This is just a way of finding an "ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." Finding excuses after excuses in order to deny what the actual state of affairs is.

It's not any different than the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

There's no need to support it's pretty generally accepted that the Buddha was a Hindu philosopher, and that Buddhism was created by King Ashoka, and through successive Buddhist councils under his rule and subsequent philosophers and teachings that came way after the Buddha's life such as those of Nagarjuna or the Heart Sutra.

I don't think any honest person who is familiar with Buddhism would deny that, if there is, then I can discuss it then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Teachings_of_earliest_Buddhism

No, even secular scholarship will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. I don't need yoga to figure that out.

If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in religious authorities. :starstruck: — praxis

That's certainly not what we say. Religious authorities, especially in Hinduism, are typically frauds and liars. We go by the Vedic method of knowing God, yogic meditation.

Don't know what you're trying to say but I think it would be better to say that emptiness is the essential feature of Buddhism. — praxis

Yeah, that's right. Because it's only one process of change to the next, there's no enduring self. Just the fleeting aggregates that arise from dependent origination.

Significantly, you didn't answer my question about sentient beings in Adi-Purusha.

Are we sentient? Yes I would say so. God is sentient, God is not a blob floating around. That's my initial impression.

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being. — praxis

No, change is the essential feature of Buddhism.

Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being. — praxis

In our system too, the gods (except for the Supreme God, Vishnu) are material beings who are under material nature.

I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sentient beings reincarnated after Purusha? — praxis

There are two main realms:

The spectral realm, the world of Being.

The material realm, the world of Becoming.

Within the material realm, there are billions of planets, universes, dimensions, and so on and so forth. In the realm of Being, there is no change, change is merely an illusion. Now, that's not to say it doesn't "appear" to change, it does, but it doesn't actually. In this realm, there is only Vaikuntha, and the various lokas (locations, locus points) within Vaikuntha: the spectral realm.

In the realm of Becoming, change is all that truly exists. One thing going from one state of being to the next until it dies. Fizzles out.

When one has reached Adi-Purusha, that is to say, Vishnu, then one has reached eternity. There is no change that occurs. It only occurs in an illusory state, like in a dream. But everything is eternal, no true change happens. No death, no rebirth. No Karma or reincarnation.

Karma and reincarnation are natural laws, only existing in the material world.

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient." — praxis

In Parmenides' system, change is merely illusory. In the spectral world, that's how change operates. The spectral world is non-different from God, and God does not change, he's unchanging, boundless, infinite.

And all sentient beings have sense perception, right? — praxis

All beings which reside in maya have sense perception. Beyond which, there's only pure consciousness, or Purusha.

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral. — praxis

No, it doesn't. Parmenides went over this a long time ago.

The Buddha wasn't wrong, certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong, Buddh-ism is wrong, but the Buddha was not wrong. His teaching is correct.

In any case, you haven't shown how the Buddha's rule of transiency is comparable with Hinduism. — praxis

Because the world of sense perception is transient, there is a false ego (ahamkara) that is transient but there is a true self (Atman) that underlies all transient phenomenon, including the false ego. That Atman is divine. Tat Tvam Asi (Thou Art That) Brahman=Atman. But it is not the Supreme Lord (Parabrahman/Parataman), we are merely a divine spark within a larger current of divinity. Which is the Infinite, the All-Pervading.

So our world of sense perception is indeed transient, empty. But the real world is eternal, unchanging.

Being and Becoming.

I actually had a conversation with someone who was "nihilistic" and they argued the exact opposite of this, and how believing we were made by an intelligent designer and not out of what they called blind evolution is delusional and ridiculous. — Albero

You can act contrary to what you believe, that happens. Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying.

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman. — praxis

No it isn't. There's a false ego and a true ego. Within the material world, all is transcient. But in the world of Forms, the spectral world, Vaikuntha, there is eternality, no transcience. No change. Maybe the perception, but not actual.

Being and becoming.

"Of the transient there is no endurance, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This has verily been observed by the seers of the truth, after studying the nature of both." (Bhagavad Gita 2:16)

I'm doing whatever means I can. This is also for my own growth, I am doing Socratic dialogue. But I have a Youtube channel coming up, and I'm also working on translation to spread Dharmic principles. But anyway, that's that, this is this.

The Hindu atman apparently contradicts with the Buddhist concept of emptiness. I imagine that there are all sorts of ways to talk around the issue, but I don’t see a way to resolve it, and if there’s no resolution then at least one story must be false. — praxis

That's right.

There either is a Self or there is no-Self.

But the Buddha himself didn't teach non-Self. It's a Buddh-ist doctrine. The Buddha's teachings, by themselves, are totally Hindu.

↪Dharmi Premoderns built empires of slavery & caste and eradicated conquored peoples of like-minded 'perennial mythologies' who would not be subjugated. Bronze Age barbarisms are memorialized in the Avesta, Mahabharata, Tanahk, Bible, Quran and the rest. Modernity's failings more often than not are vestiges of Premodern atavisms – return of the repressed – rationalized into "ideologies" and instrumentalized through administrative technocratic states. Same shit, different epochs, accelerated. The past that never was, friend, is only exists up one own's perennially tight arse. — 180 Proof

This is, of course, true. As long as we're bound to the prison of materiality, the three modes of material nature, then this will always be the case.

Struggle, domination, survival, greed, lust, power. Whatever else. Humans are not exempt from that, no matter what age or time period it is.

I'm not saying Premodern peoples were perfect, if that's what you're insinuating. It ebbs and flows. Especially since the Age of Kali we're in.

Don't worry so much about what people think as they are on their own journey and they must work out their own karma. You will never be able to change anybody's mind.

And it's not a matter of accepting your views. What do your views mean in my life? I must accept my own views 100%, as must everybody else. — synthesis

I'm just here trying to find those very few souls, as God says, who are beloved by him. I'm not interested in most people. I know most people aren't interested in philosophy, God or anything important in general, and those who are, usually believe nonsense. So I'm very well aware of the issue.

Karma is irrelevant when one remembers God. If one remembers God, all Karma is totally irrelevant.

"And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt." (Bhagavad Gita 8:5)

Anyway, like I said, I'm not trying to get most people, or maybe even anyone, to accept my views. If, however, I find the one in a million of souls who are truly searching for God and freedom from this prison of materiality, then I'm here to guide those people.

None of Lorber's patients had no brains. — Isaac

Are you really going to argue that a brain stem without a cortex or hemispheres is a brain?

You're free to do that, but that's very reaching.

You're free to believe your dogmatic worldview. I won't tell you not to.

Well, I know there is a Post-Keyensian explanation for it. I think they'd say that if you'd had taxed the money out of the economy, then prices would fall.

But a huge aspect of that problem was the oil cartels messing with the price of oil.

I guess you'd have to be more specific.

My practice is inclusive. This is a philosophy forum, I'm simply debating. If you accept my view, fine, if you don't fine. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to get people to think.

We are all one, in a sense. But in another sense, we are not. If you reject God, that does have consequences, not eternal torture, but temporary consequences. Eventually, yes, all will be reunited with Godhead. But I'd rather some people, who desire it, be reunited immediately rather than millions of years of rebirths as lower life forms.

I can explain this discrepancy, the reason is simple, nihilism is created through ideology. Modernism is an ideology. Modernism was created via Christianity, through medieval Scholastic nominalism. That view is false.

The reason people are nihilistic is because ideology that are false ideologies are assumed and believed by everyone. But they're false ideologies.

I recommend the book "Theological Origins of Modernity" to explain this discrepancy.

Premodern people had no problem with "nihilism" because they all understood that there is a Dao, Logos, Dharma, natural law to the universe. As long as you live your life in accord with that, then there's no nihilism.

The nominalist philosophy, that is the basis of nihilism and Modernism and Postmodernism. Is a view that directly contradicts that view. That's where the problem lies. That's where it comes from.

LOL Right, here we go. Materialists reinterpreting scientific evidence to fit their false paradigm. Go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

Lorber's patients either had no brains, or impaired hemispheres. That severely lowers the probability that brain produces consciousness.

It doesn't matter what "usually" happens with hydroencephaly. Lorber showed that many normal people have it, and they have no mental impairments.

Wouldn't that be the role of the market? — frank

Yeah, but the market is rigged by those who have the most power and money. So, it is the market, but the market is not this pie in the sky thing. It's controlled by material forces. The State and the corporate sector primarily. Though the bankers control the money supply, and hence the value of the currency in relation to the products, so they're more powerful than any of the others really.

I assume you are a Buddhist? And I wouldn't be so hard on the animals. :) — synthesis

No, I am a follower of Sanatana Dharma, or Hinduism. I merely have the Buddhist avatar because it looks nice. Buddha himself was not a Buddh-ist, he was a Sanatani.

Absolutely. Everyone is wrong. It used to be that all civilizations followed Dharma, Dao, Logos, natural law. Now nobody does.

Yes, they're absolutely wrong to reject it.

So, you believe everything is here merely on an accident? There's no order that keeps things in check, and puts them into the manner and way that they are?

I think that's absolute nonsense. And it's easy to show. If everything were an accident, we ought to see life spontaneously coming into existence all of the time at random. But we've never seen that. Life began only once, and despite the enormous efforts, intelligence, funding, time and resources behind attempts to create life, they cannot even create a single simple cell in a laboratory. Let alone a multicellular complex organism like a bee, or a tree, or a human, or a bird.

Not even one. They have to mimick and copy life and inject it into "machines" in order to "make life."

That's an absolute joke. If you're serious that there's no order, design, function, purpose underlying the fabric of the Cosmos, you have to be seriously deluded or seriously that stupid.

That's not an insult, that's how I genuinely feel.

If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been something else. — synthesis

No, it wouldn't have. The Adharmic nature of Abrahamism is particular to Abrahamism and Abrahamism alone.

The rest of civilization would've continued to follow Dharma.

Well, I think that's false. I think we can know this inherent meaning, Dao, Logos, Dharma and I think we can live our lives in accord with it. If we do not, we end up in a lunatic jungle, zoo, circus society like this one. If we do, then we have security, stability and a golden age.

Moreover, everyone in history until Modernity believed there was this meaning and we can know what it is. All of the ancients. So I don't accept your Modernist/Postmodernist assumptions that it cannot be known and/or that it doesn't exist.

Inherent in the nature of the universe, in the Cosmos. In the Omniverse. It's not something humans made up.

What is called the Dao in Chinese philosophy, Dharma in Indian philosophy, Logos and other names in Greek philosophy. It's called natural law in English.

What particularly? That death will come? I don't think so. That's a fact.

I didn’t suggest there is no meaning. In fact, I believe that we are all utterly saturated in meaning. — praxis

Inherent meaning. Not contrived. Not made up. Not artificial.

That's not totally false. God is death. But death is not God. God is the creator of death. Also, creator of life. He is the Lord of all, and he is all, yet infinitely beyond all: creator, preserver and destroyer.

"I am death, the destroyer of the worlds." (Bhagavad Gita 11:32)

Also, death is not akin to sleep. Death is nonexistence. So, it's not experienced. Sleep is experienced.

Meaning is used by those in a position of power or influence to control the masses. If a society taught its citizens about meaning, what it is and how to find it for themselves, it wouldn’t be as easy to corral them like sheep to the slaughter. — praxis

Just because meaning is utilized in this way doesn't mean there is no meaning. In the same way that just because everybody claims to have the truth, and the ruling class tries to keep the truth hidden from the masses via propaganda systems and ideology as best as they can, doesn't mean there is no truth.

"God" is just a psychosocial (i.e. sheep-corraling) placebo-fetish, or drug-dependency of choice. Like a drunk's "happiness", which is drink. Why not life liberty and the prefrontal lobotomy? — 180 Proof

That's just your prejudice and bias. Death is the ultimate elephant in the room for people who yak on about their liberty and life. You cant escape God's natural law, no matter how much you yak about your alleged liberty and what not.

I rather think that we use it way too much. You don't see animals doing stupid shit all the time. — synthesis

Animals are what humans become when they don't use their reasoning faculty. However, they, unlike Modern/Postmodern people, follow natural law. That's why animals don't do stupid things, they follow natural law. Dharma. Modern humans reject natural law.

I think millions of people might disagree with your assessment. And you might think differently in time. — synthesis

No, I don't think I ever will. I've read his books, I've watched every lecture he's ever done. He's just Slavoj Zizek's alterego. He yaps about things, but never actually says anything coherent.

If Jordan Peterson leaves a legacy, I believe he will be known for advocating that the key to finding meaning in one's life is through the taking of personal and then social responsibility. It is through this mechanism that one can navigate their path using meaning as a compass. — synthesis

Jordan Peterson is a living joke. He is a anti-Postmodernist Postmodernist. He has no credibility at all. He literally just mystifies people with words that mean nothing.

It is only our intellect that demands a purpose to our lives as a filler when we decide that sitting around and twiddling our thumbs is more productive than actually doing something. — synthesis

Yes. That's what makes human life different than animal life. Animals can have sex, eat, sleep and clean themselves. So can we. The difference is we have an intellect, though many do not utilize it.

Sure, as someone born in the modern age, I think it save to say I view things from a modernist perspective... I'm a product of the times, I'm not sure how that could be otherwise.

And I agree Christianity is to be blamed for everything. — ChatteringMonkey

I understand that, I'm just disputing your claim that religion is a story. It's not a story. The gods are real, God is real. From my perspective, obviously, you have your Modernist perspective.

Happiness is impossible, unless you know God. Nothing can make you happy.

I think there is a problem of meaning, certainly in the west. I think meaning for most people is tied to having a perspective of playing some role in the larger societies they are part of. Historically religion played a huge part in providing that, even if it was just a story people told. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but that religion is "just a story" is a very Modernist type of thing claim. Premodern religion, pagan religions, were not stories. They were the way things are. The metaphysical underpinning of ultimate reality itself. Ancient people had methods of knowing this Ultimate, through what Plotinus termed theurgy, but what the Vedic tradition refers to as yoga. It's not just a story, if anything, Modernity is "just a story"

Modernity has absolutely nothing to do with Greco-Roman civilization, it's a deviation and perversion of Dark Age Christendom which stole, plagiarized and appropriated the writings of the ancients like Plato and Aristotle to create this catastrophe of a so-called civilization which is destroying the whole planet as we speak. Modernity is a story, not Premodernity.

The neoliberalism I'm talking about is a post ww2 philosophy that identifies various threats to freedom. Freedom is the key word, and the almighty good is a free market. — frank

Yes, so am I. "Neoliberalism" comes out of classical liberalism, classical liberalism comes from British empiricism, and British empiricism comes out of nominalism.

So nominalism is what the true issue is. From my perspective. I know the history of economics, I have a degree in it. I have degrees in politics, economy, philosophy, international relations all of these things we've been discussing.

If there is no inherent value to anything, then the market (by which is truly meant: the Oligarchs, the "owners of the country" as George Carlin put it,) decides the value.

The money-power, the State-corporate apparatus, decides the value.

I don't think so. I think that experiment has decisively debunked the idea that consciousness is located in the brain. If there's no brain, how could consciousness be in the brain? It could be elsewhere in the body, but I think that's, just as Neil Degrasse Tyson put it, "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on."

Consciousness is not in the body. It might still be material, somehow, like some sort of quantum wave or something, but I firmly believe it is immaterial.

Consciousness is fundamental, materiality is not. As Plato says.