 Mae'r ffordd o'r holl kitchen oedd yn ymgyrchu'r holl o'r hollur i'r cyffredin hynny, ac wedi ddweud y Llyfrgell Gweithio Gweithio Llyfrgell, i'r ffrindio gyda'r sefydliadau cyfaintol. Mae'r prosedur hynny'n gymryd yma, is each one will just very briefly introduce themselves and give a two minute, just only two minutes, general view that they have on the question of whether Jane philosophy is compatible with modern sciences. And then what we will do is we will make it a little bit like question time and come to the audience and if you can now think about any question that you might want to ask to the panel and we will take that question and discuss it. And what I might do is to take two or three questions to begin with and then we will choose which question to debate. So put your thinking caps on and think about what you want to hear. But let's go one by one. I will introduce myself. I am Shamal Jandari. I am mainly on the science side, so the background in physics and I now work in neuroscience, theoretic physics and so I'm going to take a slightly skeptical view today which is that I think that it's not always the case that a lot of Jane philosophy is compatible with modern science. It's too easy to say yes, yes. Quantum mechanics was discovered 2,500 years ago and we can see Heisenberg, we can see Schrodinger's equation in this schlock and things like that. So I will be taking a much more view of metaphor and analogy and we'll see how it is. So why don't we go one by one and maybe if you can introduce yourself and your research interest. It makes sense to start at the other end so that I may respond. Just your research interest, your name and what your thoughts are for two minutes and then we'll go one by one. Jajanendra. Pranam, everyone. My name is Mukul, Dr Mukul Shah. I'm a medical by background. I would say I'm first and foremost a Jane and secondary a doctor. With the question, I would say that they are compatible, Janism and Science, to a degree, but I would actually argue the other way and talk of a few instances where Janism supersedes science. Give you an example. That's a reference to the last lecture of the day, but also the fact that science can only deal with the tangible. Spirituality can deal with the intangible and the difference is spirituality deals with the things that science has not yet been able to prove. We heard earlier about 118 elements of the periodic table that have been discovered by science and the theory that there are 200. That's one example from a professional background as a doctor. The last lecture was very close to my heart. Pallicative care is a specialty of medicine that over the last 20 years you'll find more and more papers on it. Over the last 50 years, modern medicine has found ways to keep people alive for longer and longer and longer. But as medicine advances even more than over the last 20 years, it has found that the quality of death is arguably more important than just keeping people alive. And Janism has said that this from the very, very start, and it's just one of many examples of where science is only just catching up with Janism. And in the question and answers, I'm happy to expand on several other similar examples that in my personal practice and personal reading, I personally can talk about. Would you like to say next? Just a two minute introduction to your interest and what you think about the basic question of this panel, which is, is Jane a philosophy compatible with modern science? Okay, I'm a somebody, and that would be my introduction. In context of this Janism and science, I would just give a comment or a thought, which I carry and I think is important. In the morning session we had this question came up about God particle, right? Some of you might have been here, some might have not been here. The theory of God particle, which comes up in science, the word God is really captivating and people start, like, who believe in God would start thinking, wow, you know, science is coming closer to our faith and belief system. But what theory, what complexities, what mathematics, what science has gone behind creating the same statement that there is a God particle? Can you think of that? So if we start comparing that God particle should exist somewhere in atomic theory of Janism, does the same complexity, which the same mechanics, the same process exists behind the atomic theory of Janism as well? So when we make any claim or we make any comparison, I think we should be very careful behind the complexes of both. I mean it's the same even for the other way around, like now quantum mechanics has started talking about consciousness. I think I don't remember the name, but there are physicists who have started talking about consciousness. Now when they talk about consciousness, people who believe in consciousness might really enjoy this theory, but then that consciousness, what they are talking about could be actually not a non-meta... I mean need not be a metaphysical consciousness, but be a physical consciousness. So words are captivating and we are trying to kind of compare and stand parallel. I don't mean to say that there is nothing parallel or there is nothing common in these different fields, but just for the sake of passion of seeing both together or married, we shouldn't ignore the complexes behind that. I'm Ratnakumar Shah from Pune. I began my career as a professor in mathematics for one year only, then joined as an insurance executive for 35 years. Again, after retirement, 10 years as a consultant in insurance only, and only at the age of 70 I entered the research area in mathematics in Janism. But I firmly believe that the scope of knowledge, the arena of knowledge is constantly increasing, and that the modern science also is coming to some sort of compromise with the religious ideas. But I'm also convinced that there are a lot of lacunas in our religious ideas also, as well as in the scientific ideas also, and there should be an attempt to synchronize them, to re-align them without the microscope, without the telescope, without all this experimentation, etc. Our people have some ideas, our acharyas have some ideas due to contemplation, intuition, etc. And they are really very relevant to even the modern scientific ideas. Only two examples I will give, the ideas of infinities in mathematics, in Jain mathematics are very similar to Cantor's theory of multitude of infinities, hierarchy of infinities. Second area, the probabilistic ideas in Jainism are coming very close to the quantum mechanical ideas, quantum probabilities. For example, which negoda come out of the sea of negoda, if they say it's probabilistic, it is swabhaw. Swabhaw means it is probabilities. If there is no explanation, we say it is swabhaw. Ours is a hundaw sarpini, that means it is a sarpini of some different type, but why it is so? No, it is against swabhaw. Sometime it may happen, sometime it may not happen. There are so many examples I can give, but I am not sure. So definitely there is a need to marriage of scientific ideas, modern scientific ideas, and also some intuitive ideas of our great acharyas. I firmly believe in that. Myself, dr Anupam Jain, student of mathematics and teaching mathematics since last 36 years and presently engaged in the several administrative responsibilities like principal, controller examination, controller price, etc. But my basic interest is Jain school of mathematics. It is my opinion that Jain philosophy is computable to modern science. The main problem is the knowledge of technical terms. For example, in panchastikaia ff kundukund, a vaktawe words come. Clearly, saptabhangi en a vaktawe is mentioned, but the modern probability, we do not clearly understand what is the meaning of a vaktawita. In the same fashion, the theory of karma and in nyaya grannthas, the theory of logic is same as the mathematical logic. But the problem is to understand the technical terms and correct interpretation. A lot of formulae developed by the Jain scholars is still in use in the modern mathematics, especially in the field of algebra, arithmetic, and geometry, not in the modern science. The development of the set theory is made by the Jain scholars. Therefore, I can say that Jain philosophy is computable to modern mathematics. I am dr Kalyan Gangwal. I am here as a Shravak follower of Jainism because this is a mathematical conference and I am not a scholar in mathematics at all. But I am a Shravak follower of the Jainism from the birth. I don't take even water after sunset. So as a Shravak, I am taking a participation. For the last 43 years of my practice, I am practicing cardiologist. Two big institutes in Kepuna, KM Hospital and Puna Hospital. I am working as a cardiologist, as a postgraduate teacher in medicine. And here I am very happy to be with you all. Now, the basic thing today since morning, we are discussing about Einstein. Einstein, you must have read about the one interview of Einstein. Once the question was asked to Einstein that, do you believe in rebirth? Einstein replied that well, there is no proof scientifically proof for rebirth, so I don't believe. The next question was asked if it is a rebirth, what you would react? He said, I would like to react in the way he reacted. He said, I would like to have a birth in India and that too also in Jain religion. And that is exactly the Einstein's word, not my word. Even the same words you must have heard about Dr Bernard Shaw. Bernard Shaw also, when he was interviewed by the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, he told that I would like to have a rebirth in Jainism. There was a word of Bernard Shaw who was a great lover of animals. I am working in a field of vegetarianism for the last 40 years. Animal rights for 40 years and also non-violence. So I am practicing the Jainism at the same time propagating the Jainism all over the world. Even a lot of awareness we are creating about Salekna as a doctor because as a doctor I feel that all the principles in our Jain religion are absolutely scientific. We call Jainism as a vitrag vigyann. Vigyann is a science word is there with us and it is a vitrag vigyann. And that is the reason why we say that it is one of the most scientific religion I have ever come across. I am propagating the Jain lifestyle in our medical conferences and teaching them