# Neo-platonic Framework for Baha'i philosophy

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Theo A. Cope, Neo-platonic Framework for Baha'i philosophy, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Neo-platonic Framework for Bahá'í philosophy
> 
> Theo A. Cope
> 
> 1997
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply [This was posted to an email list in response to an ongoing discussion. -J.W.]. I hope the work you are doing there for
> the Ibn al-`Arabi program you are involved in is going well. The response which
> follows has been waiting for your reply, so the fact that i respond so quickly
> needs to be considered in this light. I have made some modifications to address
> the issues you brought up, but generally it is geared to many others who lurk
> here and have little idea of what we speak of. It does, hopefully, present my
> ideas and thoughts clear enough and in enough detail (without being overly
> verbose) to generate more feedback.
> 
> I agree with some of your positions, those concerning the fact that we need to
> articulate in a neo-platonic framework for "comparative purposes", that there
> is a "new and transformed contextual framework of meaning", that there is a
> "theocentric pluralist model of the universe" which we espouse, and that in
> principle, it appears that the Bahá'í position "is really not different that
> those espoused by traditional metaphysics."
> 
> With others I take issue, and mind you, this is an exploratory stance to probe
> deeper into this.
> 
> I will outline some general notions about why we may want to begin moving
> beyond the neo-platonic framework, and then indicate a direction to go. This is
> tentative right now, as there are some areas which i still need to do further
> research in. I will not banter here; what i am proposing is very fundamental to
> our notion of cosmology, and an approach which may be more in line with modern
> thought and psychology than neo-platonism. These ideas may be really stretching
> things, i know, but hey, if we don't take chances with new ideas, we may end up
> staying where we are, eh?? It is my hope to generate enough feedback/critique
> or criticism, that i can refine these ideas even more, and either continue with
> this line of thought, or leave it aside.
> 
> To begin, i must digress into history, the history of neo-platonism and its
> influence on religious thought. It will not be necessary for a significant
> history lesson here, there are enough materials available for anyone interested
> in pursuing this theme further. Neo-Platonism is the term used to indicate a
> philosophy after Plato, which used much of his metaphysics for its basis. It is
> particularly Plotinus, who died in 270 A.D., who was the main influence in its
> development, and who, in his work, "The Enneads", developed many ideas still
> found in Western mysticism and esoteric cosmology. Plotinus was a pagan, an
> anti-Christian ecstatic who believed that every person had the "divine spark"
> within and needed no mediator to attain salvation. There is indication that the
> Roman emperor, Gallenius, who vociferously called for the persecution of the
> Christians, changed his tactics around 260 AD. Before this time he and his
> father, Valerian, openly called for the persecution of this new religion. This,
> seemingly enough, only reinforced its proponents and galvanized new believers
> (like another religious sect which has been persecuted en masse). I use the
> term pagan not in a pejorative sense, but in an historical sense of Plotinus,
> and simply indicating that he was not a believer in revealed religion. He saw
> no need for a Mediator nor Prophet as Mediator since the divine spark within
> made us "like" the One.
> 
> The change of tactics involved the use of philosophy to undermine the
> developing Christian community. The neo-platonists were enlisted by Gallenius
> for this assault, and Plotinus, and his student Porphyry, were two main actors.
> This thrust was without the use of state force, it instead used the arguments
> of philosophy as its new mode of attack. As history indicates, Plotinus was
> incredibly successful in establishing the primacy of the individual in the
> mystical quest and union. There is no need for any intermediary in Plotinus'
> schema, something which stands diametrically opposed to revealed religion in
> the Semitic branch (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Bahá'í). It was the conversion
> of Augustine which fortified the fusion of neo-platonism with Christianity, and
> from here the impact can be traced into Islam with the reintroduction of
> Aristotle and Plato. These main works had been somehow "lost" for a period of
> time, and was translated into Latin then Arabic and impacted Islamic philosophy ever since. This is a very, very brief history story!!
> 
> To understand, even casually, the ideas of neo-platonism, let me offer these
> concepts as a framework:
> 
> 1) God/the One/Good, is transcendent to creation;
> 
> 2) there are a series of intermediaries, non-personal, by which the One
> emanates Itself to the lower domains of creation;
> 
> 3) each level of emanated creation contains within it a "spark" or "scintilla"
> of the divine, making it "like" the divine.
