Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:27 am However, the original usage appears to be a distinction between texts which teach the basics and texts that teach advanced stuff suitable only for advanced students. The idea that the esoteric material should be restricted, not so much because of its actual teaching, but because it deals with sublime matters that must be hinted at, in a way that makes the text harmful for people who read it in a crude prima-facie way, is IMO Neo-Platonic.
Andrew Criddle

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:04 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:27 am However, the original usage appears to be a distinction between texts which teach the basics and texts that teach advanced stuff suitable only for advanced students. The idea that the esoteric material should be restricted, not so much because of its actual teaching, but because it deals with sublime matters that must be hinted at, in a way that makes the text harmful for people who read it in a crude prima-facie way, is IMO Neo-Platonic.
Andrew Criddle

With all due respect, though, such claims are not unique to neo-Platonism. Vajrayana Buddhism, which arose later but independently in India, has similar (or maybe identical) teachings about restricted texts. So such ideas could have arisen in the Roman Empire before or independently of neo-Platonism.

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:43 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:04 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:27 am However, the original usage appears to be a distinction between texts which teach the basics and texts that teach advanced stuff suitable only for advanced students. The idea that the esoteric material should be restricted, not so much because of its actual teaching, but because it deals with sublime matters that must be hinted at, in a way that makes the text harmful for people who read it in a crude prima-facie way, is IMO Neo-Platonic.
Andrew Criddle

With all due respect, though, such claims are not unique to neo-Platonism. Vajrayana Buddhism, which arose later but independently in India, has similar (or maybe identical) teachings about restricted texts. So such ideas could have arisen in the Roman Empire before or independently of neo-Platonism.

The rise of Vajrayana (esoteric) Buddhism is linked to datable developments in Buddhism as a whole.
The rise of Proclan-type esotericism is linked to datable developments in Neo-Platonism as a whole.

Andrew Criddle

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:08 pm

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:43 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:04 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:27 am However, the original usage appears to be a distinction between texts which teach the basics and texts that teach advanced stuff suitable only for advanced students. The idea that the esoteric material should be restricted, not so much because of its actual teaching, but because it deals with sublime matters that must be hinted at, in a way that makes the text harmful for people who read it in a crude prima-facie way, is IMO Neo-Platonic.
Andrew Criddle

With all due respect, though, such claims are not unique to neo-Platonism. Vajrayana Buddhism, which arose later but independently in India, has similar (or maybe identical) teachings about restricted texts. So such ideas could have arisen in the Roman Empire before or independently of neo-Platonism.

The rise of Vajrayana (esoteric) Buddhism is linked to datable developments in Buddhism as a whole.
The rise of Proclan-type esotericism is linked to datable developments in Neo-Platonism as a whole.

Andrew Criddle

Indeed. But could there have been any other tradition within the Roman Empire which could have inspired the esotericism? I know that in India, esotericism was found within Buddhism and Hinduism, albeit arising from the same religious trends and probably locations.