buddhism is super fucking scary

buddhist tradition is obviously not a religion, it is paganism, a heterodox mess of personal and collective beliefs, but what i've noticed is the following:

1. buddhism presupposes its own exclusivity due to having contrasted itself to hinduism, therefore creating the bounds of religion without the actual content (guenon was right in the regard that to hindus, buddhism is merely a hindu heresy, but if you read the following, it will become clear that he is much too naive)
2. the substance of buddhism therefore assumes universal religiosity which does not necessarily exist in the religious world (christian and islamic)
3. therefore, the spread of buddhism would result in an authentic reintroduction of functional heterodox paganism into the collective unconscious of the masses
4. this would materialize as people presupposing the divinity of previously extinct pagan gods and beliefs, as these would begin to be seen as universal and not particular, i.e one wouldn't require a text, statue, artistic tradition etc. to actually and fully believe in them
5. the actual substance of buddhism wouldnt be the particular beliefs or claims of buddha as a universal in a particular worldview, but as a universal containing particularity, meaning its not so much that he had some claim to truth, but his claim to something deviant invented his own truth which can swallow universality as a whole

currently, people are merely antireligious, but that means that they still presuppose religion, they haven't fully negated it yet, all this weird eastern shit is actually a gateway to the most insane negation of religion known to man; yes im aware that even westernized easterners have started adopting this worldview from a western perspective, but if the west actually easternized, the exact opposite would happen

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    THAT IS WHY GLOBALISTS HAVE BEEN PROMOTING BUDDHISM IN CHRISTENDOM FOR ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS; GLOBALISTIC SPIRITUALITY IS THE PSEUDORELIGION OF THE ANTICHRIST; THE PSEUDORELIGION OF THE ANTICHRIST IS GLOBAL BUDDHISM.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      All gnostic spirituality is like this.

      The only thing binding about the Antichrist is the denial of the real Christ.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fragile christcuck moment

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, he is right the rise of buddhism in the west would be the perfect catalyst for the return of a truly pagan worldview and it isn't a religion as in the molds of westerners understand it, as the whole concept of religion was build around christianity-judaism-islam
      t. pagan

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cool samegay Christ-tard OP.

        https://i.imgur.com/HLgAu2u.jpg

        buddhist tradition is obviously not a religion, it is paganism, a heterodox mess of personal and collective beliefs, but what i've noticed is the following:

        1. buddhism presupposes its own exclusivity due to having contrasted itself to hinduism, therefore creating the bounds of religion without the actual content (guenon was right in the regard that to hindus, buddhism is merely a hindu heresy, but if you read the following, it will become clear that he is much too naive)
        2. the substance of buddhism therefore assumes universal religiosity which does not necessarily exist in the religious world (christian and islamic)
        3. therefore, the spread of buddhism would result in an authentic reintroduction of functional heterodox paganism into the collective unconscious of the masses
        4. this would materialize as people presupposing the divinity of previously extinct pagan gods and beliefs, as these would begin to be seen as universal and not particular, i.e one wouldn't require a text, statue, artistic tradition etc. to actually and fully believe in them
        5. the actual substance of buddhism wouldnt be the particular beliefs or claims of buddha as a universal in a particular worldview, but as a universal containing particularity, meaning its not so much that he had some claim to truth, but his claim to something deviant invented his own truth which can swallow universality as a whole

        currently, people are merely antireligious, but that means that they still presuppose religion, they haven't fully negated it yet, all this weird eastern shit is actually a gateway to the most insane negation of religion known to man; yes im aware that even westernized easterners have started adopting this worldview from a western perspective, but if the west actually easternized, the exact opposite would happen

        >buddhist tradition is obviously not a religion
        By definition it's a religion just like Christianity moronic anon.
        >it is paganism
        Paganism is nothing more than the Christian word for polytheists and non-Christians.
        There never was a historical group that called themselves "the pagans"
        >all this weird eastern shit is actually a gateway to the most insane negation of religion known to man
        Christianity is literally an insane Middle - Eastern religion anon. Buddhism like Christian is a nihilistic rejection of this life for an imaginary eternal afterlife.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          according to this guy, hinduism is 1 religion even though every village has different beliefs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That image file has a Chinese name.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It’s actually Japanese kanji…insectoid writing systems are fricking moron though.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bump out of interest.

    Though slightly off topic it does remind me of Phillip K Dick's short story "The Turning Wheel" that depicts a eastern (Buddhist) inspired religion of the future, dominated by Asians.

    >The story is set in a post-apocalyptic future where global civilization is governed by a hierarchical, religious society centered on belief in karmic based reincarnation metaphorically viewed as moving forward or backward on a turning wheel. The society presented is class driven, apparently with Caucasians ("Caucs") at the bottom, and Asians and Indians at the top. Above all is the god/messiah, the Bard "Elron Hu" (that is to say, "Elron Hu, Bard"), whose spiritual plan involves one becoming "clear" - an obvious jab at L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, the self-help book that had been released a few years before.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Though slightly off topic it does remind me of Phillip K Dick's short story "The Turning Wheel" that depicts a eastern (Buddhist) inspired religion of the future, dominated by Asians.
      Cool it's a completely irrelevant fictional story of no meaning or importance then.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thought it was worth a share since the rise of New Age/Masonic influenced Buddhism in the West is akin to the rise of the Oriental Cults during late Antiquity that gave rise to Christianity proper. Though it's just a a short story, PKD does have a knack for predicting the current modern world through his "fictions".

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >buddhist tradition is obviously not a religion
    Not obvious and the vast majority of people who have studied Buddhism disagree with you
    >it is paganism
    If paganism means an ethnic/traditional polytheist religion then no, Buddhism does not presuppose any of the characteristics of paganism
    >a heterodox mess of personal and collective beliefs
    All religions are heterodox according to other religions (who claim they themselves only are orthodox). All religions are collections of personal and collective beliefs, although Buddhism is a more systematised collected body of beliefs and practices than most religions.
    >buddhism presupposes its own exclusivity due to having contrasted itself to hinduism
    Buddhism developed before classical Hinduism existed, in a region of India (Maghada) outside of the Vedic cultural sphere. Brahmins are marginal in the early Buddhist suttas and usually portrayed neutrally or positively. In the earliest texts Buddha argues more with Jains and other Sramanic sects.
    >the substance of buddhism therefore assumes universal religiosity
    If anything the opposite, Buddhism claims there is universal ignorance of Buddhism's truth, and full practice of the religion is only possible by a select few
    >which does not necessarily exist in the religious world (christian and islamic)
    Christianity and Islam traditionally hold that all humans instinctively believe in God through natural reason alone, so this more true of them than it is of Buddhism.
    >the spread of buddhism would result in an authentic reintroduction of functional heterodox paganism into the collective unconscious of the masses
    As above this is wrong in almost every word.
    >this would materialize as people presupposing the divinity of previously extinct pagan gods and beliefs
    No, because Buddhism doesn't claim pagan gods exist or pagan beliefs are true
    >the actual substance of buddhism wouldnt be the particular beliefs or claims of buddha as a universal in a particular worldview
    Why not?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >currently, people are merely antireligious, but that means that they still presuppose religion, they haven't fully negated it yet, all this weird eastern shit is actually a gateway to the most insane negation of religion known to man
      This just reads like since you've decided Christianity is the one true religion, that means Buddhism is worse than atheism because unlike atheism Buddhism is a different religion to Christianity. Which like, fair enough but you didn't need to make a word salad post of bad history to give that argument.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you dont even know what constitutes a religion historically, you presuppose the concept like you know better, which you clearly dont

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >paganism means an ethnic/traditional polytheist religion
      it doesn't

