Recollection: What Did Plato and Buddha Think?

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Robert Schmidt,

As you well know, I am not trained in Hellenistic astrology, so please forgive me for kind of intruding here, if it seems I am. I do have a question that, while not directly astrological, still relates to astrology, if only obliquely. Here goes:

In Plato’s theory of recollection (Anamnesis) presented in the “Meno,” he suggests a means of recollection, a way of remembering, and the suggestion is that much of learning is a remembering of what was somehow forgotten through the shock of birth. He goes on to make the argument that if you don’t already know what you are looking for, how on earth could you know it when you find it? You don’t know what you are looking for, and so on.

I am sure am not doing justice to the argument, but the point I want to fix here is that there is some wise (or timeless) knowledge that is not only beyond our personal reincarnation, but is something like: eternal. In other words, we once were enlightened or “knew,’ and somehow we have forgotten our true or eternal nature. But we can recollect it.

On the other hand, the Buddhists teach that, although we all have Buddha Nature within us, we each have never managed to get clear or aware enough to see that true nature, so we are not now aware of it. In other words, our own habits and the karma that we have accumulated from our actions in this life (and in any previous lives) have (up to now) somehow always managed to obscure our inner or true nature – the true nature of the mind. They go on to suggest that these obscurations only need to be removed to reveal that nature.

Buddhists holds that there IS such a thing as undefiled Buddha Nature (read: true nature of the mind) and, like the Sun, it is forever shining deep within our mind. By “deep within the mind,” I mean here that “Buddha Nature” is the true nature of the mind that is beneath whatever manner of obscurations we happen to be carrying around. We are not aware (cannot yet see) our own Buddha Nature (the true nature of the mind) because of the karmic layers or obscurations we have accumulated and continue to accumulate. Furthermore, to become aware of Buddha nature, we would have to (somehow) remove enough of the layers of obscuration (whatever is obscuring this awareness) to see or become aware of that true nature.

This concept of accumulated obscurations is not just a notion confined to Buddhism alone. The idea of removing what obscures us, polishing the mirror (so to speak) so that we can see clearly (develop awareness), occurs in many religions and esoteric disciplines. It is almost a standard.

In Platonic thought, remembering implies that you once knew, have somehow forgotten, and only need to be reminded, to remember. In Buddhism, much is made of the fact that while there is such a thing as knowing the true nature of the mind, either you know it (realize it) or you don’t, and if you don’t know it, you have NEVER known it up to now. I hope the difference between these two approaches is clear.

The theory of Platonic recollection presented in the Meno (and continued in the Phaedo), and the somewhat different approach that appears in the Phaedrus suggests that we already know (or have known) that which we are trying to uncover or remember, while Buddhism (as I understand it) suggests that we don’t even yet know what we are working to uncover. The Platonic view seems to suggest that if we do not somehow already know what we are looking for, then we will never find it, and so on.

As an aside, it is a fact that in Buddhist practice, your two worst enemies are said to be hope and fear. Expectations about what you don’t know (but think you know) can be a huge barrier to awareness.

Buddhists have no trouble with individuals recollecting details of previous births or carrying the state of their dharma achievements (and karma) from one life to another. However, they do state that beyond this more superficial type of recollection (previous lives, etc.) that none of us undergoing reincarnation have ever previously known the true nature of our mind up to this very moment – right now. That is: we are not on a journey of remembering or recollection of that true nature, but rather on the journey of becoming aware of (for the very first time) of the true nature of our mind. In Buddhism, when we FULLY realize the true nature of the mind, we become a Buddha, and that realization is permanent. We cannot by definition fall back or fail to recollect it. In other words, we don’t realize it, fall back for a while, and then realize it again – that idea.

These kind of distinctions may seem pedantic, for which I apologize, but they do have implications. In the Platonic view, it seems we could be endlessly knowing and forgetting the essential or true nature of the mind (touching in to the eternal), and therefore realization is no kind of permanent state. Or: at the very least we have known it before.

In Buddhist thought, at least as I understand it, we don’t know and have never known the true nature of the mind through all the time there is up to now. We are driven forward and backward (hither and thither) through endless lifetimes simply by a strong desire to obtain happiness and avoid suffering, much like what we see going around us in the natural world, where animals prey on other animals, while themselves living in perpetual fear of being eaten, and so on.

If we DID (once upon a time) know the true nature of our mind, then there might be some deep inner confidence or conviction (way back in there) that could aid us or give us the necessary increased self-confidence to stick to a regimen or practice schedule (discipline) to regain the realization that we (as Plato suggests) have so long ago lost.

However, if we have never actually yet known and realized the true nature of the mind (as Buddhist believe), then we probably cannot count on simply somehow jogging our memory, and having some deep-seated recollection (and the accompanying measure of self confidence it might provide) to propel us forward, and this fact might affect the process of how we go about becoming aware of our true nature, that is: our particular path to enlightenment.


Considering that none of us reading this are probably enlightened, what difference could these views possibly make? Perhaps not much, but there is one issue that I can see that could be important. If there is no previous experience of enlightenment or realization (whatever we could agree to call it) deep within our consciousness and history, then we won’t be touching back into that… ever. There would be no memories there to prompt us or to give us a truer idea of what we are after. We have never had the experience.

If that is the case, then we don’t know what enlightenment is like (have no ancestral memory of it) and can have only our own expectations, what we have read or heard, and our own hopes and expectations to go on. In other words, it will be up to us to find our way beyond whatever current obscurations we have accumulated, up to us to find the energy and drive to work through all of that material, and up to us to keep on keepin’ on, so to speak. We can’t look back into our past or sub consciousness for clues, but only forward to glimpses of insight into possible enlightenment in our future. And why is that a problem?

In Plato’s version, we might hope to remember our past glory and also get insights into our future recapturing of that – two possible sources of confidence. In the Buddhist view, we have never known enlightenment (or whatever we can agree to call it) and have only the hope for future insights to guide us, if we are lucky. And those insights are not based on any real experience we have had of our goal. No memory. And here is the rub:

We may feel pretty confident of our self, but according to the Buddhists, in all the time that has elapsed in the universe, the sentient being or consciousness we each are has never managed to find our way to enlightenment yet. I know we all have great expectations, but we also have no accomplishment of enlightenment to point to, no experience of it. I know Buddha did it by himself, but it took him eons to get to that particular lifetime, so we are told.

Perhaps this I why practicing Buddhists make a case for the value of the Buddha’s teaching. Aside from the Buddha’s example, two things were left: (1) his teachings (The Dharma), and (2) those that embody those teachings (The Sangha). The purpose of the dharma and sangha, so it is said, are to make it easier for each us to find our individual way to enlightenment, should we choose to check it out. As mentioned, we don’t have to study the Buddhist teachings or the teachings from the Sufis, the Christians, Hindus, and so forth. We are free to improvise and to come up with our own way to enlightenment. But it would be fair to say we already probably have done that to the best of our ability and look where we are.

And so, I wonder what Plato actually believed here. Or what do you believe? Are we trying to regain some paradise lost, some eternal knowing? Or, have we never known our own true nature. What do you think?

[Robert_Schmidt]

I am sorry to have taken so long in responding to your post, Mr. Erlewine. It has taken me a while to gather my own thoughts on the Platonic thesis of recollection. I have been “thinking” about this subject for many years, but unfortunately, I still do not have anything particularly profound to say about it. But here are a few thoughts for starters.

I believe that the Platonic recollection thesis was originally motivated by an inquiry into the meaning of the Greek word for ‘truth’: alētheia. This word could equally well mean ‘un-forgetting’—that is recollection—or ‘un-concealment’, an interpretation championed by Heidegger. It seems to me that the notion of un-concealment is not all that different from the Buddhist notion of the removal of obscurations leading to insight as you have presented it. So the question for me is whether these two meanings are ultimately the same or different.

A teacher of mine once wrote that the claim that all knowledge is recollection is the one thesis whose possible truth could not even in principle be itself a matter for recollection. Not only that, but its meaning could only be brought out in a “mythical” context, as Plato himself does whenever addressing this thesis. Ultimately, however, its truth could only be ascertained as a matter of experience, or realization: by reflection on what actually takes place in our minds when we are actually learning.

So let me try to put into rather inadequate words how I interpret my own experience of gaining some insight. As you well know, most of my life has been spent trying to ‘restore’ lost or forgotten doctrines found in written texts, most recently astrological ones. When I first try to understand something in those texts, I normally find myself in an initial state of confusion. If I am patient enough, or “open” enough, a moment comes when I feel as if I have made contact with a “shaping intelligence” that is in some sense not “my own”. In such moments I have the experience of being taught.

Now, the odd thing for me is that sometimes I feel as if I were literally back there and then in an earlier time being taught, and to that extent the experience of gaining an insight is like one of recollection. Other times, I feel that the teacher is here and now present to me and pointing something out for me to see, sometimes so vividly that I seem to be literally looking over his shoulder and seeing what he sees. Then the insight seems to be one that I never had before and am experiencing for the very first time. What I am saying is that I can equally well interpret the same experience in either way.

Again, the initial confusion I find myself in is almost always the result of mistaken presuppositions and other bits of junk I have in my mind, that obscure what I am trying to see or understand. But I have an equally hard time determining whether the insight is a consequence of the removal of these obscurations, or whether I only recognize these obscurations as obscurations after the fact, after the insight has been gained, after the “teacher” has pointed out the truth to me.

I have an indistinct notion that the ambiguity in interpreting such experiences results from the fact that when we learn something, it is a time-bound experience of something timeless. Thus, there is ambiguity as to whether what we are learning is a recollection of something once known, or the acquisition of something hitherto unknown. Perhaps the Greek insight was that ultimately we are talking about the same thing, which, due to our existence in time, we can only imperfectly express from one of these two perspectives.

Since you yourself have spent so much of your life trying to look into the functioning of your mind, I would very much like to know if your own experience is anything like mine.

I would also like to say something about the confidence issue that you raise, but what I have written so far is probably enough for one post.

Robert Schmidt

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Mr. Robert Schmidt:

Thanks for the remarks, which as you point out don’t come down on one side or another, and so we have a wash in that department. Your dual experiences, seeing it both ways, do not resolve the issue, which you yourself pointed out. I am back where I started.

I appreciate your description of how you learn, but I can’t see too many similarities to my own experience, which I will, since you asked, attempt to describe here.

First, I can’t say I have ever had a déjà vu experience when it comes to uncovering a new idea. For me, it is always entirely new, perhaps occasionally a confirmation of something I had previously glimpsed, but never a sense of something I recollect from some previous whatever.

I believe many of us have had all kinds of mystic and magical experiences. I know I have. However, looking back on all of that, most of these spiritual experiences were due to sudden glimpses of light, a day or part of a day’s illumination, and so on. It was like clouds rolling across the Sun, but mostly for me it was cloudy weather more of the time. Perhaps some others had even cloudier weather, but my life was way too cloudy for my taste, for I love the Sun.

So all the visions, scripts, insights, raptures, and other high-toned spiritual moments that came my way were just for me so many really amazing experiences. None of them were permanent. I could not maintain them. I would flash out of the body and look around, but then be grounded to the hilt the next day by my own personal habits.

Did I have more of this kind of experience than the average bear? Probably, but there was no realization or precious little if I am honest with myself – nothing permanent. And this kind of learning, if we want to call it that, went on in my case for many, many years. In fact, I thought it was just the way life was: cloudy, with a hint of sun. And I was happy to have even that!

The only alternative to this view and way of seeing came when I actually stopped chasing rainbows out there and started getting into training the mind itself, rather than waiting for lightning to strike and then being blinded by the flash.

Thanks to the Tibetan mind training techniques and a strong teacher, I gradually actually began to remove (it took years!) some few obscurations and the whole world began to brighten up and look a little clearer - somewhat clearer. I still had flashes of insight, but the rest of the days were not as gray as they used to be. I was actually clearing or thinning out some of my obscurations.

Learning to rest the mind (whatever that means to you, and we would have to discuss it in another thread) brought increased awareness, and increasing awareness made it easier to see to make the right decisions, and that brought even greater awareness, and so on – a cycle. The awareness became in time somewhat of a permanent companion, and thus some kind of realization, however opaque at first was taking place. And here is my point:

Increased overall awareness lit up my whole world of ideas and concepts and, much like Atlantis rising, everything became clearer. Where before I had to go through who knows how many stages or self-made (cross my eyes and wag my head) rituals to get even a glimpse of anything clearly, with mind training I am able to much more easily turn the mind on anything I am unclear about and see it more clearly, and get directly at the root.

Because there is something beyond the commonly accepted root of all things to be realized (and I know I am being cryptic here), this fact makes the roots stand out very clearly. Thinking is no longer a problem.

In summary, where before it seems I had my own special habits or ritual that I would perform to squeeze out insights or concentrate my mind to make them come out, since studying mind training I have a different approach. Where before I was praying for lightning flashes and then wandering around somewhat blinded, now it is more like watching the sun come up or Atlantis rising and coming into view.

And so, for my own two cents, I have to say that the recollection of some eternal idea or state does not fit my personal experience. But gradually polishing the mirror and removing obscurations seem more like it is for me. Another way to say all of this might be: I used to spend my time trying to clarify the thought I was focusing on, but now I spend my time working on clarifying my mind, the glasses I am looking through. The first method can only take you as far as your personal obscurations, after which you have to start removing the obscurations. Does this make any sense.

[Joe_Simon]

Dear Mr. Erlewine,
And, if I may remind you (no pun intended), education is from the latin- educarae-
to remember.
Further, when speaking of transmigration, if we follow the principle to its
logical conclusion, then, we all lead all lives. After all, life is short, and there's
only a few billion of us. Thank you for including me in your group, joe simon

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Joe Simon,

Latin and Greek come from the same general area and history. I have been comparing that western approach to the one used in Tibetan Buddhism.

As for your second remark; it probably requires some more thought. The Buddhists say we have all been each other's mother innumerable times. Is that what you were suggesting?

Thanks,

Michael

[Robert_Schmidt]

Welcome to the Hellenistic forum, Mr. Simon.

You say that the Latin verb educare means 'to remember'. The verb certainly does not have this meaning in classical Latin, but rather the sense of 'to rear', or to bring or lead a person from a state of childhood into one of adulthood.

If the verb took on some sense of 'to remember' somewhere in the Medieval or Renaissance periods, it would be the direct influence of the Platonic recollection hypothesis, and I would find that interesting.

Would you mind providing a reference?

Robert Schmidt

[Dale_Nelson]

Hello Mr. Erlewine (and Mr. Schmidt),

Perhaps an alternative view from a brother Buddhist tradition will be of interest in this question of recollection.

Yasutani Roshi is quoted by Philip Kapleau (in The Three Pillars of Zen, his first book) as teaching the parable of Enyadatta. The story is said to come from the Ryogan sutra, and is reputed to be originating from the time of the Buddha (of course). In this story a beautiful girl one day looks in the mirror and fails to see her reflection. She is distraught, thinking she has lost her head, and goes about searching for her head everywhere, demanding to know who had taken her head, and where it is. Assurances from her friends, that her head was where it had always been, made no impression. Eventually she was taken and bound to a pillar in her home to prevent her from hurting herself. Over time, with the counsel of close friends and the "discipline of the immobilized body" her mind gains a measure of tranquility, and eventually an occasion of "direct demonstration" (a benign clouting of her head: "there! is your head") prompts the realization that her head was nowhere else but right where it is, and has been all along. "I've got it!" she now exclaims to all who would listen. "I have my head after all!"

This story is of course offered to encourage new students of Zen, and in this recounting there are many references to the notion that Enyadatta's experience is like that of one who seeks his "True-nature". Evidently, when it is (re-)discovered, the discovery carries with it a sense that one has never been without it. Surely this is one reason this story is told, that is, to convey a sense of comfort in there is likely recovery of something that one has not really lost (and perhaps to acquaint the newcomer to the need for "extraordinary measures" employed to effect this recovery).

Now it seems to me that this realization could not be interpreted as a "totally new" experience of the way things are and perhaps always have been. The story line here (especially the implication of the "mirror" at the outset) makes a plausible case for this whole episode to be a recollection of something previously known (if perhaps known imperfectly, taken for granted, or whatever). Something happens (a disappearing) that allows Enyadatta to fall into great turmoil and fear of loss and even death. With some training and the help of friends, she "regains" something. The whole outline of this story is apparently one of something-lost-and-subsequently-regained (with a focus on the various helpful encounters and along the way).

Is it possible, I wonder, that the Tibetan viewpoint of this experience as you portray it differs from the one offered from the Zen context above based on cultural and/or methodological differences (i.e. for reasons other than intrinsic or essential qualities of the mind)? Here there is an apparent "difference of opinion" even within the Buddhist community, where there is wide "recognition" (cultural acceptance?) of the goal of self-realization, whatever the details of its attainment.

In any case, I think Mr. Plato probably has something of the same goal in mind when he speaks of the enormous effort involved in re-directing the mind toward its source(s), but this treatment may not be as accessible to the understanding as the Buddhist portrayals (couched in colorful language) are to the heart. I'm not sure this re-direction of mind is on the same level as the "recollection of something previously known", unless that recollection of something has been set out to be one's innate or "True-nature". That is, it seems to me that the specific goal of self-realization may require a different effort (in both Eastern and Western contexts), and entail different methods, than the more general pursuit of "something perhaps previously known", though if that something is rooted in a past life it seems hardly possible to apprehend it without some sense of re-cognition (both of its "familiarity" and of its "having-been").

Perhaps Mr. Schmidt may have more to say about whether the Mr. Plato's turning-of-mind-upward (away from it's accustomed attentiveness toward the sensible world) is indeed sounding similar to the Easterner's drive for self-realization. Prior to the later Neo-Platonist "union with the One" experience, what was the counterpart in the Paleo-Platonist world view, if any? (And, having brought up the Neo-Platonist context, is there any indication that this "union" experience comes with a sense of recollected previous knowledge?)

