All you need is love

David Lorimer, the global ambassador of The Scientific and Medical Network and editor of Paradigm Explorer: I want to start our conversation with this quotation from E. F. Schumacher: “Humanity is now too clever to survive without wisdom.” That is a remarkable thought.

Ravi Ravindra, Professor Emeritus at Dalhousie University in Halifax (Canada): Well, I very much agree with this remark. Humanity has become too clever, largely because of science. And these days people are increasingly using AI, which is a branch of science. So let me ask you this Satish, you have said that spirituality is “subjective” whereas science is “objective”.

I want to question that. Immanuel Kant at the end of the 19th century wrote an important book called The Critique of Pure Reason, in which he says that science can never be completely objective.

In my view science is intersubjective. Somebody at Oxford can say something and then somebody at Harvard can challenge it, question it, agree with it or disagree with it. A scientist claims to be the inventor or the author of an idea or theory, which can be verified by other scientists. There is certain amount of ego associated with science. 

Whereas spirituality is free of ego, free of me! Christ in the Gospel of Matthew says that unless you leave yourself behind, you cannot be a follower of mine. Similarly the Yoga Sutra speaks about “Swaroop Shunya”, which means you must be completely empty of your ego. 

In my view science is inter subjective and spirituality is objective! Spirituality is not intersubjective because every other human being needs to be at the same level as the Buddha or Christ to be able to check the wisdom of one another. 

Satish Kumar, chair of the management team a the Resurgence Trust, publisher of The Ecologist: That's a very profound comment, Ravi. I should have said that science is supposed to be objective. And spirituality is supposed to be subjective! For example, Rene Descartes said that what cannot be measured does not exist. He further says, “I think, therefore, I am”. 

According to Rene Descartes the thoughts can be analysed and measured similarly material things can be measured. Therefore the measurement is the basis of reality. Descartes is a scientist and a materialist philosopher. From his perspective science and philosophy are rooted in pure reason, pure rationality and pure objectivity. From that viewpoint science is considered to be “objective”.  

But science simply means knowledge. Science does not mean objective knowledge, but science has been interpreted as if it is an objective knowledge which can be quantified, analysed and defined. When something can be verified, only then it is considered to be a scientific fact or truth. 

From this point of view love, compassion, kindness, generosity, courage and imagination, are not scientific. In our universities and schools, what is offered as the scientific education does not include poetry, music, art, culture, imagination, creativity, courage, compassion and kindness because all these branches of knowledge are seen as subjective, as they are seen to be immeasurable and un-quantifiable. 

This is why I say that science is “supposed” to be objective, and spirituality is “supposed” to be subjective. But in the true meaning of science and true meaning of spirituality, both of them embrace subjectivity and objectivity. 

In my opinion we cannot have object without subject, and we cannot have subject without object. We cannot separate them. And I totally agree with you that ego is very separational. In reality the world exists only in relationship. Nothing can exist by itself, even a particle cannot exist by itself. Things exist only when they come together in relationship. This is a non-dualistic and a holistic approach. From this perspective, subjective and objective co-exist. 

David: The 17th century philosophers and scientists like Galileo and Locke made this distinction between primary and secondary qualities. A primary quality was what you could weigh, measure, see and quantify. And secondary qualities were everything which we now call subjective, including spirituality and consciousness. The direction of explanation went from matter to consciousness, from brain to mind, leading to the assertion of primacy of matter. 

Satish: In our own time Thomas Berry, the American theologian, said that, “The universe is not a collection of objects, the universe is a communion of subjects”. I like this perspective. The scientist, James Lovelock also came close with this point when he described the Earth as Gaia, a living organism and not a dead rock. Earth is not just an object, she is a subject and object. 

Ravi: At this point I wish to remind you that Shankara, who was a well-known Indian philosopher, said, “Whatever can be measured cannot be real.” This is just the opposite of Rene Descartes who believed that what cannot be measured doesn’t exist! Shankara asks us to connect with the level of reality which cannot be measured, but can be experienced and participated in.

Satish: That's another extreme. Rene Descartes is pure materialist and Shakara is pure spiritualist. I would say that from my perspective both of them are missing something. Descartes separated mind and matter and denied all non-material realities. Shakara separated consciousness and matter and denied all material realities. If I understood them correctly, Galileo, Locke, Lovelock and Berry seem to lift the status of matter and describe them as subjective, as well as objective. 

The universe is made of matter and spirit. They exist together. Spirit cannot manifest without matter. Matter cannot exist without spirit. My body can only exist by embodying the soul. And the spirit or the consciousness can manifest only through the body. Rene Descartes did not believe in soul; for him the soul was an illusion. Only matter was real. Shankara did not believe in matter; he thought that matter is an illusion and only spirit is real. From my point of view, subjective and objective dance together, quality and quantity exist together, body and soul, as well as matter and spirit, complement each other.

