Scriitorul Nicolae Sirius vorbind despre adaptarea în ţara soarelui răsare:

Adaptarea…

sau vârsta împlinirilor

Japonia, în comparaţie cu oricare altă ţară de pe continentul european, care, extinzându-se, a format noul conglomerat de ţări bine dezvoltate- SUA, Noua Zeelandă, Australia şi Canada, ar fi putut rămâne o ţară a trecutului dacă din întâmplare n-ar fi luat parte în al doilea război mondial. Acea înfrângere i-a dat de gândit. Până atunci japonezii au avut puţin de furcă cu mongolii, chinezii şi coreenii, care, în număr mic, din când în când, i-au atacat dar s-au retras. Deci, se poate spune că Japonia, o ţară săracă în trecut, n-a reprezentat o adevărată ţintă… Iar izolarea, într-un fel, i-a creat anumite avantaje. S-a dezvoltat spiritual însă (după cum spun izvoarele) odată cu apariţia primului împărat, care, zice-se, a coborât din cer. De-atunci s-a păstrat o evidenţa riguroasă privind scaunul imperial. Lucru nemaiântâlnit la nici o altă naţie. Şi totuşi se pare că în vremuri foarte îndepărtate japonezii au fost vizitaţi de europeni.

Eram într-o zi, la începutul şederii mele aici, pe o terasă când am auzit pentru prima dată cuvântul CASA în japoneză, şi-am tresărit. Am întrebat-o pe soţie ce înseamnă şi mi-a spus că umbrelă. Atunci am vrut să ştiu cum îi spune la CASĂ în japoneză şi ea mi-a spus că IE. (Deci ceva care ”adăposteşte” corpul.) După o vreme am mers să vizitez un muzeu. În faţa acelui muzeu era un complex amenajat să redea viaţa japonezului de odinioară. Ce m-a frapat a fost forma caselor. Arătau ca nişte umbrele (un fel de umbrar) şi erau acoperite cu un fel de trestie. Nu peste mult cineva m-a invitat să văd un cimitir vechi, descoperit din întâplare. Cu acea persoană vorbeam în engleză dar mi-a reţinut atenţia cuvântul BOCI (a boci/plânge) pe care el l-a pronunţat în japoneză de mai multe ori când tot încerca să-l traducă în engleză. Atunci am fost curios să ştiu mai multe lucruri despre acel cuvânt şi respectivul mi-a spus că e un cuvânt vechi, foarte rar folosit şi, că, practic, se referă la cimitir.


Dacă aş fi fost un înstărit m-aş fi prins să fac documentare- o paralelă între două limbi despre care se ştie că sunt neînrudite, cu gândul că undeva poate există un filon, o legătură veche, necunoscută nouă. Numai că la vremea când aceste lucruri treziseră o anume curiozitate în mine mă aflam cu un bicior în barcă şi cu unul pe uscat. Practic nici nu ştiam dacă ar trebui să mă depărtez de ţărm sau să rămân locului.

Ca scriitor, dacă locuieşti într-o ţară a cărei limbă n-o ştii eşti mort. Bine, excluzând faptul că te afli pe-acolo tocmai pentru că vrei să scrii o carte. Dar o scrii în limba ta.

La tot ce m-am gândit atunci, c-ar fi mai bine, în acele condiţii ce implicau supravieţuirea într-o lume nouă pe care încercam s-o cunosc, a fost să păstrez o legătură cu limba maternă. Lucrul acesta poate să pară destul de banal însă are o anume motivaţie, ontologică, ca să spun aşa. Şi ca acest lucru să fie într-un fel şi profitabil, am început să demarez o campanie de schimb cultural, în colaborare cu primăria oraşului unde locuiam. După o vreme am colaborat şi cu ambasada noastră de la Tokio. Am organizat pe o durată de mai mult de zece ani sumedenie de spectacole. Invitând aici de la naişti până la cântăreţi de operă. În aceeaşi perioadă n-am scris în română decât un volum de poezie şi un roman care o să apară în curând. Mi-am tradus în schimb din română în engleză două piese de teatru, am scris o lucrare de religie comparată şi antropologie în engleză (ce-ar fi trebuit să apară de anul trecut dar o să apară anul acesta) şi un roman tot în engleză pe care sper să-l definitivez peste puţin. In rest… a fost viaţa de familie.

