Veda and Science

---

science |ˈsīəns|
nounthe intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment(Source: The New Oxford American Dictionary)

---

In recent years there has been a pressure among Indians to prove that our śāstra, and more specifically the veda, is 'scientific'. Since the veda has come down to us unequivocally as a means of knowledge about the un-observed, non-physical universe, if we are to go by the definition above, it is clear that the subject matter of the veda is opposite to science. Declaring the veda to be scientific is not only incorrect, but it also yields the following undesirable consequences:

1. The veda becomes redundant, since it does not provide us with any knowledge that we cannot also gain through science. And since it is without doubt that science has given us much more knowledge about the physical universe than the veda, at best the veda is reduced to something of historical pride, but with no relevance today.
2. Science becomes the authority on the validity of the veda. As long as the statements of the veda conform to prevailing scientific theory, they are acceptable. If there are statements in the veda which differ from science, they must be either disregarded or reinterpreted to align to science. It is interesting to note here that the veda does not prove any of the statements it makes; when we look at the veda as being 'scientific', we accept its statements as true only because science has already proved them to be so.
3. We imply that scientific inquiry is the ultimate means of knowledge and the priority of our ancestors was nothing more than to understand the physical universe. By giving a scientific purpose to veda, and in turn to our entire culture, we are indirectly asserting that there is no pursuit in life other than the material. Moreover, we are saying that it is not enough that our ancestors inquired into the most fundamental questions about existence, which no other culture ever even considered; we will only have a value for their knowledge when it conforms to the relatively superficial discoveries of science.

This is not to deny that there are statements in the veda that agree with science. Since the veda and science are both dealing with reality, it is only natural that they will say similar things on occasion. This is called anuvāda, or restatement of what is already known. It is not the primary occupation, or tātparya of the veda to re-establish what science can tell us - the subject matter of the veda is something completely different. This distinction needs to be recognized, otherwise in the pressure to make the veda scientific, we will be ignoring what it really has to give us.