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. — Apollodorus

And how could they be convinced! People are generally given to eating, drinking, and making merry. Of course a religion that takes a dim view of eating, drinking, and making merry isn't going to be popular. At all.
This also explains why modern versions of Buddhism try to cast it as yet another system of eating, drinking, and making merry.

This being the case, perhaps you don't understand Buddhism, after all? — Apollodorus

*sigh*

I don't understand Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, modern Western Buddhism, various local/national varieties of Buddhism. I never claimed that I understood them. I also wish to have nothing to do with them.
It's you who keeps propping them up as "The Buddhism". Suit yourself.

The irony is that there are Mahayanis and Vajrayanis who eat guys like you for breakfast.

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. — Apollodorus

What a brainfart.


Do you know what was Gandhi's starting point? When he was at his father's deathbed, he wanted to have sex, and then had sex with his wife while his father was dying in the other room. This troubled him deeply, and he sought to overcome it.

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.

Just the kind of thing a Hindu would say.

The truth of the matter is that for a long time India’s female population has been declining
/.../

You'll have to do a lot better than that to convince me that you actually care about women.

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. — Apollodorus

I guess that's what good Christian women do, they "renounce all attachment to earthly life in order to attain eternal life" when they TOLO for their boyfriends and husbands. I guess that routinely risking health and life with hormonal contraceptives, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions all makes sense and is made worthwhile by the prospect of attaining eternal life.

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.

This is aimed at me, right. Heh. Whatever. I've actually given Christianity at least three involved (and fairly expensive) attempts over the years. My reason for not becoming a Christian is because the prospect of becoming a "good Christian woman" or having to look up to "good Christian women" has been too repugnant.

If that makes me inferior and unspiritual, so be it. I've been accused of inferiority my whole life, you can't suprise me.

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. — baker

Those are fine observations. Are you suggesting that any of them are a problem? If so, why?

Are you suggesting that any of them are a problem? If so, why? — praxis

I suppose people banging their heads against walls are also not a problem ... sort of ...

Other than that, modern rebirth skeptics tend to be a drag to be around. They are authoritarian people, to say the least. But you're right, we can always leave them to heaven and to those thorns that in their bosoms lodge to prick and sting them.

I suppose people banging their heads against walls are also not a problem ... sort of ... — baker

So you believe those observations indicate a problem but can't explain what the problem(s) are.

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). — Janus

And yet people have been doing it for millennia.

In regard to everyday observations of the world it is easy to check if everybody is observing the same thing.

It's not about whether everybody is observing the same thing.
It's that we can mostly take for granted that everyone has the same capacity for observation as far as everyday things go.

But as far as less everyday things are concerned (such as the workings of the LHC), not everyone has the same capacity for observation.

The salient difference isn't in the things that are being observed, but in the different levels of capacity for observation that different people have.

In order to meaningfully observe the LHC and understand how it works, one has to have the according education. Without such education, the LHC does't make sense (or makes sense only indirectly/vicariously, via the faith that one has that scientists are doing meaningful things and not magic).

It's similar in other fields of human knowledge.

and I think the judgement that secular Buddhism is not "really" Buddhism is an example of the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy. — Janus

If no kind of Buddhism may be classed as "true Buddhism", then there is no true Buddhism.

So you believe those observations indicate a problem but can't explain what the problem(s) are. — praxis

It would be a breach of the TOS to do so.

She makes a consistent case from the role of compassion in attaining enlightenment - not sure this has come up all that often so far. In her autobiography The Spiral Staircase she writes:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment. It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness that holds us back from an experience of the sacred. And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision. As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.' We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves."
— Karen Armstrong — Tom Storm

How does anyone actually stomach words like these? Or is it that they believe _other_ people should be like that, ie. that _other_ people should have compassion, _other_ people should overcome their egos, etc.?

So you believe those observations indicate a problem but can't explain what the problem(s) are.
— praxis

It would be a breach of the TOS to do so. — baker

Your explanation would contain malware, pornography, spam, or otherwise violate property rights? Don't be silly, or sillier than not being able to explain your beliefs.

This is a gross generalization. People are diverse, and it seems absurd to me to suggest that one's spiritual aspirations are necessarily dependent on one's belief in rebirth. You have no warrant for such a generalization since the number of spiritual aspirants you could possibly know well would still be a tiny percentage of the total.

On the Buddhist understanding of rebirth, from a purely egotistical viewpoint how could the conditions a future life enjoys or suffers, since it is not me, possibly matter to me? If I have already overcome the egoic orientation to a degree that would allow it to matter, then the belief would be irrelevant, because if all I was concerned with was how my actions might affect the conditions that future beings find themselves in, then I could reasonably be more concerned with my actions and their effects on people in this present everyday life.

And yet people have been doing it for millennia. — baker

All we know is that they thought they were doing it; no guarantee that they were correct in thinking that.

In order to meaningfully observe the LHC and understand how it works, one has to have the according education. Without such education, the LHC does't make sense (or makes sense only indirectly/vicariously, via the faith that one has that scientists are doing meaningful things and not magic). — baker

Yes, but whether or not someone understands the workings of the LHC is itself completely determinable; whereas whether or not someone is enlightened is not. If we think of enlightenment as a matter of a certain lived disposition then it would be determinable in terms of their behavior, just as the greatness of a pianist can be manifest in her playing. (and even this much is not precisely determinable, as the understanding of the workings of the LHC would be).

If we take enlightenment to involve the possession of some special, propositional knowledge then it is impossible to determine if someone has it.That's why I say it is like an art, not like a science.

How does anyone actually stomach words like these? Or is it that they believe _other_ people should be like that, ie. that _other_ people should have compassion, _other_ people should overcome their egos, etc.? — baker

I think compassion is something you either understand or don't. A little like having theory of mind - not sure it can be taught.

What a brainfart. — baker

Wow. You must have thought (or "meditated") really long and hard to come up with that. Shows what Buddhism does to brainwashed (or braindead) Westerners.

This troubled him deeply, and he sought to overcome it. — baker

Yep. You sound pretty deeply troubled too.

Just the kind of thing a Hindu would say. — baker

Just the kind of thing a self-radicalized Buddhist extremist would say .... :grin:

People are diverse, and it seems absurd to me to suggest that one's spiritual aspirations are necessarily dependent on one's belief in rebirth. — Janus

Absolutely. Not only that, but it is doubtful whether Buddhists actually believe in rebirth in the normal sense of the word. In which case they would seem to exclude themselves from having any spiritual aspirations.

This may explain statements like this:

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

Pretty much says it all.

This is a gross generalization. People are diverse, and it seems absurd to me to suggest that one's spiritual aspirations are necessarily dependent on one's belief in rebirth. — Janus

The scope of the projects one undertakes is connected to the time and resources one believes or hopes are or will be available. You're not going to start building a skyscraper if you only have a 100 dollars, and you're not going to start a project that you estimate could take a 100 years to complete (at least not as long as you see yourself as the person solely or mainly responsible for its completion).

But you're right, people are diverse, and some indeed start on projects for which they don't have the time and the resources to complete ...

You have no warrant for such a generalization since the number of spiritual aspirants you could possibly know well would still be a tiny percentage of the total.

It's not just about statistical analysis of empirical observations, it's also about considering the possible permutations.

On the Buddhist understanding of rebirth, from a purely egotistical viewpoint how could the conditions a future life enjoys or suffers, since it is not me, possibly matter to me?

But for all practical intents and purposes, it is you who gets reborn.

If I have already overcome the egoic orientation to a degree that would allow it to matter, then the belief would be irrelevant, because if all I was concerned with was how my actions might affect the conditions that future beings find themselves in, then I could reasonably be more concerned with my actions and their effects on people in this present everyday life.

By all means, go ahead then.

All we know is that they thought they were doing it; no guarantee that they were correct in thinking that.

I guess we can't burn them at the stakes then, at least not with a clear conscience ...

Yes, but whether or not someone understands the workings of the LHC is itself completely determinable;

Only by people who have the requisite education about how the LHC works. It's safe to say that most people on this planet do not have said requisite education.

I, for example, couldn't tell whether someone understands the workings of the LHC or not. I watched a couple of documentaries about it, but I forgot in the meantime, and highschool physics and chemistry are far too far back for me to remember.

whereas whether or not someone is enlightened is not. If we think of enlightenment as a matter of a certain lived disposition then it would be determinable in terms of their behavior, just as the greatness of a pianist can be manifest in her playing. (and even this much is not precisely determinable, as the understanding of the workings of the LHC would be).

If we take enlightenment to involve the possession of some special, propositional knowledge then it is impossible to determine if someone has it.That's why I say it is like an art, not like a science.

It takes a physicist to know a physicist; it takes a good pianist to know a good pianist; it takes an enlightened person to know an enligthened person. Enlightenment is nothing special, in this sense.

I think compassion is something you either understand or don't. A little like having theory of mind - not sure it can be taught. — Tom Storm

What Armstrong is describing there is closer to what is termed "idiot compassion" (look it up, there are several understandings of the term) or pathological altruism.

People desperate to appear to be "good persons", desperate to appear "compassionate", "not selfish", and such.

They not only fail to practice what they preach; what eventually becomes evident is that they want _other_ people to practice what they themselves preach. It's similar to how morality is so often intended to mean "this is how other people should behave", while the proponent of said morality deems themselves exempt from what he wants others to do.

Shows what Buddhism does to brainwashed (or braindead) Westerners. — Apollodorus

What a truly, deeply, spiritually spiritual comment.

It takes a physicist to know a physicist; it takes a good pianist to know a good pianist; it takes an enlightened person to know an enligthened person. Enlightenment is nothing special, in this sense. — baker

It takes a physicist to know a physicist, to be sure, because it is a determinate body of knowledge. It doesn't take a pianist to know a good pianist, even if a pianist might have some advantages when it comes to making such judgements. Whether someone is a good pianist or not (apart from the sheer manual dexterity and fluency is a matter of opinion. I see no reason, and you have not offered any, to think that judgements as to whether someone is enlightened are not akin to aesthetic judgements, that is they are not matters amenable to precise determination, like judging one's knowledge of physics

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


Pretty much says it all. — Apollodorus

I think Baker enjoys being a contrarian just for the sake of it. I can't think of any other explanation for the absurd and cynical generalizations she comes up with.

What Armstrong is describing there is closer to what is termed "idiot compassion" (look it up, there are several understandings of the term) or pathological altruism. — baker

That's a very negative reading of Armstrong's few words on compassion. I've tried a few times to re-read it wearing my cap of cynicism and still can't see what you see in those words. That said, Armstrong may well practice a form of idiot compassion in her life, but this isn't clear from those few sentences.

What a truly, deeply, spiritually spiritual comment. — baker

Good to see that you agree! :smile:

And seeing that we are in agreement, I am sure you will also agree with my analysis, below.

In the 1800’s, under the influence of Protestantism, Liberalism, Romanticism, Freemasonry, and Marxism, there was growing rebellion against tradition and a lot of intellectuals believed that they should start creating. i.e., inventing, their own religion or cult.

Max Müller was a German Lutheran (Protestant) and Spinozist who lived in England. His ideas of the “Arctic home of the Aryans” and of the need to “reform” Hinduism were taken up not only by the British imperialists but also by Blavatsky, who claimed to have links to the Freemasons, and Olcott, who was a Freemason. The third key figure was Besant who was a Fabian and a Freemason.

1. Blavatsky had been good at telling stories since childhood and she remained a fantasist for the rest of her life.
2. Her collaborator Olcott was a journalist who promoted Blavatsky’s fantastic tales and became president of the Theosophical Society.
3. Besant who embraced Theosophy for her own Fabian purposes and became the Theosophical Society's president after Olcott, claimed that her adoptive son, Krishnamurti, was “the new Messiah and an incarnation of Buddha”!

So we can see that the Theosophist trio, not to say “trinity”, was a fraudulent one through and through.

A fundamental mistake made by Westerners is to take the teachings of Eastern "gurus" as evidence of "knowledge", "enlightenment", and "spiritual superiority" without making the slightest effort to see what is behind it.

The reality is that anyone with a certain degree of intelligence can learn how to give "enlightened" answers in a matter of weeks. In fact, if you look into it, this tends to be the case with most Indian and New Age “gurus”. They are being asked the same questions over and over again and they give the same answers – or variations on the same theme.

If a spiritually ignorant Westerner attends one session or “satsang” with a “guru”, he might feel “blown away” by the sheer “spirituality” apparently emanating from that “guru”. But after a few sessions a normal person will begin to see through it. The quickest way to expose them is to not listen to what the supposed guru is saying and just pay attention to their voice, facial expression, body language, etc.

Most of them aren’t even good actors. They simply rely on the general atmosphere, the incense, the religious robes, the chanting of mantras and verses from scriptures, the adulation of disciples, the publicity and propaganda surrounding their image.

In contrast, if the Westerner has read Plato’s warning about false philosophers or the NT warning about false prophets, then he or she will have a much better chance of keeping their head on their shoulders and see that it is all just a show.

The original texts may be a different matter. They tend to have a greater degree of honesty and you have a chance to think about the claims made in them. But even then, in most cases, what you find in them you can find in Western traditions.

Incidentally, a lot of Indian texts are quite late.

The so-called “Heart Sutra” (Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya) of Mahayana Buddhism, for example, is said to go back to the 7th century AD. Buddhist philosophers like Buddhaghosa and Vasubandhu lived in the 4th-5th centuries AD and later.

The Hindu Puranas have been dated to between the 3rd century and 10th century AD.

The oldest Indian text, the Rigveda, is mostly unintelligible at present. As I said, the British East India Company held copies of Indian scriptures in its libraries and controlled their publication. A copy of the Rigveda was made available to Max Müller who edited and published the text.

Müller was an inspiration not only to Blavatsky and Olcott but also to many of India’s religious reformers who felt attracted to his reinterpretation of Hinduism, such as Vivekananda who wrote about Müller in his usual style:

It was neither the philologist nor the scholar that I saw, but a soul that is every day realizing its oneness with the universe …

In any case, the idea of Hinduism being a “monotheistic” religion began to take root at this time under Western influence:

By the period of Puranic Hinduism, in the medieval period, the language of the hymns had become "almost entirely unintelligible" … In the 19th- and early 20th-centuries, reformers like Swami Dayananda Saraswati (founder of the Arya Samaj) and Sri Aurobindo (founder of Sri Aurobindo Ashram) discussed the philosophies of the Vedas … According to Dayananda and Aurobindo the Vedic scholars had a monotheistic conception …

Rigveda - Wikipedia

However, like Krishnamurti, Dayananda, Aurobindo, and many others distanced themselves from the Theosophists. Vivekananda himself wrote:

Theosophy is the best serum we know of, whose injection never fails to develop the queer moths finding lodgment in some brains attempting to pass muster as sound … the Theosophists must not be confused with the great Indian nation, the majority of whom have clearly seen through the Theosophical phenomena from the start and, following the great Swami Dayânanda Sarasvati who took away his patronage from Blavatskism the moment he found it out, have held themselves aloof … the Theosophists wanted to crawl into the heart of Western Society, catching on to the skirts of scholars like Max Müller and poets like Edwin Arnold, all the same denouncing these very men and posing as the only receptacles of universal wisdom. And one heaves a sigh of relief that this wonderful wisdom is kept a secret. Indian thought, charlatanry, and mango-growing fakirism had all become identified in the minds of educated people in the West, and this was all the help rendered to Hindu religion by the Theosophists … the Hindus have enough of religious teaching and teachers amidst themselves even in this Kali Yuga, and they do not stand in need of dead ghosts of Russians and Americans …

Stray remarks on Theosophy – Vivekananda Complete Works

Of course, Blavatsky, Olcott, and Besant were also behind the Neo-Buddhism they promoted in India and the West.

Like Krishnamurti, they “adopted” the Sri Lankan Anagarika Dharmapala, converted him from Christianity to Buddhism, and told him that, because of his "purity", he was permitted to have contact with the “Himalayan Masters” (the Theosophists' secret "White Brotherhood").

Dharmapala became the new guru or messiah of Theravada (or “Protestant”) Buddhism with the backing of more than 300 Buddhist schools founded by Olcott and as prescribed in Olcott’s books like A Buddhist catechism and The Golden Rules of Buddhism.

In the Preface to The Golden Rules Olcott writes:

The too prevalent ignorance among even adult Sinhalese Buddhists of the ethical code of their religion leads me to issue this little compilation …

But the story doesn’t end there, because like most other thinking people, Dharmapala eventually saw through the Theosophists’ plans and rejected their teachings.

Unfortunately, he also became a committed anti-Christian and taught that Buddhism is superior to any philosophy in the West. A few decades later his teachings became part of the New Age “spirituality” together with other anti-Western tendencies ….

The narrative around Sinhalese (Sri Lankan Buddhist) nationalism was based on the idea that Sinhalese culture was being Westernized and under attack from foreign languages and immoral customs, and was in need of being “purified” and “restored to its former glory”.

Essentially, this was an anti-Christian and anti-Western movement motivated by nationalism not by spirituality.

Dharmapala thought, spoke, and behaved exactly like a Christian missionary:

The divine Lord [Buddha whom he also calls “Supreme Lord”] conquered the world by the fulfilment of the Paramitas ten [the ten virtues] and for the last five days I invoked his all-powerful Name that I should succeed in His work … All good Buddhists have to be born in India for final salvation … My Saviour, the blessed Buddha … My life I consecrate to Thee, O Lord … H.P. [High Priest H. Sumangala] sent word to say that I should not attack Christianity. He is very tolerant; but does not know that Buddha had a mission to destroy error … There are thousands of liberal-minded, educated Englishmen to whom the Doctrine of the Aryans must be preached … The English must not be allowed to die of spiritual inanition ...

According to Dharmapala even the Buddhist high priest didn't know Buddhism!

There is no doubt that Dharmapala’s understanding of Buddhism was influenced by the views of the Theosophists and the Orientalist scholars of the London Pali Text Society. He was an officer of the Buddhist Theosophical Society and he later openly admitted that Blavatsky and Olcott were his mentors.

Clearly, Dharmapala was not an “inspired god-man” but more an impostor groomed by the Theosophists and radicalized by Sinhala nationalism (and by himself). And he had the same narcissistic obsession with diaries and “purity” as Gandhi.

Which I think demonstrates that the “superiority of Dharmic foundation” is just a self-serving fiction in the mind of some Buddhist zealots ....

Michael Roberts presents a good expose of Dharmapala in his essay:

M. Roberts, HIMSELF AND PROJECT. A SERIAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY. OUR JOURNEY WITH A ZEALOT, ANAGARIKA DHARMAPALA, Social Analysis: The International Journal of Anthropology Vol. 44, No. 1 (April 2000), pp. 113-141

I think Baker enjoys being a contrarian just for the sake of it. I can't think of any other explanation for the absurd and cynical generalizations she comes up with. — Janus

Oh, for crying out loud. I want to know the truth about "spirituality". So far, the most plausible conclusion is that "spirituality" is a form of sublimation, specifically, of sublimating the Darwinian struggle for survival into terms that seem more palatable.

And seeing that we are in agreement, I am sure you will also agree with my analysis, below. — Apollodorus

All I see is that you have way too much time on your hands, and that you are unable on unwilling to engage in honest communication with me.

What am I to Dharmapala or what is Dharmapala to me? Nothing. Or any of the dozen people you've brought up so far. So why bring them up?

Yes, we already know you're well-read. Other virtues we yet have to see from you.

That's a very negative reading of Armstrong's few words on compassion. I've tried a few times to re-read it wearing my cap of cynicism and still can't see what you see in those words. That said, Armstrong may well practice a form of idiot compassion in her life, but this isn't clear from those few sentences. — Tom Storm

Let's see what she says:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment.

No, it hasn't been advocated as such, certaintly not by "all the great faiths".
Mahayana emphasizes it, but not as "the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment".

It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness

That's idiot compassion.

And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision.

This describes zoning out.

As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.'

She should read the whole poem.

We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves."

New Age talk.


There's a lot more I could say ...

Whether someone is a good pianist or not (apart from the sheer manual dexterity and fluency is a matter of opinion. I see no reason, and you have not offered any, to think that judgements as to whether someone is enlightened are not akin to aesthetic judgements, that is they are not matters amenable to precise determination, like judging one's knowledge of physics — Janus

From what I've seen, professional musicians believe that musical proficiency is amenable to precise determination.
Similar with the other arts. How else do you think they can write whole tomes of art criticism?

Oh, for crying out loud. I want to know the truth about "spirituality". So far, the most plausible conclusion is that "spirituality" is a form of sublimation, specifically, of sublimating the Darwinian struggle for survival into terms that seem more palatable. — baker

If it is merely "sublimation" and the whole enterprise is deluded as to its provenance from the start, then what does that say about claims to be enlightened?

From what I've seen, professional musicians believe that musical proficiency is amenable to precise determination.
Similar with the other arts. How else do you think they can write whole tomes of art criticism? — baker

Musical proficiency, i.e. being able to sight read, possessing perfect pitch, and the speed with which one can play an instrument fluently can be precisely determined. The greatness of a musical composition, the profundity of a musician's interpretations of Bach, Beethoven or whatever canonical composer you like, cannot be precisely determined.

There are critics who write about works and their qualities, and there are many other critics who have quite different ideas about what any critic has written, so no, not precisely determinable. The same goes with spiritual questing; one person's guru is another's charlatan.I don't see how you can claim to be familiar with the world of spiritual self-cultivation and yet disagree with that.

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. — baker

'The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom' Proverbs 9:10

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 Mahāyāna Buddhism? — Apollodorus

I don't have an exclusive relationship with any of the above. I was an admirerer of Krishnamurti in my twenties, but to be ruthlessly honest, this might have been a product of my own wish for a kind of 'instant enlightenment'. Actually I found that in digging out that passage I quoted earlier in this thread that I understood some things in it that I would have missed when I read him earlier in life. I'm still of the view that he was a true jñāni.

The three philosophical traditions I most admire are Christian Platonism, Advaita, and Mahāyāna. I'm an eclectic reader, I can't see how you can help that in this day and age. There's so much information available from so many sources. So I'm still studying, although I do ask myself why.

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

To me, that sounds rather vague. — Apollodorus

We're referring here to the Pali texts. The style is often repetitive due to their original form as an oral tradition but I'm saying, they possess degree of coherency and philosophical depth that I don't think is found in any other single source, but I'm not going to try and argue that at length.

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. — Apollodorus

Top of the list is the abandonment of Platonism in the late middle ages and the subsequent ascendancy of philosophical and scientific materialism. That is the underlying dynamic of which most of the things we discuss here are footnotes. (See this conference keynote speech given by Bhikkhu Bodhi.)

By the way, on that note, I've just encountered Lloyd Gerson's most recent book, Platonism and Naturalism: The Possibility of Philosophy. 'Gerson contends that Platonism identifies philosophy with a distinct subject matter, namely, the intelligible world, and seeks to show that the Naturalist rejection of Platonism entails the elimination of a distinct subject matter for philosophy. Thus, the possibility of philosophy depends on the truth of Platonism. From Aristotle to Plotinus to Proclus, Gerson clearly links the construction of the Platonic system well beyond simply Plato's dialogues, providing strong evidence of the vast impact of Platonism on philosophy throughout history. Platonism and Naturalism concludes that attempts to seek a rapprochement between Platonism and Naturalism are unstable and likely indefensible.'

So he says that naturalism and Platonism (which he says is philosophy) are fundamentally incommensurable, which is a point I constantly make. I'm attempting to educate myself but Gerson is really hard to read, as his work is so deeply embedded in the Classical literature, it's full of allusions and subtle counter-arguments to some obscure academic or other or some point made by some commentator on some obscure passage. And to become conversant with the whole corpus would take years of going back over the original dusty tomes which are voluminous and subject to millenia of commentary. Sigh. Anyway beneath all this verbiage, there is a genuine spark of enlightenment, or so I hope.

True enlightenment is realizing that all we have are stories about reality. After years of living in the dark (though light for the ones living the story!) of a supposed true reality, this realization opens your eyes and makes you bath in the bright and warm light it shines out. It's a kind of enlightenment that sets free and makes you appreciate other stories.

So far, the most plausible conclusion is that "spirituality" is a form of sublimation, specifically, of sublimating the Darwinian struggle for survival into terms that seem more palatable. — baker

I studied the non-technical essays of Sigmund Freud as an undergrad - Totem and Taboo, The Future of an Illusion, Civilization and its Discontents. This is more or less his view. I don't agree with it, but I do agree that 'spirit' and 'spiritual' are rather threadbare terms. Maybe that reflects the poverty of current English lexicon on this respect.

Let's see what she says:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment.

No, it hasn't been advocated as such, certaintly not by "all the great faiths".
Mahayana emphasizes it, but not as "the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment".

It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness

That's idiot compassion.

And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision.

This describes zoning out.

As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.'

She should read the whole poem.

We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves."

New Age talk.


There's a lot more I could say ... — baker

I appreciate the effort but this just demonstrates a difference of opinion with Armstrong's reading and use of language. That's part of the territory. I still don't see a case for idiot compassion much as I would like to.