Artical by VVS Sarma
God - Dictionary.com gives 5 definitions as below
God - noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. (Christian Science) the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
Anyone knowing little logic can easily see that human beings, who give such definitions, have no idea of what they are talking about. The definitions given above are individually illogical and collectively inconsistent. What is wrong with these definitions? They try to define “Who is God?” even before understanding “What is God?” What is this word or entity or sound called God? The difference between Abrahamic religions and Sanatana Dharma is this. In the former they believe in the existence of God, about whom they know nothing. The definitions above prove this. Hindus basically try to examine the concept of God and stop somewhere based on one of their many traditions. This gives some understanding and provides the basic input for the spirit of enquiry. Each of the 6 or 16 darsanas gives a philosophical enquiry into this question of God. Let us discuss some of these.
1. In Vaiseshika, God is a word or a sound or an an entity which may be classified as matter (dravya) and one may explore its attributes (gunas) and actions (karmas). Is creation then a “karma” of God?
2. In Nyaya God is a prameya (proposition). There is a doubt ( samsaya). We need a pramana (yardstick) and a paramarsa (inquiry) to determine the truth. We cannot catch god by senses (no pratyaksha pramana) . We have to infer his existence by logical inference (anumana pramana) or Veda (Sabda parmana). Then we can make a siddhanta (advaita, dvaita, saiva etc) Charvaka is one who only accepts pratyaksha pramana. So no God for him. His logic ends with sensory perception.
God - Dictionary.com gives 5 definitions as below
God - noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. (Christian Science) the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
Anyone knowing little logic can easily see that human beings, who give such definitions, have no idea of what they are talking about. The definitions given above are individually illogical and collectively inconsistent. What is wrong with these definitions? They try to define “Who is God?” even before understanding “What is God?” What is this word or entity or sound called God? The difference between Abrahamic religions and Sanatana Dharma is this. In the former they believe in the existence of God, about whom they know nothing. The definitions above prove this. Hindus basically try to examine the concept of God and stop somewhere based on one of their many traditions. This gives some understanding and provides the basic input for the spirit of enquiry. Each of the 6 or 16 darsanas gives a philosophical enquiry into this question of God. Let us discuss some of these.
1. In Vaiseshika, God is a word or a sound or an an entity which may be classified as matter (dravya) and one may explore its attributes (gunas) and actions (karmas). Is creation then a “karma” of God?
2. In Nyaya God is a prameya (proposition). There is a doubt ( samsaya). We need a pramana (yardstick) and a paramarsa (inquiry) to determine the truth. We cannot catch god by senses (no pratyaksha pramana) . We have to infer his existence by logical inference (anumana pramana) or Veda (Sabda parmana). Then we can make a siddhanta (advaita, dvaita, saiva etc) Charvaka is one who only accepts pratyaksha pramana. So no God for him. His logic ends with sensory perception.
2
నేను దేవుని గురించి వ్రాసిన ఆంగ్ల వ్యాఖ్యలో నేనుచెప్పదలచుకున్నది ఇది. ఆంగ్ల నిఘంటువు ఇచ్చిన నిర్వచనాలకు ప్రామాణికత లేదు. 5 నిర్వచనాలు ఇచ్చారు కాని ఒకటీ తర్కయుక్తంగాలేవు. ఇంగ్లీషు మీడియంలో చదివితే ఇంతకుమించిన జ్ఞానం రాదు.ఈ లోపం నిఘంటు కర్తది కాదు. ఆంగ్లములో తగినన్ని పదములు లేకపోవడం.(ఈశ్వరుడు,బ్రహ్మము, పరమేశ్వరుడు,పరమాత్మ,దేవుడు, భగవంతుడు) ఆ పుస్తకాలు వ్రాసిన యూదు, క్రైస్తవ మతస్తులకి దేవుని గురించి అవగాహన లేకపోవడం. అందుకే వారు ప్రవక్తలపైన, వారికి ఉన్న కొలది గ్రంధాల మీద ఆధారపడతారు. దేవుని తత్త్వం తెలియదనే చెప్పాలి.
జాజి శర్మ "మూలకారణం బెవ్వడు " అని ఎలుగెత్తి ! నువ్వే నన్ను కరుణించి కాపాడు అని గజేంద్రుడు ప్రార్థించగా పరుగు పరుగున వచ్చిన దయా సముద్రుడే దిక్కు నాకు.
వివిఎస్ -- జాజి శర్మగారు పదడుగులు ముందుకి ఉన్నారు. మొదట అర్థంచేసుకోవలసినవి మూడు పదాలు - జగత్తు, జీవుడు, ఈశ్వరుడు. వీటి సంబంధం ఏమిటి? సంబంధ పరీక్ష భారతీయ తర్కంలో చాలా ముఖ్యమైనది. వీరి మధ్య ఉన్న అనేక సంబంధాలలో ఒకటి కార్య కారణ సంబంధం. "విశ్వం పశ్యతి కార్య కారణతయా" (దక్షిణామూర్తి స్తోత్రం)
నేను దేవుని గురించి వ్రాసిన ఆంగ్ల వ్యాఖ్యలో నేనుచెప్పదలచుకున్నది ఇది. ఆంగ్ల నిఘంటువు ఇచ్చిన నిర్వచనాలకు ప్రామాణికత లేదు. 5 నిర్వచనాలు ఇచ్చారు కాని ఒకటీ తర్కయుక్తంగాలేవు. ఇంగ్లీషు మీడియంలో చదివితే ఇంతకుమించిన జ్ఞానం రాదు.ఈ లోపం నిఘంటు కర్తది కాదు. ఆంగ్లములో తగినన్ని పదములు లేకపోవడం.(ఈశ్వరుడు,బ్రహ్మము, పరమేశ్వరుడు,పరమాత్మ,దేవుడు, భగవంతుడు) ఆ పుస్తకాలు వ్రాసిన యూదు, క్రైస్తవ మతస్తులకి దేవుని గురించి అవగాహన లేకపోవడం. అందుకే వారు ప్రవక్తలపైన, వారికి ఉన్న కొలది గ్రంధాల మీద ఆధారపడతారు. దేవుని తత్త్వం తెలియదనే చెప్పాలి.
జాజి శర్మ "మూలకారణం బెవ్వడు " అని ఎలుగెత్తి ! నువ్వే నన్ను కరుణించి కాపాడు అని గజేంద్రుడు ప్రార్థించగా పరుగు పరుగున వచ్చిన దయా సముద్రుడే దిక్కు నాకు.
వివిఎస్ -- జాజి శర్మగారు పదడుగులు ముందుకి ఉన్నారు. మొదట అర్థంచేసుకోవలసినవి మూడు పదాలు - జగత్తు, జీవుడు, ఈశ్వరుడు. వీటి సంబంధం ఏమిటి? సంబంధ పరీక్ష భారతీయ తర్కంలో చాలా ముఖ్యమైనది. వీరి మధ్య ఉన్న అనేక సంబంధాలలో ఒకటి కార్య కారణ సంబంధం. "విశ్వం పశ్యతి కార్య కారణతయా" (దక్షిణామూర్తి స్తోత్రం)
3
Nyaya-Vaiseshika
Let us see the logical inconsistencies in the five meanings given to God in dictionary.com. We use Indian logic.
Definition 1 -- God = the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
What are the pramanas for accepting this statement?
1. There is no pratyaksha or sensory perception seeing a God creating the universe or even a small part of it
2. Let us try inference – anumana. Universe is real. From its very existence, we can deduce there must be a creator.
3. If there is a watch, there must be a watch maker. Therefore there must be a universe creator. Wait! Creating Universe is different from designing and manufacturing a watch. Where was this God before he created the universe? Is he part of the universe or beyond it? Who gave him the idea of creation? Watch maker example is not okay. So Upamana (analogy) pramana does not work.
4. What is this entity God? Go to Vaiseshika He is matter. God-matter. If the universe is also made of matter is the universe-matter same or different from God-matter? (Indians can recognize the expression Brahma-padartha) ?
5. What is the relation (sambandha) between God and universe? Cause-effect (karya-karana sambandha). Is this the only relation between these two? What is the question of this ruler-ship? There is a ruler-ruled relationship between God and the universe. He is also the ruler of universe. Why He, why not She or It? When he is only one it is just god-matter. There are certainly many other – in fact infinite – relations to God.
6. Suppose you encounter God, how do you identify him (her or it)? How do you identify a from other objects. Indian logic says you notice an abstract pen-ness when you see a writing instrument which works on the principle of a flowing fluid, ink. That makes it different from a pencil-which has pencil-ness where the object itself can make a mark on the tablet.
7. A ghaTa has ghaTatva – This is the samavaya relation . We identify God from the godliness in the entity – To use Sanskrit divyatva, daivatva, Isvaratva. This is the fundamental Nyaya-Vaiseshika principle. Entities are identifiable by their abstractions inhering in them. So Hindutva is an abstraction in a Hindu. It is harmless word without any other connotation. It is only denotes the nature of a Hindu.
8. In Nyaya there are four pramanas – pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and sabda and In Vaiseshika there are six padarthas. These are used to get true knowledge – yathartha jnana of things. Otherwise mithya-jnana, which is dangerous.
Nyaya-Vaiseshika
Let us see the logical inconsistencies in the five meanings given to God in dictionary.com. We use Indian logic.
Definition 1 -- God = the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
What are the pramanas for accepting this statement?
1. There is no pratyaksha or sensory perception seeing a God creating the universe or even a small part of it
2. Let us try inference – anumana. Universe is real. From its very existence, we can deduce there must be a creator.
3. If there is a watch, there must be a watch maker. Therefore there must be a universe creator. Wait! Creating Universe is different from designing and manufacturing a watch. Where was this God before he created the universe? Is he part of the universe or beyond it? Who gave him the idea of creation? Watch maker example is not okay. So Upamana (analogy) pramana does not work.
4. What is this entity God? Go to Vaiseshika He is matter. God-matter. If the universe is also made of matter is the universe-matter same or different from God-matter? (Indians can recognize the expression Brahma-padartha) ?
5. What is the relation (sambandha) between God and universe? Cause-effect (karya-karana sambandha). Is this the only relation between these two? What is the question of this ruler-ship? There is a ruler-ruled relationship between God and the universe. He is also the ruler of universe. Why He, why not She or It? When he is only one it is just god-matter. There are certainly many other – in fact infinite – relations to God.
6. Suppose you encounter God, how do you identify him (her or it)? How do you identify a from other objects. Indian logic says you notice an abstract pen-ness when you see a writing instrument which works on the principle of a flowing fluid, ink. That makes it different from a pencil-which has pencil-ness where the object itself can make a mark on the tablet.
7. A ghaTa has ghaTatva – This is the samavaya relation . We identify God from the godliness in the entity – To use Sanskrit divyatva, daivatva, Isvaratva. This is the fundamental Nyaya-Vaiseshika principle. Entities are identifiable by their abstractions inhering in them. So Hindutva is an abstraction in a Hindu. It is harmless word without any other connotation. It is only denotes the nature of a Hindu.
8. In Nyaya there are four pramanas – pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and sabda and In Vaiseshika there are six padarthas. These are used to get true knowledge – yathartha jnana of things. Otherwise mithya-jnana, which is dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment