Once the man is a Sage, the means of happiness, the way to good, are within, for nothing is good that lies outside him. — Plotinus

What do you reckon Epicurus would make of that? — Wayfarer

I think he would have dismissed the second part ('nothing good lies outside him'), which sounds worthy of the most devoted pessimists on this forum. But the first part may be interpreted as suggesting that a necessary condition for eudaimonia is to gain better control of one's own mind - one's reaction to events and one's desires - and that seems to me to be quite Epicurean, as well as Stoic and Buddhist.

I think he would have dismissed the second part ('nothing good lies outside him'), which sounds worthy of the most devoted pessimists on this forum. But the first part may be interpreted as suggesting that a necessary condition for eudaimonia is to gain better control of one's own mind - one's reaction to events and one's desires - and that seems to me to be quite Epicurean, as well as Stoic and Buddhist. — andrewk

To be entirely honest, I think Wayfarer is committing a great moral error. Virtue gives your best chance for happiness as Aristotle understood, but it doesn't guarantee it. Wayfarer still talks of ways of being etc. which guarantee happiness, which is just nonsense. There are no guarantees around. The best you can do (virtue) is the best you can do, and if at the end of the day you're still not happy, well you couldn't have done any better!

There are no guarantees around. — Agustino

What 'guarantees' do you think I have been offering?

I still have to provide for my kids and so forth. What has changed? Have I become better able to provide for them? Has my relationship with my wife improved? Am I more loving, not in an abstract kind of way, but in a practical kind of way? — Agustino

I too work, run a household, and the rest. And, yes, my ability to all of those has been improved by my philosophy, and the associated meditation, along Buddist lines. What's the problem, Augustino? Why all the accusations?

I think he would have dismissed the second part ('nothing good lies outside him'), which sounds worthy of the most devoted pessimists on this forum. — andrewk

It's no different to 'the truth is within you', which I take to be axiomatic. Epicurus actually is quite similar in that respect - he is saying, adjust your expectations, manage your desires, don't engage in 'prodigal passions', and you will attain the best kind of happiness. So in that way he also is very much part of the philosophical tradition. The contrast with Plotinus, is that Plotinus says there is a higher happiness - 'out of this world', so to speak. So, yes, that aspect of Epicurus is similar to Stoicism, and Buddhism, but also different, as the goal is different.

Let me give you another example. Suppose I have everything a rational person could materially desire for (and no this isn't fast cars, yachts, and women). Suppose I have great health, I'm in good physical shape, I have a wife whom I love and who loves me, we're devoted to each other, we're important members of our community, we take part in Church rituals, we have beautiful children and a large harmonious family. Our entire family is virtuous and based on virtue. Do you imagine that such a person could have anything to do with your meta-cognitive change? Just imagine for a moment. You go to such a person and peddle your meta-cognitive change, etc. etc. what do you think they'll do? Throw you out! Take your meta-cognitive change with you too! (and I'm only saying this to illustrate, I don't mean to be rude to you so don't take it the wrong way).

But instead if you go to someone who doesn't have enough to feed his children, if you go to someone who is fighting with his wife, if you go to someone whose kids are on drugs, etc. That person will accept your meta-cognitive change, because he perceives that something material could be changed for the better because of it. And especially all of a sudden, ain't that great now? Someone who lacks virtue will do the same, because he will believe the fantasy that all of a sudden he will become virtuous... This seems very absurd to me, and no mystical writers have ever clarified this. That's why I think the Spinoza quote applies to mystics. The mystics think of the common person as some beast of the field who requires a meta-cognitive change to be different. No - he just requires damn virtue, and the fact he can't follow virtue merely shows his weakness of character and nothing else. No meta-cognitive change will fix that.

Strangely, I thought we were in a philosophy forum. I don't know where you think you are.

Strangely, I thought we were in a philosophy forum. I don't know where you think you are. — Wayfarer

No but tell me Wayfarer. What is lacking in the scenario I described above, in the good one? Do those people need a meta-cognitive change? Would they be helped by one in any way? It's an honest question. You seem to be shying away from answers all the time, so of course I have to be straight up and ask you for them.

Only people who, for example, become bored, or who always want more, etc. only such people would be interested in your meta-cognitive change at that point. But I'm not that kind of person - as Spinoza said, if that's your natural disposition, tough for you, it's not mine. Why would I poison my reality with those attitudes? Why would anyone do it? And because I don't, I'm not in need of any sort of meta-cognitive change.

