:smile: That Lysis is a personal name!

For the noun I would try dictionaries like Liddle Scott (Greek-English):

https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82

Or Bailly (Greek-French):

http://gerardgreco.free.fr/IMG/pdf/bailly-2020-hugo-chavez-20210815a.pdf

And if all fails, you can always refer to good old Wiktionary:

λῠ́σῐς • (lúsis) f (genitive λῠ́σεως) From λύω (lúō, “loosen”) +‎ -σις (-sis)

1. loosing, releasing, release
2. deliverance
3. redemption
4. parting
5. emptying
6. solution

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82

In Plato, e.g. the Phaedo, it is used in the sense of release of soul from body, etc.

Science, mathematics, logic, phenomenology. Any discourse which depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority. Any discourse, that is, that is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts. — Janus

I like what you said, but couldn't it be countered that these ostensibly defeasible disciplines also develop their orthodoxies and may be resistant to new ideas or approaches they view as outliers and heretics?

The way I understand Greek philosophy and, in particular, Platonism, philosophy, by definition, is the quest for wisdom or knowledge (sophia), where "love" of wisdom is not a passive state but an active desire to attain wisdom or knowledge that manifests itself in all areas of life.

This is why, like Socrates, the genuine philosopher in the Greek tradition begins from a stage of ignorance, or more precisely, of awareness of one's own (and others') ignorance, and progresses onward and upward toward knowledge all the way to the very apex and beyond - if there is such thing.

This means that philosophy is a process in which the intelligent principle (nous) in man progressively sheds all ignorance or non-intelligence until knowledge or intelligence itself alone remains. And at that point, the seeking intelligence becomes united to knowledge.

At the same time, it is also a process of self-discovery or self-realization in the sense that (1) when all that is left is intelligence, one is nothing but that, and (2) the ultimate goal is attained through introspective inquiry as described in Plato's Phaedo, where intelligence or nous gradually dissociates itself from the physical body, sense-perceptions, and thoughts, and abides "alone, itself by itself". This is the culmination of the celebrated maxim "know thyself" (gnóthi seautón).

This is why religion is not necessary in this process, the only required belief being belief in truth and in one's own ability to discover it.

This doesn't mean that we must discard religion altogether in the same way as it doesn't mean we must give up science or basic comforts and needs like food, clothes, shelter, relationships, work, and everything that amounts to "normal" life. On the contrary, self-realization is best achieved in the midst of a full life.

The withdrawal from the "unreal" is purely inward and is in no way incompatible with "external" reality as one's experience of it is completely transformed and no longer represents a "hindrance" to be avoided.

And if all fails, you can always refer to good old Wiktionary:

λῠ́σῐς • (lúsis) f (genitive λῠ́σεως) From λύω (lúō, “loosen”) +‎ -σις (-sis) — Apollodorus

Thanks. That does indeed appear synonymous to Mokṣa. As I don't read Greek, do you know any instances in Plato's dialouges?

The way I understand Greek philosophy and, in particular, Platonism, philosophy, by definition, is the quest for wisdom or knowledge (sophia), where "love" of wisdom is not a passive state but an active desire to attain wisdom or knowledge that manifests itself in all areas of life. — Apollodorus

I can't help but agree. I think this is how Pierre Hadot understands it, but he's a bit of a lone voice in the sea of arid analytical philosophy.

The area I find most interesting at the moment is the idea of this liberation from ignorance. — Tom Storm

Ignorance in Eastern traditions is 'avidya' - the negative of 'vidya'. Vidya (Sanskrit: विद्या, IAST: vidyā) figures prominently in all texts pertaining to Indian philosophy – mean science, learning, knowledge and scholarship; most importantly, it refers to valid knowledge, which cannot be contradicted, and true knowledge, which is the intuitively-gained knowledge of the self. Vidya is not mere intellectual knowledge, for the Vedas demand understanding.'

Avidya is usually contrasted with the Judeo-Christian 'sin' on the grounds that vidya is cognitive whereas sin pertains to the will. So, avidya is corruption of the intellect as opposed to sin being corruption of the will.

Of course there are many deep issues behind that. Western Buddhists will often insist that there is no word for sin in Buddhism, but there are a couple of terms, klesa (usually trs as 'defilements') and asava (usually trs as 'outflows') which have at least overlapping meanings with 'sin'. I think one of the factors behind that, is that Western Buddhists equate the idea of sin with stuffy Western religiosity.

I like what you said, but couldn't it be countered that these ostensibly defeasible disciplines also develop their orthodoxies and may be resistant to new ideas or approaches they view as outliers and heretics? — Tom Storm

Yes, I agree, but I think that the development of orthodoxies is intrinsic to religion while not being intrinsic to those other disciplines, and is actually counter to their spirit of inquiry. I think orthodoxy is intrinsic to religion because it (at least any organized religion) is lost without authority.

The "perennial philosophy" is...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned, not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted, than others; and [3] that the wise... have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle, and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

Perhaps there's an inherent conflict between the philosophia perennis and liberalism, on account of that in the latter, the individual is the sole nexus of moral authority, and so the idea that there could be a source of moral authority outside the individual conscience is rejected. And I think that is a sound principle, IF the individual does pursues and conforms with a scrupulous, rational and philosophically informed ethical code. But the problem is, this seems far from the default for most individuals - certainly for myself. It is just the sensed absence of that kind of internal guidance system which lead me to seek out the wisdom embodied in those teachings.

I'm not talking about the politically correct "woman's right to choose". I'm talking about the supposed "miraculous nature" of living a lifestyle in which having to have an abortion is always in sight. What is so "miraculous" in damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, and, if they fail, with abortions? You think it's "miraculous" to TOLO, like a robot? — baker

A woman's right to choose is not related - in my mind, to political correctness. It's more fundamental than that. It's about freeing women from the imprisonment of biological fate. There are some men; indeed, some cultures that would rather keep women barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink. These cultures are invariably over-populated and poor. Women's rights are an enlightened value, fundamental to the prosperous sustainable future I'm working for.

(That's when I thought by 'enlightened' the OP meant secular democracy and scientific rationality - and not psuedo-spiritual hocus pocus. )

I wonder what you have to say about people who don't feel that way about food, animal or plant based. — baker

I'd say, if not a consequence of some medical condition, in all likelyhood, that their thinking is warped by a false distinction between the spiritual and the mundane, inherent to religions. It's a fundamentally abusive dynamic - to require acolytes to disregard worldly possessions, bodily integrity - and things like the enjoyment of food. Aesthtic religions set people up to be robbed, sexually abused and starved. Hallelujah!

It's also a dynamic carried forth in the subject/object distinction in western philosophy - wherein over-empahsis on the subjective frees governments and industry from real world responsibilities.

"I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands."

You missed the forest, not just the tree to bark at. — baker

Huh?

That does indeed appear synonymous to Mokṣa. As I don't read Greek, do you know any instances in Plato's dialouges? — Wayfarer

Sure:

The true philosophers and they alone are always most eager to release the soul, and just this—the release (lysis) and separation of the soul from the body—is their study (Phaedo 67c).

The lovers of knowledge, then, I say, perceive that philosophy, taking possession of the soul when it is in this state, encourages it gently and tries to set it free (lyein), pointing out that the eyes and the ears and the other senses are full of deceit, and urging it to withdraw from these, except in so far as their use is unavoidable, and exhorting it to collect and concentrate itself within itself, and to trust nothing except itself and its own abstract thought of abstract existence; and to believe that there is no truth in that which it sees by other means and which varies with the various objects in which it appears, since everything of that kind is visible and apprehended by the senses, whereas the soul itself sees that which is invisible and apprehended by the mind. Now the soul of the true philosopher believes that it must not resist this deliverance (lysis), and therefore it stands aloof from pleasures and lusts and griefs and fears, so far as it can … (Phaedo 83a-b).

Essentially, the release or liberation of consciousness from the body-mind complex, i.e., from conditioned experience or existence, is common to both Platonism and Indic traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

In any case, the underlying idea seems the same to me. And so is meditation or introspective inquiry as the means of attaining that state. The only matter of debate seems to be the exact state or experience denoted by the term “release” (lysis or mokṣa).

And if Greek lysis and Sanskrit mokṣa are synonymous, what other parallels are there? Is it not the case that parallels can be found by looking for parallels instead of focusing exclusively on differences?

My feeling is that an understanding of Platonism may help us better understand some aspects of Indian philosophy and vice-versa, an understanding of Indian philosophy may help us understand aspects of Platonism - more so than looking at either tradition through modern eyes.

Hadot, Suzuki, and others are alright as far as modern analyses go, but I think the key to understanding Plato is to read Plato.

Thus far we've got:

1. The world of phenomena as unreal or impermanent "appearance".

2. Existence centered on appearances as "painful", "unhappy", or "unsatisfactory" and leading to more "pain/unhappiness/lack of satisfaction".

3. Knowledge leading to release from the world of appearance and mental states associated with it, as the solution. (It is interesting to note in this connection that Greek lysis means "release" as well as "solution".)

