Attachment and Suffering

Susan Price30 said:True, I know Belkica (Beljki) has shared plenty of interesting posts and topics regarding Buddhism on this forum. 🙂

.

.

Yeah, I've read them—feels a little too orthodox for my taste, honestly...

Thomas Nelson25 said:To be honest, I don't actually know what that eye symbol means (or maybe I just forgot)... I just know the one in the triangle you see on some architecture.

Personally, Gnosticism, alchemy, and all those Christian esoteric things never really did it for me. I used to read them as "secret gospel" stuff, but to me, it all feels super speculative—just theories and "supposedly" conclusions and such. I've read the Bible plenty of times, but it doesn't hit deep for me either, nor does it answer my questions. Maybe it's revelation, but it still feels purely speculative—just dark archetypes.😁

Changing the world starts with changing people, and man, that is easier said than done.

What people notice or remember—well, that's out of my hands. I assume the author of Lord of the Rings felt similarly about the whole "eye" thing, so we're still dealing with that.

The "mystery" you’re referring to was actually exposed over 2,000 years ago, though why it remains so mysterious to so many today is a question in itself. I suppose it's because, as we mentioned before, people seem more inclined toward mysticism than clear skies—or whatever the phrase is. In that case, "suffering" would have its ultimate effect; some people, occasionally I think, seem unable to function without some sort of "attachment." It's possible that's why people get tattoos—leaving memories of pain on their skin as if they want to be reminded of it. Not really, obviously, but there are so many so-called spiritual transliterations that it ends up with people being pretty much lost on a planetary scale. Still, philosophy is always there for them—when everything else fails, it's always available. To me, it often feels like falling down a "rabbit hole."

Maria Robinson2 said:What people notice or remember—well, that's out of my hands. I assume the author of Lord of the Rings felt similarly about the whole "eye" thing, so we're still dealing with that.

The "mystery" you’re referring to was actually exposed over 2,000 years ago, though why it remains so mysterious to so many today is a question in itself. I suppose it's because, as we mentioned before, people seem more inclined toward mysticism than clear skies—or whatever the phrase is. In that case, "suffering" would have its ultimate effect; some people, occasionally I think, seem unable to function without some sort of "attachment." It's possible that's why people get tattoos—leaving memories of pain on their skin as if they want to be reminded of it. Not really, obviously, but there are so many so-called spiritual transliterations that it ends up with people being pretty much lost on a planetary scale. Still, philosophy is always there for them—when everything else fails, it's always available. To me, it often feels like falling down a "rabbit hole."

And that eye? That's the Eye of Horus... and then you've got all those different versions. That secret society everyone talks about has an eye inside a triangle... it's all symbolism. Personally, I both love and hate it. You can interpret it however you want. Same goes for the fire in the movie, the eye, even the ring symbol and the whole plot... it's fiction, sure, but it seems to have elements of Druid or Celtic stuff. People claim the movie has a subliminal message, and honestly, given the world we live in, I wouldn't rule that out.

Well, regarding those secret events—who actually wrote them down? What does the Church say about it? From what I know, the Vatican Library has all sorts of books on its shelves, including those Hermetic or Gnostic texts from early Christian times—at least, that's what the believers call it. It's basically alchemy.

Then you've got Christian mystics who either wrote the Bible (or certain texts) or provided legitimacy to the Church. Then there are the saints who are living examples of Christ... while priests are the ones passing down the word, along with the apostles and the dogmatists.

Thomas Nelson25 said:And that eye? That's the Eye of Horus... and then you've got all those different versions. That secret society everyone talks about has an eye inside a triangle... it's all symbolism. Personally, I both love and hate it. You can interpret it however you want. Same goes for the fire in the movie, the eye, even the ring symbol and the whole plot... it's fiction, sure, but it seems to have elements of Druid or Celtic stuff. People claim the movie has a subliminal message, and honestly, given the world we live in, I wouldn't rule that out.

Well, regarding those secret events—who actually wrote them down? What does the Church say about it? From what I know, the Vatican Library has all sorts of books on its shelves, including those Hermetic or Gnostic texts from early Christian times—at least, that's what the believers call it. It's basically alchemy.

