Kurt Gödel and René Descartes,
--
God is a Jewish concept began with Abraham / Moses.
And the other two next 'religions' caught up with this fundamental concept. The three religions elaborated and further decorated, developed the theme.
Like all other 'concepts' this 'God', a concept / an empty word less content and meaning, was a brain-child of some-one, obsessed with word / thought, an ignorant of Reality / ब्रह्मन् / Self / I (am) / brahman / आत्मा / ātmā / आत्मन् / ātman . Perhaps not well-versed in expressing his idea / vision / revelation in sophisticated words. Who had a fascination for holding and wielding 'Authority' and power over the others.
Christianity and Islam took the hint and developed and transformed this 'theme' (of 'One' God) in their vein and way and as a consequence, The Jew were at a tremendous loss. Still suffering.
Thinking of Kurt Godel and Descartes, one may trace the origin of their names in संस्कृत saṃskṛta
roots √कृत् > √kṛt and √डुकृञ् > √ḍukṛñ / ...
The √कृत् > √kṛt gives us 'to cut', curt, 'kurt' (In German) short,
The √डुकृञ् > √ḍukṛñ / ... gives us 'to do' and 'to create' / make,
May be just a guess, but Descartes and Kurt Gödel seem to show how names carry the meaning of their roots. The two eminent figures did their allotted role faithfully.
Des Cartes devised Cartesian Co-ordinates. He first split the 'Whole' into parts, and then elaborated this concept. Like-wise he also divided 'What is', The bare Essential Reality into 'thinker' and 'thought'. He created this myth and developed this into a theme / presumption :
"I think hence / therefore I am."
May be (as some point out) he meant "I think therefore I am" is a wrong while "I am therefore I think" is the correct meaning what he wanted to say.
Whatever he might have in his mind, he was basically ignorant of the truth that what could be termed as 'I' has no relation what-so-ever with thought. 'thought' is a movement / process / activity that takes place in brain and has memory as the only support. 'I' just 'knows' / does not know how this process is going on. We can say 'I' is but witness, though we can not perhaps isolate / locate (a place) of this witness in the body or brain or any other part of our body. The simple reason is : this 'witness' is not a person as 'some-one' other than the rest. This 'witness' is all-encompassing, all-inclusive.
Kurt Godel helps us in understanding the essential characteristic of this 'witness'. He asserts that though existence of this 'witness' can never be challenged and denied, refuted or disproved, nothing what-so-ever could be said to describe about this 'witness'. Though this 'witness' is the true and only unique Lord, there is no other than this Lord who could shed light upon This Lord.
But this Lord could not be approached or arrived at by any means whatsoever.
And we need to be very alert lest we shall tend to think /'believe' This Lord could be worshiped / propitiated, pleased to gain some advantage.
And because This Lord does not think, has no desire what-so-ever, He is ever perfect.
But again when we call This Lord in terms of He / She / That / This / You / I / We / at once we split The Lord and disintegration follows. And we have already drifted away from The Reality. Thinking of Lord keeps us away from The Lord. And all description about the Lord drifts us even more and more.
साङ्ख्य दर्शन / sāṅkhya darshana deals with the whole problem in a different way . suggests us to discover / find out the essential truth / character / Reality of This Lord which is variously named as He / She / That / This / You / I / We / ब्रह्मन् / brahman / आत्मा / ātmā / आत्मन् / ātman / Self.
Philosophy dwells into words, deals with words, while दर्शन / darshana with vision. And the vision is the right approach. The same is called धर्म / dharma when followed in practice.
The core / essential Teaching of Buddha in 'Pali' is :
'अप्प दीपो भव' / 'appa dīpo bhava'
which is from संस्कृत saṃskṛta phrase / aphorism
आत्म दीपो भव / ātma dīpo bhava.
This indicates Buddha didn't deny Existence of आत्मा / ātmā / Self and insisted :
"Be your own a light unto Self"
Though Buddha Philosophy took the way that lead to think of this way of Buddha as नास्तिक / nāstika, yet He stressed upon आत्मा / ātmā / Self and so was not a नास्तिक / nāstika in fact. So If He was called 'भगवान' / 'bhagavan' (Lord) this was quite a fitting title He deserved.