What is lacking in the scenario I described above, in the good one? Do those people need a meta-cognitive change? Would they be helped by one in any way? It's an honest question. You seem to be shying away from answers all the time, so of course I have to be straight up and ask you for them. — Agustino

I don't see the point of the question. The answer would depend on a lot of factors. There are plenty of people who have apparently fantastic lives but are deeply unhappy. I read a newspaper article yesterday about the wife of a US politician who was so misereable she had to get shock therapy and now has become an advocate for Electro-Convulsive Therapy! That's one way to achieve a meta-cognitive change, but I'm sure you agree philosophy and meditation would be preferable.

So what answers am I 'shying away from'? The question was about Epicurus and Plotinus. They are well-chosen, because the former is an archetypal materialist, the latter a well-spring of 'the perennial philosophy'. That is quite a rational topic to discuss, and sets up a great dialectic.

I suggested that Plotinus 'rising above the world' could be metaphorically understood as 'seeing through the game' - an analogy you see in current movies, like The Matrix and Hunger Games, and many others. I am actually trying to present a kind of cross-cultural and rational schema against which such a question can be appraised. So, what's the problem? I think the question you should consider is, why this is 'pushing buttons'? - because it plainly is.

I don't see the point of the question. The answer would depend on a lot of factors. There are plenty of people who have apparently fantastic lives but are deeply unhappy. I read a newspaper article yesterday about the wife of a US politician who was so misereable she had to get shock therapy and now has become an advocate for Electro-Convulsive Therapy! That's one way to achieve a meta-cognitive change, but I'm sure you agree meditation would be preferable. — Wayfarer

Well again - her life wasn't great. Her life was only apparently great to those on the outside. Maybe her husband didn't love her. Maybe she was upset he lost the bid for president. Maybe she had everything but was bored out of her mind, didn't know what to do with her life - as she says, she didn't feel alive. But again - we're not all like that. We're not all in need of a meta-cognitive change. That's why I referred to Spinoza. It's absurd to think that that's the natural disposition of everyone.

I'm not like that for example. Virtue is sufficient. I don't understand for example, why someone who has everything would resort to drugs - that makes no sense to me. It is, as Spinoza said, no less absurd than to think, that without whatever meta-cognitive change, we would resort to pouring poisons down our throats...

So, what's the problem? — Wayfarer

My problem is that it seems to me - I'm not saying it is the case - but it seems to me that you're not willing to rationally analyse the matter from beginning to end - logically. It seems to me that you're biased in other words. That's why it's pushing buttons. It seems to me utterly absurd why someone would think we're all in need of some meta-cognitive change... Or that this could actually be helpful. Because again - it is absurd to me, that someone, in the absence of this meta-cognitive change, would proceed to pour poisons down their throat. I don't know. Is that something you'd do if you didn't have a meta-cognitive change? Because it's not something I would do.

And indeed I've seen threads where you referred people who had mental trouble to go to the psychiatrist/psychologist - you didn't tell them to go meditate. Why is that? If a sudden, meta-cognitive change can fix them up, what's that got to do with the psychologist, who will merely change their cognition, not their meta-cognition? You should've saved them the time, and sent them to a meditation retreat!

That's one way to achieve a meta-cognitive change, but I'm sure you agree meditation would be preferable. — Wayfarer

Yeah, of course I agree meditation has benefits. This worldly benefits :P (and I sometimes do practice it)

And overall I don't see the use of meta-cognitive change. The problems we face in life are practical. I don't get along with my wife. I don't make sufficient money to be able to care for my family. I don't have time to spend with my kids. Stuff like that. Simple stuff. No meta-cognitive change can affect that. it's practical actions that can change that. Intelligence, virtue, etc. Meditation, although it can help in some regards has limited use in solving the kinds of situations I have mentioned above, and therefore has limited use for most people in life. That;s why I prefer Aristotle over Plato. Plato was stuck in his heavens. Aristotle was down in the dirt getting the job done!

I've edited the previous reply.

My problem is that it seems to me - I'm not saying it is the case - but it seems to me that you're not willing to rationally analyse the matter from beginning to end - logically. It seems to me that you're biased in other words. — Agustino

I'm not biased, I'm presenting a philosophical argument. Actually, it's a meta-philosophical argument. I have many meta-philosophical differences with a great number of people here on this forum, due to the fact that my orientation is around what can generally be categorised as spiritual philosophy. (I don't actually like the term 'spiritual' very much, but the modern lexicon seems to lack many effective synonyms.)

