Suffering is certainly central to Christianity. The goal of Christianity is salvation from suffering and death, which is also the goal of Platonism and Buddhism. — Apollodorus

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime.
It takes more imagination than I have to portray that as being concerned with "salvation from suffering and death".

Life is painful due to ignorance and sin (i.e., wrong conduct). This is what motivates all three traditions to engage in ethical conduct and seek higher knowledge.

Picking the wrong religion is an eternal death sentence, according to Christianity.

I don’t think scholars need to personally practice any of these systems in order to identify parallels between their intellectual frameworks.

This assumes that it is possible to ascertain the truth of a religion without practicing it.
It's not clear how such is in fact possible. And if it is, it means religion is nothing more but a process of going through the motions.

If you happen to live in Eastern Europe it is probably correct to say that non-European systems there are not in general highly regarded. But in the West the reverse is often the case, especially in large cities across the English-speaking world.

I wouldn't know. 30+ years ago when I went to school, a public, secular school, in a (nominally) secular country, it was the norm to consider Christianity (and by this was meant Roman Catholicism) the one and only true religion, and everything else was dismissed as wrong or nonsense. Secular academics (!!) had that attitude as well. Many still do.

(You can see this reflected in secular university curricula for philosophy. There is usually a course called "The existence of God", but all the course material is about Western, implicitly Roman Catholic notions of God, no hint of Hindu theism.)

I don’t think scholars need to personally practice any of these systems in order to identify parallels between their intellectual frameworks.

This assumes that it is possible to ascertain the truth of a religion without practicing it.
It's not clear how such is in fact possible. And if it is, it means religion is nothing more but a process of going through the motions. — baker

Or it means that religions are explanatory systems around which rituals and practices are constructed, and as such one can compare their explanatory structures from a critical distance.

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime.
It takes more imagination than I have to portray that as being concerned with "salvation from suffering and death". — baker

I'm no expert but there are earlier Christians traditions of universalism - all people will be saved and no one burned. Hell being a more recent idea in the history of Christianity. David Bentley Hart writes a lot about universalism and the early beliefs from patristic sources. If you read Christian writers like Father Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, Cynthia Bourgeault (and Hart) you can see there were and remain other traditions utterly opposed to the judgmental, punishing, evangelizing tradition so well known to us all. Contemplative prayer (essentially mediation) plays a big role in this expression of Christianity, along with allegorical readings of scripture (which Hart maintains were the original readings in most cases).

Such as by reading Machiavelli?
— baker

Of course. The West has never produced anything other than Machiavelli. — Apollodorus

You misread my tone.

The topic was Westerners who went East and what they have to offer being an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.
I think that much of what goes on under the heading of "religion" and "spirituality" is actually right-winger mentality. I'm not sure it is even possible to be religious/spiritual without being a right-wing authoritarian.

It's not clear it's even possible to get "an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace" from studying Plato and acting accordingly. Or from following the principles in De Imitatione Christi. The Prince, on the other hand, seems a more likely source. It's not a conicidence that religious/spiritual people tend to associate with right-wing political options, and that right-wing political options tend to associate with religion, insofar said religion has been a majority religion in the region for a long time (and that can be Roman Catholicism in traditionally Catholic countries, or Buddhism in traditionally Buddhist countries). Most Western Buddhists I know fit the right-wing profile, some are even vocal supporters of Trump.

And India does not have its own Machiavellis.

I don't appreciate your tone and you ascribing to me some kind of secret admiration for the East, or specifically, India. I've thought about writing you a long list of things I resent about the East, or, specifically, India. I decided against doing so. But if you persist, I might change my mind.

My only interest is in the Pali Canon, and because of this, I'm actually resented by Easterners and Westerners alike.
This is the type of attitude one usually gets if one is interested in the Pali Canon.

Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now.
— baker

Not true.

Some are reborn in the womb, those who are wicked in the underworld, the righteous go to heaven, those who are pollutant-free are emancipated (Dhammapada 22.1)

This is exactly what Plato is saying in his dialogues like the Phaedo:

The impure souls wander until the time when they are bound again into a body by their desire for the corporeality that follows them around (81e).
The soul that has performed an impure act, by engaging in unjust killings or perpetrating other similar deeds goes to the lower regions of Hades where it suffers every deprivation until certain lengths of time have elapsed and the soul is by necessity born into the dwellings suitable for it (108c; 114a).
On the other hand, each soul that has passed through its life both purely and decently receives Gods as companions and as guides alike, and then dwells in the region appropriate to it (108c).
The pure soul goes off into what is similar to it, the unseen, the divine, immortal and wise, where after its arrival it can be happy, separated from wandering, unintelligence, fears, and other human evils ... (81a).

The passage is too short to be able to discern much from it. It seems to be compatible with some more secular, "generous" versions of Christian doctrine, but it's not clear how far it is compatible with Buddhism.

Platonism of course places less emphasis on reincarnation than Buddhism and Hinduism.

Folk Buddhism "places a lot of emphasis" on rebirth. In the suttas, rebirth is mostly part of cautionary tales.

But this is exactly what one would expect from a system that focuses on liberation.

How does one achive liberation according to Platonism?

Does Platonism have a teaching on dependent co-arising?

This is one of the reasons why I think that Buddhism’s ability to create an ideal society is more wishful thinking than reality.

What a strange idea. The Buddhism of the Pali suttas is not concerned with creating a society at all, ideal or not. It gives some pointers on how to make do when living in a society, but its aim is to leave the process of rebirth (and with it, social life) altogether. The Buddhism of the Pali suttas is, essentially, a self-terminating project.

In the course of this thread (or a similar theme), people have posted links to articles talking about secular Buddhism and how it can contribute to society, or help create a better one, and such.
I have no interest in such "Buddhism". I do not believe that Buddhism can in any way create a better society or help toward it. Given its origin, I think it's actually rather bizarre that it had become a major religion in the world.

The way I see it, in order to find spirituality you need to be spiritual yourself. In which case you will tend to find spirituality wherever you are.

I generally dislike the term "spiritual", "spirituality". I do not consider myself "spiritual". I feel sickened if I read about "spirituality".

Realistically speaking, “Nirvana” or whatever we choose to call it, is either (a) unattainable (which is the case in the vast majority)

What do you mean by "which is the case in the vast majority"? That most people cannot attain nirvana?

or (b) it is attainable through meditation or introspection.

If (b), then Nirvana or enlightenment cannot be something distant, or different, from the meditator. If it is experienced, then there must be an experiencer. And the experiencer is the consciousness that gradually disengages itself from lower forms of experience until it experiences itself.

We may not be in a position to say what is beyond that, but I think all forms of meditation, Platonist, Buddhist, or Hindu, must logically lead to a point where consciousness experiences itself qua consciousness, i.e., not thoughts or consciousness of things.

If we posit a reality other than consciousness, we need to explain what that reality is, which is an impossible task especially in non-materialist terms. Even if we were to deny the existence of consciousness we would merely confirm it, as consciousness is needed to conceive that denial.

Again, back to dependent co-arising.

Or it means that religions are explanatory systems around which rituals and practices are constructed, and as such one can compare their explanatory structures from a critical distance. — Joshs

I refer to the emic-etic distinction.

Or it means that religions are explanatory systems around which rituals and practices are constructed, and as such one can compare their explanatory structures from a critical distance.
— Joshs

I refer to the emic-etic distinction. — baker

The article you linked to concluded:

“When these two approaches are combined, the "richest" view of a culture or society can be understood.”

I dont conclude from the article that one has to be a practitioner of a religion in order to combine the emic and the etic.

I'm no expert but there are earlier Christians traditions of universalism - all people will be saved and no one burned. Hell being a more recent idea in the history of Christianity. David Bentley Hart writes a lot about universalism and the early beliefs from patristic sources. If you read Christian writers like Father Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, Cynthia Bourgeault (and Hart) you can see there were and remain other traditions utterly opposed to the judgmental, punishing, evangelizing tradition so well known to us all. Contemplative prayer (essentially mediation) plays a big role in this expression of Christianity, along with allegorical readings of scripture (which Hart maintains were the original readings in most cases). — Tom Storm

And what use are those other traditions?

Unless a person feels "in their heart of hearts" that one of those other traditions is the right one, why on earth would anyone want to go anywhere near Christianity, other than out of fear of eternal suffering?

What you describe also strikes me as an awfully self-indulgent spirituality, apparently devised to be more palatable to people who are not all that interested in might makes right or who don't want those interests of theirs to show.

I dont conclude from the article that one has to be a practitioner of a religion in order to combine the emic and the etic. — Joshs

You think you can have insider knowledge without being an insider?

You think you can have insider knowledge without being an insider? — baker

I think you can have better than insider knowledge by subsuming insider thinking within a more encompassing framework that transcends its limitations. Lapsed Catholics , former cult members and reformed drug addicts are examples.

You seem to have missed the point. If it can be established that Christianity originally was not about suffering or punishment in the way you describe, that would be a noteworthy contribution. I see you fishing around for early Buddhist accounts to get close to the original meaning, so how is this different?

I think you can have better than insider knowledge by subsuming insider thinking within a more encompassing framework that transcends its limitations. Lapsed Catholics , former cult members and reformed drug addicts are examples. — Joshs

You think taking failed insiders, who are therefore not insiders (anymore) at all, are the best source of insider knowledge??

That's like saying that college drop-outs are the best sources on what college is like and what it is supposed to be like.

Karl Rahner accepted the notion that without Christ it was impossible to achieve salvation, but he could not accept the notion that people who have never heard of Jesus would be condemned"

"Anonymous Christianity" means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. A Protestant Christian is, of course, "no anonymous Christian"; that is perfectly clear. But, let us say, a Buddhist monk (or anyone else I might suppose) who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity. — WIkipedia, Anonymous Christian

And of the apparent huge divisions between different religious conceptions:

The basic principle that we are aware of anything, not as it is in itself unobserved, but always and necessarily as it appears to beings with our particular cognitive equipment, was brilliantly stated by Aquinas when he said that ‘Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower’ (S.T., II/II, Q. 1, art. 2). And in the case of religious awareness, the mode of the knower differs significantly from religion to religion. And so my hypothesis is that the ultimate reality of which the religions speak, and which we (Christians) refer to as God, is being differently conceived, and therefore differently experienced, and therefore differently responded to in historical forms of life within the different religious traditions. — John Hick, Who or What is God

I'm wondering if you explored the similarities between contemplative prayer and meditation and if you have any observations on this.

You seem to have missed the point. If it can be established that Christianity originally was not about suffering or punishment in the way you describe, that would be a noteworthy contribution. — Tom Storm

There is even a book, explaining via linguistic analysis that the Bible doesn't actually talk about eternal damnation. My knowledge of this is a bit rusty by now, but if I remember correctly, there was a church council at which they decided, on a vote, how to translate certain phrases in the Bible, and that's how we got "eternal damnation". When the Bible actually talks about "long term damnation".

However, none of this matters. Christian culture today is what it is. It's built on the doctrine of eternal damnation, or on efforts to oppose it. Going anywhere near Christianity, one has to deal with the issue of eternal damnation one way or another.

I see you fishing around for early Buddhist accounts to get close to the original meaning, so how is this different?

For me in particular, this is actually co-incidental. I'm not trying to "get close to the original meaning", this has never been a theme for me. From the beginning, I felt in my heart of hearts an interest in the Pali Canon, and that was all.

I'm wondering if you explored the similarities between contemplative prayer and meditation and if you have any observations on this. — Tom Storm

I think there is a difference between the kind of analytical meditation that you find in Advaita and Buddhist philosophy and the practice of petitionary prayer, where the supplicant prays for favour or some important outcome. On the village level, the practices are similar - in Buddhist cultures you will endow the local monastery or support the monks on the daily round to acrue merit (or good karma) in hope of a propitious rebirth.

Nevertheless from a theoretical perspective, the emphasis in (for example) Sōtō Zen meditation is never to practice with some idea of gain or any ulterior purpose. The principle is always to develop insight into the innate tendencies and habitual patterns that generally drive us to 'act out' in certain ways. I was always struck by the convergence of that principle and the Socratic dictum 'know thyself'. It seems such an open-ended command, but it does have definite scope, in some ways. I mean, I see in myself and others, that we 'act out' all manner of unexpressed feelings or subconscious thoughts on a daily basis.

Which leads to a point that needs to be made about enlightenment, more generally, in that it is a mode of understanding or of being that requires a fundamental change in the disposition of the seeker. (There is a term in later Greek philosophy, 'metanoia', which describes this. It is often translated merely as 'conversion' but I don't think that does justice to the cognitive implications of the term.) The subject of the understanding is not, like objective methodology, known at a remove or at a third-person. So the idea of 'concepts', as in 'concepts of God' or 'concepts of enlightenment' are wildly misplaced, as the kind of understanding that is required is non-conceptual. And that is alien to our culture as we are so utterly immersed in conceptual knowledge and sensory experience.

Religious truth is...a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong

/.../ Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong

Hence the supremacy of the emic.

Going anywhere near Christianity, one has to deal with the issue of eternal damnation one way or another. — baker

You can bet that in Buddhist cultures there will be some monks who will teach that Christians and Muslims are all doomed for the Buddhist Avici hell unless they convert. Fundamentalism is cross-cultural.

Hence the supremacy of the emic. — baker

For those who haven't encountered it, 'In anthropology, folkloristics, and the social and behavioral sciences, emic and etic refer to two kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained: emic, from within the social group (from the perspective of the subject) and etic, from outside (from the perspective of the observer.

But the situation of today's global culture tends to blur that distinction. I'm not meaningfully Buddhist in any ethnic or even cultural sense, so am an 'outsider', like a lot of Western people who have encountered Buddhism through popular books and visiting teachers. And I'm often suspicious of Westerners who adopt Buddhist cultural trappings as it so easily seems like pretence.

Earlier on I referred to a book by Evan Thompson, 'Why I am not a Buddhist'. Which is surprising coming from him, as he is a thought-leader in the translation of Buddhist principles into the dialogue concerning meditation, phenomenology and cognitive science. But he's also very sceptical of many of the claims of 'Buddhist modernists', that Buddhism is a scientific or rational faith. Not that he doesn't hold Buddhist principles in high regard, and his writing certainly evinces intimate familiarity with them.

It's a complicated world, nowadays.

similarities between contemplative prayer and meditation — Tom Storm

"Meditation" is such a broad term. Descartes wrote "meditations".

The Buddhist key term is bhavana.

You think taking failed insiders, who are therefore not insiders (anymore) at all, are the best source of insider knowledge??

That's like saying that college drop-outs are the best sources on what college is like and what it is supposed to be like. — baker

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.

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.

“… yesterday's alarming impulse becomes today's enlivening insight, tomorrow's repressive doctrine, and after that subsides into a petty superstition.”(George Kelly).

You can bet that in Buddhist cultures there will be some monks who will teach that Christians and Muslims are all doomed for the Buddhist Avici hell unless they convert. Fundamentalism is cross-cultural. — Wayfarer

I don't see it as "fundamentalism" in the sense of some kind of abuse or perversion of the genuine teachings. I see that simply as part of their doctrine.

Hence the supremacy of the emic.
— baker

For those who haven't encountered it, 'In anthropology, folkloristics, and the social and behavioral sciences, emic and etic refer to two kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained: emic, from within the social group (from the perspective of the subject) and etic, from outside (from the perspective of the observer.

But the situation of today's global culture tends to blur that distinction.

I think the emic-etic distinction is useful and relevant when discussing matters on the metalevel, like we're doing here.

I'm not meaningfully Buddhist in any ethnic or even cultural sense, so am an 'outsider', like a lot of Western people who have encountered Buddhism through popular books and visiting teachers. And I'm often suspicious of Westerners who adopt Buddhist cultural trappings as it so easily seems like pretence.

When referring to oneself in relation to some group, the emic-etic distinction can be taken as a dynamic process of self-identification and self-analysis that can go on for a long time.
It's for the academic writing a study that the emic-etic distinction is final, has a sense of finality.

For many people, this means that they are facing the prospect of not accomplishing much and dying miserable. Hardly something to look forward to. — baker

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.

Thanks for your response. I'm interested in the descriptions of contemplative prayer as per Rohr's accounts - where there are no words, no request is made, no ideas are formed - it is about emptying the mind - a focus on union with higher consciousness. He describes the process in similar terms to some of the Taoist material I have read.

:up:

Yes, there is prayer (contemplation) and then there is petitionary prayer; a very different animal.

It's for the academic writing a study that the emic-etic distinction is final, has a sense of finality. — baker

When I studied comparative religion, I noticed that that Old School approach, personified by the avuncular head of department, was, I suppose 'curatorial' - that religions were to be studied as aspects of history and culture but very much arms-length, there was never any suggestion of personal interest or soteriological intent. That very much began to change in the 1960's with the idea of the 'scholar-practitioner' (Jay Garfield, Robert Thurman, et al.) So through that, the distinction is breaking down to some extent - at least when it comes to Eastern traditions.

I'm interested in the descriptions of contemplative prayer as per Rohr's accounts - where there are no words, no request is made, no ideas are formed - it is about emptying the mind - a focus on union with higher consciousness — Tom Storm

It's very similar to the Eastern teachings. I have Rohr's book Falling Upward, and very much like it. (Although some say he sails pretty close to the wind in terms of Christian orthodoxy, see here). But since Thomas Merton, this kind of Eastern~Christian hybrid has become increasingly influential. John Main taught something similar. It naturally resonates with me even if it makes some mainstream Christians anxious.

I kept my own meditation practice up for many years but it has fallen off since end of 2019. I have to affirm that I'm intending to return to it (ever mindful of the warning that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.)

This discussion has left the areas where I feel as if I have anything substantive to add the discussion. Even so, I'm finding it very interesting and thought-provoking. @Tom Storm, if I may be so presumptuous, it seems to me you have gotten what you asked for in the OP.

Good thread.

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.

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.

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"?

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

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

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!

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

I generally dislike the term "spiritual", "spirituality". I do not consider myself "spiritual". I feel sickened if I read about "spirituality". — baker

Interesting. Maybe it does have to do with psychology after all, as I suggested.

My only interest is in the Pali Canon, and because of this, I'm actually resented by Easterners and Westerners alike. — baker

Are you sure it's just "interest", or more like "obsession"? And how do you know the Pali Canon is any better than other Canons, or for that matter, than the scriptures of other systems?

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 .... :grin:

:up: Agree TC. It's been really engaging and I have learned new things.

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.

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

Well, it's not a social or political philosophy, but then, the Buddhist sangha is arguably the oldest continuously self-governing order in the world today, so that must say something.

If I'm not mistaken, someone mentioned the phrase "Red Guard" in connection with your comments — Apollodorus

Thanks for reminding me to be more mindful in my remarks.

GET OFF the merry-go-round!