Harimedia Forum

Behind everything there is a logic, a reasonable understanding consistent with a set of rules or whatever one personally finds to be in accordance with ones own definition and understanding of things

You have already answered you own question. As you accept that mystics are rational, as opposed to being irrational in which case we could not speak with them, you accept there is a logic to their way of being.

Everyone rationally constructs their lives on a foundation of something they accept or believe. From that foundation, they logically infer the entire system of their lives. Mystics are no exception, as they will also be rational, will have their own form of logic, and will build their lives accordingly.

Perhaps you are also asking about the “slogan” of the mystic, that which makes them unique in this world or that separates them from standard religionists who (sometimes) follow what they are taught and who do not try to explore new territory. Here is one way to describe that:

A mystic is someone who considers their experiences to be the basis of life, who believes in his or her ever expanding awareness and defines life according to their perception. In short, the foundation of a spiritual mystic is experience that can only be perceived and defined in an extremely personal manner. Thus the foundation is self and all that is built on that foundation follows from that ideal. This experience is unique to the mystic. All decisions in life are based on this personal experience. The rationality of it, and thus the logic of it, is clear; if it means something to them, it has value, and if it has no meaning, it will not have value.

I am not sure why you start your second comment in this line with “in this connection,” as I do not see the connection. As the question is unclear, I shall not comment on it.

What you write, although remarkable and very revealing, is for me often so deep and unfathomable that it takes days to learn, digest and internalize, understand the content.
I read today a statement related to industrial production which says: "Automated procedures are preferred to purely manual procedures as they can be standardised and validated." It seems this aplies in some way also to the way religions are structured. As giving a standardised (for the masses) and seemingly validated (by scriptural authority) means to come in contact with the divine. It seems the individual (manual) way of the spiritual mystics is or was always one representing only a small minority in society. Of course that does not have to mean that their way and spiritual discipline is or would be less spiritual potent. But the question still remains how to validate or standardize (making it aplicable for the majority of people in society) the path or way of the spiritual mystic? How is it possible? Is it at all necessary?

In this regard there exists a known community of spiritualists here in Nuremberg, who offer every now and then interesting public lectures which they advertise with big posters they pose in crowded places throughout the city. I attended also ones one of them and was surprised what great amount of followers and sympathizers they have, mostly in the upper class of society among intellectuals, people with good qualifications in high-level positions, artists, doctors and people at similar levels. They consider themselves spiritual mystics of the Christian way of life influenced also by theosophy ("divine wisdom").

On the internet one can read "Rosicrucianism is a secret society of mystics, allegedly formed in late medieval Germany, devoted to the study of ancient mystical, philosophical and religious doctrines and concerned with the application of these doctrines to modern life. (...) See also Britannica.com

On their American website it is stated: "Who am I? What is my purpose? What can I accomplish in life? How do I chart my own course in life? Is there more to this wonderful universe than I see around me? What is self? These are the great questions the brave and insightful have always sought answers to." They claim to walk "along the path of the mystic" and that it would be a "path travelled by a relative few at any one time." Yet they claim that some of the "greatest minds" who were "enriching the world with their physical inventions, scientific discoveries, beautiful works of art, music and books, but most importantly, their personal approach to life" were following on that path "reaching their ultimate personal evolution."

On their website one can further read:
"Just what is meant when we use the word 'mysticism'. A proper definition has always been elusive or vague. For the record, mysticism can be defined as an experience where one personally knows, through direct knowledge, the source of all being. Many call this source God; others, the cosmic. The point is, the experience is noetic. We know, not believe through faith or know only through scientific observation, but we simply and truly know.

"The art of mysticism can be learned. The work of the Rosicrucian Order is to initiate the student to the techniques where mystical knowledge can be readily attained. This knowledge when properly accessed is ultimately rational."

"In the end mysticism isn't a belief. It is simply an art of knowing. The mystical experience transcends nature. Often the person will receive a feeling that far surpasses anything which could be conveyed by words. Furthermore, this insight, devoid of ego, is thoroughly comprehended as truthful."

