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. — Janus

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard?

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? — baker

To be fair this applies to many (if not all) areas of human behaviour not just religion. The same thing happens in most organised value systems - especially politics - where people regularly betray their ostensible principles. There's a reason there's a word for hypocrisy...

The kinder explanation for this would be that those folk are stuck in dualistic thinking and divide the world into winners and losers, with scorn and hatred constantly on the boil. In other words, their spirituality is shallow and ritualistic and they are unable to partake in the good or the true.

:clap:

Nice story just popped up on the ABC Newsfeed.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-02/vietnam-war-veteran-zen-buddhist-monk/100731206

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm

I guess it depends on what it means to be enlightened. If it is, as I argue, just a disposition of non-attachment, and if having self-cultivated to realize that state gives one the ability to teach others how to realize it, or at least help them to, it would then seem to follow that, if we can determine whether or not someone is non-attached, by definition we could determine whether they are enlightened, and hence whether they are a potential guru. Lotta "ifs" there!

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm

Correct. Very hard but not impossible. And in some cases, like Blavatsky, as a classical example, not even so hard.

What matters at the end of the day is to use our judgement and avoid blindly accepting a "guru" and his teachings just because they meet some psychological need we may happen to have.

And, let's face it, humans in general tend to be emotion-driven creatures which is what makes it so easy for them to be manipulated.

The objective analysis of facts indicates that it is this psychological trap that people tend to fall into and once they are in there they will do everything in their power to convince themselves and others that it isn't a trap.

If we start from the premise that Philosophy in the original or true sense is love of, and quest for, truth and that systems like Buddhism also aim to discover the truth, then it becomes clear that those who have fallen into the "guru-trap" may be taking the quest for truth less seriously than they should.

For example, from what I see, there is no evidence that Buddha attained enlightenment.

There is no evidence that Buddha’s enlightenment, if he attained it, was better than the enlightenment attained by people from other traditions.

There is no evidence that Buddhists on here have personally attained enlightenment by means of Buddhist practices, etc., etc.

I'm not saying that this applies to Buddhism exclusively but, basically, what tends to be the case is that what we’ve got is evidence-free assertions that are being defended by means of other, similarly evidence-free claims.

Even when we are (or think we are) on the road from appearances to truth, traveling in the wrong direction remains a very real possibility that should not be ignored ....

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

Because when foreigners invade your country, the only sensible thing to do is to kneel before them and let them have your country, right?

Or is that only when Christians invade your country ...

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

The difference of opinions shows only that there is a difference of opinions. Nothing more.

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.

I'll translate this into language that you might be better able to understand:

Harry: Hey, I got laid last night. Susan is really good in the sack!
Dick: Really? I want to hit that too!
(a week later)
Dick (to Harry): You liar! You told me Susan was great in the sack! I did her last night, but it sucked. Man, you made a fool out of me!


Question: Is Susan to blame for Dick's bad experience of the sexual relation between them?

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.
— Janus

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm

No, it means it's advisable not to be a dick.

You guys have been displaying here a pervasively passive attitude toward religion/spirituality. As if religion/spirituality was something that is done to you, that others do to you, or that others manifest (or fail to manifest) for you. As if you played no part in the matter, or as if what you do has no bearing on the quality of the interaction between yourself and the prospective teacher. And as if the quality of the interaction between yourself and the prospective teacher is entirely and solely the responsibility of the prospective teacher; or at least that as far as you are concerned, you can do no wrong.

This is the stereotype about men and sex; you are replicating it in reference to religion/spirituality.

If we start from the premise that Philosophy in the original or true sense is love of, and quest for, truth and that systems like Buddhism also aim to discover the truth — Apollodorus

Wrong. Buddhism isn't after the truth in the general sense you're using the word here. For the Buddhist quest, most truths that people tend to be after are irrelevant.

For example, from what I see, there is no evidence that Buddha attained enlightenment.

Guess what? There is no Buddhist who is losing sleep over your not seeing any evidence that Buddha attained enlightenment.

But, more importantly, you don't care whether they do or don't.

I'm not saying that this applies to Buddhism exclusively but, basically, what tends to be the case is that what we’ve got is evidence-free assertions that are being defended by means of other, similarly evidence-free claims.

