Forum

The essence of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam is the same — only the form differs.

Learn the fundamentals, you slacker.

What makes me so repulsive to you — is it that I speak the truth?
Well yes, the truth is hard to hear, it hurts.

If someone claims that the essence of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam is the same, that means only ONE thing. They do not understand the essence of Buddhism, nor the essence of Islam or Christianity. Generally speaking, Islam and Judaism are far closer to each other than Islam and Buddhism. In fact, if you delve into the narrative fabric of Ariputra's expositions, the logical and beautiful finale would be the protagonist admitting that he himself belongs to the Jewish people — I wonder if the author will have enough dramatic courage for that.

Wicc:

Regardless of who is right in the discussion, the format of the public debate was maintained in good style — relatively few emotions and label-sticking (there was some banter, but it was civilized), plenty of logic, analysis of the opponent's arguments (instead of re-declaring one's own theses for the Nth time), and many references to data from various trustworthy statistics websites.

Frankly, drawing a parallel here between FritzMorgen's discussions — even turning a blind eye to what he "works with" — and Ariputra's devastating revelations seems, in my opinion, completely wrong. Let me try to explain why I think so.

In the human consciousness, as known from psychoanalysis, one can find two components, conventionally called the logical and the mythological. For an example, take a resident of the USSR, say from the mid-20th century. That which constitutes a person's daily activities — professional plans, trips to the store, earning money — belongs to the logical part of their consciousness. But what relates to attitudes toward the party and the leader belongs to the mythological side. Using only the logical part of an individual's consciousness for one's own purposes, it is impossible (or incredibly difficult) to make a person, for instance, go to their death, throw themselves into an embrasure. However, by manipulating the mythological component, such a thing may very well succeed (e.g., Japanese kamikaze pilots). There is no clear boundary where the logical component transitions into the mythological. At the same time, behavior driven by different natures of motivation will differ sharply.

For instance, this can be clearly observed in an argument. If you try to object to someone's belief related to the first nature, the person will most likely attempt to logically refute your point of view. A completely different reaction occurs if you touch the "mythological" side (for example, suggesting to a patriot that they consider selling the Kuril Islands to Japan). The person starts losing their composure, feels the urge to shout and stomp their feet; in their response, we see not logic but overwhelming emotions.
Manipulating the "mythological" part of consciousness is also possible, but as a rule, it is done by other means; moreover, a person must possess certain qualities to successfully handle this — talent, the power of emotional influence (examples of such people include ancient "prophets," or, say, Savonarola).

Now, what was the digression for? The fact is that the example of Vic's internet discussion undoubtedly pertains to the "logical" nature of consciousness. There were figures — say, 80%, 120%, or 90% — and the discussion, on the whole, was conducted in the appropriate vein. Our lyrical Aryan hero, on the other hand, is trying to influence the "mythological" part of consciousness. The trouble is, due to a lack of the requisite aptitude, the result ends up being some sort of shameful absurdity. For example, a strongman steps onto the platform, all the spectators await a record, and in the end — he simply loudly soils himself; roughly that impression arises after reading and, more importantly, attempting to digest 90% of Ariputra's opuses. Accordingly, Ariputra's manner is very clearly traced in his style. The abundance of demotivators indicates that Ariputra is trying to manipulate the "mythological" side of consciousness. Also, Ariputra considers shock to be an incredibly important technique of influence. Therefore, he presumably shoves something shocking into every opus of his — whether it is appropriate or, on the contrary, meaningless. For the sake of shock, he is ready to gather the lowest-grade fabrications and pass them off as truthful. For example, in his link about the population of Russia, where the figure of 90 million is mentioned, one can find that the authors were not talking about the population of Russia, but about the RUSSIAN population. Which, of course, gives the final figure around 100 million. We await new, definitely SHOCKING revelations from Ariputra of all HeroesWorld.

P.S. What is the point of disavowing the Inglists, if ALL of Ariputra's stated beliefs coincide with what the followers of A. Khinevich say (etymology, Slava, Nav, Prav, etc.)?