You are not having a discussion about buddhist tenants. You are redefining buddhism to exclude a bunch of actual buddhist sects (some a thousand plus years old), and then layering some of your own bullshit on top of the remainder to create tussock-approved buddhism. Then when other people try to tell you things about buddhism, you tell them no, that's not real buddhism, because it doesn't have that tussock-approved stamp.tussock wrote:I think there's interesting discussions to be had about theories, including the core tenants of religions, even ones that most people don't understand and get wrong, even when they get it wrong in the name of that theory.
Alternative idea: you admit you have no interest in talking about actual buddhism as buddhists have believed and practiced it over the religion's history and want only to talk about your weird and very specific bastardization thereof. Then, no one will be confused about why when they try to talk buddhism with you the words just go right past you, and will realize you are pretty much useless on the topic.
My capitalization of religious terms is "whatever I feel like at the moment," though I generally try to avoid capitalizing them as adjectives except in technical writing because it's hideous. Though now I'm just not going to capitalize any of it because it seems pleasantly contrarian.tussock wrote:it's capitalised in English because it's named after a person or place, not out of any sense of respect, dufus