\ Finding Valhalland //

Nissin vs. Tango

I love tea. I love having tea-time with my Mom, my Sis and my Bro. We even used to have it in the morning when my father was at home. We often have it in the evening when everybody has tired of daily activities. Until today, we still have tea-time in the evening. Mostly, tea was not alone. She has biscuits to accompany her. Again, Nissin was with us. The old biscuit from Nissin, CoffeMocca, you can see in the picture always taste good in the mouth. But lately, Tango and her many flavor, luring us to taste it. Of course, compare with CoffeeMocca, Tango is more solid, the choco is taste more chocolate. And it doesn’t easy to break. The shape of Tango is contemporary, while the Nissin has the old-Shape of wafer. I like Tango better, but for tea-time, I like the old one – Nissin is more proper to accompanies Tea. And for the tea, no lemon …. Please! I don’t like sour things – lemonade feel like acid

Reinkarnasi

Kata “reinkarnasi” asalnya dari kata re+in+carnis. Kata Latin carnis berarti daging. Incarnis artinya mempunyai bentuk manusia. Sedangkan reinkarnasi adalah masuknya jiwa ke dalam tubuh yang baru. Jadi, jiwanya adalah jiwa yang sudah ada, tapi jasadnya baru. Maka, reinkarnasi juga dapat disebut kelahiran kembali. Kondisi ini disebut pula sebagai migrasi jiwa. Artinya, jasad lama ditinggalkan alias mati, dan pada suatu kesempatan jiwa tersebut masuk ke dalam jasad baru, alias menjadi bayi kembali. Dalam bahasa Inggris reinkarnasi disebut sebagai reborn atau reembodiment. Ini adalah definisi yang dikatakan oleh Achmad Chojim. Istilah Buddhismenya, tumimbal lahir.

Anyway, kalian tahulah apa itu maksudnya.

Percaya tidak, aku merasakannya. Ini cerita lama yang masih kupertanyakan. Aku pernah tanya ke mama dan ayahku dulu, apakah aku pernah naik ayunan diatas kolam yang besar? Jelas waktu kukecil dulu, rumahku tidak ada ayunan dan tidak punya kolam besar. Saat itu, aku memakai baju putih yang bagus seperti anak bangsawan India yang tinggal di sekitar Taj Mahal or something like Masjid. Aku naik ayunan, ditemani oleh seorang wanita dan pria yang sepertinya mereka adalah orang tuaku. Salah satu dari mereka mendorongku, dan rambutku yang panjang tersibak asyik oleh angin.

Aku yakin itu bukan mimpi. Aku mendapati pengalaman ingatan itu saat ku berumur 12 tahun. Aku tanya terus ke mama tapi mama tidak pernah mengajakku naik ayunan. Gadis yang berayun itu sepertinya juga berumur 12 tahun atau mungkin 11 tahun. Perawakannya cukup sama denganku, rambut panjang dan kulit yang tidak terlalu putih. Saat aku main ayunan itu, malam hari. Keadaan sekitar cukup temaram – tidak gelap dan tidak pula terang.

Apakah ini namanya?

Apa aku bermimpi?

Like, do you believe in Reinkarnasi?

Lama aku tidak mengungkit ini … silly, bahkan adikku pun tidak kuceritain hal ini. Aku teringat kembali untuk menceritakkanya ketika sepupuku, Daniel Fahmi membawa foto-foto lama dimana aku pernah kecil dulu. Foto kanak-kanak ku mengingatkan akan masa dimana kecilku tidak kanak-kanak. Well, salah satunya ya misteri ini. Sementara, ku nikmati saja.

Valhalland, 20 Maret 2007

Philosophy of Time

There was a time when zahranakumay chatted with vikov_001:

zahranakumayl: mana yang lebih dahulu: waktu apa creation?

vikov_001: creation

vikov_001: karena waktu is created

vikov_001: bener ga:-?

zahranakumayl: mulla shdra bilang na: the creation occured with time

zahranakumayl: bukan take place in time

vikov_001: jadi barengan gitu?

zahranakumayl: iya

zahranakumayl: kalau kubilang sih waktu dulu baru universe

vikov_001: hmm aku sempet mikir gitu tadi

vikov_001: trus?

