roshan

Anna Lucia was very irritating, and Libby was a pointless addition to the team. I didnt mind that they died. However I didnt like that Libbys storyline was never completed and that they never explained what she was doing in the mental hospital. Eko seems to have been completely wasted. It just feels like he never really did anything in the show.

24 is just getting worse by the season. I think the quality of the acting is pretty bad right now - aside from Jack, no one plays a convincing role. The writing of the dialogue is even worse.

The new Octavian sucks a lot, IMO. They could have done much better... Also the character seems to have completely changed. In the first season he was giving firebrand speeches to his mother and now he cant even give his troops a speech?

Brahman isnt really a non entity. As a monadic, transcendental, universal principle, it isnt empty, zero or a void, but infinite, absolute and all-full. As per Advaita(and also Mahayana Buddhism), it isn't Brahman/Nirvana thats the non entity, but rather the physical universe(Maya/Sunyata) in comparison to Brahman. Brahman is said to be absolutely existent, as opposed to Maya which is relatively existent and ever changing. Brahman is necessary to explain how the mind becomes conscious, and to explain further where the soul comes from, where it goes after liberation and what its nature is. I disagree with the idea of Godhood. As far as I know, there is nothing in the universe that arises out of nothing at all. So the universe must have arisen from Godhood itself. If the universe comes from Godhood, then Godhood must be mutable. An unchanging cause cannot lead to the effect of the changing universe. If Godhood is mutable, then it can be destroyed. If Godhood is mutable and destructible, then what distinguishes it from physical existence, when it is subject to the same flaws? Also, if you say that the universe comes from Godhood, then where does Godhood come from? Why answer the question of where the universe comes from with Godhood when that just raises another question about where Godhood comes from?

First of all, I want to clarify that Brahman has different meanings depending on the Hindu philosophical system. Brahman, which is the focus of Vedanta in its purest form(IE the Vedanta of the Brahmasutras of Badrayana), is merely a monistic absolute reality. I agree that Vedanta is non theist and not atheist. Vedanta accepts the Brahman, but does not comment on the existence of god, whether impersonal and unmanifested, or personal and manifested. God without godhood for describing Brahman is obviously a logical contradiction. It arises from trying to translate the concept of Brahman into English when there is no equivalent. Later philosophies began to incorporate theistic concepts into Vedanta. The only later philosophy that continued to accept the idea of Brahman as a monistic absolute reality is Advaita Vedanta, started by Shankaracharya in 700 ad. In Advaita Vedanta, a pantheistic god was added to Vedanta, known as Saguna Brahman, in additional to the ultimate Brahman of Vedanta which is called Parabrahman or Nirguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is a formless pantheistic god. Ishvar, or a personal god, is said to be a form/manifestation of Saguna Brahman. So, the personal god of Advaita Vedantist philosophy is Ishvar, while the impersonal is Saguna Brahman. Nirguna Brahman or Parabrahman which in Advaita is contrasted to Saguna Brahman, is not a concept of god at all, but a monistic absolute reality. Later variations of Vedanta, such as Kashmiri Shaivaism, completely lost this concept of Brahman as an absolute reality, and only contrast the concepts of "Brahman"(pantheistic god in unmanifested/impersonal form) and "Ishvar"(personal god). Some of the later philosophies, such as Visishtadvaita even assigned positive attributes to Brahman, which means that gradually even the concept of unmanifested/impersonal god was lost. Dvaita, even later, completely denied the idea of a pantheistic god and only accepts "Ishvar". Personally I follow pure Vedanta, not any of the later variations, with the addition that I deny the existence of either Saguna Brahman or Ishvara. So, I am an atheist. Atheism was propagated by Sankhya, which taught a dualistic system of matter versus consciousness.From Wikipedia: "The original school of Samkhya as founded by Sage Kapila was atheistic and does not admit the existence of God. There is no philosophical place for a creator in this system. The Samkhyan's argue that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist. The school also argues that an unchanging Ishvara as the cause cannot be the source of a changing world as the effect." This quote refers to immanence being a part of Hindu monistic theism, which refers to Saguna Brahman, or the pantheistic god that has manifested as the world, not to Parabrahman. Parabrahman is regarded as being akarta, or non agent, so it cannot 'act' within the mind or world, so it does not the criteria for immanence. Furthermore, the world (and even Saguna Brahman or the pantheistic god) is regarded as being a relative reality "superimposed" on Parabrahman. Rather than saying that Brahman is imminent within the universe, I would say that the world illusorily exists within Brahman. I agree that Brahman is transcendent, however, I dont agree that this means Brahman is a God. I do not know why Wikipedia describes the ultimate Brahman as being divine. Divine means having a godlike nature. "God", if it exists, as in Advaita, is regarded as being illusory in comparison to Parabrahman, just like the physical universe. Thus, Brahman cannot be described as "divine". Let us analyze some of the words used to describe God as per Wikipedia, which do not apply to Brahman: Omniscient - Brahman does not have a mind, it does not think. Hence, it is not omniscient. Omnipotent - Brahman does not act or perform any actions. It has no powers and no authority. Hence, it is not omnipotent. Omniprescence - The universe is superimposed on Brahman Perfect Goodness - Brahman has no emotions, hence, cannot be good, evil, or even neutral. A Personal Being - Brahman is not even a "being", neither does it have a personality Cause/Creator - Brahman is neither the cause, nor creator, of the universe. Source of Moral Obligation - Brahman is not a source of moral obligation. Now lets see how Brahman differs from God: Akarta (non agent) - Brahman does not act, nor does it react. It does not influence, create or cause anything. Infinite - Unlike God, which is "one", Brahman is infinite. Nondual(advaita) - Aside from Brahman, nothing else exists. Nirvisesha/Nirguna(without characteristics/atributes) - Brahman is said to be completely without characteristics or attributes Brahman can be said to be not a God, but the monad of absolute monism. This concept does share the attribute of transcendence with the concept of a god but the differences are of a far greater magnitide. Nirvana in Yogachara Buddhism is a similar concept to Brahman, it is also an absolutely monistic cause of consciousness, said to be the only thing that exists. Would you also call this variation of Nirvana as a god?

