You really are not intelligent enough to understand. Stick to Bad Bunny lyrics.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
32 comments:
Explain it to me then, if you are such an enlightened one.
No. It took me 20 years of reading and participating. Pick up, "Way of the Bodhisattva." and "Tibetan Book of the Dead." to start. It will change your life.
(PS: It doesn't mean you have to renounce Christianity or whatever else.)
(PS: It doesn't mean you have to renounce Christianity or whatever else.)
Confucianism and Legalism are the greatest of the Asian - and for that matter, probably of all the non-white - philosophical schools. Taoism and particularly Buddhism are among the worst.
White nationalists/supremacists overly romanticize Japan, when it has absolutely *nothing* on China's intellectual tradition. Japan *never* produced anything on the level of Confucianism or Legalism. Nor did Korea.
The reason for their incorrect judgement is, of course, simply Japan's alignment in WWII - if China was pro-Axis instead of Japan, there would be a proper recognition that China is the *only* serious candidate for continuing human civilization if the Whites become extinct. Japan and Korea, by contrast, simply aren't. The latter will be extinct within a few centuries.
Returning to the first paragraph, this is easy to see simply based on who they attract: today's people - regardless of race - are too degenerate to be attracted to the former schools, which have fallen into relative obscurity, whereas *many* people are attracted to the latter schools, including plenty of White degenerates and yids.
Yes, modern Buddhism is absolutely infested with zhids. Some examples of 'converts': Alfred Bloom, Bhikkhu Bodhi (Jeffrey Block, born in Brooklyn), Sylvia Boorstein, Surya Das (Jeffrey Miller, born in Brooklyn), Joseph Goldstein, Richard Gombrich, Jack Kornfield, Noah Levine, Stephen Levine, Sharon Salzberg, Nyanaponika Thera (Siegmund Feniger, born in Germany), Lama Tsomo (Linda Pritzker).
Bhikkhu Bodhi is particularly high profile, showing that the infestation goes right to the very top.
Furthermore, many Leftists and/or drug users love concepts like nirvana. For instance, Kurt Cobain, the Far-Left anarchist, famously named his band Nirvana, although he seems to have been relatively uninfluenced by Buddhism and most enthralled by Jainism, allegedly most attracted to its animal worship.
Another way to think about it: Were Buddhism on the right path, a more correct one than the West, surely it would at least be able to better reproduce its own numbers. Yet it can't even manage that: if I recall correctly, among 'religions', Buddhism is *the* fastest declining among them all.
That is unsurprising when Buddhist countries are far from the world's most fertile. Thailand, for instance, has well below replacement level birth rates and is a country with a reputation for being very pro-LGBT by Asian standards.
Yet another way to think about it: We know that Muslims and particularly Christians are almost incredibly bad at following their own religion. So, if Buddhism is any better, we should ask: Are Buddhists any better at being Buddhists? Is Buddhism better at creating good adherents?
The answer: No. Buddhists should not even harm insects, let alone eat them, because they can contain punished human 'souls' (this is an oversimplification, because Buddhism posits neither self nor soul), and thus harming insects is like harming humans, and eating insects is like cannibalism.
Yet you can look at any market in Thailand and see plenty of flies, spiders, and other creatures for sale as food. Just as Muslims are hypocrites for drinking some of the world's most extreme alcohols when alcohol is strictly forbidden, Buddhists are hypocrites for eating all sorts of creatures that few other people would eat, when eating them is strictly wrong.
In conclusion, Buddhists attracts all of the wrong people (Leftists, drug users, yids) and none of the right. It would be stable or growing in its numbers of adherents, rather than be the fastest shrinking. And it would produce people who are not hypocrites, instead of people such as the Thais who will eat almost anything. Such a religion is a poor candidate for being the right path to follow in life.
A final observation: White people, who rarely if ever eat flies and spiders, unironically and wholly unintentionally make better Buddhists than Asians.
White nationalists/supremacists overly romanticize Japan, when it has absolutely *nothing* on China's intellectual tradition. Japan *never* produced anything on the level of Confucianism or Legalism. Nor did Korea.
