ALGIS UŽDAVINYS’ CONTRIBUTION

TO NEOPLATONIC STUDIES

Žilvinas Svigaris

Keywords: Algis Uždavinys, Plotinus, Neoplatonism, perennial philosophy,

theurgy.

Algis Uždavinys was an especially open-minded encyclopedic thinker and a

scholar of stunning erudition. His works are deeply philosophical; Uždavinys plunged
into his research with his whole being; every question was like a stage of his own spir-
itual path. It is no accident that his work radiates with sensitive and suggestive rele-
vance; each of his assertions was extremely important for him and had an experienced
sacred meaning. This is the source of Uždavinys’ astounding diligence and his unparal-
leled productivity. He writes that there is no recipe for creating art or nurturing the spir-
it: “We teach ourselves, stumbling and rising again, for the spirit is like a phoenix that
rises from the ashes; in each of us it bleeds, more or less.”1 Uždavinys was mainly inter-
ested in what was on the periphery of academic disciplines: the mysterious problems of
theurgy, mystagogy, theophany, alchemy, and hermeticism. In these problems he sought
answers to the questions that determined humanity’s spiritual culture and various intel-
lectual traditions.2 Like a bee busily collecting fragrant nectar, Uždavinys not only gath-
ered spiritual insights from the riches of exotic cultures but also eagerly shared these
insights with colleagues by constantly participating at art exhibitions and academic
events, publishing an incredible number of monographs, reading papers at conferences,
and with a thundering voice giving powerful speeches at the openings of various cultur-
al events.
Although recognition for Uždavinys’ work in his native Lithuania has been
somewhat slow in coming mainly because he penetrated the previously ignored or little
studied depths of primordial archaic cultural forms connected with sacred practices,

1
Uždavinys 1988: Grožio kaukė
2
Andrijauskas 2012: 90
mythical symbols, and liturgical rites,3 his scholarly achievements have been highly rat-
ed by world-class specialists in Neoplatonism. Although it was his way to be a noncon-
formist, his example shows that persistence also leads to recognition. There is no doubt
that his name will also gain more and more weight in Lithuania as academic boundaries
gradually expand and the areas he researched are studied more intensively.
We may agree with Naglis Kardelis’ apt observation that Uždavinys should be
considered not just a philosopher (in other words, a lover of wisdom), but the truest of
sages, a mystic, a spiritual seer, and an oracle of mysterious esoteric knowledge. 4
Uždavinys may be safely called a herald of the European spiritual tradition. Plunging
into ancient civilizations, he was not content with the merely superficial arrangement or
correction of historical facts. His work is permeated by intense efforts to draw back the
veils of magic from archaic archetypes, religious rituals, spiritual mysteries, consecra-
tions, and sacred decrees, to discern at least in part the essences hidden behind these
veils, to grasp the meaning of distant spiritual traditions, and to discover convincing
explanations for them today. Uždavinys emphasized that what has reached the modern
age is only an echo of former spiritual riches – a trivialized ancient philosophy that is
today equated with the strategy of a discursive dispute, has nothing to do with spiritual
practice, and ultimately, according to him, has turned into a doxography wearing glasses
that distort reality.5 The cultivation of wisdom – and not the accumulation of knowledge
– was characteristic of ancient consciousness and early philosophy, which clearly dis-
tanced itself from the sophists and self-proclaimed philosophers who specialized in col-
lecting knowledge and about whom Damascius aptly observed:

I have indeed chanced upon some who are outwardly splendid philosophers in
their rich memory of a multitude of theories; in the shrewd flexibility of their countless
syllogisms; in the constant power of their extraordinary perceptiveness. Yet within they
are poor in matters of the soul and destitute of true knowledge.6

3
Andrijauskas 2012: 89
4
Kardelis 2012: 93
5
Uždavinys 2010: 6
6
Phil. Hist. 14
 In his comparison of philosophy with the clever tricks of the sophists,
Damascius already revealed, almost two thousand years ago, what today is an obvious
truth: that no superficial knowledge enriches the depths of one’s spiritual world. It is no
accident that Uždavinys constantly kept returning to this quote from Damascius.
Naglis Kardelis justifiably considers his works the most authentic expression
of a creator’s spiritual nature and a testimony to his personal nobility of character and to
the existential genuineness of all his achievements.7 Uždavinys’ creative work takes us
to a completely different world, one where the colors and contours begin to emerge only
after a deeper reading, but once opened, this world makes us look at the issues he ex-
plores in an entirely different way. It is important to read this professor’s writings care-
fully, slowly. His works do not resemble digests of summaries or “interesting” historio-
graphical collections, nor can they be compared to speculative theoretical discussions or
dry methodological analyses. They seek coherent underlying meaning rather than color-
ful surface details; his research is a real effort to understand and reveal the spirituality
nurtured in old traditions. Thus, Uždavinys understood philosophy not as a theoretical
discipline, but as a stage in one’s personal spiritual path, which must be traveled not just
formally, but with one’s whole being. Although such an attitude may sound incompre-
hensible in the academic world, we must emphasize that the field he focused on can be
opened up only in this way. It is important to note that the complexity of Uždavinys’
chosen creative path also determines the fragmentariness of his text, which is often per-
ceived as being halfway or moving toward what has not yet been revealed. At the same
time, however, the extremely rich, multi-dimensional structure of his writings will re-
ward the attentive reader with his creative states of mind.
As Naglis Kardelis has observed, Uždavinys’ writings are characterized not so
much by a customary linear narrative sequence as by distinctive bundles of parallel nar-
ratives marked off only by dotted lines.8 Uždavinys’ writings are reminiscent of ancient
Neoplatonic works, which are vividly, almost poetically formulated, are sunny, radiate
magical suggestiveness, and describe spiritual transformations. For him, philosophy is
not intellectual gymnastics, not an exercise in oratorical art, not the organization of so-
ciety, but a means that helps one break free from everyday addictions, from ego fanta-

7
Kardelis 2012: 93
8
Kardelis 2012: 102
sies, from collective ideological violence.9 It is like theurgy, which helps one ascend the
ladder of spiritual growth and “escape [from this world] by becoming, as much as pos-
sible, like God” (phugē de homoiōsis theō kata to dunaton).10 Thinkers influenced by
the Enlightenment rejected theurgy as a fallacy, according to Uždavinys, but the rela-
tionship between philosophy and theurgy is not accidental, and this rejection has conse-
quences.11 Philosophical thinking cannot exist without reflection on the relationship be-
tween the divine and the human, and attempts to ignore the underlying connections in
this relationship have led, as Algis Mickūnas has aptly noted, to a “God complex” and a
crisis of modernity that today involves all areas of life. Man himself has decided that he
is the highest authority and a completely autonomous creator of laws.12 The discrepancy
between real and imaginary human life deepens this crisis. It is more and more difficult
for man to orient himself in today’s world. Abundant sciences, disciplines, theories, and
doctrines are incredibly effective in creating social models, but they do not help the in-
dividual find his way. Instead, they inspire feelings of confusion, uncertainty, or even
horror.
Understandably, Uždavinys does not even try to force himself into the estab-
lished framework of Western scholarly discourse. The speculative abstractions of theo-
rization do not interest him; he sees them as a cultural dead end. He is not alone in this
perception. Mickūnas has written that the growing fragmentation of man and his activi-
ties is the mark of a disintegrating culture. Unable to find any integral principle or goals
that can maintain a cohesive consciousness, through analytical methods and instrumen-
tal thinking man still seeks something new, something more. An increasingly fragment-
ed consciousness starts to crumble, leading to a pointless life and senseless acts.13 Aim-
lessness arises because this consciousness is instrumental. Its goals are only material,
and once reached, they become a means to achieve other material goals. This process
creates so-called “progress,” which is its own goal. Everything happens in the name of

9
Mažeikis 2012: 110
10
Teaet.176.6
11
Uždavinys 2010: 308
12
Mickūnas 2015: 9
13
Mickūnas 2004: 3
progress, which in turn constantly drives everything forward. Thus, in this closed circle
of logic there is nothing that can overcome it.14
As a teenager, Uždavinys dreamt of becoming a painter15; although this dream
was not destined to come true, he was active in the art world as a critic. Extremely sen-
sitive in his perception of contemporary art, he saw the banality of Western culture, the
worship of much-touted “novelty,” and the dominance of shallow, superficial character-
istics. Uždavinys interpreted these things as symptoms of a significant weakening in
intellectual and spiritual sensitivity. It is worth emphasizing that Uždavinys’ radicalism
always reflected the desire to defend a moderate, traditional, time-tested position rather
than a radical adolescent one based on eccentrically fashionable, but intellectually lack-
ing innovations. 16 Uždavinys writes that in today’s culture and art the system of su-
preme spiritual values and ideals has fallen apart, and the very word “spirit” has become
almost unintelligible.17 When studying the sacred strata, the archaic symbols and images
of ancient cultures, he was mainly interested in links to the spiritual dimension, for phi-
losophy, he believed, is a conscious search through spiritual means for a way out from
an existential and social dead end.18 Uždavinys did not artificially separate philosophy
from either religion or mythology, for he thought that in traditional civilizations there
often exists a stronger inner connection between these segments than we see in the
works of Western thinkers.19 It may be said that in Western culture Uždavinys discerned
the loss of a certain balance between the spiritual and secular worlds, and he sought op-
portunities to strengthen the weakened spiritual side.
Like many eminent contemporary thinkers, Uždavinys understood that modern
scientific calculative thinking involves only quantitative changes in values, but having
“expropriated the truth,” it is also dominant at the expense of meditative thinking. We
may say that Uždavinys’ work is an attempt, as it were, to take a step from the quantita-
tive manipulation of superficial values to a qualitatively new awareness of essential

14
Mickūnas 2004: 4
15
Andrijauskas 2012: 9
16
Kardelis 2012: 95
17
Uždavinys 1988: Magiškasis teatras
18
Uždavinys 2003: 29
19
Andrijauskas 2012: 78
spiritual meanings. Such an impulse would strengthen and enrich Western philosophical
discourse, which is fragmented into various disciplines and has already lost not only its
backbone but also the ground beneath its feet. Writing that the current human condition
has deviated from its archetypal origins,20 Uždavinys stresses that it is important to re-
late philosophical discourse to personal askēsis or specific praxis, in other words, to
spiritual work. Thus, the philosophical life, according to Uždavinys, is associated not
only with the superficial manipulation of concepts and methods but also with a thinker’s
spiritual sensitivity or even his transformation.21 Uždavinys proposes to expand the es-
tablished Western approach to philosophy. In his opinion, philosophy should lead con-
sciousness to transcendental noetic unity – not according to the example of Hegelian
philosophy, which attempts to create a speculative theoretical model of the world, but
according to a multifaceted and especially demanding art of life that purifies the soul so
that its inherent defects or erroneous visions do not mislead the thinker and darken his
image of reality.22 But the influence of scientific calculative thinking is so widespread
today and has established itself so deeply in almost all fields, including philosophy and
the humanities, that Uždavinys’ attempt to return thinking to the archetypal basis of
wisdom may seem like a quixotic project.
It is extremely difficult to find arguments that can restrict scientific calculative
thinking, which with today’s emergence of artificial intelligence already threatens to
evolve without human supervision. The effectiveness of calculative scientific thinking
grew immensely, ensuring its monopolistic and almost unlimited power, when it be-
came detached from the basics of human perception. As the rupture grows between hu-
man perception and the world that science is already creating today in order to deal with
the problems created by science, for example, in ecology, man can turn only to the same
science. It is important to understand that technical thinking based on inhuman and in-
sensitive logic is being formed today not by man, but by technology itself. In other
words, by rejecting the task of meditation calculative scientific thinking has taken on a
life of its own and become uncontrollable. Can Uždavinys’ insights and research
strengthen the meditative foundation of thinking?

