Part of the problem with the "there is no self, ever, in any way" type of anatta doctrine (which is by now the dominant anatta doctrine in Buddhism) is that it's due to theoretical efforts to construct a coherent Buddhist doctrine, based primarily on the suttas. — baker

Generally agree with you. I hadn't known of the connection between the chariot analogy in the Upaniṣad and Plato's Phaedrus, although I should have realised there would be a connection. @Apollodorus might find that of interest.

I contend that such interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge applies also to religion/spirituality. — baker

Agree with this also. I have previously put it in terms of 'domains of discourse' within which such interpersonal validation exists. But most people here think that science is the only proper method of peer validation of anything considered knowledge.

One still needs to earn a living, ensure one's place in the world, fight the struggle for survival, for status, for respect. — baker

Of course. The realisation was about my attachment to my own emotional states and other such ephemera, which I saw through at that moment. Not that I was forever relieved of self-concern, but it was a momentary, but real, insight into what it meant. 'My life has been a whole series of crises, none of which ever occurred.'

I was just making a quip - not an argument. :smile:

I contend that such interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge applies also to religion/spirituality. While Janus thinks that I am deluded to think this way. Perhaps he thinks this way also about doctors, engineers, musicians, atheletes, anyone who has expertise in a specialized field of knowledge ... — baker

Why not? But it does sound like the idea that all forms of knowledge are ultimately grounded on lived experience and intersubjective agreement that phenomenology talks about.

If you don't hold the beliefs I attributed to you and hence don't disagree with what I've been saying (even though to me your responses made it look as though you were disagreeing) all you have to say is that you don't disagree.

If you do disagree I would like to know precisely what you are disagreeing with and why, otherwise discussion is pointless. All this talk about me feeling this or that, and me projecting this and that is pointless. I'm not interested in that. — Janus

The manner in which you're conducting this discussion is part of the discussion.

The difference, in a word, is religion. The purpose of religion is not to produce graduates but to bind communities. Graduates or 'free' individuals may not be as inclined to move with the herd. If a religion like Buddhism were actually interested in 'transforming consciousness and the self', wouldn't it do a better job of it after over two thousand years??? — praxis

Religion, as it understands itself, has multiple purposes. Salvation, however variously conceived, is probably the most primary. The binding of communities it simply a natural outcome of the like-mindedness that attends religious conversion.

How would you know about the transformation of consciousness or lack of it that has occurred over the millennia?

How do you know when something which calls itself Buddhist or Christian is no longer one of these? Or is it the case that the name applied is all which matters? — Tom Storm

I guess that's always a subjective judgement call. Could there be a fact of the matter?

How would you know about the transformation of consciousness or lack of it that has occurred over the millennia? — Janus

I read the wiki page, of course. :brow:

I contend that such interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge applies also to religion/spirituality. While Janus thinks that I am deluded to think this way. Perhaps he thinks this way also about doctors, engineers, musicians, atheletes, anyone who has expertise in a specialized field of knowledge ... — baker

I haven't seen any explanation as to how their could be determinable inter-subjective confirmation re religious experience, or any other kind of subjective experience and judgement (aesthetics). In the sciences there are theories that generate predictions and observations which make those predictions, if confirmed, seem more likely to confirm the soundness of the theories that produced them. But this doesn't constitute any kind of absolute certainty. I don't see why it should be thought that there could be more certainty with religion/ spirituality; if anything for the reasons I go into below, I think it should be thought that there must be less certainty in this domain. If you have an argument I'm ready to listen to it.

In regard to everyday observations of the world it is easy to check if everybody is observing the same thing. We all see the sun come up, the rain fall, the traffic streaming on the roads, the people in the streets, and so on. So, there is far more certainty in this domain of visual perception than in either science or religion. Although that said science (and religion and everything we do) relies on this confirmably shared visual field in order to even get off the ground. Religious experience, since the experiences in question are not directly publicly shareable, but can only be described, is not directly determinable as to its veracity or level of "spirituality" or whatever you want to call it. But as I said, if you have an alternative argument or explanation, please present it.

How come noone wonders what happened to those women afterwards? By Hindu standards, they would not be eligible for marriage anymore, and their only choices for a livelihood afterwards would be begging or prostitution. — baker

Nonsense. Most of the women he slept with were already married.

Eighteen-year-old Abha was married to Gandhi's grandnephew Kanu Gandhi.

Gandhi told women at the ashram not to sleep with their husbands (unless they wanted to have a child) or even share a bed with them as a sign of "devotion to their guru”, but asked them to sleep/share the bed with him.

That was the point his critics were making.

Manu continued writing books and delivering talks on Gandhi.

Abha carried on her life with her husband.

Sushila Nayar, Gandhi’s personal doctor, became a health minister in the Nehru government and a writer.

None of them became “beggars or prostitutes” or had that as "their only choice"!

:smirk: Good onya an unimpeachable source to be sure!

I hadn't known of the connection between the chariot analogy in the Upaniṣad and Plato's Phaedrus, although I should have realised there would be a connection. @Apollodorus might find that of interest. — Wayfarer

The Chariot Analogy was one of the points I made a few months ago:

As a general observation, the fact is that there are many striking parallels between Platonism and Indian philosophy.
For example, the so-called “parable of the chariot” in which the Indian version has the horses standing for the senses, the chariot for the body, the charioteer for the intellect and the rider for the soul (Katha Upanishad) ... — Apollodorus

Unfortunately, we can't tell if there is a connection in this particular case. Greeks and Persians are mentioned in the Mahabharata and other Hindu scriptures. So if there was any influence it could have come from either direction.

