Saturday, August 27, 2005
no name
From: "tilak ghosh" <tilakghosh@yahoo.com>
To: <anushypiupom@sify.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:55 AM
Subject: ticket
please visit http://tilakghosh.blogspot.com/ ---- ignoramus
Dear Tilak,
I visited http://tilakghosh.blogspot.com/.
In future I would address big emails to tilakghosh@yahoo.com. But this one is not big (only 14+8 = 22 KB) and I am taking the liberty to send it to your Outlook Express, because of background music.
You think a great deal and seem to attach importance to qualifications considered important by statistically normal individuals. But statistical normalcy has nothing to do with true sensitivity, which you have in plenty and that makes you a coveted and pleasant company to me. By the way, you also belong to another "minority group", i.e. of "LISTENERS". We all want to talk, but there are hardly any listeners!
There is an item in today's “Times of India”. It's reported that recently a student asked a panel of Nobel laureate scientists in New York, if a good scientist can simultaneously believe in “God” and science. The emphatic answer from one Nobel laureate scientist was “No”.
I never desired nor dreamt of winning a Nobel (or any other) Prize, nor do I have claims to be a dramatic genius. But I am surprised that a responsible Nobel laureate scientists did not bother to check what the student meant by "God" or how the scientists themselves define "God" before they can intelligently answer to the question in the positive or in the negative. One has to have a clear perception of what one is debating about. Concept of "God" varies from person to person. Most of the time persons argue and fight in the darkness without checking what they are fighting about. Generally people suppose "God" is a supernatural entity and akin to an imaginary ghost.
Whenever someone asks me if I believe in "God", I counter him/her by asking what he/she means by the term "God" and the person usually fumbles and beats a hasty retreat.
I enjoy asking scientists and pompous intellectuals if they believe in science. If they say "yes", I ask them if they believe that there are scientific reasons behind each individual's fate, fortune, joy, misery and suffering. Despite their stated claim to have belief in infallibility of science, the scientists and intellectuals find it difficult to affirm that the universe or nature is scientific, and individual's fate is dictated by his/her own deeds. I am wonderstruck that people who say that they believe in science, don't believe that there are scientific reasons behind actual happenings. To me such people are immature, superficial and shallow. Their levels of maturity are hardly different from superstitious people who indulge in infantile hocus pocus and have faith in chimerical gods.
Swami Vivekanand, who according to some wise guys is no better than a felon, said that "God" (or an individual's perception of “God”) improves with the individual's own maturity.
I wish you hosted this question in your blog?
"Do people believe in science? Do they believe that there are scientific reasons behind happenings in nature (including calamities like tsunami)? Do they believe individuals are parts of nature and that there are scientific reasons behind their good or bad fortunes? Do the wise guys hold that the fates of individuals and groups (i.e. "groups where birds of the same feather flock together") have no scientific basis? Why then the same set of wise guys claims that they believe in science?
Won't it be honest for such wise guys to admit that they don't believe in supremacy of science, but partly believe in fuzzy logic and superstitions too?"
According to Indian (Hindu) observation (i.e. "darshan"), the "prakrity" or "world of illusion" is absolutely and utterly scientific. It says, "As you sow, so you reap". But one's "will" is not a part of nature, and this "will" or "consciousness (even partial consciousness)" is forever free to decide how one wants to respond to a given situation, or context - which is again a consequence of one's own past deeds.
Based on my exposure to some capsule courses in Defence Management - I understand that to a limited extent modern management theories support this view. But Indian "darshan" goes steps ahead and says that depending upon past deeds and resultant maturity of an individual or a mob, he/she or the mob is presented with successive stages of tougher tests, through threats and temptations, to determine his/her or mob's level of maturity and integrity - for further enlightenment, confusion or destruction. Total enlightenment or “vision of full truth”, “mature love” and “absolute power” mean one and the same thing and is reserved for the bravest child. At the end of post-natal life, a fully mature and bold child is delivered from the womb of Mother Nature to blissfully ascend to the body-less luminosity of cosmic consciousness, ultimate soul (param_atma), or absolute datum - from where this scintillating creation originates and ramifies.
You must be happy with your life if this is the life that you wanted. Command over language, university degrees, statistical normalcy (i.e. conformity), political-prowess or material wealth doesn't affect essential success and peace in life.
Jamai 'babu.
N.B. One is free to add music in blog. Please go to Jhal Muri in the link for a sample. --- ignoramus
