Talk:Henosis

No Context
This article reads like the passage of some holy text rather than a wikipedia article. I'm completely ignorant of this topic; it would be great to get some philosophical backing/context/history by mentioning where these ideas are coming from, especially since the intro mentions several philosophical underpinnings which it then seems to abandon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.170.72 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Iamblichus v. Gnosticism
Were does Iamblichus endorse Gnosticism? LoveMonkey 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted; "Iamblichus' starting with a panentheistic Monad in contrast to Plotinus' pantheistic Monad, one or source." No one who has actually read Plotinus could call him a pantheist, it's a flat contradiction of his position. If anything he's more like a Deist with regards the One which he says is "absolutely transcendent" Plotinus - Enneads  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.48 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Apparently I haven't got this across. From the article: As is specified in the writings of Plotinus,[1][2] the highest stage of deification is Tabula rasa, or a blank state, where the energy of the individual is returned to the Source or One and is then reamalgamated back into the Universe, thus starting the process again and bringing another part of the universe into line with the Monad (see Pantheism)...At that point the individual becomes energy (since they are stripped of their person) and is returned to the one or source of all things. I don't know what that means. "Energy" sounds pseudo-scientific here and even energeia doesn't quite seem to fit. The first sentence on the face of it sounds like it refers to reincarnation, while the cited quotes do not. This is why I said to just quote Plotinus (briefly, and in the actual text of the article) without trying to summarize him: because I still can't tell what the summary means. Dan 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

??? So you want me to source the reduction of the nous to energy or Tabula rasa? Be specific. Again Plotinus is not exactly Mr Sound bite so understand my quotes were for Tabula rasa or blank slate. LoveMonkey 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The blank slate bit seems pretty clear. And the clause about bringing you into line with the Monad seems acceptable. But the clause in between, and the other line about energy, make no sense. Dan 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so let me be clear that I need to source that the source is pure energy as well as source that it is of one undivided hypostasis or reality? LoveMonkey 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the passage highlight for me what needs to be reworded and or sourced. -- "Where the energy of the individual is returned to the Source or One and is then reamalgamated back into the Universe, thus starting the process again and bringing another part of the universe into line with the Monad (see Pantheism). In the writings of Plotinus called the Enneads the monad is of one singular expression. Division is completely missing from the Monad, source or one (see monism not monotheism). Henosis for Plotinus was defined in his works as a meditation (in the Western mind to uncontemplate, contemplation) toward no thought (Nous or demiurge) and no division (dyad) within the individual. At that point the individual becomes energy (since they are stripped of their person) and is returned to the one or source of all things." - LoveMonkey 14:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just remove it from the article. Plotinus doesn't seem to talk about becoming energy and while he does mention reincarnation, it doesn't seem that relevant here. Nor does it sound like you meant to bring in reincarnation. Dan 07:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well what can I say I would hope that you would add the reincarnation part as Plotinus spoke of it as one returning to the base or sameness that all possess and then being remade into another item or thing. I was trying to convey that. As for the article why not include the henosis of Valentinus? Since you are at least sympothetic to him who better to write the section then you Dan LoveMonkey 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Introductory section is unintelligable
i would try to rewrite it but i have no understanding of the topic, and am not sure of the intended meaning of this article's intro! the 2nd sentence is not a sentence! also, i suspect some punctuation- perhaps a comma or 2?- could be added to the 1st sentence to make it intelligable to a layman such as myself. "Within the realm of Neoplatonic philosophy, the Mystery Religions[1] and the Hermes Trismegistus henosis (Greek ἕνωσις "unity, oneness") is the goal of union with the hen, Monad, Source, force or the One. As part of henology and potentially part of the modern term Henotheism." Fp cassini (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed up the intro Pollinosisss (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still pretty vague:
 * "The goal of Henosis (Greek ἕνωσις 'unity, oneness') is union with what is fundamental in reality: the One, Source or Monad. This concept is prominent in the realm of Neoplatonic philosophy, within the mystery religions[1], and in the writings of the Corpus Hermeticum."
 * &mdash;the "goal" of Henosis, and which schools of philosophy it's popular in, is not as important as what Henosis actually is. It'd be like an article on Buddhism starting with an intro paragraph that talks about the seeking of enlightenment, ending the cycle of life/death, the root of all suffering, Buddhism's popularity in Asia, etc., but never actually stating that Buddhism is a religion and eastern philosophy. So what is Henosis? Is it a school of thought? a ritual? a metaphysical concept? an ontological view? a book? What is it?--Subversive Sound (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Henosis is a term indicating a union. I suppose you could say that this union is metaphysical. -Pollinosisss (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OUCH! You have no understanding of the topic and you fixed it?
Couldn't we just complain and go read a book if that's the situation? Well, at least you are restraining yourself, and showing promise certainly. Just to let you know I need the source material, and not a technical transcript of the source material. Bummer there if the source material is not disciplined as well as inspired.

Xgenei (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)