Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva – State[ment]verse

In the article titled, “Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva“, the following, (beginning from the 11th paragraph counted from the last para or rather last statement) is said:

But this whole sabang, this whole of totality, of everything, at the very end, or at the very limit, or to the very limit, to infinity, exists. This structure in totality, exists. This totality of everything and whole of everything, exists. So the totality and the whole exists.

Also:

And this totality or whole, has no part, or no component, of non-existence, or this ‘existence-nonexistence’, i.e. the transformation/change, represented, by Brahma and Shiva.

And:

So in the context of totality or whole, there is no component of non-existence or this, ‘existence-nonexistence’, dualness, or this ‘existence-nonexistence’ duality, or this “existence-nonexistence” thing, i.e. nothing i.e. existence-nonexistence superposition.

This continues:

So this, existence-nonexistence, or ‘thing-nothing’, thing, in context of, totality or whole, isn’t there, it does not exist.

But even if we consider that they exist, i.e. even if we consider, that this ‘existence’, along with this ‘existence-nonexistence’, or transformation, or ‘state1-state2’ thing, (state1-state2 superposition), exists, then with this totality of, existence, and, existence-nonexistence or transformation, has only the component of existence. This structure exists. There is no component of non-existence.

So anyway, the totality or whole, can only be attributed the ‘existence’.

So at the end, and at the limit, and at the level of, totality or the whole, the only thing that exists, or the only thing that ‘is’, is existence, represented by Vishnu.

So the totality, in other words, the whole or wholeness, is existence, is … Vishnu.

Here, ‘Existence’ is a relative. The existence of one is not the existence of the other, it is the non-existence of the other, in general. Here, the ‘existence’ of the whole or the Absolute or the Purna (Complete) is not the the ‘existence’ in the conventional or usual sense. This ‘existence’ of the ‘whole’ is not the ‘existence’ in the sense of the ‘non-whole’.

For example, consider ‘A’ (or simply A). The ‘Not’/Not-statement of A, call it B or NA (for Not-A), does not exist for A. B/NA is the non-existence of A. Now, consider A-B or A-NA or A-N[A]. This ‘structure’ is the ‘Not’/Not-statement of A, of B or of NA. Similarly, the structure A-NA-N[A-NA] is the ‘Not’ of the any ‘other’ i.e. of A, of B or NA, of A-B or A-NA. Similarly, the statement A-NA-N[A-NA]-N[ A-NA-N[A-NA]] is the ‘Not’ of A, of NA, of A-NA, of A-NA-N[A-NA]. And so on ….. This is Infidefiception

Now, the ‘existence’, or the ‘sense’ of ‘existence’ of any existence/state that is the non-whole, is not or does not represent or present the idea or sense or understanding of the or in context or in the perspective of the ‘existence’ of the whole.

Now, state[ment]verse is not the statement, it is not any statement.

[By the way it is as well, and not, and is, and isn’t, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception. State[ment]verse is EVERYTHING, is everystatement, is every statement.]

Here, the existence of this whole structure, “existence — existence-non-existence“, is not the existence of, or is not the existence that is the ‘existence‘, ‘existence-non-existence‘, mentioned above as the whole/entire-structure within the bold double-quotations and in the italicized bold font. ‘existence‘ is a statement/state/structure, ‘existence-non-existence‘ is ‘another’ statement. The whole/whole-structure, “existence — existence-non-existence“, is ‘another’ structure or statement. So, existence is the ‘Not’ of existence-non-existence, of existence — existence-non-existence. existence-non-existence is the ‘Not of existence, of existence — existence-non-existence. existence — existence-non-existence is the ‘Not of existence, of existence-non-existence. existence, existence-non-existence, existence — existence-non-existence, are statements and belong to or fall in or lie in the State[ment]verse. Now, state[ment]verse is not the statement, it is not any statement.

Now, before carrying on with the state[ment]verse, lets address the issue of ‘existence’ that is the ‘whole‘/’complete‘/’entirety‘/whole-structure.

From above it may be clear that the ‘existence’ of the whole is not the ‘existence’ of the non-whole. The ‘existence’ of the whole refers to the existence of this structure: ‘existence — existence-non-existence‘. And with Visñu, the ‘existence’ of this Complete-structure, which maybe this: ‘existence — existence-non-existence‘, or any other, and of any structure is represented. By ‘existence’, what is meant here is whatever structure or complete-structure (Relative or Absolute) is or ‘exists’ (relatively or Absolutely), be it no structure or non-structure, be it structure-non-structure, be it the structure such as ‘existence-non-existence‘, be it ‘existence — existence-non-existence‘, be it Brahmm [or Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म)] itself, be it STATE[MENT]VERSE that is the ABSOLUTE-STRUCTURE. STATE[MENT]VERSE is ABSOLUTE-STRUCTURE, and by that is not, and is, and is not, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception. STATE[MENT]VERSE is ABSOLUTE, and by that is not, and is, and is not, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception. STATE[MENT]VERSE is EVERYTHING, and by that is not, and is, and is not, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception. STATE[MENT]VERSE is NOTHING, and by that is not, and is, and is not, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception. STATE[MENT]VERSE is INFIDEFICEPTION

Visñu, being All-pervasive, is EVERYTHING, is NOTHING, is ABSOLUTE, is NON-ABSOLUTE, is CONTRADICTION, is INFIDEFICEPTION, is STATE[MENT]VERSE


Visñu – NARAYANA – PURUSHA – BRAHMM – PARA BRAHMM


Now, state[ment]verse is not the statement, it is not any statement.

