Why I think religion is a subversion of science ?

— And look at the wording; subverted, subversion: another version, ha.

— A deliberate attempt, I would say, although over such a time, that, one wouldn’t notice it.

Lets talk Nirvana — which is a hyper-anointed word for mukti or freedom.


Here is the hindu philosophy about Nirvana — some hyper puritans of religious over knowledge might disagree, its Buddhist, they would say, at some times I can not really distinguish, but what does internet do, a lot of perversion at the least.

A person is borne as a human being. That SAME person goes through a cycle of death and birth.

Do we realize such an idea is anti-scientific, because its a subverted idea?

This cycle goes through thousands of circulation. I learned as a kid, barely 3 or 4 years old, this idea; that your life goes through an immense number of cycles, into various “Joni”  — a reference to any particular species as we would call it scientifically. There is a nice anecdote about it, why it was so significant for me that I learned such an idea, at that age, if I write it up, I will certainly link it up here.

This person, that goes through such joni eg a tiger’s life, is a Tiger Joni, and a Dog’s is a dog joni, and joni is something like progeny? Yes. This life I am a human, previous life I was a camel and I wasn’t making so many jokes about my own toes and so on, the next life I will be into a raccoon’s joni, but its the same person who is tagged and condemned, to be born into this cycle of jonies, by default.

If he commits sin, he is condemned to go into a degraded form of life, such as a dog or a snake or a tortoise etc. Notice that this is the way religion and philosophy have been interlaced to get us to do what such a social order believes we shall do for the rightful propagation of the social ethos and our greater existential duties. Also, although the tortoise in earlier times was a reincarnated avatar of Bishnu/Vishnu. And there may not be an actual list of which lives are better and which are not, so much for binding authority of religious social order, they do not compile everything to perfection. Only the spirit behind the philosophy shall be enough for all times and and all situations.

To free yourself from this birth-death cycle you must be a “good” person as given to you by such Socio-religious conscience.

Thats why nir-vana.

First of all noone told you the etymological-analysis of nirvana. Did they?

Nirvana is perhaps among 10’s of cognate, this word can make for itself, per — Sanscrit.

Sanscrit; a hypothetical language, actually a ‘scientific’ comparison of various languages, that have a unified base, purported to be Sanskrit (or Sanscrit), in such cognates, we are going to run into 10’s – 50’s  of cognates, for the same word, which merely means, they did not necessarily come from a single purported language, but are an amalgamation of 50 or more-some languages, over 100s years, in other words self-splitting and combining too, and my analysis paves its ways, for this to be connected to Chinese and Japanese as well.

So here are just two cognates. We can find another 10, but the idea is, nirvana is a smartly coined word. Once this word’s meaning is clear, from its purported hyper-cognates, which runs into 10, 15, 20; religion jumps in and forms a philosophy, but this is possible over a longer time than seems clear immediately, there are always groups and organizations, working towards such assimilation of science into religion. What happens is scienece is forgotten and religion walks like a savior.

Ask any one conversant with the linguistic of India and other related language reservoir, they will tell you, nir = nil = not. See, I have told many times in other articles, “l” is perhaps not an original Indian consonant, which means its the same word, either nir: sanscrit word, comes from nil: english or nil: english comes from nir: sanscrit.

Also there are other “nir” in sanscrit, without the meaning of “nil = zero or not” but that might be because, the r is an inherited consonant or pseudo-ness — This is an undesirable consequence, of hypothesis of sanscrit, eg nirbaha = execution or continuation but that should be nibaha as baha = flow or continuity etc, hence ni is just inherited, from an actual another word, which is closer to our unification of Indian languages with eg Japanese. These are all abstract concepts so don’t get disillusioned or panicky, disillusion is not same as abstraction by the way.

vana would mean firecracker, if not elaborated, but its actually, vaona or vahana etc. This is what is sanscrit, its a backtracking, its not a f* insight you get from scriptures. The scriptures, that are original, exist only with say last 1000 yrs, 600 yrs or 200 yrs or 1200 yrs.

Two aspects:

1. No original scriptures (exist)

2. What happened to scriptures of 3000 yrs age? They either just didn’t exist or their existence can only be inferred, through other 2ndary scriptures, written through Demi-scholars. Not to say that these would not have any value. Point of argument: make this a citation, “this scripture derives from 2ndary work” etc etc. Don’t land into a whirlpool. Scholarship can’t be done that way.

So the point was, we can have an o or h — and a, b etc, there are far too many alternations, that are possible and we must study them all, in a given context.

Now vaona makes it vabana = feeling or thought etc and vahana could also make that flow or continuity.

Hence in both cases, nirvana would mean cessation of life, hence a cycle of life, no matter a dog’s or a parrots.

The point I am making is, although this insight occurs to me, because I am fluent and a native, in the related languages, but this analysis might have been known, for this method much before.

Also this is where religion jumps in. Once nirvana means cessation of life its easy to create a philosophy of nirvana; such as freedom from life-cycle, as ordained onto every living creature, by the creator and then assign or manipulate, shear white lie, to Buddhism or Hinduism etc.

In other words depending on one’s society’s religious needs, one can form such philosophies by subverting analysis. And they say analysis is bad. Because it exposes, their silly mental preoccupations.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s