supported this brotherhood. It discouraged individual enterprise and left everything to the totalitarian state. It discouraged religion but transformed itself into a new religion. So, in the Soviet Union, we had the communist party or the symbol, in place of the Orthodox Church, for the masses to worship. The question is not of science or religion. The question should be how to create an equilibrium between the two, the two supporting and strengthening each other instead of negating or suffocating each other.
The mindset is problematic. That if we have religion, there is no science and technology. And if we have science and technology, there is no place of religion. There was ample evidence that ancient India witnessed a synthesis of science and religion. Whether it was Aryabhatta or Brahmagupta, who were pioneers of scientific spirit, or Kautilya, who was an astute diplomat and theoretician of statecraft, or Kalidasa, the renowned poet and dramatist, all of them excelled in an eclectic atmosphere that promoted science and religion. Think of Taxila and Nalanda, the centers of learning, where not only debates concerning science and technology, but also concerning religion and spirituality were undertaken.
As I am writing about religion, let me elaborate on my conception of religion. My religion is not dogmatic, nor is it static. The principles that govern my religion are universal acceptance and toleration – the twin principles proudly proclaimed by Swami Vivekananda at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. The Swami gave examples of sea-frog and well-frog and elaborated how the dogmatic religions, orthodox practices, see them in the fashion of the well-frog and declare them as the only truth, while a universal religion, like the ocean-frog, would see all religions as true. The hymn from Maha Upanishad embodies well the vision of the world as one family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam).
The following quote from Sri Aurobindo best summarizes the concept of universal acceptance: “Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler, purer; Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult-egoism stand in the way.”
One of the hymns of the Vedic times that best defines the Hindu ideal is:
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
Aum Pūrnamadaḥ pūrnamidaṁ
Pūrnāt pūrnamudacyate
Pūrnasya pūrnamādāya
Pūrnamevāvaśiṣyate
Aum Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ
It literally means: “That is full. This is full. The full is taken out of the full. Take out the full from the full, the full remains. Om, peace, peace, peace.” It implies: The Creator is both the ‘full’ and the parts that are also ‘full’, which are taken out of the ‘full’. By creating the universe and all the elements in it, the Creator does not limit Him or lose His ‘full’ness. This brings another element. As the whole world is the Creator’s creation out of Himself, the whole world and its elements partake His consciousness. Applying this logic further, we are all divine as we are created by the Supreme Divine. Ramakrishna Paramahansa was one of the foremost examples of this widest possible interpretation of religion. He practiced all religions including Christianity and Islam and concluded that all religions are true, and they all lead to true liberation. Mahatma Gandhi argued that all religions are like beautiful flowers in a garden. He further argued all religions are like rivers flowing to the same ocean, the Truth. Gandhi – a saint among politicians and politician among saints – attended morning prayers every day and listened to Narsinh Mehta and worked tirelessly to promote religious harmony and brotherhood.
Few lines from Narsinh Mehta, the 14th century Gujarati saint and poet,
Vaishnav jana to tene kahiye, je pid parayi janere…
A person is truly divine, who understands the pain of others…
How can one better summarize the marriage between religion and science, between mandir and mathematics, than this song of Narsinh Mehta. An individual who is scientific can understand the true import of this song, and channelize her or his energy to the service of the others.
I think Arvind Kejriwal would not disagree with me on this interpretation of Hindu religion. My religion teaches the widest possible opening of the spirit, touching upon every aspect of human endeavor – whether it is science and technology, arts or commerce, or even politics. I think when politicians are soaked deep in this widest understanding of religion, I mean any religion, they will not quarrel regarding science and religion, rather an inner harmony will bind them and propel them to work in unison to address multiple crises including economic corruption, moral perversion and spiritual degeneration.