So what is the meaning of 'metanoia', why was that regarded as important in Platonist philosophy? Surely, as someone who has read Lossky and the other authors of that ilk, you would know that. There is an almost exact equivalent in Buddhism, namely, paravritti, meaning 'a turning around in the seat of consciousness' (from the Lankavatara Sutra).

But - isn't this central to what 'philosophy' is about? What is 'philosophy'? 'Love-wisdom', is it not? Epicurus' wisdom was a worldly wisdom - 'be as well adjusted as possible'. Plotinus set his sights higher. So - is there a 'higher'? Is the belief that there is 'a higher truth' simply 'a bias'? You tell me.

I'm not biased, I'm presenting a philosophical argument — Wayfarer

I don't see the argument. Where's the argument? All I see is that my questions go unanswered and yet you claim to be right.

So what is the meaning of 'metanoia', why was that regarded as important in Platonist philosophy? — Wayfarer

Metanoia is an insight, a change of heart, a movement away from the material and towards God, repentance. It's important for Plato because he considers the relationship with the transcendent to be necessary for the well-ordering of the human soul. Does me reciting stuff like a school child change anything?

So - is there a 'higher'? Is the belief that there is 'a higher truth' simply 'a bias'? You tell me. — Wayfarer

If by higher you mean living with love, compassion, courage, loyalty, devotion, and the other virtues and avoiding hatred, improper sexual conduct, etc, then yes there is something higher. But there is nothing higher than that.

Not having understood the game they're in, or that they're in a game, it's like 'let's make the best of it'. But from the viewpoint of a Plotinus, whatever good Epicurus makes of it, is temporary, transient, subject to decay, unsatisfactory. They're actually in a situation of grave peril, which they don't understand. — Wayfarer

But what of the wisdom in making peace with the temporary? The itch for something beyond all mortal things (some ineffable transcendence of the game) can itself be framed as one of the "false" or "unwise" desires to mastered.

What is the grave peril? The unwise man lives with more pain and confusion, yes, but he too is laid to sleep eventually. If one believes in Hell, then, yes, there is the gravest peril for the worldly-wise doubter.
But otherwise we seem to be looking at a missed opportunity at worst. "Epicurus helped me a fairly happy and dignified life, but I could have experienced something higher had I listened to Plotinus."
It's possible, if blurry. But surely you can understand the usual secular doubt without sharing it. Grandiose claims abound.

Does me reciting stuff like a school child change anything? — Agustino

Not if it means nothing to you.

If by higher you mean living with love, compassion, courage, loyalty, devotion, and the other virtues and avoiding hatred, improper sexual conduct, etc, then yes there is something higher. But there is nothing higher than that. — Agustino

I think the question is, what can possibly rationalise or provide the motivation for that?

But what of the wisdom in making peace with the temporary? The itch for something beyond all mortal things (some ineffable transcendence of the game) can itself be framed as one of the "false" or "unwise" desires to mastered. — R-13

I don't believe it is. I respect anyone else's right to believe it is, but that's what I'm challenging.

I'm very fond of Epicurus. He's one of the philosophers I return to reading more and more literature about on a periodic basis to get a firmer grasp on the various interpretations offered and to gain deeper insight into his philosophy.

I think the question is, what can possibly rationalise or provide the motivation for that? — Wayfarer

They don't need to be rationalised. The "higher" is already expressed (always too, given they are eternal truth of ethics) in the world. "Transcendent force" does not need to enter the game to make it so. This is Spinoza's point.

You say that, if pumping myself full of recreational drugs is to be unethical and a failed attempt to find satisfaction, it must be rationalised through the transcendent. Supposedly, my life itself (and the world) can't have that significance. The story goes that, somehow, if there is no transcendent rationalisation, it somehow ethical or amoral to engage in substance abuse and think it amounts to solving any problem of dissatisfaction.

This is nonsense. All the failures of drug abuse are an expression of the world-- the damages it causes me, relationships it destroys, an obsession which takes my attention away from more important things, including "higher" aspects such respecting and loving my friends, family and other people. All the reason and motivation not to abuse drugs is found in the expression of the world.

The world (or "material" ) isn't value neutral. It express value and ethical significance all the time.

I don't believe it is. I respect anyone else's right to believe it is, but that's what I'm challenging. — Wayfarer

I think we do want something permanent but that we find this in the "universal mind." For me this isn't anything supernatural but just the heights of human thought and feeling "crystallized" in culture. We see that the mortal part of ourselves (the body and the particular face and personality quirks) is something like a vessel or womb in which we "build" the sage or "trans-personal" self. From this perspective, the fear of death is not only fear of pain or the unknown but also manifests a petty or vain attachment. We come to feel at one, in our higher moments, with all the wiser moments of others. As I see it, it's an education of the heart and the mind. True, for me it remains very "human." One might call it secular, but it sees the truth in myth as myth. I really like Epicurus's friendly feeling toward the gods understood as models for emulation. The wise part of the wise man is blessed and immortal. Sure, mortals are subject to interruption and a temporary fall from wisdom, but this can be forgiven from within the recovered standpoint of wisdom. Nothing essential is threatened by an occasional stumble into folly.

This is Spinoza's point. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And what, according to Spinoza, was the acme, the highest point, of the philosopher's life?

What, in the end, replaces the passionate love for ephemeral “goods” is an intellectual love for an eternal, immutable good that we can fully and stably possess, God. The third kind of knowledge generates a love for its object, and in this love consists not joy, a passion, but blessedness itself. Taking his cue from Maimonides’s view of human eudaimonia, Spinoza argues that the mind’s intellectual love of God is our understanding of the universe, our virtue, our happiness, our well-being and our salvation.

SEP

I really like Epicurus's friendly feeling toward the gods understood as models for emulation. — R-13

The Indo-European pantheon are an ubiquitous presence in the literature of those times, both Greek and Indian. I think that is who Epicurus is referring to.

In Buddhist mythology, likewise, the virtuous may be reborn in the realm of the Gods, where they live for 'aeons of kalpas' - however, ultimately, they always fall from that realm, being also subject to impermanence.

For me this isn't anything supernatural but just the heights of human thought and feeling "crystallized" in culture. — R-13

'Supernatural' is such a boo-word, isn't it? Meaning, what? Look at Buddhism again. One of the traditional epiphets of the Buddha is 'lokuttara' which means exactly 'world-transcending'. So I think that can be translated as 'supernatural', but I have noted that 'secular Buddhists' argue that it is one of the things 'grafted on' to the Buddha's teaching by later religionists; that is part of the effort to 'naturalise Buddhism'. I don't agree, however - I see the Buddha's 'world-transcending wisdom' as the acme of the teaching. (The other profound difference with Greek philosophy, however, is that Mahāyāna Buddhism says that ultimately Nirvāṇa and Samsara are not different - 'Nirvāṇa is samsara released, samsara is Nirvāṇa grasped'.)

The wise part of the wise man is blessed and immortal — R-13

That is much nearer to Plotinus than Epicurus.

I think the question is, what can possibly rationalise or provide the motivation for that? — Wayfarer

Yes this is it. This is exactly what you're not understanding. Let me quote Spinoza:

"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue - but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them"

Blessedness is virtue itself - it is the highest, there is no higher. As it is the highest there can't be any talk of it being done for the purpose of some other higher thing - rather it is the end for which all other things are done. We're not virtuous for any other reason than virtue itself. There is no talk of a "motivation" for that, as if virtue itself wasn't motivational enough. That's why Spinoza laughs at the great multitude - and you appear to be one of them here - who seem to think that freedom corresponds to giving in to their lusts, and therefore they need a divine providence to motivate them not to do that. So what am I to understand from your answer? That if there is no transcendence to motivate you, you will go back to living without virtue, in hatred, sexual misconduct and all the other vices? So then that's your natural disposition! You should go right back to it, because transcendence or not, that's who you fundamentally are. Without something other than virtue to motivate you to be virtuous, you won't be virtuous! Without the transcendent, you will start pouring poisons (vices) down your throat, because that's the sensible thing to do if there is no transcendent right?

That's why I go back to Spinoza, that nothing is more absurd than what you're saying. And as for why it is pushing buttons... it doesn't help anyone! Sending them to meditate does little to help them become more virtuous! Reading Plotinus does 0 towards helping them become more virtuous. Instead of talking of what really matters - virtue - you talk of something higher, as if that something higher could serve another purpose except be MERELY INSTRUMENTAL to virtue - the highest good. Why do you go by such a round-about way to teach virtue? Why not teach it directly? What's the use of the whole "spiritual philosophy"? What more will it teach them than merely to live virtuously? >:O

Instead of focusing on the practical philosophy - the virtuous life - you focus on the spiritual. But the spiritual is nothing because its final end is living virtuously as well. It's empty of content. I mean, instead of preaching your spiritual philosophy, you're honestly better off grabbing the whip and the carrot to teach them - that, fear or hope, are a much better way to get them to fake virtue than whatever "spiritual philosophy" can do. And I might add that the great multitude faking virtue is the best scenario achievable. Very few can actually reach up to virtue, probably because virtue requires intelligence which is cultivated along the right lines.

And in your very posing the question, you understand this. It's not the spiritual philosophy that matters at all - at best, that's merely a motivating factor for what TRULY matters - for the real highest - the virtuous life in this world. That's why Spinoza is beyond good and evil - because good and evil are traditionally understood to be merely instrumental towards the achievement or loss of something higher. He is beyond instrumentality - you're not good because there's some higher end to being good. Being good is the highest end, and you do all things to be good. It's like in Buddhism - you're not practicing morality (sila) in order to cultivate some higher insight, and deepen your meditation practice to achieve samadhi or whatever other nonsense. Practicing morality IS nirvana there is no higher. Buddha is just laughing at you and using the carrot of something higher to get you to practice morality (as if morality wasn't end in itself). A good and effective con, but nothing more. You should be ready to drop that crutch now.

I see the Buddha's 'world-transcending wisdom' as the acme of the teaching — Wayfarer

What does "world-transcending" mean in this context? Does it imply some form of supernatural power over the forces of nature, or is it metaphorical in some sense?

As I noted, those wishing to present a naturalistic interpretation of Buddhism would say it is metaphorical, but traditionally 'world-transcending' does mean 'above the world'. Also in all Indic traditions, sages are believed to possess miraculous powers called 'siddhi', although not much is made of that in the early Buddhist texts.

---------

And in your very posing the question, you understand this. It's not the spiritual philosophy that matters at all - at best, that's merely a motivating factor for what TRULY matters - for the real highest - the virtuous life in this world — Agustino

Boy, that's quite a polemic, Augustino. Didn't you notice the very phrase from Spinoza that I quoted to Willow about the 'intellectual love of God', which is the pinnacle of Spinoza's system? Mind you, I can hardly make head or tail of Spinoza, but he did at least say that.

The rest of your post is basically venting of spleen. Hope you feel better for it.

The rest of your post is basically venting of spleen. Hope you feel better for it. — Wayfarer

Well what's the point of finding excuses for answering? Whether or not I'm venting spleen or whatever is irrelevant to the contents of my post. Why do you deal in these superficialities instead of tackling the very real philosophical problems that I'm bringing up for you?

Didn't you notice the very phrase from Spinoza that I quoted to Willow about the 'intellectual love of God', which is the pinnacle of Spinoza's system? — Wayfarer

Yes I did. But as you see Spinoza identifies blessedness with virtue. The intellectual love of God is merely understanding of the world. He who understands the world will be virtuous, because again, if you understand, would you pour poisons down your throat? >:O

Mind you, I can hardly make head or tail of Spinoza, but he did at least say that. — Wayfarer

Well I can see that.

And what, according to Spinoza, was the acme, the highest point, of the philosopher's life? — Wayfarer

God is immanent for Spinoza. Not a transcendent force that makes the world meaningful or produces an escape from the meaningless world, but an expression of the world-- the eternal, the value, meaning and significance produced by each state.

Love of God is not belief in the transcendent which saves us form the ignominy of the world, it's understanding of the eternal expressed by the world (ethics, meaning). Meaning is always found of the world itself. Meaning is eternal-- it is never born and it never dies. Death does not remove the love of a family. Birth does not found it.

One cannot have a "problem of meaning" because the world is never without value, meaning and significance. No-one needs to create meaning in the world, be it a transcendent force (e.g. mystics, theism, etc.,etc.) or man (e.g. Nietzsche, existentialism, the science and technology of Modernist utopia, etc.,etc.), for the world always comes with an expression of meaning, value and significance. There is never "just the existence" of a rock, mountain or person. The presence of any state also means the eternal expression of its value, meaning and significance.

Our highest point is to recognise this. To understanding the world, its eternal expression, rather than just in terms of the empirical state we must possess next or to insist that it's meaningless. An understanding of the eternal itself (ethics, virtue, meaning, logic), rather than floundering over possession and loss of the transient (death, possessions, money, desires).

Whether or not I'm venting spleen or whatever is irrelevant to the contents of my post. — Agustino

The contents of your post basically amounts to: be good.

Interestingly, there is an anecdote in Chinese Buddhism, wherein an emperor asks a Buddhist master, 'what is it you teach?' - to which the reply comes 'learn to do good, cease to do evil, purify the mind'. The Emperor a replies 'a child of seven knows that', to which the master says 'but many men of 70 have failed to practice is.'

The intellectual love of God is merely understanding of the world. — Agustino

'Merely', eh? He did go to the trouble of constructing lengthy and recondite texts, in the style of geometrical propositions, the aim of which is to remedy ignorance and to advocate the supreme importance of virtue, and was ostracised by his own culture for so doing. You're selling him well short, all the while accusing others of not understanding him.

God is immanent for Spinoza. Not a transcendent force that makes the world meaningful or produces an escape from the meaningless world, but an expression of the world-- the eternal, the value, meaning and significance produced by each state. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Spot God in today's news, then. 25 dead in head-on smash in Thailand. US Republicans decide to scrap the Ethics Office, then change their minds. Somewhere, no doubt, numbers of women and children slaughtered by jihadis. Hey, it's all God, right? 'Nothing to transcend here, folks, move right along'.

Spot God in today's news, then. 25 dead in head-on smash in Thailand. US Republicans decide to scrap the Ethics Office, then change their minds. Somewhere, no doubt, numbers of women and children slaughtered by jihadis. Hey, it's all God, right? 'Nothing to transcend here, folks, move right along — Wayfarer

Indeed. Those are unethical acts and outcomes of the world. Horror, tragedy and immorality, an eternal expressed by the world. Not something to transcend, but loss which ought have been avoided, states of the world which ought not have been enacted or happened. An eternal expression of the world which cannot be avoided (even if all the dead were resurrected, the Republicans decided not to scrap the Ethics office, it would not undo what was done ).

Certainly, there is a world to avoid in the future. We ought to act so these sort events don't happen again. This is not a question of "transcending" the world. It's being a part of it.
Pretending there is a force which undoes the eternal expression of loss isn't the worldly act of avoiding head-on smashes, terrible political policy or massacring women and children.

It's just a hedonistic story that suffering and loss can become something else if we believe it. A philosophy not dedicated to understanding and respecting the eternal, but rather one which disrespects and ignores it, to create the image that the horrible and/or immoral outcomes don't really occur. It serves not understanding the eternal, but the desire for life without pain.

We ought to act so these sort events don't happen again. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Bingo.

This is not a question of "transcending" the world. It's being a part of it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Do your ears not hear what your mouth has spoken? As always, a total waste of time conversing. You contradict yourself in every post you write.

The contents of your post basically amounts to: be good — Wayfarer

But this is what I'm asking you. You claim that there is something higher than this. And I don't see how there can be something higher than this, from a logical point of view.

Chinese Buddhism, wherein an emperor asks a Buddhist master, 'what is it you teach?' - to which the reply comes 'learn to do good, cease to do evil, purify the mind'. The Emperor a replies 'a child of seven knows that', to which the master says 'but many men of 70 have failed to practice is.' — Wayfarer

Bodhidharma? One of my favorite Buddhists. I loved his pragmatism.

He did go to the trouble of constructing lengthy and recondite texts, in the style of geometrical propositions, the aim of which is to remedy ignorance and to advocate the supreme importance of virtue, and was ostracised by his own culture for so doing. — Wayfarer

Exactly, but what is there to do more than this?

It's not a contradiction.

People don't come to act morally by being outside the world. They act within it. Any instance of changing from immoral to moral behaviour is a change of the world. We don't get there by presenting to be outside the world. We do it be being in the world and respecting it's eternal ethical expression.

'Supernatural' is such a boo-word, isn't it? Meaning, what? — Wayfarer

I think of nature as our organized vision of the world. So for me the supernatural would be anomalous. It would be precisely what we could not yet integrate into a system of necessary relationships. As soon as we can say something definite about the Divine, it's part of nature. From this perspective, the super-natural is more or less exactly what we know nothing about. One might present nature rather than super-nature as the hero of the piece. I don't mean the usual amoral vision of Newtonian clockwork. I mean a vision of nature that includes human nature and history in a way that can affirm the value of the world or at least of the individual life where the raw materials for happiness are present, despite its "evil."

I see the Buddha's 'world-transcending wisdom' as the acme of the teaching. (The other profound difference with Greek philosophy, however, is that Mahāyāna Buddhism says that ultimately Nirvāṇa and Samsara are not different - 'Nirvāṇa is samsara released, samsara is Nirvāṇa grasped'.) — Wayfarer

I'm inclined to think of transcendence in terms of freedom from desire (non-optimal attachments.)

That is much nearer to Plotinus than Epicurus. — Wayfarer

I don't think you're giving Epicurus enough credit on this issue.

For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings. — Epicurus