The Aerope Sutra

Thus I have heard. Once, Athena met Aerope in the royal palace of Mycenae. Aerope asked Athena a question.
Aerope: What is the greatest error of esoteric idealism?
Athena: The greatest error of esoteric idealism occurs when the idealists assume that because emptiness and form are categories that reality is ideal in nature. The idealists wrongly assume that the category of emptiness is an existent universal called consciousness, that is, they confuse non-conceptual awareness with a universal and they wrongly assume that the category of form is an existent universal that they confuse with matter. But a universal is nothing; a universal is a breath of air. Non-conceptual awareness is not a universal or a universal mind but is a particular being, namely an activity of the human brain. Matter must exist as a particular material being, not a universal. Every material being be it a human brain, a rock, etc. is a particular being. Non-conceptual awareness is an activity, a function of that human brain. The categories of emptiness and form describe properties of material beings. Emptiness is nothingness and is the ground of material being. Form is being. Thus emptiness is a category which in psychology is non-conceptual awareness, in ontology is the vacuum and in linguistics exists as the spoken phonemes or written letters of the word apart from any relations with other words that give words relative meaning. Form is a category which in psychology is the human brain, in ontology is the points of energy and atoms that exist as manifestations of the vacuum and in linguistics is the word as it exists as a sign which has meaning because it exists in relation to other words. Hence the esoteric idealists' error is a category error in which the universal or category is mistakenly taken as the identity of the entity which in reality is a particular.
When Athena had finished preaching this Sutra Aerope was jubilant. Aerope accepted Athena's teaching and began to follow it with great veneration.

The Patroclus Sutra

Thus I have heard. Once, Athena met Patroclus on the battlefield of Troy. Patroclus asked Athena a question.
Patroclus: If God is good then must not the existence and abundance of the world he created be as great as the possibility of existence? If God had the reason to make any possibility actual would God not make every possibility that is good and is consistent with his good nature real? Since the created world is real would God not have the reason to make every good possibility an actuality in this world? The nonexistence of the actualization of any good possibility would show God to be selfish. But being selfish contradicts God's good nature so God would have to actualize all of the good possibilities. Would the actualization of the good potential in man not lead man to rise through degrees of perfection, become enlightened and achieve mystical union with God?
Athena: Your whole argument is based on false premises. There is no God and the metaphysical quality of goodness does not exist. Nor does the metaphysical quality of evil exist. Nonexistent goodness cannot be an attribute of anything. The absence of anti-utility is not an inherent quality of any object. The nonexistence of anti-utility is a quality that an object may or may not have as it exists relatively to the person who is evaluating the degree of anti-utility an object has for them. The quality of utility or anti-utility an object has is the result of the relationship between the perceiving subject and perceived object. Utility and anti-utility is not a quality of the object but but is a quality of the relationship between the subject and object. The quality exists as the quality of the relationship in the given moment. Whenever a new relationship is established between the observer and the observed object or the observed object is observed by a new observer a new relationship is established. That new relationship will have its own unique ethical qualities which must be evaluated separately from any other relationship. The new relationship has new qualities. For every new relationship the quality of utility or anti-utility the object has for the given observer changes.
Goodness does not exist. Evil does not exist. There are no qualities called good or evil that are inherent qualities of any being. Beings have the qualities of utility and the absence of anti-utility as these beings exist relatively to the person evaluating the object. Hence no being can have an inherent moral quality; moral qualities are established through the relation of the object being evaluated and the person who is evaluating the object. Even if God existed God would have the absence of anti-utility or anti-utility as qualities depending on the person who was relating to that god. God may be "good" for some and God may be "evil" for others. "Goodness" or utility and "evil" or anti-utility is a quality that is attributed by a person to a being on the basis of the person's relation to that being. Since God does not exist nobody can attribute any quality to such a nonexistent being. Another false assumption you make is that the world was created. But the world is uncreated.
Worst of all you do not even define what a "possibility" is. Is the "good" ;possibility any of the infinite number of possible events which one may hypothesize can occur or is a possibility, be it "good" or "evil" simply the actualization of potential, that is, nothingness in the form of being? In the first case one is simply dealing with wishful thinking. If the latter case then the only possibility that can occur is the one possibility that does occur when potential, by manifesting in the form of actual being in the moment is actualized to be a particular determinate being based on its temporal relation to the non being of the future and the being of the previous past moment of the series of which it is part and based on its spatial-temporal relation to other beings in the previous moment, each of which are part of their own series. Those other beings in the previous moment act as conditions for the given being that is existent in the present moment. Thus only one possibility is actualized and this possibility cannot have the inherent quality of "good" or "evil". We must go beyond such "good" and "evil" to understand whether pour relation to an object has the quality of the absence of anti-utility. Enlightenment is real but the emmanationist theory of enlightenment is a false theory of enlightenment which does not adequately describe what enlightenment is. Since the emmanationist theory of enlightenment is false and the given individuals non-conceptual awareness that the given individual perceives in pure sensory cognition, that is, cessation is not God the ideas of degrees of perfection and union with God must be false. Enlightenment is the understanding that the non-conceptual awareness we perceive in cessation is the identity of our human psyche. Enlightenment is not the escape from the wheel of rebirth since reincarnation and the law of karma does not exist. Enlightenment is the true liberation from ignorance about what thee true identity of our psyche is, not a spurious "liberation" from reincarnations that do not exist. Non-conceptual awareness is a brain state not an immaterial being called a "true self". It is true that the person who has attained self-rule and is able to control their actions through rational-emotive practice does enable themselves to do actions that lead to the results which, relative to them have the quality of the absence of anti-utility. But this has nothing to do with the idea that God guides a person to actualize a possibility that is inherently "good" in nature.
When Athena had finished preaching this Sutra Athena saw that Patroclus was carrying Achilles' armor. Patroclus thanked Athena, put on Achilles armor and went into battle. Latter Patroclus would be killed by Hector.