At "Frequently Asked Questions" one can read "The Rosicrucian path incorporates both metaphysics and mysticism. Metaphysics is that which falls beyond the five physical senses; for example, intuition, visualization, and healing techniques. Mysticism is simply the process by which you may eventually experience direct, conscious union with the Absolute, Divine Mind, Universal Intelligence, or what some Rosicrucian students call the God of their Hearts."

At "The Path of the Mystic" they say their community "is not a religion and does not require a specific code of belief or conduct. Rosicrucian students come from a variety of cultural and religious backgrounds. Becoming a Rosicrucian student does not in any way require you to leave your church, join a church, or change your religious beliefs. Some Rosicrucian members do not subscribe to any specific religious beliefs at all. For students who do, we encourage them to participate in the religion of their choice. As a result, Rosicrucian students come from every religious denomination, and through our teachings, many find a greater appreciation of the mystical principles underlying their individual religious and philosophical beliefs. Those who do not belong to any particular religion often discover a sense of connection with a higher intelligence that was missing in their lives before."

Now you might ask why do I make references to all this passages here. It is because somehow it gets close also to what you write and the logic and reasoning you apply on this subject sometimes. "The art of mysticism can be learned," write this people I mentioned above. What would be or is necessary to achieve this? I know you were leading ones a spiritual retreat in Russia about this.
___

The reason I mentioned the statement by the Shambala community "Our community is not trying to manifest some kind of utopian ideal - rather we work genuinely with who and what we are." is that the logic they apply doesn't seem to have something to do with a system that elevates them to some higher plane of consciousness, they seemed perfectly happy to be who and what they are. A logic which only provokes the shaking of heads in some spiritual circles.

Standardization rarely works uniformly. Probably the best example of standardization is the legal system. Laws are meant to regulate and standardize activity and provide codes for the benefit of most. However, as time progresses, people and circumstances change and laws must be updated accordingly. What was illegal 75 years ago is considered normal now. Standards that work are those that are updated according to the requirements of those whom the standards are meant to serve. Unless this is done, the standards become obstacles and are removed either by revolution or by the gradual atrophy and deterioration of the structure.

Religion is somewhat unique. Although most religions adjust to some extent to keep pace with the changes in society, there are certain regulations that cannot be changed for fear of diluting core values. Acceptance of a religion means, more or less, acceptance of its core values. Even if you change, you cannot change the core values for doing so would change the religion. Therefore, the follower has two choices; either they leave the religion when it no longer is relevant or they forcibly change their personal mentality if they can. I suppose there is a third choice which is to declare you are a follower while holding your own interpretation of core values that fits your situation. Indeed, most people embrace the third option, more or less, although they rarely speak about it.

Someone who lives the life of a spiritual mystic would find it unacceptable to repress their feelings to fit into a mold or to outwardly present themselves as following the standards while internally living another life. For this reason alone, mystics avoid structured religion as it places them into an antithetical position.

I think the mystic ideal of being true to yourself is an ideal fit for all people, at all times and all places. One might ask why is it not accepted if it is universal? I feel that the structures created by religion are more based in the economic and political requirements of spiritual service and due to the convenience of the social grouping, a structured theology has evolved that includes loyalty to the organization.

If you examine the early days of all religions, you will find that the basis of the religion is rooted in the life and teachings of their prophet. The individuals surrounding the prophet were attracted to his personality and teaching. There was no organization and no structure. Structure and organization came much later on. The prophets did not ask for or want organization. They asked for spirituality. Christ, Mohammed, or even Lord Caitanya, wanted people to connect to God and serve according to their capacity. None requested organized structures. Indeed, Lord Caitanya, for example, had nothing to do with Kings, governments, structures or the like.

Were the teachings of these great souls less potent because they had no structure? Obviously not. Did these teachings become diluted when placed within a structure? You decide. By the way, most prophets are more or less hidden while alive; the power and beauty of their teachings manifests long after their departure from this world.

Those who are great become great in their own manner through their personal experience. I do not accept that their format of evolution is only relevant to prophets and no one else. I think, IMHO, that their example is relevant to all and is indeed the cornerstone of their teaching. The creation of institutions is an add-on. It seems to me that spiritual mysticism is the foundation and everything else is a container for the expression of the divine in everyday life.

