 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
On A Former Ramakrishna Disciple's Transformation into "Scientific Spirituality"
"Spirituality" is one of the most vague and unexplicitly defined nouns in English language. (I find it unnecessary to quote the definitions from the English dictionaries since most readers, I guess, are already familiar with it). To the contrary, science deals with facts and concrete facts only. Anything ambiguous and undefined is not science, be it how much ever useful. Yet Biplab Pal has made attempts to rationalize the term "spirituality" by adding the flavor of science. This kind of effort is not new. Like Biplab picking just only one component of Buddhism, dumping the rest, and calling it "scientific spirituality; we know there exist ardent Christians/Muslims/Hindus claiming -they have found some components of Science in Bible/Quran/Geeta. By doing so, Pal has set just one more example to the hundreds already in existence toward being "a promoter of science and spirituality at the same time." Even falsification, which Pal is so fond of, cannot always help us in distinguishing between science and a pseudoscience. For instance, falsification alone doesn't make the pseudo claim "astrology is a science" a complete lie.
At times, it's not difficult to see Biplab's gross confusions and lack of understanding in distinguishing between the terms such as "spirituality," "science" and "truth." If we take the subject matter of truth, then we see, some people always existed in the history to seek and live for it. Even long before we knew any such thing as "science", Socrates declared: "if you take my advice, then think little about Socrates and a great deal more about the truth." Does what Socrates said then become a "scientific spirituality"? If he were to be alive today, probably, Socrates would have been the first person to have opposed such nonsense. The core constituent of Biplab Pal's "scientific spirituality" lies in seeking knowledge about self and finding the meaning of life. Well, quest for the meaning of life and a true understanding about self had always been the central topic in philosophy. Yet we don't call it science because of what I said earlier: science deals with facts and doesn't have any direct answers to questions such as "what's the purpose of life?"
Therefore, what Biplab
mistakenly is trying to call "scientific spirituality," has always occupied
the minds of thinkers in all ages even long before we knew anything about
modern science and its methodology. Calling them "scientific spirituality,"
in my opinion, would be also a gross level underestimation of those great
thinkers who dared to think beyond the borders without any acquaintance with
science. Let me illustrate. Socrates' famous dictum "Know Thyself" is known
to every one. Although it's unlikely that he heard, or read about Socrates,
Bangalee Mystic Lalon (born about two thousands years after Secretes) also
said the same in his song:
Or, let's consider Spinoza's pantheism. Pantheism (not polytheism) finds God in every thing present in nature. God, therefore, is multifaceted, as a pantheist believes. Each of the above example could be related to "spirituality" but terming them "scientific" would be nonsense. None among Socrates, Lalon, or Spinoza was atheist. They were believers (yet great thinkers). And belief is not a realm of science. Biplab also says it wrong when he says "Einstein considered Buddhism as the only religion close to method of science-he didn't differ from what I said." ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/28612) Indeed, what Einstein said is- if he were asked to chose a religion, the one he'd pick is Buddhism. To the best of my knowledge, he never said, Buddhism is close to science. The philosophy which he espoused is "cosmic religion." Even there, he didn't try to defend it in the name of science. Einstein never thought Science alone could be our guide.
Knowledge about his own self and others made Socrates a humble man who didn't hesitate to announce: "The only thing I'm sure of about myself is- I know nothing." And our friend Biplab Pal? Whoever disagrees with him, he thinks, is either an "ignorant," or "a bad reader." Interestingly, since the beginning of the debate, I didn't see any one agreeing with his parochial and limited views except for his erudite editor friend who wrote a lengthy article in his defense even though the gentle man doesn't know, himself, what falsification is, nor can he even spell Karl Popper�s name [Carl Paiper!] correctly (readers may read his Bangla article defending Pal). I wouldn't judge Biplab Pal by his editor friend. But I must point out, If Biplab Pal's purpose was to impress us, he's already succeeded. If it was, rather, to explain a topic explicitly and logically, then he's not. The reason could be : may be, we don't read as much as Biplab does, or Biplab doesn't understand as much as he reads. Or may be, he understands what he reads but cannot explain in a sensible way. Another possibility which I cannot rule out is- from one of his posts I know, as a youth, Biplab Pal spent considerable time as a Ramakrishna disciple. He, however, now is a man of science. Yet it is not unlikely that his childhood mesmerization about Ramakrishna's philosophy sometimes tries to find some scientific basis deep down his subconscious mind. Therefore, he comes up with topics such as "scientific spirituality".
Diverse reading doesn't always lead to a diverse view. The view that Dr. Ali espouses is not as diverse as the kind of books he reads. He's, rather, focused. His topic is - "Quranic Science." And here we have Biplab Pal with "scientific spirituality."
New York
Jahed Ahmed is a co-moderator at www.mukto-mona.com and writes from USA. He can be communicated thru : [email protected]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |