 |
| Einstein and Tagore July 14th, 1930 |
This is a transcription of the conversation between world’s two great minds, Albert Einstein and Rabindranath Tagore, both Noble laureates working on two different fields of human aspects, come together on 14th July, 1930 and discussed some common question facing mankind since the beginning of thoughts, philosophy and science. When Einstein met Tagore at his residence at Kaputh, the first question he asked was about isolation of divinity. The discussion later went on to discuss the nature of reality …
So here it is for you to read, what these two great minds, thought about Divine, Truth, existence of beauty without the seer and the world as Illusion…
Source:
Published in the January, 1931, issue of Modern Review
Transcript Curtsey: Boloji.com / Kumud Biswas
Image: Wikipedia
The Nature of Reality
(A transcript of the conversation between Noble Laureate Poet Rabindranath Tagore from India and Professor Albert Einstein on 14th July, 1930, at the latter's residence in Kaputh)
Einstein : Do you believe in the Divine as isolated from the world?
Tagore : Not isolated. The infinite personality of Man comprehends the Universe. There cannot be anything that cannot be subsumed by the human personality, and this proves that the truth of the Universe is human truth. I have taken a scientific fact to explain this. Matter is composed of protons and electrons, with gaps between them, but matter may seem to be solid without the links in spaces which unify the individual electrons and protons. Similarly humanity is composed of individuals, yet they have their interconnection of human relationship, which gives living unity to man's world. The entire universe is linked up with us, as individuals, in a similar manner - it is a human universe. I have pursued this thought through art, literature and the religious consciousness of man.
Einstein : There are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe -the world as a unity dependent on humanity, and the world as a reality independent of the human factor.
Tagore : When our universe is in harmony with man, the eternal, we know it as truth, we feel it as beauty.
Einstein: This is the purely human conception of the universe.
Tagore : There can be no other conception. This world is a human world - the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. Therefore, the world apart from us does not exist; it is a relative world, depending for its reality upon our consciousness. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences.
Einstein : This is a realization of the human entity.
Tagore : Yes, one eternal entity. We have to realize it through our emotions and activities. We realized the Supreme Man who has no individual limitations through our limitations. Science is concerned with that which is not confined to individuals, it is the impersonal human world of truths. Religion realizes these truths and links them up with our deeper needs; our individual consciousness of truth gains universal significance. Religion applies values to truth, and we know this truth as good through our own harmony with it.
Einstein : Truth, then, or beauty is not independent of man?
Tagore : No.
Einstein : If there would be no human beings any more, the Apollo of Belvedere would no longer be beautiful.
Tagore : No!
Einstein : I agree with regard to this conception of Beauty, but not with regard to Truth.
Tagore : Why not? Truth is realized through man.
Einstein : I cannot prove that my conception is right, but that is my religion.
Tagore : Beauty is in the ideal of perfect harmony which is in the Universal Being, Truth the perfect comprehension of the Universal mind. We individuals approach it through our own mistakes and blunders, through our accumulated experiences, - through our illumined consciousness - how, otherwise, can we know Truth?
Einstein : I cannot prove that scientific truth must be conceived as a truth that is valid independent of humanity; but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man. Anyway, if there is a reality independent of man, there is also a truth relative to this reality; and in the same way the negation of the first engenders a negation of the existence of the latter.
Tagore : Truth, which is one with the Universal Being, must essentially be human; otherwise whatever we individuals realize as true can never be called truth, at least the truth which is described as scientific and which only can be reached through the process of logic, in other words, by an organ of thoughts which is human. According to Indian philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a truth cannot belong to science. The nature of truth which we are discussing is an appearance, that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called Maya or illusion.
Einstein : So according to your conception, which may be the Indian conception, it is not the illusion of the individual but of humanity as a whole.
Tagore : In science we go through the discipline of eliminating the personal limitations of our individual minds and thus reach that comprehension of truth which is in the mind of the Universal Man.
Einstein : The problem begins whether truth is independent of our consciousness.
Tagore : What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man.
Tagore : What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man.
Einstein : Even in our everyday life, we feel compelled to ascribe a reality independent of man to the objects we use. We do this to connect the experiences of our senses in a reasonable way. For instance, if nobody is in this house, yet that table remains where it is.
Tagore : Yes, it remains outside the individual mind but not the universal mind. The table which I perceive is perceptible by the same kind of consciousness which I possess.
Einstein : Our natural point of view in regard to the existence of truth apart from humanity cannot be explained or proved, but it is a belief which nobody can lack - no primitive beings even. We attribute to truth a superhuman objectivity, it is indispensable for us, this reality which is independent of our existence and our experience and our mind - though we cannot say what it means.
Tagore : Science has proved that the table as a solid object is an appearance and therefore that which the human mind perceives as a table would not exist if that mind were naught. At the same time it must be admitted that the fact that the ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centres of electric force, also belongs to the human mind. In the apprehension of truth there is an eternal conflict between the universal human mind and the same mind confined in the individual. The perpetual process of reconciliation is being carried on in our science, philosophy, in our ethics. In any case, if there be any truth absolutely unrelated to humanity, then for us it is absolutely non-existing. It is not difficult to imagine a mind to which sequence of things happens not in space but only in time like the sequence of notes in music. For such a mind such conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean geometry can have no meaning. There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats that paper literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for man's mind literature has a greater value of truth than the paper itself. In a similar manner if there be some truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to human mind, it will ever remain as nothing so long as we remain human beings.
Einstein : Then I am more religious than you are!
Tagore : My religion is in the reconciliation of the Super-personal Man, the universal human spirit, in my own individual being. This has been the subject of my Hibbert Lectures, which I have called "The Religion of Man."
__
ॐ नमः शिवाय
Man's Search for Meaning
Dr. Viktor Frankl
this is very interesting
ReplyDeletei get what they are conversing about yet there are some things i know i missed. curiouser and curiouser
food for thought and study
love it!
"At the same time it must be admitted that the fact that the ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centres of electric force." i love this line, it is beautiful, but i'm more of an Einstein man.
ReplyDeleteThis is wonderful Shashi!
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts...
ReplyDelete"Religion applies values to truth..."
"The perpetual process of reconciliation is being carried on in our science, philosophy, in our ethics."
Key word here is ethics: It is important to know that both men were speaking in a conceptual framework (Wittgenstein) that presupposed an ethos. They both acknowledge a right and wrong way of living, perceiving reality, right action, right thought, etc., be it Judeo-Christian or Hindu, Buddhist...whatever. That's a given and an understanding that is missing from most postmodern thinking. A postmodern reader may fall into bad (schlect) thinking (Heidegger) if they don't accept this jumping off point.
If you notice Tagore is hinting at an idea that Derrida writes about...the trace.
"There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature."
This is one example of why many like Caputo are so comfortable extending Derrida's thinking from ontological studies to theological studies.
The trace -- is it a question for the ontologist or the religionist?
One other passage that surprised me...
ReplyDeleteTagore: "This world is a human world - the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. Therefore, the world apart from us does not exist; it is a relative world, depending for its reality upon our consciousness. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences."
This very much sounds like an argument the Judeo-Christian scholastics would make -- Aquinas and Maimonides.
This is the first I've read of Tagore so I can't say where he is going with this line of thinking but my limited acquaintance with eastern studies would tell me that it is "unusual" for an eatern scholar, poet, philosopher to place Man on such a high pedestal separate from the natural world.
Perhaps that is why Einstein said, "Then I am more religious than you are!"
I'm a huge fan of Einstein's but I have to say unequivocally, I'm with Tagore in this. Who would have thought T could teach E a thing or two about science? Thanks for posting this conversation, I hadn't seen the interchange before.
ReplyDeleteWow...two great personalities..
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing Sir... :)
I have had a continuous discussion with my younger brother, Animesh at Google buzz about this topic, which I think is very relevant here, for other friends who might be innterested in exploring further or adding some ideas in this this continous discussion... so here it is, continued over 2 days and still going on...
ReplyDeleteAnimesh Sharma - bhaiya seems like philosophy is like intellectual masturbation, i felt good while reading this discussion but i got absolutely nothing new out of it... on one hand there is a person whose model make things like mobile phones work, on the other hand is the guys whose literature can take you closer to beautiful models ;)Jan 19 (edited Jan 19)
Shashidhar Sharma - My idea of posting this was to show, how both of them talk about the same thing, though coming from two different perspectives where both of them are highly focussed on two different hemi-spheres of brains...
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 20
Animesh Sharma - Two-hemispheres? Sounds like you are reading the same stuff as Daljeet bhai ;)Jan 20
Shashidhar Sharma - It was interesting to see, how poetry of words reacts to the poetry of motion...
ॐ नमः शिवाय
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - Yes indeed, the advaita sparks out during this part:
Einstein : So according to your conception, which may be the Indian conception, it is not the illusion of the individual but of humanity as a whole.
Tagore : In science we go through the discipline of eliminating the personal limitations of our individual minds and thus reach that comprehension of truth which is in the mind of the Universal Man.
and here is where I would have asked Tagore the regressive question, why is he not questioning this concept of Brahm itself? If Brahm is so called creating us in his mind all of this universe, then who is creating the mind of Brahm and Brahm itself... just to keep the conversation a bit fresh then regurgitating old debates...Jan 21
Shashidhar Sharma - But the point is how do you define, either emptiness or void or Shunya...? How the universe gets created from Shunya and then can again becomes Shunya... is it not the starting point of every thing? I think all the debate about trying to find out what its all about is happenning inside a dark closed room with on window open to the world outside... so what we see from that window, we define our perspective, as per where we are standing in the room. We have to get out of the room, out under the open sky then we realise that we were not equipped to discuss or even think about all this while still staying in that room. May be that is what is enlightenment is all about... some one has to take us out of the room and then let us discuss... may be that is what Krishna did to Arjuna, before showing him his All pervading form... till some one do that, we will keep regurgitating what we know from that dark room, which has nothing much to give.. may be that is where, the thinker's or mathematicians or theologians have to come to ... like without seeing the Quantum mechanic's mechanics, we did create the model.. may be that is what some of the religious leaders, philosopher are doing it, thinking after getting out of the room.. only thing is that they can not define or provide the way out of the room to less formed thinkers or people stuck with that window vision.. maybe....
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - well we need to elaborate more of what we mean by shunya here. if Brahm is source of all creation, then it is not right to say that everything is created out of nothing in the general sense of the word nothing since Brahm creates it and he is everything but nothing... lets settle this and then we move?Jan 21
Shashidhar Sharma - Are we equipped at all to define this Shunya, void or zero that we call in our limited sense perceptions or logic, that is my point.EditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - as far as definition goes, I will stick with its mathematical form 0Jan 21
ReplyDeleteShashidhar Sharma - hehehe.. then same thing will happen what happened with Einstein and tagore...Cheers!!!
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - not really, lets try to take roles here and see :) i already have posed the question from Einstein's side ;)Jan 21
Shashidhar Sharma - A: If Brahm is so called creating us in his mind all of this universe, then who is creating the mind of Brahm and Brahm itself...
S: Let me put Tagore's words again here
"According to Indian philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a truth cannot belong to science. The nature of truth which we are discussing is an appearance, that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called Maya or illusion."
Please note, how Tagore clearly puts that such a truth can not belong to science. Now before going to talk about this Brahm, I think we need to define first is; What "illusion" is and how we define "Truth". Once we have clarity on these two more mundane words from science point of view, then we need to go beyond trying to understand the Truth as in Brahm Concept rather than as Tagore says "the nature of truth which we are discussing is an "Appearance". This point, Einstein, while side stepping, conveniently puts words in mouth of Tagore, alluding this to Humanity as whole.
When we take this questioning further and if we are able to arrive to a concept of Truth at least if not Beauty, then I will try to stretch my own thoughts / mind / consciousness to arrive at the way to see truth in "way" of Brahm and you work on the way of Logic or science, which you are more capable of...
Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - So you agree with Tagore and that is all you have to say?Jan 21
Shashidhar Sharma - No I am not saying that I am agreeing with Tagore or for that matter any one, I am just trying to take your analytical method to its logical conclusion.. as I said, once we define basic things that are in discussion, like truth, beauty, Shunya, universal mind etc, we can take this forward... To begin with, Let me know what you define as truth? What we see, or perceive through our senses, or what we can arrive at through logical deductions or what we find through experimentation.. or if you have any other parameters to define it...
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - Cool, truth for me is the actualisation of an event. For example birth of a child, falling of apple, the so called facts.Jan 21
Shashidhar Sharma - How do you know that apple is falling, may be its not falling but floating in universe like everything else is? How do you know its a birth, may be its not a birth but an end? What is an event? What makes it exist? Are you going to talk about things that are measured in physical parameter (as in Newtonian mechanics, or quantum mechanics that we know as of now, or you are going to take it further deeper. Actualization of an event, some times does not actualizes the way its supposed to as per the parameters known to science... as in many cases of quantum mechanics (though my knowledge is limited in that area)
Truth as an actualization of an event is too limited definition...
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - but i am sticking to this definition: 'events' as the 'known facts' and now what is your definition of truth?Jan 21
ReplyDeleteShashidhar Sharma - but that is where this discussion should not go to ... your known human science... its not about a practical experiment, when we are going to end up discussing universal mind.. or Brahma or anything beyond your lab experiment.. this discussion is not about an experiment in a science lab.. if it was so then we have millions of labs around the globe trying to find the answer to eternal question... "who am I" and have not found, and again let me quote Tagore once again...
"According to Indian philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a truth cannot belong to science."
So if we have to go beyond this limitation that you are putting on your own view of the truth if not thinking, then I think you should discuss this with a scientist not with some one who is not a scientist like me. With science you can only prove that much what you know, you can not go beyond. So it will not give you any thing new that you dont know. Do go beyond this line, to find something beyond proven facts, you have to open yourself... get out of the window vision of a dark room...
Remember, we started this discussion with a basic thing that you as a scientist and me as creative thinker at the most or at least from different point of view...not as an experimentally proved example... or with empirically conclusive data..
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - Ok, so if you don't want this discussion that way, lets go with your definition of truth, what is it?Jan 21
Shashidhar Sharma - The only truth in the world is "now" Right "now" may be you call it present .. its the only constant. that is in my opinion.EditJan 21
Animesh Sharma - but how do you describe this 'now', what does it consist of?Jan 22
Shashidhar Sharma - Only thing moment, present moment. Time if you will, but then in the present state of human evolution time is also not defined completely as yet. So I am using moment as time. But have we finished talking about Truth?
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 22
Animesh Sharma - We can never finish talking about truth :) So you don't believe that Past is part of truth?Jan 22
Shashidhar Sharma - Now, if you want to extend this to past and future, that is your choice, but my guess is that there is no past or future, it all depends from which perspective you want to see it or you can see it. If I may say so, there is actually no past or future in the sense of time line. Every thing is just present. Just like a movie, that is already made and fully done, its the individual who walks into a theater and watches the movie at whatever time line its running from and that form his present for that particular movie, for him the back reels of the movie may be a past, and the upcoming reels may be the future. For the movie, the whole is actually already a present.
Om Namah ShivayaEditJan 22
AND IN WONDER AND AMAZEMENT I SING
ReplyDeleteThe sky is full of the sun and the stars
The universe is full of life
Among all these I have found a place
And in wonder and amazement I sing.
The world is swayed
By eternity’s rushing tide
Rising and falling
I have felt its tug in my blood
Racing through my veins
And in wonder and amazement I sing.
While walking in the woodlands
With my feet I have touched the blades of grass
I have been startled by the flowers’ fragrance
They have all maddened my mind
The gifts of gladness and joy
Are strewn all around
And in wonder and amazement I sing.
I have pricked my ears
I have opened my eyes
I have bared my heart to the world
In the midst of the known
I have sought the unknown
And in wonder and amazement I sing.
-------------
Transcreation of the devotional song song – Akash bhara surya tara biswabhara pran by Rabindranath Tagore.
I'm a seeker of Truth. My truth may not be your truth. For me, I believe Truth is the Love-Light within and without. This is my faith and can not be proved by science. Therefore, I agree with Einstein and disagree with Tagore. Sending you rainbow-colored Light today....Gary.
ReplyDeleteHey Shashi..can you please post the continuation comments of ur discussion with ur brother?
ReplyDeleteIts in the comments above, after Sumit Sarkar's comment...
ReplyDeleteॐ नमः शिवाय
Om Namah Shivaya
spiritual people are a bit adament,unlike scientist,they doubt everything without any fear that god will not like if i question him,they want everything clear in equations so that they can explain it to the whole world,not like,see i am spiritual,i have attained it with lots of meditationa and so i can feel the divine,since u are not matured enough u cant feel it...but i can!!i dont like philosophers,they make the whole pic vague and confused...."if u cant explain it,it means u have not understood it"-a.einstein!
ReplyDeleteNever knew about this amazing conversation, thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteGreat reading!!! Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete