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 ....

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 ....

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

Good to see that you agree! :smile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, a lot of Indian texts are quite late.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rigveda - Wikipedia

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

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

Stray remarks on Theosophy – Vivekananda Complete Works

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

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

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

In the Preface to The Golden Rules Olcott writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't buy this argument of Russia "moving in" to Africa. Syria is one and in Africa it's basically Algeria and some parts, but there isn't a large presence of Russian forces in Africa. The one country that has a large footprint in Africa is France as it basically never left it colonies, actually. With the exception of Algeria, of course. — ssu

I think you are missing the point. The French are definitely upset that Russian mercenaries are operating in Mali and other parts of Africa and they are using this as an excuse to gang up on Russia together with Canada and other European countries.

France among 16 nations to hit out at deployment of Russian mercenaries in Mali – RFI

What France is forgetting to say is that the Russians only moved in after the French withdrew 5000 troops when their pointless “Operation Barkhane” proved to be a complete failure.

Macron is also upset because Russia is sponsoring the French opposition who has claimed that his wife is a man called Jean-Michel Trogneux:

Viral, French First Lady Brigitte Macron Rumored to be Born a Male – World Today

Marrying his teacher who is 24 years older than him does seem a bit odd and may help explain some of Macron’s strange personality traits. And personality, as is well-known, does influence political decisions.

And don’t forget that America has an interest in creating discord between Europe and Russia so it can sell oil and gas to Europe instead of Europe buying from next-door Russia.

U.S. LNG Cargoes Flock To Europe Amid Record-High Gas Prices

So, who has to gain from this? US oil and gas corporations. And the military industrial complex, as usual. The same people who founded NATO, as I've already explained!

In any case, if the EU-US pressure on Russia continues, Russia will have no other choice than ally itself with China. They are already cooperating on space and military technology. If they come to some mutual defense agreement, this will vastly increase China’s position in the world to the detriment of the West.

China-Russia Space Military – USAGM

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

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

This may explain statements like this:

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

Pretty much says it all.

What a brainfart. — baker

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

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

Yep. You sound pretty deeply troubled too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this is just my opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Christians celebrate every Easter.

The NT says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress for Cultural Freedom – Spartacus Educational

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

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

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

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

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

Congress for Cultural Freedom - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

New Age Gurus: Dispensers of Nonsense – Psychology Today

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

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

On the Fabians see:

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

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

This can be deceptive, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was the point his critics were making.

Manu continued writing books and delivering talks on Gandhi.

Abha carried on her life with her husband.

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

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

All that said, I believe there is a higher consciousness - that there is a vertical scale as per this well-known diagram: — Wayfarer

The diagram is probably not far from the truth. As I said, there is some truth even in New Age .... :smile:

That’s why we need to make use of our power of discrimination (diakrisis) to separate the grain from the chaff (Plat.Soph.226b-c).

Such is discrimination, which is not only the "light of the body," but also called the sun by the Apostle ... It is also called the guidance of our life: as it said "Those who have no guidance, fall like leaves."(Cassian.Conf.2.4)

I think the ecclesiastical religions, as I said already, had failed in crucial ways — Wayfarer

The greatest problem seems to have been materialism. Economic, political and cultural movements that made the promotion of materialism part of their program must have played a role.

The development of Advaita Vedanta was strongly influenced by Buddhism — Wayfarer

Different traditions tend to influence one another, especially when they belong to the same geographical and cultural sphere.

I think the Buddha recognised a unique path and way of liberation. — Wayfarer

Buddha is said to have attained liberation through meditation. And he apparently learned meditation from his teachers like Ālāra Kālāma.

Whatever it was that Buddha attained - which is difficult to establish with 100% certitude - there were preexisting teachings and practices that seem to have contributed to his attainment.

I agree that Blavatsky might have been a charlatan, but I don't know if that is all she was. The Adyar Bookshop was an indispensable resource in my younger days (before the Internet) and I always had a soft spot for Theosophy even knowing they were dotty Victorians. — Wayfarer

The Theosophists were consciously and deliberately concocting a new religion that they claimed to be inspired by "Tibetan Masters" portraits of whom show them as looking anything but Tibetan, with eyes strangely resembling Blavatsky's .... :smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy#/media/File:Koothoomi.jpg

Of course, there was some truth in their teachings as they lifted them from existing traditions. So I'm not denying that.

The problem is, few people like to admit that they've been conned.

But the Theosophists weren't the key actors. That was the Fabians. The Fabian Society founded the British Labour Party as well having close links to the Liberal Party and thus dominating the Left (i.e., the intellectual classes) throughout the British Empire.

In 1951, the Fabians and Labour founded the Socialist International through which they set the agenda for the socialist movement across the globe. The fact that they wielded enormous political and cultural influence internationally - by any standard - should not be underestimated.

As I said, the culture war was against communism, but it was mainly directed at communism in the West (the CIA having no access to the Communist Bloc) and promoting "alternative" cultural trends obviously eroded traditional European culture. The way I see it, it would be difficult to argue that jazz, rock, and the rest of the New Age counterculture, especially the Eastern elements, was "Western".

I think the doctrinal foundation is clear. What the Buddha is being 'tempted' by here is non-existence, oblivion. Knowing he is to die a painful death, Mara ('the Devil') whispers to Him saying, 'come on now, we can this over with very easily'. — Wayfarer

Sure. But that still leaves some questions unanswered.

