Grégoire Langouet (Louvain-la-Neuve University)
In spite of numerous works aiming at showing the presence of "spiritual exercises" in Plotinus (Mazur, Shaw, Bussanich, etc.) inheriting Hadot's reflection, he remains for many the summit of Greek rationalism, where the union and the touching of the One, in a rare ecstatic "mystical" experience, would be difficult to reach and so for us to understand. Against him, Iamblichus and his successors would have reintegrated "religious" elements into Neoplatonism: theurgy being the generic name of these formal practices. This dichotomy inherited from Late Antiquity (Olympiodorus, Damascius), has been now debated and challenged since a few decades.
On this basis, we would like to propose some general remarks on the spiritual exercises of these two authors, and more particularly by illuminating them thanks to an aspect of Tibetan tantric practices, thus to propose a comparative hypothesis.
In order to do so, we will compare two exemples of these exercises : one in Plotinus, namely the exercise of visualization of a transparent and luminous sphere (31 (V, 8), 9) - imagination and subtraction or abstraction (aphairesis) of sensible elements in order to have a direct vision of the "intelligible place" - and some passages in Jamblique's De Mysteriis concerning the status of non- material sunthemata or sumbolon and their role in the theurgic practices (e.g. DM, I.12, II.11, III.15, IV.2-3, V.26).
Thus, we will first question the existence of possible parallels between these two forms of work of the mind at the intermediary level, this intelligible space of the "symbolic", in order to link the soul to the ultimate principle.
Then we will bring them closer, in order to obtain a better view, to the Tibetan Tantric Buddhist tradition, and in particular to certain major aspects of the so-called generation or creation phase (sk. utpattikrama / tib. bskyed rim), namely the theory of the "three beings (deities)": the support being (sk. samayasattva / tib. dam tshig sems dpa'), the wisdom being (sk. jñānasattva / ye shes sems dpa’) and the absorption being (sk. samādhisattva / ting nge 'dzin sems dpa' ). The development of pure vision (tib. dag snang) by transforming the ordinary impure world into a pure field (tib. zhing khams) is one of the aims of this type of practice.
Could Plotinus' luminous and transparent sphere or Jamblicus' sunthemata coming from the god, constitute similar forms or have a family resemblance with these moments of tantric practice ?
Obviously, on reading the texts, a clear-cut answer to this question is impossible, for several reasons that we will indicate. It is nonetheless worth asking, all the more so for Western Buddhist practitioners who receive these practices with a Neoplatonic heritage as a cultural background, most of the time unconsciously, and who could in return bring questions back from Late Antiquity practices to Tibetan Buddhism itself.
These are preliminary and quite general remarks which would require much more precise research, while taking into account the crucial differences between the two ancient authors mentioned, and even more so with Tibetan Buddhism.
We will thus ask ourselves, in the Neoplatonic vocabulary, what 'level' (hypostasis, degree) of reality (self or soul) is engaged in such practices ? What level is it aimed at ? What intermediate levels are encountered along the path ?
Pure field or intelligible place, transparency and luminosity, duality overcome by union - these are all themes common to these three examples, which will perhaps point to the same horizon.