Such social memberships are based on shared understandings underlying shared practices. — Joshs

Of course. But they are not just social memberships, they are epistemic memberships, being a member of an epistemic community.

In order to know what members know, one has to become a member oneself.
There are knowledges that outsiders, even if they study the insider accounts of insiders, cannot have. Unless they themselves become insiders, members of the specific epistemic community.

I might generalize from this and suggest that enlightenment is nothing other than the endless progression in which one moves being encased within a worldview to seeing it as a mere step ion the path to a richer perspective.

The "endless progression"? Do you believe in rebirth/reincarnation?
— baker

No more so than the scientist who supports Popper’s view of scientific inquiry as oriented teleologically toward an asymptotic approach of truth.

Two parallels intersect in infinity ...

Of course I strive to have the correct understanding of what the Buddha taught, but, as per Buddhist doctrine, one can only know whether one has the correct understanding once one reaches what is called "stream entry". This can be described as a cognitive event at which one realizes that one has the correct understanding. As I have no such realization yet, I know that I don't know.
— baker

This applies to any other system. — Apollodorus

Do provide some reference for this, because I've never seen anything like that anywhere outside of Buddhism.

Normally, religions/philosophies/ideologies present claims. The relative epistemic status that those claims have in one's mind remains the same from the time one first heard the claim to the end of one's life.

Few things are as common as people making claims about what "true identity" is.
— baker

People, including Buddha, make many claims about many things. Are you going to place a ban on language? Or do you have a problem with identity as you seem to have with spirituality?

Pretending to be obtuse does not suit you.

A Christian tells me that my true identity is A.
A Hindu tells me that my true identity is B.
A Muslim tells me that my true identity is C.
A Platonist tells me that my true identity is D.
A psychologist tells me that my true identity is E.
Tom tells me that my true identity is F.
Janus tells you that you're deluded about what you think your true identity is.

And so on. You see no problem with that?

Having all these numerous claims as to what one's "true identity" is is like having a thousand different answers to "How much is 2 + 2 ?"

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering.
— baker
So do other systems.

I see no reason to think that they can actually facilitate the end of suffering. On the contrary, they're very good at causing more of it.

You keep mentioning religion. This thread is about enlightenment. There is no evidence that enlightenment requires a religion.

Now you're being pedantic.

And you obviously don’t understand Platonism. Platonism is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality a.k.a. “the One” (called henosis) - or at any rate to the highest possible level of experience.

I know a Hare Krishna brahmacari who utters sentences like
"Krishna Consciousness is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of Ultimate Reality"
and he also uses terms like "henosis" and "henology".
(Except that the Hare Krishnas believe that desiring to serve God is actually higher than desiring to be one with him.)

Further, many "spiritual" and other systems claim to "elevate human consciousness to the highest possible level of experience". Having heard it so often, from so many different sources, and so many things being claimed as that "highest possible level of experience", I can't really take it seriously anymore.
You folks should get together and decide which one of you really has the keys to the "highest possible level of experience".

Of course, most Platonists today are Christians, especially Greek Orthodox. A Platonist may be officially a Christian, privately a Christian Platonist, and inwardly a Platonist.

Why would a Platonist do such a thing? It's subversive, to say the least.

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion.

Another thing common among religious/spiritual people: to claim that theirs is not a religion, but a philosophy, the Truth, the "how things really are" and so on.

Massa what? Massamanure? — Janus

Obviously, "Yes, massa" is the only appropriate reply to being patronized.

"Massa" is black slave speak for "master".

When someone says that the cherry tomatoes are good, it is short for "I feel that the cherry tomatoes are good". — Harry Hindu

Given that my neighbor replied "You don't know what's good!", it's clear that he didn't operate on the above principle.

For some, using the short-hand version could make a listener think that they are projecting when they actually aren't.

We can usually see from the other things the person says whether this is the case or not. In the examples I gave, it's not.

I expect you to know I'm talking more about my feeling when eating the cherry tomatoes, and less about the cherry tomatoes.