Oricum, ţinând cont de faptul că eu sunt român iar soţia japoneză, chiar dacă locuiesc în ţara ei şi trebuie să respect obiceiul casei, pentru că aşa este firesc, totuşi n-am încercat niciodată să adopt mentalitatea de tip japonez. Deci mi-am păstrat acel fel de-a gândi moştenit de la părinţi sau de la ţăranii din satul unde m-am născut.


În felul acesta nu m-am simţit nicodată (nici când am locuit în Australia, Austria, Germania) un om frustrat că nu se poate integra într-o societate, un om care se chinuie să facă pe plac altora, sau un om care s-ar considera în vreo împrejurare inferior pentru că ţara unde s-a născut trece de o bună bucată de timp printr-o stare de criză politică, economică sau de altă natură.


Am văzut uneori la TV documetare despre oameni care au venit aici şi s-au integrat foarte repede. Şi erau într-adevăr bucuroşi. Alţii n-au putut să se integreze şi sufereau din acest motiv. Mie, însă, întreaga lor poveste nu mi-a spus nimic. Asta nu înseamnă c-am găsit ceva rău în bucuria celor care reuşiseră să se integreze sau că n-aş fi avut motiv să-l deplâng pe cel care nu se integrase.

Am scris aceste rânduri, începând cu prima mea vizită în Japonia, urmată de perioada de adaptare, pentru că există acea curiozitate, pe care aproape fiecare din noi şi-o manifestă într-o împrejurare sau alta, de a se întreba cum poate supravieţui, sau se poate integra un om într-o cultură ce-i total diferită de a lui.

Pentru un muzician, un pictor, scultor, sau un specialist în calculatoare, adaptarea e mai uşoară decât pentru un scriitor. Fiindcă scriitorul şi de vrea şi de nu vrea, se vede ca un bumerang ce odată aruncat dar nu şi-a atins ţinta, e pe drumul de întoarcere. Iar acela este limba lui maternă. Pentru că acela îi este cel mai bun punct de sprinjin în ceea ce vrea să comunice în scris. E aceasta o scuză? Nu! Nu-i nici cel puţin o vină. Cine şi-ar părăsi părinţii sau locul unde s-a născut numai ca să vrea să înfrunte necazuri? Şi dacă ar fi să regret acum n-aş reuşi decât să-mi fac mai mult rău.


Şi totuşi, exilul (chiar dacă nu scrii despre el, deşi-i la modă) îţi poate oferi o experienţă de viaţă pe care n-ai avea cum s-o cunoşti altfel. “

vineri, 13 decembrie 2013

The Ontological Language And Numerology In lumina cercetarii ontologice

Introduction

In order to answer the question of what the principle of life is, we need to understand at first the ontological (Original-Primordial) language, the very language that connects the Nature of Mind of all human beings. This statement may sound a bit unfamiliar to some readers, but if we do not understand the ontological language and just speak about it, as if we really knew it, unfortunately we might just add a new definition to the already increasing number concerning the principle of life.
Though all human beings have been endowed with this sacred language since time immemorial, unfortunately, now, we can not recall it at will. To find out why we can not recall it at will is a complex process, yet the most necessary one the human mind needs to grapple.
Since life has no beginning that ultimately would require an end, instead of asking ourselves what life is, it would be better to rediscover the principle of life. This paper will explore this issue in four ways.

Firstly, it will underline what are the similarities and differences between the ontological language and numerology.  
Secondly, it will demonstrate how the ontological language was recorded based on the earliest known archaeological evidence. 
Thirdly, it will describe the ways in which the ontological language was later recorded and how it evolved.
Finally, it will document how the latest discoveries in modern science can be expressed through the medium of the ontological language.

