Well, that sounds a bit too idealistic to me. It seems to overlook the agendas of subversive groups and foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize governments. Plus, the process of fragmentation may have already gone too far or is proceeding at too high a speed for idealistic countermeasures to actually work.

Then perhaps the solution is to revert to a more traditional political culture and form of governance, one that prevents the growing fragmentation of society along political/ethnic/gender/religious lines which is what seems to be happening at the moment.

And in that case you can't avoid pushing back the subversive "divide-and-rule" crowd. Reestablishing the rule or right, in other words.

The point though is that in practice you need to suppress others to some extent in order to stay in power. Nobody wants to be the underdog. The dominant group might be disposed to share some power but this will still leave it a dominant position. How do you share power fairly?

Sure. However, politics is about power which is a limited commodity. You can only acquire power for yourself by taking it from someone else and the more power you have the more you restrict others' access to power. This is why liberalism starts with fighting for freedoms for some groups and ends up suppressing others.

How do you define "two-valued orientation"? We must have some concept of right and wrong otherwise social order and everything else collapses and we descend into anarchy and chaos.

How do you define "two-valued orientation"? We must have a concept of right and wrong otherwise social order and everything else collapses into anarchy and chaos.

Bernie Sanders may have attracted some voters but far from enough. Trump only lost because of the epidemic and because he made mistakes during the election campaign. This is not surprising though as he isn't a career politician.

Correct. Proletarian vs bourgeois has progressed to black vs white, female vs male and anything else that promotes a "divide and rule" policy.

I tend to agree with Alexandros.

Socialism has time and again failed in the economic sphere. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Eastern Europe, all were forced to revert to capitalist methods in order to survive.

Socialist parties can no longer attract voters with tales of overabundant socialist economies hence they are trying to win over followers by making themselves champions of racial, ethnic, cultural, environmental and other issues that lend themselves to the emotional and psychological manipulation of the masses..

I think socialism's alleged promotion of equality and liberty is debatable. Socialism began as a reaction to the social and economic changes brought about by industrialization and urbanization, e.g. the dire situation of workers in textile factories, etc.

However, capitalist society saw itself forced to do something about those negative developments even without socialist revolution, hence liberalism ultimately won the debate.

The reaction of socialism to liberalism's victory was to invent new grievances or use old ones to dislodge social and economic groups from mainstream society and garner support for its agenda of seizing power for its leaders.

You will find that liberal or social democratic parties consist of a large number of Marxists trying to push those parties and the whole political system further and further in the direction of socialist dictatorship.

From that perspective, "social security" is just the bait used by clever socialists to promote communism, i.e. abolition of private property and total state control over society. This has happened far too often in recent history, and is still happening as we can see from China and other socialist regimes, for anyone to ignore it.

The other problem/problem of democracy is that people are a tad too quick to relinquish power to others. This lends itself to a wide spectrum of abuse of power, some forms of which are less obvious but potentially more dangerous than others.

Yes. The fundamental problem of socialism is that it started off as an offshoot of utopian philosophy. It was later modified to make it sound more “scientific” but it never succeeded in throwing off its utopian character.

As a result, socialism tends to appeal to emotions. Because it "sounds right" people tend to believe that it must be right and before they know it, they land in the realm of utopia from where there is no easy escape.

Essentially, socialism becomes a form of faith-based religion and some socialists from Marx and Engels to G B Shaw actually proposed making socialism into a religion that would supplant other belief systems.

Marx, Revolution and the Legacy of Utopian Socialism: A Critical Outline

A Postmodern Utopia? Heller and Fehér's Critique of Messianic Marxism

Correct. If we read Lenin, for example (State and Revolution), democracy for some socialists is not an end in itself but a means to attain Socialism which in turn leads to Communism. And Socialism is clearly defined as "dictatorship" from Marx and Engels onwards.

A new definition of democracy is obviously needed. IMO it would have to be something like "rule according to the will and interests of the people" and not "rule by the people" which as history shows has been misinterpreted and misused by many totalitarian regimes.

I believe that the close parallels between Hellenistic Platonism and Indian monism or non-dualism (Advaita) are beyond dispute. This is why I said earlier that we may find in one what is missing in the other.

The established historical facts suggest that Platonism flourished up to the early centuries of the Christian Era after which it influenced Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, especially the mystical currents within these such as Sufism and the Kashmiri Shaivism of Abhinavagupta.

