The Wisdom of Hypatia: Ancient Spiritual Practices for a More Meaningful Life (37 page)

A major problem for a monotheistic interpretation of Neoplatonism would seem to be the multiplicity of gods in the Cosmic Nous. However, these were simply reinterpreted as angels, and the World Mind was renamed the “Angelic Mind.” In Christianity this reinterpretation was pioneered by St. Dionysius, who translated Proclus’ levels of reality into ranks of angels. According to the Triadic Principle, there are three “choirs” of angels, and each choir is divided into three ranks, also according to the Triadic Principle. Corresponding to the
Abiding
aspect are the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones;
Proceeding
are the Domina-tions, Virtues, and Powers;
Returning
are the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.

From a monotheistic perspective the highest ranks of angels are differing aspects of God. Like the Pagan gods, they have various offices or spheres of activity that they govern.

And like God, they are impassive, somewhat like laws of Nature. The lower ranks of angels, which correspond to the Pagan daimons and are involved in time and space, are the angels that interact directly with individuals. Since they are not impassive, they can know the particularities of a person’s life and intervene in specific events. These are the beings that can respond to prayers, bring messages from God, execute his will, and enforce his laws. Some of these angels are devoted, in effect, to individuals, and so the monotheist idea of a guardian angel corresponds to the Pagan guardian daimon.

Although saints and heroes are different in many respects and come from different cultural contexts, the Pagan idea of a hero corresponds to the monotheist’s saint. Both have 184 the microcosm and the archetypes

become more godlike than ordinary people and manifested to a remarkable degree in their lives the attributes of divinity. Furthermore, in both the Pagan and non-Pagan traditions extraordinary, godlike accomplishments (“miracles”) are attributed to these people.

One characteristic of the contemporary monotheistic religions that separates them

from the popular polytheism of the ancient world is that God is considered omnipotent and good, whereas the polytheistic gods are not omnipotent and, at least according to the ancient myths, did things that we would not consider good. But even in ancient times the philosophers protested against the myths that depicted the gods as deceitful, adulterous, rapacious, and violent; they said that if the gods were not good, they didn’t deserve to be called “gods.”

We have also seen that even though the nature of The One is inexpressible, Neopla-

tonists were inclined to call it both “God” and “The Good.” We must recall, however, that this does not mean that The One
does
good, like a good person, but rather that The One is the Principle that everything seeks. Monotheistic religions are more inclined to interpret the goodness of God in anthropomorphic terms, that is, referring to a God who
does good
, treating humans and all of Nature benevolently.

In any case, the notion of a God who is both good and omnipotent raises the “Problem of Evil.” It was put concisely and dramatically in the so-called “Epicurean Paradox”: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?225

Over the centuries many theologians posed solutions to the problem of evil, but many people find them hollow when confronted with human suffering as a consequence of natural calamities and human wrong-doing.

One explanation of the Problem of Evil, who appears in one form or another in the

Western monotheistic religions, is Satan. Originally a relatively minor figure in the Bible, his role has increased into the “arch-enemy” of God. Thus Satan constitutes an all-evil polar opposite to the all-good God. There is no comparable being in the Pagan religions since calamities and bad behavior can be explained by the limited power of the gods and by conflicts among them. Even Pagan Neoplatonism, with its identification of The One as The Good, explains evil purely negatively. That is, like light spreading from a central star, it gets weaker with distance, ultimately fading into the dark void. Evil, according to Neoplatonists, is not a positive force, but a result of the limited reach of the organizing and

the microcosm and the archetypes 185

harmonizing power of The One. Evil and ugliness are merely the absence of The Good

and Beauty.

Another consequence of a monotheistic God who only does good, is that his ema-

nations, the angels, are also dedicated to good. To complement them the monotheist religions have often included evil spirits allied with Satan who assist him in causing evil.

(Of course malignant spirits are common in the traditional beliefs in many cultures.) In English these evil spirits are called “demons,” perhaps because the Pagan daimons dwell in the World Soul, and hence in space and time, and thus they can be swayed and therefore corrupted. “Who cares?” you ask? These medieval ideas may seem to be irrelevant to living Hypatia’s philosophy today, to be a relic of the Dark Ages, but they have psychological implications that I’ll explain in the next section.

As you can see, there are a number of places where Neoplatonism and the mono-

theistic religions do not fit together smoothly. Nevertheless, many Jews, Christians, and Muslims through the centuries have managed to negotiate an accommodation between

their religion and the philosophy of the Grove. Neoplatonism has proved to be a spiritually rewarding way of life irrespective of religion.

The Problem of Evil
: Set aside some time to think about the problem of evil. Especially if you believe in a good God or a beneficent Providence, how do

you account for the fact that “bad things happen to good people”? You have

learned the Epicurean and Stoic answers to this question, but you should think

it through yourself. Think about people close to you who have suffered from

accidents, disease, or natural disasters. Record your thoughts in your journal.

Evolutionary Jungian Psychology

One of the strengths, I believe, of Neoplatonism as a contemporary way of life, is that it does not depend inherently on any particular religion, whether polytheist or monotheist.

This is why over the centuries there have been Pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Neoplatonists. Indeed, although Neoplatonism is definitely spiritual, it does not require any religious commitment at all.

I think that the best way to understand Neoplatonism from a non-theistic perspective is by means of the psychological discoveries of Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961).226 Indeed, 186 the microcosm and the archetypes

Jung was deeply influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy, as well as by related spiritual traditions such as Gnosticism, which has Platonic roots. Jungian psychology is non-theistic but not atheistic; that is, it is compatible with the existence of God, or gods. Jung himself was deeply religious and his psychology has a strong spiritual orientation. He said that most psychological problems are at root spiritual problems.

Therefore, in the remainder of this chapter I aim to show how Neoplatonism and its

spiritual practices can be understood from the perspective of evolutionary Jungian psychology.227 I hope to convince you, even if you are skeptical about gods, daimons, and other spooky ideas, that Neoplatonic spiritual practices are valuable for us in the twenty-first century. On the other hand, if you are a believer, whether monotheist or polytheist, you may suspect that my goal is a materialist reduction of spiritual phenomena, in effect saying that the divine is all in your head, and thus an illusion. However this suspicion is based on a false premise, that if something is in your mind then it’s not real. On the contrary, if we set aside the dualist assumption that the mental and the material are mutually exclusive, then we can begin to understand both spiritual and physical phenomena as equally real manifestations of one underlying reality (which is the way Jung understood them). Ultimately, we seek an understanding of Nature that is both spiritual and scientific.

The Archetypes

You have seen how in Neoplatonism the microcosm and the macrocosm are reflections

of each other. We might suspect that they are in some way the same thing from different viewpoints. This is in fact one of the implications of evolutionary Jungian psychology, for it shows how the microcosm of a person is an image of the universal macrocosm, but that conversely the macrocosm is a creation of all the individual microcosms. Thus there is a sort of circular causality between macrocosm and microcosm, which reveals a self-creative cosmos.

Jung discovered that images and circumstances occurred in his patients’ dreams that

had detailed similarities with motifs in mythology and art from around the world, even though his patients had no acquaintance with these sources. He called these recurrent psychological patterns the
archetypes of the collective unconscious
. Over the years Jung and his successors have investigated the archetypes, and refer to them by names such as the Mother, the Father, the Maiden, the Wise Old Man, the Trickster, and so forth.

Jung stressed that the archetypes are not simply images, but that they are dynamic

structures, akin to instincts, governing perception, motivation, and behavior in order to the microcosm and the archetypes 187

serve biological purposes. They are more like characters in a video game than pictures in a gallery. Therefore the archetypes have a sort of life of their own.

The archetypes are unconscious structures, and so they cannot be experienced directly.

We know they exist only indirectly, because when they are activated they manifest in consciousness through their effect on conscious experience (including dreams), altering motivation, perception, and behavior. By triangulating between these conscious experiences we can infer something of the hidden structure of an archetype, but we can never know it completely (at least not with contemporary scientific methods).

Since the archetypes are patterns of human behavior, and govern our thinking and how we live, they have the characteristics of life and mind. In this they are similar to archetypal Ideas in the Neoplatonic sense, for they are Beings, eternal patterns of life and mind. Indeed, Jung borrowed the term “archetype” from Neoplatonism. Therefore it is reasonable to identify the collective unconscious with the Universal Mind.

It is apparent that the archetypes correspond to the gods of the polytheistic pantheons, although the latter incorporate, of course, many peculiarities that are not universal but particular to each culture. This is why we find gods with similar characteristics and functions in all the pantheons, and the appearance of these figures in dreams is part of what led Jung to discover the archetypes. This correspondence agrees with Neoplatonic philosophy, which identifies the gods with certain Beings (Forms of motivation, perception, and behavior) in the World Nous.

For example, most pantheons have a goddess of love and sex, such as Aphrodite among

Greeks and Venus among the Romans. This is the archetype that is activated when we see or think of someone who is sexually attractive. As we all know, this can transform conscious experience, restructuring perception, motivation, and perhaps behavior in order to serve biological ends. The ancients said that you had been pierced by the arrow of her son Cupid or Eros, to which not even the gods were immune. In the next chapter you will learn how this potent force can be used to achieve divine union.

Like most archetypes, the Venus archetype is morally neutral. Her effects are positive when they lead to loving union and responsible reproduction, but they are negative when they lead to cheating, dishonesty, or sexual exploitation and abuse.

Have you ever been seized by sudden anger? Maybe you heard of an injustice, or per-

haps you felt “dissed” by someone. Most likely you were under the influence of another familiar archetype, who is represented by Ares in the Greek pantheon and by Mars in

the Roman. In broad terms this archetype governs our response to threatening and chal-188 the microcosm and the archetypes

lenging situations. As we know, this archetype can be triggered by all sorts of challenges beyond physical threat, such as a perceived insult or competition at work or in romance.

It certainly has served a valuable biological purpose, for it helps us to defend our families, our homes, our communities, and ourselves, so that we can survive and thrive. It gives us the courage to defend and pursue our values. When you are fired up to fight the good fight, Ares is awake in you. It encourages us to compete in order to excel and to identify leaders so we can cooperate more effectively. But the problems resulting from letting Ares seize control of consciousness are all too familiar. War, violence, anger, ruthless competition, and bullying are just a few.

Zeus (Roman Jupiter or Jove) displays many of the characteristics of the Father archetype. Indeed he was called “Father of Gods and Mortals.” In addition to being (in mythology) the literal father of many gods and mortals, he was the head of the family of gods, and a source of masculine moral authority and familial responsibility. What about The One? I will discuss it later.