Horse & BMAC & much more

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst at PANDORA.BE> wrote:

>Sometimes you (and Dr. Wujastyk) even joust with scientists about the
>scientific seriousness and autonomy of indology/philology.  And there you
>do
>have a point.  There is an aspect of the scientific temper and method which
>is little developed in the hard sciences, as opposed to the humanities.

Most scientists I have seen go through some sort of a crisis in their lives.
After a prolonged phase of questioning everything, they desperately feel a
need to believe in something. Increasingly, for scientists of Western
origin, various things clubbed together as "Oriental mysticism" come in
handy. It doesn't matter if it is Yoga/Vedanta/Zen/Taoism/Tibetan-Buddhism.
It's all the same thing; only Hare-Krishna-ism stands out as different.
Those more in tune with their own traditions discover the "scientific
validity" of the Bible (Old/New, depending on their parents' religion). With
their specialized backgrounds, scientists are often at a loss when it comes
to religion. For scientists of Indian origin, this need to believe takes
other forms, which have been much discussed on this list recently! People
who study the humanities perhaps learn to be more critical and less willing
to suspend disbelief, when it comes to such things. People like me, who have
a scientific education, and also can appreciate humanistic areas of study
independently, are left feeling amused/irritated at the significant amount
of bile that is generated by simple human folly.

Vidyasankar
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com