Upon which you pile on more evidence-free claims. But wait, that pile is evidence!

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?
— baker

To be fair this applies to many (if not all) areas of human behaviour not just religion. The same thing happens in most organised value systems - especially politics - where people regularly betray their ostensible principles. There's a reason there's a word for hypocrisy...

The kinder explanation for this would be that those folk are stuck in dualistic thinking and divide the world into winners and losers, with scorn and hatred constantly on the boil. In other words, their spirituality is shallow and ritualistic and they are unable to partake in the good or the true. — Tom Storm

The simpler explanation is that religion/spirituality is exactly as it appears, exactly as it is practiced by religious/spiritual people.
Thus:

It _is_ religious/spiritual to be eager to assume and take for granted the worst about others.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to act in bad faith.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to make empty promises.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to quickly resort to ill will.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to promote one thing and do another.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to have double standards.

And this is not to be repudiated. Religion/spirituality is the triumph of Social Darwinism, an evolutionary success.

The difference of opinions shows only that there is a difference of opinions. Nothing more. — baker

So lay it out for us, Baker: how is the correct opinion ( the one that you seem to be claiming would reflect the fact of the matter) be identified?

Harry: Hey, I got laid last night. Susan is really good in the sack!
Dick: Really? I want to hit that too!
(a week later)
Dick (to Harry): You liar! You told me Susan was great in the sack! I did her last night, but it sucked. Man, you made a fool out of me!


Question: Is Susan to blame for Dick's bad experience of the sexual relation between them? — baker

This is completely irrelevant. The question we are looking at is whether those who claim they are spiritual masters could be identified as either deluded or liars on the one hand, or the real deal on the other. The question about the contribution that must be made by the student is not at issue.

If you want to discuss this, then stop coming up with poorly conceived analogies and address the actual question. Support your apparent claim that there is a determinable fact of the matter as to whether someone is enlightened or not

You have a complex about religion. It's really out-of-scope for discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Buddhism isn't after the truth in the general sense you're using the word here. — baker

The sense is "ultimate reality", whatever that may turn out to be. But thanks for clarifying that Buddhism (or at least your version of it) isn't after truth.

There is no Buddhist who is losing sleep over your not seeing any evidence that Buddha attained enlightenment. — baker

Well, if Buddhism isn't after truth, of course Buddhists won't lose sleep over lack of evidence for their beliefs. They say that ignorance is bliss, but in your case it looks like ignorance is the shortcut to "Nirvana".

Upon which you pile on more evidence-free claims. — baker

I don't know about that, but your own "evidence" seems to consist in having a very short fuse. Another sure sign of indoctrination and self-radicalization IMO.

Maybe "religion" is not your only complex, after all .... :smile:

You're just providing further evidence for my points.

Perhaps some day you'll get tired of being a dick. Or not.

You're just providing further evidence for my points. — baker

Wrong. You're just providing more evidence for our points. Maybe it's time to re-examine your assumptions and revise your whole approach to the issues discussed?

Great, no argument, so substitute insult.

The Enlightenment is a historic period, granted it is not enlightenment itself, but it gained its name from its opposite, dark ages. So, enlightenment is to be free of religious dogma, superstition and the supernatural. Any individual that has shrugged off this baggage can be said to be enlightened. Enlightenment is the freeing of the intellect in general, free from an authority of ignorance. Some people do more with this freedom than others, but even the common man freed from these burdens can be said to be enlightened.

Sure, that's the standard physicalist view of enlightenment - a period of time and an approach to epistemology. I mentioned this in the OP. And, of course, as I wrote, the Enlightenment (big E) is hostile to the idea of enlightenment (little e) - which is the subject of this thread. But I don't think we can consider a person who has shrugged off supernatural beliefs enlightened. I think the idea also needs to incorporate some notion of wisdom or personal sagacity. I have met too many atheists who are stupid, judgmental, foolish, apes. :smile:

Focusing on:

Does the word enlightenment hold any real meaning, or is it just a poetic umbrella term for a fully integrated and intelligent person? — Tom Storm

Haven’t read most of this thread but I’ll join the chorus and opinionate. To start with, I’m a fallibilist, so I can’t speak for some form of definitive evidence of anyone being or having ever been enlightened, this because I can’t think of any definitive proof (or, else, of any type of infallible experience or justification) in respect to there being (or of there not being) such a thing as ultimate reality - “The Real” as some have termed it.

But as far as the significance of the term “enlightened”, it seems reasonable to me that it is fully contingent on whether or not there ontically is such a thing as an ultimate reality. If and only if there is, then it stands to reason that it might be possible for some to have some epiphany whereby this ultimate reality becomes understood. Logically, given that truth in general is a conformity to what is real, this apprehension of ultimate reality would entail a psyche-filtered (likely even psyche-predispositioned and, hence, biased) awareness of Truth with a capital “T”. An awareness which then might govern their awareness of all other truths with a lower case "t". Then, for the roundabout reasons of why we all bicker with each other about what the nature of reality is on this website, it stands to reason that at least some such persons would then want to convey this understanding of the nature of reality to others. But such a person would likely be contextualized by differing cultures, languages, semantics, preestablished beliefs and norms, and so forth - this in conjunction to holding their own individual types of intelligences, perspectives, personal desires, and common knowledge: so their conveyance of this same, unitary ultimate reality would differ ... in part, so as to make it as understandable as possible by the language, norms, preestablished beliefs, etc. of the society they find themselves in.

Iff there is an ultimate reality, then I see no reason not to take a cross-cultural perennial-philosophy approach to enlightenment. As Plotinus says:

"There are," says Plotinus, "different roads by which this end [apprehension of the Infinite] may be reached. The love of beauty, which exalts the poet; that devotion to the One and that ascent of science which makes the ambition of the philosopher; and that love and those prayers by which some devout and ardent soul tends in its moral purity towards perfection. [...] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real#In_philosophy

Yes, Socrates and Plato might have both been as enlightened as was the Buddha, or as was JC - each in different contexts; why not Kant, or even Hume?; why not so many others? This whole “deification” motif of being enlightened, to me at least, might be an utterly wrongminded approach to it. Iff there is an ultimate reality, that is.

Iff there is not an ultimate reality, then all such accounts - and not just those given by wannabes and charlatans looking for access to extra capital - are, at best, mistaken.

I used to be struck by this quote from Carl Jung. I am not a Jungian but he takes the idea into a different place. Illumination through darkness. Perhaps I hear Nietzsche calling.

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular.”
― C.G. Jung — Tom Storm

To me at least, aesthetically reminiscent of William Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence”. Who also gives some inklings of having been enlightened. Maybe.

A thoughtful response. It seems to me that while we can adapt the word enlightenment for a range of potential meanings, it does seem to sit more rightly with notions of ultimate reality and transcendence.

You mention Kant and and Hume. I see no reason why a philosopher couldn't be enlightened. The Buddha and Jesus were philosophers first before becoming the source material for movements in their name.

I recently saw a 2007 interview with Dr Hubert Dreyfus, the great Heidegger scholar. He considers H to be possibly the greatest philosopher 'of all time'. Enlightened? Well if Kant is then... Yet there is the Nazi Party membership issue and Heidegger's belief in Hitler. What do we do when one of the smartest philosophers of all time (debatable, sure) buys into possibly the most evil 20th century movement? Dreyfus says he can't find the words to explain it.

Well, for a layperson like me, it tells me not to confuse genius with sagacity or decency. A lesson we need to re-learn periodically. So I keep coming back to virtue as being a key element of enlightenment - if we are going to accept this loosely understood doctrine as a phenomenon we might encounter in the world.

Well, for a layperson like me, it tells me not to confuse genius with sagacity or decency. A lesson we need to re-learn periodically. So I keep coming back to virtue as being a key element of enlightenment - if we are going to accept this loosely understood doctrine as a phenomenon we might encounter in the world. — Tom Storm

Aptly pointed out and well put.

The human condition is such that individuals are subject to various forms of poverty through the context of their environment. This is assuming the individual is constitutionally healthy at birth. These situations are burdens of ignorance as well as superstition, religion, and the supernatural. If the constitution is a healthy virgerous one then the context becomes all-important. Where one is free of the aforementioned it is at least free of the toxicity of environmental sacred ignorance.

The United States is presently an example of a regression back to the darkages, in the sense of its anti-intellectualism and anti-science, creating the environmental context that preceded the enlightenment. This again is an example of the fact that one cannot separate subject and object. We process the environment to create our apparent reality, thus, with a regression like this, the environment of the United States is an ever growing stiffling of an enlightened environment, which means a stiffling of the enlightenment of the population. Ignorace under said conditions is a generalized poverty. Different forms of poverty create ignorance.

This whole “deification” motif of being enlightened, to me at least, might be an utterly wrongminded approach to it. — javra

This is how I see it, too.

As stated before, religion may assist the Philosopher (i.e., the seeker after truth) in disengaging from mundane activities and experiences and focus his or her conscious attention on higher modes of experience. Religion also has an ethical import. But religion or at least the lower forms of it must ultimately be transcended, especially if the ultimate goal is a state in which human consciousness and "ultimate reality" are in a state of unity with one another.

Plato (and Platonism in general) aims to do precisely this by offering a metaphysical framework that starts with the deities and ethical code of conventional Greek (Athenian) religion and progresses upward to cosmic gods, to the universe as a divine, ensouled being, to the creative intelligence that generates the universe, and culminates in the "Ineffable One" which is the source of all intelligence, knowledge and truth.

We also need to bear in mind that the word "divine" in this context need not have the usual religious connotations. It may simply refer to a state of "perfection", "eternity", etc. In fact, this is how it is often used by Plato and others.

We also need to bear in mind that the word "divine" in this context need not have the usual religious connotations. — Apollodorus

With the intention of complementing your statements, divinity appears to be intimately related to that which is sacred in nearly all, if not all, situations.

Western culture tends to have many religious branches which want to divide that which is sacred from that which is profane. Compare A) the first Council of Nicaea’s beliefs of the Christ as the incarnation of the Creator Deity as trinity (here, utterly other in relation to mankind, which is deemed profane) which will redeem some of humankind by granting them a place in heaven, this as subjects of the supreme being of the Christ; with B) the beliefs of the Ophites, an ancient Gnostic sect (else grouping of such) predating the first Council of Nicaea (which found this and like sects heretical): the sect identified the Christ with the serpent (if not valuing the serpent more than the Christ); in essence, then, identifying the Christ with a being seeking to enlighten all humankind to the divine knowledge of right and wrong (thereby intending to make all humans endowed with this divine wisdom, i.e. to make everyone equally enlightened; and, hence, more or less equally divine). Within such prevalent Western contexts, then, to be enlightened would seem to necessarily imply being a transcendently sacred psyche - i.e., a supernatural deity; e.g. Jesus Christ as God - which, then, stands in an unbridgeable relation to the common man (which are here taken as profane subjugates or, at the very least, followers).

It’s in this roundabout sense of deification that I made the statement that viewing enlightened persons as deified might be utterly wrongminded.

Yet, by comparison, Eastern culture tends to have many religious, spiritual, and/or philosophical branches which want to integrate that which is sacred with that which is profane while yet acknowledging a distinction: framed in a western point of view, the world as at least resembling a pantheistic, or panentheistic, system wherein nature itself is divine and, in this sense, an integral aspect of divinity.

To this effect, some easterners will traditionally bow to themselves in acknowledging each other’s literally divine, or sacred, aspects of being. As a different example, the Dalai Lama is held to be the incarnation of the Buddha of universal compassion, and, hence, as a divinity; and yet no one views him as a transcendently sacred psyche, as a supernatural god, but simply as one who is inherently enlightened of ultimate reality. One intending to enlighten ideally all of mankind. (The current Dalai Lama, at least, has published quite a bit. Last book I read by him was “The Middle Way: Faith Grounded in Reason” … mentioned because I really like the subtitle.)

