Interesting topic. But I think we must be careful not to insist on linking lucid dreams with medical conditions, in the same way we need to be careful not to automatically link them with religious concepts.

To my knowledge, many if not most people who experience lucid dreams have perfect eyesight and no known underlying pathology or anything to do with psychoactive substances. Of particular interest is that lucid dreams seem to sometimes be associated with precognitive dreams in which objects or events seen in the dream are later experienced in real life.

So I think we need to distinguish between (1) hallucinations caused by medical conditions and psychoactive agents, (2) "normal" lucid dreams which distinguish themselves from non-lucid dreams in that the dreaming subject (a) is aware of the fact that it is dreaming and (b) has conscious control over the dream process, and (3) precognitive lucid dreams.

Obviously, (3) raises some interesting questions, like how these dreams are produced or how the dream content is connected with subsequent real-life experience, along with all the wider ramifications this may entail ....

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway. — Manuel

Totally correct. Putin has said that the West wants to destroy Russia, and I believe he is right.

What is important to understand is that NATO’s (and the EU’s) policy vis-à-vis Russia is the heritage of British imperialism which had two basic objectives: (1) to contain Russia by preventing it from expanding into India, the Pacific, Europe, or the Mid East and (2) to get access to Russia’s resources.

I think it is undeniable that the West has a keen interest in Russia’s resources, especially oil and gas, as Europe is buying large quantities from Russia. We also know that Western oil giants like ExxonMobil, Total, and Royal Dutch Shell were operating in Russia, often in joint ventures with Russian companies, until 2014 when the West started imposing economic sanctions on Russia.

Some of them are still there. For example, BP (British Petroleum) owns nearly 20% of Russia’s Rosneft and nearly 50% of joint ventures with Rosneft: 49% of Yermak Neftegaz, 49% of the Kharampur Project. Similarly, Shell is a partner of Russia’s Gazprom, etc. And the same is true of aluminium and other resources.

It follows that to say that the West has no interest in Russia’s resources is totally false. If the Putin government were to fall due to military conflict with NATO (which has superior capabilities) or due to economic and financial sanctions, the first to get their hands on Russian resources would be Western corporations, primarily American and British ones, which will then be able to control energy prices (and energy-dependent economies) even more than before.

As I have already demonstrated (see page 6), NATO was founded by representatives of oil interests including Shell which also initiated the Atlantic Movement of which NATO was a product and instrument. And it is Shell (as well as US companies) that has announced its intention to supply gas to Europe in case of disruptions caused by the Ukraine crisis.

Obviously, it isn't just oil corporations. The defense industry also stands to make trillions of dollars from a conflict, as it did in WW1 and WW2, and even from the threat of a conflict, as it did throughout the Cold War era, etc. But I think it is pretty clear whose interests NATO really represents and what its overarching agenda is. This is why a more comprehensive analysis is required in order to form a more accurate picture of the situation, instead of reiterating the pro-EU and pro-NATO narrative (or fairy tale).

As for Ukraine, Russia clearly has the capability and technology to deal with the situation without any major problem. The 130,000 troops are there only in case something goes wrong.

In any case, Ukraine is merely a symptom of the wider geopolitical problems whose causes are definitely not Russia's creation. If we think about it, even if the EU and NATO knew that they are the main cause, would they openly admit it? I don't think so. Let's not forget that the West, US and UK in particular, has a long history of black propaganda and lies, like Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction":

In a phone conversation on February 20th, 2003 – a month before the invasion – Dr. Blix [who was in charge of UN inspections] expressed his doubts to Tony Blair. ‘I said explicitly to him that it would be paradoxical if we were to invade Iraq with 250,000 people and find very little. He said no, no, no they are all convinced it will be there.’ Precisely a month later American and British troops entered Iraq. They found nothing

What Did Happen To Saddam’s WMD? - History Today

It follows that it is incorrect to say that the West does not use propaganda and lies to further its self-interest and justify its actions ....

The EU could have it's own military alliance, not dependent on NATO. Yet they don't do it, I think they don't want to pay the bills when they have very strong military support. — Manuel

I’m sure that this is part of it. However, it isn’t unconnected with your observation that they can’t organize together.

And they can’t organize together because of external interference. Germany is not allowed by other European states to have the same military capability as Britain and France, or its own foreign policy, and Europe is not allowed by America to have a proper military, or its own foreign policy. This is just one of the many issues that are right at the root of the festering European problem.

Turkey is a NATO member with clear militaristic and expansionist objectives. In addition to systematically suppressing political opposition, as well as religious and ethnic minorities, Turkey has invaded and occupied Cyprus, it has declared the Mediterranean Sea “Turkey’s blue homeland”, it has drafted plans to invade Greek islands, it has similar plans for other parts of Europe, and it has millions of Turkish citizens in Germany, France, and other European countries, many of whom are organized in violent neo-fascist outfits like the Grey Wolves which are affiliated to the Turkish secret services and the Nationalist Movement Party which in turn is connected with the Turkish government and military, as well as with organized crime groups. Turkey also has long-standing close links to international Islamic terror organizations like Hamas.

Turkey allowing Hamas to plot attacks on Israelis from its soil – Times of Israel

Erdogan’s purge: 50,000 ousted, arrested, or suspended – The Globe and Mail

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

And let’s not forget the havoc other NATO members like America and Britain have created in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.

And yet, inexplicably, there are some who claim that NATO is somehow morally (and, presumably, racially) “superior” to Russia and has a God-given right to rule the world! :smile:

Anyway, Kiev is only about 140 miles from Belarus. If the Russians launch a lightning operation on Kiev from the north, it can be over in a matter of hours with very few casualties. It is simply wrong to believe that Russia has any intention to massacre the Ukrainian population. The reality is that Ukraine and Russia are two friendly nations with close cultural, linguistic, and historical links to one another. The true cause of the conflict is foreign, i.e., US and UK interference ....

Nothing to do with being "Anti America", that's an empty phrase, with virtually no meaning. — Manuel

I totally agree. Frankly, I find it quite surprising that on a philosophy forum it is difficult to exchange views without people losing their temper (and, apparently, sometimes their marbles) just because someone else takes a different stance. One would have thought that philosophers would take a more philosophical approach to life .... :grin:

IMO, the problem with the pro-NATO and pro-EU views expressed here seems to be that they are too provincial and semi-educated, in addition to being biased and misinformed. It is clear from @ssu's statements that he experienced what he calls “Russian propaganda” in his teens after which he decided to start his own anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

His suggested “solution” to the Ukraine crisis isn’t really a solution, for the simple reason that it leaves too many things unresolved. A real solution requires a global, comprehensive vision and a degree of objectivity and impartiality than he is not prepared to bring to the table.