> 
> 4) this spark imbues humanity with both the ability and the yearning for union
> with the divine within, and without. It is a doctrine of transcendence and
> immanence.
> 
> 5) the doctrine is heirarchical, with each "higher" level being "more real"
> than the descendent level.
> 
> 6) there is the One, the Nous/Divine Mind/Logos, and the World Soul, and
> descending levels of created beings.
> 
> Significant persons associated with neo-platonic thought include: Speusippus,
> the successor to Plato in the Academy; Philo Judaeus's ideas helped construe
> the doctrines, although he was not neo-platonic, as he preceeded its full
> development; Ammonius Saccas, the instructor of Clement of Alexandria and
> Origen, as well as Plotinus; Plotinus' students were Amelius, Porphyry, who's
> student was Iamblichus. Plutarch, Proclus, and others.... Hierocles, Hermias,
> Ammonius, Asclepius, etc. St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius (these ideas were
> attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, mentioned in the Book of Acts, and held
> sway until into the 13th century) In 832 A.D., the Baghdad School of Syrian
> thought began a program to translate the works of Plato and Aristotle into
> Arabic. The works of Plotinus were translated and misnamed as the Theology of
> Aristotle which was actually from the Enneads of Plotinus. This lead many of
> those who thought it was actually Aristotle's work into a neo-platonic
> hierarchical system of thought. Among those influenced were: Al-Kindi,
> Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Avicebron, and Averroes, all Muslim philosophers of the
> first rank. John Scotus Erigena, Meister Eckhart, Marsilius Ficino, and even
> Henry More was influenced by these ideas, as was Schelling and Hegel. This list
> is in no way exhaustive, but gives a general idea of those whose works and
> theorizing was influenced by this persuasive and pervasive doctrine. Much of
> the writings of these souls is powerfully evocative to those of us humans who
> are mystically-minded, and indeed, many are wonderful speculative works of
> ecstatics. Being one such soul, it has been apparent to me for many years that
> the experience of the soul is one phenomena, the interpretation of it into an
> understandable framework is another. I have wondered for many years how
> different the interpretations of these experiences would have been if
> neo-platonism had not been so dominant. But, like Aslan says in "The Chronicles
> of Narnia": one never knows what would have happened.
> 
> As we begin to explore further this notion which i am proposing, it is
> necessary that i indicate where I will take it, what threads will be woven
> together. This i do for a few reasons, one of which is to provide a frame in
> which to view these ideas; another is to indicate the levels we will be
> considering; and a third will be to indicate why this is being done anyhow.
> Much of this story will be brief, compared to how lengthy and detailed it may
> become, because of my time constraints, and because my books are packed away,
> waiting for the move. If there is enough interest, or if there are some of
> ya'all who think this is an approach which merits further investigation (or if
> i just want to continue no matter what!!), then it will be expanded later.
> 
> The Frame:
> 
> Mystic experience has been defined as ineffable, unexplainable, irrational (as
> opposed to rational), and many other words indicating its abstruse
> nature...some even call it fantasy, illusion, or absurd. But, to a soul which
> has tasted of its fruits, it is unequivocally real. No amount of debate or
> persuasion can alter the profundity of the experience. There are doubts which
> follow a powerful dream about whether or not it could have been a vision, but
> the one who has a vision does never think it a dream!!
> 
> The experience....
> 
> For a soul who has such a vision/ecstatic rapture (and ecstasy comes from
> ex+stasis= to stand outside), there is the desire to understand it, to be able
> to articulate it to others, or just to oneself....the experience then begs for
> a framework for the grasping. This framework, if one seeks one, is derived from
> an historical source, be it a religion, or metaphysical doctrine, or
> psychological theory. We will examine parts of this frame below.
> 
> The levels:
> 
> As one considers mystic experiences, it becomes clear that we are not dealing
> with ordinary consciousness here, it is definitely an "altered state". How one
> defines consciousness, how one determines the "origin" of consciousness or its
> value, how one understands the experience of the soul/psyche, and the concept
> of "reality", how one views (if one does) the human's place in the "order of
> creation", how one views this order (ie. hierarchical, monistic), or how one
> views the soul's relation to the divine, all play a significant role in this
> endeavor. (Isn't it a good thing i chose some easy areas, and some clear
> conceptual tools??) I will BRIEFLY here touch on these areas, and no way will
> it be all-encompassing! I am not proposing a definitive or even a tentative
> answer here, what i am doing is probing...i mean i have the rest of my life to
> hone these ideas, right??!!
