|
|
Contents
of Part 3
Part 2. Socrates in Plato and Xenophon
2.1. The Problem of the Historic Socrates
2.2. Evidence in Plato
2.2.1. The Nature of the Texts
2.2.2. General Evidence in Plato
2.2.2.1. The Trial and Execution
2.2.2.2. Fits of Abstraction
2.2.2.3. Voices
2.2.2.4. Socrates' Teachings on Immortality
2.2.2.5. Socrates as Spiritual Master
2.2.2.6. Socrates as Spiritual Midwife
2.2.2.7. The Socratic 'Method' as Zen Koan
2.2.2.8. No Small-Talk ...
2.2.3. The Phaedo
References for part 3
Part 2. Socrates in Plato and Xenophon
2.1. The Problem of the Historic Socrates
Scholars and historians generally accept that Socrates was a historical
figure, and that he was tried and executed for impiety and corrupting
the young. However, over two thousand years of debate has been conducted
about the 'real' Socrates behind the literary pictures we have of him.
Scholars have been divided over Plato and Xenophon as giving the most
reliable picture of Socrates, with other sources (Aristophanes and Polycrates)
having been more or less discounted by the eighteenth century [24].
Current scholarly interest in Socrates has been "stimulated to a
large degree" by Gregory Vlastos, who considers Plato's Socrates
in the early dialogues to be the historical one, [25] and that the Apology in particular can be considered
the touchstone for Socrates in the other dialogues [26]. Mario Montuori, on the other hand,
while citing Horneffer as confirming in 1922 the Apology "to
be the most reliable source of an historical reconstruction of the Socratic
personality" [27], devotes
the larger part of his book Socrates - Physiology of a Myth to
disproving this. He does this by an appeal to authority; placing
crucial importance on the pronouncement of the Delphic Oracle on the status
of Socrates: "... the Socratic image drawn by Plato rests entirely
on the reply made by the Delphic god, and Socrates' mission among men
and his tragic destiny are both indissolubly tied to and derived from
it" [28]. He shows that
this must have been an invention of Plato (despite the independent confirmation
of the oracle by Xenophon [29]) and concludes that this destroys the Apology's
reliability and shows that Socrates set himself above the law and was
justly condemned (even though an otherwise virtuous man). Montuori's view
are not widely taken up, as far as I can see, but his account is both
useful from the historical summaries that he makes, and as an illustration
of how authority is so often seen as central in Western analyses
of religious ideas. If Socrates' status depends on the authority of an
oracle, why is it we don't then examine all the human agencies involved
in the oracle; if Jesus' authority depends on the Bible as the word of
God, why don't we do the same for that?
Clearly this dissertation cannot settle age-old disputes regarding the
historical picture of Socrates, but by approaching him from the perspective
of mysticism different questions may be asked, and these will emerge as
we examine Plato and Xenophon. The approach here will be not so much on
reconstructing a historical figure as to reconstruct a consistent mystical
personality, as one might for example if one had only fragments of
Krishnamurti's dialogues. This is fraught with difficulties of course,
and we have been warned off this course by the great Platonist and early
translator of the dialogues, Thomas Taylor:
Perhaps,
however, some one may here object to us, that we do not in a proper
manner exhibit the everywhere dispersed theology of Plato, and that
we endeavour to heap together different particulars from different dialogues,
as if we were studious of collecting together many things into one mixture,
instead of deriving them all from one and the same fountain [30].
For Taylor
the "one and the same fountain" is the Parminides, a
dialogue by Plato purporting to show Socrates as a young man on the receiving
end of a discourse by the aged Parminides, a Greek philosopher concerned
with such topics as the one and the many, the like and the unlike, and
so on. Central to the discussion, for Taylor, is the concept of the One,
to be elaborated on much later by Plotinus. Taylor is in fact a neoplatonist,
a tradition whose philosophy starts with Plato but is deeply indebted
to Plotinus, and for this reason Taylor's assertion that the Parminides
is the 'fountain' of all Platonic theology has to be treated with caution.
In fact, I shall attempt what Taylor argues against: the collecting of
evidence scattered through Plato's Socratic dialogues.
What of other scholars who may have examined the evidence for Socrates
as mystic? Richard Maurice Bucke, whose criteria were listed above, places
Socrates in the category of "lesser, imperfect, and doubtful instances."
While considering that Socrates meets many of his criteria he uses his
"fits of abstraction" (preferring in fact the term 'catalepsy')
as a counter-indication [31].
I suggest, below, that this is positive evidence in fact, but, given that
Bucke was an alienist (a psychologist in charge of a large sanatorium),
his only encounter with such states would have been in the context of
pathology. William James does not mention Socrates or Plato in the Varieties,
even in the chapter on Philosophy. Evelyn Underhill, third of this early
triumvirate of writers on mysticism, does make a number of references
to Plato (though not Socrates) placing him as one of the lesser mystics
along with Heraclitus, Wordsworth, Tennyson and Walt Whitman [32].
(Incidentally, though I think she deserves great respect for her seminal
work on mysticism, I don't agree with her in connection with Heraclitus
or Whitman.)
S. Abhayananda, in his History of Mysticism is more certain of
Socrates as mystic, and casts his net much wider than Underhill in examples
of the mystical type. He even mentions evidence in Aristoxenus (c. 330
BC) that Socrates met a number of Brahmins in the Athens of his day, though
unfortunately gives no reference for this [33]. His discussion has some similarities with that presented
here, but would be found by some to have pre-judged the case as this passage
shows:
To many,
the figure of Socrates remains a mystery, but to the knowers of God,
his teaching and manner of his life are clear as crystal, and he is
dearly beloved; for only those who have trod the same path and realized
the same Truth can know how pure was his soul and how wonderful his
task in life and death [34].
Let us take
a more dispassionate view of the evidence.
2.2. Evidence in Plato
2.2.1. The Nature of the Texts
Apart from
Plato's Letters all of his works consist of dialogues, most of
which have Socrates as the main or at least an important protagonist.
In examining these dialogues we are attempting to establish whether they
can be seen as proximity texts as defined above; that is, do they
suggest to us the reports, however adumbrated, from a disciple about the
life and teachings of his spiritual Master, a mystic? Or, are they the
reports by a philosopher concerning the life and philosophy of another
philosopher? Or was Plato himself the mystic? I will start by assuming
that the dialogues are a reliable portrait of Socrates, build this portrait
from a series of extracts, and only then consider the vital role of Plato.
2.2.2. General Evidence in Plato
It is now time to state the broad case behind the intuition that we can
view Socrates as a mystic of the jnani type. The evidence for this
in Plato is scattered throughout the dialogues, though some of the strongest
claims can be made from just three of them: the Phaedo, the Phaedrus,
and the Symposium. Before looking at these in detail I will summarise
the evidence that crops up more generally, though in each case the type
of evidence taken singly may not carry much weight: I am suggesting that
it is the accumulation of these indicators that is significant.
2.2.2.1. The Trial and Execution
The trial
and execution of Socrates has parallels, in religion and mysticism, with
that of Jesus and Mansur (a 10th century Muslim martyred in Baghdad),
to give just two examples. Eckhart could easily have been a third parallel.
It seems that Socrates was indicted on two counts: impiety, and corrupting
the morals of the young. Plato devotes four dialogues, Euthyphro, The
Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, to the events leading up to his trial
and execution. The charge of impiety is not easily refuted, according
to the evidence in Plato: Socrates was not readily inclined to accept
the common views held on the gods and their activities, preferring to
draw on his own inner resources in moral and religious questions. Plato
does however show us that the idea that Socrates had a detrimental effect
on the morals of the young was absurd, and essentially a trumped-up charge.
