/otaku/ - Japan / Otaku / Anime

I don't imagine it taking off as an actual religious sect, but I do imagine it being an interesting basis for a fictional story. And if the story picks up enough speed, there will be some fans who observe it as a religion. Like Jediism, for example.

You'd be competing against pure land buddhism for the promise of an isekai.

>>7711
So I am no buddism expert, but I am pretty sure in normal buddism reincarnation is meant to be the bad outcome. This is sort of akin to making a branch of Christianity that aims to go to hell.

>>7711
I like fantasy religions (as long as people are respectful), but OP, isn't your idea the same as Pure Land Buddhism?

>>7714
In Pure Land sects, the belief is that the Amida Buddha created a Pure Land free of defilement and suffering and vowed that anyone who calls out to him will be reincarnated in the Pure Land. According to the Jodo Shinshu school, simply one calling of Amida Buddha's name is sufficient to be saved as long as it is sincere and heartfelt. Once in the Pure Land with Amida Buddha, conditions will be perfect for any living being to go on to attain Enlightenment and escape the cycle of death and rebirth. Because of its simplicity and emphasis on belief in Amida Buddha, Pure Land sects are very popular in Asia.

There's just one problem. Since the Pure Land is a perfect place free of defilement, there would be no cute girls because female bodies are defilement. There would be no sex either and since there's no suffering, there are no fun quests, stupid side archs or even enemies to fight. Imagine being isekai'd in a Catholic monestary and spending all day working on yourself.

>>7715
Ah interesting, so it's a little like a guaranteed ticket to purgatory then?

Neither sounds like the funnest place to be, but perhaps you feel differently once you are there. Maybe there's a hell in buddism that fits the bill for a fun isekai? Impure land buddism.

>>7716
Well, Christian heaven is pretty much asexual and tension free so I guess its no better or worse than that. But if you're a Buddhist and you believe that desire causes suffering, then I guess a Pure Land free of defilement and conflict is pretty much ideal.

>Maybe there's a hell in buddism that fits the bill for a fun isekai?
Well there's Jigoku. A place where those unworthy of rebirth are sent to suffer but there's no way of leaving it once you're there' Its a pretty horrific place. I'm not an expert on Buddhism so I can't really say for sure.

But, look at how different Japanese Buddhism is from Sri Lankan Buddhism. Look at how Buddhist scholars radically modified the Buddhist tradition to adapt it for time and place. If Japanese Buddhists were happy to throw aside many monastic rules founded by Shakyamuni Buddha, there really isn't anything stopping you from being creative with your fantasy Buddhist sect. I mean, what if the Pure Land isn't an ideal utopian place but more like your typical isekai slop realm where those reborn there have to go through the regular isekai character arc? Why not an additional level beneath the Pure Land that people have to fight their way through before they can be reborn? Idk get creative.

>Think this could take off?
If the trash that is California Zen could take off then I guess you have a chance.

>>7719
>A place where those unworthy of rebirth are sent to suffer but there's no way of leaving it once you're there
You're reborn into a hell realm if that's the karma you've accumulated, it's essentially a choice you made to be there by holding harmful intentions and you're said to torture yourself by projection, but you do eventually get to leave after a comically long time.

>If Japanese Buddhists were happy to throw aside many monastic rules founded by Shakyamuni Buddha
Pure Land Buddhists focus on the compassion of Amida Butsu, sometimes solely, and can be practiced by lay people, the only requirement is having sincere faith in the saving power of Amida. Monastic rules weren't thrown aside as much as it's not a requirement for being reborn into Amida's pure land. But besides that, adjusting your methods by the needs and ability of the people is buddhism 101.

>>7712
That's the thing, people are becoming less involved in traditional organized religions, while at the same time we're seeing a rise in the popularity of fantasy stories. I feel like there may be a demand for an organized belief system based on fantasy reincarnation.

>>7719
>I mean, what if the Pure Land isn't an ideal utopian place but more like your typical isekai slop realm where those reborn there have to go through the regular isekai character arc? Why not an additional level beneath the Pure Land that people have to fight their way through before they can be reborn? Idk get creative.

This is a good idea. I don't think the idea of the Pure Land as has been described above is appealing to the types of people interested in fantasy. It should be a more worldly place with both decadence and suffering. But the important part is the belief that you will get to be a "main character" in next world, and while there may be some trials, it will be an overall fun time.

What about the harem? The harem is important!

>>7740
Harem is more an Islam thing. I’m not sure it’s compatible with the whole desire is suffering, femininity is defilement the Buddhists have going on. Sure, Japanese men had harems before that bastard Meiji banned them, but I doubt they’d be a thing in the Pure Land.

>>7740
Of course there's harems in isekai buddhism! That's a key point of faith!

This thread, for a religious person like me, is a reminder of the absolute worthlessness of religion and traditional wisdom in 21st cen. developed countries. OP Generating a new religion is pointless because religion is now a wasted idea that has been slowly destroyed over two centuries. This isn't the fault of religion but modernity doesn't relate to traditional wisdom very well, except maybe some strands of modern Christianity. Any attempt at creating a new religion is worthless because the vast majority of people are lukewarm anti-religious or will become another self-contradicting joke turbo commodity. The future is death and decay.

>>7741
There's no gender in the pureland and femininity isn't a defilement. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with harems but the married life is considered a distraction. This isn't actually about pure land buddhism either. If you looked at this from a buddhist perspective, wanting to be reincarnated into what's essentially another human life is meaningless if it doesn't lead to the end of suffering. It's just more wandering.

>>7744
Why is it decaying?

>>7745
Liberal secular modernity has led to a disenchanted, immanent, universe, producing an individualism where people are freed from a transcendent ordering of the cosmos to pursue their desired authentic ‘identity’ through personal choice. This is against the values of most religions, especially Buddhism and its emphasis on no-self. In 21st century neoliberal societies, the imperative is to find your "true self" and reject any externally imposed rules and obligations that are not by choice. This is not a healthy environment for religion, and especially not Buddhism. In Japan and South Korea, Buddhism has more or less died out and exists on the fringes of society, mostly funerals, because it can't compete with the new individualism. But we are haunted by what has been taken away, left seeking fullness and transcendence in a secular world, and that is where you get otakus, music fans, hobbyists, depressed freaks on da internet trying to drown our sorrows in hopeless substitutes. Touhou project is a great example of this kind of haunting.

I'm sure you can't sell any kind of Buddhism to people today, unless its watered down. People don't like rules. People don't take gods and spirits seriously. People want to do their own thing. As societies embrace liberal secular values, religion rots away. I'm not an expert on Buddhism but it looks hard hit.

