How come South Asian to East Asian theology or philosophy is more complex than Near Eastern ones

Taoism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hinduism>Buddhism>>>>>Christianity>>>>>>>>>Judaism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Islam

Soviet Theology is the most complex one to date. Just look at their spiritual cosmology.

It is the basis for all the middle eastern religions and Hinduism. Their religion simply got mixed with the traditions of the lands they conquered. It wad quite complex and even included reincarnation.

>Muh Aryans

>Kangz

They're not. There are two reasons why people keep saying this dumb shit:
1. They simply aren't well versed in Jewish/Christian/Islamic thought. Which is understandable in a way, because they require strong skills in Arabic (Islam), Hebrew/Aramaic (Judaism), and for Christianity, Greek, Latin, Hebrew/Aramaic, and depending on tradition, Russian, German, Dutch, French, et al.

Oddly enough, you'd think the same would be true for Asian religions, many of which also require strong language skills in languages such as Sanskrit, Pali, Classical Chinese, et al. Which leads me to my second point...

2. Weebs/Eastaboos. It never fails that someone reads Alan Watts or Thomas Merton or Pema Chodron or listen to a special on NPR or some hippie at Burning Man telling them about the untapped treasures of the East, and Westerners who don't even have a minimally passable understanding of their own spiritual and philosophical traditions start waxing eloquent about the immense wisdom and complexity of Asian thought. It's all a bunch of Orientalist, semi-racist, self-serving New Age bullshit. I'm sure the East has plenty of its own people who have at times said similarly dumb shit about Western thought.

The grass is always greener, motherfuckers, but you're dim as fuck. Read more, pontificate less.

It actually represents a fundamental break from those

Different attitudes to religion in the East that are more akin to pre-Christian Romano-Hellenic world.
(Paste to go to 41:35)
youtu.be/1RpvLtwdrP8?t=2495

That's cool but Buddhist philosophy is objectively more complicated than any Western theology

Abrahamic theology gets more complex as it mingles with other traditions and beliefs. Whenever this happens however it often gets suppressed by the forces of dogmatism and literalism. Also most of the complexity of the theology developed centuries after the initial writing of biblical texts and is found in biblical commentaries written by people long after Christianity consolidated its presence and attempted to explain all sorts of questions through it, interpreting things that may have not been implied by the original texts.

nonce

Rene Guenon holds the view (paraphrashing after reading 1 book of his) that the combination of the dogmatically religious focus of the Jews combined with the anthropomorphic religious beliefs of the Greeks effectively prevented the inclusion of any genuinely profound or subtle metaphysical teaching in Judaism and Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam given that it has become more eastern. I think I agree with him on this point.

When you do find these elements in the Abrahamic religions they come from people or groups who are more fringe, who came way later after the founding of the religion, who are not considered mainstream and essential doctrines of the religions etc. This is the opposite with many of the eastern religions whose most important and early texts are often primarily metaphysical and philosophical.

>The sore Christfag

IQ

one is andronovo/scythian religion

the other is sumerian

>Confucianism
>Complex
Top lel

A better question is whether complexity is a good thing.

another western atheist with a raging hard on fr buddhism because

>peace
>muh tranquility

keep it up buddy

You kissed some Nigger feet?

Abrahamic theology is far more complex than that other trash, you absolute Orientalist.
No it's not. Buddhism is functionally equivalent to all sorts of Pagan theologies (i.e., Stoicism), which themselves are trash philosophies. Nihilism lacks depth and claims depth.

Hey there Christfag. Let any Niggers into your church?

ahahahahHhHhahahaha so le funny

> Abrahamic theology
> Complex
Because one God who is all-powerful (meaningless category) and unknowable (even more meaningless one) is such complex theological entity.

Monotheism is simple as fuck compared to any real theology.

>Real theology
God this board is so fucking autistic. Enlighten us as to what "real" theology is.

Good job, you don't even understand the absolute basics of a theology which you deem 'basic'.

Fuck off, Orientalist. The local curry shop will close soon!

Tell us how come the least intelligent populations are largely Abrahamic.

>IQ
Back to /r/eddit

>Confucianism.
"Bro, obey your parents. Parents, care for your family. Subjects, obey your rulers. Rulers, rule your subjects. Idc about religion but honor your gods and oberve rites btw."

Confucianism isn't too fucking complex.

>Abrahamic theology is far more complex than that other trash, you absolute Orientalist.

holy shit AHAHAHAHA

>implying abramic religions didnt steal from hindus/buddhists

>judaism is hindu; kabala is hindu

>Abrahamic theology is far more complex than that other trash, you absolute Orientalist.
>Abrahamic theology is far more complex
>far more complex
>complex

yeah /b/ro moderation n shieeet is deep...

>greece and the balkans
haha

>Pretending IQ isn't correlated with crime, income, performance in fields

>Pretending IQ isn't widely accepted as a way to rank intelligence by relevant experts

>Pretending IQ denial isn't just from saltiness at victim groups like women and Nigs scoring noticeably lower than public enemies like White Men and Ashkenazi Jews scoring (along with Gooks).

Hey there leftypol. Or are you a Cuckservative?

Nice appeals. Back to /r/eddit

>t. Pajeet

Kangz

Let me guess: You blame the lack of contributions by women to advancing civilization on Da Patriarchy. And centuries of Nig and Muslim (KANGZ) lower performance on Whitey.

No, stop ass-pulling you viKANG.

>South Asia + East Asia vs only the Near East

Don't you think that's unfair?

>islam
>ahmeds and negroes

They didn't have to dedicate as much ink reconciling natural philosophy with the metaphysics of divine creation. The East never deviated from paganism, so issues of worldly existence remained the preview of folk customs, animism, small gods, and the deification of natural phenomena. Everything was compartmentalized in the East, which is why it was easier to syncretize different esoteric systems, moral frameworks, and pantheons without the fear of any one usurping all others.

Monotheism by its nature seeks simplicity and uniformity. Even within monotheisms, you can see a continuing trend to greater and greater simplification. Orthodox, hightly ritualized trinitarianism gives way to reformed Christianity where worship is 4 white walls and a pulpit. The complex, strenuous theologizing of medieval Christianity gives way to the radically simple legalistic monotheism of Islam. And more recently you see even more simplified monotheism like Bahá'í or Unitarian Universalism.

>Pretending IQ isn't widely accepted as a way to rank intelligence by relevant experts
It literally isn't though. For one, you can train to be better at IQ tests.

Stoicism is also Near Eastern. It was founded by a Phoenician

You can't train for a visual reaction speed tests. It's a neurological exam, and it correlates with general intelligence (g), as well as standardized test scores, income, and max educational attainment. IQ is but one of a number of metrics that psychologists can use, all of which correlate to what is called the "general intelligence" factor. IQ is basically shorthand version of the g factor.

If you're still skeptical about the veracity of intelligence testing, as well as the heredity of IQ, then you're simply being willfully ignorant of the current body of research on the subject.

Why won't you read my books user?

>The majority of Muslims are European

Sure.

I'll wait for you to list all the Negro IQ (In the 80s and below) individuals who are billionares, notable philosophers, STEM workers, etc.

Last time I heard IQ's probability values for long term success are like 0.7 (this might be completely wrong). Convert that to a percentage and that's how much of the variability you can roughly expect your IQ to take up in your success.
You can patch the rest of it up down to personality traits via big 5 or 10 as refined version.
Still doesn't take into account agency though, I'm not a determinist, I just want to get into psychometrics because it's interesting

>Taoism
>Buddhism
>complex
How?

Finally!

Thank you.

Gets beheaded by muslim mongols LOL.

Buddha was a hindu prince from the dynasty of Iskhvaku.

O my Jupiter of Intelligence!

Best post thus far

Unironically this. In English the stuff reads easier than Marx, which isn't necessarily bad, but it's just very simple by nature.

You can't possibly explain transubstantiation or the holy trinity. You're a know-it-all fool who doesn't know anything.
Most orient religions are mental gymnastics. Only brainlets consider them "complex"

Abrahamic theology absolutely is more complex than Buddhism. Abrahamic thology is often vague, poethic, open to all kinds of interpretations, with huge amounts of theology surrounding it.
Buddhism doesn't have any theology beyond what some cultures arbitrarily imposed on it, despite Buddha's rejection of any divine source of meaning or relief from suffering. Buddhism also has one topic: the arising of suffering and how to lessen how much you suffer, and eventually case suffering altogether. Its core texts are generally very to the point and simple to understand, although there're a lof of separate texts, with much repetition.
Complexity is also not a sign of truth or correctness or anything else.

>mental gymnastics
You're literally describing what's required to make all the creedal quakery coherent.
Christianism = Believe, have faith, get baptized, don't sin.
Buddhism = Do this and that and avoid doing certain thing because they'll cause this to hinder your enlightenment and liberation from the cycle of samsara and this is why.

Einstein was a Newtonian from Germany

Fuck off shirkfag

>vague and poetic
>complex

Pick 1

>buddhism has no theology
>what are the sutras, tantras, nikayas, canons, philosophical discourses

>buddhism has 1 topic
>abrahamic religions have over 9000 topics, all about faith in eternal salvation

>complexity is not a sign of truth or correctness
true, that's why the buddha taught simple teachings for those who could comprehend simple things. Also zen.

The majority of muslims are caucasoid habibi

>>what are the sutras, tantras, nikayas, canons, philosophical discourses
They're non-theological discourses on human mentality and suffering.

You're right Abrahamic faiths need a specific word to explain their creedal incoherency while others can keep on using the usual terms for ideology, philosophy, and belief.

Hey there Christfag.

Abrahams draw in Nignogs and Achmeds.

Buzz off Achmed.

>Orthodox, hightly ritualized trinitarianism gives way to reformed Christianity where worship is 4 white walls and a pulpit.
But you're mixing theology with worship. Not that they have nothing to do with each other, but spend any time working through Reformed dogmatics and you'll find a highly complex theology. Go to the Orthodox, and the theology is much less advanced (not saying this is a bad thing, but it's how things are). The amount of ink spilled on the intricacies and implications of trinitarian theology by the Reformed Orthodox through to the modern Van Tillians vastly outweighs what you'll find in Eastern Orthodox writings. And this is by design. For the Orthodox, the phenomena of worship ARE theology. For the Reformed, theology is much more Word-based, and thus you'll tend to find a stronger emphasis on theologizing in a scholarly way. It's worth noting, by the way, that the early Reformed were in fact quite Thomistic. Moreover, the Catholic church tended to plagiarize Reformed manuals of casuistry (and vice versa). The simplification is in the liturgy, not the theology.

Don't be mad habibi

How is this supposed to be relevant?

What the... it's true!!

>white/black/latin women don't like asian men
>asian women like white men
>black men like all the women same

What causes these things?

>black men like all the women same

Except for their women apparently.