Why do Buddhists hate God? Do they not know that Buddha was secretly a trickster avatar of God in disguise?
Y.. yeah. You tell em.
>>42815681They don't, aversion is one of the three poisons. It's usually the other ones who like to slaughter each other over who's interpretation of god is correct while preaching love and peace. >In Buddhism, aversion (dosa) is a primary mental state that pushes away what is unpleasant, unwanted, or scary. It acts as one of the Three Poisons at the root of human suffering, showing up as anger, irritation, judgment, or violence
>why is hindoo antitheistic satanism anti god? Rebelling against indian society/religion was kind of the point from day one. The reactionary recontextualization of the resulting philosophy as an avatar of vishnu tricking mleccha into self eradication having little if any influence on buddhism itself
>>42815750> aversion is one of the three poisonsMention God or even the unity of everything to a Buddhist and see how aversive they get
>>42815771They have a concept called Dependent Origination which you might like. It's like if you blended the unity of everything with anatta
>>42815681The Buddha treated speculative questions about the creation of the universe or the existence of an ultimate supreme deity as irrelevant to the core goal of ending human suffering.He compared a person obsessed with cosmic or theological questions to someone shot by a poisonous arrow who refuses treatment until they know the name, caste, and background of the archer, resulting in their death before they get the answers.
>>42815771>Mention GodCan you prove there is an almighty God that created everything or do you believe it because scripture says so? Buddhists don't deny the existence of gods, demons and other spirits. >the unity of everythingBuddhists are generally non dualist and the concepts of dependent origination and sunyata are central teachings.
>>42815886> Can you prove there is an almighty God that created everything or do you believe it because scripture says so? Buddhists don't deny the existence of gods, demons and other spirits.There is no final “proof” for a relationship which by definition requires faith in the end. However, you can get most of the way there in your seeing to the extent that the faith comes more easily. Consider this.A cause never acts by itself. It only acts because other conditions allow it to act. Those conditions depend on still other conditions. There is no point where we find a completely independent cause.We divide this continuous process into separate things and events because doing so is useful. But those divisions do not create independent sources of causal power.So reality contains many distinguishable causes, but not many self-sufficient causes. Ultimately, there is one interconnected causal process generating every event. The whole process is commonly generated by a singular cause.What’s been philosophically established is only one total causal river with a single invariant and unique cause for everything at all scales, with no outside causal input. That’s not quite the same as arriving at a personal VishnuYahweh, but they are bedmates.>>42815874> They have a concept called Dependent Origination which you might like. It's like if you blended the unity of everything with anatta>>42815886> dependent originationDependent origination gets remarkably close, but stops one inference short. It correctly destroys independent local sourcehood: nothing generates itself; every event arises through conditions that are themselves conditioned. Anattā then says there is no little sovereign self standing outside that process and authoring it. All true. But stopping there, it’s like seeing that every wave depends on other waves, while refusing to infer an Ocean as a single acting whole. It refuses to call the causal unity one source.
>>42815681Probably since they know the word "God" has the implication, every time, of including and being the God of the Torah and Bible, which the Supreme Buddha, by definition, cannot be; since they would be guilty of supporting rape, murder, slavery and theft, crimes for which beings are sentenced to Naraka and Avīci.
>>42816015That’s incorrect. Buddhism emerged from the Hindu context of divinity.
>>42816019True>>42816015The biblical take is off as well. A person of God resides within the mind to guide as spirit. That does not make the mind and God the same.
>>42815681Incidently; this particular spell only works for beings playing for the Pinnacle of the Pyramid. Anyone who worships a being that isn't the supposed to be at the top of the Pyramid, simply says, when asked if they believe in God, simply reply no, they believe in (whatever deity the person believes in). For example; for pretty much my whole life when asked if I believed in God, I said "No, I believe in the Goddess Athena".Buddhists also know this, which is why they say No, they don't believe in God, they believe the Supreme Buddha is Supreme over all of existence, not this "God" you speak of.
>>42816038> For example; for pretty much my whole life when asked if I believed in God, I said "No, I believe in the Goddess Athena".Why would anyone take God to be a separate NODE (pagan god) as opposed to the Generator of the entire field (Ishvara)?
>>42816038>Anyone who worships a being that isn't the supposed to be at the top of the Pyramid, simply says, when asked if they believe in God, simply reply no, they believe in (whatever deity the person believes in).Then they are lying.If they know who they worship isnt the top, then they DO believe there is something greater - this "god" they speak of.>they believe the Supreme Buddha is Supreme over all of existenceYes, they try to make some semantic difference between what a deva is, but they accept Buddha as Paramesvara, Topmost over all, which is a name for god.
