The Greek Mysticism
by Anwar Shaikh
|
When we talk of the Greek mysticism, we
naturally think of the Indian mysticism owing to the striking similarities
between the two. An investigation into their origins leads to the only
conclusion that the Greek learnt mysticism from India where it is still
practised with the same zeal as it was done over 3000 years ago, though Greece
no longer seems to remember anything about it.
To present a factual case, I ought to summarise the
major traits of the Indian mysticism for an easy comprehension of this truth. It
consists of the following points:
1. The universe is uncreated. It is subject to an
indefinite cyclical decay and development. Mystery is its fundamental
principle which creates awe and curiosity in man.
2. Monism is a reality. That is, there is no creator
God. Every thing appears from the First principle (God) and disappears into
Him. Therefore. the universe is an expression of the Divine Truth.
3. The natural phenomenon is a maya or illusion. It
has the same relationship with God as a shadow has with a tree. He is the
Reality behind this illusive world.
4. This illusion is a veil of ignorance. Man needs
knowledge to pierce through the mask of this illusion.
5. Man's final destination is to seek union with God,
the ultimate reality.
6. The relationship between God and man is that of
friendship, which a genuine search can raise to an erotic intensity, arousing
a passion of extreme love. At this stage man feels self-annihilation through
total devotion and tremendous craving for the Divine Love.
It is this experience which Buddhism calls "Narvana"
- securing a state of happiness through a process of self-decimation.
7. God being the Beloved, does not initiate search
for the lover, that is, man. As it is always for the lover to seek the
beloved, it ia man's function to look for God. God does not reveal Himself
though He animates man to such an extent that he (man) can see Him through his
vision gained from knowledge.
8. Since the world is monistic in nature, everything
in reality is one, though it looks different. Hence the principle: ''all in
one and one in all, or unity in diversity and diversity in unity."
9. Union with God being the highest goal, is also the
most difficult to achieve.
It is not attainable through grace or intercession.
The only way to success is through Karman, that is, one's deeds. Good deeds
enable one's soul to achieve release from the bondage of the body or matter
but bad actions prolong imprisonment of one's soul in the body by imposing
chain of rebirths on it. This process can be endless. Mukti, salvation or
narvana takes place when soul has shaken off the chain of reincarnations to
unite with God.
10. Man is reborn into a higher or lower caste
according to his deeds of the previous birth. Hence Caste System is the
natural form of social system.
11. The process of Mukli is accelerated by entering
the relationship of Guru and Chaila. The Guru is the spiritual mentor, who is
efficient in mystical knowledge and pious enough to practise what he preaches.
The guru must impart instructions to his chailas or
pupils according to their calibre and nature of the subject. Knowledge is
divided into two categories - esoteric and exoteric. The former refers to the
mystical knowledge taught to the select few, and the latter alludes to
knowledge of general character meant for the novices or those who are not
thought worthy of the inner lore.
12. Renunciation of worldly goods and sexual desires
for adopting an ascetic life, is a must for the union of soul with God.
If the reader bears in mind these facts, and applies them
to judge the veracity of what I am about to say, he/she will have no doubt about
India as the fountain of mysticism.
I am inclined to start this discussion with Pythagoras
of Samos, who in 525 B.C., founded a brotherhood on the Indian model in Croton,
southern Italy. He had spent thirty years travelling in the East to gather
knowledge for self- guidance and to lead others. India is one of the several
countries included in his itinerary. The doctrines which he eventually came to
believe and teach, could be found no where but in India only.
To describe the nature of his society and the moral
magnitude of his disciples, I ought to narrate the story of two Pythagorians
known as Pythias and Damon. They both were subjects of Dionysius, the tyrant of
Syracuse, known for his miserable disposition and high- handedness, but
pretended to be a poet of great merit. Philoxenus, the philosopher, once had the
misfortune of judging his poetry. Dionysius was so incensed by his criticism
that he sent him to prison. After a few weeks when he composed another poem, he
ordered the philosopher to be brought before him to appreciate its merits. When
Philoxenus heard it, he preferred to keep quiet but as the ruler insisted on
knowing his opinion, he simply turned to the jailer, and said: "Take me
back to the cell."
