Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:58 am
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:51 am
I see Buddhism "eliminate" the existential crysis by eliminating the human self. A very elaborate form of depersonalization, self-deception. If your leg hurts cut it off.
I wonder where you got that idea.
I have mentioned the Two-Truths of Buddhism and it is also explained in that article, the person must give relevant attention to the empirical physical self and ensure there is no clinging to an idealized permanent self that survives physical death, thus facilitating the existing human self to 'flow' spontaneously.
Giving up clinging to an idealized permanent self doesn't eliminate the existential crysis; it eliminates some of it, just like in Advaita.
And can lead to new forms of suffering in some people. Anyway these are just small differences, we highly agree about stuff. And it may also depend on the IQ of the individual which approach is better (since existential depression/suffering strongly correlates with IQ/giftedness). And there also various forms of the human self; some forms of it are pretty indestructible psychological structures, and can't ever be fully non-clinging; other forms can be. And the human self is also highly different in men and women etc.
I need to clarify here re existential crisis.
DNA wise all humans has an inherent potential for and inherent unavoidable existential crisis and this is activated strongly and subliminally within the subconscious mind of the person.
As such there is no way a person can eliminate that inherent unavoidable existential crisis or DOOM.
The only solution is to inhibit and modulate the terrible impulses of the existential crisis.
The difference between advaita-proper and Buddhism-proper is its principles of the coverage in resolving this existential crisis.
In principle;
Advaita-proper's atman-Brahman principles cover a maximum 90% target in controlling the impulses of the existential crisis.
On the other hand, Buddhism-proper principles target a 100% maximum coverage in controlling the impulses of the existential crisis.
The % above is merely to demonstrate a relative difference since it is not possible to determine the exact quantum.
The above is only in principle, but in practice, both believers and practitioners will achieve different levels depending on their spiritual constitution and circumstances.
But the difference is a Buddhist can achieve 100% while the maximum for an advaitin is only 90%.
Analogy:
Buddhism-proper [non-theistic] is like a manufacturing company setting a
zero defect vision, mission and objects, i.e. 100% efficiency and thus their whole system of manufacturing processes established to meet such a perfect ideal target.
Advaita-proper [theistic pantheistic] set a mission and objectives that accepts 10% defects, i.e. 90% efficiency because humans are by nature fallible and thus will make mistakes that will result in defects.
The point is when one sets a target of 90% efficiency and construct a system to achieve that target, the actual results will be less that the target, i.e. the best results could be between 85-89% and at times 90%.
But when one set a target of an ideal of 100%, in practice the result could be 95-99% and at times 100%.
See the difference.
That is the difference between Buddhism-proper and Advaita-proper.
One major difference is Buddhism-proper is non-theistic while Advaita-proper is theistic and/or pan
theistic.
It is the 'theistic' element which is tied to the fundamental psychological from the basement of the brain that can hinder and restraint spiritual progress to the max or optimal. Such theistic elements can even turn malignant based on principles that can actualized in some advaitins.