interesting idea, but it feels off, could be somethign to it tho BTW, anyone wanna bet that Adama's dead son is a cylon or comes back some how? That would make things for Starbuck way too messed up! I dont think Adamas dead son comes back.

Karma has nothing to do with any sort of god. It is action and reaction on a metaphysical level. I would call it atheistic spirituality. Since there are differing variants of non/a-theist Hinduism, Ill answer your question as per Advaita. Actually there is no such thing as soul, it is completely illusory. The physical world is superimposed on Brahman, a monistic absolute reality, which is pure consciousness. The human mind taps into Brahman producing the soul. The soul can be said to be a point within Brahman, and extending infinitely in all directions. Since Brahman is infinite, and the soul is infinite, they are identical - the only difference between them being the central point. However, in something that extends infinitely everywhere, there is no such thing as a central point. It is completely illusory - a product of the human ego. So the soul is fundamentally identical to Brahman the absolute reality. Upon overcoming ones ego and ignorance the soul ceases to exist. From your link: "Strong atheists are those who accept as true the proposition, "god does not exist"." I am a strong atheist, not a weak one, based on the link you have provided. A pointless 'point' as Hinduism accepts both Karma and Reincarnation. So again, what is the point of bringing up Pol Pot when discussing Hinduism which does accept reincarnation? India has remained poor and backward because of the anti Hindu socialist elite of the country trained by the British. Extreme protectionism and bureaucracy in India prevented business, and thus jobs, and thus people had no opportunity to rise above poverty. Even Indias IT industry today was a complete accident - the government was so focused on controlling and running industry that they simply forgot to pass laws controlling information technology. It is only with the rise of the Hindu right in the early 1990s that Indias growth rates began to rise. Actually karma encourages responsible behaviour because as per the theory of karma, everyone will experience the fruits of their actions, whether in this life or the next. Lefties naturally hate karma because, like capitalism, karma rewards and punishes based on individual merit. Leftists are just pissed off because they cannot "redistribute" good actions. First of all, you are talking nonsense because the dalits, who are victims of caste, are only 16% of Indias population, not 50% as you claim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalits Second, poverty in India is only 17.59% today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India) - down from 62% about 1960. (refer to In Defense of Global Capitalism, by Norberg) Third, Indias middle class now numbers 300 million - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1854304,0002.htm Fourth, rural poverty is being swiftly eradicated, and by 2010, Indias rural areas could have a middle class of about 250 million - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1905817,0008.htm This is the fruit of the rise of Hindu capitalism after 1 millenium of being oppressed by foreign ideologies. Of course educating women is necessary. But theres no money to educate them. Parents must prioritize those who are going to feed them in their old age. Those are their sons. Illiteracy in India was created by the British as a means of subjugating Indians. Here is the testimony of British Brigadier General Andrew Walker on Hindus and education (1780) "they sacrifice all the feelings of wealth, family pride and caste that their children may have the advantage of good education" "this desire is strongly impressed on the minds of all the Hindus. It is inculcated by their own system, which provided schools in every village." In Ludlows British India, he writes: "in every Hindu village which has retained anything of its form ... the rudiments of knowledge are sought to be imparted; there is not a child... who is not able to read, to write, to cipher; in the last branch of learning they are confessedly most proficient" Education in India was systematically repressed and destroyed by the British: "According to Sir Henry Lawrence, there was one school for every 1783 inhabitants of the most backward division of the Punjab at the time of annexation. But thirty years later in 1881, "there is one school of whatever sort, to every 9,028 inhabitants", according the President of the Educational Commission" This means that within 30 years of British annexing parts of India, they closed down 90% of the local schools. Heres more: "W. Adam's Report of 1835 showed that in the then states of Bengal and Bihar, there were 100,000 indigenous elementary schools, or one school for every 31 or 32 boys of school-going age, as the author calculated. The Madras Report which was the most comprehensive showed that there were 12,498 schools containing 188,650 scholars. During the same period, schools of a similar nature were found scattered throughout the Bombay Presidency too. Leitner found that 8000 pupils still received their education in the indigenous schools of Punjab in spite or "the 26 years of repressive education of the Educational Department" Even more: "The teacher of an indigenous school was an idealist, but the system itself was founded on realistic public financial