Ontology and Numerology

The ontological language can be considered the engine of the mind, since the mind cannot function without its help. At the same time, this language is the filter of any single operation processed by the Nature of Mind.
Ontological numerology has two main characteristics: on the one hand it shows how the particular laws of universe interact, but on the other hand it also shows that it does not coordinate them.
These two ontological factors nevertheless have some similarities. If, for instance, the characters that make up the ontological language do not repeat themselves two or more times, in their original form, they are no more than the sum of their ontological numbers. Is this a simple coincidence, or is it a premeditated calculation made to ensure the maximum numerological and phonetic combinations, but having as its base the smallest number of imputes possible?
It might not be a coincidence since there are ten numbers that represent the ontological number set. Of these, four are even numbers and six are odd. Vowels with a single unit of sound are similar to the even ontological numbers, and the double sound ontological consonants are similar to the odd ontological numbers. What then are we expected to understand from this representation? Firstly, that a vowel, if independent or linked to another consonant or vowel, can keep its independent sound even though the ontological consonants have a dual sound. The concept of the number three is therefore introduced here in a very subtle way, though the important role of this number will be shown later.
Another amazing thing is that in ontological word order, any word, in part, is always lead by a consonant and ends with a vowel.  In their odd-even number representation, the odd numbers clearly remain to the left while the even numbers stay at the right.  How then could this distinct pattern come about in this exact way?
It is clear that the incredible special representations continue.  For example, out of the total number of letters that make up ontological words, and are mirrored by the ontological numbers, seven letters are consonants and nine are vowels. There are six ontological words that design and co-ordinate all of the whole actions and reactions of the Nature of Mind.
Furthermore, the numbers three, six, seven and nine are the core of the double writing system, that appeared simultaneously on the earliest known written evidence tens of thousand of years ago. The other numbers such as one, two, four and eight reveal other significant details.  Who then designed this ontological pattern and how could Homo sapiens discover it from the billions of codes that encompass the Nature of Mind?

How is possible to translate or interpret such an old document?

The above mentioned double writing system, that was crafted on a piece of mammoth ivory, is the work of Homo sapiens, whose living conditions cannot be described exactly, given the absence of any real documentation over that time-period. Common sense warns us not to rush into an idyllic or unrealistic description of the evidence available, but to only rely on the available documentation. 
What we need in order to decipher the nature of one artefact is another that can act as a mirror and reflect the authenticity of the new evidence. An ontological Rosetta Stone so to speak. This was, for example, the way the Hittite language was translated years ago. The language remained undecipherable until a similar document gave evidence of the relation between the two.
It turned out that:
"the only Hittite text that could be translated into 
another language was none other than King Tarkondemos' signet ring, 
which contained 10 cuneiform and six hieroglyph symbols."
I personally have never seen this signet ring, which might be 3,000 to 4,000 years old, so I therefore cannot comment on it directly. It is in the same sense that the ontological numbers are also shrouded in an alphabet of 16 important letters. This may not be a mere coincidence however.
On the other hand, our first piece of evidence is much more complicated than this. This is not because of the design of the 16 letters or the equivalent 16 numbers, but in its usefulness to make the coded message easier to decipher. In reality the evidence has a large amount of numbers. On top of this, these numbers are not crafted in such a way as to make a clear distinction between them. However, we can see that the first number is different in shape to the second, and that the second does not resemble the third. This is much the same way that the Latin structure and appearance of numbers is unique.
On seeing this artefact, it is not hard to understand that Homo sapiens, despite possible communicative limitations, managed to utilize ontological language and numerology. The evidence is that the first artefact, of which we will speak, carried a message in a double language format.  This artefact is dated as 38,000 years old.

The first ontological evidence in Archaeology

In Moldavia, on the bank of the Prut River, the Moldavian archaeologist Nicolae Chetraru discovered a small artefact in 1973. He named it Pendant of Branzeni . Taking into account its space shuttle like shape, Andrei Vartic, author of many books that deal with the spiritual reality of our forefathers, named this artefact Columbia.
Image of Columbia 
designed from the original by archaeologist Ilie Borziac



(This is the very first known information on the creative and intellectual activity of Homo sapiens. An artefact crafted out of a piece of mammoth ivory bearing a dotted pattern. This pattern is almost a precursor, from the remote past, to the modern binary language of computers.)
The geometrical shape of this artefact is not only interesting but also includes some special information.  First let's make a simple description of its composition:

1) Composition: mammoth ivory (tusk)
2) Form: space-like-aircraft; rocket shaped 
3) Design: linear, oval, triangular
4) Symbols: double language dot format
5) Structure: 5 lines
6) Total: 198 dots
7) Method of reading: numerical, linguistic 
8) Usefulness: a way of reading the numerological code format
9) Purpose: for the transmission of information