>>7746
I don't know what you mean. Buddhism is all about letting go of mental obstructions, whether you follow or do not follow the rules of society only matters if you're being disruptive and causing harm. If it leads to more compassion and good conduct, then it will lead to less suffering, which is good. Buddhism is about making a choice to end your suffering and they're serious enough to give away everything for that pursuit.
Buddhists would acknowledge the intrinsic emptiness of the self, and of the emptiness of the "transcendent order of the cosmos". It's all empty, subject to cause and effect, not eternal, and forever changing. That's why they want to let go of it. It depends on the branch whether it's pursued for purely selfish reasons, to escape into nirvana by yourself, or for selfless reasons by saving everyone and then yourself. It just sounds like to me that you consider anything that doesn't lead to someone form of ascetism and rule following isn't authentic Buddhism.

>>7747
>Buddhists would acknowledge the intrinsic emptiness of the self
Even this is incompatible with modern liberal individualism. A belief that the self is empty can't be reconciled with the idea that everyone is an authentic individual who must discover their true self and live by their own rules. The idea of letting go also doesn't make much sense to the modern liberal individualist who's attitude is to amass goods, amass experiences, that desire is good and suffering can be alleviated through consumerism and gratifying our base impuleses. This is the absolute opposite of Buddhist teachings.

>the emptiness of the "transcendent order of the cosmos". It's all empty, subject to cause and effect, not eternal, and forever changing.
What I mean is people in a secular and liberal society find it hard to take seriously doctrines that don't conform to a materialistic anti-supernatural worldview. The idea of a Pure Land for example is something first worlders would have a hard time wrapping their heads around and wouldn't be able to understand how someone could organize their life around such an idea. I'm not very knowledgable on Buddhism, but I'm guessing that many Buddhist doctrines would suffer the same fate as other religions.

Sorry if I've made false assumptions about Buddhism. What I mean to say is the dominant ideology of modern soceities makes it difficult to live a religious worldview, including a Buddhist one. In Japan, South Korea, and parts of China, Buddhism really isn't doing very well. I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to trash Buddhism. I'm really worried by where extreme individualism will take humanity.

Creating some silly isekai Buddhism is futile and reflects how religion has been reduced to a meaningless commodity and worthless plaything rather than something we actually organize our lives around in a meaningful way. Its like someone dragging out your grandmothers corpse, flaying the skin, and walking around in it for lols.

>>7748
Do you ever consider that secularization might be related to traditional religion becoming out of touch with modern life? You talk about "digging up grandma's corpse", but is that not what traditional religions are doing? Except even grandma's corpse is too young for that, it's more like digging up ancient mummies, parading around in their wrappings, and pretending to be part of their society.

Traditional religions tell stories of subsistence farmers and fishers, of troubles associated with a much smaller and more primitive world. They speak of miracles from long ago. They theorize about the creation of humans and the world, often in ways that conflict with modern science.

I think there's a lot of people who want something to believe in, but can't relate to these ancient stories. What if we had modern stories about the cashiers, mechanics, students, nurses, and other various professions of the modern world? What if we had a promise that those who lived their life in the way of the modern isekai buddhist that they would experience a wonderful afterlife to compensate them for the difficulties they must endure in this world?

>>7746
>you can't sell any kind of Buddhism today
There are 500,000,000+ Buddhists today, the fuck are you talking about

>>7750
are these 500,000,000+ Buddhists in the room with us right now?

>>7751 (me)
sorry I am not even following discussion, just found this a funny dumb reply

>>7750
They're inside me right now, we exist in and penetrate each other.

>>7749
>Do you ever consider that secularization might be related to traditional religion becoming out of touch with modern life?
This is more or less my point, except I'm not faulting religion for this. The story of religion failing to keep up with modern science is inaccurate. Liberal modernity and secularization grew out of a Christian worldview. Christian theologians had a hand in bringing it about. We also shouldn't forget that, outside of the West, secularization was a violent process imposed from above on an unwilling population. Secularization is less about the failure of religion to keep up, than the triumph of another worldview that has slowly pushed out alternatives. Secularism is a belief system that denies being one and pushes other worldviews out of public life. Religious conservatives aided this process by self-isolating, seeing every outside trend as dangerous and retreating.

What matters for this thread, is that Buddhism and neoliberal individualism just don't go together. The modern cult of the authentic self is the polar opposite of Buddhism. Our belief in identity, authenticity, and living through consumer pleasure has become so extreme that any rejection of it seen as insane or nihilistic. You can't sell Buddhist values in a society like this, no matter how you package them. Younger people associate rejection of their identity with injury. Telling someone that the self is empty is not socially acceptable and seen as an insult or you get called a doomer or a ch*d for bringing them down.

>I think there's a lot of people who want something to believe in, but can't relate to these ancient stories
Yeah. We are haunted by the loss of religion, like a phantom pain longing after what has been cut away. We are free to use our bodies to discover our authentic self but this can never satisfy us. So we long for something wholesome that can fill this need in a secular way. Everything from raves to porn obsessed otakus are all in some way feel the ecstasy religious experience once gave us. But nothing seems to truly satisfy. Here's where Buddhism could be helpful without demolishing people's love of anime, but good luck on selling people on that. Nobody likes a killjoy.

Ryohoji temple hired artists and maidos from Akihabara to make its promotional material, but fascination with the anime temple was short lived as people moved on to the next fad. They even had a theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKcUx2FStYE

As a religious guy, I've pretty much given up. We're niche now, like PC-98 hobbyists doing our own thing as society slowly writes us out of existence. We just have to accept it.

>>7750
Well yeah, but there are millions of Christians but in the first world its waning in influence. In Japan, Korea, some parts of China, Buddhism is as irrelevant as Christianity is in France.

So you get reincarnated as a teenager?

>>7754
I don't understand how this relates to religion and how it's any different from any other point in time.

>>7756
I think that's the ideal starting point. Old enough to have awareness and independence but young enough to have an excuse for immature behaviour and to have a long life ahead of you.

>>7754
Whether you say religion failed or secularism triumphed, the result is the same. After all, would religion have been so easily pushed aside if it had kept pace with modern society? I'm not talking about superficial "hello fellow kids" style anime advertisements, I'm talking about totally revising the belief system.

I don't think Isekai Buddhism needs to be bound to these archaic ideas of an empty self. The Buddhism side is mostly focused on reincarnation. The Isekai side drives the importance of individualism, that you are super special and valuable, and that we should come together to love and accept each other not despite of, but because of, our differences.

>>7758
>would religion have been so easily pushed aside if it had kept pace with modern society?
That's a good point. But the history of ideas isn't like a tech tree. Certain ideas don't push aside others because they are inherently better, but because they are more instrumentally useful to people in positions of power. Knowledge is power. So with any idea, the question should be who does it benefit? Whose interests does it serve? And who does it marginalize? The ecological crisis, threat of war, and vitriolic hate politics should also leave us questioning how good and noble modern life truly is and what its doing to us. Letting modernity off the hook and ignoring how secularism shoved religion in corner. If someone was curb stomped before the race, you can't fault them for loosing. In more ways than one, modernity has been pretty horrific and not fulfilled its promises. I do blame religious people for staying in their own bubble and rejecting everything outside of it, then acting upset at how marginal we've become. Pah maybe Isekai Buddhism is a good idea?

I realize I've derailed this thread way too much with dumbass serious discussion that shouldn't be on /otaku/ geh. ENOUGH.

>I don't think Isekai Buddhism needs to be bound to these archaic ideas of an empty self.
Well why call that Buddhism? If you're gonna reject one of the Buddha's central teachings there's no point in calling it Buddhism. You might as well call it Isekai Liberalism… eww.

>Isekai side drives the importance of individualism, that you are super special and valuable, and that we should come together to love and accept each other not despite of, but because of, our differences.
Is Isekai is inherently individualistic? Anything where you have a collective relying on each other for support and making sacrifices for each other is the opposite of individualism. Anime used to be criticized for being too collectivist.

>>7728
>I don't think the idea of the Pure Land as has been described above is appealing to the types of people interested in fantasy. It should be a more worldly place with both decadence and suffering
This sounds good. But should it be an alternative twist on the Pure Land? As in you thought it would be a cakewalk but Amida Buddha decided to make it a violent fantasy realm instead or like sushi roll said it could be an intermediary realm between this world and the Pure Land?
Theoretically, there could be no extended limit. Since people are reincarnated, there's no reason for them to be reincarnated into this specific world on this specific timeline and could end up in a world with the stock fantasy elements. So maybe a Pure Land equivalent isn't even needed?

>>7759
You could try requesting Amida Buddha to reincarnate you into an isekai anime world. I'm not sure how that'd work but can't hurt to ask.

>>7760
I know someone who was training to be a Buddhist nun, maybe I should ask her? She'd probably rip my head off. Hmmm, what's a safe way of asking this?

>>7760
I'm a Theravadin, so not an expert on Pure Land Buddhism, but I highly doubt this would work. Amitabha is believed to be a Buddha who cultivated such an inordinate amount of merit that he can commend it to other beings in order to direct their rebirth and bring them into his pure land, which as mentioned earlier is a land free of all defilements, similarish to Rupaloka/Arupaloka, and you wouldn't have that kind of fun there. The thing is, Amitabha could probably commit merit to send one to such a realm, which we will liken to a kamadevaloka (or realm of heavenly sense-pleasure), but as a Buddha there is no feasible purpose they would do this. This is because, as a Buddha, their only goal is to help all beings escape samsara. Sending you to a kamadevaloka is the opposite of that. It is sending you to a realm where you are unlikely to practice the dharma, liable to burn up all of your merit, and then in death be sent to a naraka (hell). Amitabha would recognize this is way out of your best interest and not do this to you, and would only commit merit to bring someone into his Pure Land.

I suppose I'll also put some other general Buddhist info here from a Theravada POV
>>7714
This is generally correct for Theravada, but not for Mahayana. In Mahayana Buddhism, the goal is to become a Buddha and continually be reborn until that point to bring all beings into enlightenment.
>>7719
>Well there's Jigoku. A place where those unworthy of rebirth are sent to suffer but there's no way of leaving it once you're there' Its a pretty horrific place. I'm not an expert on Buddhism so I can't really say for sure.
Not familiar with Jigoku specifically, but hell realms can be escaped. It's just phenomenally difficult. Practice of the dhamma is functionally impossible as suffering is so great and those suffering in lower rebirths (animal realm, preta realm, hell realm) are usually bound to them for eons. See SN 20.2 for a look at how rare it is to escape the lower realms.
>If the trash that is California Zen could take off then I guess you have a chance.
CA Zen has taken off precisely because it is predominantly Japanese influenced, so already incredibly lax on its rules, and has further played into the bizarre combination of secularism and new agery that exists in America. Isekai religion would fit the latter but not the former.
>>7759
>Well why call that Buddhism? If you're gonna reject one of the Buddha's central teachings there's no point in calling it Buddhism.
This is what a lot of Buddhists in the West effectively do. I think Buddhism, Japanese Zen especially, for many westerners presents a surprising lack of self-sacrifice and individualism compared to many other religions while seeming secular enough to be stomached. The problem is, none of those ideas are really all that Buddhist, but a false dhamma is being spread around that claims that, not only is that Buddhist, but that's actually the *true* dharma. This gets to a bone that I have to pick with western society more broadly, which is its atomization, but I believe that is a discussion best left for another time.

>>7759
>Well why call that Buddhism?
Because it's the most mainstream religion that involves reincarnation. Although the more I think about it, the more I agree the Buddhist label isn't great and maybe it should just be called Isekai Reincarnationism or something.

>Is Isekai is inherently individualistic?
Yes. At least when it comes to reincarnation isekai stories. Sometimes it's even right in the title like "Level 1 Dakedo Unique Skill de Saikyou Desu". It's all about being special.

But these stories also often involve things like bringing together people of different races and backgrounds to find a common purpose. The idea that it's okay to be different. I think this is something traditional religions struggle with because they've become so ingrained with tribalism. People want to believe that they were created in the image of their gods, but this makes it difficult to accept others who look differently as equals. In the modern world, we have to either accept that "created in a god's image" is a rough outline of the human form, or deny that those who are different from us are equal creations. Anyways, I don't think that individualism has to be exclusive of cooperation. Working towards a common goal doesn't mean the everyone needs to be clones of each other. Everyone has their own talents.

>But should it be an alternative twist on the Pure Land?
The isekai world seems pretty far removed from the Pure Land and Amida. The goal isn't really spiritual development either, it's to have fun.

>>7763
Briefly, I do want to rectify this idea that Buddhism involves reincarnation. It simply doesn't. Buddhists generally use the term "rebirth" instead of "reincarnation" because the latter is inaccurate to the actual nature of the process. That is, in Buddhism there is not a self or soul that gets reincarnated. Rather, in each moment there are aggregates which arise and cease, and wrongly we attribute to them an enduring self. The reality is, none of the aggregates can be pointed at as the self and none of the aggregates are permanent. The result is that reincarnation cannot occur. Rather, what occurs, and is always occurring, is rebirth. Rebirth on the micro scale is this ceasing and arising of aggregates in each moment conditioned by the last. Rebirth on the macro scale is the ceasing and arising of aggregates over lifetimes, each conditioned by the last.

This is all a bit technical, so to put it in a simple metaphor, you can think of all of existence as the ocean. Each life arises as a wave before ultimately crashing. Nothing has happened to what made the wave what it was, however, as all the water and energy is still present. So what happens? When the wave disperses, a new wave is eventually formed from what the previous one left behind, conditioned by the state of the water and energy it has inherited, but not totally defined by it. That is rebirth.

>>7765
I'm not sure there's an English word for that.
Rebirth is typically associated with a return to life in the same form. Like a phoenix for example. Both the self and the form are preserved.
Reincarnation is typically associated with a return to life in a different form, like Rimuru (Tensura) for example. The self is preserved but the form is not.
I can't think of a good word for a return to life with the loss of both self and form.

>>7767
You are correct that neither maps neatly onto the Buddhist conception of punabbhava, and that English lacks any particular word that aptly describes the process. This is, of course, because English lacks 2500 years of Buddhist philosophy in the way Pali has had. Rather, I want to make note of the conceptual differences between reincarnation and rebirth as they are used in English. That is, reincarnation is a term most people are familiar with and one that has a very clear connection to the idea of the transmigration of a soul. This is unsurprising as the literal meaning of reincarnation is for a soul to be made flesh again. There's also a very clear connect between reincarnation and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the new life that will be given to mankind, or to Gilgul for those familiar with Judaism. Of course, how reincarnation specifically as a term grew in popularity in English is, more than anything, a result of New Age spirituality and the Theosophical society co-opting of concepts from Hinduism and Buddhism for their own purposes. In this case, Theosophy specifically adopted reincarnation as the idea of a transmigratory soul. In this sense, reincarnation as a term has a much more clear implication that there is a known and persistent something that is made into flesh again, which Buddhism specifically rejects, and otherwise comes with much more linguistic baggage than rebirth. Rebirth itself isn't without baggage itself either, of course. Rebirth has been used by psychoanalysts such as Carl Jung and, as you mentioned, historically in stories such as that of the Phoenix. The problem with asserting that rebirth is on equally bad footing for describing the process of punabbhava is threefold: that rebirth as a term has already been adopted by Buddhists for quite a while now and had meaning asserted onto it by them, a much less clear inherent implication of a specific and persistent something being reborn, and a much lower degree of familiarity with the average person. That is, compared to reincarnation, there is far less linguistic baggage associated with the term rebirth. So, in the goal of trying to minimize the amount of Pali/Sanskrit language used in western Buddhism, rebirth as a term makes much more sense to choose than reincarnation, and is what has been chosen by the majority of English-speaking Buddhists for a while now.

Of course, I am also somewhat critical of this use of rebirth. I generally prefer either the Pali "punabbhava" or its direct translation "rebecoming" or "becoming again." The major issue it has, however, is that its usage in language can be a bit cludgy or awkward at times and that it has far less usage by Buddhists.

>>7768
Weird choice considering that rebirth is heavily associated with Christianity. There's entire sects of "born again" Christians that focus on the rebirth of the self. Maybe the term was chosen to be more appealing to western audiences? Probably easier to avoid persecution that way, reincarnation is often seen as more heretical.

Anyways, in the context of Isekai Buddhism, I think reincarnation is the more fitting descriptor as there are many examples of people being restored to life as different genders, species, or even as inorganic creations, but with their previous memories intact.

>>7763
>because it is predominantly Japanese influenced, so already incredibly lax on its rules
Why is Japanese Buddhism so lax? As much as I'm suspicious of liberal aversion to following rules, a less restrictive religious system would obviously have more appeal. Part of me feels this is because young people are degenerate and jaded, but on the other hand its a reaction to the social pressure to conform to the normocracy of a modern society.

>>7764
>But these stories also often involve things like bringing together people of different races and backgrounds to find a common purpose. The idea that it's okay to be different. I think this is something traditional religions struggle with because they've become so ingrained with tribalism.
A key aspect of modern individualism is the way it connects personal agency with responsibility. People are told they must fend for themselves in a world that's harsh and nobody else is responsible for their plight. In 'traditional' societies, personal behavior was tied to shared obligations. Nobody is left behind. I guess people feel burdened by the immense weight of individual responsibility and that's why we find appealing about fantasy where there's a group with a common purpose. When I think about 'traditional' societies (actual ones), what surprises me is how diverse they were and how they tolerated weird behavior and unique characteristics e.g. the tradition of deliberately violating social norms by living as a beggar, walking around naked or having sex in public to illustrate religious virtues and devotion to God was more or less tolerated in some deeply Christian and Muslim societies. This idea that traditional religions promote sameness and turn people into automatons is a stereotype and tribalism is something you find everywhere.

>People want to believe that they were created in the image of their gods, but this makes it difficult to accept others who look differently as equals.
I'm not a Christian but that's only one interpretation. Some Christians take that idea to mean all humans are made in God's image, including the stranger and the outsider. I guess turning this idea into an abstraction ("we should be good to humanity") takes away from the everyday spirit of it: every time I meet a new person I experience God's image. Its not as dark as you think.

>>7770
Maybe getting isekai'd doesn't have to match up with rebirth/punabbhava? I don't know how you'd justify it within a Buddhist worldview because when you get isekai'd your body moves into another world or your whole psychology is shifted into another body. I wonder if Buddhists have a concept of possession? So you aren't reborn in another world but you possess a body in another world and then you have to work your way out of it? It would also get around the Pure Land not being the ideal setting for fantasy. From what I've searched online, possession seems to be associated with evil spirits? Idk maybe the Buddhist sushi can help out here? Or maybe Buddhism isn't the best basis for an Isekai sect unless you combine it with something else?

I'm partial to the idea of founding your own religion for yourself and yourself alone. Forget mass religion. Forget letting others tell you what to do, even if there's truth to it. Find your own way and explore.

Ultimately, this requires diving deep into *something* that's real, and I can't find that for you.

>Been thinking about starting a Tensei Isekai Buddhism sect
You only think this is a good idea because you believe all religions are lies anyway and therefore we can make them up willy-nilly. I consider mass religion to be impure at best but they all have a bit of *something* real to transmit. Even if it ends up harmful in the end.

>>7770
That is perhaps where my knowledge of these things ends. Although, the connotations of Christian rebirth and Buddhist rebirth do have similarities, even if more different than similar. And now that you've brought that up, It's also worth noting the Sri Lankan Protestant Buddhism which sought to westernize Buddhism as a self-defense against the British who saw it as foreign and persecuted it. Perhaps it has something to do with that.

>>7771
>Why is Japanese Buddhism so lax?
Buddhism came to Japan principally through Tang dynasty China. Tang dynasty China was dominated by an approach to Buddhism that did not take the Vinaya seriously. In Japan, they would develop a strict Mahayana approach to Buddhism that rejected much of what was considered lesser teachings, which included the Vinaya, the rules for monks, seeing them as provisional teachings given by the Shakyamuni Buddha to less competent people. Buddhism in Japan held onto this view while Buddhism elsewhere in Asia moved back towards the Vinaya over time. Combine this with historical periods of persecution against Buddhists and decrees by Emperor Meiji that relaxed rules to the point that drunkenness, marriage, not wearing robes, and long hair was permitted of monks, and you end up with the situation that exists in Japan today regarding the Vinaya. Instead, Japanese Buddhists today generally follow a set of Bodhisattva precepts synthesized from the Brahma Net Sutra. Another major element at play is the Mahayana conception of Upaya, which teaches that even otherwise impermissible actions are permissible if done to help other beings attain enlightenment, even killing a human being.
>I wonder if Buddhists have a concept of possession?
It is a thing, but it's broadly a more metaphorical concept than a literal one, especially when Mara is involved. Even in case where it may be literal, as you said, it's really only something that lower order malicious beings (e.g. preta) are capable or willing of. One could take a more heterodox approach to applying the concept of possession in Buddhism, but what that would look like is a bit beyond me.

I kind of hinted at this before, but I do think conjuring up an isekai religion could work in that it could appeal to people who are into new age theology, which is prevalent in America. I'm of course opposed to associating it with Buddhism for obvious reasons. The big road block such a faith would run in to, really, is that it wouldn't be sufficiently secular or new agey for the majority of people who seek out Buddhism in the West. That means that, as a new religious movement in the west, it would really need to appeal to some other established and traditional religious sensibilities (e.g. Christianity, paganism, etc.) or be incredibly culty, and the latter of those is terribly unethical and probably counter to OP's end goal.

>>7773
Given that an Isekaki Buddhist sect would already by really heterodox, would it really matter how well it fits in with established Theraveda or Mahayana Buddhism? I guess it would have to be connected, at least at an aesthetic level, to Japanese Buddhism because weebs won't accept it and people would not willingly follow monastic rules. Since some self-identified Buddhists have played hard and fast with the source material, I don't see why a fictional Buddhist sect should be so stringent?

I guess the issue here is that another world which is neither a monastic Pure Land but still allows you to retain your conscioussness from the old realm is hard to reconcile with Buddhism without serious adaptions? I'm sure there are concepts the Mahayana Buddhists have evolved over the years that don't seem like they fit within the traditional Buddhist worldview so maybe its not as impossible as it seems? I'm assuming the problem is figuring out how someone could retain their consciousness and sense of self when getting isekai'd. I wonder if people who are reborn in the Pure Land retain their past identity and memories?

Maybe a Tensei Isekai Shinto or Taoism would be better? Shinto doesn't have very strong set of doctrines when compared to Buddhism.

>I do think conjuring up an isekai religion could work in that it could appeal to people who are into new age theology,
These days, its hard to sell people on any theology, unless its the atheology of virulent nationalism, hate politics or the Apple cooperation.

>>7780
>I guess it would have to be connected, at least at an aesthetic level, to Japanese Buddhism because weebs won't accept it and people would not willingly follow monastic rules.
Yes, I think a major barrier to convincing people of a new religious movement is merely what it is: a new religion. People tend to be more skeptical of that kind of thing than they are of groups that have a perceived legitimacy through an already well-established faith.
>Given that an Isekaki Buddhist sect would already by really heterodox, would it really matter how well it fits in with established Theraveda or Mahayana Buddhism?
As for adapting Buddhism into an Isekai religion, I don't think it's so much an issue of the fact that it requires bending the rules or creating a heterodox sect that's bad, but more so it's the philosophy to its inception as you're conceiving it. That is, there are some sects or philosophies that hold to ideas that individually may bear resemblance to an Isekaiism, but it's that bending Buddhism to a form of Isekaiism requires a very large amount of heterodox teachings be introduced in a way that isn't philosophically consistent. This is a bit of a given in this scenario as the Isekaiism is a bit of a foregone conclusion, something which the religion must end up conforming to rather than a natural development of multiple heterodox philosophies coming together naturally.
>Maybe a Tensei Isekai Shinto or Taoism would be better? Shinto doesn't have very strong set of doctrines when compared to Buddhism.
I don't really know much about Shinto, but I can tell you that this wouldn't really work with Taoism as Taoism pretty majorly lacks any of the main teachings that could make the idea possible, even more so than Buddhism. Taoism is also much more Chinese than Japanese in perception, so you'd lose out a bit there in your goal. You could shoot for a highly syncretic religion that mixed a bunch of elements of Buddhism and Shinto, but again you would probably run into the issue of the religion being one that doesn't stem from a certain philosophy unto itself but rather one that stems from desiring a certain end goal first. There is a market for this, especially amongst the new age crowd, but this isn't their only desire in theology.
>I'm sure there are concepts the Mahayana Buddhists have evolved over the years that don't seem like they fit within the traditional Buddhist worldview so maybe its not as impossible as it seems?
Most of where Mahayana Buddhism differs is actually in its emphasis on compassion and the bodhisatta ideal. This is a specific philosophical approach to Buddhism that is rooted in ideas already present in early Buddhism to begin with, which is what makes many ideas like this already work. There are things like the Buddha-nature teaching that are a bit unBuddhist, but really the differences aren't that huge between Theravada and Mahayana all in all because they are both principally rooted in the same Buddhist teachings first and foremost and are cultivated principally by collectives of learned monks and teachers. If you really wanted to see a sect that is as heterodox as Buddhism gets, look at Nichiren Buddhism.
>I'm assuming the problem is figuring out how someone could retain their consciousness and sense of self when getting isekai'd. I wonder if people who are reborn in the Pure Land retain their past identity and memories?
This gets into some pretty metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. In Buddhism, generally it is consciousness's thirst to continue existing that leads to being born again after a physical death. So the consciousness does migrate from life to life, but the consciousness isn't unchanged itself either. As for recalling past identities, this is more so an aspect of correctly applying one's spiritual faculties. That is, recalling past lives is moreso something that comes with advanced attainments towards enlightenment rather than something associated with specific rebirths.

>>7781
What do Buddhists think of suspending the vinaya? The hardest part for any religion in the 21st cen. (except American Protestantism) is having to compete with an established and dominant liberal system of morality and law. Liberal moderns don't like unchosen obligations or external rules, except those of the state and market. The second problem is convincing others you're not a cult. I guess the big issue with an isekai religion is in the OP. It would be a religion entirely disembodied and absent from your day to day life. It would end up a passing fad. What actual connection would it have with Buddhism? If Buddhism has a concrete spiritual aim, what would be the aim of an isekai religion? Medicating one's alienation?

>People tend to be more skeptical of that kind of thing than they are of groups that have a perceived legitimacy through an already well-established faith.
Hasn't this always been the case? No tradition emerged from scratch. Even the Buddha emerged from and criticized.

The only religion that has a distinct concept of another world is Islam (al-akhirah) and Judaism (Olam Ha-Ba), in each case the afterlife is approximately like life on Earth but with more luxuries and options. I guess if you wanted to, you can live out your fantasy teenage existence there but these are the two religions modern society seems to hate the most and good luck selling anyone on them. Although, it would be interesting to see if any heterodox types have tried to insert a Christian idea of afterlife into a Buddhist system. I'm sure there's a freaky new religion or cult out there. I'm not sure it even makes sense.

A sad ending to this thread.

>>7795
>What do Buddhists think of suspending the vinaya?
This depends on sect. As before, Japanese Buddhists pretty much all have done so already. In Theravada, this would be perceived as a fatal blow to the true dhamma. Though, I will also note that the vinaya is only for monks, the 5 and 8 precepts are for laity. Still, those also get abridged a good deal by the kinds of people who are interested in Buddhism in the west (and by followers of Buddhism in majority Buddhist countries as well oftentimes). For example, I've known people who argue that psychedelics can induce enlightenment and therefore aren't under the purview of the 5th precept. Both statements are false. I've seen people argue that killing isn't a violation of the 1st precept when it's to save a life, self-defense, or otherwise the being is insignificant and inconvenient enough to make it feel justified (e.g. fleas or mosquitos). This is false. I've seen it argued that stealing from large corporations isn't a violation of the 2nd precept. This is false. Even those very simple rules are subject to people trying to twist them because they want the aesthetics without the religion itself.
>Hasn't this always been the case? No tradition emerged from scratch. Even the Buddha emerged from and criticized.
Absolutely. More so, my point is that, without something widely desired or marketable, a created religion just isn't going to work. Stand-alone Isekaiism doesn't appeal to the aesthetics of a major religious group, the sensibilities of new-agers or secularists and relativists, nor does it have an underlying philosophy to its creation and it isn't really criticizing anything because of that. It just doesn't really have anything going for it that could make it a notable success in that sense.

Maybe a better outcome is a religious interpretation of isekai? Seeing how we might find (Buddhist or otherwise) non-secular values in the isekai genre, critiquing some major moral themes in isekai and finding positive things in isekai that are new to us and that we can learn from. But this should not be based on claiming isekai _is_ Buddhist or _is_ Christian or that we should make a specifically Buddhist purified isekai without ruling out how a Buddhist _ethos_ might shape art.

But when it comes to fictional world building, look at Frank Herbert's Dune series. In his world, centuries in the future, the major religions have changed, deformed, and been reshaped in ways we wouldn't recognize. To some extent, this has always been a feature of religious history in more subtle ways. I'm pretty sure Henry Olcott or Sayyid Qutb's reform of their religious traditions would seem like an anathema to their 10th century predecessors, even if there are many continuities and that isn't the case with Herbert's Zensunnism and Buddhislam. Maybe we shouldn't try to be accurate when doing fiction?

>>7796
I find it interesting that many Buddhist precepts restrict in a simmilar way to Islamic law and Jewish Halacha (abstinance from intoxicants, smoking, avoiding shows, wearing ornaments) but whereas those religions are depicted as cruelly harsh and unbearing Buddhism doesn't have such a negative reputation. Although it seems like most of these rules apply to monks and not so much laity. A rule like 'no wearing fancy clothes' is hard to really sustain in a liberal society where fashion and defining your own identity through clothing is now a surrogate religion leading to an insane amount of wasteful behavior.

>>7797
>I find it interesting that many Buddhist precepts restrict in a simmilar way to Islamic law and Jewish Halacha (abstinance from intoxicants, smoking, avoiding shows, wearing ornaments) but whereas those religions are depicted as cruelly harsh and unbearing Buddhism doesn't have such a negative reputation.
Yes, a lot of the deal with Buddhism is renunciation. It's such an incredible amount of the religion, but this is lost in the distorted view many westerners have of just meditating. The importance of renunciation in the religion runs so deep that the final step to enlightenment is letting go of everything that got you to enlightenment and the bliss associated with advanced meditative states. It's all aesthetics, and right now there are prevailing ideas in western society that we are at war with Islam, and so we perceive Islam as brutish and ascribe it a negative and oppressive aesthetic. I can't say I've experienced Judaism having even a comparable level of stigma outside of some certain unsavory places, though, even if there is still a perception of Judaism as a religion of hard rules.
>Although it seems like most of these rules apply to monks and not so much laity. A rule like 'no wearing fancy clothes' is hard to really sustain in a liberal society where fashion and defining your own identity through clothing is now a surrogate religion leading to an insane amount of wasteful behavior.
The vinaya is for monastics, but the precepts are for laity. The 5 precepts are the bare minimum one must do to ensure they are at least reborn as a human after death. The 8 precepts are for a more advanced lay practice and are usually only observed a few days a month. Some people do follow the 8 precepts full time and they are called anagarikas. Anagarikas deal with the clothing rule by wearing white robes, eschewing jewelry and ornamentation of all forms, and (usually) shaving their heads. This is far from the only way this can be done, though, and I would contend your point about the rule being unsustainable in liberal society. Rather, I think it's that it requires specifically eschewing many values that exist in western societies and that takes a degree of courage. Being a strict holder to the 1st, 3rd, and 5th precepts also inherently have this issue as well. People often believe in the death penalty or war as just, that consensual uncommitted sex is acceptable, or that social drinking is perfectly moral. None of these are the case and following these precepts leads to a necessary butting heads with western society as well, even if not in the same visible way. Of course, it's not like this wasn't also the case in the Buddha's time and place as well. The rules had to be laid out precisely because the culture valued all of these things, even if make-up and fine garments may not have been remotely as readily available to the majority of people then as they are now.

>>7798
>I would contend your point about the rule being unsustainable in liberal society. Rather, I think it's that it requires specifically eschewing many values that exist in western societies and that takes a degree of courage.
Within a tradition, rules are a means of self-cultivation and taking care of the self within a shared collective. Modernity makes it hard to sustain these ethical commitments. Liberals (who may be conservative or progressive) have their own moral sensibilities. Young people today believe everyone has an individual identity and a true self and that a person can determine their own truths without oppressive external rules. There was a sushi in another thread who said the Quran had stupid rules like discouraging men from wearing ornaments. Why? Because young people feel that dictating someone's dress is wrong and infringes on personal autonomy. The real difference between our time and the Buddha's isn't just access to luxuries but a certain type of self-centered individualism has become the dominant value system. In the age of "be yourself," the idea of no-self is a hard sell. Its interesting that some Western Buddhists claim the 3rd precept simply means non consensual sex wheres Alexander Berzin has written that this isn't true and that early Buddhists forbid anal sex, sex between men etc. In today's world, suggesting a sex act is immoral isn't acceptable to people because they see it as part of their identity. Its certainly possible to live these rules today but going against the grain creates friction with society and breeds rejection.

Rules shouldn't be overbearing but without praxis all those fancy metaphysical beliefs are redundant.

>>7816
Still, I have to contend your point here. I think you are throwing too much blame on liberalism and too ready to engage in juvenoia. Individualism as a value is not uniquely western or modern even if it is a pretty defining feature of many modern/liberal western societies. It's also not that individualist societies are more uniquely hostile to this kind of thing. Rather, individualism tends to eschew applying such rules universally while being more reticent in regards to what others do. This is a double-edged sword. That individualism by and large operates in this way means it is more readily available for people to break from social norms, but that people are overall less inclined to feel a need to do so when their deviation from such is inspired by groups rather than one's own motivations. More communitarian viewpoints have the opposite problem. The friction that does arise from deviating from the social norm is principally a result of two factors: doing so in a way that proposes an objective morality that precludes much of society and when doing so is a visible deviation from social norms in a way that crosses the less individualistic aspects of society.
>In the age of "be yourself," the idea of no-self is a hard sell.
Then let me surprise you in noting that anatta is one of the concepts that converts are generally much more receptive of. Anatta is not the idea that you must sacrifice yourself for a greater idea as you seem to be suggesting, but is a pretty narrow philosophical tenet about not being able to find a source of self in things, not even the mind or the dhamma.
>Its interesting that some Western Buddhists claim the 3rd precept simply means non consensual sex wheres Alexander Berzin has written that this isn't true and that early Buddhists forbid anal sex, sex between men etc.
Even scholars who are fairly conservative in the dhamma (not in cultures) tend to admit there is no reason to consider homosexuality or sodomy to fall under sexual immorality. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a monk who has some famously strict interpretations of rules, even notes that the vinaya doesn't bar homosexuals from ordaining despite how some have interpreted certain sections of it. There is some room to say that it's immoral to be overly disruptive to social cohesion just to engage in sexual pleasures, but this still wouldn't result in a precept violation if we considered this. To that end, it's unsurprising that some people have interpreted the precept to permit casual yet consensual sex, and I don't think it's as wrong of an interpretation as, say, excluding self-defense from the 1st precept. The precept is about sexual immorality, and that does include things we would broadly consider totally fine in our society, but I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation to say that consensual uncommitted sex could fall out of its purview even if I disagree with the interpretation. Regardless, however, all sex is discouraged and dispassion for sexuality of all kinds is encouraged in Buddhism.
>In today's world, suggesting a sex act is immoral isn't acceptable to people because they see it as part of their identity.
This is not unique to today's world or sexuality in the slightest. The suttas talk at length about people who attach their ego to their identity and their actions. People who engage casual sex are obviously going to be averse to ideas that implicate them as having done something immoral in most cases, regardless of culture. This is because people's self-identity lies in their actions; their actions become a false self. Criticism of their actions becomes an attack on them. Likewise, criticizing their sexuality is much the same in that it becomes an attack on a perceived (albeit false) self. This is a trapping all people are susceptible to. Of course, none of this excuses, say, homophobia. Vitriolic homophobia is far worse than any consensual gay sex could ever be.
>Its certainly possible to live these rules today but going against the grain creates friction with society and breeds rejection.
This is going to be true of any society where one bumps heads with established norms or challenges other people. This was true in the Buddha's times as well, so much so that portions of the Vinaya exists precisely to keep the name of the sangha an honorable one and keep the trust of laity and outsiders rather than because they lead to enlightenment for oneself or for others unto themselves. Buddhism has always been concerned with this because this has always been an issue, an existential one at that.

>>7817
Individualism, in the modern sense of the word, does not simply mean prioritizing oneself at the expense of the group. Regardless of any similarities, "the individual" as we know it today is a construction of European modernity. It is tied to specific concepts, ideas, behaviors, economic conditions, and sensibilities and, while it has been more or less globalized, cannot be seen as something timeless or universal. Individualism isn't a value or a principal for organizing societies, but a set of moral ideas that structures our lives and shapes our sense of selfhood. The command to find our true identity, to explore ourselves etc. are specific. These are new ideas, not timeless ones. I get the feeling that many religious people equate individualism with 'good' and are keen to show that their tradition leaves room for the individual, but this forgets that individualism is something that should be questioned. Modernity is not all good.

>individualism tends to eschew applying such rules universally while being more reticent in regards to what others do
The feeling here is that individualism is an abstract and neutral principal that describes how a society is organized. Instead, I'd say that, rather than eschewing universal rules, liberal individualism is in fact yet another belief system and collection of ideas whose proponents see it, in contrast to religion or Marxism, as objective, scientific, and universally true. True enough to fight and kill others in its name. The point I want to make, is that liberal society isn't (as right wingers claim) amoral and unprincipaled, but has its own value system, beliefs, and mythologies. The moral systems of religious communities have to compete with a hegemonic and domineering rival set of moral values that often undermines religious claims. The Confuciuan principal of serving your parents is undermined by the liberal principal of being a self-defining free spirit unshackled by social obligations that are non-voluntary. Since this liberal ideal is enshrined in law and culturally dominant, it makes it hard to sustain an ethical culture that takes 'serve your parents' seriously as something to live by. The liberal aversion to rules is rooted in a particular moral worldview of its own. This worldview, from a religious perspective, is clearly flawed and obscurantist but we must somehow live with it.

>This is not unique to today's world or sexuality in the slightest. The suttas talk at length about people who attach their ego to their identity and their actions.
Again, the idea that each person has their own sexuality and that this is a human right that shouldn't be restricted is a modern invention. These are new ideas that create new problems. Nevertheless, I agree with the rest of what you say.

When I think about the rule against ornamentation. I wonder, how do I live by this rule in a society where dressing how you like has become a virtue? How can I uphold it as a positive value that others should be convinced by? From, fashion subcultures to transgender people, ostentatious dress has become fundamental to people's sense of self. Telling someone who is transgender that dressing up and using heavy make up is morally flawed might be technically right but it leads to rejection. Sadly, I think more and more young people will be less interested in religious traditions as their fundamental moral values float away resulting in a residual interest in aesthetics or hollowed out 'progressive' dilutions of a religion. The gap between religious and secular people will only widen. What does fascinate me is the way Buddhism is one of the few religions with a positive image in Western/Westernized youth culture, the rest are more or less detested. OP chose Buddhism to build his isekai religion, but arguably Judaism and Islam would be better suited to that. Maybe Buddhism is an exception? But in many parts of East Asia, Buddhism has also faded and lost influence.

>>7826
I more or less agree with what you've written here. I have minor nitpicks, but I'll spare you.
>I wonder, how do I live by this rule in a society where dressing how you like has become a virtue? How can I uphold it as a positive value that others should be convinced by? From, fashion subcultures to transgender people, ostentatious dress has become fundamental to people's sense of self. Telling someone who is transgender that dressing up and using heavy make up is morally flawed might be technically right but it leads to rejection.
The most effective means of demonstrating the merit of your values is embodying the change they seek to bring about. The purpose of rejecting ornamentation is to cultivate dispassion for the body and beautification. So, be dispassionate about your body. Demonstration is a far greater teacher than dictation. Do this, likewise, with compassion. Recognize that no one wants unsolicited preaching, so do not preach to them unsolicited. When people do solicit an explanation, size up what kind they really want. Are they asking in a way that warrants "oh, I just feel better this way" or "it's religious" or are they asking in a way that warrants an actual discussion of the theological underpinnings. When discussing the underpinnings of these things, do so with compassion and a mind of good will, desiring to make people open to the beneficial ideas you profess when it's appropriate. To use your example of a trans person, it means to be not judgemental of their doing it and cognizant of the underlying motivations for their doing so while, when welcome or skillful, encouraging them to see that they are complete without makeup, that their value lies beyond merely fulfilling a gender role or other social norm. I speak of this from experience.
>The gap between religious and secular people will only widen.
This presumes that the course of polarization and modern/liberal individualism continues on its course as is. This isn't terribly unlikely of course, but it is fairly specious to take it as a given.
>Maybe Buddhism is an exception?
Just as I wouldn't bank on liberalism remaining dominant, I wouldn't bank on Buddhism going any which way either, even if Buddhism is rather quickly on the rise in the west.

>>7826
>What does fascinate me is the way Buddhism is one of the few religions with a positive image in Western/Westernized youth culture, the rest are more or less detested.
I am no scholar and can only speak for myself, but the reason I reject other religions but have little against Buddhism is because Buddhists are encouraged to discuss their tenets of their religion using logic, and nobody is faulted simply for asking a question. You're also not expected to be an expert in the religion before you're "allowed" to debate - though of course there's an expectation you shouldn't teach. This is very different from what I have seen from Christians and Muslims, who are very much faith-first. If you don't have that "faith" your input is simply not welcome, and it is not something easily acquired.

I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I, subscribing to individualism of a sort, hate being told what to do and what to think, especially when little effort is spent to convince me.

>>7827
You're right. It shouldn't be taken as a given but the polarization between these groups will have very negative effects in the future. There are many liberals who identify with a religion, but its hard to call these people part of a religious tradition and the generation after them is often plain secular. Some religions will adapt well to these new conditions, especially Christianity and maybe Buddhism too, but others will struggle.

>>7828
I'm not sure this is accurate at all. Traditions involve constant criticism and negotiation. They involve continuous debate about how practices and values should be enacted in the present. This is true of Christians and Muslims as it is of Buddhists. The idea that religious traditions, or specific ones at that, are dogmatic and irrational is secular projection. In any case, you could be basing your perceptions on online behavior which does not reflect the rich debates within these traditions. No group has a monopoly on zealous and unhinged behavior nor is critique secular. I think there are other reasons why Buddhism is given a pass, from exoticism and Buddhist exceptionalism to attempts to secularize the Buddha's teachings. Sometimes I feel this popularity is a double edged sword that can also be harmful to the Buddhist tradition.

>I, subscribing to individualism of a sort, hate being told what to do and what to think, especially when little effort is spent to convince me.
The European Enlightenment is the myth from which liberals evaluate non-Western religious traditions, which are now measured according to the models and standards set by the liberals themselves. 'Convincing' in this context is demonstrating that one's religion aligns with liberal models and not that one's differing beliefs and practices are in themselves valuable or even interesting. There is very little I could do to convince you even if I wanted to. There is however another reason people embrace an ethic of hedonistic individualism: a reaction to the soulless bureaucratic alienation generated by capital. Ironically, individualism itself is a sort of tradition and so the very idea of being a free individual is compromised by the fact that people are simply following pre-existing scripts, many of which have been generated by neoliberal capital.

Sure, but all the alternatives are terrible. I don't want to live a life that makes a shit-covered medieval serf's life seem good.

>>7831
This kind of rhetoric proves my point. The moralizing attitude, assumption of superiority, self-centeredness, lack of self-scrutiny and "there are no alternatives" attitude.

I wish there could be a world were religious tradition were just an easy going part of life. No puritan moralism and no confrontation with a "neutral" secular world where "religious" ideas are not allowed to exist. This schizophrenic separation is tiresome.

Like I said, your vision of a world is significantly worse than what we already have, which is already soul-crushing. Nothing other than a complete reset will suffice.

>complete reset
Between the 18th and 21st centuries, elites tried to reorganize and engineer the perfect society with ideas they called rational and scientific. This entailed the destruction. Isn't calling for a complete reset, a destruction or elimination of what is now and what came before, fall into the exact same patterns of thought as those elites? I am not sure what you mean by my vision of the world being terrible. I haven't laid one out. I'm assuming what you mean is the kinds of lifestyles produced by liberal modernity are superior or better to alternatives. This is pretty cynical and arrogant and a claim that should be examined critically. The typical reaction to criticisms of secular modernity is that it involves the embrace of if its supposed opposite, a cruel, tyrannical, medieval theocratic world that has never existed in history. Whatever the case, we may be approaching a world where there are no longer any alternatives.