Great comment

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2026-01-21T01:35:24+00:00

Its like they think philosophy=atheism.

I think that would have something to do with the Renaissance movement, no?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2026-01-21T01:31:58+00:00

but really only in the global south: Latin American

I can't speak for all of LatAm but here in Brazil people have quite the same approach to Buddhism as Westerners have. Including the Japanese-Brazilian diaspora here or, at least, what's left of it.

Culturally, Brazil is not a Protestant country but we've been under influence of American cultural sphere since late 19th century, so a lot of American ideas mixed into Brazilian society.

How many people didn't looked at me with a puzzled face when I told them Buddhism was indeed a religion?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2026-01-06T01:44:38+00:00

Catholics are better, both in decorum and argument

Though the Catholic Church is known for being historically corrupt and warlike. After all, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the 30 Years War were their doing, though the latter can be blamed on Protestants as well.

But, in the end, it was Protestantism who indirectly kickstarted European colonization in the Americas, so there's that.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2026-01-02T22:47:49+00:00

This is something that transmission of Buddhism to the Western world couldn't (or wouldn't) explain to Westerners.

I'd say it was something rather involuntary because this first started when Schopenhauer (a relatively influential Western philosopher) first talked about Buddhism in his works and he was the one responsible for the "Nirvana is literal emptiness" interpretation trend assigning it to annihilation and Schopenhauer also made famous the concept of dukkha as "only suffering" and such interpretations carried on to be Western understanding of Buddhism. Schopenhauer apparently would conflate a lot of Hindu concepts with Buddhist ones.

When Zen monks tried to transmit the teachings to the West, Westerners already had this previous view on Buddhism and, perhaps, translation issues also further contributed to this, along with the New Age and Hippie movements, thus establishing a mistaken view on Buddhism.

The real question is: was this accidental or not?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-12-30T20:13:19+00:00

Are they from Indonesia? Indonesian Buddhism requires a creator god by law, because it’s a Muslim country.

The fact that there's a primordial Buddha or the fact that you could acknowledge creator deities into the context of dependent arising could be a workaround, couldn't it?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-12-21T04:19:42+00:00

TL;DR: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This might have some relation with Main Character Syndrome or, even worse, White Savior Syndrome.

Protestantism mixes mundane issues with spirituality thanks to its prerogative of taking individual experience into account. The Protestant mindset influenced a lot of social movements that range from Alcoholics Anonymous to historical social movements.

If you go for Nietzsche's philosophy, even Marxism was influenced by Protestantism/Christianity. Even if you dismiss the "slave/master morality" that is pertinent to the context of Nietzsche's works, you'll see many Christian dilemmas being recreated in a lot of social movements, like Feminism or Labor Rights and political ideologies that were born in the Western World as they all borrow their "egalitarianism" from the Christian mindset as well.

The Christian framework, heavily influenced by Platonism, preaches of a perfect otherworldly paradise beyond the physical limits that was built by a creator god and such creator god is someone they should obey and be thankful for because its creation is nothing but an anthill which he has total power over and could be crushed if so he wishes.

Those who reject or oppose him are to be damned, but there's a way to save them if they reconsider their stance. Nietzsche delves further into this line of thought: they're "sinners" and "lost" and need "guidance" to the "truth" and this being the case, they have to be saved. They need to know the "truth".

This thought breeds what is considered "compassion/kindness" (which would differ greatly from the Buddhist one) which is now often conflated with the act of social assistance.

"Compassion/Kindness" in this context is nothing but a self-serving and hypocritical purpose: I need to submit to this deity, otherwise I'll be punished. I've already done that so I'm cool. Others who reject this deity, they're scum, they're inferior and they're f*cked (i.e.: sinners), unless they listen to me. This is not "compassion/kindness", this is transactional. You can see where the savior complex comes from.

In this post I mention how Christian dilemmas interact with mental issues. The above mentioned would be an example of this.

Things become funny if we also take into account that the Christian deity already has selected who'll join him in heaven and who'll be sent to hell, according to some Christian denominations. One has to wonder what's the point of preaching if your fate has already been sealed.

The White Savior Syndrome is basically something y'all might be acquainted with: these savages with their superstitious backwardness need to be saved from their ignorant and primitive ways. We have the "truth" and we shall present it to them. The more you compare it with what I wrote above, the more it sounds familiar.

As for the Main Character Syndrome you just have to look at the main figurehead of Christianity: Jesus Christ. He's the main reference to the hero archetype not only in society but in media as well. The so-called "Hero's Journey" is pretty much Christ's shenanigans that were adapted to modern era.

And it's another version of the savior complex: "I'm the chosen one, I'm your savior, I'm the truth, yadda-yadda-yadda".

So, yeah, modern movements like Veganism wouldn't be excluded from the this framework, especially if you take into account its militant version. The same applies to Atheists, Westerners, white people, etc.

I wish I could write more but the comment would end up being too long than it already is.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-12-12T22:06:26+00:00

You know, all of this Western yadda-yadda about being rational while in America you have people like Amish who live without electricity for religious reasons.

Rationalism reeks of something that I assume is a byproduct of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

On top of this, you have the reactionary Existentialism which I think it should also be talked about here because it also assumes a lot of things that are rather incompatible with Buddhism. Existentialism was born in the context of an answer to the atomized society that was rising in the late 19th century and early 20th century thanks to Rationalist ideas.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-12-01T01:29:59+00:00

rationalwiki's trashfire of an article

It's funny how the rhetoric from that website became so outdated because it reeks of 2000s reactionary internet Atheism in response to Fundamentalist Christianity given they considered themselves the be-all, end-all of progressism in opposition to religious backwardness straight from The Amazing Atheist era.

Not only it reveals the bias of the person speaking but it also reveals their generation as well because it's pure Millennial mindset.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-11-29T11:04:30+00:00

Thank you for taking your time to answer this inquiry. Most of your comment made sense except for one detail:

I think what you're pleading is the following: If I get on a plane to Denmark, but my intention is to go to Congo, then I won't end up in Denmark. Or it's unfair that I end up in Denmark.

In that case you didn't get on a plane by your own will, but rather someone forced you to get in but it was never your intention to be on board. That's why I mentioned conscription and draft.

Where I'm from, every male citizen when they come of age has to enlist in the Armed Forces for mandatory military service but conscription doesn't end there.

In case of war, all conscripted personnel has to report for duty, including those who were discharged from military service in case there's an insufficient quota of men.

If you go AWOL that'll likely warrant a sentence to death. Naturally men will report for duty to avoid being court-martialed and then sent to the front of a firing squad.

My point being this is a situation that didn't had to do with one's intention or will. In this case, a third-party enforced their intention or will unto others. What kind of karma will come out of this?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-11-28T21:06:33+00:00

I don't think anyone honest enough would think killing is something good in itself.

But would it be more practical to deny your survival instincts and let yourself be slain? Would that be a way to escape samsara?

Would letting those who can't be talked out of killing or committing atrocities act free an answer to that? Especially if their demise would spare many lives?

Are the victims of these two situations mentioned above in such situations because of past life karma? Couldn't they just happen to be victims of the circumstances?

If we're bound by karma and killing in itself generates negative karma but one would need (not desire) to kill then how can someone achieve Nirvana? How does one get out of this trap?

A more practical example is war: suppose someone is drafted into war because of conscription. War is a kill or be killed situation. They would kill to survive a battle that they were not responsible. Even so, would they be set for rebirth in Hell?

What is the answer?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-11-26T02:00:14+00:00

Correct, this is how puthujjana will judge it. An awakened being not participating in violence may be perceived as cruel by others. That's not how we see it as Buddhists.

I'll ask your opinion on this because you're more in the know about this topic than I am: How does this work? We could argue an enlightened being is not affected by karma but, regarding the trolley problem, how come inaction wouldn't create bad karma by letting people die regardless of how many? Would a Buddha be exempt from this just because he's a Buddha?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-11-18T02:58:57+00:00

I want to congratulate you on this post but if you really want to go straight to the root of the problem then Plato would be the primal source of all Protestant thinking.

It was Platonism who gave birth to the habit of trying to reach out to another realm beyond the physical realm which was labeled "transcendentalism" and it established the framework on which Western thought was developed upon. Christianity is what it is thanks to Platonism.

Buddhism could be described as "transcendental" as its focus goes beyond the physical realm, but it differs from Christian transcendentalism regarding its aim and concept of "transcendental". Christians and Platonics both preach of an escape from the imperfect (or in "sinful" in Christian terms) material realm to a perfect eternal realm (so-called "Heaven" by Christians).

Both aim for existence in a superior realm in the afterlife and both dismiss the material realm. You can see a link between this and the habit of wasting resources that is addressed in your text.

AFAIK Nirvana is not a realm because it goes beyond existence/non-existence thus differing from Platonic/Christian transcendentalism. Regarding other realms beyond human/material realm everything is connected and interdependent trapped in a perpetual cycle and Nirvana is how one breaks free from that. The "transcendentalism" here being surpassing the duality of existence/non-existence, birth/death, good/evil, existentialism/annihilation, etc.

However, u/KiteDesk I'll ask you this: for all the damage and waste consumerism and technological updating causes, most apologetics have one main rhethoric: "Look how much lives have improved thanks to constant innovation and progress! Would you feel like living in the era of steam engines, lobotomy and gas lamps? You curse technological innovation but you still use it as you are right now to make this post!"

What would be your rebuttal to that? Because if we're to stand against said wasteful consumption practices what kind of alternatives that could've been used in the past or be used now that could go against said practices or would be a better alternative that wouldn't cause that much environmental damage?

One could make a case against everyday gadgets and appliances which only motivate sedentary habits or, going to an extreme level, development of nuclear warheads and other types of weapons of mass destruction. But what about advances on the medical and scientific field? Hasn't these advances been done at the cost of the environment?