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Dale Nelson,

Glad to see you here! Since we both speak a bit of the Buddhist experience, we have a lot in common. It is funny that no matter how much people have in common, they manage to find differences, and that is true here as well. Let me go over a couple of our differences as I see them:

It is true that the Buddhist view (generally speaking) is that we are looking outside or ‘elsewhere’ for what has always been within us. But the keyword, as I understand it, is ‘realization.” Just as the western occultists say that the “secret knowledge” is hidden in the one place that no one would look, in plain sight, so the Buddhists make much of the fact that we are unable to recognize, much less realize, our own nature, and yet we each have had Buddha nature right here within us all this time – through any and all lifetimes.

So I differ with you on your statement:

“Now it seems to me that this realization could not be interpreted as a "totally new" experience of the way things are and perhaps always have been.”

The experience or fact is that Buddha nature and the true nature of the mind is common to us all, but the recognition of that nature is (by definition) new, and further, realization stemming from “Kensho” or the recognition of the mind’s true nature requires still more development. What we don’t know or don’t recognize, we don’t know or don’t recognize. Just because it is with us all along does not mean we ever knew it before, because the whole point of the koan tradition is to recognize the true nature of the mind (for the first time), AFTER WHICH one can began the process of working to realize that nature. This thread is about whether we knew it before or never knew it till now.

So, while I can appreciate your wanting to make “taking something for granted” (our common Buddha Nature) as equivalent to having “previously known” it, I differ on this point. Not knowing is “not knowing.” In an absolute sense of course, everything can be considered “known,” by definition, but in the relative sense we are discussing here (i.e. time and path), the process of discovery and realization in Buddhist terms, at least as far as I understand it, is one of: each of us recognizing the nature of the mind for the first time and the subsequent path to further realization. After all, that is what “Kensho” is all about, getting that initial recognition.

And secondly, your comment:

“Here there is an apparent "difference of opinion" even within the Buddhist community, where there is wide "recognition" (cultural acceptance?) of the goal of self-realization, whatever the details of its attainment.”

It is confusing or unfortunate to use the term “self-realization” in a Buddhist context, where Buddhists clearly see the ‘Self” or “self” as a mental construct, something that has no inherent existence, something that, like the game Pick-Up-Sticks,” we can gradually remove (or see through) piece by piece until it is gone – is experienced as empty (but still there!), and so on. For me: not the best choice of words for a Buddhist context.

As for linking the concept of familiarity and “previously-known” with past lives as a way to point to some sort of ‘remembering,” the Buddhists only too eagerly grant that kind of remembering, but they would also be the first to point out that through all those previous lives, we have been incapable of realizing the true nature of our mind and have been subject to the endless cycle of rebirth. The fact that in past lives we were unable to realize does not change anything, as I understand it. We never realized! And it is that recognition and realization we are talking about here. That is what is “new” or being experienced for the first time, as opposed to being remembered.

I can understand wanting to make what Plato presented and what the Buddhists present somewhere or somehow dovetail together and point at the same thing, but that is what we are discussing here: Is it the same? So far, I see it as different. Perhaps Robert Schmidt can make me understand it as the same, but I see nothing wrong with having two (or more) different views of all this.

For my two cents, I take it that Plato may be talking about some absolute realm, while the Buddhists are discussing the relative or experiential realm. I am not that familiar with the Platonic dialogues, but have studied some of the Buddhist teachings.

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Folks,

Recently, I was lucky enough to spend about a week with my Tibetan dharma teacher of 26 years, who also holds a khenpo degree in advanced Buddhist philosophy and studies. As we drove from city to city in Michigan and Ohio, I managed to find time to ask him about what we are discussing here, which is: if the Buddhists have any conviction or belief that those of us who don’t know the true nature of the mind once knew it and have managed to forget it somehow along the way.

Rinpoche was unequivocal on this point, which confirmed my own study and thought, so it is perhaps worth reiterating here. While we all have what is called Buddha Nature within us, are intimately familiar with it, and carry it around all our lives, we are simply unaware of that nature. We have never known it up to now. We tend to look outward for what is already always within us. In some of the Tibetan teachings, it is likened to a man looking everywhere for a precious jewel when he has one embedded in his own forehead.

The path then becomes the process of realizing what we already in fact are. In other words, from the Buddhist perspective, we are already Buddhas, but just don’t know it. The process of uncovering or realizing our essential Buddha nature is the path that is before us. Meditation and other practices are the method or way (the Dharma or path) to remove our obscurations and reveal to ourselves (realize) our own true or essential nature.

I am still looking forward to a further response from Robert Schmidt on this as he finds time or comments from any of the rest of you on the above posts we have all made.