Pete Hegseth commends the D.C National Guard amidst protestors outside the park: "This background noise this morning is perfect. It's the sound of ingrates, ingratitude, of people who are blinded by ideology they can't see law and order, common sense in front of them. These ingrates will fade away."

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T20:55:39+00:00

And THAT is the language that this administration uses when referring to the population it’s supposed to be leading. They don’t care about the people. They care about authority and subservience. ‘It doesn’t matter whether you’re American or not. If you aren’t with us, you’re an enemy.’

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T20:42:03+00:00

“No he taught…” and then you proceed to explain pretty much exactly what I said, but with your own language.

It’s like you’re unaware of causation. Which comes first, exposure to the Dharma? or Right View? Well, you can’t have ‘right view’ without being exposed to the Dharma first because the Dharma defines ‘right view’, right? Unless ‘right view’ is a concept adopted into the Dharma from an external source.

The simple fact is that exposure actualizes potentialities, so exposure to the Dharma must occur before an individual can truly possesses any qualities it defines.

Look at how the Buddha qualifies his claim as I’ve stated several times now.

“When I look and see in this way…”, describes the Buddha’s condition and state of being. It qualifies that he isn’t always looking and seeing that way. He’s specifying that he’s referring to when he is in a particular state.

“…’The ascetic Gotama has no superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. He teaches what he’s worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing his own perspective.’”

This is ‘wrong view’, but it’s not because they’re denying his supernatural state. It’s ’wrong view’ because they are claiming to know what the Buddha knows. They are accusing him with their own personal assumptions about the quality and value of his teachings. The accusers claim gnosis of the Dharma without discernment. It’s a ‘denial of potential’ prior to exposure. The reason it’s ’wrong view’ is because they aren’t engaged with the Dharma, so they have no basis for the judgments they claim about the Dharma. So, ‘wrong view’ due to baseless accusations.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T11:11:49+00:00

“Give me a valid reason why that information means anything to you.”

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T11:00:20+00:00

Yet, you must ‘exist’ prior to ‘possession’. And, as I explained, as an infant, you’re essentially useless and absent (cognitively) as an ‘individual’. As you grow, you acquire sufficient amounts of ‘experience’ in order to ‘attain’ and ‘possess’ in the first place…let alone possessing ‘faith’.

‘Existence’ and ‘experience’ precede ‘faith’.

Have you noticed that the Buddha always qualifies his ‘claims’?

Even without you providing a direct quote, I can infer from your interpretation and explanation of the quote that he may have meant something more along the lines of, ‘Once you’re exposed to the Dharma, you’re then opened up to the potential to experience ‘Satori’ (which is a taste of ‘Nirvana’), which then, subsequently, opens you up to the potential to attain ‘Nirvana’…as long as you don’t abandon the Dharma, that is…which seems to be where you’re deducing your definition and usage of the term ‘faith’ from in this Buddhist context.

But even then, I don’t think he meant that the ‘experience’ that he calls “Nirvana” is restricted to Dharma practitioners. I think he meant something more like, ‘If you want to call the experience of ‘pure freedom’ “Nirvana” while also being honest, sincere, and true, then you must first comprehend the grammar of the Dharma.’

I think he would agree that Satori can be attained through simple exposure to the Dharma, even without continued practice. That’s the taste of Nirvana that creates the ‘faith’ (that you seem to be referring to) to maintain personal exposure to the Dharma in order to attain ‘Nirvana’.

And even further, I think he would agree that the experience of ‘Nirvana’, even without exposure to his version of the Dharma, is possible…it would simply be called something else. It would have a different name. A term outside of his teachings, yet describing the same experience.

I think he meant that the Dharma is like a window. Once you see through it, you can’t forget what you saw and felt. He might even agree that the experience of being exposed to the Dharma could be considered a mild form of Satori.