Then you've got Christian mystics who either wrote the Bible (or certain texts) or provided legitimacy to the Church. Then there are the saints who are living examples of Christ... while priests are the ones passing down the word, along with the apostles and the dogmatists.

Exactly, there is symbolism involved—symbolism representing transferred meaning or significance for those who established it—which certainly suggests I didn't just invent these terms, don't get me wrong.

The Gospels, however, aren't really the "secret" part; rather, the mystery until then was the Messiah himself—his total role, which caught humanity by surprise (people weren't exactly expecting that specific performance).
But, that isn't really the point here, though perhaps it serves as a general answer to your question...

Actually, mystics wouldn't necessarily be the ones receiving divine revelation, but rather those who philosophized about God or the gods—more or less on their own, yet also influenced by an environment that believed mystics understood these matters better. Consequently, someone obviously had to step into the role of spiritual leadership, since humanity has been crying out for it throughout history. It's that whole "explain our universal suffering to us because we can't find the causes ourselves" thing.

There is an interesting point regarding Buddhism. Essentially, the teachings identified as authentic weren't entrusted to the written word, but were passed down through the memory of disciples. Because of that, sacred Buddhist texts had to wait quite a long time before being recorded. Generations later, it’s more than fair to ask how much of it became diluted or started taking on different forms. Today, Buddhism has so many branches that, in principle, none of them specifically address the question of "suffering"—because, honestly, everyone knows that suffering is just a built-in part of life, regardless of Buddhism; it isn't like Buddhism is the only one trying to answer that question.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:If you haven't truly grasped the core principles, they're right—Buddhism can feel just as much like a cage as any other religion, especially since certain doctrines have become quite dogmatic.

I didn't just become who Siddhartha was on my own. It’s the same for Jesus, or anyone else who reached liberation. Everyone needs an initiation to get there, even if they don't realize it at the start—guided by the perfect teachers of that era.

Progress stops exactly where an individual stops. Doctrine is one thing, but direct spiritual experience is an entirely different beast. You simply can't extract Truth just by reading words on a page; those texts are merely signposts that you have to encounter personally through your own spiritual growth—assuming, of course, they were passed down correctly in the first place.

I wasn't trying to look at this through anyone's specific lens. I was just pointing out a universal phenomenon that gets overrated in Buddhism—mostly because so many people fail to take that final step toward their actual goal, mistakenly thinking Nirvana itself is the finish line. In other mystical traditions, this state is correctly viewed as just a stepping stone toward true Liberation. This is something all humans experience throughout history; you and I actually enter a version of "Nirvana" every single night while we sleep, we just aren't conscious of it. When someone enters that state of pure Consciousness, they are aware of nothing else, and that’s the bottom line.

Without getting bogged down in the merits of the argument, this part doesn't really sit right with me.

Every ideology tries to force everything into its own little box—whether by charm or brute force—to make sure it fits their worldview (in this case, religion and spirituality). To Vaishnavas, Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu; some see Jesus as a sort of "secondary avatar." Socially-minded Buddhists view Buddha as a socialist, scholars see him as a secularist, and to Jains, Krishna is a demon. Christians often dismiss all of it as nonsense or Eastern demons. Everyone twists someone else's narrative just to fit their own agenda, trading in mental fantasies rather than verifiable facts. None of this makes sense outside of their narrow religious frameworks; there are no such things as "universal laws" here.

There is no formal mystical "administration" running the universe through Perfect Teachers. There are no mystical White Brotherhoods (at least, none that aren't just modern charlatans like Theosophists or cult leaders who picked up the idea during the era when occult mystifications were trendy in the West—back when a less informed, less globalized world allowed them to paint the East as some obscure, foggy, exotic pseudo-reality).

In any case, Buddhist doctrine doesn't recognize this. Buddha never called for initiations, nor did he receive or give them. The only "initiation" in traditional Buddhism is taking monastic vows (and even that wasn't particularly formal during Buddha's lifetime). There was no mystical transmission in those early centuries, and it wasn't until the development of Tantra, with all its gurus and mysticism, that things changed—and even today, you don't find that in non-Tantric branches (mostly outside of Tibet).

