Graham Pemberton
1 min readOct 18, 2021

--

Thanks very much for your response. You make some great points.

You state them, however, as if they are definite facts. I would prefer to be somewhat more circumspect, and say that these traditions all have different shades of opinion and emphasis within them. (See, for example, your own article on Hinduism.) In addition, we are also using language to describe levels beyond the mind, which is going to create problems. As that well-known expression goes, we are creating maps with our use of language, and maps are not the territory.

I agree with your general thrust on Buddhism, which I'm not a fan of, when compared with Hinduism. Are they really so different, however? The Traditionalist Ananda Coomaraswamy, a great authority in such matters, argued in Hinduism and Buddhism, that perceived differences were merely superficial. Again, is it merely a question of the words used?

I would be interested to know what source you are using for your assertion that Brahman is the “underlying persisting SUBSTANCE”. I'm guessing you have probably studied this in more depth than I have, but in my understanding Brahman is the empty ground of being, (sort of) equivalent to the Buddhist emptiness. A persisting substance might better be equated with Brahma.

If a persisting soul is essential to Hinduism, then what does a Hindu think happens at enlightenment?

You might be interested in this earlier article of mine: https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/soul-or-no-soul-737cefcae094

--

--

Graham Pemberton
Graham Pemberton

Written by Graham Pemberton

I am a singer/songwriter interested in spirituality, politics, psychology, science, and their interrelationships. grahampemberton.com spiritualityinpolitics.com

Responses (1)