Is buddhism the "religion"/doctrine of the future?
>compatible with science
>adapts to local culture
>encourages the development of mind and brain skills
>rejects superstition
>adapts to any change on the conception/paradigm of the universe/reality
>no cuckery
>no harmful rituals like mutilation or sacrifices
>inb4 vajrayana contradicts all of the above. It doesn't, it's just a vehicle, an adaptation like mentioned above.
>etc
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
>>compatible with science
Yes just not modern sciences which are pure garbage.
Have a (You).
Anybody got any infos on LaPlace? I heard that his theorem on intersecting gravity waves producing photons was the basis of German science in the 1930's, (and some would say contemporary Earth humanity's colonization of space).
Buddhism describes spiritually and technologically advanced ayys.
taoism is all you need
Shhh... I'm tryint to reach the masses, Monsieur Guenon. We can go onto decadent profane sciences later... :^)
Are tou talking about the deities? Because in vajrayana they are more akin to thoughtforms (in a way).
Otherwise the different worlds reminds ayys in some way. Conspiracy says that Jimmy Carter was debriefed about ayys and he broke in tears after being told that religio only exists on Earth. While in buddhism dharma exists only in the human realm and so only humans are able to reach liberation, while the gods aren't...
I believe user ment social sciences like Gender studies
Buddhism isn't compatible with science, the Bible says God created Earth and all the creatures for example does buddhism say this? I saw the Dali Lama say evolution is real which it isn't so it's obviously false since he's supposedly God on Earth, which is blasphemous
...
en.wikipedia.org
This is the reddest of all pills.
Are you behind 7 proxies, user?
105833861
Fag
Actual Buddhism is not compatible with science or society.
read anything written about Chinese history...
you really packed it in nicely m8 5/10
>Buddhism isn't compatible with science, the Bible says God created Earth and all the creatures for example does buddhism say this?
Buddhism isn't concerned with the origin of life on Earth, but with reality and mind and like in other indian systems, reality/the universe has no start nor end. How the Earth came to be is scientists work to find out. Or whoever is to find it, if such a thing is possible.
The Buddha once said that if everything he taught is proves to be erroneous, then discard his teachings and follow whatever is true. Blind faith isn't a buddhist thing.
>I saw the Dali Lama say evolution is real which it isn't so it's obviously false since he's supposedly God on Earth, which is blasphemous
I don't believe in evolution either. Maybe the Dalai Lama believes on it. The Dalai Lama is only a political figure and head of one school of tibetan buddhism. He is not the equivalent of the Pope. No buddhist is forced to follow him or his school.
Buddhism isn't concerned with theism either. Belief in God is personal choice. Buddhist deities are either symbolical or are beings of the mindstream (like with meme magic).
The Buddha once was asked if he was a god and he said no, that he was a simple human being.
So no idea where you take that Dalai Lama is God on Earth.
Well Buddhism is wrong then, God made everything is is a scientific fact. If the Buddhist followed buddhas teachings they would be Christians
compatible if you value burning eternally like Gautama Siddhartha and Muhammad are right now
Maybe I'm not getting right your comment. Imo buddhism had little to do in China's social development as China had historically its own character.
At first it was persecuted for being a foreign ideology.
Then it was mixed with taoism, to the point that taoist terms are used to name buddhist concepts in China. Sometimes is even hard to tell what is taoisg and what is buddhist in chinese buddhism
Buddhism exists and has its important impront but chinese society is more heavily ordered under confucian principles and taoism (and then socialist philosophy since XX century).
At least in my humble opinion.
If you reply to this, you're a moron for getting baited so easily
Also, yes, the Eastern religions are the only truth. All of the abrahamic religions are cancer
Get out my country Ching Chong
I know this is trolling. But I like to talk as far as I can.
Same for you
But in case you're asking sincerely... why would they burn?
First you have to believe in Hell. And specifically the abrahamic hell which is inspired in the zoroastrian one.
Second, why would God make people suffer eternally for a temporal action?
Third, is that fire symbolical or real? Since we don't have a body after we die.
Fourth, supposing that is true, how do you know if God didn't forgive them or if they repented?
I never troll
>Is buddhism the "religion"/doctrine of the future?
We could do a fair bit worse ? Actually, if you consider the various movements and belief systems that have stood in for western monotheism since then enlightenment we could, and have, done a whole lot worse - pretty much every one of them places man as somehow separate from / superior to nature due to the gift of rational thought, a fair number have attempted to perfect humanity, or a piece of it, as a result. The resulting utopian thought is always a fast track to suffering, misery, and mass death - just look at Communist Russia. The more general and contemporary Western belief in science and human progress is just as flawed - we'll likely find out how badly in a couple of decades due to resource depletion, climate change, population growth etc...
So yeah, a little humility might be nice, a bit of an effort to see if we can get back to our selves and make peace with our true nature instead of masking and denying it would maybe do the world a bit of good also...
I totally agree with this.
>mfw I just noticed I posted the smaller image on the OP
Are you a buddist
Reading your stuff is really interesting
Do you think the attacks in burma are justifyable
>Are you a buddist
Not exactly. I've read a lot and stuff and agree with things but I'm not 'officialy' buddhist. I'm on a 'search stage', I don't identify as anything nowadays.
>Reading your stuff is really interesting
Thanks
>Do you think the attacks in burma are justifyable
I'm not really familiar with this. I assume you mean the violence against the rohingya? I have no idea what the muslims did or why the violence started. The monks for sure shouldn't take part on it because they have non violence votes.
I personally think violence should be avoided when possible but not necesarely is 'bad' in the sense some situations might require you to do so (like having to defend yourself, suppose a beast attacks you in the forest and you can't escape).
Imo your true intention with the act is way heavier than the act itself.
Bump
define 'true nature'.. we are still deep down primitive animals after all, 98% chimp says a lot.
A true utopia cannot and will not exist, but we can do our best.