Neoplatonism and Christianity, Serial-3

Georgi Stankov

 Neoplatonism and Christianity


The limits and possibilities of human mind to assess dialectically

the entirety, the primary term, and the individual notions.

the Phenomenology of Being


Philosophical Study

Copyright 2007

Translation from German into English

by Henry A. Clymer

Plotinus’ Neoplatonism

In his preface to Plotinus’ Enneads, the collected works of this unusual and, in his gnostic depth and rigor, unmatched thinker, Porphyry, his pupil and publisher wrote that his master belonged to the sort of people who were embarrassed to dwell in a physical body on earth. In this way he only wanted to highlight the spiritual detachment of Plotinus from this reality, which is a prominent characteristic of all ancient philosophers. This attitude has achieved a masterful literary representation in the Platonic dialogues, beyond their purely philosophical background, in the persona­lity of Socrates.

Anybody who has carefully read and understood Plotinus’ Enneads would pay tribute to Porphyry’s statement as being a self-evident truth. Unfortunately, all established philosophers and philologists, who have written about Plotinus’ teachings in the following period and have been read by myself; including the German translater and editor of the Enneads, Richard Harder, have imperfectly understood Pltonius’ Gnosis, partly mistranslated it, and falsely interpreted key areas.

Taking into account the consistency and internal coherence of his thoughts, then such secondary interpretations are not only unhelpful, but extremely cumbersome, yes, even harmful; they dilute only Plotinus’ thoughts and deprive them of their gnostic content.

This deficit can be explained with the fact that all the persons who interpreted Neo­platonism did not have the old soul-age of Plotinus. Because of this, it was not granted to them to make similar transcendental experiences like the great philosopher made them in his lifetime and has described in detail in his Enneads.

Only from a such inner introspection of the astral worlds, is the incarnated perso­nality able to get a direct, beyond all earthly reservations, certainty about the All-That-Is, the Divine, and to mould these energetic, non-verbal experience and know­ledge in verbal forms – in a written Gnosis and Philosophy.

No wonder that Plotinus could overcome his inner reservations only in the last years of his life, not least at the urging of his students, and declared himself ready to write down his teaching, which was available only to a few insiders until then, for future generations.

The young, immature soul age of the vast majority of souls incarnated on Earth is, as I already explained in my other gnostic writings and in the introduction, the main reason for all spiritual ignorance of humanity since ancient times up to the present day. This ignorance begins with the inability of the people to depart from the primary term of human consciousness and to develop logical, stringent and consistent cate­gorical systems of the Phenomenology of Being, which exclude any contradictions, paradoxes and antinomies in a dialectical way. Not only the religions, but also all the sciences, including philosophy, reveal this fundamental weakness. The current five world religions, with their many branches, and the countless esoteric schools are a collective expression of this cognitive malaise.

We will show below that this was the chief reason why Christianity ran aground, to interpret dialectically the ideas of Neoplatonism and to implement them in an appropriate gnostic, religious doctrine, even though all Church dogma explicitly have their origin in the basic ideas of Neoplatonism.

But also all the philosophical schools of the West after Plotinus have failed in this respect. However, a scientifically sound analysis of Neoplatonism was only possible after the discovery of Universal Law and the development of the new Pantheory of Science and Human Gnosis.

The crucial advantage of the new Axiomatics lies in the fact that she, for the first time in the known history of mankind, perfectly captures the primary term of our consciousness as energy in the physical and mathematical sense of this term and allows for a consistent, empirically verifiable description of all phenomena of physi­cal and organic matter. The main weakness of Neoplatonism and of all ancient and modern philosophy lies in their inability to develop a clear physical idea of Energy. This will be a central theme of this essay.

This is all the more astonishing when one considers that the original approaches of Greek philosophy were very correct. Already Heraclitus recognized the energy, which he called “the original fire” or “conflagration” as the origin of all existence. According to him, energy transmutes from one form into another, obeying the ubi­quitous “order of opposites1”, behind which he conceived the omnipotent power of the Law of One – the Logos. At the same time, the school of Miletus, first Thales, dealt extensively with the role of numbers in the gnostic perception of the world.

Pythagoras was the first to comprehend that the Heraclitian Law of One was a Law of Numbers – the Universal Law assesses the nature of space and time as a rule of three that can be represented as well in philosophical categories. We awe him the development of mathematics to a pure science, free of any practical considerations. The objectives of the Pythagorean arithmetic were the studies of the abstract princip­les of numbers and not their concrete application, as was the case before his time in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Geometry reached already a remarkable height with the Pythagoreans and was further developed by later mathematicians and thinkers until it achieved its temporary pinnacle with Euclid.

Both Plato and Aristotle were deeply influenced by Euclid’s Elements. The Pytha­gorean doctrine of the ideal geometric forms was the epistemological starting point for the Platonic Theory of the Forms; his axiomatic approach was implemented by Aristotle in his Theory of the Categories. Since then both mathematics and geometry are recognized as indispensable means of any philosophical Analysis and Synthesis. This approach remained invariant since the times of Cartesian, Spinoza, Leibniz till Kant. Descartes considered “mathematics as a paradigm of reliable science”. He explored “the mind, the imagination, the senses, and the memory” with a “scientific method,” using Geometry both in the “abstraction of the problem” and in his “pictorial representation”2. Spinoza wrote his “Ethics, Represented According to the Geometri­cal Method”3. Leibniz designed his Monadology4 from the essence of the differential calculus, which strives to encompass the infinite small and the infinite big in the continuity of the movement.

The problem of the limited (finite, determined) and the unlimited (infinite, undeter­mined) has been dealt not only in the modern set theory since Leibniz5, but it is just as old as the mathematics itself and the main occupation of the Pythagoreans. They searched behind the numbers and their harmony, not only in music, where they decisively advanced the theory of harmony, but also in the physical world for the all-dominanting principles, to which all things are subjected.

The Pythagoreans were the first to realize that mathematics is the only correct reflection of the physical phenomena – a fact that could be only properly and inclusi­vely proven with the discovery of the Universal Law and the development of the new physical mathematical theory – and thus founded Physics:

“Because the Nature of the Number is emanating intelligence, and leading, and teaching anybody about anything that is dubious and unknown to him. Then none of the things would be clear to anyone in their proportions and also to each other if the number was not clear in its essence. The number brings all external things in harmony with our perception within the soul according to the ‘gnomon’ (pointer) of Nature, by attributing to them a body gestalt and by separating all things from each other according to their proportions – the boundless things, as well as those that build boundaries.”6

I have proved that physics is merely applied mathematics for the physical world. By exposing the myriad cognitive errors of physics, which arise from the lack of recog­nition of the obvious fact that one can only build space and time-relationships. I con­firmed the initial findings of the Pythagoreans: the physical world can be completely assessed with dimensionless, absolute natural constants, which are pure numbers.

The space relationships of the objects determine our optical sensations of the three-dimensionality (body gestalts) of the visible world, and are mainly covered by geo­metry in today’s physics.

Because space-time is a unity, and its constituents space and time are canonically conjugated, reciprocal magnitudes, the space relationships can be determined only after “time is arrested in the human mind”. During this psychological procedure of unprecedented gnostic scope, which was first recognized by myself, the time rela­tionships (whereby “time” f in the new axiomatic is “frequency”, that is to say, reciprocal conventional time t, f = 1/t) are assessed as pure numbers. The same applies to the space relationships.

Geometry and mathematics, especially algebra, are known to be commutative, tran­sitive axiomatic systems. From this it follows that geometry is only a visual, graphic presentation of ratios (relationships of various numbers). The unconscious process of arresting the flow of time in the human mind is not only a prerequisite for the appli­cation of mathematics, but at the same time it also determines the ultimate gnostic boundary of each and every incarnated personality, making it impossible to perceive the energetic levels of the 7F-realms of creation (the Astral Planes) as intertwined entities that penetrate and imbue matter .

This psycho-energetic deficit of human perception prevents the incarnated perso­nality to understand the continuity of energy, and thus of all existence in a correct and scientifically comprehensive manner and to bring into expression this realization in relevant philosophical categories. I will show that at this gnostic limit, not only Neoplatonism has failed, which has rendered so far the best gnostic representation of the soul-worlds, but also all religious, scientific, and everyday conceptions and ideas.

Hence the whole physics has a single task: to determine the space-time relationships and to introduce new physical quantities in the context of mathematics. These form a set of numbers that is identical to the continuum of mathematics. In this way I have proved that the primary term is both the origin of mathematics and physics, and hence of all sciences.

All findings of the pre-Socratic and classical Greek philosophy were not only known to their legitimate heirs, the Neoplatonists, but they had also a correct, pre-scientific intuition of the future knowledge of the new theory of the Universal Law.

As I have mentioned many times in my Gnostic writings, all events exist simulta­neously in the Astral Planes – the past and future timelines. In other words: Michel­angelo knew about the existence of Picasso, and Attila about the existence of Hitler, Stalin and Bush, just as Jesus knew of my future arrival. I am referring in this context to the most important, and still not understood statement of Jesus Christ by the Church: “God is not a God of the dead, but of the living.” We will see that the knowledge of the immortality of the soul and its incarnations was a central gnostic good of Neoplatonism.

With their philosophical erudition, which remained unsurpassed in the Hellenistic period, and with their pure intuition of transcendence, which the Neoplatonists, in contrast to the early Christians, correctly interpreted in a dialectical manner, they created the solid epistemological foundations of their Gnostic teachings about the invisible worlds of the soul, also known as a world soul.

However, all the Neoplatonists, and all the philosophers before and after themselves, did not know the concept of U-Sets. which is indispensable for the development of a consistent, free of paradoxes, categorical system, and could not implement this concept mathematically in science or as a dialectical weltanschauung in philosophy.

The result was the inability of the ancient thinkers to develop a modern science in the present-day sense, as well as to establish Philosophy and Gnosis, which they have exhaustively explored, to an objective science beyond any doubts7. These methodological and epistemological weaknesses of Neoplatonism will come to the fore in the present discourse.


1. See the “third operative axiom concerning the reciprocal behaviour of two adjacent gra­dients in a system” in the new Axiomatics in volume I and volume II, with the help of which all physical and social laws can be formulated and mathematically derived from the Universal Law.

2. Descartes, Philosophical Writings, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg, 1996.

3. Spinoza, The Ethics, Reclam, 1990.

4. G. Leibniz, Monadology, Insel Ed, 1996.

5. See on this issue volume I and my elaboration on Leibniz in volume IV, as well as my book “‘Philosophical Sources“.

6. Philolaos on Physics, after Dumont 1988, Capelli 1953, in Andre Pichot, “The Birth of Science”, Campus, 1995, p. 387.

7. Most philosophers are of the unanimous opinion that Western philosophy is in essence an inferior imitation, not seldom a confusing repetition of Antique Philosophy with respect to the prevailing epoch.


This entry was posted in Neoplatonism and Christianity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.