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >appeal to authority
    If you think it's le obvious Buddhism is not a religion, but most people disagree with you, then it's probably not as obvious as you claim.
    >it doesnt
    You need to offer a definition of paganism then if you disagree with standard ones most people use.
    >organized religion is a unique phenomena that doesnt exist outside of their own sphere
    Heterodox means "not usual belief". Religion A can affirm a practice in religion B while still considering it "heterodox" in religion A. Even a Zoroastrian who believed they could worship Shiva in a Hindu temple would not necessarily accept a Hindu priest of Shiva officiate in a Zoroastrian service.
    But this is besides the point. Religions generally believe there is SOME heterodoxy in every other religion
    >classical hinduism is itself an arbitrary academic neologism that has no authentic religious significance to real hindus
    What "real Hindus" think today is irrelevant to religious landscape of 5th century BC Greater Maghada, where Vedic and Brahmanic religion was marginal and contemporary Hinduism nonexistent.
    >yes, buddha's truth, which is not truth itself
    No, Buddhism recognises the truth taught by the Buddha as a universally true description of reality.
    >this is an exclusively islamic belief
    Catholicism teaches humans know God by natural reason, so no.
    >islam being an orthoprax religion which does not concern itself with truth-particularism
    To be a Muslim one has to profess belief in the Shahada, so no.
    >wrong
    What is the point of this video? Like I said, Buddhism does not claim belief in gods is true. Buddhism also does not claim belief in gods is false. The core of Buddhism is agnostic.
    >oh well you've just claimed the entirety of OP to be wrong, you must know yourself
    Yes: the substance of Buddhism being popular in the west would be the substance of Buddhism being more widely believed and accepted.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you dont even know what constitutes a religion historically, you presuppose the concept like you know better, which you clearly dont

      You invent your own weird redefinitions of "pagan", "religion" etc. that ordinary usage doesn't recognise and then claim this proves you right. K.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You invent your own weird redefinitions
        no, you blindly accept set terminology without understanding their functional purpose, thinking the terms themselves hold some kind of absolute power, while they are just placeholders for the ideas themselves, whats funny is that idiots like you wouldnt even be able to deal with the fact that there are a variety of contradictors set-terms and even multiple for the same concept in a different context
        (2/2)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >most people disagree with you
      they dont, most scholars describe buddhism as being heterodox and not a monolith, they use academic terms like "religion" as placeholders and not philosophical technical terms, so their precision is really irrelevant here
      >it's probably not as obvious as you claim
      never claimed this, you just were offended you didnt understand the OP, which is your own fault
      >Heterodox means "not usual belief". Religion A can affirm a practice in religion B while still considering it "heterodox" in religion A. Even a Zoroastrian who believed they could worship Shiva in a Hindu temple would not necessarily accept a Hindu priest of Shiva officiate in a Zoroastrian service. But this is besides the point. Religions generally believe there is SOME heterodoxy in every other religion
      this is just nonsense semantics, as well as a functional misunderstanding of the terms you are using, dont really care to go into detail, but this is clearly just for you to cope with your own ignorance, i dont see why its necessary for me to rearrange your use of nonsensical technical terms just for you to understand my argument
      >What "real Hindus" think today is irrelevant
      this is an arbitrary opinion and doesnt address my argument
      >Buddhism recognises the truth taught by the Buddha
      buddha didnt teach the truth as a subject itself, thats not what defined his teaching in any capacity whatsoever
      >Catholicism
      catholicism is a legalistic aristotelian religion, they claim it via rationalistic deduction, this is totally different from the fitrah of islamic belief, either youre just a drooling ape or a sniveling bad faith pseudo intellectual
      >To be a Muslim one has to profess belief in the Shahada
      this is a form of particularizing universal truth, its obviously not the same to anyone who even passingly has any understanding of islamic theology and just further makes you look like a bad faith actor
      (1/2)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >most scholars describe buddhism as being heterodox
        No, most scholars are secular and don't treat terms like heterodox or orthodox as useful outside of the perspective of a particular religious tradition. Like your one, Christianity.
        >they use academic terms like "religion" as placeholders and not philosophical technical terms
        IDK what it means for a definition to be a mere placeholder, but if you have a different definition of religion to most scholars then you need to offer your definition or any discussion is pointless shadow boxing.
        >never claimed this
        Literally the first 7 words of the thread
        >buddhist tradition is obviously not a religion
        It is not obviously not a religion. If you want to concede it's not obvious, OK.
        >this is just nonsense semantics
        The nonsense semantics is you asserting Buddhism is a "heterodox mess" just because it isn't Christianity.
        >this is an arbitrary opinion
        No, it's historical fact that contemporary Hinduism didn't exist in the time of the Buddha.
        >and doesnt address my argument
        You made a historically inaccurate claim that Buddhism arose in reaction to Hindusim. I pointed out that was wrong. Buddhism arose in a cultural sphere where Vedic/Brahmanic religion was marginal and the early Buddhist texts are more concerned with arguing against other Sramanic traditions than what became Hinduism.
        >buddha didnt teach the truth as a subject itself, thats not what defined his teaching in any capacity whatsoever
        I'm not sure what this means. Buddhists believe the Four Truths are a true description of reality for everyone, just that most are too ignorant to recognise it.
        >catholicism is a legalistic aristotelian religion, they claim it via rationalistic deduction
        It is actually a commonplace in Catholic and classical Christian theology that atheism is per se impossible for any rational person. And the scholastics accepted the definition of man as a rational animal. So all humans had some religious belief in God.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          cont.

