instaed of going to address point by point, i will take the core issue only; anatman
The most common mistake about understanding religions what is done is that we try to see them in isolation and try to draw meaning purrely what we read. That is not the right way to understand what they are saying. Religions, especially the ancient ones, do not deal merely in spirituality but are equaly concerned about the daily life of the people, for a simple reason that their promoters knew that if the routine life of the folks were not calm and peacefull, they cannot be taught about spirituality. Thus, every religion has two parts, one for folks and other one for scholars. Religions realized that their duty is not offering mere spirituality but a complete lifestyle for the masses.
The place of Buddhism and Jainism is the same in Hinduism what is of Christianity in Abrahamic religions. Chirstianity took away all the complexity of Judism and made it very simple for the followers so that a layman can clearly understand and follow the same. Buddhism and Jainism tried to do the same and were quite successful in their attempt too. These are corrective/complementary religions within the broad canvas of Hinduism. The third in this caregory is Sikkhism which stands somewhere between both of these and conventional Hinduism in ideology.
if you go through the Buddhisht cosmolgy throughly, you will find that the details of the habitants of the higher spiritual planes are also mentioned like, what is thier forms, qualities and lifespans. Only a fool will go in such a detail if something does not remain after death and goes there. And, if one is suposed not to take all that detail literally, why one is supposed to take the concept of anatman literally?
And lastly but most importantly( especially for me) reason is that if an ordinary person like me can draw a conclusion of having atman from my limited efforts and experiences, i cannot accept that a commited person like Buddha, who spent almost his whole life in finding answers, would not be aware of the reality.
Noted ‘Santmat’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sant_Mat
Its root meaning is “one who knows(is) the truth” or “one who has experienced (merged into) Ultimate Reality.”
That is the meaning of word Sant, and that is not what santmant stands for. Santmat meants the opinion/way of the saints..
In the past some centuries, there has been many enlightened saints in India, who presented their own version of reality and how to attain that. The most prominant one is Saint Kabir, whose timeline is around 15th century. Ther are many after him too. All these saints founded their orgnizations which are called Dera in local language like, Dera Saccha Sauda, Dera Sahib bandgi, Dera Vyas etc. TThese deras say more or less the same thing. The difference between conventional Hinduism and these are that these focus more on meditation. They go in details, which is missing( or perhaps lost) in Conventional Hinduism beacuse of the time lapsed. These schools talk about 14 planes(Chakras) instead of nine which are mentioned in Hinduism. They do not criticize Hinduism but say it is incomplete. Final destination is even beyond.
The reason i find these schools more interesting is that unlike Hinduism, in person litratures of the promoters of all these schools are still available so there is no chance of someone corrupting and misinterpreting.
with love,
sanja