Richard Thompson and Svarupa Damodara
The WUFT public television program “Conversation,” hosted by Michael Gannon, featured an interview with two founding members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, Richard Thompson and Svarupa Damodara, on a show recorded June 29, 1976. Gannon, a professor of religion and history at the University of Florida, leads a discussion with his guests on the relationship between science and religion and the tenets of Krishna consciousness. A copy of the video recording provided by the George A. Smathers Libraries UF Digital Collections can be viewed at the following address: https://ufdc.ufl.edu/aa00052491/00001/videos
TRANSCRIPT: Richard Thompson and Svarupa Damodara; WUFT-TV "Conversation" with Michael Gannon – June 29, 1976 / (401)
Mike Gannon: Hello, I'm Mike Gannon, and this is “Conversation.” One of the oldest questions that man has posed to himself is, if it is not the oldest question of all, is: What is life? It is a fundamental, ultimate kind of question, and it is a question that man continues to ask and to ponder in the fields of science, philosophy, and religion. It's the kind of question with associated other questions that we will be asking on this “Conversation.”
And I'll be back in a moment with my guests.
MG: My guests on this “Conversation” are Dr. Richard Thompson. He holds his Doctorate in Mathematics from Cornell University and Dr. Svarupa Damodara, who holds his Doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry from the University of California.
Welcome to the “Conversation,” gentlemen.
And one thing more that I want to say is something very important about you both, namely that you are members of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness. And I think that it would be very important before we begin to discuss some of the questions to which I alluded in our opening remarks… I think it would be very important if we talked about Krishna Consciousness for a moment: what it means not only to you, but to the movement itself. Dr. Thompson, would you begin for us, please?
Richard Thompson: Well, Krishna Consciousness is the science of understanding the nature of the self and the nature of God and the nature of the relation between the two. And the science is recorded in the Vedic literature of India and has been passed down since time immemorial through a disciplic succession of spiritual masters. So essentially, in Krishna Consciousness, the object is to attain self realization and knowledge of God.
MG: Now, most people know of Krishna Consciousness by a more popular term, the Hare Krishna movement. Could you tell me what Hare Krishna means?
RT: Well, Hare Krishna, these are names of God. It's explained in the Vedas that in this age, this particular period in history, the best way to self realization is by chanting the names of God. And so people commonly see us doing this in public.
MG: Yes.
RT: And the Hare Krishna mantra…
MG: The mantra is the word or the phrase. And what does it mean, Hare Krishna mantra? What does it mean in translation?
RT: Well, Hare and Krishna, these are names of God in Sanskrit.
MG: All right. Now, Dr. Svarupa Damodar.
Svarupa Damodara: Yes.
MG: You are a member of the Krishna movement or member of Krishna Consciousness. And at the same time, you are, like Dr. Thompson, a publishing, active physical scientist. Well, how do you relate those two in your personal life and in your professional life?
SD: Well, actually, one can learn the science of the self. In Sanskrit, it's called ātmā, ātmā jñāna. In Sanskrit, jñāna means knowledge, ātmā means the individual self. So the relationship between the individual self and the Supreme Self, that is Paramātmā, is actually the ultimate science. If one knows this very carefully one comes to an understanding that: Yes, this science, the relationship between the individual self and the Paramātmā, the Superself, must be the ultimate science that is actually pure knowledge. So now we studied chemistry, physics, mathematics – these physical sciences. But the ultimate aim is to understand what is nature and what is the relationship? Is there any… [unclear]. These things are very important, fundamental questions.
MG: Yes. And I suppose that the most fundamental question of all is what is this life in which we are all engaged? And what are some of the problems associated with life as you see them in contemporary society?
[5:05]
SD: In our modern society? You see, modern society actually is controlled by scientists. If a famous scientist says something today, then people tend to believe it. It's quite natural because he has much influence by our modern scientific and technological findings. And this is true. But now, the most fundamental mistake at this time is that they profess that – without any scientific background – that life actually is a manifestation of matter.
MG: Life is a manifestation of matter. That is for the majority of physical scientists?
SD: Yes, that's right.
MG: Well, I’lI take your word for that. I have not made a study of how many physical scientists hold that particular view. I wonder if you could elucidate a little bit on it. And Dr. Thompson, please join in this conversation at any time if you think that we need to elaborate. But please tell me why you say that the majority of physical scientists believe that life is a manifestation of matter.
SD: Yes, that's what actually… you find, especially those scientists working in the areas of biology, in the areas of biochemistry, and areas of chemistry – and in almost all areas. You'll find a textbook written by a collection of biologists, especially in this country, called Molecules to Man.
MG: Molecules to Man?
SD: And that book is taught actually right from schools, to colleges, to the university level. And the fundamental point there is that life does come from molecules. That is the ultimate meaning of life.
MG: All right. Now, you're talking then about the chance combination of molecules, how they form basic what… amino acids and life cells?.
SD: Yes, I mean, acids, then the molecules building to DNA..
MG: DNA? Yes, which we have all read much recently.
SD: Yes.
MG: Well, Dr. Thompson, let me turn to probability mathematics. You are a mathematician, and I would assume that you are disputing the possibility that molecules could combine in some primordial muck or ooze or soup to form basic structures that could manifest life. Is that correct?
RT: Yes, that's correct. Actually. If you look at this question very carefully, from the point of view of mathematics, you find practically no support for the concept that life could come about by chance combinations and simple physical laws. The basic idea of the origin of life, which is proposed, is that you have simple physical laws given by our equations of force, like the electrical force, magnetic interactions, and so on. And along with that, along with those simple laws, you have chance. And these things together should cause molecules at random to organize into complicated structures like these living bodies. If you look at this from the point of view of information theory in mathematics, you can conclude very definitely that this is not possible.
MG: I see. I remember that back in the very late 40s or early 1950s, Dr. Lecompton [unclear] at the Rockefeller Institute in New York, demonstrated to his satisfaction, at least, that according to the known age of the earth, at that particular time, not enough time would permit the molecules to combine in the complex… or the complexity required to form life cells.
RT: Yes, this is a very important point. One of the basic arguments that is made by evolutionists and people who advocate origin of life from molecules is that even though events of great improbability are involved, if you wait for a long enough time, they're bound to happen. This is an argument that's often repeated.
MG: So we put a monkey at the typewriter and give him enough time, eons of time, eventually he will type out Hamlet.
RT: So it's very instructive to try to compute just how much time would be needed. And just to give one very simple example – this is quite elementary so one can go over it briefly – you can ask the chance… the expected time for a protein molecule to form to within a given specification. Actually, we did a calculation of the time required for a protein molecule to come within 10% of a specific protein, such as you find in a living being. And the estimated time from probability theory comes to 10167 billion years.
MG: Far beyond the projected age of the universe that we know.
RT: They only estimate the age of the earth to be some 4.5 billion years. And comparing that to 10167, one followed by 167 zeroes. That many billions of years you would expect to wait before the formation of such a thing at random.
[10:08]
MG: Well, now your objection there depends on the acceptance of the known age of the earth. And yet have you not, in various of your writings, criticized dating processes and procedures, such as carbon 14 dating. And if you have criticized these procedures as dubious in nature, then one of the principles of your argument must also be called into question, don't you think? Namely, that you're using the known age of the earth?
RT: Well, actually, the basic argument we want to make is a positive one. We must, of course, point out defects in these different scientific theories. But we have a basic positive argument that we would like to put across. And this also is very, very ancient. Namely, that the cause of a phenomenon must have within it all of the properties and qualities and characteristics of the phenomenon which is produced. In other words, whatever is in the effect must be there in the cause. And this can actually be demonstrated by means of information theory in particular.
MG: That principle that the effect cannot be greater than the cause is an old one, isn't it, in Western philosophy? Aristotle proposed it and Thomas Aquinas developed it in medieval philosophy. Now you are arguing that there is no possibility, given the information presently in hand, to support the supposition that order can come from disorder, or that life can come from inert matter. But what about the process of evolution once life does appear? Do you also find that a tenable theory or fact?
