concerning ammonius saccas - · cize wilder and discredit the assertions in the key to theosophy...

WINTER 2006 89

Concerning Ammonius SaccasPart I

J. Ramón Sordo

Although the Theosophical History Occasional PaperVolume III, “Ammonius Saccas and his ‘Eclectic Phi-losophy’ as presented by Alexander Wilder” writtenby Dr. Jean-Louis Siémons, was published by Dr.James Santucci, editor of Theosophical History, in1994, and the original paper was delivered by Dr.Siémons in London in 1988; the importance andtimeless character of its content, despite the lapse of18 years will be enough reason for a few remarks ofmine concerning this important research.

Dr. Siémons’ pioneering research is very well struc-tured and has the merit of being the first and only in-quiry into the sources of The Key to Theosophy byH.P. Blavatsky. However I would like to point out thatnotwithstanding all this, his conclusions are not re-ally conclusive due to the fact that he was not able tosubstantiate the basis of his reasoning e.g., his as-sumption that Ammonius was born in the year 175A.D.

A contrived date

How does he arrive at that date?

In p.20 he says: “The date of his birth is approxi-mately 175 A.D.” Then on p.21 Dr. Siémons says:“And Theodoret of Cyrus (an ecclesiastical writer ofthe 5�� century) indicates that ‘in the reign ofCommodus [180-192] Ammonius left aside the sacksin which he carried wheat to embrace a philosopher’slife’. How long were the years of training during thereign of Septimius Severus (193-211) we don’t know.”

Here we find the first methodological problem in theinquiry of Dr. Siémons. Theodoret of Cyrus does notgive any precise date; he only gives a reference to thereign of Commodus. Theodoret was not a contempo-rary of Ammonius, he wrote in the 5�� century A.D.,but if provisionally we follow his reference, we have —from 180 to 192 A.D. — twelve years at our disposalto speculate about the probable time whenAmmonius embraced “a philosopher’s life”. Dr.Siémons has taken the end of this period and to rein-force his idea he immediately adds: “How long werethe years of training during the reign of SeptimiusSeverus (193-211) we don’t know.” Dr Siémons is as-suming that Ammonius was 17 years old in 192 A.D.;that is how he arrives at the year 175 as his date ofbirth. But with the same validity we could take thebeginning of Commodus’ reign and also assume that

by 180 A.D. Ammonius was 17 years old, and thiswould give us as his probable date of birth, the year163 A.D. Thus at the end of the reign of Commodushe would be 29 years of age instead of 17. Further-more in this speculation we should not forget that weare making two assumptions: (a) that the reference ofa Christian father who lived two centuries afterAmmonius is correct, and (b) that Ammonius em-braced “a philosopher’s life” when he was 17 yearsold.

But Dr. Siémons seems to have taken the year 175A.D. as something established and fixed, whereas inreality it is a mere speculation proposed by him. In-stead of maintaining an open mind he has closed anypossible way of arriving at the truth in a matter inwhich we lack the necessary elements to give definitedates and definite facts.

In connection with this date, while analyzingMosheim’s main propositions (p.8), he makes the fol-lowing bold assertion in square brackets:

3. The appearance of Ammonius Saccas, about theconclusion of this century [but, possibly, later, ashe has born �� 175] was an important event . . . ..�/��%�% /��0

So he is taking for granted that Ammonius was bornca. 175 A.D., but he has nothing to support this, andthe weakness of his premises invalidates most of hisscholarly deductions based as they are in the fixity ofthat date.

The Church Fathers

Let us see the consequences of this methodologicalbias:

In p.15 Dr. Siémons writes:

Concerning the Church Fathers, he [Dr. AlexanderWilder] gave credit to the erroneous version of theEncyclopedia. Consequently he wrote (p.9 of hispamphlet): “Countenanced by Clement andAthenagoras in the Church, he [Ammonius] ful-filled his labor by teaching a common doctrine forall.” Hence �� )�: “. . . the great Philaletheianwas supported and helped [. . .] by two Church Fa-thers, Clement and Athenagoras.”

