When science becomes illustration of facts, religion becomes
lame. I believe discovery of this fact as mankind’s greatest achievement. It
also led to remarkable conclusions. Liberated by this discovery, I had endless debates
with MeghaShyam Iyengar.
I first met MeghaShyam Iyengar in a fanatical rage. Given
the utter determinism we both possess, I could not give a name to our
relationship. So, I called it acquaintance. Fundamentally, we were very
different and debated from incredible distances. Interestingly, we started our
debates in subdued eloquence. We did not discuss energy, matter or beautiful
symmetries. Despite complexity and variety of our debates, it lacked element in
substance.
I quoted several aphorisms to affirm the origin of truth. Albeit
MeghaShyam Iyengar’s explanations looked like pantomimes, it is quite
interesting to hear or consume those debates. Eventually, this led to several
endless debates resulting in believing and disbelieving.
Perhaps, the chorus around those debates lacked humbleness to
erode the discrepancies, but nevertheless, no short of logical contradictions. Nevertheless,
no one doubts that we are confronted with a casual connection whose casual
components are in main known to us. We might have penetrated far less deeply
into the irregularities obtaining with the realm of debates, but nevertheless,
futile.
The vastness of resources available to us seems still
insufficient to surpass religious spiritualisation of our understanding of
life. Simply put, science with its finite time has provided all answers to
religious impulse.
MeghaShyam Iyengar on the other hand was appreciative of
mythical values existing from baseless thoughts and narratives. Our
conversation on religion, relationships and anthropologic cultures did
highlight primitive cultures and practices that exists to this date.
In my view, religions in all forms is an affair. An affair of
human relationships coinciding with emotional values, thus fulfilling partially
the aesthetic side of life. Religion to many is a necessity.
Some of my
conversations did lead to moral values. Religion has an oversighting effect and
impairment of mutual human considerations and negative relativity.
Our debates largely revolved around our beliefs, experiments,
experiences, ideologies and sound sentiments leading to utter sincerity to our
approach. Religion on the other may owe its origin to fear and compulsion in
some sort. My piece of debate did direct to science addressing some fundamental
questions concerning relativity and reality. Sometimes, you are an alien
walking on the fine line between a pagan and a Christian.
MeghaShyam and I did agree on some aspects. Both religion and
science have fundamental problems to address. There essentially lies a void
space in our illusions and assumptions. For instance, bohemian lifestyle is
hard to imagine in a structured society. A larger population from a structured
society would even fail to come to terms that unconventional life does exist.
