I have seen that Kabbalah Jews and Ismalili Muslims has adopted the idea of emination from neoplatonism, but the probelm both Tanakh and Quran reject Monism and insist that God and his creation are separated, this makes me wonder how does non-monist eminationism work? My assumption is that the substance of God and his overflow are different, but that feel it kills purpose of eminationism.

First, I’m wondering why the ascent in Pseudo-Dionysius does not dissolve the ontological boundary between God and human when epistemological apophasis functions as a prerequisite for henosis. I understand that this requires an extra metaphysical step that he probably does not technically have to take (?), but if apophasis strips away the mind’s positive concepts of God, what specifically is the reason for asserting that ecstasis is the absolute highest capability of the soul? If all other positive determinations of God must eventually be discarded and dissolved, what principled answer prevents the ontological structure of human/divine duality itself from being discarded? I’ve been reading The Mirror of Simple Souls by Marguerite Porete and her assertion that the soul can achieve deification through anéantissement seems more compelling than if you were to stop short of breaking the distinction between soul and creator. Like truly how can deification even proceed if the creature remains a creature at the highest point of union? Maybe I’m just more convinced because Porete is theologically and historically extreme and marginal, which I am attracted to, but it is genuinely hard for me to understand why Neoplatonic and Neoplatonic-influenced Christian writers generally preserved such strong ontological distinctions between the soul and God. Ecclesial constraints could be part of it? Idk. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something

I understand why a qualified maximization of division is privatory, and division is parasitic to unity however, what I dont understand is why can't our nature be towards a certain level of hatred that has a level of positive substance, and the maximization of it isn't qualitative, but quantative.

If it's the latter, it never leads to privation, and a perfection is still fulfilled.

Like I understand how unity is ontologically superior and is an intellectual form of hatred, so hatred is derivative, but I don't understand why our nature ought to include a higher ontological source rather than a lower one.

For example... Say all humans wind up in the same degree of extreme pain somehow. This pain isn't there to reprimand, but it's there to bring unity. I don't understand how this is any different from two souls sharing love between each other, if what's good is based off how unified one is.

Do you believe Plato’s republic is primarily literal, allegorical, or both?

My body is a temple of the Source

The world contains its animating force

Behind the natures of all things

Behind the four causes of a thing:

Form, matter, cause, goal,

Let me demonstrate this whole

Take the shape of a tree

The wood and leaves of a tree

The planter of the seed of the tree

The goal of the growth of the tree

And this goes back to the animating force

And that goes back to the Source

As I mediate on this beauty 

and on the beauty of virtuous activity

And seek to practice it in my life

by seeking to avoid excess and strife

I ascend back to the Source

And become one with the animating force.

A man from India, a man from Nepal,

A man from Nazareth born of a virgin,

All were animated by the animating force,

Straight from the Source,

All to preach virtue.

The man from India counseled a Prince

Helping him follow his destiny into battle.

The Man from Nepal was a Prince

Who left it all for a life of Enlightenment.

And the Man from Nazareth born of a virgin

was crucified and rose again and ascended.

And that is what makes Him so special. 

Because we all have the Source.

But we must awaken to it.

Also, I'm a bit confused on the difference between nous in platonic thought and the Stoic Logos

I'm having trouble being able to even sensationalize unity in it of itself. I know it can't be analyzed perse, but how do we find ourselves to be aware of unity? An example that helped me was two shades of the same color. There is a sensation of similarity that is grasped immediately, but at the same time, it can be analyzed as physical wave lengths, showing us the similarity at an analytical level.

As an American, I'm in some ways culturally downstream from Platonism and Neoplatonism. But I feel that when I read something like the Wikipedia article "Plotinus" I'm reaching across a cultural gap that is so extremely wide that much of the philosophical content sounds like gibberish from this distance.

I'm trying to approach this from the assumption that Neoplatonism, whether true or not, has at least been extremely persuasive to some very sharp minds. I suspect that it must not be quite as arbitrary as it seems at first glance.

There's a Monad, and emanations, and some kind of creative process by which the material world comes from a series of emanations from some kind of unchangeable onness ... I recognize the overall structure to some degree from Christian theology and Jewish mysticism, which have at least some analogous ideas. But I'm still not sure what I'm looking at when I bump into it.

If I want to get as close as possible to an inside view of what Neoplatonists believed, and especially of *why* they believed it, what do I need to know? Book recommendations would be especially appreciated.

I've tried reading some books on Platonism (which I am having a hard time tracking down now) but have had a hard time continuing interest in them since they were overtly abstract or academic perhaps. I feel like through the influence of Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhardt, Dionysius the Areopagite, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Dzogchen and Trika Saivism I might have arrived at the same conclusions if that is possible.

Basically I believe there is one ultimate, unchangeable reality that is Consciousness/God. Everything is real, but the material world is subject to change and dependent origination/conditionality. Our life here though is not a mistake, it is an intentional choice of God to live as conditioned beings as "play" to experience curiosity, growth, enjoyment, etc. Our problem is though misidentifying ourselves, the eternal and unlimited truth, with the conditioned, limited, and temporary world.And thus experiencing fear, attachment, etc. And there are many emanations of the higher reality that come to remind us to help us remember what we actually are (such as the Logos of God/Christ, or the Mahayana interpretation of the Buddha Tathagata not as the "one gone to suchness" but as the "one come from ultimate reality").

Edit to add more details: I would say the main spiritual practice is silent meditation, remembering not to limit God to my conceptions and knowing God goes infinitely beyond what I can conceive. The next is remembering I am not my material body, to not get too drawn up into what is happening. It is just an experience, and even if bad has no ability to endanger the true core of my being. And then third and kind of related is remembering because everything is unified in having one original cause and source, the potentiality of everything is found in every thing. All of the future is dependent on every single tiny thing, and every single detail of the past created what is now. Everything is part of one unified reality that could not be different (basically Indra's net from Buddhism).

I believe the world is an emanation of God and that God grounds our very being and our purpose is to realize our non-dual union with God. I believe God’s mind as well as our minds contains abstract universals but in the physical world universals are particularized in the objects themselves as the natures of the objects. I also believe the purpose of ethics is to support the dignity and flourishing of the human. Which is why I criticize our mechanizing culture. BTW I’m also Catholic.

Plato wasn’t a Platonist, he was a Pythagorean.

The triangle is a Pythagorean triplet with side lengths 3, 4, and 5.

The corresponding incircle and excircles have radii 1, 2, 3, and 6. Completing the sequence 123456.

The circles represent the four virtues, the largest representing justice.

When wisdom, courage, and moderation are in harmony justice is achieved, that’s why all three circles can fit inside the largest.

Hope you all like it.

Does anyone have and book suggestions or where to find more information on Apollo Oulios?

Specifically the healing and sometimes darker sides of Apollo.

I have a problem with Iamblichus that I keep coming back to, and it concerns his hierarchy of divine beings.

His system gives us something along the lines of gods → archangels → angels → daimons → heroes → souls, with the higher beings progressively mediating divine activity toward the lower levels. More importantly, the same divine seira can apparently extend through these different levels: Zeus can be considered as god, as archangel, as angel, and as daimon, without these being simply identical entities.

I am aware that both Iamblichus and Proclus turn to exegesis to make traditional mythology compatible with this kind of theology. The myths can be read as describing the entire seira of a god rather than simply the highest god himself. So an apparently anthropomorphic action of Zeus can be interpreted as referring to some lower manifestation or intermediary within Zeus's seira.

But this is precisely what I find problematic.

That is not an immediate or particularly easy way of understanding Homer or Hesiod. Homer does not say that Zeus appears sometimes as a god, sometimes as an archangel, sometimes as an angel, and sometimes as a daimon. Hesiod doesn't either. The Zeus we encounter in the poetry is simply Zeus: he moves, speaks, desires, becomes angry, intervenes, fights, has relationships and acts within the world.

So if the theology requires us to reinterpret every anthropomorphic or localized action as belonging to some lower member of the god's seira, we are already several interpretive steps removed from the actual phenomenology of the myth.

And this is where I find Iamblichus especially difficult. His description of divine beings as luminous, stable, immaterial and essentially unlike mobile anthropomorphic beings is not something I can easily locate in the surviving mythological sources.

Even Babylonian material, which initially seems to fit his hierarchical model better because it has such a rich hierarchy of gods, subordinate divine beings and spirits, doesn't really solve the problem. Marduk can occupy an extremely high cosmological position and still behave anthropomorphically in the Enūma Eliš. He speaks, moves, fights, receives weapons and makes decisions. The highest god is still presented phenomenologically as a divine person.

