Why are Eastern Religions so much more profound and useful than Western ones?

I think OP makes a valid point. Eastern religions tend to be much more practical and reasonably grounded: deliverance from suffering and pain are grounded on what are usually attainable goals or steps. Meanwhile, the Abrahamic religions are more "unreasonable", insisting that the only path to deliverance is the surrendering of self to a - frankly - absurd idea.

In the Eastern religions, the individual has to strive to attain his own salvation, and as such, it is a much more realizable goal; in the Abrahamic faths, salvation is only attainable from a God that, incidentally, never actually shows himself, leading to a perpetual feedback loop of frustrations, desperation, pain, and dissonance.

There's a middle ground between worshiping the corporeal, and complete neglect of it through pursuit of the "city of god".

>inb4 Christians don't neglect this life
Neither do I worship it, but you've already accused me of that.

So, instead of trying to poke holes in your assertion, I'll just ask:

How much of the Merkavah, Hekhalot, or so-called "Gnostic" materials have you read.

>Notice the goal of eastern religions is to transcend this world, not worship it.
What is Vamacara, Alex?

And most spiritual schools have strains that cover both poles and the center.

>How much of the Merkavah, Hekhalot, or so-called "Gnostic" materials have you read.
The Gospel of Thomas, and some of the Merkavah; I'm dying to hear how this is relevant.

All branches of Christianity reject those Gnostic materials.

>And most spiritual schools have strains that cover both poles and the center.

I'm sure they do, but not the Abrahamics. They firmly take the stance of pursuit of the next world, then pretend that this one will automatically come with it. The Abrahamic religions are less "schools of spirituality" and more of schools devotedly entirely to their own P.R. It's the constant working of making something simple and unoriginal sound profound and useful.

>what is Christian hermeticism.

I'm sure I don't

Aside from the implications of reincarnation the farther you go back into the Hebrew mystical tradition, most of the things referenced here aren't a component. Barbeloites and Ophites didn't wanna abandon reality. The palace tradition is contemplative and has nothing to do with Christ. God's will becomes unknowable because the Supernals are beyond knowledge and the throne's empty in the first place.

I'm not sure how the only way to come to these relatively explicit readings is to twist them.

Um, the Coptic Church accepts the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip and Valentinus' Gospel of Truth and mount REALLY solid exegetical defenses of them.

This is why I said "so-called Gnostic" because it's a blanket term across wildly divergent strains of thought.

You forgot one OP

>Jainism
Be a fucking pussy

A very small, fringe segment of Christianity. Completely irrelevant.

>but not the Abrahamics
Beguines do.
Some strains of thinking in midrash cover strange territory.
Various "Gnostic" groups, be them early, late, or even derived from outside Christianity (Mandaeans, Essenes) have traditions that seek to renounce reality and come out of the gutter entirely burned out, or embrace reality in it's full splendor.

Just because you don't like them or think they're irrelevant doesn't mean they don't exist or continue in some circles.

Wisdom of Solomon implies pre-existence.

>the Coptic Church accepts the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip and Valentinus' Gospel of Truth

The Coptic Church does not accept any of those, you fucking liar. The Coptic Church - like every other denomination - considers them apocrypha.

>Just because you don't like them or think they're irrelevant doesn't mean they don't exist or continue in some circles.

?

Huh, Brown may be a rogue. Metalog's gone. I thought dude was operating under sanction.

Some esoteric text are accepted as cannon in the RCC. Wisdom or Sirach is very metaphysical.

>Christianity
If you don't let a 30 years-old child refugee come to your house and impregnate your daughter, you'll go to hell.

>Brown may be a rogue
Wow if he wasn't his inheritors totes went full retard.

>Barbeloites and Ophites didn't wanna abandon reality. The palace tradition is contemplative and has nothing to do with Christ. God's will becomes unknowable because the Supernals are beyond knowledge and the throne's empty in the first place.

I'm sure they do but it only has the vaguest essence of relevance to the thread. First, the majority of Jewish schools (and Christian ones) reject schools of Gnosticism, and vice versa. As Rodney Stark, beloved pseudo-historian and Judeo-Christian shill pointed out in "Cities of God", most schools of Gnosticism were found in pagan dominated cities. The Jews and Christians were wise to be wary of Gnostic spirituality, since they knew it was more often than not, a pagan watering-down of Judeo-Christian theology. I wouldn't be inaccurate is asserting that beyond the scattered and isolated sects of these religions, the vast majority of Christians reject the serpent in the garden of Eden being more spiritually powerful and holy than either Moses or Jesus.

Secondly, most Jews and Christians believe that God is immanent, understandable, and personal. There are exceptions, like Maimonides and John Calvin; but it would be incorrect to assert that most see the nature and revelations of God as unknowable, especially if God wished for the individual to know them.

Thirdly, this is primarily what I mean by Judeo-Christian twisting or distorting doctrine to make it sound better to outsiders. It's when one introduces long condemned and neglected heretical views as being among the greater traditions and theology of the Judeo-Christianity in order to divert a debate, or make the individual's side sound better. It's pure sophistry.

>Just because you don't like them or think they're irrelevant doesn't mean they don't exist or continue in some circles.
I don't have a problem with them, the church did. It's why they were decalred heresy and wiped out so long ago.

They supposedly weren't "true Christianity"; which is why I'm confused at to why you're bringing dead and obscure sects into this thread, as if they were Christianity.

>only has the vaguest essence of relevance to the thread
>western religions have nothing to do with a slapfight between eastern and western religions
K.

You forgot to turn off your trip when you replied to yourself.

No I didn't I was commenting further on the fact that'd I'd discovered upon follow up with tracing out long dead webistes that my main source was (possibly, this is still unclear) distorting his lineage, and his inheritors ABSOLUTELY are.

Well when you can't refute someone's argument, diversion towards obscure non-exceptions and polemical sophistry is just as good.

Judaism/Christianity and Islam are religions of a nationalist identity who's sacred texts describe the cultural genesis and creation of said nation within a meta narrative structure. These are religious and spiritual beliefs that are firmly rooted in a particular system of law and social order. This is very different from these Eastern spiritual traditions, which lack such a nationalist foundation.

Virtue is aligned with adherence to divine law in Abrahamic religion

I particularly don't care, because I wasn't whoever you were replying to. But I can see how long dead websites is the only way to find info on long-dead Gnostic schools or whatnot.

What about Hinduism, Taoism, and Confucianism? People may borrow ideas from Confucius, but how many non-Indians/non-Chinese actually practice these in sincerity.

They're very nationalist.

>the only way
That or the fuckhuge pile of contemporary academic materials in my library:
mega.nz/#F!xYpWSZIA!AIJmBr-RrBJeUdGwjt1b3A

I was pointing toward Western currents that I personally felt to be profound at a level equal to materials such as Tantraloka, and in some cases in agreement with each other (such as nondual perspectives) but hey if they don't count because they're badwrongreligion then I guess I'm a polemical sophist.

>I was pointing toward Western currents that I personally felt to be profound at a level equal to materials such as Tantraloka, and in some cases in agreement with each other (such as nondual perspectives)
Sure they can be western currents of thought, but not truly Abrahamic ones when they're almost universally condemned as foreign distortions or intrusions of the Abrahamic religions.

Unless you want to point out that western religions don't have to be Abrahamic to refute the suggestion that eastern religions are more profound, then by all means.

But an honest person with computer access and a proficiency in the English language knows that "western religions" is used primarily for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Almost never is it used for the Ophites, the Barbelolites, or the Dositheos; or any other extinct/endangered Gnostic sect with no/nearly no followers or influence in modernity.

Except of course, when individuals try to present them as representative of Christianity in order to make it appear more profound.

Nah, eastern religions are satanic and false.

Yeshua is the only way to heaven.

An honest man unapologetic about his ugly beliefs is more worthy of praise than 10,000 dishonest ones who try to pollish theirs.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Jesus has defeated the forces of darkness.

>Unless you want to point out that western religions don't have to be Abrahamic to refute the suggestion that eastern religions are more profound, then by all means.
Don't worry, mate, I won't interrupt your rhetoric with any further of my sophistry.

If Jesus had to fight Mohammad, Moses, and Azor Ahai; could he take them all at once, or would each person of the trinity need to take one?

Because Abrahamic religionwere created by low IQ shitskins while Indo-Europeans religion were created by high IQ caucasian.

As for Daoism and Confucianism they were created by very high IQ asians.

youtube.com/watch?v=tynKRMVGsAI

Why Is Zoroastrianism never mentioned in eastern religions? It is the foundation of nearly all monotheistic religions.

*Discussions of

You must be a westerner pseudo-atheist that hates western thought. No Buddhist,Confucian,Hindu,or Daoist would group together all four of those belief systems as emblematic of "eastern" religion. They wouldn't refer to some vague Bullshit called "eastern religion". Furthermore, to group together Judaism,Christianity, and Islam into the same group is to ignore the intense animosity between practioners of each faith. Furthermore, all those eastern religions require "the correct conception of the divine" else you be stuck in pitiful states.

This guy gets it

Because "eastern" religions are only discussed by westerners, who praise what they do not understand and adhere to what is popular. Zoroastrianism is practiced by very few people and virtually none in western countries.

>jewish
>western
kek

Also, gnostics aren't relevant. They haven't existed since the Crusades.

>Judaism, Christianity, Islam

Spiritual practices eventually molded and framed by Greek reason.

Sorry they are not abstract enough for you