User:DangalOh

****************** 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 :

"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?

This user is a Sarola Brahmin.

This user doesn't own anything.