Currently reading A History of Europe, p. 23. In discussing the Greeks and their seemingly ubiquitous influence on Europe and beyond — I think he is saying that not only has the Greek, say, philosophy been very influential, but that the Greeks essentially invented Philosophy, as we know it, and thus have given us the basis, the very language of our thought processes, with which to evaluate and understand that philosophy, let alone others. (We understand Africans as “Africans” because Europeans called them that, but does that not color, and thus distort, our vision and understanding of them as they really are?) We can thus not escape the Greek philosophical — or at the least semantic and linguistic — influence because it has given us the basis on — and the very language with — which to judge and evaluate other philosophies, and in this we should be mindful.
This is an important concept to understand, because if we are to truly dig down to the core of our own selves then we must be aware of this underlying, basic level of how we have been conditioned, not only to understand things, but to comprehend them in the first place, the basis on which to understand. Like a person in an anti-gravity chamber, our conditioned minds are very, very scared and unprepared (which feeds the fear) to not know which way is up. Context is everything, for nothing can be without it.
[The author] contends, on this page, that the Greeks essentially invented the philosophical practice of systematic and analytic reflection, even on thought itself; but I would contend that “Buddhism” (to name but one “philosophical” method which pre-dates the Greeks) and the “Hindu” traditions from which it came, were already doing and teaching it before the Greeks were even around.
To be truly open is to divest oneself of the controlling influences in our past and present. When I read the book Awakening the Buddha Within, it did not tell me things of which I had no concept. Rather, it provided me with another perspective, a method, which I found ghostly familiar, from which to see (it said, “open your eyes,” and I did); a “personal” “philosophy” that I had been struggling to define and understand, one that I had felt within myself for as long as I can remember, though I lacked the tools with which to articulate it.
I have been “questioning my conditioned existence” for my whole life without realizing that that is what I was doing. But I was doing it half-assed, with my eyes closed, fumbling around a lit room in the dark. Buddha Dharma just told me what I was doing and why, and so helped me see (reconnect with) who I really am. Buddha Dharma just laid the facts on the table and, for whatever reason, I was ready to be able to get over/past my self enough to consider them without letting my ego get in the way, which is the problem that most people have when presented with Buddha Dharma — you can’t/don’t judge facts, you consider them.
This truly is an ego issue, of the ego getting in the way. Neither I, nor the Buddha, nor anyone, for that matter, decides what the facts are. Rather, they are either “seen” or not. That’s all up to us, though, isn’t it? “Buddha Dharma” just lays out the facts. The Buddha himself worked hard, examining his life, examining life in general, to see the facts. They were there before him and are still there and will be there as long as there are humans. He saw facts that I saw my whole life but in my peripheral vision. “Buddha Dharma” merely told me to shift my head, and then what I already “knew” came into focus (I think this is the same for everyone, something Plato was onto with his idea that we never really learn anything “new”).
Buddha Dharma is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is not dogma, nor does it require belief in anything. It tells you the way things are. You look at (your) life and see for yourself the truth of those facts. You do all the work. Or you do none of the work and remain a lost, suffering, imprisoned victim. It’s up to us. Who else?
.
From my personal notes, 10/26/99.
