Has it pretty much become the concencus here that Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity are the three best religions in terms of social advancements, moral principles, and satisfactory answers to existential questions? Is it possible for one to follow all three?
Christianity is the worst religion.
>Is it possible for one to follow all three?
No. I don't know much about Taoism but the Christian idea of an immortal soul which ascends to heaven upon death is very different to Buddhist spiritual beliefs and I don't think they're compatible.
As stated by >>682217 couldn't Neoplatonism be the truth and that Taoism Buddhism and Christianity are the three best ways that we can perceive it. I don't mean in being a Buddhist or Christian etc as in believing everything. Otherwise no one could call themselves anything let another disagree on things like the Virgin Mary or Sola Fide.
Buddhism and Christianity are compatible. Buddhism doesn't have a strong opinion about creator deities either way, you just have to understand that even a supreme being is a conditioned being. Beyond the personal God is the "God" of negative theology - nirvana, the absolute, the ultimate
A shame since some of their writing is pretty deep, and since most mainstream Christian writings are along the lines of this.
The Christians who aren't Walmart-tier would. Read Merton, Pseudo-Dionysus, eckhart. These guys know God is inside you as a state of purified, liberated superconsciousness, not an external being. Willing to trust them over some pleb at mass
Is it generally agreed that Protestantism is the worst thing to happen to Christianity? An open window for any uneducated individual to interpret the bible, somehow get it all right, and then claim divine providence, as well as getting people cucked.
Protestants got it right that an interior relationship with God takes precedence over churches and priests, but the lack of true luminaries in Protestantism, as we as a disdain for anything mystical or new age-y sounding (when was the last time you heard a Christian extolling meditation or contemplation?) They've literally become the reddit of Christianity
I can agree with you. While the three mentioned religions all have some things in common, no I do not think they are compatible. Hinduism and the teachings of Jesus are surprisingly compatible. Notice I said teachings of Jesus, NOT Christianity in general. Buddhism has a lot of good moral points. I start to lose interst though, when it gets into the different dimensions and all the spirits and demons. At that point it seems just as far fetched as any religion could be.
Taoism might be the most straight forward of the three. There is the eternal Tao. It created the universe and everything in it, but it is not a part of it. It has no physical body or gender. It just simply is. Comparable to Brahman in Hinduism.
Pretty much this. Taoism does not deny the existence of anything, it just cuts out the middlemen.
Even neoplatonism stops on the way to the One to describe the mechanics of emanation, souls, the nature of the hypocrites etc. But at the end of the day the Neo platonic one is synonymous with the Tao
I think Taoism is compatible with Buddhism and Christianity, but I think that Buddhism and Christianity offer two very conflicting cosmologies.
Take the afterlife for example. Samsara is a cycle of rebirth that is radically different from the Christian Universe/Heaven/Hell/Purgatory model.
Also, Salvation in Christianity is pretty god damn easy to attain. Moksha (Which isn't analogous to Christian Salvation), is not so easy to attain in Buddhism.
Cosmology aside, Buddhism and Christianity I think have a lot of overlapping morals/guidelines. They're generally very OP religions.
RELIGION POWER RANKINGS
Catholicism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism, Hinduism.
Judaism, Theravada Buddhism, Rastafarianism.
Vodou, Satanism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism, Sufism, Confucianism.
Protestantism, Neo-paganism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witness, Scientology, Falun Gong, Unitarianism/Universalism.
And what about the Taoist gods? Are they a fundamental part of Daoism or are they superfluous cultural additions to the philopshy, similar to how Shinto gods are venerated alongside the Buddha in Japan?
He said "social advancements, moral principles, and satisfactory answers to existential questions".
Zoroastrianism replaced "perform these fire rituals to gain desired result" with a simple moral system and answered the question of evil in the world with a cosmology of two opposing forces in which humans were able to participate personally.
what ppl call protestant is generally The Christianity that the Roman 'Catholic church' tried to abduct and control, With the Tyranny, political domination, & anti-Christian teaching/dogma taken out.
In an effort to return to true Christian (Biblical) teachings/belief
>what ppl call protestant is generally The Christianity that the Roman 'Catholic church' tried to abduct and control
>In an effort to return to true Christian (Biblical) teachings/belief
Might be the stupidest reply in this thread right now.
Not to mention all the cultural appropriation from the Sadhus.
A similar sect sprang up in Peru except they have the coca leaf instead of ganja as a sacrament.
reminder that women having a easy life, compared to men, since men love to provide for them, they cannot leave hedonism so easily, especially after their puberty.
higher knowledge is sought after by men, since men are more acquainted with the misery of of life.
Well I'm going to answer this question in relation to the scripture and doctrine that's found within the Holy Bible. Mind you, this is my interpretation.
The Bible is a perfect psychological doctrine in the sense that it exposes the true motivations of man during their time on earth. The Old Testament teaches and reinforces faith in your Creator, God almighty. Teaches you that you are not alone and there are truly greater things at play beyond man's perspective, a perspective that is needed to create such a magnificent concept we know as our reality. The New Testament has Jesus Christ teaching how to walk in this world knowing that it's destined to fall apart.
Buddhism and the Tao are incomplete in the sense they assume the entire world wants to be in the middle. They don't address the fact that some men for the life themselves can't detach. Some men get off on what would be classified as wicked and evil in the Holy Bible. Some men find their ego's being massaged at the concept of exploiting and bringing both psychological and physical harm upon others. They don't really address how evil presents itself to the heart of man, how it tempts man and rewards him with false fruit. Buddhism and the Tao don't teach you that evil tempts man to think that stolen food tastes good, enslaving, killing, and manipulating is satisfying, gratifying, and reason to exalt ones self worth. Buddhism and Taoism don't even warn you that evil can present itself in the face of love, as a lie, in order to fulfill it's influence on man's heart.
Bobo Shanti worship him as God but most I know usually either venerate him or respect him.
Rastafari ideas, language and imagery has been very important in the development of many contemporary indigenous communities throughout the world and even in my own community which although Ethiopian is also Jewish.
Reminder that this is the God that Christians and Jews pray to.
No, no, your fine, not the guy you replied to but I had never really thought about that part of Christian/Abrahamic religion before. Funny, seeing as it's such a crucial part of our society and its beliefs. Coincidentally enough I was listening to music from LA Noir, without those ideas there goes a whole fucking genre out the window.
Who'd of thought murder could smell like honey suckle.
>I don't really know shit about Buddhism
for the dhamma, you create your own misery in not being equanimous nor benevolent. once you stop, you are happy, this is why liberals are drawn to it, but whine when they understand that they must be less enjoying their pleasures that they have been craving for a few centuries.
>Buddhism and the Tao don't teach you that evil tempts man to think that stolen food tastes good, enslaving, killing, and manipulating is satisfying, gratifying, and reason to exalt ones self worth. Buddhism and Taoism don't even warn you that evil can present itself in the face of love, as a lie, in order to fulfill it's influence on man's heart.
the dhamma explicitly says what you think it does not say.
Yeah I know where that can lead to, to a irrefutable truth. But the teachings you speak don't shed light or bring forth the truths. It urges you to seek the truth, but it doesn't bring anything to the table. Kinda urges you to use critical thinking under the perimeters of that specific perspective.
The Holy Bible's scripture on the other hand puts everything on the table. Explains the nature of the human heart and the nature of the polarity of good and evil.
I mean we could be as advanced in the sciences as any ones favorite science fiction movie, doesn't take away from the fact that the fundamental flaws and mechanisms that are documented in the Holy Scriptures within the book of Kings and Chronicles, those fundamental mechanisms of evil will always be mechanisms that can be found within any Kingdom that will ever form on earth.
Kinda going off on a tangent, but what I'm saying is that mans heart shapes the earth and the societies, science is a tool box in comparison, and Buddhism and the Tao are incomplete.
Especially modern Buddhism who by Biblical standards have become idolaters. praying to a statue, getting no results, as they beg for food.
When Holy scripture states this (Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! 7 It has no commander, no overseer or ruler 8 yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.)
Also says that too much unnecessary study makes the body weary.
(Ecclesiastes 12:12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.)
Some similarities though-
Holy Bible: Everything is meaningless (my favorite book in the Bible; Ecclesiastes)
from the dhamma, it is hedonism, material and spiritual, which is the problem and hinders on your happiness and the one of others. everything outside equanimity and benevolence is not appropriate.
the dhamma is not a rationalist doctrine, especially past the beginning. you can read as many suttas as you want and pray as much as you want. it will not work. reflexivity is used only to notice the failure of hedonismS in order to be happy.
The process is thus : we want to be happy, we notice that we are not, we wonder why, we notice that it is because mundane hedonism [=taking seriously our desires/ideas/self/what we feel] is poorly effective to be happy [we must work hard to get riches, then we must keep our riches, then we get a bit of pleasures from them, then they disappears (since we spend them), so we work hard anew to get new riches. Even worse, there is, sooner or later, a lassitude towards the fruits of our hard work (everybody in relationship knows this). Why do we get bored from all the entertainment we buy thanks to we hard work ??], we notice that everybody around we does the same and are not really happy. this mundane life is full of woes....
Plus we have faith that we will die, because we look around and see hundreds of people being miserable perishable pricks like we. people are we and we are people.
=> we abdicate before the lack of results from hedonism, we want to leave this lack of relevance forever (and we know how to).
we know thus that it is not worth it to go into the same hedonistic quest day after day, week after week, up to year after year; that we are not different, nor better than others in our misery.
It clicks. we understand that there is no point to continue to envy; once we understand this, we want to do the contrary of what we have done so far in our pathetic existence : do the contrary of being agitated.
we want to be still, even though we are not so still (otherwise we would be happy), yet we have no doubt about this new perspective on life [we clearly see that other hedonists are sad just as we were before, and we know why].
What happens when you do not move, when there is nothing to do, when boredom happens ?
First we try to do not move, physically, but we notice that we fail. as soon as we try to stop moving, we dwell in the fantasies of our mind, we move physically, as if we despise being still. This hate of being still is interesting...
Why do we hate being still, to the point of doing the opposite most of the day, that is to say, exciting things all day long and when facing the sterility of excitations, we try to justify our behavior thanks to the manufacture of a faith in rationalization-objectification, so that ''we gain knowledge when things are excited '' ?
We try anew to be still. We try to keep our consciousness [=the thing which knows] [not mind!] on the object whereof we are conscious, as still as possible : we no longer dwell in the speculations of our mind, we try to be still towards our 5 other senses.
We stop moving physically: we sit and do not move, we lay down and do not move, we stand-up and do not move. Our body does not move.
when our body no longer moves, the sense of touch disappears, just like when we ''smell nothing'', when there is a neutral odor, just like when ''we hear nothing'', when there is less noise than regularly. Our body disappears, to better leave our consciousness (and the object whereof we are conscious).
[as an aside, consciousness alone does not exists, feelings does not exists, reality alone does not exist: you have these three things always tied with one another, and if you suppress one, you suppress the other two]
Then we notice that the breath keeps moving. but at least the movement repeats itself: the breath moves in cycles; the small cycles in which we can decompose the breath is in-breath, out-breath.
The new question becomes: how can we be still towards the breath, since the breath moves in cycles? Well, to be still towards an do object which moves, we must move with the object. we will thus be still with respect to this object, no matter what movement of this object.
to be still towards the breath means that :
-when we breath out, we know that we breath out, WHEN we breath out [not an instant before, not an instant after]
-when we breath in, we know that we breath in, WHEN we breath in [not an instant before, not an instant after]
[there can be other things moving in cycle, typically the heart beat, but it is faint and far to speedy for most people to be conscious when heart beats happen. the breath is what is in the foreground, therefore, the breath is what matters]
there it is: we are still towards the breath, we are still towards the other senses which disappears, since THINGS DISAPPEARS when we keep being conscious of them and nothing happens.
Once your senses disappear, we are conscious of ''our consciousness'', and things happen: the jahnas arrive !
The method to study the consciousness, by the consciousness itself, is to get rid of as many displeasure as possible. this is what the buddhists do in their meditation. **the point is that there is no longer a distinction between epistemology, ontology, ethics and happiness.**
The jhanas are hedonism of the consciousness, while ordinary hedonism is materialistic, of the body; but even the jhanas are hard to get and their effects disappear, once we are no longer in them, sooner or later ! just like with mundane hedonism ! another deception... which leads you to know that, sooner or later, you will get rid of those jhanic fruits...
Thanks to the jhanas you study the consciousness itself and see before your eyes what you knew since the day it clicked: that your consciousness is not as permanent, nor as personal as you expected before leaving your pathetic hedonism, just as you understand that the body, the mind, the emotions, the tastes, the ideas are not you and and that the attachment to them prevent you from being happy.
Why this method leads to result worthy of being called ''knowledge'' ? because the results:
- transform us
- transform us without reversibility [you cannot go back to a previous state, the good news is that these states make us happier than before] (and this is the whole point of the endeavor : to escape the impermanence which is the weakness of induction)
Happiness is thus the destruction of the avidity towards pleasures, the destruction of the aversion towards pains, the destruction of the ignorance of the sterility of hedonism of the body and hedonism of the consciousness.
What replaces the things destroyed ? equanimity, benevolence, charity, certainty that you are no longer an hedonist, certainty that you are happy and that nothing remains to be done in this life.
The results which are the certainty in this perspective of being still, is called ''stream-entry'' by the buddhists.
Yeah....and that's the irrefutable truth you'll find in that perspective. But not everyone can find, let alone wants that perspective. Holy Scripture doesn't hesitate to point out that the sensations that accompany "hedonism"....certain men find delight in it.
That hedonism, or what the Bible classifies as wicked and evil is what deteriorates everything. Also points out that it's what man embraces more often than not and because of that everything must come to a head for a form of cleansing.
As for your comments about prayer, that I don't agree with at all. I've had only a few, but enough experiences in prayer and worship to understand it's significance.
To be absolutely honest the best are:
Shinto and other living shamanisms: Tengriism, Traditional Chinese religion, etc. no neo-pagan shit
If the second has to be specific than Shinto or TCR
Should be higher
Should be lower