That a man in ancient times was executed for blasphemy of some kind or
another is no proof of course that he was a mystic. However the way in
which Socrates defended himself (in the Apology), and the way in
which he faced death (in the Phaedo) are remarkable, and suggestive
of the mystic. His defence was remarkable, for he made no attempt to counter
the charges in a manner that would have led the court to leniency; his
offer of a counter-punishment likewise calculated more to irritate than
to ameliorate the death-sentence, and his calm, even joyful, acceptance
of his sentence was compounded by refusals of offers to escape. Even the
manner in which he took the hemlock was remarkable, and was commented
upon by the executioner (who generally faced understandable hostility
and complaints from those he delivered the hemlock to).
2.2.2.2. Fits of Abstraction
Another,
entirely different, piece of evidence for Socrates' status as mystic lies
in the several accounts of his 'fits of abstraction'. I have put this
term in quotation marks because I believe that we have come to use it
in connection with Socrates without any clear idea of what it means, or
what alternative terms we could use. In the West this term could mean
anything from what was intended by the old-fashioned 'brown study' (an
absent-minded state that required perhaps a vigorous interruption to recall
its owner to his or her surroundings) to 'catatonic schizophrenia' (a
state of complete unresponsiveness lasting for days, months or years,
as with Nietzsche in his latter days). Bertrand Russell uses the term
'cataleptic trance,' [35] while
Bucke, as we saw, preferred 'catalepsy.' However, in the context of mysticism
it might easily be that his states are better described by the terms samadhi
(Indian) or satori (Japanese) both of which mean a state of ecstatic
union.
If Socrates' states were short in duration, and it was relatively easy
to bring him out of them (snapping one's fingers, shouting, or even, as
legend has it, the emptying of a chamber-pot over him by his wife) then
the former terms, 'fits of abstraction' or 'brown study' might be appropriate.
If the length of these states were longer and accompanied by a clear deterioration
in mental health, then 'catatonic schizophrenia' might be appropriate.
However, what the reports tell us are of states lasting from several hours
to a day, where all attempts to reach him failed, followed by no
adverse mental or physical effects. These reports have more similarities,
I would suggest, with the spontaneous samadhis so well-documented
(for example) of Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi (see cover page for the
well-known photograph of Ramakrishna in samadhi: he is supported
by a disciple because he was liable to fall and hurt himself).
Plato assumes that Socrates was either lost in thought, or needing to
solve a problem during these states: we never hear however of the particular
train of thought or solved problem resulting from a specific episode.
2.2.2.3. Voices
A related
phenomenon in Socrates' life seems to have been his hearing of a 'divine
voice' or daimon. Oddly, Plato does not report these as directly
linked to his 'fits of abstraction', and indeed they may have been a quite
separate phenomenon. The lives of mystics are full of reports of divine
voices, and this seems another not insubstantial piece of evidence. Socrates
tells us that he heard this voice since childhood, and also mentions,
in the Phaedrus that it only tells him to desist from something,
never telling him what to do. This is problematic as evidence for mysticism,
in that it might fall into the occult category. If the voice were that
of an independent, autonomous, disembodied being such those posited by
Steiner, or of an 'angel' as described in most traditions, then it would
be an occult phenomenon. On the other hand it may have been Socrates'
own intuition, and related more to the way that he also took note of his
dreams (as in the case of those that prompted him to write poetry while
awaiting execution).
2.2.2.4. Socrates' Teachings on Immortality
Socrates'
teachings, scattered throughout the dialogues, vary in character, that
is in their mood or mode, in such a way as to leave some uncertainty about
the whole picture. However, he is relatively consistent in his teachings
on the immortality of the soul, presenting a system in fact that is almost
a standard model of reincarnation with karmic consequences. Little adjustment
is required for this model to fit Hindu or Buddhist thinking, and it is
possible, given Abhayananda's assertion that Socrates met wandering Brahmins,
that it came from the East (though Pythagoras is a more likely source).
As mentioned earlier, however, reincarnation is essentially an occult
topic, and not direct evidence of mysticism, other than it might inform
the mystic's understanding of immortality. The clear conviction
of the sense of immortality is evidence however, if we accept Bucke's
criteria.
2.2.2.5. Socrates as Spiritual Master
That Socrates
was a Master of some kind or other is in little doubt, in the sense that
Athenians of a certain type were drawn to him, and in some cases were
practically devotees. More usually the picture presented of him is as
a Master in the sense of an academic, a philosopher, or a rhetorician
whose grasp of his subject was so profound and so compelling as to draw
those to him who wished to learn these subjects. We have an image in the
West of such an individual, quite divorced from a religious context, for
whom it is right and proper to give such an extreme respect. The key quality
of such an individual is intelligence, so a figure like Einstein,
Marx, Freud or Jung fit the picture, or even perhaps Sartre when his young
philosophy students would pester him in the local cafe.
The Eastern concept of the Master with whom one seeks to be present is
hallowed by the concept of darshan, and the key quality of the
target individual is not intelligence but spirituality. To be in the presence
of the Master is a quite understandable ambition in the Indian tradition,
though if taken too far the convention for most families is to put up
a struggle before allowing the devotee to enter a full initiation into
the religious life (through the Master).
2.2.2.6. Socrates as Spiritual Midwife
Closely connected
to the possibility of interpreting the actions of Socrates and his associates
as that of Master with disciples is the image handed down through antiquity
of Socrates as 'midwife'. Crombie in his shorter work on Plato subtitles
it 'The Midwife's Apprentice' [36] and relates the midwife image to the
important Platonic doctrine of anamnesis or recollection, while
Burnyeat devotes a whole essay to the subject [37].
Burnyeat makes a typically Western assumption in this comment: 'The necessary
background to the picture of Socrates as midwife, without which the whole
elaborate fancy would lose its sense, is of course the metaphor of the
mind giving birth to ideas it has conceived.' [38]
In the context of Socrates as mystic a quite different interpretation
can be put on the metaphor: Socrates is midwife to the spiritual birth
of his disciples. In this case it is not concepts that are born in the
minds of the disciples (though these will naturally arise) but a spiritual
awakening more properly associated with a silence of the mind.
Plato has Socrates expound at length (over four pages in fact) on the
midwife image in the Theatetus, and it is a strikingly bold and
outrageous passage concluding with: 'It is quite clear that they have
never learned anything from me; the many fine discoveries to which they
give birth are of their own making. But to me and the god they owe their
delivery.' [39] The spiritual Master generally makes
the same claim, that the disciple has not in fact learned from them, but
they were instrumental in the 'birth'.
2.2.2.7. The Socratic 'Method' as Zen Koan
In Plato and Xenophon's Socratic dialogues we are invited to see a 'method'
of question and answer that leads Socrates' partner to see the truth.
The nature of these dialogues will be examined later on, but the parallels
with the Zen koan, also a form of question and answer are again
possible evidence that Socrates was a mystic. The Socratic 'method' is
traditionally presented as an exercise in reason or logic, whereas the
Zen koan seems to be an exercise in the opposite: their (or rather
the Zen Master's) operation is eminently unreasonable and illogical. The
end result in Zen is to bring the student to a point of confusion or impasse
in which sudden insight can occur as a mystical phenomenon. Typical Zen
koans may be the questions, "what is the sound of one hand
clapping", or "what is your original face". Socrates' questioning
takes a very different form, following a programme of questions, though
in both cases a dialogue of sorts may ensue. Evidence in favour of viewing
the Socratic questioning as similar to the koan is this: they often
leave the recipient stultified or confused. In the Meno the analogy
with a stingray is used to describe this numbing or perplexing effect,
[40] though with typical Socratic involution
he accepts the analogy only if he is also numbed (rendered ignorant).
In the Symposium Alcibiades tells us that the conversation of Socrates
is 'utterly ridiculous' to the uninitiated.
2.2.2.8. No Small-Talk ...
Agehananda Bharati points out in his Light at the Centre [41] that mystics have little small-talk,
and my own experience of living mystics confirms this. The type of mystic
who is an active teacher or Master seems to enjoy the company of disciples
(we see this to a great degree in Ramakrishna for example), and he or
she will to a limited degree engage in normal conversation with them,
but generally this is used as a spring-board to delve into mystical issues.
They steer almost any conversation round to their teachings, and, I would
suggest, if any other kind of teacher were to do this, they would be regarded
as a boor, and avoided. True, I have given the example of Sartre in his
cafe, attended by students hopeful of some insights from him, but I suspect
this is a particularly French phenomenon; one cannot imagine a similar
situation with Bertrand Russell for example. We shall see that Socrates
conforms to Bharati's dictum, as he turns any and all conversations to
the 'good'.
2.2.3. The Phaedo
It is time
to take a detailed look at evidence to support the general points made
above. I have chosen the Phaedo to concentrate on first, as it
paints the clearest picture of Socrates as a mystic of the jnani
type. This dialogue is the second of two dialogues portraying Socrates
in prison awaiting his death sentence, the first being the Crito.
Let us start with a report by Phaedo on how he encountered Socrates:
The Master
seemed quite happy, Echecrates, both in his manner and in what he said;
he met his death so fearlessly and nobly. I could not help feeling that
even on his way to the other world he would be under the providence
of God. and that when he arrived there all would be well with him, if
it ever has been so with anybody. So I felt no sorrow at all, as you
might have expected on such a solemn occasion; and at the same time
I felt no pleasure at being occupied in our usual philosophical discussions
that was the form that our conversation took ; I felt an absolutely
incomprehensible emotion, a sort of curious blend of pleasure and pain,
as my mind took it in that in a little while my friend was going to
die [42].
This passage is consistent with Socrates as Master (the very word is used
in fact), and not only at ease with his impending death, but able to transmit
some of this equanimity to Phaedo, who, as a close friend one might expect
to be distraught. That they regard him as a Master is supported by this
passage:
'What you
should do,' said Socrates, 'is to say a magic spell over him every day
until you have charmed his fears away.'
'But, Socrates,'
said Simmias, 'Where shall we find a magician who understands these
spells now that you are leaving us?'
'Greece
is a large country, Cebes,' he replied, 'which must have good men in
it; and there are many foreign races too. You must ransack all of them
in your search for this magician, without sparing money or trouble;
because you could not spend your money more opportunely on any other
object. And you must search also by your own united efforts; because
it is probable that you would not easily find anyone better fitted for
the task.' [43]
We can read this as Socrates acknowledging his role as Master, and encouraging
them to seek another once he has been executed. One would not necessarily
expect a non-spiritual Master (as profiled earlier) to face death so calmly:
mere intelligence has never been an insurance against the fear of death;
neither any guarantee of the kind of happiness that Socrates possessed
(Bertrand Russell for example is considered to have been intensely unhappy
most of his life). Socrates comments on the right attitude to death as
being part of philosophy. He has dismissed his jailer's concerns
that all their talking would excite him and make the administration of
a second or third dose of poison necessary:
'Never
mind him,' said Socrates. 'Now for you, my jury. I want to explain to
you how it seems to me natural that a man who has really devoted his
life to philosophy should be cheerful in the face of death, and confident
of finding the greatest blessing in the next world when his life is
finished. I will try to make clear to you, Simmias and Cebes how this
can be so.
'Ordinary
people seem not to realize that those who really apply themselves in
the right way to philosophy are directly and of their own accord preparing
themselves for dying and death. If this is true, and they have actually
been looking forward to death all their lives, it would of course be
absurd to be troubled when the thing comes for which they have been
so long preparing and looking forward [44].
The first point to make about this extract is that Socrates is making
a very odd definition of philosophy: a preparation for death. As
far as I can tell this claim is made nowhere else in Plato, and elicits
laughter from Simmias (one of those present) who points out that most
of his fellow-countryman would think it a 'good hit' (i.e. fair criticism)
of philosophers that they were half dead, and in fact that 'they, the
normal people, are quite aware that death would serve the philosophers
right.' Socrates responds that they were quite right 'except in thinking
that they are "quite aware". They are not at all aware in what
sense true philosophers are half dead, or in what sense they deserve death,
or what sort of death they deserve.' In all likelihood Simmias is referring
not to the type of philosopher that we know today, or even the type that
Socrates was portraying, but the Sophists, who were teachers of rhetoric,
and had a bad reputation for their supposed ability to argue a case regardless
of its merits.
What follows in the Phaedo makes it clear in what sense Socrates
sees his 'philosophy' as a preparation for death: it is a form of renunciation.
He is 'half-dead' to the sensible world in order to be more greatly
alive to the divine order:
'So it
is clear first of all in the case of physical pleasures that the philosopher
frees his soul from association with the body (so far as it is possible)
to a greater extent than other men?'
'It seems
so'.
'And most
people think, do they not, Simmias, that a man who finds no pleasure
and takes no part in these things does not deserve to live, and than
anyone who thinks nothing of physical pleasures has one foot in the
grave?'
'That is
perfectly true.'
'Now take
the acquisition of knowledge; is the body a hindrance or not, if one
takes it into partnership to share an investigation? What I mean is
this: is there any certainty in human sight and hearing, or is it true,
as the poets are always dinning into our ears, that we neither hear
nor see anything accurately? Yet if these senses are not clear and accurate,
the rest can hardly be so, because they are all inferior to the first
two. Don't you agree?'
'Certainly.'
'Then when
is it that the soul attains to truth? When it tries to investigate anything
with the help of the body, it is obviously led astray.'
'Quite
so.'
'Is it
not in the course of reflection, if at all, that the soul gets a clear
view of facts?'
'Yes'
'Surely
the soul can best reflect when it is free of all distractions such as
hearing or sight or pain or pleasure of any kind that is, when it ignores
the body and becomes as far as possible independent, avoiding all physical
contacts and associations as much as it can, in its search for reality.'
'That is
so.'
'The here
too in despising the body and avoiding it, and endeavouring to become
independent the philosopher's soul is ahead of the all the rest.' [45]
In this long extract we have most of essential evidence (though not in
the necessary bulk for a final verdict) to construct Socrates as a mystic
of the jnani type, whose orientation is to via negativa.
We should first of all notice that Socrates is concerned with an inquiry
into truth, but not into the truth about anything in particular,
more a Truth that the soul attains to, i.e. a state. The body is seen
as a hindrance to this inquiry, and the senses of no use. It is in the
course of reflection that Truth is attained. Our difficulty, as
throughout, is what interpretation we should put on the word reflection.
I have proposed earlier that it is usually taken to be a form of cogitation
(as defined above) though possibly a highly refined sort. What happens
if we read it as meditation (as defined above)? My suggestion is
that it makes the passage more intelligible, rather than less. However,
we need to examine more of Plato to see if this interpretation is reasonable.
For now it is worth noting that the body is not just an inconvenience,
it is to be despised. Let us look at a Buddhist text for a similar
attitude to the body Sutra 11 of the Dhammapada, 'Age':
Why is
there laughter, why merriment, when this world is on fire? When you
are living in darkness, why don't you look for light?
This body
is a painted image, subject to disease, decay and death, activated by
thoughts that come and go. What joy can there be for him who sees that
his white bones will be cast away like gourds in the autumn?
Around
the bones is built a house, plastered over with flesh and blood, in
which dwell pride and pretence, old age and death. Even the chariot
of a king loses its glitter in the course of time; so too the body loses
its health and strength. But goodness does not grow old with the passage
of time.
A man who
does not learn from life grows old like an ox: his body grows, but not
his wisdom.
I have
gone through many rounds of birth and death, looking in vain for the
builder of this body. Heavy indeed is birth and death again and again!
