Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atma/Brhma does not act, it is consciousness in a state of peace and completeness, where there is no desires, no duality, nor cause nor effect. That is the nature of Atma (Mandukya). In that state I am not sure there is any question of choice, it seems to have no relevance.
Brihdaranyaka UP does locate this consciousness in the heart, so you may have something there. Realization is not an act, it is the dissolution of the mistaken identity that we are something other than atma. The texts say nothing happens once that happens, the world still exists. It is the way we deal with the world that changes. Like when we train our senses to no longer see a setting sun, but a turning earth.
Does that dissolution of identity put one squarely at the doorstep of the Buddha, where it may imply or suggest the same dissolution of Atma, as also mistaken - leaving no identity at all? The Advaitist remains at the doorstep where Atma is certain, whereas in the Buddha's house, Atma is discarded/dissolved? Is this a reasonable (and simplistic) view of one's inner choice?
Doesn't that choice reinforce the Atma view that we are buddha and buddha is us? This is clumsily stated, I know. I may be inferring that choice is illusion. Actually, the distinction between Atma and no-Atma is also illusion?
Last edited by highplainsrus; 10-29-2020 at 02:40 AM..
the person who rejects data based on whether the author is alive, is less reliable.
You are looking for reasons to discredit people not honestly look at what they are saying. I kind od let what the person said discredit them.
Lets apply my method and compare it to your method. In terms of hindu texts.
me: All things being equal, people with more data tend to be more reliable in describing Hinduism. Meaning, people today are probably a little more reliable in describing realty than people were 2000 years ago in describing reality.
The counter claim:
Tzaph: the person who rejects data based on whether the author is alive, is less reliable.
We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.
That is a mini lesson on English grammar and punctuation. People use them improperly all the time.
If you still do not get the full import of my post you may need a course.
we are talking about the reliability of ancient texted. But IU understand why you would avoid saying the person with more data is more reliable. People that know what they are talking about aren't real good in pushing anti-religion and anti-god positions. well, because they make no sense to rational people.
pushing anti-old, anti-age, anti- not living, anti-ancient is the same.
And it also "makes no sense to rational people."
You are looking for reasons to discredit people not honestly look at what they are saying. I kind od let what the person said discredit them.
Lets apply my method and compare it to your method. In terms of hindu texts.
me: All things being equal, people with more data tend to be more reliable in describing Hinduism. Meaning, people today are probably a little more reliable in describing realty than people were 2000 years ago in describing reality.
The counter claim: the person who rejects data based on whether the author is alive, is less reliable.
It is precisely because of looking honestly at what you are saying, that it is discredited.
Rejecting data because it is "ancient" or comes from people not alive is less reliable. It is a criteria that is superficial, immature, and lacks discernment.
Following that (superficial, immature) "reasoning" a person would reject classical music (dead composers), art masterpieces (dead artists), literature classics (dead authors), holy texts such as from Hinduism (dead scribes), and architectural wonders (dead builders).
We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.
That is a mini lesson on English grammar and punctuation. People use them improperly all the time.
If you still do not get the full import of my post you may need a course.
It is precisely because of looking honestly at what you are saying, that it is discredited.
Rejecting data because it is "ancient" or comes from people not alive is less reliable. It is a criteria that is superficial, immature, and lacks discernment.
Following that (superficial, immature) "reasoning" a person would reject classical music (dead composers), art masterpieces (dead artists), literature classics (dead authors), holy texts such as from Hinduism (dead scribes), and architectural wonders (dead builders).
That is not what is being done. That is a straw man version. We are talking about filtering what is claimed about Reality through modern knowledge. We do not reject all of it.
I just did not want you to feel hurt with the misapprehension (misunderstanding) that common folk is somehow insulting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
