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.

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.

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).

pleasure, is suffering — Apollodorus

Excelente! Pleasure is suffering. :chin: I suppose that's in terms of how powerful it can be as a distraction, a honey trap in a manner of speaking. Maya, if a movie I watched is to be believed, first attempts to scare Siddhartha in meditation and when that fails, offers beautiful maidens (his gorgeous daughters I presume) to break Gautama's concentration. A very unique and singular interpretation of suffering. Heaven is its own kind of hell.

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

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

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. — Apollodorus

Numerous Christian schools make it clear: if you fail to pick the right religion and fail to become its member, you're destined for eternal suffering, regardless of how you've otherwise behaved.

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.

Except that we never actually get to see any of those wild animals, waterfalls, or whatever other dangers we are being "warned" about.
And of course, the people issuing the "warning" are usually not people one would want to have anything to do with. In fact, they are the threat.

those who do not follow a path of ethical or righteous conduct will suffer in the next life

Why did God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, design the world such that the retaliation for not following "a path of ethical or righteous conduct" isn't apparent in the here and now?

And what is that, even, "a path of ethical or righteous conduct"? All kinds of things get to be called "a path of ethical or righteous conduct", it's far from universal.

Remember, the RCC did not excommunicate Hitler, but it routinely excommunicates girls who abort the pregnancies conceived when they were raped by their uncles or priests.

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"?

Because Buddhism promises an intelligible way out of suffering. Christianity does not. Christianity is a gamble.

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.

There are more possibilities. Such as the possibility that the ones presenting the "warning" don't know the whole picture.

The choice is ours. People are free to believe or disbelieve as they think fit.

And suffer eternally for their choices.

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.

Neither do I.

As others have pointed out, it is also possible to interpret things allegorically.

And what use is that?

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!

The passage from the Dhammapada was your choice. I don't know why you chose it. For references for Budhist doctrine, I would first turn to the four Nikayas, not a short summary text like the Dhammapada.

I asked you whether Platonism teaches dependent co-arising.

If the Buddhism of the Pali suttas "is not concerned with creating a society at all", then it has little practical value.

To you.

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?

Learn your doctrines, young padawan. Religions teach that the world is incorrigible, transient, a lost cause, the vale of tears. Insofar as religions teach betterment, it's only in the sense of being good stewards of what God has entrusted people with, and to use it as a means to serve God. Or else, in non-theistic religions, to make the best use of what is available. "Creating a better society" so that we can all eat, drink, and make merry is a secular goal, even when it is promoted under the guise of religion.

Are you sure it's just "interest", or more like "obsession"?

Envy is a capital sin.

And how do you know the Pali Canon is any better than other Canons, or for that matter, than the scriptures of other systems?

I don't know such. You seem to think that I came to Buddhism by rejecting the other systems. This is not the case, though. I admit that I capitulate before Christianity. I find it unintelligible and impossible to live. I don't know how Christians do it, esp. Christian women.

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 ....

Red paranoia.

The irony is that if you don't let go of that vision, and of the need to "accomplish much" you will likely "die miserable". If you "look forward" honestly you will see that there is nothing to be had in the future, All you have and all you are is what you have and are now, and this will equally be so in the future. If you can live fully now, then you will likely not die miserable, and that alone would be a singular.and sufficient achievement. — Janus

And yet you have a retirement fund, don't you?

Also, some people feel burdened by ambition. Some don't.

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.
— Apollodorus

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

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.

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. — Apollodorus

The Church is God's fully empowered representative on earth, it functions that way. Nobody gets to God except through the Church.

The only catch is, which church is the Church?

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.

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). — Apollodorus

So says the Preacher:


Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?

8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.

13 And I applied my heart[f] to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. 14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity[g] and a striving after wind.[h]

15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

2
I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity.[a] 2 I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” 3 I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life. 4 I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. 5 I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. 6 I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

9 So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. 11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold,


all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

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:

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. — Apollodorus

I need to check: What do you think dependent co-arising is?

[del]

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.

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?

What is "arrant nonsense"?

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. — baker

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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? — 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?

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

"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?

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

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

Buddhism is frequently accused of nihilism - by Brahmins and also Christians. But it is not - it defines 'nihilism' as the belief that at death the body returns to the elements, there are no consequences of actions in this life. And Buddhism doesn't accept that.

Is there a church of Platonism? — baker

Greek philosophy had a profound influence on the formation of early Christian orthodoxy. The Greek-speaking early Christian theologians including Origen and Clement of Alexandria, then later the mysterious figure now referred to as Pseudo-Dionysius, created a synthesis of Neo-Platonist and biblical teachings which laid the groundwork for the classical Christian doctrines. In the 9th century - the 'dark ages' - an obscure scholar from what is now Ireland named John Scottus Eriugena (John the Scot from Ireland) astonished the learned scholars in Paris by completing a translation of Dionysius' works. It was later to have a profound influence on the now-famous Meister Eckhardt. These philosophers and seers were thinkers of great subtlety and depth which now, alas, is almost entirely forgotten in the culture they helped give birth to.

The Platonist side of Christianity is more obviously evident in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, whereas Aquinas absorption of Aristotle gave him a greater prominence in Catholic theology. But Aristotle, despite his differences with his master, was also a Platonist.

Incidentally, regarding belief in re-birth, the Cathars, who were deemed an heretical sect by the medieval Catholic Church and subjected to the most horrific mass murders, believed in reincarnation. That belief is an undercurrent in various, mainly underground, sects and movements in the West. But it was ruthlessly suppressed in the early days of the Church and as a result is largely a cultural taboo in Western discourse. (Actually stumbled on a book about this yesterday.)

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?

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.

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

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, although I recall at age about 7 when we were asked at school which Christian denomination I belonged to I wasn't sure. I guessed Church of England but had to ask my parents later. They were religiously non-committed, but I attended a C of E private school and dutifully filed into Chapel for a twice-weekly service. When it came to Confirmation, aged about 13, I decided not to go ahead, which my very non-religious father had no problem with. Personally I was never atheist, and am still not, although my understanding of God is completely different to the way it is generally depicted in atheist polemics.

In my teen years, as I said earlier in this thread, I then became attracted to the kind of pop mysticism that was filling the airwaves in the 1960's. That's what sparked my interest in Buddhism. Over the years, I underwent some genuine conversion experiences to Buddhism. But I don't feel any hostility towards Christianity as a result (although I reject many of the idiotic things that are done and said in the name of Christianity, especially by those on the American right. Nor do I think the Catholic Church deserves any kind of respect for its appalling history of persecution and pedophilia.)

But, that said, Christian Platonism is one of the three forms of philosophy that I admire the most (the other two being Advaita Vedanta and Mahāyāna Buddhism.) Had I encountered someone who really understood and taught that approach in my youth it might have turned out differently. Sometimes I consider whether I ought to return to the Christian faith, but in the end I'm resolute in my conversion to Buddhism. However I don't think it means, therefore, that all other traditions are wrong. There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions.