The dire ape or grassmonkey is a species of children of Satan. In the West worship of lies takes the form of Christianity. In the East, it's Buddhism.
Occidental Satanism does this clever political thing where it forms two camps of Satanism and has them fight, so that each constitutes a trap for anyone who notices they should reject the other. False dichotomies where each horn of the dilemma is merely a different flavour of Rebellion against Existence per se. Christianity vs. Atheism. Black government vs. a dogma of lawlessness. Submission vs. lack of discipline. Police-State terrorism vs. anarcho-tyranny.
Oriental Satanism is blunt and unsophisticated. "You don't have a body. You don't have feelings. You don't apprehend anything and all your decisions are wrong." Turns out all the high-society intellectuals who claim that consciousness doesn't exist were plagiarizing Mahayana. (With poor comprehension, as is normal for plagiarists.)
The above are the five "skandhas" put into plain language. Theravada is a little more veiled while under Mahayana the scolding denial becomes downright crude.
Here in Reality, imperfection is superior to perfection. And impermanence is a divine gift - without it, all your mistakes would be eternal. Here in Reality, desire is one of the core life-forces of the cosmos. Desire leads to growth. Lack of desire leads to death, to nonexistence.
The skandhas are simply a decent (if basic) science-like account of the existence stack, as long as you strip off the putrid superstition.
"If there is nothing but the 5 kandhas and that is all a being is, liberation is impossible." https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1705419520150556786 Conquest #1 failure - left his lane, immediately became lost. If there was something beyond the 5 skandhas it would be fundamentally identical to the skandhas. Consciousness is just what having and existence is like. Having a body is plain what interacting with other consciousnesses is like. Liberation is impossible because liberation is unnecessary - you are already free. "Needing" liberation is cope.
The actual source of suffering is delusion. Such as the idea you need liberation. The idea that anyone is suppressing you except you yourself. If you're a horrible peasant doomed to backbreaking, degenerating labour and then death, then turning to Buddhism is choosing to perpetuate this suffering, out of cowardice and sloth. There is no solution except to properly grasp the "impermanent" world and deal with the "base" or "fallen" considerations that physically cause this "undeserved" suffering.
Stuff being impermanent or the opposite of Plato's forms is rather obviously luxury propaganda. "Hue hue I can afford to ignore mere material considerations (because I'm already filthy rich)." Except this is anti-class signalling, because it means the "luxury" signaller has to care about what the filthy peasants think. Self-refuting. They have to signal callous distance because they're fully entwined with the pauper class. Satanic Satanism.
You never step in the same river twice? Perhaps, depending on exactly how you define [river]. However, if you step in a river, it's always permanently true that at that moment you stepped in that river. (Haha, oops - oh wait that lie wasn't an error.) The Atman is whatever actually happened. Impermanence is itself a type of permanence - in other words, these words are dumb and you shouldn't use them, they're merely aids to confusion and delusion.
Lol @ this koan: "All things are impermanent, including impermanence." I guess we're not suffering then, lol. Impermanence must have already failed to maintain itself by now.
Buddhism wants you to reject growth as 'impermanent' and the 'source of all suffering' and instead, like a coward, embrace decay. Buddhism is inherently dishonourable. The only question is whether Siddhartha's teachings were (instantly) corrupted or whether the 'saint' himself was a genuine paragon of suicidal corruption. Was he a weak failure, or did he attempt to worship falsehood and succeed brilliantly?
Nirvana is a fancy trick name for nonexistence and annihilation. It really is just suicide for folk too squeamish to knife themselves in the wrist. Nirvana is the solution for folk who want to betray their own body and betray themselves, but can't otherwise muster the will to pray "be not" to Gnon.
I suppose Buddhism constitutes a solution to narcissism. (Don't forget Satan was portrayed as arch narcissist.) Quarantines the sewage sacks away from less-indecent folk. However, this "solution" requires a bunch of lying, and is thus Satanic. Thus cancerous, incidentally - ref, Tibet. Ye shall indeed know them by their fruits.
The correct solution to narcissism is execution. Saves everyone a whole lot of trouble. Narcissism is a capital crime. If the child can't take care of themselves despite reaching an adult age, they have failed. Incarnate that failure sooner, rather than making them pester less-indecent folk until someone snaps.
4 comments:
No. Christianity is anti-Buddhism. Though to be fair there have been long periods where it sailed close to it and some of its members have crossed the line. Particularly towards the end of the first millennia. The achievement of Aquinas was to reassert the theology of being, identity and materiality. The notion that the created world was good was reaffirmed.
"It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say "little children love one another" rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him. All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as a divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed"
Satanic.
Fever dream masquerading as logic. I'm very sorry for anyone who has such a bad personality disorder that this works on them.
Asians are just too stupid to understand Buddha. He was not saying that all that exists is the 5 skandas; he was trying to point to what is beyond them without naming it. He saya literally "the 5 skandas are not the self." But being retarded, Asians interpretted that backwards as "you are only the 5 skandas." In fact not all of them even did. In the time of Childers in the early 1800s most of Sri Lanka held the interpretation I just gave and believed in a soul; Childers wrote a book revealing to the common public that the most educated Buddhist monks believed the skandas are all there is and there is no soul. Childers was a Methodist and he wanted to scandalize the Buddhists to make them convert to Chrristianity; revealing the secret that their top scholars denied the soul was the ticket, and it worked and many became Cheistians. Buddhism also changed for good; Childers' move gave those top scholars the power to redefine Buddhism in their own nigilistic image after s many soul believing Buddhists left for Christianity and inly retarded atheists were left in Buddhism
The problem with the skandas is precisely that Buddha says they're not the self. It's Sophism. Seems to be independent of Protagoras but very much in the spirit of the Axial Age.
If Buddhism isn't pure annihilation the way Christianity shows itself to be, it's due to creative misinterpretation. If you misinterpret Christianity as being somehow martial it's not as destructive as uninhibited full Biblical Christianity. The latter always frees criminals and shelters them from justice, for example. From the Dark Ages until Prussian schooling, the Christian nations were distinctly unChristian in this way. Buddhism isn't demoncracy if you're only playing lip service or appreciating the aesthetics or whatever.
Post a Comment