Science, Pseudoscience, and the Power Within
Questioner: Namaste, sir. I am a research scholar in biological science, and I have a question about science and pseudoscience. So, what are the definitions of which one is science and which one is pseudoscience?
Acharya Prashant: It’s very well known that science is falsifiable and verifiable. Science does not come up with truths; it comes up with theories. Simple.
Questioner: So, sometimes, sir, we have to believe in things which we don’t have any knowledge of, like, if a person doesn't have any knowledge in the medical sector, he has to believe in that. That is science.
Acharya Prashant: But there is a sector in which there are professionals, and there are established books, and there is an entire community based on science. You don’t just blindly believe on a doctor. The doctor is certified by a particular institution, right? And that institution is founded on science.
Science and pseudoscience—I don’t know how it’s even possible to be confused between the two. Science is based on experimentation. Science says, "Whatever I have known can be rejected if even one observation to the contrary is found."
You can have a longstanding, well-established theory running since centuries, but if you can have even one observation contrary to the theory, the entire theory stands nullified. That’s science—extremely honest.
Further, the observations of science are not supposed to be subjective. They are not supposed to be person-dependent. You perform an experiment, and it should yield the same result as he performing the experiment. Multiple times—in India, in America, in Africa—the same experiment should yield exactly the same results. That’s science.
You cannot say, "I have great divine powers, so if I do this, only then the results will come." That’s pseudoscience. If Babaji does something, the results will come. If you do the same thing, the results will not come because Babaji has mystical powers. That’s pseudoscience.
Science is, "The time period of the pendulum remains T=2π√(L/g), regardless of who performs the experiment." That’s science. How is there a possibility of confusion?
Questioner: "Sir, like there is an example in the case of homeopathy. Some scientists and also allopathy doctors don't believe in the science behind homeopathy, but they are also, means, homeopathy is also in hospitals, and it is also certified by the government."
Acharya Prashant: "Government can do anything. What does government have to do with science? Government can push belief systems in the name of knowledge systems. Government can do anything. What does government have to do with science? Do you vote your government to power on the basis of science? Did they ask for votes in the name of science? They asked for votes in the name of all kinds of nonsense, and they got the votes. Where does science come into the picture now?"
And homeopathy—well, you know, there's nothing called allopathy. There is just the field of medicine. No doctor will say, "I’m an allopathic doctor." He’s just a doctor. He’s a medical professional.
Homeopathy has been conclusively shown to be not only ineffective but actually just a sham. The simple thing is the concentrations to which chemicals are diluted in homeopathy are impossible to attain. They are impossible to attain. Sometimes, the concentrations are such that if you put even one molecule of a particular reagent in the entire oceans on Earth, even then, that concentration cannot be achieved.
Homeopathy wants to achieve very, very, very, very low concentrations. To have low concentrations, you need to have X/Y, in which X should be small and Y should be large. Now, how small can X be? What is the minimum value that X can have? One. At least one molecule will be there of the reagent. But if you want to make X/Y very small, keeping X as minimum (1), then Y has to be very large.
The problem is the entire Earth does not have that kind of water that you need for homeopathy for certain concentrations to work for certain diseases. And that’s all available—just read the literature, and you'll come to know of it.
Questioner: "Thank you, sir."
Questioner: "Good evening, sir. I am Ridhima, a third-year engineering student. So, basically, after we die, our afterlife is based on what all karmas we did in our life. Recently, I lost my grandmother, and I read the Gardu Puran. Even in that, there’s a description of everything that happens in the afterlife, it’s totally based on what all karmas one has done.
So, if it's just based on what all karmas we do in life, then why do we have to perform various work throughout our life? I mean, first we study, then we get a job, then we have children, and then all that life cycle that we're trapped in. Why? Like, what is the ultimate goal of life? That’s what I’m trying to ask."
Acharya Prashant: "The Puranas all belong to the Smriti literature and are very recent. They do not contain science. Anything mentioned in the Puranic literature is to be rejected if it does not concur with Vedantic Darshan. You getting it?
There is nothing that enters the body. There is nothing that leaves the body. Who will make that great journey that the Puranas allude to?
Think of your birth. You really think some kind of soul came flying and entered the mother’s womb? And if nothing entered the fetus, how can anything leave the dead body? For somebody to leave, first of all, somebody should have entered. Can somebody check out of a hotel room if he never checked in the first place? Did you really ever check in? Come on.
