Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Uzdavinys Voices of Fire Understanding Theurgy
Uzdavinys Voices of Fire Understanding Theurgy
Understanding theurgy
Algis Udavinys
It is a sacrilege not to preserve the immortality of the soul, raising it to the
level of the holy and uniting it to the divine with bonds which cannot be
broken or loosened, but by contrast to pull and drag downwards the divine
which is within us, confining it to the earthly, sinful and Giant- or Titanlike prison. (Damascius, Phil.Hist.19 Athanassiadi)
Let us become fire, let us travel through fire. We have a free way to the
ascent. The Father will guide us, unfolding the ways of fire; let us not
flow with the lowly stream from forgetfulness. (Proclus, De philosophia
Chaldaica, fr.2)
Defining theurgy
Contemporary Western scholars habitually repeat the assumption that the
term theourgia was coined in the exotic circles of those misguided semiOriental (and, therefore, marginal) miracle-workers who imagined that
the road to salvation lies not in the bright palace of reason la Sextus
Empiricus, but in the pious hieratic rites. Consequently it is argued that on
analogy with the term theologia (speaking of the divine thing) these
miracle-workers invented theourgia, namely, doing divine things, performing
sacramental works.
Many modern scholars too straightforwardly affirm this rather artificial
dichotomy. However, from a traditional perspective, rites may also be said
to speak and may include all kinds of logoi. For example, in ancient
Egyptian ritual, speech not only makes the archetypal realm of noetic
realities manifest in the liturgical realm of visible symbolic tokens and
actions, but also performatively accomplishes theurgical transition and
transposition of the cultic events into the divine realm, thereby establishing
a relationship between the domain of noetic (akhu) Forms and the series of
105
I have considered the Egyptian theory of divine speech/names, including the specifics of
transmission and questions of historical context in my forthcoming paper, Metaphysical
symbols and their funtion in theurgy. It is worth recognising here that, as Gregory Shaw
points out, Neither Iamblichus nor any of his Platonic successors provide concrete examples
of how names, sounds, or musical incantations were used in theurgic rites. There is a great
wealth of evidence from nontheurgical circles, however, to suggest that theurgists used the
asema onomata (meaningless words) according to Pythagorean cosmological theories and a
spiritualisation of the rules of grammar (Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of
Iamblichus, University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, p.183).
2
J. Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, D. Lorton (tr.), Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press, 2001, p.92.
3
E. R. Dodds The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, p.286.
106
Ibid., p.292.
Proclus, In Tim. III.155.18.
6
Neoplatonic tradition emphasises this distinction between goteia and theourgia
7
This understanding of Egyptian rites is considered in detail throughout the works of Jan
Assmann.
5
107
A. Louth, Pagan Theurgy and Christian Sacramentalism in Denys the Areopagite, The
Journal of Theological Studies 37, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986, p.434.
9
Damascius, Phil.Hist. 46D.
10
Ibid., 42F.
11
Ibid., 4A.
12
Ibid., 4A-C.
13
Ibid., 85A.
108
14
109
18
110
Ibid., 41.9-42.1.
Ibid., 31.4.
111
When the animating ba comes from the sky and descends (hai) on his
image (sekhem), this metaphysical action (or divine work, ergn) simply
means the special ritualistic re-actualisation, re-affirmation, and re-petition
of the cosmogonic scenario at the level of both cult images and purified
human bodies who need to be re-assembled by the unifying divine spirit.
This accomplishment (telesiourgia) is tantamount to the restoration of the
Eye of Horus, which is equated with offering (hetep, or hotep),
simultaneously meaning harmonious reintegration of parts (parts of the
scattered Osirian eidos, restored in accordance to the whole truth, maat)
and noetic satisfaction.
The cult statues presumably have two natures, one divine (when
permeated by the bau of the gods, like the house of Ra is irradiated by his
miraculous unifying rays) and one inanimate and material which must be
consecrated in order to reveal the inner divine presence both in its perennial
theophanic and specialised cultic sense. Therefore Assmann says: As
creators of these statues, humans are reminded of their own divine origin,
and by piously tending and worshiping them, they make the divine at home
on earth.24
However, the daily rituals which consist in awakening, greeting,
purifying, anointing, dressing, feeding, and worshiping the cult statue as well
as the process of sacrificial offerings (which are symbolically designated as
the restored Eye of Horus and around which the ritual revolves) are not to
be conceived as a communication between the human and the divine, but
rather as an interaction between deities,25 that is, as a real divine ergn, the
holy work performed by the gods and all superior classes.
23
Ibid., 31.9-32.2.
Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, p.41.
25
Ibid., p.49
24
112
The above mentioned measures suggest the ratios of the soul described
in Platos Timaeus (35b-36B; 43D-E), therefore through the correct
performance of measured theurgic rites the initiate imitates the activity of
26
113
27
28
114
Though the gods are without any visible shape or figure, they may be
viewed with a figure in the psychic realm of imagination (say, in the
microcosmic Duat, the Hathorian or Osirian Netherworld of the soul), since
each soul is the pleroma of reality (pantn plrma esti tn eidon).30 So within
the soul, like on the magic screen, all things are contained inwardly in a
psychic mode. As Sara Rappe reminds us:
At the borderland between the material world and the purely
immaterial world of intellect, this space of imagination offers a
transitional domain that the mind can come to inhabit. This visionary
space does not contain external objects nor illusions nor hallucinations.
Rather, it is above all a realm of self-illumination31
Therefore, in this Osirian mode, the soul is capable to see and to know
all things, including figures of the gods who essentially are without any
shape and figure, by entering into itself and awakening the inner powers
which reveal the images (eikones) and symbols of the universal reality.
Neither the outward, nor the inward psychic seer is capable of seeing
without images. Thus, the nature of the things seen, in each case,
corresponds to the nature and preparedness of the seer himself, that is, to
the particular archetypal measures or configurations (those initially written
on by Nous, the demiurgic Intellect) and to the actual contents of his
existential and culturally shaped consciousness.
The Demiurge is the first and the only real seer and real speaker, whose
speech is tantamount to the creative contemplation through the
transcendent mirrors of imagination. Hence, his seeing and his speaking
constitute the manifestation itself. Therefore creation of all things and the
act of their naming are one and the same.
29
Ibid., 959.
Proclus, In Parm. 896.
31
S. Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism: Non-discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus,
and Damascius, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p.173.
30
115
32
P. Kingsley, In the Dark Places of Wisdom, Inverness, CA: The Golden Sufi Center, 1999, p.122.
Ibid., p.123.
34
Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism, p.181.
35
Proclus, In Tim. I.273.
33
116
117
38
Ibid., p.102.
Damascius, In Phileb. 24.3.
40
A. Sheppard, Proclus Philosophical Method of Exegesis: The Use of Aristotle and the
Stoics in the Commentary on the Cratylus in Proclus lecteur et interprete des anciens, J. Pepin
and H. D. Saffrey (ed.), Paris: CNRS, 1987, p.149.
39
118