As already stated, my position as a general principle is that in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Tibet is under Chinese occupation, Northern Cyprus and parts of Syria and Iraq are under Turkish occupation, Kurdish territories (Kurdistan) are under Turkish, Iraqi, and Iranian occupation, etc., etc.

The question that arises from this is, if the international community does absolutely nothing about Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, and many other issues, on what logical basis does it choose to attack Russia over Ukraine?

The answer is that it is not the international community that wants to go to war with Russia, but America and its EU and NATO puppets, Britain in particular.

America’s interference in European affairs is not a democratic initiative. The EU and NATO are not democratic institutions. Their political and military expansionism is not an expression of democracy but of militarism and imperialism. The EU and NATO are instruments of American imperialism.

America is now claiming that a Russian invasion of Ukraine jeopardizes Indo-Pacific stability and puts the post-World War Two global order at risk!

U.S. Warns Allies That Ukraine Crisis Puts Post-World War II Order at Risk – Wall Street Journal

But whose order is this post-WW2 World Order? America’s, of course! And it is a militaristic, imperialist, and undemocratic order. To restore peace and democracy in the world, we need to oppose, not support this order.

This is why, though I am, in principle, against any country being invaded and occupied by another, I think Russia should be allowed to do this in Ukraine unless Ukraine is prepared to guarantee that it will not join Russia’s enemies EU and NATO.

Taking into consideration that post WW2, it has been America and its instruments EU and NATO that have been expanding and NOT Russia, I believe that siding with Russia on this matter would be more conducive to world peace, democracy, and equity than siding with America.

As a matter of principle, it is unacceptable in a free and democratic world for Europe’s foreign policy to be dictated by America and Britain.

We know that Germany and France have a much more nuanced and moderate approach to Russia, which is in their own interests, than Britain whose main interests lie elsewhere. German Chancellor Scholz was initially more accommodating of Russian concerns and so were members of the German military. However, Germany’s position changed when Foreign Minister Baerbock intervened on the US side and Scholz was summoned to the White House by Biden.

Who exactly is Annalena Baerbock? And why does she, and not the Chancellor, dictate her country’s foreign policy?!

Well, in her youth, Baerbock used to take part in anti-NATO and anti-war demos organized by the Green Party. Unfortunately, she later completed an exchange year at Lake Highland Preparatory School in Orlando, Florida. She completed internships at Anglo-American outfits like Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Deutsche Presseagentur and the Council of Europe (founded by Churchill). She completed a master course in public international law at the London School of Economics (LSE). She worked on a thesis at the US-founded Free University of Berlin. And she was a trainee at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL).

And this person who openly advocates eastward expansion by NATO and close collaboration with America, has been put in charge of German foreign policy!

This, of course, has a long tradition going back to Allied-occupied Germany and its first ministers for foreign affairs, US-collaborator Conrad Adenauer and Heinrich von Brentano (member of Churchill’s US-funded European Movement and Council of Europe), followed by the Anglicized, pro-UK and pro-US Gerhard Schröder (who had been indoctrinated at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and then re-educated in Allied POW camps), Willy Brandt (co-founder of the British-controlled International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organizations and operative of the US Counterintelligence Corps), and many others down to Baerbock.

Obviously, a Europe that is dominated by America, Britain, and Anglo-American puppet governments like Germany, cannot be described as “sovereign”. This is why it is time for Europe's US-imposed post-WW2 order to be dismantled and rebuilt, not in the interests of America or Russia, but in the interests of the European people. I think this is perfectly logical and morally just, don't you?

Anyway, Finland’s views on this topic are completely irrelevant. So, @ssu is wasting his time IMO.

That somehow really Ukraine would show aggression towards the largest nuclear power is beyond reason. — ssu

It isn't "beyond reason" at all. Though I admit that it may be beyond the reason of those with limited powers of reason! :grin:

Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia. But the situation will be different when NATO parks its nuclear missiles on Ukrainian soil. Russia is NOT objecting to Ukraine, it is objecting to Ukraine becoming a member of America's NATO, don't you get it?

Your problem is that the more you go down your chosen path of activism and propaganda, the more irrational you become. That’s why your arguments lack objectivity and logic.

EU and NATO infinite expansion may sound “legitimate” at first sight. But only if you don’t think it through. Because if you think about it, it is a form of imperialism that can only lead to world government. This is what you’re logically subscribing to if you side with NATO and the EU.

And that’s why you fail to grasp the situation and you refuse to ask yourself some basic questions. For example, if Russia has not threatened America or NATO, why is America getting involved?

Moreover, by definition, if you take the position that Russia’s demands are unacceptable to America but America’s demands should be accepted by Russia, (a) you are siding with America and (b) you are saying that Europe should abide by America’s rules.

And you have failed to explain why Europe and the world should abide by America’s rules, so you can’t even back up your own argument!

I think it makes much more sense for America to get out of Europe and for Britain to stop acting like an extension of America. Britain thinks it can do anything it wants to in Europe because it knows that Uncle Sam will always come to the rescue of his faithful poodle as well as his own self-interests (or the interests of Wall Street).

Europe can only return to sanity and become a normal place if foreign powers stop interfering in its internal affairs. If there was no US-instigated EU and NATO, the “Ukraine crisis” wouldn’t exist and Europe and Russia would have normal economic relations like good neighbors. It follows that the problem is not Russia, but America.

Unfortunately, you have clearly taken an anti-Russian stance from the start by comparing Putin with Saddam Hussein:

The bottom line is that the demands Putin put on the table were obvious non-starters, they simply won't be achieved, and that's the worrying issue. In fact, when Saddam Hussein decided to "solve" his financial troubles by annexing Kuwait, the fig leaf for deploying a huge army on the Kuwaiti border was far better than now with Putin. — ssu

That’s a total straw man. How is invading Ukraine going to solve Putin’s “financial troubles”? I think it's the other way round, waging war on Russia will bring profits of many trillions of dollars to America's defense and energy industries.

As for Turkey, it’s a well-known fact that it has expansionist plans in Europe. It has declared the Mediterranean Sea “Turkey’s blue homeland”, it has drafted plans to invade Greek islands, and it has similar plans for other parts of Europe. If that isn’t hostile, I don’t know what is.

The purpose of the Blue Homeland strategy is that Turkey should dominate the Mediterranean and reclaim the mercantile and maritime power once held by the Ottomans

Blue Homeland: Turkey’s Strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean – Euractiv

Turkey has a plan for the invasion of Greece, secret documents reveal – Nordic Monitor

This is why Turkey nearly started a war with France last year and it only backed down when Macron put Erdogan in his place. France understands Europe’s genuine interests. America, its British poodle, and Finland, don’t.

