Christianity and Buddhism

With a surface level understanding you'll think Christianity and Buddhism are completely different philosophies. But with a thorough study of their esoteric and mystical traditions you'll see that they share fundamentally the same goal. Whether you want to call it nibbana, mystic union, Holy Spirit or Dharma, the path to follow requires always emptying your mind/soul of all the unnecessary defilements of this world.

>"Only when the soul turns away and denies itself so as to find him who is All will it be able to receive true peace and rest" - Julian of Norwich

>"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." - Gautama Buddha

>He has to give up everything, including the body, and to disdain this present life, if he wishes to possess God alone in his heart. For the noetic vision of God, the divine Chrysostom has said, can by itself destroy the demonic spirits. - Philotheos of Sinai

>"A mind unruffled by the vagaries of fortune, from sorrow freed, from defilements cleansed, from fear liberated — this is the greatest blessing." - Gautama Buddha

Even early Christians used to believe in a doctrine of rebirth
https://reluctant-messenger.com/origen10.html

Christianity and Buddhism are two sides of the same coin

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if they were flatmates in an anime and they touched dicks.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      your mind on porn

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      there is an anime called "Saint Young Men"
      where jesus and the buddah are room mates.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        digits

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        terrifying numbers. make sure to pray profusely today

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        my third eye is now open

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >anime about Jesus
        >these numbers
        what did He mean by this?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anime about the Buddha and Jesus, digits are set of two 666's, revealing two agents of dark forces. While real salvation is Judaism.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mysticism is the true core of religion. All religion is downstream from the mystical experience. A guy has mystic realization, everyone else just apes the founder and the traditions set up by them, leading them (ideally) towards the same realization and experience of God. Even more profoundly, Vaishnava Bhakti and Christianity have numerous overlaps

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no mysticism in buddhism.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mysticism according to the first dictionary I consulted online is “ any mode of thought or life in which reliance is placed upon a spiritual illumination believed to transcend ordinary powers of understanding”

        That’s literally what the Buddhist do, all day, pray and chant to creatures they have never seen (faith) in order to escape this realm that they consider impure (transcending)

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Emptiness is completely incompatible with Christianity

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anybody who’s seriously pursued either is aware that emptiness is only a semantic inversion of apotheosis.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Keep coping

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No u

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, Westerners are just projecting all their fantasies about the transcendental onto Buddhism because they have no ingrained cultural knowledge of it.
    Jung warned of this.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Jung warned of this.
      Ignoring that Jung took several eastern concepts and tried to fit them into the framework of Valentinian cosmology.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    ?si=W9iWzwTfqmv4fHlO

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >2 religions that developed independently of each other in totally different parts of the world with different cultures centuries apart are actually the same

    Christians israelites and Muslims need to admit their closet gay for each other already
    Buddhism is just your Canadian girlfriend that will surely convince your parents and friends otherwise

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >2 religions that developed independently of each other in totally different parts of the world with different cultures centuries apart are actually the same

      why is this so unlikely? if they describe/relate to the absolute then you would think they would be very similar through convergent evolution.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >2 religions that developed independently of each other in totally different parts of the world
      anon, you are aware that the mediteranian world and the indian world were modesty interconnected. Distinct spheres, I font disagree, but its not a mediteranian-china situation. Not to mention common influence of indi european groups. They exist along a continuity of influences rather than there being a stark barrier.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is about getting rid of desires.
    Christianity is about getting rid of sin

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christian here—desire and sin are ultimately one and the same. We have a false ego or conception of ourselves where we think that we are independent from God, or are God, etc. We don’t desire God, for whom we were made, and whom we are to love in be in union with, but we pursue false, ultimately illusory ends. This leads to suffering, alienation, anxiety, duhkha, etc. This is original sin, fundamentally. Getting rid of desire is good, the only desire that leads to heaven / salvation / nirvana / union with God is desire for God alone

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's amazing the degree to which orthodoxy has been shattered within contemporary Christianity; nirvana does not mean union with a creator God, dukkha does not mean original sin, there is a marked ignorance of both Buddhism and of Christian theology at work in such lazy attempts at comparsion/ecumenicism/conversion, which would be noted as heretical in any prior period of the history of Christianity

