@varaali
Valuble input especially the dual perception part. I've never thought of it that way before.Perhaps, such a perception is what making the 'self' difficult to understand.
Both-Buddist and Vedic school of Philosophies aim to achieve the same abode of tranquility- the Moksha/Nirvana but through different paths.Like you said ,I too think Buddhism dictates a somewhat easier and escapist route to attain Moksha primarily by the means of deep meditation. Vedic philosophies deal with a far more complex route.
To be honest, I still don't understand the 'Self' in a materialistic sense but now I've a fair idea why it can't be understood that easily,so that's better.😆
I like the idea of a separate thread but I doubt whether it will interest anyone because unlike scriptures,Upanishdic discussions are a tiring and boring affair for many.
------------------------------------------
Some thoughts on another but related matter.
Though Bhagavat Gita is considered the essence of Upanishidic literature, I find the concept of Atman and Brahman of Gita slightly different from that of Upanishads. Gita says 'Self' is an innate part of all beings.Some realise it,some don't .Only those who have attained the knowledge of 'self' realises/becomes Brahman.
In Vedanta,on the other hand,both terms Atman and Brahman are often used synonymously not as separate identities.Sometimes concept of Self is even negated and says,the 'Self' is a delusion.It is a product of false identification and ego.Only the Brahman is the ultimate reality.Here Brahman is considered devoid of any qualities as such.It's just a sense of consciousness,a reality.Some schools of philosophies relate Brahman with God.Some sections of Advaita Vedanta with non-theistic inclines,says Brahman is just a part of oneself,not any superhuman power.It says one's consciousness is the true nature of Brahman.Ah that's confusing! Advaita is a tough nut to crack.Better to leave it at that.
Puranas and Upanishads,both have Vedic philosophies as their essence.They're both a quest for self realisation and attaining Moksha/iberation. They're only different in the way they are delivered. While Upanishads go with a straightforward academic manner, Puranas opt for an easy story like method.I believe they are made to make Vedic philosophies easily accessible to a large section of society and children who don't fancy the trouble and effort needed to decipher Vedas and Vedantas.
Now considering Mahabharata and Ramayana from such a perspective,I find All Gods and their incarnations are metaphors of Brahman. Rishis are the metaphor of realised souls who have attained the knowledge of the Self and Brahman. Asuras stands for ignorant souls whose wisdom is deluded by wordly desires and attachments which in turn give rise to adharma. All the rest characters are metaphores for common people who are caught in the karmic cycle of birth and rebirth until they finally attain Moksha.
Vedic philosophies in the form of stories of Puranas are easier to understand and far more pleasant to read than Upanshidic texts.But often,there are some catches.One such is the morality of calling Ram,a maryada purushotam even after abandoning his pregnant wife.I have seen people debating over and over whether Ram is worthy of such a term.Such debates don't have a sensible disposition unless you consider it from a philosophic perspective.If one consider them as realised souls,who have acquired the knowledge of Brahman and the purpose of existence or even better consider Ram and Sita as Brahmans themselves then there won't arise a question of morality in either Ram or Sita's acts.They did what was needed to be done as dictated by Vedas just like the enlightened Arjuna fought the war after hearing Gita.
Hindi TV Shows
Bindi
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Jodha Akbar
