(QnA-07)- What could be the clinching evidence to ascertain spirituality?

[Quick links]

 

We often use the word spirituality to mean some uncommon or mystic set of notions or practices. Even people who do not believe in the concept of spirit or soul use the term to mean such things. Many people talk about ‘spiritual experiences’. Most modern Gurus take subjective experience as the proof of existence of spirituality that is beyond science.

Faith and Science can coexist!

There are these so called ‘rationalists’ who say that science is the only way and faith should always be rejected. And there are those majority who thrive on faith alone with utter disregard to scientific approach. 

Do we need to redefine science? (continued 5)

Every person who knowingly or unknowingly propagates a mysterious theory or practice as valid may not have arrived at those theories by being at “super-conscious states” or acquired it by scientific means or from a reliable source. That being the case, it is in our interest that we ask  the following questions.

• What is the basis of their theory?                                  
• Can they explain it logically?
• Even if they cannot explain how it works, can they at least show that it works in a sufficiently large scale, without being a chance happening? Mere anecdotal evidence – “you try it out and see it for yourself” - is not sufficient.

If answers to these questions are in the negative, then it is most likely that the theory/practice propounded is not worth considering. For all you know, they can be harmful as well. Not just because of the theory, but because of the malintentions of the propagator of such a theory/practice.

Continued
Previous   Next   First

Do we need to redefine science? (continued 3)

One of my readers suggested to me that I should write something on as that can be very useful in many ways. There are several authors who have done it before. I myself have written one book ("A mantra to enhance your mental capabilities"). But my effort has been to rationalize the practice and explain it in scientific terms.

 

But what I see now-a-days is that people seem to be least bothered about scientific basis or otherwise of several mysterious practices – be it mantra chanting or some weird hand gestures (called mudras) – that are supposed to be a cure-all for all our problems. Going by their popularity, I wonder whether science has become obsolete!

Mantra (mono syllabic) and mudra are remnants of age old tantric practices – the other three that are left out being liquor, meat and ritual sex (mantra, mudra, madira, maamsa, maithuna – the five ‘M’s of tantric practice). If one looks at the tantric books, the first principles of tantra are completely anti scientific – secrecy, subjectivity, total surrender to the teacher, acceptance without questioning, total rejection of reasoning, and so on.

 

If tantra can really achieve things as claimed, in spite of its being anti-science, it is high time that we redefine science.

                                                                                                                        Continued