>>42816058"No I don't believe in God, I believe in the Goddess Amatarsu".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyktN7x_DSQ
>>42816058The Buddha teaches to gods and humans alike.Buddhist texts argue that a permanent, all-powerful creator god cannot logically account for an impermanent, suffering-filled world.Powerful deities sometimes equated with Ishvara (such as Maheshvara (Shiva)) are viewed in early Buddhist texts not as ultimate creators, but as high-level celestial beings who are still trapped within the cycle of birth and death.Traditional Buddhist refuge formulas explicitly instruct practitioners to take refuge only in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha) rather than worldly gods or supreme deities like Ishvara.Why? Because otherwise you feed suffering.
>>42816092> The Buddha teaches to gods and humans alike> Powerful deities sometimes equated with Ishvara (such as Maheshvara (Shiva)) are viewed in early Buddhist texts not as ultimate creators, but as high-level celestial beings who are still trapped within the cycle of birth and death.This is where it loses the plot. Ishvara isn’t Indra, or Athena. Ishvara isn’t a dependent node in the graph. Ishvara is what the entire graph including Buddha depends on. Buddha is not teaching THAT God, his own Generator, the unity of the causal river. It’s a geometric impossibility, because Buddha is local. Everything Buddha learned was received from the One.> otherwise you feed sufferingThe vision of God burns through all karma by grace. It cannot be locally manufactured.
>>42815879>He compared a person obsessed with cosmic or theological questions to someone shot by a poisonous arrow who refuses treatment until they know the name, caste, and background of the archerSo what you're saying is Buddha would have taken the jab.Buddhism is vaxxed religion.
>>42816087Wrong; it is the name of something else entirely, that is wrongly translated and asserted to mean such a thing, along with all the things it implies. Which is why Buddhist say they don't believe in God, they say they believe in the Supreme Buddha.
>>42816132>Which is why Buddhist say they don't believe in GodSo now it's a straight claim of not believing?What happened to all that "dont care, not focused on it" crap?>they believe in the Supreme So god.
>>42816123>Ishvara isn’t a dependent node in the graphRight, and in Buddhism the graph itself is natural and causal, not a deity, not conscious. Buddhism rejects that such a One could exist, given the nature of suffering/life.>>42816129>Buddhism is vaxxed religionIn much the same way the field of psychology is in the west.
>>42816123>The Japanese don't believe in "God"; they believe in Amaterasu-Omikami.So accept Goddess Amaterasu-Omikami as Supreme then, and not this "God" you speak of.
>>42815681Buddhists don't know god. They think nirvana is achieved if you die meditating and your body does not rot.
>>42816162> Buddhism rejects that such a One could exist, given the nature of suffering/life.That sucks that not even your own liberation shows you or involves the recognition that life is good. If peace is possible, then the generator able to be stably experienced as good. Illusion is illusion, it doesn’t have the final say.If nothing acts separately, then it’s One action. Period. Plainly so. Anything else is grievance.
>>42816142It's so "funny" you try to play this game, and play stupid when you get the answer. So I'll just give you the simple fuck you and your "trickster" bullshit deserve. No, in the name of Bogamil of Bogamilism I reject the evil so called being called "God" completely and embrace belief in Satan as the Supreme being.Now what asshole?
>>42816192My right hand often acts without my left hand knowing. As it is in me it is in the universe. Actions are separated infinitely in this way. It can equally be said that nothing fully acts as one. Grievance is an example of the very resistance that shows my words true. These are my words as well, unlike what I was sharing from Buddhism earlier. If you wish to judge me, make sure it's for something I actually believe.
>>42816213Lmao enjoy your consequences i guess.
>>42816213Then you’re embracing separation as ultimate and will go to separation-hell for clinging to a separate centre.
>>42816213>embrace belief in Satan as the Supreme being.So you accept a Supreme Being.So god.
>>42816232I've got a friend who worships Beelzebub. The image helps the ego I think, but the spirit behind it sounds good and true. This is not always the case, but when it is Satan and God are the same.
>>42816232No, I don't believe in God, I believe in Satan.
>>42816247God = supreme deity by infinite names unknowable in totality
>>42816232No, it isn't God; it's Satan that's this "Isvara" you speak of.
