This is because enlightenment is non-universal, and its non-universality would imply that the Christian accounting of what an enlightened state is within its religious structure is the only judicious and merciful presentation of it. Enlightenment as presented in Karmic religions like Buddhism is actually both very undeveloped and unfair, and in the one case where it is developed to a greater degree, it reveals that the root of Buddhism is false.
If the average human is constitutionally incapable of enlightenment, this would mean that enlightened people would need to be private to some degree concerning their status. Perhaps even to deny it, and insist in their own frailty (as Christian saints do). For it is the case that enlightenment cannot be universal to everyone in this lifetime due to tragedy, circumstances of birth, disability, and just the generalized fact that the average human is constitutionally incapable of achieving the levels of wisdom and self-control characteristic of enlightenment.
And, in this context, the way that Buddhism and Hindusim treat enlightenment become even more questionable, because one’s status as enlightened would have to be a far more private affair. This is because:
- Pride and gaudy displays of your achievement are fundamentally egotistical and prideful, which goes against what we know to be enlightened behavior. I
- It would also not make sense to reveal access to a higher level of reasoning and moral truth as an 'enlightened' person to people who cannot actually follow that path, and so dangling this reality before them would serve no good purpose. You may be able to theoretically help a limited number achieve it by revealing you know the way, but to display this in front of the masses, receive honor and prestige, and simply say that this is a merit-building activity for them doesn’t track well. It far more tracks with it being an exercise in ego.
- It would be frustrating and generally unhelpful to the unenlightened to feel the gap between themselves and the enlightened knowing it could not be closed.
Thus:
(1) The truest Buddhist and Hindu doctrines would likely be heavily reliant on the very literal ideas of obtaining merit through acts of discipline, obedience, and discipleship to be reborn in a state capable of enlightenment, yet:
Karmic faiths that do not emphasize the mercy of divine beings or rebirth are
utterly lost in the egalitarian impulse of modernization. The only way that
they can seem to remain valid is retconning them so that "Eastern
teachers have presented a palatable version to Moderns with the hope that they
accumulate merit as comparatively faithless people, employing skillful means."
We must insist on this because it seems many of the greatest
minds in the East & West are completely one-shotted by the egalitarian
education that would call out unequal access to enlightenment as a fundamentally
unfair barrier to paradise, and thus a form of bias they would not be able to
square with a “good universe.”
Yet, the modern inclination toward providing access to
paradise to the non-elite is not a gross stance, right. It’s a reflection of a
healthy impulse to always account for the downtrodden, and so it would make
more sense to flip this whole thing around and suggest that this is more proof
for a universe presided over by the Christian God:
The impulse toward mercy to the weaker lifeform is the most
correct impulse, and it is present in all humans and manifested most obviously
in the modern world where everyone is concerned about fairness.
Virtually only Christianity adequately does this, and Mahayana Buddhism does
this inadequately, because
(2) Mahayana is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, an innovation by
later Buddhists on the initial doctrine that tries to grapple with the fact
that Buddhism is completely unfair to the
householder who cannot hope to obtain enlightenment with their status in life,
and Mahayana solves the problem by relying heavily on Bodhisattvas appearing as
a deus ex Machina to solve this.
Now the layman can lead a normal life in good faith, and if
on his death bed he recites a sutra, he can expect that Avalokitesvara hears
him and, mercifully, allows for his rebirth in a higher Buddha plane setting
him up for eventual Nirvana.
Buddhism is thus, of course, a religion that is false at its
root and subsequently reformed to account for this theological plot hole.
There is no real dogma of progressive revelation within Buddhism,
and any such insistence would be post-hoc, so the falsehood of Mahayana is
obvious. It’s an innovation on a theology that is fundamentally stillborn.
(3) Christianity accounts for non-universal accessibility to enlightenment in
its theology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. Its actual starting point on this
topic is rooted in reality while Buddhism and Hinduism both fail to clarify
this at the start.
For the general thrust of it affirms that one can obtain
Sainthood (our analog for being an enlightened one), but the path to such is
generally considered so rigorous and sin so common that it is not even actively
promoted as a universal path at all. Rather, the layman is expected to
repent and focus on personal betterment, never expecting literal Sainthood.
(4) Christianity is the truest religion of enlightenment because it also
emphasizes humility over ‘non-self.’
Humility is a far more practical, personal value that simple people can
actualize, and the actualization of humility produces some sense of non-self.
At the highest form of humility, non-self is obtained.
But Buddhism is an inversion of this: it promotes the obtainment of non-self,
which is a stumbling block to the normal person, and it even sets up the doctrine
in such a way where the virtues of humility can be lost in favor of the
philosophical complexity of practicing egolessness and non-self.
This goes back to what I have heard said before: Buddhism contrasts sharply
with the truth and seems often to be an inversion of it. Not in the silly way
that the Satanists literally invert things, but in the sense that, being just metaphysically
wrong about the structure of the universe and the dialectic behind moral
advancement, it frequently comes to mirror conclusions about the truth.
So, if we accept the idea that Enlightenment is real, Christianity is the true
religion.