This artefact, for some of us, might not be such a surprising discovery since it is no more than a piece of mammoth ivory embroidered with dots. Still it is good to recall that Pythagoras, the famous Greek mathematician of Samos, in his continuous efforts to understand the basic of the laws of universe, concluded that the universe is based on the function of numbers. He also implied that all things are numbers, and ultimately claimed that the number of principles is 10. He could not have known this by just observing the world around him since, for example, he also tried to investigate the other unseen  planets of our galaxy.
Pythagoras also calculated that the number of planets would be no more or less than nine. If the number 10 was what he considered to be the principle number of things, it is not hard then to imagine that the 10th number was a reference to a source of light for these planets.  In this context, it can be supposed that Pythagoras was aware of the pattern of the ontological numbers. The question then, is how he was able to discover them.
We know that Pythagoras studied in Egypt and Babylon and, as a result, he achieved a high level of understanding of the most important knowledge from the cultures of the time. On the other hand, it is known that in his own country, the most important researchers on the Nature of Mind suggested that Logos (the Word) was (Genesis eg. John) the divine wisdom manifest into creation. Therefore, in some instances, they referred to Logos as the Second Person of the Trinity.
Nevertheless, what is important is that a man of genius like Pythagoras, who spent so much time researching the Nature of Mind, in the most famous places of his time, used to work out all geometrical forms by means of dots. The early Pythagoriens handed down this information. This is the juncture where the early archaeological evidence of at least 38,000 ago, and the discoveries of 

Pythagoras come together.

The design of Columbia is a simple one: three strings of beads that resemble three half ovals, designed to represent the front part of the artefact's "neck" and two strings of beads, in a triangular format, to enclose the wings that are the base of the artefact. Counting the five lines of dots present we get the totals 27, 30, 24, 54, and 63 respectively.
The numbers 27,30, 24 make up the three half ovals and 63 and 54 represent the two strings that enclose the base, making a total of 198 dots altogether. The significance of these numbers is, without doubt, of a paramount importance.

The old history of PI

Andrei Vartic in his book Intrebarea cu privire la Paleoinformatica* (A Question with Regards to Paleoinformatique), one of the texts that deals with artefacts discovered in the Old Europe, performed the following calculation. He divided the number 198 (representing the sum of dots/numbers imprinted on Columbia) with the number 63 (which is the last of the five strings of dots), giving a result of 3.14. 
It is clear that when one number is deducted from another number, it is known that there has to be a reason for that operation. Therefore we need to pursue this process, because it reflects the well know geometrical calculation of PI (p=3, 14). Taking into account that the Homo sapiens of this time were unlikely to be aware of p, the artefact therefore is of great significance. It can also enable us to discover what other codes and scientific calculations these people seemed to have been aware of at that time.
It is interesting to note that Pythagoras may have also discovered the fundamental value of p by also using ontological numerology. Or, did he get the same result by using a different method?  As has been after debated p was considered by some mathematicians (Shranks, Lambert) as irrational, but Lindeman considered p as being transcendental or beyond a limited calculation. In reality p is not irrational at all. Practically speaking p leads to a very subtle demonstration of what concerns the transcendental.
In A History of PI, being a collection of Internet articles written by J.J. O'Connor and E.F. Robertson, dated September 2000, mention is made of the most famous specialists in the field. A History of PI begins with an interesting Biblical verse taken from I Kings 7 verse 23:
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the 
other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: 
and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about"

In the NIV translations it reads:
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring
ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a
line of thirty cubits to measure around it."
The ratio of p here is three. The authors further mention:
"The fact that the ratio of the circumference to the 
diameter of a circle is constant has been known 
for so long that it is quite untraceable"
and that:
"in the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus, which is dated 1650 BC, 
there is good evidence for 4(8/9)2= 3.16 as a value for p".
The first example, is part of a specific list for the great temple of Solomon (950 BC). The second form of measurement, however, makes me unsure of its meaning, because in the second example there is no hint to ontological numbers. The meaning here is that the calculation was made for some specific measurements necessary in the architectural context of the time.

The combinations of numerical examples given in A History of p are huge.

