Search & Read
Science Is Not a Means of Knowledge for Awareness
Mary: Hello Sundari, I would like to ask if you and James have heard about Dr Robert Lanza and Biocentrism. If so, would you like to comment on it in a newsletter? I think there are among your Vedanta students many who, like me, are interested in new scientific theories about consciousness, especially those which confirm Vedantic teachings.
Perhaps I have asked James about this before, I don’t remember. I know you have limited time, but hope for and would be happy for an answer.
~ Love, Mary
Sundari: Hello, Mary. Yes, we have heard of Lanza along with a number of other scientists who are breaking the mould and thinking “out of the box.” The problem is – for the most part they are still trapped in the box – meaning in the apparent reality, even though their thinking is more accurate than the classical scientific view.
Even the most enlightened scientist, unless he is qualified to hear Vedanta, takes consciousness to be something we have instead of what we are. Even if they do not, unless they understand what it means to be consciousness, it does not do much good to them. Until they do, their knowledge will be at best indirect knowledge. Most scientists, even the enlightened ones are pretty hung-up on their view. Vedanta does not have a problem with the scientific view, enlightened or not, but science is not a valid means of knowledge for awareness. It is an appropriate means of knowledge for objects. Only Vedanta works as a valid means of knowledge for awareness. James and I have written extensively about this topic. Go to the e-satsang section of the website and use the search function. You should find your answers there.
~ Namaste, Sundari