The four hundred and fifty strong academic community in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, one of the premier institutions of science and technology in the country, include some of India's leading scientists and technologists, who have won reputed national and international awards for excellence in their respective fields of specialization. In an institution that prides itself on its ‘pursuit of excellence’, and where almost every faculty can boast of a Young Scientist Award if not a Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, the honours, distinctions and accolades won by academics should hardly come as a surprise. A conspicuous inclination towards spirituality, often but not always interchangeable with religion, is the surprise element. A significant number of academics, both senior and junior, appear to be ‘spirituality-friendly’, though some might not wear the signs of their faith as visibly as others.

But scientists and technologists at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur demonstrate the dichotomy usually observed between scientific pursuit and religious or spiritual practice. The scientists' practice of the ‘rational–scientific’ method in their respective disciplines and fields of specialization appears to have nothing to do with their personal beliefs, in which they inevitably posit their faith in the ‘intuitive–spiritual’ (Randrup, 2002). The scientists and technologists seem to have resolved the contradiction between the two sub-systems through clearly compartmentalizing their personal and public lives. While functioning within the rational–scientific mode in their professional activities, they slip into the intuitive–spiritual robes of their chosen faiths in their personal lives with considerable facility.

We can most easily understand Schumpeter's early move from the Walrasian system to his theory of economic and social evolution within capitalism on the background of elite theory. His knowledge of this kind of theory is beyond doubt. Thus his former student Eduard März (1991, 58) emphasised that “[a]nyone who knew Schumpeter personally can testify that he had a thorough knowledge of theories of the élite of the late nineteenth century (Nietzsche, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Le Bon) and took pleasure in flirting with such ideas.” Actually, März's conclusion is that Schumpeter's “own theory of development was an attempt to give concrete economic substance to the vague theories of his time.” This conclusion can also be reached by reading Entwicklung I, as when McCrea (1913, 526), in his review of this book, suggested that it “offers a super-man interpretation of economic progress”. The theories of the elite were based on the contradistinction between the masses and the elite, and so were many of Schumpeter's early formulations. For him, economic agents can be divided into two groups that are characterised by different levels of competence and will:

• The masses: “Most people tend to their usual daily business and have enough to do at that. Most of the time such people are on slippery ground and the effort to stand straight exhausts their energies and suppresses all appetite for further exploration. … The daily work keeps them down, organization as well as the influence of their colleagues inflict untearable chains on them. This is the masses.” (S1912a, 412–13; Entwicklung I, 162–3)

• […]

Modern science was introduced to India under the shadow of colonialism. This means that neither was its progress in India simply a matter of European discovery and imperial dissemination, nor was there no ‘science’ in India prior to the British conquest of India. However, what is important to observe is that between modern science and traditional science, there was a marked disjunction as there was between traditional knowledge and ‘English education’. Because these gaps have still not been properly studied, let alone bridged, the history of modern science in India is inextricably linked with the history of colonialism as well. All the same, the trajectories of the two are neither coextensive nor conterminus. While colonialism rose, reached its peak, then declined and officially ended, modern science has enjoyed a steady and incremental rise since its inception. In fact, after independence its claims to an exalted social, political and cultural status have risen dramatically, especially with the heavy investment and continuous monitoring of the Nehruvian state in its growth and development. In his Introduction to Science, Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity, Ashis Nandy called science ‘a reason of state’ and in Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India, Gyan Prakash labels the second part of his book ‘Science, Governmentality and the State’. Both authors regard science as very much a part of how the Indian state seeks to see or project itself, deriving legitimation and political advantage from it.

INTRODUCTION

The Western study of consciousness has progressed very rapidly in the last century but it is still stuck in the mould of mind–body dualism. This is best brought out in the words of a recent Time magazine quote (Time(1), p.35):

What constitutes this ‘indivisible continuum’? We are going to look at this in terms of the Vedas in this paper. As we will see, this leads us to the larger picture of consciousness as it is presented in the East and we will compare this with the Western contemporary concepts of Multiple Universes or Multiverses and the theory of Infinities.

It's a great opportunity to reflect on some of the best scholars' and scientists' discussion on these themes. It is also an opportunity to reflect on some areas where Eastern and Western spiritualities and modern science might engage in trialogue. One possible subject could be evolution and the future. However, since there is no consensus within spiritual traditions on this theme, we might begin our discussion with two authors from the Hindu and Christian traditions who include evolution as an integral part of their visions. Specifically, we would like to examine the writings of Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin in the light of newer scientific theories, which may provide insights into the mechanisms of evolution.

In this paper, we will offer some of our initial reflections on this subject. We will begin with a brief introduction to the scientific fields of chaos, complexity and emergence theories and the possibilities they may offer for examining our spiritual traditions and looking to the future. These theories could actually be seen as sub-theories under the overarching theory of evolution. These new fields try to show the mechanisms by which short-term increases in complexity and long-term evolution to new entities can take place. Ultimately, we would like to show how a Divine element may be active or involved in evolution in a non-interventionist way. We want to develop a picture, which does not conflict with scientific knowledge, but may go beyond it, especially in looking to the future.

