Dhiresh

  “EVERYTHING” AND “NOTHING” are relative. EXISTENCE is relative. ‘Nothing’ is like any state/statement A being its ‘Not’ or ‘Not-statement’. ‘Nothing’ is like any existence A being its non-existence, i.e. existence A being ‘not’ or ‘not-existence’, i.e. existence A not existing or being ‘not’ or ‘non/non-existence’ of, or with respect to, A. ‘Nothing’ is like any state/statement A becoming or trying to become its ‘Not’ or ‘Not-statement’. ‘Nothing’ is like any existence A becoming or trying to become its non-existence, i.e. existence A becoming or trying to become ‘not’ or ‘not-existence’, i.e. existence A not existing or becoming or trying to become ‘not’ or ‘non/non-existence’ of, or with respect to, A. ‘Nothing’ is like A changing/’moving’ with respect to A. This is what ‘Nothing’ is with respect to A. A cannot change/’move’ with respect to itself. [We keep chasing that which is not, and thus is unchaseable and unachievable, that which achieved is not achieved, whose achievemen...

  “EVERYTHING” AND “NOTHING” are relative. EXISTENCE is relative. ‘Nothing’ is like any state/statement A being its ‘Not’ or ‘Not-statement’. ‘Nothing’ is like any existence A being its non-existence, i.e. existence A being ‘not’ or ‘not-existence’, i.e. existence A not existing or being ‘not’ or ‘non/non-existence’ of, or with respect to, A. ‘Nothing’ is like A changing/’moving’ with respect to A. This is what ‘Nothing’ is with respect to A. Now this applied to ‘Every’ ‘thing’, is Absolute Nothing, is the Absolute Absolute, is Absolute ‘Everything’, is no Absolute, is Contradiction, is Indefiception, is Infidefiception, is  VISÑU

Remember this:   The most fundamental law of Nature is that there is no law. The other way to put it is to say, Every Statement (in the State[ment]verse) has a Not-Statement, or Every statement has a ‘Not’ :   https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/absolutism-follow-up-4.html Everybody has God. Being “atheist” is no different. One of the belief or 'trust' is the trust in the induction or the law of induction. Only “trusting” “reality”, the hard one, is also no different. No matter what, every thing has a basis, and no matter what, every existence is about existence and its property is to exist and “extend” its existence in the space of existence. The ‘hard-reality’, the one we generally refer to as the “external” or “physical” reality, it appears one does not need to “believe” in it for it to exist and assert itself. But here’s a thing, even the thing that we so called “believe” is not within our control, “our” or “our control”, in a conventional sense. In fact, the very thin...

  In Sanatana Dharma, which we mostly know by the name of Hinduism, there are three figures, rather concepts; Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. So what is this business about these three concepts? They actually represent the three aspects or attributes or characteristics or properties of the absolute/supreme/ultimate. The Ultimate/Absolute reality in Hinduism is called Brahmm, with the humming trailing sound at the end. Brahmm  is everything and nothing as well. Brahmm is the foundation/basis of everything, and nothing. Now, Brahma is/represents the creative aspect of the  Brahmm . Let’s not get confused between Brahmm and Brahma, they’re different. Vishnu is/represents the sustenance or maintenance and existence aspect of  Brahmm . Shiva is/represents the destructive or annihilatory aspect of  Brahmm . Now, we can picture this whole idea in this way: Consider any state of existence/being. So, any state or any existence has, call it, associations or elements or componen...

The most fundamental law of Nature is that there is no law:   https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-nature-of-nature.html This implies that even this is not the law. So, there is law(s), which again would mean there is this law which again would mean there is no law(s), and so on ….. The other way to put it is to say, Every Statement (in the State[ment]verse) has a Not-Statement, or Every statement has a ‘Not’. The Absolute, the most fundamental is:  Every Statement (in the State[ment]verse) has a Not-Statement, or Every statement has a ‘Not’. The Absolute, the most fundamental is: STATE[MENT]VERSE This implies even this Statement has a ‘Not’. So, not every statement has ‘Not’. So, there is no ‘Not’, or there is ‘Not’ of ‘Not’. Which again would mean that the ‘Not’ of this Statement has a ‘Not’, which is there is this Statement. Which again would mean there is ‘Not’ of this Statement i.e. there is no ‘this Statement’, or there isn’t such ‘Statement’, and there is, and so ...

It is true, or at least “feels” so, that “we” “exist”. But what does the three quoted (” “) words imply. We “know” what it implies, we “experience” it. What is “experience”? What is “reality”? We “know” what is real, but what is “real” itself? Is there a beginning? Why is there a beginning? Why is there “why?”?, Why is there “why is there “why?”?”, and so on ….. What is “fact”? Can “existence” itself be defined, can it be defined in terms of the “other” or “Not” of existence? i.e. in terms of what it is not? i.e. by non-existence? If no, it (Existence) is the Absolute Basis. I’ll go further and extend this and say that, any particular existence is what defines itself and nothing else, and it is the ultimate Basis of itself. So then, there is no “link”/”relation” between any existences ‘A’ and ‘B’, where A is not B and B is not A. Any thing/existence A defines and justifies itself, so is with B. The basis of A is A itself, the basis of B is B itself. There is no relation between A, B, C...

Defining this term, rather an entity, “I”, has been an enigma, but paradoxically it is what we most know about or are familiar with, or at least have a sense of, or about. But the Big “Question Mark”, presents here as well as a question-mark that is this entity “I” itself. We can associate this with consciousness and maybe identify with it as well. Even if we cannot, I’m going to use these terms interchangeably which may or may not imply identity between them i.e. which may or may not imply them (‘I’ and ‘consciousness’) being same or identical. But what is it? Can we define or measure it? Measurement in anyway possible? We do define or measure “I” in some sense, as our experience or with our experience or in some other way. But when looked at it directly, it seems vague and fuzzy and even “absent”. Is there even an entity called “I”? At least we have a sense of it. An article on measurement is presented here: https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/measurement.html Measurement of some...

  Everything has Basis. Everything has Foundation. This is because, at the very least, what exists has its existence as its Basis. It has itself as its Basis. Existence/experience/observation has itself/existence as its Basis of existing/being. A thing exists for that thing, an observer exists for that observer. NOTHING exists for NOTHING. This statement is true and exists, and therefore, is universal rule. Nothing has no Basis. Nothing has no foundation. Exactly, NOTHING has No Basis, NOTHING has No Foundation. By the way, here is what Basis is, or what I mean by “Basis”: Basis is the one that defines that thing of which it is the basis of. It is one that bring that thing into existence. It is that which defines the existence of that thing, of that what exists. Basis is that what defines existence. Basis is existence. Founding My Basis: My Basis is NOTHING. Even then it is Something because I exist and I’m Something. I’m experiencer/observer. My experience or observation is Someth...