gurugeorge

I think so. If Peter Kingsley is to be believed, there's a thread of ancient Greek non-dual thought that may have started with Pythagoras, but was definitely and recognisably expounded by Parmenides, Empedocles and Empedocles' student Zeno (the "sophist"). It then slid past Plato and Aristotle (they didn't "get it" but did preserve, transmit, and talk about some of the ideas coming from the school), passed down to (some of) the Middle and Neo-Platonists on the one hand, and the "neo-Pythagoreans" on the other hand, also turning up eventually in Hermeticism, in some (though of course not all) forms of Gnosticism and eventually in Egyptian "alchemy", and ended up in a few obscure Sufi sects. (Ironically, this is kind of coming full circle, as Kingsley believes this ancient Western non-dualism was originally a derivative of Asian shamanism, picked up by the Phocean Greeks and taken with them to Italy when they moved to there from Asia Minor.)

If Kingsley is correct, there are huge dollops of irony here, because a) it would mean that this distinctinctively Western non-dualism is actually older than many of the more recognisable Eastern forms (e.g. Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra), and b) it actually lies at the very foundations of scientific Western civilisation (especially via Parmenides and Empedocles). The distinctive thing about it is that was as practical as it was mystical. Exponents of Pythagoreanism and Eleatic philosophy were both non-dual mystics and intensely practical people with broad scientific knowledge and a lot of scientific curiosity. Take the often-forgotten second half of Parmenides' poem, of which only the tiniest fragments survive - although Parmenides called it "the way of deceptive opinion" it looks like it had scientific ideas that we would nowadays consider ahead of their time.

Kingsley sees Plato and Aristotle as transmitters but also as tragic misunderstanders and garblers of those ancient philosophies - they basically turned what was originally an experiential, mystical and scientific philosophy into "armchair" philosophy based on argument and the internal coherence of ideas. (Kingsley sees it partly as a cultural thing too, about Athenian Greek intellectualism vs. Phocean Greek empiricism.)

Of course, once literalist Christianity came along, this philosophy, which is the true Western heritage, the true driving force behind everything we think of as distinctively "Western", was totally buried under the midden heap of Platonic/Aristotelian misunderstandings for centuries and we were (essentially) robbed of our true heritage and collectively driven mad. (i.e. we have come to believe that there is some kind of contradiction between the spiritual and the scientific, whereas the Pythagoreans and Eleatics didn't see any contradiction at all - they were both non-dual mystics and the first scientists; it's only since the rediscovery of such Eastern systems as Buddhism and Daoism that we have come to think that maybe there isn't such a necessary contradiction after all).

P.S. I hope someone else is able to answer your questions 1) and 2), because they're interesting and important. My vague belief in response to 1) is that most Hindu temples are owned by the overarching sects, schools or "Naths", much like the Catholic church owns its churches and fills them with priests and pastors of its choosing, but this might be wrong, I'm not sure.

mountainman

Hi gurugeorge,

Thank you very much for this reference to Peter Kingsley and his ideas concerning the nature of the roots of western science and philosophy (and medicine and logic and etc etc etc). There are a number of articles by this author available online and I am working through them one by one, finding each interesting and thought provoking.

We normally talk about Greek philosophy, religion, medicine, logic, mathematics, art and sculpture, and writings as entirely separate and specialised subject matters. We have all become used to talking about Buddhism (for example) as more than a philosophy, or as more than a religion and have become used to seeing it as a philosophy-religion-metaphysics, or some form of integrated conceptual experience or experiential concept. Other non-dual traditions exist other than Buddhism, as you have outlined above, and thus many of these ancient eastern traditions share common traits.

To find these same traits in Western antiquity is a breakthrough in understanding, and I think it is quite possible that the ancient Greek religious milieu for the period from Pythagoras to Iamblichus were seriously aware of the non-dual teachings of their own lineage, but require their texts to be reinterpretted -- certainly Plotinus appears to have written very close to the explicit formalities common to many non-dual "philosophies-religions-metaphysics". It is an integrative approach to all-of-life.

Thanks again for your input on this very interesting subject matter.

Elijah

I think I know what you are saying and I think you’re right that they are just taking a glimpse of the world from a certain perspective and considering that information in their lives. The piece of information/knowledge/gnosis in the non dual systems is that we are all one.

I’m not a big fan of this type of thinking to tell you the truth. It’s not that I think it’s necessarily incorrect that we are all parts of single whole, we are. But when you unify away the parts and say that we ourselves are illusions and there is only the one and no actual parts then I’m going to have some questions about how you came to that conclusion.

The cessation of normal cognitive function shouldn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion. We talked a little about this before but dissolving what I think you are talking about when you say “self” is shutting down and focusing away from the chatter/thoughts in our heads that we identify as “ourselves”. What I think this is supposed to lead to is a reunderstanding of what your actual self is. Once you get comfortable in a state where your thoughts are quiet you realize that you are not your thoughts but the observer of your thoughts. This is the real benefit to this particular kind of meditative state IMO because hopefully what happens is that when you return to normal cognitive functions and the narrative in your head starts up again you retain what you experienced in your meditative state, that it’s not actually you chatting away in your mind and hopefully you don’t get sucked into the voice’s story or think it is you.

This is where I think the idea of “when the student is ready the teacher will appear” (even thought I don’t know where that saying comes from) because at this point the relationship between you and your thoughts should change to what could be considered a more awaken state or mystical state in that you are positioning your POV from observing outside the flux of the world and your thoughts. The voice in your head becomes a spiritual guide to help teach and explain to you what is going on out there.

As you can see this kind of thinking is completely different than going into a meditative state to find evidence of a metaphysical proposition and that idea about the universe is supposed to somehow transform the individual. I think this is a good illustration of both the divide between a Gnostic and a Mystic and the blurriness there is between the two branches. It really comes down to what they are promoting, the Gnostic thinks that a specific teaching (usually a metaphysical one)is going to save the individual and the world and the mystic thinks that a certain mystical disposition spreading will do that.

Orthodox Christianity does something a little weird. Its knowledge that they are trying to spread is the event of a mystic sacrificing his life and trying to establish some new kind of kingdom. The mysticism it’s trying to provoke and spread in the people is also not the normal slow down or visionary type mysticism but faith somehow becomes the spiritual element or one of the responses in connection to the spiritual side. This is where Paul starts to redefine what makes a jew special and why the gentiles get to be grafted in because faith is the defining trait that made Abraham Abraham. His connection to god was shown by his display of faith.

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Mysticism has a lot of different manifestations but the main one in play the orthodox Christians is dealing with is about faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which is a little unusual. The difference between the Orthodox Christians from the Gnostic and Mystic Christians was that their plans for salvation of the people was different, more political.

As I said above the Gnostic wants to teach the world something about the universe that they think will bring some type of peace to the world and the mystic wants to spread their particular mysticism to the rest of the world thinking it will somehow bring some type of salvation. The orthodox Christians are trying to establish an actual kingdom where people believe in Christ as their authority which would take away the rulers authority. The problem to those particular Jews wasn’t that the people needed a better metaphysical outlook or more mystical experience it was that they needed their freedom from their rulers and oppressors. Jesus is a particular messiah claimant’s attempt at taking on the authority by establishing a king that serves the people meme for the people to promote.

The Gnostics come along and reinterpret Jesus as just a fellow Gnostic or mystic because they don’t understand the whole worship Jesus thing and think it’s just a con by an authoritative religion trying to sucker in the people. The resurrection of the dead was what allowed for a different approach to salvation because they weren’t trying to get a better life during the next reincarnation or favoritism in an afterlife, they were working towards the resurrection of the dead and saw the rulers of man as in the way of getting to that day.

Who gets resurrected and who doesn’t is a matter of debate amongst those who believe in the resurrection and eventually a messiah claimant (or his followers) comes up with the idea of promising to call up anyone who believes in him to help establish the kingdom that he believes will bring about that day. The idea catches on with the people and the rest as they say is our history.
May be right about Thomas, there are some things that can be interpreted as promoting non dualism. I guess it would come down to if the evidence in #50 of “motion and rest” is meant to be two different things there or a unified property that transcends motion and rest as a single force. Thunder sounds like a better example of non-dualist mystical work to me. “I am the substance and the one who has no substance.”
I’m not sure I make that distinction too much since I don’t know anything about Taoism except the Tao te Ching really. But I kind of imagine people in large groups as having fairly varied thinking. I think the majority of people believe what they are told and a small group of people use reason. The group that uses reason can still participate in the activities/traditions of the superstitious but their understanding will be more reasonable about what is going on and the benefits. It is my hope that the writer of the Tao was one of those reasonable people no matter how superstitious or religious those within the community may have interpreted the work. But you could certainly be right that it was just interpreted more philosophical later on
Plato may have misunderstood the non dualists of the highest order, but the non-dualist where everything is in flux or at rest I think he had reason not to believe that was the case, not a misunderstanding, he makes cases against both in his works.

Enlightenment for Plato isn’t about realizing we are all connected or part of a whole but about realizing that we are only seeing half the picture. Plato took the middle ground between the two non-dualist positions of everything was at rest or in motion and went with, only everything we can perceive is in flux, which makes it sensible but that just beyond our ability to perceive is a constant eternal force at work, which is the cause of what we can see.

5. Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.” Thomas

We can’t perceive the eternal side of the universe but we can conceive of it mentally and this is where things start to turn a little mystical because now they see their intellect connecting and revealing spiritual forms within the universe. The one spiritual form we can’t even conceive of is God because the ideas in our heads aren’t ideas anymore but “created things” and distinct from god, making him unknowable. Unknowable but still present within everything and everyidea. When you become aware of this constant unknowable source of creation all around you within everything beyond your about to perceive or even conceive of, then that is what is referred to as seeing the light since there are similarities in how we see/ignore natural light as well, in that we don’t see the light itself but what the light reveals.

rcscwc

Some temples are built by a family, and they continue to own it. Sometimes they were exclusive, open for general public only on festivals. Families maintained them and the priests.

Some such temples are opened too. Some have trusts to manage them.


Some temples were/are built by certain sects or orders. The order controls them. The head of the order maybe, but normally is not, hereditary.

Some ancient temples are managed by trusts regulated by the Acts od ligislatures.

Our family has an old temple in the village. Open to all, but no interference is welcomed. There is not even a priest. A few years ago we had it renovated from foundations upward. Lot of expenditure was by us, but volantary donations, mostly anonymous, too poured in.