As a rule, it seems that people typically conflate the two, their feelings about something and the thing itself. (Gourmet culture is a vivid example of such conflation.)


And this isn't a benign matter. If people wouldn't conflate like that, they couldn't come to statements like "Jews are inferior".

You were asking as to what criteria to judge a spiritual teacher. I said the criteria are not objective, because what is objective is contingent, and the 'true good' is not contingent. — Wayfarer

You said:

There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer

Now assuming you meant something with those words and that they aren't just a routine phrasing, how do _you_ know who is who, namely, who is worthy and who isn't?

If you say there are "worthy people" and "unworthy people", how do _you_ distinguish them? For you must be able to recognize each category and distinguish it from the other, before you can write a sentence like

There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer

The distinction between subjective and objective is simply where unrelated reasons and assumptions are used in the process of interpreting sensory data compared to not using unrelated reasons and assumptions to interpret sensory data. — Harry Hindu

I'm talking about how people usually talk: they usually present their own opinion of a matter of objective fact, even when it is an opinion. They externalize.

Some real examples:

Neighbor: Try these cherry tomatoes.
I: (tasting them) Hm ... I don't particularly like them.
Neighbor: You don't know what's good!

I: James' The Portrait of a Lady is one of my favorite books.
"Friend": You're wrong. This is actually a very boring book.

Both the neighbor and the friend considered themselves to be the arbiters of reality, the judges of what is objectively a good tomato or a good book.
I made a point of speaking assertively, to use assertive formulations, I-statements. They, on the other hand, used the objective form.

What an OP.

I suppose there are people who genuinely believe that people need to be taught about the advantages of being wealthy.

Please see the added example with Tom and Dick.

Matthew Ratcliffe writes:

Dennett, in describing his own conception of phenomenology, appeals to the Sellarsian contrast
between scientific and manifest images, and proposes that:

/.../
However, each subject‟s experience is not simply „subjective‟ but involves being part of a shared experiential world. A subjective manifest image is not to be contrasted with the manifest image. The „manifest ontology of a subject‟ includes a sense of its not just being an ontology for the subject but a world shared with other subjects. Consciousness was never a matter of some idiosyncratic, subjective view of the world, estranged from all other such views and from the objective world as described by science. Consciousness is not just a matter of having a subjective perspective within the world; it also includes the sense of occupying a contingent position in a shared world. From within this experiential world, we manage to conceive of the world scientifically, in such a way that it fails to accommodate the manner in which we find ourselves in it. Hence the real problem of consciousness is that of reconciling the world as we find ourselves in it with the objective world of inanimate matter that is revealed by empirical science. It should not simply be assumed from the outset that a solution to the problem will incorporate the view that science reigns supreme.” — Joshs

How would such a view be reflected in how people communicate with eachother?

Could you please illustrate this with two short dialogues on the same theme, in one version, using the usual manner in which people talk (ie., mostly objectivist/objectivizing you-statements), and the other one that would be consistent with the above view presented by Ratcliffe?

There are many important implications for psychology of demonstrating that the third person perspective is parasitic on the first personal stance. — Joshs

How do phenomenologists conceive of the hierarchical nature of interpersonal relationships?


Normally, when people communicate, the implicit assumption is that the person who holds a position of more power is objective, while the one in the position of power is not objective. For example, when your boss reviews your work, he does it in a language of providing an objective image of your work performance, as opposed to just his opinion of your work.


Or, to give another example, somewhat loaded, for clarity:
Tom says, "Dick is an idiot".
Why doesn't Tom say "I think Dick is an idiot" or "I can't stand Dick"?

People generally prefer the objective form (A is x), rather than first-person statements.
First person statements being formulated as the objective form qualified with "I think" and similar qualifiers of subjectivity, or I-statements.

How do phenomenologists explain these uses?

More real reality?



Please, Blue Fairy, make me into a real live boy.

Watch the film and notice the use of the word "real".

In Platonism, the root ignorance is ignorance of one’s true identity as pure, unconditioned and free intelligence. So it is a matter of correct self-identity. — Apollodorus

If I were to put aside a Euro for every time someone told me or every time I heard or read who I supposedly "really am", I could easily pay for a luxurious dinner.
Few things are as common as people making claims about what "true identity" is.

So I for one see nothing special, unique, or "superior" about Buddhism, though I wouldn't reject it wholesale, either.

*shrug*

However, if we are serious about philosophy in the original Greek sense of "love of, and quest after, truth", then I think we will get there in the end, with or without Buddhism.

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering.

And it makes you feel all giddy inside to say this, doesn't it.
— baker

So, you have nothing to say but to speculate about how I, someone you know very little about, feel?

Dude, this is a philosophy forum, even if this is a religion thread. Get your thinking straight.
— baker

Now that's a powerful rebuttal! — Janus

Yes, massa.

So that's 'the real Christianity' in your mind? — Wayfarer

*sigh*

It's Christianity as it is real for me. I've always been clear about that.

A problem with religion (and a lot of other cultural forms), is that it has been packaged and repeated in various formulae for thousands of years, often by proponents with very peculiar ideas of their own, it's been corrupted and perverted and strayed far from its origins. But to me that is not representative. I agree with Apollodorus, that strictly speaking the admonitions by Christians about hell are warnings more than threats.

A problem with religion (and a lot of other cultural forms) is that people tend to invent a lot of politically correct narratives about it, narratives that stray very far from the actual doctrines of religions and from how religions are actually being practiced, on the ground level, as opposed to what things look like in books.

One of the consequences of this political correctness is that such people cannot meet others in their religious quest or help them make sense of it, thus making an often a traumatic experience even worse. It's like when women are told they are "hysterical".

Besides in traditional Buddhism there are voluminous descriptions of hell realms, in fact in Buddhism there are a number of them.

But one isn't promised an eternal stay in them (except in one case, the Mahayana doctrine on inchantikas).

Good for you. I think that in itself is a deluded belief. — Janus

And it makes you feel all giddy inside to say this, doesn't it.

There are people who devote their lives to all kinds of gurus and religious leaders and arduous practices. That you believe the small subset you are familiar with must be the only authentic one says more about you than anything else.

Dude, this is a philosophy forum, even if this is a religion thread. Get your thinking straight.

What I mean is whether there are criteria whereby it could be determined that it is in fact the case that a spiritual teacher is worthy or not worthy, or whether it remains a matter of opinion, or faith if you prefer. — Janus

Any such criteria would be liable to the same criticsm you put forth to begin with, because they would be set by a person.
You solve nothing by focusing on the external like that.

Why would religiosity not be possible without a religious community? — Janus

In short, it's like studying a textbook for a foreign language, and then claiming you have mastered the language.

And what if you believed with all your heart that you had reached "stream entry", but were deluding yourself? — Janus

I believe that such delusion is not possible.

The possibility of that cannot be ruled out; which undermines the very notion that anyone could ever be infallibly correct, as opposed to merely subjectively certain, about that.

Of course I don't deny that a feeling of absolute certainty might be gratifying enough to satisfy those who possess it; maybe that's all they are looking for.

Eh. For one, the number of people interested in this approach is, I think, very small. I am confident that those who actually do take that route, given how ardous it is, would not make the kind of mistake you talk about. And they would not seek the kind of lowly gratifications you suggest. I know such people, so I know what I'm talking about.



And I suppose you find satisfaction in doubting others the way you do, assuming very bad things about people.

Last but not least, Platonism has been taught without interruption down to the present. In Greece, for example, it has never "died out". — Apollodorus

I actually went to the official phone directory for the country I live in, looked up Platonism, and got no hits. Then I went to the official government website for religious communities here, checked whether it contained any entry that could be associated with Platonism -- none. Like it doesn't exist here. I suppose I could try searching other countries in Europe.
The bottomline is that it doesn't seem like a viable religious option.

Moreover, as I said, you don't need a "Church" to follow the teachings of Plato if you so choose. The point is that Platonism is available where there is an interest in it.

This is strange in so many ways. The idea that there can be religiosity without a religious community is problematic in many ways, it deserves its own thread.