Ravi: From the perspective of Shankara, the fundamental reality is consciousness or spirit from which everything else emerges.

Satish: But this idea that one is a fundamental reality, and the other is a non-fundamental reality does not resonate with me. Matter is as fundamental, holy and sacred as the spirit is fundamental, holy and sacred. Christians speak of “Holy Spirit”. I would like to speak of “Holy Matter”:  mountains, trees, forests, birds, animals, oceans and the soil are as fundamental as consciousness is fundamental. Without matter life cannot exist. So the idea that matter is not a fundamental reality and only spirit is fundamental reality, is dualistic. From the Buddhist point of view matter and spirit exist together. This is also what the Chinese philosophy of Tao describes; it says that yin and yang dance together. 

Ravi: But given the fact that matter and spirit go together, how is it that most of the scientific enterprise has not been very interested in the spirit? 

Satish: The scientists were rebelling against a very dogmatic religious tradition. In the Middle Ages the church dominated the discourse and created fear of hell, and desire for heaven. The religious leaders preached the idea of judging God and a punishing God who will send you to purgatory and then either to hell or to heaven. 

People rebelled against that. They rebelled because the idea of a punishing god and the idea of a hell and a heaven was totally foolish and illogical. That is how objective science was born. It was born to challenge blind faith. But they went too far, and they denied the existence of spirituality and the truth of consciousness. Now we have a new task in front of us. Our task to bring matter and spirit together in a very balanced and logical way so that matter and spirit can dance together.

Ravi:  How do we promote this new and holistic notion in society?

Satish: We have to start with education. We need to make education holistic. All our present systems of education is based in the left hemisphere of the brain. We spend billions and billions of dollars and pounds and Euros around the world just to educate half a brain. Schools and universities only teach our young people the subjects related to the left hemisphere of the brain. We teach what can be quantified, can be managed, can be administered and can be analysed. So in order to bring the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere of the brain together, science and spirituality have to be taught together. 

Ravi: What you are saying resonates with an ancient Indian idea. Ishwar Krishna of Sankhya Karika explicitly says that “the spirit cannot act without the body and the body cannot know without the spirit”. He uses the word Purusha and Prakriti, which means spirit and body. They exist together. But bringing them into the educational system is a difficult task. It is essential to begin with impartial self-study. Without self-study, there can be no wisdom. When you engage in self-study you can begin to see what calls you and what stands in your way. 

Through self-study you will discover that although you may have a divine element in you, you may also forget that you have the demonic element in you too. If God is there, so is Satan. Even the greatest teachers like Christ had been tested by Satan; Buddha was tested by Mara. Similarly, anybody who seriously undertakes any kind of spiritual enquiry or practice would find that there is the demon within. I was rather struck by the fact that in Pali and in Hebrew, the words ‘Mara’ and ‘Satan’ both mean ‘obstacle’. 

So, to encounter my Satan or my obstacles within me can be helpful. Such encounter can point out what stands in the way of a spiritual awakening. There is no reason to be against Satan.  Satan has a lot of helpful things to offer. Satan has a lot of energy. Christ didn't ask Satan to disappear. He asked him to help by saying, “Get thee behind me Satan”. Similarly, the Buddha said to Mara, “You are a part and parcel of myself”. If the whole universe is in me, then why would Mara or Satan not be in me?

Satish: I did not know that ‘Mara’ and ‘Satan’ mean ‘obstacles’! I think in terms of darkness and the light, they exist together. We cannot have light for over 24 hours. We have got to have darkness as well. That is a universal principle. That is what Jesus Christ and Buddha recognised. They embraced both the negative and positive sides. It is unwise to say that obstacles are wrong, as obstacles are part of the journey of life.

David: We need to learn to deal with our shadow side. One of the greatest shortcomings of our contemporary life, particularly the international political life, is that we are unaware of our own shadow side. We project the shadow side onto others and onto our so-called enemies. And then we say, well, I'm on the good side. Those people on the other side are evil. We must fight them. We must get rid of them. We can't listen to them. We can't negotiate with them. We've just got to wipe them off the face of the earth.

Satish: Yes. it's very important to embrace our own shadow side. Anger, fear and anxiety exist in everybody. No one is completely free of fear, anger or anxiety. This shadow side is an existential part of our being. We should accept it and deal with it.

David:  Let me tell you a story from the life of Ramana Maharishi. One time there was a drunk person making a nuisance of himself around the Ashram. Some members of the Ashram said, "we've to get rid of him and get him off the premises". When Ramana Maharishi came to know of this he said, “No, no. We can’t do that. Bring him here. We have to help him change!” So, the drunk person was brought to Ramana Maharishi. He looked at the drunk person with kindness and with love. After about 10 minutes, the drunk man had tears streaming down his face. The compassionate gaze, the kind emanation, the unconditional love coming from Ramana Maharishi had a transformative impact on the man. 