This explains why an Indian may look at Platonism and say “this is Advaita” and a Platonist may look at Advaita and say “this is Platonism”.

However, when I look at the Advaita system of Abhinavagupta, I tend to go a step further and say not only “this is Platonism” but “this is a more elaborate form of Platonism”.

It is obvious that Abhinavagupta’s system is a synthesis of Platonism, Hinduism and Buddhism that does not seem to occur before his time.

It is my belief that in the same way as Indians borrowed mathematical concepts from the Greeks on the basis of which they developed more advanced concepts, they also borrowed from the Platonists and elaborated certain philosophical concepts in ways that we don’t see in Hellenistic Platonism.

Therefore, we may find in Abhinavagupta what is missing in Plotinus and his Western successors. What remains to be established is to what extent Abhinavagupta’s elaborations would be acceptable to Platonism. Personally, I tend to think that there is quite a bit that Platonists would be happy to accept or at least explore as a way of developing or "completing" their system.

Campbell identifies three waves of Hellenistic influence on India which he calls “increasingly massive tides”:

1. One following Alexander the Great’s 327 BC conquest of Northwest India which resulted in control of the entire Indus Valley, c. 200-225 BC.

2. A second one from the Hellenized Roman Empire following sea trade routes, in the first centuries CE.

3. And a third wave of learned refugees (Greeks and others from the Hellenized eastern parts of the Roman Empire) who took refuge in India after the imposition of Christianity, c. 400 CE.

J Campbell, Oriental Mythology, The Masks of God, Vol. II, p. 289

Campbell also notes that Dr Herman Goetz, former curator of the Museum of Baroda, has shown that “there occurred an event of epochal importance for India at the beginning of the fifth century CE”, pointing out that “there occurred the sudden flowering of an immense and really wonderful constellation of architectural, sculptural, literary, social, religious and philosophical forms, unknown to India before but bearing hundreds of points of relationship to Late Rome” p. 326.

See also Herman Goetz, “Imperial Rome and the Genesis of Classical Indian Art”, East and West, New series, Vol. 10, Nos. 3-4, Sept. Dec. 1959.

Significantly, the tide of Hellenistic influence in the fields of Indian mathematics, astronomy, astrology and art coincides with the emergence of Indian religious works such as the Puranas (including the Kurma Purana whose Ishvara Gita contains the Greek word sunaphe) as well as the emergence of philosophical and mystical traditions in the monistic Advaita tradition that shows close parallels to Platonic traditions:

Brahma Sutra of Badarayana, compiled in 400-450 CE.

Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada, 6th century CE.

Brahmasutrabhasya of Adi Shankaracharya, 700-800 CE

Kashmir Shaivism of Vasugupta and Abhinavagupta, 9th century CE, etc.

Devotional bhakti movements such as Shaiva Siddhanta also emerged at the same time (7th - 9th centuries CE).

However, vegetarianism is not the only indicator of advanced culture.

If we look at other cultural developments across the region, we see that Egyptian and Sumerian temples go back to the 4th millennium BC.

Greek temples had developed by the 9th century BC.

The oldest Buddhist shrine is a wooden structure from the 6th century BC.

The oldest Jain temple is from the 1st century BC.

The oldest Hindu temple structure is from 121-151 CE.

The Golden Age of India was between 300 and 500 CE.

It is called “Golden Age” because there were important developments in mathematics, astronomy, science, religion, philosophy, art and architecture.

These developments came about under Greek influence in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, art and, quite possibly, religion and philosophy.

Greek influence came from the next-door Indo-Greek Kingdom (Yavanarajya) in what is today Afghanistan and the Punjab, that was established after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent in 326 BC and persisted for several centuries, but also through links with the Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman world.

As pointed out by Joseph Campbell, the imposition of Christianity on the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE caused a “tide of refugees, bearing a rich treasure of Late Roman, Greek, and Syro-Egyptian civilization, whose influence immediately inspired many aspects of the subsequent Indian golden age” (Oriental Mythology, p. 289).

It’s a well-known fact that animal sacrifice is still practised in India.

See the Wikipedia article “Animal sacrifice in Hinduism”.

70% of Indians are meat eaters and if you add Pakistan and Bangladesh (that used to be part of India until a few decades ago) it probably amounts to more than 90%.

Vegetarians have always been a small minority in India, including at the time of Plato.

Brahmins used to eat meat and only later adopted vegetarianism from the Buddhists

See Wikipedia article “History of Brahmin diet”.

Swami Vivekananda admitted that Brahmins in Vedic times ate cows (Vivekananda, A Biography).

Brahmins were the main proponents of sacrificing and eating cows in Vedic times (Professor D N Jha, former member of the Indian Council of Historical Research and author of The Myth of the Holy Cow).

The Apastambha Grihya Sutra recommends sacrificing/slaughtering cows at weddings, reception of guests, etc.

Beef is recommended in the Charaka Samhita, the basic text of traditional Indian medicine, etc.

By your own admission, Platonic philosophers were vegetarians. This would indicate that they were very advanced morally and spiritually which I fully agree with.

"Not all Christian views and doctrines have a counter part in Greek philosophy, some have actually opposite views."

I never said anything else. On the other hand, animal sacrifices in Greece do have a counterpart in Hinduism, though perhaps less so in Buddhism.

See the Wikipedia article "Animal sacrifice in Hinduism"

Either way, this has no bearing on the topic discussed here.

I think we can only begin to understand the history of philosophy by understanding first philosophy and its close connections with astronomy and mathematics.

As Socrates put it, the epithet “wise” (sophos) properly belongs to God alone. Though he may appear to be wise in the eyes of ordinary men, the philosopher himself is not strictly speaking a wise person (sophos), he is merely one who aspires to be wise like God - as far as this is humanly possible.

To make the philosopher’s mind as wise as humanly possible as the mind of God, it needs to be taken out of its narrow, everyday context and acquainted with a broader vista, such as the heavens, his ultimate home among the stars or gods.

To paraphrase the Bible, the philosopher lives in the world but his soul is not of this world, it is of God. His mind is focused on the heavens above. This is why astronomy and mathematics were so important to philosophy and students of philosophy were called mathematikoi, i.e. “students” or “learners” from mathema, “lesson”.

A central part of the lesson to be learned was to see the Cosmos as an ordered, mathematically arranged harmonious whole, which in turn would bring about order and harmony to the learner’s mind and harmonize his soul with the World Soul. Hence the importance of astronomy and mathematics in philosophical teaching.

Philosophy sees the Cosmos as a circle framed by the twelve constellations of the zodiac, with everything emanating from and returning to its centre, the point that is also the philosopher’s ultimate goal. The heavenly vault also contains within itself the 360 degrees of the circle which are also the 360 days of the year, the 60 minutes of the hour (Greek ὥρα horā), the 60 seconds of the minute, etc., down to the smallest particle of time from which the fabric of reality is woven.

Incidentally, this is also the reason behind the astronomical and calendrical significance of Greek temple architecture.

In any case, we can see that the little word “horā” is connected to a vast science or system of thought that goes beyond mere astronomy and astrology. We also know that the earliest known mathematical texts are from Sumer/Mesopotamia and that the Greeks borrowed their tradition from the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians. So, there may well be multiple sources for both Greek and Indian traditions.

This is a problem that’s about as old as Platonism. It’s hard to tell what Plato actually believed. It is important to bear in mind though, that in those days philosophy was largely a secret tradition that had several levels of teachings imparted to different tiers of students. Hence the belief in Plato’s άγραφα δόγματα agrapha dogmata or “unwritten teachings”.

My personal feeling is that Plato used certain teachings simply as an intellectual framework that would assist the student in training his mind in philosophical thinking. Same applies to Socrates. We can’t take all his questions and answers seriously. The point was to prepare the student’s mind for the actual teachings that would be imparted in a master-to-disciple situation or initiation at a suitable time.

As regards the origins of reincarnation, it is of course possible that it originated in India. However, if we’re talking about interchange, then some ideas may have travelled in the opposite direction, similar to astronomy and astrology, elements of which were taken by the Greeks from Egyptian and Mesopotamian traditions and later passed on to India.

In fact, astronomy itself was probably used in the same way, i.e. to dislodge the student's mind from the constrictions of everyday thought processes and prepare it for a higher level of experience or understanding. Hence the close connection between Platonic philosophy and astronomy.

The point Winternitz and others are making is that not only the designation “horā” for Indian astrology, but the whole system was borrowed from the Greeks and this is corroborated by Indian authors of the period.

Yes, there were trade links, but also the Indo-Greek Kingdom (Yavanarajya) in Afghanistan and the Punjab from where influence was exerted on Indian art, etc. This is what I mean when I say "after Alexander the Great". I don't mean Alexander in person!

I don’t subscribe to the view that everything comes from the Greeks, but neither do I believe in the notion that everything comes from India.

The metaphysical worldview of Platonists like Plotinus, for example, is concentric and hierarchical. Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. Hence Platonic, Christian and Indian mystics use similar language

It is precisely this essential identity between the two, that makes "return" or "reunion" possible.

There is a triadic cycle of abiding-procession-return, μονή mone, πρόοδος proodos, επιστροφή epistrophe (corresponding to the Indian sRshti, stithi, samhāra).

Simply put, the Universal Intelligence abides in itself, proceeds out of itself in creation and reverts back into itself. Or interiorisation of consciousness. Hence contemplation and meditation as the principal means.

This is found both in Platonism and in Indian traditions like Kashmiri Shaivism (9th century CE).

So, could Platonism have stimulated or influenced the emergence of Indian philosophical and mystical traditions, either directly or through Christian and Islamic mysticism? I believe that there is a possibility. In any case, we can't deny the striking parallels.

The way I see it, vegetarianism in Platonism is more an ideal than an absolute obligation. Socrates' last words were "Crito, we owe a cock to (god) Asclepius". The main thing is what kind of person you are. As the Bible says, "not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of it".

Correct. There are numerous elements of Platonism in Christian tradition. The eastern parts of the Roman Empire were heavily influenced by Greek language and culture, including philosophy and this influence can be seen in early Christianity.

The apostle Paul who died c. 62-64 CE was born in Greek-speaking Κιλικία Cilicia and was sufficiently familiar with Greek philosophy and language to converse with the philosophers of Athens (Acts 17:16-34).

(See G. Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek? The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance In First-Century Palestine, Cambridge, 2015.)

Many of the founders of the Christian Church (Church Fathers) had been Hellenistic philosophers or had at least studied some Greek philosophy - which was part of higher education in the Roman Empire.
Church Fathers from Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE) onwards recount studying Platonism or quote from Platonic works.

In his address to God, St Augustine (354-430) wrote: “By reading these books of the Platonists I had been prompted to look for truth as something incorporeal, and I caught sight of your invisible nature [… ] So, I seized eagerly upon the venerable writings inspired by your Holy Spirit, especially those of the apostle Paul …” (Confessions, Book VII 20-21).

And, of course, Platonism also passed into Islamic and other traditions especially from Christian Hellenistic centres like Alexandria and Harran (Greek Κάρραι Charrae which was also known as Ελληνόπολις Hellenopolis, Greek City).

Well, I can't disagree with that. All religious rituals may be interpreted as "magic", depending on the inner attitude of the performer and always bearing in mind that there is a big difference between "black" and "white" forms of magic according to the nature of the intent behind the action and its impact on the world. In a sense, there is a thin line between philosophy, religion and magic.

Thomas Burrow, The Sanskrit Language:

“Occasionally words were introduced from outside India, e.g. from Iranian (vārabāna- ‘breast plate’) or from Greek (horā ‘hour’)” p. 43

Moriz Winternitz, History of Indian Literature (Geschichte der indischen Literatur), Vol III:

“[…] der vom Horoskop handelnde Zweig der Astrologie, […] nach dem Griechichen Horā genannt wird, ganz under dem Einfluss der Griechichen Astrologie” p. 569

(the branch of astrology dealing with the horoscope ... named after the Greek Horā, wholly under the influence of Greek astrology)

At p. 570 he says that the Sanskrit work Yavana-Jataka was translated from the Greek by the Greek Yavaneshvara in 169 CE

[यवन yavana is the Sanskrit word for Greek]

Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary:

होरा [horā] f. (fr. Gk. ὥρα) an hour (the 24th part of an Aho-rātra); the half of a zodiacal sign; horoscope or horoscopy
सुनफा [sunaphā] f. (= Gk. συναφή; cf. अनफा) a partic. configuration of the planets (when any one of the planets, except the Sun, occupies a secondary position, to the moon),
अनफा [anaphā] f. a particular configuration of the planets. [Gk. ἀναφή]

PS You're probably referring to "black magic" there which is a rather different thing. That's not what I was talking about.

There is a wide spectrum of magic practices, some being close to religion and others to what goes by the name of black magic or sorcery. If you read Augustine of Hippo (The City of God) he mentions "angels (gods) who come down to the theurgists, attracted by magical art of some kind". However, this mustn't be confused with black magic or sorcery in the negative sense. In a philosophical context, "magic formulas" may be employed in some traditions to invoke the help of divinities or to remove obstacles created by certain spirits, i.e. for spiritual not nefarious purposes.

PS You're probably referring to "black magic" there which is a rather different thing. That's not what I was talking about.

Close parallels between Platonism and Indian traditions can be identified not only on the level of philosophical vocabulary but also at the level of spiritual practice. See, for example, Michael Wakoff, “Awaiting the Sun: A Plotinian Form of Contemplative Prayer”.

Well, magic or "theurgy" was certainly practised but it tended to be a secret tradition and was probably of secondary importance in philosophy. Astronomy and astrology, on the other hand, were virtually inseparable from a philosophy that saw the Cosmos as a living being (or full of living beings) and saw the soul's ascent to the stars as its goal.

This is why it is legitimate to assume that philosophy may have accompanied astronomy and astrology.

Basically, the attested historical facts are as follows:

There is a well-attested Platonic tradition from Plato to the early centuries of the Christian Era.

There is Platonic influence on Christian philosophy and mysticism.

There is Platonic (or Christian Hellenistic) influence on Islamic philosophy and mysticism, and the emergence of Sufism in about the 8th century CE.

Also in the 8th century, the Greek word sunaphe that was also used by Plotinus and others in the sense of union of the soul with God, appears in the Sanskrit text of the Ishvara Gitā (The Song of the Lord).

At the same time, Indian philosophical and mystical currents showing parallels to Platonism emerge, e.g., Kashmiri Shaivism in the monistic tradition of Abhinavagupta which flourished from the 9th to the 13th centuries.

For example, we find isolated Arabic words like falsafa from Greek φιλοσοφία philosophia and karamat from Greek χαρίσματα charismata.

However, these isolated words point to broader influence. When we take a closer look, we find that there was extensive borrowing from Hellenistic/Christian sources and we can clearly identify striking parallels at the level of vocabulary (concepts and technical terms) as well as practice in spiritual currents like Sufism that can’t be explained away as accidental.

Louis Massignon, Essay on the Origins of the Technical Language of Islamic Mysticism.
F. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins.
Margaret Smith, The Way of the Mystics: The Early Christian Mystics and the Rise of the Sufis.
Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity.
Lloyd Ridgeon, The Cambridge Companion to Sufism.

When it comes to Indian traditions of the mystical-philosophical type that emerged in the Middle Ages it may also be worthwhile considering some Platonic influence via Christian and Islamic currents - Sufism would be a good candidate - that seem unrelated superficially but may be bearers of Platonic material on a deeper level.

The Sanskrit terms corresponding to Greek abiding-procession-return (μονή mone, πρόοδος proodos, επιστροφή epistrophe) are सृष्टि sRshti, स्थिति stithi and संहार samhāra

I think we are on the same page there. After Alexander the Great, the western world including parts of the Middle East was very much Hellenized and Hellenistic and Indian culture obviously intersected or overlapped to some extent as shown by Indian temple art and astronomy/astrology.

In any case, a cursory overview reveals a large number of parallels (the list is incomplete and provisional and possibly not entirely accurate on one or two points):

The tripartite composition of the soul.
The concept of a higher and lower self, one divine and one human.
Union of the human soul with God as the ultimate goal of life.
Five elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether) that constitute the universe.
Five sensory faculties: sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch.
The concept of cosmic creation by a process of emanation Greek απόρροια aporrhoia from the highest spiritual principle (God/the One).
Triadic cycle of abiding-procession-return, Greek μονή mone, πρόοδος proodos, επιστροφή epistrophe
Impermanence or “illusory” nature of the physical world.
The concept of the “heart” as the innermost core of the self, Greek καρδιά kardia, Sanskrit हृद् hRd and its role in attaining enlightenment or salvation.
Salvation through a process of psychic/spiritual purification, illumination and deification culminating in unity with God.
Prayer, meditation and contemplation as a means of attaining enlightenment/salvation.
Magical/spiritual formulas or “mantras” as an aid to invocation, concentration, interiorisation of consciousness, etc.
Remembrance or recognition of God.
Observance of certain moral and ethical precepts.
Set of obstacles encountered on the path that are to be overcome.
Renunciation of or indifference to material things as an aid to spiritual advancement.
The concept of “divine grace”, Greek χάρις haris, Sanskrit शक्तिपात shaktipāta and its role in spiritual salvation.
Supernatural powers or divine gifts Greek χαρίσματα charismata Sanskrit सिद्धि siddhi accomplishments, as a manifestation of divine grace and spiritual advancement.
The role of a spiritual teacher or master as a guide on the path.
Reincarnation or metempsychosis, etc., etc.

I’m fully aware that there is a difference between parallels and diffusion. But if we can establish a number of parallels beyond what can reasonably be regarded as “coincidence” or "multiple discovery", then I think we have good reason to at least try to look into the problem of diffusion or origin.

Exactly.

Arabian culture in the Middle Ages didn't have a very developed system of philosophy, hence they borrowed it from the Greeks along with its name "falsafa". Ibn Rushd (Averroes), after studying Greek philosophy, said "everything has been perfectly examined by the ancient masters, all we need to do is to go back to their books".

Even the Church Fathers took much from the Platonists - quite apart from the fact that many had started off as Platonic philosophers or had studied philosophy as part of standard higher education in the Roman Empire.

We need to rediscover their attitude of humility, of readiness to learn from the ancients instead of desperately trying to reinvent the wheel. Humans haven't changed that much over the centuries. Deep down we are the same, speak the same language and have the same experience of life and of ourselves.

Of course they are both paths of self knowledge. That's exactly why it may be useful to establish the parallels between the two. If nothing else, we may find in one what is missing in the other and this might help us to complete our knowledge of monistic philosophy.

However, we can’t reinvent the wheel. We must rely on known facts as established by academic consensus.

You said that you didn’t read my post in detail. Maybe you should now because I never said that Greek influence on Indian philosophy was an established fact. I only mentioned it as a possibility, as something that needs to be established.

Let me clarify this for you. Philosophy is about one’s worldview or Weltanschauung, one’s perception of the world. In the ancient world, this included a wide range of related fields such as astrology, religion and magic.

The belief that the human soul could ascend to the stars meant that philosophy was closely interconnected with astronomy and astrology. This is why Platonic philosophers from Plato onwards also concerned themselves with astronomy and astrology, see Plotinus, Porphyry and others.

If Greek astronomy and astrology influenced Indian traditions, as seems to have been the case, then it is reasonable to ask whether along with astronomy and astrology there was also some influence on philosophy. So, IMO the question is not quite as out of place as you are suggesting.

The metaphysical worldview of Platonists like Plotinus, for example, is concentric and hierarchical. Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. Hence Christian and Platonic mystics use similar language.

If there was no essential identity between the two, there could be no "return" or "reunion".

There is a triadic cycle of abiding-procession-return, μονή mone, πρόοδος proodos, επιστροφή epistrophe.

Simply put, the Universal Intelligence abides in itself, proceeds out of itself in creation and reverts back into itself. Or interiorisation of consciousness.

But these are just intellectual or theoretical concepts. What matters is practice, practice in every day life, in the way we look on the world, in the way we interact with fellow humans and nature, in the way we express ourselves, in the way we think, feel and speak, and in the way we practice meditation or contemplation.

And yes, there are parallels between Platonism and Advaita. I'm not disputing that at all, quite on the contrary.

Your "clearing away of a storm" is the same thing. It all depends on your state of mind, emotional and intellectual, that can be totally different from person to person.

Some may experience it as a "clearing away of a storm", others as the "stilling of waves" on the surface of a body of water. Just because we experience it one way or the other doesn't mean we must dismiss other people's experience.

Again depending on the state of mind you are starting with, a sensation of "fear" can also be present. This may be explained by the mind being overpowered and thrown out of its habitual "comfort zone" but as you say it is temporary and is followed by an experience of tremendous peace and happiness that can move us to tears.

It isn't "me" that sees Greece influencing India, it's the academic consensus that Greece influenced India in terms of art, astronomy, astrology and medicine. Please refer to Wikipedia and other online articles on the subject.

As regards philosophy, nobody seems to know who influenced whom, hence the topic I wanted to discuss. I only said that there is a theoretical possibility of Greek influence on some currents of Indian philosophy, not all.

Humans communicate, exchange ideas and cultures do influence each other. Why do you find the concept of Greek influence so unsettling?

The fact is that parallels do exist as you yourself admit. The normal course of discussion is to establish what the parallels are and then look into the issue of interchange and diffusion. If it can be shown that India influenced Greece, that's OK by me. But we haven't got there yet.

And yes, "higher mind" and "heart" are one and the same thing. It refers to the innermost core of our being, where experience is lived in the most immediate and "personal" sense possible or imaginable. But as I said, language is inadequate and in my opinion a return to a simpler, more intuitive and less "rational" terminology would be indicated.