how you can live very healthy life with Jain lifestyle. Not eating after sunset, not eating after under roots. At the same time, a lot of following principles of lifestyle and they are going to be accepted in the near future. I am very positive about it and there is a very very positive reaction. As I told you that Jainism is one of the religion which says that they have discussed about global warming also. Our Acharyas also discussed about it. And today at the Paris conference you must have read and heard that one way all the scientists are talking about is that vegetarianism is the only way to live or attack the global warming. So reduce the global warming, you should have a large number of vegetarian population on the globe or on the earth. And that is one of the point which is our Jain religion, which is a scientific religion talks about everything about science. Even the Jain religion has practice in our Acharyas. Why we are talking about Acharyas because they were great scientists. They did the experimentation on their own body. They thought of it. The recent scientists, they are working in the laboratories and giving us a principles and giving a different laws and making this thing. But our all Rushi's and Muni's Acharyas were great scientists and they did the experimentation on their own. They reached a big, big level of their knowledge. And they are from Matidnian, Shrutidnian, Avadidnian, and Manupraya Gyan. And then ultimately reached the Keval Gyan. And when they reached the stage of Keval Gyan, they could appreciate and write everything. So here there is no question of creating the confusion. We have everything and at the stage of Keval Gyanna, you can understand everything. What is the laws of nature? And today the Jainism does not teach you anything but the laws of nature. And that is going to save our globe in the future. So today, I think in the discussion, I would like to invite your question because we are working for animal rights. We are making the Charter for Animal Rights for 21st century. And Darda Vaswani from Puna is one of our leader who is having a global team where we are going to make rights about animal rights. And that is, I think, all the basic foundation we are taking it from Jain region, how what laws we should have for animals because Jivadaya Ahinsa is a core of our Jainism. So I would like to invite the questions on these issues. And I would love to talk to you on this. Great. Thank you. I'm Dr Sanjeeb Sukhani, man of chemistry actually, organic chemistry. And I'm working in the industry for the last 30 years. So that's the effect of Jainism you cannot see after looking at me that I may be working for 30 years in the industry. All right. So, you know, what I wanted to give you from and I'm working as a secretary with Gonzaga Science Foundation, who is the co-sponsor of this SOS conference. And I'm very happy that this year we have chosen a topic of Jainism and Science. And, you know, basically, as I agree that there's a compatibility of Jainism and Science. And I agree with Anupamji also that it's the lacking of the knowledge, probably, or the technical terms, which has to be highlighted and then, you know, to be doing the research on their topics and then highlighted to the scientists of different categories. Because I wonder sometimes why one Acharya can have everything like, you know, one of the Acharya, Uma Swami you must have heard. And, you know, Jagjishan Vashu has given us that vegetable or the tree has a life and Jagjishan Vashu. But this, you know, Uma Swami has given 2,000 years back that Prathwikaik jiw, Vanasparikaik jiw, or Agnikaik jiw. So we have Vayuikaik jiw. And I believe that, yes, and the water is also jiw. So these five jiw's have been defined 2,000 years back, or maybe more than we know from the Uma Swami Tatvarsuth that this is defined there, but it may be beyond that also. So it's a compatibility is what I'm talking is knowledge. I just give a very small example, you know, which Acharya jiw is not very significant here, but maybe, you know, we should appreciate that. One of the two ants, you know, very small ants, were riding on the elephant. And the elephant was travelling through the bridge. So he was riding through the bridge, and the bridge was old, and it's giving some noise. The ants started saying that, you know, because of our weight, he's not able to walk through this bridge. And they also told the elephant also, and they came down. You know how the elephant has crossed over the bridge? So, you know, it's real laughing that Acharya jiw says, yes. Have you gone into airplane sometime? You are only 10,000 meter high, and you see that you look like an ant there. And you say, okay, I've done this, I've done this, I've done this. See, one yosan is 4,000 miles. And there's seven Raju which you said numerous of yosans we have heard. So, sitting at that city life, God sees you, you are like an ant. And you say, I've done this, I've done this. I've done this physics, I've done this chemistry, I've done this mathematics. It's our knowledge which we have to take out. And probably, yes, it's fascinating that what science is doing this is being told