The only teachers he actually had were very grounded, earthly shamans of that era. He left them dissatisfied, and he always maintained—as the Buddhist texts state—that everything after that was "self-revealed" on his part. No masters, no initiations.

Regarding "spiritual universality," from everything I've seen, certain aspects of Jain philosophy come closest to it. Their relativistic contextualism allows for different doctrines without forcing them into a single mold (since their concept permits various frameworks and perspectives). Of course, even that is just a specific viewpoint that none of these doctrines—which all claim to be universal—can truly accept. Ultimately, it's all just a mental construct.

It's probably best to avoid pushing the ideologies or religions we don't belong to just to bolster our own. Logically and historically, it's indefensible, and in an age where you can look up anything with a mouse click, it's pretty much a waste of time.

Susan Price30 said:Honestly, that sounds like one of the worst ways to exist. I’d much rather endure suffering and learn something from it than just live like a vegetable. It’s better to love and lose than to never have loved at all—isn't that basically what Kant argued? It certainly feels that way right now.

Does Buddhism actually teach people to just live like plants—just vegetating without any drive and drifting aimlessly through life? 😁

Or am I totally misinterpreting what Buddhism is about?

In the ultimate theological ideal involving reincarnation, karma, and samsara, suffering is unavoidable as long as you’re living in a dualistic world shaped by the illusion of self and various attachments. The only way to escape it is to stop the whole game entirely by letting go of all identification and chasing desires. Of course, "stopping" means there's no more rebirth after death. While you're physically alive, you can't exactly just vegetate, but the idea is that through intellect and meditation, you can see "things as they truly are." By recognizing false identities and the lack of a permanent self, you can use ethics and discipline to detach from everything.

Within the framework of samsara itself, practicing ethics is thought to lead to more satisfaction, less suffering, and better circumstances—basically setting you up for better future births and more potential for spiritual growth. But it isn't the final fix.

So, that argument about "sinning" doesn't really hold up from this perspective. Avoiding actions with negative consequences (what we might call "sins") will reduce immediate life suffering, but it won't solve the fundamental problem caused by existing in duality—like the inevitable loss of everything we care about because everything within conditioned existence is transient. There is even a subtle kind of dukkha (suffering or dissatisfaction) that is baked into material, dualistic existence itself. It’s a form of restlessness or existential dread that is unavoidable simply because you exist, no matter how much "success" or happiness you achieve by conventional standards (even in "heavenly realms").

With that in mind, they believe that being ethical and avoiding bad deeds serves a purpose, but it's still just part of a conditioned life spinning within samsara. It might be a path toward the goal, but it isn't the end itself. 😁

Thomas Nelson25 said:Look, if we're treating it as philosophy—since it seems like us Americans are just better at applying Buddhism when we lean into it as a sort of practical psychology (especially if we've got that moderate temperament)—then sure, it works. But if it's religion...

...well, then it's connected (like Hinduism, for instance). But that kind of stuff—totally detaching from the world and crushing all willpower and desire? That just doesn't sit right with the American mindset or how we view the purpose of life.

I’m not sure how you expect to separate them when it’s baked right into the foundation of Buddhist doctrine. Everything is suffering, suffering comes from attachment, and it only stops once you follow the path.

Without that foundation, talking about Buddhism is pointless. I definitely resonate with certain aspects of Jain philosophy, but that doesn't make me a Jain. Nor am I a Buddhist, even if their practices happen to suit my lifestyle right now. I’ll show up to the rituals and follow the theology, but honestly, some of those irrational doctrinal elements just don't sit right with me at the moment.

We might find ourselves drawn to certain Western takes on Buddhist concepts, but it makes you wonder: is that actually Buddhism? Or is it just secular existentialism, occasionally borrowing bits and pieces from the tradition whenever it fits the narrative?

If you’re into the community aspect of Christianity, or maybe some of Thomas’s deist philosophical takes—that whole Aristotelian-theological vibe—but you don't actually believe in Jesus, an active God, the Ten Commandments, or that the Bible is the word of God... is that even Christianity?

I'm not sure we can still call it Buddhism if we just cherry-pick certain bits of philosophy and psychology while completely ignoring the most fundamental pillars. 🤷
It’s probably just more semantic hair-splitting and arbitrary definitions anyway. What do I know?

I’m not really sure how much this actually has to do with Western versus Eastern philosophies. It’s not like every Indian person out there is some kind of ascetic monk; just look at how fast they're all racing to accumulate material wealth. 😬 That doesn't mean the core doctrine isn't still there at its heart. It’s more that people might be less prone to those oversimplified, New Age-style concepts—the kind where you think you can reach enlightenment through a weekend retreat or some trendy new shortcut. Because the traditional interpretations are so deeply woven into the culture, they tend to stick around. Of course, things change with urbanization and the loss of old traditions, so that could shift. The average traditional Buddhist isn't exactly an ascetic living in a cave, but they aren't under the illusion that they'll just stumble into Nirvana while chasing other life goals. Most are just content aiming for a better rebirth or pushing the ultimate goal off until "someday"—assuming they even care about the religious aspect beyond just using it as a cultural identity.

Secular Buddhists aren't really looking for the mystical stuff anyway. They don't lose sleep over Nirvana, Moksha, or Samsara. Instead, they take a pragmatic approach, grabbing whatever tools help them navigate daily life from a psychological standpoint. Honestly, I’m not convinced there’s such a massive cultural divide here. In America, people used to be much more intense about religious devotion, but that's largely faded in many developed places—much like how certain traditions have shifted in Japan or South Korea due to political shifts rather than organic change. I wouldn't say it's a huge deal whether practitioners in traditional Buddhist countries lean toward an "extreme" lifestyle based on doctrine, compared to Western Buddhists who have their own monastic lineages. It’s similar to how organizations exist in Asia specifically to teach secular versions of Buddhism for laypeople. Take the Vipassana movement, for example; it spread globally as a secular practice, started by Buddhists themselves, most notably through the lineage established in India. To me, blaming everything on deep-seated cultural differences feels a bit forced.

Thomas Nelson25 said:hm, haven't seen that specific episode, but I do watch those kinds of documentaries.

Like, Zen definitely works in the West (Westernized Koans would be pretty wild), just modified to fit our headspace... the core of Buddhism stays intact. It's super hard to turn Nirvana (satori) into some New Age thing... you can speculate, sure, but then it's not really it... we're talking about the mysticism of reality itself... it's easy to see through the Thomas Nelson25 types. 😉

Personally, I think this newer, secular version of Vipassana is much more practical for those purposes. Zen might have potential, but I haven't seen it take off successfully in that direction yet. Maybe it influenced certain secular thinkers or psychotherapists, but as a distinct, standalone movement under that name? Not that I know of.🤔

Zen in America seems to split into two main streams. One is "authentic" Zen—meaning it operates within traditional Buddhist orders and organizations, whether they have branches in the States or are entirely Western but rooted in traditional sources. This side is fairly traditional and far less secular than the Vipassana movement. It hasn't really developed a de-religionized, secular practice. Plus, coming from the Mahayana tradition, it carries a dose of mystification (concepts like Buddha nature, reincarnation, bodhisattvas, various rituals, etc.) that doesn't mesh easily with the pragmatism of the Vipassana movement, which emerged from intellectualist Theravada circles and eventually leaned even further toward the secular side.

The second stream is what bled into pop culture and drifted toward the New Age sphere. This was largely driven by authors who weren't actually part of the Zen Buddhist tradition—people like Suzuki, who was indeed a Zen icon, or even Ginsberg and others who were more like Western existentialists influencing humanist ideas and psychotherapy. They often brought their own narratives and interpretations, sometimes not much different from how Theosophists handled their pseudo-Hindu or Western occult depictions (though not nearly as extreme; Theosophists literally invented myths and attributed them to others rather than just reinterpreting them).

Also, Zen tends to attract certain mystical-philosophical interests. It’s often linked to "spiritual anarchy," though that leans more toward the second group; those types wouldn't last long in a real Zen monastery with that kind of approach.😬 Generally speaking, it isn't as pragmatically grounded or psychological as Vipassana can be.🤔

Even if it manages to adapt better to the West in its original, non-New Age form, there will always be that philosophical-speculative component. I'm not sure if it can ever become a purely psychological practice like Vipassana. To do that, you’d have to strip away all the surrounding lore and leave only the meditative practice, and I'm not convinced that's as easy to pull off with Koans as it is with other practices like mindfulness.

Maria Robinson2 said:Exactly, there is symbolism involved—symbolism representing transferred meaning or significance for those who established it—which certainly suggests I didn't just invent these terms, don't get me wrong.

The Gospels, however, aren't really the "secret" part; rather, the mystery until then was the Messiah himself—his total role, which caught humanity by surprise (people weren't exactly expecting that specific performance).
But, that isn't really the point here, though perhaps it serves as a general answer to your question...

Actually, mystics wouldn't necessarily be the ones receiving divine revelation, but rather those who philosophized about God or the gods—more or less on their own, yet also influenced by an environment that believed mystics understood these matters better. Consequently, someone obviously had to step into the role of spiritual leadership, since humanity has been crying out for it throughout history. It's that whole "explain our universal suffering to us because we can't find the causes ourselves" thing.

There is an interesting point regarding Buddhism. Essentially, the teachings identified as authentic weren't entrusted to the written word, but were passed down through the memory of disciples. Because of that, sacred Buddhist texts had to wait quite a long time before being recorded. Generations later, it’s more than fair to ask how much of it became diluted or started taking on different forms. Today, Buddhism has so many branches that, in principle, none of them specifically address the question of "suffering"—because, honestly, everyone knows that suffering is just a built-in part of life, regardless of Buddhism; it isn't like Buddhism is the only one trying to answer that question.

The first part is true; everything was passed down orally for centuries before being written down, which was pretty standard for ancient times.

I’d argue the second part isn't quite right. Everyone does address the issue of suffering, and they all share the same fundamental doctrine (the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path), which boils down exactly to "suffering and solving suffering." I wouldn't link this to the modern divisions within Buddhism, either. The doctrinal splits we see today came much later. The divisions among the early schools (most of which are gone, though Theravada might be a descendant of one of them) were of a different nature. What we now categorize as Mahayana or Theravada is essentially a philosophical difference between individuals coexisting within the same order.
But everything we’re discussing here is far too fundamental to be touched by those major doctrinal divides, let alone the issues that split the early schools—which might have just been pragmatic questions about interpreting monastic rules rather than actual doctrine.

It seems like everyone is suddenly obsessed with Buddhism. Meanwhile, we have such beautiful, straightforward ideas sitting right on our own doorstep: 😁
http://www.nytimes.com/how-to-stop-caring...better/304570/

"Friends, it is finally time to tell all your painful little issues to 'f*** it.' Say 'f*** it' to toxic relationships, to what people think of you, to money, food, time, fear, the government, or even your job... Life loves it when you stop resisting—it actually starts working with you. It’s like giving the middle finger to convention, authority, and conformity, and simply stopping the act of doing things you don't actually want to do."

Now, I realize this might sound like some flippant, cliché advice from someone who doesn't have much else to offer—the kind of thing people suggest when they can't find anything profound to say. You might think they're just suggesting you should be indifferent to everything. But honestly, that isn't even close to the truth. According to John C. Parkin, this phrase is actually the most sublime spiritual path imaginable—a modern-day mantra that could genuinely shift the course of your life. He explores this in his recently released book, "F*** It," which has already been causing quite a stir here in the States.

Maria Robinson2 said:Exactly, there is symbolism involved—symbolism representing transferred meaning or significance for those who established it—which certainly suggests I didn't just invent these terms, don't get me wrong.

