René Descartes -2.
--
©
'cogito ergo sum' / 'je pense, donc je suis'.
A friend has doubted if I did justice in dealing with the above most known statement given by René Descartes.
In my post René Descartes -1, I though explained How he presented his view originally in French and how the Latin translation of the same was not true in the spirit of what he intended saying.
--
During my College years when I was studying Statistics, I knew how the two types of error, Type-I and Type-II may lead us to erroneous results of a Statistical Experiment.
The same came to my mind while treating with this question, what René Descartes might have meant.
But I took a reference from Veda.
Veda / Vdanta points out and suggest that there is Zeroth error that is bound to happen in most cases.
René Descartes attempt to find out the relation between 'thinking' and 'I am'.
That is the Zeroth Error.
In Thermodynamics we face a similar situation.
There was a First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that total energy of an isolated system remains constant, though can change from one to another form.
Then in 1850, Robert Clausius discovered and formulated The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states :
The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time and it further also says, the change in the entropy in the universe ca never be negative.
--
We don't need to go in details, for here our purpose is to say, just like afterwards the fundamental principle that are at the foundation of Thermodynamics was presented as The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics was discovered.
--
There was a Greek City named Therma or Thermē (Θέρμα, Θέρμη), which owes its name to 'dharma' / 'धर्म' in Sanskrit and in Sanskrit means the 'nature', that is essential to anything.
The First Law of Thermodynamics in most simple terms tells us that every material-body has a 'temperature' of its own, and stays as such as long as it does not come into contact with another material-body.
--
There are many directions where this post can be taken to.
But I want to point out the basic flaw / error in the approach of the interpreters of René Descartes's proposition.
Veda and Vedanta clearly distinguish between the faculty of 'Intellect' and 'Intelligence'.
'Thought' that is the essence and substance of 'Intellect' / 'buddhi' (बुद्धि) has been described as a वृत्ति / vṛtti where-as intelligence as प्रज्ञा / prajñā and श्रीमद्भग्वद्गीता / śrīmadbhavadgītā in Chapter 2 stanza 53 to 58 categorically stresses this distinction.
--
Chapter 2, śloka 53,
--
śrutivipratipannā te
yadā sthāsyati niścalā |
samādhāvacalā buddhis-
tadā yogamavāpsyasi ||
--
(śrutivipratipannā te
yadā sthāsyati niścalā |
samādhau-acalā buddhiḥ
tadā yogam avāpsyasi ||)
--
Meaning :
When your mind becomes free from the many intellects of the varied and confusing kinds, and stays silent in the Self, then in that silence of the mind, you attain the yoga.
--
In the next stanzas
Chapter 2, stanza 54 we see
thitaprajñasya kā bhāṣā
samādhisthasya keśava |
sthitadhīḥ kiṃ prabhāṣeta
kimāsīta vrajeta kim ||
--
(sthitaprajñasya kā bhāṣā
samādhisthasya keśava |
sthitadhīḥ kiṃ prabhāṣeta
kim-āsīta vrajeta kim ||)
--
Meaning :
arjuna said :
O keśava (śrīkṛṣṇa) ! How 'sthitaprajña', - the One whose mind has acquired the understanding of the Reality, and deviates not from the same, speaks, talks, moves about and behaves in general? What signs are there that indicate such a man ?
--
In the Chapter 2 stanza 55 we see
śrībhagavānuvāca :
prajahāti yadā kāmān-
sarvānpārtha manogatān |
ātmanyevātmanā tuṣṭaḥ
sthitaprajñastadocyate ||
--
(prajahāti yadā kāmān
sarvān pārtha manogatān |
ātmani-eva-ātmanā tuṣṭaḥ
sthitaprajñaḥ tadā ucyate ||)
--
Meaning :
O partha (arjuna) ! When one is able to free oneself from all desires of all kinds that mind conjures up, and is content with the Self only, then he is said to be of the steady mind.
--
In the Chapter 2 stanza 56 we see,
Chapter 2, śloka 56,
duḥkheṣvanudvignamanāḥ
sukheṣu vigataspṛhaḥ |
vītarāgabhayakrodhaḥ
sthitadhīrmunirucyate ||
--
duḥkheṣu anudvignamanāḥ
sukheṣu vigataspṛhaḥ |
vītarāgabhayakrodhaḥ
sthitadhīḥ muniḥ ucyate ||)
--
Meaning :
Unmoved while in the sorrows, not involved while with the pleasures, One who has transcended attachment, fear and anger, such a seeker (muni) is said to be of steady wisdom.
--
In the Chapter 2, stanza 57 we see,
yaḥ sarvatrānabhisnehas-
tattatprāpya śubhāśubham |
nābhinandati na dveṣṭi
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
--
(yaḥ sarvatra anabhisnehaḥ
tat tat prāpya śubhāśubham |
na abhinandati na dveṣṭi
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||)
--
Meaning :
One who is equally indifferent everywhere in achieving whatever good or bad comes to him, and neither rejoices nor regrets is said to have attained firm wisdom.