20
Kardelis 2012: 92
21
Uždavinys 2010: 6
22
Uždavinys 2010a: 9
 While exploring the origins of philosophy, Uždavinys comes to the conclusion
that rational philosophical thinking not only appeared in various symbioses with sacred,
mythical, and religious traditions but also arose from them. Convinced that Western and
Near Eastern wisdom arose from the same source, Uždavinys spent his whole life seek-
ing this archetypal source of wisdom.23 It is in the medium of the sacred, according to
him, that rationality was grounded, and by rejecting it, as is currently being done in the
West, we are cutting the branch on which we are sitting, as it were, and risking that
thinking will break off from the foundations of meditative thought and uncontrollably
fall down. It is essential to restore meditative thinking – not only in order to restore the
meditative cohesiveness of the world we live in but also in order to transform the think-
er himself by convincing him to stop playing with surface colors and to gaze into the
meditative depths of the world. Meditative understanding is experienced with one’s
whole being; in other words, it is not merely the perfunctory manipulation of prepack-
aged solutions, as is the case with calculative scientific thinking. This understanding is
at the same time both the thinker himself and the reality about which he thinks. As un-
derstanding deepens, the connection deepens between the thinker and reality; in other
words, thinking deepens, and as thinking deepens, insights become more universal, and
one approaches an understanding of the whole. Such a mystical experience is called
spiritual fullness, cleansing the soul, enlightenment, seeing God, touching immortality,
or winning the crown of victory.24
Such a philosophy, according to Uždavinys, is a certain totality that encom-
passes skills at logic, knowledge of the cosmic order, and the science of the Platonic
dialectic. It develops the lover of wisdom, who is able to contemplate the unity of the
nous, and prompts the soul to turn inward.25 The idea of restoring true memory and the
identity of the soul, according to Uždavinys, originated in Egyptian tradition and was
described in the Book of the Dead; later, it was taken over by the Pythagoreans and Pla-
to, who explained anamnēsis as remembering things that were known before birth and
were afterwards forgotten.26 Thus, according to Plato, teaching amounts to the restora-

23
Kardelis 2012: 92
24
Uždavinys 2010: 50
25
Uždavinys 2010: 54
26
Meno 85d
tion of memories27. Uždavinys explains that the human intellect is only a reflection of
the divine intellect; therefore, remembering oneself means remembering one’s noetic
archetype, in other words, remembering the Creator. The mutable material world was
created and is ruled by the Demiurge according to an unchanging, eternal model (to
aidion paradeigma).28 For Neoplatonists, according to Uždavinys, self-knowledge (hē
heauton gnōsis) based on recollection is the beginning of all philosophy. 29 In other
words, the soul philosophizes through self-reflection, and the ultimate goal of the think-
ing philosopher is to remember and rediscover within himself Dionysus, who at the
same time is united with the highest source – the Monad30.
Paradoxically, although postmodern philosophical discourse, which has “ap-
propriated the truth,” today considers Neoplatonism an unimportant or even marginal
movement in philosophy, at the same time we can see in many postmodern works of art
that altered postmodern consciousness employs precisely the One of Neoplatonism as
the foundation for the coherence of reality. Artists paint integral experience: in the
works of Cézanne, Picasso, and other painters all perspectives are integrated and can be
seen at the same time. Composers create integral music: the concept of time and rhythm
is dissolved in an atonal work as a whole. Biologists are discovering that nature is not
substantive, but consists of integral processes: it turns out that organisms are more de-
pendent on an interactive whole than on themselves. In Western philosophical dis-
course, Heidegger formulated a philosophy of the fourfold (das Geviert): heaven and
earth, the eternal immortals and transitory people are part of a playful whole rather than
separate objects. Green movements are radically changing the industrial sector and, as a
result, how the entire economy functions throughout the world. Many other phenomena
undoubtedly indicate an already occurring shift – one that is grounding new ways of
thinking and gathering into a whole what has begun to crumble off fragmented post-
modern consciousness.31

27
Phaed.72e
28
Uždavinys 2005: 147
29
Uždavinys 2012: 49
30
Uždavinys 2012: 52
31
Mickūnas 2015: 2
 Thus, Neoplatonic insights are being revived today, but calculative thinking
continues to be unwilling – or more precisely, unable – to see the idea of the One. Fear
of the One arises for calculative instrumental thinking, which knows only how to break
down into parts, because it needs a world that is accessible to a methodology that can
analyze only limited parts and grasps the whole only as the sum of those parts. In other
words, for methodological instrumental thinking everything needs to be fragmented,32
and the idea of an indivisible whole is frightening. Thus, a fragmented modern world
that has lost the aspect of wholeness also requires a fragmented consciousness that ap-
plies a different methodology to each fragment. So, is it at all possible to revive
Neoplatonic ideas in today’s world?
Uždavinys thought that it is. On the basis of Plotinus’ insight that man is not
completely separated from the divine, that his soul is part of everything, Uždavinys
studied mainly those thinkers who, alongside rational reasoning, devoted sufficient at-
tention to spiritual equilibrium and clarity of the soul, to its readiness to meet with its
Creator. In regard to the soul, the most commonly used concept of purity has the sense
in Neoplatonism of liberation from the burden of earthly existence. Purity can be
achieved only through knowledge. Purity and knowledge – these two concepts are
closely related.33 The image of a spiritual path with stops along the way helps one artic-
ulate the stages in the transformation of the soul – stages that, according to Uždavinys,
were cultivated by thinkers of the Hellenistic period. Uždavinys’ favorite metaphor of
returning home, which appears in the legends of Odysseus, Heracles, and other mythical
figures, denotes a state of spiritual fulfillment opposed to delusion and spiritual poverty
or a state of deficiency and, by opening up the way for the liberation of the soul from
material limitations, leads precisely to purity of the soul. Thus, according to Uždavinys,
philosophy in its original form is not a theoretical construct, but a special way of being
in the world, and the method on which it is based leads the philosopher to pure con-
sciousness.34 Uždavinys emphasizes that Plato’s works Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Sympo-
sium are only marginal commentaries far removed from the metaphysics of Heliopolis.
According to Uždavinys, they are adaptations for the noisy Athenian marketplace.

