What is this "wisdom" that they love?

[Aetherous]

Philosopher = lover of wisdom.

What is wisdom?

[leth]

Philosopher = lover of wisdom.

 

What is wisdom?

 

Wisdom is well usage of cognitive abilities.

[FraterUFA]

Wisdom is well usage of cognitive abilities.

 

Not really. The usage of the cognitive functions is not what the philosophers mean. 

 

Wisdom typically refers to the connection with the higher functions, Chiah and Neschamah, or God and Nature.

 

UFA

[leth]

Not really. The usage of the cognitive functions is not what the philosophers mean. 

 

Are you putting htis into the modern day? Mean is in prescence, which suggest now. And then it's as easy as using a modern dicitonary, which seems to disagree with your next statement.

 

Wisdom typically refers to the connection with the higher functions, Chiah and Neschamah, or God and Nature.

 

I don't agree, wisdom or sophia in ancient greek was not percieved in to be connected to any concepts from judean thought, most likely because judean thought was not really well spread in ancient greece.

[Bud Jetsun]

Wisdom is un-knowing. 

 

Knowing is a confusion of replacing what IS with some constructed set of faith based assumptions. 

 

Complete wisdom is complete realization of why nothing was knowable. 

 

Why Love wisdom then?  When one realizes they don't know and can't know, they can then perceive  the mystery of Oneness without trying to force it into some inherently incorrect bounds of 'the known' they had manufactured pointlessly.   

[Aetherous]

I don't agree, wisdom or sophia in ancient greek was not percieved in to be connected to any concepts from judean thought, most likely because judean thought was not really well spread in ancient greece.

 

Do you guys have any sources, specifically about Sophia according to the Greeks? I've been looking but haven't found much of use so far.

 

I think Frater UFA might be putting Greek thought through the Qabalistic lens, rather than saying that Greeks were exposed to Qabala and were really talking about that.

[thelerner]

The fruits of wisdom seem to be peace and prosperity, maybe simplicity too. 

 

The wise man likes what is good for him.  Conversely the fool likes what does him and his environment harm. 

[leth]

Do you guys have any sources, specifically about Sophia according to the Greeks? I've been looking but haven't found much of use so far.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist is a good beginning.

 

I think Frater UFA might be putting Greek thought through the Qabalistic lens, rather than saying that Greeks were exposed to Qabala and were really talking about that.

 

Well, such a comparison will be inherently wrong in defining the term because it's based on a completely different model of thought. Secondly i would dare to say that comparatively speaking at the begining of what we today call hellenistic philosophy it was more considered in the domain of Ruach and Nephesch (as a comparison sophia was associated with Athena and Metis (who at the time where not really that mystical anymore)) however Hellenistic thought never really had those distinctions or that view of the soul, so that comaprison is just really odd and way off. In fact forget i did that comparison, it's just wrong no matter how you do it.

Edited October 14, 2015 by leth

[noonespecial]

I think you can easily plug in any Greek anthropomorphic view of Wisdom into the Qabalah. 

[leth]

I think you can easily plug in any Greek anthropomorphic view of Wisdom into the Qabalah. 

 

Sure you can, but Chokhmah is not exactly the same thing as Sophia (as used in hellenistic philosophy).

[Daeluin]

Wisdom is un-knowing. 

 

Knowing is a confusion of replacing what IS with some constructed set of faith based assumptions. 

 

Complete wisdom is complete realization of why nothing was knowable. 

 

Why Love wisdom then?  When one realizes they don't know and can't know, they can then perceive  the mystery of Oneness without trying to force it into some inherently incorrect bounds of 'the known' they had manufactured pointlessly.   

 

Thank you for this.

 

In my journey of learning Chinese Astrology, I came across the concept of wisdom, and intelligence, as associated with Water. Previously I had assumed that the illumination and clarity of stable Fire would hold this association. Now I recognize how water helps to shape and guide fire, and that in stillness the true illumination and clarity of fire holds no expression. Rather the wisdom is held hidden within water, for this energetic phase of water is potential energy. And sometimes it leaks out and becomes expressed through fire when fire is not as clear as it could be. Many expressions of wisdom through fire can be much clearer than others in the context of our present knowledge filled world, and yet those who seem to know the most speak little. And the more I learn, the more I learn that in my knowing I must unknow, I must empty so that the clarity may be clear and the truth may remain at the heart. In this I feel my discovery of wisdom grow.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Daeluin

[FraterUFA]

Are you putting htis into the modern day? Mean is in prescence, which suggest now. And then it's as easy as using a modern dicitonary, which seems to disagree with your next statement.

