If you ask me what the defining aspect of this book is, I would say it is originality. I cannot think of another book which presented so many new ideas. I cannot think of another book which did such a systematic comparison of modern physics and eastern philosophy.
If you are in Indian, it is very likely you would have heard about the scientific advances of ancient India- some real some imagined. There are claims that we knew it all – from gravity to atom bombs. Many people are of the notion that this book is another one in that genre; it claims that eastern scientists possessed knowledge of quantum theory. I want to begin by setting that record straight. Capra makes no claim of scientific advancement. His claim is that modern physics easily lends itself to be accommodated within the philosophical framework of the east. He says that the knowledge we have gained through years of scientific research seems to agree with the mystic revelations of the eastern philosophies like Hinduism, Buddhism and Tao. He says that many modern physicist like Bohr, Oppenheimer and Heisenberg have noticed the parallels and spoken about them. However, he claims they have gained it through mystical experiences and not through scientific thought. In his own words, “This book aims at [demonstrating] that there is essential harmony between the spirit of eastern wisdom and western science. It attempts to suggest that modern physics goes far beyond technology…. It can be a path with a heart. A way to spiritual knowledge and self-realization”
Capra begins his analysis by making a comparison between rational knowledge and intuitive insights. Rational knowledge is derived from the experiences we have with objects and events in our environment. It operates in the realm of science. But this knowledge is only an approximation of the real world. For most of us it is very difficult to be constantly aware of the limitations and of the relativity of conceptual knowledge. The eastern mystics are concerned with the direct experience of reality which transcends not only intellectual knowledge but also sensory perceptions. They call this the absolute knowledge because it is beyond the limitation of our language and our reasoning faculties.
Physics would not accept this as knowledge because its framework is completely different. It relies on abstraction and analysis. The firm basis for knowledge in eastern mysticism is experience, whereas in science it is experiment. This comparison may seem absurd at first. Physics experiments are preformed with elaborate team work and sophisticated technology whereas mystics gain their knowledge in the privacy of their meditation, through introspection without the use of any technology. Scientific experiments are repeatable whereas mystic experience is reserved only for a few individuals at special occasions. Capra says, these are only differences in approach and not in their reliability.
Anybody who wants to repeat a physics experiment has to undergo many years of training, similarly mystical experience requires many years of training under an experienced master. The dedicated time alone does not guarantee success. But once he is successful, he will be able to repeat it. Neither is it less sophisticated. The complexity and efficiency of a physicist’s technical apparatus is matched by that of the mystics consciousness in deep meditation. Capra’s premise is that both of these are valid methods of gaining knowledge. “A page from the journal of modern experimental physics will be as mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetian mandala. Both are records of enquiries into the nature of the universe”
Capra then proceeds into a detailed analysis and comparisons of quantum physics and various eastern philosophies like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese schools of thought like Tao and Zen. I was fascinated by the Hinduism and Buddhism comparisons mainly because I could understand and relate to them. I had difficulty following the other schools of thought because I do not have any background knowledge of these philosophies.
It is an intellectually stimulating book. You can agree or disagree with its premise, but it will be quite impossible not to be awed by it.
Interesting review. I think most scientists would agree that philosophy is the mother of all sciences. But to say that you can come up with quantum mechanics through meditation seems like a stretch. Anyway, I haven’t read this book. Looks like it will be an interesting read.
Thank you Sukumar. Yes it is hard to accept the premise. Even if you disagree with it, you can still appreciate the parallels he is able to draw between the two. All said and done, many implications of mordern physics are almost like fantasy stories – multiple universes in different dimensions as per string theory, time slowing down an speeding up as a result of relativity etc.
BTW, Capra does not claim they came up with Quantum mechanics. He says their thoughts can easily be accomodated within the framework of quantum physics. Not like they discovered photons and relativity through meditation.
Good review Archana!! I read this book a few months back and definitely liked it. It was a book which went onto show that mystics have a deep understanding of the environment/world around them just as scientists do(same applies for things that are beyond the understanding of both mystics and scientists). Both of them see the world in the same way but through different looking-glasses.