This book brings together a number of papers on the theme of ‘Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India’ which were first presented at a major international conference held in February 2006 in New Delhi. Some of the papers presented at this event have already been published in 2006 in a volume called Science and Spirituality in Modern India. The conference itself was organized under the auspices of the Project on Science and Spirituality in Modern India at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and funded by Global Perspectives in Science and Spirituality (GPSS). The principal collaborators in this conference were Samvad India Foundation, the Indian Council of Cultural Relations and the Indian Council for Philosophical Relations, whose role I gratefully acknowledge.

In this book most of the remaining unpublished papers from the conference have been brought together, along with some new ones. One of the major premises of this exploration of the relationship between science and spirituality in India is that spirituality played a key role in the construction of Indian modernity. The role of science as a modernizing agent in non-Western countries has already been documented. For instance, in both China and Japan a conscious absorption of European science along with other forms of Western knowledge helped create elites who in turn brought major social and political transformations. Though India was no exception to this broader pattern, what makes it somewhat special is that spiritual leaders also played a key role in the modernization of India.

PRASTAVANA (INTRODUCTION)

Gandhiji's vision of life unmistakably shows a remarkable blend between the scientific (avidya) and the spiritual (vidya) aspects of knowledge – the interdependence and mutual inclusiveness of which is characterized by the centrality of truth and non-violence (satya and ahimsa) in Gandhiji's theory and praxis for ethical existence. For Gandhiji, science and spirituality have to be yoked together within an ethical framework of values to usher in the beautiful in human life. His holistic vision of life was, therefore, grounded in a new aesthetics of moral existence.

My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. To see the universal and all-pervading spirit of truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of politics, and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing is do with politics do not know what religion means (Gandhi, 2003, p.463).

Even if ‘politics’ in the preceding statement is replaced with ‘science’, the overall ethical import of Gandhiji's vision will remain intact and unaffected. In other words, in the Gandhian world view 136 Science and Spirituality a scientist and a spiritually motivated seeker will both pursue Truth – the former does so in order to maximize human comfort, happiness and abolish external pain and miseries; the latter does so in order to experience the spiritual oneness or unity of being through ahimsa, Swaraj (self-rule) and satyagraha (soul or truth force).

When the Austrian-American economist Joseph A. Schumpeter died in 1950, he had received many forms of recognition. He was Professor of Economics at the famous Harvard University in the USA; he was the most cited scholar in the whole field of economics (Samuelson, 1981a, 1); he had recently served as the President of the American Economic Association and had just been elected to become the first President of International Economic Association. This exceptional status was based on Schumpeter's contributions to all major parts of economics and to other social sciences, his all-encompassing network of scholarly contacts, and his ardent support for the new generation of ambitious economists. However, as pointed out by Paul Samuelson, Schumpeter was not satisfied with the status he received. According to Samuelson, who considered himself to have been both Schumpeter's friend and pupil, he was sceptical about his “Popeship” because this was not what he had strived for. From his youth, Schumpeter's main ambition had been to become one of the great economists, and he thought that such economists are not orthodox Popes, but radical scientific innovators. Since he did not succeed in his attempt to renew the science of economics, Samuelson (1981a, 1) suggested that Schumpeter “would have traded his Popeship for a Keynesian revolution”. This does not mean that Schumpeter would have liked to promote an arbitrary scientific revolution. Instead, he wanted to trade his position within the economic establishment for an evolutionary-economic breakthrough, which he had tried to obtain throughout his academic life.

Patanjali wrote his master treatise on meditation about 2,500 years ago. Buddha and Mahavir date around the same time. The Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions evolved their own tantrik practices. By following a particular method it was implied that specific and certain results could accrue. If this was to uniformly and universally happen, it would mean the practice of a scientific methodology. When it is not easy to replicate or repeat them, the events will have to be explained. Till such an explanation is forthcoming, such events will be called paranormal occurrences that are paranormal within the limitations of our knowledge.

Patanjali describes that in the process of Sadhana along the Raj Yoga route, eight Siddhis incidentally accrue. Most of these phenomena are unusual and fall in the category of paranormal occurrences. It is difficult to validate them. But there are authentic records of investigations by some mystics – occultists that point to the fact that they did succeed in exercising such powers. If paranormal phenomena do occur, the only explanation that can support them has to be an extrasensory extension of transpersonal, trans-spatial and trans-temporal faculties.

The incidents of spontaneous extrasensory perception (ESP) are infrequent, fleeting and ambiguous so they are impossible to reproduce dependably. This is genuine criticism as far as scientific study is concerned. ESP and paranormal occurrences cannot be generated at will. They just happen. But even a single event in nature requires explanation by its eventuality.

This paper examines how Sri Aurobindo extended the concept of evolution as enunciated by Charles Darwin to consciousness and being (personality).

The genius of Charles Darwin pervaded the scientific West in the 1890s. Europe was gripped by the theory of evolution during the formative years of Sri Aurobindo's personality. When he returned to India in 1892 to take up his assignment at Vadodara (then Baroda) under Maharaja Sayaji Rao, the idealist Arvind Ghosh was already on the path to becoming Sri Aurobindo. He was to delve in the modern scientific theories of his time and study Indian philosophical concepts in depth. This was not to search for a synthesis. That would have been an elementary exercise for average minds. The sages and seers evolve their own visions of Reality that transcend the knowledge of their age by a quantum jump. Through the intuitive insight that penetrated the Upanishadic enunciation of Ultimate Reality, he saw that evolution also evolves (Aurobindo, 1921a, pp.1–8). He elaborated on this vision on both individual and universal scales.

This paper limits its scope to the evolution of consciousness of an individual in the unfolding of his/her personality and how it correlates with the expression of health and disease. Sri Aurobindo's philosophical postulates are then juxtaposed with modern science in terms of New Biology and advances in medicine in order to evaluate and establish that he indeed foresaw.

Spirituality and science are regarded by many thinkers as two separate realms. Prominent among them is Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) who has said, ‘I must limit knowledge in order to leave room for faith’ (Kant, p.29). He created two realms – a realm of scientific knowledge and another realm of faith, morality and religion. What we normally call science is that which we can observe, experiment with, analyse, measure and prove. From that perspective, spirit or spirituality may be the last thing to be found under any microscope. The science of spirituality may not be so easily measured from the parameters used in normal science. I propose the role of logic between spirit and science. The insight into this proposal comes basically from the Upanishads in which the distinction has been made between para vidya and apara vidya at the level of knowledge and between Nihshreyas (attainment/fulfillment) and Abhyudaya (achievement) at the ethical level. The same dristi can be found in Avaita Vedanta traditions from medieval to modern India. However, in Western philosophy, post Renaissance, particularly during the Enlightenment, we come across a distinction between science and religion. This distinction, on the basis of principles, emerges as two separate realms in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) as quoted above.

In its further development, we find that Hegel's Science of Logic places logic as the middle term between spirit and science. This is the position of Absolute Monism.

The present book includes very little biographical information on Schumpeter. The primary exceptions are found in Chapters 2 and 10, where some information is given on the contexts in which he worked before and after World War I. The present appendix gives some pointers to the Schumpeter literature.

The literature on Schumpeter's life and work consists of specialised papers and monographic treatments. The contributions published before 1990 have been catalogued by Massimo Augello (1990), and Cunningham Wood (1991) and Horst Hanusch (1999) have collected large selections of the papers. The monographs are of two types. On the one hand, we have the personal biographies by Loring Allen (1991), Richard Swedberg (1991), Wolfgang Stolper (1994), Thomas McCraw (2007) as well as accounts that include much biographical material like the books by Erich Schneider (1975) and Eduard März (1991). On the other hand, the accounts for Schumpeter's works include books by Clemence and Doody (1950), Khan (1957), Perroux (1965), Oakley (1990), Bottomore (1992), Vecchi (1995), Shionoya (1997), Reisman (2004), and Heertje (2006). The extensive account for neo-Schumpeterian economics that is edited by Horst Hanusch and Andreas Pyka (2007) also includes much of interest for the interpretation of Schumpeter's work.

The first wave of biographical and interpretative work started immediately after Schumpeter's death in 1950. This was a period during which the main issue for ambitious economists was the development and application of the tools of equilibrium economics and the related econometrics.

It is often assumed that Schumpeter made the first formulation of his evolutionary research programme in The Theory of Economic Development (Development). This assumption is misleading for at least two reasons. First, the 1934 English edition of this book is the somewhat modified translation of the second German edition of 1926 (Entwicklung II). In turn, this is the radically revised version of the first German edition of 1912 (or 1911, if we emphasise the point of time at which it became available). Second, the first edition of Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (Entwicklung I) is clearly a sequel to Schumpeter's first book in which he—in 1908—announced the research programme that added evolutionary economics to equilibrium economics. This book is Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie (Wesen)—and it has never been translated into English. In very free translation, this book can be called ‘The Essence and Limits of Equilibrium Economics’ while the title of his second book could have been ‘The Essence of Evolutionary Economics’. Schumpeter implicitly pointed at the importance of these books by emphasising the importance of the “third decade” in the lives of great economists. This decade represents “that period of sacred fertility which, in the case of every thinker, creates what is subsequently worked out” (S1921, 87). In his own case, the results of the “period of sacred fertility” from 1903–13 were largely presented inWesen from 1908 and Entwicklung I from 1912.