Page 30 - NAMAH-Oct-2022

Namah Vol. 30, Issue 3, 15th October 2022

under arousal. Similar experiences are also by denying whatever it cannot explain.
reported by conscious and healthy subjects, Its logic is that if a phenomenon defies
suggesting that non-physical worlds can be explanation within its framework, the
independently experienced, regardless of phenomenon does not exist because it cannot
whether the reticular activating system is exist. Such an a priori denial, bordering on
under arousal or not. It is interesting that dogmatism, is antithetical to the very spirit
conscious and awake subjects can also report of expanding the horizons of knowledge.
Out-of-Body experiences if an electrode
stimulates the right parietal cortex. The Sri Aurobindo quipped, “Why I call
point is how can such experiences bring the materialist’s denial an a priori denial
a foreknowledge of future events (showing because he refuses even to consider or
that time is not linear) or describe events examine what he denies, but starts by denying
physically far away (demonstrating an it, like Leonard Woolf with his “quack,
experiential space which is nevertheless quack,” on the ground that it contradicts his
perceived as real and stable). Thus, there own theories, so it can’t be true (7).” (Leonard
might be subtle ranges of consciousness Woolf’s most passionate admirers would
which cannot be measured in usual vouchsafe that his 1935 bestseller, Quack,
neuro-physiological terms. Contemporary Quack portrayed him as a rationalist with
para-psychology attempts to investigate his back to the wall, as his crusade against
as objectively as possible the reality (or the downturn of civilisation, that would
lack thereof) of independently existing be inevitable in Fascism, could only be
subtle, non-physical worlds (6), though countered by a victory of reason alone!)
its findings are viewed with scepticism by
the mainstream scientific community. It seems that science has to progress
through resolution of doubts and hence
A priori denial there can logically be no place in its
schemata for non-material phenomena, that
The die-hard materialist might argue cannot be doubted for being inaccessible
that the inadequacies of the mechanistic to the senses and reason, and thus needs
paradigm are due to conceptual errors to be acknowledged through faith. The
of habitual thinking and do not merit an faith-doubt question becomes a serious
accommodation of non-physical, subtle issue and scientists are usually prone to

factors for explanatory purposes. view faith with suspicion. Sri Aurobindo
However, a rigid materialistic standpoint explained that the controversy arises as
has also its flaws. Firstly, the materialistic faith in common parlance denotes, “… a
affirmation is based on sheer speculation mental belief in an alleged fact put before the
because it proceeds from the premise mind and senses in the doubtful form of an
that physical matter is the only reality. unsupported asseveration (8).”
In doing so, such a theory oversteps the
limits of the impartiality of the scientific He elaborated that faith could be made “a
temper. Secondly and significantly, most desirable preliminary” for the seeking
the materialistic position affirms itself of knowledge if its meaning changes to

30