To standardize, as you say, the mystic mentality is as simple as standardizing the structures of religion that exist today. One simply teaches it and creates the educational system by which that teaching is given to subsequent generations. As easily as one could say that one simply follows the theology of the past, one could teach “here is the divine, find it through your life.” It is a different perspective of the same goal; a different way to reach it.

I think that my hundreds of lectures and numerous writings all lead to that point. Many have written to me with appreciation of these lectures when they are in need of hearing something that validates their human experience and personal connection to the divine. They express gratitude that the points are presented in a manner that brings them to a state of consciousness that serves them well. I see structure throughout what I do. However, if I were to write it down in a list as a theology, it would effectively nullify the principle of growth through self-discovery. Indeed, I think this is why you find my texts heavy to digest. I point you to yourself where I am sure you will find all your answers. I indicate where you might look, but I never tell you what you will find. How could I? Only you can see and feel what you feel. My telling you what you are is a disservice to you. I tell you how to find it, not what it is. Sure, I might say it is essence and it is you and so on, but this is not what you will experience as you will taste the you and thus the divine as you learn to resonate with the wonderful spiritual energy of God.

.
All what you write is well-grounded and comprehensive. It seems to me that to understand your perspective on things and here comes I think the love/hate division within the audience, is best described in this quote one can read on the EU parliament website. There it is written although in another context: "At present, democracy is not very well grounded, with political life segregated from civil society."

The same seems to me to be applicable also to mysticism, or to the seemingly "segregated from civil society" way of life of the spiritual mystic. The public needs are the one which major objectives consider more the economic and social requirements. People are born, get married, engage in economic development to maintain their family while also raising children, may fall sick and pass away. Religions adapt to this "needs of life" of the individual and give them their advice and support. All marriages I was invited to attend in the last years, were marriage ceremonies led by some priests (or marriage license officials of the state). At the many baptists and confirmations I was attending, again there were some priests and church personell involved.

What to say at my own marriage in Romania, in August 1993, a priest from the Romanian Orthodox Church wed us in church. And that although I was not a member of that church (I was baptized in the German Protestant Church), only my wife and her family. I was at that time a convinced Hare Krishna devotee ... But for me God was, and still is, everywhere so I had no problems with being wed in Romania in a church belonging to another religion, or attend nowadays various church or religious ceremonies where my family or friends are involved.

All this needs structure, and good leadership, since there are people involved. And that religions are trying to offer everywhere in society. Now one might ask what does the spiritual mystic's transpersonal experiences offers in this regard, or should it be regarded more as something "out of this world"? In this case it would risk to lose its usefulness and practicability in human society. Or perhaps not, as the following seems to be also a way to look at this. Or at least it seems that way

"... mysticism is based on the fragility of our existence and reveals the consciousness apparent in this world, yet not of this world: the integral consciousness, which is more internal to us than we to ourselves, which is non-violent yet powerful, which perceives and forms reality as it is and which in the face of guilt, suffering and impermanence gives sovereignty, compassion and joy. It is the art of creating actions from the integral consciousness that renews the world in its fragility and transcends, centers and empowers life in its ordinariness. A leading idea is to facilitate in our worldly imperfection an experience of unworldly-wordly love including body, feeling and mind which affects us and drives us on." (...)

"You are not a human being. You are not your body, you are not your mind, and you are not your soul. These are things that You have. The You that has these things - indeed, that has given your Self these things - is far bigger than any of them, and even all of them put together." (...)
___

...BTG (1990): Romanians and Czechs dance to the holy names of Krsna.

I (left) together with Tribanga (with Mridanga) and Mahavirya (in the back between us) chant the holy names of the Lord in front of the former Romanian parliament. (Bucharest, Romania, March 1990)
.

All this needs structure, and good leadership, since there are people involved. And that religions are trying to offer everywhere in society. Now one might ask what does the spiritual mystic's transpersonal experiences offers in this regard, or should it be regarded more as something "out of this world"? In this case it would risk to lose its usefulness and practicability in human society.

