Neoplatonist gang

the One = nirvana? is nirvana the cause of everything existing? did the forms and archeptypes of the material proceed from its nous? comparing these two is really a stretch

nirvana is the unconditioned

samsara is and is become. samsara is nirvana, becoming. does that make sense? there is only one ultimate reality, and infinite many filters. those filters are becoming, samsara, soul, etc. the one reality is the only thing that's ever existed: the One

I actually really enjoyed Sallustius' 'On the Gods and the World'

It's concise, gives the major points and leaves a solid impression. I was especially impressed with his opinions on prayer and worship of the Gods when they remain absolutely unchanged no matter how you act. Highly recommended if you don't want to fuck wit Proclus' monument of wackiness or the enneads....like me

I don't think plotinus believes that everything besides the One is delusion

Of course it's real. of course the buddha would say samsara is real, it's just that relative to the one, absolute reality, it is delusion, and I'm sure Plotinus would say the Intellect and Soul are still just diluted forms of the One's transcendent reality, which they are

Greetings, brethren in the One! Let us celebrate that One which is above all essence and all energy, shinning occultly above every possible conception.

Let us proclaim true philosophy to be the one by means of which we can perfect ourselves and attain to the gods with an intellectual vision, and everything else as mere sophistry. And let us celebrate the golden chain of philosophers that first expounded to us this wisdom, with Plato as their leader.

Feed not the troll, lest he should become bolder (but not wiser).

We should have sects like Christinianity to steer things up. There's too much agreement in Platonism, not much polemic.

With Mahayana Buddhism, possibly. But I think Neoplatonism is more compatible with Hinduism.

how do you guys feel about theurgy

m8

not my kind of stuff, im into plotinus, not proclus and else, i prefer quietism, i sit down, and wait for the One to come

Yeah but what about the sacred myths? Is the tale of the Iliad, holiest of stories from distant past, nothing to you impious philosophers? Or the divinely inspired words of Hesiod?

None deny their ancient claim of divinity, except the Christians,that confused and wicked sect, so where is this 'one' who reigns above mighty Zeus in the divine works? Do you cast doubt on the knowledge of the muses, and claim that Plato has knowledge a magical being lacks?

Plato was an impious wretch and his students poor, bearded, pretender Hellenes. Such foolhardy impiety is why the Gods have forsaken us.

>"Philosophy," says Hierocles,† "is the purification and perfection of human life. It is the purification, indeed, from material irrationality, and the mortal body; but the perfection, in consequence of being the resumption of our proper felicity, and a reascent to the divine likeness. To effect these two is the province of Virtue and Truth; the former exterminating the immoderation of the passions; and the latter introducing the divine form to those who are naturally adapted to its reception."

Obligatory introduction to the philosophy of Plato (that turns out to be an introduction to Neoplatonism, but for him there's no difference) by the British scholar and translator of Plato, Thomas Taylor:

prometheustrust.co.uk/Thomas_Taylors_intro_to_Plato.pdf

...

Behold a nave.

Hey guys, friendly reminder: evening Plato knew he learned from Moses.

Peace.

So Moses taught heresy to Plato ?

are y'all into pierre grimes

lol are you kidding? Plato was against Homer precisely because Homer was a break with the traditions of the ancient past. Plato was a hardcore traditionalist that wanted to go back to the older esoteric Egyptian teachings and ways of thinking which could be found transmitted in various forms like in Pythagoreanism or whatever

I don't this he knew Moses, but he wouldn't neglect his wisdom if he had knew his books, for they contain the science concerning the demiurge or fabricator of the universe, which he got, possibly, from the Egyptians.

I don't think*

I believe the argument was that all the true wisdom was from Moses, and the rest was his heathen superstition

I would love to experiment with theurgy, but the truth is we just don't know how they did.

Of course he would say that, but anyone aligning himself worth a hippie like pythagoras shouldn't be valued

Plato would without a doubt enjoy studying the books of Moses if he had had access to them, for Socrates says in the Phaedo:

>“Then one day I heard a man reading from a book, as he said, by Anaxagoras, that it is the mind (= Nous) that arranges and causes all things
>if he made those things clear to me, I would no longer yearn for any other kind of cause.
But
>“My glorious hope, my friend, was quickly snatched away from me. As I went on with my reading I saw that the man made no use of intelligence (Nous)... and did not assign any real causes for the ordering of things, but mentioned as causes air and ether and water and many other absurdities.
And now for the relevant part
>Now I would gladly be the pupil of anyone who would teach me the nature of such a cause; but since that was denied me and I was not able to discover it myself or to learn of it from anyone else,

He then proceeds to say
>“since I had given up investigating realities, I decided that I must be careful not to suffer the misfortune which happens to people who look at the sun and watch it during an eclipse. For some of them ruin their eyes unless they look at its image in water [99e] or something of the sort. I thought of that danger, and I was afraid my soul would be blinded if I looked at things with my eyes and tried to grasp them with any of my senses. So I thought I must have recourse to conceptions and examine in them the truth of realities.
Plato is here saying that whosoever would try to look directly at the ultimate reality is at risk of damaging his sight, so he must look at the ultimate reality in images (conceptions).

Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:
>For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

>Paul's usage is in keeping with rabbinic use of the term אספקלריה (aspaklaria), a borrowing from the Latin specularia. This has the same ambiguous meaning, although Adam Clarke concluded that it was a reference to specularibus lapidibus, clear polished stones used as lenses or windows.[6] One way to preserve this ambiguity is to use the English cognate, speculum.[7]
>Rabbi Judah ben Ilai (2nd century) was quoted as saying "All the prophets had a vision of God as He appeared through nine specula" while "Moses saw God through one speculum."[8]
>The Babylonian Talmud states similarly "All the prophets gazed through a speculum that does not shine, while Moses our teacher gazed through a speculum that shines."[9]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13#.22Through_a_glass.2C_darkly.22

In conclusion both Moses and Plato beheld God through specula or mirrors, the one by means of philosophy, the other, of revelation. (Read Eric Voegelin for an interesting discussion on the relationship between philosophy and revelation in the western tradition.)