AOAin



S^S gTH@ASf "TA@ػS TU@ Tɮ@@"

^ UZ | ~S@AS c @d ɩ @ j@T mha^ wF UT | ~AT ASBR vRF r, q TA@ػSr S-wUR jq OAnAU @TcAr ~T OS |

dH AUZaS |

~eTS ɮ
(great_angshuman@yahoo.com)


ceUq AUT !! jq T ~AT j@v ceU Rcqv j@v UZ ަUT, A@ا AF cUAa dH gU UwU | jq@T TBɰ UZ
without unnecessary jargon is very refreshing | ~T j@v ~So ~a, ~AT jq Rcqv Tc Oq |

ɰf S
(pragnya1@indiatimes.com)


Excellent humour and very well written. Keep it up!

~dAH
(arunitadatta@yahoo.co.uk)


^ ̮co R AATAco - ~AgS^S UZ@@ ~ q ɰ@@R jTAS j@v UZ TSSf @ BSF |

Sc^
(nchaki@hotmail.com)


FANTASTIC ! FANTASTIC!

c @ (d_sircar@yahoo.com)


Smooth and realistic.

cf (subirsah@hotmail.com)


Very nice !!!

@UFH gMAT@ (parent@agniva.com)


My hearty congratulations to Mr. Nandan Datta. His wonderful writing gives us some kind of unexpressable pleasure which can be well cherished by a person who has experienced flights. This kind of writing standard is seldom found in our PARABAAS.

I am eagerly waiting for his next instalment.

AO TZBf (babiline@hotmail.com)


I really enjoyed Nandan Dutta's style of writing. Is he himself a software professional working in the US?

Thanks for publishing his work,

Anindita Roy (anindita4u@hotmail.com )


Great description. I have visited US couple of times. I was remembering my 1st trip to US via London while reading this story. Way of writing and some comparison of the facts is really nice. I am keen to read the next part of this story.

Santanu (santanumits@yahoo.com)


How come no new installments are coming out. The same stuff remains there for ever! ... Please do not say "to be continued", when in reality you seem to be procrastinating in finishing the story.

Debu Sen (debusen@mit.edu)

ɰ@ : UZ@ @S K Sq AXf A@Am @r A BSF | cɮ O @a ~ ASAT @r BSF |


gK WKU avw\ "q cS w\"

cr UZ -- f, AUA@FU | ~ UZ ~Q qUT |

ScfS RA
(nabin@miel.mot.com)


I am very happy to note that the story of two sisters is very interesting. I would be grateful if you publish more of such stories.

Sanjoy Bhowal (sanjay@fsm.ac.in)



~Ue@A@ gK ~mgAc@ cAr cFc UZ wA@ cc Zc @a | UZ@ w\ cU OR jq cISq O cAr O, s AAS OUA^@ c ceU rN@K @ ZJB ZJB rN c @ AUZaS | UZ wgf̩ cr ~gc Z q |

Al gOs
(t.b.bhattacharya@ponl.com)


UZ mvqU SSL ~a, gU-R UwU, A@ا q cS "scf" @ "Sf" c TI T-cc TpF jTS AcrKgc @v U S s-@H R ~oH BfcS OU wU |

T^ SH
(rde@wmata.com)


gU Uwa | @Ac T mha^ gK jce @Ac Tq j@ rN ~ɦU ~ ~S@ rN | UZ@ conversationalist approach -v ^, ~S@v ASB q ASB @ cU TS, ~c i@ | j@T @ av av aAcq OZ B, jce av ZJO g c^ AZ ZR Iv, A@ا rK s^ T s | qha @Uq ~S@ A@a @ A S |

US Bc drf
(lrushdi@hotmail.com)


~dHe Ae wFUf "ceU بU (1)"

Wonderful! Almost made me homesick. Some suggestions--add more eg, shiuli, bel etc., and also add a little description for each. Thanx!

a^ (bewtra@creighton.edu)


I had a very nostalgic time to see your topic on Banglar phool. There are still many beautiful flowers in bengal and next time I would like to see more. Thank you.

