We don’t need to make any assumptions about determinism. And any assumptions don’t change squat.
Determined or not determined, you still wrote the things that you wrote.
Gasp! You have your take on this, I have mine.
Note to the Buddhists here:
So, where does Brahman fit into something like this? Am I more likely to be reincarnated into, say, a cat? 
Edit: youtu.be/KSgiN0HMbVg
In other words, here it becomes the equivalent of the Christian God’s “mysterious ways”. Mere mortals are not able to put it into words. How convenient. So, it can really become anything you want it to be. Anything you need it to be.
Of course, if they do put it into words, then you criticize them for creating a “world of words”.
So you are always right, aren’t you?
What a stacked game.
Sigh. Back again to stooge retorts. 
Note to Buddhists/Hindus:
Choose a set of circumstances in which to discuss Brahman. That way I can distinguish between words that, in my view, define and defend other words alone, and words that, in my view, focus in on actual human behaviors relating to morality on this side of the grave and the fate of “I” on the other side.
Here’s what you said:
Were you thinking about “yet is the cause of all change” specifically?
Well, you’ve come to the right thread. I’m asking similar questions, though most likely with wildly different motives.
That’s great. But I didn’t ask what you thought of the ‘I’, I asked how you think an exchange would go down between yourself and a Buddhist (who thinks the ‘I’ is an illusion).
There is a lot of faith involved in what I believe, but I’ve also seen the benefits of walking the eight-fold path in my peers and the in monasteries I’v frequented–in those who practice meditation and those, rare as they may be, who truly seem enlightened.
Geez, for someone who casts doubt all knowledge claims, you sure seem certain about this one.
I don’t think we have to go that far. But you’re claim that “…down through the ages there have been literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of vast and varied religious narratives across the globe. Almost all of them insisting that only their own take on morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect the real thing…” is certainly a hyperbole. Can you actually list hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of religious narratives that have seen the light of day? I think a huge part of what makes these religions “vast and varied” just is the fact that they aren’t all unanymous in their beliefs in morality and immortality. Like I said above, Buddhism doesn’t give much of a prescription on moral behavior. And did you know that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in an afterlife? Generally speaking, I tend to stay away from claims of certainty, trying my best to recognize the limits of my knowledge.
Actually, it’s a lived experience. It’s my report on what it’s like being grilled by you–a concrete example of a real world interaction if there ever was one. Or is labeling things “intellectual contraptions” your way of avoiding counter-examples?
That we can agree on.
‘Being awake’ is extremely simple.
It’s the knowledge that zero sum worlds are hell realms (winner and a loser or winner and 8 billion losers). Once you know that you’re currently in a hell realm… you are enlightened. That’s all it is.
Positive non-zero sum worlds attached to individual desire matrices is where every living organism/being needs to go.
That’s all enlightenment is. Very simple.
Anything else? Lies / hell realm.
Really?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics
Who is on the path of liberation? Who will become enlightened?
What has Brahman got to do with that? Nothing, is what.
Such thinking occurred after the fact, of what Brahman initially was, by those who weren’t born under it’s societal umbrella… otherwise, they would know and understand exactly what it is… they would breathe it, feel it, bathe in it… like one does in the Ganges river or the Bengal Bay.
Sounds… malleable 
It’s about a place… a place in time, but not in space… a place in the mind, that sprang, from one place.
Buddhism: Suffering and the Problem of Evil
From the Patheos web site
The truth in what sense though? A “spiritual” truth whereby the already committed are all in agreement on what they conclude the meaning of suffering, arising, cessation and the path mean?
That’s what I suspect. After all, religious denominations around the globe have their own component “lists” that the faithful subscribe to.
But, if, given any particular set of circumstances, these lists are all over the map in regard to how different denominations react to one or another actual situation, what then?
“What then?” given the fact that in any particular community, behaviors are going to be either rewarded or punished. And, in turn, that there is always going to be a connection made between this and what is thought to be the consequences of our behaviors for “the other side”
Okay, then back again to this:
With most other religious denominations suffering is subsumed in God. In His mysterious ways, as a test of faith, as the work of the Devil.
There are other explanations: josh.org/10-biblical-reason … suffering/
What then of the explanations that Buddhists offer given that there does not appear to be a God, the God, my God embedded in their belief system. That’s what the author will explore here. This and the “problem of evil”.
You gotta cut me some slack here, phyllo. I’m trying my best to respond to Biggy as if I were a Buddhist. It’s hard because I’m not a Buddhist. If I were, maybe I would be more aware of Pāli or Śīla and bring it up. But drawing on what I understand of Buddhism, nothing really matters in this world just like nothing really matters in a dream. So ethics doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I will say this though: the excerpts you posted only indicate that there is an ethical system in Buddhism–I would expect every religion or ideology to have something to say about ethics–but unless I have a wildly different understanding of Buddhism from everyone else in the world, ethics certainly don’t take center stage in Buddhism–not like they do in Christianity. Again, I don’t claim to be qualified to speak for all humanity, but I think most people understand Christianity to be highly wrapped up in ethics. The word ‘sin’ is world renown as coming from Christianity. Does anyone know an equivalent term in Buddhism? Punishment for the wicked in Hell, reward for the pure in Heaven–everyone knows about these Christian concepts; is there anything comparable in Buddhism. Obviously, there’s something in Buddhism that speaks to ethics as your quotes above indicate, but it seems like very esoteric knowledge to me, not common knowledge.
Who’s on the path of liberation? Who will be enlightened? The false self.
Doesn’t make sense? Join the club. This is just what I would say playing the role of a Buddhism. But as gib, this makes as little sense to me as it probably does for you–hence this thread.
Gib,
No Buddhist hells? One of the 5 realms you can be incarnated to is the hell realm!
Buddhists don’t fuck around either! I’d rather be sent to Christian eternal damnation than a Buddhist one!
Seriously, Buddhists don’t fuck around!
One of the Buddhist hells is that if you reach the top of a mountain, your hell will end. Slight problem… the entire mountain has knives sticking out of it, making it impossible to get to the top! Ever!
No, Buddhists don’t fuck around!
Another Buddhists hell is that you are always starving and then you get one grain of rice every 10 trillion years - forever.
Both of those are EASY Buddhist hells!
Like I said, Buddhists wrote the book on hell!
Like, seriously, these people don’t fuck around!
Yeah, I got what you were doing … as absurd as it is.
Of course stuff matters. You suffer and continue to be reborn until you attain enlightenment. That’s no dream.
You live in the west so you have some knowledge of Christianity … mostly evangelical Protestantism. As do the participants in this forum.
There is a ‘you’, it’s just not the ‘you’ that you think it is.
That’s something you have to discover through practice.
Again, and every time?
What would or does your set of circumstances look like, for a discussion of Brahman based on Your view? Is that onus not on You, in setting out the terms of that which you want to understand?
You see? Who has heard of these hells?
Then I don’t understand. Every Buddhist source I’ve come across says the world is an illusion and that the dream analogy fits.
Obviously, analogies shouldn’t be taken literally, so maybe the unreality of dreams is one aspect of the analogy that doesn’t carry over well, but I thought this was the key reason enlightenment brings so much peace of mind.
Now we could say that though a dream isn’t real, someone in the midst of a nightmare experiences real fear, and maybe we have a moral obligation to wake him up to relieve him of his fear. Is that what you have in mind?
Yes, the false self.
Not really sure what you mean here.
In my view, once you assume the existence of 1] a determined universe in which matter interacts entirely in accordance with immutable laws, and 2] that the human brain is just more of it, then Brahman much like everything else is merely an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality. Or, as some argue, embedded in the psychological illusion of human autonomy.
But, once human autonomy is presumed instead, then the assumption would be that we are free to interpret the meaning of Brahman. And that can/will result in conflicting assessments. So, which assessment can those in possession of free will pin down as the actual correct assessment?
And in what particular context?
Okay, fair enough. But, in regard to religion, I can’t think of a more potent motive than the one that, historically and culturally, revolves around exploring the actual practical ramifications of connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then. What could possibly be of more importance than that? For the lives that we live.
Well, okay, for those Buddhists here among us, let’s choose a particular set of circumstances and explore the extent to which the “self” either can or cannot be deemed illusive. First in the either/or world. Then in the is/ought world.
Now, my distinction here is that in the either/or world of 1] biological imperatives 2] social, political and economic demographics and 3] empirical facts, the Buddhist self is as substantial as all the rest of ours. Whereas, in the is/ought world, I deem the “self” not to be entirely illusive, but elusive. An ever evolving existential contraption rooted in dasein from the cradle to the grave.
Sure, if some can convince themselves that “Everything is an illusion. The self is no exception. The self is an invention clung to by desire as a means to attain satisfaction”, what can I say. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Same here…
Yeah, if you can think yourself into believing this and then choose to live in a community consisting entirely of other Buddhists who have thought themselves into thinking the same, fine. If that works to bring you a far more comforting and consoling sense of reality, more power to you.
But: if you choose to interact with folks of other religious denominations and atheists and the nihilist who own and operate around the globe that we all reside on, be prepared to have your own sense of identity challenged. See if there are not some very, very real aspects of the self that are challenged by others.
For example, others might insist that you actually demonstrate to them what your own morality “stems from”. In regard to, say, the very real parameters of abortion, or animal rights, or gender roles, or sexual behaviors. What are you going to do, plead “illusion” when they challenge the things you say and do?