These common enough Eastern perspectives hold much more in common with the view you’ve presented of Platonism which, for the sake of brevity at the cost of some inaccuracy, I’ll abridge into the belief in logos (in the sense of an anima mundi). Here, tmk, there can usually be inferred closer and further proximities that sentient beings can hold in relation to the “Ineffable One”—thereby allowing for a cline of beings’ sacredness, this in contrast to some transcendent sharp divide in the nature of psyches—yet, despite the polarities of this cline, here also all the cosmos is deemed to be in at least some sense divine, sacred.

This, again, is not the sense of deification that I intended. But for a westerner, the two senses of divinity do tend to become convoluted most of the time, at least in my experiences.

Interestingly for me, whereas easterners tend to view the enlightenment of all humankind as a good to be hoped for, we westerners have typically been enculturated into viewing it a sin, if not pure evil, this via our mainstream tellings of the acquisition of knowledge of right and wrong so being.

Enlighenment in the sense of 'awakening' relies on qualities of mind other than the objective:

The "perennial philosophy" is...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise of old have found a wisdom which is true, even though it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

Whereas, in secular culture, there are no criteria for such a distinction. Hence all the argument about 'how to judge the Enlightened' (which is a fair question from the secular POV.)

The Buddha and Jesus were philosophers first before becoming the source material for movements in their name. — Tom Storm

Discovered Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza: Reason, Religion, and Autonomy by Carlos Fraenkel last year. Probably not going to add it to the never-ending list (especially as it retails for $160.00!) but it's worth noting the argument that 'Many pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers from Antiquity to the Enlightenment made no meaningful distinction between philosophy and religion,' whereas on this forum, and in today's culture, it's almost universally assumed that they're at loggerheads.

whereas easterners tend to view the enlightenment of all humankind as a good to be hoped for, we westerners have typically been enculturated into viewing it a sin, if not pure evil, this via our mainstream tellings of the acquisition of knowledge of right and wrong so being. — javra

In the West, the 'original sin' was triggered by 'eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', in which the snake appears as symbol of the fall. Edward Conze points out that in Eastern culture, snakes are regarded as symbols of the divine - the name of the Buddhist sage Nāgārjuna literally translates as 'king of snakes', and his iconographical depiction is like this:



At a very high level of generalisation, the 'Western' view of the human condition is that we're 'ensnared in sin' as a result of the Fall. The 'Eastern' view is that we're ensnared in ignorance, avidya, as a consequence of beginningless karma. So the 'Western view' is volitional, a corruption of the Will, whereas the Eastern view is cognitive, corruption of the intellect (in the sense of the organ of knowledge).

However in my view, these are not quite as far apart as many would expect. I've had some exposure to Pure Land Buddhism, which also views human nature as intrinsically corrupted - that all of us are bombu, 'foolish mortal beings' - who can no way save ourselves by engaging in meditation. Those practices are respected but regarded as 'the hard path' which is only open to the real sages (such as Nāgārjuna) but which are unnattainable by foolish mortal beings. Pure Land has been compared to Calvinism, which is true in that one respect, but doxologically (in terms of belief) they're literally worlds apart.

it's worth noting the argument that 'Many pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers from Antiquity to the Enlightenment made no meaningful distinction between philosophy and religion,' whereas on this forum, and in today's culture, it's almost universally assumed that they're at loggerheads. — Wayfarer

Of course, I took this as read. I was applying the term very loosely and from our perspective. I guess it might have been more accurate to say these figures were not working towards founding a new religion.

At a very high level of generalisation, the 'Western' view of the human condition is that we're 'ensnared in sin' as a result of the Fall. The 'Eastern' view is that we're ensnared in ignorance, avidya, as a consequence of beginningless karma. So the 'Western view' is volitional, a corruption of the Will, whereas the Eastern view is cognitive, corruption of the intellect (in the sense of the organ of knowledge).

However in my view, these are not quite as far apart as many would expect. — Wayfarer

Can you clarify your views as to how this speaks to the Western vilification of enlightenment when enlightenment is understood to minimally entail knowledge of right and wrong? Else the whole issue of virtue not being integral to enlightenment.

As to the divinity of the serpent of the garden of Eden, its been often enough identified with Lucifer, the "lucid one" and, in accordance to genesis, the serpent was not a physical serpent for it did not slither on the Earth prior to being condemned to so do by "the Lord". If it didn't slither the earth when conveying info to Eve my initial reaction is to interpret it as spiritual, flying within the heavens. In relation to function, I in many ways liken the myth of the serpent to the myth of Prometheus (who was punished by Zeus for the crime of bringing divine fire, wisdom(?), to mankind). At any rate, the divinity of the serpent has a long heritage in Eastern and Western cultures alike. I'm thinking of Greek mythology, for instance, and if not then earlier western religious beliefs.

However in my view, these are not quite as far apart as many would expect. I've had some exposure to Pure Land Buddhism, which also views human nature as intrinsically corrupted - that all of us are bombu, 'foolish mortal beings' - who can no way save ourselves by engaging in meditation. — Wayfarer

Well, I certainly qualify as a bombu most likely. :smile: But, again, how does this relate to the cultural evaluation of the ideal of everyone obtaining enlightenment?

Well, I certainly qualify as a bombu most likely. — javra

The fact that I am is about the only thing of which I'm indubitably certain.

Can you clarify your views as to how this speaks to the Western vilification of enlightenment when enlightenment is understood to minimally entail knowledge of right and wrong? — javra

There are several dimensions to this.

The point about the implications of knowledge in the sense of 'enlightenment', is that the Eastern conception of avidya (translated in some texts as 'nescience') carries the implication that real knowledge is itself salvific. I think you find that in Platonism and ancient philosophy generally - true knowledge (or wisdom) comprises the 'unitive vision', of how everything hangs together. (You even find echoes of that in, for example, Albert Einstein's cosmic religious views.)

In the Indian context it is taken for granted that liberation (vidya) comes from discerning 'how things actually are', seeing the true nature of things. That is actually the meaning of 'vidya'. That 'seeing things how they are' has soteriological benefits would have been expected, and is just another way of articulating the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ dimension of Dharma. - the ‘ought’ (pragmatic benefit) is never cut adrift from the ‘is’ (cognitive factual truth).

The ‘is/ought’ distinction is a modern one, first articulated by Hume, but is now very much a part of modern life. It is generally taken for granted that science assumes a Universe which is inherently devoid of value; that values and meaning are internal to human minds and are ultimately derived from, and reducible to, the requirements of successful adaptation. They're the products of an evolved homonid brain.

So 'Enlightenment' philosophy is naturally suspicious of Eastern views, because they sound religious or at any rate a long way from naturalism and empiricism. (Although through the inevitable syncretism of today's global culture, you now find them mixed-and-matched in for example New Age movements such as 'evolutionary enlightenment'.)

And on the other hand, many strands of Christian thought are hostile to Eastern views because they seem pantheistic. After all Hindus worship millions of Gods, and the Buddhists don't seem to worship a God at all (leaving aside the sense in which the Buddha is depicted in some Buddhists cultures as a kind of deity.)

But there's a lot of complexity in this topic. Christian Platonism has many philosophical resonances with the philosophical views of both Advaita and Mahāyāna Buddhism. I think this is because they all have roots in the 'axial age' philosophies and are products of a similar stage of cultural development. That's why, I think, in today's world, Catholicism is much more open to a kind of multi-faith attitude than Protestantism, on the whole - it still carries much more of the Greek philosophical heritage, so is nearer to Christian Platonism. But many Protestants are suspicious of Christian Platonism and some reject it as outright paganism. ('What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?') Protestantism is first and foremost a religion of faith in the One True God, so it's naturally suspicious of anything that sounds like acceptance of other religions. (I recall perusing a book by a Protestant polemicist, 'Against the Modern Gnostics', which depicted the interest in 'enlightenment' as the resurgence of gnosticism - not innaccurately, in my view.)

There are very many complexities in all of these arguments and no one single perspective. That's what makes it interesting!

The point about the implications of knowledge in the sense of 'enlightenment', is that the Eastern conception of avidya (translated in some texts as 'nescience') carries the implication that real knowledge is itself salvific. — Wayfarer

Brings to mind the only means I've so far found of making any type of reasonable sense of JC's statement that "truth shall set you free": but I think this requires one to hold a more Ophite-like interpretation of things. Where truth is interpreted with a capital "T".

Eh, I don't know.

Thanks though for the input.