It’s Kabir tonight.
Ab Lafz-o-Bayaan Sab Khaatam Hue,
Ab Lafz-o-Zubaan ka kaam nahi
Ab Ishq hai khud paigam apna
Aur ishq ka kuch paigam nahi.
Muala Muala Lakh Pukare,
Aur Muala Haath Na Aaye
Lafzon se hum khel rehe hain
Mana haath na aaye.
Jo Paani kay naam ko
Paani Jaane, Yeh naadani Hai
PaanI Paani raat te raat te
Pyaasa Hi mar jaaye.
Wasn’t it Ludwig Wittgenstein who first said “Limits of my language are the limits of world !”
The difference between the symbol, the signifier and the signified, isn’t it. Why Is it that the signifier outshines the signified, even though association is mental construct? Can signified exist without a signifier? If yes, then isn’t it incomprehensible.
Language hasn’t even spared our thoughts. We can only think in its terms. Is that why we can never describe the non-existent? We need words to express and when we have them, the non-existent exists.
“Malum Hona hi to sab se bada NaMalum hona hai.”
Kabira Kuan Ek Ha
Bhande Hi main Bhed hai
Paani sab mein eik.
Agar Katra na dariya se juda hota to kya hota?
Wohi hota, jo hai
Iske siva kya hota?
Na hone par toh duniya ki aankhen kha gaayi dokha
Ju tere, na siva koi khuda hota to kya hota!
The conclusion that we naturally make out of the last two lines is a logical fallacy. It amounts to Denying the antecedent. Powerful verses that need deeper understanding
“Ram hamara humein japhe”
“God is Society” Emily Durkheim.
Only Durkheim based it on study on tribes and Kabir on his own understanding of society and self.
If the follower ceases to be, God ceases to be. Again, a hasty conclusion. The expressed and existent can exist independent of each of other, can’t they?
The ultimate question can I think without language?
Track: Maula Muala, Farid Ayaz, Kabir in Pakistan.
PS: Posted it late. No access from 01:00 – 06:00. Campus Woes.