چرا برخی پستها را به انگلیسی مینویسم؟

برخی از دوستان برایشان محل سوال است که چرا برخی پستها را انگلیسی یادداشت میکنم با اینکه ظاهرا مخاطب انگلیسی زبانی ندارم. به دلایل زیر برخی پستها را انگلیسی مینویسم:

1. تمرین و تقویت رایتینگ خودم که به تبع آن دوستانی که سری به این پست ها میزنند برای آنها نیز هم تمرین ریدینگ و هم تمرین رایتینگ محسوب میشود.

2. تلاشی برای تجمیع کلمات تخصصی زبان انگلیسی فلسفه و کلام و عرفان اسلامی و محلی برای رجوع به آن.

3. در ضمن که گفته من مخاطب انگلیسی ندارم؟ شاید دارم. وُلا

4. محلی یرای رفع و حل مشکلات چکیده نویسی.

 

نکته: آیا من خیلی به انگلیسی مسلطم؟ و قصد فخرفروشی دارم؟ پاسخ هردو سوال منفی است. اگر من برای هر کاری که میکنم بخواهم این را در نظر میگیرم که آیا مخاطب گمان میکند که من مثلا ریا یا فخرفروشی کرده ام باید میرفتم در غارهای سفیدکوه زندگی میکردم و هیچ فعالیت اجتماعی نداشتم درحالی که همانند حضرت علامه طباطبایی (ره) قائلم که انسان واقعا و ذاتا و طبعا اجتماعی است به این معنی که تمام رشد و کمال او در گرو زیست اجتماعی است. بنابراین به این مسئله هرگز توجه نکرده ام و نمیکنم. همچنین شاید تسلط کافی بر زبان انگلیسی نداشته باشم ولی این دلیلی نیست که دست از تلاش بردارم. 

 

the study Quran

 

.

Hi everyone. I want to introduce one book that is very practical and important for every researcher and student of Islamic philosophy, theology, mythology, theosophy, and so on. Pay attention that every religious study on Christianity or Jewry also needs this book because all of the Abrahamic religions have one essence and substance: "monotheism." Well, it's called "the study Quran" written by Seyyed Hossein Naser and his research team. Whereas he is one of the most critical thinkers of perennial wisdom and someone that study in this school has to have domination over all of the religions, even eastern school, so he is professional at the correct translation of the Holy Quran. They have used the best literary and mystical equivalents versus Quran verses. So when we want to write one English essay on those subjects, we can reference this book and find the match of our intended word. E.g. the word "motahharoon" in verse 80, "al-wagi ah" what is its equivalent? In most of the Quran translations comes the verb of to clean or to clear while in this book comes to pure, see: "none touch it, save those made pure." Other than its good syntax.

Hamid khosravani

 

 

 

God isn't any concept, even Being or reality

When our mind becomes empty of any image or concept, on the other hand, with an open mind, all feelings and emotions created in our soul or heart also become destroyed. We are, and we become one evacuated existence. We are = ourselves. Pure Being. My mean of being means to be. In other words, or the better words we become = pure awareness. Pure intuition. Pure see. Pure insight. Well, so, what is god? Where is god in this debate? God is this pure intuition that we are and other things and existences. To Islamic philosophy, say 'a reality' or in the arabic language, say ' wāqiʿyatun mā.' in the persian language 'chizi'. Truth is the perception of that Self of reality is the reality, not that it be false or dreams. The Self of reality is god, not this god itself is one thing. God is Self of existent and Self of Being. But the vital matter is that being and fact are pure mind concepts we extract from external existences. In other words, our minds created them. They are creatures made of our mind's hand. God provided comes to our home that we are cleared and washed up of concepts like being and reality. we Continue this problematic debate. Wait.
Yes, I know that my English writing is weak. So only pay attention to my mean.

Hamid khosravani

 

Do is God thing or a nothing? or none

 

A few days ago, I published a one-note about a book about purity, clearing, and cleaning of imagination's power of humans from everything other than God. I understood that the Statements of this book are mainly like Buddhism's teachings about clearing the mind from everything. If the mind became vacant of any concept, then what will remain? Well, nothing. Yes? Or no? maybe God is not "thing." That's right? I don't know presently. If in its book spoken from the aim of its teachings is to come of God to our body and soul, unless, does Is God something that enters whitin us? Is God a thing, or is he nothing? Or, more challenging of that, is God one person? It seems that God is the same as nothing. But on the one hand, God is a thing when we speak of him, and he is nothing when we don't talk of him. It is one paradoxical proposition. But in fact, it isn't. because I think and in my epistemology, concepts like 'thing' and 'nothing' are actually and, in the truth, mental and subjective. In the real world, these concepts have no a factical being. Only and only God is pure intuition or, let me say, pure, absolute awareness. I will soon Continue this discussion inshallah. If you have something to say, say it below.

 

 

 

 

Hamid khosranvani

 

 

My Master Thesis subject is the substance from AL-Farabi view

 

 

substance from AL-Farabi view

Hi, everyone. Before I talk with you, I must say that my English language is weak. Know this point in every post that I will put on my blog. If you see every kind of Language mistake in my writing, I have, please tell me. Thanks.
My Master's Thesis is on the subject of substance but from farabi view. Till now, I understand that this philosopher is significantly Affected by Aristotle's organon, special in this subject. I mean that Aristotle in his organon has trends to quiddity till being. He diagnosed two substances: primary Substance and Secondary substance. The substance of the first is the same external being, for example, "this human" or "this pen," but the substance of the second is the conception of that external thing or is quiddity. But Aristotle, in the metaphysical back of his idea and says that substance is one, and it is an external thing.
Now mister farabi is significantly trends to the first Aristotle idea. He divides existence into the section: Bing and quiddity. Then he divides quiddity into a section: substance and attribute. This was the abstract of my research till now.
Now the question is, Why does farabi put substance Of divisions of quiddity not being?
It is very problematic. Be wait till the Next results and say your idea, please. Thanks.

 

 

Hamid khosravani