>>42816219The hand analogy actually helps my argument: two locally distinguishable motions, one inseparable causal process.Your right hand can act without your left hand knowing. But that does not make the hand a causally independent generator. Its action depends continuously on the nervous system, metabolism, body, environment, prior conditions, and so on.So when you say “actions are separated,” you have silently changed the meaning of separate: from causal independence to distinguishable / informationally isolatable. My claim never denied distinguishable actions. It denies independently acting sources, and that causation can be ontically divided at all (beyond just useful convention).
>>42816243People view the Supreme in all sorts of ways.>>42816247Supreme Being - so god.>>42816256>that's this "Isvara"So god.God is a mantle. A title. Like king.You are saying Satan is king.So you accept a king.Buddhists can say Buddha is king, and then get all pissy and say he's not called a king all they want.It's still accepting a king.
>>42816252No it isn't; or else such a being would have no identity, form, or opinion of it's own. A formless mass; which is why I said the term "God" has implications of identity and is something else entirely than the terms that literally mean something else.
>>42816232>>42816243>>42816247>>42816252>>42816256Satan is not the One, not Ishvara. Satan is no.2, the division/separation operator. That’s why he is associated with Hell. To pledge allegiance to Satan is really just to subscribe to multiplicity being fundamental.
>>42815681>avatar of God in disguise?He wasnt? No real masters of scriptures on either side support this
>>42816265No, I don't mean God; that is something else entirely. And don't think I didn't notice that you completely ignored Goddess Amatarsu as Supreme.Concession accepted.
>>42816273>Satan is no.2So you accept a Supreme.So god.this is trivial.We havent even dipped into impersonal conceptions of god where personhood is denied.
>>42816281>as Supreme.So god.
>>42816284I’m not the person you were arguing with, I’m clearing up that misconception that Satan can be another name of the One when by definition it is defined in opposition to.
>>42816271> no identity, form, or opinion of it's ownI can think of three off the top of my head. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I said God has an infinite number and your response was "no, because then he would have none." Check your logic.>>42816273You're confusing meaning and phrasing. I was very clear about the context in which they are the same, and it was in their distinguishment.
>>42816295>Satan can be another name of the OneIt can.People can refuse your definition and assert their own. Plenty accept the name Satan as referring to the Supreme. You can disagree, but that doesnt remove the fact that people who accept Satan as supreme accept a god.
>>42816058>Why would anyone take God to be a separate NODE (pagan god) as opposed to the Generator of the entire field (Ishvara)?No, I don't believe in Zeus (aka God, also known as God of Gods); I believe in the Goddess Athena.
>>42816312>aka GodSo you accept god, you just decide to worship something lesser.Or is what you worship supreme?
>>42816310> a god“A god” is not the One, the singular cause of All. Satan is local node geometry, he never fills that position.
>>42816312People like you are why I phrase the question:>When you are still and nothing is expected of you, how do you feel?
>>42816322>the singular cause of AllIs a conception of a god.And some would say the name of that is Satan.
>>42816329“God” means “no outside hand”. That’s not “a conception of a god”, that’s causal geometry. No one who worships Satan thinks Satan is unopposed as the only causer. Satan is an accusation/division/separation operator.
>>42816318So you're saying you don't believe in Zeus (aka God, God of Gods)?
>>42816336>“God” means “no outside hand”.This is a conception of a god as well, and some would name it Satan.>No one who worships Satan thinks Satan is unopposed as the only causer.Simply untrue.>>42816338I accept a Supreme Person.Why did you run like a little bitch from answering my questions?
>>42816336>>42816284>>42816273>>42816271>>42816265I notice you all decided to ignore Boglamism. Rofl.
>>42816347So, from insisting the term must be "God", to switching to the term "supreme person"; implying that it isn't "God". Well, since you've just literally said you don't believe in "God", I'm glad we're in agreement.I don't believe in Zeus (God, God of Gods, Supreme "Person"). I believe in the Goddess Athena.
>>42816347> Simply untrueIt’s true. “Satan” means an adversary. An adversary is relationally defined: Satan opposes, accuses, obstructs. That already presupposes something beyond Satan. The One, by contrast, has no metaphysical outside and therefore no genuine rival. So the moment Satan is conceived as an independent anti-God, he is necessarily not the One. Worshipping Satan as the absolute One would erase the very adversarial distinction that makes him Satan in the first place.
>>42815681Because god is a sadist
>>42816370>the term must be "God"Not really, I prefer The Supreme.Which is why I asked the questions which you ran like a bitch from.So you accept [the supreme], you just decide to worship something lesser.Or is what you worship supreme?>Well, since you've just literally said you don't believe in "God"I didnt say that at all.You are very dishonest.And you STILL didnt answer the questions.>>42816371>It’s true.Its not true.There are people that worship what they call Satan as Supreme.you can disagree with them and be pedantic, but that is irrelevant to the fact that people worship and conceive of Satan as Supreme.
>>42816371Many reject those historical definitions, seeing them as the words of the true adversary and not to be trusted. This is why it's not so simple.
>>42816396> There are people that worship what they call Satan as Supreme.>>42816397Ask any “Satan is Supreme” devotee if they worship the One, or God specifically. The answer is no, because then it’s no longer Satan, it’s God.
>>42816383As I said earlier; it's quite easy to get around. No, I don't believe in God, I believe in the Goddess Athena.
>>42816415I've gotten yes and no, and sometimes I see what they worship as similar enough to God to get along and sometimes I don't, regardless if their answer is yes or no.
>>42816415>Ask any “Satan is Supreme” devotee if they worship the OneI have. They say Satan is Supreme and "the One" and "god" or whatever word or phrase you want to use.
>>42816396I already told you, I don't believe in Zeus (aka God, God of Gods, "Supreme Person"), I believe in the Goddess Athena.
>>42816446Weren’t you the poster arguing against theistic dependant origination earlier… >>42816259
>>42816427>>42816450Thus, you accept god, and you accept what you worship isnt god, but lesser.
>>42816450Is it not odd to believe in Zeus' daughter, but not in Zeus?
>>42816454I'll argue against anything. People read into it at their own peril. No though, that wasn't really the point I was making, so I stopped replying.
>>42816448That’s nice, then they’re butchering language. The disagreement becomes theological and semantic: whether “Satan” correctly names the One’s character. “Satan” means adversary/opposer. So Satan-as-the-One destroys the opposition relation that gives “Satan” its meaning. You can rename the Absolute “Satan,” but then you’ve changed the referent rather than elevated the adversary.
>>42816476Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.>The disagreement becomes theological and semanticNo, purely semantic. You've just been whining and gay-slapping over a label.>rather than elevated the adversary.No one is trying to do that, because no one who accept the label Satan for The Supreme sees any adversary to be elevated.You are assuming your religion is correct and where everyone else starts.And that is retarded.
>>42816486The Hebrew שָׂטָן (śāṭān) comes from the root שׂ־ט־ן (Ś-Ṭ-N): to oppose, obstruct, act as an adversary/accuser. If you lift a HEBREW WORD for your object of worship expect it to have a meaning. That’s why they use the word in the first place.
>>42816519>The HebrewWe're speaking English, kike.
>>42816456No, I don't believe in or accept Zeus as the God I believe in, I believe in the Goddess Athena.>>42816459What do you mean? You can worship whatever God or Goddess you want in America; is it not like that in other lands?
>>42816521דִּין
>>42816523Do you accept Zeus as Supreme, or do you accept Athena as supreme?Either way - god. It's just a matter of whether you are choosing to worship a lesser being.
>>42816529>how quickly they recoil. "Oh! I have been struck!"
>>42816523It's like saying>I believe in bread>but i don't believe in grainwhere do you think the bread comes from?
>>42816543Judgment is the natural and expected result of using hate speech.
>>42816523By the beard of Sobek, the Great Crocodile God, next you people are going to tell me that I can't believe that Sobek is Supreme and the Creator of all even though he isn't The Lord, aka, God (Amen Ra).
>>42816530>>42816567But anon; Sobek isn't God!
>>42816565>please get distracted by my pretending calling me out on my jewry is hate speechThere are people that accept a Supreme Person, and their name for that Supreme Person is Satan.You can be as holocausted about this as you want.It remains true.
>>42816567>>42816577How far do you want to take this?
>>42816567>>42816577>I can't believe that Sobek is Supreme and the Creator of all even though he isn'tYou could - but clearly you dont.Here. Let's find out.Is Sobek the Supreme Person?
>>42816565hate speech is a natural and expected result of using judgement>i hate nazis!see how brave i am
>>42816590If supremacy is all that matters, Abraxis wins every time. That's not God to me though.
>>42816595>If supremacy is all that matters, Abraxis wins every time.Nonsense. Plenty of people wouldnt even consider that label as important at all.Though it sounds like YOU consider Abraxas as god.>That's not God to me So you agree with those that would say Abraxas is NOT the Supreme.
>>42816581Then they are stupid and illiterate, simple as
>>42816602Abraxas is the supreme. What we see as supreme is not a matter of God, but of our limitation.
