/lit/ - Literature

>>16105196
St Maximus quote thread?

>When Moses pitches his tent outside the camp - that is, when he establishes his will and mind outside the world of visible things - he begins to worship God. Then, entering into the darkness - that is, into the formless and immaterial realm of spiritual knowledge - he there celebrates the most sacred rites.

>The darkness is that formless, immaterial and bodiless state which embraces the knowledge of the prototypes of all created things. He who like another Moses enters into it, although mortal by nature, understands things that are immortal. Through this knowledge he depicts in himself the beauty of divine excellence, as if painting a picture which is a faithful copy of archetypal beauty. Then he comes down from the mountain and offers himself as an example to those who wish to imitate that excellence. In this way he manifests the love and generosity of the grace he has received.

thiccc neoplatonism

>>16105448
SOCRATES:
>WELL, THEN, IF WE CANNOT CAPTURE THE GOOD IN ONE FORM, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE HOLD OF IT IN A CONJUNCTION OF THREE: BEAUTY, PROPORTION, AND TRUTH. LET US AFFIRM THAT THESE SHOULD BY RIGHT BE TREATED AS A UNITY AND BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS IN THE MIXTURE, FOR ITS GOODNESS IS WHAT MAKES THE MIXTURE ITSELF A GOOD ONE.

>>16105470
WE ENDEAVOUR THEREFORE TO KNOW THE UNKNOWN NATURE OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE, THROUGH THE THINGS WHICH PROCEED FROM, AND ARE CONVERTED TO IT; AND WE ALSO ATTEMPT THROUGH THE SAME THINGS TO GIVE A NAME TO THAT WHICH IS INEFFABLE.
THIS PRINCIPLE, HOWEVER, IS NEITHER KNOWN BY BEINGS, NOR IS EFFABLE BY ANY ONE OF ALL THINGS; BUT BEING EXEMPT FROM ALL KNOWLEDGE, AND ALL LANGUAGE, AND SUBSISTING AS INCOMPREHENSIBLE, IT PRODUCES FROM ITSELF ACCORDING TO ONE CAUSE ALL KNOWLEDGE, EVERY THING THAT IS KNOWN, ALL WORDS, AND WHATEVER CAN BE COMPREHENDED BY SPEECH.
BUT ITS UNICAL NATURE, AND WHICH TRANSCENDS ALL DIVISION, SHINES FORTH TO THE VIEW DYADICALLY IN THE NATURES POSTERIOR TO IT, OR RATHER TRIADICALLY. FOR ALL THINGS ABIDE IN, PROCEED FROM, AND ARE CONVERTED TO THE ONE.

>>16105494
LET US THEREFORE TAKE UP THE PROPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, THAT THE SUMMIT OF BEINGS, WHICH WE REFER TO AS BEING OR SUBSTANCE, IS NOT DESIGNATED [AS SUCH] FROM A SINGLE CHARACTER, WHICH, HAS BEEN SAID, SHINES FORTH, SINCE ALL SUCH DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS EXIST IN DISTINCTION. BUT THIS BEING IS ALL THINGS AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPLE OF ALL THINGS, AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPLE BEFORE ALL THINGS; AS THE UNIFIED, IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS DISTINCT, THAT IS, OF BEINGS AND LIVING BEINGS AND KNOWERS AND OF ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT HAS EXISTENCE. AND JUST AS THESE ARE ALL THINGS IN THEIR DIFFERENTIATED CONDITIONS, SO THAT LOFTY NATURE IS ALL THINGS IN AN INTEGRATED WAY, AS A CONCENTRATION OF ALL THINGS. BUT BY MEANS OF INDICATION IT IS CALLED BEING, IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE ASPECTS THAT COME AFTER IT AND ARE FROM IT, BUT THIS HAS ITSELF RECEIVED THE SECOND RANK AFTER THE ONE. THIS NAME, ‘ONE’ WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FIRST PRINCIPLE. LET THIS BE OUR METHOD OF ASCENT: JUST AS WE ASCEND FROM THE DISTINCT CONDITIONS TO THE UNIFIED, SO WE ASCEND FROM ALL THINGS THAT ARE IN ANY WAY, AND FROM BEINGS THAT HAVE RECEIVED ANY FORM OF APPELLATION.
STILL, THERE IS ONE FOUNT THAT IS WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENTIATION, SINCE IT IS THE ROOT OF THE BEINGS THAT HAVE BECOME SEPARATE FROM IT AND EXIST IN A STATE OF DIFFERENTIATION, THIS PRINCIPLE THAT NEVER DEPARTS FROM THE ONE, AND THEREFORE UNIFIES THAT WHICH GROWS FROM IT AS A ROOT UNITES MYRIAD BRANCHES. THERE IS ALSO A KIND OF STEM FROM THE ROOT, THAT IS NOT YET THE BRANCHES, AND ALTHOUGH THIS STEM TOO IS ENVISIONED ENTIRELY AS A PART, IT IS NEVERTHELESS NOT YET THE BRANCHES.

>>16105513
Therefore, we speak of the triad in that realm, in the sense that it signifies an undifferentiated multiplicity, and again the dyad signifies the cause of that multiplicity, and the monad is related to these as the One itself, as that which is beyond this very multiplicity. And this is the celebrated intelligible triad, which, wishing to explain by means of different configurations, we are unaware that we render it more complex in our accounts, and especially when we make it an ennead, reckoning it as the complete leader of all things from the first until the lowest, observing it as if in a mirror, and seeing it in the third, since it is by nature trimorph, and seeing the triadic principles before it that appear to illuminate brilliantly its three ubiquitous forms, as if in a cloud that has three reflecting surfaces, the single color of the sun appears as an apparently polychrome rainbow. And so also Socrates in the Philebus >>16105470 was unable to gaze in the face of that One, and clarified its nature by means of the triad stationed at its threshold, as he says, because he caught a glimpse of that triad quivering with the single ray of the henad, in a completely unified vision.
In sum, as with other things, so with the triad, we return to that realm through indication. And as the first principle is a monad, and the second is the indefinite dyad, and the third is a triad, because the triad is contemplated through reversion, the dyad through procession, and the monad through remaining, so too the entire triad that is composed of these could NOT be from Three Monads {oy vey Maximus where did you get that statement from most curious}, it seems, but because it is a Single Unity that is perfect, the same unity Remains and Proceeds and Reverts, nor are these three different things, but they are as one before three and yet with the power to be three.

>>16105448
>>16105470
>>16105494
>>16105513
>>16105544
oh here it is our neurotic platonist friend! too bad the trinity predates platonism

>>16105570
>the trinity predates platonism

>>16105470
>IF WE CANNOT CAPTURE THE GOOD IN ONE FORM, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE HOLD OF IT IN A CONJUNCTION OF THREE
Why? I mean why specifically three?

>>16105587
have you ever heard about OT?

Go smoke some 100x salvia and you can look right at the damn thing. He’s super intense and I don’t think he likes being disturbed.

>>16105570
Sorry I just worked out and is "high" from it, the muses have possessed me.
Egyptian religion was Platonism. And that predates, textually, Abraham by a thousand years.

O you eight infinite ones, being veritable infinite ones, l who encircle the sky with your arms, who gather together sky and earth for Geb, Shu fashioned you in chaos, in the Abyss, in darkness and in gloom, and he allots you to Geb and Nut, while Shu is everlasting and Tefenet is eternity.
I am the soul of Shu at the head of the celestial kine, who ascends to heaven at his desire, who descends to earth at his wish. Come joyfully at meeting the god in me, for I am Shu whom Atum fashioned, and this garment of mine is the air of life.
A cry for me went forth from the mouth of Atum, the air opened up upon my ways. It is I who make the sky light after darkness, my pleasant colour is the air which goes forth after me from the mouth of Atum, and the storm-cloud of the sky is my efflux; hail-storms and half-darkness are my sweat. The length of this sky belongs to my strides, the width of this earth belongs to my settlements. I am he whom Atum created, and I am bound for my place of eternity. I am Everlasting, who fashioned the infinite ones, reproduced by the spittle of Atum which issued from his mouth when he used his hand; I his saliva will be made to fall to the earth. Thus said Atum: Tefenet is my living daughter, and she shall be with her brother Shu; 'Living One' is his name, 'Righteousness' is her name.
I live with my two children, I live with my two fledgelings, for I am in the midst of them, both of them follow after my body, and I lie down and live with my daughter Ma'et; one within me and one behind me, I stand up because of them both, their arms being about me.
It is my son who will live, whom I begot in my name. He knows how to nourish him who is in the egg in the womb for me, namely the human beings who came forth from my eye which I sent out while I was alone with Nu in lassitude and I could find no place on which to stand or sit, before On had not yet been founded that I might dwell in it, before the Lotus had not yet been put together that I might sit on it; before I had made Nut that she might be above me, before the first generation had been born, before the Primeval Ennead had come into being that they might dwell with me.

>>16105626
Yeah and the Jews were not trinitarians. For some reason the Jews could commune directly with the highest God whereas the goyim needed interpreters such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

>>16105196
>the godhead is a Monad
yes, The Greatest Monad. All Monads, however, are made of The Lesser Monad.

>>16105611
Knowldege is only possible in threes.
Knowable, knowing/learning, knowledge.
Mone, Proodos, Epistrophe.
Monad, Dyad, Triad; manifest: Being, Life, Intellect.
It is even known but not understood why (curse of christianity) by Maximus >>16105230
>The darkness is that formless, immaterial and bodiless state which embraces the knowledge of the prototypes of all created things. He who like another Moses enters into it, although mortal by nature, understands things that are immortal. Through this knowledge he depicts in himself the beauty of divine excellence, as if painting a picture which is a faithful copy of archetypal beauty. Then he comes down from the mountain and offers himself as an example to those who wish to imitate that excellence. In this way he manifests the love and generosity of the grace he has received.

For something to be a perfect image, to receive the light perfectly, it has to be utterly indefinite. Ergo the Pupil of th Eye. But this is only 2/3s of the story, now we need a cat's eye in the night for the rest of the analogy.
The perfect image is a perfect mirror, and this state can reached by every soul.

>>16105738
of course a trip fag is illiterate

>>16105689
>Egyptian religion was Platonism
rather the other way around

>And that predates Abraham
yes and the egyptian symbolique comes back again with Christianity, but not only with a paired force but Incarnated.

Does not exist.

Stop wasting your time with concepts and names.

>>16105749
>>Egyptian religion was Platonism
>rather the other way around
same statement

>>16105749
>Rather the other way around
Retarded perennial go away

>>16105758
>plato and pythagoras and thales didn't learn anything from egyptians
>perennial
what is your problem

>>16105758
Then why the fuck did Plato study in Heliopolis for? Enlighten me.

>>16105779
the perennial is the second part of your statement
That God would deny revelation to mankind in favor of a little tribe for 1500 years has to be rejected, on principle.
This is the root of Christianity's error and this alone is enough to deny its validity (there are any others but this one is enough). Vatican 2 is a weak attempt to resolve it, and contradicts the church past teachings from the previous 2000 years.
>Spell for being a god for Osiris. He who sees the dead Osiris will never die.

Why do you guys care about this stuff? What do you get out of it? To me it all seems to be a bunch of blather attempting to explain something which by its very nature cannot be explained.

So why three and not four?

>>16105779
>>16105821
Egyptian religion which had been interacting intensely with the Greeks since Mycenaean times (and with the pregreeks who interacted with the Greeks)
Had an influence but Platonism=Egyptian religion is completely retarded

>>16105750
Buddhists will deny Being but when confronted as nihilists they will retreat back into saying they're not nihilists... Why? Because the Buddha said he wasn't a nihilist but was muh middle road between eternalism and nihilism. simple as

>>16105924
>Platonism=Egyptian religion is completely retarded
Why? How can you be certain of this?
Seriously, you're telling me Plato went to study in Egypt and created his whole philosophical system out of nowhere? Where did he get his whole cosmological system that is close to something a Middle Eastern would say about God, the world of forms, the Demiurge, the Creator and so on.

>>16105936
if it doesnt deny objective truth, and objective reality, how is it nihilism?

>>16105960
You're mixing your chronology up here. It's true Plato had no Egyptian influences, but Abrahamic religion would later take from Plato's system. Gnosticism is Judaism + Platonism. Platonism came first.

>>16105902
the the light of the nous is not knowledge

>>16105936
Because what you call nothing is something? If you can it, it can't be nothing. Nirvana is a state of consciousness, it isn't a concept. Nihilists don't get it.

>>16105970
Tell me about objective truths and objective reality of Buddhism.

>>16106025
buddhism doesn't deny them. in fact the buddha spends every sutra he discusses emptiness in explicitly reifying them.

so then, how is it nihilism?

>>16106048
So you got nothing? Also emptiness isn't anything. Emptiness is empty.

>>16106058
you made the claim.

or are you saying you dont actually have any proof or evidence that buddhism is nihilistic?

>>16106025
Tell me objective truths and objective reality perceived by you in a way that isn't inherited from any philosophical tradition.

>>16106080
Buddhists think Humeanism is religion

>>16106127
Elaborate.

>>16105898
intellectual revelation is different from Revelation, theophany par excellence. the truthfully intellectual pillar in christianity follows a unique line of transmission from the egyptians passing through the platonists, the latter missed the symbolique force of the former and that is why christianity had the force to establish itself.

>>16105924
>Egyptian religion which had been interacting intensely with the Greeks since Mycenaean times (and with the pregreeks who interacted with the Greeks)
Had it? Back in 10 to 2 thousand years BC?

>>16106168
Too bad all those that lacked Revelation(everyone except some tiny literal who tribe) was steeped in "idolatry", no matter how high their "intellectual revelation" soared. Idolatry of course being the worst sin; worthy of utter uprooting in the most violent ways, according to the biblical God. There is no special clause in the Bible where idolaters get a pass just because they've been joggin' their noggin'.

So his point of that Christianity should be rejected on its claim to exclusive Revelation still stand.

>>16106226
yes, worship of anything but the monadic triadic god is idolatry, but im sure a few pagans worshipped the true god (as is avowed in some pagan writings) howsoever they came to it.

>universal recollection
>exclusive

>>16106168
>>16106251
Just a heads up but this is literal heresy and no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic tradition believes this.

>>16106262
what is a heresy?

>>16106284
Something said to be not official -- if you care about what institutions says.

>>16105741
Thanks for clarification.

>>16106289
what is heresy in my post

>>16106168
>intellectual revelation is different from Revelation
>christians are the only ones with "revelation"

>>16106326
>only
>not understanding that Christ is the anthropocosmos, the King, image of the Father.

>>16106319
>monadic triadic god
>a few pagans worshipped the true god
>intellectual revelation is different from Revelation
>a unique line of transmission from the egyptians passing through the platonists

>>16106354
>>monadic triadic god
read OP, retard.

>>a few pagans worshipped the true god
yes, unity-trinity was worshipped by few egyptian priests, for example

>>intellectual revelation is different from Revelation
read anything on christian theology, lol

>>a unique line of transmission from the egyptians passing through the platonists
yes, this is called intellectual development

>>16106380
>unity-trinity was worshipped by few egyptian priests, for example
No it wasn't.

>>16106168
>>16106326
>thinking Plato andthe platonists deduced their doctrines

...the transcendent Forms exist by themselves; what exists by itself and of itself is not in us; what is not in us is not on the level of our knowledge; what is not on the level of our knowledge is unknowable by our feculty of knowledge; so then the transcendent Forms are unknowable by our faculty of knowledge. They may, then, be contemplated only by the divine Intellect. This is so for all Forms, but especially for those that arc beyond the intellectual gods; for neither sense-perception, nor cognition based on opinion, nor pure reason, nor intellectual cognition of our type serves to connect the soul with those Forms, but only illumination from the intellectual gods renders us capable of joining ourselves to those intelligible-and-intellectual Forms, as I recall someone saying under divine inspiration. The nature of those Forms is, then, unknowable to us, as being superior to our intellection and to the partial conceptions of our souls. And it is for this reason, indeed, that the Socrates of the Phaedrus (249d), as we said before, compares the contemplation of them to mystic rites and initiations and visions, conducting our souls up to the vault beneath the heaven, and the heaven itself, and the place above the heaven, calling the visions of those same Forms perfea and unwavering apparitions and also “simple” and “happy.” We have shown long ago, I believe, with explanations of great clarity, in our commentary on the Palinode passage {Phaedr. 243ab), that all those orders of being are intermediate between the intellectual gods and the primary intelligible ones; so that it is plain that a certain degree of truth is contained in the present passage. Knowledge of the intellectual Forms then, as has been said previously, has been instilled into us by the Demiurge and Father of souls, but as for those Forms that arc above Intellect, such as arc the Forms that are in the aforementioned classes, the knowledge of them is beyond our efforts to achieve and is of automatic provenance, achievable only by god-possessed souls

>>16106425
how many heroglyphics hymns have you read?

>>16106425
as soon as i get home i can post a genuine egyptian text to you

>>16106425
here's a prolegomena before the anon posts a genuine egyptian text (for you)

>>16106454
None that imply they worshiped some generic unity-trinity that can be transposed upon the Christian trinity, and as such these priests would have been drawn and quartered for pagan worship by the Church Fathers.

>>16106425
does this count as a bump
ffs

>>16106168
>Had it? Back in 10 to 2 thousand years BC?
People like to talk of hypertolerant bronze age empires which is a half-truth but it is a truth so far as we are concerned here
Pre-Greeks and Greeks of the bronze age both did a whole lot of sailing, trading and raiding
The most bountiful rewards for any of the above mentioned activities was the Kyle which led to cultural and theological interaction
Greeks borrowed lots of deities from other folks, especially Egyptians, but after borrowing and transliterating, they didn't stop thinking about the gods and start going brbrbrbrbrbbrbrbrb with their lips, they developed them greatly and took them to their own paths
>>16105960
Stop thinking in such black and white terms
Plato went all around the place which helped him develop his ideas a lot, saying that the near east, and especially Egypt, didn't influence Plato would be wrong
But making a sterile equation of platonism with Egyptian religion or any other near Eastern religion or a summa of "oriental" religions would still be wrong since Plato wasn't an automaton
He took these elements and used these ideas as a part of his foundation
He didn't just copy paste or even mostly copy paste

>>16106490
>None that imply they worshiped some generic unity-trinity that can be transposed upon the Christian trinity
indeed, the 'trinity' is a poor image of the true platonic triad.

>>16106499
>He didn't just copy paste or even mostly copy paste
>He took these elements and used these ideas as a part of his foundation
>Plato wasn't an automaton
these aren't contradictions, Plato being identical to them isn't because he took from them but because it (the same truth) was revealed to him personally, just as it was for Orpheus.

Iamblichus also proves the connection in the De Mysteriis

>>16106567
>revealed to him personally,
I thought he came upon Truth by rational investigation rather than divine revelation

>>16106587
>truth
>by rational investigation
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>16106644
Isnt that the fundamental distinction between christianity and platonism? The early Christians honored the attempts made by rational investigations, but knew the true communion with Truth could come only through Christ's incarnation. Thats the symbolism Dante used when he placed the good philosophers in a happy place but still outside of heaven

>>16106587
true Recollection and Divine Possession is revelation, 'rational investigation' is called Dianoia but Noeric perception is not Reason, when Plato quotes any god that is not he speaking.

Now, this was the power, so great and so extraordinary, that existed in that distant region at that time. This was the power the god mustered and brought against these [Mediterranean] lands. It was said that his pretense was something like what I shall describe. For many generations and ase long as enough of their divine nature survived, they were obedient unto their laws and they were well disposed to the divinity they were kin to. They possessed conceptions that were true and entirely lofty. And in their attitude to the disasters and chance events that constantly befall men and in their relations with one another they exhibited a combination of mildness and prudence, because, except for virtue, they held all else in disdain and thought of their present good fortune of no consequence. They bore their vast wealth of gold and other possessions without difficulty, treating them as if they were a burden. They did not become intoxicated with the luxury of the life their wealth made possible; they did not lose their self-control and slip into decline, but in their sober judgment they could see distinctly that even their very wealth increased with their amity and its companion, virtue. But they saw that both wealth and concord decline as possessions become pursued and honored. And virtue perishes with them as well.
Now, because these were their thoughts and because of the divine nature that survived in them, they prospered greatly as we have already related. But when the divine portion in them began to grow faint as it was often blended with great quantities of mortality and as their human nature gradually gained ascendancy, at that moment, in their inability to bear their great good fortune, they became disordered. To whoever had eyes to see they appeared hideous, since they were losing the finest of what were once their most treasured possessions. But to those who were blind to the true way of life oriented to happiness it was at this time that they gave the semblance of being supremely beauteous and blessed. Yet inwardly they were filled with an unjust lust for possessions and power. But as Zeus, god of the gods, reigning as king according to law, could clearly see this state of affairs, he observed this noble race lying in this abject state and resolved to punish them and to make them more careful and harmonious as a result of their chastisement. To this end he called all the gods to their most honored abode, which stands at the middle of the universe and looks down upon all that has a share in generation. And when he had gathered them together, he said . . .

>>16106662
>>16106587
SOCRATES: It certainly is not, my boys, as Philebus is wont to address you. Indeed, there is not, nor could there be, any way that is finer than the one I have always admired, although it has often escaped me and left me behind, alone and helpless.
PROTARCHUS: What is this way? Let us have it.
SOCRATES: It is not very difficult to describe it, but extremely difficult to use. For everything in any field of art that has ever been discovered has come to light because of this. See what way I have in mind.
PROTARCHUS: Please do tell us.
SOCRATES: It is a gift of the gods to men, or so it seems to me, hurled down from heaven by some Prometheus along with a most dazzling fire. And the people of old, superior to us and living in closer proximity to the gods, have bequeathed us this tale, that whatever is said to be consists of one and many, having in its nature limit and unlimitedness. Since this is the structure of things, we have to assume that there is in each case always one form for every one of them, and we must search for it, as we will indeed find it there. And once we have grasped it, we must look for two, as the case would have it, or if not, for three or some other number. And we must treat every one of those further unities in the same way, until it is not only established of the original unit that it is one, many and unlimited, but also how many kinds it is. For we must not grant the form of the unlimited to the plurality before we know the exact number of every plurality that lies between the unlimited and the one. Only then is it permitted to release each kind of unity into the unlimited and let it go.


One has to realize Plato used medium to hail others, like Ion say he got his truths from the muses, as a euphemism of himself. Socrates proclaims a few times of being possessed by the muses. Of course, perhaps, Plato humility makes him only postulate that what he's writing is inspired, until stuff like Timaeus of course. This doesn't deny that he developed with dialectics other truths, or proved the truths with reason. Platonism is the opposite of natural philosophy.

>>16105741
>Knowable, knowing/learning, knowledge.
Are these connected with the triadic gods in any way?
>The Classical Greek Olympic triad of Zeus (king of the gods), Athena (goddess of war and intellect) and Apollo (god of the sun, culture and music)
Goddess of Intellect, illuminating metaphors of the sun etc, and Zeus being the monarchia and principle of unity

See some similarities with the Norse triad too where Freyr is a sun God, Thor is a God of action where his job often is to retrieve stuff that was lost or just go on a quest of discovery, and Odin being... dunno wtf he would be. He is a god of poetry and wisdom but dunno how that would fit in. He is also mysterious and hidden, often not even fully understod if it is he or not. One might say Ineffable ;^)

Might be grasping at straws here but I've never really been into the mythology stuff.

>>16106665
>>16106754
Thanks, very appreciate

>>16105196
>one godhead
>trinity
>three
every time

How do you guys understand this stuff...

>>16107847
Knowledge and understanding build on itself. Keep investigating and the picture becomes more clear