Children pester parents with questions. The parents go on giving answers to the questions of their children. The children are satisfied only if their parents give the answers. In their view, the parents are all-knowing.

As they grow up, they see and hear many things in their surroundings. They start asking more questions. Sometimes the answer that the parents give do not seem satisfactory. The children's mind tend to become agitated at such times.

When they reach adulthood, each one pursues different paths. One studies mathematics, while the other studies chemistry. Let us assume that their father is a professor of chemistry. He may not be able to correctly answer the questions which the student of mathematics asks. This does not mean that the father is incapable in his bank dealings and investments in share market. He has the mathematical knowledge required for such general transactions.

The father has the practice of performing Pooja everyday. He chants certain hymns during the Pooja. He insists that the children also perform Pooja. The children then ask the father to explain the meaning of the Mantras that he chants during Pooja.

The father tries to explain but the answers do not satisfy the children. After all, he is not a Vedic scholar.

"You do not know the meaning of what you chant. Still, you are performing these rituals with blind faith. What is worse, you want us to practise blind faith! Why?" is the objection from the children.

This is a common scene in the so called educated families of the day.

True, this question is indeed logically valid. But such logical question did not arise with respect to their father's banking transactions and share market transactions. Why? Do the children think that their father is a genius in banking and share market dealings? Even though they know that their father is not a financial pundit, they still emulate his banking and other transactions.

If it is true that one should not do what one does not know completely, it would be wrong to indulge in banking and other similar transactions without knowing completely all the intricate details. But no one thinks in these lines. No one considers it blind faith in a system.

All parents can not be scholars in everything.

Just because we are not totally proficient does it mean that we should reject time-tested practises which have been formulated by pundits of that field? Would it be civilised to do so?

Let us consider an example. A person who has studied chemistry becomes suspicious about his toilet soap. What should he do then? He should get additional information from persons who are well-versed in that particular branch. It would be foolish to throw away the soap without consulting a person who has more knowledge about it.

It would be equally foolish to insist that his father should provide the answer because he is also using the same soap.

Similarly, even with respect to spiritual and religious practises, the children should first try to follow the tradition which has been handed down through generations. While doing so, they should also learn the basic tenets of such practises from their parents. Later, if they develop more interest or doubt in it, they should approach someone who has mastery in that field. Just because they encounter a doubt in the beginning, they should not totally give up the traditional practises. If one does so, what does it mean? It is an indication that the egoistic thought - "if such a doubt can arise in my intelligent mind, then there can be no answer to this question" has crept in to the mind.

If any one has such an attitude, it can be said with absolute certainty that his intellectual development has not reached a mature state.

What is meant by intellectual development?

A particular person is well-versed in chemistry. Another person is a scholar in mathematics. One is a great artist. Thus, everyone will have studied in depth some subject. As the level of learning increases, the person will be able to analyse various aspects of life on his own. Just because a person is a scholar in chemistry, it does not mean that he is totally ignorant about everything else. Irrespective of their area of proficiency, every scholar will be capable of responding and will respond similarly to social injustice and irregularities. A social scientist will also respond similarly. But in addition to that, he will be able to systematically analyse the causes and consequences of such social injustice and irregularities. A scientist of chemistry or a scholar of mathematics may not be able to analyse in this level. Still, their response will be equally strong.

The mental maturity of responding similarly to a given social irregularity was obtained by the three persons in three different paths. One got it while he was pursuing his aim in chemistry while the other got it even as he was on his way to becoming a mathematician. The other person got it while he was turning out to become a social scientist. This shows that although the social problems and such other topics are not found in the text books of chemistry and mathematics, the person will still become capable of understanding and responding to such situations, when they come. Acquiring such ability itself is intellectual development.

Even in this ability, there may be different levels and different opinions. Apart from this, there may be difference in ability caused by the view point of different individuals.

What is meant by difference caused by change in view point?

It means, to view the same situation in different ways depending on who is involved.
Let us assume that some mistake has taken place. If the cause for that mistake is ourselves, we tend to take a lenient view. In such situations, we tend to explain as to how difficult it was not to have caused it to happen.

On the other hand, if the same mistake is committed by others, we immediately start analysing as to where that person erred and immediately dump the blame on him.

The intellect is considered to be mature when it is above such double standards and when it is able to analyse the situations objectively.

Only when Vijnana (science) becomes capable of bringing about such maturity, its real purpose becomes fulfilled. See what this Sookti has to say in this regard.

Vijnaane saarthake syaataam laukikaalaukike kramaat
Kriyaasheelam svaanubhooti sheelam paakam yadaashnutah

"Only when physical sciences attain dynamic maturity their purpose is truly fulfilled. Similarly, when the metaphysical sciences attain maturity through self-experience, their purpose is truly fulfilled".

This Sookti classifies science in to two kinds. One is Laukika (physical) and the other is Alaukika (metaphysical, spiritual). The purpose of such classification is to describe the ultimate state they have to reach if they are to be useful to mankind.

This Sookti seems to prescribe one yardstick for Laukika Vijnaana and a different yardstick for Alaukika Vijnaana. Is it appropriate? Let us see.

There are hundreds of branches in Laukika Vijnaana. Each branch seeks to explore and unfold the scientific background of an object or a phenomena based on its own scientific fundamentals. Chemistry tries to explain an object with a chemical perspective, while Physics explains the same object based on its physical properties. Thus, each branch develops in its own path. While doing so, it should be serving its fundamental purpose - that of being helpful for development of man and making life more comfortable. Such usefulness is termed as 'Kriyaa sheela'(dynamism) in the above Sookti.

Here, the term 'sheela' refers to the nature of continuity. Every branch of science should be continuously useful to man in every level of its progress. The Kriyasheelata of a scientist lies in ensuring that his scientific knowledge is made usefully available to his fellow beings. When a particular branch of science ceases to be of help to mankind, it becomes a useless science. Also, if the efforts of the scientist are not in the right direction, it becomes useless and even harmful to the society. Needless to say that such a person is of no use for the society.

Let us come to Alaukika Vijnana. They are nothing but spiritual sciences. Those who set out to learn them should first try to experience the Truth which those sciences seek to establish. To be able to do this, mere reading of scriptures is not enough. Sadhana is necessary too. Only when the Sadhana culminates in personal experience, he can successfully and authoritatively preach the tenets of that Shastra. Only then the torch of spiritual knowledge can light another torch. This is the test of maturity as far as spiritual sciences are concerned.

If one sets out to preach the message of the scriptures without first obtaining personal experience, he will be able to achieve fulfilment only at the intellectual level. He will not be able to kindle any experience in the heart of the other person. Such spiritual knowledge will not be of much use to the fellow beings. It can not be called as the fulfilment of spiritual learning. Only when it is capable of providing continuous experience of Truth in the heart, it will be considered as having achieved fulfilment or maturity. Ordinary scholars will, at best, be able to achieve fulfilment at the intellectual level. On the other hand, those who have experienced the Truth and have thereby achieved the pinnacle of spiritual progress will be able to kindle and satisfy spiritual inquiry.

Thus, whether it is Laukika Vijnana or Alaukika Vijnana (physical or spiritual science), only when it becomes useful to the society, it is considered to be truly mature. Therefore, the above Sookti uses one yardstick (namely social utility) for both. Yes. It uses the same yardstick to measure the two seemingly different types of Vijnana. Social utility is the yardstick.

Is it proper to use the same yardstick to these two sciences when they are different in character and nature?

True, the above Sookti has classified Vijnana as Laukika and Alaukika. But this classification is only for the sake of convenience. Let us see as to how these two sciences are similar.

The physical sciences set out to analyse physical objects, and their molecular and elemental constitution. They go further and analyse the energy hidden in them and the fundamental principle behind that energy. Thus, in other words, they are trying to explain what is called as 'Para Tattva'.

Spiritual sciences examine the human body, its Indriyas, the mind, the consciousness and the omnipresence of the Chaitanya. They show how the Chaitanya itself manifests as creation.

Thus, in effect, both these sciences tend to explain the same fundamental principle. The direction in which they do so is different. One follows the ascending route while the other takes the descending route. Therefore, the yardsticks which are used seem to be different till the end. Eventually, it will be realised that the same yardstick can be used in both cases.

This yardstick (social utility) has one very important use. It shows that irrespective of the branch of science, the ultimate aim is nothing but the 'Para Tattva' and that the real purpose of having a yardstick is to measure for ourselves as to how far we are from reaching that ultimate state.