In: Psychology
Which makes more sense to you: Hinduism’s vision of the “True Self”, infinite unchanging being, and permanence? Or Buddhism’s vision of “no self”, “emptiness” and impermanence)? Why? Can you give examples?
To me both make sense in heirarchy and not just as one truth for all, under all conditions.
When it is time to watch transient emotions, upheavels and non equanimity the Budhhist version of "no self", impermanence feels right. Most of the times, the triggers (any) produce an automatic unconscious cascade of reactions (mind, body: behavior, physiology, microexpressions) and this is "no self". It a programmed output, impermanent till the rush of hormones, neurotransmitters towards a stimuli remain. In psychology graduating up for Fro Maslow Heirarchy, Humanistic, Spiritual mind. An unresolved mind cannot be spiritual and from that state both Hinduism and Budhism theory would be not absolute.
Hindu version of "True self" , infinite unchanging being and permanence is more alligned with the highest purpose/need/ essence of person and should be seen there. It denotes a state when all unresolved conflicts are consciously worked upon, true expression of a person is being known consciosuly and all work is done alligned to that.
These philosophies are stepping stones to unraveling workings of mind one step at a time.
For me in the continuum Budhhism version is one end and Hinduism version is other end.