However, one moment of reflection reveals thatthis assertion of Wilder is untenable. Bearing inmind that the great Neo-Platonist was born ��175, he must have been very young at the conclu-

The Aquarian Theosophist - www.FilosofiaEsoterica.com - www.CarlosCardosoAveline.com

90 FOHAT

sion of the 2� century to be able to attract the at-tention of well established Christian masters likeClement (who was his senior by some 25 years),least of all to receive their approbation to carry outhis plans outside of Christianity (while he was stillperhaps a mere tyro in philosophy). .�/��%�% /��0

Then in a footnote on p.15, Dr. Siémons develops histheory:

He already has affirmed that Clement of Alexandriawas 25 years older than Ammonius, but if we — tak-ing his own source of information — consider theequally valid hypothesis that he was born in 163A.D., then, Clement was his senior by only 13 years.And if we take as another source the statement ofHPB �� 1#%%�� #' �� )��, thatAmmonius Saccas founded his school in 173 A.D.and we apply the same 17 years taken by Dr.Siémons, then the date of birth of Ammonius Saccaswould go back to 156 A.D. and in that case Clementwould be only 6 years his senior, assuming that hewas born in 150 A.D., although that date is also veryuncertain. Thus the whole reasoning of Dr. Siémons,being based on a very weak and rather personal as-sumption, is untenable.

In connection with Pantaenus Dr. Siémons says:

. . . Pantaenus who was at the head of the Alexan-drian Catechetical School, until his bishopDemetrius sent him on a long missionary tour inIndia, ca 189 — at that time, Ammonius was about14, perhaps still a Christian boy, working as asack-bearer, carrying wheat on Alexandrian quays. . . . .�/��%�% /��0

As we have said before, the source of informationused by Dr. Siémons gives us 12 years to speculate.His argument is invalidated if Ammonius was 26years of age at that date. We have to be very carefulnot to dogmatize with such meager information at ourdisposal.

Again referring to Clement’s work Miscellanies, whichhe says were published

probably from 194 (when Ammonius was about 19)to a date before 202. . . . Obviously in the year 200,Clement must have been a full grown master at theheight of his literary career, occupying an impor-tant position as a thoroughly convinced defenderof the Christian faith, whereas Ammonius, at theage of 25, was perhaps only emerging out of obscu-rity. ��)��

But the age of Ammonius — I repeat, using the samesource of information — could be 31 instead of 19; and37 instead of 25 and the whole story would change.

Then at the end of this footnote Dr. Siémons gives ushis own story about the relationship betweenAmmonius Saccas and the Church Fathers invertingthe statements of The Key to Theosophy:

The probability is far greater that Ammonius him-self was influenced by the trio of Christian Fathers— particularly by Clement, whose lessons he mayhave followed as a catechumen than the contrary.Moreover, it is most unlikely that the famous disci-ple of Pantaenus should have readily changed hismind to adopt the doctrines of a young apostatelike Ammonius, let alone to support him in his en-deavor. ��)�� .�/��%�% /��0

Thus we see that in this case “one moment of reflec-tion reveals” nothing when it is based on false pre-mises, because the assumption of Dr. Siémons is notsupported by any fact. The only basis he has to criti-cize Wilder and discredit the assertions in The Key toTheosophy is the date 175 A.D. established by him-self in an arbitrary way. As he cannot prove this, therest of his reflections fall to pieces.

Pot-Amun

In connection with Pot-Amun, Dr. Siémons pointsout the following:

Now, another confusion prompted Dr. Wilder to hischoice, as he gave credit to the (long discarded)theory that the Ammonian School “had a begin-ning much earlier,” being traced by DiogenesLaërtius to an Egyptian prophet or priest namedPot-Amun, who flourished in the earlier years ofthe dynasty of the Ptolemies’ — this Potamon beingunanimously acknowledged as a regular Eclectic.��)��

And in a footnote to the former, Dr. Siémons assertsthat “In fact there is nothing in Diogenes Laërtius’Lives about this mysterious Egyptian prophet namedPot-Amun” ��)��.

