OK then you're right! Shows how far I got arguing on the basis of the first 3 pages of my newly-acquired text.

It is true that the via negativa (neti, neti) is stated to be the best approach to the one, which is beyond all categories of being or non being, self awareness, sentinence or any other category. The world proceeds from the one by inevitable emmanation not through any act of willful creation. Non the less the first emmanation from the one is the nous (intelligence, logos, order, reason) similar to the Demiurge of Plato and the origin of the forms or ideals which the world tries imperfectly to actualize.

Mind you in classical cultures, faithfully representing tradition was held in far higher esteem than innovation.

The only way to understand the way of negation is by sitting meditation, which is the practice of negation.

Well that didn't work. Hit the gong after you had responded. But the point about meditation is that it engages much deeper aspects of your being than the cerebellum. That is what all the old-school spiritual philosophies are like, Western and Eastern. Plotinus in particular.

But the point about meditation is that it engages much deeper aspects of your being than the cerebellum. That is what all the old-school spiritual philosophies are like, Western and Eastern. Plotinus in particular.

I first encountered Plotinus in the foreword to The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, edited by W. Y. Evans-Wentz. Evans-Wentz' translations were very popular in the 60's although they are not held in very high regard in the current academic tradition. Anyway, Evans-Wentz believed (probably incorrectly) that Plotinus had actually travelled as far as India to interrogate the Indian sages. (Later opinion believes he made it only part way when Alexander suffered a military reversal and he had to return to the West.) In any case, there are many convergences between Plotinus and the Indian Wisdom schools. And also Plotinus had a huge influence on the philosophical outlook of Augustine. So he represents the school of perennial wisdom in the Western traditions. I am determined to improve my knowledge of him.

The only way to understand the way of negation is by sitting meditation, which is the practice of negation.

I was fascinated by this story:
A question - "Minds Eye" | Google Groups
I haven't a clue what it means, or whether there could even conceivably be any historical truth in it (I can't quite imagine old Pythagoras using the word 'existential', unless the Greeks had a word for it ...), but it's a good story.

Dare I suggest, at the risk of sounding like a whiny brat, that a second way is to experience a depressive breakdown? It's involuntary, of course, and not at all to be recommended, but it may still have true lessons to teach. I think the next lesson will then not be more negation (or rather, it cannot only be more negation, although there is still an ego to be put in its place), but a form of assertion. So it's a quite different route to what might be the same goal. Excuse my noisy intrusion ...

That story sounds apocryphal, in that those kinds of details are not known about Pythagoras' life. It is said in the legends that he went to all the various wisdom schools, and it may indeed be the kind of thing that happened, but I would take it awith a grain of salt. I currently have the Pythagorean Sourcebook out of the library, comprising virtually all the fragments about Pythagoras, and that is not in there. (Also, note, the attribution to Osho, I am leary of anything Osho....)

But I don't know if it is the same. This term 'negation' in connection with apophatic mysticism, is actually quite a specific understanding. It is quite exact but very hard to express verbally or literally, for obvious reasons (not called 'mystical' for nothing.)

I do know, in fact have previously mentioned, the idea of the Dark Night of the Soul, but that is a different matter - it is something which does occur in the course of spiritual work.

As for the way of negation, I have no idea where one would go to learn it, it just happened to fall into place in my case. But I do know some readings about it....which reminds me, did you get hold of Mysticism East and West? that should have some pointers in it....

also, i consider mysticism to be the highest form of spirituality and at that level all religions and philosophies dissolve into the same one experience or gnosis...that is what i loved about plotinus, i could tell he was one of those...one of us i mean...it is the same in america or india, impossible not to recognize.

OK I have a question about Plotinus. I have finally bought an edition of the Enneads (Stephen McKenna and B S Page, 2009) having previously read a number of passages and articles about Plotinus.

In the First Ennead, First Tractate, The Animate and Man, there is this passage:

Quote:

And how could the Soul lend itself to any admixture? An essential is not mixed. Or the intrusion of anything alien? If it did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain must be equally far from it. And Grief - how or for what could it grieve? Whatever possesses Existence is supremely free, dwelling unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What such an Existent is, is unchangeable.

Now the question I have is: does anyone know the Greek words which were translated as 'existence' and 'existent' in this passage?

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 12:49 PM ----------

The reason is that, whatever word was translated, I think the import of the word is 'being' rather than 'existence', and I think this is significant.

And how could it admit of mixture? Substantial being is unmixed. How could there be any sort of addition? If there was, it would be hastening to be no more what it is. Pain is far from it, too; and how could it feel sad, and what about? For that which is essentially simple is sufficient for itself, inasmuch as it stays set in its own essential nature. And will it be pleased at any increase, when nothing, not even any good, can accrue to it? It is always what it is.

And how could it admit of mixture? Substantial being is unmixed. How could there be any sort of addition? If there was, it would be hastening to be no more what it is. Pain is far from it, too; and how could it feel sad, and what about? For that which is essentially simple is sufficient for itself, inasmuch as it stays set in its own essential nature. And will it be pleased at any increase, when nothing, not even any good, can accrue to it? It is always what it is.

I think this is crucial, and that we think in terms of unities. What is the unity of unities? What is the absolute perfectly simple concept? Can it be named? Or does any name complicate its utter simplicity?

I am contemplating the idea that what is, and what exists, are not strictly speaking the same, even though they appear to intermingle. Reality is realised, existence is experienced. Do you think that is more in accordance with Plotinus intention?

The passage in question is in a discussion of soul, which Plotinus sees (in the terms set out in Plato's Parmenides) as one-and-many. Nous (intellect or spirit, depending on the translator) is one-many. And of course the One is simply one and, yes, the "unity of unities," though Plotinus does repeatedly emphasize that no name or description for it is adequate.

Of course, in Intellect (Nous), they aren't really separate, it's just that our discursive and time-bound minds grasp them more easily that way.

As far as I know, the "dark night" is something that comes to those who are already advanced in mystical work, and so it cannot be the same as an ordinary depression that comes to an ordinary person; still, that does not mean that ordinary depression is without spiritual significance.

But even as the one precedes and is distinguished from beings, it serves as their source. "The One is all things and not a single one of them: for the Source of all is not all things; yet It is all things, for they all, so to speak run back to It: or rather, in It they are not yet but will be....In order that being may exist, the One is not being but the Generator of being....The One, perfect because It seeks nothing, has nothing, and needs nothing overflows as it were, and Its superabundance makes something other than Itself" (Armstrong, 51). Plotinus argues that the Hypostasai comes into being because "the One, perfect because It seeks nothing, has nothing and needs nothing, overflows, as it were, and Its superabundance makes something other than Itself. Its halt and turning towards the One constitutes being, its gaze upon the One, Nous. Since it halts and turns towards the One that it may see, it becomes at once Nous and being. Resembling the One thus Nous produces in the same way, pouring forth a multiple power. Just as That, Which was before it, poured forth its likeness, so what Nous produces is a likeness of itself. This activity springing from being is Soul, which comes into being while Nous abides unchanged: for as a necessary consequence of its own existence: and the whole order of things is eternal: the lower world of becoming was not created at a particular moment but its eternally being generted: it is always there as a whole, and particular things in it only perish so that others may come into being" (Enneads, V.2.1).