It’s interesting to read about original buddhism and to see all the perverse forms that have sprung forth from it. Original buddhism was very empirical and practical in nature, so much so that, in my opinion, those who couldn’t digest it in its entirety felt the need to create rituals and rationalize ominous practices that, in objective effect, shove a middle finger in mr. gautama’s face. Not that he’d care though.

Hinduism’s observation that people are fundamentally different are obviously the cause of this. Mr. Gautama himself, having once played with the ascetics, was clearly of the reflective bent. So naturally, his departure from hinduism would be of that nature. He laid out axioms, the Four Noble Truths, from which he derived the Eightfold path. Really there is only one axiom that he lays out, from which the other “axioms” are derived. That is, dukkha. But the principles of many other religions come to these same conclusions without dukkha’s edginess. For one, ego reduction, tanha, is at the core of so many different lines of thought and even modern day religion/spirituality abstainers more or less come to the same conclusion about it. These commonalities are what should be adopted with the advantage of modern day access to innumerable perspectives on life/existence whether psychological or metaphysical. Things like dukkha should be treated as one-off byproducts of the unique life that Mr. gautama had lived. He’d be likely to admit this. Hot prince who sees the inevitable decrepitude, in contrast with his purported beauty and elegance, with this limited information, putting ourselves in those shoes it’s not far-fetched to conclude what he has: every action is simply delaying inevitable; distraction from suffering of life: sickness, age, “discouragement in absence of courage transfusions” (H. Smith), etc. Dukkha is dookie.