Heraclitus is the first and most consistent of the teachers who taught the law of relativity , she is the logical result of its essential philosophical. Since all is one in being and multiple in its becoming, it follows that all things, in essence, should be one. Night and day, life and death, good and evil, can only be different aspects of the same absolute reality. In truth, life and death are but one, and we can say, from the point of view that we are located, that all death is but the transformation of life that all life is nothing but activity death. In truth the two are one power whose activity presents a duality of aspects.
From one point of view we are not, because our existence is just one incessant transformation of energy, according to another approach us, because our being is always the same and supports our secret identity. So we can not say something good or bad, just or unjust, beautiful or ugly, but from a relative point of view, either because they adopt a particular stance, or because we think of a practical purpose or make a valid relationship in one circumstance. Heraclitus proposes the example of the "sea, pure and impure water, perfect addition to fish, abominable and undrinkable for humans. Perhaps this is not applicable to all things? By the way, are always the same and are endowed by their qualities and their properties because of our position in the universe of becoming, of the nature of our intuition and context of our spirit.
All things full circle back to the eternal unity: in the beginning and end are identical. Only in the arc of becoming themselves they vary and differ from each other, and no there is nothing absolute about them. Night and day are identical, but nature is not our vision, our position on earth and our solar terrestrial relationships that create the difference. What to us is day is night for others. Because of the insistence on the relativity of good and evil Heraclitus appears as if a kind of supramoral statement, but it is good to check carefully what is in reality. Heraclitus does not deny the existence of the absolute, but for him it is all as one, in the divine, not gods, but in the one supreme deity, the fire. He has taken charge of relativity have been attributed to God as he has said that the principle wants and does not want to appoint him Zeus. But this is mistaken for his thought.
Zeus's name but the idea expressed on human and divine, and therefore God, to accept the name, is not bound or limited by it. All our notions about him are partial and relative, "He called the taste of everyone", which is not the truth proclaimed by the Vedas, "One alone exists, that the wise call by different names." Brahma Vishnu wants to be called and yet you do not, since it is also Brahma and Maheswara and all the gods and the world and all principles and all that is, yet is not one of those things, neti, neti (neither this nor that.) As men approach him and he accepts. But both Heraclitus and to the Vedanta, an absolute.
From one point of view we are not, because our existence is just one incessant transformation of energy, according to another approach us, because our being is always the same and supports our secret identity. So we can not say something good or bad, just or unjust, beautiful or ugly, but from a relative point of view, either because they adopt a particular stance, or because we think of a practical purpose or make a valid relationship in one circumstance. Heraclitus proposes the example of the "sea, pure and impure water, perfect addition to fish, abominable and undrinkable for humans. Perhaps this is not applicable to all things? By the way, are always the same and are endowed by their qualities and their properties because of our position in the universe of becoming, of the nature of our intuition and context of our spirit.
All things full circle back to the eternal unity: in the beginning and end are identical. Only in the arc of becoming themselves they vary and differ from each other, and no there is nothing absolute about them. Night and day are identical, but nature is not our vision, our position on earth and our solar terrestrial relationships that create the difference. What to us is day is night for others. Because of the insistence on the relativity of good and evil Heraclitus appears as if a kind of supramoral statement, but it is good to check carefully what is in reality. Heraclitus does not deny the existence of the absolute, but for him it is all as one, in the divine, not gods, but in the one supreme deity, the fire. He has taken charge of relativity have been attributed to God as he has said that the principle wants and does not want to appoint him Zeus. But this is mistaken for his thought.
Zeus's name but the idea expressed on human and divine, and therefore God, to accept the name, is not bound or limited by it. All our notions about him are partial and relative, "He called the taste of everyone", which is not the truth proclaimed by the Vedas, "One alone exists, that the wise call by different names." Brahma Vishnu wants to be called and yet you do not, since it is also Brahma and Maheswara and all the gods and the world and all principles and all that is, yet is not one of those things, neti, neti (neither this nor that.) As men approach him and he accepts. But both Heraclitus and to the Vedanta, an absolute.
, 1477.
This stands out clearly in all its manifestations, day and night, good and evil are but one, because essence they are one and the one disappearing in the distinctions we make between them. There is a verb, a reason in all things, logos, and that reason is, only men, by the relativity of his mind, transform each one in his personal thoughts in his personal way of looking at things, they live according to the relativity variable. It turns out that there is an absolute manner of dealing with things divine. "With God all things are good and fair, but some men see as good and others as unfair. "Thus there is an absolute good and absolute beauty, absolute justice of which all things are relative expression.
there in the world a divine order, every thing performs its nature as a place in the order, and according to their place and the only reason symmetry of things, this is good, just and beautiful, precisely because the measures run as eternal. As an example, the world war can be considered by some as evil, as an abominable massacre, and others may look good on the new possibilities open to humanity. At the same time is good and bad. But the concept is relative. Because performed in its entirety and serves a divine plan in all circumstances and at each, within the vast grounds of things, divine justice, divine power is, from the standpoint of all, good and fair to God, not man.
Is it then that the relative point of view has no validity? Not for a moment. On the contrary, as each mind, and according to the necessity of his nature and his position, must be the expression of the divine law that will prove itself. Heraclitus says clearly: "All human laws are nourished weeks of a single, divine." This sentence should be enough fully to defend against any philosopher accusation of antinomianism . It is true that no human law is the absolute expression of divine justice, but it derives its value and its penalty, it is valid for the object itself, instead, in his time, is necessarily relative.
Although human notions of good vary according to changes of becoming good and human justice will not persist unless the passing of things and keep them far. Heraclitus supported formats for, but as a thinker, is required to overcome them. Everything is both one and many, an absolute and a relative and all of the multiple relationships are relative and yet all are nourished with living on them, him back and he remained.
Heraclitus AND EAST: The Logos, root of the relative and absolute,
Sri Aurobindo
0 comments:
Post a Comment