But I recently found out that just sitting with paradox and not-knowing suits me better. Kingsley maintains that's the way to approach Parmenides as well - as a koan - but his seems to be a minority opinion among modern philosophers.

'.... No man steps in the same river twice. It is never the same river and never the same man ....'
(paraphrased)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

there's been speculation among Asian scholars (and possibly others), on whether -- either Heraclitus, or The Buddha on his pre-enlightenment peregrinations, were exposed to each other, or, each others' theories; since they were, more or less, contemporaries. But no one's come up with any data on a connection.

My own guess would be on: each arriving at the same point, independently. As you probably know, Buddhist teachings emphasize that truth is independent of its discoverers; & beings who have similar abilities can achieve similar results.

This is the basis for Theravada Buddhist doctrine regarding Pacceka (silent) Buddhas -- those who discover enlightenment by their own efforts, without the assistance of any external teaching; and could be found in different times & places; perhaps even here & now. According to the writings, the difference between these Silent Buddhas & the Teaching Buddhas -- is that Silent Buddhas lack the ability to explain the Way to others.

Cheers

Philologist Peter Kingley has a theory (and some supporting evidence) that a Mongolian shaman known as "Abaris Skywalker" might have helped fertilize pre-Socratic philosophy with Eastern non-dualism through contacts with Pythagoras in Greece. He lays it out in his latest book A Story Waiting to Pierce You - which is a remarkable little read from both the historical and mystical perspectives.

I have the feeling that the world is filling up with Silent Buddhas these days, but that might just be my projection...

Last edited Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:16 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit: Kingsley feels it's "the reality we experience". He says this in his interpretation of the poem in his book "Reality" (perhaps the title is a clue?) Since that's the simplest interpretation, I'm inclined to agree.

Though I guess there is some crossover between the present and reality.

To quote a fool: "Now is the only thing that's real."