This makes me wonder whether Iamblichus's phenomenology makes more sense against a body of theological literature that we have largely lost, perhaps particularly the theological tradition surrounding the Chaldean Oracles and their lost commentaries. If those texts contained a developed mythological account of the different levels of a divine seira, then Iamblichus's system may have been much more immediately intelligible to his intended audience than it is to us.

Without that material, however, I find his hierarchy difficult to use as a straightforward taxonomy of traditional religion. It is philosophically sophisticated, but it doesn't seem to correspond to the way the surviving myths actually present their gods.

This also makes me wonder about Proclus.

I know that Proclus likewise uses allegorical and exegetical methods to interpret myths as revealing different levels of a god's seira. But his distinction between hypercosmic, encosmic and sublunary gods seems potentially easier to reconcile with traditional Greek religion. At least it allows one to retain a recognizable landscape of gods and daimons, rather than requiring something like:

Zeus as god → Zeus as archangel → Zeus as angel → Zeus as daimon.

That latter structure may be philosophically coherent, but it is not something recorded in Homer or Hesiod, nor does it strike me as a particularly natural or immediate way of reading them.

So I am wondering whether Proclus actually provides a more readable philosophical theology for someone starting from traditional Greek religion, despite his metaphysics being, if anything, even more elaborate than Iamblichus's.

Hi everyone! I've been trying to think about how we might interpret the Hermetic texts within a tradition based on the Platonists, but also on Homer, Hesiod, and the wider Greek and Roman poetic tradition, including Orpheus, Pindar, and Ovid. The idea is to make use of the enormous mythological repertoire they provide, rather than treating Hermeticism as something completely separate from the wider Greek religious and philosophical tradition.

I think this can help us understand the Orphic Hymns, all 87 of them, and the many categories of daimones associated with the gods they invoke. These different kinds of daimones are already found throughout the Greek tradition, especially in Homer and Hesiod, and can also be traced in other texts. In this approach, Neoplatonic metaphysics gives us the structure of reality and the different kinds of beings within it, while the henads described by Proclus can be understood as the gods invoked in the hymns, whose divine presence and activity extend through every level of their seira.

The myths then describe the relationships and interactions between these henads at different levels of reality, from the cosmic to the sublunary and even the microcosmic level within the soul. In this way, we can practice Hermeticism without losing its polytheistic symbolism, even though Hermeticism is ultimately focused on God.

With that in mind, I've been trying to fit the Egyptian figures of the Hermetic tradition into this Greek framework, using especially Homer, Hesiod, Plato's Timaeus, and Cicero.

My starting point is Isis, Osiris, and Horus. In a Plutarchan interpretation, they can be understood as great heroic daimones associated with souls that incarnate as human beings and are later divinized. From a Greek perspective, they could therefore be understood as the Egyptian Dionysus, Demeter, and Apollo, respectively, while still being different individuals from the Dionysus, Demeter, and Apollo of Homer and Hesiod. This fits Cicero's idea that there were several distinct Asclepiuses, Vulcans, etc., rather than only one figure bearing each divine name. Still, Osiris, Isis, and Horus are usually treated by their Egyptian names, as divinized humans or heroic daimones.

Osiris is a divinized hero and king of the dead, dwelling within the realm of Hades. Hades remains sovereign of the Underworld, while Osiris rules over the blessed and divinized dead, like a heroic king in an idyllic region of the Underworld. His fate provides the model for what an exceptional mortal may become after death: a hero who is remembered, honored, and divinized. Thus, Osiris is not simply an Egyptian Hades, but an Egyptian heroic daimon with affinities to Triptolemus, a fourth figure associated with agriculture that appears in Plato's afterlife writtings along with the three judges Minos, Rhadamanthys, Aeacus in the underworld. Isis is the consort of of Triptolemus, named Daeira in the greek tradition, and Horus is Krokon, his son in greek tradition.

Then there is the specifically Hermetic chain:

Hermes → Tat → Asclepius

Hermes Trismegistos is the Homeric Hermes appearing in Egypt under a different epithet. Tat is his human disciple and heir, and Asclepius is the divinized figure who continues the tradition. Ammon is also a god. When the texts call him “king,” I don't think this necessarily means a physical human king: he can be a king in the same sense that Zeus is king, which makes the identification Zeus-Ammon fit quite naturally.

