Absolute-ness means...

juantoo3 said:

This enters the realm of "wide spectrum of meaning" and "causing confusion."

"Absolute Truths" must be considered by a truthful philosopher to himself if no other, as hopeful delusions.

The absolute truth is, I must draw my next breath, or I will die. Absolute Truths are those presented by sages of all religious traditions as meaningful paths that have some supernatural reward promised for obedience. Two *entirely* different concepts, and both equally valid, and easily confused...intentionally or not.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF NATURE.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF MATHMATICS.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF WORK GUILDS.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF CONTRACTURAL AGREEMENTS.


THE ABSOLUTE RULES ABOVE NEEDN’T BE CONFLATED WITH THE ENDLESS PURMUTATIONS, APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS EXPERIENCED BY A HUMAN AS SOMETHING THAT IS AN INTERESTING TOPIC…THEY PERTAIN TO THE RUNNING MECHINISM OF THE BIO-COSMOS…MUST FOLKS ARE AT THE MALL…ESPECIALLY AFTER A WEEK’S WORK AT THE FACTORY.


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

ABSOLUTE REALITY means all living being & non-animated elements engage in sanatana-dharma aka sva-dharma.
Such duties/activities are NOT RELATIVE to time, circumstance & desires ---such acts are relative to ones existence.

juantoo3 said:

I think I see already this discussion is challenging by, among other things, jargon which is easily used to obfuscate. Now, if this had been written to an Indian audience who was already familiar with the terminology, perhaps the thoughts conveyed would travel better. And I must admit that I came in from an outside angle to a conversation I was not directly invited to. However, the nature of the conversation implies, to me, an acceptance of the English language and a knowledgeable writer...so conveying the meaning with jargon in some effort to sound meaningful (to be polite) seems to me bordering on disingenuous. I am reserving such criticism because I am coming from an outside angle, but I never fail to notice this tendency among those who present on this subject...as though the jargon is mandatory to convey the underlying meaning. And if you don't know the jargon already, you are simply not part of the "in-crowd." It creates an attitude of cliquish, clannish elitism...as though you hold TRUTH and no one else does...which in my view is simply not true.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

THE JARGON IS SIMPLY THE BASIC COMMON REFERENCES THAT ARE UNIVERSALLY [UBIQUOUSLY] PRESENT IN HINDU-BUDDHIST SCRIPTURAL CONCEPTS THAT BOTH DERIVE FROM THE sANSKRIT [THE MOTHER TONGUE OF THE “iNDO-eUROPEAN FAMILY OF lANGUAGES”].


sanatana-dharma = eternal-duty, or, eternal-state-of-reality.

Sva-rupa = litrally, self-form … aka … the true ‘form of the self’.


We are all individual, indivisible self(s). Each with our own POV.


Presently our self dwells in a body…but after death the body dies…but the *self lives on. The self [aka soul] is superior to material elements.


[* a vector-point of conscious awareness]


Voltaire said we should ‘define our terms’ before debating etc etc.


But I know when too much jargon is annoying and not helping my cause … BUT I am using very rudimentary Sanskrit terms {found in all Buddhist sutras ---Jay? Is this yet another example of my throwing-out jargon?}.

My familiarity prob makes me seem contemptuous?

I don’t mind being called to task to Make sense or shut up.


Either I must be told to define whatever I said or I will appear like I got a snot on my face and no one is telling me to remove it. Tell me about the snot, I’ll be in-debted.


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

What the Upanishads describe as the impersonal Brahman is actually the effulgence of Lord Krishna's body, and the Lord known as the Supersoul is actually Lord Krishna's localized plenary portion. Lord Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead, full with six opulences. He is the Absolute Truth, and no other truth is greater than or equal to Him.

juantoo3 said:

OK, but then Jesus is also an Absolute Truth. Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha is also an Absolute Truth. Moses is an Absolute Truth. All of these are true by the very same usage of the term "Absolute Truth" that you are using here. And the analogy can be taken *much* further....

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

the first lesson of spiritual life is to learn [to be taught] this:
”I am spirit soul, I am not the material body”


the secound lesson is to spend life learning how it is true that:
”I am spirit soul, I am not the material body”


the time of death is the ultimate examination.


But hey, otoh, no preparation nor ambition nor interest will garrentee future by radom lottery.


when jesus rose from the dead ---it taught that ”we am spirit soul, we am not the material body”.


eVery denoumination and eVery intellectual interest could instantly gain the benefit of seeing this lesson occur


“Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.” (Bg 2.29)


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

It is said in Bhagavad-gita that after many, many lives of philosophical research the wise man ultimately comes to the point of knowing that Supreme Personality of Godhead, is everything, and therefore he surrenders unto Him. Such serious students in philosophical research are rare because they are very great souls.

juantoo3 said:

OK, but I still contend that multiple lives are not necessary, indeed the concept that is taught serves only the ruling elite...the under classes are confined from the moment of birth to the caste of their state of existence...there is no hope for elevation because the teachings do not re-incarnate in the next existence. That is a VERY deterministic view, one I don't buy into. I have the opportunity, even the obligation, to go directly to the Source of my own volition.

Let me be clear, as this seems in one form or other to be a stumbling block among deep and heartfelt discussions with fervent and well studied seekers...Sages and teachers have their roles to play in teaching laypersons and students by any other name the basics. We all must start somewhere. I think a great deal of confusion among all major faiths, perhaps all faiths period, is getting so caught up in the minutiae of the teachings, what "i's" are dotted and what "t's" are crossed, and what vowel points and inflection and grammar are used....instead of seeing the lessons for what they areand APPLYING them in our lives!

If I were to posit an Absolute Truth, first I would posit that there is a Divine Presence / Creator / Source / Well Spring from which all came. I cannot describe the Source, but I think most major religions have anthropomorphed an image in their own likeness of the Source. Which is why we end up with a Huge Human floating around on a cloud, hurling thunderbolts at whomever displeases Him / Her. I don't think like that at all, and haven't for many years, since before ever coming to this site. But mine is a concept not easily received...students must build upon the familiar, but at some point, as the Buddhists teach, you must let go of the raft after you reach the other side.

I am not familiar with your path, and Krishna...but it seems to me, by the little I see here already, that your beliefs will take you essentially to the same place other faiths wish to take you to. The root core of most world faiths is significantly the same, the differences are in the details. Humans get so caught up in the details, they lose sight of the big picture.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

You have surpassed the goals of every buddhist monk you can ever think of! Watch a kung-fu movie with you, and i can say Juantoo is a “Master”.


Electrical engineers, and software programmers, lawyers, insurance investigators, and IRS auditors get so caught up in the details, they lose sight of “La Dolce Vita”.



MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

If by philosophical research one cannot come to the point of understanding the Supreme Person, then his task is not finished. His search in knowledge is still to be continued until he comes to the point of understanding the Supreme Lord in devotional service.

juantoo3 said:

You can know your Lord by whatever intellectual pursuit you choose....if you do not apply the message and the lessons to your daily life, that knowledge is meaningless. "Lord, Lord...why have you forsaken me? Because you did not do the things I asked of you to do."

I may continue more, I don't know. I will say this before I go for now. What you know is irrelevant if what you know is not put into action. It is not what you know that helps you return to the Source, it is what you do with what you know that helps you return to the Source. THAT....is Absolute.



MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

as a child I was given one-on-one instruction on how to wipe my arse….I cannot recall the lessons, nut i must have been given them, i was a smart child but i never needed to discover by trial and error this controlling fact-of-life.


Is “source” absolute? Is it an absolute thing? Place? Person?


How can you verify knowledge?


The taste is in the pudding. We must try and report back what was gained or lost … and continue.


The lack of anxiety is a type of bliss.

usually bliss is thought of as a ‘pleasure’ [a sense graficatory stimuli]

the heights of anxiety are often expensive dangerous and very popular!



MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
juantoo3 said:

Backatcha, Bee!

OK, but are we discussing the concept of "absolute," or the nature of "reality?"

The two subjects are *not* implicitly or explicitly the same.

Words are not the thing they represent. Language has limitations. Suggesting that *any* of these represents the whole (even a significant portion) of the total of reality is misleading. For example...an Absolute Recipe would have to be adjusted for elevation above sea level...which meansin the absolute sense, that there is no such thing as an Absolute Recipe.

While I do believe reality has certain boundaries within which it cannot escape and outside of which it cannot operate (properly), within those bounds reality is an organic and dynamic (here words fail me completely) "entity" (no personality implied) that fluctuates widely (from our vantage) across its working parameters. This is one reason we struggle to explain "evolution," for example. We know some process exists, but we don't fully understand the process. Religion is much the same...they "all" (qualified here) point in the same general direction, but they cannot fully explain the process. Stated another way, you are using Newtonian methodology...the basis of your explanation is that the universe (reality) is static and unchanging (for our purposes, it is like putting our solar system at the center of the universe). With Quantum Mechanics, we've moved so far beyond Newton that, while nice and generally applicable in the "local" setting, it is untruthful to believe every setting uses the same parameters...like adjusting a recipe for altitude. Time is not constant. Gravity is not constant. There is no reason to expect all of the other components of 4 or even 5 dimensional space should be constant...indeed, just having those two biggies (Time and Gravity) being variable by default means "local" *will* vary. Therefore Absolute Reality is not absolute, except in the immediate human-centric perception of the localized part of it.

Your arguments are trying to use human-centric constructs to validate your views of the IS (reality), but all human-centric constructs will fall short, it is the nature of the creature. We don't know as much as we delude ourselves into believing we do. This is not a unique situation...go back a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years...and humans had reality all figured out then too! A hundred years from now, two hundred, a thousand...probably people will still talk as though they have the universe all figured out, but what they will believe then will be substantially different from what we believe today. And as we know, talk is cheap...
clip_image001.gif



MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

the concept of "absolute," or the nature of "reality?"


a] i AM SPEAKING OF the concept of "absolute.


BUT…


B] the nature of "reality" IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE OF ABSOLUTE(S) IN ACTION.
NAME AN ABSOLUTE. i NOMINATED, “tHE vOID” tHE VOID IS ABSOULTE.
ALL NON-ABSOLUTES TRANSPIRE IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS FOR CREATION TO COME AND GO.
ARE YOU ASCRIBING THAT REALITY IS A DREAM IN A DREAM? WHERE PHYSICS ARE AN ILLUSION? AND JUST BEING PRESENT FOR A LIFE TIME IS ALL A DREAM?
i LEARNT THAT IS IS ALL REAL BUT TEMPORARY.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

I state that there exists an "Absolute Void". [Rsvp]

juantoo3 said:

Name one. I can think of *no* void that is not a part of something larger, so by definition (complete,total,utter,out-and-out,outright,entire,etc) any existence that includes "something" by default means there can be no "Absolute Void." The verbiage is a misnomer. Even the vacuum of space, or void if you prefer, is punctuated by galaxies. Since the universe is the greatest, and until proven otherwise only absolute we can know, and many "somethings" exist in it, there can be no Absolute Void. The final proof is that you exist...if there were an "Absolute" void, you would not exist.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

nO. i DON’T SEE IT.
when seeking to build an edifice, we first excavate a hole, we make a void to place the edifice.

when seeking to write a poem, we find blank paper.

when seeking make a painting, we find blank canvas.
is this not absolute rules?

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

I state that there exists an "Absolute Persona". [Rsvp]

juantoo3 said:

In the sense of each and every individual that ever lived, I can see someone saying this. If you mean a "G-d / Demi-god / Messiah or some other *elevated* master / leader, I would vehemently disagree. So a great deal depends on what you mean using the word "Persona."

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

with all due respect, your vehemence is 100% subjective musings.
Maestro(s) are recognised left and right and many get tenure and pensions.
Some institutions rank their masters. certainly trade unions rank their apprentices.
Educational schools rank their class years.
Educational schools rank their school books.
many governments rank the students ---they’d do this to get funding.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

I state that Physics is an "Absolute". [though, I expect I am familiar with the argument against this] [Rsvp]

juantoo3 said:

Already discussed above.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

The argument that i have heard in the past were permutations of the idea that one’s reality/perception/relationship-to of life was whole-ly a 100% self-centric, and, a subjective projection of what one opines.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
bhaktajan said:

I state that any given Recipe is an "Absolute". [Rsvp]

Répondez s'il vous plaît

juantoo3 said:

In the event you do not like my explanation above, may I offer this link on cooking at high elevation:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/porta...igh-altitude-cooking-and-food-safety/ct_index

Which de facto and de jure shows that an Absolute Recipe is not absolute.
clip_image001.gif