As you rightly pointed out its a book worth reading for it really amazed me rather than agreeing or disagreeing the facts in the book. haha…after reading the book for almost a week whenever I saw any object I could see only Shiva’s cosmic dance in it
Thanks Saraswathi. Me too, It felt like the whole universe was the dance of Shiva
I read the book long back, maybe 10 years back. Yes I was awed by it though Fritjof Capra’s book was pooh-poohed by many a scientist as mumbo jumbo. We Indians can certainly be proud that our forefathers did indeed dig deep into philosophy even though they lacked the scientific temper and tools. Your review makes me want to reread the book.
Very interesting post archana.. i feel, when both east and western model works symbiotically, more can be achieved.
One area, where i find, western experimental model, gaining is their ability to break solutions in to smaller units, and then scale up/down, to accurate desired level. Metrics and intellectual analysis of data is another area, which would add weightage to western model.
Krishnan and Senthil – Thank you very much.
Archana,
Interesting post.
Science does not dismiss experience – I’m not sure why you say that. It studies experiences & tries to find reasons behind them. And as you say, tries to reproduce it – after understanding the conditions under which it manifests itself. Abstraction & Analysis can’t be done without data. If experience provided a set of data points, they’ve taken it.
Science is not just based on experiments, as you know. Several scientists have predicted outcomes thru Math, theories & repeating patterns – well before any evidence could be found. Mendeleev predicted the characteristics of several elements well ahead of time.
Many experiences reported by mystics have been studied by science. There have been attempts to understand how those experiences came about. Out of Body experiences, Feeling of Oneness with God – all these have been studied scientifically. And some explanations have been provided. Should new mystical experiences be reported, they’ll be studied too.
I do agree that Eastern philosophy came up with some startling revelations. For e.g, some of the points mentioned about the “Creation of the Universe” in the Puranas is amazing & can be extrapolated to the “Big Bang”. Since there are many versions of this myth in the Puranas, let me just state a few lines from the most scientific version – “In the beginning there was nothing but Brahm. Then, there appeared a golden egg. Everything you see in this universe came out of that egg”. Please note that I’ve omitted lines where the Pouranikas spoke about water getting created before the egg & how Vishnu rested on Adi Sesha. Nevertheless, it still sounds impressive to me. There are several other examples that we can quote.
Here is what I think but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
I don’t think its possible for arm-chair philosophers to arrive at the Theories of Relativity or Quantum Physics. This is because – nothing in anyone’s experience or knowledge can prepare them for these ground-breaking theories. Even Einstein had a tough time accepting Niels Bohr. And he’s possibly the most brilliant person that ever lived – at least, in modern times.
Philosophy & Science are not the opposite poles. Einstein dreamed up his Theories of Relativity first, proved it next. It was possible for him to do that because – he knew all the facts & principles leading to it.
Paraphrasing Carl Sagan let me say this. Every new earth-shaking theory is like a chain of concepts, proven data points or experiments. For the final link in the chain (i.e., the new theory) to be correct, every link in the chain should be correct. How can we ensure that every chain in our reasoning is correct? By relying on scientific methods. Which is why the mystics couldn’t guarantee success. They couldn’t prove any/most of the links in their thinking. So, only those with remarkable clarity of vision succeeded in coming up with brilliant insights.
Data & observation has its uses. You mentioned that mystics relied on experience. Well, science has made what telescopes, miscroscopes & cyclotrons detect as part of our experience. Only when they have access to that experience, can someone like Heisenberg or Einstein can make the intuitive leap to the principles that they propounded & proved. What they stated sounds very mystical to me! Any intuitive leap into the unknown is, I think – especially, an informed leap.
If Eastern philosophers have made such discoveries, why is it no one has found what they think about the Unified Theory/String Theory? I’m wary of claims made after the fact. Once Quantum Physics becomes mainstream, someone finds it in the Eastern philosophies. Now, we have an opportunity. We don’t know still if String Theory is THE theory. Why can’t someone look at Eastern philosophies & find an answer? I’m sure many people – especially the scientists – would love to know that. And many of them will be receptive to new suggestions, if that will help them solve the puzzle.
When that happens, I’ll be humbled & amazed. But as it is, I have what they call reasonable doubt.
Thanks for the detailed response Priya. You have made valid points and I think these arguments pretty much sum up the disagreement the scientific community has with Capra’s book.
I have only touched upon the first few chapters of the book. You will have to read it fully inorder to be able to judge it. I found his theories interesting and quite different from the normal claims about science it ancient India.
Interesting reply priya.. I liked your explanation of Chain of concepts..
Is there any possibility, that scientific theory could have been influenced by religious theories? Because, even scientists are human beings, and not all are athiests.
/** How can we ensure that every chain in our reasoning is correct? **/
When one experiences every chain link, can it be considered as true, or valid.. In that case, the final link is also experienced, and hence could be considered as valid..
For example, in an SDLC, whatever we prove experimentally, its the experience, that ultimately matters
Steel making is a multi-layered process… so as lime stone preparation.. In North India, there are many families, producing steel as cottage industry.. what tata produces massively, is done at the smallest level too.. How do they learn all these? only through experience.
When i used to procure lime for my father’s business, i saw the whole family, setting up the kiln, preparing the wood coal, bring the “Oadai kal” and producing the lime.. and that had more quality, than the lime produced in our own factory..
Although i could not come to any conclusion, these facts amuse me a lot.. In another instance, i went with my father to a workshop.. the mechanic explained in and out of the Mahindra engine, with so much expertise.. he did only his 3rd std, and then went to work.. It appeared to me, even a passed out Engg graduate cannot describe in such detailed manner, even though he studied scientifically..
In Medical field, when we go to any doctor, the immediate thing, they do is to prescribe tests.. However, in traditional treatment, the experts, would be able to tell the problem, just by watching our naadi.. There is a saying “A experienced vaidyan, should be able to guess the problem just from the voice of the patient”
My observation is that western science limited itself, by the lack of its trust on humans.. i mean, human experience.. the west seemed to have undermined the power of innerself..
It would be interesting to you, to read from Dharampal’s book, how wootz steel was produced in India, cheaply, with high quality, that’s not available in Europe.. (“Book 1 & 2 – Indian Science”)
Senthil – Inspiration for science can come from anywhere, including religion. Only when it can be proven will it become science.
In any case, my comment is specifically about quantum physics & the theories of relativity. Not about science per se.
Science is based on questioning – ergo, it needs to check everything. Including human experience – there’s no special distrust placed on humans.
There’s a Thirukkural that says, “Disbelieve everything you perceive. Believe only what you can ascertain to be a fact”. Essence of science, I think.
Thanks priya.. in your quote of thirukkural, the “Mei Porul” seem to mean the exeprience & realisation that tao of physics explains about eastern mysticism
Thanks Archana. I will put this book in my “To Do”.
Some of the comments in this thread reminds me of the fact that Indians invented the “flying machine”/plane way before anyone else. After all our gods did ride the “Pushpaka Vimanam”
Senthil, The above statement is a joke and joke only and is not meant to offend anyone!!
Ganesh
Ganesh.. I dont know, whether flying machine / plane is real or not.. but, we can appreciate the way they conceptualised .. our fore fathers had good creativity..
Btw, i came across this link few weeks before..
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=191&page=27
@Ganesh – Thank you very much. Good to see your comment after a long gap.
Priya and Senthil – Thanks for the interesting discussion.
While I have lot of faith in science and scientific methods, I also believe there are certain things beyond the realm of science. How much ever you try to examine these through scientific tools, you are not going to arrive at answers. We have two choices here, either dismiss anything that cannot be proved by science as BS or accept the possibility that there are things which science cannot explain. I am from the latter school of thought. I think both are independant tools of enquiry. If you you choose to limit yourself to a single tool, you limit your possibilities. My vedanta teacher used to give this example. If you have to validate your vision you have to use your eyes. How much ever you try using your ears, you can never get it right. Your eyest may be faulty, so improve it, use specs, get your vision corrected, but remember you require eyes to see.
Priya – Regarding your specific take on quantum theory. Capra does not claim that the mystics arrived at quantum theory. He says the implications of quantum theory are very close to the mystics’ view of reality. I tried to explain this distiction in my post. I am not sure if I am able to get it across properly.
Senthil,
I’m sure you know that Thirukkural is based on Hinduism’s tenets of family life – “Dharma Artha Kama Moksha”. It has 3 sections for Dharma, Artha & Kama. (Release from these 3 will lead to Moksha, so no section for that).
The Thirukkural that refers to “Mei Porul” has 2 forms:
1) In the “Aratthup Pal” (“Dharma” Section), “Thuravara Iyal” (“Vaanaprastha” Sub-heading), “Mei Unardhal Adhikaram” (“Realizing the Truth” Chapter). I agree that this form may have overtones of spirituality. That’s a distinct possibility.
2) In the “Porut Pal” (“Artha Shastra” or “Politics & Economics” Section), “Arasiyal” (“Politics” Sub-heading), “Arivudamai Adhikaram” (“Essence of Intelligence” Chapter). Its highly unlikely that this section means Mysticism of any kind. “Porut Pal” has a chapter on Spying, for e.g.! It would make no sense to talk about mysticism in this section.
(2) can be extended for science, since anyway it talks about how to deal with perceptions in this life.
Archana – I don’t think I’m saying “Down with Mysticism”. Not sure why you thought I mean that.
There are so many things that we don’t know now. Scientific people put them in the parking lot & seek more knowledge, so that they can prove or disprove it. I’m sure you would have read many such things in the annals of science.
So no person with a scientific temper will say “throw away the unprovable”. Its not a 1 or a 0 – which is an over-simplification of what science really is.
If someone is so sure that something is scientific & no chain of evidence is available currently to support it – scientific circles will seriously doubt it. That’s not the same as saying scientific people throw away something that can’t be proven now.
The chain of evidence is key.
Even then: If something can’t be proven today, people are free to raise some queries. Science will not say that’s BS, but will probe it with interest. I’ve mentioned this in my comment.
What is unknown today will be known tomorrow. New unknowns will come to light as old ones become common knowledge. That’s the beauty of scientific enquiry. And that has been the history of human-kind. There are no things beyond science. There are only things beyond our current knowledge.
I’m just stating the case for science.
Archana – It is incorrect to assume that someone who’s a skeptic won’t have any use for the unknown or for the scriptures, as your comment seems to indicate. Perhaps that’s not what you meant, but just my misunderstanding.
Just like you have a healthy respect for science & a firm belief in the Vedanta, I go by science & have respect for the scriptures. When I read the scriptures, I’m amazed by the enquiry & the insights of some of the ancients. All that’s food for thought for a skeptic & another set of inputs to process.
Thanks priya.. i agree to your explanation.. My understanding is that whatever science has to prove, the understanding has to happen inside our mind.. i view meiporul as that understanding.. and science could not prove “How understanding happens” or “What is perception” .. These are words that represent something happening inside our mind.. And to my view, mysticism is one step further, by which, we realise something beyond our senses..
So i feel, science and mysticism can be symbiotic and complementary.. our forefathers had perfectly blended maths and astronomy and created astrology, that has some mysticism..
One real life example i could quote is how we understand the “Double game” that one plays to us.. As per science, everything seems to be genuine.. but only our mind could perceive the real intent.. (same in the case of many legal cases.. eg: Bob Woolmer, bhutto etc..)
Archana,
In Ramanujar’s life, his gula deivam (Goddess Lakshmi, i think) used to come in his dream and revealed mathematic secrets).
Gnanasambandar, got the knowledge of vedas right in his fourth year, and its believed to have happened by the blessings of goddess saraswathi.
Vivekananda, who playfully asked ramakrishnar to show god before him, realised everything, by the mysticism of his guru, at the age of 9. And later, he has delivered lectures on all fields including science, history, within short period of his life.
In today’s swamiji’s, Swamy Nithyananda, is believed to got the spiritual interest at his 13th age in the top of Tiruvannamalai..
Ramana Maharishi, got his spiritual quest at the top of tiruvannamalai..
@Priya – Let me clarify. I believe that there are certain things beyond the realm of science. Like Capra, I too believe, both science and spirituality are complimentary sources of knowledge. You cannot use one to validate the other. When you say you cannot accept anything that cannot be explained by science, then what does it imply? You may not be saying “Down with Mysticism”, but you do seem to be saying it doesn’t not count as a source of knowledge.
/*It is incorrect to assume that someone who’s a skeptic won’t have any use for the unknown or for the scriptures*/ I am definitely not saying that. I am assuming that you are saying it cannot be a valid source of knowlege as long as it is not validated by science. Am I wrong in that assumption?
@Senthil – Thank you for those examples.
Archana – Yes, I don’t think you understand my belief/validation system. Maybe because you & I have totally different cores fundamentally.
I neither believe or disbelieve something when I hear about it first. I suspend judgement. When I want to understand more about something, I look for corroborating evidence. Every time I hear something that supports the claim, my belief increases. Every time I encounter something that disproves it, my belief decreases.
Its very similar to how someone would believe or disbelieve a person. That’s the simplest way of describing critical thinking. Validity & Invalidity have to be decided methodically. Its incorrect to have biases or pre-conceived notions.
To me, spiritual thoughts are just another category of inputs. Experience, observation, Sensory Stimulation, Analysis, New Ideas, Extraneous Data – all these are other categories of inputs.
I don’t give any special status to any category of input. Every idea should stand for itself & I rate it by its merit. Not by the category it belongs to.
Now, how do you decide whether to believe or disbelieve something? I’d like to hear that.
Thanks for that clear expaination Priya. I have never thought about how my belief system works. It has always happened at a sub-consious intutive level. I have to do some introspection before I can answer that question. Let me think about it.
Archana,
This is my first ever participation in blogs. Please correct me if I am going wrong in any formalities. Appreciate it.
Priya, Your words reminds me of an incident in the life of
Pujya Sri Ekkiralaa Bharadwaja who passed the IAS but chosen teaching profession to continue pursue his spiritual goals.
Acharya Sri Bharadwaja(lovingly called SaiMaster) is initially an Explorer(Anveshaka), then a Scholar( Vidwan) , and finally, he is The Enlightened One( the Muktha Purusha).
Please read here to know more in detail:
http://www.divyajanani.org/saibharadwaja/guruvugaru/lifesketch.html
http://www.saibharadwaja.org/
Sri Bharadwaja has written a wonderful book in Telugu ‘Vignana Veechikalu’ which proves the existence of God by comparing to the studies from many Scientists. This book quotes from ‘The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra’ apart from many other books. Unfortunately this book is not available in English.
I had great opportunity to go through a wonderful discussion on Spirituality and Science especially Einstein’s and Tao of Physics in SaiMaster forums between the young son of Acharya who is walking in his Father’s footsteps and a Research scholar. If you have a chance, try to discuss with them.
You may have to log into the Forum which is called Sai Master Satsang where noone argues in negative attitudes but shares their knowledge to improve one’s understanding.
Procedure to reach there..
1. Enter into http://www.saibharadwaja.org/.
2. Enter into SaiMasterForums.
3. Register which takes couple of minutes.
4. look for ‘Einsteins theory’ or ‘Tao of Physics’ in the search.
Master’s son’s name is ‘Dwarakanath Jnaneswar’.
Master says ‘Dont be a blind believer but be a Satyanveshi’(search for the truth).
And coincidentally February 9th is the day Master found all the answers to his quest at Shirdi in 1963.
Any questions on spirituality or science can be raised freely in SaiMaster Forums. This is what I observed for the last two years as a member.
Master also written a book in Telugu (‘Edi Nijam’ meaning ‘what is the Truth’ which was presented in front of many scholars and got high appreciation which again deals with scientific analysis of spirituality.
Thanks once again for the nice discussion. With the time, I love to share my opinions.
Have a Wonderful day.
Hi vidyarthi,
Welcome to my blog and thanks a lot for the informative comment. I will look up the links that you have specified.
Hi,
The book of Fritjof Capra is a fundamental work for future theoretical physics, and theoretical science. Already for me it is the certainty on base my research. See on my web site’s in pdf file in English the http://www.cosmology.hu.
Regards
Thank you Emery. Will look up the link.
I am from Hyderabad, will you please anybody help me to get this book in hyderabad.
Thank you
Anil – You can get it in any book shop.
the Tao of physics one yhose books that has most influnced me.
THE TAO OF PHYSICS is really a book worthy praise in helping us understand the role physics in our day to day life.
THANKS TO THE AUTHOR.