 Yet, a specific calculation made by another Greek, Archimedes, reveals that his calculation of p, was made by using the original structure of ontological numerology. The same source cites:
"The first theoretical calculation has been carried out by 
Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212 BC). He obtains the 
approximation 223/71 <p< 22/7. Before giving an indication
of his proof, notice that very considerable sophistication
involved in the use of inequalities here. Archimedes knew,
what so many people to this day do not, that p does not 
equal 22/7 and made no claim to have discovered the exact value." 
Indeed! 22/7 is similar to the verse "And he melted the sea..." The burning question is why Archimedes made such a calculative deviation. Simply speaking, during his time, any mathematician or person in the field of religion, tried to protect the privacy of their work. Now, we have huge archives and we are able to protect even the "pattern of thinking".  For them, however, the only archive was the code to their own work, which they did not want to share on most occasions. The reason being that, if we know how these calculations were deducted, then there would be no "considerable sophistication" any more.
The number nine has a special significance in the representation of ontological numerology. If we take, for example both 198/63 and 22/7 we can see that the sum of p is the same in both examples. In both cases after three the same number set (142857) repeats indefinitely as the calculation continues. Yet to determine if p is an indication of the transcendental, or of ontological numerology, at first we need to examine what the transcendental is all about. Can something that transcends something else be calculated mathematically?
It is obvious that the sum of p and 63 would not give us the number 198 (which was extracted from the artefact). There is something further that remains and which Archimedes did not explain. It can be assumed that he did not do this because of some concern of secrecy.
There is a tremendous impact when one approaches this evidence, which, in this context, is not a matter of mathematics alone. What is the sum of all human knowledge worth if we do not know the original reality of the transcendental?  This knowledge as used by mind appears to have been "melted" into divers forms of knowledge. We need to know this because it is the only way to give credibility to an ultra-sensitive demonstration of the evidence.
On this time curve which shows our spiritual and intellectual manifestation, from some 38,000 years ago, when the law of the universe was recorded on a piece of ivory, until the modern era, when the same law was written down in its linguistic form, the variations of the same have been many. What then are the motivations of these variations?
Ontological numbers and the ontological language, that were historically absorbed and interpreted into mythology, philosophy, and religion, can also be traced back to their original sources. Columbia is the artefact that details so well the relationship of the ontological numbers. It shows their very special combination and configuration as a manifestation of the Self and its environment.
Related evidence 
Shakyamuni Buddha, who was possibly a contemporary to Pythagoras, also discovered the law of universe, which he called the Law of Cause and Effect. The law or principle of cause and effect is, as Buddha said, based on 10 laws, even though he never correlated them to the nine planets and the sun as did Pythagoras.

He described the law, in the second chapter of the Lotus Sutra, as follows:
1)  appearance
2)  form
3)  substance
4)  power
5)  function
6)  cause
7)  relation
8)  latent effect 
9)  active effect
10) permanence

So, what we know exactly about the Buddha? His disciples handed down the information on Buddha's activities, since he did not document his own teachings. In this context, there would be omissions. There might be misinformation, intentionally, so as not to give outsiders access to the heart of his teachings; in particular to the secret law, which has been considered by many to be his most important activity.
Also there would be unavoidable mistakes. If not from the Buddha's disciples, then from the disciples of his disciples, who might not have understood the meaning of the law, and may have applied some of their own knowledge to their own future disciples. If this were not so, we would not have a large number of sects preaching different interpretations on the same teachings. Either way, we are confronted in the second chapter of the Lotus Sutra with a coded message. What would appearance or form here exactly mean? If we take up the written description in detail, we might see that there is some reference to the human being, and no more. These coded words have nothing in common with the six words that are the subtle abode of the ontological numbers, and represent in them the law.
Anyhow, Shakyamuni Buddha, as well as the Homo sapiens who inscribed the coded message of the law of the universe (on a piece of ivory), wanted to ensure that the coded message they gave would be understood.
Buddha taught on many occasions that before him many Buddhas already lived. Yet, the works recorded on his behalf mentioned that but he alone achieved a law that had never been known before. In this situation, there is something that is not only unclear, but is also against common sense. What is a Buddha then if they did not know the law of universe? Or, are a number of Buddhas needed in a great succession, so as to have in the end a Buddha able to discover the law of universe? How then do we interpret that any human could be a Buddha, which is a statement made by the Buddha himself, and confirmed by those that compiled the work of the Buddha?
In this circumstance might Ramakrisna's claim be right that:
"All scriptures contain a mixture of sand and sugar. ...we 
should extract the essence- whether we call it union with 
God or Self Realization and leave the rest behind".
Therefore, taking a scripture as it is, without understanding the transcendental that is or should be its basic teaching, one might not understand more that its basic literary message. 
If Buddha did not use the exact ontological words as to express the Law of Cause and Effect, and used instead, so called "melted" words, with a literary meaning, it means that in those words, there have been hidden ontological numbers.
On Columbia the three strings of beads are like three sums of numbers that carry in themselves a huge message. The two lines of the lower part of the artefact reveal another two sums of numbers that also carries a secret message.

