Shintoism is a religion from Japan classified as an East Asian religion by scholars. It is often regarded by its practitioners as Japan's indigenous religion and as a "nature religion." Religious scholars sometimes call its practitioners "Shintoists," although adherents rarely use that term themselves. With no central authority in control of Shintoism, there is much diversity of belief and practice evident among practitioners. A polytheistic and animistic religion, Shinto revolves around supernatural entities called the kami (神), who are believed to inhabit all things, including forces of nature and prominent locations.
These shapeshifting kami are worshipped at kamidana household shrines, family shrines, and jinja public shrines staffed by priests, known as kannushi(those who deal with the kami), who oversee offerings of food and drink to the specific kami enshrined at that location. This is done to cultivate harmony between humans and kami [shapeshifting spirits, apparitions, ghosts, genies, poltergeists, elementals, ghouls, monsters, tricksters, fairies, gargoyles, or other invisible beings] and to solicit their blessings. Other common rituals include kagura dances, rites of passage, and kami festivals. Public shrines facilitate forms of divination and supply religious objects, such as amulets, to the Shintoists. The religion places a major conceptual focus on ensuring purity, largely by cleaning practices such as ritual washing and bathing, especially before worship. Little emphasis is placed on specific moral codes or particular afterlife beliefs, although the dead are deemed capable of becoming kami. The religion has no single creator or specific doctrine and instead exists in a diverse range of local and regional forms.
Yōkai are also referred to as ayakashi (あやかし), mononoke (物の怪), or mamono (魔物). Some academics and Shinto practitioners acknowledge similarities within the seeming dichotomy between the natures of yōkaiand most kami, which are generally regarded as relatively beneficent by comparison. Shintoists classify the two as ultimately the same type of spirits of nature or of a mythological realm [3]. Their behavior can range from malevolent harm or mischievous trickster pranksterism to benevolent towards humans. More: yōkai
Mormonism: the theology and religious tradition of the Latter-Day Saint movement of RestorationistChristianitystarted by Joseph Smith in Western New York in the 1820s and 1830s. As a label, it has been applied to various aspects of the movement, although since 2018 there has been a push from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) to distance itself from this label [1]. A prominent feature of the theology is the Book of Mormon, a 19th-century text that describes itself as a chronicle of early Indigenous peoples of the Americas and their dealings with [the white man's] God [2]. This theology combines mainstream Christian beliefs with modifications stemming from belief in revelations to Smith and other religious leaders.
Atheism: knowing that there are no Gods (theos); in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are certainly no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.
NONTHEISM: The position that whether there is a God(s) or not, that has no bearing on an individual's enlightenment, liberation, deliverance, salvation, emancipation. (Why? The gods/Gods are caught in this samsaric rounds just as other beings are). It is a range of both religious [1] and non-religious [2] attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in the existence of a God or gods.
It has generally been used to describe silence towards the subject of gods (deus, theos, dīvus) and differs from atheism, which is an active disbelief in any gods. It has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing distinct and even mutually exclusive positions.
(We apologize in advance if our statements have offended any FSMists; it is never our intention at WQ to offend, diminish, mock, or otherwise find fault with the religion or nonreligion of anyone's choosing. Do carry on believing and never mind our backwards ways. In fact, everyone should convert to this religion and/or make up their own, such as George Costanza Sr.'s Festivusism. We ourselves are nontheists, Buddhists yes, but nontheists.)
FSM Pastafarianism
One day the eternal Creator Deity blessed humankind with starch but cursed it with gluten
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the supreme deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [of the latter-day tortellinis], an ironic, satirical, and parodic new religious movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion [3]. The parody originated in opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools in the USA. According to adherents ("Pastafaris"), Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism 🌬️) is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other" [4]. It has received some limited recognition as such [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. More
I am thy Emperor in the Sky, the Demiurge, thy Jealous and vengeful Lord of all Worlds!
.
Behold! The Way, the Truth, and the Light!
(MorgueOfficial) I discovered the REAL God | Why the Monad[the One, as taught in the varied traditions we collectively call Gnosticism] was too dangerous to teach.
So that even the Goddess of Wisdom (Sophia) as exemplified by Apostle Mary Magdalene (the closest and brightest apostle, the real intended successor of Jesus, not dogmatic Peter/Petra, an emissary of Sophia, Barbelo, the true GOD or godhead) had to denigrated and erased.
It's why Jesus the Anointed One (the Christed) had to be repurposed by imperial powers, misquoted, and made to work for the state (Emperor Constantine's Roman Empire and subsequent Christendom), and inverted until what the church says he said is nearly the opposite of what he was teaching.
Pistis Sophia (Koine Greek Πίστις Σοφία) is a Gnostic text discovered in 1773, possibly written between the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. The existing manuscript, which some scholars place in the late 4th century, relates one Gnostic group's teachings of the transfigured Jesus to the assembled disciples, including his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Martha. (In this context, "transfigured" refers to Jesus after his death and resurrection, not the event during his life where he spoke to appearances of Moses and Elijah on a mountain). In this text, the risen Jesus had spent 11 years speaking with his disciples, teaching them only the lower mysteries. After 11 years, he receives his true garment and is able to reveal the higher mysteries [entheogens] revered by this group. The prized mysteries relate to complex cosmologies and knowledge necessary for the soul to reach the highest divine realms. More
Why become a follower following in the footsteps of the guru to know what the guru knows when you can just pay lip service to the guru, praise, worship, sing about, and never actually follow anything he taught, pat yourself on the back for being a good "follower" (a pious Christian hypocrite), and call it a day?
Heaven awaits for all kiss-ups who never bothered to read, investigate, study, or experience what the Teacher taught. They just let child molesting intermediaries interpret it for them so they could be sure to get a good seat to the afterlife. God would be so proud!
So all true believers get into heaven?
It's interesting that many modern Christians, contradicting their own official sacred texts (council-approved books of The Book), believe in and speak of a God that sounds an awful lot like the Monad Jesus was really talking about.
The ancient Vedas, Brahmin priests (Brahmanism), and modern Hindus also speak of such a GOD (Brahman, not Brahma) that is not a being in the sky, not an old, bearded man on a cloud throne but rather "the absolute or ultimate reality behind all of the illusion" (the maya or simulation or the ever-revolving samsara). That GOD is called Brahman even in a polytheistic, henotheistic, sometimes pantheistic tradition with so much variety and complexity (because it's an amalgam of all the beliefs and practices found in India by the occupying British who could not understand it until they lumped the diversity into one big pile and called it a "thing," a "religion," of which ancient Indians had no concept, because like most people of the world, spirituality and daily life were not treated as separate).
BRAHMAN: In the Old Vedic and subsequent Hindu religions, Brahman (Sanskrit ब्रह्मन्) has a "variety of meanings," but in the Upanishads and later Indian philosophies it connotes "That" from which all existence proceeds, and to which everything returns [1, a], [the Source,] the origin and cause of all that exists [2, 3, 4]. In contemporary Hindu metaphysics, Brahman is the highest universal principle, the Ultimate Reality of the universe behind all the hide-and-seek "divine play" (lila), complexity, and confusion of maya (illusion). [The nondual of Advaita Vedanta.] More
That's what I've been trying to say: we're all divine
This Monad (ONE) is Brahman (GOD), and it probably the TAO, the Great Spirit of Native American lore, and it is likely the "Father" Jesus (Gnostic Jesus, Y'shua, Yeshua, Joshua, Isa, Saint Issa) was really talking about in an anionic (timeless/eternal now) Kingdom, not a heavenly rebirth but a timeless ("eternal") reality right now, for those [mystery cult] initiates ready and able to undergo purification and ego-death (loss of self to gain the kingdom of heaven) and be raised up in a rapture (bliss, unburdening, realization, union) of understanding (comprehension) and gnosis (actual experience) before passing away from this world.
The basic recurring theme in Hindu mythology is the creation of the world by the self-sacrifice of God—"sacrifice" in the original sense of "making sacred"—whereby God [or GOD] becomes the world which, in the end, becomes again God.
This creative activity of the Divine is calledlila, the play [or drama] of God, and the world is seen as the stage [platform] of the divine play. Like most of Hindu mythology, the myth of lila has a strong magical flavour.
Brahman is the great magician who transforms [it]self into the world and then performs this feat with [its] "magic creative power," which is the original meaning of maya in the Rig Veda.
The word maya—one of the most important terms in Indian philosophy—has changed its meaning over the centuries. From the might, or power, of the divine actor and magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the spell of the magic play [the actors or audience lost in the play].
As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, without perceiving the unity of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya....
The Tao of Physics (Fritjof Capra)
In the Hindu view of nature, then, all forms are relative, fluid and ever-changing maya, conjured up by the great magician of the divine play. The world of maya changes continuously, because the divine lila is a rhythmic, dynamic play.
The dynamic force of the play is karma [act, action, deed, doing, intention], an important concept of Indian thought. Karma means "action." It is the active principle of the play [the acting], the total universe in action, where everything is dynamically connected with everything else.
In the words of the [Bhagavad] Gita, Karma is the force of creation, wherefrom all things have their life.
El means "god" or "deity" or as a proper name, El refers to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities.
El ("God") is a Northwest Semitic word. A rarer form, 'ila, represents the predicate form in the Old Akkadian and Amorite languages [8]. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil- [9]. Originally a Canaanite deity known as 'El, 'Al, or 'Il was the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion [10].
It has always been understood that there were many gods, which is clear from teh Bible even as henotheists and monotheists try to obscure that fact.
Scholars like Frank Moore Cross and Ignace Gelb speculate El may have also been the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia (circa 2900–circa 2350 BCE) [11, 12].
Among the Hittites, El was known as Elkunirša (Hittite 𒂖𒆪𒉌𒅕𒊭 Elkunīrša). Although El was given different appearances and meanings in different languages over time, the word continues to exist as El-, -il, or -el in compound proper noun phrases like Isra'el (Hebrew Yīsrāʾēl, Israēl, which means "El [God] persists or rules," Micha'el, Beth'el, and El'izabeth, most of which are theophoric given names. More: El (deity)
The Elohim: Hebrew word meaning "gods." The word is plural. It can also mean "godhood," which is to say what beings who become gods are called. As an abstract noun it refers to the concept of "divinity." In the Jewish (Hebrew) Bible, it often takes singular verbal or pronominal agreement to refer to a single deity, particularly but not always the God of henotheistic and polytheistic Judaism, that later tried to claim itself only monotheistic. In other verses it takes plural agreement and refers to gods in the plural. Who were these other gods? God's wife Asherahwas one. She (the Goddess) was well known. The other, El, is less known because it is hidden through the biblical texts, which were chosen for political and Roman imperial purposes.
On the one hand, Radha is seen as Krishna's lover-consort (although in some beliefs Radha is considered to be Krishna's married consort).
On the other hand, Rukmini and Krishna's many other consorts are already said to be married to him.
PolygynistLord Krishna had eight chief wives, known as ashtabharyas. Regional texts vary in the identity of Krishna's wives (consorts), some presenting them as Rukmini, some as Radha, all gopis ("milkmaids"), and some identifying all as different aspects or manifestations of the goddess Lakshmi [8, 9].
(Ancient Bloodline) [AI slop to fuel speculation:] Life 1.9 million years ago: ancient aliens teach prehistoric humans how to survive? It was not by violence but by farming, cooperation, and controlling base instincts.
Hinduism, which is not the same as the Old Vedic Religion we call Brahmanism, has three facets of God, which most take to be three different Gods: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer, and Shiva the Destroyer. Krishna is not any of these, but like the Buddha, Jesus, and other good teachers, Krishna is regarded as an avatar or incarnation of Vishnu. Krishna ("The Dark One") is regarded as the "All-Attractive One," a blue and beautiful humanoid being who literally came to Earth and taught Arjuna and others, the most comely embodiment of Vishnu. Lord Krishna (which maybe should be spelled "Chrishna" or "Khrist" because of his similarity to Jesus in form and function within Hinduism)
Krishna sure loved the milkmaids or gopis. One time he stole their clothes while they were bathing in the river. Some say his activities on earth make him seem more like an embodiment of the god Kama (Cupid, Eros, Lust) than Vishnu. His consort is Radha, and they are often combined into a unisex or united binary being: Radha Krishna, combining our innate masculine and feminine characteristics as humans, which the devas more freely express.
Why elite scandals never change anything: Prof. Jiang Xueqin
I blackmail. I don't get got. Cohen taught me.
(Prof Jiang Media) Jan. 8, 2026: Modern societies tend to believe that exposure brings accountability — that when scandals surface, power is finally put at risk.
In this lecture, Jiang Xueqin questions this belief. By examining history, political systems, and recurring patterns of elite behavior, Prof. Xueqin argues that scandals rarely dismantle power structures. More often, they reinforce them.
We work for Zionist Israel and get many perks.
Public outrage creates the illusion of justice, while institutions quietly contain the damage, shield their core interests [redact names of powerful participants in crimes], and continue unchanged.
Through a series of high-profile case studies, this discussion explores why exposure so often fails to generate real reform, why moral anger dissipates without consequence, and why modern societies repeatedly confuse visibility with accountability [and there is no real transparency].
What appears to be a moment of truth, Prof. Xueqin suggests, may instead function as a diversion — shifting attention away from structural power toward spectacle.
This video investigates how elite systems endure scandal, why genuine accountability remains structurally elusive, and why societies continue to misplace faith in exposure as a corrective force.
🎓 Speakers: Interview with Danny Haiphong and Professor Jiang Xueqin
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
.jpg)
_cropped.png)
.svg){kind=link}