The reason for their incorrect judgement is, of course, simply Japan's alignment in WWII - if China was pro-Axis instead of Japan, there would be a proper recognition that China is the *only* serious candidate for continuing human civilization if the Whites become extinct. Japan and Korea, by contrast, simply aren't. The latter will be extinct within a few centuries.
Returning to the first paragraph, this is easy to see simply based on who they attract: today's people - regardless of race - are too degenerate to be attracted to the former schools, which have fallen into relative obscurity, whereas *many* people are attracted to the latter schools, including plenty of White degenerates and yids.
Yes, modern Buddhism is absolutely infested with zhids. Some examples of 'converts': Alfred Bloom, Bhikkhu Bodhi (Jeffrey Block, born in Brooklyn), Sylvia Boorstein, Surya Das (Jeffrey Miller, born in Brooklyn), Joseph Goldstein, Richard Gombrich, Jack Kornfield, Noah Levine, Stephen Levine, Sharon Salzberg, Nyanaponika Thera (Siegmund Feniger, born in Germany), Lama Tsomo (Linda Pritzker).
Bhikkhu Bodhi is particularly high profile, showing that the infestation goes right to the very top.
Furthermore, many Leftists and/or drug users love concepts like nirvana. For instance, Kurt Cobain, the Far-Left anarchist, famously named his band Nirvana, although he seems to have been relatively uninfluenced by Buddhism and most enthralled by Jainism, allegedly most attracted to its animal worship.
Another way to think about it: Were Buddhism on the right path, a more correct one than the West, surely it would at least be able to better reproduce its own numbers. Yet it can't even manage that: if I recall correctly, among 'religions', Buddhism is *the* fastest declining among them all.
That is unsurprising when Buddhist countries are far from the world's most fertile. Thailand, for instance, has well below replacement level birth rates and is a country with a reputation for being very pro-LGBT by Asian standards.
Yet another way to think about it: We know that Muslims and particularly Christians are almost incredibly bad at following their own religion. So, if Buddhism is any better, we should ask: Are Buddhists any better at being Buddhists? Is Buddhism better at creating good adherents?
The answer: No. Buddhists should not even harm insects, let alone eat them, because they can contain punished human 'souls' (this is an oversimplification, because Buddhism posits neither self nor soul), and thus harming insects is like harming humans, and eating insects is like cannibalism.
Yet you can look at any market in Thailand and see plenty of flies, spiders, and other creatures for sale as food. Just as Muslims are hypocrites for drinking some of the world's most extreme alcohols when alcohol is strictly forbidden, Buddhists are hypocrites for eating all sorts of creatures that few other people would eat, when eating them is strictly wrong.
In conclusion, Buddhists attracts all of the wrong people (Leftists, drug users, yids) and none of the right. It would be stable or growing in its numbers of adherents, rather than be the fastest shrinking. And it would produce people who are not hypocrites, instead of people such as the Thais who will eat almost anything. Such a religion is a poor candidate for being the right path to follow in life.
A final observation: White people, who rarely if ever eat flies and spiders, unironically and wholly unintentionally make better Buddhists than Asians.
>Just because someone is White, or even an Aryan, does not mean that their ideas automatically have value.
Lord Grim, why do you keep making new profiles.. Just to show your true jew colors again?
Lord Grim, why do you keep making new profiles.. Just to show your true jew colors again?
You are twisting my words.
Shit, I do not even believe MAPhommed was White anyway, I think that is dune coon cope.
I was just using him as an example, because even if he was """White""", he was still a bloodthirsty conqueror and a rapist, and thus bad.
Are you serously going to sit there and say that if MAPhommed, the guy who plagarized the talmund to make his own religion, was White, that "his" ideas would have value?
Fuck off.
Shit, I do not even believe MAPhommed was White anyway, I think that is dune coon cope.
I was just using him as an example, because even if he was """White""", he was still a bloodthirsty conqueror and a rapist, and thus bad.
Are you serously going to sit there and say that if MAPhommed, the guy who plagarized the talmund to make his own religion, was White, that "his" ideas would have value?
Fuck off.
>You are a jew because I cannot disprove what you are saying.
You argue like a child.
No substance, just insults.
Thanks for proving me right every time.
You argue like a child.
No substance, just insults.
Thanks for proving me right every time.
>You argue like a child. No substance, just insults.
No. It's that you're shlomo troll who eventually does the same anti-White bullshit, over & over again. I've simply learned not to bother and just point it out.
>Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
No. It's that you're shlomo troll who eventually does the same anti-White bullshit, over & over again. I've simply learned not to bother and just point it out.
>Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Bad faith comment.
It is not anti-White to point out that even if MAPhommed and Buddha were "White", that it does not change anything.
Their ideas are still not good regardless.
"Anyone I do not like is muh jew."
If you have an actual counterpoint, lay it on me.
Calling me a "muh troll" changes nothing and has zero philisophical tact, which is what I have sadly come to expect from spergs.
It is not anti-White to point out that even if MAPhommed and Buddha were "White", that it does not change anything.
Their ideas are still not good regardless.
"Anyone I do not like is muh jew."
If you have an actual counterpoint, lay it on me.
Calling me a "muh troll" changes nothing and has zero philisophical tact, which is what I have sadly come to expect from spergs.
It's not that complicated. You are guilty of a number of behaviors here that I don't like.
Being an annoying weirdo that is a self admitted troll. Who created many alternate profiles when you decided to abandon the odd childish persona of the other ones. Because those got blocked and you need attention.
Always needing to be explained the same false equivalency. Or making some hyper conflation which also happens to be stirring up some anti-White subversion. Or drawing attention to an outlier that is incoherent with something you've misunderstood.
It's odd to me that you behave this way. You seem to enjoy pilpul and gaslighting, basic kike behavior. Therefore, I don't trust your motives and I don't like you. It's that simple.
Being an annoying weirdo that is a self admitted troll. Who created many alternate profiles when you decided to abandon the odd childish persona of the other ones. Because those got blocked and you need attention.
Always needing to be explained the same false equivalency. Or making some hyper conflation which also happens to be stirring up some anti-White subversion. Or drawing attention to an outlier that is incoherent with something you've misunderstood.
It's odd to me that you behave this way. You seem to enjoy pilpul and gaslighting, basic kike behavior. Therefore, I don't trust your motives and I don't like you. It's that simple.
I am contrarian at times, that is true.
That is a good thing though, lest a forum become an unthinking echo-chamber.
>basic kike behavior
"You are a kike even though you are contrarian when it comes to kike ideas as well."
I have received hundreds of ban messages online, many of which were for "auntie themitism", so it is rather unlikely that I am a "kike".
I think that the key difference between me and a "kike troll" is that I am willing to listen to reason, it is just that internet people are incapable of rational discussion, only spergy insults.
I do not care what political cult someone belongs to, if I see hypocrisy, I will point it out.
I do not care if that is "subversion" or "pilpul" or "gaslighting".
That is a good thing though, lest a forum become an unthinking echo-chamber.
>basic kike behavior
"You are a kike even though you are contrarian when it comes to kike ideas as well."
I have received hundreds of ban messages online, many of which were for "auntie themitism", so it is rather unlikely that I am a "kike".
I think that the key difference between me and a "kike troll" is that I am willing to listen to reason, it is just that internet people are incapable of rational discussion, only spergy insults.
I do not care what political cult someone belongs to, if I see hypocrisy, I will point it out.
I do not care if that is "subversion" or "pilpul" or "gaslighting".
My biggest issue with Buddhism is it's emotional detachment to avoid the pain of loss.
As a Christian, this aspect of Buddhism seems ridiculous because I believe life is supposed to be a roller coaster of experiences to help us mature emotionally and spiritually so we can make rational and informed choices about embracing or denying Jesus.
Not loving your God, your nation, your race or your wife and children is not living.
As a Christian, this aspect of Buddhism seems ridiculous because I believe life is supposed to be a roller coaster of experiences to help us mature emotionally and spiritually so we can make rational and informed choices about embracing or denying Jesus.
Not loving your God, your nation, your race or your wife and children is not living.
who the hell is maphommed?
Toast message
Okay, thanks, enjoy your robes and your baldness.