> 
> The why:
> 
> The personal investment is always the best for a research project, but it means
> that one remain more objective in the presentation, no matter what the
> individual belief is. I value Carl Jung's rigor in his approach, not that i can
> emulate this, but i hope to be able to follow it. Jung's interest in the
> unconscious was generated by a dream he had in his youth, and his studies as a
> psychiatrist, of course. Mine is similar, but it was a visionary experience
> which has fed the depths of my soul since age 10, and which called for an
> explanation. There is also a "so what" factor i adhere to in my researches...so
> what if this is, what does it mean for my daily life? what does it mean for me
> talking with others, or making it such that we can "walk the mystic path with
> practical feet"? why does it matter what view we have of existence? why
> would/should we concern ourselves with these ideas?
> 
> Having given this brief introduction, i will offer my position here, then in
> the context which follows explain how i arrived at this position by using the
> guidelines above. It is my position that the philosophical underpinnings of
> neo-platonism is outdated, and even potentially hazardous to a valid
> understanding of esoteric cosmology. I realize this is very bold, and having
> read much of neo-platonism i know the challenges i am facing here, but it seems
> to me that this philosophical understanding of mystic experience was overlayed
> onto Semitic religious concepts and constructs because it was so convincing and
> carried the heritage of "Plato", and "Aristotle", those most revered men of
> Greece. Many of us who have studied philosophy know that without these two men,
> our views and education would be far different...so it is this Western
> philosophical heritage which is being examined. BUT, and this i want to make
> clear, it is not their positions which are in question, but those positions
> which have been ATTRIBUTED to them falsely, by the understandable errors of
> history. Remembering the brief outline above of the men who have influenced and
> been influenced by neo-platonic thought, we have a vantage point unavailable to
> many generations before us...we know that the works of Plotinus, a pagan, was
> attributed to Aristotle, and that Plato's ideas were borrowed to explain why no
> mediator was necessary for humanity.
> 
> As a Bahá'í, i am bound by profession of faith to the reality and efficacy of
> the mediators, the Manifestations of God. As a believer, i am bound by the
> doctrine of the harmony of science and religion, and the use of logic and
> rational thought in any explorations of "reality". As a person of mystic
> persuasion and experience, i am bound by the dictates of my soul the insights
> of my heart, and the revelations gained thereby. As such, there has been a need
> for me to combine these "givens" (or "accepteds") into a coherent framework,
> and not believe something simply because it has a heritage. It is independent
> investigation of truth which began this journey for me, and which has sustained
> it thus far. It is with these positions that i continue this exploration.....
> 
> The viewpoint of a non-believer, in the pluralism of religious thought, is
> valid in the proper sphere. It is improper to adhere to a viewpoint which is
> antithetical in its basis to the doctrine one is espousing. It appears that by
> continuing to adhere to a neo-platonic framework or view of reality, our ideas
> are limited thereby. New paradigms are demanded by new information and new
> discoveries of the nature of physical reality and psychic reality. It is
> psychic reality which concerns us here, and if Jung is correct, "psyche is
> reality," and is the only verifiable reality accessible to humanity. In the
> final term, if an experience is not expressed in the human psyche, it is not in
> our realm of experience. This tautology is apparent, yet there seems to be much
> which leads one to think that what has been expressed by mystics is "beyond the
> soul"...but, the undeniable fact remains that there is one area of reality and
> realization for us...the human psyche. Whatever makes itself known to us must
> do so by way of the psyche.
> 
> Scientifically and philosophically it has been ascertained that one's view of
> reality is relative. This is clear in physics, and has been termed Heisenberg's
> uncertainty principle. Our observation of an event alters and influences the
> event, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. Our perceptions of external phenomena are internal
> perceptions, that is, the eyes send an image to the brain, soul/psyche, and is
> interpreted as an object. But this image is inside the soul/mind/brain, not
> outside of it. We grasp a psychic image of the world and not the world as it is
> in itself. It is as it is; our viewing of it does not change that which it is,
> but changes our relation to it, and to the images created by the psyche/soul (i
> will henceforth use psyche to mean soul). In this psychic representation, our
> world view is created, modified, and tested. This principle holds valid in
> psychology and philosophy. We cannot get beyond our souls to experience, so
> deep is the soul, so vast is its domain. It seems that this quote from
> Bahá'u'lláh indicates the depth of the soul, and it being the locus of such
> experience:
> 
> "To whatever heights the mind of the most exalted men may soar,
> however great the depths which the detached and understanding heart can
> penetrate, such mind and heart can never transcend that which is the creature
> of their own conceptions and the products of their own thoughts. The
> meditations of the profoundest thinkers, the devotions of the holiest of
> saints, the highest expressions of praise from either human pen or tongue, are
> but a reflection of that which hath been created within themselves, through the
> revelation of the Lord, their God." (Tablet to Salman, GL., sec
> CXLVIII)
> 
> Let us glance briefly at this idea of reflecting, or the reflecting image, or
> the medium of reflection.
> 
> reflect: "1. to throw or bend back (heat, light, or sound for
> example) from a surface. 2. to form an image of (an object); to mirror. 3. to
> manifest as a result of one's actions: `His work reflects intelligence.'.
> (-intransitive) 1. to be bent back. 2. to give back a likeness; become
> mirrored. 3. to think or consider seriously. 4. to bring blame or reproach."
> 
> reflection: "1. the act or state of being reflected. 2. Something reflected,
> as light, radiant heat, sound or an image. 3.a. concentration of the mind;
> careful consideration. (b). the results of such consideration, communicated or
> not. 4. an imputation of censure or discredit."
> 
> There is no way i will dive into the philosophy of imagination, nor the
> psychology of it...but i will dip into these areas to express an understanding of these thoughts and their creations in my mind as it relates to
> neo-platonism, and archetypal psychology, and belief.
> 
> We will be exploring these images with the use of ideas (and here is a whole
> other issue dipped into), ideas which allow us to `see', which reveal
> themselves as experiences of psyche. Our journey is a deepening, a `seeing
> through', as James Hillman expresses it: "Let us now condense the process of
> psychological discovery into a series of steps.
> 
> First there is the psychological moment, a moment of reflection, wonder,
> puzzlement, initiated by the soul which intervenes and countervails what we are
> in the midst of doing, hearing, reading, watching. With slow suspicion or
> sudden insight we move through the apparent to the less apparent. We use
> metaphors of light--a little flicker, a slow dawning, a lightening flash--as
> things become clarified. .....Moving from outside in, it is a process of
> interiorizing; moving from the surface of visibilities to the less visible,
> it is a process of deepening; moving from the data of impersonal events to
> their personification, it is a process of subjectivizing.
> 
> Second, psychologizing justifies itself. As we penetrate or try to bring out,
> expose, or show why, we believe what lies behind or within is truer and more
> real, powerful, or valuable than what is evident. It is a justification in
> terms of depths; we justify the activity by appealing to an ultimate hidden
> value that can never come out but must remain concealed in the depths in order
> to justify the movement. This ultimate hidden value justifying the entire
> operation can also be called the hidden God (deus absconditus), who appears
> only in concealment.
> 
> Third, the present event, the phenomenon before us, is given a narrative. A
> tale is told of in in the metaphors of history, or physical causality. or
> logic....
> 
> Fourth are the tools with which the operations proceeds. Here we return once
> again to ideas, for ideas are the soul's tools. Without them we cannot see, let
> alone see through. Ideas as the eyes of the soul give the psyche its power of
> insight, its means of prying open, stripping bare, going through. Again,
> without ideas the soul is a victim of literal appearances and is satisfied with
> things just as they present themselves. ...." (Hillman, Revisioning Psychology,
> 141)
> 
> A dilemma is how the ideas and images present themselves to the psyche. By
> using the ideas of psychology, we may be able to see through the notions and
> experiences of the soul ...and allowing the idea to give us sight. "The problem
> here is the ancient one of hypostasizing an idea into a literal thing. However,
> this is more than slipshod thinking, for it is inherent in the eidos, idea,
> itself. ...idea implies both the tool by which we see and the thing we see.
