>>7817Individualism, 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 doThe 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.