Satish: That's wonderful. That's what I call ‘radical love’. To love someone who is good is moderate love. But like Ramana Maharishi, embracing somebody who is not so good is radical love. That is what Jesus Christ did. He healed and loved people who were not perfect. We need to learn to love those who are downtrodden, bewildered or sinners. They need our love. And through love, we transform. Hatred cannot heal. Only love can. Therefore we need to love. I walked 8000 miles through fifteen different countries without any money but love in my heart. I went to Muslim countries, I said, “You are Muslims, I Love you”. Then I went to Christian countries, I said, “You are Christians, I love you”. Then I went to Communist countries, I said, “you are communists I love you”. Then I went to capitalist countries, I said, “You are capitalists I love you”. Love has to be unconditional and nonjudgmental. I love all people, irrespective of their political beliefs. I love stars and the sun, I love moon and the mountains, I love Nature. It would be nice to practice the politics of love!

Ravi: Ramana Maharishi was also asked, “How should we treat others?” To which he replied, “There are no others”.

David: How do you see the relationship between love and wisdom?

Satish: Wisdom is born of love. When you have love in your heart, then wisdom emerges. Love is the soil in which flowers of wisdom grow. Without love, there can be no wisdom.

David: How could science become more loving? 

Satish: Science needs to see that everything is connected, and everything exists in relationship. When science can see that things are not separate then it can become loving. Science needs to see that humans are not in charge and not in control of Nature; humans themselves are Nature. That is how science and love can unite. Ramana Maharishi saw Nature and humans as one. Nature is not just mountains, forests and animals. We are also Nature. There's no other. When science embraces the unity of life it will then become loving. When analysis and synthesis are two sides of one another then love will become apparent. 

Ravi: Wisdom is a subtle combination of truth and love.

Satish: Yes. If you have love, then you discover truth as well. Love is the first principle. Then Truth. Truth and love are eternal companions. They cannot be separated. If there is no truth, there can be no love. If there is no love, there cannot be truth. They go together. Love is also ‘Ahimsa’, which means doing no harm to anyone. 

Ravi: The word ‘Ahimsa’ is usually translated as ‘non-violence’. I suggest instead that it should be ‘non-violation’.

Satish: Yes, I would agree with that, Ahimsa is non-violation.

David: I would relate this to the Peter Deunov’s three principles: love, wisdom and truth. He says that love is from life. Love brings warmth into the heart. Wisdom brings light in the mind, and truth brings freedom and strength to the will. And then in addition there are two extra principles, which are goodness and justice. So love, wisdom, truth, goodness and justice. I think that’s a pretty good set of principles.

Satish: David, I am very happy with the first four principles but I have some concern about the word ‘justice’. It is a misused and overused word. Somebody higher and above me gives out justice. So there is a judge! In my view justice should be a consequence of love; if we love we cannot be unjust and we cannot harm anyone. My freedom should not depend on someone else, who gives justice. I want to be in charge of my life and my freedom and be just without someone being the judge! 

David: In Bulgarian it can be translated to equity – the great thing about justice is that it is universal, it applies equally to everybody. So you cannot have selective justice, it has to be universal.

Ravi: If you look at the shift from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and from the Jewish tradition to Christian tradition, you can see that there is a shift from justice to love.

Satish: In the world, in every country there are judges, courts and a system of justice, yet we don’t seem to achieve any real justice! Jesus said, “Judge not so that you may not be judged.” I think we have to find a different word which transcends the dualism of the judge and the judged!

Ravi: We need real, honest, inner transformation. And that requires serious self-study, which could lead to self-transformation.

Satish: In Sanskrit there is a word for self-study, ‘Svadhyaya’ which means self-awareness and self-knowledge. Know thyself. Who am I? I am not just a name or a label. I am more than that. Each being is a divine being. So when we seek self-knowledge, we go beyond our labels to discover our true nature and identity. We discover that the whole cosmos is our country, the whole planet Earth is our home, Nature is our nationality and love is our religion. We are rooted in our community. This way we connect the intimate with the ultimate. Community with cosmos. Often we know a lot about the world, but we don’t always know: who am I? What are my potentials? What are my capacities? What are my qualities?

Ravi: But if you look at the contemporary Sanskrit dictionaries, under the word ‘Svadhyaya’, the first translation is “studying sacred books”.  On one occasion I mentioned this to Krishnamurti, and he said, “Damn it sir, what is the point of studying sacred books unless you study the book of yourself?”

Satish:  Krishnamurti was certainly a wise man. What we have explored today is that science has to embrace wisdom, and wise people have to embrace science. That’s the dance of Shiva. In Shiva’s dance, masculine and feminine come together. Dark and light come together. Satan and the divine come together. That’s the wisdom of looking at life and seeing it whole, rather than in fragments.