If there is a statement, “state[ment]verse“, then this statement falls or lie in/within the State[ment]verse. STATE[MENT]VERSE is CONTRADICTION/contradiction, STATE[MENT]VERSE is NOTHING, STATE[MENT]VERSE is EVERYTHING. STATE[MENT]VERSE is ABSOLUTE. STATE[MENT]VERSE is NO-/NON-ABSOLUTE. STATE[MENT]VERSE is INFIDEFICEPTION. STATE[MENT]VERSE/CONTRADICTION/NOTHING/EVERYTHING/INFIDEFICEPTION is the KEY/key, is the BASIS, is the ULTIMATE BASIS, is the ABSOLUTE BASIS.

STATE[MENT]VERSE is different from other ideas of GOD(S) or ‘other’ GOD(S), in that it accepts the INCONSISTENCY/CONTRADICTION/NOTHING/NOTHING-EVERYTHING (NOTHING = EVERYTHING)/QUESTION-MARK/STATE[MENT]VERSE. STATE[MENT]VERSE accepts NO-GOD. GOD is NO-/NON-GOD. STATE[MENT]VERSE is NO-GOD. STATE[MENT]VERSE is different in that STATE[MENT]VERSE is or accepts NO-GOD.

[NOTE: The notion of GOD here, and in the article cited, is taken in the most general sense, there is no any specifics intended or supported, within the specifics though. Though there is claim of no-specifics, but there are specifics nonetheless because specifics can’t be gotten rid of, just like ‘Nothing’ can only be represented in terms of ‘something’ and not as true Absolute Nothing, whatever that is. Similarly, formless cannot be (truely/Absolutely) represented, but only in terms of forms or representations. The true or Absolute formless or non-representation is no representation at all, or non-representation itself. Similar is true for, or in context of, Brahmm [or Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म)] -the Universal Truth/Reality, and the Devas [or Devtas (Sanskrit: देव)]. Similar is true for the General or the Absolute or the Absolute-General, and the same is true for this General-Specific thing. General cannot be represented, only in terms of specifics.]

ABSOLUTE is NO-ABSOLUTE. STATE[MENT]VERSE is The ABSOLUTE

STATE[MENT]VERSE is with ‘which’, or ‘where’, or in case or context of ‘which’, the ‘loop’ can be, or is, justified. The loop does not occur or exist with, or in case or context of, STATE[MENT]VERSE. With STATE[MENT]VERSE there is no loop. The ‘loop’ here refers to the argument-loop when it comes to GOD(S). This loop/looping happens because GOD like any Basis, is a Basis or taken to be a Basis, and Basis defines everything that is based on it and Basis defines itself. Nothing other than the Basis itself can define Basis. Only Basis can define Basis (itself). Nothing, and only nothing, can define Basis.

Basis, if defined by ‘something’ else, makes that Basis not the Basis and that ‘something’ defining that basis, and therefore defining all that is based on that Basis, is the Basis, and not that initial ‘Basis’.

So the loop is inevitable, because only Basis can define Basis (itself).

But the problem with GOD, like every Basis, is the Arbitrariness. The no justification or non-justification or no-justification existence, the arbitrary existence. We may and can still ask the why?-question. We can still ask why is there such Basis, ‘potentially’ to infinity/forever, creating the infinite regression. We can always ask why? There is always ‘why?‘ The why? always exists.

[The Question-Mark is the answer, is the Absolute. It has been here all along, and will be ….. The Question-Mark, which is the answer itself, which is the Absolute, which nobody looks at as the Answer, always exist, that always persists. State[ment]verse is that Question-Mark – ‘?‘, is the Answer.]

There is the absence of Justification, or reason. There is the absence of Absolute Justification, of Absolute reason or Absolute Answer.

But with State[ment]verse, there is justification, there is reason, there is Purnatwa (Completeness). State[ment]verse is Pruna (Complete). State[ment]verse acknowledges Contradiction/Inconsistency. State[ment]verse recognizes Contradiction/Inconsistency. State[ment]verse accepts Contradiction/Inconsistency. State[ment]verse is Contradiction/Inconsistency. In fact, State[ment]verse is the acknowledgement that Everything is, and that every thing is about Contradiction.


INFIDEFICEPTION


With State[ment]verse, the justification is inherently served.

With State[ment]verse justification is not required, unlike the other GOD(S). State[ment]verse does not require justification because there is Nothing to justify. This itself is the Justification.

State[ment]verse in not necessarily infinite, is not necessarily finite. It gives how, why, EVERYTHING = NOTHING or NOTHING = EVERYTHING


Visñu – NARAYANA – PURUSHA – BRAHMM – PARA BRAHMM

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more