The Food of the Gods

6 March 2023

The Food of the Gods

“For asserting the first principles to be gods and born of gods, they say that the beings which did not taste of nectar and ambrosia became mortal, and clearly they are using words which are familiar to themselves, yet what they have said, even about the very application of these causes is above our comprehension.  For if the gods taste nectar and ambrosia for their pleasure, these are in no wise the causes of their existence; and if they taste them to maintain their existence, how can gods who need food be eternal?”

(Aristotle, Metaphysics, The Complete Works of Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book III, the Revised Oxford Translation, Edited by Jonathan Barnes, Volume Two, Princeton, 1984, pages 1579-1580)

 

In Late Classical Platonism there is an ongoing discussion about what I refer to as the ontological status of deities.  This discussion is complex because it is embedded in discussions about many different types of deities, their specific traits and functions, and their hierarchical status.  Here are a few remarks on this topic:

1.         My view of deities overall is shaped by decades of study in the Buddhist tradition.  Although in many respects I have left behind many basic Buddhist understandings (e.g. I reject the Buddhist view of no-soul), I find the Buddhist view of the place that deities have in a metaphysical cosmology still makes sense to me.  As I understand it, the Buddhist view is that deities, of all kinds, are embedded in samsara, or genesis, or what I like to call ‘becoming and begoning’.  Although deities live very long lives, they are not eternal/immortal.  At some point, they will die, just like every living being in becoming and begoning. 

2.         Applying that understanding to a Platonic context, I see deities, of all types, as residing in the realm of soul, rather than residing in the realm of nous, or even higher.  Because of this, I remain unsympathetic to the idea that there are deities that are, in some sense, residing between the One and Nous/Mind/Intellect.  I have this view because deities are differentiated from each other and from other beings in the realm of soul.  The degree of differentiation, indicating a lack of unity, and metaphysical distance from the One, is a distinguishing feature for those residing in the realm of soul, and for those who have fallen into the material dimension.

3.         Partly how a Platonist understands this depends on how the dialogues are read.  Eric Fallick, in his book, Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle, speaks to this point as follows, “. . . in the Phaedo when Socrates, who symbolizes the higher divine soul and individual nous, not any actual individual named Socrates, says that he is consecrated like the swans to Apollo, that ‘Apollo’ in Greek is a pun on ‘a-polla’ meaning ‘not-many’, i.e., that Socrates as nous is consecrated to the One as non-multiplicity (nisprapanca in Sanskrit).  Similarly, when he says that the accomplished philosophos when the soul is released from the body goes to be among the gods or his soul will go to the good and wise god (note . . . the indiscriminate use of singular and plural) he means that the individual nous and higher soul released from the lower soul and the experience of the body re-merges with Nous and the One.” (page 161)

This is a skillful symbolic and allegorical reading of Plato.  It is an approach rarely used these days, but I have found that it uncovers meanings and insights that were previously inaccessible to me.

4.         In Laws Plato argues that the gods must be ‘honored,’ and enacts laws to that effect.  That makes sense to me.  I’m not arguing that deities do not exist; I’m not an atheist.  And I have no problem with honoring the gods through ceremony.  Just as I honor my human teachers and my human ancestors, honoring the gods is a kind of spiritual duty.  But I don’t see aligning myself with the gods as a procedure that will guide me to the Good and the One.  I say that because I see the gods, deities, as a part of becoming and begoning, whereas the Good and the One transcend becoming and begoning.

5.         This is one of those issues that is difficult to resolve.  Partly I rely on what I think of as the ‘ordinary’ or ‘folk’ understanding of how deities behave; meaning that deities are involved with deceits and deceptions, are often seen by Greeks as heartless who treat humans as ‘playthings’.  I tend to see this as an accurate presentation of the gods and their behavior.  Plato, and Platonists, were, understandably, appalled by such behavior and argued for deities who are free from these character flaws; even arguing that stories about the misbehavior of gods should not be read to children.  In the end, though, I think this creates confusion.  No doubt the gods, like humans, have within them, hidden away in their soul, the light of the One.  And if a god turns to that light the god can ascend to the One.  But as they are, they are like human beings, a mixture of tendencies some of which lead them to the darkness of the cave, and some of which lead them out of the cave to the light of the One.

The confusion is to think of a trait of a god as essential; for example, that the beauty of Aphrodite means that Aphrodite is essential beauty.  A god may participate in beauty in a manner that is purer than that of a human being, because human beings are more mired in materiality.  But that does not mean that the deity is essentially that quality.

6.         In the opening quote by Aristotle, he highlights the contingent nature of the gods.  Aristotle argues that if the gods are dependent upon causes, such as ambrosia, for their existence, they cannot be immortal.  This is a causal analysis remarkably close to a Buddhist analysis of gods of all types.  Though some argue that Aristotle and Plato parted ways on significant issues, I tend to have a higher opinion of Aristotle.  Yes, there are differences between Plato and Aristotle, but in many significant areas there is agreement.  I think this quote is an indication of one of those areas.

7.         I take a contemplative view of the Platonist path; that it is through the practice of contemplation, and the cultivation of other virtues, that the practitioner approaches the One.  I realize that others have a different understanding of the path, and I wish them well on their journey.  As for me, I am content with my slow walk on the path of purification and other virtues that leads to the One, the Good, and the Beautiful.