“Our essence of Mind is intrinsically pure. If we knew our Mind perfectly and realised what our Self-nature truly is, all of us would be enlightened.” (Bodhisattva Sila Sutra - ca 450 BC) — waechter418

Can you name at least 5 more different ways as per the fundamental brainchild-outsourcing by Socrates and/or Chin Gao Tum, and / or Hirohito, in which we can get enlightened? (Outsourcing brainchildren: the diaspora of the distended Socratic et al philosophy exercised by current methodologists.)

In the Orient this was apparently taken seriously, as – particularly in India, Tibet & China – it brought about a variety of teachings & schools as well as methods & approaches attending the different needs and temperaments of the aspirants of Selfrealisation. — waechter418

Can you name three such schools? Located in Delhi, Shanghai and Tibet City?

In the Orient this was apparently taken seriously, as – particularly in India, Tibet & China – it brought about a variety of teachings & schools as well as methods & approaches attending the different needs and temperaments of the aspirants of Selfrealisation. — waechter418

Would you say that in Burma, in Thailand, in Indonesia, in Malaisasia, in Japan, in Korea and in Naomi Bhruhat, much like in Kamchatka and the most of the Siberian snow-and-ice deserts, the aspirants of Selfrealization lacked methods and approaches and / or the different needs and temperaments attendant to the kernel of the topic?

One final question: how much do you think the change of seasons and the coldness of climate variation within the annum contribute to the aspiration of encompassing knowledge about the scope, domain and range of Selfrealization?

Mysticism was practiced in the West, though perhaps not as extensively.

“know thyself”, and became famous through Socrates who claimed “Knowledge is inherent in man, not outside. Wisdom is learning to recollect” — waechter418

I experience this in it's purest form under influence from Cannabis. As you grow up you absorb knowledge. THC releases this knowledge (of myself and my world) from the Ego (which holds you hostage) and everything becomes clear and transparent. Most, if not all my philosophical thoughts are the result of the use of cannabis.

. Between the OP and this post are three replies that imo should not have been posted. My annoyance with them is that they together seem to instantiate a remarkable depth of ignorance that on occasion seems to rise up and even overwhelm what might have been good thinking and a way into a good discussion. So I challenge those three to, even as Socrates himself did in the Phaedrus, recant and retract their remarks and replace them with something worthy of the OP and this Forum.

Might be helpful to which remarks you are referring and why they offend you so.

The OP is well written but, to my mind at least, rather confused and the author’s intentions aren’t clear. My response touched on a key issue that might have initiated a “worthy” dialogue. The OP now six days stale and there are no signs of life to date.

Does whining pass for worthy dialogue on this illustrious forum, btw?

That “know thyself” made it in the Occident barely beyond philosophical exercises, is probably because it established in the same period the ratio of dualism which subjected knowledge to the feedback mechanism of the intellect. This is not to say that eastern aspirants do not use intellectual techniques, but they are taught how far to utilise them (which is not all the way to the beginning) whereas western thinkers think that they have to think all the way to the end. — waechter418

You find nothing of interest in this? No law says you have to.... Your contribution was this

Mysticism was practiced in the West, though perhaps not as extensively. — praxis

What has this to do with the OP?

Taking the OP at its word, about 450 BC notions of self-knowledge and self-realization blossomed almost simultaneously in Asia and Greece. And there is collateral and indirect evidence that in the west, at least, and not withstanding the unknown thoughts and feelings of unknown people, Socrates gets pride of place for priority.

Taking self-knowledge as knowledge of being, I infer the OP's view that in the West, being was felt to be external and the best way of knowing it through inquiry of externals, while in the East, being was viewed as something internal and encountered through a "grasping" of experience. A difference that makes a difference!

“Our essence of Mind is intrinsically pure. If we knew our Mind perfectly and realised what our Self-nature truly is, all of us would be enlightened.” (Bodhisattva Sila Sutra - ca 450 BC)

At around the same time the concept of Selfrealisation bloomed in the philosophical circles of Greece under the heading “know thyself”, and became famous through Socrates who claimed “Knowledge is inherent in man, not outside. Wisdom is learning to recollect”

In the Orient this was apparently taken seriously, as – particularly in India, Tibet & China – it brought about a variety of teachings & schools as well as methods & approaches attending the different needs and temperaments of the aspirants of Selfrealisation.

That “know thyself” made it in the Occident barely beyond philosophical exercises, is probably because it established in the same period the ratio of dualism which subjected knowledge to the feedback mechanism of the intellect. This is not to say that eastern aspirants do not use intellectual techniques, but they are taught how far to utilise them (which is not all the way to the beginning) whereas western thinkers think that they have to think all the way to the end. — waechter418

The occidental focus has been a long detour. We constructed ‘knowledge’ using mathematics, logic and language in isolation from that which humbles us. The rapid ‘advances’ in intellect that resulted were marred by their destructive capacities in application, so ignorant they were of our inescapable connection to what we propose to act upon. By striving to exclude the subjective ‘self’ from science, we solved every problem except ourselves. And now we are faced with the realisation that WE are the problem we’ve been trying to solve all along. Not a collective ‘we’ that really means everyone else, but the subjective experience in the context of a broader meaning than our anthropocentric value structures dictate.

That’s not to say that the oriental focus fared much better. In distancing themselves from the approach of the West and often society in general (in the interests of self-preservation), this self-imposed exclusion often slowed the process of Selfrealisation in many ways. We know ourselves fully only in our interaction with the world. By withdrawing from the world, we necessarily limit the self that we can know. To start with a limited perspective of self makes sense. But the idea is to ‘know thyself’ in an ever-broadening context.

Carlo Rovelli described a combination of quantum mechanics and information theory in this way:

A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality is Not What You Think’

I think this suggests that it’s at least possible to bring the West around to ‘know thyself’ from a position of knowing the universe intellectually and interacting with it fully. But to achieve this we need to put the subjective experience back into science, and humbly expose the gaps and limitations in our knowledge for what they are.

The way mind processes data reflects in its offspring, the computer.
However, the coordination capabilities of latter improve continuously, whereas mind seems to have problems handling the increase of external & internal, objective & subjective data.
More often than not, this is blamed on its hardware, i.e. the physiological aspects, yet rarely on the programs that coordinate the data, despite that many of them are obviously outdated, inefficient, hijacked by emotions and/or malwares which question the capabilities and sometimes even deny the functions of mind, thus impeding the possibility to repair & update its software.
But to alter something requires knowledge and understanding of its structures and dynamics – in this case of the mind. Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself. Not because Self-knowledge is an impossible task – after all everyone spends a lifetime with/in his/her mind – but because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.
Admittedly, Self-response-ability can be a pain in the butt – yet it can also be a blessing, as it may entail the realisation that all (external/internal/subjective/objective) phenomenon are interrelated - and coordinated by/in the mind.

(copied from "mind the mind")

What has this to do with the OP? — tim wood

The OP basically compares Buddhism and introspection, with the fallacious assumption that they are somehow synonymous. Buddhism is a religion and as such it relies on a system of doctrine and hierarchical authority and not on one's own introspection. Its claims about reality, the mind, and the self are not open to reformation. Ancient Greek mysticism, on the other hand, practiced by notable figures like Plotinus and Pythagoras, was unconstrained by religious dogma. As @Possibility mentions, "To start with a limited perspective of self makes sense. But the idea is to ‘know thyself’ in an ever-broadening context."

Knowing thyself can be approached in various ways, such as via physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and of course through mysticism. The best approach probably depends on the reason or purpose for studying the self. Buddhism ostensibly studies the self to end suffering. In reality, however, the purpose of religion is to bind a community in common values and goals (telos), offering what I'll describe as a package of meaning. It should also be mentioned that in some forms and communities of Buddhism that it emphasizes contemplation or mysticism. Generally speaking, mysticism can relieve existential anxiety and in that way lessen suffering.

So the key fallacy of the OP is that mysticism wasn't practiced by ancient Western philosophers. Not only is this false but Socrates, Plotinus, Pythagoras, and others were unconstrained by religious dogma in their introspection. Not to say that they weren't publicly constrained.

“Our essence of Mind is intrinsically pure. If we knew our Mind perfectly and realised what our Self-nature truly is, all of us would be enlightened.” (Bodhisattva Sila Sutra - ca 450 BC) — waechter418

Unfortunately our Mind is contained in a vessel of clay. 'Clay feet' etc..you get my drift. Our body relies on the Ego for self preservation. This Ego however disrupts the 'pure' functioning of the Mind.

Taking self-knowledge as knowledge of being, I infer the OP's view that in the West, being was felt to be external and the best way of knowing it through inquiry of externals, while in the East, being was viewed as something internal and encountered through a "grasping" of experience. A difference that makes a difference! — tim wood

The difference between the East and the West is that in the East they had ample access to Opium and Cannabis. This encouraged introspection. We were more sober minded and concerned ourselves more with the externality's.

“Our essence of Mind is intrinsically pure. If we knew our Mind perfectly and realised what our Self-nature truly is, all of us would be enlightened.” (Bodhisattva Sila Sutra - ca 450 BC)

At around the same time the concept of Selfrealisation bloomed in the philosophical circles of Greece under the heading “know thyself”, and became famous through Socrates who claimed “Knowledge is inherent in man, not outside. Wisdom is learning to recollect”

In the Orient this was apparently taken seriously, as – particularly in India, Tibet & China – it brought about a variety of teachings & schools as well as methods & approaches attending the different needs and temperaments of the aspirants of Selfrealisation.

That “know thyself” made it in the Occident barely beyond philosophical exercises, is probably because it established in the same period the ratio of dualism which subjected knowledge to the feedback mechanism of the intellect. This is not to say that eastern aspirants do not use intellectual techniques, but they are taught how far to utilise them (which is not all the way to the beginning) whereas western thinkers think that they have to think all the way to the end. — waechter418

It's a bit odd that the Delphic Oracular maxim "gnothi seauton/know thyself" goes hand in hand with what was said of Socrates, the man singled out by the Delphic Oracle as the wisest of all who famously said of himself "I know that I know nothing".

Does knowing nothing qualify you as the wisest of all? Does this not entail that you actually don't know thyself? Perhaps I/we put the emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence and it is correctly read as "I know that I know nothing. The Delphic oracle may have been referring to the beginning of our journey to know ourselves which requires as a first step the recognition of our own ignorance.

Whatever the case maybe we can see for a fact that the Delphic oracle considers self-realization, knowing who you are, as important as knowing what it contrasts with viz. knowledge of what's outside, the external world.

How does self-realization, knowledge of the interior, compare with its opposite, knowledge of the exterior? Is one more important than the other or are they both of equal significance to us?

Knowledge of the exterior, the outside world, is dominated by science and we all know the modern world, filled with amenities that make life comfortable, wouldn't have been possible without science. However, despite this there are many issues that need our attention and among them one jumps out at us - mental illnesses and immorality. Almost all bad news you see in the media can be easily put under these two categories and these categories are aspects of our selves which takes us back 2000 years into the past to the Delphic Oracle's advice, gnothi seauton/know thyself.

Does this mean that self-realization alone is adequate to ensure a satisfactory existence? Can we forego science, here standing in for knowledge of the exterior, and still have a comfortable life? What about disease, harsh environments, natural impediments that need to be controlled to make life better? Self-realization may have within it the means to take the difficulties of existence in its stride but why suffer pneumonia when we can use antibiotics? Why walk in the hot sun for days when we can zip to our destination in a few hours in an air conditioned car?

It seems, therefore, that knowledge of both the interior (self) and the exterior (world) are equally vital and neither can be overlooked for civilization.

An oft mentioned cliche is that western and eastern civilizations differ in this respect - the former giving more attention to exterior knowledge and dominating the world with science and the latter is oriented to self-realization and, as must follow, submits to the domination of the scientific west. The west needs the east as much as the east needs the west if there's to be that essential balance between the self and the world outside.

What you are saying basically: a sane and healthy person needs both food and drugs. Mens sana in corpore sano

What you are saying basically: a sane and healthy person needs both food and drugs. Mens sana in corpore sano — ovdtogt

I'm sure Paul Dirac could've said it in fewer words. :lol:

.↪god must be atheist ↪praxis ↪ovdtogt Between the OP and this post are three replies that imo should not have been posted. My annoyance with them is that they together seem to instantiate a remarkable depth of ignorance that on occasion seems to rise up and even overwhelm what might have been good thinking and a way into a good discussion. So I challenge those three to, even as Socrates himself did in the Phaedrus, recant and retract their remarks and replace them with something worthy of the OP and this Forum. — tim wood

I have a better idea. Why don't I sit in ashes, tear my hair and rent my clothes, and fast for seven days for the sins I've committed on this forum.

But seriously speaking, this is the essence I was trying to express in highly sarcastic tones:

1. Enlightenement. The route you proposed which I quoted is not the ONLY way to enlightenment, and I claim (without support, so please don't ask why I claim this -- only intuition tells me) that Selfrealization is PERHAPS not even the best route to enlightenment.

2. Schools. You mentioned that schools opened up in the East. I called you out by asking you to name these schools. I don't know, and I won't accuse you with this, but my intuition tells me that you just said this, without knowing for sure that any such schools opened up, particularly based on the concept of Selfrealization as created by Socrates. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies.

3. You named three countries, and I bet if the orient adopted a thought borne by Socrates, then it's not only the three countries that would cultivate the thought, but many more. I believe it was a general overgeneralization, which could have, or may have, hurt the national pride of other countries, the countries you did not name.

One last word: As you can see, if you had been able to read my subtext, you would have seen TREMENDOUSLY CLOSE ADHERENCE TO THE TOPIC by me. It is not my ineptitude that you dismissed my post and I don't take any flack for it by you.

Please, I ask you to never, never, never again dismiss my posts as unworthy when they come up from time to time. If anything is unworthy, it is the dismissal of them first hand without getting or trying to get their meaning.

Sorry. You asked me to retract my words, @Tim Wood, but my first post referred to the OP which had been written by @Waechter418. Still, I kept referring to claims as if they had been written in the OP by you, @Tim Wood. This is a mistake I made, because I assumed you'd be the same feller, being the author of the OP. I mistook your ingidnation to be that of the original poster. So I mixed the identities up.

My mistake. I admit to it. I apologize for it.

There's such text as a 'bodhisattva sila sutra' but even if there were, it could not be dated to 450 BC as there are no Mahāyāna Buddhist sutras dated B.C.

A mashup of misunderstood ideas and words. Equally important as 'knowing thyself' is 'knowing thine subject matter'. :wink:

A Buddhist believes he himself contains the world (is the world). Thus by looking into himself he sees the world and learns about the world.

A mashup of misunderstood ideas and words. Equally important as 'knowing thyself' is 'knowing thine subject matter'. :wink: — Wayfarer

Heh, well said.