3. My point was that there is no evidence that Buddha would think baker has the right understanding of his teaching any more than that Plato would think Platonists have the right understanding of his teaching. — Apollodorus

Does Platonism have the type of "stream entry clause" mentioned above?
Does it teach that all of one's knowledge (of Platonism) is merely tentative, provisional, until it reaches a critical point from whence on one has realization?

Otherwise said, if Buddhists can have the "right understanding" of Buddha's teachings, then Platonists can equally have the right understanding of Plato's teachings, Christians can have the right understanding of Jesus' teachings, etc., etc.

This doesn't follow. What is true about Buddhists has no bearing on what is true about Christians, Platonists, and so on. Unless you think Buddhists are setting the stage for everyone else ...

There is no logical reason to believe that Buddhists have an exclusive monopoly on the "right understanding" of their founder's teachings.

By this, do you also mean that non-Buddhists can have the right understanding of the Buddha's teachings?

What reason do you have to think that Buddha would think you, a 21st-century Westerner, have the right understanding of his teaching? — Apollodorus

That's one of the perks of Buddhism: what you're talking about isn't a problem, as long as one is humble enough.

Of course I strive to have the correct understanding of what the Buddha taught, but, as per Buddhist doctrine, one can only know whether one has the correct understanding once one reaches what is called "stream entry". This can be described as a cognitive event at which one realizes that one has the correct understanding. As I have no such realization yet, I know that I don't know.

In light of the fact that Buddha never wrote anything, you can't even know beyond reasonable doubt what his exact teachings were or, for that matter, that he existed in the first place.

Also, there is no evidence that he was "enlightened". And even if he was, as no one can explain exactly what "Nirvana" is,

it's all just speculation if you analyze it objectively.

Sure. But such things are a problem only if one wishes to go to war over religion, or pick fights, or some such.

Buddhism as I understand it is first and foremost discoursive, and as such, tentative; it's not about claims that one is supposed to internalize. This is how it differs from most religions and ideologies.

It's comparable to crossing a frozen lake on ice plates: one accepts the prospect that the ice might not hold one's weight, but one begins walking anyway; one steps on what seems like a strong enough ice plate and from it, leaps onto another one, and so on. If one were to stand still, the plate might not hold and one might sink.

Most religions and ideologies are not like that, and even many, if not most Buddhists, don't approach Buddhism that way either.


From the Kalama Sutta:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

No, what I said was that I thought your remark about the 'rolling of the dice' in respect of Christianity was arrant nonsense.

Are you an actual member of an actual Christian congregation? Are you? Have you ever tried to be?
How have you conducted your choice?
— baker

I was born into a Christian culture, — Wayfarer

Exactly, you were born into a Christian culture, and as such, the decision as to which church to prefer was made for you by external circumstances (however little commitment you or your parents might have had).

Other people who contemplate religious conversion are not in such a situation. To someone like me, all Christian denominations seem equally plausible. Choosing among them would be no different than rolling the dice. After that, I can see nothing more than Pascal's Wager.
And like it or not, most of them threaten with eternal damnation.


Prior to the covid situation, I could walk through the city on any given day and in the course of a month be approached by Christian proselytizers of various denominations: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some others whose names escape me. The essence of their message was always the same: Join our church, do as we say, or burn in hell forever. I would sometimes point out to them that their competitors say the exact same thing, except that they of course advertise their own church to the exclusion of all others. To this, they don't reply, or make some dismissive remark about me, or claim that the others are wrong.
So how am I supposed to know which one to choose??


I asked about being an actual member of an actual Christian congregation and how have you conducted your religious choice because I think you and @Apollodorus are underplaying the importance of actual religious membership, underplaying what it means to actually function as a person of a particular religious denomination.

He does this after he evokes ED, though. He pretends, and after pretending concludes he was correct from the beginning. — Ciceronianus

That's because he wrote the Meditations as a series of ready-to-use arguments that Catholics could use to convert other people to Catholicism. He says as much in the preface, it's why the Church allowed the publishing of the book.