Well, maybe there is not much about him but enoughfor a mysterious Egyptian philosopher. One impor-tant fact is that he is mentioned in the Prologue of theFirst Book showing that he was a real personagewhose influence was alive at the time when the Pro-logue was written; even giving a short excerpt of hisElements of Philosophy, a work of Pot-Amun �� #) �� )��.

“Potamon the Alexandrian lived not long ago. . .” weread in the Lives. Diogenes Laërtius is dated by somescholars in the 2� century A.D. and by others like Dr.Siémons in the 3�� A.D. He says that “it is more prob-able that he [Pot-Amun] was born later, perhaps inthe 2� century [A.D.]” ��)�� discarding the GreekLexicon Suidas which says that Potamôn lived in thetime of Augustus (63 B.C. / 14 A.D.) So Dr. Siémonslays aside some sources and takes others, and this isnatural because all this is in the realm of conjecture.

It should be acknowledged that we have no certaintyregarding the time when the Lives of Eminent Philoso-phers by Diogenes Laërtius were written. “His date,


WINTER 2006 91

for example, can be estimated only by what he in-cluded or left out. He has been variously dated in ev-ery century A.D. from the first to the fourth” �2��3�� )4#�!� ��#&5$��#� �# �� 4#�3 �&��#� #' �)4)� �#) �� )67��. Weknow very little about Diogenes Laërtius. “The rathermotley, fluctuating impression produced by Dioge-nes’ book as a whole derives, not particularly from hisown personality, but from the huge and variegatedmass of source materials that he transmitted to us.”�2��3�� ) 4#�!� #�) $��) �)67��. “Diogenes has acquired animportance out of all proportion to his merits becausethe loss of many primary sources . . .” ��3�&)� �)6�6�. “Incompiling his biographical encyclopedia of Greekphilosophy, Diogenes drew on a great many sourcesof varying quality. His work is especially valuable be-cause . . . he quotes many earlier writers, often verba-tim.” ��7�& 8�&�� "��% "��%%� 1��& 9��&%� �*:� �)��. In his 10 Books,Diogenes Laërtius presents 83 lives of philosophers;most of them belonging to the centuries B.C. “Hedoes not refer to Neo-Pythagorism nor — a morestriking omission — to Neo-Platonism.” �2��3�� )4#�!� #�) $��) �)67��. We do not posses any original of theLives, and according to Robert D. Hicks translator ofthe work into English ��#&5$��#� �# �� 4#�3 �&��#� #'

�� the oldest MS of the Lives in possession of Euro-pean scholars is the Codex Borbonicus which datesfrom A.D. 1200. “For we may reasonably assume”says the same authority “that a single stray copy,brought to light in the ninth century, was the parentof all extant MSS.” Furthermore the same expert ac-knowledges that “this work in 10 books is a compila-tion from earlier compilations” e.g. it is a compilationof older sources. “Diogenes is a veritable tissue ofquotations from all sorts of authors. . . . Richard Hopecounted 1,186 explicit references to 365 books byabout 250 authors, as well as more than 350 anony-mous references: that is an average of nearly threereferences to a page of the Oxford Classical Text edi-tion” �2��3�� ) 4#�!� #�) $��) �)6�6�. Thus the phrase“Potamon the Alexandrian lived not long ago. . .” notnecessarily indicates the time in which DiogenesLaërtius flourished, but it could be an assertion writ-ten 500 years before him, and copied by him.