Pythias was the man who had been ordered to be hanged
by Dionysius. Since Pythias had lands and relations in Greece, he asked him for
a temporary release so that he could visit his loved ones to arrange his
affairs, and promised to return within so many months. When the tyrant laughed
at his simplicity, Pythias protested that the word of a Pythagorian must be
respected. As it provoked the ruler's laughter still further, Pythias said that
he has a fellow-Pythagorian, namely Damon, who would stand security for his
return, and was willing to face execution if he failed to keep his word. It was
something unheard of, and Dionysius felt the urge of testing the Pythagorian
standard of piety. He accepted Damon as security for his likely default, and
released Pythias. It happened that Pythias ran into several troubles and could
not return earlier than promised. Even on the last day, Damon showed no sign of
unease and proudly declared that a Pythagorian would never betray. His belief in
his friend's last-minute return upset the tyrant who just about held his wrath
in check.
As Damon was about to be executed, Pythias appeared
when a roar of disbelief went crescendo. So deeply was impressed Dionysius by
the sincerily of these men that he came to the conclusicn that neither of them
was born to die. Not only did he pardon Pythias but also begged them to admit
him as the third friend.
These Pythagorians drew their spiritual strength from
the mystical knowledge and practices that Pythagoras learnt in India. One can
say: "why not in Syria or Egypt?" After all, he had been wandering in
these countries as well. It is because that not only the basic lenets he taught
were of the Indian origin but also his methods of teaching were Indian. Let me
explain the facts:
1. He believed that the ultimate goal of man is, his
soul's union with God.
2. It is man who seeks union with God, and not the
other way round.
3. He believed in reincarnation and Karman: a person
was to be reborn as a human or subhuman according to his deeds in previous
life.
4. He believed in the supremacy of knowledge and did
not hold revelation as the fountain of the truth.
5. The ultimate union of soul with God implies belief
in monism. And for this reason, there is no concept of a Creator God in his
system, as it is absent in the Vedas.
6. He believed in a mystical numerology, and thought
that the reality is mathematical in nature.
One ought to remember that both arithmetic and algebra are
the Indian inventions, and St. Kapila had dealt with the mystical qualities of
numbers long before the advent of Pythagoras. Kapila's influence an Pythagoras
has been detected by the western scholars.
In teaching his creed, his approach was particularly
Indian. He laid stress on the inner experience and believed that it is only the
initiated who could discover the truth. Thus, his pupils had the same
relationship with him as the Indian Chailas (students) have with their guru. An
Indian guru is the Master, and Pythagoras taught his students: "to be like
your Master " He observed similar rituals as did his Indian counterparts
but followed them with an innovative zeal: for example, he did not allow them to
touch beans and expected of them to observe sexual purity. Again, he adopted the
esoteric approach towards the selected few whereas the general body of students
received exoteric treatment.
The fact that he admitted women to his order, brought
him closer to the Buddhist doctrine than the Hindu practice. He entered India
when the country was in the grip of a major Refarmation and both Jainism and
Buddhism adopted a kindlier attitude towards womanhood.
Some say that these Greek beliefs and customs are a
legacy of Orphism which was based on rebirth according to one's deeds in the
previous life; it had an authoritative priesthood and observed certain taboos in
eating and drinking.
Orpheus is supposed to be the founder of Orphism. He
was not a real person but an ancient Greek legendary hero, highly skilled in
music. I wonder how one can fall for such an explanation in a matler so serious
as this.
The true source of the Indian influence on the Greek
mysticism lies in the fact that, according to the latest opinion, people of
India, Italy and Greece are considered as members of the same racial stock. In
view of the size of India, it is logical to think that it is India whence people
migrated to Italy and Greece, and not the other way round. And it is natural for
the emigrants to carry their culture and lore to their new lands of settlement.
The two basic principles of the Indian mysticism became
the pillars of the Greek mysticism. Firstly, we find Parmenides (b.c. 515 B.C.)
the Greek philosopher of Elea, teaching the Indian doctrine of monism i.e.
"all in one' or "diversity in unity." He held that every thing is
an appearance of a single eternal reality. Secondly, all major philosophers of
Greece believed in transmigration of soul, a typical Indian principle,
thoroughly discussed in Upanishads, and whose roots can be traced to the Rg.
Veda. These works were composed centuries earlier than the philosophical
speculation of the Greek philosophers, whose resemblance with the Indian beliefs
is simply baffling. For example, Empedocles (490 B.C.) believed in
transmigration of souls. He held that the souls who have sinned wander for
30,000 seasons through human and subhuman bodies. It was believed to be, as the
Hindus do, a process of punishment and purification. He laid emphasis on
abstention from consumption of flesh, as the Hindus practise.
This similarity is taken to the natural conclusion by
the fact that no Greek philosopher, like the Indian philosopher, thinks of a
Creator God. If, the Greeks had borrowed these precepts from the Middle East as
their advocates think under the influence of Christianity, they would have
believed in a Creator God, the hallmark of Semitism.
Will Durant, the famous American historian and scholar
has shed light on the issue of precedence. Writing on page 533 of "Our
Oriental Heritage," Vol. 11, he has remarked that some Upanishads are older
than any extant form of Greek philosophy, and Pythagoras, Parmenides and Plato
seem to have been influenced by Indian metaphysics. Speaking about Thales,
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraciitus, Anaxogoras and Empedocles, he emphatically
adds that their speculation "not only antedate the secular philosophy of
the Hindus but bear a sceptical and physical stamp suggesting any other origin
than India."
India has been called "the native land of the
highest philosophy" and Durant has acknowledged: "nowhere else has the
lust for philosophy been so strong as in India." The reason for this
similarity is the fact that the Greeks must have emigrated from India. One has
only to look at their mythologies to reach this conclusion. The Greek sky-god,
Zeus, is the replica of the Indian sky-god, Indra. They both are Chief god, use
thunderbolts as their major weapon and both are seducers of beautiful women. The
stories of their seductions are so incredibly similar in essence and details
that they look one and the same person; I am referring to the rape of Ahalya by
the god Indra and the rape of Alcemene by Zeus.
I think that I have said enough to establish that the
source of mysticism is India, and Greece followed suit. However, Greece has her
own glory because her philosophers propounded their theories more rationally and
vigorously. The greatest thinker in the field of mysticism was Plato though his
thoughts are difficult to extricate from those of Socrates. Plato traced his
maternal ancestry to Dropides (an archon), which is similar to the Indian name:
Draupadi, a major character in the Indian epic: the Mahabharta. Thus, it is not
surprising that his philosophical cogitation is a natural sequence of the Indian
thought.
However, as Socrates was the first of the greatest
philosophical Greek trio, I may mention him before Plato because of his msytical
leaning and influence.
Ignoring his erotic escapades, one feels reverence for
his character which was based on piety, wisdom and honour. A patriot, a
tenacious soldier and a fearless defendant of liberty as he was, he also
excelled in social and moral rectitude accompanied by yet another virtue, the
mystical vision. He was quite familiar with the Pythagorean and Orphic
philosophies, which are possibly the source of his belief in God and the oneness
of the universe. His views were that of an Indian mystic; it is quite evident
from Plato's Phaedo that Socrates believed in the immortality of soul. Stated in
the Platonic language, he held that soul of man partakes of the Divine, which
ordinarily means that the goal of soul is to seek union with God. The famous
oracle of Apollo at Delphi had declared him the wisest of men. Therefore, his
wisdom did not allow him to declare himself as a prophet or messiah and thus
pretend that whatever he knew was revealed to him by God. On the contrary, in
the true Indian tradition, he advocated the excellence of knowledge though he
showed interest in the warnings given in dreams and oracles. To him, the
rational order of the cosmos supplied ample evidence of an intelligent being
behind the phenomenal curtain. However, he was not a creationist. There is no
proof that he ever believed in a Creator God.
He was not an ascetic but his life-style was very close
to that of a person who cared about his soul at the expense of secular comforts.
Piety, in terms of personal honesty and integrity, was the hallmark of his life
and he believed that the purpose of life was to "make one's soul as good as
to be God-like."
Though the idea of forms is usually associated with
Plato, scholars find it rooted in the Socratic teachings. In fact, it is a
version of the Indian doctrine of maya i.e. the phenomenal world is an illusion,
and the Reality lies behind it. In socratic terms, this point of view is called
an Idea or Eidos i.e. a Form. It means that for everything such as
"good," "beautiful," "man," which is visible or
accessible to perception, there is an archetype or an original and unchangeable
model, which is inaccessible to senses and can be apprehended by thought only.
It is this reality behind various phenomena, which is the goal of contemplation.
Plato founded a system of philosophy with strong
ethical connotations. Though he was a rationalist in approach, like Socrates, he
was a mystic by spirit. He found society in a state of confusion and tried to
rectify this situation through his foundational metaphysics of eternal Ideas or
Forms, though changeless in essence, expressing themselves through the
transitory phenomena.
It has been asserted that Plato never introduced
himself into his dialogues, and therefore does not commit himself to the
contents of his speech. Thus, his basic points of philosophy such as the
"theory of Ideas," the principle of "recollection" and the
doctrine of the tripartite soul, are said to have been devised by him after the
death of Socrates.
Plato laid stress on the socratic theme that the
supreme business of life is to tend the soul, which urgently requires the
knowledge of good and evil. He believed in the immortality of soul, which
according to him, had long ago learnt all truth through a chair of rebirths, and
needed only a reminder by sense experiences of the truth that it once knew, but
has now forgotten. Thus knowledge, especially of the intuitive kind, owing to
the hidden springs of soul, is the greatest virtue.
There is no mention of grace or intercession in Plato's
metaphysical works because he thinks that the real concern of man is to develop
a rational and moral personality, which holds the key to his happiness. Without
rational approach, true felicity is not possible. The reason for failing to
achieve happiness lies in the fact that people mistake the apparent good for the
real. If a man knew with complete assurance what absolute Good was he would not
pursue anything to the contrary. It is in this sense that ne holds knowledge as
"all virtue."
Plato asserted that he was the spiritual heir of
Parmenides who held the Indian doctrines such as maya and monism. It is Plato,
who enunciated the theory that the sensible appearances or natural phenomena,
are illusions, having no reality at all. The reality lies behind things, which
he termed as Forms or Ideas. A form or Idea, as already explained, is an
original, eternal prototype. His concept of participation explains the
connection between form and a sensible thing (object). According to him, when a
thing becomes beautiful, it means that the Form "beauty" begins to
participate or appear in it. Plato also applied this principle, though
unsuccessfully, to explain the doctrine of unity in diversity, a fundamental
principle of mysticism.
In Timaeus, he propounds his philosophy in a way that
he begins to look a Brahmin i.e. a Hindu priest. He explains that the visible,
changeable world had a beginning, and it is the work of God; He (God) has forms
of the world before Him as an eternal model and moulded the world as an
imitation. No where he says that God is the Creator. Plato thinks of Him as the
Artificer, as do the Hindus. He introduces God as the intelligent, efficient
cause of all order ard system in the world of becoming and lays emphasis on the
fleeting character of natural science. However, his metaphysical base is not
matter, though he presents a corpuscular physics, but space (chora). In this
respect, he is closer to Buddhism than Hinduism, but contrary to Buddhism, he is
conscious of the presence of God, who is intelligent and beneficent.