The Pleione Sutra

Thus I have heard. Pleione once met Athena in Athena's temple on Mount Olympus. Pleione asked a question.
Pleione: What is nothingness in relation to man?
Athena: I shall answer your question in these short Sutras.
1: The word nothing is used in three senses.
2: Nothing can be conceived of as a non-affirming negative that exists as a quantifier.
3: Nothing can be conceived of as the nonexistence of beings whose existence is impossible.
4: These first two senses of the word nothing are used when we talk about man.
5: Nothing can be conceived of as a relating object. Since such an object does not exist it has no relation to man.
6: Man's body is a manifestation of thew vacuum. The vacuum is a non-affirming negative phenomenon. Here nothing is used as a quantifier.
7: Thus man as a material object is ultimately nothing.
8: Man's mind, which exists as the activity of the brain manifests firstly as non-conceptual awareness. The non-conceptual awareness is a non-affirming negative phenomenon. Here nothing is used as a quantifier.
9: Thus man's consciousness is ultimately nothing.
10: Man's non-conceptual awareness manifests in the form of mental representations.
11: These mental representations can take a conscious form or an unconscious form.
12: Archetypes are forms the non-conceptual awareness can take when man experiences the unconscious mind.
13: Gods are archetypes not personal beings.
14: As all mental representations are forms the non-conceptual awareness takes gods must be ultimately nothing. Here nothing is used as a quantifier.
15: In terms of man while he is living man while he is alive is ultimately nothing. Here nothing is used as a quantifier.
16: This is true both of man's body and consciousness.
17: After death nothing, as it relates to man is conceived as the nonexistence of man. Here nothing is used in the sense of a being whose existence is impossible.
18: In some cases when man is experiencing the transition to death he may experience the absence of sensations and mental representations. Some call this absence nothing.
19: Those lucky enough to survive the transition and live see that consciousness is ultimately non-conceptual see the nothingness of consciousness as a quantifier.
20: Those lucky enough to be healthy and experience the non-conceptual nature of consciousness during no-meditation meditation practice also come to see that consciousness is nothingness conceived of as a quantifier.
21: Those unlucky enough to die become nothing. Here nothing is conceived as the nonexistence of the being of their body and mind.
22: The nonexistence of the being of man after death must be affirmed because the existence of man's body or mind after death is impossible.
When Athena had finished preaching this Sutra Pleione was jubilant. Pleione accepted Athena's teaching and began to follow it with great veneration.

