User:DangalOh

This user is a Sarola Brahmin.

This user doesn't own anything.

****************** On a Long break from Wikipedia *******************

A. In calculus, zero and infinity are closely linked through the concept of limits. When a function approaches zero, it can sometimes simultaneously approach infinity under different conditions. For example:

As x approaches zero, 1/x approaches infinity. Conversely, as x approaches infinity, 1/x approaches zero.

Philosophical implication:

1.)This relationship suggests that as one approaches the emptiness of the self, one might paradoxically approach the realization of the infinite. The dissolution of the individual self could reveal the infinite reality that permeates everything.

2.) This relationship suggests that as one approaches the realization of the infinite, one might paradoxically approach the "emptiness" of the self. The realization of the absolute self (infinity) could reveal the dissolution of the individual self (or No-self) (zero).

B. limit (x → Destination) f(x)

The nature of calculus and limits allows for an infinite variety of functions that can approach the same value.

Example Functions Approaching Destination:

Polynomial Function: f(x) = x²

Trigonometric Function: f(x) = sin(x)

Reciprocal Function: f(x) = 1/x² (as x → 0⁺)

Implication: If you know your destination, it can be approached through not just one or two, but an infinite number of paths. Each journey presents distinct perspectives and challenges, yet all ultimately converge at the same destination.

Some Random Philosophical Visualizations:

Vishnu as Infinity: Vishnu represents the sustaining force of the universe, embodying the essence of preservation and cosmic order. By associating him with infinity, we emphasize his all-encompassing nature—his divine presence pervades everything, and he maintains the balance of the cosmos across infinite realities and dimensions. This perspective aligns with the idea that infinity is boundless and eternal, much like Vishnu’s role in the cosmic order.

Shiva as Zero: If we view Shiva as zero, we recognize him as the ultimate void or the source from which all creation emerges. In this context, zero symbolizes a state of potential, where nothingness contains the seeds of all existence. Shiva's role as the destroyer aligns with the idea of returning to zero—dissolving forms and identities back into the cosmic void, leading to transformation and renewal.

Brahma as the Mean: With Brahma as the creator, he becomes the manifestation of the interplay between Vishnu (infinity) and Shiva (zero). He symbolizes the emergence of the manifest universe from the infinite potential of Vishnu and the void of Shiva. This captures the cyclical nature of existence, where creation arises from the delicate balance between being (the absolute) and non-being (the void).

A random thought: The zero and infinity paradox can be understood as "Purusha"—the essence that embodies both absolute nothingness and boundless potential. In contrast, "Prakriti" is the mean between these extremes, representing "maya," the illusory material world, or Brahma. This relationship exists in a paradox: while Purusha and Prakriti are distinct, they are intrinsically linked in the dance of creation and destruction.

Once an individual attains liberation, they transcend individual identity and the limitations of earthly existence, becoming free from the cyclical nature of the universe and one with the divine: "Ahaṁ Brahmāsmi." If this unified self were to reincarnate, it would be as a "conscious" decision of the divine to restore dharma, rather than as a consequence of personal karma or desire. This perspective aligns with the view of "avatars" as embodiments of divine principles, sent to guide humanity back to balance and righteousness [1] :

"Yada yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata, abhyutthanam adharmasya tadatmanam srijamy aham." (Bhagavad Gita 4.7)

Rough Translation: "Whenever there is a decline in righteousness (dharma) and an increase in unrighteousness (adharma), O Bharata, at that time I manifest Myself."

"Paritranaya sadhunam vinashaya ca duskrtam, dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge." (Bhagavad Gita 4.8)

Rough Translation: "To protect the righteous, to annihilate the wicked, and to reestablish the principles of dharma, I appear millennium after millennium."

My interpretation: My synthesis, which combines mathematical concepts, metaphysics, and Hindu cosmology, reflects (or perhaps affirms) the core ideas of both Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. While these traditions take different approaches, they ultimately converge on the same non-dual truth. Nagarjuna was perhaps one of the greatest minds in the history of humankind. His concept of shunyata (emptiness) brilliantly dismantled the notion of inherent existence, but where Buddhism falls short is in recognizing the paradoxical relationship between emptiness and absoluteness, which Adi Shankara later developed.

Shankara’s concept of Maya—the illusory nature of the finite world—beautifully reconciles the relationship between the infinite (Brahman) and the apparent world, something Buddhism does not explore as fully. Maya serves as a veil over the infinite, making the finite world real in an empirical sense but ultimately illusory.

While Buddhism’s rejection of divinity isn't necessarily a flaw, it left a gap in providing a metaphysical anchor for the masses. Normal humans need something to cling to. Faith in the divine is a very powerful tool. Shankara bridged this by offering faith in the divine, making his teachings accessible while preserving the non-dualistic essence. In doing so, Shankara completed the philosophical work that Nagarjuna began, offering a more comprehensive vision.

Dilemma of Righteousness and Virtue:

What defines righteousness? Is it rooted in strict adherence to dogmatic morals and principles, or is it characterized by open-mindedness, moral reasoning, and the capacity for empathy and self-reflection?

What constitutes a virtuous person? Is it someone who retaliates against continual aggression, defending themselves against repeated attacks—such as someone who retaliates when stones are thrown at their house? Or is it someone who exercises restraint, understanding that their one precise response could harm not just their aggressor but also innocent bystanders living in a vulnerable situation, akin to throwing stones in a glass house?

“ In a world overrun by lawful evil, where adharma reigns supreme, let the chaotic good rise within us. Let it be our battle cry—a wild flame illuminating the darkness of injustice and apathy. ” — DangalOh [2]

Timeless Wisdom Rooted in Human Experience - Essential Lessons in Propagating Dharma:

“ You can keep a dog's tail in a straight pipe for 12 years, but it will still remain crooked when you take it out. ” — Indian folk traditions

Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna emphasizes the importance of recognizing the gunas (inherent qualities) in people and understanding that while Dharma must be upheld, one cannot force change where the individual’s nature is deeply ingrained. Forcing change upon someone who is not ready or not aligned with the path may result in frustration and wasted effort.

“ Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people — but the people are retarded. ” — Osho

Solution? Maybe a refined, modified, and a little more inclusive version of this: [3]

Final Comments:

1.) Throughout history, many faiths have often sought to deceive and undermine one another while simultaneously whitewashing and censoring their own narratives. It seems to be a lifelong mission for the faithful to protect the sanctity of their religion in the face of academic persecution. Despite these efforts, it remains nearly impossible to mislead those who are truly initiated and knowledgeable about these intricate histories. For example, can it be argued that the Semitic biblical religions were entirely dependent on Aryan knowledge and wisdom for their development? Lol, look here—faithful adherents do their best to censor it too: [4] and [5].

Many biblical Europeans incessantly criticize and distort Aryan wisdom, yet ironically, often claim the title of 'Aryan' for themselves. If hypocrisy had a face, it would be European. I have no issue with this appropriation—call yourself an Aryan if you wish—but at least embody the principles of what it truly means to be Aryan. Act like an Aryan. Aryans were never meant to dominate or rule over others, but to guide humanity toward a more enlightened path.

2.) Jain oral tradition asserts that the 22nd Tirthankara, Neminatha, lived approximately 85,000 years ago, claiming him to be the cousin of Krishna, who is said to reside in Naraka (hell) due to the war he waged in Kurukshetra. This narrative is one of their core beliefs, underscoring why "oral traditions should never be taken as definitive historical evidence without further scrutiny.".

Dating the start of any oral tradition is extremely difficult, and this difficulty becomes even more pronounced when attempting to correlate these traditions with empirical timelines or archaeological findings, such as the age of the Vedic religion.

If we blindly accept the content of oral traditions without further scrutiny, it raises questions about how old Vedic Sanskrit and the Vedic religion might actually be. Hittite, though traditionally considered to have been first attested around 1650 BCE (with speculative ranges of Vedic far predating Hittite), is regarded as an extremely unrefined and simplistic language, which many scholars were initially hesitant to label as Indo-European. Some still debate this classification. In some respects, some linguists consider Lithuanian to be the most conservative of the existing Indo-European languages. However, it is also viewed as unrefined, primitive, unsophisticated, and underdeveloped, lacking philosophical depth, especially given its extremely late attestation. Moreover, it seems that its speakers made little effort to improve its condition or even preserve their literary legacy, if any proper literature ever existed. Vedic Sanskrit is often considered the closest language to hypothetical Proto-Indo-European, especially in terms of morphology, phonology, and syntax. It serves as the main basis for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European, just as Vedic myth is central to Proto-Indo-European myth. But this certainly does not mean that all other incomplete and limited Indo-European languages and literatures stemmed from or were directly or indirectly influenced by Vedic Sanskrit. There is no solid evidence for that, and we have proto theories that make more sense.

Let’s fully accept that the initial oral compositions of the Buddhist texts (the early Pali Canon) likely began immediately after the Buddha's death, which Witzel dates to around 380 BCE, and continued to evolve (obviously) until they were comprehensively codified and possibly written down for the first time by 29 BCE in a Vedic-derived Prakrit, Pali. However, this raises important questions about the type of Buddhism that was practiced at that early time, the ideas that were already circulating, and the influences that shaped them. In any case, it is evident that the very first followers of Buddhism, proto-Theravada Buddhists, were still in the formative stages of their ideology during a period when Indian society was surrounded by several orthodox ideas of all shapes, sizes, and forms.