Is Buddhism an Indo-European religion?

Is life an indo-european religion

It's the counter thought of vedic philosophy, so it is the antithesis to indo-european religion.

Attached: buddha3.jpg (600x720, 92K)

Native American, the Great Spirit religion.

Lineage checks out

Yup

Moreso than any of the Abrahamic ones.

YES

This

>nearly a christian texts are in greek or latin
>meanwhile nearly all buddhist texts are in tibetan or chinese
lolno

Is shitposting the one true Indo-European religion?

Attached: 1503703069411.png (624x434, 103K)

>meanwhile nearly many buddhist texts are tibetan or chinese translations of Indon-European languages of Sanskrit or Pali.
Japanese monks chant sutras that are Sanskrit and just use Chinese characters phonetically.

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs...

>counter thought of vedic philosophy

How?

Christianity is Greek tough

Brainlet detected

>Idealistic
>Progressive
>Founder is Indo-European
>Sacred Texts are in Indo-European

Indeed

Of course.

No.

Pajeets and Poos are not Indo-European.

Sorry.

you weren't getting enough attention in your own thread?

The Buddha was a blue-eyed Scythian.

He's a big guy

>the engineer in prometheus spoke proto indo-european
What the director mean by this?

Attached: Prometheus_engineer_by_lady_shai-d5urj4d.png (1024x576, 744K)

Congratulations you got yourself enlightened, now what's the next step of your master philosophy?

It teaches the same underlying metaphysics of the Vedas but with a different spin and emphasis.

Attached: 41peLvtXDFL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 23K)

>It teaches the same underlying metaphysics
it doesn't, it outright rejects it

Only on a surface level it does. The means of attaining Nirvana/Moksha and the reason why it's considered ideal are nearly the same. Advaita (even if it's just limited to the Advaitic ideas expressed in Pre-Buddhist literature) and Buddhism are nearly the same thing.

Both:

>The observable world and the individual everyday self are illusionary and not at all representative of reality.

>both are essentially non-dualistic in that they hold that there is no inherent and solid reality outside of the highest (Nirvana/Brahman), leaving only one all-encompassing state as being actually reality.

>existence within the illusion continues from life to life primarily through ignorance of the true nature of reality and also because of attachment/cravings and the karma generated by them (the aforementioned ignorance being a prime reason why beings fall into attachment and generate karma).

>englightment/moksha and the destruction of innocence is attaining through direct experience and knowledge. At the highest level this becomes a permanent irreversible stage one remains in until death.

>One prepares to reach this level and works to reach it through studying and learning the correct doctrines, implementing them completely at every moment, by refraining from unwholesome actions, through mental regulation and meditation etc.

The areas where they disagree is more a matter of emphasis, if you want to learn more than read the book that's in the post you responded, you can find it for free on libgen. I can guarantee you that the author knows much more about both Hinduism and Buddhism than you. You are wasting time trying to argue against something that has already been exhaustively explained in his book.

Insisting that Buddhism rejects Vedic metaphysics simply because it holds that there is soul is pedantic.

>Advaita and Buddhism are nearly the same thing.
they aren't, shankara co-opted buddhist ontology to justify his saivism. Their metaphysics are not the same.

>t. butt-hurt Buddhist who is insecure that pre-Buddhist Hindu scriptures articulate many of the same ideas that were later taught in Buddhism.

Being sentimentally attached to Buddhism and then emotionally responding and ignoring the facts when people point out the influence of Vedic thought on it ironically enough goes against the tenets of Buddhism.

advaida is copied pasta buddhism/nagarjuna-yogachara ideology + vedic core (all is one, there is one true soul, etc).

>only on a surface level ti does
I think you're confused. Only on surface level is advaita/buddhism similar.

>observable ... not representative of reality
Buddhism strictly says observable world is the ONLY representative of reality. That observable world is the same as "ultimate" reality.

>both are non-dualistic
Advaita says, all is one. Worship the one. One exists. Buddhism says, ones, many and none are flawed views. So yes, they're both "non-dual" just the same way Hitler and Jesus are "non-negroid". It doesn't say much about what their ideologies are other than they're both not negroid.

>I can guarantee you that the author knows much more about both Hinduism and Buddhism than you
The question isn't whether the author knows it or not, but rather what angle they're trying to pull at. In this case, its a perennialist. "Dude all religion say the samething. LMAO. ITS ALL PEACE/LOVE MAN."

Buddhism' main crux is anti-vedic metaphysics. Anatman. Anatman negates Atman/Brahman. Its at the root of Buddhist metaphysics about how to end suffering. Not a fringe additional thought. Then there's impermanence, given that Atman is permanent in Hinduism, given that Brahman is permanent, these are just anti-vedic metaphysics.

All you've showed is your syncretist/perenialist ideology. Not Buddhism and not Hinduism.

>le accuse user of following X religion
lmao

You do know, he can accuse you the same way of being Hindu who's trying to accommodate Buddhism into Hinduism, right?

No.

I think the common misconception is that Buddha had blue eyes and other ""European"" features. This is most commonly sourced from the Buddhist 32 signs of a great man.

The 32 signs of a Buddha was a relic from Brahmanism that was later incorporated into Buddhism as Hinduism and Buddhism merged. Brahma and Vishnu also have 32 signs.

According to the Tipiñaka the special thing about Buddha was that he seemed perfectly ordinary.

>Buddha was from the Shakya who were a Vedic Indian clan
This. But you forgot to mention his clan had been in India for nearly a thousand years by the time of his birth and he was likely mixed

This was a good thread. I wish I knew more about Buddhism.

>the counter thought of vedic philosophy

vedanta, the the final development of vedic philosophy, is the assimilattion of buddhist and other heterodox ways into the vedic tradition, when transformed into hinduism.

op said 'buddhism' not 'buddha'