User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Reply

For convenience: <small>{{mdf|1=[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan]]|2=reason, ~~~~}}</small>

I see you are not as biased as I once thought you were. Maybe I was wrong about you. We disagree on many things, but I appreciate you being open to new ideas, even if they challenge your old beliefs. I also try to digest new ideas and research that challenge my beliefs. Regards. 2409:40C1:202C:1C22:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers; see you around. Ever delved into Krishnamurti? What did he actually teach? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I barely have any idea about Krishnamurti. I guess he had some impact in the Western world. Whatever I got to know about him is through Wikipedia, after following your and others' edits. I don't care much about humans who are regarded as godmen in some way, maybe only Shankara, a little bit. But in general, I’m not interested, be it Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi, or even Vivekananda. 2409:40C1:35:4935:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan Even though the De Broglie Bohm theory is a type of realist dual aspect thinking where both wave and particle are seen as real, and Advaita Vedanta teaches nondualism or absolute oneness, I see some interesting similarities, which I thought I’d share with you (I really have limited options lol). Maybe it’s just my Advaitic Geetaic Shengtong Zen mind that tends to see unifying synthesis in everything, keeping Vedantic terms as the base.

In Bohm’s view, reality is not what it seems. Behind the particles we observe is a deeper hidden order.

In Advaita, the world we experience is called Vyavaharika, which means everyday or practical reality, while the highest truth is called Paramarthika Satya, which is Brahman, hidden behind Maya or illusion.

Bohm’s hidden or implicate order gives rise to the outer, visible world.

In Advaita, Maya creates the appearance of the world by projecting it onto the one nondual reality, which is Brahman.

Bohmian mechanics allows something called nonlocal influence, which means everything in the universe is deeply connected.

Advaita also says that all is one, and all the differences we see are only because of ignorance, called Avidya.

The wavefunction in Bohm’s theory works like Maya. It guides what we see, but it does not change the real underlying reality. It creates the feeling of many things, but it is not the true substance.

The quantum potential in Bohm’s idea can be compared to Ishvara, which is the personal form of Brahman who seems to guide the universe. But Ishvara is still based on the higher, formless Brahman, which is Nirguna Brahman.

The actual particles that move in clear paths are like the Jivas, or individual souls. They appear separate, but they are all guided by the same one reality.

While Bohmian mechanics remains within the scientific domain and Advaita within the metaphysical, their underlying vision of a hidden unity guiding apparent multiplicity suggests a deep structural resonance - one that perhaps points to the perennial intuition of oneness beneath form. 2409:40C1:C:4306:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block that u refer to has expired. 59.15.61.6 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a proper account - or did you have one, already? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you were blocked for one year on June 20th 2025 for block evasion. Your block expires on June 20th 2026. Jeppiz (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Southern School (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER since 2023, unneeded

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

isn't this image dated as of now? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk dated I'm not sure, but definitely incorrect; 'Aryavarta' encompasses a smaller territory. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page List of ancient Indo-Aryan peoples and tribes shows the map and the kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 july 2025 (talk • contribs)

Hey, Joshua. Ten years ago you merged my Credential inflation article with other topics, and I want you to reconsider. In its own right, Credential Inflation is a scholarly topic now receiving the attention it deserves. It should not be confused with other aspects of education. Please, disaggregate "Credential Inflation". The Credential Inflation article needs updating. Much has changed in ten years. http://encyc.org/w/index.php?title=Credential_inflation&action=history Thanks, Glen McGhee PS On a monthly basis, I contribute money to wikipedia, and have been for a few years. 50.4.132.185 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn… Joshua has been terrorizing and merge-scarring editors for decades. Lol, just kidding. Joshua is a wiser person now, with a bit more humility and understanding I guess. Or maybe not. In any case, here's a cookie for Joshua : [1] 2409:40C1:59:8D2:3D53:8A3E:5772:6FA8 (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit; all I think may just be beliefs or wishfull thinking.... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even what you call “belief” or “wishful thinking” arises within awareness. The real question is: what is the substratum of even belief and doubt? I’m not attached to the form of belief, but to the insight that arises when one turns inward. Call it a belief, but belief has built temples, split atoms, and crossed oceans. What matters is whether it points toward something deeper than the self that doubts it. I don’t mind if it’s wishful - I wish to awaken. All thinking starts as wishful. Civilization did. Science did. Even your belief that something is “just belief” is a belief. So the question isn’t whether it’s belief, but whether it’s worthy of belief. Wishful thinking is a wave in Consciousness. Whether it’s a mirage or a map, it still reflects the longing for the Real. It is not “you” who is thinking like this. The gunas of nature always balance themselves - sometimes through you, sometimes through me, but essentially through neither of "us". 2409:40C1:59:8D2:ED34:8D69:1872:B62E (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That 'awareness'... - Krishnamurti seems to have been well aware of it, yet at the end of his life he stated that nobody had understood the energy that went through him. He too framed his experience, and he believed he was a vehicle for something higher, yet he realized that he was incapable of 'transmitting' this - well, actually, he felt that the rest of mankind had failed. So, if even Krishnamurti felt ununderstood, and framed his experience, then what of the caleidoscope the rest of us is living in? Emptiness - as in sunyata, but also 'lucht en leegte' (Ecclesiastes). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even Krishnamurti couldn’t transmit it, because truth is not transmissible like information. It is not an object passed from mind to mind, but the recognition of the flame within. If no one understood him, perhaps that was the point. Silence is the final language. Words only circle the fire, but sometimes a spark still leaps.

You say he “framed” his experience, but even the rejection of all frames is a kind of frame. The kaleidoscope we live in is not a failure of insight; it is the play of the gunas, the lila of awareness watching itself in infinite mirrors. Emptiness is not a void to be feared; it is the womb of all arising. The void is not barren. It is sacred.

For example, the universe is an infinite emptiness humming with life. What we call the universe is infinitely empty, yet something exists, like silence giving birth to music.

That no one understood him doesn’t mean no one saw something. Some concepts are not meant to be understood. they are meant to be realized. And realization has never been a mass phenomenon. It happens in silence, in solitude, in surrender.

I personally try my best to follow my own synthesis of Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, and Raja Yoga, keeping Karma as the main foundation and Jnana as the final consequence. It gives me peace and a kind of inner satisfaction, which I cannot share. I want to share it, but if I did, I would probably end up saying that no one understood me.

I am here. I am aware. I must act. No one is coming.

As I said, even good begins to blur its boundaries between the ontological and the ethical when grounded in the play of the gunas.

So yes, perhaps all belief is a dream, but so is doubt. If I am dreaming, let me at least dream in the direction of awakening. Maybe it is all just play of niyati.

But who can tell? Who among us can proclaim it?

"Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden

Without distinctive marks, this all was water

That which, becoming, by the void was covered

That One, by force of heat, came into being

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?

Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute

Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not

The 'insert-your-preferred-term' of the world, all-pervasive and all-knowing

He indeed knows. If not, no one knows" 2409:40C1:59:8D2:C70:65BE:9E09:A3B (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to join this discussion, but question in my mind... Regarding emptiness may be the sacred womb where all arises, but is it truly the end in itself? Could Krishnamurti's feeling of being "ununderstood" point to a deeper longing - that our hearts seek more than emptiness or pure awareness? Asteramellus (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, look who’s here. My first disciple! Was expecting you. Looool.

Yes, emptiness as sacred womb is a powerful insight. Śūnyatā is not a void to fear, but the potentiality from which all form arises. But is it truly enough? Perhaps not in the human sense. Whether it is the "end" depends on how one views the path. From a certain vantage, emptiness is not the goal but the clearing. It undoes the false so that what lies beyond falsehood may reveal itself, not necessarily as “something,” but as the luminous clarity that remains when all grasping ceases.

As for Krishnamurti, I do not see his being misunderstood as a flaw in his communication, but perhaps as a mirror to our collective reluctance to dissolve into the silence he embodied. Still, I feel you. Maybe there was a longing not just for emptiness but for communion—not conceptually, but through the heart’s recognition of itself in another. Awareness alone, even radical emptiness, does not satisfy the relational dimension of being. There may be a longing that moves through emptiness, not away from it. A yearning not for more content, but for resonance, communion, or even grace.

Is the heart content with pure awareness alone, or does it seek love or mutual recognition as the flowering of that awareness? I would say both are true. Emptiness is the ground, but love is its fragrance. The jnani may abide in silence, but the bodhisattva or avatar returns with eyes moist from knowing the world’s dream and still embracing it.

The question is not whether emptiness is the end, but whether it is the whole.

What is the relationship between zero and infinity? Between nothingness (Shiva) and everythingness (Vishnu)? Are they opposites, or are they paradoxically one, as not only mysticism but also calculus with its limits approaching infinity, quantum physics with vacuum fluctuations, uncertainty, and entanglement, string theory with vibrational emptiness, loop quantum gravity with quantized spacetime, and even Gödel’s incompleteness theorems suggest?

Maybe we exist as a mean between these two extremes. That is Brahma, the principle of creation, which is Maya.

Is the universe finite, as seen by the naked eye, limited by the observable universe estimated at around 93 billion light years in diameter, or is it infinite and perhaps even cyclical, as proposed by conformal cyclic cosmology, string cosmology, or the Puranic models of endless creation and dissolution?

Perhaps this paradox between zero and infinity is what the sages called nirguna or para, that which is beyond all attributes, beyond all dualities, beyond all mental grasping.

"All phenomena are ultimately empty, but this emptiness is not separate from the great compassion of the Buddha.

The true Dharma is not one, not two, but infinitely adaptable." – Lotus Sutra

"As people approach me, so I receive them. All paths, O Arjuna, lead to me."

If you do not know where you are going, any road may seem to take you there. But if you do know your destination, there are infinite paths that can lead to it, just as in calculus, where an infinite variety of functions can approach the same value. That convergence, that simultaneity of difference and unity, is the paradox.

"Who truly knows? Who here will proclaim it?" – Rigveda 2409:40C1:59:8D2:3C28:2933:423F:D37B (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus a perennial issue exposed in one question/observation; wauw! This is one of the best comments/formulations I've ever read on this topic; thanks.

Indeed, Mahayana, but even more than that. Do we really need/want to be without needs? Love is more than wishless emptiness. I once asked a (very intelligent) kid: 'what is more (higher, better)? The One, or the Good (love)?' Same question, but lacking something which is in your question. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]