The Limits of Ontology: The Good and Evil in Pseudo-Dionysius

All five parts of my presentation on pseudo-Dionysian ontology can be found here: http://jeffreyskupperman.com/2014/09/18/the-limits-of-ontology-the-good-and-evil-in-pseudo-dionysius/

If I were to form a Rosicrucian Order . . .

. . . which I'm not, it might look something like this:

The order's organization would be based loosely around the formative myth within the Fama Fraternitatis, with degrees of study based on the generations, as it were, of those original Rosicrucians. So, there would be three degrees for the three generations or rows of succession, as well as an office of Custodian, representing the place of CRC. Note that three degrees is a particularly original thing. This could go further into the teachings mentioned in regard to each generation as well.

The teaching material would be based on a number of traditions brought together in the Fama and Confessio, as well as their otherwise hidden contexts. For the most part this would consist of a study of Marsilio Ficino's Neoplatonism, talismancy, theoria, and astrological medicine and laboratory and inner alchemy. Platonic political science would be important, and would include a study of Ficino's Book of the Sun and Tommaso Campanella City of the Sun, both of which were likely influential on the writing of the Fama and Confessio. A study of Trajano Bocalini's Universal Reformation, which was once included with the Fama. Pythagoreanism and sacred geometry would also be included, probably including the Pythagorean materials of Iamblichus. A study of the Ramak's kabbalah, due to its over Neoplatonic content, would also be included, as would herbalism, preferably under someone with professional training in the subject. Ficino's Neoplatonism, as it draws from Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus and Dionysius, acts nicely as the unifying force for everything concerned. A study of at least basic physics and scientific thought would also be important. And, of course, the old Rosicrucian documents should be studied in depth, both for their historical context and mystical and political teachings. This covers most, if not all, of the courses of study found in the Fama.

Everyone, of course, likes initiations. Presumably there would be one for each degree, as well as a conferring of lineage or what-have-you upon the Custodian. These would be based on the Fama, Confessio, and Chymical Wedding. All oaths would be based around the six precepts of the Fama, maybe with some of Michael Maier's Laws.

What would this look like in practice? Probably not a lot like ceremonial magical orders, though there might be some group theurgy. Much of the work would be personal and solitary but close communication between brothers and sisters would be important, with an emphasis on the fraternal nature of the Order being foremost. There would be practical, physical work, such as the laboratory alchemy and herbalism, towards the fulfillment of the primary Rosicrucian vow to cure the sick, and that gratis. There would be internal work such as contemplation and internal alchemy, and maybe something like the "Masonic qi gong" described in Sebattendorff's Secret Practices of the Sufi Freemasons. Would there be communes and such, as described in the Fama? I have no idea, though it is a romantic notion.

That, anyway, is something like what a Rosicrucian Order would would look like if I were to start one. Which I'm not.

A Hymn to Hermes

To Hermes

Incense: Frankincense

Harken, messenger of gods and

   leader of souls and songs.
Harken, you strong son of Zeus, to
   whom the gold staff belongs.

Wing-booted son of Maia, you
   harmonizer of tones.
Harken, close friend of Apollon,
   oh thrower of the stones.

Harken, Lord of the second sphere
   moving at equal pace,
Who through instantaneous thought,
   word and deed both take place.

Unequaled in heavenly wit,
   your silver tongue does charm
all foes of noeric ascent
   so fools will suffer harm.

You throw the far-seeing pebbles
   so the Moirai cannot
hold you to the question of what
   your father does allot.

Great Zeus, making you messenger,
   sends you to Aidês deep
abode. With kerykeion you
   awaken those who sleep.

So you, fleetest of gods, beloved
   by mortals and divine,
Make clean my soul and my thoughts that
   Gnosis may come to shine.

Lift my words, oh sweet, youthful Lord,
   that they be in accord
with the Mind of your father and
   place me within your ward.

Aion and Neoplatonic Psychology, Part II

In the last post we talked a little about the concept of Eternity in Iamblichus.¹ In this post we will look at the relationship between the soul and moments of Eternity.

As we talked about in the previous post, the nature of the human soul is divided; it inclines simultaneously towards the divine realm and the realm of generation, belonging in both at once. The divided essence of the human soul is both a problem and not a problem. It is a problem in that it leads to a disassociation of one part or power of the soul with the other. This, in turn, limits, and potentially perverts, the activity of the soul while incarnate. It is not a problem in that the division cannot, and is not meant to be, fixed. To be a mean between the divine realm and the realm of generation is part of the human soul's very essence and nature. Changing this would make the soul no longer human. In the ontological hierarchy of Neoplatonism, this is impossible: a thing is always that which it is, even if it doesn't always remember what its nature.

It is this forgetting of the nature of the human soul, as described in the allegory of the Chariot in Plato's Phaedrus (246a - 254e), that is the real problem. Because the human soul, almost uniquely of all divine beings, forgets itself, looses track of it's essence as it were, a solution to this problem, not that of a divided essence, is necessary  From the perspective of Iamblichus and the later Neoplatonists, the solution to this problem is the engagement of philosophy and theurgy. But what we am interested in here is the underlying process that these practices set in motion, and that is what will lead to the three moments of Aionic time.

Briefly, the three Aionic moments are the "unparticipated," the "participated" and the "in participation." Sets of three are very common in Platonism, and especially in Neoplatonism. For instance, Iamblichus said there were three kinds of human souls, those who entered generation for the sake of saving other souls, those that are dragged into generation by their daimons for punishment and purification, and a mean that is somewhat purified but still is forced into generation rather than going entirely on their own. Of these three, is it only the first, represented by the theurgic sage, that has mastery over all three moments of its soul. The theurgic sage knows him or herself as they really are in the unparticipated moment of their soul. The rest of us are not so fortunate.

In a manner of speaking, we may say that our own soul exists to us through the three moments. This is because, having forgotten ourselves, our soul is, in effect, an external being. This is why we can speak of the three moments in relation to our own soul. For the theurgic sage this is irrelevant, the soul and incarnated personality are one,² the soul does not appear external to the sage and the idea of participating in one's own soul is effectively as ridiculous to the sage as it seems like it should be. But for those of us who are not one with our souls, things seem very different. Being divided, and unaware of our other half, we, in effect, must participate in our own souls.

At best, however, many people, perhaps the majority of people, do not participate in their souls at all but are instead completely ignorant of them. Know thyself! However, we can, through a philosophical life, and theurgic practice, change this. Through this kind of practice we can begin to know our souls, and this is how we can move from ignorance of our own true natures to begin to participate in our own souls.

The beginning of this is to know our souls at the level of "in participation." At this moment the soul begins to manifest itself through us. There are degrees to us, dependent upon how much we have assimilated ourselves to what we really our, i.e. our soul. At this moment, however, our knowledge of our soul comes through its activity as we experience it in the world. It is a kind of second-hand knowledge, requiring discursive reasoning to understand, which is to say we there is no gnosis of the soul in this moment.

The second moment is that of the participated soul. Here we begin to experience our souls not as they are in and of themselves but as they may be known by ontologically posterior entities. This moment is not an experience of the soul qua the soul. Instead it is as though we have come to know the soul as we may come to know other people. We have a relationship with the soul, and knowledge of the soul, that is more than experiencing its activity in the world. But just as any knowledge we have of another person is always limited and distorted, so too is our knowledge of our souls at this moment. We have an image of the soul, but not the soul itself.

The final moment is that of the unparticipated soul. At this moment we have assimilated ourselves to our true natures to such an extent that real gnosis of the soul occurs. Gnosis is not discursive reasoning; one does not need to think and put together information. Gnosis is the intuitive knowledge of the subject. The theurgic sage at the unparticipated moment of their soul is their soul. At this point the language of division, of speaking of the sage and the soul, is for our convenience. The sage has no need of it for the sage is the fullness of their soul and from this perspective the other moments collapse upon themselves and are gone. The second and third moment are for ontologically prior entities, beings that must participate in a superior being for what it lacks. The theurgic sage, as rare as they are, lacks nothing of their own soul.

-------------------
1] The corollary of Transcendent Time found in the psychic realm, which orders mundane time in the realm of generation, is quite interesting, and worth exploring, but will not be an important part of this post.

2] Maybe. It is possible that the soul forgets itself to a certain extent with each incarnation. However, due to the purity of the soul, and guidance from its daimon, the soul of a theurgic sage may easily remember itself during each incarnation.

Aion and Neoplatonic Psychology Pt I.

The later Neoplatonists began discussing time in a fairly unique and important way. In his commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Iamblichus connects the intellectual triad of Being, Life, and Mind with three "moments" connected to Aion, Eternity, the pre-essential Demiurgos. These moments have nothing to do with temporal time as Aristotle understands it in the Physics, i.e. "movement in respect of the before and after: (Physics, IV.11s), or movement in time. While this may hold true for the realm of generation, neither the noetic/noeric (intelligible/intellective) nor psychic (soul) levels of reality function this way. Common time, which relies on both physical space and movement, is not at all present above the physical realm.

The three moments of the noetic realm deals not with chronological order, but ontological order. For example, the noetic realm, or a being of the noetic realm, such as one of the gods, exists in and of itself. This is the entity's "unparticipated" aspect. The second moment is the "participated" aspect, or how an entity is engaged in by an ontologically posterior entity. In other words, how we might encounter and interact with a god or archangel. Finally, there is the aspect that is "in participation." This is how a ontologically prior reality or entity is manifested in or through an ontologically inferior entity. That is to say, this is a god, angel, daimon, etc. as we participate in it and bring it through into the world. Importantly, it appears that these three moments can be extended, after a fashion, to the realm of the One or God and to the psychic realm.

The idea of participation is very important. Either an entity, such as a human soul, has some quality in full or it lacks it. A quality in full is completely known and understood. One does not have to think about this quality or element of knowledge, it is simply there. To the degree that a quality is lacking, an entity must participate in a superior being that embodies that quality. For instance, according to the later Neoplatonists, the human soul comes, ultimately, from the Whole Soul, which is below the level of the Divine Mind. This means human souls do not have the divine mind in full and must instead participate in it.

So, what does this have to do with psychology? You may recall the famous inscription over the entrance to the Oracle at Delphi: Know Thyself. The seemingly simple command is deceptive in its simplicity. For a god or angel this is a simple matter, for the essence of a god or angle is single. However, according to the later Neoplatonists, this is not true of humanity for we alone of all the entities in the great Chain of Being, have a dual essence: one inclining towards our divine nature, one inclining towards generation. This division, which leads us to incarnation over and over again, makes knowing ourselves extraordinarily difficult.

In part II, we will look at how the three moments of Aion are related to this divine command.

On the Mystical Expeirence

Iamblichus, in his discussion of theurgy in De Mysteriis, talks about three different kinds of theurgic practice, each fitting for different kinds of people. The first level is the physical theurgy, or theurgic rituals using physical symbols for an anagogic purpose. The third level is non-physical theurgy, the theuryg of silence, that uses nothing physical as its purpose to contact the hypercosmic gods or divine thoughts. There is, of course, a median, one that combines, in varying ways, material and non-material theurgy and works as a transition from the lowest level to the highest. There is, I think, a direct connection between these modes of theurgic praxis and mysticism.

Typically, when one thinks of a "mystical experience," we think of the epiphanal moment. The blinding flash of light that changes everything. A review of the lives of various mystics demonstrates that such things do happen, but that they are also not what defines their lives or experiences as mystics. I suggest that, much as there are three modes of theurgic practice, there are three modes of mystical experience. Further, just as each mode has its proper time and place, so do the varieties of mystical experience. Finally, I suggest that each mode/experience is of equal importance within the context they occur.

One of the difficulties of discussing mystical experiences is the language which we use. English, for example, is an excellent quantitative language. It is somewhat horrific when it comes to the qualitative. The use of the word "experience" is an example. Part of what I will discuss as a "mystical experience" will bare almost no relation to what is commonly understood by an "experience." It is simply the only word I have to use.

The first kind of mystical experience correlates well to material theurgy. We might even call it "material mysticism," but that sounds less than poetic, so how about everyday mysticism? Or, if we want to engage a little more in a mystical style of language, "mundane mysticism," which is nicely contradictory. In De Mysteriis, Iamblichus discusses what are called symbolon (symbols), sunthemata (tokens or signatures), and a host of other things. These signatures are imprinted directly into physical reality by the gods and Demiurgos so that we may use them to go back to the gods and, ultimately, the One. The tokens are the means through which theurgy work because the tokens are objective divine symbols, not subjective human symbols. And they are everywhere and we can learn to see them and understand them for what they are. Through this way of thinking about the cosmos we can bring ourselves closer to the purposes of creation and the forces that are behind it, which is, ultimately, God. It is the beginning of the theurgy and demiurgy. But it is physical and so, though based on non-physical, divine and objective reality, subject to our subjective experiences and discursive reasoning. So, mundane mysticism is both objective and subjective, just as material theurgy is, as it a human performance of divine rites.

What is most interesting about mundane mysticism is that, first, it is learnable. We can learn to see the divine signatures and engage in them as diving signatures, not simply natural or scriptural phenomena. Second, an ephiphanal experience is not necessary to do this. Finally, reading the autobiographies of mystics suggests they spend most of their time in this objective/subjective mode. This mode is spiral in form. It is circular in that the mundane mystical experience informs the everyday life of the mystic, but is also informed by that everyday life. They are dependent upon one another. But this mode is not simply circular. The continued mundane mystical experience moves our interpretation and lives not so much forward as upward, closer to the divine. Our interpretations refine the experience and the experience enriches the interpretation and the spirit is moved.

The third mode (I'll keep to traditional Iamblichean writing style here and discuss the extremes before the median) is more difficult. It does not consist of an experience, per se, because experiences require bodies and minds and thoughts and this mode goes beyond that. It is henosis, union with the divine. The divine, however, at least within Neoplatonism, and within classical Gnosticism, exists beyond the level of Nous, Intellect (please insert here a lengthy discussion on the intelligible triad of Being/Life/Intellect common to Neoplatonism and at least Sethian Gnosticism that is otherwise off topic). By Nous I mean the divine mind or intellect, which is the lowest part of the mental world. Above it are the Platonic forms, the gods (or Aeons in Gnostic terminology), the pre-essential Demiurgos (in the Neoplatonic sense) and then the Good/One (i.e., God).

Henosis is a hyper-intellectual "experience." Yes, there's that word, "experience." Henosis isn't experience, per se, as it exists beyond the thing we usually mean when we talk about having those experiences. Henosis occurs beyond the soul (which is a product of Nous) and beyond even the divine intellect, occurring at the level of divine ideas . . . which is a little strange. How do ideas exist prior to the mind? Plato held that the contents of the mind pre-exist the thinking of them: our minds are not blank slates and learning is in fact remembering (this took me some time to understand, as Plato says the second part but doesn't really directly say the first). This level of the noetic realm reflects that ideology. The divine thoughts, the gods or Aeons, exist before the mind that experiences them. When henosis occurs it does so outside of time and space and material reality and, ultimately, we, the subjective human creature, may be entirely unaware of it occurring.*

The second kind of mystical experience is perhaps closer to what we generally think of when we hear the word "mysticism." This is the ecstatic moment, the ephiphany, the ah ha! But remember, this is a median mode. This is what we might call theosis, becoming god-like. Neoplatonically, we might say this level corresponds to a kind of union with the material gods, symbolized by the seven classical planets, but existing far beyond them. It can even include the soul's union with its source, Nous and a glimpsing of the the noetic realm or pleroma. It is a combination of gnosis on the one hand, and an dealing with that gnosis in the phsycial realm on the other. Gnosis might be liked to a complete, intuitive knowing. Gnosis, like henosis has its origins beyond the intellect. It does not require thought or discursive reasoning. It is simply knowing. But because it is experiential, because the conscious human being in a material body can have gnosis, maybe we should think of gnosis as a byproduct of henosis or its experiential component that falls to the level of Intellect, if not intellect.

But gnosis must be put into context. By "must" I mean we, as discursive creatures, do this, do it automatically and without necessarily realizing we are doing so (which, admittedly, is a poor use of one's discursive ability, a give from the Demiurgos, but that's a different post). We employ our moments of gnosis in practical and material ways. Our life experiences put help us put it in context and so make it "useful." When we read the writings of a mystic, even something like the difficult poetry of Rumi, this is what we're reading. It is an attempt to keep the gnosis as gnosis-like as possible while simultaneously attempting to come to terms with that gnosis in a way that makes sense. It is an attempt to understand the Universal in the mode of the particular.

Though the highest* form of mystical experience or mode of theurgy is the rarest, in some ways the median level is the most difficult. The highest mode is utterly ineffable. Not only is there no need to discuss it, there is no way to discuss it. But the median mode is with us, it is extreme, ecstatic and not only can be dealt with, it must be. This experience changes our lives even while being informed by our lives. By placing it in the genre of the particular the universal becomes understandable. But how the Universal comes to be understood is at least somewhat dependent upon who we are, where we live, how we grew up, i.e. our personal background. In order to mitigate this some mystical schools develop teachings to make sure everything moves in, what is for them, the right direction. Sufism created the doctrine of makamat, "spiritual stations," for this reason.

The key to surviving this, in my own humble estimation, is recourse to mundane mysticism, the most basic form of mystical endeavor, and so the foundation of an overall mystical praxis. And this is precisely what mystics in the past appear to have done.


---
*I fully understand that I am presenting mysticism and mystical modes in a very particular, largely Western, chronology, suggesting an ontological superiority of henosis over gnosis over mundane mysticism. I also fully understand that this reflect my personal experiences and Western, Neoplatonic and Kabbalistic background and is not meant to reflect a Truth or a Zaehnerian approach to mysticism.

On Initiation. Again. Also, on Worlds and Such.

This subject seems to come up a lot. One might begin to think it's important or something. I won't go into the "initiation means 'beginning'" thing again (wait, I just did, never mind). Instead I want to look at the idea of various spiritual worlds and their relationship, if any, to esoteric initiation. The general reference here is this blog post: http://gyllenegryningen.blogspot.com/2010/04/o-there-has-been-interesting-discussion.html. To be clear, the following should not be construed as a reply to this, even though I may touch on some subjects that are also in the above post. The following should also not be construed as entering into a dialogue about what theory of initiation is correct, a discussion I am supremely disinterested in. Rather, this was simply brought to my attention lately and I felt like posting something on the subject.

We good? Good.

I am attempting to look at the initiatory process from two related but different perspectives, that of Neoplatonism and that of a five-world kabbalistic model.

Typically, Neoplatonism, following Plato and especially, but not only, the Republic, divides reality into three levels. These are the world of images, the world of reason and the world of forms, which are coupled with the sub-lunar realm, the celestial realm and the super-celestial realm (and yes, there are more terms, like encosmic and hypercosmic worlds, etc., but they all refer to the same thing). We live down here in the world of images. Much as a photograph of a person is not the same as the person, that which we experience in the world of images is but a shadow of the true reality emanating from the world of forms. The next world up is the place of necessities (like a triangle having three sides, regardless of there ever having been a physical triangle) and the world upon which everything below is based. That's the short version, anyway.

R. Yitzchak Luria developed a five-world model of creation in his kabbalah (which was derived from the somewhat more common four-world model). The worlds are those of Asyiah (Action), Yetzirah (Formation), Beriah (Creation), Atzilut (Nearness or Emanation) and Adam Kodmon (The Ancient/Holy Human). For Luria, creation actually occurs below Asyiah, surrounded by the remnants of the Breaking of the Vessels, at least sometimes. BotV is an important concept in Lurianic and post-Lurianic kabbalah. Derived from the Zohar, this idea says that while emanating something went wrong and the vessels made to hold the divine essence shattered. Interestingly, everything below Atzilut (and sometimes even Atzilut itself) fell when this happened, each world sinking down a metaphysical level, with the exception of Adam Kodmon (and maybe Atzilut, or the supernal part of Atzilut).

Now, though kabbalah has, repeatedly, been demonstrated to have significant roots in Neoplatonism, and while there are similarities between the three NP worlds and the five kabbalistic worlds, they aren't exactly the same. At best one might make the following connections:

World of Forms - Olam Adam Kodmon/Olam Atzilut
World of Reason - Olam Beriah
World of Images - Olam Yetzirah/Olam Asyiah (and creation below)

So, the question, apparently, is how does, or at least how can, esoteric initiation link into these?

The short answer is "In a lot of different ways." I'm not interested in the "which is the 'right' way?" discussion, remember? Here are simply some of my ill formed thoughts on some ways in which this might work.

Iamblichus, in his De Mysterii talks about three different kinds of people: those whose theurgy must function on the physical level, those whose theurgy is silent and purely nonphysical and those in between. This is a mobile hierarchy; though there are (A LOT) more people on the bottom (physical theurgy) than the top (nonphysical theurgy), over time (as in over lifetimes, classical Neoplatonism was pro-reincarnation) and continued theurgic praxis, one would spiritually advance from one level to another. The implication is that each kind of theurgic practice is associated with one of three Platonic worlds. Iamblichus also posits that there are three Demiurgoi, one for each world. As theurgy is demiurgery, this makes perfect sense.

In Lurianic and post-Lurianic kabbalah the five-world model becomes greatly expanded. Ideology behind each of the five kabbalistic souls (nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chiah and yechidah) become enlarged. Originally they were connected to either specific sefirot or specific worlds, now they are connected to both: each world has its specific soul and each soul is divided into five parts. So, Olam Asyiah contains the nefesh and the nefesh is composed of a nefesh of nefesh, a ruach of nefesh, a neshamah of nefesh, a chiah of nefesh and a yechidah of nefesh. This continues on up the Tree of Life through to a yechidah of yechidah. Everyone starts out at the same place, with none of the above (in Lurianic kabbalah, other kabbalists would say we start with a nefesh and nothing else). We must earn each level of the soul through correct conduct and, presumably, through practices such as hitbodedut. Before a ruach can be acquired the complete nefesh must be attained and perfected.

As you might imagine, there are more people on the bottom of this mobile hierarchy than the top. Further, some of these souls are considered to be embedded in us, as it were, while the chiah and yechidah were never part of incarnation, shining down upon us and influencing us indirectly, as it were, and are not directly accessible via normal human consciousness. Sound familiar?

Transferring this ideology to an initiatory scheme provides us with some interesting ideas, I think. First, it suggests that as initiation rituals are rituals they largely function on the first Neoplatonic level, corresponding to Asyiah and Yetzirah. Initiation rituals, like all rituals, are massively multi-sensual experiences. There are smells and sounds and colors and shapes and tastes and touches all put together in various ways to have various affects on the candidate. There are invisible things as well, working on the etheric and astral levels (both of which would be part of the world of images), designed for the higher senses to partake of.

So, which world do they work on? That is going to depend on the ritual. Presumably, initial initiation rituals, those that bring a person into an a group or an "outer order" (or equivalent) would function largely on the level of Asyiah. A soul cannot progress to the ruach until it has completed the nefesh. So the real question might be when does a an initiatory schema move from one level to the next (this appears to be one of the main topics discussed in the above blog post)? This is an excellent question and one which I cannot answer for any other system of initiation. The point is that it is theoretically possible for a system of initiations to move from one level to the next.

Is it likely? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. The work of building the nefesh alone is the world of a life time. Further, a person on level one cannot, even through the might and majesty of initiation, raise someone to a level higher than themselves. Such a person would have no recourse to said higher level, but they could help raise someone to the same level as they are. This is one why Adepts perform initiations and Novices don't. It is, I suppose, possible for an Adept to be functioning at the level of ruach. In fact, I imagine that a fully trained Adept should be functioning at that level. So, theoretically, an initiation to Adept level by qualified adepts could help accomplish this. Maybe. Here's what I see happening:

An Adept may very well be functioning at the level of the ruach. Just. That "just" part is important. It implies that the fully functioning Adept (henceforth simply the Adept, the rest is a finger-full!) has mastery over the nefesh and the level of reality associated with it's demiurgos. Such a person can initiate into that world; they are it's master (theurgically speaking). But could they initiate into the next level, one of which they are only a novice (nefesh of ruach)? I don't think so; their mastery of that level is lacking.


The initiatory job of the Adept is to help raise candidates through the levels of the nefesh. Initiation doesn't do that alone, of course; there is a substantial amount of Work on the candidate's part involved. The pinnacle of the initiatory system is not, however, some super-evolved soul. You are not going to be functioning on the level of the neshamah through initiation, sorry. That's on a level that requires more than functioning on the world of images, remember? Chiah or yechidah? Straight out. Rather, the pinnacle is getting the Adept working on the level of the ruach and letting the ruach and it's associated daimon guide the Adept from there. Initiation brings them through the lowest level and their own work takes them through the cusp to the next.

Those, at any rate, are my thoughts on the subject.

Wherein I talk about doing stuff

Last night I "participated" (read: hardly said a thing) in a Gnostic skype conference call that some of you reading this may have also participated in. We talked about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which, as it turns out, may or may not actually have been written by Gnostics. As you probably know, I'm neither a Christian nor a Gnostic, but a second cousin twice removed, a kabbalist and a Neoplatonist (it's up for grabs which of those should be listed first). That isn't entirely relevant, except perhaps an excuse as to why I seemed to approach the text as a relative outsider to it, because I am.

If you're not familiar with the Gospel, a translation can be found here (thanks to the conference call coordinator for the link): http://www.maryofmagdala.com/GMary_Text/gmary_text.html

At any rate, there were a few things that really interested me in this Gospel. First, there is some interesting political infighting it seems, between Peter and Mary/Levi. We see this sort of thing in other Gospels. For instance Kelber suggests Mark has a current of anti-Jerusalem Church (i.e. Jewish Christian Church) polemics in it. It was pointed out that the inter-community bickering in Mary is a little different, the disciples themselves are doing the fighting here. I point this out only because we often forget that our scriptures, though derived through divine inspiration, are certainly also products of humanity.


Second, there is a brief segment, surrounded by missing pieces, that mentions soul, mind and spirit. This is a very interesting, likely Platonic use of the terminology. The Gospel, through the mouth of Christ, tells us that visions are seen not my the soul but the mind. The Platonic mind, the Nous, is not the mind as we think of it today. The Nous, analogous to the Neoplatonic Demiurgos (but not the Gnostic Demiurgos), exists far beyond our conscious, rational, dialectical mind. That it is the mind that experiences the visions, not the soul, tells us something about the role of these logoi in the spiritual community of the Gospel's author, as well as the spiritual level whereupon Christ may be found.

Finally, there is a section, of which several pages are missing, that appears to describe the soul's spiritual ascent through . . . somewhere. In this description the soul encounters opposition; Desire, Ignorance and the seven forms of Wrath. The soul must overcome each opponent before ascending further. I was instantly reminded of Jewish merkavah mysticism, which would have predated the gospel but still existed while it was in circulation. More than this, though, I recalled the scholarship of Moshe Idel on ecstatic kabbalah and William Harmless on Christian mysticism. Both discuss how descriptions like these do not exist solely as theosophical texts; which is to say they are not simply descriptions of theological or philosophical constructs. Instead they typically represent the product of what we'd call mystical experiences. I.e. they are not just about talking, they are about doing.

It was brought up (not by me, by our esteemed coordinator) that the older Greek version of the MS (late 1st century or early 2nd century) is somewhat different from the later Coptic edition (5th or 6th century). The Coptic version puts the visions in the voice of Christ; it was he who described the experiences of the soul. The older version, however, gave Mary the experiences. Now, there are several possible reasons for the differences. I think that one of them is perhaps a change in Christianity between the 1st and 5th centuries. Not regarding the role of women (though that too probably happened to some extent) but the role of the practitioner in general. To me, and this is entirely speculation on my part, the differences in the texts demonstrates a difference in attitude as to who is capable of these experiences. The older text seems to tell us that you can (read: should) have these experiences. That having these visions, first of the ascending soul, then the Mind's beholding of Christ (in the context of the Gospel, your mileage may vary). But the important thing is to go out and do it, that living the spiritual life is living an active spiritual life, not a passive one. It suggests that we can sit and wait for revelation all we want, but, as per the kabbalistic axiom, action below stimulates action above.

Oh, and there's some interesting stuff on sin, and how it only seems to exist when we do it, but not in and of itself (sin is not ontological?).

Anyway, those are my muddle thoughts on last night's discussion. I think next time we'll be discussing part of the Gospel of Thomas.

Invocation

Iablichus of Chalcis on theurgic invocation:

But not even in the case of the invocations is it through the experiencing of passion that they link the priests to the gods; it is rather in virtue of the divine love which holds together all things that they provide a union of indissoluble involvement - not, as the name seems immediately to imply, inclining the mind of the gods to humans, but rather, as the truth of things itself desires to teach us, disposing the human mind to participation in the gods, leading it up to the gods and bringing it into accord with them through harmonious persuasion. And it is for this reason, indeed, that the sacred names of the gods and the other types of divine symbol that have the capacity of raising us up to the gods are enabled to link us to them.

From De Mysteriis; trans by Emma C. Clark, John M. Dillion and Jackson P. Hershbell.