          >most people disagree with you
          they dont, most scholars describe buddhism as being heterodox and not a monolith, they use academic terms like "religion" as placeholders and not philosophical technical terms, so their precision is really irrelevant here
          >it's probably not as obvious as you claim
          never claimed this, you just were offended you didnt understand the OP, which is your own fault
          >Heterodox means "not usual belief". Religion A can affirm a practice in religion B while still considering it "heterodox" in religion A. Even a Zoroastrian who believed they could worship Shiva in a Hindu temple would not necessarily accept a Hindu priest of Shiva officiate in a Zoroastrian service. But this is besides the point. Religions generally believe there is SOME heterodoxy in every other religion
          this is just nonsense semantics, as well as a functional misunderstanding of the terms you are using, dont really care to go into detail, but this is clearly just for you to cope with your own ignorance, i dont see why its necessary for me to rearrange your use of nonsensical technical terms just for you to understand my argument
          >What "real Hindus" think today is irrelevant
          this is an arbitrary opinion and doesnt address my argument
          >Buddhism recognises the truth taught by the Buddha
          buddha didnt teach the truth as a subject itself, thats not what defined his teaching in any capacity whatsoever
          >Catholicism
          catholicism is a legalistic aristotelian religion, they claim it via rationalistic deduction, this is totally different from the fitrah of islamic belief, either youre just a drooling ape or a sniveling bad faith pseudo intellectual
          >To be a Muslim one has to profess belief in the Shahada
          this is a form of particularizing universal truth, its obviously not the same to anyone who even passingly has any understanding of islamic theology and just further makes you look like a bad faith actor
          (1/2)

          >this is a form of particularizing universal truth
          You said Islam "does not concern itself with truth-particularism", but now Islam is founded on a "particularizing universal truth". K.

          >You invent your own weird redefinitions
          no, you blindly accept set terminology without understanding their functional purpose, thinking the terms themselves hold some kind of absolute power, while they are just placeholders for the ideas themselves, whats funny is that idiots like you wouldnt even be able to deal with the fact that there are a variety of contradictors set-terms and even multiple for the same concept in a different context
          (2/2)

          >you blindly accept set terminology without understanding their functional purpose
          I follow common definitions in religious studies. I am not wedded to them. If you have better definitions offer them, rather than assert your own terms undefined and try to win arguments with your own assumptions baked into them.
          Define what you mean by religion, paganism, "universal vs particular (and universalising particular and particularising universal etc.) truth" etc. and there can be an actual, open discussion, rather than begging the question that Buddhism is like XYZ because you've begged the question in the definitions you're using.

          you believing this while the other anon claims the opposite and the buddhist guru claims the complete contrary is an unequivocal testament to the heterodoxy of buddhism

          Nah what we said agreed: Buddhism can accommodate folk worship of gods but the core doctrines of Buddhism are agnostic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"does not concern itself with truth-particularism", but now Islam is founded on a "particularizing universal truth"
            those are 2 separate claims

            one claim says that islam cannot claim a truth exclusive to itself, the second claims it takes universal truth and tries to assimilate into itself exclusively

            youre just admitting to being unable to distinguish between the two, further goes to show how youre uneducated, and just wasting time blowing steam out of your ears

            >I follow common definitions in religious studies
            (reddit/wikipedia)