The sperm cell meets the egg cell—who is checking in? Nobody. That’s life. What you call as life is already there in these two cells—the sperm cell and the egg cell. There is no soul or jivatma coming flying from somewhere to enter the fetus now."
Questioner: "So, like, good karma and bad karma—do they exist? I mean,
Acharya Prashant: For you, when you are alive, once you are gone, what will you do with that? Do great things because it's your responsibility to be joyful, to be liberated as you are alive? You're asking me this question so that you can have a great afterlife? Are you asking me this question so that you can attain swarg? Is that the purpose?"
"No, the purpose is you had a burning curiosity, right? When was that curiosity? When?
T is equal to zero, do you want that curiosity to be quenched at T is equal to 10,000? Curiosity is like a headache, is it not? You want an answer, but you're not getting the answer—that's like a headache. If you have a headache today, do you want the pill 10,000 years later, or do you want it right now?
The purpose of good karma is to be joyful right now. The future is not the objective. You are problemed right now—you want the solution right now. Good karma is the instantaneous solution, and good karma does not mean gathering brownie points to be redeemed later on. Good karma means acting from a good center, acting from a good center, being good—not just doing good. Being good—that's good karma. Being good.
Questioner: So then, like, what is the origin of life?
Acharya Prashant: Matter. Matter itself is the origin of life. The origin of matter is the origin of life. How does life begin? No, nothing. Long chains of polymers, huge amino acids, proteins—and then they start behaving in a certain way. They start self-replicating, and that's what you call life. Where does that come from? Life comes from material. Material becomes life. Amino acids—they start behaving in a certain way, and then they organize into bigger and bigger and bigger units. The biggest unit you call as the human being.
Questioner: So then, like, what is the goal of life?
Acharya Prashant: If I'm unwell right now, do I need a goal of life, or do I need a goal for this moment? If I'm in a burning house, should I ask, "What is the goal of life?" If I'm in a burning house, what is the goal? To get out. That's the goal.
We all are in burning houses. Get out. That's the goal. And getting out is not a thing of the future. You have to do it right away.
"That’s certainly not settled. I understand. I mean, it’s deep, deep, time-honored conditioning—it takes long to go away. But, yeah."
Questioner: "Sir, my question is again a follow-up to this question. You said that matter is the origin of life. Then, what separates things which are alive and which are not alive? Living and non-living—what separates both of them when both of them come from matter?" And why is it that only certain things become alive and other things don't become alive?
Acharya Prashant: "Everything is in the process of becoming alive and becoming dead. You are in the process of becoming dead, are you not? And the soil out there is in the process of becoming alive. The soil will soon become a flower, and then you will say, 'See, it is alive.' You will soon become the soil, and then you’ll say, 'You know, gone, finished.' It’s a cycle. Alive becomes dead; dead becomes alive."
Questioner: "I understand."
Acharya Prashant: "What separates the living from the non-living? Think of the viruses. They stand at the boundary. You can neither call them living nor call them non-living. And they give you beautiful insight into how the material itself turns into consciousness. We, as human beings, have just very freshly appeared from this soil. Viruses are our great, great, great grandfathers. They were there long before we were here, and long after we are gone—due to climate change or nuclear war—viruses will still be here.
But it is very difficult to say whether a virus is a living thing or a non-living thing. It shows properties of both. Similarly, when you look at several organisms that are single-celled, it becomes very difficult to say, 'What is going on? Is it living? Is it dead? What is it doing?' There, you come to see, 'Oh, this is how that starts, which we call life.'
It’s not the work of some God who keeps sending down souls, and then the souls come here, and then make a mess of the planet for a while, and then they check out and return to God. It’s a fantastic story. It’s a fairy tale. Time to grow up."
Questioner: "So, does the superpower exist?"
Acharya Prashant: "Yeah, it exists and sleeps within you. You are the only superpower. The moment you ask, 'Does a superpower exist?' Do you see the horrible assumption contained? You said, 'Does a superpower exist outside of me?' What are you saying? 'Oh, safely I’m out. I don’t want to take the responsibility of being a superpower, so let the superpower be somewhere out there.' You are the superpower. You have to, first of all, just get rid of all that is powerless and needless about you.
We have gathered a lot of things that make us powerless—like the concepts you’re talking about. Those concepts make you powerless. Once you get rid of those concepts, you are the superpower. That superpower in the Sanatan philosophy is called the self, Atma. That’s the shruti that all Puranic literature, all Smriti, is supposed to submit itself to. The only superpower is the self, Atma—me. There is no other superpower."