vikov_001: creation itu sendiri definisi nya apa

zahranakumayl: let’s say UNIVERSE

zahranakumayl: jadi menurut ku :

zahranakumayl: khan dunia dicipta 6 hari accrding quran

zahranakumayl: so waktu dulu baru UNIVERSE

zahranakumayl: waktu is God (hadst qudsi)

zahranakumayl: whatdya think?

vikov_001: oiya?

vikov_001: aku baru tau neh

vikov_001: kayanya ga segampang itu definisinya

vikov_001: aku lebih setuju waktu dulu, baru universe

vikov_001: eh kebalik

vikov_001: masalahnya kan waktu juga di ciptakan

vikov_001: hadisnya kaya apa tuh

zahranakumayl: mumet aku …

zahranakumayl: pak hamdani pernah bahas gak

vikov_001: pak hamdani sering bilang kalo mau solat mintalah agar kita dimasukkan ke dalam ruang dan waktu Allah yang tidak ber ruang dan tidak berwaktu

vikov_001: ruang dan waktu Allah bebas dari setan jin iblis

vikov_001: pye?

vikov_001: halu?

zahranakumayl: hmm …

vikov_001: ngapain di pikir? ada gunanya ga?

zahranakumayl: ada

vikov_001: apa?

zahranakumayl: menurutmu?

vikov_001: mana?

zahranakumayl: sebelum dunia dicipta

vikov_001: g ada

vikov_001: tapi ya gak tau lagi

zahranakumayl: apa yang ada? ini naik terus ttg …

vikov_001: pertama yang dicipta Allah kan Nur Muhammad

vikov_001: dari Nur itu tercipta alam

vikov_001: kayanya waktu termasuk dalam alam itu

vikov_001: kita tau kan jiwa atau sesuatu yang’halus’ tidak tergantung ruang dan waktu

vikov_001: brarti bagi mereka waktu itu g ada

zahranakumayl: hmm  …

vikov_001: atau mereka bisa melepaskan diri dari kungkungan waktu

vikov_001: la kalo waktu itu Tuhan…. mana bisa coba?

vikov_001: tapi ini baru analisis ngawurku

zahranakumayl: gilaaa

zahranakumayl: mengerikan

vikov_001: la kok gila

vikov_001: aku emang mengerikaaaaan:D

zahranakumayl: panentheistic

vikov_001: hiii aida emang aneh

This chat session happened during the class of Religion and Science. When Pak Zainal Bagir explained about how Mehdi Gholshani and John Haught fought the thought of Dawkins and Weinberg; how the theists versus the atheists and showed them that their atheism is also a religion to them – a belief a system, a scientism.

When Syaviq (vikov_001) stated that there is condition where timeless is exist, I got more confused but this is reminded me about how Hinduism deal with time’s philosophy. In the Vaisesika system, ‘time’ is one of nine substances (dravya), it is connected with ‘creation, sustention, and destruction’. If the physical of universe or any of creation is the body of God, then there is a time where they are timeless. Time also eternal and … ohhh .. I don’t know what else to say. God is too massive for me to talk about but it also a temptation for me to not to speak about. Vyasa gave comment, “just as the atom (paramanu) is the smallest particle of matter (dravya) so a moment (ksana) is the smallest particle of time (kala).” Time (kala) is not real and it based on changes in the mind. So there can be timeless – zero time experience in this universe and that will explain the condition where ‘magic of creation’ happened.

In Bhagavadgita, Khrisna said about himself: “Time am I, world-destroying, grown mature, engage in subduing the world.” Ohh … send me the Mahdi, the Kalki, and the Superman mode on me so I can get pure enlightenment to understand all of this.

Valhalland, March 7^th, 2007.

Once upon a time … there was a time

There was time

When there was no time

When time was not yet

(Willem B. Dress in Creation: From Nothing Until Now)

Gholshani, in his article, “Creation in the Islamic Outlook and in Modern Cosmology” stated that both the atheists and the theists argued and discussed about creation. By bringing up the arguments from Moslem Theologians, Moslem Philosophers, Moslem Mystic and Mulla Shadra, he tried to explain that the problem of creation is not a matter of physic, but also theological and philosophical.[1] He also mentioned about, “the use of Big Bang cosmology for the affirmation or denial of temporal createdness is a clear misunderstanding of both cosmology and creation (as understood in theology and philosophy).”[2] Big Bang is only a change, not a creation; the universe may be able to be described scientifically by its physical aspect, but the grand explanation – the macro creation is only provided by God.[3] And obviously the atheist will disagree with him (and Haught too) because they have system of belief as the theist had where they have sort of obligation to defend it. While scientist has nature’s interpretation, the theologian has sacred text and both of them have their own philosophy.

Furthermore, Haught tried to show that the atheists and agnostics consider their belief system or science is an ‘ultimate concern’ or in our ‘language’, it can be call as ‘religion.’ When science met religion, it is a meeting between two belief systems where they questioned the same things about the mystery of this universe. And they emphasized the importance to use both science and religion to explore the evolving universe. Science cannot stand alone without philosophical thought from the religion. Religion is very old, and this living tradition has lived with human long time ago and with the coming of science, it was really helpful to solve the puzzle we face in life. This has proven that science did support the belief in God, because, for example, the creation of the universe. If we said that Big Bang is the exact theory about creation, then religion will started to ask, ‘what’s in it before Big Bang and who did it?’, or perhaps question about, is it really a chance and necessity?’ The question about intelligent design will came up when we discuss things between science and religion. And we can set up a smooth dialogue to decrease the conflict, maybe with the critical realism method.

Bibliography

Gholshani, Mehdi. “Creation in Islamic Outlook and Modern Cosmology”. God,Life, and the Cosmos (ed. Peters, Iqbal, and Haq). (

England

: Ashgate Publishing, 2002)

Haught, John F. “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”, in Haught, Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation” (New York: Paulist Press, 1995).

Is it an Intelligent or an Idiot Design?

Both Dawkins and Weinberg seems agree that our present scientific knowledge about nature shows that the idea of the existence of God is not tenable. From the monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), again, they also agree that the existence of evil is a proof of the non-existence of God. These arguments are not connected one each other. The first reason is scientific and the other is based on moral ethics. According to John F. Haught, in an evolving universe lied two forms of evil, the evil of disorder and evil of monotony. The first one, consist of suffering, war, famine, and death, and the second, means “clinging to trivial forms of order, refusing to open up to what is fresh and renewing even when it is relevant to do so.”[1] Based on these arguments, I can say that science can prove the existence of God.

Between the two arguments, there is no the stronger one. The first argument was talking about how God’s existence depends on science. And the second one is how God’s existence depends of the existence of goodness things. It can be said that there are two windows to reality. Science makes claim about how the universe begin, while religion makes claim about creation. And the further question is: how do the claims of these different things relate? Sometime there are conflicts, but sometime they are support each other. It depends on the perspectives, nevertheless sometime they don’t relate at all.

            Scientist – chemists, biologists, feel that life which consists of H + O + C + N – and combination of these molecules should be possible to create within Lab. “Creation requires a creator, but nature requires no creator. A creator might exist but one need not exist for the world to be nature. So, nature is what the world would be if there were no God.”[2] If we use Big Bang as reason to prove the non-existence of God, then what happen next is adding more questions: who set the Big Bang? How it happen? How is it before the Big Bang? It is like when the atheist questioning about, “How can be still evil happen if the good God exist?” This question also arise in Weinberg’s writing, when he questioned about the hidden well of God’s sign.[3]

            Weinberg stated that religion did not make any difference since it was more support in evil things than in opposition to it. He gave many examples from war, disease, violence which happened under the name of religion. And Dawkins also talked the same thing with Weinberg: there is evil in religion, and history has recorded them so many. And there is no need to believe in certain religion to do good deeds. Believe in god and religions for both of them is only wasting time, or “a cosmically jokes if it weren’t a tragic action”. Dawkins emphasized that the ‘appearance of design’ will arise naturally within the evolutionary process. That is why he proposed his book title with “The Blind Watchmaker”; blind because of creation happen with ‘chance and necessity’ – it has no consequence, no purpose, and no plan. But in contrary, this live is a masterpiece like it all did by a Master Watchmaker with all of the magnificent designs. But Dawkins did not see this as a big problem – since I guess he is the follower of Occam’s razor – where the simple reason is the truth. And God is too complex to be understood. So, is it the intelligent or idiot design which lies in the bridge between science and religion?

Bibliography

Dawkins, Richard, “The Improbability of God”, Free Inquiry Magazine, vol. 18, Number 3 (http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/)

Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. (Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999)

Haught, John F. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. (

New York

: Paulist Press, 2001).

Weinberg, Steven. Facing Up. (2002)