r/Neoplatonism

Hi everyone,

I've been reading about Pythagorean number symbolism and I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind some of the traditional interpretations.

1. What do numbers 5–10 symbolize?

I've come across interpretations such as:

\- 5 — Marriage

\- 6 — Creation / Perfection

\- 7 — Life / Wisdom / Perfection

\- 8 — Harmony / Balance

\- 9 — Completion / Perfection

\- 10 — Perfection / Cosmos

What are the actual Pythagorean philosophical or mathematical reasons behind these associations?

Are these meanings found in ancient sources, or are some of them later interpretations?

I'm particularly interested in the significance of 10 and the Tetractys.

2. Why were even numbers considered feminine and odd numbers masculine?

I've read that Pythagoreans associated:

\- Odd numbers → Masculine

\- Even numbers → Feminine

Why exactly?

Was this based on mathematical properties such as divisibility, or was it primarily a symbolic/philosophical analogy?

3. Why is 2 sometimes associated with “Man”?

This is what confuses me most.

Some sources give interpretations like:

«1 — Unity / Reason

2 — Man / Duality

3 — Woman

4 — Justice

5 — Marriage

6 — Creation / Perfection»

But if even numbers were considered feminine, why would 2 be associated with “Man”?

Is “Man” a mistranslation or oversimplification of the original concept? Or does the 2 = Man symbolism come from a different source/tradition?

I'd really appreciate answers based on ancient/early sources, rather than modern numerology websites. References to Aristotle, Nicomachus, or other relevant classical sources would be especially helpful.

Thanks!

Following what may be of growing trend in religious studies and cultural interest, this community is created to make a space for discourse between aspects of Zen Buddhism and Platonism/Neoplatonism, and in variegations on this relationship (esp. bridges between broadly "Western" and "Eastern" religion/wisdom-tradition, philosophy, mysticism/spirituality, theoretically and practically).

There will be basic moderation to avoid bot content, sales/promotion, harassment, etc., but the continual goal is to afford high quality discourse (as well, I would be very open to transferring moderation to people who are professionally engaged in the topic in academia and/or public practice and have demonstrable experience impartially hosting discourse community - please reach out if interested!).

Thank you for your time. If there are any questions about the subreddit meta, please feel free to message me directly.

Hello Friends! I have a question on how Neoplatonism, specifically the Theurgical tradition, should engage with other traditions, specifically Tantra.

In Eastern Tantra, specifically in the Kaula and Kashmiri Shaiva traditions, there is literal sex magic (i thought this was a myth but apparently its a non-controversial aspect of their teachings), and these sexual rituals are seen as forms of worship for Shiva and Shakti. How would a Neoplatonist Theurgists engage with these? Would these be valid expressions of theurgy, or would they be corrupt rites?

Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!

Edit: These sexual acts in question or not innocent btw, e.g., they can be adulterous and non-procreative and yet, highly respected in Kashimiri Shaivism which is quite a grand and impressive metaphysical and spiritual tradition.

Most Neoplatonic works on theurgy are lost. Proclus's On the Hieratic Art according to the Greeks is one of the few surviving fragments, and it is a direct transmission of theurgical practice.

This one isn't just a philosophical treatise, it's more like a manual: theurgy as a science of sympathy, blending, and ascent. Proclus shows how the theurgist moves from natural sympathies (the sunflower turning to the sun, the lotus folding at night) to the operation of systaseis (conjunctions), synthêmata (symbols), and statues.

The text describes the stages of theurgic union: from the many to the One, and from the One back to the many. It addresses ritual actions (purifications, invocations, epiphanies) and the philosophical principles that underpin them; mixing, unity, and diversity.

Unlike Iamblichus's On the Mysteries, which is a defence and exposition of theurgy, Proclus's Hieratic Art is a practical guide. It is theurgy as it was practiced.

The Greek text survives in two manuscripts: Vallicellianus F 20 (copied by Marsilio Ficino) and Laurentianus Plut. 10.32 (a copy of the first). The Latin translation by Ficino has been the primary source for centuries. The Greek text is now available in a critical edition here by Eleni Pachoumi.

This is a book to be entered. I am holding the door open for you

Enjoy.

