Spiritual development

There is the following ancient and widespread theory regarding consciousness (which is found presented in mythological, philosophical and highly detailed practical form).  That human consciousness normally finds itself is state which is very different from its original state or states which it is ultimately capable. This situation has a cause.  Consciousness is mapped out according to certain domains and powers (without implying that they are not all closely interconnected) and it is found that for each of these domains and powers (which we can come into conscious contact with) there is a certain obstacle or counter-energy, in particular in the form of deeply-ingrained habits and tendencies. All these obstacles work together the ensure consciousness stays in its current state.  If to each of these obstacles and 'illnesses' we apply the right remedy and 'virtue' (in the form of an deeply-ingrained counter-habit and counter-tendency) then this will function like so many keys which will remove the shackles binding consciousness to its unhappy condition.  Be it noted that the transformation involved is total and radical and all-encompassing. This freed and purified consciousness becomes apt to receive higher influences and powers and to be ultimately transformed and transfigured to its original state. Since there are billions of different consciousness it is natural that there are many different kinds of corrupt and fallen conditions which require subtle differences and balances of medicinal virtues and counter-energies.  And as regards to religions and spiritual and esoteric traditions and philosophies, besides the pure universal moral law this is the only important and valid core we should look for - and they should be purified again and again (including through restoration of symbolic and esoteric hermeneutics) until only the pure gold of the core shines forth. Anything beyond morality and yoga or which does not contribute directly to them is to be utterly rejected. 

The synthesis between ancient (neo)platonic philosophy (ultimately deriving from Orphism) and Buddhist philosophy  (together with the traditional darshanas and daoism) offers us a solution to all the problems of modern philosophy (and morality and culture) as well as a reconciliation between ancient and modern philosophy.  The connection between Hegel and neoplatonism is very deep by it is neoplatonism that should be taken as our guide and authority. Also Buddhism appears to have exerted a huge influence in the ancient world. Thus we have the two 'good angels' of the west (who often had to go 'undercover'). 

We must not get lost and drown in the tempest and torrent of our minds,  trying to do introspective psychology and platonic dialectics without preparation.  Rather we must first return to the root uncovering the vast unknown aspects of our bodies, feelings and general aspects of consciousness which have great practical consequences. We need to know what is this 'we' and were it needs to dwell and focus and what it should do.  It is not easy to understand the authentic original meaning of satipatthâna and thus its perfect agreement  with and complementarity to platonism.

There are certain difficulties involved with reconstructing buddhism in its most original authentic form as well as extracting the most relevant philosophical exposition thereof (and we highly recommend Bhikkhu Ñânananda's book Concept and Reality). The Nikayas are a vast and complex collection of texts which demand careful historical-critical analysis. The collection of texts in the abhidhamma division of the Pali Tipitaka is likewise a complex and heterogenous collection of texts clearly reflecting later sectarian dogma but also containing older material of the highest philosophical (and logical) value and interest (and we must not forget the importance of studying parallel Chinese versions of many sections of the Pali canon).

The complete mutual consistency, complementary and even essential identity between platonism and original buddhism may appear to be quite a controversial claim, even if the connection to Pyrrhonism has gained some scholarly acceptance (cf. C.I. Beckwith's 2015 book Greek Buddha). Some important points are the following:

i) The meaning of the Buddha's employment of the term anattâ became lost and confused with a doctrine of the denial of the existence of a 'soul'.  In reality this term is used as part of a practice of dis-identification  (cf. the Atthakavagga) entirely consistent with Plotinean anthropology (for instance Enn. I,1,) and purificatory practices. We also have written about the uncanny correspondence with Aristotle's De Anima. 

ii) The correct methodological and epistemic role of dialectics and cognitive abstention involving undecidable or equipollent pairs of propositions also was ultimately lost, leading to a confusion with logical and conceptual nihilism and relativism.  Thus neither madhyamaka nor Pyrrhonism are consistent with original buddhist dialectics. Rather such dialectics  (see Ñânananda's excellent discussion in Concept and Reality) most closely resembles the anagogic and gradual process of Platonic dialectics (see  Enn. I,3).  

Also (as Jayatilleke holds in his famous book) original buddhism was based on direct evidence (which in modern terms could be described as 'positivism', 'phenomenology' and 'the return to the things themselves') simultaneously with the cultivation of the 'eye'  which is necessary to see things as they really are - and in this again there is perfect agreement with platonism.

iii) The sophisticated formal logic and ontology of Stoicism certainly was known to have played a role in neoplatonism and even middle platonism (specially in the context of the controversy between the stoics and later academy) - and we can inquire into the relationship between the Stoic lekta and Proclus' theory of the logoi (in a proto-Fregean way Platonic ideas at a discursive level can be seen as incomplete lekta). Likewise buried within the Pali abhidhamma literature we find (as already acknowledged in the literature on the Katthâvatthu)  a fairly elaborate deployment of formal logic and a sophisticated theory of types of cause.

We note that in neoplatonism the logoi of the soul and the 'ideas' of the nous are to be understood as living beings in communion with each other in a kind of eternal process of cyclic generation and unification...

iv) Both buddhism and platonism have cultural-political dangers and problems. But note that the passages on race and caste found in the Pali texts are some of the most important in the history of mankind. The philosophical content of original buddhism allows us to reject mythological interpolations regarding kamma, previous existences and  the afterlife - without rejecting such concepts in themselves or an alignment between the ethical and cosmic law. A  problem in the subsequent development of buddhism is the order of bhikkhus itself becoming somewhat like the traditional brahmin caste in all except the requirement of birth: for instance the claim that a layman cannot attain full enlightenment, more emphasis placed on accumulating merit by supporting the monks than personal spiritual development or doing good to others.   A problem with original Platonism is the militarism and totalitarianism (among other troubling aspects) of the Republic as well as many aspects of the Laws.  Militaristic values were deeply ingrained within the fabric of Athenian society (and there were of course natural historical causes for this) and it is noteworthy that the iconoclasm of the famous passage of the Theaetetus which rejects many key values of contemporary Athenian culture does not touch the adulation and idealization of the soldier and warrior (or indeed of the athlete).  The concept of a 'noble lie' is one of the lowest points of the surviving Platonic texts.  We hope to show that we can reject all these problematic elements based on the Platonic philosophy itself.