Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

In that sense, Brahman - Atman.

[Lagayascienza]

The universe and I, the underlying reality and I, the laws that govern it all and I, are indivisible. In that sense Brahman = Atman.

[Lagayascienza]

Religions are constructed precisely to make us feel that we need "more" than this, a "more" that can only be provided by ridiculous fictions, crazy notions such as "original sin", penance for said sin, priests to tell us how to do it (whilst they are not molesting children), idolatry and the abnegation of our evolved human nature. Nietzsche was right about all this at least. We don't need any of it.

[FrankSophia]

I don’t pay any heed to religious doctrine or dogma. I hate it, and it's one of the reasons I hate organized religions - especially the Abrahamic sort. However, I do feel an affinity for forms of Advaita Vedanta that deny gods and souls. As I understand it, the central thesis of my form of Vedanta is that gods and souls are entities that don’t exist. There is only “Absolute Reality” or “Ground of All Being” which is an unchanging, eternal, reality beyond all human description or comprehension. As a scientismist, it might sound strange that I have no problem at all with this. But it is all I need in order for my form of meditation to sit well with my scientific understanding of the universe. The universe, the multiverse, (whatever you want to call it) and the laws of nature that govern it all, are a unity and the goal of meditation is to feel one’s unity with this eternal, unified reality. My form of meditation seems to put me in touch, however fleetingly and imperfectly, with this underlying reality - not with a scientific understanding of it, (for that, we have to do the hard scientific work ourselves) but with an acceptance and contentedness with not ever being able knowing everything in my limited state as a medium sized, bipedal Johnny-come-lately mammal on this planet. Looking at things this way does not conflict or compete with my scientific view of the universe. If it did, I’d put it on the backburner without a thought. I don't even call it spirituality. I'm an atheist. But, with this view, I don't need gods, devils, angels, holy books, monsters, miracles or anything supernatural. I can be happy accepting the universe insofar as I am capable of understanding it, and content that as limited being, I can never understand it completely. I'm not meant to. Nothing is meant.

Brahman is that absolute reality, but it is also the same as God.

Advaita Vedanta does have Ishwara which is the more traditional God but ultimately this is another form of maya.

There is also the concept of Ishtadevata or favorite form of God because actually worship is still there in Advaita Vedanta for more novice practitioners.

Of course because this isn't taken to be the absolute its purpose is just to focus the mind.

I too am not particularly inclined to these aspects.

If you pursue this in a meaningful way though you will become a form of Brahman.

It is good you doubt until you know, but it seems like you're convincing yourself not to delve deeper.

[FrankSophia]

I don't really feel happy by studying and practicing philosophy.

See, the quality of the sage is eudaemonia which translates as happiness... but you're rejecting the possibility and so it's not having the desired result.

Diogenes is interesting but not a valuable measuring stick for me.

For me he is the most liberated figure in the Western cannon.

I sometimes recall, for example, that he discarded his cup when he saw a child drinking from his hand.

His whole deal is that we should return to our natural states because human life has become wholly artificial... this is a highly important concept along the way because most spiritual paths are just superficial behavioral requirements that can't ever lead to liberation or insight.

I mostly find value in Plato in his description of the life, thoughts and actions of Socrates. Thus, I would not choose him over Socrates any more than I would choose Arrian over Epictetus. Epictetus is the first person I call to mind when I wish to decide if my actions seem just or if my choices are likely to make my life better.

For me Plotinus is the peak of philosophy because he is largely focused on the goal and letting you live from that of your own accord... I can't tolerate those who want to tell you what the outcome should be because by emulating them you negate the point of your own distinct life.

I'm disputing the concept, the sentiment, the very idea that one should claim that they are wise, not the choice of the label.

It would be problematic if the claim was false, but as a statement of fact without identification it's fine.

Indeed, denying it would be dishonest.

[FrankSophia]

I'm disputing the concept, the sentiment, the very idea that one should claim that they are wise, not the choice of the label.

It would be problematic if the claim was false, but as a statement of fact without identification it's fine.

Indeed, denying it would be dishonest.

-------------
It's really annoying that you can't edit on this site.

[Lagayascienza]

I don’t pay any heed to religious doctrine or dogma. I hate it, and it's one of the reasons I hate organized religions - especially the Abrahamic sort. However, I do feel an affinity for forms of Advaita Vedanta that deny gods and souls. As I understand it, the central thesis of my form of Vedanta is that gods and souls are entities that don’t exist. There is only “Absolute Reality” or “Ground of All Being” which is an unchanging, eternal, reality beyond all human description or comprehension. As a scientismist, it might sound strange that I have no problem at all with this. But it is all I need in order for my form of meditation to sit well with my scientific understanding of the universe. The universe, the multiverse, (whatever you want to call it) and the laws of nature that govern it all, are a unity and the goal of meditation is to feel one’s unity with this eternal, unified reality. My form of meditation seems to put me in touch, however fleetingly and imperfectly, with this underlying reality - not with a scientific understanding of it, (for that, we have to do the hard scientific work ourselves) but with an acceptance and contentedness with not ever being able knowing everything in my limited state as a medium sized, bipedal Johnny-come-lately mammal on this planet. Looking at things this way does not conflict or compete with my scientific view of the universe. If it did, I’d put it on the backburner without a thought. I don't even call it spirituality. I'm an atheist. But, with this view, I don't need gods, devils, angels, holy books, monsters, miracles or anything supernatural. I can be happy accepting the universe insofar as I am capable of understanding it, and content that as limited being, I can never understand it completely. I'm not meant to. Nothing is meant.

Brahman is that absolute reality, but it is also the same as God.

Advaita Vedanta does have Ishwara which is the more traditional God but ultimately this is another form of maya.

There is also the concept of Ishtadevata or favorite form of God because actually worship is still there in Advaita Vedanta for more novice practitioners.

Of course because this isn't taken to be the absolute its purpose is just to focus the mind.

I too am not particularly inclined to these aspects.

If you pursue this in a meaningful way though you will become a form of Brahman.

It is good you doubt until you know, but it seems like you're convincing yourself not to delve deeper.

I can't see how any of us can ever know it in its complete, unified entirety. And even if some of us were to attain such omniscience, it will have been the result of a personal journey. I don't see how it's teachable. Not as a doctrine, dogma or prescribed method. I have been told that there is no one right way. We can be pointed in helpful directions. That's all. That's what I got from Vedanta. I am content with that. I find my meditation practice helpful. I don't need to become a Brahmin. To me, hankering after that would to objectify the unobjectifiable. To name the un-nameable. And then it would become mundane and not much different form religion.

[FrankSophia]

I can't see how any of us can ever know it in its complete, unified entirety. And even if some of us were to attain such omniscience, it will have been the result of a personal journey. I don't see how it's teachable. Not as a doctrine, dogma or prescribed method. I have been told that there is no one right way. We can be pointed in helpful directions. That's all. That's what I got from Vedanta. I am content with that. I find my meditation practice helpful. I don't need to become a Brahmin. To me, hankering after that would to objectify the unobjectifiable. To name the un-nameable. And then it would become mundane and not much different form religion.

You will not receive every piece of detail possible, it is unlikely the brain could hold so much.

Yet, you will receive enough to fully understand reality in an abstract way... this can then be applied to any aspect of human knowledge to quickly understand and fit together everything you're able to take in.

Make no mistake Advaita Vedanta is religion, for me if you're not intending to finish the path you shouldn't bother walking on it.

[FrankSophia]

The realization that atman is Brahman results in rebinding an apparent duality...

That rebinding is what religion means!

[FrankSophia]

Everything else we call religion is an attempt to cause this to happen.

Unfortunately people end up clinging to the devices and killing each other over which works best.

The ironic thing is it hasn't actually worked on either fighting over it.

[FrankSophia]

As you realize it's all the same through comprehension of each you gain a birds eye view over it all...

For me this is what philosophy really is.

[FrankSophia]

Note however that atman means self, and especially through investigating sakshi we recognize this is the absolute subject.

Brahman means that from which all grows, and various Upanishads tell us it is the nature of the world so the absolute object.

This is the base duality of normal experience, so overcoming them leads to oneness.

[FrankSophia]

Within Tantra there is a similar base duality because Shiva is the subject and Shakti is the objects... similar in Yoga with Purusha as subject and Prakriti as objects... most Dharma traditions ultimately go in this direction.

I would suggest every tradition that doesn't overcome duality is wrong.

[FrankSophia]

The Bhagavad Gita also emphasizes the transcendence of opposites, telling us this is the true nature of Krishna along with the jnani or knower of this being his own self... hence many realized beings called Bhagwan, they are another form of the formless.

[FrankSophia]

Tao Te Ching is basically a rambling about the opposites already being one.

It is probably my favorite but it could have been shorter imo, it gets stupid at the end.