Actually, that can be seen as the least substantive question, in that Buddhists are no more able to demonstrate what one’s fate on the other side of the grave will be. Unless, of course, the Buddhists here are able to link me to such proof.
This is just intellectual gibberish to me, the sort of religious mumbo jumbo that the faithful [Buddhist or otherwise] are able to think themselves into believing but are entirely impotent in regard to substantiating. Again, from my perspective, the whole point is not in what you believe but that you believe it. It is the belief itself that instills the equanimity enabling one to deal with a world that is ever and always bursting at the seams with so many terrible things. And that’s before oblivion.
But I don’t cast doubt on all knowledge claims. Instead, I make a distinction between objective knowledge derived from human interactions in the either/or world, and subjective assessments relating to identity, value judgments and political economy. On this thread as that relates to behaviors deemed enlightened/unenlightened on this side of the grave and one’s fate on the other side of it.
Start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … ock%2Dwise
Even in regard to Buddhism itself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism
And, come on, with so much at stake in regard to the fate of “I” for, say, all the rest of eternity, what could possibly be more crucial than to pick the right one?
Buddhism came from India.
In India, Vishnu blinks every so often, and everything is destroyed and starts again, from Vishnu’s dream.
Jesus I forgot how exhausting that song is. Don’t listen to it. It’s some of the worst showboating they’ve ever been guilty of. Leads persisting for over ten minutes. Okay John, we get it.
Great band, wrong song. My condolences.
You can take the halo for that if you want. My motives are far more selfish. I’m here because Buddhism frustrates me. It delivers promises that only bear a possibility so long as I don’t pursue them.
Really? You’re just gonna leave it at that? I thought your goal was to probe until you could show that all my claims are vaccuous, or that you’ve fragmented my ‘I’? I thought for sure you’d ask for a demonstration that all rational men and women are obligated to agree with.
Well, that’s more like it. So speaking as the Buddhist that I’m not, I would argue that the truth as I see it is the truth regardless of what happens when I confront other people who disagree with me and insist that I demonstrate to them the truth of my convictions. Just like science remains true even when the scientist is confronted by religious zealots who insist that he’s wrong or that he prove to them the claims of his science. If it’s a question of how I would convince them if pressed to do so, I might plead illusion if I thought that might help, but I can only go so far. Some people just will not be convinced. In that case, I would try to avoid the subject with them, and (if they really do “insist”) maybe avoid them. The answer to your question really depends on to what extent they insist on involving themselves in my life? Are you suggesting an all-or-nothing scenario? Like I prove my position to them or die?
I meant substantive as in my beliefs definitely have something to say about it.
Then I’m not sure what you want me to say. You asked me a series of questions, I gave my answers. If it comes across to you as “intellectual gibberish” or “religious mumbo jumbo”, I’m afraid I cannot help you. Is that the end of the line, or did you want to try again rephrasing your request?
I think you took my question a little too literally. The question is: how can you know that literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of religions down through the ages insist that only their own take on morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect the real thing? I mean, to the extent that you seriously question my response: possibly.
I’m sure the sheer number of religions that have seen the light of day throughout literally all of history must be at least in the thousands, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds which have insisted that they’ve got morality and the afterlife bang on with dogmatic certainty seems a fair bet, but reading between the line of your statement, I infer that you mean to say “the vast majority”. 300 religions out of a thousand would count as “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” technically, but I don’t think you mean it that literally. We know a lot of religions in the modern world, and a lot have survived in the history books to be added to the count, and there is definitely a noticeable portion of them that take stances on morality and the afterlife with a dogmatic arrogance, but I’m going to hold back on saying that I know with certainty that almost all of them are like that. So… possibly.
And that fits into this…
“Brahman alone Is. The world is Brahman.”
…how?
Or is the part where, at death, the enlightened are reincarnated into that which might be construed as a higher form than those who are unenlightened just understood “spiritually” to be what it is?
Either Brahman can actually be discussed substantively [and then demonstrated] in regard to 1] the lives that we live and 2] the part where we are no longer among the living or, as an intellectual contraption, it can become anything you need it to be “in your head”.
Same with dasein. That’s why I attempt to explicate its meaning by noting how in regard to my own existence, it seems relevant to me. I merely make a distinction between I in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world.
What is this other than a “spiritual” observation that you make about Brahman that I and others either grasp or don’t grasp depending entirely on our own understanding of the words alone?
What does it have to do with, well, reincarnation and Nirvana?
Well, there’s not much that can’t be shaped and molded into reality if it all unfolds only in the human mind. As I noted to Gib above, here are examples of some of them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … ock%2Dwise
In the mind. Let’s just leave it at that. 