32
Mickūnas 2004: 2
33
Uždavinys 2015: 42
34
Uždavinys 2003: 29
 A significant place in Uždavinys’ thinking is taken by the concept of state of
being. In one of his earliest monographs, Helėniškoji filosofija nuo Numenijo iki
Sirijano (Hellenic Philosophy from Numenius to Sirianus), he already writes that what
is most important for the philosophical life is a certain inner attitude: how one chooses a
way as well as how one overcomes the stages of one’s journey and experiences the
states of mind associated with these stages.35 Likewise, in Sufizmas islamo civilizacijoje
(Sufism in Islamic Civilization), he writes that the spiritual alchemy of Sufism is insep-
arable from the concepts of maqām (stage) and hāl (state of being), which mark the path
of ascent, as well as from the qualities that complete the stages of this path and are
called virtues (mahasin, fada’il).36 Thus, if we want to understand the experience of an-
cient cultures, modern methodological and theoretical scientific instruments will not be
very helpful because their construction was determined by today’s worldviews, which
in turn are too far removed from those ancient times. Today, Western culture is based
on calculative thinking, but the concept of state of being is a much more universal key
to cultural secrets. Thus, it is no accident that Uždavinys focuses on the stages in the
transformations along the spiritual path and on other concepts connected with states of
being.
What kind of contribution to Neoplatonic studies did Uždavinys make, and
what can we learn from him? First of all, it is worthwhile to learn from the immediacy
of his approach. Although the Neoplatonists have left behind only their writings, and
cultural differences in worldview will never allow us to understand these texts the way
they were understood many centuries ago, the principles the Neoplatonists established
of universal archetypal thinking are undoubtedly the same. We can get closer to their
fundamental insights not only by repeating one or another Neoplatonic formulation but
also by seeking to experience the content of its meaning. Thus, when studying the
Neoplatonists, Uždavinys seeks to restore the content of their meaning and the meta-
physics it is based on. His efforts to reconstruct the dimension of meaning and focus on
the essence of things are extremely worthwhile. After Claude Lévi-Strauss’s anthropo-
logical studies, which demonstrate that behind every mythopoetic world a distinctive
rationality operates along with the thinking that follows from it, after Heidegger’s at-

35
Uždavinys 2003: 27
36
Uždavinys 2003: 19
tempts, especially in his late works, to ground the noetic unity of thinking by employing
the mythical category of the fourfold (das Geviert), and after the efforts of other re-
searchers and thinkers to reconstruct the mythopoetic dimension of ancient civilizations,
Uždavinys’ studies continue the attempts to restore the archaic principles of understand-
ing. Uždavinys’ research into Neoplatonic ideas, his efforts to reconstruct their layers of
meaning, and his profound reflection on them resurrect this thinking in the new context
of today’s world and create opportunities to reintegrate it into philosophical discourse –
transformed, perhaps even unrecognizable, but with an underlying content of
Neoplatonic understanding.
Although Neoplatonists are often accused of speculation with unintelligible
theurgic concepts, such criticism is groundless. No thinking process can avoid specula-
tive reflection; it is needed in order to test a hypothesis on the noetic level; at the same
time, it should be noted that seeking Dionysus is not like looking for an apple on a ta-
ble. Without speculative reasoning it would also be impossible to discover the laws of
thermodynamics. Uždavinys aptly notes that the ancient Phoenician mythical stories
about primordial mud and a fissionable egg are not much different from the theories of
modern physics, for example, about explosion and expansion. 37 Interesting, too, is
Kardelis’ observation that for Uždavinys the true standard for thinking is to be able to
express a visible image in a conceptual form and transform an abstract thought into a
symbolic image.38 Neoplatonic links with theurgic images are necessary just as science
requires technical terms. They make possible the articulation of nonlinguistic matters
that could not otherwise even be expressed.
Imagination is vital for thinking: in Antiquity it evolved as theurgic medita-
tions, in the Middle Ages – as biblical hermeneutics, and later, after combining contem-
plations of a ladder leading to heaven with logical skills – as a scientific apparatus that
created computers and developed the principles of a virtual world. It should be empha-
sized that in ancient Greece there was not the same radical distinction between technē
(τέχνη ‘skill, craftsmanship, art, profession, craft’) and poiēsis (ποίησις from ποιέω ‘to
make, create, compose, write’) as there is today. Both terms emphasized artistic crea-
tion; both of them were used to highlight that the creator (inspired by higher powers) is

37
Uždavinys 1999: 8
38
Kardelis 2012: 103
under the care of those powers and is not creating from himself, as it were, but merely
repeating operations that were once performed for the first time by the divine Creator.
In other words, the artist creates by returning to the care of the Creator, to the primordi-
al whole, and the activity of the craftsman-poet endowed with creative powers has a
cosmogonical meaning. While there are differences between the archetypes and results
of divine and human creation, nothing comes into being without creative effort. In other
words, spiritual practice can be seen as a contemplative effort that the artist, poet, or
artisan expresses in the artwork or artefact he creates. In summary, we may say that a
philosopher’s pronouncement is the articulation of the manifest reality attained by his
contemplative mind.
What is manifest is the perception of order, but in each instance this perceived
order opens up the world differently. How does one want it to be opened up, and what
kind of order does Uždavinys seek? It is important to mention Uždavinys’ position that
not just any philosophy can be called true to its nature. Radically critical of “philoso-
phizing” that is an egocentric end in itself or serves technocentric purposes, he main-
tained that philosophy must, first of all, wake up from its reductionist slumber and re-
store underlying spiritual values. To sum up, Uždavinys’ rethinking led to a spiritually
rich and independent philosophy that has its own powerful vocabulary and could be-
come a model for the philosophical thinking of the future.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrijauskas, Antanas. 2012. „Algio Uždavinio fenomenas.“ Rytai – Vakarai:

Komparatyvistinės studijos XII. LKTI. Vilnius.
Kardelis, Naglis. 2012. „Išminties versmių ieškotojas: apie Algio Uždavinio
asmenybę ir kūrybą.“ Rytai – Vakarai: Komparatyvistinės studijos XII. LKTI. Vilnius.
Mažeikis, Gintautas. 2012. „Algio Uždavinio hermetinis atgimimas.“ Rytai –
Vakarai: Komparatyvistinės studijos XII. LKTI. Vilnius.
Mickūnas, Algis. 2015. Integrali sąmonė. VU Rankraščių sk. F298-16.
Uždavinys, Algis. 1988. „Grožio kaukė.“ Literatūra ir menas. 1988 rugsėjo 17.
Uždavinys, Algis. 1988. „Magiškasis teatras.“ Literatūra ir menas. 1988
rugsėjo 24.
Uždavinys, Algis. 1999. „Anuo metu.“ Literatūra ir menas. 1999. Nr. 27.
Uždavinys, Algis. 2003. Helėniškoji filosofija. Nuo Numenijo iki Sirijano.
Kultūros, filosofijos ir meno institutas. Vilnius.
Uždavinys, Algis. 2004. „Išplaukiančių žuvų metas.“ Kultūros barai. 2004, Nr.
3.
Uždavinys, Algis. 2010. Sakraliniai platoniškosios filosofijos pagrindai. So-
phia. Vilnius.
Uždavinys, Algis. 2010a. Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity. San Ra-
fael, CA: Sophia Perennis.
Uždavinys, Algis. 2012. „Egipto mąstymo tradicija ir antikinės filosofinės
iniciacijos į požeminį mirusių pasaulį.“ Rytai – Vakarai: Komparatyvistinės studijos
XII. LKTI. Vilnius.