The theme of _henosis_ is central in Dionysius' doctrine. The originality of the present study consist in the analysing Dionysius' trinitarian theology and in revealing the structure of _De Divinis Nominibus_ in a movement of procession-conversion from the Union to the One. The author subsequently focuses on _De Mystica Theologia_, comparing the ascension of Moses with the treatises _De Vita Mosis_ and showing how the rising of the negative theology ends in the _unio mystica_.

Plotinus' mysticism of henosis, <I>unification with the One, is a highly controversial topic in Plotinian scholarship. This book presents a careful reading of the Enneads and suggests that Plotinus' mysticism be understood as mystical teaching that offers practical guidance concerning henosis. It is further argued that a rational interpretation thereof should be based on Plotinus' metaphysics, according to which the One transcends all beings but is immanent in them. The main thesis of this book is that Plotinus' mystical (...) teaching does not help man attain henosis on his own, but serves to remind man that he fails to attain henosis because it already pertains to his original condition. Plotinus' mysticism seeks to change man's misconception about henosis, rather than his finite nature. (shrink)

Destine a un large public, a tous ceux qui s'interessent a l'histoire de la pensee en general, ce livre tente de faire ressortir la specificite de la pensee de Plotin. Nous avons poursuivi un but unique, marquer la place de la reflexion plotinienne dans l'histoire des idees et dans le developpement de la pensee grecque. Differentes facettes de sa philosophie ne sont etudiees et analysees qu'autant qu'elles servent cette fin. Sans connaitre le detail de son systeme, le lecteur aura une (...) idee de ce que Plotin a rendu possible, de ce qu'il a apporte a l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce texte est augmentee de l'article Henosis et Ereignis: Remarques sur une interpretation heideggerienne de l'un plotinien. (shrink)

Este artículo se propone establecer un nuevo paradigma común entre la filosofía neoplatónica de época imperial y la filosofía vedántica a partir de los conceptos de theios aner y jivanmukta. Partiendo de un breve recorrido por algunas de las manifestaciones de la doctrina brahmánica en la Roma de los siglos II y III d. C., canalizadas por un sincretismo teocéntrico, el análisis se dividirá en dos grandes bloques: (1) La descripción del sustrato metafísico común a ambos términos, basado en la (...) idea de la unión (hénosis) y la reconciliación intuitiva del alma y el absoluto a partir del autoconocimiento y (2) La descripción del sustrato moral, basado en el ejercicio de una catártica contemplativa. Así mismo, se plantean algunas dificultades relativas al papel soteriológico del sabio liberado y su relación con las dos grandes corrientes del neoplatonismo imperial. (shrink)

En este artículo, nos proponemos considerar el modo en el cual el alma individual es capaz de recorrer el camino al que Proclo invita según su ciencia teológica sobre la base de los diálogos de Platón y en polémica con la tradición que integra, tomando por caso la figura de Plotino. Para ello, analizaremos, en primer lugar, el carácter múltiple y uno del alma entendida en términos generales al interior de su esquema metafísico según algunos pasajes del capítulo 6 del (...) libro III de la Teología Platónica y algunas proposiciones pertinentes de los Elementos de Teología; en segundo lugar, el caso de la tripartición del alma individual que Proclo defiende en la Disertación VII del Comentario a la República; y, finalmente, intentaremos vincular esta concepción unimúltiple del alma con la afirmación de que ella posee la capacidad de alcanzar la hénosis. (shrink)

This essay will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the dynamic unity of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (John 10:38, 14:10, 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, but also Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The essay will outline, in ‘Middle Platonism’, (...) the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism, Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasised the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even use Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen even interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the dynamic unity (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. (shrink)

Within the Neoplatonic tradition, the absolute transcendence of the First Principle—the One-Good, from which the whole reality in its various articulations derives—plays a crucial role. This philosophical perspective implies, particularly in Plotinus and Proclus, some fundamental philosophical consequences, above all the transcendence of the Principle with respect to being and thought as well. This necessarily implies that the One-Good must be conceived of as beyond the intelligible Beauty itself. In this paper I aim to examine the theoretical implications and consequences (...) of this perspective with specific reference to the conception of God’s absolute transcendence outlined within two texts of the Corpus Areopagiticum, overall characterized by the reworking of some fundamental Neoplatonic concepts in the context of Christian theology: the De divinis nominibus and the De mystica theologia. Indeed, in the De divinis nominibus it is shown that the names/predicates attributed to God in the Sacred Scriptures must be understood only in an allegorical-symbolic meaning, because God is above any possible definition. Not even the character of Beauty can be attributed to him, since he radically transcends it: in fact, God constitutes the absolute foundation and the very first source of Beauty itself. Therefore, God must be understood as ἀκαλλής, that is, “devoid of the connotation of Beauty”, precisely because he completely transcends it. In line with this theological and theoretical perspective, in the De mystica theologia a form of radical and absolute apophatism is developed, which in turn must ultimately lead to its own overcoming for the sake of the henosis, the mystical union with God. (shrink)

The Divine Names explores the different names and metaphoric expressions used in the Bible to refer to God. Dionysius the Areopagite is known as an exponent of positive theology, in the sense that he offers an argumentative and explicit account of the nature of God, relying on the Scripture as a source of knowledge and truth, in contrast to the declared inability of apophatic or negative theology to communicate any knowledge of the divine. Indeed, the Areopagite resorts to the study (...) of biblical terms and to the coinage of hapax, neologisms often derived of known terms with added privative prefixes, in order to refer in some way to the sacred. Our research aims at showing that, for Dionysius, the purpose of pursuing the knowledge of God is not only to grasp the order of the different spheres of existence—present across the Corpus Dionysiacum—but also to connect with Him in hénosis, a living experience of permanent tension towards the Supreme. By focusing in the study of the names of God through exegesis, this paper aims at clarifying eutony, a constant tension towards God, as the central theme of the Byzantine theologian’s thought. (shrink)

Although recent scholarship has begun to clarify Porphyry’s position on the first principle in its distinction from that of Plotinus we must be careful not to gloss over the crucial ramifications of Porphyry’s developments. The Plotinian One is beyond Being, and thus beyond all relation and difference. In his attempt to understand how such a principle can be productive of all else that follows from it, Porphyry considers the Plotinian One in both its transcendent and creative aspects, introducing the notions (...) of difference and self-relation within the One itself. Porphyry’s modifications of Plotinus’s doctrine, however, result in a first principle having a character utterly distinct from what Plotinus envisioned, and from what I believe Plotinus would have accepted. Because Porphyry’s first principle is relational, it loses its decisive Plotinian character as absolutely transcendent. This distinction between the first principles of Porphyry and Plotinus has important ramifications for each of their philosophical itineraria, and further strengthens the status of Plotinus within the Neoplatonic tradition. Plotinus is a unique thinker within the Neoplatonic tradition, and we must be careful not to equate Neoplatonism with Plotinus, when in fact, it is Plotinus who against both his own predecessors and successors often stands alone. (shrink)