Deductive vs Inductive methodology of science. Vedic perspective

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami · 2025

Chapters

So I'm very happy and honored to present my topic today. By listening to Ishware Krishna's presentation, I remembered the

The famous quote from Charles Darwin, who said that by looking at the peacock's tail makes me nausea.

I guess that the reaction of Charles Darwin on this Australian bird would be even stronger than just nausea. Which he experienced by looking at the peacock's tail.

In any case, it seems like the whole nature is making scientists like Charles Darwin, little Nosiac.

Vedic alternative to modern science

But let's start with our presentation. So, what I want to present humbly here is the Vedic alternative for the existing scientific paradigm.

We know that there are so many scientists who start doubting strictly physicalist point of view.

There are so many acclaimed scientists who say that consciousness is fundamental and it's not just the byproduct of the molecules in the brain.

So many scientists they question the chemical evolution, the appearance of the first proto organism, one cell organism from chemicals.

It's surely impossible from the strictly chemical point of view, no matter how long time you allow it to happen, because the time works against it.

And there are of course near death experiences and the reincarnation studies. So many data also speak about the, uh quantum physics? They speak in favor of the need of the major paradigm shift in science.

Because the existing paradigm, or at least dominant paradigm, physicalist paradigm, reductionist paradigm, does not really have proper explanation for all these things.

But do we have a vertical alternative to the science? And that's exactly my presentation. I will try to make a case that there is a viable Vedic alternative.

That approach which was developed over the long history, starting with Aristotle and then Galileo Galilei and Newton and all the modern scientists does not really work properly, and there is a viable alternative offered by the Vedas. So basically, I will be speaking about two approaches to knowledge:

deductive and inductive. I will explain how the inductive methodology of modern materialistic science works and why it doesn't work, why there are some severe problems connected with it.

And how deductive methodology of Vedic sciences

really works because sometimes while hearing Śrīla Prabhupāda speak speaking about this detective or Avarohapanta methodology, we may have an image of very dogmatic kind of approach to science.

It's actually not it's a very scientific and a very beautiful approach of deductive methodology of Vedic sciences, which I hope to elucidate a little bit in this presentation.

And then let's see if we will have enough time for other points of my presentation.

Innate human desire for knowledge

So let's start here.

Basically, uh boss uh on the West, in the Western paradigm and in Vedic uh culture, we know that there is a very innate need to know the whole Western science started from this slogan: No thyself, inscription of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, which was the motto of Socrates' life and it carried on by Plato and Aristotle and from there it came to the Western science.

And Aristotle starts his one of his main treatises, Metaphysics, with this phrase: all people by nature desire knowledge. So it's innate need for all people to know.

And of course, in Vedic paradigm, we have very famous slogan Athāto brahma-jijñāsā.

Now, when you received the human body, it is a time to find the highest truths, not just know something, but to find the cause of all causes.

And Srila Prabhupada explains that this innate nature of living entity is because by nature ātmā has this quality of cit.

It's sat cit and ānanda and because we are we consist of knowledge. We consist of bliss and we consist of existence or eternity. So the need for knowledge is equally recognized both in the West and in the East.

But the methodology developed in the West and in the East is completely different.

So what I want to say is that methodology is a very key work in this presentation because methodology oftentimes defining the result of experience, of experiments of the science.

There is a quote from philosophical and encyclopedic dictionary, the experience of the development of science shows that this methodology is not always explicitly taken into account by the researcher are of decisive importance in determining the fate of the research.

Since it is they that said the general direction of research, the principles of approaching the object of study, and also the starting point in the worldview assessment of the results obtained.

So oftentimes scientists use methodology just to prove what they already know, not because it's something new or whatever.

This is also recognized by Thomas Kuhn, the famous author of the structure of scientific revolutions, where he says that uh uh the science doesn't deal with all the data, uh uh it selects certain data uh uh uh for the close scrutiny of normal research, only because they promise opportunity for the fruitful elaboration of an accepted paradigm.

So the paradigm is in the beginning and then you start experimenting. You are never unbiased in your scientific approach.

Science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations instead it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that that paradigm has partially determined.

So you basically have from the very beginning something which you want to prove and you use the methodology to prove what you want to prove. You're not unbiased.

Ascending and descending knowledge paths

And Śrīla Prabhupāda, he of course often says that there are two types of methodology, two types of approaches to knowledge. Here is the quote from Caitanya-caritāmṛta.

When one advances in research work by studying a limited substance within the limits of space and time, one is amazed by various wonderful cosmic manifestations, and naturally one goes on hypnotically accepting the path of research work or the inductive method.

Through the deductive way of understanding, however, one accepts the supreme absolute person, the personality of Godhead as the cause of all causes who, is full with diverse energies, and who is neither impersonal nor void.

So Śrīla Prabhupāda says that this inductive method, it's more or less instinctive.

We see the variety and we try to apply this inductive method going from the observations to some more general conclusions. And by making these conclusions, we think that this is the way to know reality.

And this is another quote from Śrīla Prabhupāda about Aroha-panthā or or uh ascending path and Avaroha-panthā or descending path. This is the terminology which corresponds to inductive approach, Arohapanta, ascending pass, and Arohapanta deductive approach.

To obtain knowledge you have two pass, ascending and descending. On one hand, you have the ascending pass on which you try to rise out of your ignorance through experience trial and error, deduction.

On the other hand, you have the descending pass, it's actually induction.

Descending pass, which means the knowledge comes down to you from the persons with higher experience, the knowledge descends from higher authorities.

Again, even though Śrīla Prabhupāda says this is the methodology of science, it may sound dogmatic. It may not sound very scientific.

And the very point of my presentation is to show how this deductive methodology is actually a better side, better methodology to discover the knowledge or to obtain knowledge of reality.

And Śrīla Prabhupāda, very interestingly enough, he says that bhakti-yoga is this methodology, scientific methodology.

The power of creation by Lord Brahmā was also achieved by bhakti-yoga. But all this knowledge was fully achieved by Him through the medium of bhakti-yoga. By bhakti-yoga, one can know the Lord, and by knowing the Lord as the Supreme, one is able to know everything else.

Anyway, let's see how it works. Because it seems like that this descending pass is just blind acceptance of dogma.

And vice versa, the inductive methodology, the path of observation, making conclusions, creating theories, seems to be a very solid and proper way of approaching knowledge. So does it really bring us closer to truth?

These are the two basic questions which I will attempt to answer during this presentation.

Methodology of modern reductionist science

We start with the second question about the modern scientific methodology, how good it is. So the very word science comes from root sec in Latin or secera, which means to cut.

Basically, science is the methodology which analyzes cutting the reality into little pieces and studies this little piece and then somehow or other tries to put all these little pieces together.

So, this is the general methodology of the science. It's very important to understand this from the very beginning.

And according to the greatest philosopher of the science and mathematician Whitehead, he says this is the scientific method.

First, you collect the facts, then you regularly update the facts, then you try to systematize it and make critical analysis from different various facts.

You get the general knowledge, you try to deduce the general principle, deduct or the general principle. And on this basis, generalization or synthesis of new knowledge is performed.

So by observing varieties of different data, you try to generalize it and create certain general principle which is applicable in many other cases, and then you experiment and check whether this hypothesis works.

And when this hypothesis proves to be working in different circumstances, then this hypothesis becomes recognized as the law of nature or law of society. This is the general description of the scientific method.

Basically, in a more schematic way to have it, first you start with the unproven assumptions.

Usually they are not spoken, but they're always there, these unprovable assumptions, like reductionism, determinism, universalism, you start with these assumptions, and

then by using these assumptions you making observations, and by the inductive method, you create some hypothesis, you generalize all your observations.

From hypothesis, you make prediction, and then you make new experiments, and then ultimately you formulate the law of nature. This is the hypothesis which has been proven.

And basically, it answers the question, it intends to answer the question why, but mostly it answers the question how. The science usually answers the question how?

Role of abstraction in science

So somehow yeah, okay. And one very important element of this whole process is generalization which implies abstraction.