>>42816603No, they just consider you a liar and deceiver.And your animosity would just be another point in support off their claim.>>42816609>What we see as supreme is not a matter of GodSure it is. God is the Supreme Person.If you say Abraxas is Supreme, then you accept Abraxas as god.
>>42816590It's completely legitimate, in terms of Ancient Egypt to believe Sobek is so, even though he isn't God (Amen Ra). But then you keep insisting for some reason on saying that I must believe in God if I believe in Sobek.
>>42816617>even though he isn't GodSo no - you DONT accept Sobek as The Supreme.>you keep insisting for some reason on saying that I must believe in God if I believe in Sobek.God is a title. A mantle.If you think Sobek is the Supreme Person, then Sobek is God.If you think there is some other Supreme - person or not - then Sobek is not god.Your problem is you think god is a name, instead of a mantle.And that is retarded.you have been brainwashed into accepting "God" as some name, likely for some Christian conception.No a single person here is talking about that.Except maybe the jew.
>>42816616I don't accept that God is a person, I don't accept that God is defined by the human concept of supremacy (it's a paradox anyway, you defeat your own argument), and I don't accept that Abraxas is anything but the a supreme model, one lacking the inherent characteristics of God because of that supremacy.
>>42816582I'm not sure what you mean anon; usually units of understanding aren't measured in distance that way. How many miles (number of soldiers) did you have in mind to settle the dispute?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbu4MqBQQs
>>42816638>I don't accept that God is a personThen you dont accept Abraxas as Supreme.You think some impersonal substance or state of existence is god.
>>42816639>units of understandingthey are framesunderstanding is ascertaining (inclusion) and relating (perspective). One can traverse the frames of understanding like the vertexes of cubes within cubes. The road from Sobek to Abraxas is more like a zooming motion.>>42816644>You think some impersonal substance or state of existence is godNo, I think God is the union of three persons, and trying to introduce the idea of supremacy between them is foolish.
>>42816628>Amun-Ra was the supreme "King of the Gods" in ancient EgyptBut anon; even though it's completely legitimate to believe that Sobek is Supreme, he cannot possibly be God, aka The Lord, (Amen Ra) by definition! One cannot use the term God to refer to anyone else as Pharoah of Pharoahs, except using the term god, but when saying God, The Lord, one must be referring to Amen Ra!
>>42816660>trying to introduce the idea of supremacy between them is foolish.And yet you said>Abraxas is the supreme.So you are clearly not very consistent.>>42816670>it's completely legitimate to believe that Sobek is SupremeAnyone who does, does not accept Amen Ra as Supreme.By definition.
>>42816680I am entirely consistent, but you still do not see where you are not. You are equating supremacy with God. If that is the case, Abraxas must be God. However, Abraxas cannot be God because Abraxas is not good. God is not just supreme. God is love, and God is truth. Abraxas is beyond such things. Abraxas is supreme, but not God or even a god.
>>42816660Well, thank evilness for that; for a few minutes there I thought for sure that the only thing I would read here is more nonsensical jewish-English gibberish!
>>42816717>I am entirely consistentWhich is supreme - Abraxas or this consortium of three?> You are equating supremacy with God.Yes.>Abraxas cannot be God because Abraxas is not goodNothing about God says he must be judged good.But if that is your conception, then Abraxas is not supreme.
There's a reason buddhists are considered a disruptive untouchable class that is supposed to be purged by the kalki avatar at the end of kali yuga
>>42816743Abraxas is supreme, but only the "consortium of 3" is deserving of being seen as supreme.They are God, and they are supreme morally where the most supreme supremacy can never be.
>>42816680Well, obviously anon; but that doesn't mean they believe in God (Amen Ra), it means they believe in Sobek as the Supreme Deity and Creator of All.What's so hard to understand about this? They clearly don't believe in God (Amen Ra).
>>42816765>Abraxas is supreme, but only the "consortium of 3" is deserving of being seen as supreme.Not consistent and self contradictory.>They are God, and they are supremeAt least we agree on this, even though you pretend to disagree so you can keep being contrarian.>>42816767>Well, obviously anonI accept your concession.
>>42816776You had to not include my words to get that reading, you realize that right? Burying your head in the sand wont make your inconsistency go away. Absolute supremacy can never be supreme morally.
>>42816776>Well, obviously anon>I accept your concession.No problem Anon; I'm happy to hear that you're a true believer in God.
>>42816776it's not that God is more supreme than Abraxas, it's that supremacy is a category God's perfection exceeds the relevance of, not just the degree of.