Anyway, the texts assert that the enlightened person sees that his/her consciousness has ceased, etc.
Who sees that? How do they see it? Who reports what they have seen and how?

This only makes sense if (a) the cessation is of a lower form of consciousness, and if (b) a higher form of consciousness persists after enlightenment.

Apparently, Buddhism originally posited two forms of consciousness, pravṛttivijñāna and manovijñāna:

1. pravṛttivijñāna – five sensory faculties
2. manovijñāna - “common sense” that integrates the activities of the 5 senses

But these were insufficient to explain all acts of cognition, sense of identity, etc. Therefore, the Yogacara School introduced additional forms of consciousness:

3. manasvijñāna - thought, sense of self
4. ālāyavijñāna - store consciousness, subconscious/uncounscious (memory, karmic seeds, etc.)
5. amalavijñāna - pure consciousness, state of awakening or enlightenment

It can be seen that these correspond to the states I mentioned earlier as found, for example, in Advaita Vedanta:

Waking State - pravṛttivijñāna, manovijñāna
Dream State – manasvijñāna
Deep (Dreamless) Sleep - ālāyavijñāna
Fourth State – amalavijñāna, pure individual consciousness

What is missing is the Universal Consciousness that holds all individual consciousnesses within itself in the same way the store consciousness holds memories and karmic seeds within itself in the case of the individual.

If the individual alone existed, the Fourth State would be final. But since there are many individual consciousnesses having common, integrated experiences, there must be a Universal Consciousness.

Therefore, a fifth and final state is posited:

1. Waking State (jāgrat) – sensory perception
2. Dream State (svapna) – thoughts, imagination
3. Deep Sleep (suṣupti) - unconscious
4. Fourth State (turīya) – pure individual consciousness
5. Beyond Fourth (turīyatītā) – Universal Consciousness

This brings Advaita into line with Platonism, with Buddhism lagging behind and some Buddhist schools not coming anywhere near.

Spiritual ignorance consists in lack of awareness of the Fourth and Beyond Fourth States.

In Platonic terms, Deep Sleep or Unconscious is the Dividing Line that separates "life in darkness" (the Cave) from "life in the light" (Sunlit Outside World).

Despite the Dividing Line, the two worlds are not completely separate, though. Some light from the Outside World does penetrate to the Cave and makes knowledge of it a possibility, however difficult to attain.

Correct. I've read about it. It raised many eyebrows even at the time and there could be more to it than is "officially" acknowledged. But he preached that Western civilization is the "Kingdom of Satan" which made him the hero of the anti-Western Left ....

For several decades after his death, this episode was not widely known. Popular accounts of Gandhi’s life, including Richard Attenborough’s biopic, never mentioned it. The facts are that after his wife, Kasturba, died in 1944, Gandhi began the habit of sharing his bed with naked young women: his personal doctor, Sushila Nayar, and his grandnieces Abha and Manu, who were then in their late teens and about 60 years younger than him ...

How would Gandhi’s celibacy tests with naked women be seen today? - The Guardian

Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his "experiments" which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in strip-tease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi's letters remain such as: "Vina's sleeping with me might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me." One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him ...

An odd kind of piety: The truth about Gandhi’s sex life - The Independent

Sharing a bed with naked teens is perhaps not the biggest problem. A bigger question is the exact nature of the "celibacy test", how it was conducted, and what results it yielded.

Also, how many of those "accidents" occurred?

And why was it necessary to keep repeating the "test" or "experiment"?

It seems to me a lot of early Buddhist polemics about non-self are likewise undermined by a simplistic notion of what constitutes agency and identity, although I think this is one of the shortcomings that was later overcome by a more sophisticated understanding of śūnyatā. — Wayfarer

Correct. This is why, as noted by McEvilley, Vasubandhu introduced the concept of alayavijñana ("store-consciousness"). And if you admit a "store-consciousness" for memory, you might as well admit a Universal Consciousness as Advaita Vedanta and Platonism do.

In other words, consciousness cannot be quite as easily dismissed as some Buddhists would like to think.

Do provide some reference for this, because I've never seen anything like that anywhere outside of Buddhism. — baker

No need for reference. It is part of any learning process. You start by not being sure and then comes a point where you feel you got it right ....

Pretending to be obtuse does not suit you. — baker

I don't think I am any more obtuse than yourself.

Why would a Platonist do such a thing? It's subversive, to say the least. — baker

"Subversive" of what? Platonism and Greek Orthodox Christianity have always been very close to one another. Many Church Fathers were Platonists. Platonism is part of Greek culture and is widely accepted by philosophically-minded Christians.

I see no reason to think that they can actually facilitate the end of suffering. On the contrary, they're very good at causing more of it. — baker

That is your personal opinion.

But it looks like you didn't read the list with the twelve items. — baker

Who's being pedantic now? I said "basically". Or "my abbreviation", if you prefer. But you never pay attention.

Does any of them teach that "from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications"; and that "from the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness"? — baker

They do teach the first. Obviously not the second because "cessation of consciousness" is just nonsense.

If we are "pure, unconditioned and free intelligence", then why are we here in an embodied state, suffering, and not being sure who we are? — baker

I am not suffering, and not being unsure. Maybe you are. The rest I have already explained.

Do you mean that enlightenment is inevitable and that everyone is destined for it? — baker

Why not? What makes you think that only you can find enlightenment? If souls keep getting reincarnated, it is perfectly possible for each of them eventually to become enlightened.

Another thing common among religious/spiritual people: to claim that theirs is not a religion, but a philosophy, the Truth, the "how things really are" and so on. — baker

If you can't see the difference between philosophy and religion, there is nothing I can do about it.

Having all these numerous claims as to what one's "true identity" is is like having a thousand different answers to "How much is 2 + 2 ?" — baker

That's why I'm saying that you seem to have an identity issue, as you admittedly have with spirituality.

I know a Hare Krishna brahmacari who utters sentences like
"Krishna Consciousness is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of Ultimate Reality"and he also uses terms like "henosis" and "henology". — baker

So what? I know New Agers who think that everything Western is evil ....

Incidentally, the historical origins of the New Age movement can be tracked back to the Theosophical Society and the Fabian Society.

The Theosophical Society was formed in 1875 in New York by Helena (Madame) Blavatsky, a Russian who claimed that she received “secret messages” from “spiritual masters” living in Tibet, in the form of handwritten letters.

The Theosophists’ agenda was to create a new religion based on elements of Platonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism and pass it off as “the true spirituality of mankind”.

The Fabian Society was formed in 1884 in London by members of the Fellowship of the New Life, a group of liberal intellectuals influenced by socialism and Tolstoy.

The Fabian agenda was to “remould” and “reconstruct” Western society by “modifying” culture, for which purpose they used various movements like Theosophy, Freemasonry, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Annie Besant joined the London Fabian Society in 1885. In 1891 she joined the Theosophists and took over their Indian section. She also became president of the Fabian Society of Madras, India. As a leading Theosophist and Fabian, Besant was involved with India’s Nationalist Movement and its anti-European agenda.

In 1907, the London Fabians set up the Fabian Arts Group with the aim of using arts and philosophy for the advancement of Fabianism and bought the influential left-wing magazine The New Age to promote their agenda.

The magazine was bought with cash provided by G B Shaw, a leading member of the Fabian Society and a radical, whose idea of good statesmanship was “to blow every cathedral in the world to pieces with dynamite”. (Shaw was Irish and dynamite was used by the Irish Nationalists, whose movement the Fabians supported, in attacks on the British.)

In 1950, the CIA convened a large gathering of American and European intellectuals in Allied-occupied Berlin, and formed the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) to combat communism through culture.

Though the CCF was ultimately controlled by the CIA and funded by Rockefeller and Ford foundations, it was largely run by European operatives of the Fabian Society and their associates, many of whom had been involved in political and psychological war operations during the war.

Though the main CCF objective was directed against communism, the Americans and their left-wing European collaborators also viewed traditional European (and Western) culture as “reactionary” and “resistant to change”. When Stalin died in 1953, the focus shifted to “liberalizing” Western culture itself.

It was this mixture of African American (and later Caribbean) music, anti-imperialism and nationalism (Indian and African), Fabian “New Age”, Theosophy, and Mysticism (Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic), that was used by the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) and associated organizations to wage its culture wars on the West. As the CIA also liked to experiment with psychoactive substances, large quantities of cannabis and LSD became an inevitable part of it.

The result was that, whatever may have been its impact on the spread of communism, its main impact was on Western culture. Over time, this snowballed into the current anti-Western culture wars.

‘Rockers and spies’ – how the CIA used culture to shred the iron curtain – The Guardian

When people today use the Crusades as a stick to bash Christianity and Western culture, it is most likely a result of the post-war counterculture movement and has little to do with history. This doesn’t mean that the Crusades never took place. Only that it is not the whole truth and that the popular narrative is a highly politicized and distorted version of events.

True philosophy revolves on examining our beliefs and this includes examining beliefs about historical events. These are just as important as religious beliefs are because they form an important part of who we are, of our sense of self-identity.

Nothing can exist without identity. Buddhism may affirm that there is no self, but even if there is no self in the sense of a conscious soul, there is still a living entity with a personality and a physical and mental identity.

As regards religion, there is no doubt that it answers real psychological and spiritual needs. But this doesn’t mean that it is absolutely necessary, especially in the attainment of enlightenment.

Platonism has a hierarchy of realities and of divine beings, ranging from demi-gods and spirits to the Olympian Gods of traditional Greek tradition, Cosmic Gods, Creator-God, and the Ineffable One.

Accordingly, religion in the Platonic tradition has several levels involving (1) worship and rituals, (2) meditation and contemplation, and (3) direct experience of divinity or reality.

Plato doesn’t say that he attained enlightenment. He studied the various philosophical systems of his time and synthesized what he thought to be the best into one system that enables philosophers to discover the source of all knowledge and all truth by means of mental training, philosophical inquiry, contemplation, and insight.

Platonic philosophers may start at any level of religion or metaphysics or begin at the bottom and work their way up to the highest level.

This means that religion in the conventional sense is not necessary for higher spiritual realization.

The Buddha’s case is an interesting one. According to tradition, he is supposed to have died of food poisoning and to have had a vision of Mara (the Demon of Death) who used his beautiful daughters in an attempt to tempt him away from enlightenment.

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

The situation is not entirely clear. What is the source of this story? Did Buddha himself relate this to his followers? Do enlightened people have visions of beautiful women trying to seduce them? Are beautiful women (or women in general) a problem?

An enlightened or “awakened” person is described as one who has “woken up to the true nature of reality and sees the world as it is”. Buddha is also said to have attained the “triple knowledge” consisting of knowledge of past lives, divine vision, and extinction of mental tendencies that bind one to the world.

So Nirvana does not appear to be “complete extinction”. In fact, it seems hard to tell exactly what Buddha ultimately attained, given that the only witness to a person’s liberation is the liberated himself/herself.

In any case, whatever it is that Buddha attained, he seems to have attained it by means of meditation, not by religious practices.

This being the case, perhaps you don't understand Buddhism, after all? :smile:

Besides in traditional Buddhism there are voluminous descriptions of hell realms, in fact in Buddhism there are a number of them. — Wayfarer

Very voluminous. And very detailed. (As can also be found in the Hindu Puranas.) Which could be interpreted by some to mean that Buddha threatens people with hell if they don't do as he says ....

Of course I strive to have the correct understanding of what the Buddha taught, but, as per Buddhist doctrine, one can only know whether one has the correct understanding once one reaches what is called "stream entry". This can be described as a cognitive event at which one realizes that one has the correct understanding. As I have no such realization yet, I know that I don't know. — baker

This applies to any other system. Which makes your original question a rhetorical one.

Few things are as common as people making claims about what "true identity" is. — baker

People, including Buddha, make many claims about many things. Are you going to place a ban on language? Or do you have a problem with identity as you seem to have with spirituality?

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering. — baker

So do other systems.

This doesn't follow. What is true about Buddhists has no bearing on what is true about Christians, Platonists, and so on. — baker

I didn't say "must". I said "can", as a logical possibility or probability.

Unless you can show that Buddhists are the only people on the planet who can have "right understanding" .... :smile:

The bottomline is that it doesn't seem like a viable religious option. — baker

You keep mentioning religion. This thread is about enlightenment. There is no evidence that enlightenment requires a religion.

And you obviously don’t understand Platonism. Platonism is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality a.k.a. “the One” (called henosis) - or at any rate to the highest possible level of experience.

This is why Platonism does not depend on any formal religion and can operate within any religious tradition. It was this fact that has enabled many Platonists to attach themselves to Christianity, Islam, and other religions outwardly, whilst inwardly remaining faithful to Platonism.

Similarly, many Christians had the highest regard for Platonism and carefully preserved Plato’s works in monasteries and libraries throughout the Greek-speaking world down to the present.

In the 1400’s the Greek Platonist Gemistus Pletho re-introduced Platonism in Italy. Under his influence, Marsilio Ficino founded a Platonic Academy at Florence.

Gemistus Pletho - Wikipedia

Pletho also founded a center of Platonic scholarship at Mystra in Greece, which was also the seat of the last Byzantine Greek imperial dynasty. This flourished for several centuries, along with other schools of Classical Philosophy across the country that are still in operation today. So there is no question of Platonism “dying out”, certainly not in its country of birth.

Of course, most Platonists today are Christians, especially Greek Orthodox. A Platonist may be officially a Christian, privately a Christian Platonist, and inwardly a Platonist. Some may follow the example of Pletho and openly subscribe to Classical Greek religion. There are many Hellenic groups, in Greece, in any case. Others may follow other traditions, or no tradition at all.

This is entirely consistent with traditional Platonism which prescribes three different, though related, paths to liberation or levels of practice: (1) religious or ritual (theourgia) with emphasis on action, (2) contemplative (theoria) with emphasis on knowledge, and (3) esoteric or initiatory (ta mysteria) with emphasis on will-power.

Moreover, Platonists do not normally call their system "Platonism". The correct designation is "Philosophy in the tradition of Plato" or simply, "Philosophy". "Platonism" has always been taught as "Philosophy" and "Platonist schools" also included other philosophers like Aristotle. When someone studied Philosophy, they studied Plato (and others). In general, Platonism was Philosophy and Philosophy was Platonism.

The same applies even now. There are many philosophy circles or groups all over the world that study the teachings of Plato. But they would typically call it "Classical Philosophy" or just "Philosophy".

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion. If it is religion you are after, then that's what you have to look for ....

There is considerable archeological evidence of the Buddha's life recorded in many languages and scripts, dating back to within a couple of centuries of his death. The oral tradition of course dates back his lifetime — Wayfarer

It may be argued that a "couple of centuries" is a long time and "oral tradition" is not infallible record.

And if you have no understanding of what is meant by 'Nirvāṇa', then surely it is just a word. — Wayfarer

I think that's exactly what Nirvana is to most people.

The Buddha explained very clearly what Nirvāṇa/Nibbana is, and many of those around him and his successors realised it. — Wayfarer

1. I think there is a difference between claiming to have realized something and actually realizing it.

2. By what criteria can we determine that what was "realized" by others is exactly identical to what was realized by Buddha?

3. My point was that there is no evidence that Buddha would think @baker has the right understanding of his teaching any more than that Plato would think Platonists have the right understanding of his teaching.

Otherwise said, if Buddhists can have the "right understanding" of Buddha's teachings, then Platonists can equally have the right understanding of Plato's teachings, Christians can have the right understanding of Jesus' teachings, etc., etc.

There is no logical reason to believe that Buddhists have an exclusive monopoly on the "right understanding" of their founder's teachings.

Why start with portraying countries as enemy No 1? — ssu

Not “portraying”, identifying.

It’s just common sense. That’s what everyone does in the real world. It’s called situational awareness.

England and France have identified Germany and Russia as their enemies and are using America to keep those countries down. That’s the principle on which NATO itself operates. As stated by its own founders, the idea behind NATO was to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down”.

And yes, it wasn’t just Atlanticism that was initiated by oil (and banking) interests, but NATO itself.

It is a well-known fact that the US administration in the 1940’s and 50’s was dominated by oil and associated interests (banking and business). Here are some examples:

Grenville Clark, founder of Wall Street law firm Root & Clark, Standard Oil representatives, confidential counsel to Secretary of War Stimson.

Felix Frankfurter, co-founder and partner, Root & Clark, presidential adviser to F. D. Roosevelt.

Henry L. Stimson, partner, Root & Clark, Secretary of War.

Robert P. Patterson, partner, law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, Under Secretary, later Secretary of War.

John J. McCloy, associate, Cravath, Henderson, & de Gersdorff, later Milbank, Tweed & Hope, Rockefeller lawyers, Assistant Secretary of War, President of the World Bank, US High Commissioner for Occupied Germany.

James V. Forestall, Dillon, Read & Co., stoke brokers with close links to the petroleum industry and acting for the Rockefellers, Secretary of the Navy and the first Secretary of Defence.

In 1940, Clark and Frankfurter advised F. D. Roosevelt to hire Stimson as Secretary of War.

Stimson hired friends and associates like McCloy, Patterson, Robert A. Lovett (partner, Brown Brothers Harriman), Harvey H. Bundy (partner, Putnam, Putnam & Bell), and others.

Forestall recruited his own team of Dillon, Read colleagues and associates.

Also in 1940, Roosevelt appointed Nelson Rockefeller Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and later Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs.

In 1941, Roosevelt introduced the idea of “Four Policemen or Sheriffs” (America, England, China, Russia) to police the world.

In 1945, at the instigation of the US Administration, the Four Powers convened the UN Conference on International Organization in San Francisco.

The Conference was dominated by the US State Department, with Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., the Chairman of the US Delegation, also chairing the Steering and Executive Committees of the Conference.

In turn, Stettinius was advised by Nelson Rockefeller and Rockefeller men with connections to the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Rockefeller-associated intelligence community, like Dean G. Acheson (Stimson’s protégé and director of the Reckefellers’ CFR), John Foster Dulles (brother of Central Intelligence director Allen Dulles), and Charles Yost (who had been on the Board of Economic Warfare).

At the Conference, Rockefeller demanded that that there should be a strong system of Western Hemisphere defense, and recommended the formation of regional pacts for the purpose. The result was the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Pact), established in 1947, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established in 1949, and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), established in 1954.

Acheson was the main architect of NATO and signed the treaty for America. Later that year, during a meeting of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany, he put a gun to French foreign minister Schuman’s head, ordering him to form a United States of Europe with Germany (the European Coal and Steel Community that formed the core of the EU), and was involved in the creation of the West German government together with McCloy and other Rockefeller operatives.

So there is no doubt that representatives and associates of oil interests not only ran the War Department all through the war, but also became the key architects of American national security policy after the war. They were the managers and technicians of that policy and they built the structures through which that policy was implemented, the intellectual concepts, the rhetoric, the alliances, the military and intelligence networks, etc. And this, of course, includes NATO.

Incidentally, in 1952 President-Elect Eisenhower asked Rockefeller to chair the Advisory Committee on Government Organization to recommend ways of improving efficiency and effectiveness of the executive branch of the federal government. Rockefeller recommended thirteen reorganization plans, especially in the Department of Defense and Office of Defense Mobilization, all of which were implemented.

Nelson A. Rockefeller - Rockefeller Archive Center

The United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, California, April 25–June 26, 1945 – Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)

Minutes of the Third Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments (Part I), Held at San Francisco, Saturday, May 12, 1945 - FRUS

Together with RIO and SEATO, NATO enabled America, England, and France to intervene anywhere in the world to advance their political and economic interests by military means.

The other facts are as follows:

1. Finland is getting loans from EIB (European Investment Bank) and other forms of financial assistance from the EU. So this would be one good reason for Finns to uncritically follow the EU’s anti-Russian (and pro-China) stance.
2. Finland is located on the outskirts of Europe and has little contact with, or knowledge of, the rest of the continent.
3. Turkey is a neo-fascist dictatorship responsible for invading and occupying other countries’ territory (Cyprus, Syria, Iraq) in addition to fostering violence against ethnic and religious minorities, suppressing women, sponsoring terror organizations like Hamas, etc.

No one invaded the Turks. It was the Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia to invade Iran, Iraq, and most of the Mid East, after which they invaded Anatolia which was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and other local populations:

From their homelands near the Aral Sea, the Seljuks advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia, before eventually conquering Baghdad and eastern Anatolia. The Seljuks won the battle of Manzikert in 1071, and then conquered most of the rest of Anatolia, wresting it from the Byzantine Empire.

Seljuk Empire – Wikipedia

And don’t forget the genocides perpetrated by Turks on Armenians and Greeks. If your idea of history is to deny and distort historical facts, don’t expect to be taken seriously.

Anyway, given that Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus, and China invaded, occupied, and annexed Tibet with impunity, it doesn’t make sense to call for war on Russia for annexing Crimea.

Clearly, there is a conflict of interests between the Russian and Euro-Atlantic spheres of influence, and the West is seeking to end this conflict by military means. This is why NATO has been constantly expanding and encircling Russia, having incorporated 14 new countries since the end of the Cold War.

This is why to claim that Russia is “threatening the West” is pure black propaganda motivated by economic interests, i.e. greed, and exposes the ugly face of out-of-control monopolistic capitalism.

What countries joining the EU and NATO don’t realize until years later (when it is too late), is that they are being made economically and politically dependent on the interests behind these organizations.

All this sabre rattling against Russia is motivated by oil and military-industrial interests, and is pushing Russia closer to China and India, exactly as I said. And this can only be to the detriment of the West.

Putin and Xi to discuss 'aggressive' talk from U.S. and NATO - Reuters

Russia's Rosneft and Indian Oil sign 2022 crude supply deal – Reuters

IMO it makes much more sense for the West and Russia to be allies instead of enemies.

If there is no living tradition with unbroken continuation, then your Platonism faces the same type of problem as, say, Celtic revivalism (which we already discussed). — baker

That's a very big "if", though, isn't it? Very little is known about Celtic religion and even less about Celtic spirituality.

By the time any records of it appeared, Celtic religion was largely Romanized and later Christianized.

Platonism is a totally different story. We have the original writings of Plato and many other Platonists (Plotinus, Proclus, etc.) from Ancient Greece into the Middle Ages - in the original language.

We also have an abundance of knowledge about the Hellenistic religion on the background of which Platonism thrived for many centuries.

There is Christian, Islamic, and (possibly) Hindu Platonism, again, with an extensive literature.

Last but not least, Platonism has been taught without interruption down to the present. In Greece, for example, it has never "died out".

Moreover, as I said, you don't need a "Church" to follow the teachings of Plato if you so choose. The point is that Platonism is available where there is an interest in it.

What reason do you have to think that Plato would think you have the right understanding of his teaching? — baker

What reason do you have to think that Buddha would think you, a 21st-century Westerner, have the right understanding of his teaching?

In light of the fact that Buddha never wrote anything, you can't even know beyond reasonable doubt what his exact teachings were or, for that matter, that he existed in the first place.

Also, there is no evidence that he was "enlightened". And even if he was, as no one can explain exactly what "Nirvana" is, it's all just speculation if you analyze it objectively.

I asked you whether Platonism teaches dependent co-arising. — baker

And I gave you my answer. But let me put it slightly differently, though the gist of it is the same.

Paṭiccasamuppāda or pratītyasamutpāda refers to the Buddhist Theory of Origination (or Cause and Effect). Basically, it states that ignorance (avijjā) results in craving (taṇhā), craving results in attachment (upādāna), attachment in “being” (bhava), and “being” in decay and death (jarāmaraṇa).

In other words, a chain of cause and effect arising from ignorance and resulting in suffering, that can be broken through knowledge.

In fact, you can collapse it even further and say that ignorance leads to wrong action or “sin” (in the form of wrong acts of volition, cognition, etc.), and wrong action leads to suffering.

Not much different from what other systems teach.

In Platonism, the root ignorance is ignorance of one’s true identity as pure, unconditioned and free intelligence. So it is a matter of correct self-identity.

If, as a result of ignorance, you self-identify with the body-mind compound, you generate mental states and a whole inner world that limits and conditions your intelligence, leading you further and further away from your true self.

You are creating what Plato calls a “clever prison” (Phaedo 82e) made of sense-perceptions, imagination, cravings, attachments, passions, thoughts, etc. In contrast, philosophy (i.e., the quest after true knowledge) sees that the prisoner himself is “the chief assistant in his own imprisonment”:

Philosophy, taking possession of the soul when it is in this state, encourages it gently and tries to set it free, pointing out that the eyes and the ears and the other senses are full of deceit, and urging it to withdraw from these, except in so far as their use is unavoidable, and exhorting it to collect and concentrate itself within itself, and to trust nothing except itself … (83a).
The soul of the true philosopher believes that it must not resist this deliverance, and therefore it stands aloof from pleasures and lusts and griefs and fears, so far as it can, considering that when anyone has violent pleasures or fears or griefs or lusts he suffers from them not merely what one might think—for example, illness or loss of money spent on his lusts … (83b).
Each pleasure or pain nails it [the soul] as with a nail to the body and rivets it on and makes it corporeal, so that it fancies the things are true which the body says are true. For because it has the same beliefs and pleasures as the body it is compelled to adopt also the same habits and mode of life, and can never depart in purity to the other world, but must always go away contaminated with the body; and so it sinks quickly into another body again and grows into it, like seed that is sown. Therefore it has no part in the communion with the divine and pure and absolute ... (83d).

So I for one see nothing special, unique, or "superior" about Buddhism, though I wouldn't reject it wholesale, either.

However, if we are serious about philosophy in the original Greek sense of "love of, and quest after, truth", then I think we will get there in the end, with or without Buddhism.

In the first passage you provided, it wasn't clear whether it talks of serial rebirth or not; whether it talks only about the life immediately after this. The second passage you provided says more. — baker

Well, this only demonstrates that you are not familiar with Platonism.

But it's still not clear how it matters, if there is no church of Platonism. If Platonism exists only in books, it's quite a stretch to consider it a spirituality, Western or otherwise. An individual person picking up a book and believing what it says -- you'd call that spirituality? — baker

That's another misunderstanding of yours. Platonism has been taught and practiced as a spiritual system (and even as a religion) from the time of Plato. Perhaps less now than in the past, but it is a system with clear beliefs and practices, not "an individual person picking up a book".

Of course it can be practiced individually by following the texts or in groups with a teacher. There is no need of a "church".

Moreover, even if there were a "Church of Platonism", you would dispute that it is the "right Church", as per your comment below:

The only catch is, which church is the Church? — baker

Wrong. What I don't do is prejudicate which particular system is right. The rest is the product of your sectarian tendency. — baker

"Sectarian tendency"? You know absolutely nothing about my religious beliefs, as I have never discussed them publicly and never will!

Your criticism of other systems amounts to claiming that Buddhism (or your version of it) is the only right system.

Personally, I think this is the wrong attitude. If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it.

IMO "elevating" yourself by putting others down has more to do with psychology than with spirituality. By your own admission, you can't stand the concept of spirituality. This may be indicative of other issues.

Sure, but this isn't Christian doctrine. — baker

You are changing the subject, aren't you?

My response was to your claim below:

Moreover: Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation — baker

Platonism is one Western spirituality that does have an equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation. In fact, as you can see for yourself, a very close one.

Christianity is, basically, telling you to throw the dice, and if you don't get the number they tell you you should get, they think you deserve to suffer in hell forever. — baker

Not Christianity. Your interpretation of it.

You seem to have little knowledge of other systems and are just out to put them down as a means to idealize Buddhism (or your version of it) and convince yourself that you have discovered "the only true religion".

Not very different from what you single out for criticism in others .... :smile:

That seems to imply that the wise can’t feel. — praxis

Good point.

Systems like Platonism advocate detachment or impassibility accompanied by consciousness and bliss, intelligence freed from conditioning being by nature blissful, i.e., its happiness is (a) unlimited and (b) independent of all other things.

Buddhism seems to advocate impassibility only, which would make Nirvana a form of annihilation or nothingness.

A very unique and singular interpretation of suffering. Heaven is its own kind of hell. — Agent Smith

Correct. It seems that Buddhism threatens its followers not only with the suffering of hell but also with the horrors of heaven. The message is "Forget everything and attain Nirvana right now, or else!" :smile:

How does one achive liberation according to Platonism?

Does Platonism have a teaching on dependent co-arising? — baker

In Platonism, individual intelligence is an emanation of Universal Intelligence.
Though immersed in material or conditioned existence, embodied individual intelligence or soul remains in perpetual contact with Universal Intelligence.

When the soul looks downward, to material existence, it is dragged into it by the force of attraction generated through the psychic energy invested in it. In contrast, when the soul looks upward and sees the higher reality of Universal Intelligence, it is pulled upward by the force generated by the recognition of its own identity with Universal Intelligence:

When the soul makes use of the body for any inquiry, either through seeing or hearing or any of the other senses—for inquiry through the body means inquiry through the senses,—then it is dragged by the body to things which never remain the same, and it wanders about and is confused and dizzy like a drunken man because it lays hold upon such things.
But when the soul inquires alone by itself, it departs into the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and the changeless, and being akin to these it dwells always with them whenever it is by itself and is not hindered, and it has rest from its wanderings and remains always the same and unchanging with the changeless, since it is in communion therewith. And this state of the soul is called wisdom (phronesis) (Phaedo 79c-d).

Liberation or release lysis is attained by a redirection of consciousness away from material, conditioned existence and toward immaterial, unconditioned reality.

The process of “enlightenment” in a Platonic sense is the elevation of individual intelligence to increasingly higher modes of experience until intelligence experiences Intelligence.

Some souls have a natural ability to elevate themselves above ordinary experience. But in most cases, this elevation is brought about by means of certain practices resulting in the purification (katharsis), illumination (ellampsis), and deification (theosis) of the individual soul, i.e., a maximum degree of purity and perfection, that enables it to attain a state of oneness (henosis) with Ultimate Reality.

As “enlightenment” or liberation is a process of increasingly greater transcendence, “dependent co-arising”, interesting though it might be on an intellectual level, loses its importance on the higher levels.

To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so... — Agent Smith

The Dhammapada says:

All conditions are impermanent, all conditions are suffering … The wise one knowing: “Sense pleasures have little joy, (much) suffering,” does not find delight even in heavenly pleasures (277-8;187)

This seems to imply that all (conditioned) life, including pleasure, is suffering from the perspective of the wise (paṇḍita).

The passage is too short to be able to discern much from it. It seems to be compatible with some more secular, "generous" versions of Christian doctrine, but it's not clear how far it is compatible with Buddhism. — baker

Here are some more passages:

They say that a person’s soul is immortal, and at one time it meets its end – the thing they call dying – and at another time it is born again, but it never perishes. They say that, because of this, one should live one’s whole life in the most holy way possible … (Meno 81b).
So since the soul both is immortal and has been born many times, and has seen both what is here and what is in Hades, and in fact all things, there is nothing it has not learned. And so it is no matter for wonder that it is possible for the soul to recollect both about virtue and about other things, given that it knew them previously (Meno 81c).
It is likely that people who have practised acts of gluttony, recklessness and drunkenness, and have not shown caution, come to be embodied in the species which include donkeys and beasts like that ... (Phaedo 81e-82a).

Plato’s Theory of Recollection (Anamnesis) is based on the belief that the soul is immortal and lives many lives, which is why mathematical and ethical knowledge, for example, is not learned but recollected.

Reincarnation (metempsychosis) is very much part of Platonism.

Some hellfire preachers often seem to appear deliberately threatening but overall I agree with you. — Wayfarer

The NT does have passages like the following:

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him (Luke 12:5)

The verb used is hypodeiknymi, “to make known (as a warning)”.

Of course some (self-appointed) preachers do use "threatening-sounding" language.

The Church itself can threaten with excommunication, for example, as this lies within its power. Casting people into hell is a totally different thing. It is not within the power of the Church. The Church can warn of the possibility (or likelihood) of hell, but it has neither the power to judge nor to carry out the judgment.

So, the talk of hell as punishment in Christianity must be seen as a warning, not a threat, similar to a road sign warning of danger ahead. The sign does not "threaten", it merely warns us by informing us of a potential danger.

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime. — baker

I think this a blatant misrepresentation, to be quite honest.

The way I see it, Christianity does not "threaten" anyone. It is simply stating what it believes to be a fact, namely that those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life.

It's like warning someone not to go in a certain direction because there is a danger there, e,g., wild animals, a waterfall, dangerous road or bridge, or whatever. It is important to distinguish between warning and threat. The two are NOT the same thing.

Buddhism and Hinduism say very much the same about hell, however "temporary" that may be. Why is temporary less threatening? Is it because it means you can disregard it? If yes, then why insist on Buddhist emphasis on suffering being so "unique"?

In reality, it is not a threat but a warning. There are two possibilities: (a) the warning is based on fact, in which case it is advisable to heed the warning, or (b) it is a lie, in which case we don't need to pay attention to it. The choice is ours. People are free to believe or disbelieve as they think fit.

I can see no logical necessity for the Buddhist version of hell to be any more real or credible than the Christian, Hindu, or Greek ones, or indeed, than the view that there is no hell. As others have pointed out, it is also possible to interpret things allegorically.

If the passage I quoted from Plato is "too short to be able to discern much from it", then so is the passage I quoted from the Dhammapada, which is even shorter!

If the Buddhism of the Pali suttas "is not concerned with creating a society at all", then it has little practical value. At least other systems do aim to create a better society.

If you have "no interest in a Buddhism that can help create a better society", what does that say about your concern (or lack of it) for other people?

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

Interesting. Maybe it does have to do with psychology after all, as I suggested.

My only interest is in the Pali Canon, and because of this, I'm actually resented by Easterners and Westerners alike. — baker

Are you sure it's just "interest", or more like "obsession"? And how do you know the Pali Canon is any better than other Canons, or for that matter, than the scriptures of other systems?

Finally, if you think it is "not possible to be religious/spiritual without being a right-wing authoritarian", does that make you a left-wing authoritarian? If I'm not mistaken, someone mentioned the phrase "Red Guard" in connection with your comments .... :grin:

Such as by reading Machiavelli? — baker

Of course. The West has never produced anything other than Machiavelli. And India does not have its own Machiavellis.

Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now. — baker

Not true.

Some are reborn in the womb, those who are wicked in the underworld, the righteous go to heaven, those who are pollutant-free are emancipated (Dhammapada 22.1)

This is exactly what Plato is saying in his dialogues like the Phaedo:

The impure souls wander until the time when they are bound again into a body by their desire for the corporeality that follows them around (81e).
The soul that has performed an impure act, by engaging in unjust killings or perpetrating other similar deeds goes to the lower regions of Hades where it suffers every deprivation until certain lengths of time have elapsed and the soul is by necessity born into the dwellings suitable for it (108c; 114a).
On the other hand, each soul that has passed through its life both purely and decently receives Gods as companions and as guides alike, and then dwells in the region appropriate to it (108c).
The pure soul goes off into what is similar to it, the unseen, the divine, immortal and wise, where after its arrival it can be happy, separated from wandering, unintelligence, fears, and other human evils ... (81a).

Interestingly, Plato describes reincarnation as an “old doctrine”, which suggests that it had been in circulation for some time.

Platonism of course places less emphasis on reincarnation than Buddhism and Hinduism. But this is exactly what one would expect from a system that focuses on liberation.

To me, India has always first and foremost been a country of cholera and poverty. — baker

I don’t know about cholera, but leprosy and poverty, definitely.

The country itself is beautiful, for sure. Some places are like heaven on earth, even though poverty, disease, and death are never far. But the most shocking of all is the extreme materialism that can surpass even what we see in the West.

Having said that, even Nepal and Tibet aren’t much better. Apparently, before it was annexed by China, Tibet outside Buddhist monasteries was ruled by war lords, bandits, and large packs of stray dogs.

This is one of the reasons why I think that Buddhism’s ability to create an ideal society is more wishful thinking than reality. And if that is the case, claims of Buddhist or eastern “superiority” should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The way I see it, in order to find spirituality you need to be spiritual yourself. In which case you will tend to find spirituality wherever you are.

Realistically speaking, “Nirvana” or whatever we choose to call it, is either (a) unattainable (which is the case in the vast majority) or (b) it is attainable through meditation or introspection.

If (b), then Nirvana or enlightenment cannot be something distant, or different, from the meditator. If it is experienced, then there must be an experiencer. And the experiencer is the consciousness that gradually disengages itself from lower forms of experience until it experiences itself.

We may not be in a position to say what is beyond that, but I think all forms of meditation, Platonist, Buddhist, or Hindu, must logically lead to a point where consciousness experiences itself qua consciousness, i.e., not thoughts or consciousness of things.

If we posit a reality other than consciousness, we need to explain what that reality is, which is an impossible task especially in non-materialist terms. Even if we were to deny the existence of consciousness we would merely confirm it, as consciousness is needed to conceive that denial.