Sounds good. But it also sounds like, “live a normal practical life and leave that enlightenment business to the saints.”
More like live a normal practical life and incorporate that enlightenment business in when and where you are able and willing. But since you are living a normal life you won’t have as much time nor the appropriate external conditions to actually give up all attachment. In fact your life is probably centered around attachment, to family, friends, society, hobbies etc. And you’d probably take offense if people told you to live in such a way that you’d feel no grief on account of change in anything impermanent, whether wife, son, home, or society. So basically just learn to hold it all lighter since you obviously aren’t planning on letting it go completely and be a good person because it will make you happier in the long run. (the “you” is generic, not you specifically)
But also again, I don’t think hell-mongering is helping anybody acquire either self-compassion or healthy habits. It’s a mentally crippling trick of authoritarian psychological control: a way of extending more crude and worldly systems of terrorizing discipline and mind-management into a life beyond the grave. If people rally want to have compassion for themselves they can start by working on the effacement of the externally imposed fear and dread that crush us and imprison us in authoritarian and hierarchical social control systems.
I think it is a very complicated empirical question whether belief that unwholesome actions lead to an unpleasant destination after death is helpful in eliminating unhealthy habits. While I wouldn’t find a monk yelling about hell-fire inspiring or a trustworthy guide to attaining inner peace, I don’t think all mention of early buddhist teachings on hell can be categorized as a crude worldly system of terrorizing discipline and mind-management. But encouraging healthy discipline and guiding minds towards wholesome qualities is part and parcel of being a dhamma teacher, and hell notions are part of early buddhist dhamma. Also buddhism isn’t about effacing external systems, but internal obstructions. Getting rid of bad institutions is good and all but is something separate from dhamma, which is all about inward individual transformation. Tibetan prisoners in China didn’t perfect self-compassion by fighting the Chinese, but by never losing universal compassion and thereby maintaining their own serenity.
It’s not surprising that these attitudes about imagined post-mortem tortures seem come along with associated anxieties about women liberating themselves from male control, about uppity refusers not groveling before soldier-killers and their uniforms, and about military-dominated governments dictating the norms of spiritual practice.
Without an argument I don’t even know how to be charitable to or what to make of this statement. Some kind of implied slippery slope argument? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Just FYI, I’m ambivalent on how I should regard buddhist notions of kamma and rebirth. I consider their possibility and imagine what it would be like it they were true. I read rebirth suttas like stories and think about the kind of feeling that I get from the story. I think I would be pretty motivated to be circumspect in all my actions. So I try to take that feeling I get from reading the suttas and use it as one aid among many to increasingly become more circumspect in my actions of thought, word, and deed.