Basis of Immortality?

Mmm, people would understand better if you used language.

And since you CAN make the above statement, why don't you do that in the first place? This is one thing that provokes people: You make some statement that is practically incomprehensible, then when people ask what you mean, you are perfectly able to make yourself understood. So what was the purpose of the gibberish statement?

Hans

Rhetorical statement & questions.

Many things can be valid in absolute or prime truth but irrational in current due to change in need of time/environment/evolution. Still science look prime i.e which we can not see/sense directly. QED.
 
There can be many truths which may not be rationals due to change of need of time/environment/evolution. But we can still see both truth & rationals to arrive at complete picture. Why physics look, which we can not see/sense directly?

We physics look when fails the nonsense sense to make, or religion odds the brain to sludgy mush as here we see the sad denouement.
 
We physics look when fails the nonsense sense to make, or religion odds the brain to sludgy mush as here we see the sad denouement.

Are you comparing those, who attained OMNISCIENCE , highest morality, equanimity and ultimate goal to be human being i.e NIRVANA with those who are neither yet A&F nor can be?
 
Last edited:
Nobody has ever attained omniscience.

Literary sources[edit]

The claim of existence of omniscience by Jains, who deny the existence of a creator god, is a unique phenomenon.[8] The Sutrakritanga text of the Svetambara school, elaborates the concept as all-knowing and provides details of his other qualities.[9] Another text, the Kalpa Sūtra, gives details of Mahavira's omniscience


When the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had become a Jina and Arhat (Arihant), he was a Kevali, omniscient and comprehending all objects; he knew and saw all conditions of the world, of gods, men, and demons: whence they come, whither they go, whether they are born as men or animals or become gods or hell-beings (upapada), the ideas, the thoughts of their minds, the food, doings, desires, the open and secret deeds of all the living beings in the whole world; he the Arhat (Arihant), for whom there is no secret, knew and saw all conditions of all living beings in the world.:[10]

Immediately after the death of Mahavira, his disciple Indrabhuti Gautama became a kevalin.[11] As per the tradition, the teachings of the tirthankara were memorized and preserved over many centuries.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevala_Jnana

Also many others.
 
You suddenly believe a Wiki entry is the Truth? Interesting.

From that Wiki page:



Perhaps you filed to notice the highlighted word?

Hans

Nothing odd in it. Today, it is common term. Shouldn't had you pointed out when other poster quoted wiki link?
 
Last edited:
Are you comparing those, who attained OMNISCIENCE , highest morality and ultimate goal to be human being i.e NIRVANA with those who are neither yet A&F nor can be?

90's grunge scene not omniscient, much very equanimity. No scracity of opinions, tttttttttt. Career of Nirvana A&F over, complete, for gross prime energy shotgun kablooie.
 
Are you comparing those, who attained OMNISCIENCE , highest morality, equanimity and ultimate goal to be human being i.e NIRVANA with those who are neither yet A&F nor can be?


No, we're comparing people who are able to back up their arguments with evidence and reason with someone who is reduced to arguing that his assertions should be accepted as true because they are irrational.
 
No, we're comparing people who are able to back up their arguments with evidence and reason with someone who is reduced to arguing that his assertions should be accepted as true because they are irrational.

Do you mean A&F evidences? To compare you may need A&F evidences and omnicience.
 
No, just evidence. "A&F" is nonsense.

It's worse than that: he uses his A&F nonsense to refuse to accept repeateable, testable scientific conclusions, then castigates us for not having open minds. When in reality it is precisely the fact that science doesn't have A&F conclusions that means our minds are open, but will be persuaded by solid evidence. Meanwhile his mind is entirely closed to anything that doesn't fit his preconceived ideas.
 
Nothing odd in it. Today, it is common term. Shouldn't had you pointed out when other poster quoted wiki link?

Kumar, you have quoted a Wiki link about what some people believe about omniscience, and you claim it is proof of omniscience. The problem is not that it is a Wiki link, the problem is that you don't understand (or pretend not to) what it says.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Nobody has ever attained omniscience.

Literary sources[edit]

The claim of existence of omniscience by Jains, who deny the existence of a creator god, is a unique phenomenon.[8] The Sutrakritanga text of the Svetambara school, elaborates the concept as all-knowing and provides details of his other qualities.[9] Another text, the Kalpa Sūtra, gives details of Mahavira's omniscience


When the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had become a Jina and Arhat (Arihant), he was a Kevali, omniscient and comprehending all objects; he knew and saw all conditions of the world, of gods, men, and demons: whence they come, whither they go, whether they are born as men or animals or become gods or hell-beings (upapada), the ideas, the thoughts of their minds, the food, doings, desires, the open and secret deeds of all the living beings in the whole world; he the Arhat (Arihant), for whom there is no secret, knew and saw all conditions of all living beings in the world.:[10]

Immediately after the death of Mahavira, his disciple Indrabhuti Gautama became a kevalin.[11] As per the tradition, the teachings of the tirthankara were memorized and preserved over many centuries.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevala_Jnana

Also many others.


Cool story bro.
 

Back
Top Bottom