Mysticism in the Enneads
Mysticism in the Enneads of Plotinus
Chapters on mysticism[edit | edit source]
- See also: Großschrift
Chapters on mysticism as listed in Mazur (2021), with chapter and treatise descriptions from Gerson (2018):
- 1.6: On Beauty. Chapters 7, 9.
- Chapter 7. The ascent to the Good.
- Chapter 9. The development of interior sight through the practice of virtue.
- 3.8: On Nature, Contemplation, and the One. Chapters 9, (10).
- Chapter 9. Intellect is not the first. The One, the Good, is beyond it. We can have access even to this.
- Chapter 10. The One is not everything but is the productive power and source of everything.
- 4.8: On the Descent of Souls into Bodies. Chapter 1.
- Chapters 1–2. Beginning with a vivid ‘autobiographical’ passage, Plotinus turns to an enquiry into the role of soul in general in the physical world. Following a survey of the opinions of the early ‘sages’, such as Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Pythagoras, the question is raised as to the true position of Plato, who seems to present conflicting views.
- 5.3,5,8
- 5.3: On the Knowing Hypostasis and on That Which Is Transcendent. Chapter 17.
- Chapter 17. The relative self-sufficiency of Intellect. The ascent of the embodied individual to the One or Good.
- 5.5: That the Intelligibles Are Not outside the Intellect, and on the Good. Chapters 7, (8).
- Chapter 7. Analogy of intellection to sight.
- Chapter 8. The omnipresence of the One.
- 5.8: On the Intelligible Beauty. Chapter 11.
- Chapter 11. The sense in which the soul is unified with Intellect.
- 5.3: On the Knowing Hypostasis and on That Which Is Transcendent. Chapter 17.
- 6.7-9
- 6.7: How the Multiplicity of the Ideas Came to Exist, and on the Good. Chapters 31, 34, 35, 36.
- Chapters 31–36. The Good goes beyond the truth, beauty, and proportion of Intellect. When the soul is directed by the Good alone, this means that it is not directed by any Form whatever.
- Chapter 31. On account of the love of the Good in the soul, it moves beyond sensible things, and Intellect, and desires to make itself like the thing it loves.
- [Chapter 32]. The principle of the beauty of the Forms lies in something formless, namely, in the Good.
- [Chapter 33]. Form is measured, but Beauty itself is without measure, and without form: Beauty is the nature of the Good itself.
- Chapter 34. When the soul arrives at Beauty itself, it sheds all other properties, and has a contentment that cannot be surpassed.
- Chapter 35. When soul arrives at the Good, all motion, and thought, ceases. Intellect can both think its own contents, and also be receptive for the Good. The Good unifies soul and intellect when it is present to them.
- Chapter 36. Cognizing the Good is ‘the most important subject of learning’. In its case, seeing and light are one.
- Chapters 31–36. The Good goes beyond the truth, beauty, and proportion of Intellect. When the soul is directed by the Good alone, this means that it is not directed by any Form whatever.
- 6.8: On the Voluntary, and the One’s Wishing. Chapters 15, 19.
- Chapter 15. The awareness of our own freedom allows us to approach the true life of the Good.
- Chapter 19. Contemplation of the Good itself is better than mere images of it; it is ‘beyond Substantiality’.
- 6.9: On the Good or the One. Chapters (3), 4, 7, 9, 10, 11.
- Chapter 3. For the soul to be directed by the one requires the soul to leave off the variety it is accustomed to, and undergo habituation of character, and then use Intellect as a guide, while excluding all determinations from the One.
- Chapter 4. The presence of the One is prior to that of science, and only direct vision, not teaching, provides contact with the One.
- Chapter 7. The One is the object of investigation in that it may be present, not as a thing, and the presence is to be found in not knowing: the presence of the One is to be found within oneself.
- Chapter 9. By turning around the One, we receive being, in turning towards the One we receive well-being. For the soul has innate love of the Good which makes us desire death, even if true contemplation is possible in this life.
- Chapter 10. This contemplation is interrupted, although it is unity with the One.
- Chapter 11. One only remembers being like the One. The soul need not be afraid of proceeding to nothing. For virtue and contemplation take turns in guiding the soul.
- 6.7: How the Multiplicity of the Ideas Came to Exist, and on the Good. Chapters 31, 34, 35, 36.
Porphyry's chronological arrangement of the treatises listed above are as follows.
Order | Ennead |
---|---|
1 | 1.6 |
6 | 4.8 |
9 | 6.9 |
30 | 3.8 |
31 | 5.8 |
32 | 5.5 |
38 | 6.7 |
39 | 6.8 |
49 | 5.3 |
The treatises were all originally disjointed, except for the consecutive treatises 6.7 and 6.8.
Phases: Mystical Union with the One[edit | edit source]
Phases of Mystical Union with the One (Mazur 2021):
- Phase 1: Catharsis – abandonment of sense perception, but then also the emptying of formal relations and delimitations from one’s consciousness
- Phase 2: Mystical self-reversion – self-contraction or self-cognition
- Phase 3: Autophany – the sudden vision of, or within, oneself (“1 becomes 2”: recognition of transcendental self)
- Phase 3.2: Self-unification – coming into a complete identity with one’s transcendental self, which is in a realm between Intellect and the One (“2 become 1”: coalescence with transcendental self)
- Phase 4: Annihilation – rejection of even transcendental self-identity
- Phase 5: Union with the One – coalescence of the aspirant and the One
- Phase 5.2: Desubjectification – abandonment of subjectivity and the reversal from contraction to expansion
These are not strictly delineated, discrete phases in the Enneads, but rather form a dynamic continuum.
Phase 1: Catharsis[edit | edit source]
(3.8.10)
Self-purification, aphairesis, from any contamination with multiplicity (of any thought, any knowledge, any mental activity):
- III.8[30].10.31–32: “remove” Being itself
Phase 2: Mystical self-reversion[edit | edit source]
(1.6.9; 4.8.1; 6.9.7; 3.8.9; 5.8.11; 5.5.7)
- I.6[1].9.7: “go back into yourself and look”
- IV.8[6].1.1–2: “awakening into myself and coming to be outside of all other things but within myself”
- VI.9[9].7.17–18: “[the soul] must turn completely to the within”
- III.8[30].9.29–31: “The intellect … must (so to speak) ‘withdraw backwards’ and surrender itself to what lies behind it”
- V.8[31].11.10–11: “running into the within”
- V.5[32].7.32: “Intellect … contracting into its interior”
Phase 3: Autophany[edit | edit source]
Luminous vision of one's own self (1.6.9; 6.9.11; 5.5.8):
- I.6[1].9.22–25: “… if you see yourself having become this … having become vision … this alone is the eye that sees the great beauty”
- VI.9[9].11.43–44: “if one should see oneself having become this, one has oneself as a likeness of that [One]”
- V.5[32].8.12–13: “[Intellect] sees, first of all, itself, having become more beautiful and glistening”
The self and the One appear simultaneously (6.9.9; 6.8.19):
- VI.9[9].9.56–58: “Here, at this point, one can see both him and oneself as it is right to see: the self glorified, full of intelligible light—but rather itself pure light, weightless, floating, having become—but rather, being—a god”
- VI.8[39].19.1–2: “one should take hold … of that [One] itself, and one will also see himself”
In certain cases, the vision of the self is coincident with, but still distinct from, the initial glimpse of the One.
In others some aspect of the One is said to appear “within” the beholder (described as either the self or the soul) (6.7.31,34-35; 6.8.15).
- VI.7[38].31.8–9: “[the soul] saw, stricken, as it were, and she was conscious of having something of it in herself”
- VI.7.34.12–13: “[the soul,] seeing it appearing suddenly in herself”
- VI.7.35.19: [a god] “who filled the soul of the contemplator”
- VI.8[39].15.14: “If ever we too, ourselves, should see within ourselves some nature of such [a kind as the Good]”
Phase 3.2: Self-unification[edit | edit source]
(6.9.3; 1.6.9; 5.8.11; 5.5.8)
- VI.9[9].3.20–22: one must first “become one from many” in order to attain the One
- I.6[1].9.16–17: “you, pure, ‘come together’ with yourself, having no impediment to thus coming towards one”
- VI.9[9].10.10: “he will ‘be together’ with himself as such”
- V.8[31].11.3–4: “he presents himself [to himself] and looks at a beautified image of himself, but dismisses the image though it is beautiful, coming into one with himself”
- V.8[31].11.10–12: “from the beginning he perceives himself, so long as he is different; but running into the within, he has everything, and leaving perception behind in fear of being different, he is one there.”
- V.5[32].8.12–13, a (temporal?) sequence in which the autophany clearly precedes the union, since the autophanous intellect “sees first of all itself” prior to the final moment of MUO
Phase 4: Annihilation[edit | edit source]
(6.9.7,10-11; 3.8.9; 5.8.11; 6.7.35; 5.5.8)
Abdication of knowledge—an “unknowing”—following the self-reversion
- VI.9[9].7.18–21: “‘un-knowing’ all things (both as he had at first, in the sensible realm, then also, in that of the forms) and even ‘un-knowing’ himself, [the soul must] come to be in the vision of that….”
- VI.9[9].10.15–16: at the final moment of union, the aspirant is “as if having become another and not himself nor belonging to himself there”
- VI.9[9].11.11–12: “there was neither reason nor any thought, nor, entirely, a self, if one must say even this”
- VI.9[9].11.23: the union is an “ekstasis … and a surrender of oneself”
- III.8[30].9.29–32: self-surrender, “give itself up, as it were, to what lies behind it”
- V.8[31].11.17: “immediately surrender himself to the within”
- VI.7[38].35.33–34: the soul’s vision occurs “as if confusing and annihilating the intellect abiding within her”
- V.5[32].8.22–23: “because it is Intellect, it looks, when it looks, with that of itself which is not Intellect”
- VI.7[38].35.42–45: “Therefore the soul does not move, then, since that [One] does not either; nor, therefore, is it soul, because that [One] does not live, but is above life; nor is it intellect, because it does not think either”
Phase 5: Union with the One[edit | edit source]
(6.9.11; 6.7.34)
- VI.9[9].11.4–6: “there were not two, but the seer himself was one in relation to the seen, for it was not really seen, but unified”
- VI.7[38].34.13–14: “there are no longer two, but both are one”
Phase 5.2: Desubjectification[edit | edit source]
(6.9.10; 5.8.11; 3.8.9; 6.7.36)
- VI.9[9].10.11–12: “perhaps one should not say, ‘will see,’ but ‘was seen’”
- V.8[31].11.17–19: one becomes “instead of a seer, the object of contemplation of another contemplator, shining out with the kind of thoughts that come from there”
- III.8[30].9.29–32: Intellect’s own procession as the “first life” (ζωὴ πρώτη) and as an “activity in the outgoing of all things”
- VI.7[38].36.21–23: an effluent ray (augē) of light without a percipient, which, he says in the next breath, itself generates the subject-object distinction only “later,” ontologically speaking, at the inferior level of Intellect
Excerpts: Mystical Union with the One[edit | edit source]
- 1.6.7,9
- 4.8.1
- 6.9.4,7,9,11
- 3.8.9
- 5.8.11
- 5.5.7
- 6.7.31,34-36
- 6.8.15,19
- 5.3.17
I.6.7.1–19[edit | edit source]
The ascent to the Good.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
We must, then, ascend to the Good, which every soul desires. If someone, then, has seen it, he knows what I mean when I say how beautiful it is. For it is desired as good, and the desire is directed to it as this, though the attainment of it is for those who ascend upward and revert to it and who divest themselves of the garments they put on when they descended. It is just like those who ascend to partake of the sacred religious rites where there are acts of purification and the stripping off of the cloaks they had worn before they go inside naked. One proceeds in the ascent, passing by all that is alien to the god until one sees by oneself alone that which is itself alone uncorrupted, simple, and pure, that upon which everything depends, and in relation to which one looks and exists and lives and thinks. For it is the cause of life and intellect. And, then, if someone sees this, what pangs of love will he feel, what longings and, wanting to be united with it, how would he not be overcome with pleasure? |
And so one must reascend to the Good, for which every soul longs. If someone has seen it, he knows what I am saying, [and] the manner in which it is beautiful. It is desired as good, and the desire is towards this, yet the attainment of it is for those ascending towards the above and is for those who have been converted and who shed what we put on while descending—just as with those going up to the [inner] sanctuaries of the temples, the purifications and taking off of the clothing beforehand, and the going up naked—until, in the ascent leaving everything behind inasmuch as it is foreign to god, one should see, by oneself alone, it alone, absolute, simple, pure, from which everything depends and looks to it {and is, and lives, and thinks; for it is cause of life and mind and being}. If someone should see it, what a love he would have, what a longing, wishing to be commingled with it; how it would strike one with pleasure! |
I.6.9.7–25[edit | edit source]
The development of interior sight through the practice of virtue.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
Go back into yourself and look. If you do not yet see yourself as beautiful, then be like a sculptor who, making a statue that is supposed to be beautiful, removes a part here and polishes a part there so that he makes the latter smooth and the former just right until he has given the statue a beautiful face. In the same way, you should remove superfluities and straighten things that are crooked, work on the things that are dark, making them bright, and not stop ‘working on your statue’ until the divine splendour of virtue shines in you, until you see ‘Self-Control enthroned on the holy seat’. |
Go back into yourself and look; and if you still do not see yourself beautiful, just as the maker of a statue which needs to be beautiful cuts some parts away and polishes others and makes some parts smooth and others pure until he has revealed the beautiful face in the statue, so also you cut away whatever is excessive, and straighten whatever is crooked, and remove whatever is dark and make it shiny, and not stop “crafting your statue” until you should see “temperance mounted upon a holy pedestal.” |
IV.8.1.1–11[edit | edit source]
Beginning with a vivid ‘autobiographical’ passage, Plotinus turns to an enquiry into the role of soul in general in the physical world.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
Often, after waking up to myself from the body, that is, externalizing myself in relation to all other things, while entering into myself, I behold a beauty of wondrous quality, and believe then that I am most to be identified with my better part, that I enjoy the best quality of life, and have become united with the divine and situated within it, actualizing myself at that level, and situating myself above all else in the intelligible world. Following on this repose within the divine, and descending from Intellect into acts of calculative reasoning, I ask myself in bewilderment, how on earth did I ever come down here, and how ever did my soul come to be enclosed in a body, being such as it has revealed itself to be, even while in a body? |
Frequently—awakening into myself out of my body, and coming to be outside of other things but within myself, seeing an extraordinarily marvelous beauty, and coming to believe then I was of the better part, having actualized the noblest life, and having come to identify with the divine and having been settled within it, coming into that actuality, settling myself above every other intelligible object—after this stasis in the divine, having descended into rationality from Intellect, I am puzzled, however, even now, how I descend, and how for me the soul ever came to be inside of the body, being what it appears to be on its own even while it is in the body. |
VI.9.4.1–30[edit | edit source]
The presence of the One is prior to that of science, and only direct vision, not teaching, provides contact with the One
Note: Mazur (2021) is abridged.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
The biggest puzzle arising is that comprehension of the One is neither by scientific understanding nor by intellection, as it is in the case of other intelligibles. It corresponds rather to a presence which is better than scientific understanding. But the soul undergoes a departure from its unity and the fact that it is not altogether a unity, whenever it attains scientific understanding. For scientific understanding involves an account, and an account is multiple. The soul, then, passes by the One when it falls into number and multiplicity. So, it should run above scientific understanding, and in no way exit from its unity, and should depart from scientific understanding, and the objects of scientific understanding, indeed all else, even from the vision of Beauty. For everything beautiful is posterior to the One, and comes from it, just as all daylight comes from the sun. |
If someone has not come to the contemplation, and the soul has not had an awareness of, or experienced, the glories there, nor had in itself (as it were) the erotic experience—from the vision—of a (male) lover resting in the (male) beloved, having received the true light and having illuminated around the entire soul through having become closer; but [instead] has ascended while still being burdened from behind, which was an impediment to the contemplation, and not having ascended alone, but having something that separates one from it, or not yet being brought together into one—for that one is certainly not absent from any, and yet is absent from everything, so that being present, it is not present except to those able to receive it and those who are prepared so as to adapt to it and as it were lay hold of it and to touch it by means of likeness; and by means of a dynamis in oneself that is connatural with that which comes from it, when one keeps oneself as one kept oneself when one came from him, one is immediately able to see, as it is natural for that one to be contemplated. |
VI.9.7.1–26[edit | edit source]
The One is the object of investigation in that it may be present, not as a thing, and the presence is to be found in not knowing: the presence of the One is to be found within oneself.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
If you become unfocused in your view, since the One is none of these things, you should rely on them, and use them to form your vision. Do not form your vision by diverting your thought elsewhere. It does not lie somewhere bare of other things, it is always present to anyone with the power touch it, and it is not present to anyone without this power. Just as in other cases it is not possible to think something if your thinking is directed at something else, and your being related to another thing, but you should just not add anything to the thing being thought, so that it is just the thing thought, so, too, here one must know that it is not possible to think that thing, if one has the impression of another thing in the soul, and if that impression is actualized. Nor is it possible, if the soul is occupied and dominated by other things, for it to have the contrary impression. Rather, it is as one says in the case of matter, that it has to be unqualified by anything, if it is to take on the impressions of all things; so, in this case, the soul has to be formless to a greater degree, if it is not to be prevented from being filled and illuminated by the first nature. |
But if because it is none of these, you are indeterminate in thought, stand yourself in these these things and contemplate out from them; but contemplate without throwing your thought outward. For it does not lie ‘somewhere’ having left the other things bereft of it, but it is present ‘there’ to the one able to touch, but is not present to the one unable to. But just as with other things, it is not possible to think something while thinking something else and being oriented towards another, but one must attach nothing to the object of thought, in order that it be indeed the object of thought itself; so also, here too, one should know that it is not possible to think that [One] while having the impression of another in one’s soul, while the impression is active, nor, moreover, when the soul is taken over and possessed by other things can she be imprinted with the impression of the opposite, but just as is said of matter that it needs to be without the qualities of all things if it is going to receive the impressions of all things, so also (and how much more so!) must the soul become formless, if there is not going to be embedded within her an impediment to an impregnation and illumination from the first nature. |
VI.9.9.46–10.21[edit | edit source]
By turning around the One, we receive being, in turning towards the One we receive well-being. For the soul has innate love of the Good which makes us desire death, even if true contemplation is possible in this life.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
Anyone who has seen it, knows what I mean. Which is to say: the soul then acquires a new life, when it approaches him, indeed arrives at him and participates in him, such that it is in a position to know that the true provider of life is present, and that the soul is in need of nothing more. On the contrary, the soul should then put away all other things, and stop in this one thing alone, become this alone, and cut loose everything we wear. The result is that we hasten to exit from here, so we may, despite the vexation at being bound to the other side, enfold him with the whole of ourselves, and contain no part with which we do not touch god. |
“Whoever has seen, knows what I mean”: that then the soul has another life, both while approaching and having already “come forward” and participated in him, so that she is disposed to recognize that the provider of true life is present and she needs nothing further. But on the contrary, it is necessary to put the other things away and stand in this alone, and become that alone, having cut away the remaining things with which were are encompassed, so as to hasten to go out from here, and to be irritated at being bound to the other things, in order that we may embrace with the whole of ourselves, and have no part with which we do not touch god. Here, at this point, one can see both him and oneself as it is right to see: the self glorified, full of intelligible light—but rather itself pure light, weightless, floating, having become—but rather, being—a god; inflamed, then, but if one should be weighed down again, it is as if withering. |
VI.9.11.4–25[edit | edit source]
One only remembers being like the One. The soul need not be afraid of proceeding to nothing. For virtue and contemplation take turns in guiding the soul.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
So, since they were not two, but the seer was one with what is seen, as though it was not being seen by him, but was unified with him, if he remembers who he became when he mingled with the One, then he will have in himself an image of it. He was a one, and contains no difference relative to himself, nor in any other respect. For nothing moved in him, neither spiritedness, nor appetite for anything else was present in him when he reverted to the One; but also not reason, nor intellection, nor he himself, if one should say that. He was instead ravished or ecstatic in solitary quiet, in an unwobbling fixedness, unwavering from his own substantiality in any way, not rotating about himself, entirely stable, as if he were the stability itself. Nor had he any desire for beautiful things, having already surpassed beauty, having already outdone the chorus of virtues. It is like someone who enters the inner sanctum and leaves behind the statues of the gods in the temple. |
Since, then, there were not two, but the seer himself was one in relation to the seen (for it was not really seen, but unified), if he remembers who he became when he was mingled with that [one], he will have an image of that [one] with himself. But he himself, too, was one, with no distinction in himself either in relation to himself or in relation to others; for nothing moved with him, and he had no wish, no desire for another when he had ascended—but there was not even any reason or thought, nor even a self at all, if one must say even this; but he was as if snatched away or divinely possessed, in quiet solitude and stillness, having become motionless, not turning aside anywhere in his substance, nor turning about himself, having come to a complete standstill and indeed having become a kind of stasis. He was not among the beauties, having already ascended beyond even the chorus of virtues, just like someone enters into the interior of the adyton having left behind in the naos the cult— |
VI.9.11.36–46[edit | edit source]
One only remembers being like the One. The soul need not be afraid of proceeding to nothing. For virtue and contemplation take turns in guiding the soul.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
For the nature of the soul will indeed not arrive at what entirely is non-being, but when it descends, it will come to evil, and thus into non-being, but not into what is entirely non-being. Moving in the opposite direction, it will not come to something else, but to itself; thus in being in nothing else, it will not be in nothing, but will be in itself, that is, in itself alone, and not in that Being there. For a self does not become Substantiality, but ‘transcends Substantiality’ by this intimate contact. |
For indeed the nature of the soul will not come to complete non-existence, but going (on the one hand) “down,” it will come into evil, and thus into non-being (i.e., not to utter non-existence). Conversely, running the opposite way, it will come not into another but into itself, and thus not being in another, it is in no one but itself; yet while in itself, and not in Being, it is in that, for one becomes also oneself and not in substance, but “beyond substance” by means of this intercourse. |
III.8.9.19–32[edit | edit source]
Intellect is not the first. The One, the Good, is beyond it. We can have access even to this.
Note: Mazur (2021) is abridged.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
For, again, if knowledge of other things comes about by means of intellect and it is by intellect that we are able to know Intellect, with what sort of concentrated apprehension will that be seized which transcends the nature of Intellect? We shall say to the person to whom we must make clear how this is possible that it is by means of that in us which is the same as it. For there is something of it even within us. In fact, there is nowhere where it is not, for those able to partake of it. |
For, again, since knowledge of other thing occurs through intellect, and we are able to know intellect by intellect, by what sudden grasping could we seize that which supersedes the nature of intellect?—in response to which one should note how it is possible: we will say, it is by means of the likeness within us. For there is something of it with us too; there is not somewhere it is not, for those able to participate in it. |
V.8.11.1–19[edit | edit source]
The sense in which the soul is unified with Intellect.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
And if one of us who is unable to see himself when possessed by that god focuses his contemplation on the sight, he focuses on himself and sees an image of himself made beautiful. But he then dismisses the image even though it is beautiful, achieving self-unification and, no longer being divided, is at the same time one and is all things along with that god who is silently present, and he is with him to the extent that he is able and willing. Even if he should revert to duality, he continues, if he remains pure, to be with the god so that he can be present to him again as before if he should again turn to himself. |
If one of us is unable to see himself, then, when he is possessed by that god, if he should bring forth the contemplation into an act of seeing, he presents himself to himself and looks at a beautified image of himself, but dismisses the image though it is beautiful, coming into one with himself, and, being no longer separate, is simultaneously one and all things with that god noiselessly present, and is with him as much as he is able and wishes to be; but if he should revert into duality, while remaining pure, he is immediately subjacent to him, so as to be present to him thusly again, if he should again turn towards him. |
V.5.7.31–8.23[edit | edit source]
Analogy of intellection to sight.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
It is actually in this way that Intellect, covering its eyes so that it does not see other things, and collecting itself into its interior, and not looking at anything, will see a light that is not other than it or in another, but itself by itself alone and pure, and it appears to it all of a sudden so that it is in doubt as to where it appeared from, outside or inside, and when it goes away it says, ‘so it was inside – but, again, not inside’. |
Thus also Intellect, veiling itself from other things and contracting into its interior, not looking at anything, will see a light, not another one in something else, but itself, alone by itself, pure, appearing suddenly by itself, so as to be puzzled whence it appeared, from without or within, and, once it has departed, to say, “it was within, and yet was not within.” |
VI.7.31.5–35[edit | edit source]
The Good goes beyond the truth, beauty, and proportion of Intellect. When the soul is directed by the Good alone, this means that it is not directed by any Form whatever.
