The Universe can be thought of consisting of essentially two things; the subject I and the object, the world. The subject cannot become an object and vice versa. I am a conscious entity and the world is an inert entity. Infact, I am the only subject in the world, and from my reference pointeverything else becomes an object that can be known through apram ANa or means of knowledge. From your reference, you are the only subject and every thing else is an object of knowledge. We need to examine the tools available to analyse the subject, I, and the object, this, and their limitations as means of knowledge. Science, as we know, deals with the world of objects or objectifiable entities. We are in the era of science, and have been brought up with the mentality that only facts verifiable by scientific methods are valid science, while the rest are subjective and can be dismissed as beliefs or dogmas. We need to examine the validity of this statement scientifically. We will establish that Vedanta is an absolute science while all other so-called object sciences are only relatively real. The word science is derived from the root scier, meaning to know. Hence science really means knowledge which reveals a fact or truth. In Sanskrit, vid means to know, and vedameans knowledge. Combining these two statements we can say that Veda means science. Vedanta means that which reveals the ultimate knowledge or absolute truth. From this, it follows that Vedanta is the ultimate science. This is not a fanatical statement but a statement of fact, as in Light travels at 299,792,458 m / s. This is not an opinion or be life but just plain fact, whether one believes it or not. We will examine here why Vedanta is the science of absolute. Epistemologically, the word knowledge with out a qualifier, cannot be defined. The qualifier objectifies the knowledge as in knowledge of Chemistry or knowledge of Physics, etc. It is always knowledge of something. It can be knowledge of physical or phenomenal world, or knowledge of somesubtle entity such as emotions, thoughts, intellectual concepts, etc. The former can be considered as the knowledge of gross entities that can be known via sense input, while the later can be called the knowledge of subtle entities and can be known without the need of any sense input, orcan be inferred indirectly from the sense input. For example, I can haveknowledge of a force, which is subtle, when work is being done. Anyaction involves a force. We know that there is a life-force (prana-Shakti) by the expression of life activities. What exactly is life, even doctors cannot define it as it is imperceptible; but yet they can certify whether one is alive or not by examining life's grosser expressions. In essence, from action we can deduce the driving force for that action. A change ofstate, for example, involves a driving force, even though the force itself is imperceptible.