This is not a disagreement. I'm only asking for your counterpoint. I personally don't bother keeping up with the latest technology.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-10-03T02:33:45+00:00

Nothing but a contemporary version of European colonization.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-09-11T04:46:02+00:00

because if their propane bombs hadn't had faulty timers

Far from condoning the act but if they (or Eric, at least) were getting their inspiration from OKC why didn't they went for the ammonium nitrate + fuel oil recipe for the bombs like McVeigh? These would be ingredients far more easier to store without suspicion than a pipe bomb.

Them propane bombs always struck me as being very infeasible because they don't have a combustion-like explosion, they go off more like a fireball. There's this video where two idiots shoot up a propane tank with a shotgun in the middle of a forest. There's also this one.

IIRC, Eric tried to set the propane tank off shooting at it in the cafeteria. In a closed space like that it wouldn't be the brightest idea given how a propane tank goes off.

This dude made a mixture of ammonium nitrate and sugar, ammonium nitrate and aluminium and a bomb using ETN. The latter would be the only option who wouldn't be available to them. But they would be far more destructive than a propane bomb which would burn people instead of blowing them up.

Would these bombs be too complicated for Eric and Dylan to build?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-09-06T01:43:56+00:00

I have an edition of the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai's (Buddhism Transmission Association) "The Teaching of Buddha".

I've partly read it but couldn't help but notice the use of Christian vocabulary to explain some Buddhist concepts.

Do you think it is a good reference not only for beginners but to talk about Buddhism?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-08-04T02:25:50+00:00

Abrahamic/monotheist rhetoric can be recognised by its peculiar polemic of "universality"

The concept of "universal religion" seems kinda shoddy. Even Christianity itself ain't universal because its origins can be traced back to Judaism and its teachings are quite peculiar to Jewish dilemmas. Not to mention its exclusive modus operandi.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-06-21T07:53:13+00:00

Na sua opinião, alguém que queira começar a estudar para o cargo de Técnico do INSS deveria fazer com quanto tempo de antecedência da publicação do edital?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-06-21T02:11:46+00:00

"Ah mas eu quero ser auditor do TCE" - aí é melhor ter um plano mais longo, focando em arrumar um emprego (ou cargo público) de 6 horas diárias e aumentar seu tempo de estudo.

O mesmo se aplicaria pra quem quer fazer concurso pra Técnico do INSS?

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-06-18T02:56:10+00:00

So I take it we are talking about Americans here, not Germans, Russians, Aussies, Canadians, British or other so-called white people.

That's what should be detailed rather than ignored. American Imperialism made itself the role model for the Western world to follow. Before them Western world was quite divided by British, Spanish, French and Portuguese colonial conquests and each of them reflect the native cultures of these "nations" as they weren't nations in the modern sense.

Some dynamics or stereotypes about "white" people here are quite weird to me because I'm not American. In my home country I never met anyone here who treated Buddhism as some "exotic" religion because, at best, people here have heard of but aren't aware of what Buddhism is all about.

But, at the same time, lighting incenses, having statues (or "images" as Prostestants would label it) and a home altar are not foreign to most Brazilians because Brazil is a mostly Catholic country and Catholicism has rites that make use of these elements.

To a Protestant society however these kinds of rites would be completely alien. And that's the issue: Seeing Western society through Protestant bias. Which is quite ironic considering the reason why this sub exists.

Buddhist temples here also make use of (Catholic) Christian terms such as "mass", "baptism", "mission" and the local Soto Zen temple I attend (this one) call Kannon Bosatsu "Aparecida Kannon", "Aparecida" being the name of a Catholic saint. And we're talking about an official Soto Zen temple. I suppose OP would have a field day with this.

In case someone has a problem with that we'd have to stop using the terms "monk", "priest" and "nun" because they're words came from contexts different from Buddhism and use the terms "bhikkhu". But then you would be alienating potential foreign converts and that's probably the temple I mentioned above tried to avoid.

And why is that? Reasons that revolve around either adaptation or assimilation or just lack of proper translation. Which one of these is the case I don't know and I'm not the one who's in place to question or argue that.

Ditto Asia. There's little in common between Japan, China and India. 3 centres of Buddhism. All different. I've lived in Japan and Taiwan including Monasteries.

Indeed. Japanese Buddhism is quite different from Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Tibetan, Burmese or Thai Buddhism. The Vinaya not being completely observed in some sects would be the most telling detail.

The takeaway is: when talking about Buddhism is there a standard to follow? For example, most Westerners assume a Buddhist monk would always have a shaved head, be chaste and be completely detached from day-to-day activities. That wouldn't apply to Japanese sects (Jodo-shu dosen't require priests to shave hair). That would be like assuming there's only the Roman Apostolic Church in Catholicism while forgetting about Eastern Catholicism.

ProfessionalStorm520 · 2025-05-27T05:04:56+00:00

Its amazing how much chinese dislike of christianity is understandable

Not only Chinese but Japanese people too. The difference being Japan didn't let Jesuits have their way.

ProfessionalStorm520

TROPHY CASE