Well, that's correct. It isn't something that can be described in words, it must be experienced. And it is experienced when the mind is "suspended" or still, in the same way we cannot see the bottom of a lake unless the water is clear and still.

Plotinus has a beautiful passage where he says that you must not chase after it but "wait quietly" for it to happen in the same way the eye awaits the rising of the sun over the horizon or from the ocean and gives itself to the eye to see.

For this very reason, stillness of mind has been recommended by all mystical traditions. In contrast, there is a tendency nowadays to use language and thought processes that are too intellectual and abstract and instead of leading anywhere, they actually lead us further and further from the truth.

Simplicity and stillness are the key to it. As also observed by the Church Fathers, the part of us that experiences it is not the mind but our heart and we experience or "see" it with the "eye of the heart"

So, the answer would be, yes, philosophical mysteries can be known, but not in the ordinary sense of the word, i.e., not by the mind but by a higher aspect of our consciousness.

The phrase “philosophical mysteries” implies things that we don’t know. The very fact that we are discussing this (or posing the question) presupposes a desire to find out.

Is this desire “mere curiosity” and if yes what is the exact definition of it? On the other hand, could it be that this curiosity is really the natural desire of consciousness, individual or collective, to know more about itself? If yes, then this would operate on a metaphysical level that is outside the scope of the mind - which is a limited form of consciousness.

This is why over the centuries – and we must remember that philosophy used to be a practical, not just theoretical endeavour – philosophers, especially those thought to have practical experience of the realities described or pointed at in philosophical theory, recommended a “suspension” of the mind, of everyday consciousness, in order to allow the supramental consciousness to experience itself as it is, without the distortions and limitations imposed on it by the mind. See Plotinus (Enneads) and others.

So, it would seem that a mind that has been “suspended” in supramental states of consciousness would be unable to communicate that experience to either itself or other minds. This is why mystics tend to use symbolic language and describe mystic experience in terms of “light”, “bliss”, “love”, etc. that can only vaguely hint at the actual experience without describing it. Even normal experience must be experienced to be fully understood or “lived” and this applies even more to metaphysical experience.

It is easy to see why this can lead to scepticism and cause some to doubt the authenticity of mystical experience. At the same time, however, the mystics’ persistent insistence on their experience being real, in fact, more real than anything else we might experience, suggests that it does actually exist. The difficulty is that it cannot be “known” by the mind as a result of which it is not capable of being expressed in words in the same way a sensory perception, emotion or feeling, cannot be transmitted from one person to another (like a physical object might be) but must be experienced in person.

The etymology of sunapha and hora has been established for a long time, it doesn't need "confirmation" by anyone and I'm not discussing it.

The topic of the thread is parallels and interchanges between Greek and Indian philosophy. I thought this was clear.

This topic seems to be very similar to the one on philosophy and metaphysics and I believe the answer to be essentially the same, i.e. everything is a matter of perspective.

For example, in a scientific perspective the earth goes around the sun but in everyday experience it's the other way around. Metaphysical reality is different. By definition, we can't know what it is because neither ordinary experience nor science provides us with the necessary knowledge.

This is why many philosophical or metaphysical systems recommend certain techniques such as meditation as an aid to raising our consciousness to higher levels of experience that go beyond normal experience and thought-processes. Unless and until we've reached those higher levels of experience, all we can do is speculate or philosophize. Perhaps something within us prompts us to do so. Some would say it's a fundamental desire to return to something higher that is also our original source.

The question, though, is do we have a consciousness or does consciousness have us?

Isn't everything a matter of perspective?

Otherwise put, which view is correct (1) the earth goes around the sun or (2) the sun goes around the earth?

1 is correct in a scientific perspective, 2 is correct in everyday experience.

By definition, we can't know what "ultimate reality" thinks of us or of itself or, for that matter, whether it is single or dual.

This is why many metaphysical systems recommend certain techniques such as meditation as an aid to raising our consciousness, i.e., ourselves, to higher levels of experience that go beyond normal experience and though-processes.

Unless and until we've reached those higher levels of experience, all our theories are just speculation. This, of course, doesn't mean that we can't speculate in the meantime.

Well, the consensus view is that "hora" entered the Sanskrit language along with Greek astrology, that was my point.