4. Meditation or introspective inquiry as the practical means of attaining insight into reality and, ultimately, the final goal.

5. The importance of dissociating one's consciousness from the physical world, body, emotions, and thoughts.

6. Development of virtues and adherence to ethical patterns of thought and behavior.

I think this is quite a handful already .... :smile:

:ok:

Thanks, some very useful perspectives here well summarized.

It's not in the least how Plato is presented and taught nowadays. You could sit through many academic years of seminars on Plato's dialogues and not hear anything about it. It's explicated in Thomas McEvilly's 2009 book The Shape of Ancient Thought but when I did Buddhist Studies in 2011-12, that book was not even on the radar.

Hadot, Suzuki, and others are alright as far as modern analyses go, but I think the key to understanding Plato is to read Plato. — Apollodorus

Problem is unless you're reading Plato in his original language (and even then you will be imposing interpretations native to yours) you are reading Plato as interpreted by speakers of your language and as rendered in that language with all the implicit presuppositions that involves.

That said, someone who has studied Ancient Greek language, culture and philosophy for a lifetime would arguably be better at avoiding such prejudices than a Greek language neophyte would, so you are probably better off reading translations. But still scholars differ in their renderings and their interpretations, and it seems no one can completely escape their native assumptions, which means that Plato for us is always going to be Plato-for-us.

Of course, Plato should ideally be read in the original Greek. But I think even an English (or any other modern) translation will convey enough of Plato's actual teachings for the reader to form a fair idea of what he is talking about.

The crucial approach is to read Plato himself before reading modern interpretations of him. What is interesting is that in my experience at least, if you do that, you will be far more likely to find traditional readings like Plotinus and Proclus more in agreement with your own than those of modern scholarship.

To me, this suggests that a break must have occurred at some point in the interpretative tradition and that modern scholars have hopelessly lost the thread - and sometimes the plot - as noted by Gerson.

Incidentally, another key element that can be added to the list of East-West (or Greek-Indian) parallels is the conception of spiritual or philosophical practice as a process of purification, which goes hand-in-hand with the concept of liberation or release:

And therefore those who care for their own souls, and do not live in service to the body, turn their backs upon all these men [the lovers of money and other material things] and do not walk in their ways, for they feel that they know not whither they are going. They themselves believe that philosophy, with its deliverance (lysis) and purification, must not be resisted, and so they turn and follow it whithersoever it leads(Phaedo 82d).

Again, "purification" here may be interpreted as a process by which consciousness is gradually cleansed of ignorance until the knowledge or wisdom inherent in consciousness or intelligence alone remains.

But what I find particularly interesting, and commendable, is the "whithersoever-it-leads" attitude which indicates a rather philosophical openness that I believe should form the basis of authentic philosophical or spiritual effort.

To me, this suggests that a break must have occurred at some point in the interpretative tradition and that modern scholars have hopelessly lost the thread - and sometimes the plot - as noted by Gerson. — Apollodorus

Quite so. I've often commented on the idea of the forgotten truths of the wisdom tradition, generally to either indifference or scorn. (Not that that bothers me.)

But still scholars differ in their renderings and their interpretations, and it seems no one can completely escape their native assumptions, which means that Plato for us is always going to be Plato-for-us. — Janus

Subjectivism, again.

I've often commented on the idea of the forgotten truths of the wisdom tradition, generally to either indifference or scorn. — Wayfarer

Correct. One typical objection is that if those truths were forgotten, then we have no means of knowing what they were and therefore we can't claim that we know that they were forgotten in the first place.

This objection is only superficially valid as we may have indirect knowledge of the existence of something that has become forgotten. For example, we know that the Etruscan language was widely spoken on the Italic peninsula and that it survived into the 1st century AD, because we have the historical evidence to confirm this, even though all that currently remains of it are a few words. And what is true of forgotten languages is equally true of religious, philosophical or spiritual traditions.

Moreover, in some cases, ancient teachings are not forgotten in the literal sense that they have disappeared without trace, but only that they are no longer part of common or mainstream knowledge. Plato's teachings are a good example of this. They are obviously there, in the Platonic corpus, but because of scholarly bias they are not recognized as such.

This has led to the absurd situation where even the natural reading of some passages is dismissed on the grounds that it would sound "Neoplatonic" and therefore Plato must have meant something else - preferably something that is in harmony with the preconceived opinion of modern "scholarship"!

Anyway, having seen that there are so many fundamental similarities between Greek and Indian philosophical traditions, I think it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility, or probability, of similarity or identity of final goal. Could henosis (“oneness”), moksha (“liberation”), and nirvana (“extinction”), all be so totally unlike one another as often assumed?

I for one do not think it would be entirely wrong to take the first to be “oneness with knowledge or truth”, the second, “liberation from ignorance (i.e. from psychic activities and processes constituting an obstacle to knowledge)”, and the third, “extinction of ignorance”, all of which practically amount to the same thing.

Another thing worth considering is the relationship between the enlightened and the world. Once the enlightened have left this world, for example, if they have attained that state at the end of their embodied existence, they are of no concern to the unenlightened.

In other words, the only practical value an enlightened person might have for the unenlightened, would be in a capacity of adviser on matters relating to enlightenment or to practical, daily life.

It follows that what the whole business of enlightenment really boils down to is practical wisdom or phronesis, exactly as stated by Plato and other Greek philosophers who, after all, were no dreamers but practical, and pragmatic, people. The very terms "practical" (praktikós) and "pragmatic" (pragmatikós) are Greek.

Contrary to modern anti-Platonist propaganda which seeks to portray Platonism as “world-denying”, its view of the world is not negative as clearly evidenced for example, by Plotinus’ criticism of the Gnostics:

Again, no: to have contempt for the world and the Gods in it, and the other fine things, is not what makes a good man (Enn. II.9(33)16,1-2).

Plotinus was certainly not indifferent to earthly life. According to Porphyry, he attempted to rebuild a settlement in Sicily called “the City of Philosophers” that was to be organized on Platonic principles. And Plato himself had taken an interest in the running of Greek cities in Sicily under Dionysus II.

One last issue that may be of some interest is Greek-Indian cultural interaction. I don’t know how much Indian influence there was on Greece, but there seems to have been considerable Greek influence on North-West India, especially on religious art. There are numerous artistic representations of Buddhist monks and even of Buddha himself wearing Greek-style robes, Greek-style Buddhist reliquaries, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_art#/media/File:StupaCircumDevotees.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_art#/media/File:TNMStandingBuddha.jpg

Apparently, this gave rise to the cultural phenomenon known as “Greco-Buddhism”. According to Wikipedia:

Greco-Buddhism, or Graeco-Buddhism, is the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the fourth century BCE and the fifth century CE in Bactria (parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and the Gandhara (parts of modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan). It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great.

Indeed, the Greek-style representations of Buddha may have been the first anthropomorphic representations of him ever, the prevalent tradition prior to this having been aniconic. Greco-Buddhism seems to have been influential in the spread of Buddhism to China and other countries before the reconquest of India by Hinduism began in the 400’s AD.

Conversely, there is some speculation that the pre-Christian school of the Therapeutae represented a branch of Theravāda Buddhism. But evidence of Buddhist or Hindu influence on the Greek world at the time of Socrates and Plato or before is more difficult to find, which means that the similarities discussed earlier remain unexplained for now.

Yes, did some essays on those subjects also, whilst at Buddhist Studies. Mark Allon, one of the lecturers, is a foremost expert in Ghandhara and early Buddhist texts.

I still think it's dangerous to simply say that all religions point to the same goal, but then, Jesus did say 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' which could be interpreted to support a rather pluralist idea. And I would agree that they're more like each other, than any of them are like scientific materialism (which is why materialism tends to regard all of them as equally fallacious).

Correct. — Apollodorus

We all know humility is your forte.

Well, we can't let you have all the fun, can we? And as a Buddhist, you ought perhaps to be less self-centered ....

I've said several times in open forums what my stance on Buddhism is, and I told you specifically so in a PM. But you choose to ignore all that, and instead callously insist on ascribing to me stances I don't hold. Clearly, you're not interested in having an actual conversation, but are only trying to get a rise out of me by hitting me where it hurts. So typically spiritual.

I still think it's dangerous to simply say that all religions point to the same goal, but then, Jesus did say 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' which could be interpreted to support a rather pluralist idea. — Wayfarer

And he also said that many are called but few are chosen.

Perfectly true, in my experience.

There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. — Tom Storm

Some say that "Buddhism" (note the ism) is a construct of Western religiology and culturology, and that it has no equivalent in what we call "traditionally Buddhist countries".

In those countries, one normally has an affiliation with a particular lineage, monastery, teacher, without necessarily having any sense of a "bigger picture" of how this particular lineage, monastery, teacher is part of something bigger, a "religion".


What is it to be a Buddhist? If anything, it's to live up to a construct of Western religiology and culturology.

I still think it's dangerous to simply say that all religions point to the same goal, but then, Jesus did say 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' which could be interpreted to support a rather pluralist idea. And I would agree that they're more like each other, than any of them are like scientific materialism (which is why materialism tends to regard all of them as equally fallacious). — Wayfarer

Well, I think first we would need to establish why it is “dangerous”. Do you see it as a danger to yourself, to people in general, or … ?

Second, it is important to distinguish between religion as a system of beliefs and ritual practices, on one hand, and philosophical or spiritual systems operating within a particular religion (or independently of it), on the other.

Even within the same religious denomination, there is a hierarchy of beliefs and practices having different aims and results, corresponding to the emotional, intellectual, or spiritual capacity of individual believers.

And this raises the possibility or probability that while lower levels of religion can be totally distinct and mutually incompatible, the higher levels are incrementally similar and eventually identical. At least this is what I understand to be the position of Plato and of Platonism in general.

Were this not the case, we would need to posit more than one ultimate reality, and my guess is that this might be even more dangerous …. :smile:

Of course, the “bad guy” is always me. How predictable.

But I’ve never claimed to be “spiritual”, have I? Besides, why would you want me to be spiritual, when by your own admission, you hate even the word?

Of course, the “bad guy” is always me. How predictable. — Apollodorus

How predictable. You cast the first stone, then cry foul.

But I’ve never claimed to be “spiritual”, have I? Besides, why would you want me to be spiritual, when by your own admission, you hate even the word?

Oh, my hating even the word doesn't impede my acknowledgement that religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous.

"Unbiased" discourse? What is that??
— baker

Science, mathematics, logic, phenomenology. Any discourse which depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority. Any discourse, that is, that is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts.

Any religion, including Buddhism, cannot be an unbiased discourse, because it depends on faith. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by the way, but in order to respect intellectual honesty it should at least be acknowledged. Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse. — Janus

We've been over this at least once.

Just because a person has internalized a discourse to the point that it seems self-evident, objective, neutral, unbiased, doesn't make it so.

If you were raised in a strictly religious setting, you'd believe that the discourse you learned there depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority, and that it is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts. (It's, for example, how a person's understanding of God is sometimes conceptualized in religion -- as a matter of (infinite) progressive revision and refinement.)

The internalization of the scientific discourse depends on faith. Learning science in school is the same kind of going through the motions as religious education.

Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse.

Again, it depends on who those others subjects in the "inter-subjectively speaking" are. Who and what are they? Does just any random person, regardless of age, education, socioeconomic status, etc. qualify as your potential fellow subject?

Just because a person has internalized a discourse to the point that it seems self-evident, objective, neutral, unbiased, doesn't make it so. — baker

I haven't anywhere said "it makes it so". The third person disciplines are inter-subjectively corroborable in ways that religious belief is not is all I'm pointing out, because the former are based on what is publicly observable.

The other side of that is that religions posit entities and realms that are not publicly observable, and theories, like karma, rebirth, enlightenment, resurrection, divine judgement and so on, which are not inter-subjectively testable.

religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous. — baker

You might assume it is, in a common-sense sort of way, but it's far from a given. All other species on Earth seem to have survived this far without it. What's behind it may even prove to eventually end us.

How predictable. You cast the first stone, then cry foul. — baker

I wasn't aware that we were "casting stones" here. And I didn't "cry foul", either. I found your comment amusing, actually.

Oh, my hating even the word doesn't impede my acknowledgement that religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous. — baker

I'm sure it doesn't. I still never claimed to be "spiritual", though .... :smile:

I hope you're very handsome, because all this playing dumb doesn't make you look good.

Well, perhaps you should look at yourself first before commenting on other people's looks. :wink:

More generally, I think you are getting carried away by your own pro-Buddhist narrative (or propaganda).

The truth of the matter is that according to Buddhist teachings, Buddha attained “Nirvana” after many lives. This suggests to me that the Buddhists who expect to attain Nirvana in this life, are probably kidding themselves, not least by imagining that they can surpass Buddha! :grin:

The other fact is that Buddha is said to have attained “Nirvana” not by reciting Pali suttas or even following “Buddhism”, but through meditation or introspective inquiry, which he had learned from others (possibly Hindus or Yogis).

It follows that even according to Buddhism the key to attaining “Nirvana” is meditation, NOT religious observances, Buddhist or otherwise. In other words, there is no need to be a Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

Unfortunately, your main concern seems to be not enlightenment, but religion. And this is because new converts are known to have this urge to draw others into their own cult. Without much success in this case, though ....

Oh, Polly, ἀγαθὸς καὶ σοφός, as usual.

You know, this could have been the beginning of a beautiful friendship. But you just don't want to be friends. :wave: