Catholicism, Buddhism and Hinduism

How do we unify them? They're clearly all true, so there must be a way to create the "ultimate" religion that's a fusion of all three of them.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism's whole doctrine stands contrary to Catholicism. There is no single Hindu doctrine.
    You are moronic.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      buddhism has an incoherent metaphysical stance that doesnt hold when scrutinized. catholicism is more rational.

      hinduism--the hindu sect system--has a core doctrine followed by the upper castes, that of advaita, which has rationally developed fundamentals, but the rest is such a cowshit mess i dont even know what op is referring to

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Catholicism is more rational
        Just fricking lol

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Read Plato

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Plato was a Hellene not a volcano boy

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            BTFO by Nagarjuna

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >buddhism has an incoherent metaphysical stance that doesnt hold when scrutinized.
        How?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          read the thread and behold

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        holy shit - witnessed

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not according to the Church’s own Nostra Aetate it doesn’t. The CIA asset Pope and his army of Cardinal subverters seem to think that not only do Christians worship the same God as the israelites and Muslims but also Hindus and Buddhists.

      Catholic theology is not defensible.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >seem to think that not only do Christians worship the same God as the israelites and Muslims but also Hindus and Buddhists.
        No, they don't. Are you stupid?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          the other religions are arguable, but for buddhism, of which all mainstream branches are atheistic of a monotheistic god, that anon is simply a dead wrong, stupid homosexual about.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            What’s there to be wrong about? First of all, the God of these other religions have attributes which are mutually exclusive with the attributes of the Christian God and so it’s simply not conceivably possible that these religions can be reconciled or synthesized. Second, the paraphrased what the document says in plain language. You’re another pseud who has not even read the document. But here it is so you can read it yourself and stop coping:
            https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            thats not the problem, they could still be worshipping the same God, just in an incorrect way. the God could be the same, but the other religions a flawed way to do so.
            do i need to explain why what i said is a valid way of looking at it, while your exclusion of such a possibility is wrong

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Try reading the Nostra Aetate document. The Pope says outright that israelites and Muslims worship the same God and that Hindus and Buddhists are just like Christians. The document is literally an apology for non-Christian religions. You don’t know that because haven’t read it and probably won’t read it but will call yourself a Catholic and pretend like you know the Church’s position.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and that Hindus and Buddhists are just like Christians.
            he doesnt say that you fricking moron, and no, theyre not "just like" christians anyway

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Section 2 right here

            What’s there to be wrong about? First of all, the God of these other religions have attributes which are mutually exclusive with the attributes of the Christian God and so it’s simply not conceivably possible that these religions can be reconciled or synthesized. Second, the paraphrased what the document says in plain language. You’re another pseud who has not even read the document. But here it is so you can read it yourself and stop coping:
            https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

            thats not the problem, they could still be worshipping the same God, just in an incorrect way. the God could be the same, but the other religions a flawed way to do so.
            do i need to explain why what i said is a valid way of looking at it, while your exclusion of such a possibility is wrong

            Think about how moronic what you just said is. Being A has a certain set of attributes. Being B has another set of attributes. Each set of attributes are mutually exclusive. Is it conceivably possible that being A, given attribute set A, and being B, given attribute set B, are the same being? It is not. It is totally impossible. Either the Catholic claims about God really are true and by default the god of the Buddhists and Hindus is not that God, or the Catholic claims about God are in reality false and thus Catholicism is false. You are simply assuming that they have a correct conception of God but the worship is wrong, like Protestants, but you’re wrong. They have a clear conception of god that is totally incompatible with the Christian god.

            And if this is a theological distinction, why not comment on pre-Christian paganism, or Native American paganism, or other far eastern religions, or tribal beliefs? What’s true for the Hindus would presumably be true for them as well. We all know why. It’s a political move. It has nothing to do with theology but is dogma bent to the will of globohomosexual politics. This is perfectly obvious.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            u rly r stupid. attributes assigned by man arent eternal truths and are not actual attributes of God. they do not affect the potential truth value the situtiation of worshippers of each religion potentially worshipping the same God but w different perceptions of him

            i dont want to talk w u, i clarify this for lurkers. ur moronic and build houses on sand

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, you’re stupid. When we talk about gods or Gods, we’re not talking about some nominalistic perception of God. We literally are talking about God. In order for a Christian to be a Christian, you have to believe that the Holy Bible really did reveal God as he actually is to you and Christian worship only proceeds from those absolute truths. You must accept that the Catholic conception of God is literally and completely true. So if some other claim about a god is mutually exclusive with that Catholic conception of God, then the claim is literally and absolutely false. Hindus are quite literally wrong, and their “God” is indisputably not the Catholic God. You cannot maintain any other position on the matter.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is how you know you’re a joke btw and it’s also why the Catholic Church has slipped into error. You think the whole of theology is nothing more than human reasoning about God and so therefore you can get it wrong, anyone can. In reality, the Holy Bible reveals a real God as he really is and so to assume that your simply reasoning about God is to assume heresy. That’s not Christianity. That’s worship of an invention of the human mind, an idea, not God.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you can already see the truth in all three, what would be the point of fusing them?

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche is about as close you get.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Christian God + Siddartha's philosophy + Hindu's literary beauty

    There. I created the ultimate religion.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >just kludge totally incompatible metaphysics and epistemology together bro
    It won't work no matter how hard Guenon et al jerk off to the idea.
    I'm willing to bet someone will make a very good effort sometime this century in an attempt to create a "world religion" or something though.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      you dont know shit about guenon

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's nice, anon.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gnosticism

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think what you're describing already happened in the west indies / caribbean, but I suspect the average anon would strongly dislike afro-indian culture.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      why

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        what do you mean why? someone post the sad looking English policeman in Nottingham, you know the one

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          what

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read Chesterton's Orthodoxy.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP needs to just become a Syro-Malabar Catholic if Indian thought + Catholicism is so important to him.

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is the true religion. Buddhism existed at least 500 years before Christianity. Consider the following: Like Simon Peter, the Buddha’s chief disciple was also called “the rock” and the terms barjonas/barpetras were used for him in the earliest Buddhist texts. Buddhism existed hundreds of years before Christianity yet the gospels have Buddhist terms. Here’s a video about it. The “Temptation of Christ” is also a copy of “The Temptation of the Buddha.” They barely even changed the title. It’s one of the oldest Buddhist stories and is about the Buddha being tempted in the wilderness by the devil and it’s basically identical, even having a nearly identical title. Watch this video if you actually want to know the truth. Again, Sariputra, the Buddha's chief disciple was called The Rock, Barjonas/Barpetras just like Simon Peter, who was Jesus' chief disciple. These are some of the earliest Buddhist texts. You can plainly see it was copied for Simon Peter.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is there any substance to Simon-Peter being Sariputra outside of a b***hute link? Josephat and Barlaam for instance is widely acknowledged by scholars to be a garbled Christian adaptation of one of the jataka stories.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        It’s based on the basic etymology, as explained. So, don’t take my word for it. It checks out and can be plainly seen in those sutras. Which again, are from some of the oldest Buddhist texts and already existed as oral teachings long before Christianity existed. I’ve never heard it refuted. It’s just ignored and brushed under the rug by the biased scholars who are worried about acknowledging it. All signs point toward Buddhism being the true religion.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >based on the basic etymology
          etymological similarity is not really definitive on its own, and in the absence of other evidence is suggestive at best

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you watch the video? We’re not talking about minor similarities here. It’s not realistic for me to believe it’s a coincidence. If it’s a coincidence then I would need a convincing explanation. It’s massive and unprecedented. It’s proof as far as I can tell

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No I am here for literature

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      > dude, history occurred before Christ and people even worshipped false prophets and guess what? When translated into English religions use like terms.
      We already knew this. The whole point of Jesus’ incarnation was to redeem us from these errors. And the whole linguistic thing is just you being an absolute buffoon.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >people even worshipped false prophets
        how do you know you aren't one of them? Yahweh makes a covenant, then sends Yeshua to make a new covenant, and anyone following the old covenant is retconned as evil. How do you know he won't pull this on you again? What is stopping a part three from coming out? ?

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhadharma is the only path to liberation from samsara. All other religions cling to extremist views. Read Nagarjuna.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well said. Honestly it seems so obvious to me now.

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    > How do we unify them? They're clearly all true, so there must be a way to create the "ultimate" religion that's a fusion of all three of them.

    It’s simple, God = Brahman = the Dharmakaya/Vairocana

    It is the ultimate source and end of everything, and in It we have our true being, all spiritual paths amount to direct or indirect paths back to It, some people and cultures have predispositions that make them more suited to one or another form.

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with Christianity and Islam is that they are revealed religions that place a lot of emphasis on faith as external from one's mind. They are less experiential than Mahayana or Vedanta, which place emphasis on achieving special states of mind that lead to insight into the true nature of reality.
    For example, there is nothing like "pratyekkabuddha" in Christianity. The idea of "virtuous pagan" only exists as a prop that moves one to accepting Christ. It requires accepting many dubious claims such as the Incarnation, Trinity, and Resurrection. On the other hand, Buddhism and Vedanta are experiential paths, which can be reduced to heightened states of consciousness via practice or meditative techniques that reveal reality-as-it-is, which typically described as nondual and absorptive.
    In short, their starting points are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled without contaminating one side. They cannot be unified.

