Buddhism is not Buddhism

The deluded and preening religious rabble who upon bellies like worms wiggle in the religion known today as ‘buddhism’ are clueless as to the original texts, contexts, and meaning of the message of Gotama who was the (sic) historical founder of what is known as Buddhism today. The doctrine of earliest Buddhasassana (doctrine of the Buddha), that being the Pali Nikayas, makes no quibble that it is heretical in the extreme to declare that the “Buddha’s teachings are in any way original, new, novel” [It 96]. Oddly (or seemingly so to the few wisemen such as myself and others) nobody is interested in what Gotama taught, and how, if in any way, his teachings differed from that of Vedanta’s message. These pathetic and profane rabble comprise nearly 100% of the religious clergy of what is known as Buddhism today; these are of course religionists, not metaphysicians, not truth seekers, not wisemen, not investigators of earliest Buddhism, and if asked they will not hesitate to expose their disdain for “dusty old texts & dogma”, much less discover the revelations to be found within.

Do facts such as Gotama’s own self-referencing himself as a “sage of the Vedas” (vedasotthim), or a teacher of the “way to Brahman” (brahmayana Sn 5.5), or as found here [DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." [DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.” [DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!”; do not many thousands of such facts from earliest doctrine pique the interest of these pseudo-spiritual buffoons that “Buddhism isn’t Buddhism”? The fact is that absolutely all intelligent (and there are several) examinations of Buddhism on its own grounds, and not through the filter of later-day sectarian commentarialism shows clearly to the learned Buddhologist that this “Buddhism” (so-called) in no way differed from the Vedanta as established in the principle Upanishads nor the core of the highly ritualistically ripe Vedas. Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy was utmost in the right when he proclaimed “the more superficially one studies Buddhism (i.e. commentarial and guru based trash) one (sees same as a wholly new faith); however the more deeply one studies Buddhism, the more impossible it becomes to in any way differentiate Buddhism from its root Vedanta”.

There are none living or dead who have shown or could show, with evidences from doctrine itself that Buddhism in even the slightest, diverged from, disputed the core message of, or contraindicated the methodology & wisdom of emancipation of the spirit (nous, citta/atman) from perpetual self (khandhic/empirical/temporal) identification; or as meant the reversal of the uncaused premise of the soul’s descent into embodiment, that being agnosis/avijja/avidya. This fact of course gravely upsets the religionist demons who cleave fiercely to the false notion that Buddhism is ‘original’, ‘solely of divine creation from a spiritual and metaphysical void’. This fact would, in their deluded minds, cause Buddhism to lose its perceptive uniqueness in their eyes, and therefore besmirch Buddhism as a whole, and would cause Buddhism to be blended into the tree of Vedantic thought as a mere subgroup of Vedantic commentarialism specifically; which of course it in fact is.

I could write a near endless novel about this subject alone, suffice to say that the wheat, or wisemen are firmly planted in the realm of facts, logic, and doctrine, whereas the common incredulous religious rabble, or chaff, see Buddhism as a ritualistic trinket, unique and original in everyway, and something wholly other than (sic) “Hinduism”; and nothing is more palpably false and disingenuous to the evidences within doctrine itself. If one cannot see the low and base religionist and his ignoble position of pomp and conjecture as wholly separate from that of the metaphysician and logical investigator of doctrine, then one has utterly no hope of separating the facts from the commentarial trash and lies so very very long promulgated by the wicked “Buddhists” who are in no way better than demons in the extreme.

Buddhism has its own worth in grasping the Monism of Vedanta, just as Plotinus who was aught more than a rehasher of Platonism’s core message, is a supremely invaluable tool to be studied and understood as a finer and more concise synopsis of the metaphysics of Pythagoreanism and Platonism. Buddhism however, is not Buddhism, nor is there a Pali term for same, nor is there a term for ‘buddhist’. Gotama’s own command was that his teachings were Brahmayana (path to Brahman) and his message the reestablishment of the lost meaning of Vedanta’s core. None on earth living or dead can go against this fact, many however have tried to pry Buddhism from “Hinduism”, and absolutely all have failed miserably. There is no Buddhism to be studied; and this is coming from someone (myself) who has studied the original texts in the original Pali for many tens of thousands of hours. There is only Vedantic Monism, of which Buddhism is merely an aspect thereof.

"Buddhism is most famous today for everything it originally never taught" Dr. A.K.C.