[adinserter block="6"]

Being from science background, I had turned pages after pages of modern theories of science and psychology in this regard. I recollected the hordes of information produced by scientists to prove that life is nothing but a chemical reaction, and with death the consciousness ends just like any other chemical reaction. But there were glaring loopholes even in this theory.

I could never get a satisfactory answer to what the source of this consciousness is. If I fear death, feel pain and pleasure, who is this I actually? Agreed, it is all a game of chemical reactions. But which particular cell or atom or subatomic particle feels it all? I browsed through the literature and found that the seat of consciousness is yet undiscovered. Modern science has vague answers to how physiochemical reactions happen and where they happen to give us various feelings. But they are at dismal loss to answer “Who ultimately feels these feelings?”

I could well appreciate the efforts put by modern scientists and the reasons for their dismal failure to answer the fundamental question which would give me a clue to seek solution to this problem of death. After all the tools and apparatus used by modern science are equipped to observe only physical manifestations. Anything that is not measurable under their telescope or microscope or meters etc does not exist for them. They do not have any conclusive logic to justify how they are so certain that no world apart from what can be measured by their scopes and meters can at all exist. Their situation is no different from the popes of middle-ages who used to believe that earth is flat because the tools and technology they had then, and the books they used to follow could no way prove that the earth is round.

Modern science, which evolved as a sharp reaction to biblical dogmas of late middle ages, is today no more than yet another dogma or cult. It has its own set of beliefs or assumptions which it refuses to even question. Even if it does not have satisfactory answers to several questions, it would refuse to question these assumptions. Instead it would either refuse to accept existence of such questions or phenomena, or try to confuse through jargons and equations. It has eyes of a cockroach. It sees too many things at the same time but its scope of vision hopelessly limited.

Just like any other cult, it has its own bigoted mindset and agenda. Thus, while it will resort to craziest of extrapolations to prove we descended from apes or conclude that there was a big-bang, it will chide away more fundamental questions like “And what was there before big-bang?”, “Who guided atoms to become humans?”, “Why not slightest of evolution take place in documented history?”, “Why no dead body could me made alive again?” No wonder, modern science has been unable to make any significant new discovery or theory in the last 50 years at the least.

The theory of chemical reaction as propounded by modern science had a few more glaring contradictions.

By its own admission, life is nothing but a chemical reaction, which started as a process after the big band that happened some 14 billion years ago. Thus, all those who are analyzing the theory of life or universe are also nothing more than chemical reaction. And the ones whom they are teaching the same are also chemical reactions. So it is one set of chemical reaction interacting with another. And mind you, how these chemicals will behave was decided long ago during the big-bang. Thus there is no separate “doer” or “analyzer” apart from the reaction itself, and its fate was decided in the first nanosecond of big-bang or even less. So what these modern scientists want to teach as the true explanation of everything is also nothing but a fatalistic chemical reaction. They are just repeating what they should be after 14 billion years x days y hours as pre-decided in the first moment of big-bang. There is thus no concept of right or wrong here.

Also, if life is actually a lifeless chemical reaction, then all concepts of right, wrong, good, bad, civil, criminal, compassion, love, support etc fall flat as sheer nonsense. Life is nothing more than what happens in a test-tube when two acids interact.  A reaction is just a reaction, nothing good or bad, kind or rude about it. Just as water never shouts back, “Hey pour me slowly, you are being rude.”, similarly no one is actually expressing any feeling in the world. What we observe as a feeling of pleasure or pain, is merely manifestation of a lifeless chemical reaction. Put simply, if there is no life, there is no feeling, no right, and no wrong. Thus, even the arguments of modern science are sheer nonsense by their own logic. After all it is only a chemical reaction happening in a test-tube and there is no observer of the same. Whom we call observers are yet another set of reactions happening. Thus the world is only pre-decided chemical reactions happening, without any observer or doer. Even you reading this or I writing this is only some chemical reaction happening. In reality, you or I simply do not exist!

All these conclusions of my expedition so far filled my head. In brief, I was even more confused after my exploration of modern science than I was before start of the journey.



[adinserter block="13"]
  • “I am an alumnus of IIT-IIM and hence try to
    find my humble ways to repay for the most wonderful
    educational experience that my nation gifted me with”
    पहले आप ये i नहीं लगाते थे। आजकल पता नहीं कैसा केमिकल रिएक्शन हो गया आप के साथ। 😀

  • Hi Vimal,
    Nobody here is saying that science is bad , the problem everyone has the arrogance of knowing without any proofs.
    Many people have questioned the various theories of Scrience over the years , but it has become so reluctanct to let go of the established theories even if there is no proof in favour of the established theories.
    Morever , Science in West has developed as an opposite reaction to religion in the west and hence it is always at war with the religions over there, we as Indians are more receptive and natural to Scrience because our religion is not dependent on whether any theory is proved or any new discovery is made.

  • Evolution is a proven theory based on observable evidences like fossils etc, but what are your authentic proofs for your claim that brahma created the universe ???

  • This article is the work of ignorance and need to be removed asap. Science is the right way and Vedas are also thesis of the work at that time. Please dont contradict with science and become foolish like christianity and islam. Evolutions is 100% true. Theory doesn’t mean something without proof. Pythagoras theorem is also not true?

    • Pythagorus came to India and learnt it from the Puranas, Narad Puran/Vishnu Puran had already mentioned it. Gita Press Gorakhpur in their NaradVishnu Puran Ank of their Magazine Kalyan in hindihad printed the Theoram as given therein. It was published in early fiftees of the twentieth century. But the Puranas are very very old treatises therefore their name is the oldest of the oldest in sanskrit named as PURANAS.

  • Now before I begin, Agniveer, I’d just like to say that I absolutely adore the work that you have been doing towards the cause of pure Vedic dharma, and in dispelling the slanderous propaganda and vicious lies that Islamist fanatics and evangelical bigots have developed to destroy the wisdom of the rishis.

    However, I must, with all due respect, say that you have unjustly criticized scientists and their work in this article. My objections are to the following statements that you have made:

    “They do not have any conclusive logic to justify how they are so certain that no world apart from what can be measured by their scopes and meters can at all exist. ”

    The reason some scientists do not believe in any world apart from that which can be observed is because in order for someone to believe in something, they must have evidence to support that belief, and that evidence must be observable. If it were not observable, they would never know about it! If the existence of such a world cannot be confirmed through observation, upon what basis can we say it exists? Any evidence produced in support of it would, by definition, be observable, (or else it would be unable to be produced, as procuring evidence necessitates observing it.) Thus, it would fall into the category of evidence that scientists can indeed observe with “scopes and meters.”

    “Their situation is no different from the popes of middle-ages who used to believe that earth is flat because the tools and technology they had then, and the books they used to follow could no way prove that the earth is round.”

    This comparison is illogical. Popes believe in ridiculous things DESPITE evidence to the contrary. Scientists demand evidence for this and only disbelieve in the absence of evidence. In order to gain more evidence, they strive to develop new technologies. It is because of this that, while at one point, both scientists and popes believed in a flat earth, the scientists eventually discarded that belief, while the popes clung to it.


  • You should definitely watch this. This is a great effort to unify the technology with history. The ancient story of Noah or Manu Rishi, which is common in all the ancient books of all religion, has been interpreted in technological terms. I hope we Indians can one day revive upon our ancient technology which off course is a clear superlative in comparision to all. Mathematics and Geometry is the gift of India to the world. But our historians are fond of free salary. And our pundits gloat upon preserving the manuscripts instead of reading them and understanding the technology behind it.

  • West always comes up with a theory (figment of imagination) and then tries to build proofs around it. Their theory of Aryan invasion is also a figment of imagination