And don’t forget the criminal and genocidal activities of the Ottoman Empire which you are trying to justify.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

In any case, the situation is obviously far more complex than anti-Russian propaganda is trying to paint it:

NATO is uncharacteristically divided on how to deal with Russia in the escalating crisis over Ukraine. The US and the UK favor deterrence and a hard line; Germany, France and Italy are emphasizing dialogue, and a third group, including Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia, wants to stay out of the conflict and any troop deployment

NATO and Russia: Conflicting views in southeastern Europe

And despite the official propaganda, there is in fact widespread opposition to NATO’s expansionist and imperialist designs, including in Britain:

No War in Ukraine - Stop The War Coalition

IMO you really need to get your head out of your Finnish bunker and see that not everybody has the same Russophobic mentality as you do. In fact, most people outside the Finnish outback don’t.

This statement shows what you think of Turkey in general. — ssu

My statement clearly refers to the fact that historically, Turkey has been the enemy of Europe and Turkey invaded Europe and continues to do so as evidenced by its invasion of Cyprus and, more recently, its designation of the Mediterranean as "Turkey's blue homeland", its plans to invade Greek islands, etc., etc.

And because I am against countries invading and occupying other countries, I am against Turkey's actions vis-a-vis Europe, or any other country. Very simple and logical IMO.

What we established was only that both agree that Ukraine hasn't been the aggressor. — ssu

No. Not "only". We also established that your baseless accusation that I "see Ukraine as the aggressor" was false. And this applies to many other statements of yours, as I have demonstrated many times ... :grin:

Well good that we cleared that. — ssu

That's exactly what I'm saying. We've established that it was a lie, and it's good that you agree! :grin:

Nonsense. I don't know what you are blabbering about. — ssu

Really!? This is your statement:

It's been a long time since the Ottomans were trying to take Vienna. And do remember that they do have their history of Western aggression and the West wanting to divide into colonies the whole of their country. The whole westernization of the Atatürk era was first and foremost done to make the country strong enough to defend the country from outside aggression — ssu

That was your response to my comment on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus! Are you retracting that now?

I also stated in very clear and unambiguous terms the following:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Yet you chose to deride me for it! Read your own posts:

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians? — ssu

We know that you've got an anti-Russian bias from your own statements and the "discussions" you have started:

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is .... — ssu

Sounds like you haven't grown up yet.

And as I said, posting irrelevant pictures does NOT "validate" your spurious arguments. But it may indicate troll behavior .... :smile:

Conveniently forgetting the Budapest memorandum from 1994 along with a multitude of international laws and agreements, yet somehow see Ukraine as the aggressor, hence you sure talk like a Russian troll. — ssu

Well, just because you are a troll, it doesn't mean that others must be trolls. :grin:

I NEVER said that Ukraine is the aggressor. So, clearly, that is another straw man of yours and a lie.

Moreover, we've discussed this many times before. See Is China going to surpass the US and become the world's most powerful superpower?

So I don’t know how you can pretend that you don’t know my position when I stated it very clearly:

Given that Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus, and China invaded, occupied, and annexed Tibet with impunity, it doesn’t make sense to call for war on Russia for annexing Crimea. — Apollodorus

I think this is perfectly logical and easy to understand to most thinking people (though perhaps not to Finnish activists). Your reply was to suggest that I was a “Russian silovik”!

And you did appear to defend Turkey’s actions in Cyprus by invoking Ataturk and by falsely claiming that Europe attacked Turkey, when it is a well-known fact that it is the other way round. It was the Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia to invade Iran, Iraq, and most of the Mid East, after which they invaded Anatolia which was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and other local populations:

From their homelands near the Aral Sea, the Seljuks advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia, before eventually conquering Baghdad and eastern Anatolia. The Seljuks won the battle of Manzikert in 1071, and then conquered most of the rest of Anatolia, wresting it from the Byzantine Empire.

Seljuk Empire – Wikipedia

This is elementary knowledge that is in the public domain and easy to access by anyone who takes an interest in the facts. But it takes someone like you to deny the facts, which I think we have already identified as your habit and method.

I also stated in very clear and unambiguous terms the following:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Yet you chose to deride me for it!

Anyway, you can say whatever you want, the issue isn’t going to be resolved by Finland or Ukraine.

In order to solve a problem of this type you need to understand the real causes and the wider geopolitical ramifications.

As far as I am aware, most people on this planet believe in a free, democratic, and equitable world. But such a world isn’t going to fall out of the sky and into our lap, it needs to be built through hard work.

To achieve this, European countries need to have more power within the European Union, and Europe needs to have more power in the world.

We are in 2022, not in the 1940’s. We can’t apply the standards of post-war Europe to the 21st century. Europe cannot be eternally dependent on, and subservient to, America. I know that Britain loves being America’s poodle because it is an extremely Americanized nation, but this is not what the rest of Europe wants.

Britain has left the European Union. In my view, this was the right thing to do in view of the referendum results, and hopefully others will follow soon. But Britain must now decide whether it is on Europe’s side or on America’s side. It can’t keep acting as an extension of America for ever, as this upsets the continent’s balance of power, which will be exploited by others.

The other step that needs to be taken is to establish greater equality - economic, political, and military - among European states. It is unacceptable to have some European countries getting poorer and poorer, and others richer and richer, often at the former’s expense. Germany must be allowed to have the same military capability as Britain and France.

Last but not least, Europe needs to finally gain independence from America and stand on its own feet and in a relation of economic, political, and military parity with America, Russia, and China. This is why it is imperative for Europe to quit kowtowing to America and urgently start making its own arrangements with Russia, as a sovereign power, not as an extension of Washington or Wall Street.

In addition to having close geographical, historical, and cultural links, Europe and Russia are natural allies and partners. Europe needs Russia’s resources, especially in the energy sector, and Russia needs Europe’s economy. It is in the interest of both to foster peaceful economic cooperation between them.

As part of this process, Europe must persuade Ukraine to come to a compromise. There is no other way. France and Germany have shown that they understand this well. The rest of the world must begin to understand it, too. And that includes America and its British poodle ….

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?

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:

What you need to understand is that there is a difference between stating your personal opinion and denying or misrepresenting the facts.

I think it is clear from your comments that either (a) you don’t know the facts or (b) you don’t care about the facts because you’ve got a political agenda.

The fact is that NATO member Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus and installed a puppet state under Turkish military occupation:

The international community considers the TRNC's [Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus] territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. The occupation is viewed as illegal under international law, amounting to illegal occupation of European Union territory since Cyprus became a member. The international community found this declaration [of TRNC independence] invalid, on the ground that Turkey had occupied territory belonging to Cyprus and that the putative state was therefore an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty

Turkish invasion of Cyprus - Wikipedia

This is precisely why Turkey is the only country on the planet that recognizes its own puppet state in Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is a classical example of puppet state!

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control

Puppet state - Wikipedia

And if Turkey is allowed to do that in Cyprus, I don't see on what basis you object to Russia doing the same in Ukraine. What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

And you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept of national sovereignty. You claimed that the countries that formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which laid the foundations for the European Union (EU) were “sovereign”.

I demonstrated to you that Germany, which was at the very center of the European integration project was NOT a sovereign state. The Eastern half was under Russian and Polish occupation and the Western half was under American, British, and French occupation. From 1945 to 1949 Germany was not even a state, consisting of separate occupation zones.

In 1949, the Western Allies, US, UK, and France, merged their three zones, ordered the Germans to draft an (interim) constitution under US direction, elect a president, and created the “Federal Republic of Germany”.

However, the German constitution was never submitted to popular vote, the new German state remained under US-led military occupation, and simultaneously with the constitution, the occupying powers issued the Occupation Statute that gave them the final say in all German legal matters and gave them control over Germany’s foreign policy and international agreements.

The supreme authority was US High Commissioner for Germany McCloy, who publicly admitted that he had the powers of a dictator:

I had the powers of a dictator as High Commissioner of Allied Forces in West Germany, but I think I was a benevolent dictator.

Who gave McCloy those powers? Not the German people, but the US government of Harry Truman!
Please note that “dictator” here is not meant metaphorically but literally, McCloy having been granted absolute authority by the said US government.

From the start, Germany had ZERO sovereignty, the sole sovereign authority in Germany until 1948 being the US-led Allied Control Council after which it passed over to McCloy.

When Germany signed up to the Marshall Plan that obliged it to work for European integration (see the 1949 Petersberg Agreement) it was still at war with the Allies (because the Allies refused to end the state of war), it was under Allied military occupation and under US control, it did not have a foreign office, it was not a diplomatic entity, and it depended on US financial aid.

Ditto, when Germany signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris that established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it was NOT a sovereign state.

The other countries that joined the European integration project were not fully sovereign either. They depended on US financial aid, they pledged themselves to European integration by accepting US aid, and by the very act of joining the various European institutions, they legally ceded some of their sovereign powers. This is precisely what has been a subject of intense controversy and debate that seems to have escaped you.

Moreover, the sovereignty of Europe itself is being questioned, with leading EU members like France and Germany demanding greater European sovereignty vis-à-vis other powers, in particular, greater strategic sovereignty vis-à-vis America:

France and Germany bear a “special responsibility” to make the European Union a stronger world power as Paris assumes the bloc’s rotating presidency, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told AFP on Friday.
Germany’s coalition government has said it wants to increase the bloc’s “strategic sovereignty” as rivalries between world powers such as the United States, China and Russia adversely affect the EU.

Germany backs France for ‘more sovereign’ Europe – Euractiv

And this is the core of the current crisis. NOT Finland’s concerns, but the balance of power between global spheres of interest.

While demanding greater independence from America, the European Union has been constantly expanding, from the original ECSC Six to currently 27, and it is clearly aiming to expand far beyond Europe proper.

The EU attempted to incorporate the whole MENA (Mid East and North Africa) region through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) of 1995, and Russia through the EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1997. Clearly, after European integration come Euro-Mediterranean, Euro-African, and Euro-Asian integration, the logical end result being world state and world government.

And just as Russia rejected EU membership after Putin came to power, it now objects to endless NATO expansion on its borders.

French President Macron has publicly recognized the legitimacy of Russia’s security concerns, and even leading Americans have done the same.

Bernie Sanders has said:

I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar drum beats in Washington. Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical for the United States to insist that we do not accept the principle of 'spheres of influence’. Even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a US adversary?

Bernie Sanders Says U.S. 'Hypocritical' To Reject Russia Concerns Over NATO Expansion - NewsWeek

The 1999 European Security Charter (Article II, Paragraph 8) that was signed by the US and Russia says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.

- Istanbul Document 1999 – OSCE

So, even leaving aside all other considerations, Russia has a point in terms of international law.

The way I see it, in this particular case, even if NATO refuses to set limits to its expansion, Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. If it refuses to do so, then I think it is obvious that there are some ulterior motives there, probably instigated by the EU and NATO's expansionist intentions.

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.

There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know. — ssu

This only demonstrates that you don't know. And that your earlier question about who the rightful owners of Tibet are was a rhetorical one, which seems to be your idea of "discussing" things.

The fact is that those who want to see sanctions or military action against Russia for invading Ukraine, are being inconsistent and duplicitous if they refuse to call for action against China for invading and occupying Tibet or against Turkey for invading and occupying Cyprus.

These are unacceptable double standards, especially coming from NATO of which Turkey is a member.

Plus, you are misrepresenting my statements. I never said European countries can't form alliances. What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures.

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets. Not everyone in Europe wants to be ruled by Washington and NATO, in the same way not all Americans want to be dominated by Paris or Berlin.

There have been protests in Slovakia against a defense treaty with NATO

And France’s Macron has said:

Can NATO solve the whole question of Europe’s collective security? I don’t believe so. There is no security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia. Russia is European. Whoever believes in Europe must know how to work with Russia and find the ways and the means to construct the European future among Europeans

Macron: No security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia – Peoples World

Note that he said to construct the European future among Europeans.

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets. In fact, most Europeans want a free and independent Europe, which is only natural if we think about it. IMO their voices need to be heard and respected.

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? — ssu

That’s just more weasel words and straw men, isn’t it?

Of course Tibet should belong to the Tibetans! Who do you think Finland should belong to? Sweden maybe? :grin:

You are obviously unaware of the fact that there is a Tibetan government-in-exile (based in India) and that in 1991, US President George Bush signed a Congressional Act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and his administration as "Tibet's true representatives".

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument.

If we put to one side the political activism, the “nuke-the-Russians” sloganeering, and the pro-EU and pro-NATO propaganda, we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government and (b) is bound to lead to conflict with those nations that decline to submit to EU or NATO rule, like Russia and China.

This means that national sovereignty isn’t something that should be ignored. If we base our arguments on the national sovereignty of Ukraine, then we should also consider the sovereignty of other countries, including Russia, and above all, the sovereignty of the European countries that are part of NATO and the European Union (EU).

