Manly pride? Interesting. I note that celibacy is often used throughout religious and mystical traditions as evidence of serious spiritual devotion. — Tom Storm

Just read over these two suttas:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.076.than.html

I always laugh at the imagery.

I also note that the great Catholic mystic and putative hermit, Thomas Merton had a girlfriend - is this evidence of hypocrisy, or a man leaving the church and seeking union with the female principle?

See the above suttas.


Although in Merton's defense: 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.

Now, it occurs to me that this interchange, which is taken as conclusive proof of the doctrine on anatta, overlooks something important. At that time in history, a few centuries either side of C.E., the invention of the chariot was a deciding factor in the rise and fall of empires.
/.../
So, whilst it is trivially true to observe that none of the component parts of a chariot are actually a chariot in themselves, nevertheless the 'idea of a chariot' is something real, and its construction and possession is a real good from the perspective of nation-building. So, 'the idea of a chariot' is what really constitutes 'the chariot', not this or that particular piece of the chariot. Furthermore, even if the particular chariot on which the King arrived was to be destroyed or stolen, then another could be constructed, but only by those who had knowledge of the principles of chariot building. — Wayfarer

Ratha Kalpana (from Sanskrit ratha 'chariot', and kalpana 'image')[1] is a metaphor used in Hindu scriptures to describe the relationship between the senses, mind, intellect and the Self.[2][3] The metaphor was first used in the Katha Upanishad and is thought to have inspired similar descriptions in the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada and Plato's Phaedrus.[4][5][6][7]
/.../
Verses 1.3.3–11 of Katha Upanishad deal with the allegoric expression of human body as a chariot.[5] The body is equated to a chariot where the horses are the senses, the mind is the reins, and the driver or charioteer is the intellect.[2] The passenger of the chariot is the Self (Atman). Through this analogy, it is explained that the Atman is separate from the physical body, just as the passenger of a chariot is separate from the chariot. The verses conclude by describing control of the chariot and contemplation on the Self as ways by which the intellect acquires Self Knowledge.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratha_Kalpana

It seems to me a lot of early Buddhist polemics about non-self are likewise undermined by a naive understanding 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.

The Early Buddhist doctrine of anatta is about what is fit to be regarded as self and what is not fit to be regarded as self. Things that are subject to aging, illness, and death are not fit to be regarded as self.

So far, the EB anatta doctrine is actually in accord with various attavada doctrines. Where I think it differs from them is that it assigns to those attavada doctrines also the status of being subject to aging, illness, and death, in the sense that doctrines, consisting of ideas are subject to conception, deterioration, and cessation, they come and go.

In one's unenlightened state, whatever one would conceive as self would necessarily be subject to aging, illness, and death, it would be a proliferation, papanca, simply on account of it being an idea. As such, not fit to be regarded as self.


Part of the problem with the "there is no self, ever, in any way" type of anatta doctrine (which is by now the dominant anatta doctrine in Buddhism) is that it's due to theoretical efforts to construct a coherent Buddhist doctrine, based primarily on the suttas. The Abhidharma tries to summarize the suttas into a coherent system. For this purpose, it sometimes has to fill in what seems like blanks, but this way, inadvertedly, creates a doctrine that is in discord with the suttas.

In contrast, an assumption that one can find among Suttavadis is that the Path was never intended to be approached in a wholesale doctrinal manner (by first theoretically working out the entire system in the abstract), but in small steps, according to the person's actual attainment at any given point in time.

I am not suffering — Apollodorus

You don't say!

Just to note: Overcoming sensual desire (which includes the desire for sex) is very important in Dharmic religions. It's a matter of manly pride, it's proof that one has overcome lowly desires. It's also a sign that one is so spiritually advanced so as to be unperturbed by sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations.

Overcoming sensual desire also means that one can be a better servant to God (or, even better, a servant of a servant of God). Because acting on lust means that one is trying to enjoy separately from God, which brings one away from God, and thus into misery.

Servitude to God is something Hindus have literally written into their names. The element "das" (for men) and "dasi" (for women) means 'servant'. So Mohandas Gandhi was a servant of Mohan, Mohan is one of the names for God.

God — Tom Storm

What does "God" stand for, metaphorically?

As an old man Gandhi used to lie in bed with naked young women who were decades younger than him. — Tom Storm

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.

This, apparently was a celibacy test and an attempt to prove he was beyond temptation. Wanker...

I think that if one feels the need to test oneself as to whether one can resist a certain temptation, then this already is a sure sign that one cannot resist it. Such "testing" is simply another excuse to yield to it.


Other than that, we're talking about Indians, Hindus. It wouldn't be a surprise to find that more men did such things, or worse. This is a culture that expects a newly widdowed woman to commit suicide by throwing herself into the funeral pyre of her husband (if she doesn't, she apparently didn't really love him).

ISKCON's founder, Srila Prabhupada, married a woman he specifically did not like, on the conviction that this would help him curb his sexual desire. And then he blamed her for the failed marriage.

Yes, I know and was being ironic. I was not patronizing you I was questioning the validity of your statements and asking for arguments to back them up. — Janus

This

That you believe the small subset you are familiar with must be the only authentic one says more about you than anything else. — Janus

is your projection, entirely of your doing.
I'm not going to defend things you merely imagine I said.

We are not talking about some body of codified knowledge, but about transforming ourselves. The fact that there are a few traditions of transformative practice does not entail that there are not (perhaps very many) other possibilities. The possibilities are not limited to what Baker can imagine. — Janus

Jesus. This is why I hate spirituality. These power games, the accusing of another of stances they don't hold and expecting them to defend them, the misrepresentation, always acting in bad faith, this assuming that the other is an idiot.

You make some bold accusation against me, and then what am I to do? Defend myself? If I explain myself and show where you've misrepresented me, then you've won, you got away with not reading. It's right-winger tactics.

Does it help to know the secret handshake? — Joshs

If you yourself don't taste a mango, you'll never have the first-hand knowledge that the epistemic community of mango tasters have.

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). — Apollodorus

The standard list is the one with twelve items. I brought up dependent co-arising because you kept talking about consciousness and how after enlightenment, there must exist some other consciousness.
But it looks like you didn't read the list with the twelve items.

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

No, early Buddhism doesn't think that chain can be broken through merely with 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.

Sure, but this is extremely general.

Not much different from what other systems teach.

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"?

In Platonism, the root ignorance is ignorance of one’s true identity as pure, unconditioned and free intelligence.

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?

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.

But whence ignorance?

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.

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

Such social memberships are based on shared understandings underlying shared practices. — Joshs

Of course. But they are not just social memberships, they are epistemic memberships, being a member of an epistemic community.

In order to know what members know, one has to become a member oneself.
There are knowledges that outsiders, even if they study the insider accounts of insiders, cannot have. Unless they themselves become insiders, members of the specific epistemic community.

I might generalize from this and suggest that enlightenment is nothing other than the endless progression in which one moves being encased within a worldview to seeing it as a mere step ion the path to a richer perspective.

The "endless progression"? Do you believe in rebirth/reincarnation?
— baker

No more so than the scientist who supports Popper’s view of scientific inquiry as oriented teleologically toward an asymptotic approach of truth.

Two parallels intersect in infinity ...

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. — Apollodorus

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

Normally, religions/philosophies/ideologies present claims. The relative epistemic status that those claims have in one's mind remains the same from the time one first heard the claim to the end of one's life.

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?

Pretending to be obtuse does not suit you.

A Christian tells me that my true identity is A.
A Hindu tells me that my true identity is B.
A Muslim tells me that my true identity is C.
A Platonist tells me that my true identity is D.
A psychologist tells me that my true identity is E.
Tom tells me that my true identity is F.
Janus tells you that you're deluded about what you think your true identity is.

And so on. You see no problem with that?

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 ?"

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering.
— baker
So do other systems.

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.

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

Now you're being pedantic.

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.

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".
(Except that the Hare Krishnas believe that desiring to serve God is actually higher than desiring to be one with him.)

Further, many "spiritual" and other systems claim to "elevate human consciousness to the highest possible level of experience". Having heard it so often, from so many different sources, and so many things being claimed as that "highest possible level of experience", I can't really take it seriously anymore.
You folks should get together and decide which one of you really has the keys to the "highest possible level of experience".

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.

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

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion.

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.

Massa what? Massamanure? — Janus

Obviously, "Yes, massa" is the only appropriate reply to being patronized.

"Massa" is black slave speak for "master".

When someone says that the cherry tomatoes are good, it is short for "I feel that the cherry tomatoes are good". — Harry Hindu

Given that my neighbor replied "You don't know what's good!", it's clear that he didn't operate on the above principle.

For some, using the short-hand version could make a listener think that they are projecting when they actually aren't.

We can usually see from the other things the person says whether this is the case or not. In the examples I gave, it's not.

I expect you to know I'm talking more about my feeling when eating the cherry tomatoes, and less about the cherry tomatoes.

As a rule, it seems that people typically conflate the two, their feelings about something and the thing itself. (Gourmet culture is a vivid example of such conflation.)


And this isn't a benign matter. If people wouldn't conflate like that, they couldn't come to statements like "Jews are inferior".

You were asking as to what criteria to judge a spiritual teacher. I said the criteria are not objective, because what is objective is contingent, and the 'true good' is not contingent. — Wayfarer

You said:

There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer

Now assuming you meant something with those words and that they aren't just a routine phrasing, how do _you_ know who is who, namely, who is worthy and who isn't?

If you say there are "worthy people" and "unworthy people", how do _you_ distinguish them? For you must be able to recognize each category and distinguish it from the other, before you can write a sentence like

There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer

The distinction between subjective and objective is simply where unrelated reasons and assumptions are used in the process of interpreting sensory data compared to not using unrelated reasons and assumptions to interpret sensory data. — Harry Hindu

I'm talking about how people usually talk: they usually present their own opinion of a matter of objective fact, even when it is an opinion. They externalize.

Some real examples:

Neighbor: Try these cherry tomatoes.
I: (tasting them) Hm ... I don't particularly like them.
Neighbor: You don't know what's good!

I: James' The Portrait of a Lady is one of my favorite books.
"Friend": You're wrong. This is actually a very boring book.

Both the neighbor and the friend considered themselves to be the arbiters of reality, the judges of what is objectively a good tomato or a good book.
I made a point of speaking assertively, to use assertive formulations, I-statements. They, on the other hand, used the objective form.

What an OP.

I suppose there are people who genuinely believe that people need to be taught about the advantages of being wealthy.

Please see the added example with Tom and Dick.

Matthew Ratcliffe writes:

Dennett, in describing his own conception of phenomenology, appeals to the Sellarsian contrast
between scientific and manifest images, and proposes that:

/.../
However, each subject‟s experience is not simply „subjective‟ but involves being part of a shared experiential world. A subjective manifest image is not to be contrasted with the manifest image. The „manifest ontology of a subject‟ includes a sense of its not just being an ontology for the subject but a world shared with other subjects. Consciousness was never a matter of some idiosyncratic, subjective view of the world, estranged from all other such views and from the objective world as described by science. Consciousness is not just a matter of having a subjective perspective within the world; it also includes the sense of occupying a contingent position in a shared world. From within this experiential world, we manage to conceive of the world scientifically, in such a way that it fails to accommodate the manner in which we find ourselves in it. Hence the real problem of consciousness is that of reconciling the world as we find ourselves in it with the objective world of inanimate matter that is revealed by empirical science. It should not simply be assumed from the outset that a solution to the problem will incorporate the view that science reigns supreme.” — Joshs

How would such a view be reflected in how people communicate with eachother?

Could you please illustrate this with two short dialogues on the same theme, in one version, using the usual manner in which people talk (ie., mostly objectivist/objectivizing you-statements), and the other one that would be consistent with the above view presented by Ratcliffe?

There are many important implications for psychology of demonstrating that the third person perspective is parasitic on the first personal stance. — Joshs

How do phenomenologists conceive of the hierarchical nature of interpersonal relationships?


Normally, when people communicate, the implicit assumption is that the person who holds a position of more power is objective, while the one in the position of power is not objective. For example, when your boss reviews your work, he does it in a language of providing an objective image of your work performance, as opposed to just his opinion of your work.


Or, to give another example, somewhat loaded, for clarity:
Tom says, "Dick is an idiot".
Why doesn't Tom say "I think Dick is an idiot" or "I can't stand Dick"?

People generally prefer the objective form (A is x), rather than first-person statements.
First person statements being formulated as the objective form qualified with "I think" and similar qualifiers of subjectivity, or I-statements.

How do phenomenologists explain these uses?

More real reality?



Please, Blue Fairy, make me into a real live boy.

Watch the film and notice the use of the word "real".

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. — Apollodorus

If I were to put aside a Euro for every time someone told me or every time I heard or read who I supposedly "really am", I could easily pay for a luxurious dinner.
Few things are as common as people making claims about what "true identity" is.

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

*shrug*

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.

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering.

And it makes you feel all giddy inside to say this, doesn't it.
— baker

So, you have nothing to say but to speculate about how I, someone you know very little about, feel?

Dude, this is a philosophy forum, even if this is a religion thread. Get your thinking straight.
— baker

Now that's a powerful rebuttal! — Janus

Yes, massa.