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You’re just looking at externals and not looking at the true experiential internals that respective traditions are founded on. Likewise, whether most Christians will call that ‘heresy’ is irrelevant—most Christians only exist on an exoteric level, and have persecuted those who have glimpsed beyond the vale. The prophets were murdered, Jesus was crucified, Stephen was stoned. It continues on

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >real christianity is just modern theosophy
            If I believed that I wouldn't bother identifying as "Christian" which is an actual religious tradition and not a disconnected intellectual exercise. You are trying to fit something very alien into a religion that has been defined by its opposition to individual mystical experience/gnosis/esotericism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not true. There are many reasons to believe that Christianity is the truest and most complete revelation of God. I am very orthodox overall—however one has to be intelligent enough to realize that the same ideas can be expressed in different language and concepts. Mystical insight is at the very heart of the Christian tradition. Numerous saints—Angela of Foligno, Julian of Norwich, Hadewijch, etc. and more important than them all, St. Paul himself. The comparison between his experience of being caught up in the third heaven and the four rabbis who entered Paradise, and Hekhalot mysticism is profound.

            In my experience the typical error that many make is being unable to distinguish between signs and the signified, or means and ends.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the typical error that many make is being unable to distinguish between signs and the signified, or means and ends.
            If Christianity is a signifier or an allegory or a metaphor for something else it should not have many of the issues it has long had theoretically and practically. Buddhism will plainly tell you it is a metaphor, once the river is crossed the raft need not be carried. The neoplatonists also used myth and allegory freely. But Christianity is supposed to be chronological and historically real, unless you are denying this, which makes you some manner of atheist, theosophist, or spiritual-but-not-religious, all of which would have been denounced by believing pre-modern Christians, who you hubristically assert to have greater knowledge than regarding their own religion.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity itself isn’t an allegory or a metaphor. I was referring to specific practices within Christianity. The sacraments are efficacious symbols and signs, yet some reify them too much and lose sight of what they convey. I don’t know better than early Christians. Many agree with me, some of them would be mistaken. There are elements of upaya in Christianity too, no doubt

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, Buddhism will be straightforward with you about metaphor, with Christianity "some reify them too much"? Is it yes or no? There is a whole catechism on these things, but it is "enlightening" to question armchair theologians.

            It’s not realized via reasoning or intellect Atman is above that.

            so you have chosen the incommunicable route, no need to discuss further how this somehow "better explains" conscious experience

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > so you have chosen the incommunicable route, no need to discuss further how this somehow "better explains" conscious experience
            Not all things are verbally or rationally communicable. It comes down to epistemology—how does one know the self? Not through the senses, not through the mind or the intellect, but through consciousness itself. One can’t reason with the senses, one can’t sense with the intellect, similarly neither can know the self directly

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Both are soaked through with slave morality

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The majority of humans are slaves

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The majority of humans are slaves

      Masters are the real Slaves

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is Buddhism really slave morality in the way Christianity is? It doesn’t really teach to uproot the world order or that rich people are evil like Jesus did.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You are slave morality embodied.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Slave morality is an atheist concept, so you already know it's a huge pile of shit.

        Second, Slave morality was created by atheists to mock the people who think long term, ie after death, instead of ''living in the present moment'', ie being an hedonist. However Atheists want and are hedonistic, but they also want to have the virtue high ground and so they try to turn their nihilistic hedonism into some pathetic cope where somehow cooming is a virtue. That's called ''fighting for their made up values (which they acknowledge have no footing in reality, since atheists and whatever they produce are inherently nihilistic)"

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >fighting for their made up values (which they acknowledge have no footing in reality
          ok and you are not fighting for made-up values, because "just trust me," right? Christian apologists aren't sending their best.

          Is Buddhism really slave morality in the way Christianity is? It doesn’t really teach to uproot the world order or that rich people are evil like Jesus did.

          Nietzsche cites Buddhism as a form of nihilism (world-denial) alongside Christianity, but Christianity he also considers to be "slave morality" and driven by ressentiment. In other words, Buddhist world-denial is free of any sense of spite or inversion coming from anger at another's power over him. Nietzsche's version of Buddhism is meant to serve as a critique of Christianity and relies on agreeing with Schopenhauer's pessimistic reading of it, in order to ultimately reject it. However, world denial does not really fit with Mahayana Buddhism, which for instance teaches a non-duality between samsara and nirvana, which is remarkably different from Christian views on their afterlife being a post-death reward for not sinning. Buddhism too calls for ethical behavior, but has not made a crime of being powerful, and some forms of it dispense with ethics altogether and teach a kind of qualified antinomianism for high level practitioners, for bodhisattva-overmen. I wouldn't necessarily consider Theravada to be inherently world-denial either, though some people read it that way. Christianity he seems to have very much hit the nail on the head, especially if you talk to Christians here, Christians in the sense of politically-driven converts (who in a way are re-creating the genealogical experience of early Christianity), not little old ladies at church who believe in love and kindness

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Christian apologists aren't sending their best.
            Kek, that guy you replied to is probably the second most active Buddhist poster here besides yourself (the neitzchean-buddhist-cuck), unlike yourself though he hates Mahayana.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >atheism
          >their nihilistic hedonism

          Weird strawman, I am not a nihilist or a hedonist.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Is Buddhism really slave morality in the way Christianity is?
        YES, it vilifies Hinduism and Brahmins as evil oppressors and is born out of a seething reaction against them, and its driven by egalitarian utilitarian concerns of maximizing everyone being free of suffering, these are both classic slave morality hallmarks.
        > The essence of slave morality is utility:[5]
        Yup, that’s Buddhism
        > Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism
        Yup, that’s Buddhism
        > slave morality is based on ressentiment—devaluing what the master (Brahminical establishment) values and what the slave does not have
        Yup, that’s Buddhism

        >It doesn’t really teach to uproot the world order or that rich people are evil like Jesus did.
        Buddha did agitate and speak against the prevalent order at the time (varna-ashrama-dharma) though

        >fighting for their made up values (which they acknowledge have no footing in reality
        ok and you are not fighting for made-up values, because "just trust me," right? Christian apologists aren't sending their best.
        [...]
        Nietzsche cites Buddhism as a form of nihilism (world-denial) alongside Christianity, but Christianity he also considers to be "slave morality" and driven by ressentiment. In other words, Buddhist world-denial is free of any sense of spite or inversion coming from anger at another's power over him. Nietzsche's version of Buddhism is meant to serve as a critique of Christianity and relies on agreeing with Schopenhauer's pessimistic reading of it, in order to ultimately reject it. However, world denial does not really fit with Mahayana Buddhism, which for instance teaches a non-duality between samsara and nirvana, which is remarkably different from Christian views on their afterlife being a post-death reward for not sinning. Buddhism too calls for ethical behavior, but has not made a crime of being powerful, and some forms of it dispense with ethics altogether and teach a kind of qualified antinomianism for high level practitioners, for bodhisattva-overmen. I wouldn't necessarily consider Theravada to be inherently world-denial either, though some people read it that way. Christianity he seems to have very much hit the nail on the head, especially if you talk to Christians here, Christians in the sense of politically-driven converts (who in a way are re-creating the genealogical experience of early Christianity), not little old ladies at church who believe in love and kindness

        > Buddhist world-denial is free of any sense of spite or inversion coming from anger at another's power over him.
        Kek, nice fantasy but in reality Buddhists are often full of resentment at Hinduism and can barely speak about things like caste, Atman etc without slander and rancor, especially if someone familiar with the other side’s writing pushes back and challenges the self-serving narrative they uncritically promote, when this happens they often lose their cool and flip out.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >utilitarian
          >maximizing everyone being free of suffering
          Choose one

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.[1][2]
            That’s pretty fricking close to “maximizing everyone being free of suffering”

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nah. The one seeks the absence of evil with the death of all. The other wants to secure happiness/pleasure in all or in a majority.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also the one says that pleasure is evil. The other says that pleasure is good

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >le brahmin defense force has arrived
          You are a mleccha anyway, so why are you simping for pajeet ultra-racism? Buddhism rejected caste as a spiritual category but left it intact as a social one, in practice brahmins filled all the top positions in Indian Buddhism for most of its history. Atman is pure dogma so you've not offered a serious response.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are a mleccha anyway, so why are you simping for pajeet ultra-racism?
            Varna/jati is not race-based, traditional or conservative minded Hindus consider other people of same caste but from other racially-different parts of India to be more or less their equals in society.
            > Atman is pure dogma so you've not offered a serious response.
            A huge amount of things in Buddhism are pure dogma and 'trust me bro', even Buddha's teaching in the Pali Canon. Atman being present better explains conscious experience than attempts to explain experience without an Atman.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You ARE a mleccha and are simping for people who would not have you, and there is no atman. Consciousness does not need an immortal imaginary substrate to be experienced.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so why are you simping for pajeet ultra-racism?
            >You ARE a mleccha and are simping for people who would not have you
            Typical leftistcuck driven by slave morality who can’t imagine why someone would be affiliated with something that they don’t directly materially benefit from.
            I have known and been on good terms with plenty of Indians and I never had any desire of larping as a Brahmin performing rituals so I don’t really care about caste personally, plenty of Tantric/Shaivite/Shaktist schools dont care about caste either and will initiate westerners.
            >and there is no atman.
            wrong
            >Consciousness does not need an immortal imaginary substrate to be experienced.
            Consciousness is itself immortal and it is also never an object of experience except indirectly or figuratively, but the part where it explains experience better is that our presence as the Self of partless unchanging awareness-presence is always self-evident non-conceptually, and it makes more sense to regard it as one’s Self than not to, and it also makes much less sense to deny that this is present in all experience than it is to accept it. In some late-stage Buddhist philosophy they admit that only this constant and self-evident awareness-presence satisfactorily explains experience, but then they don’t have any good arguments as to why it shouldn’t be considered an Atman.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >cuck
            >can’t imagine why someone would be affiliated with something that they don’t directly materially benefit from.
            that is where the cuck meme comes from you halfwit—"cucking" is to support something that takes advantage of you and offers zero benefit at best
            stupid mleccha, the poos were right you are worthless

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that is where the cuck meme comes from you halfwit—"cucking" is to support something that takes advantage of you and offers zero benefit at best
            I'm not being taken advantage of by anyone, whatever intra-Indian drama goes on in India has nothing to do with me, I have only benefit massively from studying Indian and in particular Hindu philosophy

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you claim the Buddha was wrong to ignore caste in teaching his religion but you are a mleccha simping for brahminical orthodoxy, you are too stupid to take seriously

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you claim the Buddha was wrong to ignore caste in teaching his religion
            No I didn't say anything in this thread about why he was wrong you liar
            >but you are a mleccha simping for brahminical orthodoxy
            Hierarchies are just a natural part of animal existence and especially human society, them being present and institutionalized or ritualized has more advantages for society than disadvantages (especially when its done on qualitative and not quantitative grounds) but beyond that I don't care much about them, I'm willing to play devils advocated and defend most hierarchies and traditional institutions in most cultures for this reason, India included. Being a mleccha never meant anything bad in practice for foreigners except not being admitted into a small number of temples, Indians generally love westerners.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No I didn't say anything in this thread about why he was wrong

            > Is Buddhism really slave morality in the way Christianity is?
            YES, it vilifies Hinduism and Brahmins as evil oppressors and is born out of a seething reaction against them, and its driven by egalitarian utilitarian concerns of maximizing everyone being free of suffering, these are both classic slave morality hallmarks.
            > The essence of slave morality is utility:[5]
            Yup, that’s Buddhism
            > Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism
            Yup, that’s Buddhism
            > slave morality is based on ressentiment—devaluing what the master (Brahminical establishment) values and what the slave does not have
            Yup, that’s Buddhism

            >It doesn’t really teach to uproot the world order or that rich people are evil like Jesus did.
            Buddha did agitate and speak against the prevalent order at the time (varna-ashrama-dharma) though

            [...]
            > Buddhist world-denial is free of any sense of spite or inversion coming from anger at another's power over him.
            Kek, nice fantasy but in reality Buddhists are often full of resentment at Hinduism and can barely speak about things like caste, Atman etc without slander and rancor, especially if someone familiar with the other side’s writing pushes back and challenges the self-serving narrative they uncritically promote, when this happens they often lose their cool and flip out.

            >Buddhism vilifies Hinduism and Brahmins as evil oppressors and is born out of a seething reaction against them, and its driven by egalitarian utilitarian concerns of maximizing everyone being free of suffering, these are both classic slave morality hallmarks

            >so why are you simping for pajeet ultra-racism?
            >You ARE a mleccha and are simping for people who would not have you
            Typical leftistcuck driven by slave morality who can’t imagine why someone would be affiliated with something that they don’t directly materially benefit from.
            I have known and been on good terms with plenty of Indians and I never had any desire of larping as a Brahmin performing rituals so I don’t really care about caste personally, plenty of Tantric/Shaivite/Shaktist schools dont care about caste either and will initiate westerners.
            >and there is no atman.
            wrong
            >Consciousness does not need an immortal imaginary substrate to be experienced.
            Consciousness is itself immortal and it is also never an object of experience except indirectly or figuratively, but the part where it explains experience better is that our presence as the Self of partless unchanging awareness-presence is always self-evident non-conceptually, and it makes more sense to regard it as one’s Self than not to, and it also makes much less sense to deny that this is present in all experience than it is to accept it. In some late-stage Buddhist philosophy they admit that only this constant and self-evident awareness-presence satisfactorily explains experience, but then they don’t have any good arguments as to why it shouldn’t be considered an Atman.

            >Typical leftistcuck driven by slave morality"
            is it in your spiritual nature as a mleccha to lie constantly?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > it is also never an object of experience except indirectly or figuratively
            Doesn’t Patañjali say that the self abides in its own nature when it has been withdrawn from the changing states of the mind, intellect and the gunas?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > it is also never an object of experience except indirectly or figuratively
            >Doesn’t Patañjali say that the self abides in its own nature when it has been withdrawn from the changing states of the mind, intellect and the gunas?
            He held that consciousness is naturally self-evident to itself (disclosing its own presence to itself) but without splitting itself into a knowing subject vs a known object, because he holds consciousness to be intrinsically self-luminous, just like the Upanishads say and just like Sankhya and most kinds of Vedanta affirm in various ways; so even there it's not an "object" of experience. The Self always abides in its own nature and the manas/buddhi projects its own wrong understanding on it, both in Advaita and Sankhya-Yoga. The Yuktidipika Yoga commentary on Isvarakrsna confirms that even in bondage the Purusha/Conciousness isn't really affected or distorted in itself by the confusion of the manas/buddhi but it only appears to be, which Advaita also agrees with.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Atman is pure dogma
            t. hasn’t had self-realization

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            if it cannot be rationally explained then it is dogmatic to anyone who does not agree with your metaphysical assumptions/ass-pulls

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not realized via reasoning or intellect Atman is above that.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >slave morality is... LE BAD

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it is.., read Neetch and you’ll understand sweetie

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche has been ruined by parrots like you.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism has no need for Christianity, there is already the Pure Land sect for people who want to go to heaven and practice Buddhism there with Amida because it is too hard here.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus fits squarely as a stealth bodhisattva in Pure Land theology tho.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Eastern religions are demonic because they insist that you are not your body, and for complete annihilation.
    In Christianity you are made in the image of God and will be in that body forever, being with God forever is the complete opposite of Nirvana
    >Even early Christians used to believe in a doctrine of rebirth
    yeah maybe heretics who got lots of things wrong. Irenaeus already debunked the gnostics

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >being with God forever is the complete opposite of Nirvana
      No it isn’t. God is above being (read Plotinus), just like nirvana. If you read the contemplative school of mystics in Catholicism, stuff from the Middle Ages, it all maps one-to-one onto Buddhism.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No it isn’t. God is above being (read Plotinus)
        But this thread is about Christianity vs Buddhism not neoplatonism vs Buddhism

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Christianity is just a bunch of dubious semitic lore fused on to pure neoplatonist illumination. All the greatest Christians, Eriugena, Eckhart, etc., were considered heretics. Same with the various enlightened Mohametans harshly censured, if not burnt at the stake.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            burning heretics is based
            you haven't made an argument you just posted butthurt

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you haven't made an argument
            Good, I don't argue with morons.

            >I think poorly of Christianity
            >all the best Christians were censured Christians
            Geeze I wonder how you came to the latter conclusion from the former.

            moron.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            and your concession is accepted

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I think poorly of Christianity
            >all the best Christians were censured Christians
            Geeze I wonder how you came to the latter conclusion from the former.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >God is above being (read Plotinus)
        Far as I know, church fathers disagree with that. God is being, and gives being to all other beings. Never not being.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Both Christianity and Islam posit the One as necessary/absolute existent. That's where classical theology breaks with mystical teachings, which are more panentheistic and process-relational, concerning a god infused within the created world (1 John 4:7), and not as conducive to traditional mass worship of a deity figure like Yahweh or the bearded God of Michelangelo. The problem with exposing these teachings to normalgays is that, because of their inherent openness to interpretation, they're abused to lead to all sorts of new-age quackery and wish fulfilment.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's where classical theology breaks with mystical teachings
            Which is usually called heresy. It usually is not within the church, many mystics would call themselves Christian, but church wouldn't call the mystics Christians. Until later, and usually due to political reasons.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your church promotes sodomy as a virtue.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did I call myself a Christian at any point? But go ahead, what is my church? Tell me.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't matter what you are, you mentioned the church and I was responding to that. The earliest scholastic, Eriugena, also agrees with me funnily enough.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >will be in that body forever,
      holy frick that sounds horrible. thankfully abrahamism is false

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The pursuit of understanding was always an international collaboration. That's how information works. There are important distinctions despite the shared undercurrents of all the religions. The most fundamental metaphysics tend to be more similar than the higher level practical concerns about how to structure a society.
    In Christianity as practiced you were supposed to transcend your body to join the body of Christ as conceived by the church mother. The fallen world struggles to approach the perfect form, to do that we can't reject the physical tools given. God came down here, down here is important enough for God. God saw that it was good.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >With a surface level understanding you'll think Christianity and Buddhism are completely different philosophies. But with a thorough study of their esoteric and mystical traditions you'll see that they share fundamentally the same goal.
    That's the opposite of the truh. The more the understanding is shallow, the more morons find similarities.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are Christians so obsessive with going over the corpses of ancient cultures and claiming that this somehow validates their obscene Nicene creed's theology?
    Buddhism and GNOSTICISM undeniably have strong overlaps, especially with Valentinians which were strongly nondualistic. For example, Manichaeism was highly influential among Uyghurs and more. Even Zoroastrianism had significant cultural interaction with Buddhists in Balkh. Balkh once held the largest concentrations of Buddhists and Zoroastrians. Furthermore, China had a sizable minority of NESTORIANS, and they are considered heretical by the NICENES, which is what you Westerners follow. Indeed, Nestorianism had strong influence on schools like Pure Land Buddhism.
    Nicenes were bigger israelites than even Talmudist israelites and bigger fanatics than Salafi Muslims until the Enlightenment era neutered then. Presently, they keep feigning innocence and being benign, but a cursory glance of their history, not biased by the present, would show they were even more bloodthirsty than the israelites and Mudslimes. Just read about how they treated the Arians or Albigenesians for example. Pretty much wiped them out. At least groups like the Mandeans barely scraped by in the Middle East.
    So many people were slaughtered over disputing the human vs. divine nature of Christ. Nicenes see him as simultaneously divine and human whereas many others argued 50/50, 100/0, etc. and this typically led to moronic low IQ conflict.
    It seems after the Enlightenment Europeans experienced a kind of collective amnesia about their moronic creed's history.

    tl;Dr (for the morons): Buddhism and Nicene creed had no historical influence. Buddhism and Nestorianism, Gnosticism, and Zoroastrianism did arguably have some historical relations, yes, but Europeans follow the Nicene creed, meaning they cannot claim shit. Nicene creed considers Nestorians and Gnostics all as heretical.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Valentinians
      Although I agree with you overall, I would actually say that Sethian Gnosticism (and other hard dualistic sects) are similar to Theravada.
      This is because Theravada has a sort of "implicit dualism" regarding Nibbana and Samsara, when you look at things like the tetralemma and some of the Buddha's unanswered questions, there is undoubtedly a complete incompatibility between the two (that Mahayana later reconciles by expanding upon emptiness as a concept, this culminating in the "Nirvana is Samsara" statement that Theravadins would generally disagree with).
      Although Nibbana and Samsara are not substances or even states of being (seeing as Nibbana is neither being nor nonbeing, nor both, nor neither), which makes it inaccurate to say they are conceptually identical to Pleroma and Kenoma, there are definitely parallels to be drawn. I think Theravada is more uncompromising in its apophatic and experiential approach, while Gnosticism is generally more hung up on metaphysical considerations, but the dualism is there in both.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    One is about living forever in paradise, while buddhism teaches that infinite lasting paradise is not enough, you must cease existing in samsara.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based and Truth-pilled. Schopenhauer and Wagner are definitely mandatory reading in this comparison. See Wagner's stellar essay, Religion and Art, which is only one of a series of 'Regeneration Writings' in which he expounds his religious philosophy. With the aid of Eastern philosophy Christianity is purified of centuries of dogmatic disfigurement, such as in the saint's sometime-misunderstanding of eternal life as a life resembling our individual own.

    https://pls.nd.edu/assets/192300/wagner_religion_and_art_online_version.pdf

    >Only the love that springs from pity, and carries its compassion to the utmost breaking of self-will, is the redeeming Christian Love, in which Faith and Hope are both included of a—Faith as the unwavering consciousness of that moral meaning of the world, confirmed by the most divine exemplar; Hope as the blessed sense of the impossibility of any cheating of this consciousness.

    And Parsifal is the greatest artistic testament to Christianity, completely in unity with the spirit of Buddhism. Partially inspired by the Christianised myth of the Buddha, St. Josephat.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >caste sperging
    Read the Vajrasuchi Upanishad and stop being a śudra

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is far deeper if you understand that every version of its path (Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc) are all templates of Buddhism made for different levels of consciousness. Christianity is vague and is for everybody, but doesn't give specific practice to become enlightened. Therefor, Buddhism is the best, Christianity teaches Mahayana views which is nice, and other religions if they teach exclusion and hate then they are lower teachings no doubt. However you must delve into the Buddhist understanding of the strict requirements of universal love upon humanity. Jesus asks it of us but only Buddhism outlines it so clearly. Honorable mention: The history of the Vedas from pre-humanity to Vishnu (i.e. the story of the birth of Brahma and the sages)

    BTW you'd better look into astrology if you have faith. Look DEEPLY into it and STUDY it if you really have divine FAITH! I really meant that. Its one of the best initiatic methods of our degenerate time. Have Fun 🙂

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >templates of Buddhism made for different levels of consciousness.
      Not really. Mahayana is not "spiritually superior" to Theravada or more advanced than it by any means.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I totally agree. Hinayana, Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana, can all lead to enlightenment. They are made for different types of conditioned consciousness, according to the conditions of cultures. I guess I really just wanted to cut beyond the typically denominational argument on this website and get to the center.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >different types of conditioned consciousness,
          Could you elaborate on which types respectively?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every karma that comes into consciousness is technically a condition for future consciousness/future karma. It's pretty simple like that. Culture is no different. Different religions must appeal to different cultures and the contexts of history in order to be relevant to the whole, and relevancy to the whole IS dharma, order, the original meaning of dharma, orthodoxy.

            I recommend everyone in this thread read the Essential Rene Guenon. He was popular, extremely controversial too, on this board a couple years ago. However it looks like he is forgotten now.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm totally serious, too. If you want a belief system that bridges between Christianity and Buddhism smoothly, I would say your best bet is reading The Essential Rene Guenon. He describes it best for modern westerners, the divide of ancient and modern, east and west, and religion and esoterics.

            In Buddhism, the wisdom of any genuine teacher comes from his unbroken lineage back to the living Buddha and thus back to the primordial Adi Buddha self. In Hindusim (where Buddhism came from) the true tradition of knowledge stems back to Vishnu (whom Buddha is an incarnation of) all the way at the beginning of the manvantara. Guenon surmises that the divine tradition of the Abrahamic faiths stems from the Hindu faith such as Buddhism does.

            If you look into astrology seriously, then you will find it is real. The Vedas are distorted today but there is deep astrological truth throughout, as in all religions.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >converting to Islam while pretending to be Hindu is the ultimate bridge between Christianity and Buddhism
            lol

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Haha oh I get what you're saying. I don't mean that. I myself am not Muslim. That is simply Guenon's personal decision that no one else as to follow. He doesn't shill Islam in that book, if anything he shills Hinduism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >different types of conditioned consciousness,
            Could you elaborate on which types respectively?

            >templates of Buddhism made for different levels of consciousness.
            Not really. Mahayana is not "spiritually superior" to Theravada or more advanced than it by any means.

            https://i.imgur.com/zS0Lhod.png

            With a surface level understanding you'll think Christianity and Buddhism are completely different philosophies. But with a thorough study of their esoteric and mystical traditions you'll see that they share fundamentally the same goal. Whether you want to call it nibbana, mystic union, Holy Spirit or Dharma, the path to follow requires always emptying your mind/soul of all the unnecessary defilements of this world.

            >"Only when the soul turns away and denies itself so as to find him who is All will it be able to receive true peace and rest" - Julian of Norwich

            >"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." - Gautama Buddha

            >He has to give up everything, including the body, and to disdain this present life, if he wishes to possess God alone in his heart. For the noetic vision of God, the divine Chrysostom has said, can by itself destroy the demonic spirits. - Philotheos of Sinai

            >"A mind unruffled by the vagaries of fortune, from sorrow freed, from defilements cleansed, from fear liberated — this is the greatest blessing." - Gautama Buddha

            Even early Christians used to believe in a doctrine of rebirth
            https://reluctant-messenger.com/origen10.html

            Christianity and Buddhism are two sides of the same coin

            The thing is I practice astrology, and have had other "mystical?" experiences. I know, because I know astrology so well, that any religion based on astrological principles is divinely channeled, The only except I know is that Islam and Christianity say to turn away from astrology, but my belief is that that was said because humanity wasn't ready to read the stars.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            astrology is Babylonian religion hence its rejection in Christianity and Islam

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thoughts on Hellenistic (trad) vs Modern?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am NOT saying that Hinduism is the best above all. Every soul is entitled to their own soul. They are responsible for their own salvation in ANY faith. Now matter what you believe, the soul is the arbiter of their destiny, no? Whether they find enlightenment or pray to Jesus. Free will is the law of all religions, and to that we should hold above all else.

            Really what I believe is that all religions are false. We are moving into a new age, a new understanding of reality, yes. However, law will not be lost. Truth and tradition won't be lost as long as people cling to them. It is all free will, but we are the deciding factor, more than ever, of what our truth is. The ultimate thing is to choose love, which is a REAL energy that is not FALSE, not abstract it is more real than anything else. Choose love and you can't be wrong. Don't be afraid of "demons" because the definition of a demon is an entity that knows everything except love.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I no longer post on this God-forsaken site past the occasional joke, have this as a final waning.

    https://aeonbaudrillard.medium.com/of-course-the-buddhist-said-it-first-but-that-is-not-the-point-1580c365c7d1

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      keep your identity anonymous, save yourself the embarassment of being associated with this drivel

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        ?

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean I could have told you that from my mere knowledge of both traditions

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't wish to enter into this debate but ig anyone would like, it is very clear that Buddhism becomes a Christ-influenced religion after Guatama (Christianity continuously has been celebrated in India for 2,000 years and Christmas is a national holiday in India). This could be a deep Straussian reading, especially within Mahayana Buddhism and the Boddhisatva.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christmas is not a national holiday in modern India because of Christianity having some purported influence on Buddhism (which dates to around 400 BC anyway). How are people this low-information? If you don't know anything about the topic, don't give an opinion.

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Religions are outdated anyway and the future of spirituality lies in NDEs as they are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

    As this NDEr described their NDE:

    >"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

    And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

    So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

    >muh brain chemistry

    Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

    >muh DMT causes it

    Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

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