What makes Plato a true mystic is not only his belief
that the ultimate goal of soul is to seek union with God but also the erotic
method which mystics all over the world have employed. This is the reason that
the mystical poetry of all languages bubbles with erotic desire reminiscent of
the Platonic Eros. In Symposium, he eulogises Eros, the desirous love, which
with capital E, that is, as Eros, means the Greek love-god. This Greek Eros is
none else but Kama, the Indian love-god who appears as Cupid in the Roman world,
and uses exactly the same methods of inducing love everywhere. The desirous love
or eros, according to Plato, is the highest manifestation of love, and serves as
the fountain of the mystical aspiration which controls the world and enables
union with the eternal and supercosmic beauty (God). I should mention that it
quotes Socrates as the person who had achieved union with God, and depicts
Alcibiades as the one who has sold his soul to maximise his worldly pleasures.
This is Plato's attempt to differentiate between various types of desirous love
though historically speaking, one comes to a different conclusion in relation to
these two men.
In a nutshell, the object of eros is the eternal beauty
and it (desirous love) is an all-out attempt of the soul to reach its goal i.e.
union with God through a symbol or medium of love. In its lower form, love
implies an attempt to gain immortality by securing an offspring through an
erotic association with a beautiful person. Of course, aspiration for sound
institutions, philosophy and science are nobler forms of spiritual love but the
persistent lover may suddenly spot the supreme beauty, which is the cause and
source of all the beauties that he may have discerned so far. Since "Form
of Good" stands at the head of all Forms, the goal of love is the beatific
vision of the Form of Good.
Propounding his psychology of love, Plato treats Forms
i.e. the reality behind the illusive world, as the objects of transcendent
emotion and of mystical contemplation. Though soul in its antenatal state, that
is, before assuming a bodily appearance, can directly contemplate the unbodied
reality of the Forms, in its embodied state, it can view the Form of beauty
(God) through falling in love only; the near insanity of a lover makes the wings
of his soul grow, and his soul finds retracing its steps to its highest state,
that is, union with God.
I think that I have said enough to illustrate the
nature of the Greek mysticism and its close affinity with the Indian mysticism.
However, discussion of Plato's work does not stop at his death because his
pupils and admirers, who drew inspiration from his Dialogues, attached a high
reverence to his fundamental theories and kept projecting them long after he had
gone. One of his world famous pupils was called Aristotle, who happened to be
the mentor or Alexander, the Great. As the string of his conquests spread in the
East, the Platonic philosophies went with it, impressing all peoples with their
mystical values. However, as Magasthenes noted, in the Punjab (India), the
Greeks found mystical ideas very similar to their own.
Platonism is the term which describes the inspirations
derived from Plato's Dialogues by his immediate followers such as Aristotle,
Speusippus, Zendcrates etc., but as the third century A.D. arrived, Plotinus (AD
205-270) further developed Platonism, which came to be known as Neoplatonism.
Detailed description of this complex system will serve no purpose here. However,
it may be helpful to remember that Plotinus believed in man's complete
philosophical conversion into Intellect which can raise him to that mystical
union in which the One manifests his presence regularly. When union takes place,
the consciousness of duality disappears. He held that this mystical union was
the goal of all human effort, and the Platonic philosophy was the sure vehicle
which carried the seeker to this destination.
The work of Plotinus was essentially monistic because
it advocated that the One, Intellect, and Soul are ultimately one reality. This
theme was carried on by the disciples of Plotinus, especially Porphyry (A.D.
234-305). However, lamblichus (A.D. 250-325) reacted to the monistic tendencies
of the system, thus creating different forms of Platonism. Aedesius, a pupil of
Iamblichus, who founded the school of Pergamum, had Emperor Julian as its
greatest convert. String of the Neoplatonistic philosophers is too long to be
described here. It has been claimed that the wisdom literature cf the Old
Testament contains traces of Platanic philosophy. Especially, the commentaries
of the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (C 15 B.C. - after A.D.40) saught
to establish that the revelation given to Moses completely agreed with the Greek
philosophies.
The Platonic mysticism has influenced not only the
Jewish teachings but also exerted a considerable influence on Christianity and
Islam, right down to our time. For a better understanding of mysticism, I shall
discuss Christian Mysticism and Islamic
Mysticism in the next two chapters.
| 
Previous
Essay