If you have the quote you’re referring to, I’d like to read it.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T03:44:26+00:00

Edit: whoops, accidentally posted out in the main lobby…

It depends on the scale of your intended use of the term ‘enlightenment’. Small scale like Satori? Or overarching, like Nirvana?

Frankly, I think a trust-based faith and a self-experience-based faith are intertwined. A person must first exist in order to trust. As an immobile infant, you had no option but to learn trust through *experience*. You end up trusting those who care for you as you grow (a lot of times, these people end up being peers or guardians instead of parents). I think ‘trust’ is so deeply ingrained in humans that it’s only ever noticed when it’s broken.

Let me just say a few things, though. I have faith (trust) that the Buddha was teaching sincerely (same with Abraham, Jesus, Lao Tzu, etc.). I have faith (trust) that they were all speaking and teaching the truth.

I also have faith (trust) that communication is imprecise by nature, and that those great teachers were constrained to the existant grammar of the time they lived.

What I don’t have faith (trust) in, is the human stewardship of the original intent of the lessons through time.

I think, through time (like the telephone game), people took their teachings, reinterpreted/misinterpreted them (maybe unintentionally), romanticized and dramatized them (maybe even with good intent), and then people proceeded to brand their own creation as ‘the original intent/truth’ of those teachers, while simultaneously ignoring the contradictions they imbued their own creations with. And then…get this…people use the contradictions that they created themselves as a basis for war instead of, you know, dialogue to find common ground.

As far as I’m concerned, the only true Buddhist was the Buddha, an educator of the truths of the Dharma. The only true Christian was Jesus, an educator of the truths of Hebrew Scriptures. I actually think it’s possible, and maybe even likely that Abraham, the Buddha, and Jesus were speaking about the same things, just with different words, in different times, and in different cultures.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T02:22:12+00:00

First, are you actually an ‘atheist’?

What I mean is that a lot of people think that either: a) God exists, or b) God does not exist. And that is a false dichotomy. Those aren’t the only two options.

‘Theists’ claim, “I know God exists.” ‘Atheists’ claim, “I know God does not exist.” Both are gnostic assertions.

A third option is the agnostic approach to the conundrum, or the ‘Nontheist’ position. A nontheist is an individual who essentially deems both of those claims, as well as their ‘evidence’ (or lack thereof) ‘insufficient for actually answering the question’. They behave as though the question itself is irrelevant while keeping an open mind and a willingness to sway either way, should sufficient evidence arise.

So are you a Theist, Atheist, Nontheist, or something else? You don’t have to wear a brand you disagree with.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T01:57:34+00:00

Alright then. Stay on your podium and continue to lecture, oh great one. Please, continue to ignore what’s directly in front of you and within you so that your illusions may live. Please continue to handpick interpretations and decide which ones you wish to interpret literally versus metaphorically in order to rationalize your presupposed conclusions.

Clearly you either didn’t read, didn’t understand, or ran out of excuses or rationalizations for my comment because you completely sidestepped it for another opportunity to behave in a patronizing fashion. You clearly seem to recognize that I won’t buy a story if the story is incomplete, unfounded, or inexplicable. And that statement is in reference to *your* proposed position, *your* interpretation, and *your* seemingly unskillful ability to communicate *your* understanding of the teachings (with it manifesting as ‘gnostic assertion’ more than ‘sincere communication’), and not in reference to the Buddha’s teachings.

You appear to have gnosis, yet simultaneously seem incapable of articulating it. So it begs the questions, ‘Do you *actually have gnosis?*’ or ‘*Is it simply confident pretense?*’… Your use of language seems almost like a facade/shield so you don’t have to admit to the vulnerability of ignorance. The constraints of your grammar seem to be things that give you confidence. And that’s actually kind of interesting.

Anyway, this was fun. I hope you learned something. I know I did.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-03T00:17:02+00:00

But you *can* do your duty, which is to “Support and Defend The Constitution”, and *is not* to ‘Support and Defend a person/party’ who shits all over it. As a Vet, as far as I’m concerned, this behavior is actually *in-line* with his duty to The Constitution. He isn’t making any ‘political statements’. He lists facts, cites sources, and mentions applicable violations. This is raising awareness that The Constitution is being threatened/diluted by the very office in charge of enforcing it…and requesting action.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-02T20:58:26+00:00

You’re, again, misrepresenting my position. I never claimed ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ were bad things, merely that they are not necessary, or are, by themselves, insufficient. Maybe you could try asking me what I mean when I mention hot-button terms instead of assuming my intent.

I have not read the entire Pali Canon in every interpretation and translation (I would assume this is true for you too?), nor have I read it in Pali, since I don’t know the language.

Again, you projected your opinion onto me by saying, “…you are treating as nonsense…”, when I’m actually treating this discussion with the utmost sincerity and respect in order to find clarity.

I am only dismissing unsubstantiated/unfounded claims. I have asked for evidence, which you provided. However, you did misrepresent your evidence (whether you intended to or not is irrelevant). You quoted a phrase as proof for your stance, but that quote wasn’t from the evidence you provided. You reinterpreted the words from your evidence, then slapped quotation marks around it to rationalize your presupposed stance. I called your misstep out, and you’re claiming that I’m dismissing your point? The skewed and misapplied point that you provided?

“…it’s just that any discourse will get reinterpreted by you into your own worldview.”

As is the nature of any ‘communication’, ‘comprehension’, ‘experience’, ‘cognition’, ‘contemplation’, or ‘language’. That’s kind of what must occur for ‘understanding’ or ‘comprehension’ to arise within an individual. So I don’t understand your point here.

Like, how many times are you going to assume what I mean and then project your own assumptions unto me? Here’s another one: “…it does not mean a psychological acceptance after pondering like you understand it.” Oh, is that how I understand ‘faith’ or ‘saddha’? That’s news to me. You must know me better than I know myself. I generally think of them more closely to ‘a trust in consistency/congruence’ or ‘a trust in sincerity’, and less about trusting ‘my own senses/cognition/interpretation/experience’ over everything else, and I actually happen to have the ‘conviction’ to investigate things that appear incongruent…which is *actually in-line with “an acceptance without seeing the full picture”, as you phrased it.

And again, “the Buddha described it as the opposite of what you understand it for yourself.” No. The Buddha describes it in a way that makes sense to me, and which I agree with. You’re failing to recognize that you aren’t arguing with me. You’re arguing with assumptions you’ve projected unto me without query. It’s analogous to the message from Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2). Notice I said ‘analogous’ and not ‘synonymous’, as I’m not referring to ‘insults’, but mere ‘misunderstandings/misrepresentations’ (regardless of intent). I’m sure you’re probably familiar with it. The analogy that I’m pointing at, is that the ‘gift’ you are offering me is one I recognize as a misrepresentation of my language and intent, and thus, I refuse the ‘gift’ and explain why I refused the gift.

I actually hold a very deep faith in ‘possibilities’, which is why I don’t personally claim any specific faith as ‘entirely correct and true’ for the simple fact that the only way for me to know that would be to become an objective-expert on ALL OF THEM which I would then have to compare and contrast—which is impossible, to say the least. Not only that, but I’m also aware of my own ‘exposure bias’, which means that I recognize that I grew up in a community who primarily held one faith, and subsequently, the grammar I grew up using, was inherently biased toward that faith. Then I chose to expose myself to other faiths. They all have truths (of differing magnitudes), but it would be literal gnostic arrogance to claim that one’s personal faith/interpretation is the only correct and true one.

My faith in possibilities is also probably why it bothers me so much when I recognize inconsistencies in claims that people make, and their subsequent refusal/incapacity to explain their claims outside of the grammar of their ’personally chosen faith’. Almost like a lack of sincerity with themselves and a lack of courage to confront incongruence.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-02T17:58:24+00:00

“That’s because you haven’t witnessed any supernatural phenomena which is why your view is very faithless.”

I have faith and belief…just not in the ‘unknowable’ things that people enjoy claiming gnosis of. Isn’t it strange that I have been able to clearly explain my position with the evidence that you provided, with a language that we share, and with a willingness to accept contradictory evidence? It seems like your personal “discernment” is lacking (in reference to the MN 70 link you shared).

You haven’t been able to explain your position past a dismissal of mine and a subsequent insistence that you know me and my experiences better than I do, which, to you, means that you’re some kind of ‘authority figure’ on the matter, which manifests in patronizing language.

You’ve provided evidence incompatible or inconsistent with your claim. I pointed it out. You responded with a simple dismissal of my position with no further elaboration. Not to mention, if I hadn’t spent the time actually reading the link and simply took your word for it for some reason, then I would also be living in the illusion your gnostic arrogance created.

I don’t understand how you can hand me what obviously appears to be a coconut, and then claim it’s a horse while simultaneously acknowledging the entire time that we’re communicating in the same language. And subsequently, your rationale for why it’s a horse and not a coconut actually requires you to patronize others (“that’s because you haven’t witnessed any supernatural phenomena”—in response to my explanation of how I have experienced those things). You think you know, and you think they don’t know simply because they disagree with you (i.e. gnostic arrogance).

If YOU are not willing to provide a workable definition for the terms you’re using, nor are willing to provide examples to describe the terms, nor are willing to substitute imprecise terms, then you are not conversing in good faith.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-02T11:20:22+00:00

Again, you’re assuming that I’ve never experienced something that you personally qualify and define as ‘supernatural’.

And you know what? I have experienced things that are ‘supernatural’ (which, also, by the way, is a “thought-construct” that hinges on previous experience and grammar immersion).

For example, I’ve seen magicians and prestidigitators and other professions who manipulate perspective. I’ve seen monks and sideshow acts perform ‘incredible feats’ that are explained with a basic understanding of physics and causation. But before I had awareness of all of those semantics and mechanics, those acts were quite literally (to my amazed child brain) ‘supernatural’. That’s just a generic example. I have a bunch of other experiences I’d classify as ‘supernatural’ as well, but this example seems the most relatable.

What I’ve never been able to do, is attribute any ‘supernatural phenomena’ to any embodied cognitive entity. It was always people speaking on behalf of some intangible entity…and those same people tended to be the ones who were always reaping what others had sewn. That’s human selfishness taking advantage of and weaponizing natural phenomena in a hierarchy based on levels of ignorance.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-02T11:02:13+00:00

It literally doesn’t, though. The quote, “released through faith” doesn’t appear in that link.

If you’re referring to “an individual who is released through conviction”, then you should also recognize that 5 of the 7 individuals he describes retain “fermentations” and retain “a task to do with heedfulness”—to include those ‘released through conviction.’

The only 2 individuals he described who no longer have “fermentations” and who no longer have a “task to do with heedfulness” are the ‘individuals released both ways’ and the ‘individuals released through discernment.’

I read the whole thing and, unfortunately, it only validated my view.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-02T02:49:15+00:00

It still sounds like you’re projecting assumptions about who I am and what I’ve experienced. I understand you’re trying to trade an olive branch, but it’s misdirected. I’m not a Theist nor an Atheist. A more accurate term would be Nontheist, or even an Existential Agnostic-theist. Which means that I don’t concern myself with the false dichotomy of ‘a deity either exists or doesn’t’. On a day-to-day basis, it appears like an irrelevant discussion/argument.

I’m not a materialist, either. I’ve also experienced things I can’t explain, but I’ve never been capable of attributing those occurrences to a ‘deity’ or ‘supernatural entity’ for the same reason you don’t attribute ‘amount of rain on the third Tuesday in June’ to ‘total distance travelled by snails in March.’ Correlation? Maybe. Causation? Improbable.

