I've long had an interesting book A Different Christianity, by Martin Amis, which was composed over many years of visits to Mt Athos. — Wayfarer

Mt Athos is definitely a very interesting place.

The way I see it, Christianity is inextricably linked with the Roman Empire - which was really a Greco-Roman entity – and, in particular, with the Hellenistic areas of the eastern parts.

Not only was Greek the original common language of Christianity, but the very backbone of Christian spirituality was located in the Greek-speaking churches, monasteries, and hermitages of Greek-controlled Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia.

When Islam conquered these territories, the Christian spiritual centers there continued to operate for some time but eventually disappeared, with only a handful of them surviving due to their remote location, such as St Catherine’s, St Antony’s, and St Paul’s monasteries in the Egyptian desert.

It was at this time that Mt Athos in Greece began to grow into a spiritual center on Greek soil and it has remained a focus for the contemplative traditions of the Orthodox Church to this day.

Incidentally, some of the monasteries on Mt Athos, e.g., Simonopetra, are quite similar, even in architecture, to the Buddhist monasteries of Tibet.

What is also interesting is that when the leaders of the monastic orders of Mt Athos published The Philokalia in the 1700’s, they didn’t neglect to also translate and publish some of the writings of leading figures from the Catholic tradition, like Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and Scupoli’s Spiritual Warfare. Clearly, there was an awareness at Mt Athos of a continuation of spiritual practices present in other parts of the Christian world.

The Philokalia itself was translated from Greek into Slavonic and a Russian version based on the spiritual exercises of the tradition appeared in a 1930 English translation entitled The Way of a Pilgrim. Apparently, it was at this point that Western Europe “discovered” the contemplative practices of Orthodox Christianity as a living tradition.

In any case, it is indisputable that the concept of spiritual light and illumination is central to Christian spirituality.

In addition to references to light in the Gospels where Jesus himself says he is “the Light of the World”, the earliest extant Christian hymn is Phos Hilaron (Gladdening Light) and the very practice of the hesychast tradition is said to lead to an experience of God’s “uncreated light”. In fact, a whole light-based or "illuminist" philosophy could be constructed on the basis of the available ascetic and mystical texts of the tradition.

If I were to characterize Christian spirituality in two words, it would be silence and light. It begins with the hermits of the desert, among whom John the Baptist is an early example. The word “hermit” from Greek eremites, “desert dweller” refers to the solitude (eremia) and silence (hesychia) of the desert or wilderness which stands for the state of inner stillness in which the light of knowledge and truth can dawn on the seeking soul or nous.

In any case, it is indisputable that the concept of spiritual light and illumination is central to Christian spirituality. — Apollodorus

My wife's family are devout members of a small Christian sect. At funerals (there have been a few, we've been married a long time) they often sing a hymn called Guide Me o thou Great Redeemer, from which I notice this verse:

"Open thou the crystal fountain
Whence the healing stream shall flow;
Let the fiery, cloudy pillar
Lead me all my journey through."

I'm sure that's an esoteric symbol of illumination.

Maybe this is a digression, but how do you view Protestant fundamentalist Christianity? Academic David Bentley Hart (who identifies as Eastern Orthodox) argues they are not Christian so much as new cults of reward and punishment.

But they’re tied to (some would say hostage to) a specific historical narrative and set of beliefs, many of which seem completely anachronistic to post-industrial culture. — Wayfarer

The historical narrative of Gotama's enlightenment is really no less apparently anachronistic, I would say.

They’re not dependent on the narrative in the same way, they comprise insight into a causal process. But of course you’re primed not to see that through your positivist spectacles.

:up: Those evangelical mega-churches with their spangled 'pastors' are bogus, in my view.

As a side note, doing comparative religion I read some of Wilfred Cantwell-Smith, who’s view is that there is no such thing as religion, simpliciter - that religion as a category is very much a social construct of modernity. Many cultures have no word which corresponds to ‘religion’, and the distinctions that we nowadays assume between religion, science and philosophy were likewise absent even in Western culture until around the mid 18th century. Whereas now it would be easy to believe that these distinctions are written into the very fabric of the cosmos. (I had a brief look around for a summary of Cantwell Smith’s ideas but I think the Wikipedia entry is a good starting point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Cantwell_Smith)

That is interesting. The term religion probably makes more sense in cultures with significant pluralism, where an umbrella term for the various traditions is helpful. As you suggest the term religion is gravid with meaning in the West, where you often hear, 'I'm spiritual but not religious'.

They’re not dependent on the narrative in the same way, they comprise insight into a causal process. But of course you’re primed not to see that through your positivist spectacles. — Wayfarer

Of course Buddhist orthodoxy is dependent on the narrative of Gotama's perfect enlightenment, just as orthodox Christianity is dependent on the narrative of Christ's resurrection. But of course you're primed not to see that through your New Age spectacles.

As you suggest the term religion is gravid with meaning in the West, where you often hear, 'I'm spiritual but not religious'. — Tom Storm

I think it's the attempt to separate spirituality, in the sense of personal transformation, from belief systems which are not based on evidence. The interesting question is as to whether people can contemplate the parables of religion as such; not seen as as literal truths, but as poetic invocations to transformation of being.

But of course you're primed not to see that through your New Age spectacles. — Janus

I think he's a much better thinker that that, Janus. I'm an atheist and sometimes don't agree with Wayfarer either, but for my money he's well read, acute and serious about the subjects he studies.

To be enlightened isn't glorious at all. At best it's a twinkle in the eye for life, with no guarantee of respect.

When you've seen things, and you know, that's all you've got. There's no reason at all you should also be eloquent or 100% understanding.

I think he's a much better thinker that that, Janus. I'm an atheist and sometimes don't agree with Wayfarer either, but for my money he's well read, acute and serious about the subjects he studies. — Tom Storm

I think Wayfarer is well read in comparative religious studies, but not so much in philosophy. He shows this in misunderstanding my perspectives as positivist. I think this is understandable as it is a "bogeyman' for him, against which he constantly rails. Unfortunately it seems to be mostly a straw bogeyman, which feeds into his blindspots regarding positivism and materialism.

I see his thinking as based on the "perrennialist" tradition, which is really the basis of Theosophy and the New Age movement in general. I'm not saying there is nothing in all that either, since I have read extensively in theosophy, anthroposophy, Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Osho, and so on; all of which has fed into modern "new-agism". There are more or less sophisticated thinkers within the New Age paradigms just as there are within religion and philosophy in general.

So, it's not really a matter of agreement or disagreement, or being well-read or not, but of subtle points of (mis)understanding.

Personally I benefit from informed, well reasoned views that are different to my own. I count on other people to make me aware of things I devalue or overlook.

Fair enough. For me most everything Wayfarer says is representative of views which I once held myself, so there is nothing much there for me to learn from. I am confident that those views do not hold water.

:smile: I broke with theosophy and that world so long ago I can no longer even spell Madam Blatavsky... Blavatsky.

:lol: Yeah me too, but up until about several years ago I still believed in the possible intellectual intuition of metaphysical truths. Or more accurately, I had been conflicted over that issue for about 45 years, a conflict which has directed my reading interest to try to understand the alternative sides of the argument.

I also want to stress that I am not closed-minded to the idea of being convinced by intellectual intuitions of metaphysical ideas for the individual, but I have never seen any convincing argument that such intuitions could ever form the basis of any open and unbiased inter-subjective discourse.

I'm sure that's an esoteric symbol of illumination. — Wayfarer

Christian writings do use fire, sun, moon, etc., as a symbol of purification, illumination, perfection, or simply spiritual guidance, depending on the context.

Your wife's hymn seems to have originated in the 1904–1905 Welsh revival movement. She mustn't be particularly interested in the Pali suttas then .... :smile:

Academic David Bentley Hart (who identifies as Eastern Orthodox) argues they are not Christian so much as new cults of reward and punishment. — Tom Storm

He is probably right. Like politicians, some may genuinely believe what they are preaching, but many are obviously fake. There is a lot of counterfeit stuff out there from fake watches to fake news, cosmetic surgery, and artificial intelligence.

Which tends to make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between appearance and reality until one day all distinctions are blurred. But some, apparently, call it "progress" ....

But some, apparently, call it "progress" .. — Apollodorus

I call it "diversity".

Academic David Bentley Hart (who identifies as Eastern Orthodox) argues they are not Christian so much as new cults of reward and punishment. — Tom Storm

Disputes over who is and is not a Christian are as old as Christianity itself. We can go back even further to the faction between Paul and Jesus' disciples.

The early followers of Jesus were diverse, and guided by inspiration - in indwelling of spirit. The Church Fathers tried to put an end to that in their attempt to establish a unified catholic church with a single agreed upon, official message.

Hart's own identification as Eastern Orthodox is indicative of the disputes over who the true Christians are.

I'm the only (nominal) Buddhist in my family and social circle. My in-laws stopped discussing such things with me when we first got married, one making a remark that he thought Buddhists might be fated to re-born as worms. :worry: They belong to a very small sect which started in the Australian goldfields in the 1850's, and now my wife's family comprise practically the whole membership. When I first married I felt rather out of place - the men all wear very old-fashioned suits and sport long beards - but they've always been welcoming and I've gotten to love them all as family. They're devout vegetarians and tee-totalers, when I used to go to their holiday house at Christmas I used to refer to it as the 'meatless beerless bbq'. (Although more than a few of the younger generation have been on the 10-day vipassana retreats.)

Well, to be quite honest, I've always thought of Australia as a place where you have this perpetual sunburn, endless bbq's on the beach (not sure if it's supposed to be crocodile or kangaroo), and everyone sleeps with everyone else's wife.

So it's good to hear that there are some normal people, too. But so long as you're having fun, it can't be too bad. And, fingers crossed, perhaps you won't need to come back as a worm, after all .... :smile:

Hey I don't know about the 'everyone sleeps with....' - I've never come close and nobody else I know does that. (I've only ever eaten kangaroo once, roo tail soup, on a Qantas flight to London, and a crocodile steak at the tropical resort town of Port Douglas :ok: )

But overall, Australia's a great place to live, wouldn't live anywhere else.

There was a celebrated conversion about ten years ago, of an academic by the name of Williams, who had written what were considered to be some of the best textbooks on Mahāyāna Buddhism. Anyway, he suddenly announced that he was renouncing Buddhism for Catholicism, which was documented triumphantly in a Catholic blog site. And he said he had a terror of being re-born as a cockroach! I mean, I'm very unclear about the ramifications of re-birth but I couldn't help think this a wildly misplaced fear.

For the Buddhists I know and socialise with (whom I haven't seen much of since COVID struck), rebirth is not something that is ever really discussed, it's kind of a background issue, although I have got the Kindle edition of this book.

Sure. I can see nothing wrong with a nice kangaroo burger or crocodile steak washed down with a cool pint of beer. Providing, of course, it isn't a reincarnated neighbor or relative :wink:

But the way I see it, there seems to be a certain tension between the desire to attain “Nirvana”, i.e., a sort of personal annihilation, on one hand, and the belief that there is some personal continuation and repeated existence, on the other.

The original Buddhists seem to have taken reincarnation pretty seriously. In fact, the doctrine is fundamental to the whole system. So, if you start denying reincarnation, this raises the question of where to draw the line and whether it is still Buddhism or something else.

So, if you start denying reincarnation, this raises the question of where to draw the line and whether it is still Buddhism or something else. — Apollodorus

I've sometimes wondered this too. There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. I remember a very influential Buddhist monk and teacher in my city some years ago who drank a lot of booze. A bottle of whisky in a session was not unusual. He explained his addiction to me in some doctrinal way which I have long forgotten and no one close seemed especially concerned. I guess the point is religions, as man-made artifacts, can bend in whatever direction they wish as long as no special outrage is created amongst core followers. And if there is outrage it may be opportune for a new sect or interpretation. Islam and Christianity have managed this process for centuries.

if you start denying reincarnation, — Apollodorus

I wasn't denying the doctrine of rebirth myself, I said this professor's purported 'fear of being reborn as an insect' was unwarranted. And, technically, rebirth is not reincarnation, there is not an entity that migrates from one life to the next, but a continuing series of cause and effect giving rise to continued existence.

Actually you do encounter a saying in some Chinese Buddhist texts given as admonitions to students that if you believe such and such or have this kind of attitude you will 'find yourself in the womb of a cow', which is a very vivid way of putting it.

I've sometimes wondered this too. There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. — Tom Storm

Well, I think either they are trying to confuse us, or else they aren't sure themselves .... :smile:

But you are right, there are many different denominations within Buddhism and different views within each denomination, including subjective idealist ones like Yogācāra. So, I suppose, one may end up with a situation where you are tempted to pick and mix your own personal religion.

My suspicion is that this might be the reason why Buddhism was so popular with the New Age movement and why there was widespread opposition to organized religion in general, and to Western religion in particular, among its followers.

I wasn't denying the doctrine of rebirth myself, — Wayfarer

I didn't mean you, personally. But from what you were saying, I got the impression that reincarnation or rebirth does not always seem to be taken literally, or even seriously, among Western Buddhists.

I understand that, at least according to some interpretations, what is reborn is not a personal entity. But the way Buddha's lives are described in some traditional accounts like the Jataka stories, it sounds very much like that.

I got the impression that reincarnation or rebirth does not always seem to be taken literally, or even seriously, among Western Buddhists. — Apollodorus

It's something of a watershed for Western Buddhists. Belief in rebirth is a taboo on two grounds in Western culture. Firstly belief in metempsychosis, as it was called then, was anathematized by one of the early Church councils, and declared a heresy, although it's always persisted underground, for example amongst gnostic sects (and amongst the Druze.) Secondly because it can't be accounted for in terms of current science, as it suggests some means by which causal connections act between apparently separate existences. It is often the cause of acrimonious debates on Buddhist fora. I had a look at the Secular Buddhist forum and there are many sophisticated critiques of it, although I don't see how Buddhism really stacks up without it. (See Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi.)

I understand that, at least according to some interpretations, what is reborn is not a personal entity. But the way Buddha's lives are described in some traditional accounts like the Jataka stories, it sounds very much like that. — Apollodorus

The cause of rebirth is the same drive that causes any birth - in the Pali suttas, it is invariably presented in terms of the twelve-fold causation. There is no self who is reborn, as there is no self apart from the aggregates of being. So the idea that 'I will be reborn' or 'this same consciousness will be reborn' is strongly rejected (see Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhayasutta.)

Philosophically, I think the gist is that concern with self - what will become of me? Where have I come from? Where am I going?, etc - are basically rejected as examples of self-concern (or egotism in plain language). The emphasis is always on seeing through the 'me and mine'-building activities of the self. That is what liberation consists of.

In any case, if you have even casual familiarity with Tibetan Buddhism, the idea of the reincarnate lama is central to it. Buddhists will say, again, there is no unchanging self that appears from one life to the next, that it's more like a process that unfolds over lifetimes, but I myself feel some scepticism about that dogmatic rationale. As I've elsewhere said, I find the issues of agency and responsibility very difficult to square with any simplistic interpretation of the no-self doctrine. There is the well-known 'analogy of the chariot' in which the monk Nagasena argues that, just as a chariot does not exist apart from its various components, so too there is no 'real Nagasena' over and above the aggregates of the body and personality. As I pointed out in respect of that verse, however, there is the idea of a chariot, which can be created over and over again, but without which, there can be no chariot, and that chariots, in the context of ancient cultures, were culturally highly significant. I think maybe this is my own culturally-engrained Platonism begin to assert itself. Currently I have no resolution to that dilemma.

(I'll also add that doing research for my Buddhist Studies degree, I found the Pudgalavada school, a now-extinct group of schools within Buddhism which was essentially a form of Buddhist personalism. There's quite a good encyclopedia entry on them here https://iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/ . I will also add, I think a pop interpretation of no-self easily morphs into nihilism. I'm sure I've observed that in some of the online dialogues I've had with Western Buddhists, although it's an impossible point to prove, just a feeling I have.)

For those of us who grew up around the time Japan began dominating US children's entertainment, I think enlightenment is best pictured as a combination of playing this Yu-Gi-Oh card, and understanding the ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion. It's going Super Saiyan, but for your mind.

I had a look at the Secular Buddhist forum and there are many sophisticated critiques of it, although I don't see how Buddhism really stacks up without it. — Wayfarer

This is what I was referring to. If you take the case of Tibetan Buddhism and other traditional examples (the Jataka stories, etc.) then rebirth, irrespective of who or what is reborn, seems to be absolutely central to Buddhist teachings.

This much seems to be certain especially in view of the fact that it is consistent with the prevalent Indic religion (Hinduism, Jainism, etc.) of which Buddhism, after all, was a mere offshoot.

So the problem really arises from the divergent interpretations of "rebirth" and "self".

As I was pointing out earlier (page 11), the Dhammapada 277-279 says:

All conditioned phenomena (sankharas) are impermanent";
All conditioned phenomena are dukkha (painful);
All conditioned phenomena are not-Self (anatta)

This is sometimes interpreted to mean that everything (sarvam or sabbe) is not-self, and therefore, "there is no self". But, clearly, the reference is to conditioned phenomena as being "not-self" or perhaps "without self", i.e. without substance or real existence.

However, if Nirvana exists and is a permanent reality, then it may be argued that the state of Nirvana is "with self", i.e. with substance or existence and, by extension, one's real self. If Nirvana is an eternal reality, then it already exists here and now as the background of individual or personal existence and, therefore, it is our "real self".

Obviously, not a personal self, but nonetheless a "self" in the sense of "having existence or reality", somewhat akin to the Platonic "Good or One itself".

The terminology seems to be pretty close as regards Indic atman/atta and Greek autos, and so is the concept of the "impermanence of phenomena" that is fundamental to both traditions.

I think the main confusion arises from the vast range of interpretation and, in particular, from the divergence of popular vs. philosophical or "educated" views.