RT: Well, once again, if you look at this basic principle of the cause and the effect. Suppose you have a single cell, like a bacterium, a living being. There's the question: Can this evolve over some period of time into a human being?
Once again, we would like to point out that the cause, the ultimate cause behind these manifestations, must have within it all of the properties of the ultimate effect, such as the evolution of the human being. So the same argument applies. So the idea that by chance mutations and their interaction in the environment due to the physical laws could not produce the evolution of higher orders of complexity.
MG: All right. Let me turn to you, Dr. Svarupa Damodara, and ask: Why is that a necessary conclusion? Because biologists and those who work in the field of evolutionary science are committed to the theory that higher forms do evolve from lower forms and that there is already a principle of complexity in the lower form, which makes the higher form possible. Why cannot one accept that?
SD: That's a very important question. And the fundamental difficulty in knowing that, especially in the minds of the scientists, is that they do not know the basic fundamental point that: What is life?
MG: Yes.
SD: That is the whole trouble and the whole difficulty of actually proposing this theory – you'd actually know what life is then. There's no way that it can say like that. So we propose, not we propose, we take the knowledge from the Vedas. Vedas are the ancient scriptures, in the Vedic literature. Vedas very clearly define what life is. There it is stated that life is nonphysical and nonchemical. So that actually it is beyond our physical manipulations.
MG: Well, you're taking the religious principles of the Vedas and applying them to the scientific findings.
SD: Yes, actually, this can be supported and it can be understood.
RT: See, this… one might say “religious principles,” but actually one can make a scientific hypothesis that life is nonphysical and nonchemical. This can be investigated scientifically like any other question. And so we're proposing that the scientific evidence stacks up in favor of this proposition.
MG: Well, how would you define life; that is, if life is nonphysical and non chemical, what is it? I'm sure that everyone would like to know how you understand life to be.
RT: Well, of course, the traditional method in science has been reduction of the object of study down to simple components. And what we're essentially proposing is that this cannot be done with life. So in that sense, you cannot define it, but you can say some of the properties and characteristics of life. One thing is consciousness.
MG: Consciousness: the ability to think and to reflect on one's self and so on.
RT: To be aware. Yes. One basic point we might bring up here is that even in modern physics, consciousness has been found to play an essential role. And this isn't too widely recognized. But even von Neumann back in the 1930s in his analysis of quantum theory, which is the dominant theory in modern physics, realized that consciousness is a nonphysical entity. That is the physical equations of quantum mechanics we're not able to encompass the observer of a physical system. The observer always remained outside.
[15:30]
MG: Yes.
RT: And yet the function of observation was essential in the quantum mechanical system. So one basic point we'd like to make is that life has the property of consciousness, whereas matter does not have this property.
MG: What are some of the physical or tangible or otherwise identifiable properties of consciousness? Would they be thought systems, love, willing, voluntary action?
RT: Yes. All the characteristics of personality are involved with consciousness. The philosophy we are proposing says that ultimately the spiritual reality is one of personal form and activity, ultimately based on love – love between the individual soul and God. So reducing this to a scientific statement, you would expect that consciousness would be associated with all the different manifestations of personality.
MG: So I understand from something that you said earlier that you see a limit to a man's ability to observe through scientific methodology the realities of life, but not only life, the inner workings of matter itself. I suppose you mean by that the ideas proposed by Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle that the very act of observing disturbs the thing observed?
RT: Yes, that's one aspect. Also, another important aspect is that in mathematics, it is possible, actually, to examine the frontiers of mathematics from within mathematics and see the limits which are imposed, on principle, on what can be done with mathematical reasoning.
For example, on Gödel… mathematician… the German mathematician Gödel proved that there are certain limits to what you can do with an axiomatic system. And much more modern research has defined these limits more closely. And it can be seen that there are… Well, let's see, I should briefly say that in a mathematical system, you have a set of axioms which are taken as unproved. And from the axioms, you infer different conclusions. And then the scientific method is you take a given conclusion and you compare it with the physical object of study and make an observation. Well, mathematically, it is shown that many systems involve an unlimited number of axioms in order to specify that. This was what Gödel proved, in particular from number theory.
