Posts by Julia

Quote from Eikadistes

Very true. Neither group tolerated supernatural propositions.

I think that Charvaka philosophers viewed the "religious experience" itself as a delusion and prayer as totally ineffective, whereas Epicureans saw the experience (as he describes early humans encountering inspiring visions in dream-states) as natural (as he did prayer), and of psychological value. I think the Charvaka opinion is a bit more like modern atheists.

Well, I guess that's one of the key points: they were atheists.

Thank you! That is very helpful

Quote from Eikadistes

Theologically, the Epicureans endorsed the existence of deities, whereas the Indian materialists saw them as being pure fictions of misinformed, human imaginations.

Well…we have to take into account the dangers of "heresy" at the time, and also consider the complete re-definition of the word "gods" by Epicureans. When it comes down to it, don't Epicureans and Charvaka both think about the same of supernatural gods, gods in the sense of Zeus and Ganesh? I suppose that Charvaka rejected them more absolutely, whereas Epicurean philosophy remains open to the psychological/social usefulness of symbols and rituals?

Quote from Eikadistes

One of the biggest differences we notes between the Epicurean Tradition and ancient Indian materialism is the tone: Epicurus recommended that we treat our neighbors with respect, whereas the writings of Charvaka are fairly critical and mocking.

Interesting! Thank you for pointing that out. I wonder how much of that was by free choice and how much was more of a necessity, more of a product of the region and times? I've gotten the impression ancient Indians didn't shy away from open, direct critique and mockery, even slander – then again, how much was provoked by whom? Did the Charvaka keep up that fighting, or did the others continue to bash them harshly?

Quote from Eikadistes

The Charvaka were physical pluralists, like Empedocles, so they divided the material world into elements, and associated atomism with orthodox, religious philosophy.

Oh, I see. I suspected they just hadn't discovered atomism yet – thank you for pointing out they associated it with orthodox, religious philosophy! Given that, I shall withdraw my guess from post #4 that some might have improved on their core physics considerably. It now seems much less likely.

I didn't expect anything on Charvaka in the threads on Buddhism! Here's the difference pointed out in the post Don has linked to:

Quote from Eikadistes

Epicurean theology is comparatively unique. Epicurus would have been opposed to the atheism of Ājīvika, Chārvāka, Nyāya, and Vaisheshika, as well as the agnosticism of Ajñana and Buddhism, as well as the immanent dualism and mysticism of Samkhya and Yoga, and also the divine idealism of Mīmāṃsā and Vedanta. The Jain universe of multiple, physical deities (the Tirthankaras), is the closest ancient Indian theology that in any way resembles Epicureanism. There is not, to my knowledge, any significant historical link between the two at any point in time.

Encouraged by that, I read chapters 10 and 11 of Bhattacharya's later book (More Studies on …), titled "The Cārvāka / Lokāyata and Greek Materialism" and "Materialism: East and West", respectively. The congruence with Epicurean philosophy – even where the slandering by opposing schools and later scholars is concerned… – is astounding. I found just one more difference:

On page 110, Bhattacharya writes: "Both the Presocratic proto-materialist philosophers and the Cārvākas started from the premise of four elements as constituting the whole world." Later, on page 115, he expands: "The system betrays a very early origin, since it is firmly rooted in the concept of four basic elements (bhūtas, viz., earth, air, fire, and water)." Note that the Cārvākas did not consider these elements to be ideals or essences, but thought of them as matter, as constituents of reality as evidenced through the senses. It is my current understanding that some Cārvākas might very well have developed their physics into a more sophisticated system, especially when considering these and related materialist philosophical schools had a living tradition persisting for roughly 1750 of years! For example, while in the 8th century CE, the Cārvākas were still speaking of four elements, two centuries later a related southern Indian school called Bhūtavāda expanded on those by adding the void as a fifth element (page 121/122 in More Studies on …; translated from ancient Tamil as "space"). In the 12th century CE, they all mysteriously vanished.

Unfortunately, the Charvaka's core text as well as their extensions / explanations of it are lost, which means we might not find much more in terms of reasonably certain, reliable differences between their system and Epicurean philosophy…

Hello everyone

a good while ago, I came across the ancient Indian philosophy called Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक; IAST: Cārvāka), also known as Lokayata (Sanskrit: लोकायत; IAST: Lokāyata). Virtually everything I know about it is found in this article, and it all sounds remarkably Epicurean to me. The academic writer Ramkrishna Bhattacharya has published two English language books on the subject, called Studies on the Cārvāka / Lokāyata and More Studies on the Cārvāka / Lokāyata, but I haven't gotten around to reading them yet – and because my book stack and task list are exploding, I probably never will. So, I surrender, and ask y'all:

What do we know about the differences between Epicurean Philosophy and Charvaka / Lokayata?

Thank you!

Thank you all

Yes! And also: This maintains the distinction between the goal (pleasure), the guide (pleasure), and the-thing-to-be-attained (satisfaction/fulfillment). To me, their interaction is rather peculiar: One is aiming for (goal) and following (guide) one thing (pleasure), and then attains that thing plus another (satisfaction/fulfilment), but if one were to aim for or follow the other, would (quite possibly) attain neither (as Cassius said earlier: "I don't think it would be possible for me to say at the end that I was satsified if I had set "being satisfied" as my guide all along the way").

This analogy helped me wrap my head around it; maybe it helps someone else, so here we go: If you lived in a remote cabin, satisfaction/fulfilment could mean having a shed full of firewood (→ filled one's cup of pleasure) for winter. However, if that's so, you would not aim for having a shed full of firewood, because that could mislead you into building a very tiny shed and/or trick you into never using any of the wood you chopped down years and years ago. Instead, you would aim for making as many logs/billets (pleasure) as you can (goal), and let your method be guided by how many you get done (guide).

Quote from Cassius

[…] many people are reading their own definition into Epicurus' view of pleasure, and then taking him to be telling them how to achieve their own limited goals. In contrast, […] many of his specific statements about pleasure can easily be misapplied (as do those who practice asceticism) if they think that his explanation of the general goal is specifically applicable to what they themselves think is "pleasure."

I agree. I would just add that it's natural for many people that the specific causes them to question the general ("Hey, this went well! Why don't we always do that?"), that it is natural to have questions or doubts in various ways, and that ancient Epicureans expected that, which is why so much is devoted to the general principles of finding the right answers. So, I would stress this point: The fault of those you mentioned is not that they thought at all – their mistake is that they applied improper methods in their thinking

(This focus is related to that mathematics analogy I made regarding the nature of Epicurean dogmatism.)

I agree, except I'd avoid conflating goal and guide from the start, because I think there is additional value in addressing both separately at first.

The way I perceive my life, it feels like the goal and guide are usually different; eg: "My goal is qualifying for a good job, my guide is the feedback during training", "My goal is a fat 401k, my guide is a spreadsheet and some graphs". However, it seems like this is not typically the case when the goal is a feeling: "My goal is a happy marriage, and my guide is how happy we are now", "My goal is to overcome anxiety, my guide is how anxious I still am now".

Recognising the identity of goal and guide is a pattern with feeling-based goals, and seeing the dangers involved in using alternative guides ("Aim for satisfaction, and you'll get dissatisfied regret about what could have been") helps me be more firm in where I stand – thank you

Quote from Cassius

Of course, i wouldn't say that it's illegitmate by nature to set your goals low and work to achieve them so you can say that you are "satisfied." There's no way by nature to say that that's wrong, as it could give that type of person100% pleasure if they lower their sights and also experience no pain. But many people, and I would say most people, would look at the missed opportunity of pleasures that could have been achieved at a reasonable cost in pain and have regret - a form of pain - that they did not use their lives more aggressively.

Oh, wow – yes, needlessly lowering my bar would cause so much regret that I never even considered it!

Quote from Cassius

Yes I would like to say at my time of departure that I am satisfied, but paradoxically I don't think it would be possible for me to say at the end that I was satsified if I had set "being satisfied" as my guide all along the way.

That's very true! I don't think I could have come up with that – it is very compelling. Thank you!

Something else came to mind: Satisfaction is the pleasure of successful Choice, whereas Relief is the pleasure of successful Avoidance -- so maybe it worked so well for me, because looking for Satisfaction forced me to look for Choice (instead of staying overly focused on Avoidance). It feels quite right now, and would imply that simply sticking to "Pleasure is the guide and goal, and Julia has to especially remember her Choices!" means I can reap the benefits without risking the dangers

This explains nicely why pleasure is the goal, but it does not explain why it should also be the guide towards that goal…?

Isn't aiming for satisfaction going to result in the maximum pleasure? What's the difference between hedonic calculus and making sure you're as satisfied as possible in as many areas of life as possible? To help me see the difference, can you give me a counterexample, where my choice of words would be misleading?

I would argue that newborns tend to be more about immediate gratification (little pleasure right now; Cyrenaic), whereas older animals (including humans) shift towards delayed gratification (to maximise pleasure over time according to predicted future; Epicurean), and I would further argue that the sensation of success in that latter process – that is: the sensation accompanying the pleasure derived from successfully executed hedonic calculus – is called satisfaction (or pleasure of reward). Satisfaction is the pleasure of reward, the pleasure of hedonic calculus done well (eg: made a plan, came through, no regrets).

If one specific pleasure is the indicator of how well I compute and follow through with hedonic calculus, then doesn't that specific pleasure become my guide (towards maximising the net sum of all pleasure, which is still my goal)?

In my own experience: When I initially said "OK, let's maximise pleasure!" that worked well, but it remained very hard to start, let alone complete unpleasant tasks (for more pleasure later). The general pleasure (of all types except satisfaction) I predicted I would gain was insufficient to motivate me (even for unpleasant but ordinary tasks that are sensible, necessary, even urgent); however, focusing specifically on the satisfaction I predicted I would feel after each potential course of action, it became much clearer to me which course of action is correct, and also only then could the predicted general pleasure really unfold and push towards motivating me, too. It's as if predicted satisfaction turns predicted pleasure into present motivation. With that, satisfaction became the guide, did it not?

Hello everyone

a little while ago, I noted how "satisfaction" seems to help me do proper calculus and helps me to follow through on it; both to forgo immediate (but empty) pleasures, and to work towards delayed gratifications (see post #4 in linked thread). Since then, I'm wondering about the difference of "satisfaction" versus (katastematic) pleasure.

Can you please give me a (hypothetical) example for why "satisfaction" (as opposed to: "pleasure") as the guide of life comes short of, passes by, or otherwise misses the goalpost? Isn't satisfaction exactly what "net pleasure" is? What's the difference between satisfaction, and a pleasure I enjoy remembering? What's the difference between pleasures I enjoy remembering versus those that brought me net pleasure? Isn't it the same?

Isn't the amount of satisfaction gained what makes the key difference between unnatural/limitless/corrosive desires, natural-but-unnecessary, and natural desires? Meeting natural desires is always satisfying, meeting unnatural desires is never satisfying, and the satisfaction of meeting natural-but-unnecessary desires is smaller, the stronger the expectation/dependence/addiction to the unnecessary substance/action is (which makes them a slippery slope).

Do the sources contrast "satisfaction" with another term (such as "pleasure") somewhere?

Thank you

Thank you for sharing that quote!

Quote from Cassius

continuous pleasures […] sustained pleasures

What we consider to be painful and pleasurable is relative to our past experiences. Pleasures and pains both wear off with time. As such, no single pleasure can be sustained continuously – and that's not an opinion, that's biology. Now, the fragment uses the plural; that can be interpreted in a number of ways. However:

Whenever one pleasure ends and another pleasure begins – when, say, the pleasure of warmth ends to be replaced by that of a long winter hike – that winter hike will, by necessity, contain the pain of the absence of warmth and the presence of cold; vice versa, the winter hike contains the pleasure of watching bird and breathing fresh air, which were absent inside the warm cabin. In this way, by necessity, every pleasure – if at all, save only that of brief ecstasy – contains some pain.

How that pain is met is just as important as how the pleasure is met; and I chose to accept it as a fact of life, and dismiss it as fast and best I can, focusing my attention elsewhere instead (something I called "embrace" before).

Furthermore, what we consider a good time is relative to our past experiences (and unnatural desires instilled through media and society at large); today's good week is tomorrow's normal week, and also today's bad week is tomorrow's normal week. This is why, in times of abundance, running away from pain will only serve to narrow down the corridor of what is experienced, whereas in times of want, running away from pain will serve to widen the corridor of what is experienced.

Now, one might think: "That's fine, I'll narrow the corridor way up there, where all the pleasures are." However, that is precisely what doesn't work – because, as I said initially, pleasures wear off with time, and so that will be one dull, bland and pale corridor to rot away in. Instead, in times of abundance, the way to go is to seek out discomfort and pains to maintain one's experience of good things as pleasurable.

As for times of want, I suspect the vast majority of us, myself included, doesn't live on a remote trapline in the Yukon, where what is necessary for mere survival entails more than enough discomfort, pain and struggle already; and neither did Epicurus, which is why the Letter To Menoeceus says:

Quote

To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes one alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune.

I don't see the point in whining about the cold and the struggle, when I could just embrace it to get going to begin with, could just accept and dismiss it while I'm at it, and in this manner enable myself to shift my attention and enjoy breathing clear air, watching the birds.

Living in continuous pleasure without a recurring, prior pursuit of that pleasure is harmful, because it invariably leads to a progressive narrowing of the corridor of things which bring pleasure, which is at the very heart of addiction. The only way to keep that corridor wide and open is to do unpleasant things: Chop all the firewood for winter, instead of having it delivered. (There's nothing wrong with, e.g., earning money to then have firewood delivered. That's not instant gratification; there was a struggle for that pleasure, it was just done differently.) Clean your own house, instead of hiring a maid. Save up instead of taking out loans. Take a cold shower. Pleasure without pursuit switches the brain to an endorphin-driven system instead of a dopamine-driven system, and that means it kills one's motivation and drive, resulting in a lifestyle that is a pain in itself but very hard to break out of – because to break out of it one would need motivation and drive. That deadlock only exists, because abundance is not what we evolved to live with; humans thrive in struggles – well-chosen and calculated to yield net pleasure, but still: struggles. We thrive with pleasures which require recurring prior effort to capture them. Avoiding all struggle results in living with a big box of junk food, smartphone in hand. Instant gratification, no drive.

The opposite (dopamine-driven) route is that of purposely seeking out pleasures that are hard to get. In pursuing them, in accepting-but-dismissing the pain involved to get to them, one will at worst make oneself unusually motivated and driven, but that's not such a bad thing, because there are always nice adventures to be had. Those are the people who want to get out, want to go on a hike, a bike ride, build a shed, get things done – and who, in the end, happily enjoy even the simple pleasures nature readily provides, such as fresh food and clear water.

Now, I really want to agree to disagree, and that's why to be fair I'll read replies, but I won't reply in turn, because I don't want to argue this point any further (as I consider it to be a biological fact).

Quote from Cassius

The rejection of a neutral state is probably inconsistent with the flatness of "when they feel nothing."

Just because there is no neutral state doesn't mean people can't feel as though they were in one; what is more: to "feel nothing" is qualitatively different from "feeling to be in a neutral state". I think it is the subjective experience that TauPhi is aiming at, and it is indeed possible to subjectively "feel nothing"; emotionally, physically, or both.

Quote from TauPhi

Pain is not the only path towards pleasure.

I agree with everything you said, except for this; it's just not possible, physiologically. Your nerves will eventually de-sensitise and get used to whatever pleasure they consistently get, unless that is interrupted sufficiently long and often to re-sensitise them, the only way to do that is by pain, and this is true equally of mental and bodily pleasures, because in the end, both are just nerves.

The average life easily contains enough pain to achieve that re-sensitisation. However, there is no pleasure in warmth which has been there, unchanging, for your entire life. Likewise, there is no pleasure in eating cake, if that's all you've ever been eating. And finally, the only sustainable way to solve this is to get out in the cold, have some bread and water – and that can be done reluctantly, miserably, or you can embrace it and make a day of it. Either way, it entails the pain of having no cake and no warmth for a while. Does that mean it is net painful? No, of course not; but being cold is not a pleasure in itself, either.

There is joy in variation because variation itself is a joy (for most people). However, by necessity, there is no variation in being constantly at the absolute limit of pleasure. There is a much lower, sustainable limit of pleasure, where a stronger pleasure is recurrently interrupted by a weaker pleasure; and because everything is relative, including pleasure and pain, that means variation, by necessity, interrupts pleasure with pain. That's just how nerves and neural networks work.

There's no such thing as a permanent high; there's also no such thing as a permanent low. With time, what is perceived as neutral shifts. The same is true for the extremes we can handle, both positive and negative, because what we perceive as endurable shifts, too.

I cannot make my warm, soft, calm corner any better by making it warmer, softer or calmer; it is already perfect. So when it gets boring to my Self (my body seems like it would love to stay there forever), the only thing I can do is to get up and leave it behind – but that's physically painful compared to staying where I was. It is a net positive, because my mind is happy – but my skin and bones are unhappy. If I wouldn't simply embrace that as a part of life and focus on what is to be gained, it would only serve to add mentally misery to the physical pain, and that certainly wouldn't help things.

Anyways, I rest my case. Agree to disagree, I suppose?

PS: I think "to embrace specific calculated pains" was a bad choice of words for what I mean; "to both accept and dismiss specific calculated pain" might be clearer: It feels painful to go for a hike through the ice (feedback from my body), but that doesn't mean I am in pain while I do it (state of my Self). With other things, I am in pain while I do them (current state of my Self), but I do them anyway because I know it will pay off later (projected future state of my Self and/or my body). What I am aiming at is to not whine about the cold after I made the choice to go out (which will only make me miserable), but to focus on all the rest (which is probably the same as to say: tap into the background pleasure TauPhi mentioned?) or at least focus on the future.

Quote from Kalosyni

As for anything that feels like it is a "hedonic treadmill"...I would suggest slowing down and putting more attention on the specific experiences and to "open up the senses" to be fully present both in your mind and body.

To agree and expand: When seeking ever more pleasurable activities, the range of experience gets increasingly narrow. It is common knowledge that with drugs, increased doses are needed to elicit the same sensation; however, the same basic principle applies to all comforts. Eventually, one hops from one previously-pleasurable activity to the next, without deriving much satisfaction from them anymore. Additionally, ordinary chores become increasingly excruciating.

This is why that which one should habituate oneself to are simple pleasures. Only then can '"opening up the senses" to be fully present both in mind and body' really break the hedonic treadmill. That is to say: The hedonic treadmill is broken by widening the range of experiences towards the painful. This is how joys that turned bland eventually regain their brilliance; and by being prudent and putting some limit indulgence, they can keep that brilliance until the day we die.

Quote from Matteng

What speaks against the idea that intense sensual pleasures go beyond the limit of absence of pain?

Speaking in a physiological manner, either a receptor is fully (ant)agonised or it isn't. As such, even on the biochemical level, the absence of pain is the limit of pleasure. (Substance use, particularly using superagonists or otherwise in high doses, can exceed what the body evolved to experience, creating states of bliss unachievable by natural means; however, the result is long-lasting, sometimes permanent anhedonia, as even the most beautiful day pales in comparison to our modern level of chemical engineering…) If you're speaking of one's absolute limit of pleasure, as opposed to what is possible in the moment (which is less), or what is sustainable (which is even less), to be a bit blunt about it: States of intense sensual pleasures paired with the absence of all physical and mental pains, the very moment of climax, say, would be that limit, I suppose. The absolute limit of pleasure is not eating an apple in a tent, because while you do that, you might long for the presence of a loved one and a comfortable bed – however, that might be the limit of pleasure sustainable during a long trek.

Note that pleasure is present only where and while pain is absent. I can laugh at a joke while my knee hurts. My knee can hurt while my skin, bones, muscles and sinews left and right of it feel good.

Quote from Cassius

"give definite teaching and not profess doubt?" (Diogenes Laertius 121)

And you yourself always say that one has to keep in mind the entirety of the sources; when the evidence is insufficient, that doubt may well be expressed, eg in the form of multiple possible explanations. Again, this is more like maths, where there are countless unproven hypothesis and various theories about them, each with their own reasons for and against.

Contrast that to cults, organised religions, or contemporary ideologies: They claim their truth is absolute and complete. They claim to have it all figured out.

Epicurean philosophy is a dogma in method, from which content derives (like maths). Organised religion and modern ideologies are dogmas in content, which is simply declared and to be taken at face value. And just like mathematicians are to be dogmatic about 2+2=4 and are to continue to profess that at every chance they get, so should we "never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." The defining feature is not just knowing where you are, but also knowing how you arrived at where you are…

…to which Christianists would, of course, retort "I got here by reading the Bible", but I think you know what I'm getting at there is no need for trust, faith or believe in Epicurean philosophy (nor is there such a need in maths); there is no need for authority, hierarchy, power or a sense of superiority, either; not in the way this is true about cults, organised religions or modern ideologies.

Quote from Cassius

Is that ("finding the truth and saying it is xyz") not exactly what Epicurus does when he says things like:

It is; however (and I will use "dogmatic" in the modern sense here):

1. It's one thing to say "Nature shows that…" and another thing to say "I command that…".
2. Epicurus was was not dogmatic such as to shut down any discussion; nor was he dogmatically closed-minded, ever willfully ignorant of evidence that might persuade him to change his position.
3. Epicurus was dogmatic about that we ought to think for ourselves, use our own sources of evidence (senses/feelings/anticipations) and our own mental faculties in the proper way (how to think). As such, he was dogmatically anti-ideological.

Do you see the difference? Epicurus was like maths, in the sense that mathematics is dogmatic about the fact that 2+2=4 and that everything else is, by necessity, wrong – but this follows clearly from the assumptions (which take the place of the canon), and it is reasoned with proper logic, not with magical thinking or invocation of authority; and anyone is welcome to debate the issue, try to make their case for 2+2=5 as best they can (and be proven wrong).

The leaders of organised religions do not give reasons, not even if they change their mind (eg Papal infallibility), and they do not permit doubt, not even with good evidence (eg Giordano Bruno). They simply assert out of the blue, and that's the end of it. They invoke authority.

Did Epicurus say: "Death is nothing to us because I said so"?
Did he say: "There are infinitely many atoms because the gods told me they tried to count them but couldn't"?

The "dogmatism" of Epicurean philosophy is neither authoritarian nor prescriptive, and as such has nothing to do with that of organised religions or contemporary ideologies, other than having historically been called using the same word, which has since shifted meaning considerably. This difference in the type of "dogmatism" is analogous to that of mathematics versus organised religion/modern ideology.

Quote from Cassius

"I merely need to welcome it" could be read as a kind of muted Stoic-sounding indifference.

That's not what I say. I don't say "I don't care about the presence or absence of pleasure". I say "I welcome its presence," and I mean that in the same way as Don has just explained perfectly the meaning of "to welcome sth": the arrival of pleasure causes joy, it is a thing I am grateful for, but it is also something I don't need to push myself towards – it happens on its own. I don't need to discipline myself to eat more of my favourite foods, I just need to welcome the joy of them and the eating of them, and the pleasure of the eating of them, that happens practically on its own.

Quote from Cassius

rather than seeing themselves as sort of idly waiting to welcome whatever happens to come along

That's not quite true for me. Unless I make a concrete mental effort to do just about anything, my Self (as opposed to my body) will remain in thought worlds, and my body (as opposed to my Self) will continue to behave as a piglet would (seeking a soft corner with a heated blanket and comfort food). To do anything at all, I need to first bring the two together. Next, I need to muster the mental power to force my body to move against its drive for immediate gratification, because I know there is more pleasure to be had by delaying gratification. This is to say: Even to shower I need to call to mind "I do this now, because I will feel better after!" Unless I did that, unless I would briefly acknowledge and then account for the pain involved, unless I would embrace it for the sake of the reward that's sure to come, and quickly moved my mind firmly into the mental space of how I will feel after I have showered, I would not be able to do it. I simply couldn't be bothered, even though I would be filthy. And this is not speculation, this is tried and tested, time and again. My mind would dissociate from the body again, wondering off into thought, and my body would move itself to a warm corner and wrap itself up in a warm, soft cocoon.

While these mechanics probably start with much smaller actions in me compared to average people, they remain the same no matter what I do. Others who also have a strong ability to dissociate, such as David Goggins, are similar. He is quite clear about that, in his two books, and also in subsequent interviews: He hates running, but he loves what he gains from it on a personal, private level so much that he continues to do it, and he does it by not thinking about running, but by firmly holding in mind what he gets in return, as well as by not engaging in arguments with his own mind, because it will only find excuses, weaken his resolve, make him quit, which will then make him miserable. He idly wasted his life away before that, barely scraping by, over-indulging in junkfood and TV – and I'd be no different; as a matter of fact, I've been there.

I suppose this comes down to a difference in nature and nurture, leading to different dispositions, requiring different remedies on the detailed level, the split-second by split-second level of how to operate one's mind and body, despite the overall goal and guide to life being the same.

(1) Every set of ideas, by being coalesced into an ideology, will have a power structure, because it is the defining nature of an ideology to no longer have free discourse amongst equals; an ideology says of itself: "We found the truth, and it is xyz."

(2) The stronger the hierarchies in a group are, the more likely, the faster, the worse will the abuse be that happens in that group.

(3) Each ideology and group attracts a certain type of person more than other types. Supernatural religions and fascism attract (a) people who love to have authority and (b) people who sheepishly follow authority. They do not attract people who seek equal footing and open discourse. Furthermore, fascism and most supernatural religions attract people who enjoy external validation of their own "superiority" over everyone else.

Putting those three ingredients together is a surefire way for disaster.

However, note how they apply equally to Catholicism and Nazism. The label of "religion" is not required; a cult, corporation or even a nation can serve as the highly-hierarchical group, too. The ingredient of "supernatural" is not required, and as as a matter of fact, it is a mere correlate, but not causal at all, as can be seen in indigenous tribes, in Icelandic folk superstitions, in Wicca (I think) and other supernatural believes, which are not ideological, hierarchical, authoritarian, or "superior".