Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:08 am
Reality is what we are in and is part and parcel of reality.
The Philosophical Realist [and also theists] claims there is an ultimate reality, i.e. God in which there are not a part of.
This is the reality that should be denied, i.e. a reality that is independent of the human self.
The reality "we are in and are parts and parcels of" IS ultimate reality.
The claim that "there is no ultimate reality" is part of ultimate reality too.
That is at most penultimate because we fallible humans with humility cannot claim 100% certainty and completeness.
There is no human. No claim, no blame, no fame.
There is only mind, non-physical within all encompassing awareness that pervades it all.
.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:08 am
Reality is what we are in and is part and parcel of reality.
The Philosophical Realist [and also theists] claims there is an ultimate reality, i.e. God in which there are not a part of.
This is the reality that should be denied, i.e. a reality that is independent of the human self.
The reality "we are in and are parts and parcels of" IS ultimate reality.
The claim that "there is no ultimate reality" is part of ultimate reality too.
That is at most penultimate because we fallible humans with humility cannot claim 100% certainty and completeness.
We can never be 100% certain about anything. But this is the one thing we can be most certain about, as far as we can tell.
Everything else we come up with is just a "story" that is already within, "inside" this picture.
Buddhism proper understands this, and is where it meets with Advaita proper.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:12 am
We can be certain but never absolute or ultimately certain.
Even mortality as Pierce [?] argued is never absolutely certain because it is based on induction.
Sure, we can't be absolutely/ultimately certain about anything, I don't think anyone sane would claim that.
But we can be more certain about some things than others, as far as we can tell.
If we play the game as treating all uncertainties as equal, then there isn't much point in saying anything about anything.
Nah the essential of anatman in Buddhism-proper just cannot reconcile with the atman-Brahman of Advaita proper.
If that's what we mean by Advaita proper then I agree.
I would argue though that reifying the Brahman into a literal universal self entity isn't Advaita proper. Most Advaitans aren't thinking in Advaita proper, because it's pretty hard to get there.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:12 am
We can be certain but never absolute or ultimately certain.
Even mortality as Pierce [?] argued is never absolutely certain because it is based on induction.
Sure, we can't be absolutely/ultimately certain about anything, I don't think anyone sane would claim that.
But we can be more certain about some things than others, as far as we can tell.
If we play the game as treating all uncertainties as equal, then there isn't much point in saying anything about anything.
Nah the essential of anatman in Buddhism-proper just cannot reconcile with the atman-Brahman of Advaita proper.
If that's what we mean by Advaita proper then I agree.
I would argue though that reifying the Brahman into a literal universal self entity isn't Advaita proper. Most Advaitans aren't thinking in Advaita proper, because it's pretty hard to get there.
One of my main mission is to wean off religiosity in time.
So perhaps Buddhism-proper and your advaita-proper [no atman-Brahman] can reconcile then based on the same principles without religious labels at all.