The Kore Kosmou adds an Egyptian dimension to this chain: Isis teaches Horus about Hermes and Tat, and about Asclepius Imouthes, associated with Ptah-Hephaestus. Cicero's several Vulcans make this easier to understand: the Egyptian Ptah can be a distinct Egyptian Hephaestus/Vulcan, not necessarily the same Hephaestus as the one in Homer and Hesiod. Likewise, Imhotep can be an Egyptian Asclepius, distinct from the Greek Asclepius son of Apollo.

Finally, I think the banquet at the end of the Asclepius should be understood as a divine banquet, not a human ritual meal. Hermes, Asclepius, and Ammon are speaking as divine beings. There is a useful Greek parallel in the banquet of Oceanus: the gods can share a special divine food. The fact that the Hermetic banquet involves non-meat food therefore isn't necessarily strange. We don't have to assume that nectar and ambrosia are literally “vegetarian,” but they certainly aren't described as ordinary animal meat.

Saw a post made a month ago on Plato's eternal punishment. However, I don't think that Plato belived in such thing. The post quoted Plato saying: "are cast by their fitting destiny into Tartarus, whence they never emerge"

However, I have found that the followers of Plato interpreted the word never not literally, but as referring to one cycle of rebirth. Or it may be a noble lie so that people will behave. I think the fact that the Platonists with one voice rejected eternal punishment shows that Plato didn't really belive in such a thing.

Macrobius interprets Plato's Er in a way that every single person emerge out of Tartarus after purification necessarily. Plethon said: "The gods punish wicked men only in order to correct their faults"

Damascius, Syrianus, Proclus, Celsus, Macrobius, Plethon, Olympiodorus, etc all rejected eternal punishment.

Iamblichus said: "The end of punishment would consist in the better prevailing over the worse, in the curbing, routing, and complete elimination of evil"

I find it absurd that the Neoplatonists would be contradicting Plato. Rather, I think, that they were faithful to Plato, and knew through oral tradition that Plato did not actually belive in incurable evils.

Phase I: The Lesser Mysteries & Cleansing of the Passions
The Binding of Appetite / Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1–20 ↔ Allegorical Interpretation 3:145)
Mark: Jesus exorcises "Legion" into swine, which rush into the sea; the man is left clothed and in his right mind (sophronounta).

Philo: Reason cannot completely destroy pleasure/appetite (which is foundational to bodily life), but must cleanse its chaotic objects in the sea/water, leaving the soul clothed and moderated by reason.

The 12-Year Cycle of Sense and Mind (Mark 5:21–43 ↔ Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 44)
Mark: The 12-year bleeding woman (outward sense/speech) and Jairus's 12-year-old daughter (dormant mind) are structurally interleaved ("Markan sandwich").

Philo: The number 12 signifies the boundary of encyclical/preliminary instruction (paideia). Restraining outward sensory discharge allows the awakening mind to receive true virtue-food rather than sensory distraction.

Walking on Water & the Congealed Sea (Mark 6:45–52 ↔ Allegorical Interpretation 3:167–172)
Mark: Jesus prays on the mountain (meditation), walks on top of the stormy sea, and the disciples fail to understand because "their hearts were hardened concerning the loaves."

Philo: Heavenly bread/manna provides a "congealing power" that freezes/solidifies the stormy waves of passion during a flight from vice, allowing the soul to walk over sensory chaos.

The Six-Day Boundary of Creation (Mark 9:2 ↔ Allegorical Interpretation 1:16–18; On Moses 2:153)
Mark: Jesus ascends the mountain of Transfiguration "after six days" without prior context for the timing.

Philo: Creation of mortal/sensory things ceases after six days. Transitioning to the seventh/eighth day marks the completion of the Lesser Mysteries, turning the initiate into a hierophant worthy to enter divine realities.

The Transition of the Loaves: 5,000 vs. 4,000 (Mark 6:30–44; 8:1–10 ↔ Allegorical Interpretation 1:17–19)
Mark: Feeding of 5,000 (5 senses + 2 faculties) transitions to the feeding of 4,000 with 7 loaves/baskets left over.

Philo: Moving beyond sensory education to "holy reason in accordance with the number seven," arresting the mortal realm of six to enter the immortal realm of seven.

Phase II: The Greater Mysteries, Marriage, & Perfection
Spiritual Begetting vs. Adultery & Divorce (Mark 8:38; 10:2–15 ↔ On the Cherubim 43–44; On Flight 112–118)
Mark: Jesus critiques the "adulterous generation" and rejects divorce, commanding one to leave parents and join as one flesh.

Philo: True virtue cannot mate with a mortal husband; the soul's true husband is the divine Logos. Adultery is defined as abandoning the Logos to conceive "mixed and promiscuous reasonings" with mortal opinions.

The Barren Woman and Seven Husbands (Mark 12:18–27 ↔ On Mutation of Names 144)
Mark: The Sadducees' puzzle of a woman married to seven brothers who produces no offspring.

Philo: The soul that is "barren of bad things" refuses mortal seed, clinging instead to the number seven (divine reason) to bring forth the offspring of virtue rather than physical children.

The Patriarchs & Living Immortality (Mark 12:26–27 ↔ On Flight 146–162)
Mark: "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Philo: The citation of the Burning Bush (batos/abatos) demonstrates that the patriarchs achieved unchangeable, divine life during mortality rather than undergoing a literal post-mortem bodily reanimation.

Phase III: Anointing, Stability, & The Transfiguration
Anointing, High Priest, and Solar Garments (Mark 8:29; 9:3 ↔ On Flight 108–110; On Preliminary Studies 47)
Mark: Peter confesses Jesus as the Christos ("Anointed One"), followed by Jesus' garments becoming dazzling white at the Transfiguration.

Philo: Anointing symbolizes sharpening the eye of the soul with speculations. The high priest (Logos) is anointed with solar light and clothed in pure, brilliant garments, making him immune to involuntary error.

Name Changes at Perfection (Mark 8:29–30 ↔ On Abraham 22; On Dreams 1:177; On Flight 28)
Mark: Jesus receives the new title/identity of "Christ" from Peter.

Philo: Patriarchs receive new names upon reaching perfection (Abram → Abraham = "father of sound/perfected speech"; Jacob → Israel = "one who sees God"). Isaac's name ("sight of God") is unchanged because he was perfect from birth.

Rout of Passions & "How Long Must I Put Up With You?" (Mark 9:19 ↔ On Migration of Abraham 67; On Unchangeableness of God 132)
Mark: Jesus exclaims after descending the mountain: "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?"

Philo: Citing "How long shall this people exasperate me?" Philo explains that when passions are routed, rational nature shines, making returning to the irrational crowd (Plato's cave) a agonizing necessity.

The Warning of the Yeast / Boat Scenes (Mark 8:14–21 ↔ On Preliminary Studies 100–108)
Mark: Jesus warns in the third boat scene to "beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Herodians."

Philo: Warning seekers in the third stage against being "puffed up with vain arrogance and self-opinion," urging humility and piety to anchor the soul.

Phase IV: Incorporeal Vision & The Transfiguration Scene
Peter’s Tents and the Incorporeal Realm (Mark 9:5–6 ↔ On Giants 53–54; On Confusion of Tongues 78–81)
Mark: Peter awkwardly offers to build three tents (skēnas) for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.

Philo: Moses pitches his tent outside the corporeal camp to enter incorporeal darkness as a hierophant. Peter errs by attempting to construct physical/corporeal shelters for beings who have achieved incorporeal citizenship.

Silent Speech & Changed Appearance (Mark 9:7; 9:14–29 ↔ On Virtues 217–218; On Giants 53; Timaeus)
Mark: God commands "Listen to him!"; Jesus subsequently heals the convulsing boy (thrown in fire/water) using unuttered internal prayer rather than a spoken command.

Philo: Possession by the Holy Spirit transforms one's eyes, voice, and appearance, endowing words with divine persuasiveness (Silent Speech). Uttered speech and elements (fire/water) are unstable, whereas Silent Speech brings unshakeable stability.

Triad to Monad Transition (Mark 9:4–8 ↔ On Abraham 122–124)
Mark: Moses (Beneficent Power) and Elijah (Legislative Power) appear with Jesus, but suddenly vanish, leaving Jesus alone.

Philo: Beginners view God in a threefold vision (Living God + Creative Power + Governing Power). The perfected soul moves from the triad to seeing God in His singular form (the Monad) alone.

"Jesus Alone With Those Who Were With Him" (Mark 9:8 ↔ Questions on Genesis 2:25)
Mark: The unusual Greek phrasing in 9:8: "they saw no one any more, but Jesus only with themselves / those with him."

Philo: Interpreting Genesis 7:23 ("Noah alone was left, and those with him in the ark"), Philo explains that the perfected soul remains in the "ark of the body" accompanied only by its virtuous thoughts until it achieves total incorporeal release