Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 34

30 December 2024

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 34

The year 2024 is coming to its end.  Somehow it seems fitting to write one of my ‘Brief Notes’ posts to conclude this year.

1.  This year I became aware of a few Platonic groups that I had not known of before.  The kind of groups I am referring to are outside the University setting, they are small in number of members, and they are dedicated to following the Platonic teachings as they understand it and to the best of their abilities.  Some groups like this have been around a long time; I’m thinking of the Thomas Taylor group(s) as a good example.  And some are only a few years old.

When I think of these groups I become optimistic.  Most of these groups will likely fail from a worldly perspective (the group will disperse due to complicating life circumstances, monetary difficulties, differences in shared visions, and so forth) but I see these groups as like seeds cast upon the ground.  Most seeds do not germinate, but some do.  Over time some will take root and grow; that may take many years to happen but that’s OK when you see the things of this world from the perspective of eternity.

2.  The Way of the Solitary Practitioner appears to me to be the manner in which Platonism as a spiritual practice will be transmitted, or handed down, at least for the near future.  As someone who is attracted to monasticism I used to think of this situation as a negative.  But I’ve grown to think of the Way of the Solitary Practitioner as having its advantages.  

2.1  The truth is, most monastic institutions are corrupt and it is difficult for a genuine practitioner to actualize their practice in a structured monastic setting (though there are exceptions.)  This is not a new problem; Peter Abelard wrote about corrupt monastic institutions in his Historia Calamitatum, written in 1132.  And my Buddhist teacher, who was a monk, once told me that 80% of Buddhist monks were monks because they are lazy, 15% of the monks become monks because of a great sorrow in their lives, and about 5% become monks because they want to practice the Way.  He laughed when he said this but he was at the same time serious.  I think that was the primary reason why my teacher set up obstacles to practicing in a monastery, so many that it became impossible.

2.2  Without naming the Way of the Solitary Practitioner explicitly, Platonic literature seems to offer that approach by example.  I’m thinking of the Platonic teachers who presented the teachings in the context of their lives without creating an institutional setting; this includes people like Plotinus, Maximus, Hypatia, Ficino, and on down to the present day.

2.3  There are lots of human activities that model the Way of the Solitary Practitioner.  I’m thinking of activities like gardening, making pottery, baking, painting, and so forth.  In a way you could look at Platonism as an art like these activities, as a way of life.

3.  Plato demonstrated the effectiveness of the dialogue form for philosophy.  And this has had a big impact on Western Philosophy over the centuries.  Lots of philosophers have presented their views through the dialogue form and I think that is because of the precedent set by Plato.  Examples include some works of Cicero, Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, on down to the modern period with writers like Berkeley, into the contemporary setting with authors like Peter Kreeft.

But I had not been aware until this year that some of these dialogues are spin-offs of actual Platonic dialogues.  In Plato’s dialogues it sometimes happens that a question will be raised, or an issue touched on, that is not further explored except in that passing mention.  Or there might be something in the setting that is noted but not explored or unpacked.  This provides an opening for a philosophically inclined author to write a dialogue that takes that lacuna as a starting point for a dialogue of their own.

I see this as similar to chapters that have been added to The Tale of Genji where a situation is not brought to a conclusion, or a character briefly appears in the novel but then disappears, and similar kinds of things.  The Tale of Genji is a huge work with a large number of characters, so it makes sense that some characters, and their stories, are not given a complete treatment.  The result is that at times in Japanese literary history an author will add a chapter to the Tale to fill in what they consider to be an absence or gap.  In a similar way, the authors I am referring to have filled in ‘gaps’ in the dialogues of Plato; these are not philosophical gaps.  They are what we might call ‘literary gaps.’

The examples I became aware of are very recent.  They are a specific subcategory of philosophical dialogue, emerging directly from the Platonic dialogues themselves.  I can see why this might be attractive to some writers as the characters in Plato’s dialogues are interesting; they have well articulated personalities and in some cases biographies.

I don’t know if there are earlier examples of dialogues that take the characters and situations found in Plato’s dialogues as the basis for their own philosophical writing.  I don’t have any objection to this approach; I find it kind of intriguing and see potential in it for the future.

