Feb 14, 2007 02:26 PM
2208 Views
A very important aspect of rating any book(that I consider) is to assess how much justice it does to its title. Before anyone feels dismayed about the poor rating given to this book, let me be clearer. This poor rating has nothing to do with the intention or the message contained therein in the book. Please refer to my rating for the story - it is quite good. In fact the book preserves the original message quite well.
My review is more of a message to the people behind this book.
You had very honest intentions when you chose to pen down your thoughts on reincarnation. You took some very good examples from the ancient texts. Since I also totally believe in reincarnation, I felt elated about what all I would learn new about the subject and that too with a scientific tinge to it. Never before had I come across a book which tried bridging two ever conflicting advocates - religion/ spirituality and science. I hoped it would turn out to be a very intensive book and will kick up a lot of debate in materialistic mind of mine.
This is one book which truly substantiates the saying - "Never judge a book by its cover". The picture of an open door with an old man leaving and a young boy entering were so meaningful. They conveyed a great message which is contained in our sacred texts - that of reincarnation. It communicated the message very well that the end is the beginning is the end is the beginning is the end is the . (Notice the product image on top.)
Before I move further let us look at the title - "The Science Of Reincarnation". Notice the word Science? Science as it is defined is - "systematic knowledge of anything gained through observation and experimentation." In your book you gave me an excellent insight into the aspect of soul. You quoted Narad Muni that a soul is 1/10, 000th size of a dot or probably even smaller. And hence can never be observed. You also said that the laws of reincarnation are very clearly defined and cannot be experimented with. Where does science come into picture at all then?
I imagined that this book will delve into the territory of the unknown. What happens at death? Or is their truly something scientific to near death experiences that get reported in papers and tv channels once in a while? In Science there is one word that every scientist probably hates - Singularity! Singularity is the condition where every law of science breaks down. Be it Physics or Chemistry, or Astronomy or any other branch. Singularity is a major'unknown' in the area of research for black holes or even Quantum Mechanics. Singularity is simply, the limits! Science cannot offer much on any aspect of singularity. Notice one thing? We are always hazy about the limits. Like Science is not sure what happens exactly at death. And the title makes one believe that you will talk about these limits pertaining to cycle of life and death.
Why give a title which makes one feel that this book may be at par with books on Vedic Mathematics? A title such as Vedic Mathematics speaks volumes and readers have always found it to be extremely useful. One gets a feeling that your book also would delve into the territory of some such established procedures from ancient times, which are kind of lost in today's life. I thought just like Vedic Mathematics, there will be aspects of ancient Vedic Science which will appeal to my logical mind(with whatever little logic I claim to possess) as well.
Whether you forage the truth through self realization or through physical appearances and observations of material world, is immaterial. I also do not want to get into the debate as to which one is better. But why mix the two streams which do not have a common aspect at least as of now?
Probably you wanted to attract more readers who weigh any aspect scientifically before putting a seal of acceptance on them. Believe me such a misleading title will rather make people think twice before picking up another of your literary offerings. You chose a title to gain more readership and then you kind of presented the contents that went against the very definition of science.
Are these really limits of science? Are they rather not limits of your vision?