--
And finally in the Chapter 2, stanza 58,
Chapter 2, śloka 58,
yadā saṃharate cāyaṃ
kūrmo:'ṅgānī va sarvaśaḥ |
indriyāṇīndriyārthebhyas-
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
--
(yadā saṃharate ca ayam
kūrmaḥ aṅgāni iva sarvaśaḥ |
indriyāṇi indriyārthebhyaḥ
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
--
Meaning :
The aspirant should withdraw his attention back form the objects towards the senses, and then withdraw the same within heart / pure consciousness only, just like a tortoise who withdraws his limbs inwards. One who could do this is said to have of steady wisdom.
--
I would like to examine the proposition stated by René Descartes in the light of these 6 stanzas of श्रीमद्भग्वद्गीता / śrīmadbhavadgītā.
There is evidence within the reach of every living being, here emphasis is us on humans, that the two human consciousness has two aspects, one keeps changing while there is another which is stable though the nature and characteristics of these 2 are not been paid attention by a common man. Even the much talented intellectuals also are stagnated within the confinement of 'intellect' and either because of audacity or lack of clarity keep indulging in the play of intellect. But there are rare, and every-one who deserves, can attain the understanding where one discovers the firm ground where-in 'intellect' comes into existence.
Then there is the prime awareness of existence, - of the whole as a single unique Reality on the one hand, and of the 'self' on the other.
This is is the very core-point where 'I' /'self' and 'thought' get confounded and become the mess.
'I think' is the first error because of this confusion.
'Thinking' as such is the functioning of intellect and takes place in brain, a most physical kind of phenomena. On the other hand 'I', -whatever be its reality, is not 'thinking'. So 'thinking' and 'I' are basically things of very different kind.
पतञ्जलि / Patanjali in His Treatise on योग / Yoga starts with this very first principle 'वृत्ति' / 'vṛtti', in His first aphorism.
योगश्चित्तवृत्ति निरोधः / yogashcittavṛtti nirodhaH.
--
Thus when we understand how 'I' is neither a consequence of 'thinking' nor 'thinking' a consequence of 'I', and both these elements / principles are essentially of different kind, the proposition just crumbles down.
--
--
©
'cogito ergo sum' / 'je pense, donc je suis'.
A friend has doubted if I did justice in dealing with the above most known statement given by René Descartes.
In my post René Descartes -1, I though explained How he presented his view originally in French and how the Latin translation of the same was not true in the spirit of what he intended saying.
--
During my College years when I was studying Statistics, I knew how the two types of error, Type-I and Type-II may lead us to erroneous results of a Statistical Experiment.
The same came to my mind while treating with this question, what René Descartes might have meant.
But I took a reference from Veda.
Veda / Vdanta points out and suggest that there is Zeroth error that is bound to happen in most cases.
René Descartes attempt to find out the relation between 'thinking' and 'I am'.
That is the Zeroth Error.
In Thermodynamics we face a similar situation.
There was a First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that total energy of an isolated system remains constant, though can change from one to another form.
Then in 1850, Robert Clausius discovered and formulated The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states :
The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time and it further also says, the change in the entropy in the universe ca never be negative.
--
We don't need to go in details, for here our purpose is to say, just like afterwards the fundamental principle that are at the foundation of Thermodynamics was presented as The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics was discovered.
--
There was a Greek City named Therma or Thermē (Θέρμα, Θέρμη), which owes its name to 'dharma' / 'धर्म' in Sanskrit and in Sanskrit means the 'nature', that is essential to anything.
The First Law of Thermodynamics in most simple terms tells us that every material-body has a 'temperature' of its own, and stays as such as long as it does not come into contact with another material-body.
--
There are many directions where this post can be taken to.
But I want to point out the basic flaw / error in the approach of the interpreters of René Descartes's proposition.
Veda and Vedanta clearly distinguish between the faculty of 'Intellect' and 'Intelligence'.
'Thought' that is the essence and substance of 'Intellect' / 'buddhi' (बुद्धि) has been described as a वृत्ति / vṛtti where-as intelligence as प्रज्ञा / prajñā and श्रीमद्भग्वद्गीता / śrīmadbhavadgītā in Chapter 2 stanza 53 to 58 categorically stresses this distinction.
--
Chapter 2, śloka 53,
--
śrutivipratipannā te
yadā sthāsyati niścalā |
samādhāvacalā buddhis-
tadā yogamavāpsyasi ||
--
(śrutivipratipannā te
yadā sthāsyati niścalā |
samādhau-acalā buddhiḥ
tadā yogam avāpsyasi ||)
--
Meaning :
When your mind becomes free from the many intellects of the varied and confusing kinds, and stays silent in the Self, then in that silence of the mind, you attain the yoga.
--
In the next stanzas
Chapter 2, stanza 54 we see
thitaprajñasya kā bhāṣā
samādhisthasya keśava |
sthitadhīḥ kiṃ prabhāṣeta
kimāsīta vrajeta kim ||
--
(sthitaprajñasya kā bhāṣā
samādhisthasya keśava |
sthitadhīḥ kiṃ prabhāṣeta
kim-āsīta vrajeta kim ||)
--
Meaning :
arjuna said :
O keśava (śrīkṛṣṇa) ! How 'sthitaprajña', - the One whose mind has acquired the understanding of the Reality, and deviates not from the same, speaks, talks, moves about and behaves in general? What signs are there that indicate such a man ?
--
In the Chapter 2 stanza 55 we see
śrībhagavānuvāca :
prajahāti yadā kāmān-
sarvānpārtha manogatān |
ātmanyevātmanā tuṣṭaḥ
sthitaprajñastadocyate ||
--
(prajahāti yadā kāmān
sarvān pārtha manogatān |
ātmani-eva-ātmanā tuṣṭaḥ
sthitaprajñaḥ tadā ucyate ||)
--
Meaning :
O partha (arjuna) ! When one is able to free oneself from all desires of all kinds that mind conjures up, and is content with the Self only, then he is said to be of the steady mind.
--
In the Chapter 2 stanza 56 we see,
Chapter 2, śloka 56,
duḥkheṣvanudvignamanāḥ
sukheṣu vigataspṛhaḥ |
vītarāgabhayakrodhaḥ
sthitadhīrmunirucyate ||
--
duḥkheṣu anudvignamanāḥ
sukheṣu vigataspṛhaḥ |
vītarāgabhayakrodhaḥ
sthitadhīḥ muniḥ ucyate ||)
--
Meaning :
Unmoved while in the sorrows, not involved while with the pleasures, One who has transcended attachment, fear and anger, such a seeker (muni) is said to be of steady wisdom.
--
In the Chapter 2, stanza 57 we see,
yaḥ sarvatrānabhisnehas-
tattatprāpya śubhāśubham |
nābhinandati na dveṣṭi
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
--
(yaḥ sarvatra anabhisnehaḥ
tat tat prāpya śubhāśubham |
na abhinandati na dveṣṭi
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||)
--
Meaning :
One who is equally indifferent everywhere in achieving whatever good or bad comes to him, and neither rejoices nor regrets is said to have attained firm wisdom.
--
And finally in the Chapter 2, stanza 58,
Chapter 2, śloka 58,
yadā saṃharate cāyaṃ
kūrmo:'ṅgānī va sarvaśaḥ |
indriyāṇīndriyārthebhyas-
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
--
(yadā saṃharate ca ayam
kūrmaḥ aṅgāni iva sarvaśaḥ |
indriyāṇi indriyārthebhyaḥ
tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ||
--
Meaning :
The aspirant should withdraw his attention back form the objects towards the senses, and then withdraw the same within heart / pure consciousness only, just like a tortoise who withdraws his limbs inwards. One who could do this is said to have of steady wisdom.
--
I would like to examine the proposition stated by René Descartes in the light of these 6 stanzas of श्रीमद्भग्वद्गीता / śrīmadbhavadgītā.
There is evidence within the reach of every living being, here emphasis is us on humans, that the two human consciousness has two aspects, one keeps changing while there is another which is stable though the nature and characteristics of these 2 are not been paid attention by a common man. Even the much talented intellectuals also are stagnated within the confinement of 'intellect' and either because of audacity or lack of clarity keep indulging in the play of intellect. But there are rare, and every-one who deserves, can attain the understanding where one discovers the firm ground where-in 'intellect' comes into existence.
Then there is the prime awareness of existence, - of the whole as a single unique Reality on the one hand, and of the 'self' on the other.
This is is the very core-point where 'I' /'self' and 'thought' get confounded and become the mess.
'I think' is the first error because of this confusion.
'Thinking' as such is the functioning of intellect and takes place in brain, a most physical kind of phenomena. On the other hand 'I', -whatever be its reality, is not 'thinking'. So 'thinking' and 'I' are basically things of very different kind.
पतञ्जलि / Patanjali in His Treatise on योग / Yoga starts with this very first principle 'वृत्ति' / 'vṛtti', in His first aphorism.
योगश्चित्तवृत्ति निरोधः / yogashcittavṛtti nirodhaH.
--
Thus when we understand how 'I' is neither a consequence of 'thinking' nor 'thinking' a consequence of 'I', and both these elements / principles are essentially of different kind, the proposition just crumbles down.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment