It is our short-sightedness to think that we shouldn’t believe in any such thing that has not been proved in a scientific manner

No doubt, we have a valid reason to feel proud of the phenomenal progress we have made practically on all fronts say — in the field of science and in the field of technology. But, don’t you think, there is still something more to it that goes beyond our grasp?

For instance — let us talk about “Consciousness”.

Just think — if something pricks us on our back; we can immediately tell exactly where it may have pricked even though we can’t see with our eyes where it has pricked us.

We can tell where it has pricked us due to consciousness which comes to us through the collection of the types of the touch-signals that are generated in our skin when our mother should have been bathing us during our infancy.

We may safely assume that our brain should have recorded in its memory the signals generated when she would have been touching different parts of our body which it may be referring back to tell us where exactly something has pricked us.

But is it not true that we can prove whether this hypothesis is true or false only if we have the necessary equipment that may tell us about such signals in the form of some images or in a digitised form, on some screen as in case of EEG?

Obviously, we thought that it was not possible for us to understand the science of consciousness until we did not develop the technique of seeing the signals that should have been transmitted to our brain when our mother should have been touching all organs of our body, in the form of some images as such or at least in a digitised form nor we could have understood how such signals get recorded in our brain or how does our brain refer back to the repository of such signals.

So is it not true that what we can prove in a scientific manner, depends entirely on what sort of testing-equipment we have at our disposal?

No doubt, we have ushered into such fields as consciousness of late. But is it not true that we had brushed such of the things aside in the past simply due to our inability to develop the type of the implements without which we couldn’t have explored their science?

So we have to reconcile to the fact that we haven’t touched the outermost boundary of knowledge yet.

There is still a lot of knowledge left behind.

For instance, take the case of signals the beads of Rudraksha (Elaeocarpus Ganitrus — a tree that grows at an altitude ranging from 6500 to 12000 feet above the sea level, on the Himalayas) generate or sense when their garland is hung over a “well-folded piece of paper” or over a “crumpled piece of paper”.

You would know what sort of signals I am talking about once you watched the video https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid-6314572476170398&id-20781959145.

This video shows how a garland of the seeds of Rudraksha swings in the clockwise direction when we suspend it over a beautifully creased piece of paper but swings in an anticlockwise direction when we suspend it over it after crumpling it, as depicted in the following diagram.

Since we can very clearly see the garland swinging in clockwise as well as in anticlockwise direction — we can’t call it black magic of a sort.

But is it not true that we can’t explain through any existing law or any existing theorem of science what sort of energy carries the axis of the garland out from the vertical position to an inclined position, as shown in the following diagram?

As of now, we know that any amount of electromagnetic energy or gravitational energy a piece of paper may emit, it can’t swivel such a heavy object as a garland of seeds.

So a question arises — is it some new type of energy, that is emitted by the paper which is able to generate so much torque that should let the axis of the garland swirl out spirally from its vertical position, as shown in the above diagram?

But a question arises — Should we shirk away from investigating what sort of signals emerge from anywhere that let the garland of Rudraksha seeds behave in such a grotesque manner?

Or should we shirk away from investigating how the human memory gets transferred after our death into the brain of a new-born baby?

Though we know — not only Dr Ian Stevenson, even Indian sages had ascertained that human memory does not die when we die.

It is simply whisked away by what they call Atma (Soul, in English).

Though they had propounded that the souls serve as a carrier of the memories of the past life but should we have shirked away from our duty as scientists to have developed suitable technology that could have let us know the truth about it?

Ever since we have started using computers — we know the importance of keeping a backup of the files we store in the memory of the computer.

We keep a back-up of our file only as a safety-measure to cover up the exigency that we may re-create our files from the back-up if any files get deleted by chance.

The fact is — even our brain follows much the same system of keeping a backup of our memory.

Whatever we see and whatever we learn in our life — all of it does not get stored only in our brain.

It also keeps a backup of all such things that get stored in the brain.

When we die, though all the memory-contents of our brain get lost as we lose our consciousness but the backup of our memory is held on our soul which doesn’t get lost.

There is, perhaps, no other way we may explain the phenomenon of transfer of the memory of the past life than the way it has been propounded in India during the Vedic Era.

Though we know that Dr Ian Stevenson and his team had documented the fact that many people could have recalled the instances of their past life shot by shot, even though none of them got a chance to revisit the place where they should have been living during their past life, up to an age of about ten years though such memory starts fading thereafter but we also know that he did not delve into the manner in which the memory gets transferred.

The fact is the Vedic people had gone even a step further.

They even propounded that the souls carry the following types of information with them when we die, which is downloaded into our brain when we get reborn.

(i) What is it — we wanted to do in our life but could not do for any reasons?

(ii) Who may be the people — whom we wanted to help but we could not help for any reasons?

(iii) Who are the people — whom we wanted to teach a lesson for their misbehaviour or misdemeanour but could not teach them a lesson for any reasons?

They believed that

- We get born into a family which may let us give a chance of giving a finishing touch to all the things we left unfinished during our past life.

- We get reborn only on such a date when all such people whom we had to help or whom we wanted to teach a lesson also get reborn when we get reborn.

- Our souls keep on recycling only until such time when we have no qualms about what we could not do during our life or whom we could not help or whom we could not teach a lesson, at the time of our death.

- It has not been possible for us to resolve the mystery that surrounds such surmises only because, though we live amidst all such people whom we wanted to help or whom we wanted to teach a lesson only because we are not able to identify “who was who” in our past life.

Though, so far, the scientists have always felt disconcerted to include such things into their agenda; nonetheless, nowadays they have started looking into the physics of the things such as “consciousness” and “genetic memory” as we can check at some sites such as https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/ypv58j/genetic-memory that admit that the memory of even our past generations gets recorded on our genomes.

So, in a way, they have come to a stage that lets them acknowledge that all that had been discovered or surmised thousands of years back in the past was, by no means, merely a fantasy.

This is only how they may bring us close to the outermost boundary of the knowledge — not, in any other way.