Having said that, chariots, by definition, are associated with control as anyone familiar with horses knows. Control over senses and mind is also common to all advanced cultures.

So it looks like it must remain a mystery for now ....

Good onya an unimpeachable source to be sure! — Janus

So you’re an enlightenment denier?

I'm an enlightenment assurance denier, and an enlightenment deflationary. I think enlightenment consists in transformation of the way of being, i.e. non-reactivity, not in any special propositional knowledge.

BTW, I looked at the wiki page you linked and it deals with the sense of 'enlightenment' which is not under discussion so, unimpeachable as it might be in its domain; it is irrelevant here.

The manner in which you're conducting this discussion is part of the discussion. — baker

And the manner in which you, etc....no shit!

unimpeachable — Janus

Glad we agree. :up:

A minor gladness in proportion to our agreement I assume?

There are many forces antagonistic to Western culture, the Fabian Society and Theosophy must rank a pretty long way down the list. — Wayfarer

The Fabians certainly dominated culture and education as this is what they had set out to do from the start.

They founded educational and research institutions like the Royal Economic Society, London School of Economics and Political Science, Imperial College London, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, etc.

They established or took over education authorities like the London School Board and London County Council, responsible for elementary and secondary schools, in addition to the Technical Instruction Committee and the Public Control Committee.

They created professorships, teachers’ and students’ unions like the National Union of Students, the Universities Socialist Federation, and Fabian University Societies in every single university across the country.

Fabians were on the boards of all key cultural institutions like the Royal Society of Arts, Society of Authors, Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, League of Dramatists, etc.

Fabians also founded other influential organizations like the Christian Book Club and the Left Book Club which ran summer schools and seminars, and the propaganda outfit Socialist Propaganda Committee to propagate their views.

The Fabians founded the British Labour Party which they have controlled ever since with Fabians serving as Party leaders and Prime Ministers. By the 1940’s, the Fabian Society had a membership of several thousand, Labour had more than 400,000 members, and all Labour (and some Tory and Liberal) members of parliament were members of the Fabian Society, i.e., they dominated parliament.

In 1940 Labour formed a coalition government with Churchill’s Tories which enabled it to build a solid power structure for itself (and for the Fabian Society).

In 1945 Labour came to power, which means that the Fabians now ruled not only the United Kingdom but the whole British Empire with a total population of more than 400 million.

During the war, thousands of leading European intellectuals and politicians had fled to London where they were led, organized, funded, and indoctrinated by the Fabians and Labour.

In 1951, the Fabian Society together with Labour (which now had about one million members) founded the Socialist International, a worldwide association of socialist parties. With Labour Party General Secretary and leading Fabian Morgan Phillips acting as chairman of the International, and funding provided by Labour and the Fabian Society, the International greatly amplified the Fabians’ already extensive influence in Europe and elsewhere.

In August 1949, a group of “former communists” met in Frankfurt, Germany, to develop a plan where the CIA could be persuaded to fund a left-wing but anti-communist organization. This plan was then passed onto Michael Josselson, who was chief of CIA’s Berlin station for Covert Action.

Congress for Cultural Freedom – Spartacus Educational

When the CIA founded the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CFF) in 1950, it put Josselson in charge of its European operations. Josselson hired a team of intellectuals, including Fabians like Bertrand Russell and Arthur Koestler. Fabians were also heavily represented at CFF congresses.

For example, at the 1955 CFF congress in Milan, Italy, there were nineteen British delegates, most of them with key positions in the Fabian Society and the Labour Party, such as Hugh Gaitskell (who became party leader later that year), C.A.R. Crosland, Richard Crossman, Denis Healey, and Roy Jenkins.

The CIA also funded influential magazines in a number of countries, such as Partisan Review (USA), Encounter (England), Preuves (France), Tempo Presente (Italy), Cuadernos (Spain), Quest (India), and Quadrant (Australia) which, together with other publications, promoted various shades of “liberal anticommunism”, i.e., Fabianism.

Regarding the CFF the Wikipedia (quoting historian Frances Stonor Saunders) says:

Whether they liked it or not, whether they knew it or not, there were few writers, poets, artists, historians, scientists, or critics in postwar Europe whose names were not in some way linked to this covert enterprise.

Congress for Cultural Freedom - Wikipedia

There were many other organizations involved, like National Committee for a Free Europe and European Youth outfits.

The same people became leading figures in subsequent cultural and youth movements like England’s and Europe’s “cultural diversity” a.k.a. “multiculturalism” movement of the 1960’s and 70’s, with former Fabian Society chairman Roy Jenkins, a multiculturalism leader, becoming President of the European Commission (the body that runs the European Union) in 1977.

So to believe that the Fabians had no influence or had nothing to do with anything is not entirely correct. Of course it can be argued that these cultural trends were already underway. But they were not independent of trend-setting individuals and organizations. The involvement of intelligence services meant that Western governments were now involved in giving shape and direction to a worldwide movement that was to have wide implications for the Western world.

Though the New Age movement was a mass movement, it was not a movement of the people, but a middle- and upper-middle-class movement led by individuals and groups (“subcultural or countercultural pioneers”) with a subversive political agenda. There is no doubt that Anglo-American culture and language were dominant, and the Fabians were the leading vanguard that provided the anti-establishment, anti-tradition, and anti-Western narrative and ideology that facilitated the propagation of the countercultural tendency.

And it was not just Blavatsky’s Theosophists, there were many other self-appointed, i.e., fake “gurus” like Ram Dass, Osho, Sathya Sai Baba, Idries Shah, etc. many of whom liked to experiment with psychedelic drugs as a “shortcut to enlightenment” ….

New Age Gurus: Dispensers of Nonsense – Psychology Today

As I said, there may have been some truth in the New Age movement, but a lot of it was unnecessary and destructive nonsense. The way I see it, if there is anything “wrong” with Western religion and culture, then it should be reformed and improved, not wholesale replaced with something else. Even if it were to be replaced, it should be replaced by consensus, not forced on us by self-appointed elites.

In any case, what we increasingly see with the relentless spread of Anglo-American language and culture is not spirituality, or even Theosophy, but the anticulture of guns, drugs, and other antisocial trends.

On the Fabians see:

Patricia Pugh, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism
Ettore Costa, The Labour Party, Denis Healey and the International Socialist Movement

And also that study of the Pali texts reveals a consistency, clarity and unity of understanding that is of a higher order than those found in any of the other ancient literature. — Wayfarer

This can be deceptive, though.

I think it takes more than just neatly formulating your philosophical propositions. Buddhism did receive quite a bit of criticism from other systems, such as Advaita, and from the Bhakti movement that was quite popular.

This tends to show that not everyone was convinced. And, at the end of the day, Buddhism became a small minority in India and has remained that way ever since. It appears to have largely thrived where no serious competition from rival systems existed.

Attempting celibacy with nothing else as a foundation for it but Catholic doctrine is a demanding task. Those with a Dharmic foundation have a better chance at it. — baker

The idea that “Dharmic” systems are in any way “superior” in this (or any other) respect seems unfounded to say the least.

The “Dharmic foundation” didn’t work in Gandhi’s case. And if it didn’t work for Gandhi, I don’t see why others would stand a better chance.

I think people either are made for spiritual life or they are not. If they aren’t, then no amount of suppression is going to work.

What tends to happen is that some Westerners are motivated by a certain inferiority complex to have blind faith in everything Indian (or "Eastern"). Unsurprisingly, some Indians start to believe in their own superiority and play the role of “gurus” to confused and gullible Westerners.

The truth of the matter is that for a long time India’s female population has been declining, leaving more than 3o million men (!) without a chance of finding a partner. This has resulted in rising numbers of Indian men joining religious movements and becoming “celibate monks”, and has given the false impression of India being “more spiritual” than Western countries.

The male-skew in India's sex ratio has increased since the early 20th century. In 1901 there were 3.2 million fewer women than men in India, but by the 2001 Census the disparity had increased by more than a factor of 10, to 35 million. This increase has been variously attributed to female infanticide, selective abortions (aided by increasing access to prenatal sex discernment procedures), and female child neglect

List of states and union territories of India by sex ratio – Wikipedia

This explains the rise in fake "spirituality", Hindu nationalism, male aggression, religious violence, violence against women and other negative trends seen in Indian society.

Interestingly, similar trends can be seen in other repressive societies like Muslim countries and China.

In any case, what we increasingly see with the relentless spread of Anglo-American language and culture is not spirituality, or even Theosophy, but the anticulture of guns, drugs, and other antisocial trends. — Apollodorus

Along with reactionary politics, political and economic corruption, environmental destruction, and utter ignorance of any form of spiritual insight or philosophical depth.

I don't agree with your analysis of new age nor with your peremptory dismissal of Pali Buddhism, but thanks for the taking the time.

Along with reactionary politics, political and economic corruption, environmental destruction, and utter ignorance of any form of spiritual insight or philosophical depth. — Wayfarer

Correct. The negative effects of any cultural and political trends, whatever they may be, should not be ignored.

Regarding the Fabians, they had close links to the British Colonies from the start, Fabian founders Sidney Webb and Sydney Olivier being employees of the Colonial Office.

Being increasingly active in parts of the Empire with large populations like Africa and India, and pursuing an overarching geostrategic agenda, they gradually sided with the non-Western world.

Originally “enlightened imperialists”, the Fabians progressed to self-rule and then independence for the Colonies, supporting even violent pro-independence movements, and from there they developed an anti-imperialist and anti-Western ideology.

Olivier became Secretary of State for India in the 1920’s and Webb became Secretary of State for the Colonies a few years later, positions they used to consolidate Fabian power structures in the Colonies.

Another early member of the London Fabian Society was Annie Besant. As she was scouting for new ways of promoting Fabianism, she discovered Blavatsky whom she befriended and proceeded to divert the Theosophy movement in a Fabian direction.

She became president of the Theosophic Society, president of the Fabian Society of Madras (the main Fabian branch in India that was conveniently located not far from the Theosophical Society headquarters at Adyar), president of the Indian National Congress, and one of the key instigators of India’s anti-Western movement.

The reason why the Fabians promoted an “alternative” religion like Theosophy in India was that they wanted to Fabianize the subcontinent by transforming it from a traditional society into a Theosophized one, with leading Indians being invited to join.

In fact, some Indians were systematically groomed by Besant and other Fabians to become leaders of the new Fabian-controlled Theosophy cult – and India’s future leaders.

Of course, honest Indians like Krishnamurti, for example, saw through the Fabians’ machinations and distanced themselves from Theosophy which all intelligent and educated Indians identified as a scam.

Gandhi himself joined the Fabian Society in 1920 together with Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and became a leader of India’s independence movement.

When India became independent in 1947, it did so under a Fabian-controlled Labour government, it was a Fabian Socialist republic with thoroughly Fabianized Nehru as Prime Minister, and a constitution written by Ambedkar, an alumnus of the Fabians’ London School of Economics.

If an organization has members with even a fraction of the influence and power of Gandhi, Jinnah, and a few others, it cannot be said to be without influence and power.

Of course, many Indians disapproved of Fabianism. Over the following half century Hindu nationalists gradually infiltrated and eventually took over the Fabians’ power structure, dislodged the Fabianized Indian National Congress from power, and placed their own people, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in government. They are now Hinduizing and Indianizing not only India but the West.

But what I’m saying is that the way I see it, philosophy is about looking beyond appearances. Gandhi’s example is a perfect illustration of why we shouldn’t take every popular narrative at face value.

In any case, the New Age movement needs to be looked at from different angles, not just from that of starry-eyed New Agers (no offense intended). And the same applies to Buddhism (or the Western interpretations of it).

As always, I have some points of agreement with your analysis, but I really think you're overplaying, or rather demonizing, Fabian socialism. It one of a myriad cultural, social and political movements vying for influence in today's world.

Krishnamurti's rejection of Theosophy (and his eventual if partial rapprochment with it at the end of his life) is well-documented, but I really know how much Fabian Socialism had to do with it. From Krishnamurti's public and often-repeated statements he rejected every form of cultism and indeed every formal religion. Most of what I know about Theosophy was because I became captivated by Krishnamurti's books in my mid-twenties. I still think a great deal of him, in some ways his teaching has become part of my outlook on life. As I said, I recognise that the founders were highly eccentric in some ways, but I'm not going to demonise them either. They're one amongst a myriad of influences on culture, and overall I think they're among the more wholesome.

As for looking at Buddhism from different angles, of course I agree that a critical attitude must be taken. I'm not wanting to convert anyone to Buddhism.But what I said, and I believe, is that the attitude and principles expressed in the Pali Buddhist texts show great insight, depth, and consistency. It is not the amalgamation, not to say mish-mash, the comprises many of the seminal texts of many other traditions. And that is because the culture of ancient India was of such a nature that the Buddha was able to live and teach for 45 years, without being interupted by politics or war or religious conflict. I note how many of the dialogues start with 'Such and such approaches the Buddha and paid respects to him, then sat to one side and asked questions'. Many of the Suttas are like that. Many others are obviously exhortations to the monastic community. At times the Buddha can appear angry, especially with those whom he says deliberately misrepresent his teaching. But overall the entire corpus is a model of clarity and peaceful discourse with great philosophical depth. I acknowledge I've only scratched the surface and that it is unrealistic to expect to assimilate the wisdom of that ancient tradition without becoming deeply engaged with it, and that it might not even be practical or possible to do that. I've already mentioned Evan Thompson's book, Why I'm not a Buddhist, and I get it. But that's how I see it, and I intend to try to keep deepening my understanding and practice, whether I 'really am' a Buddhist or not.

As for India, I don't have too many illusions about that either. I've only visited once, aged 12, we disembarked an Australia-bound passenger ship for a bus tour of Bombay. Really it felt like I'd landed on another planet! Of course the filth, squalor and poverty of India are absolutely shocking when seen for the first time, and I have no desire to return. We then stopped by Kandy, and did bus tour there too. I thought the plaster Buddhist sculptures vulgar, but I must have been impressed by the monks, because about ten years ago I was looking at slides and saw a picture of a group of monks that my Dad had taken. It jolted a memory in me of my first contact with Buddhism.

In any case, 'the Orient' is not a physical place or country or location. I recall in my teens, being in a backyard in Sydney, and I suddenly had an acute and overwhelming sense of the presence of India - the Orient - just over the horizon, as it were. There was a kind of inner shift associated with that.

One of the books that influenced me in comparative religion was by sociologist Peter Berger, called 'the Heretical Imperative'. Very insightful. He says that 'heresy' literally means 'making a choice' (as distinct from simply accepting the teaching as received.) But, he says in our day and age we're required to decide. We don't live in a monoculture. And he says one of the primary choices is Athens or Benares. You would have to read it to get all the argument, but I found it very meaningful.

I don’t think I am demonizing the Fabians, actually. I just think they’ve had much more influence on events than is generally assumed (in fact, most people have never even heard of them). And they certainly weren’t highly regarded by ordinary people, though they did appeal to liberal intellectuals like themselves – which is not surprising considering that they had been educated in schools founded and run by Fabians!

Of course I’m not saying that the Fabians are (or were) all and everything. I have given them as an illustrative example, the main point I was trying to make being that not everything is what it appears to be.

Ignorant and gullible hippies and others in the 60’s may have thought of Theosophy as some new dispensation sent from heaven for the “new age of enlightenment”, but if you take a minute to look behind the façade, you will find some disturbing facts which it would be unreasonable to ignore. In fact, most thinking people would certainly not ignore them if they were aware of them.

I haven’t read much by Krishnamurti, but just reading a few pages is enough to see that he was an intelligent guy who took philosophy seriously. Unfortunately, you also see the Theosophic influence (under which he had fallen at the age of 14) which makes you suspect that he could have become a truly outstanding thinker, had he been raised by authentic Indian philosophers instead of Western charlatans with a subversive agenda.

As regards Buddhism, I am not dismissing it at all. My main criticism was directed at the idealized and exaggerated view of it apparently taken by some Westerners.

I don’t think the style of Buddhist suttas is necessarily a reliable criterion by which to judge spiritual attainment. A piece of poetry can convey as much truth as a mathematical formula. Human intelligence is perfectly capable of detecting and responding to truth no matter how it is presented. Rigid, formulaic expressions may actually be just another type of conditioning.

If someone insists that there are exactly twelve links (nidānas) in the chain of causation and not five or three, for example, then I think this is more dogma than spirituality. Endless, mechanic repetition of suttas can have the opposite effect to the one intended. Meditation on just one verse serves the purpose of providing a counterbalance.

Meditation is definitely one of the positive points about Buddhism. The fact that meditation and contemplation are prescribed by all major systems, Eastern and Western, suggests that meditation may indeed be the path (or at least one path) to enlightenment.

As I said before, we cannot tell with 100% certainty what Buddha attained. But whatever it was that he attained, it is said to have been attained through meditation.

Another interesting point is the belief that Buddha defeated Mara or Death.

The theme of overcoming death and attaining immortality and “divinity” (i.e., a higher mode of experience or plane of existence) is common to many systems, including Western ones like Platonism and Christianity.

Christian texts may not speak of “Nirvana” but conquering death and attaining eternal life is absolutely central to Christianity.

The victory of life over death is the victory of light over darkness and of knowledge over ignorance.

This is what Christians celebrate every Easter.

The NT says:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

The Greek word used is Hades, which is not “hell” but the Underworld as the Kingdom of Death (or “Mara” in Buddhist terms).

In other words, Death will not prevail against those who walk in the Way of Christ.

Incidentally, the NT nowhere calls the Way of Christ “Christianity” but “the Way of God” (Mat.22:16), “the Way of Truth” (2 Peter 2:2), and “the Way of Righteousness” (Mat. 21:32).

Christ, according to the NT, is “the Truth”, “the Light of the World”, and “the Word of God”, i.e., the Light of Divine Truth that reveals the Way of Righteousness to mankind.

The Way of Righteousness (analogous to Indian Dharma) is the observance of the Twelve Commandments, i.e., the Decalogue - to not worship other Gods, not make idols, or commit blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, not covet the neighbor’s house, wife, or other belongings, but to observe the holy day, and respect one’s parents - and the Two Great Commandments, (1) “to love God” and (2)” to love your neighbor as you love yourself” (cf. Mat.19:16-19).

The culmination of the Way of Righteousness is renunciation. The righteous must renounce all attachment to earthly life in order to attain eternal life, just as Christ laid down his own life in order to conquer Death.

“Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19)

So we can see that Christ conquered Death and attained eternal life, and his teachings enable his followers to do the same. Which means that the "Way of Christ" is in no way inferior to the "Way of Buddha".

And of course meditation is as much part of Christianity as it is of Buddhism. As it has been said:

Ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you (1 Corinthians 3:16)

In other words, God, who is the Light of Truth, is to be found within us, through mental transformation, prayer, and meditation (Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 7:5; Acts 6:4; Matthew 6:9–13).

Similarly, Platonism teaches us how to attain the Source of Knowledge and Truth through the cultivation of virtues, mental training, introspection, and contemplation.

This shows that Buddhism is not necessarily “superior” to Western systems. When Westerners uncritically turn to Eastern systems, they often do so out of ignorance of their own tradition. And acting out of ignorance does not seem to be a good start. Ignorance can cause us to fall into all kinds of traps.

I certainly don’t buy into some people’s apparent belief that “my enlightenment is better than your enlightenment”. :smile:

And I agree that the true “East” (or "Orient") is not a geographical location but the place deep within us, in our own consciousness, where the light of Reality shines on us and enables us to see things as they are.

And if we see the "machinations of Mara", we should also see the machinations of others, whoever and wherever they may be ....

Krishnamurti was not schooled in philosophy and never referred to the subject of philosophy. He was, in my opinion, a true 'jñāni', a seer. Here is a passage where it comes up:

Question: The fundamental question in philosophy is whether mind and body are separate or not.

Krishnamurti: I have no philosophy.

Question: I want your opinion.

Krishnamurti: I have no opinion.

Question: I want to be enlightened.

Krishnamurti: You are going to be enlightened, Sir, if you listen. Sir, to find the truth of this matter, we must not follow anybody. Philosophy means the love of truth, not the love of theories, not the love of speculations, not the love [of] beliefs, but the love of truth, and truth isn't yours or mine, and therefore you cannot follow anybody. When once you realize this basic fact that truth cannot be found through another, but you have to have eyes to see it, it may be there with a dead leaf, but you have to see it. And to offer an opinion about it, is ridiculous. Only fools offer opinions.

We are not dealing with opinions, we are concerned with this fact, which is, whether the mind has a quality, has a state or an inwardness which is not touched by the physical. Do you understand my question? Which is the question you are putting me - whether the mind is independent of the body, whether the mind is beyond all the petty, nationalistic, religious limitations? To find that out, you have to be extraordinarily alert and watchful. You have to become aware, sensitive. If you are very sensitive, which means intelligent, you will find out if you go into it very, very deeply, that there is something which is never touched by thought or by the past.

You know thought is matter, thought is the response of memory, memory is in the brain cells themselves, it is matter, and whether the brain cells can be so completely quiet, then only you will find out; but to say that there is or there is not, has no meaning. But to find out, to give your life to this, as you give your life to earning a livelihood - and here, where you need tremendous energy, a great passion to find out, you drink at other people's fountains which are dry. Therefore you have to be a light to yourself, therefore in that there is freedom.

Thought is always 'of the order of time', in Krishnamurti's talks. Thought is matter - but is there a state so 'completely quiet' that thought is in abeyance? 'Find that out', he says. I think this is a reference to samadhi - there's a stage in meditation, called 'nirvikalpa samadhi' - 'nirvikalpa' means 'the negation of mental formations'. But if you put that to him he would of course reject it, probably because you'd read the word somewhere and thought you knew what it means. If you just repeat the term, he says, you're not seeing the meaning. And about 99% of all 'spiritual teaching' is like that.

I don’t think the style of Buddhist suttas is necessarily a reliable criterion by which to judge spiritual attainment — Apollodorus

It's not style, it's the content, the meaning. I think you're evaluating it based on it being 'Buddhism' as distinct from 'Christianity' as distinct from Platonism, etc. It's viewing it as symbolic of one or another set of symbolic values which can be compared. But Buddhism is really about teaching you to 'deconstruct' the cognitive-affective-emotional complexes that bind us, dissolving our illusory ideas of ourselves. It's very close in meaning to Krishnamurti although as said, Krishnamurti always rejected such comparisons.

The meaning of the 'parable of the raft' in the Buddhist suttas - that the teachings are 'a raft to cross the river' but are to be ultimately left behind, and not to be clung to (or idolised which is ironic, considering how much idolisation there is in Buddhism.)

Philosophy means the love of truth, not the love of theories, not the love of speculations, not the love [of] beliefs, but the love of truth, — Wayfarer

That was exactly what I meant, Philosophy in the original Greek sense of love of and quest after wisdom or truth.

Of course Krishnamurti eventually freed himself from Theosophic doctrine, which only demonstrates the fraudulence of the Theosophy project.

But in the early years he wrote (or was made to write) stuff like:

These are not my words; they are the words of the Master who taught me. Without Him I could have done nothing, but through His help I have set my feet upon the Path. You also desire to enter the same Path, so the words which He spoke to me will help you also, if you will obey them … So to hear the Master’s words is not enough, you must do what He says, attending to every word, taking every hint (At the Feet of the Master)

The Buddha, the Christ, and other great Teachers of the world, went to the source of life. They became the Master Artists. Once knowing the nature and the supreme greatness of the Source, They became Themselves that Source, the Path, and the Embodiment of Wisdom and Love (The Kingdom of Happiness).

These are not the words of an Indian Jñāni (he says so himself!), they are the words of an English-educated or -indoctrinated Indian. You can almost hear Blavatsky or Besant speaking through him. :smile:

If we look through the smokescreen of New Age mythology and propaganda, I think the reality is that the whole thing started as a British operation that combined Freemasonry, Unitarianism, Occultism, and Spiritualism in order to reform Hinduism and Islam and harmonize them with Christianity by creating a universalist cult that would take the sting out of interreligious tensions (between Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam) that were on the rise across India.

Theosophy was essentially Reformed Hinduism (or Neo-Hinduism) that appealed to Indians by telling them that India was “the original source of all wisdom traditions”, whilst also appealing to Europeans with its belief in a “Great White Brotherhood of Enlightened Masters (Mahatmas)” who allegedly directed mankind from a secret location in the Himalayas or Tibet.

We can see the contradiction here that gives away the intention behind the narrative: India was "the source of all wisdom", but the "Masters" of this wisdom were White men conveniently ensconced in out-of reach parts of the Himalayas!

The truth of the matter was that India was “the Jewel in the Crown” for the British Empire. England needed India to control the Indian Ocean as well as for resources and as a market for English goods. The recruitment of Indian troops was also becoming increasingly essential with the growing competition between England and Germany.

Moreover, if England had lost India, it could have fallen into the hands of Russia or France which would have been the end of the Empire and possibly of England itself (as it would have upset the European balance of power on which British hegemony was based).

So, a lot of what was happening on the international scene in the period of roughly 1850-1950 had to do with British imperial interests in India and Africa and, more generally, with Anglo-American geostrategic interests.

The ground had been prepared by Thomas Macaulay of the Council of India (the body that assisted the British Governor-General of India) who introduced English education on the subcontinent in the 1830’s.

In 1885 (just one year after the formation of the Fabian Society) the British created the Indian National Congress (INC) whose founder A O Hume was a Theosophist who funded Blavatsky’s publication The Theosophist.

In 1893 Fabian and Theosophy leader Annie Besant, who later became president of the INC, represented the Theosophical Society at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago.

All the key people involved in the new movement had close links to the British.

Vivekananda, Yogananda, Aurobindu, Krishnamurti, Gandhi, all had received a British education either in British schools in India or in England, or were directly indoctrinated by the Theosophists. Aurobindo, for example, studied at Cambridge, England, Gandhi was a lawyer trained at Inner Temple, London, Krishnamurti was trained by Besant, Anagarika Dharmapala was a Sri Lankan Christian converted to Buddhism by Blavatsky and sent to preach “Theravada Buddhism” around the world, etc.

Almost all the Indians who joined the Theosophical Society came from the western-educated elite. The British adopted a policy - most famously expounded by Macaulay – of educating an Indian elite in a western manner with the intention that this elite then would stand between the colonial rulers and the rest of the Indian people.

Mark Bevir, Theosophy and the Origins of the Indian National Congress – UC Berkeley

Basically, what these guys were doing was promoting ideas they had largely absorbed from the West.

Blavatsky was definitely a charlatan because if you look into her case there is clear evidence of deliberate deception and there were calls within the Theosophic Society for her to be expelled, but they decided that they couldn’t expel their own founder in spite of multiple evidence of fraudulent behavior.

But others may have been delusional - or delusional and charlatans.

Gandhi was clearly delusional. Apparently, when fighting broke out between Hindus and Muslims, he declared that this was his fault because he was “impure”, and that therefore he had to carry out those “experiments” with women to prove to himself and to the world that he was not impure and, presumably, to stop the violence.

Even if we leave the soundness of his “experiments” to one side, I think blaming religious violence on the inability to suppress one’s sexual arousal is hardly an indication of a sane mind.

Besides, by his own logic, as the violence only got worse, this amounts to evidence and proof to the world of his own total failure to achieve "purity".

In any case, if we are saying that the Fabians “had nothing to do with anything”, the Theosophists “had nothing to do with anything”, the CIA “had nothing to do with anything”, the Brahma Kumaris “had nothing to do with anything”, the Hare Krishnas “had nothing to do with anything”, etc., etc., then we are left with the puzzle of no one having had anything to do with anything, and with the even bigger puzzle as to why so many claim, and the facts suggest, otherwise.

Ultimately, though, the key question that must be asked is not only “Who were the protagonists of the New Age era and what was their intention?”, but more importantly, “What has been achieved?”

If traditional culture, with all its faults, has been merely replaced with an artificial pseudo-culture with its own fabricated mythology and propaganda, and revolving on Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the Kardashians, gangsta rap, posing on Instagram, and wearing face masks, then it seems difficult to claim that it has been an unmitigated success.

If the time, energy, intelligence, money, and other resources invested in the promotion of New Ageism had been utilized to promote authentic spirituality (both Western and Eastern) then perhaps the world would be a better place today.

Personally, I believe that far more than New Ageism itself, the critical examination of it (and of other world events) contributes to the enlightenment process because it elevates our awareness and expands our consciousness, liberating it from its prescribed grooves.

At the end of the day, if we don’t even know things that happen on this small planet of ours, how can we grasp the larger realities of higher planes? If we think about it, so long as we haven’t reached enlightenment we still live in this world, so we can’t completely ignore what is happening here.

But this is just my opinion.

:up: You make some sound points.

If traditional culture, with all its faults, has been merely replaced with an artificial pseudo-culture with its own fabricated mythology and propaganda, and revolving on Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the Kardashians, gangsta rap, posing on Instagram, and wearing face masks, then it seems difficult to claim that it has been an unmitigated success. — Apollodorus

Again, it's a stretch to attribute this to Fabianism or theosophy or any other single cause. Traditional cultures are under threat from myriad forces in modernity. Modern culture tends to dissolve any tradition that comes into contact with it.

At the end of the day, if we don’t even know things that happen on this small planet of ours, how can we grasp the larger realities of higher planes? I — Apollodorus

Not through being historians, if that is what you mean.

In any case, if we are saying that the Fabians “had nothing to do with anything”, the Theosophists “had nothing to do with anything”, the CIA “had nothing to do with anything”, the Brahma Kumaris “had nothing to do with anything”, the Hare Krishnas “had nothing to do with anything”, etc., etc., then we are left with the puzzle of no one having had anything to do with anything, and with the even bigger puzzle as to why so many claim, and the facts suggest, otherwise. — Apollodorus

One can agree they played their role without attributing them as the sole cause of the 'downfall of the West'. (You do seem to have an ax to grind in their case.)

If traditional culture, with all its faults, has been merely replaced with an artificial pseudo-culture with its own fabricated mythology and propaganda, and revolving on Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the Kardashians, gangsta rap, posing on Instagram, and wearing face masks, then it seems difficult to claim that it has been an unmitigated success. — Apollodorus

You left out Marvel and Star Wars, (the replacements for Homer and the Old Testament) the true source of Mythos for most Westerners these days.

Salvation is not to be found in an afterlife, but must be found, if at all, in this life, and belief in an afterlife or lack of an afterlife would seem to be a hindrance to ataraxia, a state of mind which would more likely come with a wholeheartedly lived suspension of judgement. — Janus

Is Belief in Rebirth Necessary?



What we believe or not believe about the "afterlife" influences how we act in the present.

If one disbelieves in rebirth, or lacks belief in rebirth, one acts as if though it doesn't exist. But one acts differently if one believes in rebirth, or considers it a possibility.


As for people who disbelieve in rebirth, or who lack belief in rebirth, I have observed the following in regard to enlightenment (one or a combination of more can be seen in such a person):

1. they generally lack ambition in spiritual life;
2. they believe they are already enlightened;
3. they believe they are inevitably close to being enlightened;
4. they believe enlightenment is an ancient, "highfalutin" idea that has no place in modern life;
5. they flat-out don't care about whether they become enlightened or not.

1. they generally lack ambition in spiritual life;
2. they believe they are already enlightened;
3. they believe they are inevitably close to being enlightened;
4. they believe enlightenment is an ancient, "highfalutin" idea that has no place in modern life;
5. they flat-out don't care about whether they become enlightened or not. — baker

You may be right. I have no grounds to believe in rebirth. Not sure I believe in enlightenment either. But I do believe that people might develop personal qualities that some might describe as enlightened. A type of sagacity perhaps? I think I am somewhere between a one and a five on your list.

Not through being historians, if that is what you mean. — Wayfarer

Of course not. Personally, I like to look into historical facts when discussing them because I know that what we are being fed is often just propaganda. As I said, Gandhi’s case is a perfect example of how things are idealized and mythologized for political and ideological reasons.

If we agree that Philosophy is a quest after truth, then I think we should demonstrate that we are actually looking into the truth of popular narratives and assumptions and that we don’t accept things uncritically just because they happen to fit our preconceived ideas.

I think there is no excuse for denying historical facts when they are freely available online.

The Indian Ocean (and the wider Indo-Pacific region) remains a strategic focus of Anglo-American interests (represented, for example, by NATO) even now.

The British knew that they couldn’t hold on to India for ever and that they had to let go of it eventually. But they didn’t want India to fall into the hands of rival powers.

So the plan was for India to have independence (a) as peacefully as possible, (b) as gradually as possible, and (c) to remain under British influence for as long as possible even after independence.

Accordingly, the British tried to make the Indians as British-friendly as possible.

They began by replacing Persian with English as the official language and by founding English schools and universities where they introduced Indians to European culture and religion, and trained them to become members of the British administration in India.

The second step was to tell Indians that the British government supported their aims but that India was not yet ready for independence and it would be unable to rule itself because it had been under foreign (Muslim and European) rule for centuries. Indians had to be patient and first learn democracy in the same way they had learned European culture and religion.

It was for this purpose that the British founded the Indian National Congress (INC) Party to pacify the Indians and provide a political platform for them, whilst educating them in “European democracy”.

However, as the British were dragging their feet on independence, the INC soon split into two factions, the Moderates and the Radicals. The Moderates were led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and were more interested in “social reform” than in home rule.

The Radicals were led by people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak (“the Father of Indian unrest”) and advocated full independence first, including through armed struggle.

Besant sided with Tilak’s Radical faction and founded the All India Home Rule League (later Swarajya Sabha), which became a focal point for the independence movement.

Gandhi was part of the British plan. He was the “non-violent” face of the Indian independence movement and the British used him to turn Indians away from armed struggle.

It is important to understand that a growing number of Indian nationalists were looking to form alliances with England’s adversaries like Germany and Japan. This made it absolutely vital for the British to stick with Gandhi as the less bad of two evils.

So whether he liked it or not Gandhi was a tool in the hands of the British, which is why he was killed by the nationalists. On his part, he used the British to play his favorite role of “saint” and “god-man”, and to become the martyr of his own narcissistic personality cult.

But there is no doubt that this was all part of British imperial strategy and that all Indians involved had been exposed to extensive European influence.

A popular view in the West at the time was that the origins of the “Aryan” race was somewhere in the North, near the Arctic. Even some Hindu nationalists like Tilak (The Arctic Home in the Vedas) had bought into the idea of Indians being Aryans and having their origins in an “Aryan homeland in the Arctic”. This was obviously modeled on existing Pangermanic ideology and especially on the ideas of W F Warren.

Other Western influences on Indian culture were Sir William Jones and Max Müller. Such influences were eagerly absorbed by many Indians like Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan who became President of India in the 60’s i.e., exactly in the New Age era.

In fact, as admitted by Tilak and others, Indians had great difficulty in understanding their own scriptures, especially the Vedas and were largely dependent on the interpretations of Western scholars.

What actually happened is that during the 1700’s traditional education in India stagnated and declined due to political upheavals. The British were at first indifferent to the situation but gradually began to take control of education through Christian missionary schools and other institutions run by the East India Company.

Indian education came to be controlled by missionary schools that aimed to instruct Indians in European culture and religion and by Company schools that generally taught Indian culture using Sanskrit texts with some European texts translated into Sanskrit and other Indian languages.

This means that Indian society was thoroughly penetrated by Western culture. In fact, the British controlled not only education but the publishing companies that published the teaching material, including Sanskrit and other vernacular works.

This has led to claims by some Indians that even their scriptures were tampered with by the British.

How did the British fabricate and destroy the historic records of India and misguide the whole world?

Though some of these claims seem exaggerated, the fact is that British outfits like the Asiatic Society and the East India Company had the means to edit texts held in their libraries, publish them, and then put them into circulation via educational institutions. And we have the Theosophical Society as an example of deliberate fabrication.

I think this is a reference to samadhi - there's a stage in meditation, called 'nirvikalpa samadhi' - 'nirvikalpa' means 'the negation of mental formations'. — Wayfarer

Correct. But as I said before, there is a difference between saying something and actually experiencing it. In India any guru who dies is automatically said to have attained “mahasamadhi” or some type of “samadhi”. But (as in Buddha's case) even the closest disciples have no means of establishing that, and we even less. So we are necessarily in the realm of belief or opinion in this regard.

By the way, if you are an admirer of Krishnamurti, who is against following any particular path, how would you reconcile this with your defense of Theravada Buddhism and personal preference for Mahayana Buddhism?

It's not style, it's the content, the meaning. — Wayfarer

To me, that sounds rather vague. It might be helpful if you could quote a sutta or two as it is difficult to tell what you are referring to without some concrete examples.

One can agree they played their role without attributing them as the sole cause of the 'downfall of the West'. (You do seem to have an ax to grind in their case.) — Wayfarer

Of course. But I never said the Fabians and Theosophists were "the sole cause". I just disagree with the assessment that they "must rank a pretty long way down the list".

You didn't show why they "must" and didn't say who, in your opinion, would be at the top of the list.

If I have "an ax to grind in their case", it is equally possible that others have a soft spot for them. After all, you did say you were influenced by them. If so, then they can’t be that far down the list, at least in your case .... :smile:

You left out Marvel and Star Wars, (the replacements for Homer and the Old Testament) the true source of Mythos for most Westerners these days. — Tom Storm

So I did. Thanks for reminding me! :grin:

But I do believe that people might develop personal qualities that some might describe as enlightened. — Tom Storm

I agree. I think if they make an effort in that direction, they certainly can.

If we think about it, enlightenment itself is a quality ....