 

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. I am a native English speaker btw.

 

I don't agree, wisdom or sophia in ancient greek was not percieved in to be connected to any concepts from judean thought, most likely because judean thought was not really well spread in ancient greece.

 

No, but the underpinnings of what eventually were embodied by modern Qabalah were well known to them, having been transmitted to them by the Egyptians.

 

 

I think Frater UFA might be putting Greek thought through the Qabalistic lens, rather than saying that Greeks were exposed to Qabala and were really talking about that.

 

That is correct. I intentionally added the labels "Nature" and "God" to indicate that I was speaking generally, and not merely through the lens of the Qabalah. 

 

Well, such a comparison will be inherently wrong in defining the term because it's based on a completely different model of thought. Secondly i would dare to say that comparatively speaking at the begining of what we today call hellenistic philosophy it was more considered in the domain of Ruach and Nephesch (as a comparison sophia was associated with Athena and Metis (who at the time where not really that mystical anymore)) however Hellenistic thought never really had those distinctions or that view of the soul, so that comaprison is just really odd and way off. In fact forget i did that comparison, it's just wrong no matter how you do it.

 

Not inherently wrong, but technically wrong, for sure. I seem to have incorrectly assumed you were looking for a practical viewpoint on this as opposed to an academic one.

 

Sure you can, but Chokhmah is not exactly the same thing as Sophia (as used in hellenistic philosophy).

 

I used the Qabalistic labels because they are well known and are useful in that they can be used as common terminology among those with an experiential foundation in the tree of life. However, it doesn't appear that you have this practical understanding as evidenced by the confusion which is coming across in your words. It should be clear that Sophia does not refer to either Ruach, Nephesch, nor Chokmah, however this is not at all obvious if one is operating from merely a semantic / intellectual level of understanding (due to the error stemming from the misidentification of the English translation "wisdom" in either case). Sophia refers to Binah ("Understanding"), or what may be considered the higher intelligence of nature. This intelligence (in the technical esoteric sense of Partzufim) does not proceed from the personal mental or emotional faculties.

 

Best,

UFA

[noonespecial]

Whats interesting is hokmah is a masculine sefirot and partzufim, where as it is feminine both as the Greek Sophia (which also just translates as wisdom) and in Proverbs, but i guess the big 'mystery' (LOL) was just as the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, the same goes when looking at the ToL.

Edited October 15, 2015 by noonespecial

[leth]

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. I am a native English speaker btw.

 

Perhaps my language is unclear, I was asking what you meant in your statement in what the philosophers mean with the term. Since you put the word mean in precence I though you meant what present day philosophers think of the word as opposed to what hellenistic philosophers (which i assume we are talking about considering we are talking about the concept of sophia as understood by hellenistic philosophers) thought of the word.

 

No, but the underpinnings of what eventually were embodied by modern Qabalah were well known to them, having been transmitted to them by the Egyptians.

 

There are certainly records of exposure to judean thought in ancient greece, and there are even accounts of those that try to reconcile hellenistic philosophy with judean thought, but in general they were even then considered to be incompatible.

 

That is correct. I intentionally added the labels "Nature" and "God" to indicate that I was speaking generally, and not merely through the lens of the Qabalah. 

 

In that sense the hellenistic philosophers idea of sophia was the study and understanding of nature rather then it being a reference to them.

 

Not inherently wrong, but technically wrong, for sure.

 

I still maintain that a definition can be said to be inherently wrong if it defines a term of a certain system of thought with concepts that are not compatible with said system of though. What would the difference be between a definition being technically wrong and inherently wrong? Is the inherent idea of a definition not to be technical? Or what do you mean with technical in this sense?

 

I seem to have incorrectly assumed you were looking for a practical viewpoint on this as opposed to an academic one.

 

I did not make the initial inquiry of this thread, I am simply responding to it. I don't mind looking at practical viewpoints, and have never expressed the opposite in any way. Besides can an academical viewpoint not also be practical?

 

I used the Qabalistic labels because they are well known and are useful in that they can be used as common terminology among those with an experiential foundation in the tree of life.