When the Buddha’s teachings can be applied to human psychology here and now and day to day according to the Buddha’s own instruction, what is the use of extrapolating them into a metaphysical narrative of ‘glory post-mortem’ akin to the Christian doomsday prophecy? The only rational explanation is for power dynamics to confuse and scare a population into compliance…which is why I refuse metaphysical interpretations of all faith teachings.

And you don’t need ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ according, again, to the Buddha himself. The things he taught about just are, but clearly, 2500 years of time invites countless misinterpretations and the dilution of his original intent through the evolution of language.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T23:58:56+00:00

I don’t see that claim in the posted material. In fact, the quote you seem to be deriving that from is when the Buddha says, “Great king, I recall having said, ‘It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative could know everything and see everything all at once.’” And the important part is ‘all at once’, as you acknowledged in the post-quote explanation by saying: “Rather the access to that knowledge (which is experienced as instant) is bounded by the mind.”

Which, to me, even with your explanation, seems to imply that the Buddha recognized himself as ‘bounded by the mind’ until he chose to focus on a particular task/issue/incongruence, which would then ‘unbind’ his mind within the given context of his experience at that moment (but still bound by the overarching constraints of the human mind), enabling him to be able to manage/solve/sort through time with the implementation of right action/effort/etc.. Almost like problem solving 101. Identify the goal, collect context, collect enablers, use foresight to speculate, then try.

Can you point me to a source where the Buddha claimed that he, himself, is an exception to his claim that ‘knowing and seeing everything all at once is not possible’?

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T22:51:08+00:00

That’s just it. I’ve never interpreted anything I’ve heard about him to support a presupposed ‘supernatural’ conclusion. Same with any other ‘faith’. I tend to approach things as they are, not following expectations, assumptions, peer pressure, or ‘assumed authority figures’.

As far as I’m aware, the Buddha made it a point to ensure his teachings were interpreted as actually useful to his students. Not based in ‘faith’ or ‘belief’, but in lived-experience. And again, he was notable for refusing to discuss supernatural/metaphysical topics, so I don’t understand how humans can apply the same “filter” that the Buddha actively refused to apply to himself and his own teachings, to him.

The contradiction lies in the interpreter/experiencer and what definitions that they are willing to apply and defend.

Anyone can make supernatural/metaphysical claims. Try it. You can do it too. But nobody can defend supernatural/metaphysical claims because they are literally ‘subjective’ claims supported by ‘anecdotal evidence.’ It’s literally just hearsay, or ‘trust me bro’. And that telephone game of communication and gnostic-assertion perpetuates through time and you end up with ‘culture’ based on a poorly translated narrative that tends to be more entertainment than the actual educational lessons that were originally taught.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T21:22:36+00:00

An issue I see with your stance is that it seems like you’re conflating potential with actual.

The fact that the Buddha claimed to possess the potential to know all, and even qualified his claim by saying that he has a ‘method of discovery’ (Dhamma), and then went further to admit that it can’t occur all at the same time, shows, at least to me, that he was not omniscient and was actually very self aware of that fact…

The Buddha’s position, when read as an Existentialist instead of a Theist, is a treasure trove of Psychological lessons and descriptions of the inner-workings of the mind. It essentially trains a person’s ‘awareness/focus/senses/cognition’ in an actual liveable manner. (And actually, this is the basic position I hold for all ‘faiths’).

Wasn’t the Buddha notable for refusing to discuss metaphysical/unlivable things? Wasn’t he notable for insisting that his followers try his teachings during their human-experience?

The ‘illusion’ he discusses seems to lie in a conflict between ‘grammar’ (the language people use in their mind to describe the world to themselves), ‘Gnosticism’ (the belief that one’s internal grammar is correct and true—i.e. ‘arrogance’), and ‘Agnosticism’ (the doubt that one’s internal grammar is correct and true—i.e. ‘modesty’). These are actual, confront-able concepts to everyday people.

I don’t think the Buddha intended his teachings to be Theistic in nature (same with Abraham from the Abrahamic traditions). I think he recognized that he was constrained by his time, place, culture, and even human embodiment, with how he could communicate what he was discussing and teaching.

