გება-გამოსვლა-დაბრუნების ნეოპლატონურ-პროკლური ტრიადის ტრანსფორმაცია ფსევდო-დიონისე არეოპაგელთან

Abstract

Theoretical indebtedness of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to general Neoplatonic principles and his direct dependence upon Proclean sources is nowadays almost universally accepted. The evidence of terminological and conceptual correspondences between Pseudo-Dionysius and Neoplatonism, especially its Proclean version, indicates that Corpus Areopagiticum establishes formal continuity with regard to Neoplatonism. Nevertheless, it is controversial to what extent the content implied by Pseudo-Dionysius in the Neoplatonic vocabulary and forms of thought coincides with original Neoplatonic sense and signifi cance, in other words, to what extent the essence of his doctrine is Neoplatonic. The present paper aims to demonstrate the transformation of the fundamental Neoplatonic-Proclean triad of remaining, procession, and reversion (μονή, πρόοδος, ἐπιστροφή) in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, for which we give an account of how Proclus understood the aforementioned triad fi rst and then analyze the relevant passages of De divinis nominibus where this triad occurs. For Proclus the logic of reality is triadic. The triad of remaining, procession, and reversion expresses the dynamics of the existence of all reality and every single entity. This triad depicts the process of casual evolution of reality as well as the underlying scheme of its functioning. Pseudo-Dionysius adopts this triad from Proclus but his understanding of the triad and, therefore, his vision of the evolution and functioning of reality diff ers from that of Proclus. In our opinion, pursuing the transformation of the Neoplatonic-Proclean triad of remaining, procession, and reversion can play a key role in grasping the particular nature of the Pseudo-Dionysian universe. In Proclus, the triad of remaining, procession, and reversion has no eschatological but ontological significance. Hence, it does not mean the abolition of the procession, restoration to the primordial condition, and coincidence with the cause in identity, but instead the formation of an independent reality of the effect through getting determined from the cause and becoming similar (not identical) to the cause. Therefore, for Proclus, the structure of being is triadic and entails the mixture or synthesis of antithetical principles such as Limit and Unlimited, One and Many, Monad and Dyad, or Remaining and Procession. In Pseudo-Dionysius, the third term of the triad – reversion – gets a new, Christian eschatological meaning. In this respect, DN VI 2, 191, 15–192, 3 (Suchla) is crucial. In this passage, the reversion is associated with the resurrection of bodies. With this shift of the sense of Neoplatonic reversion from ontological to eschatological one Pseudo-Dionysius undermines the Proclean triadic dialectics. He never accentuates the triadic nature of being. There is no use of the term of the mixture (μικτόν) in his texts; the term of the synthesis appears but not in the ontological sense, and the terms of the triad and triadic occur only in the Christian trinitarian context.