But now I have seen you, house-builder, you shall not build this house
again. Its beams are broken; its dome is shattered: self-will is extinguished;
nirvana is attained.
Those who
have not practised spiritual discipline in their youth pine away like
old cranes in a lake without fish. Like worn-out bows they lie in old
age, sighing over the past [46].
This sutra is laden with many images and metaphors for which there is
insufficient space here to expand upon, but the attitude to the body is
clear enough, as is the sense of liberation that is possible through 'goodness',
'wisdom', 'spiritual discipline' and so on all of which are implicit in
Socrates' 'philosophy'. A simple correspondence between the thought of
the Buddha and that of Socrates is not being suggested here; merely that
both share the chief concerns of a renunciate jnani, and both neglect
the chief concerns of the bhakti. The fact that Socrates was an
accomplished professional soldier and had a legendary capacity for drink
are just two examples of personal characteristics quite at odds with what
we know of the life of the Buddha, and would lead to differing articulations
of the jnani concept.
>
Read
Part 4 in HTML format |
39k
text
References for Part 3
[24]
Montuori, Mario, Socrates-Physiology of a Myth', Amsterdam: J.C.Gieben,
1981, p. 30 and 31
[25] Brickhouse, Thomas, and
Smith, Nicholas, Plato's Socrates, New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, p. vii
[26] Brickhouse, Thomas, and
Smith, Nicholas, Socrates on Trial, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1989, p. 2
[27] Montuori, Mario, Socrates-Physiology
of a Myth', Amsterdam: J.C.Gieben, 1981,p. 42
[28] Montuori, Mario, Socrates-Physiology
of a Myth', Amsterdam: J.C.Gieben, 1981, p. 59
[29] Xenophon Conversations
of Socrates, Trans.: Hugh Tredennick and Robin Waterfield, London:
Penguin, Socrates' Defence, p. 44
[30] Taylor, Thomas, The
Six Books of Proclus, the Platonic Successor, on the Theology of Plato,
London: Law, Longman, Baldwin, 1816, p. 17
[31] Bucke, R.M. Cosmic Consciousness
- A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind, Olympia Press, London,
1972, p. 213
[32] Underhill, E. Mysticism
- The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Oneworld
Publications, Oxford, UK, 1993, p. 238
[33] Abhayananda, S. History
of Mysticism - The Unchanging Testament, Atma Books, Naples, Florida,
1987, p. 89
[34] Abhayananda, S. History
of Mysticism - The Unchanging Testament, Atma Books, Naples, Florida,
1987, p. 99
[35] Russell, Bertrand, A
History of Western Philosophy, London, Sidney, Wellington: Unwin Paperbacks,
1989, p. 107
[36] Crombie, I.M. Plato,
The Midwife's Apprentice, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964
[37] Burnyeat, M.F. "Socratic
Midwifery, Platonic Inspiration" in Benson, H.H., Essays
on the Philosophy of Socrates, New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1992, pp 53-56.
[38] Burnyeat, M.F. "Socratic
Midwifery, Platonic Inspiration" in Benson, H.H., Essays
on the Philosophy of Socrates, New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1992, p. 54
[39] Plato, Works, English,
Trans.: Jowett, Oxford, 1964, Vol III, p. 245
[40] Plato, Protagoras and
Meno, Trans.: W.K.C.Guthrie, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981, p. 128
[41] Bharati, Agehananda, The
Light at the Centre - Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism, Ross-Erikson
/ Santa Barbara 1976
[42] Plato, The Last Days
of Socrates, Trans.: Hugh Tredennick, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969,
p. 100
[43] Plato, The Last Days
of Socrates, Trans.: Hugh Tredennick, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969,
p. 128
[44] Plato, The Last Days
of Socrates, Trans.: Hugh Tredennick, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969,
p. 107
[45] Plato, The Last Days
of Socrates, Trans.: Hugh Tredennick, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969,
p. 109
[46] Easwaran, Eknath (Trans.)
The Dhammapada, London: Arkana, p. 116
>
back
|
|