The simple solution is that religion embrace mysticism. If religion would allow individuals to find themselves and accept their spiritual energy in their own unique manner, or at least to allow mystics to be within their folds, then the natural marriage between spiritual mysticism, the experience of God every religion desires, and the rites of passage so important to society, would bring about comprehensive harmony.

Hari wrote:... the natural marriage between spiritual mysticism, the experience of God every religion desires, and the rites of passage so important to society, would bring about comprehensive harmony.

Thank you, Hari, your answer was short, to the point and highly illuminating. At least now I understand what you mean by spiritual mysticism. It makes also sense to me, is logically sound and comprehensible to define "the experience of God every religion desires" as a mystic experience. I think it has also a magical air to it.

On the other hand if we leave it at that and just say that it is up to you to define and understand for yourself what the experience of God (i.e. spiritual mysticism) is or means, without giving also some guidelines and instructions in this respect, is than not also the possibility that everyone may understand something else in regard to this, what it means or could mean and entails or should entail?

Where does this lead us one might ask if it's up to each individual to decide what an experience of God means or could mean? Of course one could say and ask what does it mean to you. And what about the scriptural references in this regard or the laid down testimonies and revelations made by other persons on this path, or spoken by God, the Supreme itself, is that all irrelevant. Or is it all a matter of nonbinding informations which everyone can interpret as he likes or is capable to do according to his own subjective experiences in this regard. What is than about the so called science of God which should lead us to the right understanding or the right path towards that personality or that spiritual entity. If goals and shared objective unlike ones own subjective experiences are missing or are phrased so as to be nonbinding or vague, spiritual seekers may feel a lack of guidance and orientation.

For example I just heard in a video on Youtube where a German disciple of Prabhupada tells from his memories about Prabhupada how he told the father of this disciple in a personal conversation, “You can become Krishna Conscious in suit and tie." Now the concept and what it means or could entail to be or become Krishna Conscious is and was quite often worn out and misused in the past in the society we all know. But at least there was a common shared goal to trie to reach a consensus what such a status as "becoming or to be Krishna conscious" could or should mean. And what not. Although I could never fully understand what such a bland formulation means or should really mean in my day to day life.

To become Krishna conscious I am not already now. First of all in order to become something I must have first the (genetic or otherwise) disposition to develop into this state or person. A musician must first have a tendency or natural inclination or disposition towards music - meaning that it should develop the direction out of itself and become the actor. So in some sense I am or must be it already, from which much more potential can be gleaned. The potential is or must be there already in the first place and all the rest depends on me how I deal with this existent potential of me. So it seems to me it is not really a question of becoming something I may not be already rather if I want and am willing to discover and develope my inner being and potential for and from myself, if and when I like.

I read on the Internet that: "This wonder, that an order function is intuitively effective in us, drawing our attention to contradictions jeopardizing our mental existence, recognized already Socrates in himself and he gave it a name of divineness, Daimonion." In order to effect positive social change for example, it is necessary for communities to develop an internal perspective and to work from the inside out, rather than the other way around. To always just be filibustered or regulated and controlled from the top is not very promising in the long run.

The same I dont really understand what the experience of God (spiritual mysticism) means or could/should mean. Until I may experience it one day by myself I guess.

An interesting quote I read recently: "More so, it is important to assess if the linguistic misunderstandings are on the level of the wording (I do not understand what you are saying) or at the level of the meaning - I understand what you say, but not what you mean."

Quotes on Socrates by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Deppert and others

...Socrates Daimonion (One possible explanation) > Socrates Daimon (Voice of the Higher Presence)

- Socrates estimated his daimon very high and could hear what it has to say. This attitude cost Socrates his earthly life. It is an irony of history that it is exactly that which makes him, even after his biological demise, "immortal" among Western philosophers.


