Can you ride a bicycle and lift it simultaneously? Can you see or know the source of a river while rushing along its current? You may call this silly, and say nobody does that. But we are doing this all the time.

To explain. Where did we come from? Who or what created this universe? Such questions have been puzzling us since time immemorial. We are trying to discover this truth even now. Physicists are busy finding the source, just like those scientists of ancient times did. But we classify and give names. Whatever research was done in the past we call philosophy and religion, and hence superstition. But what we do now is science—‘modern’ science. And for the endless quarrel between science and philosophy! Human beings have a tendency to believe ‘modern’ things and decry ancient things. This is what is happening even today. What all research was done in the past has been ignored, and what is being done now is honored.

The Indian sages of ancient times were very active about astronomy and astrophysics. The same things were perhaps discovered by these ancient Indian sages long, long ago. But that doesn’t matter. New research should be done. Thus the world goes on. And the enquiry goes on.

THE MODERN METHOD

Before going to the ancient discoveries concerning the origins of the universe, we should comment on the modern methods. Physics claims to have gone far into the origins of the universe. Yet why hasn’t it succeeded in its attempts to know the ultimate Source of everything, whatever it might be? True, there are claims that the puzzle has been solved—big bang, steady state theory, and so on have been put forth. But the doubt remains. They say that the first three seconds were vital because there was a big bang and its echo is heard even today, and that this created everything. The worlds were created, the stars were created, and thus matter came into being. Matter came into existence, true. But how did consciousness in matter come into being. I and you are not mere dead matters. We are conscious living beings. How did consciousness come into existence. The difference between me and a dead body is in consciousness. How did this come into being? Scientists say that chemical reactions brought that about. Can such a thing ever happen? Until the doubt is solved, the truth remains far away, and research goes on. Science has been unable break into the thick, iron wall of truth. Why hasn't science succeeded in finding out the source of consciousness?

REASONS FOR FAILURE

There could be several reasons. Reason number one, science itself agrees that our sense organs are limited in their capacities. The human ear, for instance, is said to be capable of hearing vibrations between 20 hertz and 20 kilohertz. So with the human eye. If our sense organs are limited, how are we to comprehend the unlimited using them and also using our manmade instruments? Reason number two, the human intellect has its upper limit. Though modern science as a discipline may have the cut and thrust, it has the impregnable wall of the intellect. It is not given to the human intellect to be all-knowing. The intellect, however sharp, has its limitations. Reason Number three, the brilliant and most wonderful gadgets of modern science are bringing excellent information, true. But perhaps modern science appears to be rushing into conclusions. The big bang theory is nothing but a conclusion, reached initially in the 1940s by George Gamov and others. We hold on to not-so-perfect proofs in order to put forth such theories. There is the big crunch theory too, and other theories in the offing. Though these theories are intellectual exercises and have tremendous scientific work behind them, they cannot be called absolute verdicts about the Creator and His creation--whoever He or It might be. Reason number four, there is the lack of finer instruments and nicer disciplines. The creation process is so subtle that in spite of the best instruments, the impregnable walls haven't been conquered by science yet.

Reason Number five, science is still in its youth. We discovered that the nine planets revolve round the sun only yesterday. There is a lot to be known.

THE GREAT REASON

Finally, as the reason number six, we come to the question we posed in the beginning. To be rushing down the river and to know its source, which is far behind, is impossible. To sit on a bicycle and lift it is impossible. Similarly, to be in the universe and to know it is impossible. That is, just as Einstein’s relativity put it, if you are inside a closed cubicle, which is falling down in space, you will not be aware of its motion at all, unless you have something to compare notes. You will think you are stationary. Why? There’s nothing relative to compare with the motion. Some stationary object should be your reference point. It is in relation to some steady, stationary object that we can compare motion.

This universe follows the relativity principle. To study the source, origins, and methods of creation of the universe, then, we should not ‘rush with the tide’. We should stand apart, on the riverbank.

Scientists who are studying the origins of the universe should stand apart to study its source. They cannot know the source of the universe by flowing with the current. Are not scientists standing apart now? Perhaps not. The reason is, to think that we people are separate and the universe is separate--and that we shall study the universe objectively--is wrong. This is the fundamental mistake. Once we understand that we are one single whole—that the universe and all of us are one single unit—made up of some elements in large or small quantities—we have begun working along the right path.

Why should we search for something separate? We said about the relativity principle: we are all one--the universe, ourselves, everything is one single whole. Call it, for convenience, 'the created'. We are all one projection. So we can’t know if we are ‘falling’ or ‘rising’. To know that, we should have some reference point. There should be some separate thing, which stands apart, and which doesn't flow with the current like us. And that separate thing is our reference point, the riverbank for the flowing river.

