It claims nothing is its own thing but a facet of a singular "everything".
And yet the goal of Buddhism is to exit the "everything" despite being a facet of this "everything".
That is dumb.
"Everything is one thing, nothing has distinct identity, but also blitz your chakras, they're these distinct parts of your distinct entity."
"The more you realize that you aren't anything except a facet of this oneness, the more you can make of yourself."
"You should really, REALLY care about not caring about ANYTHING, and you should REALLY WANT not to WANT anything!"
Buddhism makes no sense.
Mongoloid chink jeet nonsense.
"But the founder of Buddhism was a blue eyed Aryan!"
Yeah, and MAPhommed was White.
Just because someone is White, or even an Aryan, does not mean that their ideas automatically have value.
Anyway, what do y'all think about Buddhism?
Do you agree that it contradicts itself?
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.