← Home
Select Works of Plotinus · 564 of 752 · tr. Thomas Taylor

Select Works, Section 541

Section 3 3. We assert, then, a plurality of Existents, but a plurality not fortuitous and therefore a plurality deriving from a unity. But even admitting this derivation from a unity- a unity however not predicated of them in respect of their essential being- there is, surely, no reason why each of these Existents, distinct in character from every other, should not in itself stand as a separate genus. Is, then, this unity external to the genera thus produced, this unity which is their source though it cannot be predicated of them in respect of their essence? it is indeed external; the One is beyond; it cannot, therefore, be included among the genera: it is the [transcendent] source, while they stand side by side as genera. Yet surely the one must somehow be included [among the genera]? No: it is the Existents we are investigating, not that which is beyond Existence. We pass on, then, to consider that which is included, and find to our surprise the cause included with the things it causes: it is surely strange that causes and effects should be brought into the same genus. But if the cause is included with its effects only in the sense in which a genus is included with its subordinates, the subordinates being of a different order, so that it cannot be predicated of them whether as their genus or in any other relation, these subordinates are obviously themselves genera with subordinates of their own: you may, for example, be the cause of the operation of walking, but the walking is not subordinate to you in the relation of species to genus; and if walking had nothing prior to it as its genus, but had posteriors, then it would be a [primary] genus and rank among the Existents. Perhaps, however, it must be utterly denied that unity is even the cause of other things; they should be considered rather as its parts or elements- if the terms may be allowed,- their totality constituting a single entity which our thinking divides. All unity though it be, it goes by a wonderful power out into everything; it appears as many and becomes many when there is a motion; the fecundity of its nature causes the One to be no longer one, and we, displaying what we call its parts, consider them each as a unity and make them into "genera," unaware of our failure to see the whole at once. We display it, then, in parts, though, unable to restrain their natural tendency to coalesce, we bring these parts together again, resign them to the whole and allow them to become a unity, or rather to be a unity. All this will become clearer in the light of further consideration- when, that is to say, we have ascertained the number of the genera; for thus we shall also discover their causes. It is not enough to deny; we must advance by dint of thought and comprehension. The way is clear:
Related passages · 8 parallels
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 11, Section 1b
Plotinus says the Godhead is indivisibly divided. doth not leave Its own Unity, but, even in the act of going forth to all things, remains entirely within Itself through the excess of that all-transcendent Unity: concerning these things ‘t…”
Both passages discuss the concept of unity and multiplicity, exploring how a transcendent unity can manifest as multiple existents or genera. They share a mystical perspective on the nature of the One and its relationship to the many, though they come from different traditions.
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 13, Section 1f
Thus in the form “1 x 1” the first figure represents the unity underlying all numbers, the second figure represents unity as a particular number among other numbers. The first figure may thus be taken as a symbol of the Godhead, the second…”
Both passages explore the concept of unity and its relationship to multiplicity, with Passage A discussing the One as the transcendent source of all existents and Passage B describing the Godhead as the underlying unity of all numbers and created things. Both texts emphasize the idea of a singular, undifferentiated source that manifests in diverse forms.
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 2, Section 1k
Indeed, He is not an unity in this sense, and doth not participate in unity nor possess it; 224 224 These two phrases well express the meaning of the title “Beyond things and supernally infusing Unity” (ὑπερηνωμένη), which I have generally…”
Both passages discuss the concept of unity and plurality, exploring how a transcendent unity can manifest as multiple existents or entities. They both delve into the nature of the One and its relationship to the many, albeit from different mystical traditions.
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 7, Section 1b
(2) Wisdom as a whole = Wisdom embodied in the universe as a whole. (3) Wisdom in each individual instance = Wisdom as shown in the structure of some particular plant or animal, or part of a plant or animal. (1) Is an Emanation; (2) and (…”
Both passages discuss the concept of a transcendent unity that is the source of multiplicity. Plotinus describes the One as beyond existence, while the second passage discusses the Divine Wisdom as the source of all created wisdom and intelligence, highlighting the unity and simplicity of divine perception.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 2 (part 2)
That Will, by conceiving of its own self, thereby creates a mirror within its own self. The same takes place in the microcosm of man. By conceiving of his own self man creates a mirror in which he " feels " his own self, and thereby he be…”
Both passages discuss the nature of the divine and the relationship between the divine and the material world. They explore the concept of a first principle or self-existent entity, and the process by which this entity interacts with or manifests in the material realm.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 4 (part 3)
7.) "We cannot reasonably suppose any formation or differentiation to have existed in the eternal One from which, or according to which (formation) something could have been made; for if such a form, or predisposition to making a form, had…”
Both passages discuss the nature of the divine and the relationship between the divine and creation. They explore the idea of a first principle and the paradoxes that arise from different theories about the origin and nature of existence.
greek_mystery|Orphic Hymns|Front Matter, p. 4 (part 6)
34 all things, and yet as separate and apart from all; as the source of all multitude, yet himself perfect unity; and as immensly prolific, yet divinely solitary and ineffably good. Thus, according to Porphyry m , explaining the properties…”
Both passages discuss the concept of a transcendent unity that is the source of all existence, yet is distinct from and beyond the multiplicity of existents. They explore the relationship between the One and the many, and the nature of unity and multiplicity in the context of divine and incorporeal realities.
western_esoteric|Transcendental Magic I: The Doctrine (Éliphas Lévi)|4. The Tetragrama
GEBURAH CHESED PORTA LIBRARUM ELEMENTA IN Nature there are two forces producing equilibrium, and these three constitute a single law. Here, then, is the triad resumed in unity, and by adding the conception of unity to that of the triad we…”
Both passages explore the relationship between unity and multiplicity, discussing how a singular principle (the One in Plotinus, the Tetrad in Kabbalah) manifests as diverse entities. They share a conceptual parallel in their examination of the nature of unity and its manifestation in multiplicity, despite differing traditions and vocabularies.