On account of the love of the Good in the soul, it moves beyond sensible things, and Intellect, and desires to make itself like the thing it loves.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
intellect was raised up to the intelligible world and remained joyful at being near the Good, and that soul which was capable of it, when it knew and saw, had joy in the spectacle, and was awestruck and shaken insofar as it was able to see. It saw, and was shaken awestruck, in a way by perceiving that it has in itself something of the Good, and came to be in a state of desire, like those who are moved by an image of their loved one and want to come to see the beloved itself. |
And so [Intellect] was raised up there, and he remained content to be around him; but the soul which was able, having reverted, when she knew and saw, also delighted in the contemplation, and, inasmuch as she was able to see, was smitten. She saw, stricken, as it were, and she was conscious of having something of it in herself, and thus disposed, she came into a state of longing, just like those who are moved by the image of a lovely person to want to see the beloved one itself…. |
VI.7.34.1–25[edit | edit source]
When the soul arrives at Beauty itself, it sheds all other properties, and has a contentment that cannot be surpassed.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
We will not marvel at the production of such mighty longings, if it is removed even from all intelligible shape, since the soul, when it comes to have an intense love for it, sheds any shape it may have, indeed any shape of an intelligible there may be in it. For it is not possible for something that is in possession of something else, or is active in respect of something else, either to see [Beauty] or to be harmonized with it. No, the soul should have nothing good or evil to hand, so that, alone, it may take in [Beauty] alone. |
And we will no longer be amazed if that which provokes the tremendous longing is entirely free from even intelligible shape; since the soul, too, when it acquires an intense love of it, sets aside all shape which she has, and even whatever shape of the intelligible might be in her. For there is neither seeing nor adaptation while holding anything else and being active around it. But it is necessary to have no evil nor even another good at hand, so that she alone may receive it alone. |
VI.7.35[edit | edit source]
When soul arrives at the Good, all motion, and thought, ceases. Intellect can both think its own contents, and also be receptive for the Good. The Good unifies soul and intellect when it is present to them.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
The soul, then, is so disposed that it even disdains thinking – which it delights in at other times – because thinking is a motion, and the soul does not want to be motion. And the soul asserts that that which it sees does not think, despite the fact that soul has then become intellect and contemplates, because it has become intellectualized, that is, has come to be ‘in the intelligible world’. |
Then [the soul] is thus disposed, so as even to disdain intellection, which at another time she welcomed, because intellection is a motion, but she does not want to move. For she says that indeed neither does he whom she sees [move], yet having become intellect, she contemplates, having become intellect, as it were, having come into the intelligible place. |
VI.7.36.10–26[edit | edit source]
Cognizing the Good is ‘the most important subject of learning’. In its case, seeing and light are one.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
Whoever has become both a spectator and spectacle, himself of himself, and of the others there, and has become Substance, Intellect, ‘a complete Living Being’ no longer regards it from outside: once he has become all this he is close, and what follows next is the Good; it is close, shining on all that which is intelligible. |
Whoever has become simultaneously the contemplator and himself the object of his contemplation of himself and all other things, and having become substance and intellect and the “all-perfect living being,” should no longer behold it from without, but having become this, is nearby, and that one is next in order, and it is already close by, gleaming upon all the intelligible. |
VI.8.15.14–23[edit | edit source]
The awareness of our own freedom allows us to approach the true life of the Good.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
If we ourselves were to see a nature like this in ourselves, with nothing in it of the other things attached to us, due to which we undergo whatever happens and whatever is present by chance – for all else in us is enslaved and exposed to chance events, dependent on us in a way according to chance – to this alone belongs our mastery of self and autonomy, by means of the activity of a light Good-like and good, a light greater than that of Intellect, in that this activity is so disposed that its being above Intellect is not an acquired attribute. |
If ever we too, ourselves, should see within ourselves some nature of a kind that has nothing of the other things which are attached to us, [i.e., those things] by which we have to experience whatever should occur by chance—for all the other things which are ours are enslaved and exposed to chances, and, as it were, come forth according to chance, but by this alone [we have] the self—mastery and autonomy of a light in the form of good, and of good in actuality and [of a good] greater than that according to Intellect, having that above Intellect [within], not imported [from without]; |
VI.8.19.1–6[edit | edit source]
Contemplation of the Good itself is better than mere images of it; it is ‘beyond Substantiality’.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
Let one, then, understand the Good itself from what has been said, by being moved to ascend to it! Then one will even see for oneself, although one is unable to say what one wants. If someone sees the Good in itself, although he has put aside any account of it, he will posit it as being derived from itself, such that, if indeed it had substantiality, that substantiality would be subservient to it, and in a way derived from the Good. |
And so, having been impelled upwards towards that from what has been said, one should take hold of that itself, and one will also see himself, not being able to say as much as he would like. But seeing that in himself, taking away all rationality, he will set that by itself, being such that if it had substance, the substance would be his slave and, as it were, issuing from him. |
V.3.17.15–38[edit | edit source]
The relative self-sufficiency of Intellect. The ascent of the embodied individual to the One or Good.
Gerson (2018) | Mazur (2021) |
---|---|
Is it enough, then, having said these things, to leave off? In fact, the soul is still in labour and even more so than before. Perhaps, then, she must now give birth, having both longed for the One and been consumed with labour. But we must sing another charm if we are to find one to relieve her labour. Perhaps it would come from what has already been said, and if someone were to sing it over and over, it would happen. What other fresh charm, then, is there? For she has run through all the truths, truths in which we participate, yet still flees them if someone wants to speak and think through them, since discursive thinking must, if it is to say something, go from one thing to the other. It is, in this way, successive. But what sort of succession is there for that which is completely simple? |
And so is it sufficient to leave off having said these things? No, the soul still has even greater birth—pangs. Perhaps at this point, she must give birth, having eagerly glanced towards it and having been filled with birth—pangs. But still we must chant another spell, if somewhere we can find some spell against birth pangs; perhaps it might emerge from what has already been said if someone were to incant it repeatedly. And so what other spell is as if new? For she has run over all truths, and, simultaneously, flees from the truths in which we participate, if someone wishes to speak and reason [about them], since reason must, if it wishes to express something, take one thing after another (for such is also an exposition); but what “exposition” is there in the entirely simple? |
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- Mazur, Zeke (2021). The Platonizing Sethian background of Plotinus's mysticism. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-44171-2.
- Gerson, Lloyd P. (trans.) (2018). The Enneads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-00177-0.
Greek sources[edit | edit source]
Both Mazur (2021) and Gerson (2018) are based on the Henry-Schwyzer Greek texts (i.e., edited by Paul Henry and Hans-Rudolph Schwyzer).
- Mazur (2021) is based on the editio maior (HS¹).
- Addenda to HS¹ are labelled HS³.
- Gerson (2018) primarily uses the editio minor (HS²), but also makes some textual changes.
- Textual addenda to HS² are labelled HS⁴.
The Henry-Schwyzer Greek texts are:
- Henry, Paul, and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. Plotini Opera. (Editio maior in 3 vols.). Bruxelles and Paris: Museum Lessianum, 1951-1973.
- Henry, Paul, and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. Plotini Opera. (Editio minor in 3 vols.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964-1982.