──────────────────────────

Title: Πρόκλου Περὶ τῆς καθ’ Ἕλληνας ἱερατικῆς τέχνης (Proclus on the Hieratic Art according to the Greeks)
Editor/Translator: Eleni Pachoumi
Publisher: Brill, 2024
Manuscripts: Vallicellianus F 20 (V, 138r–140v) | Laurentianus Plut. 10.32 (L, 119r–121v)
Language: Greek text with English translation and commentary

Hello Friends! I have a question about eternal punishment in the Platonic Tradition, which seems to be affirmed by earlier Platonists like Plato himself and Plutarch, but not by the later Neoplatonists.

Plato makes mentions to those who are "incurably" evil in his works, holding that they are punished not for their own benefit, since they are incurable, but for the benefit of other onlookers.

In the Gorgias (525c-d), he writes: "But of those who have done extreme wrong and, as a result of such crimes, have become incurable, of those are the examples made; no longer are they profited at all themselves, since they are incurable, but others are profited who behold them undergoing for their transgressions the greatest, sharpest, and most fearful sufferings evermore, actually hung up as examples there in the infernal dungeon, a spectacle and a lesson to such of the wrongdoers as arrive from time to time."

In the Phaedo (113), he writes: "But those who appear to be incurable, on account of the greatness of their wrongdoings, because they have committed many great deeds of sacrilege, or wicked and abominable murders, or any other such crimes, are cast by their fitting destiny into Tartarus, whence they never emerge."

Plutarch seems to witness and affirm this, in the De sera numinis vindicta (22): "But when Justice has given them over as altogether incurable, then the third and most severe of all Adrastea's ministers, Erinnys (the Fury), takes them in hand; and after she has chased and coursed them from one place to another, flying, yet not knowing where to fly, for shelter or relief, plagued and tormented with a thousand miseries, she plunges them headlong into an invisible abyss, the hideousness of which no tongue car express."

My understanding is that this becomes rejected or treated merely symbolically by the Later NEoplatonists (Can't find the source for that right now, but I think I found something in Damascius or Olympiodorus for that). And the main rationale, from what I remember, was that punihmsnet is always purifying, and that "they never emerge" in the Phaedo is interpreted to be the duration of the Great Year, rather than an actual eternity. However, doesnt that logic simply contradict Plato's own logic, that yes punishment is awlays remedial, but in this case its remedial for others and not the incurable evildoer. How come this change occured, and did any later neoplatonists still affirm eternal punishment?

Thank you in advance for any answers and have a blessed day!

Bad title i know. I have a small interest in western esotericism which i developed the last two years and every time i spent some time on a subject like theosophy, kabbalah or gnostisicm it always led me to neo-platonism because each one of the western esoteric subjects had been influenced by it in some way or another.

But i understood if i wanted to understand someone like Plotinus i had to read Plato himelf so the last two months i have been reading some of his most early socratic dialouges.

Apologia, Criton, Euthyfron, Laches, Symposium, Phaedo and Gorgias.

I enjoyed them all but weren't what i was looking for(i think????). Most of the texts were ethical i feel and a lot of them ended in aporia(maybe this doesn't matter though) but the texts which i think were the direction i was looking for was Phaedo and symposium maybe. Its hard to know what context i need to read middle/late Platonics scholars if i haven't read any and to read and understand them i need to have the basics so im kind of in a conundrum myself haha.

Real Platonic scholars would probably tell me to read everyhting and to fully understand him but im not planning to become a scholar. I listened to a podcast about Plutarch where he mentioned that Plato believes the sky comes from the soul and the sky is dualistic and that this comes from his text Timaeus which i have heard is the most heavy in nature-philosophy, cosmology and metaphysics but is there dialogues other than Timaeus in which these subjects are discussed

TL;DR: Which of platos dialogues are the most important if i want to understand neo(and middle)-platonits such as Plotinus, Porphyry and Plutarch especially in how they analyze and interpret myths and stories from a platonic perspective.

Platonism certainly has a transcendent focus. It generally aims to go beyond individual difference in the world of becoming to rational universals in the world of Being.

This is great and all, but even Plotinus said (I believe in Against the Gnostics) that anyone who scorns the material world in favour of Eternity is confused, because the material world, as the outpouring of eternity, is also to be respected and exhalted (just not exhalted in a way that denies the metaphysical supremacy of Being).