> Psychologizing is in danger when it forgets that literalism is inherent in the
> very motion of idea. Then we begin to see ideas rather than seeing by means of
> them." (ibid)
> 
> The method i am espousing is one of psychological discovery, of re- visioning
> the underpinnings of neo-platonism, and see if we can reconfigure them into a
> psychological framework, in accord with scientific methods.
> 
> As we weave these ideas, we glance at the idea of subtle embodiment. There is a
> propensity seemingly inherent in the nature of imagination which allows us
> experience, it is the process of embodying ideas, images, and reality.
> Embodying by giving them form, shape and texture of a non-material substance, a
> substance of psyche. This is the literalism we can avoid by seeing through, by
> realizing their created nature, and the psyche as their creative substance and
> creator. Imaginations embody.......
> 
> The other way to see this is that the soul also receives images... the
> reception and reflection of images of "higher " realms, or from the part of the
> soul which exists beyond the range of consciousness, in unconsciousness. As
> consciousness becomes aware of unconscious components and processes, the soul
> gleans its history. Theories exist which imply that consciousness was more
> concrete, that humans interpreted the images of soul as literal beings. It is
> the literalism which prevents us from seeing through them, as was the situation
> with Origen, who castrated himself, following the "`spirit of the age', which
> was thoroughly concretistic. Because of this spirit, the Gnostics took their
> visions as absolutely real, or at least as relating directly to reality, and
> for Tertullian the reality of his feeling was objectively valid. The Gnostics
> projected their subjective inner perception of the change of attitude into a
> cosmogonic system and believed in the reality of its psychological figures."
> (Jung, CW6, para 29)
> 
> Weaving this notion of concretistic thought, with that of the heart and mind
> creating, we glance at the capacity of soul to create reality, and find the
> thread which lead us back into a "metaphysical relativity" of what we perceive
> as real. If Jung's thesis is accurate, the history of human consciousness has
> developed from a more "literal and concrete" level to one of greater
> "metaphorical and subtle" depths. Philology, the study of language and its
> development, delineates many of these transformations words have been exposed
> to, and how it `leads' human consciousness. It may be like the word unfolding
> its "spirit" through time....
> 
> The concept of the heart creating has a history, and one of its proponents
> was Ibn `al-Arabi. His position was that the heart is the organ of spiritual
> perception, and is creative. We will not delve into this topic, as there is
> much available for anyone interested.
> 
> Projecting psychic images and hypostasizing them into "things", it can be seen
> that once we become aware of this projecting of soul, we can work to withdraw
> these projections back into soul...the matrix of our life. So vast is the soul
> that we are unable to fathom its depth, yet it is that which we view, and that
> which we view with...like an idea.
> 
> One idea which dominates neo-platonic thought, and delineates its view, is
> that of the "Arc of Descent and Ascent". This arc shows how, in neo-platonic
> thought, the world came into being through a series of emanations from the
> Good. Each level "above" generates the next proceeding level in a descending
> hierarchy of ontological reality. As we contemplate these descending levels, we
> discern a psychological matrix; our "return" to the divine is an ascent:
> 
> DESCENDING ASCENDING The world of Divinity the subtle principle The world of
> Intelligences the secret/intellect The world of Angels the heart The world of
> Ideas the spirit The world of Form the soul The material world the body
> 
> These correspondences are articulated in an Islamic construct according to
> views of many authors. One point I would like to call attention to is the
> correlation given each column. The body is matter, the soul gives form, the
> spirit ponders ideas, the angels move the heart, the intellegences inform the
> intellect, and the subtle principle is moved by divinity. Now, we can assert
> that the descending scale precedes the ascending, likewise we can assert that
> the ascending scale preceeds the descending; the advantages of holding to the
> second perspective is its psychological basis, its basis in the soul. This
> allows us an approach which is scientific and philosophical; if we adhere to
> the first approach, our thoughts remain in realms of philosophy and meta-
> physics.
> 
> The psychological matrix can be discerned if we ponder a few salient points:
> psyche needs images, Jung even asserts that fundamentally, "psyche is image"(CW
> 13, para75). Rumi likewise claims this fact of psyche. The propensity of
> imagination to embody is, like mentioned above, inherent in the nature of
> imagination, "And this in turn implies their quasi-corporealization, their
> imaginal embodiment as sensible concreta of soul. `Imagination', as Shakespeare
> said unerringly, `bodies forth the things of the unknown...and gives to airy
> nothing a local habitation and a name.' Without body, albeit a subtle body,
> there is no fully particularized image." (Casey, "Spirit and Soul", p. 305)
> Before the concept of psychological projection was ascertained, the experiences
> of soul were framed according to the dominant world-view, and in a neo-platonic
> view, according to the delineations of philosophy.
> 
> Now, I am not implying that there are no higher ontological realms of being,
> what i am asserting is that we cannot know them if they exist!! (and to assert
> this is only tentative) If we follow the logic of `Abdu'l-Bahá' and maintain
> that the lower realms cannot understand the higher realms, then we must face
> our limitations to have certitude in such a speculative philosophy as
> neo-platonism. Neo-platonism has as its basis three fundamental premises (at
> least these, although there are more): 1) the human soul has the capacity to
> know the divine since it has a "spark of the divine" within it, it is "like"
> the divine, and this likeness allows us to know it; 2) this knowledge is
> attainable without a mediator, without a Prophet; and 3) the higher levels of
> reality are in different conditions that the human reality. Yet, since all of
> existence is an emanation of the essence of the One, it all partakes in the
> divine nature.
> 
> Bahá'í belief seems to counter these fundamentals in many regards. It is a
> premise of Bahá'í theology that the knowledge of God is beyond the domain of
> humanity, beyond even the Divine Mind (Logos)/ Divine Will. It is also a
> premise that there is no "likeness" of creation with the creator, if there is
> any likeness it is with other created realities. "...the Essence of Divinity is
> absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent." (SAQ p114) The
> differences of degrees, as asserted in neo-platonism seems to be an obstacle to
> comprehending them, yet it is never asserted this way by its proponents.
> "Difference of condition is an obstacle to knowledge; the inferior degree
> cannot comprehend the superior degree." (SAQ p221) Yet, to assert knowledge of
> higher emanations, those above the human, there must be knowledge of them which
> is experiential to the psyche of humanity.
> 
> A hierarchical world view has advantages for speculative philosophy, it is
> demonstrable through human logic. Yet, as Bahá'ís, we are not limited to human
> reason for investigating reality, the Bahá'í belief asserts that the Divine
> Mind/Will has embodied Its qualities in human form for our edification and
> education. This Manifestation has divine intellectual powers which the average
> human does not; "This divine intellectual power is a special attribute of the
> Holy Manifestations and the Dawning-places of prophethood; a ray of this light
> falls upon the mirrors of the hearts of the righteous and a portion and a share
> of this power comes to them through the Holy Manifestation." (SAQ p.218) It
> is this "informing principle" which neo-platonism sought to undermine through
> the speculation of Plotinus and his philosophical progeny.
> 
> Had neo-platonic philosophy not held such a strong influence over the thoughts
> of humanity, we would likely have a radically different philosophy to view the
> Bahá'í epistemological constructs. Yet, the concreteness of human thought and
> consciousness mayhaps excluded this possibility. The direction of the
> imagination for embodiment, the propensity of the psyche to literalize and
> hypostasize, and the philosophy of Grecian men inevitably lead to the
> development we are inheritors of.
> 
> This short article has been offered to stimulate others in areas of thought
> which are often taken for granted and accepted because of the one philosophical
> heritage called Neo-platonism. This article has been abbreviated a lot due to
> time constraints, and will likely be thoroughly rewritten as research proceeds.
> The point of view of the author is a psychological inquiry into philosophical
> "territories", to see if we can, by applying the notion of "Ockham's razor":
> "What can be done with fewer is done in vain with more", "Multiplicity is not
> to be assumed without necessity", (Dict. of Phil. and Religion, p 628),
> re-vision neo-platonic philosophy in light of modern psychology and the Bahá'í
> revelation. Archetypal realities necessitate the inclusion of non-physical
> "beings", what is fundamental to the philosophy of neo-platonism is not the
> existence of these beings. What is fundamental is a descending hierarchy from
> the One to the many....without the need for a Divine Manifestation as mediator,
> as Creator. The hierarchical structure may be valid, but the view of it may be
> dramatically different than that which the underpinnings of neo-platonism allows
> us to conceive. The notion of intermediaries between the Prophet and humanity,
> which is what neo-platonism seems to espouse, seems contradictory to Bahá'í
> thought, as designed by the Master in the form of the "ringstone" symbol.
