Paganism and Buddhism

Is there any merit to the idea that elements of European pagan religious, reverence to pagan deities, etc. is compatible with practicing Buddhism? Its a question I've been pondering for a while now. I would consider myself more or less a pagan (predominantly Norse but open to syncretism) but I find the spiritual potential of modern paganism is severely limited because so much has been lost. Which leads me to try and find a more developed existing system which it could be syncretised with.

At first glance Buddhism seems to somewhat fit the bill. Although Hindusim is more explicitly polytheistic, its not very open to western converts where I live. Pretty much just an Indian immigrant thing. Serious modern occultism is basically nonexistant in any public capacity here too. However there's thriving and accessible Tibetan and Zen groups locally. Part of me feels like this is the best option of serious spiritual advancement in line with where I already am.

Pros
>Buddhism is ultimately derived from the same Indo-European ur-traditions as the European faiths
>Buddhism historically incorporated indigenous polytheistic and cultural elements in India, China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Mongolia, etc. and even Hellenic elements in Central Asia
>Vajrayana deity practices seem to leave the door open to various forms of deity work
>Some Buddhist deities have distinct Indo-European parallels, like Vajrapani=Zeus or Herakles/Thor/Perun, etc.

Man-made Horrors Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Man-made Horrors Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    (cont.)
    Cons:
    >Buddhism generally shows very little interest relating itself to indigenous European cultural revivalism in a similar way it did to indigenous cultures in Asia. Western Buddhism frequently has either McMindfulness vibes or is saturated in hippy orientalism
    >Devas are acknowledged in Buddhism but generally seen as irrelevant unless they've specifically been acknowledged as bound to the Dharma, which in most cases seems to mean deities worshipped in countries which became Buddhist. So while Padmasambhava is basically considered to have converted the gods of Tibet to protect the Dharma, this isn't necessarily true of gods elsewhere and soliciting the intercession of European gods could be a breach of your refuge vows
    >Part of me kind of feels like trying to bring these things together is just wishful thinking, that they're just separate things from different parts of the world and that I'm not really interested in Buddhism as such but rather just in using it as a substitute for a more spiritually satisfying modern paganism

    So, thoughts?

    • 3 weeks ago
      sage

      if you are practicing buddhadharma you should be 100% focused on your own meditation practice.
      the buddha way is concerned with realization, liberation, gnosis, direct knowledge.
      it's closer to taoism than hinduism, particularly Zen where there's almost no devotion practice done with much sincerity. they "simply engage the way in zazen, totally cast in resolute stability" as dogen says.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is compatible with a bunch of theological shit because they lack a theological element.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They do have a theological element, western atheists started calling mindfulness and meditation "buddhism" at some point but actual buddhism requires belief in specific cosmological phenomenon(Samsara, Nirvana etc.).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's not a theological element, buddhism doesn't acknowledge any specific creator figures, a god. Gautama drew the line at it, this is why the spiritual framework of buddhism can fit into some theological models without causing much disturbance.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Theology and religion, while most commonly associated with the concept of a creation deity, are not SOLELY defined by it. Buddhism describes specific aspects of the way the world works(reincarnation cycle AKA Samsara) as well as what the highest priority should be for people(escaping Samsara).

          While it is easily synchronized with polytheistic asian religions, pretty much any western religion that doesn't believe in reincarnation or has a specific afterlife won't mesh. And afaik that's most western religions outside of druids(who supposedly believed in reincarnation) and maybe some other super obscure pagan religions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism in general acknowledges supersensible aspects of reality, despite not recognizing a "supreme god" (altough the Dharmakaya comes close to the western One or to the eastern Brahman), and there's a refined metaphysics behind its teachings. Maybe only hinayana doesn't care about any of these things

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >buddhism doesn't acknowledge any specific creator figures
          Hindu take, but Buddha was the Vishnu incarnation of Budha, which is the Hindu name for the planetary god Mercury.
          It is supposed to bring religion to an atheist people, who cannot rely on faith or devotion, but by the path of intellect alone, and breathwork, the domain of Mercury, they will still make spiritual gainz.
          But you lose a lot when you deny the Divine, but at least things aren't as bad as they would be otherwise.