--
--
God is a Jewish concept began with Abraham / Moses.
And the other two next 'religions' caught up with this fundamental concept. The three religions elaborated and further decorated, developed the theme.
Like all other 'concepts' this 'God', a concept / an empty word less content and meaning, was a brain-child of some-one, obsessed with word / thought, an ignorant of Reality / ब्रह्मन् / Self / I (am) / brahman / आत्मा / ātmā / आत्मन् / ātman . Perhaps not well-versed in expressing his idea / vision / revelation in sophisticated words. Who had a fascination for holding and wielding 'Authority' and power over the others.
Christianity and Islam took the hint and developed and transformed this 'theme' (of 'One' God) in their vein and way and as a consequence, The Jew were at a tremendous loss. Still suffering.
Thinking of Kurt Godel and Descartes, one may trace the origin of their names in संस्कृत saṃskṛta
roots √कृत् > √kṛt and √डुकृञ् > √ḍukṛñ / ...
The √कृत् > √kṛt gives us 'to cut', curt, 'kurt' (In German) short,
The √डुकृञ् > √ḍukṛñ / ... gives us 'to do' and 'to create' / make,
May be just a guess, but Descartes and Kurt Gödel seem to show how names carry the meaning of their roots. The two eminent figures did their allotted role faithfully.
Des Cartes devised Cartesian Co-ordinates. He first split the 'Whole' into parts, and then elaborated this concept. Like-wise he also divided 'What is', The bare Essential Reality into 'thinker' and 'thought'. He created this myth and developed this into a theme / presumption :
"I think hence / therefore I am."
May be (as some point out) he meant "I think therefore I am" is a wrong while "I am therefore I think" is the correct meaning what he wanted to say.
Whatever he might have in his mind, he was basically ignorant of the truth that what could be termed as 'I' has no relation what-so-ever with thought. 'thought' is a movement / process / activity that takes place in brain and has memory as the only support. 'I' just 'knows' / does not know how this process is going on. We can say 'I' is but witness, though we can not perhaps isolate / locate (a place) of this witness in the body or brain or any other part of our body. The simple reason is : this 'witness' is not a person as 'some-one' other than the rest. This 'witness' is all-encompassing, all-inclusive.
Kurt Godel helps us in understanding the essential characteristic of this 'witness'. He asserts that though existence of this 'witness' can never be challenged and denied, refuted or disproved, nothing what-so-ever could be said to describe about this 'witness'. Though this 'witness' is the true and only unique Lord, there is no other than this Lord who could shed light upon This Lord.
But this Lord could not be approached or arrived at by any means whatsoever.
And we need to be very alert lest we shall tend to think /'believe' This Lord could be worshiped / propitiated, pleased to gain some advantage.
And because This Lord does not think, has no desire what-so-ever, He is ever perfect.
But again when we call This Lord in terms of He / She / That / This / You / I / We / at once we split The Lord and disintegration follows. And we have already drifted away from The Reality. Thinking of Lord keeps us away from The Lord. And all description about the Lord drifts us even more and more.
साङ्ख्य दर्शन / sāṅkhya darshana deals with the whole problem in a different way . suggests us to discover / find out the essential truth / character / Reality of This Lord which is variously named as He / She / That / This / You / I / We / ब्रह्मन् / brahman / आत्मा / ātmā / आत्मन् / ātman / Self.
Philosophy dwells into words, deals with words, while दर्शन / darshana with vision. And the vision is the right approach. The same is called धर्म / dharma when followed in practice.
The core / essential Teaching of Buddha in 'Pali' is :
'अप्प दीपो भव' / 'appa dīpo bhava'
which is from संस्कृत saṃskṛta phrase / aphorism
आत्म दीपो भव / ātma dīpo bhava.
This indicates Buddha didn't deny Existence of आत्मा / ātmā / Self and insisted :
"Be your own a light unto Self"
Though Buddha Philosophy took the way that lead to think of this way of Buddha as नास्तिक / nāstika, yet He stressed upon आत्मा / ātmā / Self and so was not a नास्तिक / nāstika in fact. So If He was called 'भगवान' / 'bhagavan' (Lord) this was quite a fitting title He deserved.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment