Absolutism: The never ending Quest!?

 I’m a Physicist. And I’ve been a “Hindu”, whatever that is. Before being a formal Physics student, I’ve been a “Hindu”, again I’ve no complete definition. It’s crazy. In fact, it is the teachings in Hinduism and the Physical, cosmological, cosmogenical and Meta-Physical ideas in Hinduism – aka Sanatana Dharma, and the cosmological theories in Physics that lead me to the eventual fall in love with Physics.

Like everyone, I’ve been in search for what I could never define but anyhow searched for it. It was just a intuition, a gut feeling, a curiosity to know what’s all this was fuss about.

I come from a Vaishnava family of Hinduism – the one that believes Vishnu to be the supreme entity, God, thing, or call it whatever. I used to contest myself and my ideas why Vishnu was the supreme “whatever”. I surfed through all the major texts: Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, Upnishads, Puranas, and what not. I found contests, difference of opinions, and contradictions, that weren’t difference at all. Unlike what I found with the different world religions, Hindus, though with so many ideas and theories of Gods, like Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra-Shiva, Indra, Agni, Varuna, Shakti, Ganesha, etc, always proclaimed their respective deities as the same Brahman – the thing, you know.

But there was difference of opinion nonetheless. The difference of opinion got bigger with increasing affinity and proximity. Other religions and ideas believed in different things and different Gods. Of course as a Vaishnava I wanted Vishnu to be the supreme and wanted to assert that, through dialogues and scholarly debates and discussions and logic and reason, to others.

It seemed everybody had opinions of their own, one can go as finer as possible and even dig out the personal ideas and concepts and notions different, not just as a civilizational or social or communal level, but also at the individual level. And not just at the individual level, but also at some finer and subtler levels.

This finer and subtler differences were pacified to unite and create a larger much stable organizational ideas and thus organizations. So, a larger structure with much more possibilities and options and thus stability was constantly being constructed and created. This was just about climbing, what I call, the ‘Immortality Ladder’, that maybe infinite. But because it was infinite, one couldn’t prove that it was infinite.

Anyway, when the ‘God-ideas’ of someone was highly challenged the response was quite obvious, because in doing so their core and foundation of existence was shaken, provided that you decode their what their God(s) is. When severely challenged, it could become an existential crisis, be it in the individual level or at the social, communal, national, or civilizational level. Just like humans are made up of cells, the entities/structures like ideology, religion, society, community, groups, nation, civilization, etc exist. Smaller organizations form a larger organizations to climb the steps of that ‘ladder of Immortality’, all aiming for the grand prize of the Absolute, the Permanent, the Immortal, which by the way does not exist. But even the fact that it does not exist, does not exist: (For details or elaboration on this read other articles).

Atheists might think that they have escaped this God thing. But that’s an illusion. Just like what has been happening all this time, it’s just a change of God, a change of Basis. Yes, there is no evidence of some type of traditional Gods, and therefore, yes they lack the belief in those Gods, but there is always an over-arching structure. Like any so called theist, they also have a world-view, an idea of the world-dynamics. They might claim to “believe” in science or in the hard-reality, they might have ‘reality’ as their Basis, but they have the Basis nonetheless. They might claim that their basis is at least ‘real’ and ‘firm’ and ‘harder’ than any of the other types of Gods, but they have the Gods nonetheless.

Now, this involves a belief and a certainty that there are no other ‘realities’ apart from this one. One can neither claim that there is any ‘other’ reality, nor can it be claimed that there is no ‘other’ reality ‘out there’. There is or exists no ‘out there’ for, or with respect to, this reality to claim anything about the ‘out there’. The ‘out there’ is fundamentally undefined. There exists ‘this’ reality and that’s it. One would be wrong in uttering even a word about the existence of the ‘other’ existence.

Now, even if one is concerned about what really is real or what really exists, there is a complete surrender to the ‘reality’. It is the Basis, it is the God. It’s just a matter of what God you choose or believe. One might say that they don’t need to believe in God, because their God is ‘reality’ itself, and reality is truth and you don’t have believe in it, it certainly exists in the sense of ‘hard-reality’ and what’s ‘hard-real’. Yes, but that’s no different from the other Gods, they also exist and are real in the sense or space or basis or reality that they define. These Gods may not be ‘real’ in the sense or perspective of ‘hard-reality’, or with respect to or with ‘hard-reality’ as the Basis, but they are real in their own defined reality. It’s really a matter of what one considers ‘reality’ as. In terms of reality as ‘hard-reality’, yes, the traditional Gods, in a ‘hard-real-literal’ sense, do not exist.

Even this hard-reality is a Basis, it is God. Yes we experience it as hard-reality, but otherwise and apart from it, it’s a belief. There is no reason to believe in hard-reality. Other realities are also experienced, for example, soft reality, as which we realize and experience traditional Gods, and some mathematical Axioms and theorems, logic, reason, causality, theories of Physics, Quantum probability wave-function, etc. To be honest, we cannot define our hard-reality, ‘believing’ it is also undefinable. It is what it is, and that’s it. One cannot provide any reason or justification for it. Just like any axioms or Basis, it is what it is. There is no underlying layer of reason or justification for it. All reasons end there, like what happens in any faith. The distinction that arises between the religion and the ‘reality-believers’ is just what distinction arises between any two religion – the difference of Gods, the Basis. One believes in and describes everything based on ‘hard-reality’ or ‘hard-real’ worldview, the other on their own doctrine and worldview. The one with Hard-reality as Basis bases and defines everything on the Basis of hard-reality, which is obvious as hard-reality is the Basis here. The one with some commands as Basis bases and defines everything on the Basis of those commands, which again is obvious as those commands are the Basis here.

In mathematics we have axioms, premises and various statements in logic that are considered ‘true’, various statements and ideas in philosophy, various ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ in sciences, religions have ideas and ideologies of their own. In general, they’ll have basis, they all have their own Gods. In general, they all have ‘Relation(s)’ between any two entities or things or existences or statements. These Gods/Basis, being existence, are all about existence and extension and expansion of their existence throughout the existence-verse – the space of existence.

This space, by the way, is not ‘space’ in conventional sense, actually not a space in any sense, because ‘it’ ‘is’ the existence-verse of ‘spaces’. It is not even ‘it’, not even ‘is’, but again is ‘it’, is ‘is’. One reason that it is space or conceived as space, and it is ‘it’ and is ‘is’, because we cannot conceive it otherwise. Even No-space is only conceivable in terms of space, ‘not-it’ conceivable in terms of ‘it’, ‘isn’t’ is conceivable in terms of ‘is’. In general, Nothing is conceivable only in terms of ‘Nothing’, i.e. only in terms of something, nonexistence in terms of existence. This is because ‘something’ or ‘thing’ or existence is our Basis.

The expansion throughout the infinite existence/existence-verse/State[ment]verse and thus attainment if Absolute or Permanence is the ultimate goal.

But here’s the thing: For any statement there exists at least a Not-statement. This ‘Not-statement’ is the complement or nonexistence of that statement, and not only of that statement but of any statement. Any statement is the ‘Not-statement’ of any statement that it is not, i.e. Any statement is the ‘Not-statement’ of any ‘other’ statement. The term ‘other’ is to be used cautiously because for any statement/state, there ‘other’ does not exist, as it is the nonexistence of that state, it is Nothing with respect to that state.

Now this makes it impossible for any existence, any thing, any state/statement to ‘conquer’ the ‘whole’, the ‘entirety’ of the Existenceverse/State[ment]verse. In other words, there is no ‘whole’ or ‘entirety’ or ‘universe’ or ‘universal’ or ‘universal-set’. There is no ‘complete’. There is no complete without Contradiction.

[CONTRADICTION (Sanskrit: Virodhabhaas) is the key].

‘EVERYTHING’, is undefinable or indefinable. ‘NOTHING’ is undefinable/indefinable. They’re INFIDEFICEPTION. STATE[MENT]VERSE is undefinable/indefinable/INFIDEFICEPTION. STATE[MENT]VERSE is …..

By the way, EVERYTHING = ABSOLUTE = NOTHING = CONTRADICTION = EXISTENCE – NON-/NOT-EXISTENCE = INDEFICEPTION = INFIDEFICEPTION = STATEMENT – NOT-STATEMENT = STATE – NOT-STATE = STATE[MENT]VERSE = …..

There is no defining the Absolute, because there is no Absolute, and definition is existence. ABSOLUTE is NO-ABSOLUTE/NON-ABSOLUTE. To be precise, ABSOLUTE is ABSOLUTE – NO-/NOT-/NON-ABSOLUTE.

All in all, for any statement there is Not-statement, for any existence there is non-existence.

Even all this has a ‘NOT‘, and even that, and even that, and even that, and so on…

One of the simplest examples of this are the numbers and their counting. There is always a number that is the ‘Not’ of any number. There is always a number that falls outside the set that is the ‘counted numbers’. No matter how far one counts there is always a number that falls outside that set of counted numbers and that is different than all those already realized or counted numbers. There is always a number greater than the previous. There is always an infinite regress, apparently. But even that (whether) it is infinite, or finite, cannot be known. Well, if it’s infinite, by definition it cannot be known. But even that it cannot be known, cannot be known. Even that it cannot be known, that cannot be known, cannot be known, and so on…..

Also, if it’s infinite, it seems obvious that it is finite, cannot be known, simply because it’s infinite. But then again, because it is infinite, it cannot be known that it’s infinite, and therefore it cannot be known whether it is finite or not. But again, since this inherently and implicitly assumes that the regression is infinite, and assumption being assumption without proof and by definition unprovable, one cannot say that it is infinite and thus cannot say that it can or cannot be known. Therefore one cannot say that it is finite or infinite. One can say Nothing.

If it is finite, we maybe able to realize the edge. But can we? But if infinite, we cannot verify anything, we can verify Nothing, not even this statement, and therefore we can verify, and not, and yes, and not, and so on…..

If it’s finite, we cannot say that it’s finite beforehand, before realising it. But even if the edge is finite and we realized it, we cannot certainly assert that this is the Absolute boundary/border/limit. To say that this border is the border forever, is no different claim than claiming to have found and realized infinity. To say that this is the Absolute boundary, that it is the boundary forever, one should experience/realize that to be the boundary forever, for infinity. One should realize the state that states, “This boundary is the boundary forever, for infinity”. This is impossible. No matter what, one one realises the finity/finitude/finiteness.

[Here, this ‘state’ that states, “This boundary is the boundary forever, for infinity”, can be realized as the ‘state’ as an element of State[ment]verse. But again here, realising all infinite states is impossible. Realising even ‘another’ state is impossible, as that translates to one state realising ‘another’ state. There is no/nothing like just or simply ‘realising’. But again, there ‘is’ the ‘Not’ of this statement, and therefore can be realized. There is ‘Not’ of this state as well, and so it cannot be realized (as well). But again, there is ‘Not’ of this, and of this, of this, of this, and so on…..] of this whole as well] of this whole] of this whole] of this whole] of this whole] of this whole] and so on…..

Convincing others was not as difficult. But as i tried to convince myself, and others, of my ideas, there was no end. Even though there was no other, i created it myself. One simple, but fundamental, way to do is to just apply the ‘NOT’, even if one cannot conceive it or picture it or ‘feel’ it.

For every Vishnu there is Rudra/Shiva, there is Brahma,….. But even this has ‘Not’ and cannot be confirmed (infinitely; ‘every’ involves infinity; every = infinity), and nor this, not even this, so on … This is Infidefiception.

This is what actually is invariant. This is what is Absolute, but this cannot be realized, and this is not and it has ‘Not’, and so does this, and this, and this, and son on… This is Infidefiception.

This whole time there seemed to be an answer to the Absolute question, there came answers but they decayed. One after the other the answer(s) came, and decayed. There was no “Answer-answer“, the question, which i call the ‘Question-Mark‘ – the no Answer, Nothing, ‘Nothing’, stood firm, stood solid, stood Absolute….. This is Infidefiception.

I

All the ideas and talks of Aatman, ‘I‘, ‘self‘, of Brahman/Brahmm, all those ideas of Moksha, Param Pada/Padam, of the Sanatana, of Dharma, of Purusha, of Aananta, of the Laws of Nature, of Universe, of Invariance, of Absolute, of Conservation, all this, relates to NOTHING, (to EVERYTHING). This all relates to NOTHING.

In the conventional or traditional or usual picture or worldview or sense of existence or Universe, however, all this, relates to NOTHING.

(By the way, Everything or everything or ‘Everything’ or EVERYTHING is in some respect or sense is different from and is not every thing or ‘every thing’ or every-thing or ‘every-thing’.)

All ideas in Hinduism, in Budhhism, or any religion in a conventional sense, and religion in general sense, and ideas and every thing, claim to have the knowledge of the supreme, of the Absolute. But like all those answer(s) that came and went/decayed/vanished into Nothing, into the Question-Mark. All was consumed and devoured by the Question-Mark, by the NOTHING, the Absolute, the Immortal, the actual Supreme.

Everybody looked and searched for Answer(s), but none realized that the question – the Question-Mark itself was the Answer, is the Absolute.

Vedas and the idea of the Vedas do subscribe to the idea of unknowable, unfathomable, without any features, of the featureless, of the formless, and even have something like the Nasadiya Suktam, which ask questions and consider that they might not have any answers. This, and even the notion of the unknowable, unfathomable, formless, is close, but they don’t consider questions themselves as Absolute. They don’t consider the Question-Mark, the NOTHING, that’s Absolute, that’s the true Absolute.

Question-Mark is Absolute, NOTHING is Absolute, NOTHING = EVERYTHING is Absolute, that’s the true Absolute. and by that isn’t, and so is-isn’t this as well, so is-isn’t this, and this, and this and so on….. This is Infidefiception.

In an attempt to find that Absolute, the Vedas and the ideas there, come to consider the something though, and only something. Yes, there is a notion and sense of “no words can describe that”, and that this formless and featureless can be realized as those with forms. There is the notion of sunya (Nothing) and annanta (Infinite). Buddhism has the idea of Nothingness. All these Indic ideas do go the deepest, compared to any other, even compared to the ideas in Physics and any other sciences. But, all these ideas, be it from any source, any religion or philosophy or logic or mathematics or sciences or be it from Physics, from Metaphysics, from Nature, from the Vedas or from any Statement, they’re all Statements, and they all have ‘Not-statement(s)‘. They all can be refuted, they are all refutable, by their Not-statement(s).

This is why there is Vishnu – Shiva – Brahma – Shakti – …. This is why there is Vishnu – Shiva – Brahma – Shakti – … debate. For every Vishnu, there is Shiva, there is Brahma, there is Shakti, there is …, and vice-versa. They’re all ‘Not‘ or ‘Not-Statement(s)‘ if each other. The PURÑA (Complete) is the CONTRADICTION (VIRODHABHAAS), is ABSOLUTE, is NOTHING, is EVERYTHING, is ….., is INFIDEFICEPTION, is the STATE[MENT]VERSE