…The two…just don’t mix, I think. Faith, by definition, is the act of believing in something from the heart; the brain has nothing to do with this. And so I often find that attempts by rationalists and people of faith to find common ground are doomed even before they start.

I also feel that perhaps such attempts should not be made…at the Memphis temple, the hOmA that was taking place was described thus….” The burning of the fire in the hOmA releases great amounts of oxygen, which is beneficial.” This statement rings false to me on at least two counts. One, combustion consumes oxygen, not releases it; and vast quantities of oxygen are not, as far as I have read, good for human beings, there have been cases of

oxygen poisoning .

So…I feel that what is taken on faith SHOULD be taken on faith. This is a realm where “science” has no place; it’s something that’s accepted by the heart, and may not follow logic or reasoning. What’s “scientific” needs to be, and must be, proved; what’s accepted with faith need not be.

Attempts to make the two meet, in my opinion, may never be successful. Rationalists will continue to be sceptical, and the faithful will continue to believe..why not let it stay that way, instead of continuous attempts to bridge points of view…. that only end up in friction?

I may not believe in something (say, a God-Amma), but I have no problem at all with someone else believing totally in that concept…that’s the variety of life, and that’s what makes people interesting. To me, it’s the difference in people’s thinking and beliefs that makes the spectrum of life so colourful, instead of having a monotone of many people who just have the same outlook on life.