We have seen that Germany, which was at the core of the US-led European integration project, was not a sovereign country. When it signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris which established the European Coal and Steel Community which pursued “ever-closer union among European nations” and formed the foundations on which the EU was built, Germany was under Allied military occupation.

Germany’s 1949 constitution was not submitted to popular vote, it was simply approved by the occupying powers.

Article 24 (of the original version) says:

The Federation [of German Länder] may join a system of mutual collective security; in doing so, it will agree to restrictions on its sovereign rights.

Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 23. Mai 1949 - DokumentArchiv

At the Treaty of Paris, the signatory countries also issued the Europe Declaration which stated:

By the signature of this Treaty, the involved parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe. This Europe remains open to all European countries that have freedom of choice. We profoundly hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour.

But, first, as we have seen, this “freedom-of-choice” formula merely served to mask the fact that the signatory nations themselves were not quite as “free” as one might think.

Second, they ceded some of their sovereign rights to the supranational institutions they were creating, and so did new members.

Third, as later became apparent, this supranational and “organized” Europe was open not only to European countries but also to sundry non-European ones, like Turkey, a Mid-Eastern (or West Asian) country, and even to Russia itself, a country that stretches as far east as China and North Korea!

Indeed, EU-related institutions and programs like the European Neighborhood Policy, the Eastern Partnership, the Union for the Mediterranean, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, and many others, demonstrate the EU’s insatiable appetite for expansion.

And fourth, this constant expansion is not simply a matter of candidate countries opting to join. It is a gradual and highly intricate process in which a country is drawn into a spiderweb of agreements, treaties, rules, regulations, and laws, often without the general public even being aware. Even governments may be unaware of all the legal, financial, and economic ramifications.

A country becomes a member of EU-related institutions years before it joins the EU. And every time it does so, it gives up a chunk of its sovereignty, so that it becomes debatable exactly how “sovereign” a country is at the moment it “freely” becomes an EU member.

Here is a BBC article from 2016 when Britain was still part of the EU:

Britain is a parliamentary democracy. That means we all get to choose the parliaments that make decisions on our behalf at Westminster.
And between elections, those parliaments are sovereign. But in 1972, the UK Parliament decided to give up some of that sovereignty.
It chose to pool some power with other countries in what was then called the European Community. And that means that on some issues, it is the EU institutions in Brussels and not MPs in Westminster who have the final say.
There is disagreement over how many of the laws that govern our lives originate in the European Union. Some of those campaigning to remain in the EU claim that only 13% of laws passed by Parliament implement the UK's obligations under EU law.
This figure ignores the many EU regulations that are automatically binding on the UK and do not pass through Parliament ....

- UK and the EU: Sovereignty and laws, stats and facts – BBC News, May 31, 2016

Note that this is the BBC, not Russian propaganda. It took Britain about four years to leave the EU and it is still mired in legal wrangles with member countries, some like France even demanding that Britain be “punished” for leaving.

And we mustn’t forget that this “free and sovereign” Europe remains dominated by and dependent on America and US-dominated or -controlled organizations like NATO.

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

If America wants Russia to get out of Europe, then it should lead by example and go first. And Europeans should encourage it to do so ....

There - wasn't that easy? — EricH

Not quite.

In 1951, China invaded, occupied and annexed Tibet.

In 1974, Turkey (a NATO member!) invaded and occupied North Cyprus.

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia.

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.

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:

:rofl: I think it is you who has no understanding of how international relations work and that it is a give-and-take process in which the party that holds the weaker bargaining chips has to give in to the party with the stronger hand.

France was fighting a war with the Việt Minh in Indochina (1946-1954) and with the National Liberation Front in Algeria (1954-1962). Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez!

Your argument was that European states were “sovereign” at the time they joined the economic integration process leading to the European Union (EU).

My counterargument is that “sovereign” in this context cannot be used in an unqualified sense.

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command.

Germany, which was the focus of US interest and at the very core of the European project, got a constitution in 1949 but it was never put to public vote and the US expert involved in drafting it, Prof. Friedrich, observed that it was “not the creation of a free people”:

On May 8, 1949 – the fourth anniversary of unconditional surrender – the Parliamentary Council - adopted at Bonn the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany … Any consideration of this Basic Law should start from the fact that the charter is not the creation of a free people …

- Carl J. Friedrich, “Rebuilding the German Constitution, II”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 Aug. 1949, p. 704.

Moreover, as Germany remained under Allied occupation, its relations with the Allies were dictated by the Occupation Statute that was in force until 1955.

Article 2 of the Statute says:

2. In order to ensure the accomplishment of the basic purposes of the occupation, powers in the following fields are specifically reserved, including the right to request and verify information and statistics needed by the occupation authorities:
…
c) foreign affairs, including international agreements made by or on behalf of Germany

Text of Occupation Statute promulgated on the 12th May 1949 by the Military Governors and Commanders in Chief of the Western Zones – CVCE

So, the law that was in force at the time placed German foreign policy and international agreements under the control of the US-led Allied military commanders.

US State Secretary Acheson admits that the Allies were making decisions on behalf of the Germans.

Oct. 30 1949, Acheson to Schuman:

These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) - CVCE

US High Commissioner in Germany, John J. McCloy himself admitted that he had "the powers of a dictator":

I had the powers of a dictator as High Commissioner of Allied Forces in West Germany, but I think I was a benevolent dictator. I think the rebuilding came off very well, with no significant problems.

John J. McCloy, Lawyer and Diplomat, Is Dead at 93 – New York Times

Surely, you can see that you cannot possibly simultaneously have (a) a sovereign Germany and (b) a Germany controlled by a (self-confessed) US dictator?

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Germany was NOT a “sovereign” state.

France was under US pressure, as already explained.

Smaller countries that depended on the economies of Germany and France had no choice but to join them.

By definition, the states involved (1) had to comply with the economic integration program stipulated in the Marshall Plan and (2) had to cede some of their sovereign powers to supranational institutions as the said institutions could not have functioned otherwise.

It follows that it is incorrect to insist that these European countries were (or are) unqualifiedly “sovereign”. At the very least, given America’s economic, financial, and military dominance, they were less free to manifest their sovereignty than America, especially vis-à-vis the latter.

What you are claiming there doesn't make any sense and is inconsistent with both logic and the historical evidence ....

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.

: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.

Greek lysis ("liberation" or "release") and similar terms occur in Plato's dialogues. Liberation from ignorance and union with the Ultimate are central to Platonism.

Metanoia is more like transformation of the mind or consciousness, i.e., a process that leads to the final state of release or self-realization.

To _deliberately_ achieve anything, one needs to follow a system. To follow a religious system, one has to become a member of a religion. — baker

Correct. However, your two statements aren't necessarily logically connected, as "system" is not the same as "religion".

Blimey, religious/spiritual people competing as to who is most exalted!! How ordinary. — baker

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

Platonism uses several terms, one of them being lysis, i.e., liberation or release from conditioned existence, which is the equivalent of Hindu mokṣa.

The Platonic Forms are not ultimate realities, so they must not be confused with the highest truth.

And the Platonic goal is to discover the "source of all knowledge and all truth", i.e., the source of all things, which in my view, is very much what Buddhist practice is aiming to achieve.

Incidentally, your (admittedly well-written) paper says that:

A crucial distinguishing feature of Buddhist thought is its concern with teaching individuals to see for themselves.
But something that remains unstated is: what is the mind that can see this? What faculty discerns the dependent nature of existent beings? Obviously, the Buddha perceives this – that, in fact, is what makes him ‘Buddha’.

Clearly, then, something remains after “everything has been abandoned”.

If everything is being abandoned, then presumably there is an agent that performs the act of abandoning. We don’t know what it is, but there must be something there following Nirvana, as otherwise the consciousness that sees or experiences the Nirvanic state would disintegrate and the awakened (buddha) or arrived/gone beyond (tathagata) individual would have nothing to report, if he or she even existed at all.

Another question that is left open is whether there is any difference between the individual who has attained Nirvana while the body-mind complex is still alive and after the death of the same.

If I am not mistaken, it appears from the available texts that Buddha spoke about Nirvana while still living and not after he died. Therefore we have no direct information regarding his post mortem state or the permanence or otherwise of the Nirvanic state.

This raises the possibility that there may, indeed, be nothing left after Nirvana in which case it would be incorrect to say that Buddha “conquered Death”, for example. It would be more correct to say that Death conquered him.

So, the puzzle seems to remain unsolved ....

Well, I think you are confusing yourself, aside from having an unusually short or defective memory ....

By your own admission, I "have the historical facts correct" so, presumably, you accept those facts. As for how America put pressure on France, I have explained that to you on other threads already as well as here at page 6!

We need to begin with the fact that France was opposed to integrating its economy with that of Germany. The original French idea was for Germany to be dismembered and its coal and steel industries placed under French control.

France was on the Allied Control Council in Germany and used its veto power to oppose German reconstruction, let alone unification with France. That’s where the frictions with the Americans started. This went on until the Marshall Plan was proposed in 1947 when France suddenly changed its mind under US pressure, but only agreed to merge its Occupation Zone with the American and British ones in 1949.

US remarks about French objections and the need to put pressure on the French are well-documented as can be seen from the records in US and EU archives.

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson letter to Schuman (in which he tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany into Western Europe”):

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the Occupation Statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) – CVCE

You are saying that the French proposed a European Coal and Steel Community in 1950:

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 — ssu

Obviously, this is one of your usual straw men, because Marshall proposed his Plan in May 1947 and France started receiving US aid in December, even before the Marshall Plan became effective in April 1948.

If you are unaware of the fact that 1947 is chronologically prior to 1950, this is your fault, not mine.

Moreover, European economic integration was stipulated in the official Congress act as a precondition for Marshall Plan aid. This means that, by definition, when France signed up to the Plan, which it did at the Franco-British Paris Conference of July 1947, i.e., even before the plan officially came into effect, it committed itself to abide by the plan. There is nothing unclear about that.

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to.

In any case, the Americans clearly asked France to see to it that Franco-German integration went ahead, and we've got the documents to prove this.

So, denying the facts, especially after accepting that they are correct, seems pretty irrational to me.

And, as I've said many times before, posting irrelevant pictures does absolutely nothing to support your spurious arguments. :grin:

I think it is clear that you have no intention or interest in quitting the pro-EU and pro-NATO narrative or propaganda.

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so.

Regarding the Marshall Plan which was announced in 1947, (1) it was devised by America to serve US economic self-interests, and (2) it stipulated European economic integration.

This means that the European countries that subscribed to the Marshall Plan deal pledged themselves to working toward the establishment of a united or federated Europe often referred to as “United States of Europe” after the US model.

Germany was under Allied (US) military occupation and was run according to the Occupation Statute that expressly put German foreign policy under the control of the Allies.

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany.

Once Germany and France had been made to comply, smaller countries whose economies depended on German and French industry, namely Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, had no choice but to join Germany and France to form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

In the Messina Declaration of June 1955, the Six ECSC states resolved that their governments:

believe that the establishment of a united Europe must be achieved through the development of common institutions, the progressive fusion of national economies, the creation of a common market, and the gradual harmonization of their social policies

Next, ECSC president Jean Monnet set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE). The official press statement said:

by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …

Press release on the creation of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (Paris, 12 October 1955) - CVCE

The next step was to get Britain to join. This was not easy because the British public had zero appetite for being part of Europe.

However, Churchill was a close collaborator of America and his private secretary Arthur Salter who was a key figure in the Foreign Office, had published a book called The United States of Europe in 1931.

Churchill himself had been campaigning for European union since 1946. In 1947 he organized the United Europe Movement (UEM) with his son-in-law Duncan Sandys and together with the French they set up the Joint International Committee of the Movement for European Unity (JICMEU).

We know exactly what Churchill’s ulterior motive was, namely to incorporate Europe into a US-led world government:

We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations … We are not in any way the rival of the world organization. We are a subordinate but essential element in its ultimate structure.

Address to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Aug. 17 1949

We also know that Churchill’s propaganda campaign was funded by the US government agency, the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) which had been set up to administer Marshall Plan funds.

On its part, Russia identified the whole project as a creation of US capitalist interests and decided to prevent European states under its influence or control, namely East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia, Finland, from joining the project.

So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. Either way, European countries had to cede their powers to supranational institutions ....

And there are still some who claim that Europe was (and is) “sovereign, independent, and free”!

IMO true European sovereignty, independence, and freedom can be restored ONLY if the peoples of Europe resolve to stand up for their rights and fight against all forms of foreign domination.

And for this to happen, Europe must know the truth about the institutions that make it subservient to foreign interests and that keep it in an unacceptable condition of servitude and slavery. Imperialism and colonialism in all forms and shapes must be abolished once and for all.

These power systems don't go down without a fight. And as usual, the so called "national interests" reflect the interests of the elite within that society, US, UK, etc. — Manuel

Correct. And the US-UK new world order that was supposed to ensure "world peace" is once again plunging the world into war ....

Mark Blyth says it's the other way around: the world needed the US to buy its goods and establish stability after the war. — frank

Mark Blyth? This is not how George Marshall put it. He said European cities were unable to produce goods that European farmers wanted, so the farmers who had no problem feeding themselves, refused to sell food to the urban population.

The result was that European cities were unable to buy US goods and this was bad news for the US economy:

The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products–principally from America–are so much greater than her present ability to pay … Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all.

The Marshall Plan Speech – Marshall Foundation

So it was US self-interest, at least this is how the Marshall Plan was sold to Congress, and only after a big propaganda campaign as many Americans were neither particularly impressed nor interested ....

That's right. As openly admitted by George Marshall and Dean Acheson, it was US self-interest, even though this was naturally denied in Europe.

But one of NATO's main objectives was "to keep the Germans down". And if you look at a map of Europe, you will see the devastating effect this has had, and continues to have, on the whole of Europe.

In military terms, you've got nuclear powers Britain and France on the western flank, then you have this huge almost empty space all across Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, after which you have non-European powers Russia and Turkey on the eastern flank.

Britain is an extension of America, France likes to do its own things, and Russia and Turkey each have their own interests. Obviously, it is impossible to have a stable balance of powers in this situation. The end result is that non-European powers from America to Turkey feel almost invited to meddle in European affairs.

And we can see that from a Russian perspective, if Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, NATO (i.e., America) will be right on Russia's western borders, which will force Russia to keep a permanent military presence to guard its western flank and will reduce its defense capability in other areas like Central Asia where the EU and NATO are also trying to expand ....

Euro leadership is essentially a power struggle in which they French thought they would be able to command the German economy. And no political union worthy of the name, was ever seriously considered. — Manuel

Well, even economic union was only considered under US pressure, which really exposes the undemocratic nature of the whole EU project.

But there were unionist or federalist elements that were talking about “ever-closer union”.

The 1957 Treaty of Rome which established the EU’s precursor, the European Economic Community, states in the Preamble that the signatory countries,

are determined to establish the foundations of an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe (déterminés à établir les fondements d'une union sans cesse plus étroite)

TRAITÉ instituant la Communauté Économique Européenne et documents annexes

Note that there is no English version of the treaty as the Brits had no intention of signing it due to French opposition and because the British people didn’t want to be part of a European Union. It took a massive propaganda campaign by Churchill’s United Europe Movement and associated organizations to get Britain to apply for membership in 1961 and it finally joined in 1973.

However, the project was actually referred to as “United States of Europe” already in the early 1900’s and long after the project had began to be implemented in the post-war decades, including by Churchill himself.

Soon after Britain joined, the European Commission established the European Monetary System and in 1981 it proposed closer links between the central banks of the European Community and the US Federal Reserve System - which shows the direction in which things were moving. If closer political integration didn’t happen, this is because of public opposition and divergent national interests. But it is absolutely clear that the “United States of Europe” was to be modeled on the United States of America.

In any case, Germany remained Europe’s strongest economy. In 1982 France’s trade deficit with West Germany, its main trade partner, accounted for more than 40 percent of the total!

This is why I’m saying that it is unacceptable for a country with Germany’s population, economy, and central location in Europe, to have no military comparable to weaker economies like Britain and France, and for Europe as a whole to depend on its rival America for its defense.

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission.

The end result of this insane situation is that Europe is unable to be an equal partner either to Russia or America and this leads to situations like the Ukraine crisis.

In a saner, more democratic, and more equitable world, Europe and Russia who are next-door neighbors and have close historical and cultural links, ought to be close partners and allies. But this is not possible with the EU and NATO's policy of unlimited expansion, and with America constantly sticking its nose in other people’s business and telling them what to do.

So, we can see that the tensions between Europe and Russia are ultimately the result of America's self-interested divide-and-rule policy. If we think about it, cooperation between Europe with its population of 450 million and strong economy (especially under German leadership) on one hand, and Russia with its huge natural resources on the other hand, would make an unbeatable economic and military bloc that no one would dare even think of bullying and pushing around.

And this is precisely why America and its British poodle are sowing division between Europe and Russia and prefer war to peace.

In any case, NATO is definitely up to something because there is a lot of military movement all over Eastern Europe where locals clearly don't want a war. I wouldn't be surprised if Britain arranged for Croatia to attack Serbia in order to get Russia to retaliate after which Britain and America will move in.

Turkey obviously has its own plans and may use the situation to occupy parts of Southeastern Europe in exchange for intervention in Ukraine on NATO's side, etc., etc.

So, there is a lot of potential for the situation to develop into something like WW1. If it does, we must bear in mind that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a very limited, local conflict. In contrast, NATO intervention would amount to world war.

I doubt that this has much to do with the Ukraine crisis, but I will follow it when I get the time.

Well, it may sound “theosophical” but I don’t believe in Krishnamurti as an incarnation of Jesus and Buddha who is going to “save of the world”, and all that stuff :smile:

Incidentally, Theosophy’s logo “there is no religion higher than truth” should be something that I think all philosophers can subscribe to. Unfortunately, despite its logo, Theosophy is doing the opposite, which is trying to sell (invented) religion as truth.

And I think this brings us to the crux of the matter, because a lot of your statements seem to suggest that you haven’t yet decided in favor of truth and that despite your apparent disclaimers you are speaking from the perspective of someone who is at least in part psychologically committed to Buddhism as a belief system or religion.

From what I see, Buddhism isn’t really so different from Platonism.

If Buddhism claims that phenomena are not ultimately real, so does Platonism.

If Buddhism posits a higher reality (assuming Nirvana to be real and not imaginary) that can be achieved through meditation, so does Platonism which aims for an experience of ultimate reality through introspective inquiry and contemplation.

If Buddhism teaches that man must gain insight into the true nature of the self, so does Platonism. “Know thyself” is central to all Greek philosophy.

Both Buddhism and Platonism use terminology like “release” or “liberation” from conditioned existence.

Even the Buddhist tathagata, “one who has arrived at the final goal”, has its equivalent in the Greek teleios anthropos, “one who is accomplished, perfected, who has reached the goal or telos”. The very practice of authentic Greek philosophy is a continual process of perfection that has no upward limit aside from ultimate truth itself.

Of course it may be argued that there are different degrees or levels of accomplishment. However, assuming that ultimate reality is one, and that there is nothing higher, how can one who has attained an experience of ultimate reality be more spiritually accomplished than one who has attained the same (or even similar) experience?

Again, one could argue that only Buddhists are capable of attaining the highest possible experience. But this hasn’t been demonstrated to be the case. So, the way I see it, it boils down to personal (and unproven) belief, i.e., exactly what Socrates and Plato (and, apparently, Buddha himself) are warning against.

And, as we have seen, there seems to be a difference between belief and actual knowledge even when it comes to Buddha's own teachings ....

The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless. — ssu

And what leaves me nearly speechless is your absolute inability to understand anything relating to international relations. You're obviously looking at it from the distorted perspective of a self-radicalized Finnish Russophobe.

For starters, I never said that I "cherish Russia's totalitarian regime". so, as far as I'm concerned, that's a lie.

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you?

The fact is that Russia is the largest country on earth. A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland.

Moreover, Putin still has the backing of the majority of voters. Russians in general are more concerned about the economic situation than about Putin's alleged "totalitarianism".

It is economic factors that motivate countries to join the EU, but once they realize the ramifications of the political strings attached to EU membership, many have second thoughts. That's why Britain has already left the EU and other member states like Hungary and Italy, are beginning to think of leaving the sinking EU ship by looking for alternative partnerships.

Anyway, by definition, joining the EU means losing some of your sovereignty and abiding by EU laws made in Brussels. And unlimited expansion can only lead to (US-controlled) world government. If countries have the right to join the American world state, they also have the right to preserve their freedom and independence.

Countries like Russia, India, China, have a strong sense of national identity and independence and they aren't going to be turned into satellites of the US or EU without a fight.

So no, I'm not "pro-Putin" at all. I am for national freedom and independence and against liberal capitalist world government. This may be inconvenient to you, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

That must be why you've elected Biden then ... :grin:

Man, once you dig into the EU as an institution, you just see a total tragedy. They out of all people in the world, because of two World Wars, should now better. The leadership, apparently does not. — Manuel

I think the leadership know exactly, but they don't care because they've been brainwashed to believe in a United States of Europe that is subservient to the United States of America. It's like a cult.

If we think about it, the whole situation makes no sense whatsoever. An association of states with the population and economic power of the EU, has to depend on America financially and militarily!!! Are you kidding me???

So the EU has a population of 450 million and an economy much larger than Russia which has a population of only 145 million and a much weaker economy (though it is rich in natural resources like oil and gas). And yet the EU is totally dependent on America, Turkey, and other NATO countries to defend it.

No wonder the world is such a screwed-up place. IMO this is totally insane and it has got to stop. Europe needs to grow up and get a life.

And you are absolutely right. The more you dig into the history and facts of this EU business, the more skeletons in the European (and US) cupboard you discover ....

The Buddha frequently says that one that understands correctly doesn't believe, but sees the principle of dependent origination. — Wayfarer

Sure, of course he would say that. But this is common sense. Experience has precedence over belief whether in Buddhist, Hindu, or Greek philosophy.

And if belief in higher self is "just a belief", then so is belief in "Nirvana". After all, Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment not as a result of belief, but by practicing meditation which he admittedly learned from non-Buddhists.

In the final analysis, belief is irrelevant to direct experience of reality, and all that really matters is introspective inquiry leading to insight (a) into the self and (b) into whatever turns out to be beyond the self, exactly as in Platonism.

And to achieve that, one need not be a Buddhist or follow any particular religious system ....

What gets me is that, pointing these things out, somehow makes others think that one is "Pro Putin" or "Pro Xi". This is silly. — Manuel

Not just silly, but totally preposterous IMO :smile:

The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be partners and allies, not enemies. But this is impossible so long as America only thinks of its own self-interests, which usually means the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries.

It was American business that started investing in China in the 1970's. Others followed suit, and China is now a major power and growing. China will also be the main winner in a military conflict between the West and Russia. It is already watching the West very closely and identifying all our weak points so it will know exactly where to strike when its turn comes, which is going to be pretty soon.

NATO and EU might try to bully Russia now, but they won't bully China.

I agree it would be nice if Germany could talk some sense into the other Europeans, but without a proper military, Germany doesn't count for much these days. Just imagine, it has to depend on Turkey and other NATO members to defend it!!! And how can Europe be free and independent if Germany is not free and independent?

If we think about it, the EU has a population of some 450 million. And yet it plays second fiddle to America with a population of only 330 million. Surely, this can't be right. Shameful and disgraceful, really. And definitely undemocratic.

It looks like China is now siding with Russia on NATO expansion, so it will be interesting to see what Biden is going to do about it.

Incidentally, the way I see it, the typical US government logic is something along these lines:

(A). There is a situation somewhere in the world.
(B). We’ve got absolutely no idea what the causes are and we don’t give a dime – unless it affects us.
(C). And this situation affects our business interests.
(D). Therefore we must intervene.
(E). And we must intervene in a way that advances our business interests without caring about anyone else ....

So, basically, this is why the world is the way it is, because it is based on an upside-down kind of “logic” based on US self-interest. It used to be the same when Britain was a world empire, before America took over. The only difference is that America has simply replaced Britain.

A saner kind of logic would organize the world in a much more rational, coherent, and equitable way.

Such a logic would acknowledge that Germany occupies a central position at the heart of Europe, and therefore it should also hold a central position in political and military terms as it does in economic and demographic terms.

Unfortunately, the problem seems to be Britain because it acts as an extension (or as some say, “poodle”) of America and disturbs Europe’s natural balance of power. Whenever Britain has an issue with other European powers, it runs to Uncle Sam for help, like a kid to his or her nanny.

This necessarily means that the European order really is an American order. And this is why despite all the "democracy-and-freedom" propaganda, Europe cannot be truly sovereign and free unless and until it stands up for itself and stands on its own feet.

I guess my point is that because religion is based on faith rather than reason, an uneducated but charismatic person could do just as well if not better than an educated person in establishing the "correct" view. — praxis

Well, I wouldn't say religion is based exclusively on faith. But in general I agree with that statement on the "correct" view. This is why I for one prefer philosophy to religion.

in my view many people act as though the answer was 'no' - that the Buddhist teaching is that there is no self. But that can't accomodate this verse. — Wayfarer

Correct. He clearly says:

When there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer.

To me, this sounds like it confirms my suspicion. In which case the "no-self" doctrine may be a Buddhist doctrine, but not necessarily Buddha's own view, and this seems to bring Buddha much closer to Greek philosophy than generally assumed!

It also raises the question of where the idea of "no-self" actually comes from. Definitely not from the Dhammapada, unless we insist on putting a "Buddhist" spin on it ... :smile:

BTW, the device I'm currently using doesn't always like pms but you can send me the link, anyway. Thanks.

Then quit whatever it is that causes you to make irrational comments! :roll:

My reference to "violent hip hop, rape rap, and war drums of the slums" was NOT about race but about this US-made subculture that celebrates violence, especially violence against women, that is alien to European culture and that many Europeans object to, which clearly is their right.

If this kind of "culture" appeals to you, that's your problem, but don't impose it on the rest of the world.

And if you are talking about "racism", it is a well-known fact that Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X liked to beat up white women.