4.  After rereading the dialogue Parmenides this year it occurred to me that the view that Plato had a ‘secret teaching’ or ‘doctrine’ that was reserved for a select few, a kind of esoteric teaching, is a misreading of the Parmenides.  In Parmenides, in the section I recently posted about, it is argued that the One does not participate in time and that because of this there is no past, present, or future from the perspective of the One.  The argument continues, asserting that this implies that the One transcends being and that the One has no name.

What I’m suggesting is that this teaching of the One transcending being and inherently not having any name (because it is non-conceptual) is the source for the idea that there was a secret doctrine in Platonism (this view is often called the ‘Tubingen School.’) I’m suggesting that this so-called secret doctrine is simply the experience of the fully transcendental One through contemplation.  It is ‘secret’ in the sense that it is beyond mind, intellect, and concept and therefore beyond affirmation and negation.  It would be difficult for those who see philosophy strictly in conceptual terms to integrate such a teaching into their view of philosophy and this leads to the idea that the teaching is esoteric, hidden, or secret.

5.  “Whenever you want to indulge, recall that you prefer to ascend.”

(Mark Anderson, Pure: Modernity, Philosophy, and the One, Sophia Perennis, San Rafael, California, 2009, page 104, ISBN: 9781597310949)

This is an excellent practice.  It transforms every situation into an occasion for the practice of the Platonic Way.  If I am tempted by material pleasures I am reminded to transcend them instead of indulge in them.  If I am confronted by negative situations, and I am tempted to anger, belligerence, retaliation, or arrogance, I am reminded that it is possible to transcend the situation, transforming it into an occasion for spiritual practice.  Seeing things in this way I align myself with the providential nature of the One, thus taking a step forward on the path that leads to the One.

An application of Anderson’s insight quoted above is to beauty.  If I want to indulge in beauty, to think of beauty as a sensory experience, I recall that I want to ascend; and I do this by understanding that beauty is a gate to the transcendental.  The beauty found in this world is not the beauty of this world.  But each occasion of beauty is an opportunity to access the transcendental source of beauty that is beyond material existence.

As the day draws to an end,

As the month comes to a close,

I turn to look at a vase,

Blue and gold with one white rose.

Best wishes to all for a nourishing and contemplative 2025.

 

Transcending Being in Plato's Dialogue Parmenides

23 December 2024

Transcending Being in Plato’s Dialogue Parmenides 

[Note: The dialogue begins with a number of participants, including Parmenides and Zeno, as well as a very young Socrates and other young philosophers including Glaucon, Adeimantus, Cephalus, Antiphon, and one whose name is Aristotle. This is not the Aristotle who was Plato's student at Plato's Academy, but another Aristotle. The dialogue shifts between Parmenides and various young men, including a passage where Socrates and Parmenides discuss the theory of forms. Soon after this the discussion shifts to focus on various 'hypotheses' about the One. Parmenides accepts the request to investigate these and requests that the youngest of those present respond to his questions; the youngest is Aristotle. The portion of the dialogue quoted below is between Parmenides and this young man Aristotle.]

Parmenides: “Now, don’t you think that ‘was’ and ‘has come to be’ and ‘was coming to be’ signify partaking of time past?”

Aristotle: “By all means.”

Parmenides: “And again that ‘will be’ and ‘will come to be’ and ‘will be coming to be’ signify partaking of time hereafter?”

Aristotle: “Yes.”

Parmenides: “And that ‘is’ and ‘comes to be’ signify partaking of time now present?”

Aristotle: “Of course.”

Parmenides: “Therefore, if the one partakes of no time at all, it is not the case that it has at one time come to be, was coming to be, or was; or has now come to be, comes to be, or is; or will hereafter come to be, will be coming to be, or will be.”

Aristotle: “Very true.”

Parmenides: “Could something partake of being except in one of those ways?”

Aristotle: “It couldn’t.”

Parmenides: “Therefore the one in no way partakes of being.”

Aristotle: “It seems not.”

Parmenides: “Therefore the one in no way is.”

Aristotle: “Apparently not.”

Parmenides: “Therefore neither is it in such a way as to be one, because it would then, by being and partaking of being, be.  But, as it seems, the one neither is one nor is, if we are obliged to trust this argument.”

Aristotle: “It looks that way.”

Parmenides: “If something is not, could anything belong to this thing that is not, or be of it?”

Aristotle: “How could it?”

Parmenides: Therefore, no name belongs to it, nor is there an account of any knowledge or perception or opinion of it.”

Aristotle: “Apparently not.”

Parmenides: “Therefore it is not named or spoken of, nor is it the object of opinion or knowledge, nor does anything that is perceive it.”

Aristotle: “It seems not.”

Parmenides: “Is it possible that these things are so for the one?”

Aristotle: “I certainly don’t think so.”

(Plato, Parmenides, translated by Mary Louise Gill and Paul Ryan, Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1997, pages 375-376, 141d-142b, ISBN: 9780872203495)

Parmenides: “Well, and do not the words ‘was,’ ‘has become,’ and ‘was becoming’ appear to denote participation in past time?”

Aristotle: Certainly.”

Parmenides: “And ‘will be,’ ‘will become,’ and ‘will be made to become,’ in future time?”

Aristotle: “Yes.”

Parmenides: “And ‘is’ and ‘is becoming’ in the present?”

Aristotle: “Certainly.”

Parmenides: “Then if the one has no participation in time whatsoever, it neither has become nor became nor was in the past, it has neither become nor is it becoming nor is it in the present, and it will neither become nor be made to become nor will it be in the future.”

Aristotle: “Very true.”

Parmenides: “Can it then partake of being in any other way than in the past, present, or future?”

Aristotle: “It cannot.”

Parmenides: “Then the one has no share in being at all.”

Aristotle: “Apparently not.”

Parmenides: “Then the one is not at all.”

Aristotle: “Evidently not.”

Parmenides: “Then it has no being even so as to be one, for if it were one, it would be and would partake of being; but apparently one neither is nor is one, if that argument is to be trusted.”

Aristotle: “That seems to be true.”

Parmenides: “But can that which does not exist have anything pertaining or belonging to it?”

Aristotle: “Of course not.”

Parmenides: “Then the one has no name, nor is there any description or knowledge or perception or opinion of it.”

Aristotle: “Evidently not.”

Parmenides: “And it is neither named nor described nor thought of nor known, nor does any existing thing perceive it.”

Aristotle: “Apparently not.”

Parmenides: “Is it possible that all this is true about the one?”

Aristotle: “I do not think so.”

(Plato, Parmenides, translated by Harold North Fowler, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1939, page 251, 141D-142B, ISBN: 9780674991859)

The dialogue Parmenides is Plato’s most analytical dialogue.  Rigorous, meticulous, dense, and meaningful it unpacks the meaning of the transcendental, of the One, in Platonic philosophy and contemplation.  I have recently reread this dialogue and this reading was an uplifting experience; I was able to follow the ebb and flow of the analysis and to glimpse the overall point that was being made and the source from which it emerges.  

I have had this kind of experience before.  As I have previously written here, I am a slow learner, but I am willing to read something that interests me multiple times and for me this approach seems to bear fruit.  I first encountered this when I was engaged in reading some difficult Buddhist philosophy.  And I have kept with this method of reading and rereading until what the work is saying makes sense or becomes coherent.  It resembles listening to a piece of music in a style you are not familiar with.  When you first listen only brief moments will make sense, but it is difficult to get an overall feel for the piece.  But after listening multiple times the music’s overall shape and direction starts to register and the music may even become a great pleasure to listen to.  In a similar way, a difficult work like the dialogue Parmenides is the kind of work I need to spend time with in order to gain some clarity about it.  Here are a few comments stimulated by my last reading:

1.  The overall meaning of the passage quoted above is that the One transcends being.  I think that the source for this understanding is contemplation; in other words the quoted passage is an attempt to communicate the nature of the experience of the One to others.

2.  In this reading I connected what was being written in Parmenides to my studies of the Perfection of Wisdom discourses I spent a lot of time studying when I was a Buddhist.  For example, in both traditions all three aspects of time (past, present, and future) are given equal status when looked at from the point of view of the ultimate.  There is no privileging of the present, or the now, as more real than the past or the future.  For example, in the Diamond Sutra it says, “. . . the past mind is not found, the future mind is not found, and the present mind is not found.”  In the quote from Parmenides it states that the One does not partake of time at all and that therefore neither the present, nor the past, nor the future, is something that can be found in the One.

3.  It is fairly common to hear spiritual teachers say that the present, or the now, is privileged in some way.  This can be in the form of something like saying that only the now is real, or that we only have ‘this present moment.’  But in wisdom traditions such as Platonic philosophy, or Buddhist Perfection of Wisdom, the present is not given a higher status than the past or the future.  This kind of teaching points to a reality that is ‘prior’ (metaphorically prior and metaphysically prior) to time as such.  This can only be experienced in mystical union.

4.  It is remarkable to me that Plato as a writer is equally at home writing allegories and weaving stories of gatherings such as the Symposium as well as the mode of meticulous analysis found in Parmenides.  It is extremely rare to find a writer that can encompass so many different modes of writing and be so skilled in all of them.

5.  I don’t think it is possible to understand Parmenides unless the reader has practiced contemplation.  I’m not saying that reading Parmenides has no value unless one is a contemplative.  I read the Diamond Sutra long before I had an experience of transcendence in contemplation and it did help me.  Here is an analogy; it can be helpful to read a recipe if I am interested in cooking something I have heard about and that has attracted my attention.  The recipe will tell me the ingredients I need, the procedures for mixing and cooking, and so forth.  These are useful and meaningful.  But one more step is needed to really understand a specific recipe; that is to put the ingredients together and cook it.  Contemplation is the occasion that ‘puts the ingredients together.’

6.  I think the climax of this section of Parmenides is “Therefore the one in no way partakes of being.”  This is explaining very clearly that the one transcends being, is beyond (and ‘before’) being.  The final portion of this section of the dialogue unpacks some of the implications of the one transcending being, such as the one having no name.

7.  The place of being in Platonism is, for some, difficult to access.  I recently listened to a talk on youtube about Platonism in which the speaker stated that the One is pure being.  That’s not the first time I have heard this way of speaking about the One.  I believe that this view is at least influenced by Aristotle, but more importantly, I think many metaphysicians have difficulty understanding what transcending being would mean.  For example, what does it mean to say that the One has no name; that would imply that the One is not ‘the One,’ which is paradoxical and can be confusing.

The confusion is overcome through contemplative practice; and I don’t know of any other way that the difficulty presented by the idea of the One transcending being can be overcome.  This makes Platonism inherently a mystical philosophy.  If Platonism is looked at as an example of mysticism this creates difficulties for analytic and materialist philosophers, as well as for those who want Plato to be a proto-rationalist.

The confusion is also overcome through ascetic practice because ascetic practice is based on turning away from material manifestations.  To approach that which transcends being requires such a turning away.

8.  I don’t think that contemplation or asceticism can be incorporated into a modern university’s curriculum.  And this is why there will always be a gap between the mysticism of Platonic philosophy and contemporary academic approaches.

The model that is needed for accessing the fullness of Platonism is that of an ashram or a dojo; a place where the works of Platonism are studied, but the practices of contemplation and asceses are considered to be foundational and essential.

9.  The dialogue Parmenides is a jewel of wisdom.  

The Wanderer's Way

16 December 2024

The Wanderer’s Way

1.  Plato has a number of descriptions of the philosopher’s character scattered through the dialogues.  Plato’s descriptions tend to depict philosophers as out of touch and more than a bit clumsy in the world.  Philosophers tend to wander through the world with their mind, their being, focused on the transcendent, or the transcendent-adjacent.  The result is a kind of inability to see the material world in front of them.  This isn’t difficult to understand.  For example, if you are focused on a song you have just heard and really, really like, and you are playing it over in your mind, maybe singing it as well, you may not hear someone speaking to you, or that your phone is ringing, or that there is a gentle knock at the door, or that it has started raining, and so forth.  There are many examples like this.  

I think the thing that distinguishes the philosopher in this regard is that as philosophical practice continues and deepens the focus on the transcendent tends to become dominant, or more dominant.  That’s because the Good and the One are inherently attractive.  

2.  There is a story that Plato tells about Thales; Thales was gazing at the stars and not noticing a ditch, Thales fell into it.  A servant girl saw this and laughed at Thales for being so inattentive to his own surroundings.

You could say that Thales was ‘lost in space.’  I think the story is an allegory for the transformation that occurs with contemplative awareness of the transcendental.  The stars are a symbol for the transcendent.  The ditch is a symbol for Plato’s cave, which itself is a symbol for being trapped in material reality.  

3.  There is the story found in the Symposium where Socrates falls into a trance on the way to the gathering.  Socrates is standing on the porch of some home in silence and stillness.  His companion, Aristodemus, is familiar with this behavior and leaves him there.  Aristodemus shows up at the party without Socrates, but they aren’t worried.  Eventually Socrates shows up after they send people to bring him back.

4.  A long time ago I needed to travel from Berkeley, California, to Providence, Rhode Island.  My funds were limited and at the time I did not have a car.  I spotted a message board (a physical message board which were common in Berkeley at the time; you found them at grocery stores, laundromats, and so forth) for a bus that travelled from coast to coast on an improvised schedule; when they had enough people sign up they would set out.  That was a long time ago, but I think the bus was called something like Green Tortoise, or maybe Green Turtle.  I contacted them and soon after they notified me they were ready to travel.

I boarded the bus at the designated location.  There were a lot of people and we introduced ourselves.  There were a pair of young women who seemed very engaging and I had a number of conversations with them.  They liked to sing songs and they had good voices.  One was a song they composed called ‘The Wanderer.’  It impressed me so much that I recall it to this day:

The Wanderer has no fixed abode,

The road, the road is her home.

The wanderer has no fixed abode,

The road, the road is her home.

Fire never lingers in one place

But moves on to new fuel,

Sometimes I wish my life was just a resting place

But I know that it’s a school, it’s a school now.

I think there were a few more verses but I only recall these two. The tune was in a minor mode and had a kind of jazz feel to it.

I learned from them that the lyrics of the song were based on passages in the I Ching.  Hexagram 56 in the I Ching is ‘The Wanderer’:

“A wanderer has no fixed abode; his home is the road.  Therefore he must take care to remain upright and steadfast, so that he sojourns only in the proper places, associating only with good people.  Then he has good fortune and can go his way unmolested.”

(The I Ching, translated by Wilhelm Baynes and Cary F. Baynes, Princeton University Press, 1950, page 217, ISBN: 069109750X)

This is very good advice for the philosopher.  The world is inherently unstable and there is no safe haven in the material realm.  Realizing this, the philosopher is not attached to place or location which is a prerequisite for the Wanderer’s Way.  The comment from the I Ching points out that another prerequisite is to be ‘upright’ and ‘steadfast.’  I understand ‘upright’ as meaning ethically reliable.  I understand ‘steadfast’ as meaning that the Wandering Philosopher follows the path to the transcendent step by step and does not abandon the journey.

The philosopher should sojourn only ‘in proper places.’  I understand this to mean that the philosopher needs to be careful not to fall into bad company that may distract the Philosopher from the path and the best way to do this is to associate ‘only with good people.’

If these principles are followed the Philosopher will have ‘good fortune’ in his wanderings.

5.  I often think of myself as a spiritual wanderer.  I came to that self-description because I have wandered from one spiritual tradition to another over the decades; these include a wide variety of Buddhist traditions, a stint among the Sufis, various Christian teachings from Orthodoxy to Quakerism, the I Ching itself, and so forth.  At times my inability to settle down in one tradition has been a source of anxiety and self-criticism as I have wondered if I am just a dilettante.  I have friends who have found a spiritual home and have stayed in that home for 40 years or more and the contrast with my own wanderings has made me uncomfortable at times.

On the other hand, this wandering through spiritual traditions has allowed me to make connections that I would not have been able to make otherwise.  For example, I frequently compare Platonism to Dharmic traditions and I am able to do this because of my studies in Indian spirituality (Buddhism and Jainism in particular.)  I feel secure in pointing out the Dharmic nature of Platonism because of my experience with Dharmic traditions.  And that is not the only example of how my wanderings have impacted my understanding of Platonism in ways that feel constructive to me.

6.  In addition, this wandering has kept my life lean in terms of possessions.  This has been a great benefit.  Someone like me can easily become a dedicated book collector with shelves and shelves of books and I think that tendency would have manifested if it were not for my wandering.  In a sense all a Platonist really needs are the Dialogues of Plato and the Enneads of Plotinus.  Other works like the Chaldean Oracles or the I Ching may offer helpful observations, but the two wings of Platonism (Plato and Plotinus) are sufficient for taking flight to eternity.

7.  The Platonist may or may not wander in a physical sense.  But as the cultivation of contemplation deepens the Platonist realizes he is just a visitor here in this realm of sorrow.  It is good to be able to wander away from it, to be free from it, and to grow in awareness of the Good, the One, and the Beautiful.

8.  “Strange lands and separation are the wanderer’s (and the philosopher’s) lot.”  (Ibid, I Ching, page 56)

Ancient Teachings

9 December 2024

Ancient Teachings

In the dialogue Phaedo Socrates refers to his teachings on the immortality of the soul and on rebirth as ‘ancient teachings.’  If I recall correctly, Socrates links his teachings to Orphics and some Mystery traditions.  Pythagoreanism is implied in Phaedo because Cebes, one of the main participants in the discussion with Socrates, was a student of Philolaus who was a Pythagorean.  In addition, Echecrates, who asks Phaedo to tell him what happened to Socrates during his last hours and thus creates the occasion for the dialogue, was also a Pythagorean.

I have been reading Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History by Charles H. Kahn, a scholar of Greek philosophy, particularly its very early manifestations.  Kahn discusses how difficult it is to determine the teachings of Pythagoras as nearly all the original material has vanished.  This makes it difficult to know what the actual teachings of Pythagoras were; and there is a lot of strong disagreement on this issue among contemporary scholars. But generally speaking, Pythagoras is famous as a mathematician and also as the founder and leader of a religious community.  Both of these teachings were absorbed by, and reshaped by, Plato.  

Addressing the question of where Pythagoras learned these teachings, and specifically addressing rebirth, Kahn writes:

“What is not controversial, however, is his (Pythagoras’s) importance as the founder of a religious community and the evangelist of immortality based upon transmigration.  This was a new doctrine in Greece in the sixth century B.C.  It represents a radical break with the Homeric view of the psyche as the phantom of the dead man in Hades, doomed to a gloomy afterlife among the shades below.  Where did this new view of human destiny come from?  There is no reason to suppose that it was invented by Pythagoras, although he probably gave it a new form and certainly made it widely known.  Herodotus (IV.123) implies that Pythagoras borrowed it from the Egyptians but pretended that it was his own.  Now the ancient Egyptians did believe in a meaningful afterlife for the dead; but they did not in fact have a doctrine of reincarnation.  Some scholars suggest that Pythagoras learned of this doctrine from Pherecydes of Syros, with whom he is traditionally associated.  But the evidence that Pherecydes held such a view is late and inconclusive, and that would in any case only displace the question of origins by one generation.  One important modern school [of Western scholars] connects the new Greek view of the soul with the influence of shamanistic practice and belief from the Black Sea area.  Now it may in fact be useful to think of spirit-travelers like Aristeas of Proconessus and Abaris the Hyperborean in terms of the shamanistic traditions of central Asia.  But there is no link, either logical or historical, between the shamanistic practice of religious trance and the systematic belief in a cycle of human and animal rebirth.  The only religious tradition in which the doctrine of transmigration is at home from a very early period is that of India in pre-Buddhist times.  The concept of karma (according to which one’s destiny in the next reincarnation is a consequence of one’s performance in this life) appears as a secret teaching in the earliest Upanishads.  After the conquests of Cyrus (who died c. 530 B.C.), the Persian empire stretched from Ionia to the Indus.  From that time on, if not before, it was clearly possible for oriental doctrines to travel to the West.  How exactly they reached Pythagoras we cannot even guess.  But we can at least see that the later legend of Pythagoras’ journey to India in search of the wisdom of the East may very well contain a grain of allegorical truth.”

(Charles H. Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 2001, pages 18 and 19, ISBN: 9780872205758)

Here are a few thoughts that have appeared to me while reading Kahn’s book:

1.  I think the way many moderns interpret Pythagoras reflects the way the modern mind is split into two mutually antagonistic parts.  Modern readers of Pythagoras tend to think that either Pythagoras was a mathematician and therefore proto-modern, or Pythagoras was a religious, or spiritual, teacher who founded a community of religious disciples governed by fairly strict regulations.  I think that it is understandable that moderns find the idea that Pythagoras was both of these difficult; normally we do not ask ourselves what the religious convictions of a mathematician are because we consider those convictions to be irrelevant to a mathematician’s contribution to mathematics.  

2.  But Platonism views numbers as numinous entities, or noetic realities that can be accessed through meditative practices and trances.  This view of numbers links numbers, and mathematics as a whole, to spirituality; this view allows for Pythagoras’s mathematical contributions, whatever they were, to be spiritual contributions.  In other words there is no split between Pythagoras as a mathematician and Pythagoras as a spiritual teacher and founder of a religious community.

3.  In a general way reading about the difficulty in accessing what Pythagoras actually did and what his teachings actually were, is a testament to the dissolving nature of time.  Things recede into the past and the past recedes into the inaccessible.  This is the universal fate of all material things.

4.  The connection to India as the source for the teachings on rebirth makes sense to me, though it would be difficult to prove this; I’m not aware of any documentary evidence or any artefact that points to that conclusion.  But, again, it makes sense.

And it seems to have been a regularly recurring theme in Greek philosophy.  The tradition that Pythagoras went to India connects to Plotinus, centuries later, attempting to reach India to study Indian traditions; an attempt which was thwarted.  Looked at geographically, it is entirely possible that Pythagoras either went to India and learned these teachings, or connected with Indian teachers in the Mediterranean region of that time.

5.  The teaching on the immortality of the soul resembles the Pythagorean teachings on number in that both the soul and numbers are, to use a Platonic term, noetic realities.  This again reinforces the lack of any separation between the mathematical and spiritual activities of Pythagoras.

Pythagoras discovered the noetic source of numbers and in the same way discovered the noetic source of the soul.

6.  I have encountered a few youtube Platonists (that’s not a put-down; some of the most creative work on Plato and Platonism is found on youtube) hold the view that Plato was a Pythagorean.  The main reason I think there is something to that point of view is that the Pythagorean tradition thought of numbers as having a special place in the creation and/or construction of the cosmos, both at macro and micro levels.  There is a similar high regard for numbers in the Platonic tradition.  And historically Platonists have made significant contributions to mathematics down to the present day.  There is an intimate connection between Platonism and how mathematics unfolded in the West.

But I think Platonism goes a step further than the Pythagoreans by placing numbers in the noetic sphere; in other words comprehending numbers within an overall metaphysical framework.  This clarifies why numbers are not sensory realities, why numbers and their relationships are discovered as opposed to created, and why Plotinus would say that the mathematician is inherently in a good position to make the journey to the transcendental, the Good and the One (along with some other types of human beings.)  

7.  But Platonism also absorbs other traditions, notably Orphism.  Kahn writes, “. . . in Plato’s conception of philosophy the Orphic and Pythagorean streams merge, and both traditions find their hyponoia, their deep meaning, in Plato’s own theory of the soul and its transmundane destiny.”  (Kahn, as above, page 53)

8.  How helpful is it to spend time exploring the predecessors of Platonism such as Orphism and Pythagoreanism?  Personally, I have found it helpful in several ways.  First, understanding the connection between these predecessors and Platonism helps me to see why certain issues were of concern to Plato (such as the nature of numbers.)  Second, exploring the thoughts of Plato’s predecessors helped me to see through modernist interpretations of Platonism.  This happens by providing a larger context for Plato’s interests and interpretations, a context free from the arbitrary assumptions of contemporary materialism.  

If I may make an analogy, learning about Plato’s predecessors resembles learning about the composers who wrote symphonies before Beethoven.  Beethoven’s symphonies stand on their own and you don’t have to listen to Beethoven’s predecessors to enjoy his symphonies.  But if you do take the time to listen to the symphonies of Haydn, and Mozart, then the symphonies of Beethoven are understood in a larger context and regions of meaning open up in that context.

9.  Plato seems to have admired Pythagoras; and that is another reason to investigate Pythagorean teachings.  This admiration contrasts with other philosophers whom he found more problematic; I’m thinking of Heraclitus as an example, another would be Anaxagoras.  

Pythagorean teachings seem to have nourished Plato both philosophically and personally (Plato seems to have had friends who were Pythagoreans, such as Archytas.)  This suggests that our own understanding of Plato could be nourished by cultivating an understanding of what the Pythagoreans had to say.