The Podarces Sutra

Thus I have heard. Once, Athena met Podarces in the royal palace of Phylace. Podarces asked Athena a question.
Podarces: What is the relationship between me and my physical body?
Athena: There is no "me" who exists; "me" is a deluded notion which does not exist. Thus the relation to which you refer is nonexistent.
Podarces: What is the relationship between my mental states such as thoughts and sensations and the physical states of my body such as the pattern of neural firings going on in my brain?
Athena: The question falsely assumes that there is an immaterial being called the self which has states and is different from the physical body; it assumes that mental states are distinct from the physical states of the firings of the neurons. Mental states are not different from brain states. A mental state is not something different from a brain state which is determined by the brain state nor is the brain state something different from the mental state which is determined by the brain state. Mental states are physical states because each mental state is identical with a given hbrain state. If there is no self or soul the self or soul cannot have a state of existence; thoughts and sensations are not states of a nonexistent immaterial being called a self or soul. "Thoughts" and "sensations" distinct from the pattern of neural firings do not exist. Thoughts and sensations are words which represent these neural firings in the brain. While we talk of mental and material objects as distinct categories of objects mental and material objects are mental representations which represent the neural firings we are aware of. A mental object is a representation of the neural firings which represent a subjective idea while the material object is a representation of the neural firings that represent an external object we have sensed. Ultimately both the mental and material objects are the ideal form of neural firings we are aware of. Since what is experienced in all cases are neural firings it is wrong to say that what we experience is an immaterial being or a material being. Immaterial beings do not exist. Material beings exist prior to consciousness but what we experience are neural firings not the material object itself. Since both the idea which exists as a neural firing and the external object we sense arew both represented by neural firings we experience both the mental and material objects we experience are neural firings we experience as mental representations. Whether the mental image is one of a subjective idea or an external object the mental image is still ultimately a neural firing we are aware of; such awareness is a brain state that allows us to experience the brain states we call neural firings; the experience of these physical states is the experience of what we call thoughts and sensations.
If one thinks that a mental representation is an immaterial being one is wrong. Ideal immaterial objects do not exist. Both mental representations of subjective mental images that do not correspond to external objects and mental representations of external objects are patterns of neural firings going off in the brain. In this way the so called "mind-body question is solved. There are no immaterial objects which we can perceiveand what we perceive when we perceive an external material object is not the external material object. What we perceive is the pattern of neural firings going off in the brain when we either perceive a subjective mental image that does not correspond to any external material object or the mental image of an external material object. Thus the division between an immaterial "mind" equated to a self or soul and the external material being is a false divsion. The neural firings going off in the brain are material phenomena. We never experience immaterial phenomena. Mental states are identical with brain states. Mental states are not something different from brain states. Consciousness is a physical brain state. A subjective entity called "consciousness" distinct from material being does not exist. Nor are any external objects the brain states we experiewnce. The brain state represents either the external object or the subjective idea. The subjective idea is only a brain state that represents itself by being experienced as an idea while the brain state that we expereice when we sense an external object is experienced as an idea which represents the external object. Do not confuse the exyternal object with the brain states that represent the external object. One is a physical state which represents a physical object and the other is the physical object which is represented. Our consciousness of an object or subjective idea is always our experience of a brain state.
When Athena had finished preaching this Sutra Podarces was jubilant. Podarces accepted Athena's teaching and began to follow it with great veneration.

The Cosmic Cycle and The Orgins of Philosophy

"What is the origin of philosophy?" "Why is it that the first question philosophy asks is the question of the one and the many?" It may surprise that the answer to these questions is an environmental answer. We can find the origin of philosophy in the notion of the cosmic cycle. The cosmic cycle is the yearly cycle the earth experiences as it orbits about the sun. All nature changes over time on the basis of the yearly cycle. We see that man from the earliest times developed a calendar which expresses the changes in nature that happen to the planet over the time of the cosmic cycle. Thus the cosmic cycle becomes a paradigm that finds its expression in various in various cultural forms. Stonehenge is an example of the notion of the cosmic cycle expressed in architecture. The cosmic cycle was also expressed in myths of all ancient cultures. Thus each point in the cycle and the cycle itself was expressed in the form of myth. These myths expressed the processes of nature that occur on a yearly basis.
Philosophy came to exist when non-mythical language came to replace the mythical language that man used to express his knowledge of the cosmic cycle. Philosophy started as a proto-scientific attempt to describe the changes nature experiences over the period of the cosmic cycle. Human life was seen as a cycle that existed as a longer form of the cosmic cycle. Thus the birth-death process was seen as a form of the cosmic cycle. It is not surprising that with such basic assumptions the doctrine of reincarnation grown out of man's understanding of the cosmic cycle in some cultures.
If we examine the teachings of the Chandogya Upanishad we see that the doctrine of the five fires tries to explain the cosmic cycle as it was seen occurring in the form of the individual human life. Thomas McEvilley in The Shape of Ancient Thought (Pg. 41)says the following "When a soul (representing the fire element) is ready to be reincarnated, it is said to change into rain and rain down into the earth, then grow out of the earth transformed into plant food,which represents, in ancient Indian philosophical discourse, the earth element; the food, being eaten, is transformed into semen, which is traditionally understood in this context as representing the water element; being sown in a womb, the semen becomes a person, or soul again."
This process is seen as being on earth the same cosmic cycle process that is seen in the sky with the movement of the planets and stars through the year. While we give the doctrine of the cosmic cycle as it occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad we see that the question of the cosmic cycle was also addressed by the pre-Socratic philosophers of Greece where the reincarnation doctrine can also be found. The reason why the question of the one and the many is related to the cosmic cycle is because if there is a cycle of material transformations which the world and man experiences one must ask what experiences these transformations. In the case of the Chandogya Upanishad "fire", that is, soul is seen as being the monistic substance which undergoes this transformation.
The description of the cosmic cycle process was the main question the early pre-Socratic philosophers in Greece and the Indian philosophers of the early period addressed. Many of the Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Anaximander and others wrote works called On Nature which described the nuts and bolts of what they saw was the cosmic cycle process of the universe. The question of the one and the many was simply another secondary question these philosophers addressed as a result of addressing the primary question of how the cosmic cycle functions. Since the cosmic cycle was the basis of ancient religion addressing the question of the cosmic cycle was the means by which the central religious questions could be addressed. Philosophy in the pre-Socratic period was simply an expression of the basic theological system of the culture using non-mythical language. The use of this non-mythical language allowed man to address questions that had previously only had been posed theologically. This basic linguistic shift was the basis of the so called "miracle" of the birth of Greek and Indian philosophy.

The Tisamenus Sutra

Thus I have heard. Once, Athena met King Tisamenus in the royal palace of Thebes. Tisamenus asked a question.
Tisamenus: Is there one essence which exists as the essence of all things or are there many essences?
Athena: From the point of view of ultimate reality there is only one essence. This is because all things are ultimately the vacuum which manifests as all things. It is also because each atom-moment when it is taken by itself as a ground has no truth value and is indeterminate. That which is indeterminate has no truth value and has no determinate definition. Since all atom-moments taken as grounds are a manifestation of the vacuum the atom-moments and the vacuum cannot be different grounds. Since anything which is indeterminate is equally the same indeterminate reality the vacuum and every atom-moment taken as a ground must be the same essence. From the point of view of relative reality there are an infinite number of essences. Each atom-moment taken as a ground,each series taken as a ground and infinite time-space taken as a ground can from the relative perspective all be seen as different grounds. Since there are an infinite number of atom-moments there must be from the relative point of view an infinite number of essences.
When Athena had finished preaching this Sutra Tisamenus was jubilant. Tisamenus accepted Athena's teaching and began to follow it with great veneration.

The Nysa Sutra

Thus I have heard. once, Zeus brought all of the Gods to the summit of Mount Nysa in India. Hera had asked Zeus to explain the Charvakas way to all who would listen. About Zeus were gathered not only the gods but many wise samnyasins who would latter convey the Charvakas or Lokayata doctrine to the world. Zeus, whom the samnyasins called Brihaspati, is the priest of the gods and he performed the sacred Soma ritual for all. When all had partaken of the Soma one of the samnyasins came foward, bowed and asked Zeus a question.
Samnyasin: Brihaspati, what is the doctrine of the Lokayata?
Zeus: 1: Om: here follows the doctrine of the Lokayata.
2: Nothing exists.
3: Everything exists.
4: Everything is a unity.
5: Everything is a multiplicity.
6: Nothing is being.
7: Being is nothing.
8: Being is in nothingness.
9: Nothingness is in being.
10: You are nothing.
11: The whole world is nothing.
12: Nothingness is nowhere; it cannot be found apart from others.
13: Nothingness is everywhere and is everything; it is the one, the all.
14: It is the expanse, nothingness and motion.
15: Nothing in itself is neither this nor that.
16: Nothing exists in the form of this and that.
17: Nothing in itself is not just this and not just that.
18: Nothing exists in the form of just this and just that.
19: Nothing, as it exists in the form of being is noth now and then.
20: Nothing in itself is neither now nor then.
21: Nothing as it exists in the form of being is both here and there.
22: Nothing in itself is neither here nor there.
23: A being is both that and this.
24: A being is neither this nor that.
25: Before the rectification of names a being has no name.
26: When names are rectified one being is only this and another being is only that.
27: After the de-rectification of names a being'
s name names neither this nor that while at the same time it names both this and that.
28: Nothing is action.
Athena, who would also come to teach the way, along with the many samnyasins spoke.
Athena: The wheel of the Lokayata has been set going by Brihaspati on Mount Nysa, a wheel which has not been set going before by any mortal or immortal!
Thus at that time all the immortals and mortals raised a great shout as the world shuddered; a great light shone from Mount Nysa on that day that surpassed the majesty of every other light.
That light continues to shine brightly even to this day and it is seen whenever one comes to realize supreme enlightenment.

The Melanippe Sutra

Thus I have heard. Once, Melanippe met Athena in Athena's temple on Mount Olympus. Melanippe asked Athena a question.
Melanippe: What are the most deluded ideas that unenlightened people have?
Athena: 1: The first deluded idea is that one does not change because one has a solitary unified self that cannot change. But no being has a self. When one's beliefs, exixstence and desires changes one changes. Since all things are impermanent change is one's nature.
2: The second deluded idea is that attaining self-rule requires no activity on one's part. But one does not have self-rule unless one works on oneself. Those who believe that self-rule requires no activity have a completely wrong idea about what self-rule is. They think that self-rule is acting in whatever unconscious way they want. They may think that they are acting consciously but in reality they are acting unconsciously without any conscious examination of their actions. Such individuals have no ability to use rational-emotive work to inform themselves about what actions will lead to pain and what actions lead to the absence of pain. As a result, such supposedly "free" individuals do not have the ability to overcome their habitual patterns of action that lead them to doing actions which produce pain. One needs to do rational-emotive work to be able to consciously observe one's actions, intervene and stop doing actions which cause pain. It is those who do the rational-emotive work who attain the self-rule that enables them to do actions which only produce the absence of pain.
3: The third deluded notion is that one can achieve the ability to be an impartial spectator. But it is impossible for an impartial spectator to exist. One would have to exist outside of being in order to be a spectator who impartially wittnesses events in the world. Everyone who exists has a particular perspective on any event. Since to "be" outside of beingmeans that one is an absolute nonbeing and absolute nonbeings do not exist it is impossible to be an impartial spectator. To set oneself the task of being an impartial spectator is an impossible task and those who think they have achieved that goal are simply deluded.
When Athena had finished preaching this Sutra Melanippe was jubilant Melanippe accepted Athena's teaching and began to follow it with great veneration.