Yes, we already know you're well-read. — baker

I don't think this is about me being "well-read" at all. I think it is more a case of some people being intellectually lazy and in denial but still trying to lecture others ....

I'm still of the view that he was a true jñāni. — Wayfarer

I’m not saying he wasn’t. He may well have been “a true jñāni”. My point was that we have no hard proof that he was.

But it is probably safe to say that he was more a jñāni than Blavatsky and Besant ....

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. — Wayfarer

And I’m not going to ask why you won’t give us some examples.

However, to be fair, all Buddhist schools sought to systematize, polish, and refine the earliest suttas. And they had centuries at their disposal to do so.

So I'm still studying, although I do ask myself why. — Wayfarer

Good point. As Heraclitus said, “Learning many things does not teach understanding”. :smile:

Sometimes we are better off leaving lots of things ununderstood and aim to understand the one thing that matters, first.

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 — Wayfarer

I agree that Gerson tends to beat about the bush a bit and sometimes almost gets lost in the details. I much prefer writers who get to the point.

I think Gerson’s main merit is that he shows that despite some original reinterpretation of Plato, Platonism (including what some choose to call “Neo-Platonism”) is nevertheless very much based on Plato. His From Plato to Platonism does an excellent job in this regard.

Aristotle and Other Platonists is another good book. But, as you say, when reading Gerson, you need to have all of Plato’s works at hand as well as those of Plotinus, Proclus, and many others. And make ample use of a pen and notebook. So this is perhaps something for the more academically-minded.

This is why I think when reading any author on Plato it is imperative to always keep Plato’s essential points in mind and add to them whatever seems necessary for your particular purposes as you go.

We also need to remember that later Platonists like Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, were teachers in their own right and this necessarily involves a degree of interpretation of the original texts. But the original texts remained the main teaching material at all times and students could make up their own mind on how to read them. The main thing was for them to attain the goal.

If Philosophy (i.e., philosophy in the original Greek sense) is about finding Truth, then we must start from the premise that Truth exists but it is obscured by un-Truth.

Philosophy then becomes a process of unearthing Truth by removing un-Truth which in the first place is nothing but human erroneous perception of Truth.

This means that Philosophy (a) entails the critical examination of the information received from others and of our own beliefs and assumptions, and (b) it must ultimately lead to Truth.

This is why Plato introduces the concept of Ideas (or Forms) as realities that transcend ordinary experience and identifies the Source of all Knowledge and all Truth as the greatest subject of human inquiry.

Moreover, if the constant transcendence of increasingly higher levels of experience leads to Ultimate Reality, which it logically must, then no process can be higher than the process that leads to that Reality, i.e., Philosophy.

It follows that Buddhism, for example, cannot be higher than Platonism, unless it can be demonstrated that Buddhism leads to something that is higher than Ultimate Reality. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate this.

But the bottom line is we cannot accept things uncritically and simply repeat what we are told by others. We need to use our own intelligence and do our own independent research as part of our inquiry into truth.

This is why I brought up the Fabians, the Theosophists, and their New Age followers. The fact is that we must acknowledge that to a large extent they idolized Neo-Buddhism and Neo-Hinduism but demonized Western traditions. Besant preached that the Christian Gospels were “not authentic” whilst claiming that her “son” Krishnamurti was the Messiah and the Buddha, and knowingly promoting fabricated tales about non-existent “Himalayan Masters”.

This is not only hypocritical but also logically inconsistent. If Eastern systems like Hinduism and Buddhism can be reformed, then so can Western systems, should there be a need to do so. The fact that the Theosophists and their New Age followers insisted on replacing Western systems with reformed or invented Eastern ones, shows that there was an anti-Western agenda behind the whole project.

Of course there was much more to it than Fabianism and Theosophy but it all tended to move in the same anti-Western direction and this often happened for political purposes and other reasons that had little or nothing to do with spirituality.

Part of the same trend was the 60’s myth of the “Mother Goddess”. It was claimed that the earliest human society had been matriarchal after which it became patriarchal. This was started by fiction writers like Robert Graves (The White Goddess, 1948) who was also involved in the reinvention of “Celtic Spirituality”. A number of fraudulent characters like James Melaart attempted to find archaeological “evidence” for the Goddess myth. It was later discovered that Melaart had forged many of his “finds” and that his apartment was a “forger’s workshop”.

Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement - Live Science

Another anti-Western cult that emerged at the same time as Dharmapala’s Neo-Buddhism was America’s Nation of Islam that combined with the civil rights movement to morph into Black Power, the Republic of New Afrika, and Western Africanism. The “We are Aryans” myth of the early 1900’s was replaced with the New Age “We are all Africans” myth. White women, and apparently some men, started perming their hair to make it look curly and “African”. The latest manifestation of this is “blackfishing”.

What 'Blackfishing' means and why people do it – CNN

This shows that New Age “spirituality” is largely rooted in ignorance and psychological and cultural identity issues. It also shows how ridiculous and easy to manipulate people can be.

In any case, it is clear that a lot of fraudulent activity was involved in the whole New Age project. And the problem is that once people buy into a false narrative it becomes increasingly difficult for them to face the facts. This results in a great deal of denial and attempts to sweep things under the carpet and cover up inconvenient truths by means of more propaganda, disinformation, and lies.

