[thoughtFrame]

The thing I've learned from many areas of Eastern philosophy is that they don't seek to give you "the hard truth of the universe", but rather tools to understand reality and lenses under which to view it. Of course, if we conflate it with religious beliefs then it's easy to think that they are laying out the truth under their worldview... But that's not how I've found it.

The true usefulness of the eastern conceptions of the self, the ego, the thinking mind, the emotions, it's all to help us see our faults and try to correct some of them to reduce unnecessary suffering. But under the esoteric veil of using Sanskrit or Pali terms like antahkarana, advaita, ahamkara, Brahman and Maya, it can be confounding.

[thebigwinning]

If a lens reveals a truth about reality isn't it true? Also I don't know what artificial distinction you're making between this and a religious belief. That's what all religions do.

[thoughtFrame]

I never said that about what the lens reveals. The thing is that it doesn't reveal truth. It's a tool that you only use when you need, not a dogma that is guaranteed to hold.

"There is a self I can pinpoint" is as valid as "There isn't a self I can pinpoint". "God(s) exist(s)" is as valid as "God(s) doesn't(don't) exist". When I have this problem, I can use a hammer. When I have this other, I need a CNC mill. That's my understanding.

[HKH2]

Some religions are teleological (they have purpose mapped out) and you just have to have faith or commit some actions. Others give you some necessary but insufficient tools, because the truths they want to express to you are somewhat ineffable.