How then were these numbers calculated? 

How would they converge to the more recent language as used by Shakyamuni Buddha? And how then would they reveal the same things?
Bagavad Gita, which represents chapters 25 to 44 of the sixth book Bhisma-parvan, one of the great epic Mahabharata poems, has been considered the most important realization of Indian spirituality. It is considered that this philosophical poem was written sometime in the fifth century BC, probably at the same time the Lotus Sutra was taught. There are also specialists who believe the poem was written later, in the fourth century BC or even as late as the second century BC. If the poem was written at the same time the Buddha taught his spiritual realization, (namely the Law of Cause and Effect) then it would be questionable if Buddha had not known the very sage who wrote this poem.
'
Comparing the transcendental
Mircea Eliade, one of the prominent specialists in Indian philosophy, considered that:
"The essence of the doctrine revealed by Krashna in
Baghavad Gita is contained in the formula: Understand Me and imitate Me!"
It is clear that the key structure of this poem, the Divine-Human relationship is to elucidate the transcendental. The poem is therefore matter of fact on this point as shown in (Chapter 13-2):
"O Arjuna, know Me to be the creator of all creations. 
I consider the true understanding of both the creator
and the creation to be transcendental knowledge".
The transcendental therefore is the innermost relation. The author of Baghavad Gita further clarified this point (Chapter 13-19-20) when he said that:
"both material Nature and the spiritual Being are beginningless."
 These verses, presented here as being the Divine's statements addressed to Arjuna, help us understand that the Divine does not create things out of things that are uncreated in themselves. The Divine's statement of "Understand Me", in this context, means to "understand" the transcendental. Further, "imitate Me" means to make use of the transcendental. 
An important aspect of this work is that nine epithets are used to describe the diverse personality of Krishna. Unfortunately, not many translation make use of these epithets. This is an unfortunate oversight. The author of this fascinating work would not, for example, choose five or seven epithets for Krishna. When, for the first time, Krishna and Arjuna are introduced, the text reads:
"Then, too, Madhava and Pandava, seated in a chariot 
yoked by white horses, blew their transcendental conches."
What transcendental is the author referring to? The question then, is this: the whole work is designed to show the struggle of humans to achieve what otherwise cannot be recalled at will, i.e. meaning the transcendental. The ontological number 10 here is derived as the symbol of nine (epithets) plus one (name) that represent the 10 laws. Their characteristics are important. It is also interesting to see that after only three epithets, the name Krishna is introduced to the reader.
In this regard the ontological words here are hints too: (Chapter 18th verse 64)
"Hear once again my most secret, supreme word" and further (Chapter 18 verse 67)  "This word should not be shared at any time to those who do not practice yoga."
In various translations, the poem ends with the idea of letting us know of the secret word even though no secret word is disclosed. This resembles the way that the Bible (John I, verse I) also refers to the sacred word:
 " In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
Here too, silence follows this statement.
If this is the case, it means that something happened, so that the Word was but suggested yet not explained. More important is that human beings are enlightened from time immemorial and that what is now called enlightenment, Self-realization, reunion with God, are in reality the rediscovery of the transcendental or the ontological language.
On this occasion something else must be added. Some people might think that after enlightenment they can do unusual things. This, however, is not so. No one can take the moon out of the sky and put it in their pocket. The transcendental is the seed of knowledge about the laws of universe. It is about what we knew and have since forgotten. It is about those things that do not change, but are the keys of the richness and diversity of life. It is about the wonder of infinite diversity of life while, on the other hand, also about the suffering that penetrates our minds and body. When the pain penetrates and makes demands of our minds and body, it means that there is something wrong with the Self. But why the Self?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle in his book On the Soul stated that: "the Soul is the first grade of actuality of a natural body having life potential in it."
This statement does not leave room for speculation. Homo sapiens expressed the "life potential" and its correlation with the outside world in a numerological way. It is a numerology that hides in it the words that expresses the law of cause and effect.
Columbia, the earliest known evidence regarding ontological numerology, is compatible to any other artefact that dealt with or explained the transcendental. For the first time then, the enigmatic description of the Self and its environment were made in such a way, as to show that though the Self is the engine of the body, and though immortal like anything else in the universe, the Self, in itself, undergoes changes pertained to its structure. The numbers 27,24, 30 are representative of this argument.
Shakyamuni Buddha described the Self, in the Second Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, as Effect active in position nine, as Effect passive in position eight, and as Permanent in position 10. While the Self has "life potential" in itself, it means that the Self is never "empty".
The "life potential" in the same chapter of the Sutra is in position three and is described as Substance. The correlation of the life potential with the Self in its three stages as active, passive and permanent, correspond to the "enigmatic" numbers 27 (3x9), 24 (3x8), and 30 (3x10). These numbers were not arbitrarily chosen. They are part of a very complex design that is part of the Nature of Mind. And of course they correspond to ontological language. The sum of these numbers (81) has a very special meaning.
The Sumerians who were the first to develop a refined form of music, realized that among numbers, 81 keeps the place of the "perfect tune", which could be recognized only by a very good ear. It is clear, however, that between the number 80 and 81, there is only a subtle difference. The "perfect tune" then represents the voice of the Self, and is no different from the rhythm of the universe. If the Self is tuned, it synchronizes with the rhythm of the universe. There is no other possibility to hear this voice, as long as the Self is not in its active form. So when the Self in its active form, the whole or universal knowledge comes into view. When, on the other hand, the Self is in its passive form, the revelation of this knowledge does not take place.
The other two lines of Columbia's dots, that encompass the triangle at the base of the artefact, are 63 and 54 dots respectively.  We have seen that the number 198 represents the sum of the five lines of dots as imprinted on Columbia. If, out of 198 (the whole sum) the number 63 is extracted, it means that this number would have a dual representation. Firstly, it should be part of the whole sum, and secondly, it should radiate from the central point of the circle (impartial) to any part of the circumference of that circle (the sum).
Here, the inequality of the sum of numbers shows the relationship between the Self and its environment. To see beneath this reality, we need to follow the geometrical description shown by Homo sapiens. On the one hand, Columbia shows that there is something that precedes the circle, to what concerns the architecture of the ontological reality. On the other hand, what is behind the inequality of the numbers, that represent the Self and its environment, is also that which transcends them too. As we can see, the form of Columbia is a very special one. The upper part of the artefact looks like a flower pistil that is emerging. From above and bellow this pistil shape looks as it splits into two triangle like wings that, in their turn, encompass the central three half ovals. These two implicit representations have many things to say.
In Shakyamuni Buddha's description of the Law of Cause and Effect, we can see that the number six stands for Cause and number seven represents the Relation.
This Cause means Inherent Cause, while Relation refers to External Cause.
Then why should we extract out of 198 the number 63?  It is just because 63 is part of the whole, as well as symbolizing the external cause.
The design of Columbia shows that the numbers 54 and 63 were calculated by combining the number nine, which represents the Self in its active form, with the concepts of the Inherent cause and the External cause. That the number 54 is the product of nine multiplied by six, it then expresses the Self, in relation to the Self's Inherent cause. Further, 63 reveals the combination of nine by seven, which is the numerological configuration of the Self to its External cause.
The new evidence
There are also a few more special characteristic of Columbia. They will be documented in the second part of this paper, where the focus there will be on the stages of enlightenment as inscribed on another artefact dated 26,000 years ago.
  Walt Whitman, the American poet, said that: "Justice is not settled by legislators and laws... it is in the soul". In the same way, it may have been clear to the Homo sapiens, to inscribe the enigmatic numbers on Columbia, so as to become a record to be handed down to future generations.
Yet, the sage Nichiren Daishonin pointed out:
"The essential nature of phenomena possesses two aspects, 
the deluded and the pure aspect. These two aspects are
indeed two different phenomena and yet both are workings
of the one principle, that is, the essential nature of phenomena 
or the aspect of reality." 
It is in this context, I think, that our judgement about the past, in many instances, was but a deluded one.

List of the works cited
1) Constantin Daniel,  Hittite texts
2) Andrei Vartic, A Question with Regards to Paleoinformatique 
3) Richard McKeon, Introduction to Aristotle- On the Soul
4)  Mircea Eliade, Yoga, Immortality and Freedom
5)  Sergiu Al-George,  Baghavat-Gita
6) Bible, NIV
7) JJ O' Connor and E F Robertson, A History of PI
8) Walt Whitman, Song of Myself
9) Nichiren Shoshu International Center, The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin

Niciun comentariu: