/lit/ - Literature

>>14857046
Don't think you can combine the two. Radical ahimsa and pacifism is too ingrained in Buddhism.

ofc ahimsa isn't bad in itself because you shouldn't confuse ahimsa for the sake of spiritual growth and the breaking of ahimsa precepts in the name of secular action. So hunting is not conducive to spiritual growth but it is conducive to filling your belly/freezer. Going to war is not conducive to nibbana but it is conducive to expanding/defending your realm. This isn't really a problem since anyone who would have to justify himself defending his family from a robber for example in spiritual terms is clearly a fucking loser and is completely drowning in abstractions.

But the Buddha went a lot further than this though, he expounded straight up pacifism and hard line rigid morality for his followers. All spiritual systems have advocated morality but Buddhism is wholly world denying and it has lead to the creation of castes that are essentially lower than the untouchables in India. Just because the society necessarily demands there to be butchers, tanners and hunters etc. A religion is faulty if it forces a certain subsection of your own populace to completely destroy themselves spiritually for eons to come just so the rest can live. Buddhism doesn't square up with the reality of the lived human experience, and as such it must be rejected. Even Jainism is not as bad as Buddhism for the laypeople, at least Jainism developed different workable paths for its ascetics and laymen. But Buddhism demands the same ascetic vows for its laypeople as it do for the monks, only fewer.

But you're welcome to try. An authentic right-wing traditionalism that also believes that you'll be heading towards hell for going fishing with your grandpa? Let me know how it goes.