So that's 'the real Christianity' in your mind? — Wayfarer

*sigh*

It's Christianity as it is real for me. I've always been clear about that.

A problem with religion (and a lot of other cultural forms), is that it has been packaged and repeated in various formulae for thousands of years, often by proponents with very peculiar ideas of their own, it's been corrupted and perverted and strayed far from its origins. But to me that is not representative. I agree with Apollodorus, that strictly speaking the admonitions by Christians about hell are warnings more than threats.

A problem with religion (and a lot of other cultural forms) is that people tend to invent a lot of politically correct narratives about it, narratives that stray very far from the actual doctrines of religions and from how religions are actually being practiced, on the ground level, as opposed to what things look like in books.

One of the consequences of this political correctness is that such people cannot meet others in their religious quest or help them make sense of it, thus making an often a traumatic experience even worse. It's like when women are told they are "hysterical".

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

But one isn't promised an eternal stay in them (except in one case, the Mahayana doctrine on inchantikas).

Good for you. I think that in itself is a deluded belief. — Janus

And it makes you feel all giddy inside to say this, doesn't it.

There are people who devote their lives to all kinds of gurus and religious leaders and arduous practices. That you believe the small subset you are familiar with must be the only authentic one says more about you than anything else.

Dude, this is a philosophy forum, even if this is a religion thread. Get your thinking straight.

What I mean is whether there are criteria whereby it could be determined that it is in fact the case that a spiritual teacher is worthy or not worthy, or whether it remains a matter of opinion, or faith if you prefer. — Janus

Any such criteria would be liable to the same criticsm you put forth to begin with, because they would be set by a person.
You solve nothing by focusing on the external like that.

Why would religiosity not be possible without a religious community? — Janus

In short, it's like studying a textbook for a foreign language, and then claiming you have mastered the language.

And what if you believed with all your heart that you had reached "stream entry", but were deluding yourself? — Janus

I believe that such delusion is not possible.

The possibility of that cannot be ruled out; which undermines the very notion that anyone could ever be infallibly correct, as opposed to merely subjectively certain, about that.

Of course I don't deny that a feeling of absolute certainty might be gratifying enough to satisfy those who possess it; maybe that's all they are looking for.

Eh. For one, the number of people interested in this approach is, I think, very small. I am confident that those who actually do take that route, given how ardous it is, would not make the kind of mistake you talk about. And they would not seek the kind of lowly gratifications you suggest. I know such people, so I know what I'm talking about.



And I suppose you find satisfaction in doubting others the way you do, assuming very bad things about people.

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

I actually went to the official phone directory for the country I live in, looked up Platonism, and got no hits. Then I went to the official government website for religious communities here, checked whether it contained any entry that could be associated with Platonism -- none. Like it doesn't exist here. I suppose I could try searching other countries in Europe.
The bottomline is that it doesn't seem like a viable religious option.

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.

This is strange in so many ways. The idea that there can be religiosity without a religious community is problematic in many ways, it deserves its own thread.

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. — Apollodorus

Does Platonism have the type of "stream entry clause" mentioned above?
Does it teach that all of one's knowledge (of Platonism) is merely tentative, provisional, until it reaches a critical point from whence on one has realization?

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.

This doesn't follow. What is true about Buddhists has no bearing on what is true about Christians, Platonists, and so on. Unless you think Buddhists are setting the stage for everyone else ...

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

By this, do you also mean that non-Buddhists can have the right understanding of the Buddha's teachings?

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

That's one of the perks of Buddhism: what you're talking about isn't a problem, as long as one is humble enough.

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.

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.

Sure. But such things are a problem only if one wishes to go to war over religion, or pick fights, or some such.

Buddhism as I understand it is first and foremost discoursive, and as such, tentative; it's not about claims that one is supposed to internalize. This is how it differs from most religions and ideologies.

It's comparable to crossing a frozen lake on ice plates: one accepts the prospect that the ice might not hold one's weight, but one begins walking anyway; one steps on what seems like a strong enough ice plate and from it, leaps onto another one, and so on. If one were to stand still, the plate might not hold and one might sink.

Most religions and ideologies are not like that, and even many, if not most Buddhists, don't approach Buddhism that way either.


From the Kalama Sutta:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

No, what I said was that I thought your remark about the 'rolling of the dice' in respect of Christianity was arrant nonsense.

Are you an actual member of an actual Christian congregation? Are you? Have you ever tried to be?
How have you conducted your choice?
— baker

I was born into a Christian culture, — Wayfarer

Exactly, you were born into a Christian culture, and as such, the decision as to which church to prefer was made for you by external circumstances (however little commitment you or your parents might have had).

Other people who contemplate religious conversion are not in such a situation. To someone like me, all Christian denominations seem equally plausible. Choosing among them would be no different than rolling the dice. After that, I can see nothing more than Pascal's Wager.
And like it or not, most of them threaten with eternal damnation.


Prior to the covid situation, I could walk through the city on any given day and in the course of a month be approached by Christian proselytizers of various denominations: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some others whose names escape me. The essence of their message was always the same: Join our church, do as we say, or burn in hell forever. I would sometimes point out to them that their competitors say the exact same thing, except that they of course advertise their own church to the exclusion of all others. To this, they don't reply, or make some dismissive remark about me, or claim that the others are wrong.
So how am I supposed to know which one to choose??


I asked about being an actual member of an actual Christian congregation and how have you conducted your religious choice because I think you and @Apollodorus are underplaying the importance of actual religious membership, underplaying what it means to actually function as a person of a particular religious denomination.

He does this after he evokes ED, though. He pretends, and after pretending concludes he was correct from the beginning. — Ciceronianus

That's because he wrote the Meditations as a series of ready-to-use arguments that Catholics could use to convert other people to Catholicism. He says as much in the preface, it's why the Church allowed the publishing of the book.

I deleted the comment so there's no point discussing it. — Wayfarer

You gloss over the problem of religious choice and the implications thereof for Christianity and the prospect of eternal damnation.

An ecumenist still believes that he has the superior view.

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

Never said I was.

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.

Sure. I thought it was a thing of the past, a "dead religion" as they are called.

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.

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).


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

"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. — Apollodorus

That's your projection.
It's quite ironic that you project this on me, given that you show you clearly don't know the scope of my interest in Buddhism, which I have disclosed at the forums several times. I told you before, I'm not a Buddhist. It's a piece of information that you have so far refused to remember. I'm interested in seeing where the Buddha was wrong, if he was, and for this, I have to, for the sake of the argument, start with some assumptions and see how they hold up.

If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it.

They must?


If that is true, if there are "many ways to the top of the mountain", then there are certain metaphysical tenets that one would need to hold (to the effect of metareligious egalitarianism, ecumenism). But such tenets are incompatible with actual religions. Because actual religions are exclusive and each of them considers itself to be superior to the others. They may grant that the others have some elements of truth in it, or that the others are a preparatory phase for the right religion, but they do not relativize their own supremacy.

The idea that there are "many ways to the top of the mountain" is an ecumenical artifact, a suprareligion, an imposition on the existing religions, abolishing their relevance with that "must", "If someone is interested in "enlightenment", then they must acknowledge that there are different ways of attaining it."

A bold move, to be sure, but with what guarantee of success?

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

You are changing the subject, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Is there a church of Platonism? If Christianity is to be seen as the direct heir of Platonism, then reference to Christian doctrine matters.

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.

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.

So you made your point, okay. 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?

Not Christianity. Your interpretation of it. — Apollodorus

No, on the ground level, when one approaches actual Christians and actual Christianity, this is exactly what it is like.

Are you an actual member of an actual Christian congregation? Are you? Have you ever tried to be?
How have you conducted your choice?

How do you know you have made the right choice?

You seem to have little knowledge of other systems

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

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".

You're talking about yourself. And proving my point about Christians.

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

Criticism? What you think I criticize about Christians, I am sure they believe is their virtue.

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. — Apollodorus

Sure, but this isn't Christian doctrine.

What is "arrant nonsense"?

Or it’s like saying that if I grow up in a homophobic household where such views are connected to a fundamentalist religious belief system, and I emancipate myself from those homophobic beliefs, I have a choice that the other members of my household don’t. I can live within the insular and narrow view that is their only option (they being stuck ‘inside’ that narrow framework) , or I can shift to a decentered thinking in which I subsume their parochial view within a more flexible framework. Thus I can shift back and forth between empathizing with their perspective and freeing myself from their cage. — Joshs

For illustrating the emic-etic distinction, how come you're using only examples of people giving up on an insider status?

You completely ignore examples such a tribe membership, membership in a language community, membership in a professional community. Ie. the type of examples that are usually used to illustrate the emic-etic distinction.

I might generalize from this and suggest that enlightenment is nothing other than the endless progression in which one moves being encased within a worldview to seeing it as a mere step ion the path to a richer perspective.

The "endless progression"? Do you believe in rebirth/reincarnation?