Be sure to answer my question....
clip_image001.gif




MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

Coke-a-cola is a recipe. If we travel to the far side of the universe where they do not have Coke-a-cola…that would be sad. But [If Req'd] while you were there in the distant galaxy, the recipe for Coke-a-cola would still be the same, and when you were to taste a sample out there, you be able to attest to wether is was the real thing.
If we travel to the far side of the universe and then plan to return back to earth … there is absolutely only one earth to return to. correct?
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
juantoo3 said:
No. You make a contradictory statement, what is commonly called an oxymoron...you know; Jumbo Shrimp, Deafening Silence, Seriously Funny...empty space that the cosmos occupies. If something occupys it...it is not empty. To be void, it must be empty - to be "Absolute Void," it must by definition be Absolutely Empty. Since you exist, that is not possible...

casa_spitzer_big.jpg


What void? Space is loaded with "stuff."

And by the way, I notice you still have not answered my one and only question, even though I have asked nicely twice and answered your questions. I think I have my answer, but until you deem my submissions worthy enough to answer the one, very simple question, straightforward with no word games or mind trips...I have no reason to continue our conversation.
Click to expand...

A parking lot MUST be empty so that there is room to park cars.

A parking lot houses cars temporarily, and is designed as an empty space. OTOH, a junk yard or dump is a place reserved to retire wastes.

I cannot see your contention.

I borders on arguing that 2+2 = 22 and not always 4. It's called "semantics".
 
bhaktajan said:
the concept of "absolute," or the nature of "reality?"


a] i AM SPEAKING OF the concept of "absolute.


BUT…


B] the nature of "reality" IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE OF ABSOLUTE(S) IN ACTION.
Click to expand...

NOW we are getting somewhere. This discussion is about the *concept* of "absolute." In that sense I would agree the universe is absolute, that the universe is the only complete, total, all encompassing reality within which we exist.

Now the caveats and disclaimers: While I do agree the universe, it the sense of the totality of reality, is an absolute...nevertheless, it is incumbent upon any rationally speaking human to remember that the absolute of the universe is not absolutely constant in all of its parameters. Consider: the universe is much like a good sized stream of water flowing down a mountain...in places it will seem calm and serene, even predictable...and in other places it will flow over cliffs creating waterfalls...and in other places too there will be eddies and rip currents and other phenomena that otherwise contradict the predicted so-called "absolutes."

In other words....while the universe in total *is* absolute, the behavior of the universe in random local events is not absolute...like cooking a recipe, whether at sea level or high on a mountain, there is a range of natural phenomena that we are insufficiently familiar with to speak as though we truly understand.

I do want to interject that the universe as absolute, is *not* "void" in *any* sense of that word.
 
Last edited:
bhaktajan said:
bhaktajan said:

Coke-a-cola is a recipe. If we travel to the far side of the universe where they do not have Coke-a-cola…that would be sad. But [If Req'd] while you were there in the distant galaxy, the recipe for Coke-a-cola would still be the same, and when you were to taste a sample out there, you be able to attest to wether is was the real thing.
If we travel to the far side of the universe and then plan to return back to earth … there is absolutely only one earth to return to. correct?
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Click to expand...

No, it would not.

I've already explained, you offer no counter explanation, just insistence with allegory.

Pick a spot, *any* spot in any galaxy, and the parameters of 4 or even 5 dimensional space *WILL* be different than it is here locally in our solar system on our wee little blue-green marble. Therefore the "recipe" for "coke" will necessarily *require* adjustment to meet the new operating parameters. This is basic engineering, not rocket science. (Boyle's Law comes immediately to mind, though it is one I have only cursory familiarity with, having to do with heat and pressure)

Therefore your assertion that a recipe can be absolute only makes sense to those who do not understand the nature of reality and who are too timid to scrutinize with a rationally critical mind.
 
Last edited:
bhaktajan said:
A parking lot MUST be empty so that there is room to park cars.

A parking lot houses cars temporarily, and is designed as an empty space. OTOH, a junk yard or dump is a place reserved to retire wastes.

I cannot see your contention.

I borders on arguing that 2+2 = 22 and not always 4. It's called "semantics".
Click to expand...
You've made the assertion, now prove it. Until then, this is your opinion.

That you cannot see is no fault of anyone else...the suggestion would be to remove the blinders.

While your allegory of parking cars is whimsical, it has no relation in any form to reality...galaxies are not cars (unless one counts the old Fords, but I haven't seen any of those floating around in space lately looking for a parking space...). Galaxies are not looking for places to "park."

What is even more telling, is your insistence on "empty space." Was it not you who recently noted, the very chair you are now seated in is comprised of mostly "empty space?" The atomic structure of matter gives the illusion of solidity, but in reality contains greater and lesser degrees of emptiness, but in all cases the emptiness exceeds the atomic lattice.

What you are calling "empty space" is in reality, by current thinking, somewhere on the order of 68-70% dark matter, and another 25%+/- dark energy...all visible matter is composed of right around 5% of the total mass of the universe. Entropy implies the galaxies should be slowing in relation to each other...but it was discovered about 10 years ago that galaxies are speeding up! in relation to each other...in abject defiance of what we "know" about reality. Point being, I understand "we" (collectively) don't know as much as we want to believe we know...and folks like you who present as having it all figured out, only serve to prove to me how little "we" really know.
 
Last edited:
bhaktajan said:
bhaktajan said:

I state that Physics is an "Absolute". [though, I expect I am familiar with the argument against this] [Rsvp]

juantoo3 said:

Already discussed above.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

The argument that i have heard in the past were permutations of the idea that one’s reality/perception/relationship-to of life was whole-ly a 100% self-centric, and, a subjective projection of what one opines.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, what I presented that you are responding to is not opinion, it is mathematical "law," which is about as close as humans come to understanding the universe.

To wit: "While I do believe reality has certain boundaries within which it cannot escape and outside of which it cannot operate (properly), within those bounds reality is an organic and dynamic (here words fail me completely) "entity" (no personality implied) that fluctuates widely (from our vantage) across its working parameters. This is one reason we struggle to explain "evolution," for example. We know some process exists, but we don't fully understand the process. Religion is much the same...they "all" (qualified here) point in the same general direction, but they cannot fully explain the process. Stated another way, you are using Newtonian methodology...the basis of your explanation is that the universe (reality) is static and unchanging (for our purposes, it is like putting our solar system at the center of the universe). With Quantum Mechanics, we've moved so far beyond Newton that, while nice and generally applicable in the "local" setting, it is untruthful to believe every setting uses the same parameters...like adjusting a recipe for altitude. Time is not constant. Gravity is not constant. There is no reason to expect all of the other components of 4 or even 5 dimensional space should be constant...indeed, just having those two biggies (Time and Gravity) being variable by default means "local" *will* vary. Therefore Absolute Reality is not absolute, except in the immediate human-centric perception of the localized part of it."

"Your arguments are trying to use human-centric constructs to validate your views of the IS (reality), but all human-centric constructs will fall short, it is the nature of the creature. We don't know as much as we delude ourselves into believing we do. This is not a unique situation...go back a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years...and humans had reality all figured out then too! A hundred years from now, two hundred, a thousand...probably people will still talk as though they have the universe all figured out, but what they will believe then will be substantially different from what we believe today."
 
Last edited:
bhaktajan said:
bhaktajan said:

It is said in Bhagavad-gita that after many, many lives of philosophical research the wise man ultimately comes to the point of knowing that Supreme Personality of Godhead, is everything, and therefore he surrenders unto Him. Such serious students in philosophical research are rare because they are very great souls.

juantoo3 said:

OK, but I still contend that multiple lives are not necessary, indeed the concept that is taught serves only the ruling elite...the under classes are confined from the moment of birth to the caste of their state of existence...there is no hope for elevation because the teachings do not re-incarnate in the next existence. That is a VERY deterministic view, one I don't buy into. I have the opportunity, even the obligation, to go directly to the Source of my own volition.

Let me be clear, as this seems in one form or other to be a stumbling block among deep and heartfelt discussions with fervent and well studied seekers...Sages and teachers have their roles to play in teaching laypersons and students by any other name the basics. We all must start somewhere. I think a great deal of confusion among all major faiths, perhaps all faiths period, is getting so caught up in the minutiae of the teachings, what "i's" are dotted and what "t's" are crossed, and what vowel points and inflection and grammar are used....instead of seeing the lessons for what they areand APPLYING them in our lives!

If I were to posit an Absolute Truth, first I would posit that there is a Divine Presence / Creator / Source / Well Spring from which all came. I cannot describe the Source, but I think most major religions have anthropomorphed an image in their own likeness of the Source. Which is why we end up with a Huge Human floating around on a cloud, hurling thunderbolts at whomever displeases Him / Her. I don't think like that at all, and haven't for many years, since before ever coming to this site. But mine is a concept not easily received...students must build upon the familiar, but at some point, as the Buddhists teach, you must let go of the raft after you reach the other side.

I am not familiar with your path, and Krishna...but it seems to me, by the little I see here already, that your beliefs will take you essentially to the same place other faiths wish to take you to. The root core of most world faiths is significantly the same, the differences are in the details. Humans get so caught up in the details, they lose sight of the big picture.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

You have surpassed the goals of every buddhist monk you can ever think of! Watch a kung-fu movie with you, and i can say Juantoo is a “Master”.


Electrical engineers, and software programmers, lawyers, insurance investigators, and IRS auditors get so caught up in the details, they lose sight of “La Dolce Vita”.
Click to expand...
I realize you are being derogatory here. If "master" translates as meaning "knowing I know nothing," then I suppose I could be called a master.

You know nothing too...you simply haven't realized it yet.

(Although if we're going to watch a movie, and I get to choose, it will be about the Native American Shaman, shapeshifting, and counting coup.)

Getting caught up in the details isn't all it is cracked up to be...how many of those you noted will have their occupations engraved on their tombstones? I would bet none of them would, certainly very few if any.

Here lies John Doe
b 1/1/1949
d 2/2/2010
Husband, Father, IRS auditor

Haven't seen a tombstone like that anywhere
 
bhaktajan said:
juantoo3 said:
"Absolute Truths" must be considered by a truthful philosopher to himself if no other, as hopeful delusions.

The absolute truth is, I must draw my next breath, or I will die. Absolute Truths are those presented by sages of all religious traditions as meaningful paths that have some supernatural reward promised for obedience. Two *entirely* different concepts, and both equally valid, and easily confused...intentionally or not.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

bhaktajan said:

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF NATURE.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF MATHMATICS.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF WORK GUILDS.

absoluteS ARE LAWS OF CONTRACTURAL AGREEMENTS.


THE ABSOLUTE RULES ABOVE NEEDN’T BE CONFLATED WITH THE ENDLESS PURMUTATIONS, APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS EXPERIENCED BY A HUMAN AS SOMETHING THAT IS AN INTERESTING TOPIC…THEY PERTAIN TO THE RUNNING MECHINISM OF THE BIO-COSMOS…
Click to expand...
Indeed, however I again see conflation of terms and applications.

The Law of Nature; "eat or be eaten" is an absolute, but one many find distasteful. The Law of Nature; "the 800 pound gorilla sleeps wherever he wants to" is absolute, but many find that distasteful as well. The Law of Nature; "only the strong survive" is absolute, yet not only distasteful but humans have gone to tremendous lengths to overcome that obstacle. Humans tend to place themselves at odds with the Laws of Nature at every opportunity, natural and manmade, religious and secular.

The Laws of Physics; a body in motion stays in motion, a body at rest stays at rest...at least until they meet; absolute. Gravity, gyroscopy, magnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces and more are absolute...and humans are constantly seeking ways to harness these to do our bidding. It is critically important to note here that while I recognize the building blocks of Reality as being absolute, that in no way at any time in any space implies those building blocks are of constant values in every situation across time and space. ("E = mc 2 definition. An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c 2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself." borrowed quote, to demonstrate, that as mass approaches the speed of light, time appears to slow. Speed itself is a variable that plays a minor role, but in combination with gravity -small planet v big planet, small sun v big sun, small galaxy v big galaxy and proximity to a black hole and how big - all play to create the variable of gravity...and that is *only 1* of the variable building blocks, and why a recipe cannot be absolute)

The Laws of Mathematics; probably as close to "absolute" as human symbolic language can get, but still not inerrant. (As any good mathematician will attest.)

As for work guilds and contractual agreements...lawyers break those "laws" routinely. Not even worthy to be considered in the same space as the other candidates...which returns us to conflation of terms.
 
Last edited:
BARTZ'S LAW OF HOKEY HORSEPUCKERY: The more ridiculous a belief system, the higher the probability of its success.
BEAUREGARD'S FIRST LAW: When you're up to your nose in it, keep your mouth shut.
BEAUREGARD'S SECOND LAW: All people are cremated equal.
CHESTERTON'S OBSERVATION: I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.
CHURCHILL'S COMMENTARY ON MAN: Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
COHEN'S LAW: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts, not the facts themselves.
COLE'S LAW: Thinly sliced cabbage
GINSBERG'S RESTATEMENT OF THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS (AKA GINSBERG'S THEOREM):
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't even quit the game.
FREEMAN'S COMMENTARY ON GINSBERG'S THEOREM: Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg's Theorem. To wit
1. Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
2. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
3. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.
LAWS OF FRISBEE:
1) The most powerful force in the world is that of a disc straining to land under a car, just out of reach (this force is technically termed “car suck”).
2) Never precede any maneuver by a comment more predictive than “Watch this!”
 
Last edited:
bhaktajan said:
I POSTED THE OP TO GET RESPONDENTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE EXISTS THE IDEA THAT “ABSOLUTES” DO EXIST.


THUS, THE NEXT THING TO DO IS NAME AT LEAST ONE ABSOLUTE.


OTOH, IF SOMEONE SAYS NAY! NONE SUCH THING! …THEN LET ‘EM SAY HOW-COME(?).
Click to expand...
I have, and I did, and you don't want to hear the answers.

It all comes down to which paradigm "you" (not just you personally, all of us) put stock in.

All religious paradigms have portions and parcels that simply do not line up comfortably with observed reality. What Thomas likes to call "warts and all," and Bananabrain would point to the understanding of the Sages (of his tradition) that logic and reason are not emphatically necessary to understanding the wisdom lessons contained within. These I would agree with.

Instead, all too often, folks attempt to defend their religious traditions with logic and reason...and they always fall short. I posit this is because religious traditions are not intended to be viewed through a rational or logical lens...and in point of fact fail when viewed in such manner precisely because they are not intended to be viewed thusly.

You can speak all you wish of Absolutes in a religious manner...and in that manner those discussions may well have merit (I'm not familiar and can't say beyond reasonable doubt). But trying to shift to reason and logic into a more scientific, observational experimental process to justify your claims on the same basis *will* fall short. The difference between rhetoric and logic is a very simplistic but overall accurate way of splitting the two disciplines. The gulf between science and religion isn't only with Christianity. And I will not say religious outlooks are incorrect, but they absolutely are *not* scientific, and therefore are not "truth" in the sense of "observed reality."
 
I give proper time to replying.

But for now a quick one:

I posted:
Coke-a-cola is a recipe. If we travel to the far side of the universe, the recipe would be the same.
Since you couldn't make heads or tails of what this meant I have ammended the same example but with something that may make my point clear:
The English Language is a recipe. If we travel to the far side of the universe, the English Language would be the same.

Jauntoo, could you state what it is that you do recognise as ABSOLUTE? What constitutes an ABSOLUTE?

Duality is ABSOLUTE. No? Is Duality ABSOLUTE?

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

My note on the nature of Duality:
Show me a coin . . . and I'll show you it's flip-side.

Show me a the study of White-Light . . . and I'll show you it's spectrum of colors.

Show me a mother . . . and I'll show you mother-fornicator.

Show me a something . . . and I'll show you it's required "nothing shelf-space".

Show me a plank-time's worth of space . . . and I'll show you rising Real-estate Values in Iowa.

Show me a poor man . . . and I'll show you rich man.

Show me a beautiful woman . . . and I'll show you an ugly woman.

All eixsts together, and their differences are appreciated by the "Knower of the field".

The "Knower of the field" is a spirit-soul-in-the-material-world.

With all the opposites that compose the material-world's energy ---is there a market for renuncing all these polarities?

Here is duality enveloped in an indisputable singularity:

dur_aa.jpg


This is a 1.5 volt sample of Duality & Unity acting as One Unit.

Here is a difficult to grasp singularity of all possible angles:

A SPHERE
celestialSphere.jpg


The above displays all sorts of duality:
Inside/outside
Top/Bottom
Lightside/darkside
left/right
Clockwise & counter clock-wise

And, all such perameters happen to be reversible here, in the case of the sphere, and still without loss.

IE: "Clockwise & counter clock-wise" is reversible/interchangable by turning the globe upside down.

So the "top" can be reversed and proclaimed as the bottom. The left is "left" unless it's called the "right".

BUT, no parameter nullifies its equal and opposite inversion ---there can only be one outside and one inside "at-a-time". Thus there are absolute parameters that cannot be escaped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top