Which scriptures/texts have you read?

@FlowersNButterflies In effect I have "done with the nonsense". I am totally secular.

But it is simply not true that each religion believes itself as the only true belief. Each have vibrant dimensions, even explicit teachings, that speak of a "universalist" strand where "salvation/enlightment" (call the "truth that sets us free" whatever you will) is [i]given[/i] to all.

In effect there are unique individuals. Not "religions". That often seems to be the point.

@Tariki Splitting hairs; I meant what I said. Each chooses theirs at the expense of the others. Being a multidimensional reincarnationist gives me a viewpoint aside from religion. It is not like a game, where you prefer chess and I prefer backgammon.

In the realest sense, I do not believe individuals exist.

@FlowersNButterflies Yes, each can indeed choose theirs at the expense of the others.

I think that is in part the point being made by a commentator on the writings and poems of T.S.Eliot....

[i]Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine.[/i]

But yes, "anatta", or not-self. The heart of the Dharma. Really, we are on the same page.

Thank you