It is by the Limit principle that we have unity, but it is by the Unlimited principle that we have diversity.

Individuals are a result of the combination of these two principles. Without the Unlimited there could not be multiplicity. So, the fact that there can be individuals at all is thanks in part to the Unlimited.

Now, multiplicity is generally not a good thing from a Platonic point of view. This is partially because Plato sees various aspects of human life as being objective and universal like math, such that it is correct that 2+2=4 and anyone who has a different opinion must be ignorant about math. So a diversity of opinions in such a case is not a good thing.

Likewise for diversity of medical opinions… a patient would rather the various doctors they speak to be on a similar page regarding their treatment… if they all seem to disagree it does not bode well!

And for more metaphysical reasons, oneness and goodness are basically identical in Platonism. Acording to Gerson’s Plato’s Moral Realism, “instantiating the Good is equivalent to a contribution to the acheivement of integrative unity according to kind” (p. 108). [Great book btw].

That is, my good, as a human being, is to acheive the greatest degree of harmony and unity among by parts as is possible and appropriate to me as a human being. The virtuous or physically healthy person makes a unity out of their various parts, whereas the vicious or physically unhealthy person’s parts work against one another.

This is all well and good… I’m a Plato lover… but, when it comes to human experience in general, variety is the spice of life! How boring would it be if there was no diversity, but every single person was just the ideal philosopher king, the perfect instatiation of the Human… I mean… let’s be real…

So even if it is true that the Unlimited principle is the source of all imperfection and disorder, which is to say badness… this is still ultimately a good thing! An absolutely essential part of creation.

So, without needing to alter Platonic metaphysics, I think it would be good to have a more reverent attitude towards the Unlimited principle, since without it there could not even be ‘order’, really, only pure oneness, pure Being.

Limit and Unlimited, Father and Mother… we, as creatures in the process of becoming have inherited qualities from both parents. It is no longer acceptable to have the ancient attitude of the mother as a mere incubator! We have a connection to both the Eternal and the temporal.

We need not reject our Mother, reject our differences and individuality, in order to honour the Father in whom all is one… we must simultaneously honour both our oneness and our diversity, and respect our diversity as the vehicle through which order might be made manifest.

As such, even though the Father or Limit plays many of the the roles most often associated with God (instills goodness and order, etc.)… the Mother also plays many other roles of God (paricipates in creation, forgives and witholds justice out of mercy, etc.)

There is a theme in Biblical theology of two qualities of God that operate in conjunction and conflict with one another:

God’s wrath, which corrects wickedness (making a unity out of a previous multiplicity).
And God’s mercy, which forgives wickedness (allowing multiplicity and disorder temporary existence).

If God’s wrath (here, the Father, Limit) were left unchecked, everything would be absolutely perfect and none of us would ever have been born.

Yet, if God’s mercy (here, the Mother, Unlimited) were left unchecked, then the universe would dissolve into unintelligible formless chaos…

But instead, these two principles are held together so that ‘God sends rain on the just and the unjust.’

So I think both aspects of God ought to be honoured as such, without rejecting Mom in favour of Dad! We must honour the complexity of our situation as individuals in the world of becoming.

Thank you for reading. Any comments are welcome.

What is the relationship between Christianity and Neo-Platonism? In this video, Michael Millerman goes over Alexander Dugin's 10 Theses on the topic from ch. 6 of Political Platonism.

The ideal sage in Neoplatonism reminds me an awful lot of some Buddhist monk. Thing is, most people can't or don't want to be as such. How should, in a Neoplatonist framework, most people conduct themselves? How important is theurgy vs ethics vs philosophy?

Anyone here practice divination? What are your thoughts on it? Does it come up as part of your theurgical practice?

This idea came to me through my study of cartomancy and geomancy. I don't practice; I was just learning out of curiosity. I recently got into Tarot (I know it isn't connected to Neoplatonism), but one important aspect of the Tarot is numerology. There are layers to it, but on the basic level are the numbers on each of the suit cards in the minor arcana. When learning the meanings behind each number 1 through 10, I was reminded of Iamblichus' Theology of Arithmetic. Both systems have differences but also some similarities. I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but it did make me super intrigued.

Thoughts?