Finn contra the Buddha and Paul

How Salvation Cults Arose from the Universalisation of Negativity

Original Goodness versus Original Sin and Original Suffering

by Bodhangkur

Abstract

Both early Buddhism and Pauline Christianity begin with a profound but partial diagnosis of the human condition. The Buddha selects pain/dukkha; Paul selects sin. Each then accentuates the chosen negative until it becomes the lens for all existence. Each finally universalises the negative and grounds a salvation economy—Nirvāṇa in one case, Redemption in Christ in the other. Finn’s doctrine of Original Goodness exposes the structural flaw in both projects: their initial selections are one-sided, their universalisation metaphysically unwarranted, and their salvific solutions parasitic upon the very negations they create.

The result is a sharp philosophical contrast:
Finn sees life as a once-only procedural opportunity;
Buddha and Paul treat life as a problem requiring escape.

1. The Shared Structure of Negative-Selection Salvation Systems

Every salvation cult, Finn observes, must do four things:

1. Select a negative.

2. Accentuate it.

3. Universalise it.

4. Offer escape from it — at a price.

Buddha chooses pain/dukkha.
Paul chooses sin.
Both then generate enormous soteriological architectures around the negativity they have amplified.

Finn exposes this as a procedural error:
a system taking one local feedback signal (pain, moral confusion) and making it the global definition of existence, then offering to abolish existence in order to abolish the discomfort.

2. Paul’s Negative: Sin as a Universal Ontological Stain

2.1 Selection of the Negative

Paul begins by identifying “sin” as the core human problem:

“By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin.”
— Romans 5:12

This is the founding move: human beings are defined first and foremost as violators of a divine order.

2.2 Accentuating the Negative

Paul then inflates sin from act to state:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
— Romans 3:23

Sin is no longer behaviour; it is identity.
Human nature itself becomes morally defective.

2.3 Universalising the Negative

Paul radicalises his claim:

“There is none righteous, no, not one.”
— Romans 3:10

No exceptions.
Children, the innocent, the righteous—everyone is included.
Humanity is painted in a single tone: guilty.

2.4 Selling the Escape

Having universalised the wound, Paul sells the cure:

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.”
— Romans 6:23

The structure is unmistakable:

· you are guilty by nature,

· therefore doomed,

· unless you accept the specific solution I provide.

Paul invents the archetype of the salvation-through-submission cult:
the disease is total, the cure exclusive.

Finn’s immediate objection:

Sin is an artificially selected negative: not inherent to being, but to Paul’s psychological and cultural context.
It is not a structural feature of emergence.

Under Original Goodness, Paul’s project collapses.

3. Buddha’s Negative: Suffering as the Essence of Existence

3.1 Selection of the Negative

The Buddha begins with the First Noble Truth:

“Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering… In short, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering.”
— SN 56.11

This is the foundational choice:
pain is taken as the defining characteristic of existence.

3.2 Accentuating the Negative

Across the Nikāyas, the Buddha states repeatedly:

“What is impermanent is suffering.”
— SN 22.59

A local phenomenon (pain due to destabilisation) becomes a universal predicate:
everything that changes = suffering.

3.3 Universalising the Negative

The Buddha then applies dukkha to all phenomena:

“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā.”
“All conditioned things are suffering.”
— SN 22.45

Here, Buddha performs exactly what Paul does:
transforming a local feature of life into a global identity of reality.

3.4 Selling the Escape

The Buddha’s escape is cessation of being:

“This is peace, this is exquisite: the stilling of all formations,
the relinquishing of all acquisitions,
the destruction of craving,
dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.”
— AN 3.32

The structure is identical to Paul’s:

· You exist = you suffer.

· The solution = stop existing.

· The means = follow this path and doctrine.

Finn’s objection:

Pain is a local feedback signal; it is not the nature of being.
To universalise it is a logical mistake.

4. Finn’s Deconstruction: The Fundamental Error in Both Buddha and Paul

Finn sees in both systems the same:

· selective perception,

· exaggeration,

· universalisation,

· redemption-economy.

The key error:
taking feedback for ontology.

4.1 Pain and sin are feedback signals

· Pain = error of stability, signalling misalignment.

· Sin = social/moral friction within a cultural code.

Both are functional information, not foundations of being.

4.2 Finn’s Original Goodness

Original Goodness =
Every emergent is locally perfect because it is the only pattern possible under its constraints.

Life is not a fallen trap (Paul) nor a painful mistake (Buddha).
Life is a procedural opportunity.

Pain signals misalignment.
Guilt signals disharmony.
Neither defines the being itself.

Thus the universalisation performed by both Buddha and Paul is false by inflation.

5. Why Buddha and Paul Universalise Negativity: The Psychology of Authority

A salvation system requires:

1. A universal problem

2. That no one can solve alone

3. Only the founder can resolve

4. On condition of obedience

Paul does this explicitly:

· universal sin,

· exclusive mediator,

· faith as submission.

Buddha does this implicitly:

· universal suffering,

· exclusive knowledge of cessation,

· discipleship and renunciation as means.

Both elevate the founder to the status of indispensable.

Finn’s critique:

Any philosophy that makes the founder indispensable is not describing reality but creating a dependency structure.

6. The Ultimate Divergence:

Nirvāṇa and Salvation Versus Procedure

Under Procedure Monism:

· The Universal Procedure iterates emergents endlessly.

· Life = operation.

· Operation = the only site of value.

· “Off” = nothing, zero value.

· “Off” cannot be a goal for any emergent because goal-function requires being-on.

Thus:

· Buddha makes non-being the highest good.

· Paul makes post-mortem existence the reward for obedience.

· Both depend on the disappearance of the actual emergent that suffers, creates, loves, thinks, chooses.

Finn:

Both Buddha and Paul sell you escape from the only condition in which anything matters: being-on.
Both derive authority by convincing you that being-on is fundamentally defective.
Both misread a feedback signal as the nature of existence.

7. Final Comparative Anatomy

Theme	Paul	Buddha	Finn
Chosen Negative	Sin	Suffering	Neither is fundamental
Nature of Negative	Moral stain	Ontological flaw	Local feedback signal
Universalisation	“All have sinned”	“All is suffering”	False by selection
Escape	Christ’s sacrifice	Nirvāṇa (cessation)	No escape needed; life is good
Price	Submission and faith	Renunciation, total obedience to path	No price; existence itself is good
Final State	Heaven (non-world)	Cessation (non-being)	Off = Off (no state); therefore irrelevant
Evaluation	Pessimistic anthropology	Pessimistic ontology	Optimistic proceduralism

8. Conclusion:

How Salvation Cults Invert Original Goodness

Both Buddha and Paul operate from negativity-first metaphysics:

· Paul: “You exist, therefore you are guilty.”

· Buddha: “You exist, therefore you suffer.”

From these premises they build:

1. Negative ontology

2. Universal problem

3. Exclusive cure

4. Founder-centred soteriology

Finn’s Original Goodness shows:

· Identity emerges from procedural perfection.

· Pain is real but functional.

· Guilt is social, not ontological.

· Non-being is not a goal: it is the absence of all goals.

Thus Finn’s verdict:

Both salvation systems universalise a local negative into a global condemnation of life.
Both promise escape from life by degrading life.
Both misread function as flaw.

And the culminating insight:

Life is not a sickness to be cured, nor a sin to be forgiven.
Life is a procedure to be completed.

Condemning Augustine of Hippo

Paul the Fabricator

Siddartha’s error

2 Cult Start-ups, 1 Trick

Home