For example, Moriz Winternitz says that the 6th-century astronomer Varāhamihira wrote a work called Brhajjātaka which was also known as Horāshāstra i.e., Science of Horā/Horoscope/Astrology, where horā is a Greek word (“ὥρα”): Geschichte der indischen Literatur, 3 Bände, Leipzig 1905-1922, III, p. 569, text available at archive.org

However, if you think that Sanskrit होरा and Greek ὥρα are cognates, that's fine by me. I don't believe in communism, I believe in individualism and plurality of views.

If they're cognates, that's even better. Something to celebrate, not worry about IMO : )

Regarding hora, have you tried the Wikipedia article "Indian Astronomy"?

Last time I looked it said “Greek astronomical ideas began to enter India in the 4th century BCE”

PS If we think of creation as a process of manifestation of the lower by the higher, then soul, spirit and God are essentially identical.

Hi there.

1. If the etymology of "hora" and "sunapha" had been proposed by "scholars with nationalistic views" I wouldn't have considered it. You may rest assured that I always check my sources very carefully.

"Sunapha" is mentioned by scholars like Mircea Eliade who had the highest respect for Indian spirituality (see Yoga and Immortality, etc). As for "hora", the Gargi Samhita and other Sanskrit works expressly state that the astronomy/astrology they deal with is of Yunani (i.e. Greek) origin.

2. ψυχή and νους are often used in different senses/contexts. Even in modern Greek both of them can mean "soul" but also "mind" depending on the context. The way I see it, psyche is really the soul (endowed with a body and mind) but is essentially identical with νους or spirit.

It is precisely this essential identity of soul with spirit that enables man to ascend to the higher worlds of spirit.

As regards Buddhism, I find the concept of kshanikavada or momentariness, which seems to have passed into certain Hindu traditions, very interesting. Personally, I feel that with some modifications, it may be acceptable to Platonists and even to Christian philosophers. I would very much like to discuss this some day.

Many thanks, everybody! I really appreciate your replies.

As a general observation, the fact is that there are many striking parallels between Platonism and Indian philosophy.

For example, the so-called “parable of the chariot” in which the Indian version has the horses standing for the senses, the chariot for the body, the charioteer for the intellect and the rider for the soul (Katha Upanishad).

Now, an almost identical version is found in Greek writers like Plato, Parmenides and Xenophon.

Another example that strikes me is the tripartite division of the soul into distinct psychological aspects/functions.

Greek:

έπιθυμητικόν epithymetikon sensual aspect

θυμός thymos emotional aspect

λογιστικόν logistikon intellectual aspect

Indian:

मनस् manas sensual aspect

अहंकार ahamkara emotional aspect

बुद्धि buddhi intellectual aspect

Also, the concept of a higher inner soul/man - Greek νοῦς nous, Indian पुरुष purusha - that is connected downwards with the body-mind complex and upwards with God. See Plotinus, et al.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Obviously, I am not in a position, at this point in time, to determine who influenced whom or whether there was a third, common source (Egyptian/Babylonian?).

However, as regards astrology, the consensus seems to be that Hellenistic astrology drew on Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources in the second and first millennia BC and flourished for centuries until it began to decline in the West under Christianity. But it survived in Persia, it influenced Indian astrology and was transmitted to the Islamic world (from where it was re-introduced into Europe).

I haven’t got a theory with respect to philosophy but, as a theoretical possibility, could Platonic traditions have followed a somewhat similar trajectory?

For example, tradition has it that Pythagoras went to Egypt to acquire “secret knowledge” and apparently, in the 6th century CE, the last leading philosophers from the Platonic Academy at Athens settled in Persia from where Platonism passed into the Arab world.

It would be difficult to prove, but equally difficult to disprove, the possibility that Platonists went even further east, reaching India where they may have influenced certain currents of local philosophy and mysticism. Hence it may be worthwhile looking for parallels in Indian traditions that emerged in the early Middle Ages whose appearance may be explained with the help of external influence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Western bias".

I don't really care which direction the influence was as long as there is evidence for it. Greek and Babylonian influence on Indian astronomy, for example, is acknowledged even by Indian writers.

See Satyendra Nath Naskar, Foreign Impact on Indian Life and Culture (c. 326 B.C. to c. 300 A.D.), 1996, for example.

I don't think serious scholars really dispute that different civilisations or cultures mutually influence one another. Unfortunately, I can't find anything concrete on philosophy, hence my question.