          And those who meditate on Budha (Hindu god Mercury) say they sense Vishnu energies at higher levels of initiation. That Mercury is a manifestation of Vishnu.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Krishna

            why do you think Vishnu would deny the Hindu pantheon? i wonder about this when i try to fight God thinking it's my duty is Krishna, which is somewhat contradictory, unless you believe God is the cultural monopoly of Semitism

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It is supposed to bring religion to an atheist people
            Where did you read/hear this? Asking because Buddhism served as a pathway for me from atheism to true religion, and ever since then I've come to see it useful as such but incomplete and dangerous on its own.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is tibetan buddhism still buddhism if its actually tantra for the bon pos?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tibetan buddhism is a special case cause they syncretized their previous endemic traditions into it quite heavily.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, it's fully compatible.
    In fact, if you're a materialist, a mentalist, a spiritualist, you'll find a place in Buddhism, why?
    Buddhism applies the same method in all scenarios.
    If you're a sturitualist, you'll have to accept the concepts of Dukkha, Anatta, Anicca, dependent origination, etc.
    I was caught by the mind aspect.
    Study and think very carefully and you won't regret it.

    ?si=-pQbL5h_5J3qsuh6

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is how I know modern paganism is a larp. Take paganism seriously for 15 minutes and you have to turn it into something else. Happens literally every time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, for what its worth you're not completely wrong but I'm really not interested in the inane Christian vs Pagan shit flinging that goes on. Yes, a lot of modern Pagans are basically just playing dress up. But the reason they're doing that is because Christianity and its aftermath has basically left a gaping hole in who we, as Europeans, westerners, white people, whatever you want to say, in who we are as human beings. So a lot of people are desperately searching for something that's theirs spiritually, even if its grasping at straws. As for Christianity in the west its a moribund religion that offers nothing but the same problems that got us here in the first place. Its future is as a charismatic evangelical cult in the Third World.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But the reason they're doing that is because Christianity and its aftermath has basically left a gaping hole in who we, as Europeans, westerners, white people, whatever you want to say, in who we are as human beings.
        By what fricking metric? A super-continent of nothing but mudhuts, slave economies and human sacrifice for time immemorial, then Jesus, then 2,000 years of cultural, spiritual and technological developments that dominated the world and built the culture that facilitated the intellectual freedom you use to revel in being ignorant and moronic.

        >As for Christianity in the west its a moribund religion that offers nothing but the same problems that got us here in the first place.
        If you don't know how to use the truth to solve your problems, the next logical step is not to throw away the truth and attempt to synthesize some more. You've put culture and politics before that which preempts all, especially culture and politics.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >muh mudhuts muh civilization
          This is the problem with """the West""", we did all that shit, we colonized the shit out of everything, we went to the moon, we fricked the very planet to death for McDonalds and Iphones but here we are completely fricking dead inside. Congrats I guess.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's the problem with post Christian atheism. Say what you will about Nietzsche but he was pretty on the money about what would happen when christianity fell out of vogue. We let ex Catholics like Dawkins peddle science worship to the masses without having the emotional/intellectual capacity to realize their value systems were still based on concepts that depended on Christian cosmology and because of it they failed to make an actually new value system. We gave God sized holes to an entire generations of people who never believed in God to begin with.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >west becomes Christian
            >west dominates world
            >"um actually Christianity isn't really true everything has natural explanations, we can just invent our own ideas"
            >bunch of people go with it
            >Christianity starts losing influence
            >everyone becomes gay moron hylics
            >"see look Christianity has failed, it can't be really true, let's use everything's natural explanations and just invent our own ideas"

            You neopagan diy patchwork spiritualists are just repeating history, just saying 'frick it' and letting your dog of post-modernism rip tradition apart so you can stitch it together in a way that suits you better. Big red fricking alert, that's not how truth works.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity led to it's own demise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's a homosexual way of saying too many people huffed kant's farts to the point of delirium

            >>"um actually Christianity isn't really true everything has natural explanations, we can just invent our own ideas"
            This is literally the end result of your own reasoning. Look at why you think Christianity is so great. It helped facilitate the West's material success, ergo its fricking fantastic. Its all been down hill to materialistic nihilism from there on out.

            you disingenuous butthole, I didn't say "Christianity is great because it gets us stuff" I asked at what fricking point anywhere in recorded history did Christianity in any meaningful way "left a gaping hole in who we are" when every single little aspect of that identity of "who we are" was built after or upon Christ. If you don't want materialistic nihilism don't be a spiritual relativist you hylic bastard.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't say "Christianity is great because it gets us stuff"
            That is essentially what you were saying though. Christianity good because west have big powerful civilization. That's what the whole myth of western christendom really comes down to. And while it might have been appealing to huff those farts back in the victorian era that the white man had some grandiose spiritual destiny to rule the world, in the current state of western civilization its basically pointless. We're at the most advanced, all-permeating stage yet of this whole western, capitalist imperial project and its currently emptied itself of spiritual worth for all intents and purposes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how about instead of continuing to argue with the strawman I identified for you, you argue with the point I actually made

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So where's the difference between the strawman your supposed actual point? You said initially that
            >then 2,000 years of cultural, spiritual and technological developments that dominated the world and built the culture that facilitated the intellectual freedom you use to revel in being ignorant and moronic
            But where has this technological, cultural and supposedly also "spiritual" advancement actually led us? Are you just going to pretend that some time either just prior to the Enlightenment or before the 20th century, the pure and mighty Christian west hit its zenith but was somehow corrupted by nefarious actors? Because anyone whose being intellectually honest and isn't just going to rattle off all the typical "its da jooz and da freemasons" or whatever poltard guff has to acknowledge that what came next was a natural outgrowth of what had already come before.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My actual point, which I am somehow patient enough to repeat yet again, is that you can't identify whatever Christianity 'removed' from whites, or europeans, or westerners, or whatever. You're a spiritual reactionary, saying Christianity is bad because of what's happening, but the only happenings you identify are the overt consequence of the LACK of Christianity. You then respond by attempting to make a homebrew version of pre-Christian european spirituality, but you're doing so through the methods of the post-modern spiritual subjectivism that led to the LACK of Christianity in the first place.

            You're trying to cure nihilism with relativism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but you keep accusing them of straw manning while constantly painting them as a LARPagan. Where did they state themselves as being such?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I say paganism is a LARP, anon responds it's genuinely necessary to recreate what Christianity destroyed, I ask what we even had to be destroyed before Christianity, then the straw man wanders in. I don't know if he's a pagan but he started from the position of paganism being necessarily true so idk what else I could refer to him as.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >anon responds it's genuinely necessary to recreate what Christianity destroyed
            That's not what they said though. They said it's existence was understandable given the circumstances, not that it was necessary or served any real purpose.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > is that you can't identify whatever Christianity 'removed' from whites, or europeans, or westerners, or whatever
            This isn't really the case though, the culture I come from and most closely identify with, the rural, working class culture of the Scottish Borders, was essentially quasi-pagan folk Christianity full of fairy folklore and folk magic and stuff like that until basically late Victorian times when increasing industrialisation, urbanisation and bourgeois values snuffed out the last embers of something ancient. So the last traces of it aren't really all that far removed. The complete psychological dominance of the kirk and its orthodox Presbyterianism over the rural poor was quite late in coming really.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So the missing ingredient in western spirituality is fairy tales? Gotta have some system that involves gnomes and astrology and wizards? I'm more confused now than previously.

            >anon responds it's genuinely necessary to recreate what Christianity destroyed
            That's not what they said though. They said it's existence was understandable given the circumstances, not that it was necessary or served any real purpose.

            The exact quote was "that is because Christianity and its aftermath has basically left a gaping hole in who we, as Europeans, westerners, white people, whatever you want to say, in who we are as human beings" which implies Christianity carved a gash in our collective spirit that can only be filled by something else, the only remaining option being pre-Christian european paganism which then implies that it doesn't produce the same problem supposedly identified in Christianity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So the missing ingredient in western spirituality is fairy tales? Gotta have some system that involves gnomes and astrology and wizards? I'm more confused now than previously.
            A materialistic atheist could say the same thing about the Bible. They often do. Fairy tales, as you dismissively call them, were the product of Victorian folklorists recording the last of gasp of the indigenous beliefs of the European peasantry before modernity swept them away and then its inherent commodification transformed them into petty, useless kitsch, a relic of a bygone age transformed into children's stories only to be replaced by Peppa Pig and Spongebob.

            I mean, I don't really know what's the point of having this discussion really. If you're convinced of the spiritual value of western Christianity and the culture with surrounds it, I can't fault you if that works for you. But it is quickly passing into the same territory as the stuff which came before it which you dismiss so readily. At the end of the day, I just don't really find the several generations where that system held complete sway as all that compelling in terms of fundamental spiritual fulfillment, least of all in terms of my own culture, my own homeland, etc. For what its worth, I grew up in the modern Church of Scotland, and found little of serious substance within it. In terms of fading relics in these parts, I at least feel a deeper attachment to the ones which have roots going into the very land rather than merely sitting upon it, if that makes any sense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But it is quickly passing into the same territory as the stuff which came before it which you dismiss so readily.
            It appears as if I dismiss it readily because you do not know the years I have been exploring these things. Neither of us know all that the other knows. What I do know is that many spiritual entities have revealed themselves. Some beneficent, malevolent, influential, inert, beautiful, hideous, etc. The highest, greatest, holiest of them all, the one who created all and can never be usurped, the one who loves you and the one who ultimately reigns your fate in this world and eternity, is among them.

            And you choose fairies over him, because "several generations" (2000 blessed years worth of generations, long enough to connect your lineage with the entirety of europe twice) isn't enough time for you to feel a "deeper attachment" than to, idk, folklore tree ghosts.

            The spirit isn't physical. Don't throw your spirit at whatever makes you 'feel' something, throw it at what makes logical sense. Demons tickle your taint every time you think about sacrificing a goat to the poop god to trick you into thinking your have some physiological connection to spiritual rat poison. God bless you regardless, you're still a child of God and can return unblemished if/when you realize the magical forest creatures will eat your soul and give you nothing for it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're right, the chicken bones really do predict the future, I take back everything I said, I was just having a scorpio moment.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You start off trying to relate to them better, but your post devolves into dismissive shit pretty quick.
            It's like you're inherently incapable of not being smug.
            I've met Christians who display genuine humility even when they debate other religions, I know they exist. Why can't you be one of them?
            It's like you people are still too intoxicated from the buzz of your spiritual experiences to be able to relate to other people properly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm going to sound dismissive of ideas I believe should be dismissed. I sound like this when talking to flat earthers too. You want me to "humbly debate theology" then humbly make a theological point, instead of blaming the God of the universe for not smiting enough minorities or whatever stupid social thing they've rationalized as the obstacle restricting their pvre aryan dna from accomplishing TND and turning their back on Him because worshiping fairies and shit feels like it charges their vril to take back muh europa from the evil nightskin hordes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>"um actually Christianity isn't really true everything has natural explanations, we can just invent our own ideas"
            This is literally the end result of your own reasoning. Look at why you think Christianity is so great. It helped facilitate the West's material success, ergo its fricking fantastic. Its all been down hill to materialistic nihilism from there on out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nta You only know these two points of view, materialist vs. spiritualist.
            From the point of view of the mind, I have an obligation to have as much compassion for a person who declares himself to be homosexual as I do for people who believe in a sky daddy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those are not Christian accomplishments, those are White accomplishments. What have Ethiopian or Assyrian Christians done?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            failed to invade the middle east, same as white christians

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A super continent of nothing but mudhuts, slave economies and human sacrifice for time immemorial

          Sums up the dark ages.

          >then 2,000 years of cultural, spiritual and technological developments that dominated the world and built the culture that facilitated the intellectual freedom

          Sums up post-Renaissance Christianity (which was inspired by ancient Pagan culture revitalisation) and secularism.

          Never ceases to amaze me how wrong and moronic Christians are yet how unequivocally sure of themselves they are. I guess that's what blind faith does to you.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    zen as it exists in the west is not buddhism
    it's a corruption of chan buddhism by the children of elite bay area israelites in the 60s and 70s who destroyed and sterilized all elements of faith and devotion out of it and were left with mental masturbation that would piss their parents off but not enough to get them disowned

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At some level, yes. Ajahn Punnadhamo explained that it's common cultural practice in Thailand to build spirit houses, give offerings to these spirits, and that the word for spirit "deva" is synonymous with something meaning spirit rather than god; the pantheon of Indra and his gods are just higher level spirits; of course Buddha is above all of them.

    The logic of Buddhism is somewhat compelling; the idea that detachment leads to more refinement and more sophistication, until you become so detached you transcend the duality of detachment and attachment altogether.

    My only warning to you is that the fundamental heart of all Western traditions is love. All of it - Greco-Roman or Greco-Egyptian or Germanic European paganism, Christianity, Hellenized Judaism, Satanism, Hermeticism, Qabalah, Crowley - all of it is love as the most important thing.

    That's a very sharp disconnect from what Buddhism teaches, which is detachment and enlightenment as the highest goal. East Asians don't give a shit about love, they view it as something subordinate to enlightenment and a fanciful delusion of a naive and uncivilized civilization. And that attitude comes from Buddhism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the fundamental heart of all Western traditions is love
      No, love does not fit as something particularly important in any of those traditions

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The contact we have with Asia is intellectual, because how would Christians pick up and teach Buddhism properly if not through academics?

      Buddhism in Asia is synonymous with compassion and love, etc.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, so I guess building spirit houses in Thailand, or practicing a combination of Chinese folk religion and Buddhism in China or Shinto and Buddhism in Japan or the whole complex of Bon-Vajrayana syncretism that exists in Tibet is acceptable in those cultures, but I would somehow suspect most Buddhist teachers in the west might disapprove of building a hörgr and offering ale to Freyja or Thor, or something to that effect. At least that's the impression I've gotten from western Buddhists I've spoken to.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Krishna

        I'm a Zen Buddhist and I still talk to the gods. What's to stop a Buddhist from taking a pagan deity as a Guardian Spirit? To my mind, correct me if I'm being naive, if Buddhists can commune with Tara and Brahma I can commune with Thor and Odin. It's just a different cultural lens. Not often but they have asked me to teach the Dharma. Aphrodite I believe. She's lovely

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Om Mane Padme Hum, and other Guan Yin practices, opens the heart to love and compassion.
      And satanism/crowley-shit stains don't not care about love. They are stuck in the lower three chakras of selfish fighting and exploitation to gain money, sex, fame and power.

      It's only the New Testament teaching that the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law is LOVE. If you do things out of love you are free of severe judgements, but all other motivations subject you to severe judgements, binding you to the Old Testament Law.

      The other euro traditions just pay homage to this New Testament idea.

      Plus we just had 2000 years of the Age of Pisces, where Venus is exalted, and Venus is love. Love was literally in the air all the time during this Age.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only vajrayana buddhism, but even in that case, it's kinda messy. I think straight vajrayana it's better, more focused. If it's just an "inner" thing (for instance, acknowledging correspondences among deities, concepts etc etc) it's fine, but mixing different prayers and/or practices feels weird. Also, I'm very suspicious in general towards syncretism, which always offers a very good precedent to those who want to impose a "one world religion" (de facto a mixture of all religions) or things like that.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    moronic post. Just become an animist.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Just become an animist
      Which means what exactly in practical terms? I mean, vibing with the trees and mountains is great and all but at some point you're gonna want something more... elaborated.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "The handbook of contemporary animism" will be of use. Simply put, animism is the most natural human religion and doesnt contain add-ons that are designed for social utility.

        For example, in buddhism you go straight to hell for killing a monk. But go to buddhist countries and you'll find "monks" openly playing in dirty political gains and working for the government. Real reincarnation however, is not this. Reincarnation is found in many primitive peoples, from native americans and inuits to pre-colonial civilisation. The belief itself is naive and universal, it is based on simply observing nature and then applying those observation to ourselves. So our physical body dies, maybe our personalities die, but something deeper in us, in our blood and instinct, does not die. We have specific ways of desiring, behaving and BEing, that continue to exist after we perish, this is animism.

        I think this is best option for white people who feel disenfranchised by christianity, at least, its better than gay pagan LARPing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You know that Buddha himself defended animism, right?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He also teaches that the one true path is the middle way. Whats your point?
            Unironically you're proving my point, another tendency of dogmatic folk is subsuming everything into their own religion.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I consider myself neither dogmatic nor skeptical (as a Buddhist should be LoL), but OK.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes you're nothing and everything blah blah blah no one cares. FYI, i respect buddhism, but the real gems require high spiritual XP which i dont possess, and its precisely because of this obscurant bullshit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not saying that I don't fit into both categories because of emptiness (sunyata), but because in fact the ideas are wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yet, theyre also real too. See?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh man, I'm talking like Buddha... I reached Nirvana by accident.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Paganism is full of romance, drama and emotional gods, whereas Buddhism inherently devalues such things. The pagan gods would, in Buddhism, be classed into the "asura" realm of rebirth, which refers to non-peaceful gods.

    Buddhism is only for pessimists who seek eternal death. There are useful practices and ways-of-thinking you can pick up from the surface level of their teachings ie. logic and problem solving, but go deeper than that and you'll only find nihilism and a desire for complete isolation. Also, to follow Buddhism you are required to believe in the Buddha's "Right View" which probably will exclude much that you find appealing about paganism.

    You might be better served looking into Taoism, Gnosticism or Christianity. Christianity especially, given that it is in a sense the evolution and fulfillment of paganism (ie. paganism is very focused on emotion and living, and Christianity is the greatest love story ever told and comes with a promise of eternal life).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Krishna

      in Buddhism there is no life and no cessation of life. Eternal Life is a covenant with the Word of the transient government of the Kingdom of God. So your Soul believes in that Word and lives according to the Notions or Forms called forth by it. They are not Eternal because everything is passing away and they are simultaneously established by the political subtly of Jehova, who keeps his Tower of Babel buttressed by "Heavenly Hosts," that is, divine armies. if those armies get defeated the Word would change and you'd still have Eternal Life but you'd be living a lie, because nothing is permanent

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      " Odin: In Norse mythology, Odin is the god of war, wisdom and death. He is the leader of the Æsir gods and is known for his wisdom and magical power. Like Sakka (King of the Devas), Odin is a complex and multifaceted god who possesses both positive and negative qualities."

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The pagan gods would, in Buddhism, be classed into the "asura" realm of rebirth, which refers to non-peaceful gods
      Plenty of the deities venerated in various forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism would surely fall under this category, no?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Krishna

        WHY'D YOU HAVE TO GO AND MAKE THINGS SO COMPLICATED?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Always the poor dwarf.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        From what I remember (I didn't study Vajrayana or Mahayana much in particular, primarily the pali canon and thai forest teachers), no. I think all the deities worshiped in those schools are supposed to be "Buddhas" or "emanations" of them. So they would be above or outside of devas and asuras. Maha/Vajrayana is really bizarre, I imagine because of excessive syncretism with local cultures.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most (or all) of Buddhist pantheon has direct ties to the Hindu pantheon, which is mostly various avatars of Trimurti and planetary gods. Which also ties them into the pagan deities - most of European and Middle Eastern major deities were based on astrology.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's Satanic BS, idol worship.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no reason that Pagans and Neo-Pagans can't also be Buddhists -- now try that as a Xtian!

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Considering Buddhism is likely eastern twisting of Aryan concepts. Go far back enough and our ancestors very much believed in multiple afterlives and reincarnation.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://godkingandnation.wordpress.com/2024/05/07/paganism-neo-paganism-and-pagan-symbolism/

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *