Q. and A. on Nagarjuna and the MMK

 Q.  Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā contains various refutations of causation, change, "self-existence"/essence/svabh̄ava, and that perceptions and conceptions thereof are illusory and there is only "thusness"/tathata. For example, his tetralemma about causation comes to the conclusion that a thing could neither arise from something identical nor from something different, nor from both or neither (I will ignore the last one as I'm not sure anyone actually believes something can be derived from nothing). Therefore causation cannot actually take place. This is not only an attack on causation but also essence. The Platonist position in this framework, I suppose, would be closest to 3): the effect of a cause is both identical and different from that which is caused yet still possesses a certain self-existence/essence (we do not claim that it possesses independent existence other than the One who is beyond existence, nor do I think any spiritual system does). To Nagarjuna this position is absurd - how could an essence that belongs wholly to itself and is by nature eternal be caused and cause something posterior to it in turn, and, in the case of the eternal soul, undergo any sort of change? How do we square away the ascent of the soul from bodily existence to the Absolute if it is by nature unchangeable, especially since the intermediate - nous, the Divine Mind - is itself atemporal and the soul would have to reside there before finally rejoining the One? On a related note, if the soul once fully identified with the One then how could re-joining the One be permanent? This implies the state it had before its "fall" from the One was in some ways imperfect but the state it acquired after rejoining the One permanently is more perfect or absolutely hyper-perfect. All of these issues can be extrapolated I think from Nagarjuna's MMK, and that, given all these contradictions, it seems erroneous to think in terms of essence, change and causation as Nagarjuna claims.

Now, let me state that I don't believe Mahayana Buddhism actually escapes these conundrums. There's a not-so-subtle sophistry in their claim that while conventional reality is illusory we can still use it to arrive at "thusness", as this implies that the illusion somehow participates in "ultimate reality", meaning instead of being totally and fully illusory there are degrees of reality - this is no different from what we call ontology, in fact it mirrors the Plotinian model of reality. The conventional reality we perceive, instead of being totally illusory, is therefore but a mirror image of actual reality. Of course, at the level of the Absolute there is no causation, change, movement, difference, etc. However, if we follow Nagarjuna's logic to its actual conclusion (instead of the sophistic escape of the two truths doctrine) there would actually be no way for anything to arrive anywhere meaningful. In short, Nagarjuna's conclusions are as absurd, if not moreso, then that which he refutes. 

All this infers that Nagarjuna's conclusions must in some important ways be erroneous and that, at the very least, Mahayana Buddhists do not truly believe what the MMK states and escape from their own philosophical foundations by means of sophistry and rhetorical sleights of hand. However, it is just that: inference and not a direct confrontation with Nagarjuna's claims. The actual truth behind the MMK, contra to what Nagarjuna himself claims, would be a sort of staticness and an "absolute un-truth" that we could never hope to escape. The only other option would be a sort of ontology and it is telling Mahayana Buddhism sneakily opted for the latter. However, I find myself unsatisfied by this indirect refutation and at unease. I believe there must be some way to directly confront Nagarjuna's reasoning instead of merely pointing out the absurdity of its consequences.

(Original question abbreviated and edited.)

A.  I wouldn't worry about all this stuff.  These concerns are not necessary and are not based on valid assumptions.  Nagarjuna's/the MMK's analysis or 'logic', along with the doubts that it makes you give rise to, is based on invalid, realist/nominalist, non-idealist, and unexamined premises that limit reality and the possibilities and explanations just to the lowest phenomenal level, which has minimal reality.  These questions and supposed contradictions about causation, change, etc. could only arise if the attempt to explain causation, etc. is limited to just the lowest plane of phenomenal and supposedly material things.  Causation and phenomenal spatial and temporal change are readily understood without contradiction as the projection of the order and structure of nous onto or into the lower level of non-being, as the life of soul in time and space unwilling to take the whole of nous all at once.  There is only, as Plotinus puts it in Ennead 3.8, contemplation--stronger and weaker, fuller and less full, complete and incomplete, clearer and more obscure, but still only contemplation. The One/Good is the completely full clear contemplation; the life of the most degraded souls is the weakest most incomplete and dark contemplation.  The ascent, and also the descent, of the soul is just a change in the state of contemplation, so there is no problem of an eternal essence undergoing some sort of change analogous to a sort of physical change.  Also, it is not like the soul was a physical part of the One before its fall and then physically rejoins the One, as the language of your doubt seems to tacitly suppose.  The potential for not knowing is present within knowing, the potential for darkness is present within light, for non-being within being.  When the soul completes contemplation and fully knows and becomes the light, the not knowing and darkness and non-being is gone.  You don't have to worry about it recurring.  All this is actually kind of ineffable and only really known in contemplative ascetic experience, since all this discussion and questions and process only occurs at the lowest least real level.

Nagarjuna/the MMK is maybe just being what the Platonic dialogs call an "antilogikos" or a "sophist taking refuge in the darkness of non-being".  Perhaps, you might want to review the discussion about not becoming "misologikos" that refers to "antilogikos" people that are pleased within themselves when they turn everything up and down to make it seem that no definite conclusions are possible in the Phaedo at 89b-90d.  (Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to read the whole Phaedo carefully say 50 or 100 times!).  Other dialogs also deal with this problem and the kind of difficulties that the antilogikoi and sophists of the world cause.  You also may want to eventually read through all of the Enneads, even though this is a big project and you won't likely understand much of what you read for a long time, as Plotinus deals with the kinds of concerns you have.  You don't have to be able to understand everything at the discursive level before proceeding with the ascesis.  Indeed, it is impossible to do so.  And being and working as a celibate, vegan, teetotalling, etc. ascetic practicing contemplation is as necessary for coming to even a discursive level understanding of these things as racking your brains over Nagarjuna's attempts at logical contortion.

I don't know if it will be of any help or interest, but here is a link with an added introduction of the original sort of non-sectarian version of one of my pieces that perhaps you have seen in the specific Platonist form that I was asked several years ago to write for an old English language Indian magazine:   https://www.csp.indica.in/an-indo-hellenistic-understanding-of-contemplative-asceticism-eric-s-fallick/

Perhaps, it will be some consolation to you to see that there is a great deal one can do to proceed on the Path and that the essentials of doing so are clear even before necessarily resolving all the possible conceptual doubts that may arise on reading the different texts of the different systems.

On Being Truly Liminal

On Being Truly Liminal

by Eric S. Fallick

 A true contemplative ascetic, a renunciant, a real monastic, a Platonist philosophos is in core and essence and essential nature and in the deepest depths of his soul a truly liminal being.  He has definitively and consciously set out from and left behind this shore of individuated sensate existence in space-time, of the endless cycle of rebirth and redeath and misery, of becoming, genesis, samsara, and is striving with all his might to reach the other shore of re-union with the Good or the One, the telos, of escape from individuated spatiotemporal becoming, of the end of suffering, of the end of himself as such and the reemergence of the Absolute alone.  He has begun the long and arduous journey and irreversibly set out, but he is not There yet.  Thus, he is betwixt and between, cast in the middle of the sea, suspended in mid-air without visible means of support– a liminal being, and one for a very long time.  He cannot and would not go back to the ordinary world and delusion and weltanschauung he has left, but has not yet been able to reach the goal, which, depending on where he is along the Path, may as yet only be appearing vaguely in the distance, as a vague sense of the direction in which to go.  Not yet being free, he still has, for very many births, a body and mind and individuated spatiotemporal existence that still has to be attended to and causes all manner and quantity of troubles and hindrances and keeps pulling him down and back toward what he has left and wants to leave and be rid of, but also a soul beginning to or being purified, the higher self emerging, the One Itself beginning more and more to shine through him pulling him up and forward to the goal by means of his own striving.  He is being pulled in two directions at once–practically being drawn and quartered!--seeming to go back and forth, although really the higher upward and forward pull is actually keeping him progressing on the Path, even if it often seems only incremental and non-linear, or even that there is sometimes regression.  He no longer has anything in common with ordinary deluded worldly people who haven’t begun the Path and are clueless as to how things actually are, but is very lucky if he can find even one or two or three actual fellow travelers, and often has to do without even that, without any human support or true fellowship at all, except with the invisible communion of saints, as it were; he is only concerned with striving for divine things, but has to devote so much of his time and energy and thought and care just to psychophysical survival, to maintaining the body-mind in this sense world that he doesn’t even feel he really belongs in; going back is unthinkable, but he is fearful that he has no assurance of reaching the other side; he knows the direction, at least in general or vaguely, that he has to keep going in, and can never stop swimming, but often, at least in certain stages of the Path, it is not clear precisely what to do, what conceptual framework or system or practice to adopt, who of the many people offering different ways should be heeded, etc.; still repulsed from the near shore, it often seems that all the headwinds of society, surrounding people and events and influences, the supposed physical world, his own body-mind, his karma are all against his progressing forward no matter how hard he swims–-a condition of uncertainty and anxiety and unsupportedness and liminality indeed (but also, of course, one of great joy and satisfaction and really being alive in a way that ordinary beings can’t know, which he wouldn’t even dream of abandoning or stopping even under the most painful of trials)!

Thus, the real contemplative ascetic and renunciant is a liminal being, more, really, than anyone else described as such, since is he is not just in a liminal or transitional state between two states or structures in this world, but actually between two entirely different worlds or levels of being.  It is crucially important to note, though, that external renunciation and asceticism and spiritual practices (even mental ones) are an absolutely necessary but not alone sufficient condition for being truly liminal, for having truly set out on the Path and being in a liminal and transitional state between the miserable false shore of this world and the true happy shore of release, of the One.

A, perhaps the, most essential, important, and critical point in the long  journey of the ascetic through many births, in a sense, perhaps the real beginning of the Path, is for there to be a true, genuine, real revulsion or turning in the very deepest depths of the soul from this world of suffering, individuated sensate existence in space-time, the weary round of birth and death to the Absolute, to the Good, to the higher hypostases.  This involves truly seeing, however fleetingly, the miserable unsatisfactory nature of this world and life in it and in birth and death as an individual soul, and raising a true and genuine aspiration to get out of and free from it and to cross to the release of the Other Shore, of re-union with the Good.  It involves, if even for only an instant, recognizing and wanting to give up the audacity, the tolma, of wanting to be an individual self and soul, of wanting to be of and for oneself, rather than of and for the higher hypostases, of wanting a multiplicity of seemingly external objects and appropriating them one after another in the illusion of time and space that is the turning point in the descent and fall of the individual soul into this world, into the lowest level of semi-existence.  It is a momentary reversing of this initial turning in the wrong direction to turn back in the right direction.  It is really the One reemerging for a moment through the darkness of individual karma, of the light of the Good shining for a moment through clouds of karma in the depths of the individual soul and illuminating and changing it.  Once this has really and truly happened (and it is really a mystery why and how it happens to a given individual soul and at a given time in the vast series of rebirths), the ascetic is really changed forever, has set out on the Path, can never now really return to or feel at home or a part of this world of the terrible shore.  He now no longer really belongs in this world, no matter how hard he may try to again, can never fully go back to sleep and become unconscious of the real state of affairs again, even if he tries to.  He is now truly liminal.  His feet can no longer ever rest securely on this shore, but, as it appears to him at least, he has not yet been able to plant his feet on the other shore either.  There is still now, though, a very long way to go through very many rebirths of struggle and effort, in the non-linear course of which there may still be many seeming regressions, seeming returns to the ordinary world, actings on the defilements of the ordinary deluded soul, many times or even lifetimes in which he seems to have forgotten that important insight and awakening and gone back to sleep and become an ordinary worldling again for a while, but even though he himself may often not be aware of it, there has been a change in the depths of his soul that will never let him permanently rest in this unhappy world again and will eventually impel him to renounce it and start walking on the Path again, however difficult and painful it may sometimes be to do so.  There is a tremendous, almost inconceivable, long struggle ahead before the final release, but he is now inevitably fated to eventually return, even though it doesn’t at all seem like that to him and for many births he may be racked with fear and anxiety about whether he will succeed, in fact, maybe until he is actually near the verge of success.  He is now no longer even really of the same species or genus of or with ordinary worldlings and ordinary beings.  Even though he still has to interact with and relate to them all the time in surviving in this world while he is still stuck in it stuck with an individual psychophysical organism, in the depths of his soul he really has nothing in common with them.  They are all turned exactly the opposite way than he is.  They are just phantoms.  He isn’t one of them.  He still, though, through his psychophysical organism, has the ordinary need, or at least desire, for company and fellowship and support, but he can’t find it in or get it from all the ordinary worldlings around him, and may not be able to find even one or a few real fellow travelers, fellow non-phantoms, others of his own species and kind, at various stretches of the journey, even among some who seem to have taken on the external trappings and practices of the renunciant Path.  Thus, loneliness and aloneness and unsupportedness is often part of the Way, and in this state he is, again, really liminal (unlike those in this world only who might be referred to as liminal, but can find fellowship and community with the many others who are also in what is supposed to be a liminal condition of sorts).

It is important to recognize in terms of this fundamental turning in the depths of the soul and initial beginning of reemergence of the Good that it is not to be confused with institutionalized monasticism, ritual initiations or sacraments, formal acceptance of a doctrinalized creed, etc.  All these can occur, and, in fact, often do, without this fundamental turning having happened or happening.  Actually, all such can be a hindrance to this actually occurring and stand in the way of a true recognition of the actual state of affairs and of becoming truly liminal.  Someone could well spend their entire life in an institutionalized, ritualized cenobitical monastic situation as a member in good standing and all apparent sincerity and still be totally on this shore and have never even set out into the liminal state, have not actually renounced this world since all these organized phenomena are still actually things of this world, objects of the senses.  Further, all these structures, though, or because, they may obviate the concerns and difficulties of physical survival and emotional pain and loneliness associated with the truly liminal renunciant ascetic state, and largely may be sought for this reason, may make it seem that everything is OK and safe and that as long as one adheres to all the rules and structures and so forth one will be OK and doesn’t have to worry about the suffering inherent in becoming and any delay in attaining or progressing towards liberation.  This may prevent true practice and true recognition of the real alarming and horrid state of affairs and keep the true revulsion from happening.  Even more, in the truly liminal unsupported state, it is most absolutely necessary for the contemplative ascetic to most strictly follow and observe all the necessary and intrinsic practices and principles of the renunciant state–celibacy, veganism, teetotalling, honesty, poverty and minimum of possessions, abstention from worldly entertainments and social activities, noninvolvement in politics and worldly affairs, total single-minded devotion to the askesis and contemplation, detachment from emotional ties and worldly relationships (familial and otherwise), etc.--but he has to figure out himself, with knowledge of renunciant principles and systems and of himself, all the exact and detailed implementations of all these principles.  This forces his soul to turn from the sense world and only concrete specifics to general ideal principles and then to the higher hypostasis of nous and, eventually, there to the very Form/Idea of contemplative-ascetic-itself, and, ultimately, to the Good Itself that is the source of all good and of all the ascetic principles.  This is in itself a great and important gain.  In this process, he is more truly liminal since he has to see the way to implement the Path without much support or complete direction in this world and has to depend directly on the divine paradigms, which he cannot, especially early on, always see clearly and touch directly and has to often grope his way towards in a transitional state where he can no longer depend just on directions in this world, but cannot yet permanently dwell with the divine archetypes.  In the institutionalized, ritualized, formalized organized monastic state, on the other hand, often veritably smothered and hedged in on all sides by rules, structures, uniforms, regulations, schedules, authorities, directors, superiors, etc., most every detail is already spelled out and prescribed, choices don’t have to be made, everything comes from the sense world and the soul is always looking downwards towards it since that is where the guidance and instructions are, and there is nothing to make the soul turn toward the higher realities and the divine paradigms and the Forms in this regard.   Also,  the truly liminal unsupported non-institutionalized ascetic has to rely solely on his own inner motivation, commitment, determination, will, and understanding.  If the true revulsion and turning in the soul and true setting out on the Path and into the liminal state has occurred, this need to rely on the soul’s own inner resources and deepest nature may keep reinforcing and strengthening this turn and bringing it to consciousness.  If it hasn’t occurred, it may encourage its happening.  In the uniformed institutionalized organized monastic situation, on the other hand, where everything is externally enforced and prescribed and regulated and the soul doesn’t have to rely so much and draw so much from itself, there may be little to fan or ignite the inner spark that is so crucial to the actual Path and liminality.

The spatiotemporal language and terminology and imagery required to explain the condition and process of the liminal contemplative ascetic practitioner may tend to picture thinking in this regard, but it is important to realize and remember that the liminal state and process and the Path is actually existential, metaphysical, and, really, ontological.  This is part of the reason why once the true revulsion and turning at the depths of the soul has occurred there is no turning back and the true liminal renunciant is no longer really even of the same kind with, is qualitatively different from, all ordinary worldly beings (including even conventional religionists).  He simply exists more, is more of a real being, exists more also now in an additional vertical transcendent direction, than ordinary samsaric souls wandering only in the purely horizontal two-dimensional temporospatial realm of becoming.  All the practices of renunciation and contemplative asceticism, both physical and mental, all the radical change of behavior, conduct, pursuits, thinking, weltanschauung, desire, and emotion, sincere and accompanied by the true inner turn, lead to an actual change, or beginning of change, in his state of being, to an actual ontological shift and launch into the liminal ontological state.  That is, the contemplative ascetic liminal state is a nonlinear transition between two different actual ontological states, between two radically different states of actual being.  The states of being an individuated sensate ordinary being in genesis, in becoming, in birth and death and of having attained release and re-union with the One are two radically different states and degrees of being, and the truly liminal ascetic is suspended oscillating in both directions between the two.   Nowhere, though, perhaps, is this more obvious than in the actual practice of contemplation itself, where the actual work of the ontological change takes place, based on the absolutely necessary ontological changes of renunciation and discipline in all its aspects, and the practitioner is more obviously in an ontologically liminal state and separate from the world.  In the time of actual formal contemplation practice, the renunciant is consciously and deliberately trying to make the ontological shift from the sensory multiplicitous temporospatial semi-being of this world and his own individuated cyclic existence to re-union with the eternal unchanging actually real higher hypostases.  When he first starts the practice, he is principally for most of the contemplation period still in this world and struggling even just to redirect his attention and get even a glimpse of the higher real being into view.  At the very end of the askesis, when sitting in contemplation he has become just the Good and experiences nothing else and is on the verge of final emancipation.  But in the very long time in between–indeed, over many births–in contemplation he is constantly moving back and forth between these two states and extremes, striving for the Good and to whatever degree and however fleetingly or stably making contact with the higher hypostases, but then being pulled back to becoming and the senses, until all his karma is exhausted.  He is suspended between these two poles, though moving, really, though non-linearly and not always obviously, closer and more permanently toward the higher more real pole, attenuating with the upward movement, but still retaining his individuality.  During contemplation, and more and more outside of formal contemplation as the existential change starts to carry over more to the necessary time spent directly involved with the sensory world and psychophysical organism, he is in an intermediate and indeterminate ontological state, no longer fully in the semi-being of this world, but also not yet fully and permanently in the realm of true being and beyond being.  This is indeed the liminal state and being par excellence!  Also, as his contemplation practice progresses and he gains some and more direct experience of the higher realities, he becomes all the more liminal in all respects and separated and different and alienated from the ordinary world and all the ordinary deluded worldlings and worldly beings around him and with which and whom he still must interact on a daily basis in maintaining psychophysical survival.  Turning from the bright light of the Divine to the darkness of the sensory cave, he has trouble seeing in the dark and fumbles.  More and more losing any interest in this world and the things happening in it, he knows and cares less and less about it and so stumbles awkwardly in dealing with it.  More and more filled with divine inspiration, he more and more rejects what the world considers practical prudence and concern and laughs at what the world and ordinary worldlings consider important.  His way, his concerns, his values, his thinking, his actions, his practice are just the opposite of those of the world and worldlings.  Thus, to them he seems weird or strange or foolish or eccentric or silly or mad, and they are separated from him as he is from them.  So now, from this, he is also in a permanent state of liminality, indefiniteness, marginality, and loneliness and isolation in terms of society and people and social (and even economic and logistical) conditions–except in so far as if he is lucky enough to have a couple fellow travelers on the same anti-world, transcendent Path as himself.  Disconnected from the structures and values of society and the human world, yet without trying to make other structures that seem spiritual or religious or monastic but are actually reflections of the ordinary worldly structures, he is certainly liminal in this respect also.

In trying to present a picture of the truly liminal state of the true contemplative ascetic and renunciant, it seems to have been necessary to refer more to the challenges and difficulties of this state than to its joys and satisfactions and comforts and consolations, though what may seem like unpleasantnesses to the ordinary worldling looking from the outside may actually be happinesses to the liminal ascetic.  Also, it may be more appropriate to talk about one’s difficulties and discomforts on the Path than to reveal and announce one’s joys and accomplishments to all and sundry.  The truly liminal contemplative ascetic loves and is passionate about what he does and would never think of doing anything else or being like everyone else.  He thinks that only being on this Path is truly being alive and that ordinary worldly people are really living dead and that to be and live like them would be a fate quite literally worse than death.  Certainly, it cannot be denied that the liminal spiritual Path has many challenges and difficulties and discomforts and even pains of purification, and that it requires great determination and commitment and discernment and patience and even courage and intestinal fortitude.  Obviously, however, short of the unspeakable joy of finally attaining the telos, of final emancipation, nothing could be more joyful than to be on the Path to it (even if it hurts sometimes).  Even when it contains some suffering or struggle, this is as nothing compared to the suffering and struggle of the cycle of birth and death and ordinary worldly life, which is nothing but 100% pure unalloyed misery even when the worldlings don’t realize it and think that they are actually experiencing happiness.  Come then, set off from the wretched shore of this world and join the liminal few on the high seas of the Path!  Is there really any alternative?  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain!

©2022 Eric S. Fallick

 

   

 

 

A Q. and A. on the cenobium vs. eremiticism

 

Q. We talked about the cenobitical vs. the eremtical life approaches.  A point that I didn't think of while we were talking, but was hovering in the back of my mind, is that cenobitical approaches live in accordance with a rule (like the Rule of St. Benedict).  That is to say that every member of a cenobium has to align their daily activities in accordance with an objective rule that is the basic structure of that way of life.  I think this has advantages for spiritual practice.  It means that those who participate in this way of life have abandoned personal choices in many areas of life (e.g. when to eat, what to wear, etc.).  I see this as a form of renunciation that opens up the possibility of a higher goal in life, beyond that of self-satisfaction in making one's own choices.  

 

A. Would you like me to respond briefly to this observation?  We could always talk about it more sometime if you like, but a few quick thoughts follow.  I understand that this is a common argument made by the cenobium in its favor, but I don't think it is really valid or is a superiority of cenobitical monasticism over eremitical.  (By the way, as I'm sure you know, all the monastic traditions that I know of--Buddhist, Jaina, Hindu, Christian, Quanzhen Daoist--started as eremitical and then only in time developed cenobitical forms that eventually took over and declared themselves to be superior, but were never able to entirely eliminate the original eremitical ideal.  Reform movements within them tended towards a return to the original eremitical way as superior for actual spiritual practice and attainment.  And there have always been individual renunciant practitioners within them who were truly striving for liberation who took to and remained in the eremitical life of spiritual necessity, who were the greatest in their systems, and often the systems always retained this as an option.  Anyway, it would take a long time to discuss all of this and various examples in detail.)

Eremitical renunciants, at least real ones, also very much, at least as much, follow an objective rule that is the basic structure of their way of life and renounce and give up personal choices of the lower self and self-satisfaction therein.  They, however, have to have the discipline to do it themselves without external enforcement and be able to do it with understanding of the principles and reasons involved (though some may not always have had such understanding).  Further, their objective rule or way is, at least ideally or at least for Platonists, the actual 'rule' or requirements in the very nature of reality, not a more or less conditioned rule created by a specific temporospatial figure or group.  They must conform themselves to the 'paradigm laid up in heaven for those who want to see it and seeing it establish a colony in themselves', which is the most objective and least self-satisfied and of idiosyncratic choices 'rule' or 'way' possible.  This, I think, even more, much more, opens the possibility of a higher goal in life, indeed the highest.

Many of the arguments that the cenobium and other institutionalized spiritual groups use for their advantages, including, I think, this one, I think are confusing conditioned, and ultimately mundane, personal development with actual unconditioned based spiritual advancement.  Of course, individual eremites can confuse these also, but real spiritual practice has to be based on a genuine aspiration and determination from within that comes from the Good starting to re-manifest Itself from within the practitioner/ascetic, and thus is very far from a self-satisfied personal choice.  (The decision to follow a cenobitical rule and be part of the group and let them make the choices in certain regards can be just as much a self-satisfying personal choice without necessarily having real unconditioned spiritual motivation.)

These are big and most important topics that are a lot to go into, but here are a couple quick thoughts of mine to go with yours.  Incidentally, as I guess you know, historically, many eremitical monastics have actually had written 'rules' like those of cenobites that they had to follow given to them by preceptors or institutional authorities or written by themselves.

If it is of any help to think of it in this way, not going to social or worldly events like the fine dining experience that you narrowly escaped is an objective rule for eremitical renunciants and one that is inscribed in Reality Itself and something that you don't really have a personal choice about--you simply can't do such things but have to be 100% focused on the askesis, especially given impermanence and your age and condition and the urgency of 'the Great Matter of Birth and Death'.

If Platonism had ever manifested as an organized religious institution or an organized monastic institution, it would have become, by definition, another thing of this world, another conditioned phenomena, and, like all things of this world and conditioned phenomena, been subject to impermanence, change, decay, decline, corruption, destruction, and disappearance.  It would have lost its pure transcendence and liberative power, like all the other systems that did become institutions for the many.  It would have become, to whatever degree, just a shadow or phantom, rather than a real being, like everything else in the sense world, including the other religious and spiritual systems and institutions that are part of the sense world.

 

We are trying to get free entirely from this world and all phenomenal sensory spatio-temporal individuated worlds.  We renounce this world entirely and completely as far as we can in all its respects and hold only to the Absolute, to Transcendence.  Organized, institutionalized monasticism doesn't actually do this.  It just creates another alternative conditioned phenomenal world of its own, complete with costumes, uniforms, rituals, ceremonies, ranks, hierarchies, positions and offices, laws and codes, etiquettes, properties, finances and maintenances,  family structures and bonds and attachments, politics, entertainments, emotional appeals and satisfactions, etc., etc.--all the things of this world that we have renounced and they are supposed to have renounced!  Thus, while it is certainly much better than ordinary worldly life and can be a useful, and, for many, necessary, half-way house, it is difficult to attain full true liberation within it.  This is why most of the real people, even if they formally belonged to a monastic order and were initially brought up in the cenobium, even in the highly institutionalized systems, tended to eventually become hermits, solitaries, forest ascetics, etc. to try to really practice and pursue liberation and perfection.

A Platonist "precept"/"vow" of monastic poverty

 Given here is an explicit statement of philosophos conduct/practice that could be added to a list of such surviving explicit "regulations" compiled from the extant written Platonist texts, from the Dialogs to the end of Platonism in antiquity, though so much appears to be lost or never committed to writing, though the Phaedo also enjoins voluntary monastic poverty, I think, pretty explicitly, and it is also at least implied, if not outright stated, in the Politea:

 

"O both dear Pan and how many other gods (are) here, give to me to become/be beautiful/noble inside: but how much I have outside to be friendly with the things inside for me.  And may I consider the wise person rich: and may the quantity of gold for me be how much no one other than the one having control over sensual desires, the sane person, would be able to bear or manage/observe."  (Phaedrus, 279 b9-c3)

 

The above is my own rendering, which may differ noticeably from other translations of the Phaedrus.

 

Here are a few other explicit  statements for a list for a philosophos’ “rule” from some surviving fragments (all in my own quick, rough draft, off the cuff translations):

From Olympiodorus' commentary on the Phaedo:

" "The philosopher, as far as is not absolutely necessary, looks down upon/disdains the care of the body"...The are three (kinds of) activities:  either natural and necessary, as taking nourishment and sleeping; or natural, but not necessary, as sexual intercourse; or neither natural nor necessary, as finery and how many things there are of variegated clothing--there being these three (kinds of) activities, therefore, the philosopher will have nothing at all to do with the natural but not necessary and the neither natural nor necessary, but will thrust them away from himself/reject/despise them (for nocturnal emissions will suffice for him in regard to secretion of semen), but he will make use of the first (i.e., the natural and necessary) a little bit perfunctorily/pro forma, as not to take his fill/make much of them.  "If, then, these things are thus, the philosopher, as far as is not absolutely necessary, disdains the body; such a one is willing to die; the philosopher therefore practices death."..."

This is a clear and explicit statement that the Platonist philosophos is a celibate ascetic. 

From Damascius' commentary on the Phaedo:

"...the contemplative philosopher is one wanting as his goal having been made one with the (hypostases) above himself and to be theirs rather than of himself:  on which account (Plato) says "(it is not lawful) for the not pure to touch the pure".

It is necessary for the one being purified and hastening to be made like the Pure first to reject pleasures and pains as far as he is able; second, he must nourish himself with plain, simple food without luxury, but also food that is righteous and temperate (but this is untainted with blood and spotless) and that is holy and in accord with ancestral practice (for the food that is unholy and harming animals and coarsening the spirit makes the body intractable to the soul and unfit for contact with God); third, he must cut off the unharmonious wrong motion of the appetitive irrationality (for what would one standing aloof from all external things desire and with what would he be angry?), but if ever such a sort of thing would be moved either awake or asleep, it is most quickly put down by the reason; fourth, he must keep away from all sense-perceptions and imaginations, as far as it is not necessary to use them; fifth, the one wanting to be released from the multiplicity of becoming is to be separated from the opinions of all various sorts; the sixth precept out of all of them, is to escape the variegated complexity of thought and pursue the simpler expositions and distinctions with a view to becoming accustomed to the undivided intelligence."

This is an injunction to vegetarianism. 

The Timaeus is explicitly vegan, as is the Epinomis.

Of course, Porphyry tells us in the "Life" that Plotinus "didn't abide to take medicines made from wild animals, saying that neither did he allow foods from the bodies of domesticated animals" and Porphyry, of course, wrote his whole book on the necessity of vegetarianism, and with it philosophical asceticism.

Though it is not directly from Platonism, but from Neo-Pythagoreanism, which is likely more derived from Platonism, in Philostratus' LIfe of Apollonius of Tyana, Apollonius is given as explicitly and in detail setting forth as necessary 'precepts' 'the big three':  celibacy in all respects,  vegetarianism and probably veganism (including not wearing leather, etc.), and teetotalling:

“For if someone has come to my standards of conduct, he would choose to get rid of all food (lit., how much of a table) of (i.e., coming from) animals; and he would utterly forget wine and not make turbid the vessel of wisdom that stands in the souls of those abstaining from wine; neither a cloak will warm him, nor wool, that has been shorn from an animal, and I give to him shoes of papyrus, and to lie down to sleep as it chances; and if I perceive him giving way to sexual desire and love, I have pits of perdition down into which Righteousness, the attendant of Wisdom, bears such people and thrusts them (into them)...”

I think that probably the above examples could be expanded and multiplied many times through searching the fragmentary surviving texts and probably there were many more such explicit prescriptions in the likely much greater bulk of Platonist literature that is lost to us (for example, because of the Muslims burning the great ancient library of Alexandria and the Christians burning whatever may have escaped the Muslims!), but just the above, with, of course, the Phaedo, Republic, and Timaeus and others, may perhaps be enough to obviate concern about any lack of structure or definite prescriptions in Platonism.  It seems that the ascetic Path of Platonism is pretty clear, it's just that it is left to the individual, who is one of the few not the many and is presumed to have some spiritual discernment himself, to work out the exact details in each particular circumstance, without, for instance, the sort of long lists of silly, absurd, and neurotic details given in, for example, the Buddhist Vinayas and the sort of attempts criticized in the Republic to endlessly create detailed rules for every particular circumstance to try to make up for a lack of actual righteousness, renunciation, asceticism, and spiritual discernment and informed-ness and intelligence enabling the ascetic to decide more correctly what to do in each case in accordance with the actual principles of the contemplative ascetic life and practice and the single-minded striving for release and the telos without worldly concerns and desires. 

 

I might make another suggestion of a resolution to feeling a want of a set of formal precepts or regulations for Platonist contemplative ascetics/philosophoi in the extant texts--in fact, a more really Platonist, perhaps, and ultimately more satisfactory and definitive solution.  It is, though, one that is not necessarily easy to implement and hardly anyone now could do it or even try to do it.  If one can manage to clearly and fully "see" or "touch" or "know" or come in contact with in contemplation, having ascended to the noetic realm, to the level of Nous, and entering into it, the actual Form/Idea of "contemplative-ascetic-in itself" or "contemplative-asceticism-in-itself" or "philosophos-in-itself" or "Platonist-renunciant/yogi-in-itself" or etc.--however, one might choose to label it just as a means of focussing on that one particular Form as it truly and really and paradigmatically exists in Nous--one will find that it contains in itself, is the higher source of, (in unity and interpenetration with the separate Forms of the individual virtues, etc.) all the practices/"precepts"/necessary prescriptions/standards of conduct/"regulations”, etc. that we talk about--celibacy, veganism, teetotaling, monastic poverty, abstaining from worldly entertainments, simplicity of food, drink, and clothing, world-renunciation, solitude, sitting in contemplation practice, etc., etc.  All are there, though, of course, not in a series or list of statements in English(!) at the level of discursive thought, but as the actual really existing aspects of the complex level Form.  After thoroughly contemplating this Form at the level of Nous, when the soul is not even really, in a sense, itself but has entered into a degree of unity with Nous, when the soul returns to this level the logoi corresponding to or emanating from the Form will appear clearly in the soul as the statements of necessary practice or conduct at the discursive verbal level.  Hard for me to put the matter into words and a hard thing to do, but I think this is a much more ultimately satisfactory source of and point of reliance for, the real thing, what constitutes ascetic practice and conduct than feeling dependent on karmically appearing sensory experience, which is, after all, really what any text we have is.  As Platonist contemplative ascetics, we have a great advantage and freedom in that our "regulations" of renunciant/ascetic conduct are eternally there and always accessible and real and unerring and not a matter of opinion in the realm of being, in the noetic realm, and we don't have to depend on karmically chancing to encounter teachings of such in the uncertain, always changing, impermanent, only the object of opinion not actual knowledge, sensory realm of becoming like practitioners of other systems.  (And, ultimately, even further, our askesis comes from the source of all knowledge, the Good Itself, and direct contact and union with the Good will also, even more, upon the return, lead to all the logoi of contemplative ascetic practice being present at the discursive level in the soul.)  All the prescriptions and ideas of ascetic practice that we read about in Platonist texts and/or in the texts of other systems can then serve as reminders to help the soul recollect the real ascetic standards that it once knew in itself and now recontacts or remembers or learns in contemplation.  (The Platonist teaching of learning being recollection solves a multitude of difficulties!)

 

Plotinus regularly attained the unio mystica, not just "four times"

 Q. We had a conversation about the experiences that Plotinus had of ultimacy.  There is a passage in Porphyry's biography that suggests that Plotinus had such complete experiences four times, or roughly four times, in Plotinus's life.  As I recall you argued against that kind of reading and suggested a more steady and complete realization.  I hope I remember your views correctly.

 

Apropos this discussion, Ennead 4.8 begins with a rare autobiographical comment by Plotinus on just this topic (Gerson translation, page 512):

 

"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?"

 

I looked up the MacKenna translation (page 410) and I think it brings out some points with different emphases:

 

"Many times it has happened: lifted out of the body into myself; becoming external to all other things and self-encentred; beholding a marvelous beauty; then, more than ever, assured of community with the loftiest order; enacting the noblest life, acquiring identity with the divine; stationing within It by having attained that activity; poised above whatsoever within the Intellectual is less than the Supreme: yet, there comes the moment of descent from intellection to reasoning, and after that sojourn in the divine, I ask myself how it happens that I can now be descending, and how did the soul ever enter into my body, the Soul which, even within the body, is the high thing it has shown itself to be."

 

I think this passage gives definitive evidence that, at the very least, Plotinus entered into supreme union 'many times' or 'often'.  And the implication is that Plotinus did this regularly, not haphazardly.  I would infer that contemplation was likely a daily practice for Plotinus.

 

The differences between MacKenna and Gerson are intriguing; particularly in the opening passage.  MacKenna speaks of a process of 'lifting up' 'out of the body', and this seems consistent with the path of 'ascent' to the divine.  In contrast, Gerson's translation speaks of 'externalizing myself' and 'waking up to myself'.  Gerson's translation is, I think, a little more opaque; but I would be interested in your own understanding of this opening passage -- perhaps it is difficult to interpret though the general gist seems clear.

 

 

A. Yes, I mentioned that the usual and oft repeated interpretation of Porphyry's statement in the Life is absurd from a practitioner's standpoint and simply reflects the ignorance of the usual translators and scholars.  I also cited that very opening passage of Ennead 4.8 as direct contrary evidence that the more common interpretation is incorrect.  I did also say that I had no doubt that Plotinus entered into union with the One, into the Good/One samadhi, so to speak, regularly and daily each time he sat down to his regular contemplation practice.

 

First of all, Porphyry's statement simply says (in my own rough, quick, off the cuff rendering):  "But he attained four times, I suppose, when I was with him, this goal in unspeakable actuality and not in potentiality."  There is nothing at all in it to suggest that Plotinus only attained it four times in his life--I don't know where the silly interpreters got that idea from.  Further, while it is possible to take the Greek as meaning 'with him' in the sense of the years in which Porphyry was with Plotinus in Rome, it certainly doesn't have to be, and can just mean while he was literally 'with him', i.e., happened to be in the same room with him when he was or went into contemplation.  So really all it tells us is that Porphyry observed his union four times--nothing more about Plotinus' number of times or frequency of union or his regular contemplation practice.  Besides, how would the unaccomplished and relatively unperceptive Porphyry know if Plotinus was in union or not?  It is hardly likely or even proper that Plotinus would tell him every time he entered into the divine union!

 

As regards the Ennead 4.8 passage itself, I'm afraid that neither the Gerson et al. nor the MacKenna translations that you cite are very good or faithful.  (Armstrong's is a bit better.)  I would give, again, a quick, rough, off the cuff rendering as follows:

"Often (/many times) waking to myself from the body and becoming outside of the other things, but inside of myself, seeing a beauty marvelous how great, and trusting then especially (myself) to be of the better part, and effecting the best life and having become the same thing with the Divine and being seated in it coming to that actuality beyond all the other noetical seating myself (therein), after this state in the Divine coming down to discursive reasoning from Nous, I am at a loss how I ever even came down now, and how ever for me the soul has become within the body being this, of such a sort as it has appeared in itself, even though being in a body."  I have rendered it as it is in the Greek, as one long sentence with lots of participles and clauses, and pretty literally, but hopefully it is clear enough.  I don't think the differences in the translations reflect difficulty in interpreting and rendering the Greek, but rather just the lack of skill of the translators and the usual refusal to literally and faithfully render what the original actually says.  In any case, I think it is completely clear, especially in the original, that Plotinus is stating clearly that he frequently and regularly attained the contemplative union with the One, and that this was his regular contemplation practice.  In fact, I would tend to read it as indicating that his attainment of the unio mystica, as it were, in contemplation was such a regular daily occurrence that he didn't even need to mention or specify it per se, but just say that often afterwards he would wonder what he was doing here having fallen into individuated sensate existence in space-time in the first place.  In other words, the "often/many times" might refer to the wondering, rather than to the contemplative union that was so regular and invariable an occurrence in his practice as to be taken for granted, that happened every day, every time he sat in contemplation, it just being that often he would later wonder or think about it, but not always, just practicing it and assuming it the other times.  Further, a statement of Porphyry's in the Life just before the "four times"sentence supports and, in fact, makes obvious my interpretation of the latter, contra the professors and as confirmed by the beginning of 4.8.  (I don’t know why this statement is usually ignored in the interpretation of the “four times” sentence.)  Here is a quick, rough, off the cuff rendering of my own:  

"And thus most of all to this godlike man many times/often bringing himself to the first and transcendent God in reflection and according to the ways having been expounded in the Symposium by Plato, that God appeared who has neither shape nor any aspect, but is seated above nous and all the noetical."

This seems to me at least to clearly say that Porphyry himself thought that Plotinus regularly realized the One/Good in contemplation and that this was a regular practice of his, not just something attained only "four times", and supports my interpretation of the Greek of the "four times" statement that Porphyry is only saying there that he happened to be physically in the same room, for whatever reason, with Plotinus four time when this happened, not at all that it was restricted to just those four times and was not a regular occurence and practice for Plotinus.  Presumably, Plotinus did his daily contemplation alone by himself, as is only to be expected and is only proper, but Porphyry happened to barge in on him in contemplation those four times.

 

Why do people think they are Buddhists, Platonists, etc. when they don't do anything or change their behavior?

 Q. I wanted to bring something up; a few calls ago we talked about 'Buddhists' who don't follow a vegetarian regime and you commented that you would say 'they aren't really Buddhists'.  This is a sentiment I concur with, but I was wondering why most people don't see this kind of connection?  The question arises because if someone says they are a piano player one infers that they regularly play the piano.  If someone says they play poker, we assume that means that they sit down with others and play poker.  If someone says they are a gardener, again we assume that they spend time planting, trimming, and cultivating plants.  

 

So why do people not assume that there is a specific behavioral component when it comes to following a spiritual tradition?  When it comes to spirituality people do not infer that there are specific behavioral commitments that they follow.  Your view that unless someone is a vegetarian they are not really a Buddhist is similar to saying that unless someone actually plays a piano they are not a piano player.  

 

In the realm of spirituality it seems that people consider spirituality to mean only dealing with the realm of ideas; it would be like someone saying that they are a baseball player because they like to watch baseball games.  Such a person is a baseball fan, but not a baseball player.  Similarly, someone who does not enter into the behavioral component of Buddhism might be a 'fan' of Buddhism, but they are not a Buddhist.  

 

In Platonism, almost all Platonists today are what I would consider to be 'fans' of Platonism, but not Platonists.  They might accept the view of actually existing ideas, but unless they instantiate behavioral components I would not consider that to be sufficient.  I base that on the necessity of purification for experiencing higher hypostases.

 

I'm not sure why this kind of separation exists in religion, philosophy, and spirituality and I wonder if others have observed this dichotomy.  Perhaps it is a feature of modernity.  I'm not sure.

 

A.  I have certainly also observed the same peculiar phenomena that you wonder about.  I believe that the observation you refer to was actually made in the context of discussion of people who profess to be Buddhists but don’t abstain from alcohol, but, of course, it applies equally well to vegetarianism and other required behaviors.  (Somewhat related, you will recall that just recently  I wrote that I couldn't understand how people could profess to adopt the weltanschauung of one or more of these systems and read all the time about it, but not establish a meditation or sadhana practice--not to mention making the necessary behavioral changes.)  I don't really know if it is worse or more common in modernity than in traditional times (though it wouldn't surprise me--everything being worse and more adverse in modernity), nor can I necessarily off hand identify any particular circumstantial factors.  Really, though, whether proximal environmental factors can be identified or not, I think it is the nature of samsara and the cause is ultimately the deluded souls of most people, the obscuration of their knowing, wisdom, and vision by being sunk in the body and "matter" (hule or, as the Greek is more often incorrectly transliterated, hyle), and their heavy karma.  Your analogies are quite good, and I have used similar ones myself in the past in trying, futilely, to remonstrate with silly pseudo-Buddhists and the like, but perhaps it is not surprising or is only to be expected that people, deluded beings/souls, would have more clarity regarding such worldly activities and things that are only the pursuit of worldly desires--after all, their darkened, twisted souls are already turned entirely in that direction, towards the darkness of the sensory world and worldliness--than they do about spiritual matters and what it means to understand and embrace and practice them.  To understand and implement these latter requires turning their souls at least a little towards the light and reality, which is just the opposite of how they are turned now, and requires resisting and loosening from their heavy deluded karma and the bodily and material obscuration of their souls.  The dim eyes of their soul can better see the darkness of worldly desires and activities, but are quite blind when trying to look at the light of spiritual matters in the direction of actual being and reality.  Such, again, is the nature of samsara.  To understand what it means to be a piano or baseball player doesn't require much more than looking at and guessing about the shadows on the cave wall.  To understand what it means to be a Buddhist or Platonist--let alone to do it--requires at least a little start to loosening of the bonds and turning the head towards the light.  To understand about worldly matters and activities only requires deluded base worldly cleverness.  To understand about spiritual matters requires lightening of karma, depends on the closeness or distance of the soul from the Good, regardless of mundane logic or reasoning, even though it seems so clear to us.  Since, in general, most souls are more deluded and have heavier karma now in modernity, which is essentially for most people a rebirth in one of the lower sub-human type realms, it may be then that perhaps this weird phenomenon is more common now than in the past.

 

I hope this helps at least somewhat with your wondering about the issue.  Alas, as I always lament, for me at least, our circumstances being alone or so few among all these crazy deluded vulgar worldly souls is really scary, like the human being fallen in among wild beasts in the analogy in Book 6 of the Politiea.

 

A Q. and A. on the Dialectic and Analogical Reasoning

 Q.  To better understand how Plato thought, I want to learn more about how the Greeks in general thought about metaphor and analogy.  Plato's philosophical style I characterize as heavily analogical. The way the dialectic in general unfolds is never linear or logical.  What are your thoughts?  Are there any texts on analogical reasoning that can help me get a better grasp on the dialectic?

 

 

A.  I’m afraid that this is one that I can't help much with.  I don't know of any texts on analogical reasoning, and have never looked for any such, nor any works on the way the Greeks in general used metaphor and analogy since, again, I have never looked for or been interested in such.  I don't know how many of my works you have read or watched on my internet venues, but you will see that I view Platonism and Plato's own teaching as spiritual teaching for the contemplative ascetic practice and ascent, not as 'thinking' or 'thought' in the modern sense or the modern idea of 'philosophy'.  The dialectic is not a matter of discursive thinking or reasoning based on sense data, but rather is the contemplative ascetic practice of placing the soul in direct contact with Nous and the Forms therein in meditation/contemplation.  The purpose of the 'dialectic' in the dialogs and the 'reasoning' in the Enneads is to facilitate this and help prepare the mind and soul for being able, after long great effort both in asceticism and contemplation/meditation, to make the ascent and enter this condition of contact with and assimilation to Nous, the Divine Mind-Thought--to enter the 'dialectical samadhi', as it were, to borrow a Sanskrit word from the Indian and derivative systems.  (In general, by far, I think, the closest analogies or systems most useful for the Platonic practitioner for comparison are the Indian origin systems of certain schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, rather than Aristotelianism or the later modern Western systems of 'philosophy' based solely on thinking about things without yogic practice.)  I have, if it is of any help, translated, quite literally, Plotinus' (short) Ennead 1.3, On Dialectic at my internet venues and in my book.  I don't know if you have a translation of Plotinus/the Enneads, but some of the more accessible Enneads, such as 5.1, 1.6, and 6.9 might be helpful to you in general, along with the Phaedo, as I have mentioned, and the core books of the Republic, which add more explicitly about the Good/One to the teaching of the Phaedo.  Today, I was rereading Ennead 1.6, On Beauty, in Greek, as I have many times, and was particularly struck by the statement, "But wisdom is the mental act in turning away from the things below and bringing the soul towards the things above."  That is, it is principally and authentically attained in contemplation turning the soul away from the senses and their objects and towards the higher hypostases.  And to do this requires renunciant and ascetic practice and this is as necessary as thinking to understand how things are and Plato's teaching.  Just as an example, as incomprehensible as it may be to most moderns and particularly professor types, being a vegetarian/vegan is as essential to being able to understand Plato as any degree of knowledge of later 'philosophical' systems or historical knowledge!