/lit/ - Literature

>>16791247
Not to worry. Recommended reading is Jung. Cultures have truly different worldviews and so without a good grasp on how they differ you'll be prone to confuse one sort of soteriology with another. Jung will give you that, if you read him critically. You're obviously perceptive to have become aware of this confusion (referring to your question in OP) this so I wouldn't be surprised if you draw the natural conclusion of this with some time. Keep digging.

Though for the sake of clarifying for others I'll give you a rundown on what I mean here:
>Why do most doctrines of salvation teach both virtue (good acts) and detachment from the material (implying neutrality)?
You have to discern what the end goal of a soteriology is. Is it being in Christ, or is it awakening to buddhahood? This is what I mean by western dualism differing; Being in Christ incorporates a social (and later material) dimension which Buddhism only does to the end of awakening. The Buddha considered the dharma (more specifically the ethical precepts) a means to the end of nirvana, but not at all necessary if you could awaken directly.

>How is it possible to be good if you also strive to detach yourself from everything?
It's not, at least not for the Christian. Unobtrusive actions flow from detachment because you're unconcerned, like with the Buddha's loving-kindness, but these can scarcely be considered Good in the Christian sense, the Christian Good being Good done to the end of following Christ, revering God, and potentially receiving the gift of Grace.