Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was the first scientist to discover the relationship between, rather than the equivalence of, mass and energy (E = m.c², the relationship between mass, energy, and time).

In science, energy usually is considered essentially lifeless, and life is seen as a curious accident in the midst of the cosmic accident (Big Bang) that the universe commonly is considered to be.

The idea of energy is older than its name. Even in the time of Galileo (1564-1642), scientists recognised the existence of some constant quantity involved in certain physical problems. In the late 17^th century Leibniz (1646-1716) gave the quantity mv² the name of vis viva (‘living force’). In 1807 Thomas Young (1773-1829) proposed the term ‘energy’. Finally, in 1856 the modern term ‘kinetic energy’, was introduced by Lord Kelvin (1824-1907).

In Vedantic terms, the world is called, Chit-Shakti-Vilas, ‘the play of Conscious-Energy’ (i.e. inergy = ‘intelligent energy’). This concept Chit-Shakti is a fascinating one, in that it stands for the one Reality, and yet it is made up of two words: ‘Consciousness’ and ‘Energy’. These are the two aspects of Reality, which are familiar as Shiva-Shakti, Brahman-Maya, Purusha-Prakriti, Theos-Logos, or even ova and sperm, et cetera.

Chit, or Consciousness, is in other contexts called Shiva, the Absolute and formless aspect, the transcendent Godhead; and Shakti, or Energy, is the creative aspect of that one Consciousness which manifests as the multi-formed universe. They are one, but they appear to be two. The two are but complementary aspects of the same one indivisible Reality.

In this case we talk about the ‘ultimate/pure energy’ of organisms that make them alive, i.e. Vital Energy, ‘Life Force’ (Eros), the Hindu’s Prana, the Chinese Ch’i, the Egyptian Akh, or the Hebrew Chiah – Spirit. This is not the scientist’s E = mc².

I.e. God (Spirit) = Consciousness + Vital Energy.

Earlier scientific belief in the discreteness of things is starting to be replaced by the recognition of things as interrelated aspects of fields of force (the scientist’s gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force). This scientific view still is essentially materialistic, where materialism has been defined as “the denial that the most pervasive processes of nature involve any such psychical functions as sensing, feeling, remembering, desiring, or thinking”. (Charles Hartshorne [1897-2000], Insights and Oversights of Great Thinkers [1983:17]).

Perhaps the greatest single step in modern times in recognising atoms as psychical, rather than physical, was taken by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Leibniz held that it would not be contradictory to posit that this world is a well-related dream (Maya in Sanskrit – an illusion).

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the law of quantum mechanics.

“It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extend in every atom.

“The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God.

“God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.” (Freeman Dyson [1923- ], theoretical physicist and mathematian, upon receiving the Templeton Prize in 2000.)

Leibniz shares the honour with Isaac Newton (1643-1727) of perfecting the principle and mechanism of the differential calculus, though he came to it quite independently. However, he is perhaps better appreciated (outside of mathematical circles) for his daring penetration beyond the sense-world of matter in search of ‘a super-physical reality’, which he intuitively felt was concealed there. His researches led him to the formulation of his famous theory of the monad.

Leibniz had nothing but the very incomplete scientific equipments of the 17^th century, but his marvellous insight pierced so far beneath superficial appearances that it is only within our own century that science has begun to catch up with his magnificent intuition.

There is a strong resemblance between Leibniz’s ideas and the philosophies of ancient India. Two main aspects are of special interest here in view of recent scientific discoveries are namely:

(1)   The illusory nature of physical matter, and

(2)   The fact that every particle of which the universe is composed is a living, growing entity or being.

Leibniz was a true evolutionist. He decided that ‘matter’ was not dead, but is the semblance or outward and visible appearance of an invisible (to us) super-physical reality composed of metaphysical or, we might say, spiritual points which he called monads.

Each monad is a distinct individual possessing its own kind or degree of consciousness and existence. Life is everywhere, rising in grades of intelligence from the most primitive monad to the ineffable glory of the ‘Monad of monads’, the incomprehensible Divine Unity, or One – the word monad being derived from the Greek Monas or one.

Leibniz thus believed like the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta (and specifically Advaita Vedanta) that everything is One, and that the sense of the plurality of reality is only but an illusion (Maya). As the Vedanta maintains, Brahman (or the Absolute) is the only reality and the only existence.

In Vedanta, Brahman is both the material (upādāna) and the instrumental (nimitta) cause of the world; and that the self (Atman) is the agent of its own acts (karma) and therefore the recipient of the fruits, or consequences, of action (phala).

All the Vedanta schools unanimously reject both the heterodox (nāstika) philosophies of Buddhism and Jainism and the conclusions of the other orthodox (āstika) schools (Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Samkhaya, Yoga, and, to some extent, the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā).

The Vedantic conception of Brahman is held to be beyond qualities or attributes; beyond subject and object; the source of all Being; Intelligence; and Bliss. Brahman is then the efficient cause of the universe in its spiritual, mental, and physical appearances; creator and creation; doer and deed; cause and effect; the underlying truth amidst the Universe of Unreality; One; self-existent; all-there-is; all-that-has-ever-been; all-that-ever-can-be; One-and-Only; Alone, with Nothing within Itself; and Nothing outside Itself; Unique; without a Second.

Therefore, modern science, Samkhaya (Atomism), and Vedanta (non-dualism) is again on the same track after a gap of perhaps fifteen thousand years or more!

Science usually advances by successions of small steps, through a natural fog (further complicated by human faith, values, mores, presuppositions, dogma, and authority) in which even the most keen-sighted explorer can seldom see more than a few paces ahead. Occasionally the fog lifts and a wider stretch of the territory can be surveyed – sometimes with startling results. Nevertheless, the compiled maps from the territory viewed must never be confused with the territory itself. Science is not reality; science is a map/model of reality.

In recent decades, however, a diversity of systems have been studied that behave unpredictably despite their seeming simplicity and the fact that the forces involved are governed by well-understood physical laws. The common element in these systems is a very high degree of sensitivity to initial conditions and to the way in which they are set in motion.

For example, the meteorologist, and father of chaos theory, Edward Lorenz (1917-2008) discovered that a simple model of heat convection possesses intrinsic unpredictability, a circumstance he called the ‘butterfly effect’, suggesting that the mere flapping of a butterfly’s wing can change the weather.

Another simple example is the pinball machine: the ball’s movements are precisely governed by laws of gravitational rolling and elastic collisions – both ‘totally’ understood – yet the ultimate outcome is unpredictable. Chaotic behaviour is observed daily in natural systems, such as the weather.

Chaos, in mechanics and mathematics, is the apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws, i.e. systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). This is also the case in economics, for example.

Chaos theory shows us that even extremely simple mechanical system’s behaviour cannot always be predicted – how then will we ever be able to predict or understand spiritual (non-physical) systems?

Our demonstrated ability to comprehend certain aspects of the physical universe, or even our confirmed capacity to manipulate these aspects, does not mean that we understand (and is acquainted with) everything in the universe – we still don’t have a physical theory of everything! It certainly does mean that we cannot decide on the presence, or absence, of ‘Spirit’ in the universe from physical observations alone!

Is the Universe chaotic? No, it is just that we still don’t comprehend!