            >I am not wedded to them.
            you demonstrably are and have been

            >If you have better definitions offer them
            you forgot a comma; no im not offering new definitions, im applying established terms in the base way they are cross-studiously defined as, heterodox is not just a term used in religious studies like you claim, nor are any others, your insistence on defining all these terms like some law book just goes to show you are filled to the brim with aristotelian brainrot, possibly even sophism and not fully engaged in good faith

            >Buddhism can accommodate folk worship of gods but the core doctrines of Buddhism are agnostic
            buddhism contains the presupposition of gods within doctrine, any mahayana or therevada scholar will tell you this, the only people denying this are new-age zen westerners

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >No, most scholars are secular and don't treat terms like heterodox or orthodox as useful
          alevism referred to as "heterodox shiism", derived from secular academic terminology
          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/world/europe/alevi-minority-turkey-recep-tayyip-erdogan.html?_r=0
          marxism referred to as "orthodox", also derived from secular academic terminology
          https://search.lib.virginia.edu/search?mode=advanced&q=filter:{(FilterDigitalCollection:%22UVa+Text+Collection%22)}

          >IDK what it means
          i can tell, youre quite the idiot

          >Literally the first 7 words of the thread
          quote me, you barely understood a sixth of anything ive said so far

          >It is not obviously not a religion
          i never claimed its obvious, your argument was that if my argument isnt obvious it must be wrong, i never made the claim that any drooling moron would understand it

          >it's historical fact that contemporary Hinduism didn't exist in the time of the Buddha
          so contemporary hinduism is a separate religion then?

          >Buddhism arose in reaction to Hindusim
          in contrast to hinduism; you can barely distinguish between the terminology im using because theyre totally alien to you

          >the Four Truths
          which is a claim to some truth, not a truth-claim in itself

          >atheism is per se impossible for any rational person
          viewing this as a counterargument means youve misunderstood my argument in the first place, there's nothing for me to address here

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >where Vedic and Brahmanic religion was marginal and contemporary Hinduism nonexistent.
      I suppose that it's just an amazing coincidence then that rebirth, karma, liberation and the 3 marks of existence appear in the Upanishads centuries before Buddha taught them during his life

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is a non-dualist tradition. At least the real Buddhism (Mahayana), Theravada is atomist materialist cope. It’s not fricking “pagan” or whatever bullshit you’re spewing. Buddhism accomodated the polytheistic folk ooga booga religions in the regions it spread to but the core doctrines of Buddhism unequivocally teach that these “gods” are empty, devoid of any real power or inherent existence. They are illusion/maya.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you believing this while the other anon claims the opposite and the buddhist guru claims the complete contrary is an unequivocal testament to the heterodoxy of buddhism

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is like 0% a threat to Christianity. It was never able to become organized and doctrinally consistent or exclusive to the degree that the Abrahamic faiths are, and while in some specific combinations of place and time it got a privileged position, in no major area did it ever get the level of state sanction where all other beliefs were either illegal or second class. Now this was good enough in a world where all it had to compete with was paganism, but as soon as it made contact with the Abrahamic faiths it shattered.

    Buddhism is only attractive to westerners because they've grown up in a world where they learned the history and theology of things like the Abrahamic and Pagan religions as well as science. So can't believe it with a straight face or see how anyone else could. Religion however is a very comforting thing that people don't want to give up so they see some Buddhists and say "that looks like it could provide me with some spirituality!" because they see some of the genuine faith and spirituality of it's practitioners. This betrays their ignorance however, as they immediately recoil if they ever interact with genuine Buddhists and learn that Buddhism has actual theology and illogical beliefs in the supernatural just like every religion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the kind of words you use to express yourself already make me think youre an idiot i dont care about what you have to say

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        cope and seethe you pretentious pseudo-intellectual.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          is lyndon larouche a pseudo intellectual? thats word for word terminology he uses, and he was a literal public intellectual, you drooling ape

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddhism is like 0% a threat to Christianity.
      Well, given that the Pope just okayed gay marriage and Christian religiosity is plummeting worldwide Buddhists literally just have to keep doing what they're doing and they'll win out.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddhism is like 0% a threat to Christianity
      Buddhism is literally the Christianity of the east
      >in no major area did it ever get the level of state sanction where all other beliefs were either illegal or second class
      There are LITERALLY multiple countries today where Buddhism is the state religion and other religions are second class, holy shit. Also fricking Ashoka banned sacrifices and sent his royal officers around to enforce the Dharma on people.
      >as soon as it made contact with the Abrahamic faiths it shattered
      The threat of Abrahamic religions has been negligible to Buddhism, other than Muslims genociding Central Asia the only historically Buddhist country Abrahamics have made inroads on Buddhism in the modern era is Korea. Christian missionaries flopped in countries like Sri Lanka where they lost debates and sparked Buddhist revivals.
      Buddhism's overwhelmingly main threat has been communism which raped it in China, Mongolia and Tibet.

      Laughably misinformed paragraph.
      >This betrays their ignorance however, as they immediately recoil if they ever interact with genuine Buddhists and learn that Buddhism has actual theology and illogical beliefs in the supernatural just like every religion.
      But yeah this is probably true for a lot of western Buddhists.
      That said, Buddhism's advantage is its ability to syncretise without losing its core message and monastic structure. If Buddhism successfully syncretised with Hinduism in Southeast Asia, Daoism in China, Shinto in Japan, Shamanism in Mongolia etc. why is it terrible to syncretise with atheism in the west?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >why is it terrible to syncretise with atheism in the west?
        Are you seriously asking why a religion that has a bunch of beliefs in divine and supernatural shit, wouldn't scombine with the lack of those things?
        Also lol, buddhism is literally dying. China and Japan are a bunch of atheists, Korea and the Philippines went Christian, Indonesia went Muslim, India went Hindu. That leaves what? Indo-china? Hinduism can survive a while because it's basically just a form of Indian nationalism at this point (Though that also prevents it from expanding) And Both Christianity and Islam are unique among world religions in that they both had a single massive, intercontinental, Imperial state that geographically contained most of the religion in it's borders, and was culturally hegemonic over all neighboring stateless groups so as to tie the idea of the religion to the perception of state legitimacy. Rome and the Caliphates respectively. This Imperial Power structure meant that it was possible for a single authority, The Roman Emperor or Caliph, to force an official state orthodoxy through things like Ecumenical councils, patronage of Madrassas, etc.
        While these Empires may be gone, they lasted so long that they were able to imprint both a baseline of what is orthodox vs what is heretical, cement a single version of its holy scriptures as the required basis for all religious debate, and make it part of the cultural zeitgeist that everyone has to follow the exact religion of the ruler, and that one of the primary responsibilities of the job of being ruler was to enforce said beliefs. There was never a "universal" Buddhist Empire like Christianity and Islam got.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a bunch of beliefs in divine and supernatural shit
          you know that those belives aren't exactly core to buddhism, but elements it absorb by syncretising with local folk religions, right ?

          >buddhism is literally dying
          by your metric so is christianity and islam

          >China and Japan are a bunch of atheists
          that still observe buddhist practices and philosophy

          > to tie the idea of the religion to the perception of state legitimacy
          and that is no longer the case in most of the world

          >a baseline of what is orthodox vs what is heretical
          no one cares about muh heresies anymore, you don't even need to go as far as mormons, JW or spiritists, most churchs are considered heretichal by the catholics and orthodox, and nobody cares

          >cement a single version of its holy scriptures as the required basis for all religious debat
          those are not the base of any religious debate with anything outside the main brnaches abrahamic tree

          >make it part of the cultural zeitgeist
          and buddhism is one of the main component of the cultural zeitgeist of east asia

          > that everyone has to follow the exact religion of the ruler
          >one of the primary responsibilities of the job of being ruler was to enforce said beliefs
          those are not part of the current cultural zeitgeist for the last few centuries

          >here was never a "universal" Buddhist Empire like Christianity and Islam got
          and that didn't hinder it's spread nor the crescent popularity of it philosophy and syncretism with current cultural trends

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"you know that those belives aren't exactly core to buddhism"
            >reincarnation, samsara, karma, the buddha, aren't core to buddhism.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >why is it terrible to syncretise with atheism in the west?
        because if it does he loose his argument and is forced to face the reality that not every religion is like the abrahamic ones

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Saying "Atheism will merge with buddhism" is as moronic as Christards calling atheism a "religion".

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OK, I'll be honest I dint read all this.
    However, like I've often discussed Buddhism in my youth with catholic professors. I wouldn't call my studies of nephilim since about age 14 as a Hobbie, but rather a collection of theories from the perspective of Demonology. I digress, but Budhism is just another branch of Hindusm. Most people who know Buddhism already know this. When discussing Buddhism you often hear about strange tales about "monsters" and "demons". Like in one tale at the Buddha's death/funeral "demons" (monsters/Oni) came to the funeral and cried over the Buddha dying.

    That story always stuck with me.
    Buddhism always spins that story in the naritive that the Buddha abolished / freed creating from worshiping the "gods" along with the idea that demons can be freed from the cycle of incarnation.

    Then you also see how the Buddha became "enlightened". There was like the evil trickster demon running around him allegedly trying to "distract" the Buddha. The entire enlightenment narrative is almost a text book depiction of demonic possession, which the exorcist priest Fr. Rippanger actually touched upon in one of his lectures where he said "Do not expose your children to seeing the Buddha statues". Outside of the statues being pagan it's a vessel at least in Hinduism tradtion for the gods (demons). But I'm also pointing out that the posing Buddha that is spread across the West in low-brow mass consumption "art" is a detection of the Buddha becoming "enlightened", which in my point of a view is an actual pagan vessel for demonic possession whether people acknowledge it or not the effect is there amgonst worldly aethistic/panthyists/agnostics who collect these things in their houses.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This obsession with eastern sorcery has never solved anything, it's a cult of stupidity made up by a charlatan who left his wife and child to become a degenerate beggar. Your entire conception of religion and ethics consists of sitting on your own ass as an attempt to abandon the very idea of thought, of knowledge and even self, and then you dare drag your pitiful existence here, utilizing some of the greatest technological achievements of Western civilization to poison yourself and others with this oriental babble.
    The Cult of the Buddha is the very antithesis to mankind, that our hard-earned knowledge should be abandoned in favor of a literal empty mind, that civilization is ultimately meaningless, and that even joy is a falsehood. It argues about the banalities of existence as a means to disguise the fundamental egoism underlying it. It seizes the minds of the weak and feeble, teaches them that they are wrong to struggle, turns them into pitiful creatures waiting to be consumed by death. It thrives from the wealth seized from society in an attempt to stop existing by doing nothing but existing. It is ignorance in itself.
    Buddhism has never improved anyone or anything, it has only insidiously wormed its way into civilization through lies and deception. It claims to be the very purest of truths and yet, if it ever converts, it's syncretism, and if it exists anywhere, it is corrupt. Indeed, it is the charity brought forth by attachment to the very evils of Buddhism that keeps these monks alive. The same kindness that kept the family Buddha abandoned alive. Finally, it is our tolerance of this cult of misery and ignorance that still allows it to seize minds, denounce the gift of consciousness and turn men into a worthless thing.
    Following Buddhism to the letter, the word of Buddha himself as he said it, has never produced anything other than beggars and ignorant men. Ironic.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is a negation of Hinduism but only in it's philosophical vedic principles, in particularly the Vedanta metaphysics and the morality of reincarnation.
    It doesn't negate the existence of hindu gods and their worship because it basically don't care for them of for their supposed existence. Vedic Hinduism relies much less on god worship than you think, a lot of it's orthodox philosophies were non-theistic.

    So Buddhism doesn't presuppose a previous belief in a pagan polytheistic religion to sustain it's point. Also, just like every other religion, it can adapt to one's previous beliefs as well. Your take is beyond moronic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it basically don't care for them of for their supposed existence
      **doesnt

      example: all doctrines of buddhist cosmology are fully dependent on the presupposition of gods, i mentioned previously that buddhist doctrines are not secular like you morons make them out to be, you have a 2 dimentional flat smooth brain like a piece of paper made from jelly

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody said buddhist doctrines are secular moron, but they aren’t some grug-tier ooga booga polytheism either. Buddhism can accomodate polytheism but only provisionally, the core doctrines of Buddhism unequivocally teach that these “gods” are empty and dependent beings just like all other phenomena. True Buddhism is basically Advaita Vedanta, the major difference is that Buddhism is heavily apophatic and the difference in epistemology between Buddhist schools and Advaita schools means Buddhism sounds like nihilism to the ignorant.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >True Buddhism is basically Advaita Vedanta,
          no, Buddhism denies the main metaphysical and spiritual concepts of Vedanta and monism, being much more compatible with hard polytheism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe the Theravada schools. Mahayana Buddhism is without a doubt monistic lmao. They just don’t state it directly preferring to indirectly point to the truth. The Vijnanavada school is basically subjective idealism, and Madhyamika is basically Advaita

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Mahayana Buddhism is without a doubt monistic
            no, they aren't

            >They just don’t state it directly
            they don't state it at all

            >The Vijnanavada school is basically subjective idealism, and Madhyamika is basically Advaita
            neither of those are what you claim
            the core buddhist principles shared by all schoold directly oppose the metaphysic basis of Vetanda and monism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what it is it genius? Is it your garden variety dualism? There’s a case to be made that Theravada is pluralistic in its ontology but that doesn’t hold for Mahayana. Are they ontological nihilists? What about the middle way? You want Buddhism to be ooga booga animism so bad you can’t even see it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that doesn’t hold for Mahayana
            it does

            > You want Buddhism to be ooga booga animism so bad you can’t even see it
            you are just projecting your desire to make it fits your prefer metaphysics while ignoring what it is at it's core and dismissing anything that don't fit it as "muh ooga booga", betraying your deep ignorance

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it does
            Mahayana has a pluralistic ontology? Doubt. I’m pretty sure Nagarjuna refuted the atomistic pluralists that were the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools, and by proxy, the Hindu Purva-Mimamsa and Nyaya traditions

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Doubt.
            because you don't know what you are talking about

            >Nagarjuna
            very funny you cite him as his philosophy, specially the concept of sunyata, is fundamentally incompatible with and antagonistic to any form of vedanta

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >is fundamentally incompatible with and antagonistic to any form of vedanta
            Dolpopa's Shentong interpretation of him isn't although this is a minority viewpoint. Some Kagyu teachers/writers have their own version of Shentong which is similar as well but not to the same degree that Dolpopa's is.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          shifting the goalpost

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddhism is a negation of Hinduism but only in it’s philosophical vedic principles, in particularly the Vedanta metaphysics
      Which “Vedanta” school are you even talking about? Because Advaita wasn’t even around during the time of the Buddha. Early Buddhist texts show that most Buddhist were arguing with Jains and the other Sramana traditions, and the materialist Charvakas. They also engaged with the Purva-Mimamsa school which I guess you could call Vedanta. There actually isn’t much engagement between Buddhism and Advaita. The early Theravada bozos didn’t even know the Upanishads and constantly conflate the Absolute Brahman with the creator god Brahma. The Vijnana school engaged with Advaita and there are records of Bhavaviveka arguing against the Advaitins. Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika tradition is basically Advaita but articulated differently mostly due to epistemological differences between Buddhism and Vedanta. Buddhism only accepts two pramanas, perception and inference. Advaita accepts 6 pramanas.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Because Advaita wasn’t even around during the time of the Buddha
        It wasn't a formalized scholastic schools but Advaita views were certainly held and being taught by circles of Brahmins from the times of at least the earliest Upanishads till now, which is why there are countless verses talking about total non-duality and plurality being an illusion show up all through the major and minor Upanishads, the Gita, the Puranas, etc, all this comes very a very long history of informalized Advaita that became more formalized over time. It's actually logically absurd to think that these verses just sprung out of a vacuum and that nobody actually believed in what the surface-level reading of those passages meant but this is basically what you are saying if one insists that nobody held any Advaita-views until Gaudapada/Shankara.

        > The early Theravada bozos didn’t even know the Upanishads and constantly conflate the Absolute Brahman with the creator god Brahma
        So does Buddha

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Buddhist doctrine:
    Sooooo basically if you do bad deeds you get assraped in Naraka for 330000 years by the gods
    >Japanese Buddhists:
    Oooo our gods are here
    >Mongol Buddhists:
    Oooo our gods are here
    >morons in this thread:
    Ackshually Buddhism is agnostic

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is just pajeet christcuckery adapted by yellow people for yellow people purposes.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *