buddhism and christianity

[Anonymous No.16155364]

anyone have any expierence with both christianity and buddhism. ? i’ve been doing some research on buddhism recently and it seems to me to be much more defensible than christianity for a couple of reason

1. buddhism doesn’t have the archeological/historical problems Christianity has especially regarding the ot , almost none of it can be historically verified and some of it is outright false like the jewish captivity in Israel.
2. the old testament was entirely constructed by scribes and redacters though it claims to be the inerrant word of God. The Torah claims to have been written by Moses in its entirety which is false.
2. Ancient Judaism wasn’t originally monotheistic, Yahweh was likely a warrior god who was patron of the israelites, like apollo was patron of the Trojans

Buddhism doesn’t suffer from either of the problems since the holy book, the pali canon in theravada, doesn’t have archeological/historical problems as the bible, since it makes no claims of historical relevance, or of special divine insipiration, it is merely the words of the Buddha as recorded by his followers who were mere men.There is no strict deity in buddhism either, and not one that changes like the God of the bible does.

Buddhism also has this emphasis on meditation and practice that is quite appealing and which is lacking in christianity, especially protestantism, which regard repitition and practice and always falling short of God’s law.

honestly i’m tired of having to make these elaborate defenses of Christianity regarding archeology and history, and listening to people like Heiser who spend hours upon hours crafting arguments for the OT stuff that falls short of modern historical standard and is lacking in evidence, when Buddhism doesn’t have to deal with this problem at all and all energy can be focused on metaphysics and practice instead of defending something i see as increasing indefensible as more and more evidence is discovered.

[Anonymous No.16155384]

>>16155364
>anyone have any expierence with both christianity and buddhism. ? i’ve been doing some research on buddhism recently and it seems to me to be much more defensible than christianity for a couple of reason
This is just the midwit un-thinking take that many people have when they've just barely looked into it.

Suffice it to say there are characteristics within Christianity which are positively better than Buddhism, rather than just "less-good" Buddhism. Consider it an "active Buddhism" if that shall help you,

[Anonymous No.16155389]

You shouldn't take up a religion for its defensibility, and I say this as a Buddhist.

I'd also encourage any Catholics (or Christians period) to read the works of Thomas Merton. They're totally useless for understanding Buddhism, as he sort of admits, but are a very good look at Christianity (Catholicism specifically) in light of interaction with Eastern religion. He at one point comes to the realization that all the time he spent trying to defend Christianity from what he saw as possible attacks from other religions was in fact just a massive cope on his part because of the lingering doubts of "but what if they're right and I'm wrong?". He could only truly evangelize by no longer wanting to evangelize; his desire to be right and dunk on others was clouding his relationship with God.

[Anonymous No.16155406]

>>16155364
1. buddhism doesn’t have the archeological/historical problems Christianity has
>this is true

2. the old testament was entirely constructed by scribes and redacters though it claims to be the inerrant word of God. The Torah claims to have been written by Moses in its entirety which is false.
>you have no way of knowing this

2. Ancient Judaism wasn’t originally monotheistic
>not sure why this isn't point three but regardless it is a false point and irreconcilable when you take into consideration the shema which Jews would have said everyday

[Anonymous No.16155421]

In Buddhism, sin is largely understood to be ignorance. And, while sin is understood as “moral error,” the context in which “evil” and “good” are understood is amoral. Karma is understood as nature’s balance and is not personally enforced. Nature is not moral; therefore, karma is not a moral code, and sin is not ultimately immoral. Thus, we can say, by Buddhist thought, that our error is not a moral issue since it is ultimately an impersonal mistake, not an interpersonal violation. The consequence of this understanding is devastating. For the Buddhist, sin is more akin to a misstep than a transgression against the nature of holy God. This understanding of sin does not accord with the innate moral consciousness that men stand condemned because of their sin before a holy God (Romans 1-2).

Since it holds that sin is an impersonal and fixable error, Buddhism does not agree with the doctrine of depravity, a basic doctrine of Christianity. The Bible tells us man’s sin is a problem of eternal and infinite consequence. In Buddhism, there is no need for a Savior to rescue people from their damning sins. For the Christian, Jesus is the only means of rescue from eternal damnation. For the Buddhist there is only ethical living and meditative appeals to exalted beings for the hope of perhaps achieving enlightenment and ultimate Nirvana. More than likely, one will have to go through a number of reincarnations to pay off his or her vast accumulation of karmic debt. For the true followers of Buddhism, the religion is a philosophy of morality and ethics, encapsulated within a life of renunciation of the ego-self. In Buddhism, reality is impersonal and non-relational; therefore, it is not loving. Not only is God seen as illusory, but, in dissolving sin into non-moral error and by rejecting all material reality as maya (“illusion”), even we ourselves lose our “selves.” Personality itself becomes an illusion.