support. Schools were supported by the grant of rent-free lands and monetary assignments. During the British rule, this support was withheld or drastically curtailed. The data for rent-free lands to support local needs like the police, the temples, the education has not been fully worked out but that this portion was very large is beyond doubt. Dharampal shows that it was sometimes as large as 35% of the total land, and sometimes even 50%. Leitner gives the names of many hundreds of scholars who were endowed with such lands but whose grants were terminated and as a result of which the institutions they ran so well died down within a generation. The Collector of Bellary District wrote: "There is no doubt that in former times especially under the Hindu Government very large grants both in money and in land were issued for the sake of learning." When the British started studying indigenous education, they had already been in control of the territory for over fifty years; and during these years much harm had already been done. The land grants were already stopped or curtailed. There was a general breakdown in the economy at large. The old classes which supported local institutions were impoverished. These and other causes combined to bring about a fast deterioration is the educational condition. Adam mentions many specific villages in Nattore Thana which at the time of investigation had only two schools where there had been once ten or eleven schools in living memory. The decay was fast." Read more here: http://www.voi.org/books/ohrr/ch07.htm Lots of statistics from the British themselves.

Yes, it is promoted. In Hinduism, eating meat is considered to be a vice, together with sex, gambling and intoxication. Nonvegetarianism also contradicts the teaching of Ahimsa, or non violence. Thus Hindu priests, mystics, sages etc must adopt vegetarianism as part of their vows.

Buddhism is non theist because as the article you linked to states, it considered the existence of god to be indeterminable. Based on that, pure Vedantic Hinduism would be non theist - but Sankhyatic Hinduism would be atheistic as it actively denies that a god exists. I am not a non theist. I am an atheist. Again, you are confusing atheism which denies god with materialism which denies anything metaphysical. You are also confusing non theism which merely does not accept god with atheism that actively denies it. Which is an irrelevant argument as all branches of Hinduism do accept reincarnation. Personally I think that anyone who assimilates into western society can be considered western. For example, African Americans are clearly westerners, and not a part of african civilization at all. But America is different from Europe in the sense that America has assimilated its minority groups while Europe has not. I live in the UK currently, and I have interracted a lot with second and third generation immigrants from different civilizations who do not consider themselves to be British at all. Thats not to say that all immigrants have not assimilated and become parts of western civilization. Century and a half ago poor Indians were being carted off by the British as slaves ("indentured laborers") to countries like South Africa, Malaysia and Guyana. The reason child labour exists in India is due to British exploitation of the country. Ever heard of the Great Famines of Bengal, where huge swathes of population of Eastern India starved to death due to Britishers stealing food? What about money looted from Bengal used to kick start the industrial revolution in the UK? What about the British cutting off the thumbs of all weavers in Bengal in order to put an end to indigenous industry and force Indians to buy expensive British goods? The materialists of the west created the appalling poverty and illiteracy we see in India today and now want to blame this on Hinduism! What a joke!!! 50% refers to the number of people recognized as backward castes, not to the number as victims of caste discrimination. In India education is a matter of economics. Families do not have much money and therefore need to first educate those children of theirs who are most likely to earn them money. Women will get married and leave, it is sons who will have to work to support them in their old age. Women cant be educated because of poverty. Who created poverty in India? Thats right - Westerners! Study a bit of ancient Hindu civilization. Women in ancient India used to be well educated like their male counterparts. I have nothing against immigrants that assimilate into local cultures. There is no such thing as interbreeding - all of humanity is one race. How can I be racist when I am a brown skinned person myself? I support worldwide cultural diversity. I do not want to see western nations like the UK collapse due to immigration - despite two centuries of brutal atrocities and exploitation inflicted on the people of India by them. I am a humanist. Are ad hominem attacks like racist, bigot etc all youve got? I have always been speaking in philosophical terms. Atheist Hindu philosophy versus materialist philosophy. There is only one definition of atheism and that is denial of the existence of god. Anything else (denial of reincarnation etc) has nothing to do with atheism and is a figment of your imagination. You are confusing materialism(as a philosophical system) which involves rejecting god and all other metaphysics such as reincatnation with atheism which only involves denying god.