 

But why did you make the connection between a philosophers definition of wisdom and the tree of life, especially since the tree of life is not a common ground in terms of thought or logic amongst philosophers?

 

However, it doesn't appear that you have this practical understanding as evidenced by the confusion which is coming across in your words.

 

Perhasp I do not, would you please explain to me what confusions I have and teach me what you woudl consider to be correct?

 

It should be clear that Sophia does not refer to either Ruach, Nephesch, nor Chokmah, however this is not at all obvious if one is operating from merely a semantic / intellectual level of understanding (due to the error stemming from the misidentification of the English translation "wisdom" in either case).

 

I never expressed that sophia (as according ot hellenistic philosophers (or any other sytem of thought for that matter)) refered to either Ruach, Nephesh or Chockmah. I did say that the hellenistic idea of sophia did not compare to Chokmah though, which is in fact opposite of your claim.

 

In what way was the english translation "Wisdom" misidentified?

 

Sophia refers to Binah ("Understanding"), or what may be considered the higher intelligence of nature.

 

I can agree to the comparison between the hellenistic view of sophia to the concept of Binah to a certain degree but not with the idea that that the hellenistic philosophers would regard sophia to be considered the higher intelligence of nature. Nor would I say that the hellenistic philosophers idea of sophia would in any way make it fully comparable to Binah.

 

This intelligence (in the technical esoteric sense of Partzufim) does not proceed from the personal mental or emotional faculties.

 

I certainly would say that the idea of sophia amongs the hellensitic philosophers does indeed proceed from personal cognitive faculties. And this is why i would regard is at different from the idea of Binah. And that the hellenistic philosophers would not agree to it fully being compatible with the concept of Binah.

[FraterUFA]

I certainly would say that the idea of sophia amongs the hellensitic philosophers does indeed proceed from personal cognitive faculties. And this is why i would regard is at different from the idea of Binah. And that the hellenistic philosophers would not agree to it fully being compatible with the concept of Binah.

 

There were reasons the Egyptians looked unfavorably upon the Greeks. Maybe that's one of them.

 

Best,

UFA

[Nungali]

Philosopher = lover of wisdom.

 

What is wisdom?

 

I will use  English terms    ( although I see a big Greek influence in Kabbalistic ideas )

 

We can accrue knowledge , but as they say , a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.   because the next two things may be missing -  understanding.  That can mean knowledge of what your applied knowledge may lead to. Not just a = b but why a = b

 

Then there are the effects of that, its greater repercussions, particularly how it effects human individuals and society, understanding the effects of how we apply our knowledge can lead to wisdom  -  what effects come about when we apply a = b

 

(Irregardless of how BS ythe story may be ) Solomon had knowledge ;  2 women claim possession of 1 baby,  he has understanding - he knows the real mother will not let harm come to the baby, he applies wisdom and gives his ruling. The ruling seems horrific ,  but is actually wise, due to the outcome. 

 

Going back to Greeks and philosophy, it does not surprise me that they would love a  faculty which uses knowledge and understanding to improve  society  and the individual

[RigdzinTrinley]

I don't know the ancient greek definition of wisdom, or that of the kabbalists, so maybe what I have to say makes no sense in this discussion

 

on the other hand indo -tibetan buddhism is traveling to the west, and many translators have deceided to translate certain sanskrit and tibetan terms as "wisdom" or "wisdom" plus some other word

 

the actual meaning of for example prajna (tib. whiley: she rab) is not literally discriminating wisdom (that captures what prajna means) but the literal tibetan translation would be "supreme cognition"

 

she rab - "she" is cognition or consciousness and "rab" means something like supreme, best etc.

 

the meaning of it is the supreme cognition is to discriminate between what is a correct understanding of the nature of phenomena and what is an incorrect understanding of phenomena

 

the correct understanding of phenomena would be to cognize them as empty/insubstantial/unborn etc. while conventionally arising as illusion like or dream like phenomena through the force of dependent origination

 

the incorrect understanding of phenomena would be to cognize phenomena as substantial/truly established things "outside" that are other then me - a me that is also truly established somewhere "inside"

 

thats Prajna - Discriminating Wisdom in a nutshell (of course countless books are written on what it is, and what it not is - and my understanding is only limited but maybe it adds to the discussion)

 

now there is also Jnana or tib. whiley: Ye she

 

for that there is the commen translation "primordial wisdom" which I think is horrible (like dinosaurus rex wisdom), then there is "timeless awareness" (Richard Barron) which I like more and then there is Keith Dowmans "Nowness Awareness" which from the Dzogchen point of view makes the most sense

 

"Ye" points to the beginninless beginning (which is the timeless Now) and "she" is again cognition or consciousness

 

so its the cognition or consciousness that allways is the case, since the beginning of beginninless samsara upto now (thats enough - not to go too deep down the dzogchen jungle)

 

much more to say about Jnana but other people can do that if they like, I don't like to do that

 

so my question is do you think Wisdom in the greek sense is similar or even the same like Prajna or Jnana?`

Edited October 23, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[leth]

I don't know the ancient greek definition of wisdom, or that of the kabbalists, so maybe what I have to say makes no sense in this discussion

 

on the other hand indo -tibetan buddhism is traveling to the west, and many translators have deceided to translate certain sanskrit and tibetan terms as "wisdom" or "wisdom" plus some other word

 

the actual meaning of for example prajna (tib. whiley: she rab) is not literally discriminating wisdom (that captures what prajna means) but the literal tibetan translation would be "supreme cognition"

 

she rab - "she" is cognition or consciousness and "rab" means something like supreme, best etc.

 

the meaning of it is the supreme cognition is to discriminate between what is a correct understanding of the nature of phenomena and what is an incorrect understanding of phenomena

 

the correct understanding of phenomena would be to cognize them as empty/insubstantial/unborn etc. while conventionally arising as illusion like or dream like phenomena through the force of dependent origination

 

the incorrect understanding of phenomena would be to cognize phenomena as substantial/truly established things "outside" that are other then me - a me that is also truly established somewhere "inside"

 

thats Prajna - Discriminating Wisdom in a nutshell (of course countless books are written on what it is, and what it not is - and my understanding is only limited but maybe it adds to the discussion)

 

now there is also Jnana or tib. whiley: Ye she

 

for that there is the commen translation "primordial wisdom" which I think is horrible (like dinosaurus rex wisdom), then there is "timeless awareness" (Richard Barron) which I like more and then there is Keith Dowmans "Nowness Awareness" which from the Dzogchen point of view makes the most sense

 

"Ye" points to the beginninless beginning (which is the timeless Now) and "she" is again cognition or consciousness

 

so its the cognition or consciousness that allways is the case, since the beginning of beginninless samsara upto now (thats enough - not to go too deep down the dzogchen jungle)

 

much more to say about Jnana but other people can do that if they like, I don't like to do that

 

so my question is do you think Wisdom in the greek sense is similar or even the same like Prajna or Jnana?`

 

It is hard to make such comarpisons since the view of 'sophia' in hellenistic philosphy was very varied, there was no one common interpretion of 'sophia', however there were certainly a lot of exchange of ideas between hellenistic philosophers and indian systems of thought, especially during the later part of the era of hellenistic philosophy when the Indo-greek kindgdom was established. We know that some schools of thought of hellenistic philosophy was heavily inspired by Indian schools of thought and there might very well be hellenistic philosophers that would agree with some definition of Jñāna and/or Prajña of that time. However it should be noted that the terms  Jñāna and Prajña were discussed and had various interpretions in different Indian schools of thought during that era aswell.

[noonespecial]

In his Cratylus, Plato gives the etymology of Athena's name, the goddess of wisdom, from Atheonóa (Ἀθεονόα) meaning "god's (theos) mind (nous)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

 

I rather like this, wisdom as God's mind.

[RigdzinTrinley]

In his Cratylus, Plato gives the etymology of Athena's name, the goddess of wisdom, from Atheonóa (Ἀθεονόα) meaning "god's (theos) mind (nous)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

 

I rather like this, wisdom as God's mind.

 

I like the sound of that, but I don't know what that means:

 

wisdom = God's mind

 

but then God's mind = ?

[Daeluin]

I like the sound of that, but I don't know what that means: wisdom = God's mind but then God's mind = ?

 

in daoist readings I've come across the idea of the mind of dao, which can be read as the mind of god. The (loose) concept is that when the conceptual mind is not in control, and the mind is rooted in the dao, it is connected with and one with all. In this state it knows whatever it needs to, as it needs to. Nothing is blocking it from openness to the totality of heavenly knowledge.

 

Similar concept to a window.... when the window is clear we can see whatever is outside of it. And if when we look out of it we see a park bench every day, we start expecting that park bench to be there, and we stop actively looking at it. This is similar to our drawing the park bench on the window pane with a marker.

 

Over the course of our lives, many of us draw so much with that marker, and learn to live within the lines we draw... nothing so obvious as a park bench, but more the patterns that we depend upon to survive. We become so tied to these constructs and can't do without them - this is the conceptual heart-mind, the ego. When we try to look out that window we only see what we've trained ourselves to see - but if we wipe it clean, we open ourselves to all there is.

[Bud Jetsun]

 

the meaning of it is the supreme cognition is to discriminate between what is a correct understanding of the nature of phenomena and what is an incorrect understanding of phenomena

 

 

Beautiful, goosebumps arose while reading.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I like the sound of that, but I don't know what that means: wisdom = God's mind but then God's mind = ?

 

Why, I thought everyone knew it was Aristotle's Unmoved Mover:

 

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ,^[1]ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a monotheistic concept advanced by Aristotle, a polytheist,^[2][3] as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.^[4] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek "Λ") of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the Active Intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek "Pre-Socratic" philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the Unmoved Mover in the Quinque viae. (Wikipedia article on Aristotle's Unmoved Mover)

 

About which I wrote here:

 

Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" and Wuwei

 

You did read that, didn't you Trinley?

 

But in order to find which of the Pre-Socratic Greeks is most relevant you need to look for Anaxagoras:

 

According to Anaxagoras all things have existed in some way from the beginning, but originally they existed in infinitesimally small fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined throughout the universe.^[9] All things existed in this mass, but in a confused and indistinguishable form.^[9] There was an infinite number of homogeneous parts (Greek: ὁμοιομερῆ) as well as heterogeneous ones.^[10]

The work of arrangement, the segregation of like from unlike and the summation of the whole into totals of the same name, was the work of Mind or Reason (Greek: νοῦς).^[9] Mind is no less unlimited than the chaotic mass, but it stood pure and independent, a thing of finer texture, alike in all its manifestations and everywhere the same.^[9] This subtle agent, possessed of all knowledge and power, is especially seen ruling in all the forms of life.^[11] Its first appearance, and the only manifestation of it which Anaxagoras describes, is Motion.^[9] It gave distinctness and reality to the aggregates of like parts.^[9] (WikiPedia article on Anaxagoras, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

I guess I was wrong, it looks like everybody didn't know that.

 

In any case Plato is between the two of them, and probably means something like these things.

 

Beginning with the Middle Platonists Aristotle's Nous, or "unmoved mover" was more or less successfully assimilated to Plato, with the most profound version being Plotinus' version which inaugurated Late Platonism, otherwise known as Neo-Platonism.  Oh, Philo of Alexandria, AKA, Philo Judeaus, among the Middle Platonists, created a very influential version, which was important to Christian Platonism.

[Aetherous]

I like the sound of that, but I don't know what that means: wisdom = God's mind but then God's mind = ?

 

Omniscience (literally knowing everything there is to know), which is the other kind of wisdom in Tibetan Buddhism (apart from discerning the true nature of phenomenon). At least this is a teaching according to Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche.

[RigdzinTrinley]

At ZYD:

 

Yes I read it but didn't see the connection, I have something to say in my defense, but then why defend my ignorance? I'll just read it again

 

At Aetherous:

 

I think you mean the omniscient mind of a Buddha (so the result of the path) - indo-tibetan buddhism talks about the omniscient wisdom mind of a buddha knowing all phenomena in their nature and also in their multiplicity (thats two aspects of one omnisient mind)

 

that would be the "result" of prajna (discriminating wisdom) not just a different kind of wisdom, so there is in the sutra vehicle a cause - result relationship between prajna and the omnisciencent mind of buddha, in the tantras its another cup of tea (I didn't really drink that cup so I won't talk about it)

 

anyway I don't know if that changes anything in the discussion of wisdom (but then maybe it does?): Talking about a certain kind of wisdom(prajna) as a cause for another wisdom(omniscience) that is the result?

 

Is there also a this kind of cause - result relationship when talking about Wisdom in the greek sense? A certain type of understanding and working with phenomena that will result in the attainment of omniscience?

Edited October 28, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley