"The Science of Krishna"

A reader writes in relation to Krishna Consciousness is not Scientific":

I was somewhat confused on this point that it can be perceived via direct perception.

Even though it can be directly percieved, isn't true that we need to right set of eyes, or perceptive tools and for that to happen, we do need to embrace KC via its process, doesn't these means hypthosis -seeing Krsna, apparatus - Japa beads, books etc , method - Chanting, reading, listening, serving, introspection etc, then results - Krsna bhakti?

Also we hear that anyone that knows the science of Krsna Consciousness is a spiritual master. Having said all this, can we still say KC is scientific and therefore is a science?

My reponse:

What pratyakasvagamam means is that, as you say, by following the process of Krishna Consciousness you will directly, personally experience Krishna Consciousness.

An analogy that we use to illustrate this is to say: "How do you know when you are full? You feel it. You know."

That's more or less the idea of "direct perception". The reason this is not scientific is that while you may say: "Yes, I directly perceive it, I am experiencing Krishna consciousness", there is no way for an outside observer to test whether or not you really do perceive it. So no experiment can be made to confirm it scientifically.

As you point out, with Krishna Consciousness you follow a process and then you get a result, however my scientific colleagues would respond that it still fails the criteria for modern science because there is no falsifiability.

While I can say: "You do the experiment and see", if they do the experiment and do not experience Krishna Consciousness I can simply say: "Well, obviously you didn't do it right."

Since you cannot construct an objective experiment to prove the presence of Krishna Consciousness, and neither can you conclusively disprove the process of Krishna Consciousness, it cannot be scientific, in the most common modern sense of the word.

Now as to describing Krishna Consciousness as "a science" (as in "anyone who knows the science of Krishna"), what is meant by this is that it is "comprehensive, consistent, systematic, and fully documented". In this context the word science is used in its sense of "knowledge", rather than referring to the formal paradigm of deterministic empiricism that prevails in modern society.

I've found that people who actually grok modern science (rather the pop version that most people understand) are sometimes open to accepting it, or at least considering it, if you explain it as a "comprehensive, consistent, systematic, and fully documented metaphysical system".

However, if you try to present or defend it as "scientific", you will lose, and it's not even the point you are trying to make.

So, Krishna Consciousness may be described as "a science" (although I feel it better to spell it out: it's comprehensive, consistent, systematic, and fully documented), but it's not "scientific" in the contemporary Western sense.