"This year (Socrates Year 2002) it could be highlighted by increased research on the historical Socrates that Socrates was the first, who thought conceptually and who applied the theoretical and conceptual thinking to practical problem solving." ~ Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Deppert

"Religion means initially to attribute the acts of one’s own to a carrying framework of sense. And religiousness is one’s capability to follow an already existing framework of sense or to acquire it by one’s own efforts. We may therefore distinguish between a religious ‘steerage from outside’ and a religious ‘steerage from within’. The person of the former type is convinced to be too imperfect oneself to organize one’s life self-responsibly. For that reason it seeks an authority to tell it how to live a meaningful life.

Humans guided religiously from outside follow an authoritative conduct of life. They need religious freedom only then, when there exist competing authoritarian religious systems so that they may freely decide to which authoritarian religious ‘sense system’ they wish to subordinate themselves. – Humans guided religiously from within, however, are much more dependent on religious freedom, as they are not willing to believe anything which contradicts their own convictions. They claim to live their lives in their individual way and, by that, they are responsible before themselves for what they do and what they do not do. Their conduct of life must be described, therefore, as a self-responsible one."

"The history of thought of the situation at the times of Socrates was very similar to that one in the world of ours. During his time people were losing, to a great extent, their tie with the polytheistic, mythical realm of the gods, and today vast numbers of people are losing their faith in the monotheistic confessions. Then and today an increasing need for orientation prevailed. Although Socrates had demonstrated, by his example to steer one’s life by thinking, the developing of a safe system of ‘steerage from within’, it was notably his follower Plato who ensured the clear supremacy of the authoritarian sense system of the ‘steerage from outside’ in Graeco-Roman times. Christianity and the Islamic world could become established on this philosophical basis and could essentially determine the Middle Ages up to the European modern times. Today, these authoritarian systems of orientation have been losing their persuasive power considerably. Therefore it is of quite particular interest to learn how Socrates was developing and was living his religiousness."

"What do we know about the historical Socrates’ life and his way of thinking? As has been proved, he drank, by reason of a death sentence, a cup of lethal poison, although he would have been able to flee. How self-assured and confidently a man must have lived his life, if he is prepared – in full possession of his mental and physical strength – to stand up with his own death for his way to live! What a kind of life was it which has made Socrates so admirable and how well-grounded was it."

"There is nothing but a few written documents about the historical Socrates. He himself has left nothing in writing. Since for him everything was a matter of a conscious life here and now. Most of his many followers, however, produced scripts on their mentor Socrates. Indeed, Socrates' inner existence survived his physical death 2400 years ago (in 2002), notwithstanding the objections, until today; because it grows living in everybody who is in quest of the historical Socrates in the scripts of Xenophon and in the early scripts of Plato. What is good' must, for the historic Socrates, always be related to the victory over a problematic situation. Without any reference, for Socrates, there exists nothing good.

"With our terms of today we say: Socrates was a relativist, since, for him, there are no meanings for words which exist for themselves. But how can a relativist give rise to certainty in his thinking? Because he can not be grounded, after all, on any absolute certainty (which is provided only for those who can believe in an absolute divine authority), can he? This is the vital religious question which is as relevant today as it must have been for Socrates at his time. To this very deepest quest for the religious substantiating I should like to quote Antistehenes again, who, according to Diogenes Laertius’ witness, is supposed to have said about the Socratic philosophy the following: “The question which benefit philosophy had caused him, he answered: The mental power to
communicate with myself.”

"As late as in the middle of the third century (Christian era) the wealth of the ancient sources was accessible to the author Diogenes Laertius, when he wrote down, in the year about 230, his work “Biographies and Opinions of Famous Philosophers”. From him we learn ( II 20 ) that Socrates was said to be the first to speak of principles of life. In addition to him we possess, today, notably in the scripts of the two Socrates followers Xenophon and Plato, reports on the life and work of their mentor. The idea of Socrates’ life principles as delineated by Plato, in a wilful way, is almost contrary to the idea portrayed by Xenophon. Initially the Socrates view of Xenophon was acknowledged as the authentic one, as the reputation of an objective observer was hurrying ahead of the historiographer Xenophon. During the longest period of the past Socrates interpretations, however, Plato’s version was taken seriously and that of Xenophon was rejected. Today, as it appears to have become clear why Plato’s version is so controversial to that one of Xenophon, we have to proceed from the assumption that the historical Socrates was described in the more authentic way by Xenophon."

"We have to proceed from the fact that in the mythical age people did not reflect upon the question for the meaning of life, because they were embedded into a world still completely determined by gods and goddesses. Only with the decay of the myth which goes along with the development of becoming conscious of one’s individuality, man is faced with the question of how to lead a life meaningfully. Socrates was, to our knowledge, the first person to perfect himself in a self-responsible conduct of life." » How to Learn from Socrates to Orient Oneself
___

"In Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a "divine something") that frequently warned him - in the form of a "voice" - against mistakes but never told him what to do. Socrates was accused of denying the gods recognized by the state and introducing instead of them strange divinities and of corrupting the young. The first of these charges rested upon the notorious fact that he supposed himself to be guided by a divine visitant or sign. The second, Xenophon tells us, was supported by a series of particular allegations: that he taught his associates to despise the institutions of the state, and especially election by lot; that he had numbered amongst his associates Critias and Alcibiades, the most dangerous of the representatives of the oligarchical and democratical parties respectively; that be taught the young to disobey parents and guardians and to prefer his own authority to theirs; that he was in the habit of quoting mischievous passages of Homer and Hesiod to the prejudice of morality and democracy." » The Accusations Against Socrates

"Socrates (in Plato’s dialogue, Apology), explains at his trial his career as a gadfly around the city, including the source of his judgment (prudence) in the daimonion (voice of a daimon) that spoke to him."

Socrates: “It may seem curious that I should go round giving advice like this and busying myself in people’s private affairs, and yet never venture publicly to address you as a whole and advise on matters of state. The reason for this is what you have often heard me say before on many other occasions–that I am subject to a divine or supernatural experience which Meletus saw fit to travesty in his indictment. It began in my early childhood–a sort of voice which comes to me, and when it comes it always dissuades me from what I am proposing to do, and never urges me on. It is this that debars me from entering public life.” > Daimonion (Socratic Relay)

Dear Hari, recently I was reading an interesting note which says: "The influence of advertising is overestimated. Advertising affects not the decision for a particular product category, but only the decision within a category for which you have already decided to buy. All those who don't want to eat a chocolate bar, do also not purchase one after seeing such advertising, so the logic." (Translated from German)

Now the reason I wrote you this is because I would like to ask you for a logical explanation of the known vers in the Bhagavad-gita 4.2 wherein Krishna allegedly told Arjuna:

"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost." What could Krishna mean by using the word "science" as science and the scientific understanding of things we may have developed and use today is a relatively new understanding which developed only after in the spirit of the European Enlightenment? Could one still speak of "science" in the way one may understand this term today, a few thousand or millions of years ago?

Its interesting in this regard what one can read written by various authors in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained." (...)

"Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language." "In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself." (...)

"During the period of the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, significant changes occurred within Europe. People began in the 18th century to campaign for emancipation from restrictive laws and integration into the wider European society. Secular and scientific education was added to the traditional religious instruction."

"The term natural philosophy preceded our current natural science when the subject of that knowledge or study was "the workings of nature". Natural philosophy pertains to the work of analysis and synthesis of common experience and argumentation to explain or describe nature—while, in the 16th century and earlier, science was used exclusively as a synonym for knowledge or study. The term science, as in natural science, gained its modern meaning when acquiring knowledge through experiments (special experiences) under the scientific method became its own specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy." (...)

"An Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe, that sought to mobilize the power of reason, in order to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition." (...)
___

Now one could also ask in this connection if the content taught by Krishna to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita could truly be called "science", in the modern understanding of the term, "acquiring knowledge through experiments (special experiences) under the scientific method," or rather philosophical knowledge from bygone days. As one can read online: "... an understanding of the scientific method is essential for success and productivity in science". "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." (...)

"That very ancient "science" of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this "science," told Krishna to Arjuna (Bg)

Yet as written in an essay online: "
"The word “science” is a relatively modern word. That is, you won’t find the word “science” in any written documents before about 1400 A.D. The word “science” comes to us from the Latin word scire which means “to know.” The word “scientist” was introduced in 1834 by a British scholar named William Whewell (1794-1866). Before this time people who studied science were called “natural philosophers.”

"There are many ways to define science, but all definitions of science include several systematic steps for the process of scientific inquiry. These include making scientific observations, proposing scientific questions, designing scientific experiments, collecting scientific information, making scientific interpretations, evaluating scientific assumptions, discussing scientific implications, and evaluating different points of view."

"What is philosophy?
The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek words philein, which means “to love” and soph, which means “wisdom.” So “philosophy” literally means the “love of wisdom.”

"Before the 15th century, ideas about science (philosophy) and scientific inventions (technology) were largely separate. Philosophers didn’t much care for the crafts of inventors, and inventors didn’t much care for the lofty ideas of philosophers. These two aspects of modern science did not really overlap in ancient times. Also, science as discovery (such as chemistry) was largely performed by alchemists who didn’t overlap with either the philosophers or the inventors."

"However, after the 15th century, the philosophical ideas that started in Greece began to merge with the technological discoveries being made by people all over the world. This gave us our current understanding of the planets and solar system. From this time forward modern science exploded as new discoveries and inventions were put together with philosophical ideas. Science as ideas, science as discovery, and science as invention began to merge together giving us what we know today as modern science."

How philosophy affects science
"But what we think also affects how we do science. If Democritus (a philosopher) hadn’t thought that atoms existed, Dalton (a scientist) may not have looked for them. If Aristotle (a philosopher) hadn’t thought that the world might be ordered or that natural laws might exist in an ordered world, Newton (a scientist) may not have looked for them. So philosophy, or how we think about the world around us, can affect the science we do. As our thinking changes so do the experiments we may perform or the direction we may take in finding new discoveries."
___

So in some sense what Krishna tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita can be called science ("phylosophy: science as ideas"), on the other hand, it cannot be called science gathered through "scientific inquiry".

It is both funny and challenging what I read that Prabhupada allegedly told Allen Ginsberg in a personal conversation ones:

Srila Prabhupada: Krishna consciousness is not a bluff. It is real science, real authority. One simply has to understand it. That’s all.

"Not that I requested that you adopt our means. So this is what we are requesting. Let people chant—make an experiment. It is not a very difficult thing. Let people do that and not come to the ritualistic performances. Let them chant as far as possible and see the result." (...)

Nevertheless, many questions still preoccupy me. Can an "experience" of God or of His names be called and considered a science and therefore be learned and studied as such in the context of a scientific finding process which ultimately results in ... "Krishna consciousness" or God consciousness?

.

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." — Albert Einstein & Infeld 1938, p. 92.

But according to Prabhupada since scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and the final judge.

Those who seem to follow in his footstep's fall into the same line of reasoning: "When we want knowledge about physics, we refer to authorized physics textbooks. Similarly, when we want knowledge about God, we should refer to the authorized textbooks about God—the scriptures." (BTG March/April 2012)

The "authorized physics textbooks", one may look up, are held flexible in order to change and adapt to changes of new understood realities that cannot be avoided, found by scientists after "testing" new hypothesis in various fields of study. They are from time to time diligently revised and republished. But according to Prabhupada, and those who are orientated towards him, "the authorized textbooks about God—the scriptures" are to be regarded as inflexible and unalterable. How thus can one adapt to take account of new situations and truths in life and society?!

Consequently it is not really possible to view his statements and approaches as scientific, contrary to claims by him, and those who are orientated towards him, that this would be the case.
___

On the page of Marketfaith one can read in this regard:
"There are two lines of authority that Hindus look to in order to legitimize their belief system. The first is a set of writings that are referred to as the Sruti. The second line of authority is the Smriti (tradition).

The ultimate authority for Hindu belief, however, is human experience ... It is believed that this is possible as it is the impersonal life force which animates the life of individuals. By meditation and other means, it is believed that human beings can experience this life force and discover things about it. This kind of experience is the ultimate source of the other authority sources.

There is no empirical element to the evidence because observation and experimentation cannot be applied to ultimate reality. Also, there is no way to validate the holy writings except by human experience." (Marketfaith)

Dear Harsi, the term ,,science,, was (as you explained) so highly lifted the last couple of centuries that some new religions name themselves after it (scientology), what to speak of using it in their preachings! Maybe many were (and still are) atracted to ISKCON appreciating (or confirming) Prabhupada's allegation that Harinam-sankirtan is a scientific method of self-realization, but if you ask me, a wouldn't translate the word yoga (that Krishna uses in the verse ,,imam vivasvate yogam ...,,) with the word ,,science,, , not because this yoga isn't self-evident (it is ,,pratyakshavagamam,, as you know) but because I don't esteem so called scientific knowledge so much as I do mystic revelation (the real meaning of the term ,,yoga,,). Not that I'm against scientific researchers, but to say (as it's said in the textbooks of scientific methodology) that scientific method is the best of all knowledge acquiring methods just because it's never sure about it's conclusions, does this paradox look so attractive to you?! Come on, you can't be serious?! By the way, one isn't to be overly serious too! For example, I see Bhagavad-Gita as a Song of God literally, but if some think songs (as all of the arts) aren't serious enough, so they try to put an ,,aura of science,, (or anything else) over It, well, I don't mind! The same could be applied to your main issue here: ,,aroha-pantha,, or ,,avaroha-pantha,,? For instance, many years ago, some impersonal force (as you quoted the ,,Hindus,,) i.e. ISKCON's laws, luckily imposed on us to accept Hari as our spiritual guide (we had no choice, he was the only guru at that time, at least in the atheistic countries of Europe, that meant most of the Europe). The same impersonal force nowadays would impose on us to reject him as such, just because he dared to expose his personality, making himself vulnerable by the consequences of his truthfulness. So, could we say that those people who came to Harimedia on their own (searching trough the Internet) have advantage compared to those of us, who came on recommendation of ,,evam parampara praptam ...,,? Maybe, but I have a right not to think so, I hope not!

I agree wholeheartedly, Aradhya. Our guiding rules are also: To each his own.

As summarised perfectly in the Latin saying: 'Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuique tribuendi' (Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to render each his due). It is not my intention to malign somebody's faith or character. In the end each person is individually responsible for her faith and actions and does not require a church or authorized surrogate for guidance. I am just trying to find my own way through that what I may hear or read somebody saying or writing. It's my version or my logical approach to God and truth.

You ask me about the apparent "paradox" in science that today's scientific conclusions can only be as good as their truth' is not yet proven wrong. Well what can I say. This is a fact which I can not control. We live in a world of relativity, according to Albert Einstein's proven theory. How long this theory holds water who knows... Lets see. I can live with it and accept it. Or would you like to be more certain about your life and whats going on around here. Than maybe take to the Vedic or different type of revealed scriptures. Is what you may find there written more authoritative and thruthfull? You decide. Regarding my spiritual guide. I accepted him as such in 1987 because I felt all what he said was clear and comprehensible. There was no pushing from anyone or anywhere which pressured me to do so. Ok there was a certain group dynamics which one could not fully escape or become immune to, but in the end it was ones own decision to accept at that time someones spiritual guidance. Every man is the architect of his own fortune. The same logic applies to me today. How was or is it with you?

Not that I would burden Krishna or Hari (or anyone else) with the consequences of my own decisions, but can I say only my own sense of responsibility counts!? Who am I to (even think to) ignore the superiors' sense of responsibility about me!? Krishna confirms that: ,,... atmanam kevalam tu yah, pashyatyakrita bhydhitvan, na sa pashyati durmati,,! Not only my own will and effort but also time-place (circumstances) and above all The Supreme, all of them (including me, not to forget that either, of course) share the responsibility about what takes place with (and around) me (or anyone else). Owing to the circumstances (destiny or whatever, but certainly not my conscious effort) in those times can I be on Harimedia these times (not so often as I would like, I admit), if I had missed those times, I would never have a chance for it now (I'm not into ,,surfing,, at all, blessed be those who are! All credit to them!). And, Harsi, if you are into taking credit, then just do it, but don't forget it's risky today, banks are falling apart! Don't take it to heart, this is a joke!