When asked how the world started, who/what created the universe, the Buddha is said to have kept silent because in Buddhism there is no beginning and no end. Instead, there is an endless circle of birth and death. One would have to ask what kind of Being created us to live, endure so much pain and suffering, and then die over and over again? It may cause one to contemplate, what is the point, why bother? Christians know that God sent His Son to die for us, one time, so that we do not have to suffer for an eternity. He sent His Son to give us the knowledge that we are not alone and that we are loved. Christians know there is more to life than suffering, and dying, “… but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10).

[Anonymous No.16155424]

Buddhism teaches that Nirvana is the highest state of being, a state of pure being, and it is achieved by means relative to the individual. Nirvana defies rational explanation and logical ordering and therefore cannot be taught, only realized. Jesus’ teaching on heaven, in contrast, was quite specific. He taught us that our physical bodies die but our souls ascend to be with Him in heaven (Mark 12:25). The Buddha taught that people do not have individual souls, for the individual self or ego is an illusion. For Buddhists there is no merciful Father in heaven who sent His Son to die for our souls, for our salvation, to provide the way for us to reach His glory. Ultimately, that is why Buddhism is to be rejected.

[Anonymous No.16155437]

The subject of ethics is, indeed, an important ground for Buddhists and Christians to meet on in dialogue, but it is because of the wide contrast between the two rather than any kinship. The consistent Buddhist cannot truly affirm that any Christian moral act is good, and indeed must see it as harmful. The consistent Christian must affirm that any Buddhist moral action is tainted by sin, devoid of faith, and ultimately unpleasing to God. Without faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Buddhist is, at best, offering up filthy rags. This is, indeed, an important reason for Christians and Buddhists to engage with one another, not because of similarities, but rather because of irreconcilable differences

[Anonymous No.16155446]

>>16155364
What about the demons and all the silly shit the Buddha does, tho?

[Anonymous No.16155475]

>>16155421
>For the Buddhist, sin is more akin to a misstep than a transgression
You make this sound as if it comes lightly, but time in hell(s) is incredibly lengthy and painful. While "misstep" is correct in technicality, it leaves out the gravity of the punishment for sin.

>depravity
Pure Land Buddhism, showing up sometime around 180AD, which is (incorrectly) viewed as the most popular form of Buddhism (This is an incorrect way of looking at how Buddhism works), has a doctrine of depravity. How this squares with what the Buddha taught is a point of contention, but the tl;dr is that at the time the Buddha was teaching, mankind was in a special place: just sucky enough to want out of samsara, but not not too sucky to achieve it. That time has passed, and as such, it is only by the grace of Amitabha Buddha, who out of love and charity for all beings lets us into his Pure Land (A celestial realm to be reborn in that is more conducive to enlightenment than this life) that we can ever hope to achieve enlightenment. There's only five crimes grievous enough to deny this love, killing your mother, killing your father, killing an Arahant, killing a Buddha, or causing a "schism" in the Sangha (this has some technical meaning going back to the Buddha's day, tl;dr a guy tried to kill Siddhartha and was reborn in hell for it).

There are, of course, contentions that one can bring up with this, and Buddhists have historically been bringing them up (every other Buddhist tradition in Japan hates Pure Land, for good reason).

[Anonymous No.16155484]

>>16155364
>implying forms of meditation haven’t been a part of judeo-Christian religious practice for thousands of years

Could you be any more of a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.16155509]

>>16155446
i’m talking specifically about the exodus, an event so massive it should’ve been recorded by egyptian scribes

[Anonymous No.16155583]

It would be difficult to conceive of two belief systems that more fundamentally disagreed on even the most basic concepts of foundational truth. Any professing Christian seeking to embrace the philosophy of Buddha is necessarily also seeking to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is no trifling matter.

[Anonymous No.16155684]

>>16155484
prots don’t meditate

[Anonymous No.16155746]

>>16155684
Prots are not a single hegemonic group. Many prots do meditate (often in a heretical way) and many prots do not meditate.

[Anonymous No.16155771]

>>16155364
this post has levels of slave morality never before seen

[Anonymous No.16155792]

>>16155684
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Battle-Plan-Mind-Meditation/dp/160178371X

>During the seventeenth century, English Puritan pastors often encouraged their congregations in the spiritual discipline of meditating on God and His Word. Today, however, much of evangelicalism is either ignorant of or turned off to the idea of meditation. In God's Battle Plan for the Mind, pastor David Saxton seeks to convince God s people of the absolute necessity for personal meditation and motivate them to begin this work themselves. But he has not done this alone. Rather, he has labored through numerous Puritan works in order to bring together the best of their insights on meditation. Standing on the shoulders of these giants, Saxton teaches us how to meditate on divine truth and gives valuable guidance about how to rightly pattern our thinking throughout the day. With the rich experiential theology of the Puritans, this book lays out a course for enjoying true meditation on God's Word.

[Anonymous No.16155861]

>>16155792
very based

[Anonymous No.16155904]

>>16155792
>>16155484
>>16155684
why is nu-meditation almost solely an eastern influenced thing when there historically has bern western meditation, and even the word itself comes from a western practice?

id it cause eastern stuff is vague enough for non-religious people to accept and not feel weird?

[Anonymous No.16155917]

>>16155364
Meh, all wargods ultimately birthed monotheistic religions, flags and religions were synonymous - there is virtually no difference between land ownership and structural belief. If you are, however, trying to get away from that barbaric idea - revisiting what made them GOOD and what made them BAD is an excellent exercise. I - myself - am a Gnostic Zoroastrian - mainly because the letters fall deliciously off the tongue, there is no other meaning than that. If you are conflicted in your search for the truth between spiritualism and naturalism, I invite you to read more and perhaps glean what you can from the dichotomies involved in life. There are always forks in the road. There will always be a more righteous path, a path less traveled - a more difficult direction, this path may prove more fruitful at its destination. Or not, it's all the same - but might as well make it worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.16155939]

>>16155904
>is it cause eastern stuff is vague enough for non-religious people to accept and not feel weird?
Yes, and quasi secular Buddhism seems to be popular with collage/graduate age young people at the moment.

[Anonymous No.16155957]

>>16155939
buddhism and christianity both suffer from degenerates that pervert the faith/dharma the faith and get away from the essence of each

[Anonymous No.16155999]

>>16155957
>buddhism and christianity both suffer from degenerates that pervert the faith
I agree, but I have a hard time distinguishing between the people who act out of malice or just plain ignorance and the useful idiots. I guess both can be useful tools for the Devil to use "Screwtape Letters" style.

[Anonymous No.16156019]

>>16155364
Its called gnosticism

[Anonymous No.16156042]

>>16156019
no its not. gnosticism is a boiled down “religion” that neither strikes at the essence of christianity or Buhdism.
its an easy to understand midwit “religion” people get into in their late teens before moving onto something more coherent like neoplatonism, pantheism, or the affirmation big too OP is talking about.

[Anonymous No.16156195]

good = good, bad = bad, sage

[Anonymous No.16156204]

>>16156195
good=lack of bad, or bad =lack of good?

[Anonymous No.16156228]

suprised no one has anything to say about lackluster evidence for the historical claims in the bible.

[Anonymous No.16156231]

>>16155364
>The Torah claims to have been written by Moses in its entirety which is false.
That’s not quite right. Moses is traditionally regarded as the author of the Torah, but the actual books never say he wrote them or even give any details on who the author is

[Anonymous No.16156278]

>>16156228
Can you be a little more specific? Which "historical claims" are "lackluster"?

[Anonymous No.16156462]

>>16156278
the exodus, israel‘s golden age, census f judea doesn’t take place when the bible says, moses is not author of torah,

there are no claims in buddhism that are ahistorical. because buddhism doesn’t make any historical claims.

[Anonymous No.16156553]

>>16156042
>its an easy to understand midwit “religion” p
You don't know anything about it. It's the most complex religion.

[Anonymous No.16157043]

>>16155475>>16155421

>Buddhism
Mahayana is not buddhism. Mahayana surfs on the hedonists' idea that suffering for other people and loving them means being enlightened, which is exactly what jews and christians think.

[Anonymous No.16157140]

>>16157043
>suffering for other people and loving them means being enlightened

where do they say that?

[Anonymous No.16157191]

Ways of the world is a net minus
Ways of Buddha is a lack of self, a net neutral, end the cycle of rebirth, nirvana,
Ways of Christ is a mustard seed, the least of all, but when fully grown become greater among all the herbs, a tree for fowls of the air to lodge in its branches.

pay very close attention to the nuances of language variance in the golden rule between original Christendom vs the east.

[Anonymous No.16157250]

>>16155364
the buddah saves himself
Christ saves us all

[Anonymous No.16157268]

>>16155917
>I am [needlessly specific idolatrous nonsense cult] because it sounded cool and I am special

[Anonymous No.16157283]

>>16155583
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

[Anonymous No.16157348]

You only think that because you have no clue about budist ancient text and sutras.
There are tons of garage there that is indefensible and most of it is not even close to translated. Some of in is only in oral form.
Defending the OT is not that hard only if you submit to some retarded liberal "textual scholar" is a problem.
Plies budisum philosophy is completely incoherent. It can't stand against Christianity is , escaping the world because it's bad has manifested even in the west as some gnostics and they where dismantled long ago.

[Anonymous No.16157370]

>>16155509
Egypt had shitheads destroying the records of predecessors to murder their afterlives.

[Anonymous No.16157392]

>>16157348
>There are tons of garage there that is indefensible and most of it is not even close to translated

how did you manage to read so much untranslated material?