The Gospels, however, aren't really the "secret" part; rather, the mystery until then was the Messiah himself—his total role, which caught humanity by surprise (people weren't exactly expecting that specific performance).
But, that isn't really the point here, though perhaps it serves as a general answer to your question...

Actually, mystics wouldn't necessarily be the ones receiving divine revelation, but rather those who philosophized about God or the gods—more or less on their own, yet also influenced by an environment that believed mystics understood these matters better. Consequently, someone obviously had to step into the role of spiritual leadership, since humanity has been crying out for it throughout history. It's that whole "explain our universal suffering to us because we can't find the causes ourselves" thing.

There is an interesting point regarding Buddhism. Essentially, the teachings identified as authentic weren't entrusted to the written word, but were passed down through the memory of disciples. Because of that, sacred Buddhist texts had to wait quite a long time before being recorded. Generations later, it’s more than fair to ask how much of it became diluted or started taking on different forms. Today, Buddhism has so many branches that, in principle, none of them specifically address the question of "suffering"—because, honestly, everyone knows that suffering is just a built-in part of life, regardless of Buddhism; it isn't like Buddhism is the only one trying to answer that question.

You didn't invent it—it's just the program.

I was thinking of the Gnostics.

And look, someone had to be inspired, right? People like mystics have that spark, so they're the ones who wrote the Bible and everything else... as for morality, pretty much any priest could write that stuff—just variations on the message of Christ. The real question is how much is authentic versus how much people just added in later... okay, fine. He chose the apostles and likely knew what the future held... essentially, the Roman Empire eventually adopted the faith as its own—for political reasons, obviously.

Nah, it wasn't—everything was written down and memorized, obviously (I think Indians use mnemonic techniques for rote learning like that... it's called mnemonics). It's simple, and there wasn't really anything to lose. Basically, the whole teaching almost fell apart, I think after three hundred years, and that's when they split up. Bodhidharma played a huge role there... you can look it up online if you care, but honestly, I don't. Only the essence matters. Buddha is an archetype (a mandala)—it's something you strive toward, and that's the only thing that counts. 😉

bluemason3, man, you hit the nail on the head right there—I'm totally with you. (Though, just to be clear, I’m no religious fanatic; I’ve mostly stuck to the Western approach—you know, a bit of Veljacic, leaning heavily into psychology like Jung or Maslow...) My only hang-up is that Buddhism can't really "evolve," even if it tries to pivot through New Age stuff like you mentioned. Either way, only a tiny handful of people will actually get it... even in places like China or Japan. Zen is just a much more direct shot to that awakened state.

At the end of the day, meditation is just a temporary tool anyway—it's about that clear mind, emptiness, impermanence, and all that deep psychology. As for organized religion and strict rituals? That's a whole different beast. Honestly, it can sometimes feel like more of a hurdle than a help—kind of like how teamwork can complicate things in life. Ultimately, the Buddha's path is a solo mission; the whole point of Buddhism is that archetype we talked about.
Like, look at mystical Christianity—you've got Christ.
And so on...

Buddhism isn't really a standalone path; that’s just more Western Hessean projection. While people say anyone can reach a state of Buddha, it's generally understood that you can't do it without the Sangha (the community). And you certainly can't become "The Buddha" in the Siddhartha sense—you know, someone who actually moves the needle and clears a path for others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just pointing out what most Buddhists actually believe (there are obviously nuances between different schools and individuals), not defining some absolute truth. But if we ignore the consensus, there's no point in even talking about Buddhism.

Bodhidharma is more of a mythological figure than a historical one, and he lived quite a while after the earliest schools emerged. Those early traditions aren't the same as the modern divisions we see today. Back then, in India, meticulous, literal study was reserved for the elite, not everyone. Even the Purana, which are central to modern folk Hinduism, are basically classic myths that shift over time (I'm not entirely sure how Buddhist texts were passed down, though) and thus 😁

Veljacic is great 👍, but I’d personally steer clear of authors who aren't Indologists, Buddhologists, historians, or at least critical Buddhists. Take Osho, for example—he’s completely useless if you want to understand any traditional religion. He just mashed everything together and interpreted it through his own lens. Honestly, almost none of the traditions he claimed to represent (Zen, Tantra, Advaita, Taoism) would actually agree with his take.😁

I mean, just look at Siddhartha’s life before he became the Buddha—it’s just as symbolic. It was such a lonely, solitary path.

The books don't really say much about it... which is honestly pretty frustrating after grinding through nine books and all that time. Religion is mostly about morality. Buddhism (the Buddha talks about gods alongside suffering, but doesn't really touch the Alpha and Omega stuff—mostly because there's no permanent soul or "self") dives into metaphysics too, and you don't have to be a monk to get into that. Even a teacher is kind of unnecessary—no two minds are ever exactly the same anyway.

The Buddha mind is Buddhism, or maybe it's the other way around...

Bodhidharma is the archetype of Zen—that's the core essence of Buddhist metaphysics right there.

Of course it says 😁

When it comes to those pseudo-new-age authors, most of them are just pure nonsense 🤣

Honestly, if you want to get Buddhism, all you really need are the Four Noble Truths and those three basic facts about existence. You don't even have to sweat the Eightfold Path—it’s implied anyway, provided you actually grasp the core essence of the whole thing. At the end of the day, any religion is just going to lean heavily on ethics—it's all about morality because they use faith as a political tool.

Thomas Nelson25 said:You didn't invent it—it's just the program.

I was thinking of the Gnostics.

And look, someone had to be inspired, right? People like mystics have that spark, so they're the ones who wrote the Bible and everything else... as for morality, pretty much any priest could write that stuff—just variations on the message of Christ. The real question is how much is authentic versus how much people just added in later... okay, fine. He chose the apostles and likely knew what the future held... essentially, the Roman Empire eventually adopted the faith as its own—for political reasons, obviously.

Nah, it wasn't—everything was written down and memorized, obviously (I think Indians use mnemonic techniques for rote learning like that... it's called mnemonics). It's simple, and there wasn't really anything to lose. Basically, the whole teaching almost fell apart, I think after three hundred years, and that's when they split up. Bodhidharma played a huge role there... you can look it up online if you care, but honestly, I don't. Only the essence matters. Buddha is an archetype (a mandala)—it's something you strive toward, and that's the only thing that counts. 😉

I don't mind that they split up—I assume every new generation of converts thinks they'll produce something fresh or more advanced. Though, whether we're even talking about agnosticism is debatable, given the passage from the Buddha-charita—a text dating back to the 2nd century CE—regarding the Buddha:

"Upon his birth, he stood firmly on the ground with both feet, took seven steps toward the north while a white canopy hovered perpetually above his head, and looking out toward the four corners of the world, he proclaimed in an incomparable voice: I am the supreme, the best, and the most significant in the entire world; this is my final birth, and I shall never be born again."

That "supreme, best, and most significant" part gives the impression he viewed himself as a deity equal to God, I guess.

It's probably not surprising that most scholars dismiss these accounts as mere legends and myths, considering they view the historical life of Buddha as something impossible to reconstruct.
If that's the case, these newer sects seem more preoccupied with psychology—since that serves as a substitute for "God and the divine"—while "attachment and suffering" remains the primary theme for the world's population, I suppose.

Maria Robinson2 said:I don't mind that they split up—I assume every new generation of converts thinks they'll produce something fresh or more advanced. Though, whether we're even talking about agnosticism is debatable, given the passage from the Buddha-charita—a text dating back to the 2nd century CE—regarding the Buddha:

"Upon his birth, he stood firmly on the ground with both feet, took seven steps toward the north while a white canopy hovered perpetually above his head, and looking out toward the four corners of the world, he proclaimed in an incomparable voice: I am the supreme, the best, and the most significant in the entire world; this is my final birth, and I shall never be born again."

That "supreme, best, and most significant" part gives the impression he viewed himself as a deity equal to God, I guess.

It's probably not surprising that most scholars dismiss these accounts as mere legends and myths, considering they view the historical life of Buddha as something impossible to reconstruct.
If that's the case, these newer sects seem more preoccupied with psychology—since that serves as a substitute for "God and the divine"—while "attachment and suffering" remains the primary theme for the world's population, I suppose.

That’s just how Hinduism works—why are you even surprised by the poetic stuff? It’s the same deal with the Hebrews and the whole Messiah arrival thing. When you're dealing with an ancient religion, you have to find ways to explain things—especially when you look at all the different belief systems popping up in society. So many of them have faded away without anyone even realizing it. I actually read somewhere that even Buddhism came close to that point... honestly, the split into those two main branches probably caused a lot of that instability.
Look, there were tons of Buddhas before him—he was basically the last one standing. Now just imagine how many awakened souls are coming down the line... and who's to say they won't all be Messiahs? You can feel for people, sure, but you’ve gotta let the world spin on its own—critics call that kind of Buddhism "selfish," which is funny. Like, a Christian saint is all about sacrificing themselves for the masses, whereas a Buddhist just steps out of the way and walks their own path—kind of like a rhino, if you get what I mean. We're talking about that original, primal Buddhism here; it's got those ascetic vibes similar to Jainism and stuff. But at its core, it's all about that "Middle Way," and that's the kicker. It’s especially amplified by that fusion with Taoism and a cultural mindset that doesn't really lean into the irrational the way India does. In the case of Japan, maybe it gets a little too externalized or "turned inward," but hey, you can't deny the depth there.

Yeah, he’s even talking about how gods suffer—how they’re just as fleeting as we are. Sure, they might be "perfect" compared to us mere mortals, but they still have personalities, right? And because of that, they're stuck in the same illusion, trapped in that endless cycle of birth and death. They’re paying the price just like everyone else. Just imagine how much that hits home for people—especially for us rebels who can't help ourselves.

Some people might argue this follows the exact same playbook as Hindu traditions—you know, all that stuff about infinity and the illusion of the self. They’ll probably claim that since basically all Western Hermeticism borrowed concepts from over there, those traditions are just collectively deeper than anyone gives them credit for. You could even find similar vibes in other mythologies, like how the ancient Greeks talked about Chaos. Honestly, Greek influence actually bled into Buddhism right as it was starting to decline, creating this massive fusion that helped shape the religion we know today.

So now it looks like I’m some kind of Buddhist—maybe because of my comments, or whatever, just asking—but honestly, I'm just a sympathizer. When I was younger, I was way more into that raw, shamanic window into the world—you know, the whole journey vibe. But lately—now that I've actually started posting about this stuff—I feel like I'm slowly drifting back toward that philosophy... maybe through Zen. Anyway, have you ever read Jung? What's your take on him if you have?

Look, I'm just gonna lay it out for you right now. 😁 Honestly, I couldn't care less about tradition... like, at all. I don't really bother memorizing stuff from books—maybe a little bit here and there—but mostly I’m just looking for the esoteric side of things if it exists. I'm a hardcore minimalist, really. I'm only interested in what's happening "behind the scenes."

The Buddha-charita isn't exactly a canonical text attributed directly to Buddha or his disciples; it’s more of a poetic biography. It feels a bit like quoting a Hollywood biopic about some religious event today.

Still, it holds some value, even if Buddha has become somewhat mythologized over the centuries.

He’s certainly viewed as an extraordinary figure, but not as a god. According to their beliefs, once he passed away and reached parinirvana, he effectively ceased to exist as a spiritual entity you could pray to or communicate with. In Buddhism, gods are just another part of the conditioned cycle of samsara itself.

Of course, the human need for faith and ritual is natural. Over time, ways to accommodate that have emerged even in more orthodox traditions—not to mention Tantric practices, though those rarely focus heavily on Buddha himself.

Hey, what’s the deal with Tantra anyway? How is it actually better than yoga?

From what I've gathered—it's basically about pushing desire until you hit a breaking point. It's about awakening by leaning into all those taboo subjects. (Buddhists do the same thing, too—meditating on death and all those gritty details most people just try to ignore.)

Am I hitting the nail on the head here... or what?