+विश्वासः

Intro

They are very valuable to us due to their:

  • explanation of the nature of the deva-s,
  • their expression of and feeling for the emergence of the world with all its order as emergent harmoniously from an ideal world,
  • their virile defence of polytheism.

“Neoplatonism absorbed, appropriated, and creatively harmonized almost the entire Hellenic tradition of philosophy, religion, and even literature—with the exceptions of Epicureanism and the thoroughgoing corporealism of the Stoics.”

Summaries

From Proclus:

“Zeus created the World-Intellect (noun tou pantos) from himself, prior to all others
[and then, still from himself] the rest of the intellectual and whole classes (ie. the ideas, and forms).
In conjunction with the ‘Mixing Bowl’ (kratEr) he created the World-Soul (psuche pantos)’ and the “partible souls”,
prior to the bodies.
He also created the souls’ associated vehicles (ochemata; see II.A.4.4)
and arranged the appropriate souls around the appropriate divinity…
this includes all the celestial, daimonic and sublunary classes..
all according to the law of Fate.

In conjunction with the universal Nature (holes phuseOs) and Necessity (anankes),
he fashioned (plattOn) the World-Body (sOma pantos) and the partible bodies,
and delineated (diagraphOn) the heavens

Hypostases

Like shaiva-tattvas, they explain emergence of a series of “hypostases”.

  • The One (individuating principle)
  • Nous/ Consciousness, whose inner activity is reflecting upon itself and it’s cause - The One, leading to ideal world of forms
  • Soul - “The general idea is that Soul, qua outer activity of Consciousness, looks back at its cause in order to understand itself so as to truly be what it is. Gazing thus at the forms and ideas eternally present in Consciousness, it becomes “informed” by them and carries forward, by some manner of benevolent necessity, images of the eternal forms into the lower realm of Being.”
  • Nature

The full series of hypostases is the One, Being, Life, Intellect, Soul, the last including the World Soul and individual souls, and really includes Nature as well, because this is not really a distinct hypostasis, but simply the embodied activity of souls.

In this series, one must also understand that the “higher” hypostases extend their causality further than the “lower”, so that all beings, for example, are also ones, all living things are beings, and all intellects are living beings.

-EB

Concomitant inner and outer activities

  • “every activity in the world is in some sense double
    insofar as it possesses both an inner and an outer aspect.”
    And this applies recursively - with outer effect having other outer effects.
  • “The outer effect is not the purpose or end of the inner activity; rather, it is simply the case that one falls out of the other and is concomitant with it.”
    • Thence: “Hypostasis” is defined: underlyingness of an entity.
  • “For example, the inner activity of the sun (nuclear fusion, as we now know) has the outer effect of heat and light, themselves activities as well. Or the inner activity of a tree that is determined by the kind of tree it is (its genetic code, we would now say; the Neoplatonists spoke of an inherent formative principle, logos) results in the bearing of a particular kind of fruit; or again, thoughts and feelings internal to human beings express themselves in speech and actions.”
  • “Furthermore, it is also the case that these outer activities will typically be productive of yet other outer activities that are ontologically more remote and derivative: Fruit serves as nourishment or poison for other individual life forms, and human speech and action constitute, over time, a person’s biography or a society’s history. "

Incessant Emanationism

“Pagan Neoplatonists were not creationists. Instead, they speculated that the process of the emergence of the universe from their divine principle, has gone on forever, just as it continues at this very moment and will continue to do so, sustaining a world without end. … reality emerged from “the First” in coherent stages, in such a way that one stage functions as creative principle of the next.”

The ultimate cause of individuation

  • To Hen (τό ἕν), The One, First, The Good, “unity” (composed of units/ henads, from To Hen). Hence the the first “Hypostasis”.
  • The one is the one set of “visheSha"s of nyAya-shAstra - albeit applied mainly to henads (~ Atmans). To Hen makes Rudra distinct from Zeus, yet is each of their individuality. This is axiomatic.
    • τό ἕν is not itself an individual, and a principle of existence irreducible to being qua being. (Parmenides: The one neither is, nor is one (141e))
    • The sage Empedocles was superficially different in that he, like a pluralist, referred to the constituent visheSha elements of this set for their individuating function.

“One way to reconstruct the argument is that
if the thing making a thing one is itself one thing,
then either there is something else making it one,
or it does so itself in a different respect;
either way, there would be an infinite regress.” - Edward Butler.

Henology

  • henology = study of The One/ To Hen. Distinct from ontology, which is the study of being.

“The terms “henology” and “henadology” may be used interchangeably once we grasp that inasmuch as the One Itself “neither is, nor is one” (ie it’s composed of units)” - EB.