    The heart of Buddhism is found in this summary I wrote for a review: "Only an alert, mindful mind devoid of all concepts and craving, unattached and silent without any intention to 'grasp' any phenomena, can apprehend the Tathāgata, which remains unfathomable and immeasurable."

    Here is a quote that further points to how Buddhism is incompatible with Christianity:

    "Bhikkhus, you should live with yourself as a guiding light, with yourself as a refuge, without another as a refuge; live with the dhamma as a guiding light, with the dhamma as a refuge, without another as a refuge."

    tl;dr: Buddhism and Vedanta teach the truth is found within. The teachings are skillful means, like a raft, rather than something to place faith in for "salvation". Neither Christianity nor Islam are primarily focused on the experiential domain apart from what serves their god. In fact, I will go a step further and say that even the esoteric strands of Christianity and Islam are incompatible with Dharmic traditions.

    Finally, I do not think it is easy to be a Dharmic practitioner in a modernized context due to the nature of distractions and growing mechanization.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The heart of Buddhism is found in this summary I wrote for a review: "Only an alert, mindful mind devoid of all concepts and craving, unattached and silent without any intention to 'grasp' any phenomena, can apprehend the Tathāgata, which remains unfathomable and immeasurable."
      Replace Tathagata with Jesus and you got yourself Orthodox hesychasm and Catholic mystic tradition

      >Bhikkhus, you should live with yourself as a guiding light, with yourself as a refuge, without another as a refuge; live with the dhamma as a guiding light, with the dhamma as a refuge, without another as a refuge.
      Again, not out of place within the christian hermit tradition

      When comparing christianity and buddhism you have to be mindful that we usually emphasize the lay aspects of christianity but the mendicant monk ideal of buddhism. This is comparing apples to oranges. Those words by the Buddha were said to his closest disciples, who have abandoned all their possessions for the sake of spiritual pratice. There are christians who live like that. The Pali canon is to be compared with something like the Philokalia.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        How does emptiness fit into Catholicism? Because Tathagatagarbha is in actuality nothing other than the empty nature of the mind of all sentient beings.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pratyekabuddhas only exist when a Samyaksambuddha, like Shakyamuni or Maitreya, has not appeared to teach the Dharma. Since Shakyamuni's dispensation of the Dharma still exists in this world, Pratyekabuddhas cannot currently appear.

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Manichesm or something like that was a contender for Christianity for a while. It was something like the New Testament + Buddhism + Zoroastrianism.

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger did it, god/being can only be witnessed by accepting our dasein=anatta, our finite existence(anicca)

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Make a new one called Infinitism, declare every religion to be a different sect of Infinitism, highlighting a different aspect of the Infinite. Lean hard on non-dualism, because there cannot be a reconciliation of the different doctrines into an ur-doctrine.

  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only doctrine from buddhism and Hinduism that you can meaningfully integrate into Catholicism is the Advaita and even then you would have to be very careful to not accidentally step into heresy

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      actually theres tons more but thatd be the main one

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I see more of Eastern Orthodoxy and Hinduism, what with the former having the Jesus prayer and hesychasm, and the more mystical ideas in Orthodoxy about reaching theosis. Add in Advaita Vedanta and you created something... unique.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Advaita is in reality monism, which is indeed a Christian heresy and not only for Catholics.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      there is literally nothing from Buddhism and Hinduism that you can integrate into Catholicism without stepping into "heresy"

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        there is though and youre a stupid homosexual too
        the four truths and the compatible parts of the eightfold path for a start
        theres literally nothing wrong with learning these from buddhism, its just that most of these ideas already exist in christianity. but their expression in a lot clearer in buddhism since the parts of doctrine i mentioned are mentioned often and early in introductions

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Buddhism and Hinduism are Christian heresies. Period. This was taught in other terms by all the churches for over a millennium. It’s only now after liberal-progressive intelligence agencies have taken over the churches and the masses of people have been poisoned by a relativistic, skeptical culture and new age brain rot have people started to assume, baselessly, without critical examination, that these worldviews can be reconciled. But it’s a lie. Hinduism is literally demonic, and Buddhism is a delusion. There can be no other conclusion for a Christian of the triune God, which gave them the FULLNESS of the truth, the entire truth. There can be no more assimilations, modifications, or innovations.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Buddhism is a delusion
            Emptiness free from four extremes is literally the only logical philosophical position

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are the four extremes?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Existence, nonexistence, both, and neither

            All of the refutations of Platonism and Neoplatonism would apply also to Buddhism and to say any one ethical mandate is “logical” makes no sense. Ethics are not logical. Justifications of this or that ethic are logical ie the argument that we should do what God wants because God is real and thus x y and z are real is “logical”.

            It's an epistemological position

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            but this so called position is presented in existence, so what prevents it from being paradoxical
            furthermore even emptiness is a form of existence

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            All of the refutations of Platonism and Neoplatonism would apply also to Buddhism and to say any one ethical mandate is “logical” makes no sense. Ethics are not logical. Justifications of this or that ethic are logical ie the argument that we should do what God wants because God is real and thus x y and z are real is “logical”.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            stupid homosexual

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Madhyamaka doesn’t have any good argument against a concept of an ineffable God transcending all mental notions as found in Vedantic, Sufi, Sikh, Shaivite, Neoplatonic etc thought. Their arguments against God revolve around attacking a Demi-urge or Brahmā like figure that has nothing/little to do with the absolute in many traditions, they don’t show why emptiness is ‘more logical’ than this conception of the absolute.

            Madhymaka relies on basically a set of cheap talking points that strawmans or simplifies a diverse array of other philosophical and religious thought into a few categories which it then comes up with arbitrary and poorly-justified reasons to dismiss as invalid, but which doesn’t actually engage with or do justice to the depth or range of views of the particular thing it’a engaging with. All of this is part of an attempt to indirectly justify itself by fiat through trying to come up with reasons to dismiss everything else; and at a certain people and writers become more committed to sticking to this over an open-ended and unconstrained investigation of the truth. People engaging in Christian and Muslim apologetics also sometimes use this tactic including Jay Dyer and his fans; it’s all just a narrative that people are supposed to swallow to help be convinced about their worldview.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you on discord

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, username is diomedes6067

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Madhyamaka doesn’t have any good argument against a concept of an ineffable God transcending all mental notions as found in Vedantic, Sufi, Sikh, Shaivite, Neoplatonic etc thought.
            The argument is that if it is nowhere to be found in experience and it is impossible for it to partipate in causality then there is nothing even to be said about it. How cab you refute a rabbit's horns?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The argument is that if it is nowhere to be found in experience and it is impossible for it to partipate in causality then there is nothing even to be said about it. How cab you refute a rabbit's horns?
            These are exactly the sort of laughably simplistic and unconvincing Jay Dyer-tier one-liners that I’m talking about which dont engage with or acknowledge the variety of answers that a variety of traditions might say about any of this but instead just tries to shoehorn them into this silly misrepresentation which is then dismissed.

            Vedantic, Sufi, Shaivite, Sikh, Christian and Pagan Neoplatonists have written large amounts of beautiful writing on the way in which God reveals Itself and is shown and known in our lives and lived conscious experience, just in India alone Vedanta and Shaiva Tantra have their own metaphysical and epistemology teachings and terminologies related to understanding how the God-Awareness that is already known and an essential part of our lived experience is experientially realized as pristine, complete, blissful in a manner similar to the ‘pointing out’ of one’s true nature of mind or Ground in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Ch’an etc. Instead of engaging with how other traditions speak about the Absolute is intuitively/experientially realized as all-pervading etc the Madhyamaka would rather engage in some cheap strawman oneliner about “well uhhh, if it’s not an object visible as an object of the sense-organs or thinkable as a thought then you can’t possibly know it or find/realize it in your life or lived experience and there is no inherent inner capacity to realize/receive this because I say so for arbitrary reasons!”

            Ditto for the point about causality, setting aside that each tradition relates the Absolute and causality in different ways, the main reason why they promote the realization of the Absolute is because it ends griefs, sadness, fear, anger and brings about peace, bliss, unending satisfaction, liberation from samsara and mental ills etc; your one-liner is not even engaging head on with their position by explaining how their position on causality makes any of this purportedly not true or not reasonable anymore. Just because something is above or somehow transcends the normal causal relations of objects with another doesn’t mean that nothing can be said of it.

            It’s hilarious that some Buddhists become wedded to these kinds of dogmatic and simplistic apologetics strategies to dismiss everything else while simultaneously claiming to be completely open-minded about investigating what is true and/or to have ‘no position’ themselves.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            well sir my suspicion is the rite of initiation between buddhists is sexual molestation. this is an adequate suggestion for why they seem to be so confused and cant seem to think straight

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            what hasnt been an adequate justification is how exactly could ideas have awareness for themselves

            just wait for it, maybe hell figure out God is a logical explanation for the world

            Its been done to death because it is impossible. awareness is and must be assumed to even attempt proof of anything. if it reacts, communicates, and propagates, we must presume it is aware on some level

            awareness for itself sure, but not for every idea. but you still havent shown that ideas have it, or that they have the other properties you claimed. youve only shown that humans are capable of transmitting ideas, which is obvious enough and not worth mentioning. and otherwise youve only made assertions without justification.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can't give you the proofs you require. I can only ask that you consider the possibility. Live with it for awhile. the proof is in the pudding/putting

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok thats fine and a position i can respect, but dont expect anyone to respect you or your bullshit when you try to tread further than that

            now please frick off and let the big boys have a discussion

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god as an impersonal absolute grounding of reality is just the positive version of emptiness given in post-Nagarjuna or post-Chandrakirti madhyamaka
            wow how very enlightened of you and I am sure all those wise Christian and Muslim philosophers were against the destruction waged against Greek neoplatonists, Hindu advaitans, and Buddhist non-dualists in their respective historical epochs, it's only the madhyamika who is a hypocrite for not being "open-minded." You see, this is the exact problem with your guenonism, you have merely reformed abrahamism with new arguments from India and Persia to keep it going in an age where myths are again understood as allegory, not unlike the "borrowing" of Greek neoplatonism back in the day. If you aren't actually going to believe in the Koran or the Bible why be an apologist for them. Buddhism (and Hinduism) have the tools for syncretism and orthopraxy, these do not and you are making a foreign graft which will eventually snap off as the nature of those religions always resurfaces.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            so christians trying to limit suffering as doing so increases the ability to contemplate God, is delusional? how does that contradict the four truths of buddhism? do u srsly not see the incoherence of what ur saying?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s not a mandate of Christianity first of all. You flat out assumed that because you see Christians working with the social gospel, which is again, a heresy from the position of the Catholic Church.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            its objectively true. if people arent limited from a level of suffering that distracts them it puts them in a position of being unable to contemplate God

            what ur saying is illogical, and bc it stultifies doctrine, a heresy, ur just too blind to see it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that the position of the church? If so, which church? Which doctrine?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if people arent limited from a level of suffering that distracts them from being able to contemplate God, they wont be able to properly worship him
            revised for clarity. prove what this says wrong

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said that this is the Christian position, specifically a Catholic one. So show me where the Catholic Church says this. I don’t care what you think is logical because I’ve already demonstrated that you notions of what God is not just illogical but not Catholic.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            its like u didnt even read the thread. ur boring and tiresome. even this stupid buddhist has more engagement, tho i think hes still a stubborn moron too

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice cope for failing to muster a reply

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Advaita literally ties up every world religion

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fake, fake and fake. Islam is the only true religion.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      im interested. what makes it true?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just read the Quran and you will understand.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          homosexual please. anyone from any religion could say the same and hook bystanders to their claims.

          now ill ask from any QUALITY muslim lurker, what makes islam true?

  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Buddhism is so powerful that YouTubers can make it sound silly in less than 10 minutes.

    ?si=6XSCrkk9fsvrG084

  22. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    They’re already unified in perennialist neoplatonism. Read Plotinus and if you get it, you will see what I’m talking about. Also Pierre Grimes has some good stuff on the non-dual synthesis between platonism and zen. The closest and highest expression of hinduism is vedanta. The epistemological disagreements with the sceptics like Nagarjuna are very surface level and ultimately inessential. They all pertain to slightly different methods towards the same attainment. Silence is key.

  23. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    im REALLY REALLY tired of other anons being brainlets and want someone on my level to engage with

  24. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    ideas are lifeforms that develop belief ecologies.
    attempts to enforce a "monobiome" always end badly.
    religious variety, like environmental variety, is the will to life at work.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      define the qualities that make a lifeform

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        awareness, responsiveness, and generativity.
        ideas live, die, and are born again. They breed. They compete for resources. They colonize human minds.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          ideas arent aware and they arent responsive on their own. if you think they are, youll have to prove that theyre independent of human consciousness

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ideas are generative on their own though, as text showing an idea can be independent of mind but still spread itself

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            texts are products of minds, so a text conveying an idea required a mind to have had it, and requires a mind to receive it, try again

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            not necessarily true idiot. ever heard of pareidolia? happens all the time. considering ideas in that sense and coupling with that observation proves me right

            ideas arent aware and they arent responsive on their own. if you think they are, youll have to prove that theyre independent of human consciousness

            now if youre not capable of proving your flimsy claims, my claim that ideas dont have those aspects is just as valid, and that places the remainder of your claims into question

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >pareidolia
            you mean the mind making shit up, as per usual?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            but the basic form here considered as an idea existed in nature. its only after perception that what we consider minds are involved. your counter isnt really a counter

            we discover ideas, we have ideas, we do not "make" them.
            They use us, like organs.

            IF YOU THINK THATS TRUE PROVE IT DONT JUST MAKE VAPOROUS CLAIMS b***h

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but the basic form here considered as an idea existed in nature. its only after perception that what we consider minds are involved. your counter isnt really a counter
            now i should clarify im using a greek conception of idea in which an idea can also be a visual pattern. if you cant make the connection of what im saying or arrive to a satisfactory conclusion, im going to leave the morons to their unworthy discussion

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            okay. Make an idea. Right now. Indepedent of past ideas that you've contracted or that have been transmitted to you.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            thats not what i mean idiot. i said prove they have awareness in and of themselves

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have awareness in and of yourself? What is yourself? A system of organs arranged in such and such a fashion, out of which the condition of consciousness arises. Ideas exist in like manner. We are an organ in the ideative body, constitutive and interdependent, but demonstrably discrete and separate

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you have awareness in and of yourself? What is yourself? A system of organs arranged in such and such a fashion, out of which the condition of consciousness arises.
            this is better than what you said before but it still have the misstep of assuming that consciousness arises from matter
            the rest of your post is still moronic as it makes a claim without adequate justification (doesnt even need to be a proof), which you seem too stupid to understand

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >assuming that consciousness arises from matter
            yes that is the prevailing idea of our day. I am subject to it, as are you. Maybe one day another idea will grow strong enough to overthrow it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            were subject to it but you dont have to be controlled by it, now what do you actually believe

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            We are subject to oxygen, but do not have to breathe it.
            What I "believe" is what the recieved ideas allow me to believe

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            if you cant demonstrate ideas have their own awareness, instead of your empty claim, im starting to think you dont deserve to breathe oxygen

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I will demonstrate that ideas have their own awareness when you can demonstrate that humans do.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            coward. you and i both know this has been done to death. i dont have to.

            your alien claim, however, is less frequent, and warrants its justification. you just havent figured out how.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its been done to death because it is impossible. awareness is and must be assumed to even attempt proof of anything. if it reacts, communicates, and propagates, we must presume it is aware on some level

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Awareness

            > The argument is that if it is nowhere to be found in experience and it is impossible for it to partipate in causality then there is nothing even to be said about it. How cab you refute a rabbit's horns?
            These are exactly the sort of laughably simplistic and unconvincing Jay Dyer-tier one-liners that I’m talking about which dont engage with or acknowledge the variety of answers that a variety of traditions might say about any of this but instead just tries to shoehorn them into this silly misrepresentation which is then dismissed.

            Vedantic, Sufi, Shaivite, Sikh, Christian and Pagan Neoplatonists have written large amounts of beautiful writing on the way in which God reveals Itself and is shown and known in our lives and lived conscious experience, just in India alone Vedanta and Shaiva Tantra have their own metaphysical and epistemology teachings and terminologies related to understanding how the God-Awareness that is already known and an essential part of our lived experience is experientially realized as pristine, complete, blissful in a manner similar to the ‘pointing out’ of one’s true nature of mind or Ground in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Ch’an etc. Instead of engaging with how other traditions speak about the Absolute is intuitively/experientially realized as all-pervading etc the Madhyamaka would rather engage in some cheap strawman oneliner about “well uhhh, if it’s not an object visible as an object of the sense-organs or thinkable as a thought then you can’t possibly know it or find/realize it in your life or lived experience and there is no inherent inner capacity to realize/receive this because I say so for arbitrary reasons!”

            Ditto for the point about causality, setting aside that each tradition relates the Absolute and causality in different ways, the main reason why they promote the realization of the Absolute is because it ends griefs, sadness, fear, anger and brings about peace, bliss, unending satisfaction, liberation from samsara and mental ills etc; your one-liner is not even engaging head on with their position by explaining how their position on causality makes any of this purportedly not true or not reasonable anymore. Just because something is above or somehow transcends the normal causal relations of objects with another doesn’t mean that nothing can be said of it.

            It’s hilarious that some Buddhists become wedded to these kinds of dogmatic and simplistic apologetics strategies to dismiss everything else while simultaneously claiming to be completely open-minded about investigating what is true and/or to have ‘no position’ themselves.

            >how the God-Awareness that is already known and an essential part of our lived experience is experientially realized as pristine, complete, blissful in a manner similar to the ‘pointing out’ of one’s true nature of mind or Ground in Dzogchen
            Not the same, the originally pure, spontaneously perfected Basis in Dzogchen is not some transcendent God-awareness, it is individual. Dzogchen is epistemologically non-dual, it's view is the same as Prasanga Madhyamika, but it is arrived at through direct experience. The Basis pervades all sentient beings in the same way oil pervades all sesame seeds, and it pervades all phenomena because all phenomenal experience is non-dual with mind, but Dzogchen does not deny external objects.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it pervades all phenomena because all phenomenal experience is non-dual with mind
            this is better than that homosexuals constant dodging but in buddhism how does mind and awareness arise? why and how is mind be non-dual with all phenomena?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >arise
            arise into existence, or some other modal continuity youd care to illustrate

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mind is like a mirror, phenomenal experience is the reflection produced when that mirror interacts with external objects. The mirror has the potential to appear as anything. Everything you experience is non-dual with your mind in the same way reflections are non-dual with a mirror. Dualistic mind arises when the conscious aspect of the Basis does not recognize phenomenal experience as an expression of its own potentiality (rtsal).

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            what i meant was how did human minds, which we can confirm are conscious, exist, and how does mind of other types have modality phenomenally?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the basic form here considered as an idea existed in nature
            This is a little too naive, let's hammer in on poopoopeedoilia that's a good angle. Uexküll gives an example in explaining the concept of the lived perceptual environment or umwelt of how different animals including humans might see a "tree." To some animals it is an entire habitat and not merely an object, food source to others. Some humans might even worship it as sacred. Others see material to build furniture. To call it a tree almost tells us nothing. What worth has this "idea" of the tree as a "basic form" in nature if there is no agent evaulating the tree? No such abstract tree exists, not even to other plants, some of which will grow up or around the tree as they see fit.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            no youre presuming that external agency is necessary for its existence of itself. i dont even know why youd do that, its beyond moronic. bot post?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >external agency is necessary for its existence
            for the existence of the idea "tree" as defined by a human it is absolutely necessary a human mind be involved, for in silence there is merely thusness... all of your errors will compound from here onward, once the tree is magically transcendental to life it is a matter of time before you start extending this privilege to ideas without even a referent

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            the idea of something but without human mind necessitated in involvement. think about it. its possible. unless youre some kind of narcissist who cant conceive of mind beyond human terms

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mind beyond human terms
            for there to be a mind beyond human terms would require you dispense with the idea that "ideas" created by humans to serve human ends are themselves beyond humans, because as it stands you are the one taking human experience and saying it is some kind of transcendental reality that can be known in terms of the "idea" of a "tree" when the robin and the beetle and the sun have no need for your human idea of a tree

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >when the robin and the beetle and the sun have no need for your human idea of a tree
            thats literally what ive been saying you absolute moron

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are poorly spoken

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            no youre just too stupid to parse my posts when i can do so with the pigshit you call yours

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok moron

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            we discover ideas, we have ideas, we do not "make" them.
            They use us, like organs.

  25. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    this is the problem with even most internet buddhists, or whatever the current anon that im talking with is. theyre too dumb to even properly philosophize despite being free of so many other mental prisons. but at least this is more productive than with the moron catholic.

  26. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >please teach me neotheosophy on your discord

  27. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    *moron buddhist refuted*

    anyway to answer op, no, core buddhist doctrine cant be reconciled nearly as cleanly as the abrahamic religions or high hindustani creed

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >or high hindustani creed

      Why not? I'd say Buddhism can be far more easily reconciled with hinduism than abrahamic religions with hinduism

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        sure ill hear you out. how so?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I feel that because Buddhism grew out of the same religious milieu as Hinduism, it's concepts could more easily be (re)integrated than with a more alien abrahamic religion, which grew from an entirely different inheritance. Didn't the hindus even try to reintegrate the Buddha as an incarnate of Vishnu?

          But i'm really just a novice about this, so i'm not going to claim i have rigorous knowledge. Why do you believe Hinduism is more compatible with Abrahamic religions?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            i said in terms of core doctrine, by which i mean about the nature of a creator God. in terms of its understanding of a supreme singular being, the concept of which is rejected in mainstream buddhism. which says alot about how each perceives the idea of God, and the metaphysics of which strongly influence ensuing doctrine and morality. high hindustani religion also doesnt as much of the empty rituals as lower caste hinduism or mainstream buddhism does

            your post is good because its forcing me to make more considerations on whether buddhism is more compatible for abrahamic religion, since its followers are wimpier, weaker minded, and more influenceable.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            all poos are henotheists, the Buddhists just downgrade the Indian godhead(s) beneath the buddha-dharma, the Mahayanists take this even further by treating the whole cosmos as the dharmakaya (which is to say, a cosmic body equivalent to the buddha-dharma, which is a kind of henotheism for practical purposes). Historically lots of debate and influence between the unconverted brahmins and the Indian Buddhists, the latter went extinct in the middle ages after some geopolitical turmoil deprived them of their centers of learning, and today's Buddhists in India are both essentially 20th century originated (marxist-influenced anti-brahmin Dalit converts, and Tibetans). Also today the Indian government considers Buddhists and Sikhs to be Hindus anyway for legal and political purposes, which is not applied to the Christians or Muslims and is effectively a concession to the Dalits and Sikhs to keep them in the family and reduce conversions to Christianity. So while Buddhism and Hinduism are related, they are often antagonists of one another and combination is often related to conversion tactics against one another (historically, to faciliate bringing one into the church of the other) or proselytization defense measures against an outside abrahamic religion (this latter route being an innovation of our era and was unknown during the introductions of Islam and European Christianity into Indian Asia).

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does Sikhism fit into it, as it is the most explicitly theistic of the dharmic religions, and basically an attempt at synthesizing them with Abrahamic monotheism?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is interesting that the Sikh heartland straddles the border with Pakistan, basically in historical Gandhara, India's frontier with the Greek and Persian and later Islamic worlds, and so the least "Indian" Indian religions always grow up here.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            its at least halfway there like advaita so its no wonder so many punjabis keep converting to islam since caste-biased branches of hinduism keep alienating their losers

  28. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The dharmic religions are more experientially centered and just generally mystical, Christianity is fairly adamant on the distinction between God and man, not only that, Christianity makes the claim of being the one and only true path for salvation, while Buddhism has concepts such as say Yana which essentially boils down to most teachings by the Buddha are nothing more than vehicles to attain salvation or nirvana per se

    Advaita in Hinduism has the distinction between saguna brahman and nirguna brahman, Saguna Brahman is God with attributes and are the various manifestations that you might have seen, such as Maa Kali, Maa Saraswati, Maa Lakshmi etc. they are not considered distinct from the eternal substratum that Brahman is

    This is directly irreconcilable with the concept of the trinity in Christianity, as they always reaffirm that the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct, and not simply just God in different forms, they even condemned that particular idea as a heresy, they call it modalism

    This also is not even getting into the whole sexuality/gender aspects of the three religions, Buddhism speaks about transcending femininity and masculinity as it is a dualistic understanding of the world void of sunyata/emptiness, while todays gender roles are somewhat derived from a traditional Christian understanding, Hinduism in Advaita allows God to essentially manifest itself in whatever sex it wants, they even have the concepts of the third sex called the tritya prakriti, Hinduism and Buddhism are also fairly silent on homosexuality

    The three religions mentioned in op are actually the ones that I have been somewhat studying haphazardly for the last couple of years, and I take a special liking to Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta, as well as Mahayana Buddhism, I also love Thomism within Christianity, however it is fairly obvious that you have to do a load of mental gymnastics in order to syncretize the three faiths unfortunately. That is just how traditional Christian theology is somewhat set up

    Anyways, apologies for the paragraphs, just figured I should add my two cents for once, back to lurking

  29. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay the score's like this

    Authentic philosophers: 6ish
    Buddhists: 0, which shows that their beliefs really are emptiness.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      the christian and muslim ones will kill one another over disputes about the length of god's hair folicles in the absence of a disinterested secular state between them, leaving behind the hindu. Now since buddhism lives rent free in hinduism, the score is actually -1 for the "authentic" philosophers, while the Buddhist 0, stainless and pure like a sky parted of clouds, remains above them

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        wow you seem really attached. just like the buddhists itt. so make that a zero with shit staining it.

  30. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Catholicism
    noway
    >How do we unify them?
    1)sola scripura for all 3
    2)interpretate whatever way you'd like

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sola scriptura itself entails obedience to presbyters and bishops and that no interpretation is private.
      >No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.-2 Pet 1:20

  31. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is equally incompatible with Hindu and Abrahamic religion. Obviously Buddhism inherited some of the same cultural elements as other Indian religions, but they are completely opposed doctrinally.

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