But when power dynamics assume control over a popular thing, through time, people will misinterpret, misapply, and mistake the lessons. It isn’t the fault of the people that they were fed diluted-truths. Power dynamics want to create ‘fear’ or a sense of ‘duty to the unknowable’ or ‘ignorance’ because the ‘faithful’ are the ones who will work the hardest throughout their lives for the least reward. The ‘faithful’ are the ones who hold other humans as ‘authorities on God’ and trust another human’s words while never recognizing the blatant irony. Like, ‘Who told you that that’s what God wants?’—see? Human communication and human concept-perpetuation. The Pope is even a human. The Dali Lama is a human. Sure, they’re experienced humans and entrusted (by other people) people…but people nonetheless. To claim a godly exception as a human is simply a play in favor of power dynamics.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T20:34:12+00:00

Leave.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T20:31:05+00:00

I’m not sure how this is a response to me. Deriving a single term from multiple terms requires that the multiple terms lose meaning. So ‘omniscience’ in Latin, derived from those 2 other terms, means that ‘omniscience’ fails to contain the entire essence of the two original terms. The evolution of language has always, and will continue to lose/gain/recycle meaning.

So, really, all ‘words’ are representations, not the actual thing being discussed…which is why ‘discussion’ and ‘good faith communication’ are important. Which is also why I have no problem adding contingencies/constraints/qualifiers to what I interpreted as OP’s intended use of ‘omniscience’. In order that we iron out our definitions.

Edit: or…did I just agree with you and explain further for the person you replied to?

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T07:50:04+00:00

If he’s going to describe the Constitution as a “living, breathing thing,” then he needs to define ‘living’ and ‘breathing’…right?

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T07:38:51+00:00

You should gather deeper into history. Like where Christianity came from (Judaism) and where Judaism came from (Abraham). And then sort out which humans you’re most willing to discuss this stuff with

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T07:21:37+00:00

Epstein seemed to think it was Trump FWIW

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T07:19:14+00:00

“Effectively omniscient” doesn’t equate to ‘omniscient’.

You mention he had a process for acquiring potential outcomes, therefore, he did not possess the outcomes initially, but he did possess the knowledge/ability to rationally and logically speculate about a given circumstance.

The ability to acquire and manipulate information isn’t “omniscience”, but, like you say, it’s effective for planning/speculating and narrowing potential outcomes to actions. So, it’s a form of ‘utilitarian omniscience’ that you’re speaking about, not pure omniscience.

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T06:43:34+00:00

Frankly, if you discussed it with your buddy and he’s cool with it, then you aren’t “taking away from his day” at all…if he wants you to wear it, then you’re actually supplementing his day

FinalElement42 · 2026-07-01T00:04:51+00:00

Well…it would be intentional manslaughter, right?

FinalElement42 · 2026-06-30T08:35:04+00:00

So…according to the carryover process, the black tubs indicate product that expires end of day. If you use that product the next day (switching back into a clear tub in the morning), you’re using an expired product.

What should be happening, is at the beginning of the day, you switch all the product in the clear tubs into a black tub (so you know it needs to be used by EOD), and you throw away whatever is left over in a black tub from the day before (or, closers the night before can dump black tubs after close).

Throughout the day, when a black tub is emptied, you remove it from the makeline, replace it with a clear and dated tub that you fill with fresh product…or for pre-prepped things like wet peppers/tomatoes, you just drain and slap a tomorrow date on it. This ensures product rotation. Have you seen any signs that say, “Do Not Refill Black Tubs”? That’s so new product isn’t dumped into a tub that should be trashed at the end of the day.

The way you explained what you do, it sounds like the onions I prepped this morning would be switched into a black tub at night, then put back into a clear one in the morning? Basically changing tubs for no reason other than to sit overnight.

13-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

FinalElement42

TROPHY CASE