Egbert Moray-Falls

Courtesy of Eran ud Turan Painting from the Buddhist temple of Kalai Kafirnigan, northern Tokharistan / Bactria (in southern Tajikistan), 7th - 8th Century. Photographed at National museum of Tajikistan last spring.

I agree with the sentiments of both Hammer and Vajra, and Elders: Buddhism can absolutely work harmoniously with folk religion, folk interests and the various pantheons of gods, but Buddhism should be thoroughly understood on its own terms, especially if one takes ordinations and initiations, such as Refuge and Abhisheka. Buddhism is clear: in order to attain the unsurpassable, utterly perfected, complete awakening, one must develop total renunciation of the ordinary activities, and ordinary gods of samsara. Where people misunderstand is in thinking that renunciation ultimately means rejection, this is not so. First, one has to understand that Buddhism posits at the very outset total personal responsibility for one's entire experience of all phenomena. That's tough. Everything wrong with the entire universe is your personal responsibility. So what are you going to do? The Hinayana teaches you to take refuge in a qualified guide, the Buddha, an effectual path, the Dharma, and the Order of committed brethren who have likewise undertaken the same path. Having done that, you learn the precepts in order to create space between you and the stimuli of your negative behaviours, and in that space to begin to study and practice. The Mahayana teaches that, once you have some stability inside yourself, you can no longer disengage from samsara but must learn to engage as a Bodhisattva: with wisdom and love. By practicing the six paramitas you learn the benefits of putting others before yourself, and come to understand the empty nature of phenomena directly. Emptiness requires study and practice to understand. It is not intended to be taught to those without inner stability and devotion towards the Buddhadharma. It is not nihilism, it does not deny that things exist. It is the recognition of interdependent arising, and the two levels of truth. The relative truth is established by perception and convention, the ultimate, while possessing experiential qualities, has no definable essence, and is thus beyond concept. The later Mahayana sutras also make it clear that this can be seen as fundamental Buddha nature, as it is the very realisation of non-dual emptiness that gives rise to the Buddhas with their wonderous qualities. The Vajrayana teaches that based on love and emptiness, you can perceptually transform any and every experience that exists into the nature of enlightenment. This is by no means easy, which is why it is the most esoteric path, requiring initiation and guidance of a qualified Guru. I'm this way, you don't actually need to part from daily life, nor do you deny the existence of gods, spirits, heavens, hells, but you see through and past them. You can interact with gods, with families, clans, races, and local traditions, but, as a Bodhisattva, a hero, your goal is not to enthrone outer forms of tradition, but to transcend them, and benefit all beings in doing so. The discipline of Hinayana, the expansive love, and view of emptiness, of the Mahayana, and the transformation of body, speech and mind of the Vajrayana, are all methods to actually reach the goal and become the Supreme Conqueror of all phenomena. They are not dogmas. They are not attacks on paganism born of sectarianism. Buddha explicitly stated that his teachings should not be taken on blind faith, but should be investigated and considered by those who wish to understand. It's up to you whether you decide to take this path or not, but try to investigate it honestly, rather than trying to plunder what you can to serve a personal ideology. So you love your people, that's fine, help them, but don't be partial and don't be attached. So you love the gods, fine. Respect them, make offerings to them, but don't take them as your guides to enlightenment without first fully investigating their qualifications. So you don't want to be Buddhist, fine, but don't be surprised when faithful Buddhists want to present their forthright understanding of their own doctrine, according to their study and practice of the traditional scriptures and methods.

We can explain in sum the specific character of the religious perspective per se as opposed to the initiatory one by saying that the former is centred on the conception of the deity as person ( = theism), and is defined by an essential, ontological, distance, between this God-person, whose place is principial, and man, whose place is subordinate, which results in a transcendence which admits only relations of dependence, of devotion, or, at the extreme, transport and mystical ecstasy, while the limit corresponding to the relation "human 'I' - divine 'Thou'" remains firm. Initiation, by contrast, has as its premise the removal of this limit, and in its place posits the principle of the 'Supreme Identity', whose counterpart is a supra-personal conception of the First Principle. Beyond God-as-person, there is the Unconditioned, a superior reality to both Being and non-Being, and to any specifically religious representation (some have spoken of a "Supergod"). As is well-known, in Hindu metaphysics, and in the original forms of Buddhism, for instance, the personal god, the gods and the celestial kingdoms were recognised, but an inferior degree of reality was accorded to them and they were considered as belonging themselves to the realm of the conditioned. The Absolute is beyond them. In Neoplatonism, whose connections to the world of the Hellenistic Mysteries are established, we find analogous conceptions. This shows how arbitrary it is to speak indiscriminately of 'religion' wherever there are relations between man and a supra-human world. - Julius Evola Credit: https://t.me/c/1755450876/475

In addition, while Buddhism does have a different cosmological, theological, and metaphysical outlook than Abrahamic faiths and some modern interpretations of Paganism, when analyzed in a historical and cross religious Indo-European, Old European, and older religious world view it doesn't come off as that alien. Instead, they flow very well within it. Buddhism being seen as escapism isn't any better than Valhalla, Heaven, Zoroastrian ressurerction, etc, being used as escapism. Living ones life properly, fulfilled, and to the best is what is promoted by Buddhism proper, as well as all other Aryan faiths. Being fully passive, life denying, or nihilistic and escapist isn't Buddhist, isn't Indo-European in nature, and isn't of Arya spirituality.

I have seen an uptick of right Buddhist groups and adherents who are starkly anti-Pagan, anti-folk faith, and anti-divinity. In turn, this has prompted Pagan groups to make anti-Buddhism statements. This isn't how Eastern cultures who received Buddhism function. That isn't to say that there wasn't any strife or disagreements (mostly with governments) but the folk and Lay religion, especially thsoe of Indo-European faiths, were almost always absorbed into the Buddhist cosmology, respected, and allowed to continue within it. Oftentimes, the Priests became representatives of both. Performing rites and teaching the proverbs and morals of both. We see this in the Bön religion of Tibet and also in Shinto Japan (as well as historical and rural China). This works even more so in Indo-European faiths and cultures where the Gods are regional interpretations of the same. This was seen in Bactria, Ghandahar, Kushan Empire, etc. Of course, each local expression should be respected. When I say syncreitc, I mean IE.

So I've been thinking about the trend of "Secular Buddhism", or "Buddhism Without Beliefs" that many today in the West have taken hold to. So you already know it's modernist trash. But can we articulate "why" it is trash. Yes. Yes we can. Behind the curtain of these attempts at secularizing Buddhism, is the prevailing ethos of our day, scientific materialism. So scientific materialism, despite its efforts to come off as "common sense" - is actually a metaphysical position. This position is that there is this thing called existence, and it inherently has the property of being material. But how can anything have the property of being material, if everything is empty of self-essence, and co-dependent on everything else for its existence? It implies a essence, and a property holder, a "self" which holds this essence. And of course, we as Buddhists know of the non-material as well. So this project of secular Buddhism, is against Buddhism proper, completely.

"The perfect Buddhas — source of happiness and ultimate peace — Exist through having accomplished the sacred Dharma, And that, in turn, depends on knowing how to practice it; This practice of the bodhisattvas I shall now explain." Through knowing and applying these precepts you will gradually see the truth of the Buddha's teachings and you will progress on the path. A truly good, altruistic mind is the source of temporary happiness — good health, long life, wealth — as well as of ultimate bliss, which is liberation from samsara and attainment of unchanging enlightenment. All the sorrows of samsara, wars, famines, and natural calamities arise from hatred and the other inner poisons. When injurious thoughts prevail and people think of nothing but harming each other, the general welfare of the world declines daily. If people's minds are permeated with the wish to help others, the general welfare of the world steadily increases. In order to realise temporary and ultimate happiness, you first need to arouse the motivation of Bodhicitta, the mind set on attaining enlightenment for the sake of all beings, which is rooted in compassion. You must then combine means and wisdom: the practice of the paramitas, the transcendent perfections, with the realisation of emptiness. As Nagarjuna says in the Ratnamala: "If you aspire to enlightenment, the root of it Is Bodhicitta as firm as Mount Meru, All-pervasive compassion, And nondual wisdom." — Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, The Heart of Compassion

What we are hoping for, is a silent revolution, proceeding in the depths, in which the premises are created, first internally and in individuals, of that Order that will later have to affirm itself externally as well, supplanting suddenly, at the right moment, the forms and forces of a world of subversion. — As spirit there exist something that can serve as an outline for the forces of resistance in revival: it is the legionary spirit. It is the attitude of one who knows how to choose the hardest life, to fight even when he knows the battle is substantially lost, and to confirm the words of the ancient saga: “loyalty is stronger than fire“. Through him the traditional idea is affirmed. It is a sense of honor and shame - not halfhearted measures drawn from halfhearted morals - that created a substantial difference, an existential difference between beings, almost as though between one race and another race. — Idea, order, elite, state, men of the Order - we should maintain these battle lines. Julius Evola

Guess I should update it with da new homies since May 2022 What channels am I missing?

I think the debate presents a reasonable summary of views as it is without needing to be inflated further. Obviously there were aspects of talking past each other, and parts very much about other parts of the Buddhist community, who are definitely subject to their own deluded agendas. However, I wish to put forward my primary point in clear terms: spirituality is experiential. Buddhism is an experiential religion. Of course there is extensive philosophy and scholarship within both ancient and contemporary Buddhism, but it serves as a support to experience. Each of the Mahasiddhas of ancient India, and indeed the Mahasiddhas of recent generations, found their own ways to devote their lives to practice, and thereby totally transform their experience of reality. Indeed, when H&V sent me his response I was attending a teaching in which the master said words to the effect "until the experience arises there are many different ideas about this and that, and the more you think about it the harder it becomes to understand, but when you have that experience you clearly recognise the way things always were." In this way, my point is very simple: let go of concepts and seek experience. Then you'll be able to meet the gods yourself. Of course, if it were easy we'd all be enlightened. If you wish to engage in syncretism in the meantime, for strengthening your own connection to the practice, or helping others to do so, then try to make sure you are not adding to your conceptual baggage that will hold back your practice. Furthermore, I do believe that different practices can have different results, but this really depends on your own attitude. If you begin to reach the heights of spiritual practice, either you let things go, and become free, or you use your spiritual development to tie yourself to your deepest attachments. Hence why the Buddha taught anatman, and emptiness. Perhaps this seems far away, not of your life, or just Telegram drama, but it is not so. It is said by the masters that enlightenment exists in-between each thought we think. How close! How far! To paraphrase an invocation: May the fortress of the fortress of the view be gained! May meditation's perilous path be crossed! With compassion for all, may we conquer the inner demons and reach spontaneous perfection!