I deleted the comment so there's no point discussing it. — Wayfarer

You gloss over the problem of religious choice and the implications thereof for Christianity and the prospect of eternal damnation.

An ecumenist still believes that he has the superior view.

Well, this only demonstrates that you are not familiar with Platonism. — Apollodorus

Never said I was.

That's another misunderstanding of yours. Platonism has been taught and practiced as a spiritual system (and even as a religion) from the time of Plato.

Sure. I thought it was a thing of the past, a "dead religion" as they are called.

Perhaps less now than in the past, but it is a system with clear beliefs and practices, not "an individual person picking up a book".

Of course it can be practiced individually by following the texts or in groups with a teacher.

If there is no living tradition with unbroken continuation, then your Platonism faces the same type of problem as, say, Celtic revivalism (which we already discussed).


What reason do you have to think that Plato would think you have the right understanding of his teaching?

"Sectarian tendency"? You know absolutely nothing about my religious beliefs, as I have never discussed them publicly and never will!

Your criticism of other systems amounts to claiming that Buddhism (or your version of it) is the only right system.

Personally, I think this is the wrong attitude. If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it.

IMO "elevating" yourself by putting others down has more to do with psychology than with spirituality. By your own admission, you can't stand the concept of spirituality. This may be indicative of other issues. — Apollodorus

That's your projection.
It's quite ironic that you project this on me, given that you show you clearly don't know the scope of my interest in Buddhism, which I have disclosed at the forums several times. I told you before, I'm not a Buddhist. It's a piece of information that you have so far refused to remember. I'm interested in seeing where the Buddha was wrong, if he was, and for this, I have to, for the sake of the argument, start with some assumptions and see how they hold up.

If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it.

They must?


If that is true, if there are "many ways to the top of the mountain", then there are certain metaphysical tenets that one would need to hold (to the effect of metareligious egalitarianism, ecumenism). But such tenets are incompatible with actual religions. Because actual religions are exclusive and each of them considers itself to be superior to the others. They may grant that the others have some elements of truth in it, or that the others are a preparatory phase for the right religion, but they do not relativize their own supremacy.

The idea that there are "many ways to the top of the mountain" is an ecumenical artifact, a suprareligion, an imposition on the existing religions, abolishing their relevance with that "must", "If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it."

A bold move, to be sure, but with what guarantee of success?

Sure, but this isn't Christian doctrine.
— baker

You are changing the subject, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Is there a church of Platonism? If Christianity is to be seen as the direct heir of Platonism, then reference to Christian doctrine matters.

My response was to your claim below:

Moreover: Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation
— baker

Platonism is one Western spirituality that does have an equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation. In fact, as you can see for yourself, a very close one.

In the first passage you provided, it wasn't clear whether it talks of serial rebirth or not; whether it talks only about the life immediately after this. The second passage you provided says more.

So you made your point, okay. But it's still not clear how it matters, if there is no church of Platonism. If Platonism exists only in books, it's quite a stretch to consider it a spirituality, Western or otherwise. An individual person picking up a book and believing what it says -- you'd call that spirituality?

Not Christianity. Your interpretation of it. — Apollodorus

No, on the ground level, when one approaches actual Christians and actual Christianity, this is exactly what it is like.

Are you an actual member of an actual Christian congregation? Are you? Have you ever tried to be?
How have you conducted your choice?

How do you know you have made the right choice?

You seem to have little knowledge of other systems

Wrong. What I don't do is prejudicate which particular system is right. The rest is the product of your sectarian tendency.

and are just out to put them down as a means to idealize Buddhism (or your version of it) and convince yourself that you have discovered "the only true religion".

You're talking about yourself. And proving my point about Christians.

Not very different from what you single out for criticism in others ....

Criticism? What you think I criticize about Christians, I am sure they believe is their virtue.

Plato’s Theory of Recollection (Anamnesis) is based on the belief that the soul is immortal and lives many lives, which is why mathematical and ethical knowledge, for example, is not learned but recollected.

Reincarnation (metempsychosis) is very much part of Platonism. — Apollodorus

Sure, but this isn't Christian doctrine.

What is "arrant nonsense"?

Or it’s like saying that if I grow up in a homophobic household where such views are connected to a fundamentalist religious belief system, and I emancipate myself from those homophobic beliefs, I have a choice that the other members of my household don’t. I can live within the insular and narrow view that is their only option (they being stuck ‘inside’ that narrow framework) , or I can shift to a decentered thinking in which I subsume their parochial view within a more flexible framework. Thus I can shift back and forth between empathizing with their perspective and freeing myself from their cage. — Joshs

For illustrating the emic-etic distinction, how come you're using only examples of people giving up on an insider status?

You completely ignore examples such a tribe membership, membership in a language community, membership in a professional community. Ie. the type of examples that are usually used to illustrate the emic-etic distinction.

I might generalize from this and suggest that enlightenment is nothing other than the endless progression in which one moves being encased within a worldview to seeing it as a mere step ion the path to a richer perspective.

The "endless progression"? Do you believe in rebirth/reincarnation?

As “enlightenment” or liberation is a process of increasingly greater transcendence, “dependent co-arising”, interesting though it might be on an intellectual level, loses its importance on the higher levels. — Apollodorus

I need to check: What do you think dependent co-arising is?

All conditions are impermanent, all conditions are suffering … The wise one knowing: “Sense pleasures have little joy, (much) suffering,” does not find delight even in heavenly pleasures (277-8;187)

This seems to imply that all (conditioned) life, including pleasure, is suffering from the perspective of the wise (paṇḍita). — Apollodorus

So says the Preacher:


Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?

8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.

13 And I applied my heart[f] to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. 14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity[g] and a striving after wind.[h]

15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

2
I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity.[a] 2 I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” 3 I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life. 4 I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. 5 I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. 6 I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

9 So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. 11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold,


all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

The Church itself can threaten with excommunication, for example, as this lies within its power. Casting people into hell is a totally different thing. It is not within the power of the Church. The Church can warn of the possibility (or likelihood) of hell, but it has neither the power to judge nor to carry out the judgment.

So, the talk of hell as punishment in Christianity must be seen as a warning, not a threat, similar to a road sign warning of danger ahead. The sign does not "threaten", it merely warns us by informing us of a potential danger. — Apollodorus

The Church is God's fully empowered representative on earth, it functions that way. Nobody gets to God except through the Church.

The only catch is, which church is the Church?

The way I see it, Christianity does not "threaten" anyone. It is simply stating what it believes to be a fact, namely that those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life.
— Apollodorus

Some hellfire preachers often seem to appear deliberately threatening but overall I agree with you. — Wayfarer

Christianity is, basically, telling you to throw the dice, and if you don't get the number they tell you you should get, they think you deserve to suffer in hell forever.

The irony is that if you don't let go of that vision, and of the need to "accomplish much" you will likely "die miserable". If you "look forward" honestly you will see that there is nothing to be had in the future, All you have and all you are is what you have and are now, and this will equally be so in the future. If you can live fully now, then you will likely not die miserable, and that alone would be a singular.and sufficient achievement. — Janus

And yet you have a retirement fund, don't you?

Also, some people feel burdened by ambition. Some don't.

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime.
— baker

I think this a blatant misrepresentation, to be quite honest.

The way I see it, Christianity does not "threaten" anyone. It is simply stating what it believes to be a fact, namely that those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life. — Apollodorus

Numerous Christian schools make it clear: if you fail to pick the right religion and fail to become its member, you're destined for eternal suffering, regardless of how you've otherwise behaved.

It's like warning someone not to go in a certain direction because there is a danger there, e,g., wild animals, a waterfall, dangerous road or bridge, or whatever. It is important to distinguish between warning and threat. The two are NOT the same thing.

Except that we never actually get to see any of those wild animals, waterfalls, or whatever other dangers we are being "warned" about.
And of course, the people issuing the "warning" are usually not people one would want to have anything to do with. In fact, they are the threat.

those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life

Why did God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, design the world such that the retaliation for not following "a path of ethical or righteous conduct" isn't apparent in the here and now?

And what is that, even, "a path of ethical or righteous conduct"? All kinds of things get to be called "a path of ethical or righteous conduct", it's far from universal.

Remember, the RCC did not excommunicate Hitler, but it routinely excommunicates girls who abort the pregnancies conceived when they were raped by their uncles or priests.

Buddhism and Hinduism say very much the same about hell, however "temporary" that may be. Why is temporary less threatening? Is it because it means you can disregard it? If yes, then why insist on Buddhist emphasis on suffering being so "unique"?

Because Buddhism promises an intelligible way out of suffering. Christianity does not. Christianity is a gamble.

In reality, it is not a threat but a warning. There are two possibilities: (a) the warning is based on fact, in which case it is advisable to heed the warning, or (b) it is a lie, in which case we don't need to pay attention to it.

There are more possibilities. Such as the possibility that the ones presenting the "warning" don't know the whole picture.

The choice is ours. People are free to believe or disbelieve as they think fit.

And suffer eternally for their choices.

I can see no logical necessity for the Buddhist version of hell to be any more real or credible than the Christian, Hindu, or Greek ones, or indeed, than the view that there is no hell.

Neither do I.

As others have pointed out, it is also possible to interpret things allegorically.

And what use is that?

If the passage I quoted from Plato is "too short to be able to discern much from it", then so is the passage I quoted from the Dhammapada, which is even shorter!

The passage from the Dhammapada was your choice. I don't know why you chose it. For references for Budhist doctrine, I would first turn to the four Nikayas, not a short summary text like the Dhammapada.

I asked you whether Platonism teaches dependent co-arising.

If the Buddhism of the Pali suttas "is not concerned with creating a society at all", then it has little practical value.

To you.

At least other systems do aim to create a better society.
If you have "no interest in a Buddhism that can help create a better society", what does that say about your concern (or lack of it) for other people?

Learn your doctrines, young padawan. Religions teach that the world is incorrigible, transient, a lost cause, the vale of tears. Insofar as religions teach betterment, it's only in the sense of being good stewards of what God has entrusted people with, and to use it as a means to serve God. Or else, in non-theistic religions, to make the best use of what is available. "Creating a better society" so that we can all eat, drink, and make merry is a secular goal, even when it is promoted under the guise of religion.

Are you sure it's just "interest", or more like "obsession"?

Envy is a capital sin.

And how do you know the Pali Canon is any better than other Canons, or for that matter, than the scriptures of other systems?

I don't know such. You seem to think that I came to Buddhism by rejecting the other systems. This is not the case, though. I admit that I capitulate before Christianity. I find it unintelligible and impossible to live. I don't know how Christians do it, esp. Christian women.

Finally, if you think it is "not possible to be religious/spiritual without being a right-wing authoritarian", does that make you a left-wing authoritarian? If I'm not mistaken, someone mentioned the phrase "Red Guard" in connection with your comments ....

Red paranoia.

Why do people hate Vegans? — TheQuestion

Vegans dare to question the status quo. Questioning the status quo is morally reprehensible, for many if not most people.

In my experience, this is actually not a problem. I've had the opportunity to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, some of them are fluent in Pali. After interacting with them for a couple of years, and doing some work on my own, the problems of translation started to look vastly different than they did in the beginning. In the beginning, they seemed final, definitive, set out for a final, definitive answer. Over time, I developed a dynamic, progressive approach to the matter.

I think that to get a sense for this, one would just need to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, consistently over a longer period of time.

Surely you've experienced something similar in other fields of expertise.

I also speak three languages fluently, an bits of others. The notion that there should be 1:1 translation is, based on experience, foreign to me. When one is fluent in several languages, one naturally develops a dynamic, flexible approach to translation. I don't think someone who speaks only one language can understand this.

So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether?
— baker

That it’s inappropriate in this medium. I’m happy to debate ideas and I am open to criticism but I don’t want to be told what I should think. — Wayfarer

And on this account, you dismissed some of my most insightful posts. The shoulds in them are really not controversial, but are well-meaning truisms.


(Although I suspect I know what's actually bothering you.)