And so the traditional idea of physics has been that we could get by with very few axioms because the axioms are a problem, because we cannot prove them. We have to arrive at them somehow. But these results in mathematics imply an unlimited number of axioms. And so the basic limitation on what can be done with the mind and the process of observation.
MG: Well, Dr. Svarupa Damodara, do you believe that you have identified with the Krishna Consciousness as a way of going beyond the limits of the physical sciences to a deeper understanding not only of life, but of ultimate reality itself?
SD: Definitely.
MG: Perhaps even a deeper understanding of matter?
SD: Oh, yes.
MG: Could you explain that? Why do you get a deeper understanding of matter?
SD: First of all, just like Dr. Thomson has mentioned about axioms, and it is a very important concept. So getting knowledge… what is the source of knowledge? Let’s inquire first. Now in the Vedas – I still refer to the Vedas – Vedas say that in order to understand this basic subject matter in the light, one should at least have some idea of the Absolute Truth: What is that Absolute Truth? And how does He like? How does He live? What are His qualities and symptoms?
So I must have at least some understanding of the Absolute Truth. That is a prerequisite in order to understand purely what is matter and what is life. Then one… when one develops that understanding, then one can still see things very clearly in His true form, perspective. One can see very truly what is matter and what is life. What is the difference?
There is a fundamental difference. So the Vedas instruct that: Yes, that Absolute Truth is a Divine Personality. He has a divine form. And it is mentioned in one of the most famous books, textbooks in the Vedanta school, the Vedānta-sūtra, it says in Sanskrit, they said, janmādy asya yataḥ. Absolute Truth is that from which everything comes. So actually matter, it also comes from the Absolute Truth; light also comes from Absolute Truth.
[20:22]
MG: Now, does Krishna Consciousness enable a person such as yourself to identify with Absolute Truth and then have a deeper understanding of what “passing truth” or “scientific truth”...
SD: Oh, yes. You understand what is Absolute Truth, and then actually you relate everything to the Absolute Truth. This is some sort of axiomatic statement. You cannot prove exactly what Absolute Truth looks like, but there are symptoms that you can take and connect.
MG: I even see similarities with philosophical and religious systems that have been developed in the West, and I think in particular of Saint Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century, 4th and 5th centuries, and Saint Anselm in the 12th century, both of whom posited the principle credo ut intelligam: I believe that I might understand.
And they had the same fundamental conception that if you identified with Absolute Truth, you would understand the less absolute. But I know that this is not to say that similarities are identities, and that these visions of Absolute Truth were the same.
What you're saying is something unique and particular to your tradition. But I'd like to know now if I could turn again to Dr. Thompson, what that tradition has to say about the admitted successes of the physical sciences in mastering certain laws or certain systems of laws and enabling us to have the kind of technological civilization that we do.
I think that most people are, if not intimidated, certainly awed by the successes of the physical sciences. You're not arguing that these successes are not real. You're simply arguing that the physical scientists have carried their principles too far into the realm of religion and life. Is that correct?
RT: Yes, that's correct. If we look, for example, at the principles of physics and chemistry, that's the main area where such impressive advances have been made. We see, actually, that these various physical laws apply only on a very limited scale. For example, in physics, one performs experiments involving spectroscopy, bombardment of nuclear particles with other particles. In chemistry, there's the combination of different compounds. And by studying these things, different simple laws have been devised, such as the laws of quantum mechanics. However, to say that these laws are universal truths and to extrapolate them through time and space to apply to everything is completely unwarranted.
Actually, if we look, for example, to the equations of quantum mechanics, we find that they cannot even be solved from molecules of even fairly low complexity. For example, if you even go to the diatomic atomic hydrogen molecule, the simplest molecule, you have to use many different approximations and assumptions to handle that because the mathematics becomes hard. If you then go to a bigger molecule, such as ammonia or quinine or something like that, it becomes practically impossible. And if you then go to the kinds of molecules that are found in living systems, no one even dreams of applying these theories to those, much less to an entire body. But yet the tendency is to extrapolate these laws universally. But what we'd like to propose is that actually these laws are applicable only in limited conditions and that there are many higher order laws acting.
MG: I see you adopt a holistic approach. I understand. Could you describe what that means – a holistic approach?
RT: I believe the word holistic was used in that article there. But basically the understanding we have is that essentially this world is a manifestation of the Absolute Truth, which is the complete whole.
MG: All right.
RT: And these different manifestations of matter form one aspect of this complete whole, which these things that we manipulate in the laboratory.
MG: All right, now I'd like to ask about matter. What is matter? We asked the question: What is life? What are some of the laws and some of the manifestations that we see associated with life?
But what is matter? If I put my hand on this table, I am inclined to say that that is matter. But even an Aristotelian philosopher would say: No, I have not touched matter – matter is an intellectual principle and matter has no manifestation until it possesses form. And yet a man like Carl Young will go even beyond that and say that matter is fundamentally spiritual! And I understand that your position is very close to that. Is that right, Dr. Svarupa Damodara?
[25:15]
SD: We will make a distinction: Matter, we define that, we take from the Vedas, as the inferior energy of the Absolute Truth. There are two types of energy: One is called inferior energy of the Absolute Truth.
MG: Infinite energy?
SD: No, no, inferior.
MG: Inferior? I'm sorry.
SD: And the other one is called superior energy – superior. And superior energies are the living entities. Now in the sense [unclear] is saying that matter also has a spiritual source. Just like we mentioned earlier that both energies come from the same source. So in that sense, it has a spiritual significance, but still there is a fundamental difference. This is matter – this is inferior energy. But now this matter, unless it is touched by a living entity, that actually matter cannot take forms or shapes. So the test of a living entity is a prerequisite, you know, to have that definite form of the matter.
MG: But you do not deny, according to our contemporary scientific insights, that this table is composed of atoms and molecules and all of the associated elements that go to make up…
SD: That's right.
MG: …the material world. Yet even atoms and molecules might be part of a spiritual dimension that we do not yet quite understand. Or do we understand it?
SD: Actually, ultimately it is said that even within the atom, the spiritual force is working. It's called Paramātmā, the Supersoul, actually it’s acting in its atom also. So without His sanction, actually nothing can move.
MG: I see. Now, I said at the very beginning that I wondered why you had gotten interested in this particular movement. Dr. Thompson, were you led into the Krishna movement because of disaffection with scientific method or with disenchantment with the technological world in which you live? Would you care to tell us a little bit, in the brief time we have remaining, about your personal commitment here and the reasons behind it?
RT: Well, yes, actually, there was a certain disaffection with science. Actually, I was pursuing science with the object of finding out, you know, what the actual truth was – what's really going on in the world. And so I pursued this through… actually, I started out in biology and went through physics and finally studied mathematics, because that seemed to be the most basic aspect of science. And I finally became quite disenchanted with science when I found that its fundamental teaching was that everything was simply a combination. I essentially can be reduced to a combination of numbers. For example, you can see that's the basic principle of modern science, like physics. We have these atoms and molecules. We reduced them to equations. And so in the end, everything is reduced to numbers. And that means you and me also are reduced just to a combination of numbers that are just interacting in a blind mechanical way. And so I strongly felt that something was missing there, that this was not satisfactory.
MG: And Dr. Svarupa Damodara, the same or have you been in Krishna Consciousness for a longer time?
SD: Yes, from the very beginning, when I became conscious of the outside world, I was always interested in the Absolute Truth.
MG: Yes.
SD: And now when you pursue science, normal science is supposed to give you the answer. The physical sciences: What is the nature of the cosmos? And the nature of everything around us? But now, as we progress, we found out that the scientists are professing that given enough length of time, then everything is bound to happen.
MG: But you do not believe that. And I thank you both for being on “Conversation.”
Dr. Richard Thompson, who holds his doctorate in mathematics from Cornell University.
Dr. Svarupa Damodara, a doctorate in Organic Chemistry from the University of California, both visiting the campus of the University of Florida.
I’m Mike Gannon and this has been “Conversation.”