[Anonymous No.16157496]

>>16157348
>Defending the OT is not that hard only if you submit to some retarded liberal "textual scholar" is a problem.
I, too, hate linguistics, archaeology, empirical proofs, post-modern neo-marxist academia and just about every non-denominational Bible studies course

[I No.16157638]

>>16155364
you seek advice from incredibly stupid faggots, i.e. people. you are faggot, just like they are.

[Anonymous No.16158014]

These three points are wrong.

Check this out:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dg-pkeHrh_M

Also check out the book “Israel in Egypt” by James K. Hoffmeier

[Anonymous No.16158319]

>>16156462
>durrr why can't we find any buildings of the israelites in a desert when they were nomadic people

[Anonymous No.16158325]

>>16155364
>archeological/historical problems Christianity has

there are literally none

[Anonymous No.16158341]

>>16157043
>Mahayana is not Buddhism
Yes it is. Theravadans in Asia do not believe Mahayana is "not Buddhism". Asians in Asia hate each other for secular reasons, they don't do this autistic thing that Westerners do, where they try to cloak ethnic self interest in doctrinal infighting.

>>16158325
Even the state of Israel has admitted that Exodus just flat out didn't happen.

[Anonymous No.16158357]

>>16155389
Any book by Merton in particular Anon?

[Anonymous No.16158386]

>>16158357
The Seven Storey Mountain is widely considered his magnum opus, but if you want something about his interactions with Buddhism (and D. T. Suzuki, a very influential Zen monk), then go for Zen and the Birds of Appetite.

A big point of Merton's was that the West had gone too deep down the rabbit hole of reason and logic, and had strayed from the mystical nature of God. While this obviously couldn't be found in the East, as they weren't Christian, the East did still have an abounding mystical tradition. I don't think it's fair to say he was looking to take Mysticism from the East, but rather sort of revive it in the West using advice from the East.

[Anonymous No.16158443]

>>16158386
Much thanks anon.

While you're here, is there any other text you'd recommend on how people personally accept/feel faith?
For reasons also listed by OP, I've difficulty understanding the practical feeling or acceptance of faith.
I don't spurn it or hate it - I just feel deaf to it, unpersuaded.

I look at faith with curiosity, like a piece of music I don't have the ear for (as a child does with the classical composers). I wonder if it truly is a hidden sphere of understanding, or whether it's just noise that I project meaningful sense into (let's say, like you would with the rhythm of a beeping alarm or machine).

[Anonymous No.16158523]

>>16158443
I don't think you can find one single book discussing faith as a whole that isn't either totally disingenuous, or so academic that it would be totally detached from everyday life. There's just too many religions, and too much expression of "faith" as a whole. I think that ultimately, you can only examine what "faith" means for a given religion at best, a given person at worst.

Are you American, by chance? We Americans have been, in many ways, poisoned by this Protestant notion of the importance of having the Right Opinions, and that this is the only thing that matters. Faith is nothing more than trusting that you have the Right Opinions. Many religions, including Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, disagree with this idea.

What exactly would it mean to "Have faith" for you?

[Anonymous No.16158640]

>>16158523
>Are you American, by chance?
No, European and Roman Catholic by birth.

>What exactly would it mean to "Have faith" for you?
Conviction of belief, which I have of certain beliefs already (though historically I realize they are subject to change as I read and learn more). However, none of my beliefs adhere to the general standards of the traditional religions. I am closer to the understanding of Spinoza and Kant than (M) Buddha and Jesus. In this sense, acceptance of a religious figure is akin to studying and emulating a moral figure of the human, rather than outsourcing morality to an external supernatural authority. In this sense I wouldn't be accepted by the church - so I wonder how people can have the knowledge of the rationalists/empiricists but still turn to the acceptance of divine moral law/divine command theory.

TL;DR - I don't rationally understand how people can accept divine command theory given that there are plenty of valid criticisms against it. I wonder if I have missed some key persuading information that grounds other people to their beliefs - and I would like to know this information.

[Anonymous No.16158837]

>>16155684
>PROTS PROTS PROTS

[Anonymous No.16158891]

>>16155384
this

[Anonymous No.16158922]

>>16157043
you're a dumbass

[Anonymous No.16158946]

>>16155364
>2. Ancient Judaism wasn’t originally monotheistic, Yahweh was likely a warrior god who was patron of the israelites, like apollo was patron of the Trojans
This is grotesque and originated, like many stupid ideas, in Voltaire (see Dictionnaire philosophique, entry on Judaism). This is just scientists (soft science mind you) with the literary depth of a high schooler that don't get that people can worship a God that doesn't fit their preconceived notion of a featureless syncretic benevolent father in the sky. Yes the God of Israel is jealous and leads Israel in war: so what? That's what make big ideas, they contradict what you'd lazily think. Quite in the opposite in the Psalms and in the Pentateuch itself (and surely in other texts that archeologists consider as old but I'm not well versed enough), there is textual evidence that the Israelites considered their God to be universal, e.g. "You are a nation of priests" (this in the Pentateuch), or "Praise God, all ye nations' (this is Psalm 117 I reckon).

[Anonymous No.16159026]

>>16158946
>Buddhism doesn’t suffer from either of the problems since the holy book, the pali canon in theravada, doesn’t have archeological/historical problems as the bible, since it makes no claims of historical relevance, or of special divine insipiration, it is merely the words of the Buddha as recorded by his followers who were mere men.There is no strict deity in buddhism either, and not one that changes like the God of the bible does.

t. knows nothing about buddhism, at all

[Anonymous No.16159157]

>>16158946
You should actually look into these sorts of things before having an opinion on them. Go check out the Wikipedia article on Yahweh.
>b-but m-muh wikipedia is not a valid source...
Throwing books about iron age semitic religion at someone who doesn't understand the absolute basics of this sort of thing doesn't help them at all. A wikipedia article is a perfectly fine summation of the basics.

[Anonymous No.16159180]

test: shankara

[Anonymous No.16159196]

>>16158946
im pretty sure the first text to say the jews worshiped gods other than yahweh is the torah, not voltaire.

[Anonymous No.16159225]

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16159229]

>>16159180
>>16159225

[Anonymous No.16159245]

>>16159026
the tripitaka makes no historical/archeological claims whatsoever , it doesn’t claim the buddha wrote it , meanwhile the OT makes several historical claims that are just wrong. The NT is wrong about when Jesus is born , the bibole. laila mosaic authorship which we know is false

[Anonymous No.16159266]

>>16159026
That's true but I also didn't say a word about Buddishm
>>16159157
I've been attending Römer's class on OT hermeneutics at the collège de France for two years and I speak fluent Ancient Hebrew and Greek. I also don't believe in Judaism. But I don't buy blind 19th century style scientism either, or that the people who wrote such masterful books were so much dumber than us, when it's likely the opposite.
>>16159196
Sure but it's not because the majority of the people failed to uphold the doctrine that the doctrine was not there. Anyway that's not the what the OP meant.

[Anonymous No.16159287]

>>16159266
>get instilled with monotheism since day one
>somehow everyone falls into polytheism constantly

[Anonymous No.16159303]

>>16157043
>suffering for other people means being enlightened
Not really. The whole bodhisattva ideal is that one, rather than entering into nirvana without remainder, chooses to be reborn in order to liberate others from cyclical suffering. And this is precisely Buddhism, because had no one done this the dharma would not have been taught to us, it would merely be something discovered by chance and unsustainable. Abrahamists believe something very different, that they escape the realm of humanity through a pact with a god whom they must shower with praise and offerings.

[Anonymous No.16159313]

>>16155424
Funny, to me this is a point in Buddhism's favor as the idea never felt right to me in Christianity that we will become eternally reunited with God but still remain individuals. If separation from God is sin and our souls remain separate from Him, are we not doomed to always feel at least wanting even in his direct presence so long as we are not Him?

[Anonymous No.16159321]

>>16159287
what does instilled mean for you? I just mean to say that the doctrine expounded in even the earliest books of the OT, which implies that it has been held at least by certain people for a long time, is strictly monotheistic and universal (not in the sense that all must adhere to it, but that it is true universally).

[Anonymous No.16159338]

>>16159180
>>16159225
>>16159229
samefag

[Anonymous No.16159342]

>>16155939
In general I think the appeal is the deconstructive element of Buddhism, whether people realize it or not. Many people feel that there is something fake or false about what they live and experience, there is a quest for authenticity, a retreat into irony, sometimes both. At the same time the cultural conditioning which has been retained from Abrahamic religion is that the world is real and created (even if by a big bang); this gives no answer to confusion at all, how could the world experience be fake if it was made by god (or by science)? In comes Buddhist phenomenology, telling you that this is all appearance and absent of any essential nature, that all arises in dependence on something else endlessly. Since Americans don't read, pop-Buddhism diffused through the Matrix, namaste style yuppie marketing, or a college course on religions is their only exposure to idealism. Meanwhile corporate America also loves "mindfulness" but is ambivalent about whether to market it as Buddhist or not (the way it is used makes it non-Buddhist but the way it is peddled sometimes relies on Buddhism to give it credence but without being too exoticized).

[Anonymous No.16159352]

>>16159338
you're missing the context there, stay silent

[Anonymous No.16159362]

>>16159338
I'm pretty sure the anti-Shankara thing is a bot. It's hilarious, because it makes Guenonfag mad, but I'm pretty sure it's a bot.

>>16159313
There are Christian doctrines that teach henosis(union with God). However, little-o orthodox Christianity takes this only so far. It doesn't go as far as Vedanta or certain Neoplatonic conceptions where you literally lose your individuality (or rather come to understand that you never had it). Instead, you just get as close to God as you can, with the separation of creator-created always dividing you from him.

[Anonymous No.16159371]

>>16159352
>>16159362
nope, anon already pulled this stunt just yesterday. Just another shill job by resident schizo trying to portray the anti-guenonfag as some kind of bot.

[Anonymous No.16159387]

>>16159313
In my experience heaven has always been emphasized more by Christians than the kind of henosis you are hinting at; in other words we become angels or something in communion with God, the saints, the deceased, etc., as distinct from entering into union with the aforementioned. (This is popular belief of course, whether it is theologically supported or not is another story). But living in a heavenly realm, even without taking a buddhist-cosmological perspective and just criticizing it as is, raises issues. The afterlife assumes a permanent self to enjoy the afterlife. If you think critically about it there are so many problems with the afterlife that it ends up becoming undesirable in itself. Is everyone in their physical prime in the afterlife or are they eternal cadavers? Do you get some kind of radiant angel body and fly around in the clouds until the end of time? Do you get to live in a paradise where you do nothing all day except be a hedonist? Is the afterlife specifically tailored to each person such that it becomes a kind of solipsistic existence where you enjoy everything without limit and no one is adversely affected? Do you live in a pile of dozens of nubile women who don't even have identities; they are just nameless sensory automata for you to masturbate yourself in? How could this self we claim to have possibly be made eternal when we know it comes out of another terminal life? And why would we want to bring it with us into the next life if it is so subject to decay and decline? By what means would we perfect this self into something it isn't, a perfect eternally unchanging body, if it isn't one to start with? If we go by the example of Christ, his followers could not identify him until he revealed his wounds--so do we retain our injuries after all or do we gain the ability to transform ourselves at will? If we do become some kind of mutable mode of substance then why do we need bodily resurrection? It all falls apart.

[Anonymous No.16159400]

>>16159371
Based Guenon detective does it again, why does that lunatic insert himself in every thread with his samefaggery? It must be hell knowing Buddhism keeps him awake at night.

[Anonymous No.16159417]

>>16159342
There's an element of orientalism to Buddhism, but these types aren't Buddhist in any real sense so it's sort of similar to the Japanese getting Christian weddings: its pure fetishism. This isn't Buddhism.

There is, I would say, some truth to your post, however. The West has gotten very good at deconstructing things, and cannot put them back together. Gender is a social construct, but without some kind of positive affirmation we're just lost swirling in this morass. We can never have anything. This is where Buddhism disagrees with these deconstructionist attitudes: yes, it is true that gender is a social construct, but that doesn't meant that this construct is firstly not useful, and secondly not describing something that is real. In fact, Buddhism says that "gender" and other such conceptualizations are flawed not because they're too descriptive or objective, but because they aren't descriptive enough. There is a reality that "masculinity" is trying to capture, and the concept can only do that so well. Deconstructionism sees that conceptuality is flawed, but it lacks a way of understanding reality and human experience through any means BUT conceptuality.

The Buddha speaks out against this .This is why Buddhism isn't annihilationism or nihilism: not-Self does not imply a lack of objective truth, morality, or reality, it just changes how we interact with these things. Deconstructionists miss that, and spiral into nihilism (which is why every French philosopher after a certain point ends up hating life and then killing themselves).

[Anonymous No.16159420]

>>16159400
Just as God created Arrakis to test the faithful, karmic retribution has conditioned guenonfag for the purpose of composing future sutras refuting wrong views.

[Anonymous No.16159430]

>>16159371
Wouldn't a response this exact way at the mere mentioning of Shankara, completely devoid of context, imply that it is in fact a bot?

[Anonymous No.16159487]

>>16159417
The glaring issue with deconstruction or other conflations of postmodernism is that French continental philosophers are mostly just seething that a communist revolution hasn't happened. Take for instance Debord, who realizes that images are what rules society and controls peoples' desires, that commodities are the source of a false consciousness and a general stupefication of the proles. Well, it has always been images from a Buddhist point of view; it is images all the way down and we never get to the turtles. Before mediatization as we recognize it with its screens and satellites and cell towers, you had statues of rulers and coats of arms born by their armies and coins with the emperor's profile on them. Both are illusions of participation in power. But the deconstructionist is afraid to go further; surely the peasants or the proletariat are 'real,' and the true subject of history with a destiny to have their becoming, while the other class(es) and their structures are what are the illusion.

[Anonymous No.16159511]

>>16159400
I don't know, I guess he thought we'd all forget about his antics but this time he was stupid enough to post 1 day apart.

>>16159430
No because someone posted that elsewhere and there was no 'bot' response (pic related). If it were a bot, it would instantly respond to him and not wait minutes (first one nearly an hour), the fact that only the 2 posts with 'test' preceding it showed 'bot' response could only mean its the same person pullin the same stunt and I presume its guenonfag trying to get back at the anon who actually posts that pasta. I guess it must really grind his gears.

[Anonymous No.16159535]

>>16155509
>pharaohs writing about their greatest defeats

[Anonymous No.16159561]

>>16159511
I stand corrected.

This is so incredibly fucking autistc, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.16159578]

>>16159511
>t. temporarily deactivated his bot after getting outed

You must be feeling a little self-concious after people made fun of you for or your bot posting it in every single eastern philosophy thread on the whole board.

[Anonymous No.16159602]

>>16159511
guenonfag has done more damage to advaita vedanta on /lit/ than every buddhaposter combined lmfao

[Anonymous No.16159615]

>>16159487
That's precisely the point. And when someone comes along and points out that the peasants, and the proletariat, are also fake and illusory, what then? What are you left with? Vapid hedonism, empty consumerism.

[Anonymous No.16159774]

>>16159417
>The Buddha speaks out against this. This is why Buddhism isn't annihilationism or nihilism
‘Buddhism’ may not be but Madhyamaka sure is nihilism

[Anonymous No.16159818]

>>16159774
Negating all empirical views is not nihilism

[Anonymous No.16159824]

>>16159774
stop clinging to claims of absolute truth and you'll get over this mental block my friend

[Anonymous No.16159851]

>>16159615
you’re left with the buddha the dharma and the sangha

[Anonymous No.16159890]

>>16155364
buddhism is appealing to westerners because it's not very demanding on the laity, u can live like a degenerate most of the day, fap to tranny porn, join a BLM rally, see hookers, do drugs (in moderation) and do a bit of meditation while listening to Ekharte Tolle and pretend like you're making some spiritual progress towards something big, but nothing is going to happen except learning to relax and cope with your nihilism and hedonism

meanwhile Christianity places large demands on the subject and actually provides a meaningful orientation for man in this universe, a basis for morality, objective purpose and coherent worldview while also saving his soul

[Anonymous No.16159916]

>>16159774
You are wrong, no Buddhist in Asia believes this.

>>16159890
Buddhists in Asia throw the exact same criticism at Christianity: that Buddhism is hard and demanding and you have to do actual work, whereas Christianity is just "spiritual but not religious" made into dogma. Just pray to Jesus and you can wallow in vice and degeneracy, he'll forgive you afterwards.

[Anonymous No.16159939]

>>16159916
>>16159824
>>16159818
Madhyamaka is not nihi-

>Nagarjuna's claim that emptiness does not entail nihilism, because emptiness means simply that entities lack independent existence, is untenable. Nagarjuna's superficially convincing argument completely fails to address the real criticism which his opponents are making of his philosophy. Nagarjuna does not in fact deny only that there are independently existing entities. Nagarjuna denies also that there are any entities which arise independently of conceptual construction. Nagarjuna's opponents do not think that the universal dependent origination of entities would result in nihilism. But they do consider that, if all entities were to have, as Nagarjuna contends, conceptually constructed existence, then nihilism would indeed be entailed.

...

>But it is not just that the notion that all entities are conceptual constructs precludes the possibility of a public world, and hence of compassionate activity. In addition, it would appear that Nagarjuna's opponents are right, after all, to accuse Nagarjuna of nihilism. For Nagarjuna is not merely saying- despite his apparent claims to the contrary- that entities are dependently originating, but further that all entities are entirely conceptually constructed. But if all entities are entirely conceptually constructed, then there can be nothing unconstructed out of which conceptually constructed entities can be constructed. And if there is nothing unconstructed out of which the conceptually constructed entities are constructed, then these conceptually constructed entities cannot exist. Conceptually constructed entity z might be constructed on the basis of y. Y might also be constructed on the basis of x. And so on. But at some point this regress must stop. Not everything can be a product of conceptual construction, because 'conceptual construction' requires a basis or material which is not itself conceptually constructed. To claim otherwise would be to advocate that the entire world is created ex nihilo!

[Anonymous No.16159946]

>>16159939
>One can see here, perhaps, the cause of the Abhidharma (and the Yogacara) [and by Shankara] objection to Madhyamaka philosophy. Also, the notion of conceptual construction would appear to entail - not only something foundational on the basis of which constructed entities can be constructed, but also - someone or something foundational who or what is doing the constructing. If it is contended that all entities are conceptually constructed, this would seem to necessitate an answer to the question, conceptually constructed by whom? If it is then said, as a consistent Madhyamika presumably must say, that whoever conceptually constructs is himself conceptually constructed, an infinite regress results.

>I don't think that I can make sense of the idea that even the agent (be it the self, the mind, or the flow of impermanent cittas) which conceptually constructs entities is itself a conceptual construction. The explanation that the agent is itself a conceptual construction begs the question, for such a conceptual construction would itself require an agent to do the constructing. The meaning of 'conceptual construction' presupposes an agent which is a perpetrator of, and is logically prior to, the conceptual construction.

>This in no way contradicts the important psychological spiritual point that, in many respects, one's views about one's self and the world are conceptual constructs (e.g. as a result of upbringing, habit, education, and, arguably, karma). I am simply making the compatible philosophical point that in order to have conceptually constructed views about who one is and how the world is, there must be someone/something itself unconstructed which has the views, or is doing the viewing. The very idea of conceptual construction seems to imply, then, both some material, itself unconstructed, which is the basis of construction, and also some agent who is the constructor of what is constructed. Yet, according to the interpretation which I have presented, in his assertion that all entities are conventions, i.e. prajnaptisat, Nagarjuna precludes the possibility of either of these necessary requirements for conceptual construction~ If, therefore, as Nagarjuna seems to say, the ultimate truth is that all entities are conventional truths in the Abhidharma sense, then it seems to follow that - unwelcome -as the conclusion might be to Nagarjuna himself - in fact nothing whatsoever exists at all. Nagarjuna is, as his opponents contend, a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.16159949]

>>16159890
many but not all western buddhists believe and practice the dharma this way, but the same can be said of christians in the west .
buddhists in asia take the dharma much more seriously than ‘mindfulness’ peddlers would have you believe

[Anonymous No.16159950]

>>16159939
Is this from that guy who says that you can't use the Two Truths Doctrine to interpret Nagarjuna, because Nagarjuna didn't use the Two Truths Doctrine, despite the Buddha creating it, and Nagarjuna explicitly using it? The guy ho wrote "Emptiness Appraised", and spends his days selling Sam Harris to FOBs?

[Anonymous No.16159965]

>>16159303
>And this is precisely Buddhism,
Mahyana is not buddhism, no matter how hard Mahayanists push for it.
Mahayanists are just coomers who want to feel buddhist.

[Anonymous No.16159967]

>>16159939
>>16159946
>okay so its not nihilism but if we redefine nihilism...
really dude?

>>16159950
wait, is that what he's doing? lmfao what a dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.16159974]

>>16159939
>Conceptually constructed entity z might be constructed on the basis of y. Y might also be constructed on the basis of x. And so on. But at some point this regress must stop. Not everything can be a product of conceptual construction, because 'conceptual construction' requires a basis or material which is not itself conceptually constructed. To claim otherwise would be to advocate that the entire world is created ex nihilo!
Buddhists don't argue for creation. So if the argument against dependent origination and emptiness is skydaddy then there are plenty of objections to that raised by sutras dealing with ishvara.

[Anonymous No.16159984]

>>16159965
Theravadans do not believe this. Not sure where you're getting this from.

[Anonymous No.16159993]

>>16159974
Yeah, I'm not quite sure why he would argue this. The standard line is that that there was no ex nihilo to go back to, so... yeah, it would be nihilism if Buddhists argued that, but they don't, so no, Buddhism isn't nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16160010]

>>16159939
>Guenonfag isn't the one spamming the anti Shankara pas-

[Anonymous No.16160071]

>>16155364
>when Buddhism doesn’t have to deal with this problem at all and all energy can be focused on metaphysics
There is no metaphysics in buddhism. Metaphysics is made up in commentaries, especially the branch called mahayana.

[Anonymous No.16160113]

>>16159313
>the idea never felt right to me in Christianity that we will become eternally reunited with God but still remain individuals.
Is this not an idea created in some council who led to a schism?
One group were seething at the other group for saying you can be reunited with god.

[Anonymous No.16160161]

>>16159890
Yes you're totally right; Buddhism makes no ethical or lifestyle demands of people because the people you've observed, exprotestant yuppies who hate their parents, are illiterate consoomers who buy buddha statues and wear yoga pants.

[Anonymous No.16160193]

>>16155364
This is now jockeying for position as the world's most NPC take on religion. First place still goes to agnostics tho

[Anonymous No.16160207]

>>16160193
i’m asking for buddhist critique of christianity/ brief ian. rick whew of buddhism. not that NPC bro

[Anonymous No.16160209]

>>16155389
Actually that sounds like an interesting read. Insecurity about religion plagues many people.

[Anonymous No.16160218]

>>16160113
It's incoherent because of the divine vs human natures, or substances, which is necessarily introduced as a consequence of creator and created. How can you achieve oneness with a non-pantheistic god?

[Anonymous No.16160240]

>>16159965
Yes, only Thailand has true Buddhism as depicted in the Buddhist Bible and is free of any catholicizing tendencies.

[Anonymous No.16160366]

>>16160071
huh, theravada is foreign to mahayana and theravadins do not care about what mahayanists think.

[Anonymous No.16160489]

>>16160218
>man is made in the image of God
>sin is separation from God, the converse of sin complete unity with God

[Anonymous No.16160594]

>>16160489
>made in the image of God
I definitely buy that we are images of something in a phenomenological sense
>sin is separation from God
Creation is separation, that came first even within the Bible. I suppose had we been begotten not made we would have a stronger claim to henosis
>converse of sin complete unity with God
Ah but since creation came before sin we would need to become uncreated to have true unity with an absolute. Some sort of cessation of birth and death maybe