Deductive vs Inductive methodology of science. Vedic perspective

So I'm very happy and honored to present my topic today. By listening to Ishwarakrishna's presentation, I remembered 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 nausea. 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 a byproduct of the molecules in the brain. so many scientists 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, what to speak about 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 Vedic alternative to the science? And that's exactly my presentation. I will try to make a case that there is a viable Vedic alternative. The 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 Shilaprabhu speaking about this deductive or Avaroha Panta methodology, we may have an image of a 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. So let's start here. Basically, both on the West, in the Western paradigm and in Vedic culture, we know that there is a very innate need to know. the whole western science started from this slogan know 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 And Aristotle starts 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 a very famous slogan, Adhato Brahma Jigyasa. Now when you received the human body, it is a time to find the highest truth. 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 Atma has this quality of cheat. It's Sat, Chit and Ananda because 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 word in this presentation because methodology oftentimes defines the result of experience, of experiments of the science. There is a quote from the Philosophical 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 set the general direction of research, the principles of approaching the object of study, and are 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 the science doesn't deal with all the data. It selects certain data 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 are not unbiased. And Srila Prabhupada, he of course often says that there are two types of methodology, two types of approaches to knowledge. Here is the quote from Chaitanya Charitamrita. 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 Srila Prabhupada says that this inductive method is 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 Pantha or ascending path and Avaroha Pantha or descending path. This is the terminology which corresponds to inductive approach, Aroha Panta, ascending path, and Aroha Panta, deductive approach. To obtain knowledge, you have two paths, ascending and descending. On one hand, you have the ascending path on which you try to rise out of your ignorance through experience, trial and error, deduction. On the other hand, you have the descending path, which means the knowledge comes down to you from the persons with higher experience, the knowledge descends from higher authorities. Again, even though Śila 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 methodology to discover the knowledge or to obtain knowledge of reality. And Srila Prabhupada, very interestingly enough, he says that Bhakti Yoga is this methodology, scientific methodology. methodology. The power of creation by Lord Brahma 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 path 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. We start with the second question about the modern scientific methodology. How good it is. So, the very word science comes from the root sec in Latin or secara, which means to cut. Basically, science is the methodology which analyzes cutting the reality into little pieces and studies these little pieces. 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. 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 more schematic way to have it, first you start with the unproven assumptions. Usually they are not spoken, but they are always there, these unprovable assumptions like reductionism, determinism, universalism. You start with these assumptions. Then by using these assumptions, you're 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 intends to answer the question why, but mostly it answers the question how. The science usually answers the question how. So, somehow... Yeah, okay. And one very important element of this whole process is generalization, which implies abstraction. The Latin abstractio or distraction. This is the process of distraction 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 an 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 absurd 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 cosmos. Cosmos 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 simplify the reality and then while using this process of abstraction, you basically make the isolate experiment. You isolate the reality, reduce reality to the pieces which could be investigated. So that's the 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. And 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 or other justify, Aristotle was actually quite good. His main task, he is the father of modern science, But for him, 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 a 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. 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 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 the exploitive modern science which used 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, 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, the final course was the main course, tell us, basically what we call in 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 course, to understand this final course and ultimately the final course of all causes, God. So, Aristotle was good, but very quickly, starting with Bacon in the beginning of the 17th century, he said that all these 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 course, you're not interested in the formal course. Only the subject matter of the 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 ultimately only the matter and the movement is important. Then the science was reduced to the measurement. You have the science of atomic particles 10 in minus 15 and you have the visible universe 10 in the degree 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. So, what happened with this method, usually first you start with some assumptions, then you make observations, then you make hypotheses, then you make predictions, then you make verification experiments, and then you make theory. And usually they don't even ask the question why. Originally Aristotle said that the main question of the science is why, now they simply explain how it goes on. Not why, because why is not scientific, like Ishvara Krishna 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 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 into the accepting 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 Reichenbach, he says that modern empirical science is probabilistic. He says, So most of the theories or most of the facts, most of the scientific observations, they are in between 1 and 0 and according to our opinion, closer to 0 than to 1. Anyway, so that's the theory. And theory by nature is a very schematic understanding of reality. And the famous physicist Hawkins, 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 contradicts 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 theorists agree in the predictions whenever they overlap. 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 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 schema. So that's basically what it is. and there are far out 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 and each has its own laws. The original hope of physics to produce a single theory explaining the apparent laws of our universe 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, the 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. So let's see what is the deductive methodology of Vedic science. This is very important. If the 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, the original elements in terms of geometrical figures. So that was the original assumption and 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 it is unity in diversity of goals and contexts. It's complex because there are different contexts and because different living entities have different goals. 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. Srila Prabhupada says he has multifarious energies and he is not simple he is the ultimate complexity of all complex he has the intelligence he has svabhavi kibbala jnana kriya cha he has bala the ability to do something he has jnana knowledge to do something and he has the creative potency to create So, Shastra says about these causal fall causes and the fundamental principles coming from this, like Pancha Mahatbhuta, Five Great Elements, or Three Mods of Nature, Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Then, by taking these very general principles, fundamental principles from the Shastras, they are applied to a particular field of knowledge. The same principles are applied to different fields of knowledge. If we take Vedic Sociology, the Varna-Shrama system, we see the same principles of three modes of nature, and Pancha Mahatbhuta and everything else, applied to Sociology. The same principles are applied to Cosmology, the same principles are applied to Medical Science. The Pancha Mahatbhuta and the three modes of material nature, Rajas, Tamas and Sattva, they give basis to three doshas, Vata Kappa Pitta. And these general principles, then they apply it in a 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. 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 many different schools of Ayurveda. There are basic Shastra which everyone accepts. Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita. But then there are many different disciplic successions. They used to be and still fortunately exist. Where the principles applied according to the experience of a 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 main vidya, which everyone has to know. Six Vedangas, four Vedas, Mimamsa, which include Uttramimamsa, Vedanta, Nyaya, Dharmashastra and Purana. 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 these 14 sciences are called dharmasthanas. Because these 14 sciences help people to live properly in this material world. And then there are four additional sciences. Ayurveda, Danurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Arthasastra. Altogether, there are 18 branches of knowledge which explain the reality. And the main of them is 14 dharmas thanas which explain how to live in this world in a harmonious way. And they contain all necessary knowledge. And this chaturdasha, chaturdasha vidya, 14 vidyas, 14 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 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 4 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 Visheshya, that everything is unique. So, Vedic science accounts for Samanya, universal principle, and Visheshya, 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 obstructions are taken into account. 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, medical science, 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 obstructed 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 hundreds of different herbs mixed in certain proportions. And it's proven by experiment that it works. So this is the difference between the schematized inductive modern science and the deductive or descending science of Vedas. And it's very rational because it does not force you to blindly accept the dogma of the Shastra, but you accept it on face and then test it. And then experiment with it and accumulate knowledge. And by accumulating knowledge, your face 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 Parampara transmitting from guru to disciple. And different schools, even though there are different schools, they don't contradict with each other. They are not trying to disprove each other. Different schools of Ayurveda, they don't say that this is useless Ayurveda, And only our Ayurveda is correct because they have different experience and it works in their scheme. And moreover, the different sciences, this is the most amazing, that the different sciences, which is completely different 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 are proven. And I want to finish, I will not speak the last part, how the modern science doesn't work and why it doesn't work, why it's so strange. I just want to say that basically what we see is the difference of approaches. There is a beautiful modern scientist, Ian McGillcrist, who studied very carefully the difference between 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, a useful tool, but it becomes completely ridiculous if the whole picture is based only on this product of left hemisphere. Whereas, the right hemisphere is trying to have a holistic understanding of the complexity and it puts more emphasis on the relationship rather than on relata. 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 path is much more scientific than the ascending path of empiricism and how empiricism doesn't work. And just to finish the whole thing, because I am already late, I just want to say that ultimately, scientists themselves abandoned 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 Vedas. So that was it. I am really sorry for being so long. Now I have to stop presentation. I don't know how to do this. Where do I stop presentation? 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 whet our appetite for more. And for those of us in the audience, I would include most of us, I would guess, who want to hear more about this theme and this topic and this mode of approach, Maharaj will be giving a course through the BI at some point relatively soon on science from a Shastra perspective. And if Maharaj would be generous enough maybe to just speak for a minute or so if he'd like to, but by no means obligated to give us a sense of what this course might entail. Well, basically, this is a part of this shortened presentation, which I try to give today. It's a part of this course where I analyze 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 into the technologies, and how these technologies destroyed 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 how to remain scientist and at the same time be true to the spiritual quest for truth thank you Maharaj for this absolutely inspirational talk and we're now going to have a slightly shorter break period so we'll break until 10.30 Eastern Time so about 16 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, 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. Thank you. Of all as well. Thank you. Hare Krishna. 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 it now, but the brains and everybody here since 8 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. If you can know, don't worry about it. We leave it for the next time. 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, don't worry about it. Thank you so much again, I'm sorry for making this... 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, Mahesh, we keep the questions for future courses. Thank you again, thank you so much. Thank you, Hare Krishna.