Misunderstandings

“The suppression of polytheistic Platonism in late antiquity … was the necessary precondition for the successful appropriation of Hellenic philosophy, which had been born and nurtured in a polytheistic religious environment, into Christian monotheistic thought. This appropriation involved a particularly bold transformation in the relationship between the first principle in Platonic thought, namely, Unity or “the One,” and Being. “The One” … is, for the tradition of thought which will follow upon the silencing of Pagan Platonism, treated instead as identical to the monotheist’s God, the “supreme being.”” - Edward Butler.

For example, Stanford encyclopedia says:

“an entity that is beyond (lower realms of )Being, transcending all physical reality, very little can actually be said, except that it is absolute Unity. However, we know empirically of its effect, the entire universe, and we must therefore suppose that the One is the carrier of, or rather identical with, a boundless sort of singular activity or energy. "

They ignore Plato’s Parmenides 141E:

“But apparently the One neither is, nor is one, if this argument is to be trusted.”.

Edward Butler, a contemporary polytheist platonist, has posited a much needed correction. See his dissertation.

Non-misunderstandings

“From Aristotle’s viewpoint, e.g., “unity” and “being” are convertible,
the same in nature
but diverse in concept,
in accord with the proper, ontological scope of his inquiry,
while the wider scope of henology permits it to recognize units who are at once supra-essential and also the highest (quasi-)class of beings.” - EB.

Henads

  • henad, unit (ἑνάς/ henas, from τό ἕν); the term is taken by Iamblichus, Syrianus and Proclus from Plato’s Philebus,
    where it is used interchangeably with the term ‘monad’.
    henad is the first principle (arche/ ἀρχή) and the measure ( metron) of a realized individual;
    they correlate with real “beings” - including the Gods.
    Their individuality is primodial - To Hen - so they are axiomatic as well.

Regarding the number of divine henads -

“that such ultimate units or “henads” cannot be actually infinite in number,
nor can they be fewer in number than the number of ontic hypostases as determined by ontological inquiry,
and which furnish for Proclus the classes of Gods.”

  • Yet, they are supra-essential - beyond Being (see definition below).
    They populate a separate “henadic manifold”.
    Being is constituted by the activity of the Gods.
  • At every “ontic hypostasis” (level of Being), an order of Gods (sub-henads) manifest, constituted by the activity of those Gods at higher levels (ultimately the base supra-essential Henad).
    • Proclus divides henads into transcendent or independent units and those that are irradiations of the first.
    • The first order of Henads simply lend themselves as individuals. So, they are “intelligible”. They correspond to the ontic hypostasis of Being. At this stage, each God has no relationship with another.
    • The second tier of manifestation are the “intelligible-and-intellectual” Gods, at the ontic hypostasis of Life. Here, the Gods emerge together, relate to each other and occupy a common mythic space. There can be multiple such mythic spaces.
    • The third tier of manifestation are the “intellectual” Gods, where the activity of each God constitutes the the ontic hypostasis of Intellect. The characteristic of this class of Gods is “narrativity”. The Gods are not merely present together, they engage in activity together. There can be multiple such narrative spaces.

Attributes

  • “Gods are hyperessential(=transcending substance and time) henadic(=like Atmans) hypostases(=underlying entities) emanating a seira(=chain [of manifestations])” - KM
  • ““Hyperessential” (Greek huperousios) refers to entities like the Gods who transcend being or substance. "

Impact on practice

  • As per the philosophy itself, no single mythic space is absolute. Every revelation is perfect in itself. A theologian cannot transgress the philosopher’s boundary in this system and assert that the Gods he worships uniquely fill the positions in the hierarchy of reality.
  • One cannot assert that all national pantheons are really the same set under different names; or that various deities are merely different names of the same one God. If individuality (To Hen) is the ultimate form, proper name is ultimate. So, one can compare the activities of Zeus and Indra, one cannot assert their identity.
  • in theurgy, henads constitute a set of theophanies, i.e. divinity in its many diffenent forms at all different levels of reality, therefore divine henad stands for the god-entity as a whole. This series opens the theurgic way of adoration, worship and ascent.

Nature of Gods and myths

See sallustius.

Humans and henads

“Each God, though She contains the entire universe, is ontologically speaking absolutely simple (haplos), because She has no properties from another source.” - EB

“It is by no means certain
that there is a supra-essential “core” to our individuality
that would place us on the same footing as the Gods.
Platonists speak of a “flower” of our total self, on the one hand,
and of how we are individuated by divine action, on the other.” - EB

Being

  • Being in the wider sense encompasses the hypostases of Being (that is, ontōs on or “real being”), Life, Intellect, Soul, and Nature. It’s everything other than the One.
  • The principle of Being answers the question “what”, while the principle of Unity/ To Hen answers the question “who”.
  • “Positing “the One” prior to Being, in the chain of hypostases, is not a matter of subordinating Being to some further singular entity. Rather, it establishes prior to being a distinct mode of existence, establishing unity (individuality) as the primary and originary attribute of each thing”- EB.
  • Being as a kind of ‘consensus reality’ among henads.
  • Being is constituted by the activity of Gods (who are actually super-essential henads).
  • “The difference between the God’s self and Their power opens the space of Being, which is also a space of mediated relations between the Gods through the expression of Their powers.”

Nous - the Ideal realm

  • the outer activity and effect of the First must be nous - pure and absolute “Consciousness”. Hence the the second “Hypostasis”.
  • Consciousness would not be some kind of emergent property of material constituents arranged in a certain way, but rather be the first effect of the activity of the One.
  • “What, then, is the inner activity of Consciousness? The inherent task of consciousness is to understand, and understanding entails the cognition of causes. In trying to understand itself, Consciousness can only turn towards its origin and thus posit or behold the First as the transcendent principle of its own reality.”
  • Compare with the ideal realm of hindus.

Forms

  • “Becoming thus aware of another entity, the originary unity of Consciousness breaks up into duality, and with it emerge the categories of identity and difference, of greater and smaller, of number, of change and of rest.”
  • “Forms of the Neoplatonists, far from being mere schemata, definitions, or ghostly blueprints of the natural world, are rather noetic entities teeming with conscious life. "
  • “Neoplatonists assumed as axiomatic that nothing could come to be here below that is not prefigured paradigmatically in the intelligible realm.” .. Every form we see in reality pre-exists in the Nous.

Demiurge

  • “In the Timaeus, Plato had described in detail the structure and function of the world soul (outer effect of Nous), and had recounted the way in which it was put together by a divine craftsman (demiurge) and conjoined with the realm of disorderly matter.”
  • “Although the Neoplatonists followed Platonic tradition in talking about a demiurge (divine craftsman), their cosmology has nothing demiurgic about it, as Plotinus rarely failed to point out. … "

World Soul (psychê) and “Nature” (phusis)

  • “Soul, a further hypostasis of being that effortlessly “falls out of” the inner activity of Consciousness in a similar way as Consciousness “fell out of” the First, is the link that facilitates the manifestation of form in matter.”
  • “The general idea is that Soul, qua outer activity of Consciousness, looks back at its cause in order to understand itself so as to truly be what it is. Gazing thus at the forms and ideas eternally present in Consciousness, it becomes “informed” by them and carries forward, by some manner of benevolent necessity, images of the eternal forms into the lower realm of Being.”
  • “The precise ontological status of Soul as another hypostasis in its own right remains somewhat underdetermined, for in a manner of speaking Soul is the very process of expressing the intelligible world in the derivative form of sensible natural living beings and the lives they live.”
  • “The Neoplatonists drew a distinction between “Soul” and “Nature” (phusis) that amounts to a hierarchical separation of higher and lower psychical functions.”

Matter

“matter exists, but not as a separate ontological principle distinct from the One with effects of its own. Rather, it is a fringe phenomenon of the life of the soul, a by-product of the activity of higher realms of Being.”

Adoration of the Gods

  • Theurgy (θεουργία) describes the practice of rituals, sometimes seen as magical in nature, performed with the intention of invoking the action or evoking the presence of one or more deities, especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself.
  • “no Neoplatonist, not even Plotinus, thinks that souls can permanently transcend Being. Most think the soul cannot transcend the cosmos.”

Ethics

“human existence is a striking representation of the cosmos as a whole, a microcosm in which all levels of being (Unity, Consciousness, Soul, Nature, Matter) are combined into one organic individual. A human being is therefore in the first instance not a social or political being, but a divine being” “life’s purpose was seen not so much in the exercise and rehearsal of the traditional virtues that give meaning and quality to our interaction with others, but in seeking “to bring back the god in us to the divine in the All””

  • eudaimonia in its most expansive sense, deification.

Evil in the soul

“evil arises if and when higher beings, and in particular human beings,
direct their attention towards the material world below,
instead of the intelligible world above, and have an all-encompassing concern for it.
The regard downwards, as it were, rather than upwards towards Consciousness and the divine essences, is what contaminates the soul and renders it morally evil.”

“Proclus, in the fifth century, dedicated an entire treatise to repudiating Plotinus on this point. Proclus abandoned the comforting notion of the essential goodness of humanity and, not unlike Augustine before him, insisted on the real possibility of the moral depravity of the human soul qua soul.”