Science and Mysticism : Are they compatible ?

To analyse the relationship between Science and Mysticism we must first understand what these
two words mean. Science and mysticism are both incredibly diverse and it is very difficult to put
them into boxes or pigeonholes nevertheless we will try to work with a reasonable level of
abstraction or a working definition.
Science is both a body of knowledge and a method. The scientific method employs a process of
experimentation and fact finding. It then tries to make sense of those facts about nature by evolving
theories that try to explain the natural world around us. Objectivity and repeatability are key
features of any science experiment. The body of knowledge thus obtained is called scientific
knowledge.
Mysticism on the other hand is much tougher to define since it does not deal with objective problem
solving. Mysticism deals more with ruminating upon what we dont know or what can never be
known or in other words what is the limit of our knowledge. Mysticism deals with spirituality. It is an
attempt to understand how our senses interact with the real world and what more can be known
about them. Meditation is a tool that is employed by many mystics and it can lead to normative
experiences.
Before moving forward we must also be careful about what mysticism is not. Although most mystics
believe in the existence of some higher power, some form a god or a life force or a spirit and try to
be one with it, mysticism should not be used interchangeably with religion for our purposes.
Mysticism is not about religious fundamentalism, it is not about dogma and above all mysticism is
not fossilized. There is reasonable proof that one of the most profound mystics of recorded history,
the Buddha was really an agnostic.
The reason why we are having this Science versus mysticism debate (we will see why it is not) is
that in the western world a critique has been forwarded that mysticism should confine itself to a
personal space and it has nothing useful to add to modernity. Eminent western rationalists like
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Peter Singer have criticised mysticism as a bunch of anachronistic
ideas. However there criticism conflates extremist religion with mysticism and above all is informed
by an understanding solely of Abrahamic tradition within religion.
If we look at the history of mysticism in India we will see that it has not only coexisted with science
but also contributed to the method of rational enquiry. One of the first critiques of organised
religion came from the Sramanic tradition in India. This tradition later gave birth to religions like
Jainism and Buddhism and a full-fledged school of philosophy called the Lokayata tradition. One of
the foremost apologists for the Lokayata tradition was rishi Charvaka who famously believed in
sensory perception as the only way to gain true knowledge so in many respects this philosophy was
not only consistent with but also conducive to science.
Similarly the Quadri silsilah within the broader sufi tradition believe in objective knowledge and
reject baseless or speculative thinking. The development of eastern mysticism or more accurately
mysticism in South Asia was fuelled by dissent and contrarian thinking. Even Adi Shankaracharya
who belonged firmly to the Brahmanic faith was the staunchest supporter of Shastrarth or what we
call in dialectics in the Greek tradition. The reason why we need to look at this historical perspective

is to show that Mysticism is not about conformity, blind faith or absence of reason instead it
grounded in rationality and a questioning attitude to the world around us. Something that is so
fundamental to the study of science.
Thus far we looked at the temporal aspect of mysticism in India. If we look at the spatial aspect too
we find that the Indian society has shown a remarkable capacity to sustain conflicting ideas and
notions about the natural world. This is borne out by the diversity within various philosophies that
existed at a particular point in time. E.g Nirguna and saguna bhakti existed together; dwaitvad and
adwaitvad did not only survive but grew at the same time. So the point is if mysic traditions have
such notable capacity to tolerate diametrical ideas why will they be opposed to a perfectly
legitimate method of reasoning called Science.
If we look at ancient Indian examples Aryabhatta, Baudhayan, Bhaskaracharya and Jeevak (to name
a few) were both scientists and mystics. They employed the scientific method to know more about
the natural world around them and their work continues to inspire scientific research, at the same
time they employed spiritualism when dealing with the questions they could not answer like the
limits of knowledge and the purpose of life.
Srinivasa Ramanujan, one of the greatest mathematicians ever famously said that his proofs were
inspired by Goddess Nammakalis vision. Now of course this inspiration was not literal but
metaphorical. Even though Ramanujan used a vocabulary that was steeped into the communitarian
values of the time what he really must have meant was that there is something more to his work
than pure mechanical Mathematics. Clearly the two parts of Ramanujan not only coexisted but
reinforced each other.
Manjul Bhargava the recent winner of the Fields Medal (most prestigious award in mathematics)
remarked that when it comes to advanced mathematics it is much more like a deep philosophical
meditation than an exact science that has clear cut examples. These examples are certainly not the
ultimate proof that Science and Mysticism always feed into each other but they certainly are
indicative that the two can coexist. It is also interesting to note that the lowest period in Indian
science and technology, the middle ages, were also the worst period for Indian philosophy. When
Indian Science revived in the 19th century (after the Bengal Renaissance) it did at a place which also
produced remarkable mystic reformers like Vivekanand, Ram Krishna Paramhans and Rabindranath
Tagore (at least people in the west still call him a mystic).
Now let us have a look at why this perception of incompatibility between Science and Mysticism is
so prevalent. Early western scholars knew very little about the east in general and India in particular.
They had only two lenses by which to look at India one was the curatorial and the other was exoticist
(this classification was given by Amartya Sen). They either viewed India as a land of uncivilized child
people who need to be reformed and educated or as a land of otherworldliness. The view that
Indians or people from the East are exotic and have a radically different belief system that does not
support rationality or reason is called orientalism. Orientalism was the dominant discourse on the
East in the West for many centuries. It was debunked by the eminent literary critic and post-colonial
theorist Edward Said in his classic work orientalism.
The need of the hour is a dialogue or an interaction between thinkers and philosophers from both
sides. We must realise that both Science and Mysticism attempt at understanding different aspects

of the world, body and the mind. Idealism (belief in the superiority of ideas) has been one of the
dominant philosophies of the western oeuvre. We must understand that both Science and Mysticism
are about the interplay of ideas. The domain of Science and Mysticism most often do not intersect in
the modern world but we must strive towards a point where even if they do cross they do not
conflict with each other. This can be accomplished only if there is a dialogue between the
practitioners of both Science and Mysticism. We must remember that Robert Oppenheimer (the
lynchpin of the Manhattan project that developed the first nuclear bomb) had only The Bhagwad
Geeta to his rescue when he saw the scale of death and destruction caused by his brainchild. After
having a look at the mushroom cloud he quoted from the Gita. He said, Now I am become death.
The destroyer of the world.