When indoctrination kicks in, the indoctrinated mind’s defense mechanism springs into action and the indoctrinated person may bring up topics like the Crusades which, incidentally, is a typical or “standard” argument. The very same people object and loudly protest if anyone else brings up other aspects of history that are less convenient to the indoctrinated person’s agenda. For them, Western history is “the Crusades” and nothing else exists or matters.

So self-identity, including cultural and historical identity, does seem to be the key not only to mental and emotional well-being but also to truth and spiritual realization.

As an illustration, suppose someone decides to self-identify with their shoes. As shoes probably do not have a great deal of knowledge, that person’s knowledge will be severely reduced. And so will their power of action, causing them to become immobile and just sit there waiting for someone to put them on and walk them. Presumably, feelings, thoughts, and emotions will likewise be close to zero. The same holds if they identify with their clothes.

But if the same person self-identifies with the physical body, the situation will change dramatically. There will be signs of life in the form of heart beat, breathing, motion, feelings of cold and heat, hunger and thirst, etc.

If they go a bit higher and self-identify with the mind, their experience will change further still. There will be knowledge, reason, memory, emotions, imagination, and other activities of consciousness that define a human being.

And if they go even higher and self-identify with consciousness itself, with the witnessing awareness of all those mental and physical states and experiences, then they will no longer be bound to all the things that condition and restrict consciousness but will be free, unconditioned and unaffected consciousness.

This is why Plato says that the true philosopher is one whose soul or intellect turns its attention away from the material world and the body-mind compound and toward itself and realities like itself. It is a process of detachment from what is not true self and self-identification with what is true.

In the final stages of this process, the philosopher will no longer be a person but pure Intelligence, or Truth, itself.

Plotinus describes different levels of consciousness and defines Philosophy as a process of self-identification with increasingly higher levels until the highest possible is achieved. See also D. M. Hutchinson, Plotinus on Consciousness.

But, as I said from the start, this is not what people want. People want to be enlightened whilst remaining unenlightened. They don’t want to be Truth or Ultimate Reality. What they want is to be humans with superhuman knowledge and power. And this is impossible because that which is unreal or less real cannot have power over that which is Real and of which it is a manifestation or imitation.

So we can see that though Philosophy in the Ancient Greek tradition shows the way to Truth, some insist that truth can be found only by reciting Pali suttas (or some other such activities).

This is not to say that religion is useless. It is useful to the extent that it focuses our mind on a higher reality. But religion must ultimately be transcended in order to attain higher levels of consciousness or truth. If religion, or at least the lower forms of it, is not transcended then it can become an impediment instead of being of assistance.

So long as the human ego is in charge, and there is a craving for religion, for cults, and for myths, there can be no enlightenment but only more self-deception along with the strategy and tactics intended to defend it at all costs. The ego can be extremely resourceful and cunning, and self-preservation is its sole concern. That’s why the ego is the real “Māra” or dragon that the philosopher needs to tame or slay.

And this can be done only if the philosopher identifies with something higher and takes position on a higher ground ....

I'm not saying he wasn’t. He may well have been “a true jñāni”. My point was that we have no hard proof that he was. — Apollodorus

It’s the kind of thing for which hard proof is never possible.

There is no need to keep labouring the point about the evils of theosophy and the New Age, I get it.

It follows that Buddhism, for example, cannot be higher than Platonism, unless it can be demonstrated that Buddhism leads to something that is higher than Ultimate Reality. — Apollodorus

You ought to consider why, in the early Christian era, many of the Greek-speaking fathers of the Church, for example Origen and Clement, who were thoroughly versed in Platonism, thought it nevertheless necessary to proclaim the truth of Christ. What did Jesus Christ embody that was not to be found in the doctrines of Plato? I'm not asking you for an answer but it is a question that ought to be considered. The Christian view is that the Biblical faith provided a revelation of the ultimate truth that was only partially realised by the Greek philosophers. That is why the early Christian church incorporated the Platonic corpus, retrospectively declaring Plato and Socrates 'Christians before Christ'. But they were all of the view that Jesus Christ was of a higher order than the philosophers, even while incorporating Platonic ideas to provide the philosophical scaffolding for their own theology (in the process creating Christian Platonism.)

Origen undertakes to show that the simplest disciple of God’s word knows Him better than the philosophers who seek him by their own methods (Against Celsus 7.42), that Plato misrepresents the fall and diminishes the Creator, that if his myths are deep, the biblical allegories are deeper and less perverse. — SEP, Origen

If Philosophy (i.e., philosophy in the original Greek sense) is about finding Truth, then we must start from the premise that Truth exists but it is obscured by un-Truth. — Apollodorus

This is one of the fundamental ideas in all world religions and cultures. A version of it is the doctrine of the original sin. In The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science Peter Harrison examines the way that early modern science arose in part as a means to overcome the degradation to man's senses as a consequence of the original sin. The Hindu 'veil of māyā' and the Buddhist 'ocean of samsara' are also grounded in the idea that humans are ensnared in an illusory realm from which they can only be delivered by life-changing wisdom or spiritual awakening. (At last! Back at the OP.)

One point I want to call out in this regard, is that there is really nothing corresponding to 'enlightenment' in the Christian lexicon. In the philosophical lexicon, there is the ideal of the Sage, an archetypical figure. In the Buddhist and Hindu milieu, there is acceptance that there are incarnations or avatars of wisdom. Whereas in Christian doctrine, there can only ever be one God and one Son of God, destined to appear again at the End of Time. According to them, all who involve themselves in Eastern doctrines or philosophy or anything else are hell-bound, no matter what. I think that deep-seated cultural belief unconsciously influences nearly everything said about it.

this can be done only if the philosopher identifies with something higher and takes position on a higher ground .... — Apollodorus

I noticed in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Pierre Hadot, this caveat on Hadot's appraisal of Plotinus, who surely amongst the ancient philosophers was a 'philosopher of the ultimate'.

For all of Hadot’s evident enthusiasm for Plotinus’ philosophy, however, PSV (Plotinus Simplicity of Vision) concludes with an assessment of the modern world’s inescapable distance from Plotinus’ thought and experience. Hadot distances himself from Plotinus’ negative assessment of bodily existence, and he also displays a caution in his support for mysticism, citing the skeptical claims of Marxism and psychoanalysis about professed mysticism, considering it a lived mystification or obfuscation of truth (PSV 112-113). Hadot would later recall that, after writing the book in a month and returning to ordinary life, he had his own uncanny experience: “. . . seeing the ordinary folks all around me in the bakery, I . . . had the impression of having lived a month in another world, completely foreign to our world, and worse than this — totally unreal and even unlivable.” — IEP, Pierre Hadot

religion must ultimately be transcended in order to attain higher levels of consciousness or truth. — Apollodorus

A man traveling along a path came to a great expanse of water, rough and hazardous. The farther shore appeared safe and peaceful. The man looked for a boat or a bridge and found neither. But with effort he gathered grass, twigs and branches and tied them all together to create a makeshift raft. Relying on the raft to keep himself afloat, the man paddled with his hands and feet and reached the safety of the other shore.

Now, what would he do with his makeshift raft? Would he carry it along with him or leave it behind? He would leave it, the Buddha said. The Buddha explained that the dharma is like a raft. It is useful for crossing over, but not to be held onto. — The Parable of the Raft (paraphrase)

My God.... what have i started!!! :razz:

It’s the kind of thing for which hard proof is never possible. — Wayfarer

Correct. This is why claims of someone being a "true jnani" or "enlightened" must necessarily belong to the domain of belief. And this applies to Buddha himself.

One point I want to call out in this regard, is that there is really nothing corresponding to 'enlightenment' in the Christian lexicon. — Wayfarer

I don't think we can infer from this that there is no enlightenment in Christianity. Christianity does have the term "illumination" (photismos) that leads to deification (theosis), just as Platonism also uses the term "illumination" (ellampsis) leading to oneness (henosis) with the Absolute.

You ought to consider why, in the early Christian era, many of the Greek-speaking fathers of the Church, for example Origen and Clement, who were thoroughly versed in Platonism, thought it nevertheless necessary to proclaim the truth of Christ. — Wayfarer

Christianity may have its own myths, but I think they are just as easy to debunk as those of the New Age movement.

Here is a possible answer:

1. "Thoroughly versed" in a particular system is not the same as thoroughly practiced and experienced in that system.

2. Those with actual practice and experience of Platonism, e.g., Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, Syrianus, Damascius, and many others, did not embrace Christianity.

3. When the Platonic Academy at Athens was closed in 529 AD by Christian emperor Justinian, its members preferred to leave for Persia rather than embrace Christianity.

4. The vast majority of the population that converted to Christianity were simply Pagans, i.e., followers of the Hellenistic religion prevalent at the time, not necessarily Platonists. We must not confuse religion with philosophy.

5. One possible reason for Christianity’s initial success in attracting followers is that it appealed to emotion and it promised salvation through faith. But, again, this applies to the general population, not necessarily to spiritually advanced Platonic philosophers.

6. If Christianity itself admittedly adopted aspects of Platonism, and the Platonic corpus was preserved and continued to be studied by Christians, it may be argued that there was something missing in Christianity.

In any case, I don’t see the “superiority” of Buddhism over Western traditions (or of Eastern enlightenment over Western enlightenment) as established …. :smile:

Christianity may have its own myths, but I think they are just as easy to debunk as those of the New Age movement. — Apollodorus

Rather a sweeping claim, don't you think? But as the OP is about 'enlightenment', I will return to that theme. The Christian view of why Christianity superseded Greek philosophy was that Jesus represents the living realisation of truth which the philosophers didn't fully realise, even though they were sharing similar intuitions. This commonality is what allowed the Greek-speaking theologians to incorporate many doctrines from Platonism - which ultimately gave rise to the 'Christian Platonism' which I think is the actual mainstream of Western philosophy. (You're right in saying that Platonism provided something absent from the Biblical lexicon, namely, the philosophical framework.) That is the tradition which gave rise to the modern science which has now largely forgotten its own heritage. (That is what I am constantly having glimpses of. It's literally like the process of anamnesis, of recollecting something known in some distant mythical past.)

My interpretation of the significance of Jesus, is that Jesus is the archetype of 'the realised being'. I know there's a lot of new-age claptrap written about such ideas, but the convergences in the principles of otherwise diverse traditions is support for that. (That is what I studied through Comparative Religion.) That is where, again, the Eastern perspective provides an explanatory framework. The 'realised being' is the point towards which all existence is evolving. In the Eastern worldview, although such beings are exceedingly rare, they are an archetype, not a single unique instance, which is what Christianity claims Jesus to have been. (This is explained well by John Hick's article, Who or What is God?. I recall reading that Plotinus claims to have had a vision of the state of supreme realisation only twice in his entire life.) So in this understanding, the 'realised being' is what all of humanity is evolving towards - very much the idea behind R.M. Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness, that I referred to in my first post in this thread.

I find myself agreeing with most of this.

Do you think that in early Christianity God was understood more along the lines of the Logos? Certainly this informs the Gospel of John's orientation. I guess we could call Christian enlightenment salvation and ponder what it might be to seek union with Logos rather than follow the commands of Yahweh. To my thinking this neo-Platonic philosophy underpinning the work of a wandering teacher certainly provides Christianity with a more mystical framework towards self-realisation and not just (but not merely) the Golden Rule.

It's just how I see it. Of course there are those Christians who would take violent exception - more than a few would see it as more of a threat than outright atheism. But there are counter-examples, for instance the Zen Christian teachers who follow the path initiated by Thomas Merton. Richard Rohr is an example that you've mentioned, but there are others.

I don't believe it should be taken as an endorsement of 'lazy syncretism' either. I think individuals have to choose a path (although maybe it's true that the path chooses them). But the fact of commonality across all of these traditions makes sense from an anthropological point of view as a dimension of human potential.

Rather a sweeping claim, don't you think? But as the OP is about 'enlightenment', I will return to that theme. — Wayfarer

I don't see it as a "sweeping claim" at all. Every system has its own myths. Christianity, too, has some truths and some myths. The mythical elements, e.g., that "Platonists" converted to Christianity en masse can be easily debunked as I have just shown.

Similarly, the idea that the concept of "enlightenment" has no equivalent in Western traditions seems unfounded to me. In fact, the concept probably originated in the West where as I said we find terms like "illumination" (ellampsis, photismos) going back to Plato and the Church Fathers.

In contrast, Indian terms do not seem to derive from "light". They tend to be based on concepts like "cessation" and "liberation" or "release". "Liberation", "salvation", do occur in Western traditions.

The exact significance of Jesus in Early Christianity is difficult to determine at present. Jesus was probably seen differently by the masses than by the Hellenistic-educated or -influenced classes. The masses left few written records of their beliefs, so we are left with the views of the educated classes and they do seem to have interpreted Jesus in a way that was compatible with Hellenistic religion in general and with Platonic philosophy in particular.

We need to bear in mind that Hellenistic culture was the dominant cultural element at the time especially in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. This is precisely why the NT was written in Greek and Jesus himself was iconographically represented in Hellenistic style, either as a human teacher wearing a Greek philosopher's mantle (during his mission on earth) or (following his ascension to heaven) as God seated on a celestial throne like Zeus.

Even Buddha got a Greek-style robe in Indian temple art:

Greco-Buddhist art - Wikipedia

So, I for one, tend to agree with @Tom Storm.

Philosophy (i.e. philosophy in the Greek tradition) is love of and quest after Truth.
Platonism aims to attain union with Truth.
Christianity aims to attain union with God, who is Truth.

Basically, if any system enables its followers to attain Truth, then that system is good enough for me.

Plotinus is said to have attained some experience of Reality. We do not know whether this amounted to "supreme realization". But it was more than twice.

He says:

Often I wake up from the body into myself, and since I come to be outside of other things and within myself, I have a vision of extraordinary beauty and I feel supremely confident that I belong to a higher realm, and having come to identity with the Divine, and being established in it I have come to that actuality above all the rest of the intelligible world (Ennead IV.8.1.1-11)

Plotinus himself never publicly proclaimed this and his writings were published after his death. It was his pupil Porphyry who said that he witnessed this on four occasions during his time with his teacher and that he attained this himself once:

To this God, I also declare, I Porphyry, that in my sixty-eighth year I too was once admitted and I entered into Union (On the Life of Plotinus, 23).

Concerning the awakening of the soul as a result of divine illumination, Proclus in his Commentary on Plato’s Republic writes:

Plato has called such an illumination “possession” because the illumination takes charge over the whole of those who are moved by it, and because it moves those who are illuminated out of their own activities into its own character … The soul that is hard and resistant and impassive to the divine illumination stands in opposition to the action of possession, since [this soul] belongs more to itself than to that which illuminates, and does not easily take an impression of the gift from that source. [Such a soul], possessed by all kinds of opinions and filled up with reasoning that is shifting and divorced from the divine, overshadows the divine inspiration, mixing with the impulses from this its own ways of life and activities. So it is necessary for this soul, which is going to be possessed, to have taken on beforehand both of these qualities together: to be both gentle and innocent, so that it may be entirely receptive and sympathetic towards divinity, but impassive and unreceptive towards all other things and unmixed with them … The awakening is an unsleeping effort of the soul and an unyielding activity and a turning back from the fall into becoming towards the divine (in Remp. 180.25-181.25).

It follows that Greek philosophers were familiar with concepts such as “illumination” (ellampein) leading to “awakening” (anegeirein) and "liberation" (lysis) which is a state of perfection (teleiotes) “beyond the realm of becoming”.

Indian terms do not seem to derive from "light". They tend to be based on concepts like "cessation" and "liberation" or "release". "Liberation", "salvation", do occur in Western traditions. — Apollodorus

There's an oft-quoted sutta of the 'luminous mind':

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2} — Pabhassara Sutta - Luminous

This text is often said to be the foundation of the later 'Buddha-nature' sutras.

Marvellous passage from Proclus, and thanks for it. Indeed I think ancient philosophers were entirely conversant with the idea of spiritual illumination, of which that passage is a splendid example. There's an SEP article on Divine Illumination, which starts like this:

The theory of divine illumination is generally conceived of as distinctively Christian, distinctively medieval, and distinctively Augustinian. There is some justification for this, of course, inasmuch as Christian medieval philosophers gave the theory serious and sustained discussion, and inasmuch as Augustine gave illumination a very prominent role in his theory of knowledge. Still, it is better to think of the theory in a wider context. Divine illumination played a prominent part in ancient Greek philosophy, in the later Greek commentary tradition, in neo-Platonism, and in medieval Islamic philosophy. Moreover, it was Christian medieval philosophers, near the end of the thirteenth century, who were ultimately responsible for decisively refuting the theory. I will suggest that we view this last development as the first great turning point in the history of cognitive theory.

Note that the author claims that the theory was 'decisively refuted' i.e. abandoned as part of Christian doctrine. I'm going to revisit that article to understand why. For now I simply note that enlightenment or illumination is rarely encountered as part of regular Christian discourse.

Note that the author claims that the theory was 'decisively refuted' i.e. abandoned as part of Christian doctrine. I'm going to revisit that article to understand why. — Wayfarer

I think the article is not the only thing you will need to revisit. :smile:

1. There is a difference between (a) divine illumination as an explanation for everyday cognitive processes and (b) divine illumination as an activity leading to union of the soul with the divine (theosis).

2. Divine illumination in sense (b) has not been “refuted” or “abandoned” in Christianity. It remains part of the spiritual progress consisting of purification (katharsis), illumination (photismos), and union with the divine (theosis) culminating in “enlightenment” proper.

3. There is a difference between the mind itself being “luminous” and the mind being illuminated by a higher intelligence resulting in enlightenment.

Here is an illuminating quote from Christian writings:

Every procession of illuminating light, proceeding from the Father, whilst visiting us as a gift of goodness, restores us again gradually as a unifying power and turns us to the oneness of our conducting Father and to a deifying simplicity ... The purpose, then, of Hierarchy is the assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God – by perfecting its own followers as Divine images, mirrors most luminous and without flaw, receptive of the primal light and the supremely Divine ray, and devoutly filled with the entrusted radiance, and again spreading this radiance ungrudgingly to those after it ...

- Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, The Heavenly Hierarchy (ca. 400-500 AD).

4. If some Buddhist texts refer to the mind as “luminous” it does not follow that the Indian terms “Nirvana” and “Moksha” are derived from a word denoting “light”.

5. The word “enlightenment” itself may not be used very often in Western traditions but there are still equivalent terms such as henosis (“union”) in Platonism and theosis (“deification”) in Christianity.

I think the article is not the only thing you will need to revisit. — Apollodorus

Please extend the courtesy of refraining from condescension.

Here is an illuminating quote from Christian writings. — Apollodorus

Pseudo-dionysius is the Christian Platonist par excellence. He is hardly representative of today's ecclesiastical Christianity.

Divine illumination in sense (b) has not been “refuted” or “abandoned” in Christianity. — Apollodorus

You will find precious little reference to it outside Orthodox Christianity and some specific mystical texts. It's practically non-existent in Protestant theology. Likewise the terms you refer to in (5). All of these kinds of ideas are preserved in Orthodox Christianity but hardly visible outside it.

If some Buddhist texts refer to the mind as “luminous” it does not follow that the Indian terms “Nirvana” and “Moksha” are derived from a word denoting “light”. — Apollodorus

Didn't claim that they did. The point was simply to illustrate the use of light as an analogy for enlightenment.

You will find precious little reference to it outside Orthodox Christianity and some specific mystical texts. It's practically non-existent in Protestant theology. — Wayfarer

You will find precious few Buddhists constantly referring to "Nirvana" (though indoctrinated Western Buddhists or New Agers may be a different matter).

And, as I was saying earlier:

... 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 .... — Apollodorus

However:

Contrary to what many think, theosis is not just a doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it plays a more central role in the thought and practice of that tradition. Carl Mosser, in a paper arguing that Calvin’s theology includes a doctrine of theosis, observes that “no major Western theologian has ever repudiated the doctrine of deification.” Mosser alludes to others who have shown the presence of the doctrine in the thought of Protestants including Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Augustus Hopkins Strong, C. S. Lewis, and several evangelicals, as well as early Anglicanism and Methodism. The doctrine is also receiving increased attention from contemporary evangelicals ...

- M. W. Austin, The Doctrine of Theosis.

That’s an interesting article. I wonder how much of that re-focussing on theosis is a consequence of the emergence of similar strains of thought in alternative religious movements with their emphasis on union. It’s certainly something I don’t usually associate with mainstream Christian philosophy.

It’s certainly something I don’t usually associate with mainstream Christian philosophy. — Wayfarer

I'm sure you are not the only one. It shows that some Westerners are more knowledgeable about Eastern traditions than about Western ones. It's a phenomenon I come across every day ....

By the way, I wasn't being "condescending" at all, I was just wondering whether as someone who has studied comparative religion, you really don’t know the difference between divine illumination as an explanation for cognitive processes and divine illumination as an activity leading to union of the soul with the divine, or you were just taking the mickey. That's all.

And since we were talking about "Nirvana", here is another interesting perspective that I think should not be ignored:

To many Americans, Buddhism is about attaining enlightenment, maybe even nirvana, through such peaceful methods as meditation and yoga. But in some parts of Asia, a more assertive, strident and militant Buddhism is emerging. In three countries where Buddhism is the majority faith, a form of religious nationalism has taken hold: in Sri Lanka, in Myanmar, in Thailand ….

Nirvanaless: Asian Buddhism’s growing fundamentalist streak – Religion News Service

By the way, I wasn't being "condescending" at all, I was just wondering whether as someone who has studied comparative religion, you really don’t know the difference between divine illumination as an explanation for cognitive processes and divine illumination as an activity leading to union of the soul with the divine, or you were just taking the mickey. That's all. — Apollodorus

I don't know how much of a difference there is ultimately. You go back to the Aristotelian understanding of 'nous' as being 'that which sees what is real'. That is embedded all through the Greek philosophical tradition starting with Parmenides. What differentiate the Western philosophical tradition from Asiatic is that reason, 'nous', is seen in some sense as a supernal faculty from the outset. It's that esteem for reason which differentiates the West.

I was perusing a small site called https://aquinasonline.com/about/ yesterday which has some good content, although sketchy. The author links to his book on Amazon. 'Challenging cognitivist and functionalist interpretations, this book argues that Aristotle believed the mind to be unmixed, or separate from the body [i.e. a form of dualism]. Through careful textual analysis of De Anima and other key texts, the author shows that the Greek philosopher made a clear distinction between perception - an activity realized in material sense organs- and thinking - a process that cannot occur in any material organ.' Then from the wikipedia entry on nous [my comments in brackets] - 'In the Aristotelian scheme, nous is the basic understanding or awareness that allows human beings to think rationally. For Aristotle, this was distinct from the processing of sensory perception, including the use of imagination and memory, which other animals can do. This therefore connects discussion of nous to discussion of how the human mind sets definitions in a consistent and communicable way [i.e. this is the theory of predication based on Universals] and whether people must be born with some innate potential to understand the same universal categories in the same logical ways [as anticipated in the Meno. Both those principles were to be abandoned by nominalism and empiricism.]

Deriving from this it was also argued, especially in classical and medieval philosophy, that the individual nous must require help of a spiritual and divine type [so, back to the doctrine of illumination]. By this type of account, it came to be argued that the human understanding (nous) somehow stems from this cosmic nous, which is however not just a recipient of order, but a creator of it [hence, 'objective idealism'].

You see the connections I'm trying to make here.

Ultimately, this is also connected to 'the argument from reason' - which I won't rehearse here.

Now, all that said, I agree there is plainly a distinction between the philosophical sense of reason and 'divine union' or theosis. But I think in the grand tradition of Western philosophical theology, these are understood to be points along a continuum, rather than being radically separate and that philosophy, maths and science, whilst not of the very highest order, nevertheless are reflections of it. So these ought to be understood as complementary rather than conflicting. The book which I think I really must get hold of and read is Jacques Maritain's The Degrees of Knowledge, which draws all of these together. (It's also why I have the Maritain essay on my profile page.)

It shows that some Westerners are more knowledgeable about Eastern traditions than about Western ones. — Apollodorus

But the Christian Church brought that on itself. Millions of people, myself included, found in the influx of Eastern teachings that occured in the twentieth century, ideas and teachings that you would never hear of through 'churchianity' as it was taught to us. Had I been in contact with a truly alive Christian teacher earlier in life, it might have turned out differently. But in my school days, Christianity was something to be learned by rote and beaten into you with a cane. No dice. A book that had a huge impact on me (and many others) was Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunryu Suzuki, which was the foundational text of the San Francisco Zen Centre. I still stand by that book, it's an invaluable teaching, very straightforward and quite simple, but also profound. And it's grounded in the Shobogenzo of Dogen, which in terms of philosophical insight and depth of intuition will stand up to anything comparable in the Western canon. We're living nowadays in a global culture. And now, later in life, I am able to begin to appreciate the value of the Western tradition, but I had to take a long detour to get there.

I've had plenty of experience with Asian Buddhism. What Western converts see in it, is often very different to what it is for those for whom it is the native culture. See Mosts Buddhists Don't Meditate. The 'meditation movement' that Westerners practice is a kind of hybrid or offshoot off the tradition, although that doesn't necessarily invalidate it.

I don't think this is about me being "well-read" at all. I think it is more a case of some people being intellectually lazy and in denial but still trying to lecture others .... — Apollodorus

And whose problem is that?


What I find so ironic about you, and I do so to the point that I actually laugh out loud, is how you ascribe to me that I am a Buddhist. I'd been around Buddhism for more than twenty years, and in all that time, no Buddhist considered me a Buddhist, at least not a proper one. A few considered me a newcomer, some a beginner (but not in the good, Zen sense). I still vividly remember the contempt that one Buddhist had for me and how he told me that I was "outside, looking in". Another one who told me I had "no interest in the Dharma" and that my time would better be spent elsewhere. Then all those who called me dumb, clueless. Then the Buddhist Asian supremacists who dismissed me on account of my being white. Then the Buddhist male supremacists who dismissed me on account of being female.
Most of all, I don't consider myself a Buddhist, and I've made that clear many times.

To then have someone accuse me of being a Buddhist is, well, laughable, to say the least.

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? — Janus

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

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.

They can. This is the normative aspect of art theory.

While I don't know how the art critics do it, they appear to be fully certain that it can be done, that it should be done, and that they are doing it.

Given that they fight over whose interpretation of some music piece is the right one, for example, it's clear that they are operating with the idea that there _is_ such a thing as "the best interpretation" or "the correct interpretation". If it would truly all be about opinions and subjectivity, they couldn't fight about different interpretations.
(And this isn't triflesome: a student's academic success depends on correctly identifying the professor's standards for evaluating musical pieces; higher up, careers in art are made or lost over such matters.)

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 difference of opinions about a work says nothing about the quality of said work.

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.

Someone being one person's guru and another's charlatan doesn't make that person a guru, or a charlatan.

The student-teacher relationship depends as much, if not more, on the input of the student than on the input of the teacher.

Some people, when they are in the position of a student, can act only as sycophants, so in that relationship, their teacher is going to be a charlatan.
But with that same teacher, a different student, with a different outlook on the student-teacher relationship, can perceive the teacher in an entirely different manner and make an entirely different use of the relationship.

hat’s an interesting article. I wonder how much of that re-focussing on theosis is a consequence of the emergence of similar strains of thought in alternative religious movements with their emphasis on union. It’s certainly something I don’t usually associate with mainstream Christian philosophy. — Wayfarer

E.g. from Mormon doctrine:

Moroni 7:48

48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/7?lang=eng&id=p48#p48

It shows that some Westerners are more knowledgeable about Eastern traditions than about Western ones. — Apollodorus

Heh. I turned to Buddhism in order to figure out which Christian religion is the right one. (It seems absurd in hindsight, but this is how it happened.)
At some point, which is now quite long ago, I was desperate with trying to choose a Christian church which I should join. I was terrified of the prospect of eternal damnation. Some Christians told me that I should look at the various Christian denominations truthfully, without bias, and that then, I would know for sure which one to join. But how does one do this " truthfully, without bias"? I had no idea. But I faintly recalled from somewhere that Buddhism taught how to overcome all biases. So, driven by the fear of eternal damnation, I took to Buddhism, with the plan that I shall first become enlightened, and then, once free of all biases, I would be able to pick the right Christian denomination. Time was of the essence.

Needless to say, that didn't exactly work out as planned.

And since we were talking about "Nirvana", here is another interesting perspective that I think should not be ignored:

To many Americans, Buddhism is about attaining enlightenment, maybe even nirvana, through such peaceful methods as meditation and yoga. But in some parts of Asia, a more assertive, strident and militant Buddhism is emerging. In three countries where Buddhism is the majority faith, a form of religious nationalism has taken hold: in Sri Lanka, in Myanmar, in Thailand ….

Nirvanaless: Asian Buddhism’s growing fundamentalist streak – Religion News Service — Apollodorus

You keep focusing on these externals and incidentals, as if they would be the defining factors of Buddhism, or, more specifically, the Dhamma. They are not. The cultural, historical, social, economical, and political realities of life in some traditionally Buddhist countries and elsewhere are not what defines the Buddha's teachings.
Granted, for many people who consider themselves Buddhist, regardless of their provenance, those are the defining factors of their identity as Buddhists. Such identity, however, is not what the Pali suttas are about.

Secondly, part of the reason for the radicalization and nationalisim that we can see in some traditionally Buddhist countries is that they are a defense against aggressive Christian missionaries. These missionaries are using food, medical services, and the prospect of employment as means to lure in people. They sometimes try to subvert Buddhism into a kind of "preparatory religion for Christianity", claiming that God has sent the Buddha to teach the people morality, so that now they would be ready for Jesus Christ. They also generally disparage and misrepresent Buddhism.

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. — Wayfarer

I didn't study Freud, I observe people who claim to be religious/spiritual.

I don't agree with it,

Why not?

How do you explain the consistency with which religious/spiritual people don't act on what they preach?
How do you explain that when conversing with so many religious/spiritual people, there is a palpable contempt or hatred, sometimes blatant, sometimes just under the surface on their part? Why all the religious wars?

It's hard to argue that those are just "flaws", "human failings", "human imperfections". Religious/spiritual people are just too consistent in their behaviors, too deliberate in them, too proud of them, for us to still think those were merely "mistakes" or "flaws".

but I do agree that 'spirit' and 'spiritual' are rather threadbare terms. Maybe that reflects the poverty of current English lexicon on this respect.

I see no problem with the word itself.

I don't know how much of a difference there is ultimately. — Wayfarer

Ultimately, none. That's why "Christians" who reject the one are undermining the other. And that's how we end up with clergy who are not sure if God exists or whether they should be Christians or something else ....

But the Christian Church brought that on itself. — Wayfarer

With some help from the outside, yes. However, the real Church is not the organizational structure but the people. And they have no reason to abandon what is valuable in Christian teachings. On the contrary, especially in this day and age of spiritual ignorance, disorientation, confusion, and darkness, a degree of return to tradition seems advisable.

What Western converts see in it, is often very different to what it is for those for whom it is the native culture. — Wayfarer

Correct. And most Asian Buddhists neither meditate nor worry about "Nirvana". In fact, a lot of them want to be as Western as possible, which is rather ironic IMO.

Anyway, the way I see it, Westerners would be better off learning more about their own traditions instead of getting involved in things they often don't understand.

I think a first step in this direction is to not try too hard to see differences between Platonism and Christianity. If we leave external and superficial aspects aside, their deeper teachings show that there is more that unites the two traditions than divides them.

The symbolism of light found in both of them is a good example. As is well-known, Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" and the NT has many references to light:

And you [John the Baptist] my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace (Luke 1:76-79)

For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6)

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts (2 Peter 1:19)

We know that Greek was widely spoken in the Roman Empire and the Egyptian city of Alexandria (founded by Alexander the Great), which was an important center of Hellenistic philosophy, exerted significant influence in the region at the time of Jesus. St Paul himself was well-versed in Greek philosophy and in the school of his teacher Gamaliel students were instructed both in Jewish and Greek wisdom:

Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom ... (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 49b)

What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world.

The final goal is clearly stated in Christian texts:

For when the mind is commingled in the Good, that distinction which it formerly possessed is no longer known or seen; and, further, when there is in it One, no longer are there counted with it Two: for the time is appointed and destined to be when Two shall be no more; for it is evident that whatsoever is divided, is divided from One, but if division be removed, of necessity All will become One (Book of the Holy Hierotheos IV.21)

Plotinus and other self-realized teachers of Platonism explain:

All the divine orders proceed from the one first principle of the whole, that Plato was accustomed to name the One and the Good, and they proceed also from the bi-formed causes which become manifest directly after this first principle, which Socrates in the Philebus has called Limit and Unlimited, and which other sages used to honour with other names …. So it is necessary for unification that both things pre-exist, namely the unitary transcendence of the monadic and demiurgic God, and the final turning back towards that One by the generative and dyadic cause. This is because the communion of the greater beings in one nature is completed in this manner: while the higher beings are established in themselves and in the ones more divine than themselves, the lesser beings give themselves to the powers of the higher ones (Proclus, in Remp. 133.20-134.25)

Of course, like today, there were some who liked to philosophize and speculate about the nature of God, his relation to the soul, etc., but those who were serious about spiritual realization got with the program and got on with the actual practice, and achieved what they had set out to achieve without much talking.

So personally, I can see little justification for rejecting Western traditions in favor of reciting Pali suttas, chanting mantras, and walking around in a sari. Though I am sure some would disagree.

They also generally disparage and misrepresent Buddhism. — baker

Pretty much the way Buddhists and Hindus disparage and misrepresent Christianity.

In any case, there can be no doubt that fraud is the most frequent crime worldwide, after domestic violence and rape. Most of it is banking and ATM fraud but religious or “pious fraud” is also widespread. Though more difficult to prove and prosecute, it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. And a lot of Eastern "gurus" and their Western imitators are obviously fake.

In addition to religious fraud, religious violence is also on the rise. The anti-Christian and anti-Western movement started in the 1900’s has now turned into hundreds of attacks on Christians and churches across India:

Violence against Christians has been seen by Human Rights Watch as a tactic used by the right-wing Sangh Parivar organizations to encourage and exploit communal violence to meet their political ends. The acts of violence include arson of churches, conversion of Christians by force, physical violence, sexual assaults, murders, rapes, and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries … According to the All India Christian Council, there was an attack on Christians recorded every 40 hours in India in 2016. In a report by the Indian organization Persecution Relief, the crimes against Christians increased by 60% from 2016 to 2019 …

Violence against Christians in India – Wikipedia

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

I think it's probably safer to not even think about it .... :smile:

I don't agree with it,

Why not? — baker

I don't agree with Freud's diagnosis, because of his scientific materialist outlook.

I think a first step in this direction is to not try too hard to see differences between Platonism and Christianity. If we leave external and superficial aspects aside, their deeper teachings show that there is more that unites the two traditions than divides them. — Apollodorus

Protestantism generally rejects Christian Platonism. There are exceptions but on the whole that is true. The 'treasures of western culture' that you constantly refer to are never part of the educational curriculum in public schools, I guess you might encounter them in Catholic schools.

I can see little justification for rejecting Western traditions in favor of reciting Pali suttas, chanting mantras, and walking around in a sari. — Apollodorus

Stereotyping, verging on racism. The reason is the Occidental classical tradition you’re referring to is to all intents more remote from modernity than the Eastern schools which have maintained their relevancy and occupied the vacuum caused by their collapse.

The 'treasures of western culture' that you constantly refer to are never part of the educational curriculum in public schools, I guess you might encounter them in Catholic schools. — Wayfarer

The 'treasures of eastern culture' that you constantly refer to are never part of the educational curriculum in any public schools that I am aware of.

I guess it might be different in Australia though. :smile:

The reason is the Occidental classical tradition you’re referring to is to all intents more remote from modernity than the Eastern schools which have maintained their relevancy and occupied the vacuum caused by their collapse. — Wayfarer

"Relevancy" and "modernity" of Pali suttas? In the Western world? "Relevant" to whom?

Even in India, Pali suttas are something that only a very small minority know of. Buddhists are 0.70% of the total population!

I think the real reason for the spread of "alternative" systems in the West is that they have been promoted by people with an anti-Western agenda ....

They can. This is the normative aspect of art theory. — baker

They cannot. There may be some consensus, but there will also be dissension, among critics.

While I don't know how the art critics do it, they appear to be fully certain that it can be done, that it should be done, and that they are doing it. — baker

As Kant tells us, when we make aesthetic judgements we all take them to be, and by default intend them to be, universalizable, but they are not.

The difference of opinions about a work says nothing about the quality of said work. — baker

The difference of opinions shows that there is no objectively determinable quality of art works, music and literature.

Someone being one person's guru and another's charlatan doesn't make that person a guru, or a charlatan. — baker

The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan.

To attain nirvana is to die (permanently) Now don't get all riled up Buddhists. To die (for good) doesn't mean you stop existing; it's just that death-rebirth is an aspect of Samsara. The existence of Buddhas is an open question but for sure, they're dead and they stay dead (Samsara is no longer their prison).