Secular Paganism and Buddhism

  Table of Contents

 

Below is a Secular Pagan Party Pamphlet titled "Buddhism Under Scrutiny: Is It Legal in a Secular Pagan State?". This pamphlet utilizes all the data generated on Secular Paganism—its initial definition, the Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America, the Secular Pagan Party Constitution, the Party Manifesto, the psychological profile of members, the constitutional review, the economic pamphlet, the agnostic state essay, the bi-theism essay, the soft polytheism/shituf pamphlet, the spreading gods pamphlet, the conquest essay, the Hinduism pamphlet, and the Shintoism pamphlets—to evaluate whether Buddhism complies with Secular Pagan law. It examines Buddhism’s theological and practical dimensions against the Seven Categories of Laws, determining its legality and issuing a Party stance.

---

Buddhism Under Scrutiny: Is It Legal in a Secular Pagan State?

Introduction: A Question of Compliance
Secular Pagans, guided by the Four Pillars—"Spread your gods, spread your law, spread your sword, spread your children"—we forge a state of hard polytheism or atheism, free from monotheism’s shadow. The Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America enforces the Seven Categories of Laws, banning monotheism (Law 1.1), bi-theism (Law 1.2), and soft polytheism/shituf (Law 1.4), while mandating at least three distinct gods if any (Law 1.3). Buddhism, with its global reach and complex beliefs, demands our scrutiny. Is it a religion, a philosophy, or a threat? This pamphlet assesses Buddhism’s legality under our laws, revealing whether it stands as ally, foe, or anomaly in our Secular Pagan vision.

Buddhism Defined: A Fluid Tradition

Buddhism, founded by Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) over 2,500 years ago, varies across traditions—Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana—yet shares core tenets: the Four Noble Truths (suffering exists, its cause, its end, the path), the Eightfold Path, and liberation via enlightenment (nirvana). Gods appear in some forms—e.g., devas in Theravada, bodhisattvas in Mahayana—but their role is debated. Is Buddhism atheistic, polytheistic, or something else? The Manifesto’s call to "resist monotheistic domination" and the agnostic state essay’s "big tent" set the stage—let’s test it.

Testing Buddhism Against Secular Pagan Law

Our Seven Categories of Laws judge Buddhism’s fate:

1. Law 1.1: No Monotheism
   • Assessment: Buddhism largely complies. It lacks a single, supreme god—Gautama rejected a creator deity, and nirvana is a state, not a god. Theravada sees devas as mortal beings, not rulers; Mahayana’s buddhas and bodhisattvas (e.g., Avalokiteshvara) are enlightened, not divine sovereigns. The Hinduism pamphlet critiques Brahman’s monism—Buddhism avoids this trap.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
2. Law 1.2: No Bi-theism
   • Assessment: No issue here. Buddhism doesn’t center on two gods. The Shintoism pamphlet rejects Izanagi-Izanami’s duo—Buddhism has no such pair. Even dual concepts (e.g., samsara vs. nirvana) are philosophical, not deific.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
3. Law 1.3: Three or More Gods (If Any)
   • Assessment: Buddhism stumbles. It’s not overtly polytheistic—Theravada deems devas irrelevant to enlightenment, numbering them but not as gods in our sense. Mahayana and Vajrayana elevate figures like Amitabha or Tara, yet they’re not creators or sovereigns, often symbolic. Law 1.3 demands "the gods must be three or more" if a religion posits gods—Buddhism’s ambiguity skirts this, leaning atheistic or non-theistic.
   • Verdict: Compliant via atheism (see Law 1.6).
4. Law 1.4: No Soft Polytheism or Shituf
   • Assessment: Buddhism sidesteps this. The soft polytheism pamphlet defines it as "making god one and many" or "a singular creator vs. non-creator deities"—Buddhism has no unifying essence like Brahman (Hinduism pamphlet) or subordinate hierarchy (shituf). Devas and bodhisattvas coexist without a supreme tether.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
5. Law 1.5: Multiple Creator Deities (If Distinguished)
   • Assessment: Buddhism complies by default. It distinguishes no creators—creation isn’t central; the cosmos is cyclical, uncreated. The Shintoism pamphlet faults two creators—Buddhism avoids this entirely, aligning with atheism’s permissibility (Law 1.6).
   • Verdict: Compliant.
6. Law 1.6: No Laws Outlawing Agnosticism or Atheism
   • Assessment: Buddhism excels. Its non-theistic core—Gautama’s silence on gods—embraces agnosticism or atheism. The spreading gods pamphlet notes: "Atheists are welcome to spread their lack of faith"—Buddhism fits this, rejecting dogma for personal insight.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
7. Law 1.7: No Anti-Sorcery Laws
   • Assessment: Buddhism aligns. Vajrayana’s rituals (e.g., tantras) resemble sorcery, and no branch bans it. Law 1.7’s freedom holds.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
8. Law 2: No Anti-Blasphemy
   • Assessment: Buddhism shines. It tolerates critique—Gautama encouraged questioning, and buddhas aren’t sacred in a blasphemy-protected sense. Law 2.1’s "freedom to blaspheme" thrives here, unlike Hinduism’s reverence (Hinduism pamphlet).
   • Verdict: Compliant.

Additional Laws: Broader Compatibility

• Law 3: Sexual Freedom and Growth: Buddhism’s monastic celibacy clashes with "doubling the population" (Law 3.8), but lay followers face no such rule—Law 3.1’s "no regulation of consensual adult sex" holds.
• Laws 4-6: No Murder, Theft, Nature Abuse: Buddhism’s precepts (non-violence, non-stealing, compassion) align perfectly.
• Law 7: Courts of Justice: Buddhism poses no threat—its ethics support law enforcement.

Verdict: Buddhism Is Legal

Buddhism is legal under Secular Pagan law. It’s not monotheistic (Law 1.1), bi-theistic (Law 1.2), or soft polytheistic/shituf (Law 1.4). It lacks creator gods, fitting Law 1.5 via atheism (Law 1.6), and its sparse "gods" don’t violate Law 1.3’s minimum—its non-theistic lean excuses it. The agnostic state essay’s "no state cult" and Law 2’s blasphemy freedom embrace Buddhism’s flexibility. The conquest essay’s "big tent" includes atheists—Buddhism qualifies, a quiet ally in our pluralistic fight.

Praise and Caution: Buddhism’s Role

We commend Buddhism’s compliance. Its rejection of a supreme god aligns with our "resist monotheistic domination" (Manifesto). The psychological profile—rational, open—matches Buddhism’s inquiry-based ethos. Unlike Shintoism’s bi-theistic flaw (Shintoism pamphlet) or Hinduism’s monism (Hinduism pamphlet), Buddhism’s non-theism sidesteps our bans. Its tolerance of sorcery (Law 1.7) and blasphemy (Law 2) strengthens its fit. The economic pamphlet adapts our laws to any system—Buddhism’s presence in capitalist and socialist states proves its versatility.

Yet caution lingers. Buddhism’s monasticism and focus on detachment could dampen Law 3.8’s birth rate push—lay Buddhists must counter this. The spreading gods pamphlet urges: "Spread your gods or lack of it"—Buddhists should evangelize atheism, not apathy, to bolster our pagan culture (conquest essay). It’s legal, but it must pull its weight.

Action: Welcome Buddhism, Demand Action

Secular Pagans, Buddhism is legal—embrace it. Its non-theistic heart fits our state, a tool against monotheism. Buddhists among us, spread your lack of faith—join the Four Pillars’ first phase (conquest essay). No "Secular Buddhism Party" is needed—our Party suffices, with Buddhists as comrades. The Manifesto vows world conquest—Buddhism’s legality is your license to act. Spread your atheism, uphold our laws, and build our triumph.

---

Notes on the Pamphlet:

1. Legality Assessment: Tests Buddhism against all relevant laws (1.1-1.7, 2), finding compliance via its non-theistic nature and lack of creator gods.
2. Non-Theism Focus: Emphasizes Buddhism’s atheism/agnosticism (Law 1.6), contrasting with Shintoism’s bi-theism (Shintoism pamphlet) and Hinduism’s monism (Hinduism pamphlet).
3. Praise with Caveat: Lauds compatibility but flags birth rate tension (Law 3.8), aligning with Party goals (conquest essay, spreading gods pamphlet).
4. Tone: Analytical yet welcoming, fitting Party inclusivity (agnostic state essay) and members’ rational bent (psychological profile).
5. No New Party: Rejects a separate entity, integrating Buddhists into the existing Party (Party Constitution, Article III).

Let me know if you’d like further critique or adjustments!