by our Acharyas, and I agree with Shamaniji also that there's some good particle which is nothing but our soul. And if you create your soul purify, it gives you infinite energy or infinite knowledge, maybe. And that is actually the laboratory, and that is actually the science. Thank you. Gentlemen, I am Dr L C Jain retired as a Professor of Physics from MP Government Engineering College. And that retirement was in 1998, 18 years have passed. And after retirement, I served as principal of some private engineering college. But after some years, I voluntarily left all those things because I was interested in our gene literature and all that. And therefore, I studied some of the literatures. And my firm belief is that even if we take many bursts, we cannot understand the entire gene scriptures. It is so voluminous, so knowledge providing. And one thing I want to tell that is about difference between knowledge and gyan. Knowledge is something different than gyan. We have in the scriptures, it is given name, matigyan, shrutgyan, awadigyan, manai paria gyan. And then ultimately, our sidd, our arhand, they get keval gyan. So after a lot of top, after a lot of religious followings and all those things I have mentioned in my book, gyan yw Darpan, the science of salvation, the gyan yw the science of salvation, I have published some papers also and I have written that book also. And it is my firm belief that if at all there is some lecuna scriptures that is not due to the wrong utterance by our Tirthankaras, but I think that after the elaps of the achar parampara, something might have been lost because it was Gautam Gardha who could receive the knowledge given by Lord Mahavir, but still it is my belief that some knowledge might have been missed somewhere and then when he passed it on to our next acharyas, some loss of knowledge might have taken place. So that way that lecuna is there, but ultimately the keval gyan y arhand has full knowledge of the entire world and it is my firm belief that gyanism has more science contained and it is not only compatible, but it is ahead of science. And lastly, as our Gangwal sahib has said, the verse of Chhaedala written by Dhonath Ram Ji says that tin mhwan me sar, vitraag vigyanta, sheo sarubh sheukar, namahut tariog samhar ki. That means in the entire universe the only substance through this science of salvation, let us go to such science with whole mind, speech and body. Thank you. I'm Johannes Bronchhorst. I'm a philologist and a cultural historian. I grew up in a Christian family. My father was a believing Christian. He was also a scientist. He was a chemist. And one of the questions that pursued him was is Christianity compatible with science? And in his particular case, the problem lay especially with the creation of the world. The Bible has a story about how God created the world in six days, but of course evolutionary theory had something different to say. And my father was much preoccupied with that difference. And what he tried to do, and he read books of people who thought like him, that they would interpret the biblical story about the creation of the world in six days as an allegorical description of six geological periods. Well, I think that no one in this whole, unless there are any fundamentalist Christians here, would be convinced by that. The point is what I invite you to think you're mostly giants. Would anyone who's not a giant be convinced by any of your arguments? And I'm afraid not. I don't think you have much chance of convincing anyone who's not a giant of your present thoughts about ginism and science. In fact, the little we know about the appearance of science, a very miraculous event in the history of mankind, is that it was always linked, not with continuing a tradition, but with breaking away from tradition, all traditions. So that people who belong to traditions then start trying to think that their tradition, after all, is scientific, is predictable, is normal, my father did it for Christianity, you do it for ginism, probably Muslims do it for Islam, everyone does it for his own tradition. But it is, I think, predictable, but it doesn't lead anywhere. You're not going to make any new scientific discovery by studying your giant texts, as my father didn't make any scientific discoveries by studying the Bible. I think that in the best of circumstances, this attempt to bring a particular tradition, ginism, Christianity, you name it, in agreement with science is innocent and make you feel good. In the worst of circumstances, it will stand in the way. If you say, our texts say this is how consciousness works, then, as you know, you probably disagree with much of that's going on in neuroscience. And if you still insist that your view has to prevail, and if you are a neuroscientist, your contribution may not be as great as it could be. So I have a lot of sympathy for ginism. That's one reason why I have studied it in some detail. But I do not think that we should fall in the trap of trying to find in this tradition or in any other tradition what came about in science, which is a movement which managed to break away from traditions. Great. Thank you for that.