I reject materialistic philosophies because they cannot provide cvilizations with the strength needed to survive and expand. A great example is the west - birth rates are plummeting, fertility is declining, women are having children at continously later years. Chances are, within a few generations, what we know of as western civilization will cease to exist as immigrants from other civilizations overrun Europe and America. Religions like Hinduism unite people under common values, unite and build families, and through various customs/rituals/celebrations creates a cohesive and organic society. Whoa....since when is athiesm equated with materialism? Atheism and materialism are clearly distinct. Thats exactly the point I am trying to make here. I am an atheist but not a materialist since I accept Hindu metaphysics. Here is the definition of materialism in philosophical usage: MATERIALISM 1. philosophy: theory of the physical: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions Microsoft

Here is the definition of Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities Microsoft

So do you really like Indian food, and if so how old were you when you started eating it? How often would you say you eat it now? Still wondering What the does Indian food have to do with Hinduism? I'm curious, could you please answer the question? Its my policy to not answer questions just because someone has asked them.

I agree. They should mix things up a bit more, introduce a few new characters to add some variety to the drama - theyve killed off semi-important characters over time (the priestess, that boy who used to help roslin, the wife of the bald guy, starbucks rival pilot etc) without introducing new ones which is probably why things are getting a bit stale. Also certain important story arcs have already come to their conclusions - such as the rivalry between Roslin and the terrorist, or Sharon 2s problems with getting accepted, and the whole baby thing. You are right that currently they keep focusing on tag teams. They should show some more interraction across the board. Im sick and tired of the whole lee and starbuck thing. Its just dragging on and on - nothing more than useless and irrelevant filler because they dont have any other characters to play around with.

Native populations in western countries are having babies, but well below replacement. AFAIK in some European countries like Italy and Germany the rate is now about 1.3 - and that is counting immigrant communities. By fertile I am refering to average female fertility which is the number of babies had by each woman on the average. I dont think the incorporation of culture is what will overrun the west - I think it is a physical replacement of population with foreigners that do not want to assimilate that is the problem. BTW DarkMoth, are you an American or a European? America is by far the strongest western country and personally I dont think it will be overrun anytime soon. America tends to be very good at assimilating immigrants unlike western European countries which have largely failed to do so. America is also much more spiritual than Europe. What I meant by stable pool of labour is that if population collapses due to low birth rates as in Europe, cost of labour is going to increase a lot. If cost of labour increases, then businesses will flee to other countries, or they will die out either because they cant find laborers or cannot afford them. The only recourse to keep the economy going is to import immigrants with their high birth rates, and who also tend to have children at much lower ages. Not only that these immigrants will then marry wives from back home or bring their parents over while natives are declining, not only having children at rates well below replacement but also at much later ages. The result is immigrant populations growing at a rapid pace, fast enough that they will soon outnumber the natives.

So do you really like Indian food, and if so how old were you when you started eating it? How often would you say you eat it now? Still wondering What the does Indian food have to do with Hinduism?

I liked the episode very much. Has anyone watched the bonus scene available at the website? I cant watch it for some reason, it just wont play.

There is no concept of goddess of "childbirth" in Hinduism. However worship of god as a divine mother is quite common, and is equally if not more appealing to males. Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva forms a trinity, which can be simplified into a circle. It means that the everything that exists is in a constant state of change, everything that exists is actually moving towards destruction and eventual reformation as something else. Much like how the soul passes from one life into another. The universe is also said to undergo cycles of destruction and reformation. Hindus view both formation and destruction as being equally divine. In order to acheive permanence in a universe that is constantly changing, in order to end the cycle of destruction and reformation, the liberation of the soul is necessary.

Both of you are confusing materialism with atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God - atheism has nothing to do with karma and reincarnation. Buddhism, Jainism, Vedantic Hinduism and Sankhyatic Hinduism are all atheist religions which accept karma, reincarnation and some variation of liberation. What happened to keeping threads on topic? Arent threads normally locked for drifting off topic? If you want to continue the discussion here then you are very welcome to refute my point about western civilization being on the decline. India has a middle class of 200 million people who are healthy and educated, but they arent forgoing children. The idea that westerners dont have children because they are healthy and educated is a fallacy created by materialists and leftists to make it seem like not having children is normal and natural, when it is an abnormal phenomenon caused by hedonistic materialism. Nowadays the same leftists are promoting abortion and other such "adharmic" activities in India as well. I dont think there could be anything possibly offensive about the truth.

According to Hinduism a sons first duty in life is always towards his mother. There is also a vague concept of a "bhumi mata" or mother earth, but there is pretty much no emphasis on this. Hindus reject the idea of creation. Hindus believe the universe to be eternal, undergoing cycles of destruction and reformation. Atheist Hindus regard the universe to be superimposed on the monistic absolute reality by a force called Maya, which is a property of this absolute realityy. Theist Hindus regard it to be an eternal manifestation of a pantheistic god. There is no concept of creation out of nothing in Hinduism. Hindus agree with evolution, that the universe develops through the interactions of matter/energy, and that matter is made up of tiny particles. Theistic Hindus believe that such evolution is guided by god, as the universe, in Hinduism, is an extension of God. Atheist Hindus regard the soul as being exactly the same as the monistic absolute reality, Brahman. The idnividual soul is a product of Maya, the same force that produced the universe. Once one is enlightened the soul as an disctinct entity ceases to exist, completely dissolved into brahman. Theistic Hindus regard the soul to be a part of and a manifestation of god, like rays to light. Exactly, this is why Hinduism has very little dogma as possible. It has no one book, Hindus are free to find truth from everywhere, and there are innumerable scriptures with the Hindu name on it. Hinduism encompasses a wide range of philosophies(monism, pantheism, atheism etc.) because it believes that everyone needs something different as we are all at various stages of spiritual development. Love is not divine. Love/devotion can only bring people closer to the truth if it is practiced as a "yoga", a path leading to the liberation of the soul. Hinduism doesnt believe that the universe came out of nothing - god as a creator is rejected by Hindus. Theistic Hindus view the universe as an extension of god itself - not a creation of god.

Dont be silly. There are a lot of atheist religions in India including Buddhism, Jainism and variants of Hinduism. There are many Hindu sub-philosophies that reject the idea of a god - such as Vedanta, Sankhya and Vaiseshika. I am a follower of one of these atheist variants of Hinduism. A lot of western countries now have huge populations of immigrants that will slowly replace the native populations. This may sound "offensive" to you but its an unfortunate fact. Materialism is driving western civilization down the drain. A capitalist economy needs a stable or increasing pool of labour. With fertility well below replacement in western Europe, where is this labour going to come from? Immigrants, who are much more fertile than the natives. I agree that materialism is also affecting eastern Asia and is crashing fertility there too. But east Asian countries are not importing huge numbers of immigrants. EDIT: Its best that we continue the political discussion elsewhere, this thread should stay focused on Hinduism.

