Here's a question from Stewart who lives in Rye, New York.
He asks, "What's the proof that Vedanta is correct?
I ask this because it's likely to be challenged by those with a scientific mindset."
Well, you can prove a scientific or philosophical theory, but Vedanta, properly understood,
is not a science or a philosophy.
Vedanta is a body of spiritual wisdom whose sole purpose is to bring an end to suffering.
Neither science nor philosophy share this goal.
Vedanta's ability to remove suffering can be judged by exploring it for yourself.
Yet, as Stewart says, its teachings are often challenged, and not just by those with a scientific
mindset, but by those with a Western religious orientation as well.
We'll consider these challenges shortly.
Stewart's second question relates to the fact that Vedanta is based on the insights of the
rishis, the sages of ancient India, whose teachings are found in Sanskrit scriptures
known as Upanishads.
So he asks, "How can the Upanishads be trusted as a source of knowledge?"
The knowledge Stewart refers to here is personal discovery of the ultimate truth or reality
because of which everything exists.
According to the rishis, this discovery results in enlightenment and complete freedom from
suffering.
Stewart's questions involve some rather complex issues.
To start with, our fundamental views about reality are based on three independent sources
- religious belief, scientific knowledge, and spiritual wisdom.
It's important to understand the limitations of each one.
Let's start with religious belief.
The scriptures of every religion convey particular beliefs about God, heaven and hell, and what
happens when we die.
All these subjects are matters of belief, as opposed to matters of knowledge.
You might say, "I believe in God," but you wouldn't say, "I believe two plus two equals
four."
To believe something is to unconditionally accept it as being true or existent.
Religious beliefs are based on scriptures that contain the sacred teachings of great
prophets, saints, and sages who lived long ago.
They were somehow blessed to receive or discover important insights about lofty, otherworldly
realities, realities that, for many, remain completely hidden.
Unlike religious beliefs that are based on scriptures, scientific knowledge is based
on our experience of the world around us.
Science begins with observation, either directly through our five senses, or indirectly using
powerful instruments like electron microscopes.
All those observations are then carefully examined and analyzed to arrive at specific
conclusions about the physical world in which we live.
Now we can consider some of the limitations of scientific knowledge and religious beliefs.
Scientific knowledge is confined to the physical world, to that which can be observed with
our senses and scientific instruments.
Neither God nor heaven and hell can be observed and studied using scientific methods.
So, these subjects lie entirely outside the scope of scientific investigation.
If a scientist says that God doesn't exist, that conclusion is based not on scientific
evidence.
It's based on the scientist's personal opinion.
In contrast to science, the domain of religious belief is NOT the physical world, but rather,
subjects like God or heaven and hell, subjects that are otherworldly - non-physical and unobservable.
Religious scriptures aren't intended to teach us about geology, genetics, or other scientific
disciplines.
So, when a fundamentalist preacher declares that the Earth, along with its plants, animals
and people, was created by God just 6000 years ago, that conclusion is merely a personal
opinion, because this subject lies outside the scope of religious belief.
We could say that science and religion have separate, non-overlapping domains in which
each of them have validity.
So much confusion could be avoided if this principle was understood properly.
Religious beliefs have another limitation.
Whereas scientific knowledge can be tested and experimentally verified, religious beliefs
cannot.
Scientific experiments must be shown to have repeatable results before they're accepted
as valid.
But there's no way to test the validity of religious beliefs, because as we saw before,
their subject matters are non-physical and unobservable.
Now that we've discussed the limitations of scientific knowledge and religious belief,
we can turn to Stewart's questions about Vedanta.
The spiritual wisdom found in the teachings of Vedanta is completely different from both
scientific knowledge and religious belief.
In fact, all three have entirely different subject matters.
The subject of scientific knowledge is the physical world, all that can be observed.
The subject of religious belief is otherworldly and unobservable.
But the subject of Vedantic spiritual wisdom is neither the observed nor the unobservable.
The subject of Vedanta is the observer.
Vedanta teaches that the observer is your essential nature as awareness or consciousness,
the consciousness by which all experiences are known to you, the consciousness by which
you observe whatever happens, in the world around you and inside your own mind.
The ancient rishis called this consciousness atma, the true, inner self.
While science explores the world around us, Vedanta explores the world within us, the
world of experience, the world of your thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and the consciousness
by which you know their presence in your mind.
This inner world is completely inaccessible to science.
Scientific instruments can measure your brain waves and neural activities, but they can't
measure what sadness feels like or how a ripe peach tastes.
More than that, science depends on observation, but consciousness itself can't be observed.
It can't be observed because it belongs to the observer.
Here's a metaphor.
Imagine a scientist looking through a microscope trying to learn about the nature of consciousness.
That scientist is actually looking in the wrong direction.
Consciousness can't be found under the microscope's lens because it's not a physical object.
Consciousness actually lies on the other side of the lens, behind the eyes and mind of the
scientist.
For all these reasons, consciousness lies outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
And just like scientists can't make valid conclusions about the nature or existence
of God, they similarly can't make valid conclusions about the nature or existence of consciousness.
If a scientist claims that consciousness is just an artifact or side effect of neural
activities, that conclusion reflects the scientist's personal opinion; it's not based on solid
scientific evidence.
Ultimately, the teachings of Vedanta can lead you to discover that your consciousness is
not limited by the boundaries of your body or by the imperfections of your mind.
The ancient rishis discovered that one, all-pervasive consciousness reveals the activities of your
mind and is simultaneously present in every living being as the inner divinity that dwells
in us all.
When you discover that your consciousness is truly limitless and fundamentally divine,
then you'll realize that nothing on Earth can actually threaten you, harm you, or make
you suffer in any manner whatsoever.
In this way, Vedantic teachings can lead you to be completely free from suffering.
So, to answer Stewart's first question, "What's the proof that Vedanta is correct," it's clear
that your own experience can prove that it works.
And no scientist or religious teacher can disprove what you yourself have experienced.
Of course, you won't have the benefit of that experience when you first begin your spiritual
journey.
You'll have to rely on the evidence and guidance of others who have already gained enlightenment,
until you realize it for yourself.
Stewart's second question was, "How can the Upanishads be trusted as a source of knowledge?"
This question brings up a related issue.
The Upanishads are part of the Vedas, the scriptures on which the Hindu tradition is
based.
As we saw before, scriptures in general are the basis for religious beliefs about God,
heaven and hell, and so on, and those beliefs are non-verifiable; they can't be personally
tested or experientially verified, at least during this lifetime.
But the knowledge or realization gained from the Upanishads can indeed be personally tested
and verified because the subject matter is not unobservable like God or heaven and hell.
Instead, the Upanishads directly reveal the nature of your own consciousness, the consciousness
that's present in your experience right now.
For this reason, the Upanishads are different from other scriptures.
They're less like religious treatises and more like roadmaps, maps that chart the spiritual
explorations of the ancient rishis.
These scriptures can serve as guidebooks, so to speak, for your own spiritual journey,
and help you discover what the rishis discovered so long ago.
This is the sixth video in a series that answers questions submitted by viewers.
If you have a question that would serve as a good topic for a video like this one, please
email me at this address, and be sure to indicate "video question" as the subject of the email.
I'll try to address your question in a future video.
Stewart --- who lives in Rye, New York.
He asks, "What's the proof that Vedanta is correct?
I ask this because it's likely to be challenged by those with a scientific mindset."
"How can the Upanishads be trusted as a source of knowledge?"