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?
That and how/why such a terrible disease is embedded at all in a world where, “Brahman alone Is. The world is Brahman”.
Well, you’ve come to the right thread. I’m asking similar questions, though most likely with wildly different motives.
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.
On the contrary, in so many ways, “I” is anything but an illusion. I either contract covid-19 or I don’t. I either die from it or I don’t. I live in a particular community bursting at the seams with all manner of empirical/factual interactions relating to an extant relationship between government, government policy, citizenship and the corona virus.
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).
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…
And how do you connect the dots between enlightenment/karma and what most other religious denominations refer to as immoral or sinful behavior.
“There isn’t much of a connection. Buddhism doesn’t prescribe much in the way of morality. Why would it if all is an illusion? That isn’t to say I, as a Buddhist, am not moral, but that my morality stems from something else.”
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?
How, as well, is that connected to one’s fate on the other side of the grave…
“Ah, now that is a question of more substance.”
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.
“We are all caught in the wheel of Samsara, the unending cycle of birth and death and rebirth. There is no getting off the wheel unless one attains enlightenment in this life. Then one simply resigns to nothingness upon his final death. This isn’t a moral prescription, but is a way out from the suffering of human existence.”
“Alas, the soul is not immortal. Neither is it mortal. One cannot die if one never existed. By God, you must mean Brahman–it is the closest thing to God in Eastern philosophy–Brahman is the wheel of Samsara, recycling us all through endless reincarnations until we wake up to the truth.”
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.
Just possibly? How about closer to irrefutably?
Geez, for someone who casts doubt all knowledge claims, you sure seem certain about this one.
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.
Again unless human history as I have come to understand it really is just part of an illusion…or way out there on the metaphysical limb where reality is nothing at all like we think it is.
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.
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?