Atheism means lack of a belief in god. What is unconvincing about my atheism? Hinduism is more of a way of life than a religion. It has very few theological concepts that one needs to accept - just karma, reincarnation, soul, vedas and liberation. If atheism requires anything more than a rejection of god, it could possibly be considered to be more dogmatic than Hinduism is! There isnt any particular Hindu value I consider worthwhile. However, I consider examples of dharmic lives set by characters in Hindu scriptures (such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana) to be worth emulating, in general. Trust me, I dont want to see any civilizations "overrun". I believe in peace, coexistence, global diversity and the rest of that stuff. But the truth must be told and it sure looks to me like western countries are being overrun by immigrants. I dont agree that the reason women in western countries are having less children is because of health and education. Its because of hedonistic materialism which is caused by a spiritual vacuum. People in these countries no longer search for lasting happiness, they just want quick thrills, material posessions and sensual pleasure. Also, if other western countries are like the UK, it is probably almost financially impossible for a huge portion of the population to afford children. The costs of food, transportation, rent, tax etc take up a huge portion of a low salary. If you want children, you might have to llive a life of no savings (and thus no long term progress in life), vacations etc. Thus, womens fertility in western European countries is well below the replacement rate, even after factoring the much higher birth rates of immigrants. I wish these materialist countries the best of luck with their futures! I dont want to contribute to the problem by being a materialist as well. So I am going to stick to Hinduism.

I reject materialistic philosophies because they cannot provide cvilizations with the strength needed to survive and expand. A great example is the west - birth rates are plummeting, fertility is declining, women are having children at continously later years. Chances are, within a few generations, what we know of as western civilization will cease to exist as immigrants from other civilizations overrun Europe and America. Religions like Hinduism unite people under common values, unite and build families, and through various customs/rituals/celebrations creates a cohesive and organic society.

There isnt much you need to know about India, you will probably lean enough during your stay there. I dont think know of any good books out there on Indian culture and religion.

Not really. Brahman cant really be described as anything that is a part of the human mind/psyche. You can say that the mind somehow taps into some force that enables it to be conscious. This force is Brahman/the soul, of which consciousness is a property. Only through overcoming the human ego and gaining knowledge of the true nature of reality can the mind be enlightened and the consciousness liberated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I said, that is identical to Jung's collective unconscious. Jung postulated that the Psych, or consciousness (the bit of the mind that results from the focus of the attention) is only able to communicate with the collective unconscious through the personal unconscious (what Freud thought was only good for repressing thoughts about sexual gratification ). The collective unconscious held such concepts as race memories and what he initially termed acausal parallelism (he later called this synchronicity), to describe events that are connected by meaning rather than cause-and-effect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Metadigital, Hinduism has no concept of synchronicity. Brahman doesnt hold any memories, neither does it influence the functioning of the mind in any way. Vedantic Hinduism doesnt attribute any of the functions, thoughts(conscious or unconscious) or actions of the human mind/body to Brahman. Brahman unlike Jungs concept of collective unconscious(which is a storage of collective human memories) is not some sort of psychological theory. It is not part of the human mind. Brahman is a monistic theory of the nature of the universe. Brahman is the universal principle - everything else is superimposed on it. Brahman is destitute of difference, is without a second, is changeless, and is a non agent. Aside from Brahman, nothing else truly exists. The only comparable concept to it that I can think of is the concept of Nirvana in some Mahayana sects like Yogachara.

The main difference between Buddhism and atheistic Hinduism is regarding the "soul". Buddhism views experience similarly to images flashing quickly one after another. Hinduism on the other hand disagrees with this idea and points out that there has to be something connecting these experiences, and points to memories as proof - the fact that people can go back and experience memories shows that there is something linking together experience. Buddhism argues that everything in the universe is is devoid of permanence and independent existence, and proposes "sunyata", Hinduism agrees that the universe is impermanent and dependent, but proposes that there is something permanent that experiences the impermanent material universe. Buddhism accepts reincarnation but is unable to explain what exactly reincarnates. Those Buddhists that deny the self say that it is just karma passing from one person to another. In terms of viewing the universe, Buddhism postulates the void, while Hinduism postulates the absolute principle. Buddhism describes reality as being zero and empty, Hinduism says that it is infinite and all full. Later on, some Mahayana Buddhists did accept the idea of a self and a universal principle. They proposed a relationship between Sunyata and Nirvana that was pretty much exactly the same as the relationship between Maya(the material universe) and Brahman in Vedantic Hinduism. Yogachara Buddhism said that only consciousness truly exists - exactly like Vedantic Hinduism. However these Buddhists were criticized by others for "degenerating into Hinduism". Not really. Brahman cant really be described as anything that is a part of the human mind/psyche. You can say that the mind somehow taps into some force that enables it to be conscious. This force is Brahman/the soul, of which consciousness is a property. Only through overcoming the human ego and gaining knowledge of the true nature of reality can the mind be enlightened and the consciousness liberated.