The Latin abstraction or distraction, this is the process of destruction or abstraction from certain characteristics of an object for their selective analysis, while the observed object is replaced by its idealized theoretical image, an abstract object.

Abstractions are a universal method of scientific cognitions. So you cannot really do any science if you don't idealize the object which you study.

You have to abstract it, you have to neglect certain features of this object, you have to simplify the object.

Only by simplifying the observations and objects you can make the general conclusion, and from this general conclusion, you can create some hypothesis and then elevate this hypothesis to the level of the law of nature. So it is uh accepted concept in the modern science, and it starts from Aristotle.

Aristotle is the father of the modern science, and according to Aristotle, abstraction is a method of deliberately one-sided study of reality.

So from the very beginning, because reality is so complex, the original scientists, starting with Aristotle and all his devoted followers, they started simplifying the nature.

This is a subjective technique of mentally dividing the whole and positing its parts as separately existing. So, this is what I said: what science is doing.

Science is separating the reality, separating the existing reality into little parts, and then simplifying these absorbed facts and trying to make the conclusions.

So all the general conclusions are arrived by the process of abstraction, by simplification, by schematization by making something by nature very complex into a simple schema.

So it basically comes from the predecessors of Aristotle of the ancient Greeks who contrasted chaos and kosmos. Kosmos means order, arrangement, harmony, light, and chaos is disorder, darkness.

So they see the idea of the science is to turn chaos into cosmos.

But for that you have to simplify, and it started with Pythagoras, who said that actually reality is very simple. That the number is the measure of all things and the numerical ratios are the basis of reality.

So this idea that to study reality we have to simplify: is coming from a very depth of Greek thought. And of course, Plato he develops this world of ideas, the ideal world, where there are ideal forms.

And the material world, where there is no ideal forms, there is no even ideal circle in this world, there is no ideal triangle, it's just a shadow of this ideal world which is very simple, where everything is very orderly and very, very simple and straightforward, so to speak.

And he says that the task of philosopher and later the task of the scientist is to know this simplicity behind the shadowy complexity of reality, according to their understanding.

So basically, according to the inductive deductive method of Aristotle, science is searching for causes, but to find the cause the abstraction has to be there.

You have to say that this is you have to simplify the reality, and then uh while using this process of abstraction, uh you uh you basically make the isolate experiment. You isolate the reality, uh reduce reality to the pieces which could be investigated.

So that's the scientific, modern scientific approach. Of course, Aristotle himself, he admitted, recognized that in order to make science we have to make primary premises by induction.

So, this method by which sense perception implants universal is inductive.

It follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premises, and since except intuition, nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premises.

In other words, he says that even before observations, you have to have some intuition, and intuition is the basis of scientific knowledge.

That you have to have some sort of innate knowledge, and only then you can do experiments.

So already there is a limitation in this knowledge you have to have right intuition before you start experimenting and doing the science. So to somehow rather justify Aristotle was actually quite good.

His main task he is the father of modern science,

but for him, the science, unlike the modern science, the task of the science was not the description, prediction, and control over individual phenomena, but rather understanding and contemplation of the meaning of the part in relationship with the whole or in relationship with God.

So Aristotle himself was very wise and very intelligent person.

So, for him, this process of abstraction, the process of science was to understand how the little parts upon which we cut the reality ultimately connected together and ultimately related to God.

That was his goal of knowledge, which is definitely very good and very proper.

Shift from contemplation to utility

But ultimately, his method was developed by science and was totally completely misused.

It was very frankly admitted by Friedrich Nietzsche, who said the entire apparatus of knowledge is an apparatus of abstraction for abstraction and simplification directed not at knowledge but at taking possession of things. It's the utilitarian fact that only when we see things coarsely and made equal, do they become calculable and usable to us?

In other words, initially, the method which was suggested by Aristotle was to understand the complex reality by studying the parts of it and then collecting them together and trying to figure out how it is related with the cause of all causes God.

But it very quickly was degraded to To the exploitative modern science which uses this method basically to take possession of things as Nietzsche explains.