THE REFERENCE POINT

What could be such a reference point? The whole universe—including our bodies, minds, etc—has been created, and they shall be destroyed one day. Everything is rushing towards the sea of destruction. We are inside a capsule—the entire cosmos and us. We are heading towards destruction. But some of us, scientists, are searching for the source of this cosmos while heading towards destruction—trying to see the source of the river while in the river and flowing with it. When everything is flowing towards this end, is there anything that is not? There should certainly be something else. When everything is heading towards destruction, surely there is something that is stationary. What is that something? And where is it?

This, precisely, was the question that bothered our ancient Indian scientists, called Rishis, too. They too looked out as far as possible. They too searched in the sky. At last they laughed at themselves: they were looking at the pictures on the screen and searching for the source there. The pictures were falling on the screen because there was a projector behind them. So they ‘came back’ to the projector of the universe. Where was it located? Inside them! ‘That which is within me, and that which is pervading all this cosmos, is verily the source of everything,’ they declared. Instead of searching for the Source, the Cause, the Ultimate, outside through the most powerful telescopes, the sages looked within. And they found answers. They got wonderful answers. Beyond and behind the changing multiplicity, there is one unchanging, ever-permanent, eternal, constant, One. That, then, is the source of the universe.

That something is within all of us, and within every little cell in the universe. That is the real ‘we’.
That is the Atman, the Self. That is the Source. That is the stationary Subject, while everything else is in motion. Beyond the body and mind, beyond the intellect is the Atman. This, again, is called Brahman. Atman is Brahman—the cosmic is the individual. The individual is the cosmic. There is no difference. One is the many--many is the One. The source is one. This Atman alone should be our reference point to study the universe. This is because while everything is flowing towards its end, the Self is stationary and eternal. Hence the great Indian Vedic records, called Upanishads, which are nothing but scientific records of our ancient discoveries, tell us repeatedly that the Atman alone is the witness, the source, the Unchanging Principle, the End and the Beginning, the Middle and the Everything, etc.

KNOW THE ATMAN, YOU KNOW ALL

The Upanishadic truths are ancient scientific discoveries, conducted by persons of utmost mental discipline. Their methods too were initially like ours. Gradually they discovered the truth through a different set of discipline. The truly scientific spirit is one where all pet notions and ideas are sacrificed to know the truth. To hold on to our own notions, instruments, and ideas, and say all else is superstition is not scientific spirit, but ignorance.

So modern scientists too could hold on to that stationary thing, the Atman, to study the universe. Then everything becomes easy. Then they too could understand the complex structures of the universe.

Already the hint has come to them with the announcement, in the 1930s, of the Uncertainty Principle.

The simple truth is, to know the source of the universe, we should know ourselves. Instead of searching and gazing at the cosmos, the true scientist should venture inwards. Once science holds on to the Atman, the search will end.

Unfortunately for science, if it begins its journey inwards, it will also become 'religion' like the ancient discoveries. The ancient Indian discoveries were recorded in the most scientific and long-lasting language, Sanskrit. Had they recorded their discoveries in any other language, they would have been lost to us. Since these discoveries are in Sanskrit, people have a tendency to call anything in Sanskrit as religious literature. You write a book on computers in Sanskrit. Perhaps after a few days it will be called a religious work.

So our modern scientists should study the Upanishads. However, science too will become ‘religious’ then. But nomenclatures are not important for the scientist. He wants the truth.
This was what happened in ancient times, at least in Greece, the student of India. There was only one subject—philosophy—before, which included physics too. Later on, philosophy and physics were separated.

So,  if we really want to know the Truth, we should give up all pet notions. Science means rationality. Rationality means openness to ideas. We should not be iron walls for ideas to be bounced back. Science should be open. It should open its Eastern window as much as it is opening its Western window. Then it can see the light of the morning Sun.
Modern physics, if it really wants to know the truth of the origins of the universe, will do well to open itself to traditional scientific ideas. There is no harm if science admits that we are looking the wrong way. As Vivekananda said: ‘Truth will never bow down to society ancient or modern. Society will have to bow down to truth or die.’

Our ancient Indian scientists, the Rishis, were such great masters that they were ready for any sacrifice. They were ready to renounce any notions to know the Truth. Thus did they succeed and became immortal. And what did they discover? They discovered that the Source of the universe is nowhere else, but within each one of us. So the Vedas and the Upanishads are the summits of science.

__________________