Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Thanks Wim for your great and even entertaining compilation. I know my reply comes absurdly late, but I have a life outside the mailing lists to live :-) I do not know if you even are still here, after all that smoke, haha! Anyway, I did not think about the Da - Giver connection until now. Great. BTW. " To give " is " dino " in Greek (fits to " divine - theos - zeys " ). " Da " itself means something like " see: exactly! " . But this might be another animal. Nice subject for a change, as language plays such a decisive role in our struggles. Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " Wim Borsboom " <wim_borsboom> wrote: > Thanks Stefan for picking up on this. > >Yes, there is linguistic evidence for " God " or " divine " to mean > " human " (Notice I'm not saying 'man'). >Apart from linguistic evidence there are of course: >(1)Jesus of Nazareth who was seen and realized as being >god/(hu)man..., too bad that the ecclesiastical tradition that >followed him only allowed his followers to assign that >designation/identification only to him and not to >themselves/cum/others... >(2) God/Princes/Kings as in (amongst many others!) the early Indian, >Indo-Chinese and Chinese princedoms and kingdoms. (Certain Chinese >dynasties, Khmer lands now being Cambodia, Thailand, Cham, Laos, >Vietnam, various Indonesian Islands). Too bad (again) also that >divinity became too concentrated in the king/prince/ruler although >certain Hinayana/Theravada traditions allowed for the human to recover >their divinity) >Ah, these are very broad brush strokes >(3), etc, etc. > >About linguistic evidence- just a few quick (somewhat oblique) >strokes... >(a) Have you ever picked up one those tiny, cheap brass mini-statues >of various Tibetan deities? (Using the word 'deity' on purpose.) When >you turn them upside down and look at the base, you are supposed to >find a small round red copper insert. (Although, the recent cheap ones >don't have it anymore.) If you are lucky (as the less previous cheap >ones don't have that anymore either) you will find a tiny mark stamped >into that copper dot, it is the Sanskrit letter " da " and it stands for > " giver " : giver of life... father... daddy. (Interesting that the name >Jupiter derives from Deus/Pater or Zeus/Pater, the primeval father, >life giver and provider) Well, as every male child can become a >father, fatherhood exemplifies identification with and participation >in the divinity of the primeval father. So the son is god as well >(compare Jesus the God/Man being the Son of God) etc. > >(OK OK, this is very masculine, feminine evidence is as strong..., the >goddess/woman culture. Devi, diva... and so on. >(Adi Da, alias Da Free John, alias Franklin Jones used this titelature >very cleverly... too bad that he and his followers... etc., etc... :-) > >Anyway, that mark, the letter 'da', is the same 'da' that gave rise to >the Sanskrit root DA from which eventually Latin words like do or dare >(to give) derived. Now we have English words like datum, donation, >data (givens). > >(b) Then there are the old ancient names like Adama and Adapa, Adam, >etc. - names pointing to the first human(s) who was (were) able to >reflect on... you guessed it: 'intrinsic divinity'. >Remember Adam in Eden, who discoverd to be equal to God?! >Too bad that his birth father (probably a jealous man, a tribal leader >from a hunter/gatherer clan who was losing his power base who might >even have been a Peeping Tom or am I too naughty now :-), too bad that >this man was peeking in on the pastoral life that Adam and his mate >and friends had invented and were developing (husbandry and >agriculture) therefore he cursed his son and wife and their offspring >into perpetuity " per omnia saecula saeculorum " (Good thing curses do >not stick forever...) It looks like it went kind of downhill from >there for humankind, losing sight of its innate human/divine nature, >having it degrade to some kind of inhumane nature (non-human nature) >that was not kind to humankind nor the environment in which it >lived... were it not !!! that subsequent humans were able to pick up >from were Adam/Eve were seemingly (but not really) forced to leave >off... >© Etc, Etc.... > >Gosh... :-))) > >Wim > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 -- In Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > Thanks Wim for your great and even entertaining compilation. > > I know my reply comes absurdly late, but I have a life outside the > mailing lists to live :-) I do not know if you even are still here, > after all that smoke, haha! I mostly lurk here, easily navigating through the smoke and smoke screens, only once in while do I contribute here... used to write a lot more here some years ago... I love etymology, I try to get as close to the moment of when words were first invented/designed... When words stsrt taking on different meanings - sometimes even opposite ones- than the original, it comes mostly from misunderstanding, very often an inability or unwillingness to communicate, ergo using tools for communication not to communicate. Luckily, pretty well every word hides within it still a fossil of it's original meaning... Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.