And it used very brilliantly and very successfully the method of simplification and abstraction to exploit the nature and to make the nature usable to us.

So again, to in favor of Aristotle, Aristotle was saying that there is material cause, there is efficient cause, but there is also formal cause and final cause.

And for him, final cause was the main cause, telling us basically what we call in, uh, Vedic literature, dharma. The inner meaning, the inner essence of the thing which was created with a certain purpose.

So for him, science was to study the final cause, to understand this final cause, and ultimately the final cause of all causes God.

So Aristotle was good, but very quickly, starting with Bacon in the 17th beginning of 17th century he said that all this formal cause and final cause are all nonsense.

There are only two causes: efficient cause and material cause.

So in the modern science, from Aristotle, it was accepted that only two causes are worth examining. And basically, as they put it, natural phenomena require scientific explanation in terms of matter and motion. Matter means material cause and motion means efficient cause.

So you're not interested in the final cause, you're not interested in a formal cause, only the subject matter of modern science is what is the matter from which it is made, and what is the cause of its motion or change. That's how it degraded.

And now we have this beautiful science which actually measures everything because uh ultimately only the matter and the movement is uh important then of atomic particles 10 to the minus 15, and of atomic particles 10 and minus 15, and you have the visible universe 10 to the power of 27 and everything in between, all the different sciences which are basically explaining these two things: the matter and the movement, or the changes which take place there.

And they are very actually disharmonious. They are not really coherent with each other.

All these different sciences which investigate different levels of nature, they have completely different often discordant theories which don't match.

Limitations of modern scientific theories

So what happened with this method?

Usually first you start with some assumptions then you make observations, then you make hypotheses, then you make prediction, then you make verification experiments, and then you make theory.

And usually they don't know even they don't even ask the question why. Originally, Aristotle said that the main question of the science why, now they simply explain how it goes on. Not why because, why is not scientific.

Like Ishwarakrishna was explaining how evolutionists are explaining the evolution. How? Not why. Not why it started from the very beginning. But what happened with this?

This is a very important part of the whole presentation. Basically, the end product of the modern science is theory. The modern science is called theoretical, and theory means literally mental scheme or conception.

The word theater is coming from the same root and basically the theory is a very focused vision of reality.

By the process of abstraction, we narrow our vision of reality and by narrowing the vision of reality we create theory. Theory is a mental scheme, it's a simplification of reality, and what happens with the theories?

The new technology starts developing. Like now there is this James Webb telescope in the space which observes the universe and it observes some far out phenomena which don't fit to the accepted into the accepted theories.

So the new hypotheses are being produced to accommodate the new data which are accumulated because of the development of technology and the new experiments are being produced and then the new theory is created.

But very soon after 10 years or 15 years the theory will be completely thrown out because the new data will not fit into the theory. Because by nature, theory is very limiting.

It's a very limited creation, the schema which was created purposefully by the process of abstraction or limitation.

And therefore, the modern scientists they actually say, this is uh Reichenbach, he says that uh modern empirical science uh is probabilistic.

He says the black and white scale of knowledge assessment accepted in classical epistemology of science as neither true, as either true or false is in, his opinion, too strong and methodologically unjustified idealization, since the vast majority of scientific hypotheses have some intermediate value between truth 1 and falsehood 0.

So most of the theories, or most of the facts, most of the scientific observations they are in between one and zero, and according to our opinion, closer to zero than to one.

Anyway, so that's the theory, and uh theory by nature is uh a very schematic understanding of reality.

And the famous physicist Hawking at one point the scientists they were hoping to have the theory of everything, the simplified, unified theory which would accommodate all the reality into its faults.

But they found out that it's not possible, that there are proliferation of different theories and different versions of reality which often contradict with each other.

And therefore Hawkins to escape this conundrum, this problem, he says that actually let's adopt model-dependent realism.

Different theories may have to be applied in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality,

but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in the predictions whenever they overlap, and that is whenever they can both be applied.

In other words, there is no real knowledge, there is no theory of everything, there is just uh different understandings, and you have to live with it and you have to accept it, and as long as it works, it's okay.

When it doesn't work, you create new theory which will try to accommodate reality into its very narrow

scale. So that's basically what it is, and there are far out uh ideas of the reality like the most modern cosmological theory, M theory, implies that there is perhaps 10,500 different internal spaces or dimensions, or 10,500 different universes in each has its own laws.

The original hope of physics to produce a single theory explaining the apparent laws of our universe as unique as the unique possible consequence of a few simple assumptions may have to be abandoned.

In other words, the original assumption that reality is very simple is totally completely false and it doesn't work. And even the classical mechanics, determinism of classical mechanics is now being disproven.

There is no deterministic mechanics and actually it's a mess. So that was the description of science which does not even claim to know the truth.

It just creates theory after theory after theory and disproves this theory on a regular basis.

Fundamental principles of Vedic science

So let's see what is the deductive methodology of Vedic science. This is very important.

If the best Western science started with the assumption that reality is simple and it is based on abstract ideas and numbers, the geometrical figures.

It was Plato's idea that ultimately the reality is geometrical by nature, and he was explaining all the elements uh the original elements in terms of geometrical figures.

So that was the original assumption, and uh this assumption came to a conclusion that because it's simple, it can be subjugated, it can be exploited, it can be controlled by human intelligence.

And complexity of reality is chaos, imperfection, and it needs to be reduced and brought under control by the method of science. The Vedic approach is totally different.

The original assumption of the Vedic approach is that reality is infinitely complex and unity it is unity in diversity of goals and contexts.

It's complex because there are different contexts, and uh because uh different living entities have different goals, uh, and it cannot be reduced to simple things.

And therefore, it's impossible to control the reality, it's impossible to exploit the reality, what you can do, or what you should do, you have to become a harmonious part of the whole. You have to re-establish your relationship with the whole.

And complexity and diversity are ideal. They should not be attempted to be reduced to achieve the goal. We have to understand the complexity of the reality. So, this is very important how the Vedic science works.

The shastras give fundamental principles. The most fundamental principle, and of course, we know that cause of all causes is the personality of Godhead.

Śrīla Prabhupāda says he has multifarious energies, and uh he is not simple, uh, he is the ultimate complexity of all uh complex.

He has the intelligence, he has svābhāvikī jñāna-bala- kriyā ca. He has bala, uh the ability to do something, he has jnana knowledge to do something, and he has the creative potency to create.

So śāstras say about this cause of all causes and the fundamental principles coming from this, like pañca-mahābhūta, five great elements, or three modes of nature, sattva, rajas, and tamas.

Then by taking these very general principles, fundamental principles from the Shastras, they applied to a particular field of knowledge. The same principles are applied to different fields of knowledge.

If we take Vedic sociology, the varṇāśrama system, we see the same principles of three modes of nature and pañca- mahābhūta and everything else applied to sociology.

The same principles are applied to cosmology, the same principles are applied to medical science. The pañca-mahābhūta and three modes of material nature, rajas, tamas, and sattva, they give basis to three doṣas:

Vāta, Kapha, Pitta. And these general principles then are applied in variety of different circumstances, contexts.

The observations are made in a vast variety of different contexts, and by making this observation gradually, gradually, the data and experience is being accumulated. How these principles work in reality.

So, this accumulation of data of this information is also a scientific process which is done, but it's done on the basis of the general principles of the shastra.

Structure of Vedic scientific disciplines

And then when these data are applied in reality, and they work in reality, they are transmitted from Guru to disciple, and there are different schools of knowledge, different paramparas which transmit basically the same knowledge but enhanced by their particular experience.

Like for example, there are many different schools of Ayurveda. There are basic shastra which everyone accepts, Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita.

But then there are many different discipline successions. They used to be and still fortunately exist where the principles applied according to the experience of particular teacher accumulated in this parampara and they applied in a very unique way.

So basically, it is said that this is the quote from Vishnu Purana: that there are 14 uh main uh vidya which everyone has to know.

Six Vedangas, four Vedas, Mimamsa, which include Uttar Mīmāṁsā, Vedānta, Nyāya, Dharmaśāstra, and Purāṇa.

And this knowledge, which every civilized human being has to know, contains the knowledge about cosmology, biology, atomic structure, logic, pronunciation, and of course, the time mathematics is there in six Vedangas.

Everything is included there, and uh this 14 sciences are called dharmastanas because this uh 14 sciences help people to live properly in this material world.

So, and then there are four additional sciences: Ayurveda, Danurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Arthashastra, all together.

There are 81 branches of knowledge uh which uh explain the reality and uh the main of them is uh 14 dharmastanas which explain how to live in this world in a harmonious way, and they contain all necessary knowledge.

And this Chaturdasha, Chaturdasha Vidya, 14 vidas, 14 sciences sciences, also it's a play of word in Sanskrit. Chaturdasha also means four stages. These 14 sciences, Chaturdasha, have to be studied in four stages.

First, it has to be studied theoretically, then it has to be deeply understood, then it has to be applied in practice, and then it has to accumulate experience and teach others. So this is how the Vedic science works.

It's a purely deductive or descending technology, which works beautifully if you apply it properly, and it classifies all the necessary sciences into 14 main branches and four stages of studying it.

So therefore, in the Vedic science there is not only abstraction, abstraction is there in Vedic science, it's called samanya, universals, but in Vedas they also say about Vishesha that everything is unique.

So Vedic science accounts for Samanya, universal principle, and Vishesha, the uniqueness. And in this way, complexity is studied and explained.

Reality is modeled into account of diversity and context and completeness without contradiction, individuality, context, and abstractions are taken into account.

Comparison of modern and Ayurvedic medicine

So just a simple example, I know that I'm well overdue my time, I have to stop now, but let me finish very quickly.

So, the modern science, uh, medical science, uh, for a drug to be accepted by modern science, it has to be one molecule.

And this one molecule has to have a very limited kind of cause and effect relationship acting upon our body, and there are zillions of different side effects of this one cause and effect relationship,

but nobody cares because you abstracted yourself, you study only this one molecule, how this one molecule interacts with this complex system as a body, which you also simplified before.

And of course, traditional medicine or Ayurvedic medicine contains at least from one herb which contains thousands of different chemicals.

But usual recipes of the medicine are so complex they have you know uh hundreds of different uh herbs mixed in certain uh proportions uh and it's proven by experiment that it works.

So So this is the difference between the schematized inductive modern science and the deductive for descending science of Vedas.

And it's very rational because it does not force you to to blindly accept the dogma of the shastra, but you accept it on faith and then test it and then experiment with it and accumulate knowledge and by accumulating knowledge your faith will be strengthened.

And actually, these new observations don't disprove the original postulates.

What we see in the modern science, the original postulates are always disproven, the theories are always disproven, but we see the harmonious accumulation of knowledge

which is enhanced by this process of guru-paramparā transmitting from guru to disciple. And different schools, even though they're different schools, they don't contradict with each other.

They're not trying to disprove each other. Different schools of Ayurveda, they don't say that this is useless Ayurveda, only our Ayurveda is correct because they have different experience and it works in their scheme.

And more the different sciences this is the most amazing that the different sciences uh which is completely different uh situation in the western world: the different sciences they don't correspond to each other.

Like in social science, they accept that there is free will, but in physics or in biology they say there is no free will.

So the original postulates of different sciences are so diverse and so contradictory to each other that they cannot be brought together as one body of knowledge.

Whereas in Vedic science, we have the same principles as I said in sociology, in biology, in mathematics, in astrology, in cosmology, and they all work and they all uh proven.

And uh I want to finish, I will not uh speak the last part how the modern science doesn't work and why it doesn't work, why it's so strange.

Hemispheric brain functions and perspectives

I just want to say that basically what we see the difference, the difference of approaches.

There is a beautiful scientist, modern scientist, Iain McGilchrist, who Studied very carefully the difference between the left hemisphere and right hemisphere, how it works.

And he basically said that the left hemisphere which is responsible for abstraction, ordering, systematization, simplification, schematization, and ultimately creating the theory, it's a good tool, uh useful tool, uh, but it becomes completely uh uh ridiculous uh if uh the whole picture uh based on only this product of the left hemisphere.

Whereas the right hemisphere is trying to have holistic understanding of the complexity and it puts more emphasis on the relationship rather than on relata.

And the left hemisphere cuts the reality and studies the parts, but the right hemisphere is trying to understand the whole and trying to understand the relationship between the different parts and ultimately, the relationship between the parts and the complete whole, which is God.

So in this part, I'm showing how actually, even by simple mathematics we can prove that the descending pass is much more scientific than the ascending pass of empiricism and how empiricism doesn't work.

And just to uh finish the whole thing because I am uh already uh late, uh I just want to say uh that uh uh ultimately uh uh scientist theyy themselves abandon the quest for truth.

They say science cannot find the truth, the only truth which works.

There is the theory which is accepted by most of the scientists, which is called pragmaticism, and it says if an idea leads to a useful result, it's considered to be true. Whether it's true in the ultimate sense or not, it does not really matter.

Again, we have these two approaches: the Western approach and inductive method which is meant to manipulate the matter and create technologies and exploit the matter.

And we have another approach, very scientific approach, not known to many scientists now.

How we can be connected through knowledge with the reality, how we can integrate ourselves into the complete whole, and how in this way we can create the holistic science of the VEDES. So that was it.

I'm really sorry for uh being so long. Now I have to stop presentation.

Announcement of upcoming Shastrik course

Uh I don't know how to do this Well first of all I'd like to thank on behalf of everyone I know Maharaj for this absolutely stunningly brilliant, comprehensive, and it just wet our appetite for more.

And for those of uh those of us in the audience, I would include most of us, I would guess, um, who want to hear more about this uh this theme and this topic and this mode of approach, Maharaj will be giving a course through the BI at some point uh relatively soon on science from a Shastrik perspective.

And if uh Maharaj would be generous enough maybe to just Well,

basically this is a part of the this shortened presentation which I try to give today is a part of this course where I analyzed the paradigms of modern science and try to suggest the Vedic alternative to show how the modern science developed, how it created the systemic crisis in the whole world, how the science was ultimately, which was the quest for truth initially, was degraded and how these technologies destroy the human nature, and what are the assumptions behind this?

And what is the Vedic alternative what we should do?

Because It's one thing to speak some things about Shastra here and there, another thing is to suggest a comprehensive paradigm by which we can conduct our research in different fields.

So that's a very ambitious attempt to formulate or at least to give some leads how this Vedic paradigm can work in science and how we should conduct the research rather than adopting the traditional scientific research which leads nowhere, which ultimately brings confusion.

So, how to uh how to remain scientist and at the same time uh be true to uh the uh spiritual quest for truth. Thank you, Maharaj, for this absolutely inspirational talk.

And um we're now gonna have a slightly shorter break period.

So we'll break until ten thirty Eastern time, so about sixteen minutes, and we'd like to make a humble request for everyone to return very promptly because we have one more talk and then we have a panel discussion.

So feel free if anyone has questions, they can text us or put them in the main text. But for now let's take a quick break.

And I just want to thank you personally, Maharaj. It's a very important and wonderful talk which we would like to see published. So we're going to talk about that. Thank you very much. Okay. Hope all is well. Thank you.

Hare Kṛṣṇa. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. We want to hear more talking. We want to hear you more and more. We don't want to stop now, but the brains and everybody here since eight in the morning.

We need to take a little break now. Hopefully you can stay for the panel. If you can come back, I'm sure there will be a lot of questions. But if you cannot, don't worry about it. Uh we leave it for the next time.

Uh Brahmatida says it's always good when people want to know more. It's a good place to leave everybody. So it's up to you if you can stay if you know, don't worry about it. Thank you so much again.

I'm sorry for thank you for making it. I most probably will not be able to make it because it's already quarter to eight o'clock in the evening my time, so it will be a little too late. Okay. Thank you so much, Mahārāja.

We keep the questions for for future courses. Thank you again. Thank you.