c@بU (chumki_here@hotmail.com)


Thanks Arunangshu for the article. Really nice pics! Loved to see the familiar flowers framed so nicely. Would be even better if some text was provided on: flowering season, description of the plant, and the mention of these flowers in our mythology / literature. Akanda, for example is so popular among the Shiva- worshipers, or Jarul being WB's national flower, or the mention of Ashok in Ramayana. Also, a comparison between the Champaks mentioned here with Magnolia Grandiflora and few other Champaks would be nice to read. Kunda is given as the common name for Jasmium pubescens and Jasmium multiflorum-- thought that was called 'Jui'. A discussion on these and many other related issues would make the flower- lovers happier.

BAK cS (rajarshidebnath@yahoo.com)

~@^ T @@Av بU R waU ~eAr@ AccH R sc JOUf wawaAU | ɽ mc T FTpXo UZ ~S BSS qU cq@ -- ɰ@ |


Visited the site per chance but am charmed by Flowers of Bengal, which incidentally was just a random choice. I sure will visit again.

SfUToc (nmguha@vsnl.com)


I am very thankful to the Parabaas authority and the composer of this piece. To see those "fire flowers" -- Palash, Ashoka, Shimul ... simply lovely. But I missed Kochuripana -- aren't they lovely too?!!

wA gMAT@ (tutunb@hotmail.com)


~SĨ ri-j @Ac "بS W"

It is really nice to to have such a good poem, "Phurono Ghar" by A. Sheth in your web-magazine. I am really overwhelmed. I hope one day this magazine will really excel.

A Ac c@ (chandu_met@sify.com)


It is a nice poem. I liked the theme. I am specially happy to find a "chhandabaddho" poem -- please stick to it and keep writing.

gm (tobhaskar_g@yahoo.com)


j@ Sc cmv ~ ~U | Pithy and perfect! a ca = gS q qO | s s O @ s Rq gU ~SĨ -- a j@BSq s |

cpA
(briti_nandy@hotmail.com)


c -- cr !

˻ ɮ
(partha_das2000@yahoo.com)


USOJ Oncf "F AAv ~ B, ..."

It's a very appropriate writing. Many Bengali people have seen the films made by late Satayjit Ray, which were quite alike. I have seen this film twice and I liked it very much. This is the reality of Calcutta. Thakns for publishing the article.

˻ WK (partha.ghosh@t-online.de)


it's a good one. Corruption seems to be the one major disease in our society. It touched me for, I was also very poor, but could see the same light from my hard working parents. ( I am a professor at AIIMS, India; I am an MD and a PhD, trained in Stanford medical School, and am now in Stanford again as Visiting Prof. for few years.) I also come from Kharagpur town ( wonderful place to me ), and those who come from such hostile environment and get little bit light like me, to me they appear " Real Hero ". I wish to know many of them-- as many as possible. By the way, can you get me the address of the child, who wrote about his or her country? I want to help that child.

: A @ ATn (AUU) (salilmitra@hotmail.com)


My hat's off to the writer of this article. I really feel the same way as the writer as I a'm from Calcutta & I love Calcutta. I remember a famous quotation that I used to hear as a kid...'What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow'. I also remember an article of Khushwant Singh where he wondered why Calcutta being so rich in art/culture/intelligence was not the capital of India. Well, the same person went to visit the same city after ten years, he wanted to make a point not to come back there again!!! Regarding our dear Bengali language, it's almost the same story atleast to the younger generation. There are so many talented poets & writers in Bengal and we really enjoy them. But do they make the same impression to the latter generation? When there was a fight on which language was going to be the national language, Hindi won over Bengali by only one vote. So...I guess, it's time to get up & try to recapture our own glory & stop doing fruitless gossip. Thanks.

KT O^ (schunder@intervac.com)


You get charged when you read a writing like this. Thanks to Dolanchnapa for this excellent article with clear thoughts and crisp criticism.

Every time a foreigner wrote some thing about Calcutta, the intelligentsia of Bengal came out hoarse criticizing it. I'm not trying to say that the intentions and contents of all such publications were clean, and that no one ever tried to malign Calcutta; but the fact is that we didn't care to see what people could see from outside. The philosophy of 'plain living and high thinking' which was a matter of pride of our Benbali 'Bhadralok' culture that Dolanchnapa has touched upon, does not exist any more. It's a sad situation, very sad. I've no pleasure in saying that the so called intellectuals of Kolkata seem to me to be the real problem, because they're bent upon denying the reality. Dolanchnapa is right to say that they're happly dwelling on the podium of their pseudo-world by covering its rotten supports. It's real pain to accept this sad episode of our intelligence.

T^ SH (rde@wmata.com)


I agree and disagree with the author about this City of joy movie. I agree in every way that we should change our style of being a nosy, inactive society. We can do so much better job than that and we should do it as soon as possible. We are great in many ways, and still we do nothing for our brothers, neighbors, and our country...

I disagree about making movies only about the darkest part of our social life for showing in the West. I would not mind if only we had a single great movie that talks about India with pride. Can you give me one example of one country that does not have any kind of big social/economic problems? How come we do not come across those in other languages? Because people select those, they like to have selective heritage/culture. In every country there are some, but if we are making 2-3 movies in English about India to show to our next genereation, why do we have to show only the darkest, the heart-breaking stories? How come they do not make a great story about Sivaji? I am not saying that they have no values, nor am I looking down upon poor people in any way, but if we ought to make English movies it should be something we all should be proud to show. I'd rather not have any movie if that's not something I'd be proud to show others.

I have seen enough (in USA) -- how in so many ways people put down Indian culture, Bengali culture, and I am very frustrated about the whole matter. I hope that the author knows that when people publish international books for children then only the Indian child, no one else, is found wearing a torn dress. When they describe the Hindu religion, most of its practitioners are depicted as crooked and that certainly makes you feel bad. Even when "Mississippi Masala" shows some such moments, I get upset. Do not even talk about internet, most of the time they write trash about India. I know about a whole lot of teachers who have no knowledge other than of a poor, ugly, cow-infested India.

I love my India, I want to see something, that I will be proud of. I want our next generation to be proud of their roots too. There are thousands of books, stories, TV series (e.g. The Simpsons), and people I have known who are doing a great job by trashing India's image everyday, in every possible way. If anyone of them could come out and help India I would be very happy. They just get joy out of this. Why do we have to join in that fun!

I'd liketo see us start doing something positive. By telling, and doing nothing is not going to help anyone, but we all can do if we all try to do it together.

So far, I have not seen any material/art/science other than Tajmahal, that the Western people give us any credit for. Can you tell me any English movie that has ever portrayed any great image of India? Atleast I do not know if there is any. Please let me know if you have any list of these. This is time to rise and shine, so why do not we write/make movies about India that gives everyone some hope. I would like to write about our India, if you want to please join me. You can always contact me in my e-mail. Thank you for your "City of joy, city of pain."

ArZ @T@ (skarmakar@msn.com)

UZ@ :

Thanks for your feedback. But I have to say that you misunderstood the perspective of my article.

I was not trying to say that we should keep on making films on the darker sides of our society, and culture. You are absolutely right that every country of this world has darker sides which they might not like to be exposed. But, it is not true that we are not aware of those sides. In today's life, a news program, a travel program etc. bring out these unpleasant facts of different countries. Now, whether a film or a news capsule can be more effective is a totally different question, and personally I think that a film can be more effective in expressing a feeling to the mass. Therefore, it is our duty to make good films.

But, I think your suggestion that fims be made on Shivaji etc. will be totally meaningless in today's restless and peaceless time. Moreover 90% of our fellow countrymen are struggling against starvation to survive, a mother sells her child for Rs.20/= to get a handful of rice for that day only (an incident in Kashipur, Orissa)! A film is supposed to bear the reality of the contemporary society.

Our present society is losing everything.. decency, sobriety, culture, and all that we inherited from our ancestors. What I tried to say is that, it is of no use if we keep on supporting regionalism. What we need now is a strong sense of nationalism. (Not the nationalism that pits one country against another, but the sort that obliterates the parochial boundaries that separate one region within a country from the others.) The film City of Joy is an example only. Directors cannot be blamed for making films. Since films, dramas etc. are meant to expose the loop-holes of the system, making of such films cannot be stopped until and unless the society changes, or at least an honest effort through out the country takes place. If we are ashamed of something, let us give a joint effort to remove it, let us think together and work together, without bringing the partition of regionalism in.


Bɩ TZoF "ST "

w\Av Zc gU UwU | sAR Z i@ @ TS @ UZ, ~T T c@R TS ~S^ Aa | c Bɩ@ cAU, ST sq cFAnTf @-S @S, STAo@f/STAo@ASf AS @ZSq S S | jq ~T@q ZS S | ASB ST AS ~T :ZR ~S @ A@a @T S !

fTA^Sf
(seemantini@rediffmail.com)


This to me is an excellent story for kids. It exemplifies many virtues f life.

AT (priyamelsa@yahoo.com)


~S-j avw\ ""

@f cUc cUS ! j ^ j@v avw\ ަ ަ c c TS AhaU s Ai@ jq@Tq j@v BfcS@ A UAa ilq | TS ~a ToFAT@ fQ j@ Tɮ ~wR sZS c c^Ψ cq @ OZ U a S ZS mU@ AAmvv-OFAS @ m ZAa | 51 S @AaUT, jZS TS ~a 6-v O R 2-v a TAaUT | ɩ WT AAS | mU OFAS AaU jce AS mvvTFS-j ZU ɩ UqS Zcv cAAaU | M j T@ AZAaUT | Zc oHgc ToFAT@ ɮ @AaUT vR cr TS ~a ! j@vR ~S Sq BSF ~B |

MTFf
(soumya@ozemail.com.au)


~S@AS j@v avw\ ަ ަ j@ذT P@r w\ ަ ~TB A UT | A@ak ަ TS UwU, w\v SFɮ U gU թ, U j BUA rK թ S | j@T ASAEO^ TS o w\ AAr»@ ~ w\ TSK ~S@AS gUcɮ AS | UZ@@ ~eZF oSFcɰ |

US Bc drf
(lrushdi@hotmail.com)


UZ@@ ~T ~^A@ ~AgS^S j-@T j@Av Sc^ w\ c BSF | ~T ASB O@A c ~w@ eAQ c@ BfcS ASU TS wU |

rTf@ TZBf
(samik_mukherjee@infosys.com)


It is a wonderful story. Somewhere it touches the heart. I think most of the people passes through this kind of situation where everything seems meaningless.

Thanks Ayan!

cFSBf (sbanerjee@almullagroup.co.ae)


SA BTU ASS-j avw\ "~ca g"

w\ dv gU | AcKcm swswf | A@ا @@v cF AS j@v cU Oq | j@BS i@ Ac cU A, w\v ~T@ vSAS | TI ~ɮ cr ZAS@v B @q w\v ަ a | ~O w\ ccF A@ا ^, jce ~crFq ~^:rkSF S @Sgcq |

j@BS cɮf cCAU Ac ~AT cI A w\ OAn ~cmS R AAr»@ | cɮv s-rq @-S @S, cCAUTB TvTAv j@q | A@ا s@S A@a UZ T j@v cF UZ@ ~crFq TS Z AO - U j@v j@W AAmA ~c T cI Aw ި UZv@q S j@W @ U |

sTS j-w\v ~ ~S@ ^gc mAީ թ, sA i@ w\ OAn Z ީ | sTS d TAU cHS AaS UZ@, @Tgc A@ا ~ɮT, @BU, A@c ~c ~SF @ aAc ~T qAS | jZS UZ@ s cHS @ AwaS q Acrɮ @ AS ~T OU a | ce jqc cHS cU sA av av prF ~c "fS" ~ɮ w\ ToF@ cSS, U w\v ~@KH @ j@BS i@@ |

sTS ~ɮT PSA^S BfcS A@c-j @@v @q cIS s | ~c q@j-j j@v fS ~S s | @B sc ~w ɦ cHS @ s | @BU j@AS ~ɮT cɮ c ~ɮ | ZS @BU@ Z @TS UwAaU cHS @ s | R @U o AAS@ cHS S-, lQAH@ j@v @@S Arc ZU gU թ | s@T S-j @ cU T A@av @ a |

~ @@v Bw j@v @v-@v Uwa, TS w\ prF, rN, mS JOv Za | sTS ~ɮT c ~a A@c-j c^Ψ cA, ToFq il @ @BU PSA^S BfcS b@ wa | j @ @ gca ? ~ɮT SA@ @BU ? i@ @a Ay S | jZS ~ɮT sZS A@c c^Ψ cA wU, ZS T TU j@v aAc ~S ~S s | @ش ~ɮT rA AS T^cF @ , @ BwB ~ɮT @a pA@v Uw , ~c ~SF @S ~SAmϩ Ac AS @@BS OO @ | j ToF Aq A@ا j@T cHS aɦq prF بv i ... A@a A @R A S UZ@ |

@@v prF A@ا OTl@ | sTS ~ɮT sZS cA Aa | qS-j TB- , ~c "b@ r ~qF ~T ~r ިq" XopA | j@BS i Arc j@T prFq ި w\v Z OAaUT |

US Bc drf
(lrushdi@hotmail.com)


~U@ @ @Ac "cmvS AcrAcFU TS JA"

gU UwU |

U
(bapi@bu.edu)


AS@f i@ب @Ac "~c ~AT T @"

@Acv a^ Zc ~JvJv, Aha^ | A@ا @S @S Bw a^ cB Z Aw ~˻fS A@a Tn sw @ a | sTS "gUq cɮc SS @" - jZS "q"-v @S TS c BS Sq, o a^@ vqv @ BSF qSvA @ a | ~AT T gUcɮAa r -- r-j AwASA@F^ A@ ? jvR A@ a^ ?

All the same, good read.

cpA (briti_nandy@hotmail.com)


Just wanted to say that Rajat Baran Chakraborty's illustration is too good and extremely relevant. He has the touch of a professional artist. Really liked it.

@MAr@ gOs (bhattacharyakaushik@yahoo.com)


ǩc ATn @Ac ":m"

gU UwU |

TSfr S
(monish.sengupta@wcml-tcs.co.uk)


fATS OMof @Ac "T OZq"

~F^ ^ |

w TZBf
(mtathagata@banglalive.com)


Excellent!

f WK (sudiptashree@rediffmail.com)


~r@ Oncf a "ɰ qA"

԰ɰ qA rK Ov UqS Ai@T UZ AS | ~w w\ @SR ewA Sq | U ި @Acv TkUF S a |

@UFH TBT
(kalfromfl@aol.com)


@MAr@ S-j a "AST cS"

jq aAv ~kc UwU ! SfUɵS c aAcR Zc gU UwU | BS@q ~T ~^A@ oSFcɰ BSAha, jce q cɮ @ةpQ@R, ^ a R aAc c BSF |

@UFH TBT
(kalfromfl@aol.com)


gA ^ a^ ~ ccF TS@ aJ s |

~AgAK
(abhishikta@icrier.res.in)


~AgABl ATn @Ac "mf@A"

^ UZ, vS AS s UqS @ UqS | A@ا STv "mf@A" c @S ?

T^ SH
(rde@wmata.com)


AS@f r @Ac "S T, S @f"

Nice and good! Thanks writer,

TS A@ذ (manu_sikder@yahoo.com)


HSAcf c^FoF c^ "Dr-AO^"

UZAv gU UwU | ~S@ wgf @ B R ^ @ cUaS UZ@ | c @xvT T@AS-j "OS S-@U @S ABAS ~AmL TH S" jq @v @T ް˻Ac cUcS | s@S T c a j@v @xvT WvS@ ASAEO (R gK "@U ~w F Rg e@rS") | j@v H Aq -- @Av ca ިS ToF j@v qAST TH gC sR (@xvT WvS) a Rq WvS TH @a sAR @ش ZAS | q @xvT T@AS @ AcrOS ~AmL TH @ s S | @xvT Bw ~T cFcA@ Bw swkn AS ~S@ @B a A |

"~cB@Avg AFAUAv" c cFA-ASQ LL c~UAO AcK - cf^S cUS "~T SqU, AngcSr, T T s ATa" |jq AcK ~qSmvqS cST cf^S @cɩ \UZswF - AcmA̩ ~UOS mS j S |

AcrBw @ F AcS ~BS | Acm c "S ~ R~" TSK jAw OU H, j sn rK Sq | ~ jU AmvgSS cUS "v vgU ެبAU qB j cv Ae FS v ~Fqg |"

B O^
(rchanda@att.com)


First, I sincerely apologize for responding in English. If someone could kindly translate this in Bengali and then print it in Bengali script, I'd be grateful.

This is just hilarious. The author refers to a number of ideas and thoughts -- from Gdel to Quantum theory, EPR effect to Chaos theory, from idea of self-awareness of universe to Quantum waves -- I wonder why he left out String theory! - and using all these he suddenly decides that consciousness is what all these posit. Consciousness is the Atma of Vedanta and this is the same as Universal consciousness.

Come again, Sir? Has the author seen, felt and or measured Universal Consciousness to conclude logically or in some acceptable manner that this is the same as Human consciousness? What makes him think that Quantum wave is any more real than the millions of models that scientists have posited since day one? Arent all our science just models? Is reality an observable? Is it within the realm of knowable? If a system is discovered in a state s through some measure, is it possible to claim that it was in state s before we measured it? We cant.

All these things that he writes about are fancy words. Some of them are concepts and ideas -- but they are all words, none of them can prove or disprove, predict or ascertain the actual reality i.e. the what is. Thoughts which arise in the brain as response to its content due to firing of neurons are all about the old, the dead past -- thoughts cannot possibly interpolate anything new. God can be hypothesized, can be posited as an idea but cannot be proved necessary in an axiomatic sense because all we have about God is its conceptual design.

Secondly, Vedanta of Shankara, of Vivekananda is not Vedanta but another wishful doctrinal discourse. Vedanta meaning the end of Vedas, the end of all knowledge and speculation cannot be such if it could be practiced. Practice what? One can practice something only if there is a script for it (knowledge) and only if one needs to become. But every becoming is a postponement in time - Ill become good tomorrow if I practice this. But what if one is already that! Then there is no becoming, no practice, no knowledge, no time, no God, no atma, ishwar or parameshwar. What is that state when one exists in it without comparison? To get rid of ego through practice, through Sadhana is an idea based on Yoga. Vedanta does not idealize. What is there to idealize? What should be the motivation for idealization? There is nothing to be practiced, not even the need to practice if I see that all my perceptions are my creation. The only true Vedantist in our recent memory was Ramakrishna who could say without batting his eyes that whoever could say what Brahma is or isnt defile the essence of Brahma. A true quantum theorist, wouldnt you say?

The notion of Atma, the ego, the super-ego or whatever, the universal mind etc., are all concepts. Vedanta drops all such concepts retaining only that it can definitely assert is not conceptual. If one really takes a Vedantist position then all these speculation from quantum theory to chaos theory are dropped without slightest loss. One cannot be conceptual and at the same time claim to understand to be Vedantist.

I apologize one more time for expressing this in English.

The author responds:

At the Gaurchandrika of my article I thought of two classes of readers who would object to my approach. One of the two seems to fit you the best - those who have a solid acquaintance with matters spiritual and do not like to dissect them.

But you are on very solid grounds. If you have Vedanta in your heart (generally after one or more bouts with at least Sabikalpa Samadhi) then you find yourself beyond all intellectual debate and discussion. As a matter of fact Prof. Sobottka of the U. of Va (whose book, A Course in Consciousness appears in and deals quite a bit with Quantum Mechanics) once said to me, You folks are trying explanations when there is nothing to explain. And he too was right.

But I have not found truth yet. And since you quoted Sri Ramakrishna, let me remind you that he went through major practices, both with Totapuri and with Bhairabi Ma - and I believe with others. So he was working towards something - at least to convince himself and others that what he started with was right.

There is a major risk at quoting the Vedanta as beyond all effort and understanding before complete enlightenment - that of being trapped in hypocrisy. So my choice (at least till my own experience dictates otherwise) is to understand and explain what the Vedanta is saying (and I have been told by scholars that in addition to some of the Upanishads if not all, one needs to include the Brahmasutra and indeed the Gita) in terms of our other experiences and understanding. And since the Gita has detailed instructions on meditation and the different Yogas, I would prefer not to accuse Shankara and Vivekananda of being off the mark.

I have indicated, at least at the end of my article that I am directing my article to those who either lead and follow in the path of science. And I would like to defend my article as an effort in that direction. The reason I chose this audience is two-fold: (1) I am in the sciences and hence hope to speak that language credibly and (2) Scientists, as the present-day leaders of thought need to receive my message (vide ultra)

Before I start, let me fall into one temptation - of answering your question about why I did not include string theory. I believe the question was put rhetorically with a bit of sarcasm; but the best way to answer that would be to take the question seriously and answer it honestly. So let me do that.

First, I do not know string theory to any depth, and I have not seen anybody who knows it in depth say anything to interpret its results in the way we are (again, at www.swc.com/hswift/swc ) by positing consciousness as the fundamental ontological entity. I do believe, and I think correctly, that string theory is a development on quantum theory (or is it quantum electrodynamics?) - once more built on the interpretation of wave amplitude as probability (Heisenbergs theory is not on that basis, but I believe that his theory gives identical results with Schroedingers). So merely mentioning quantum theory was enough for me - I was merely following Goswami in putting some Ontological bones on the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-particle duality.

I do not believe I mentioned EPR - though I know that some people do. I would have quoted it if the need arose. But EPR also is inside quantum theory, although it started as a thought experiment to challenge it. And Alpert Et als experiment I believe did indicate the correctness of quantum mechanics in that respect.

But please realize that I did not mention EPR. So I do not see why you had to raise EPR in your critique of my article. As I have asked some previous correspondents, let me ask you - are you responding to what I wrote or to what you thought I wrote?

Let me continue on what I did write. I did not conclude logically that there is an universal consciousness. You will probably agree that no axiom of science is concluded logically. Newton did not see, feel or measure (to quote you) the gravitational field to conclude logically that gravitation is the cause of the planetary trajectories. What he did (as all scientists do) is to exhibit ad hoc that if one constructs certain axioms then many observational results can be deduced logically from them. It would be clear to any student of logic that the same set of observations can be deduced from various different axiom systems. The choice of the theory agreed upon depends to a very great extent on the paradigm of science accepted at the time. Kuhn, in The structure of scientific revolution has described what amount of strain science endures before there is a change of paradigm. I have discussed some such shifts in classical physics in the past just to make this point. You may recall that I had decided early in the article not to try to do things logically - not because logic is irrelevant (perish the thought!) but that it is not logic but the tension between paradigms and observations that guides the formation of theories.

Hence my use of Goedels result - the continuous choice between alternative extensions of theories to accommodate undecidable statements, the resulting risk of making the wrong choice based on risky paradigms (and still facing incompleteness - I have not discussed the Phenomenologists insistence on direct experience and its relation with Eastern thoughts: that was not my line of discussion in the article. But given a knowledgeable person to talk to: that is another line to yogic practices one can discuss).

By the way: you probably know that Pravabananda and Isherwoods annotation of Patanjali discusses things on Vedantic lines although Patanjali himself was a follower of the Sankhya school. They refused to enter the debate, and so have I. My own belief is that the Quantum Mechanical line of reasoning about consciousness is much more along the Sankhya lines - but then, I am no authority on philosophy).

Chaos theory I needed to bring Sheldrakes idea of Morphogenetic fields in line with Goswamis view of the separation of individual consciousness from universal consciousness. (Biologists have treated Sheldrakes work even less kindly than you have treated my article. They didnot call it just hilarious, they called it fit for burning. Not being a biologist, I did not feel obliged to follow them). Sheldrakes argument deals with a different phenomenon is science (also studied by people interested in large systems) - that of emergent properties of a system which are entirely different from the properties of the components. The theory if the components predict the possibility of several stable states of the system. As to what state the system takes is very strongly dependent on initial conditions, which themselves are subject to quantum uncertainties. It is here that Chaos theory shows us even a small difference in the collapse of the probability can lead to entirely different system configurations. That is where Sheldrake brought in the concept of the Morphogenetic Field guiding the configuration leading to the correct morphogenesis. I confess that my discussion of this phenomenon in my article was even more sketchy than what I am giving here - both paucity of knowledge and time dictated that.

You are absolutely right in complaining that words and concepts do not establish truth. On the other hand, they often establish the way people behave. And that behavior, as well as its repercussions on the health of a society, is something I wanted to emphasize (although it seems you either did not read that part or did not find it of interest).

If I have a quarrel with anything in science, it is with the confusion some people feel between scientific rationality (I realize that rationality is a mere concept which is of no use to the Atman, but I have already confessed to not being in communion with Atman at all - so please allow me to continue with unreal things) and materialism, i.e. the belief that everything depends on the properties of matter. I have said a number of times in my article that this belief is not included among any of the axioms (hypotheses, laws) of science - it is merely a mind set which has guided scientific work to date. Having said that, I stated that the idea of quantum collapse by observation (by the materials of the sensory system of bodies) poses a conundrum which disappears if the primacy of consciousness is accepted as a scientific axiom. I have agreed that in doing this, we may fall into some paradoxes regarding the identity of the part and the whole (the very idea of Tat-twam-asi) - and I have argued (concepts again, but please let us not dwell on that - I have already explained my reason for that: and also the reason why you go to face your classes every day) that we need to accept it to go beyond the incompleteness of logic. I have tried to justify to the scientist the concept of Karma in terms Goswamis result in Quantum Mechanics for Observer Systems, Physics Essays, 5 (1992), pp. 526-529. Then I have mentioned chaos theory (see above) to unify this with Sheldrakes Morphogenettic Field, and then with a jump of imagination, identify the morphogenetic field of the created universe with God. Many flights of imagination here (I have carried out no detqailed calculaions - my hope is that some serious scientists will eventually either put some meat on these bones or demolish the bones).

But instead of all this, I would like to draw your attention to a different part of my article - a part to which none of my critics so far has even paid any attention.

It is my belief (which I have aired, if not established in my article) that modern society in the westernized countries (which probably includes the entire world, except perhaps a few small aboriginal pockets and perhaps downtrodden Tibet) is influenced strongly by science, which have been identified with materialism. Our entire view of life therefore circles around material possessions; our self image is that of some kind of advanced machine. Things like idealism, love, compassion are some kind of epiphenomena arising out of the need for evolutionary survival or at best, some epiphenomena of the brain. I also believe that this view of the world does not lead to a stable, happy society. And I would not describe modern society as a stable, happy one. Yet, this form of society is considered as one running along scientific lines - scientists are the leaders of thought to-day. It is therefore my belief that unless the scientists disavow materialism, society will eventually destroy itself. I have argued for a spirit-centered (and perhaps I in my ignorance have not made any distinction between consciousness and the spirit) science.

I do not think I need to write any more. Thanks for reading my article. I would request you earnestly (since you yourself are a scientist just like me) to read the article once more with some sympathy and compassion.



jq UZ ~S @TS UwU ?








© 2002, Parabaas, Inc.