> 
> I agree fully that we must use the terminology of neo-platonism to articulate
> or debate these ideas, but by doing so we need not ascribe to them as part of
> our doctrine. It is, like mentioned in part one, the limits of words we must
> contend with, not the limitation of thought. The Bahá'í Revelation has
> proffered humanity new capacities and new thoughts. The radicalness of the
> Bahá'í view is that we must strive to re-vision not only the religious heritage
> of humanity, but also the scientific and philosophical, as well as the social,
> economic, and psychological. If there is to truly be a rebirth of spirituality,
> and if Bahá'ís are to be part of it, then maybe we should strive to "walk the
> mystical path with practical feet" and to speak the mystic doctrine with modern
> language, however bold and audacious it may seem. Let us lead, or get out of
> the way; for to follow implies that we continue patterns and paradigms which
> may not be suited for the "new race of men" which God and nature are
> designing.
> 
> Review of Nima Hazini's "Neoplatonism: Framework for a Bahá'í Metaphysics"
> 
> Your piece on Neoplatonism [by Nima Hazini, 1995, online at bahai-library.com/hazini_neoplatonism_framework_metaphysics] was well written, and a good introductory work with
> enough information to develop your thesis. The final section on the Faith was
> presented well enough to indicate the historical determinants of the Bahá'í
> aspects similar to Neoplatonism, and kept clear enough to highlight the reasons
> for the terminological similarities. By you asserting that it is not "merely a
> historical permutation", but "is a self-contained system in its own right,"
> this leads me to thread it to your conclusion, and ask one question on this,:
> would it be called Neoplatonism if it is not the Neoplatonism of Plotinus or
> the other Neo-Platonists? As the first paragraph defines it, the term denotes
> "the peculiar type of Platonic philosophy expounded by Plotinus and his successors and to distinguish it from that of the Old Academy of Plato's immediate
> successors and Middle Platonism." Now, i will grant that we could in some sense
> overlay this term on the philosophical underpinnings of the Faith, but i wonder
> if this is essential. My comments are meant to be challenging to you, not
> because i think there is anything wrong in your approach, because i don't, but
> to push some limits of our thinking as we get to develop these ideas in this
> dispensation. I think to use the notion of the "perennial philosophy" is
> preferable, this removes it from the a particular quirk which i will adduce,
> which is, for me, problematic of Neoplatonism. Because there is some investment in this for me, i will propose some specific notions, seeking your
> clarification.
> 
> Now then, we know that Plotinus was an inheritor of the Greek exultation of
> reason, and as such, this pervaded his world view. In fact, the Enneads, which
> were collected by Porphyry after his master's death, exalt the philosopher who,
> with the aid of pure reason, attains mystical insight. In this arena, it seems
> that history eludes us in pinning things down tightly, since there is such an
> interspersion of the old and new in the Neoplatonism of Plotinus, and the
> dynamics of Gallenius, the Roman Emperor, in this development are unclear to me
> at this time. The use of reason is unquestionable in this development, as well
> as Plotinus not being an adherent of a "mediator" between the human and the
> divine. This is, of course, understandable in light of the times he lived in,
> and the pervasiveness of the Mystery Schools, and the challenge of Christianity
> to these schools and reason. Does this impact his thought in a way that it
> undermines his assertions? No. But it does, i assert, imply that those who
> adhere to a mediatory construct (i.e. prophets as intermediaries to the Deus
> Absconditus), discern the subtle differences. Let me indicate why. There is a
> vast difference, i surmise, between one asserting epistemological or
> ontological positions from the standpoint of philosophical reason, with the
> hosts of deductive logical premises and propositions (which is, after all the
> hallmark of Greek philosophy), and one asserting the same from a position of a
> "mediatory" stance, utilizing the tools of the same philosophy and logic. It
> seems like this is what you indicated in your article by referencing Juan's
> monograph, and the cultural context of this Revelation.
> 
> Taking as our point of departure the "standpoint epistemology" as it is
> developing, it may be seen that a Bahá'í epistemology must be integrally linked
> to the notion of "gather together beneath the shadow of the sacred Standard
> which the Promised One will raise." (Gl. pg12) In such wise, are the notions
> and teachings of other ages weighed. In this case, the Standard of knowledge
> reveals for us, "All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never
> exceeded, nor can they ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man's
> finite mind hath been strictly subjected. To whatever heights the mind of the
> most exalted of men may soar, however great the depths which the detached and
> understanding heart can penetrate, such mind and heart can never transcend that
> which is the creature of their own conceptions and the product of their own
> thoughts. (Gl. p.317)
> 
> The fact that the heart creates, and thoughts produce is not to be taken, i
> assert, merely metaphorically. The philosophy and psychology of imagination
> reveals it as a fundamental psychic act. It is, also, the first of the inner
> faculties listed in Scholastic philosophy, Islamic psychology, and the teachings of `Abdu'l Bahá'. As such, i feel there is great need to look clearly at
> the underpinnings of Neoplatonism as if it were "the product of their own
> thoughts", and "the creature of their own conceptions", which is not at all
> saying anything small. All that we see in the outside world was conceived in
> the imagination. Conception is a mysterious phenomenon....a world run by the
> imagination of humanity is profound indeed. Creative imagination is such a
> profound soul reality that much has been written about it alone.
> 
> There is a point here that i was making in the second installment i had on
> this topic in Aug. which did not generate even one response!! As to your point
> about the perpetual creation, is this not what is meant in this passage, from
> the same Tablet you quote (although it is pg. 140, not 240...typo error??)
> "Every thing must needs have an origin and every building a builder. Verily,
> the Word of God is the Cause which hath preceded the contingent world - a world
> which is adorned with the splendours of the Ancient of Days, yet is being
> renewed and regenerated at all times." (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, page 141)
> 
> AS to your quoting the Master stating, "Reality is one and does not admit of
> multiplicity..." what is the reference here?? Many places He mentions this, it
> seems to be in the context of the "Reality" being equated with the Manifestations, and the religion. Is this the same as "haqq", the Sufis' assertion
> that there is only Reality?? There is another context where it reads, "the
> world of existence is a single world, although its stations are various and
> distinct." (SWAB p.193) How is the fact that there have been deposited "signs"
> (`ayat) within the human reality contrasted with the "like alone joins like"
> (Enneads, VI, 9, 11), which is an ontological premise underpinning Plotinus'
> ideas??? Is this why, in His commentary on the "I was a Hidden Treasure"
> tradition, the Master addresses the notion of "similarity and likeness" (in
> sec. D, ma`rifat)?? Well, gotta scoot...hope there is enough here to allow us
> to probe a bit in this arena. Still wondering why the second installment i did
> in August didn't even get one comment! Fazlur Rahman mentions that the medieval
> Muslims couldn't move beyond the literalization and concretization of the
> Angel Gabriel appearing to Muhammad....thus they had revelations being
> whispered into His ear!
> 
> METADATA
> 
> Views16616 views since posted 1997; last edit 2015-10-25 02:52 UTC;
> 
> previous at archive.org.../cope_neoplatonic_framework;
> URLs changed in 2010, see archive.org.../bahai-library.org
> Language
> English
> Permission
> author
> History
> Formatted 2012-06-23 by Jonah Winters.
> Share
> 
> Shortlink: bahai-library.com/515
> Citation: ris/515
> 
> select Collection:
> Archives
> Articles
> Articles-unpublished
> Audio
> Bibliographies
> BIC
> Biographies
> Books
> Chronologies
> Compilations
> Compilations-NSA
> Compilations-personal
> Documents
> East-asia
> Encyclopedia
> Essays
> Etc
> Excerpts
> Fiction
> Glossaries
> Guardian
> Histories
> Introductory
> Letters
> Maps
> Music
> Newspapers
> NSA-documents
> NSA-letters
> Personal
> Pilgrims
> Poetry
> Presentations
> Resources
> Reviews
> Scripts
> Software
> Statistics
> Study
> Talks
> Theses
> Transcripts
> Translations
> UHJ-documents
> UHJ-letters
> Video
> Visual
> Writings
> 
> home
> 
> sitemap
> 
> series
> 
> chronology
> 
> search:
> author
> 
> title
> 
> date
> 
> tags
> 
> adv. search
> languages
> 
> inventory
> 
> bibliography
> 
> abbreviations
> 
> links
> 
> about
> 
> contact
> 
> RSS
> 
> new
>
> — *Neo-platonic Framework for Baha'i philosophy (Used by permission of the curator)*