Some hellfire preachers often seem to appear deliberately threatening but overall I agree with you. — Wayfarer
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him (Luke 12:5)
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. — baker
They say that a person’s soul is immortal, and at one time it meets its end – the thing they call dying – and at another time it is born again, but it never perishes. They say that, because of this, one should live one’s whole life in the most holy way possible … (Meno 81b).
So since the soul both is immortal and has been born many times, and has seen both what is here and what is in Hades, and in fact all things, there is nothing it has not learned. And so it is no matter for wonder that it is possible for the soul to recollect both about virtue and about other things, given that it knew them previously (Meno 81c).
It is likely that people who have practised acts of gluttony, recklessness and drunkenness, and have not shown caution, come to be embodied in the species which include donkeys and beasts like that ... (Phaedo 81e-82a).
To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so... — Agent Smith
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)
pleasure, is suffering — Apollodorus
This seems to imply that all (conditioned) life, including pleasure, is suffering from the perspective of the wise — Apollodorus
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
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.
those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life
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?
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 ....
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
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
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
How does one achive liberation according to Platonism?
Does Platonism have a teaching on dependent co-arising? — baker
When the soul makes use of the body for any inquiry, either through seeing or hearing or any of the other senses—for inquiry through the body means inquiry through the senses,—then it is dragged by the body to things which never remain the same, and it wanders about and is confused and dizzy like a drunken man because it lays hold upon such things.
But when the soul inquires alone by itself, it departs into the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and the changeless, and being akin to these it dwells always with them whenever it is by itself and is not hindered, and it has rest from its wanderings and remains always the same and unchanging with the changeless, since it is in communion therewith. And this state of the soul is called wisdom (phronesis) (Phaedo 79c-d).
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
A very unique and singular interpretation of suffering. Heaven is its own kind of hell. — Agent Smith
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
That seems to imply that the wise can’t feel. — praxis
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
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.
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. — baker
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
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. — baker
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. — baker
Moreover: Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation — baker
Not Christianity. Your interpretation of it. — Apollodorus
You seem to have little knowledge of other systems
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".
Not very different from what you single out for criticism in others ....
Wrong. What I don't do is prejudicate which particular system is right. The rest is the product of your sectarian tendency. — baker
Sure, but this isn't Christian doctrine.
— baker
You are changing the subject, aren't you? — Apollodorus
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. — baker
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? — baker
The only catch is, which church is the Church? — baker
"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
If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it.
Buddhism seems to advocate impassibility only, which would make Nirvana a form of annihilation or nothingness. — Apollodorus
Is there a church of Platonism? — baker
Well, this only demonstrates that you are not familiar with Platonism. — Apollodorus
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.
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.
You gloss over the problem of religious choice and the implications thereof for Christianity and the prospect of eternal damnation. — baker
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.