Then Dr. Siémons proceeds to give us a rather forcedetymology of the word Pot-Amun:

On the rather common Greek name Potamôn (re-calling [?] Potamos = river), he [Wilder] has noth-ing to say concerning its Coptic or Egyptianderivation from Pot-Amun — possibly an etymol-ogy imagined by the learned Wilder. .�/��%�%/��0

But the same could be said of Dr. Siémons derivationof Pot-Amun from a river.

Contrary to the speculations of Dr. Siémons,Blavatsky, quoting Wilder, “tells us that the name is

Coptic, and signifies one consecrated to Amun, theGod of Wisdom” �� )��.

Concerning the influence of Neoplatonism on theChristian Church and the antiquity of Pot-Amun,HPB had the following to say:

As to Ammonius,

Countenanced by Clement and Athenagorasin the church, and by learned men of the Syn-agogue, the Academy and the Grove, he ful-filled his labour by teaching a commondoctrine for all.’ �� +�6��&�� &�� )*�

Thus it is not Judaism and Christianity that re-modelled the ancient Pagan Wisdom, but ratherthe latter that put its heathen curb, quietly and in-sensibly, on the new faith; and this, moreover, wasstill further influenced by the Eclectic Theosophi-cal system, the direct emanation of the Wis-dom-Religion. All that is grand and noble in Chris-tian theology comes from Neo-Platonism. [. . .]

Nor was the Eclectic Theosophical system — assome writers inspired by Rome would make theworld believe — developed only during the thirdcentury of our era; but it belongs to a much earlierage, as has been shown by Diogenes Laërtius. Hetraces it to the beginning of the dynasty of thePtolemies; to the great seer and prophet, the Egyp-tian Priest Pot-Amun, of the temple of the God ofthat name — for Amun is the God of Wisdom. Untothat day the communication between the Adepts ofUpper India and Bactria and the Philosophers ofthe West had never ceased. �� !��"��# $%&� ��)��+��

Moreover, taking in consideration the works of twoimportant Egyptologists, Gustave Lefebvre and R. A.Schwaller de Lubicz, we can assume that Pot-Amunwas probably the last sage in a series of seers thatflourished in Egypt in earlier times, all of them wear-ing the name of Prophets of Amun. Gustave Le-febvre, in his work Histoire des Grands prêtresd’Amon dans Karnak has shown the successive lineof Prophets of Amun in Karnak; and Schwaller deLubicz in his monumental book The Temples of Kar-nak, �� &��#�%� 9#$��%�� /#�� comple-mented that research with the reproduction ofimages of a series of statues of priests and Prophets ofAmun extant in Karnak, going back to the 19�� Dy-nasty: Rome Roy, First Prophet of Amun (at the end ofthe reign of Ramesses II, and reign of Seti II, p.699;Plate 375); Ramessesnakht first Prophet of Amun(20�� Dynasty, at the time of Ramesses IV, p.690;Plate 356); Amenhotep, First Prophet of Amun, firsthigh priest of Amun (20�� Dynasty, at the time ofRamesses IX, p.699; Plate 374); Sheshonk First HighPriest of Amun (22� Dynasty, pp.692-693; Plates358-359); Ahmose, High Priest of Amun (26�� Dy-nasty, p.692; Plate 357); Mentuemhet, Fourth


92 FOHAT

Prophet of Amun (26�� Dynasty, ca 660 B.C., p.716;Plates 442-443).

Therefore, this long tradition of Prophets,Hierophants, and Adepts in Egypt dedicated toAmun, the God of Wisdom (Theosophia?) being a his-torical fact supported by material evidence, givescredit to the assertions of Alexander Wilder and H.P.Blavatsky �� )�� that “in the early daysof the Ptolemaic dynasty” “lived Pot-Amun”, “anEgyptian priest” “consecrated to Amun, the God ofWisdom.” He taught the “Eclectic Theosophical sys-tem” or “Theosophy” in Alexandria — a Greek city onEgyptian soil — in which was prominent the Platonicphilosophy which in its turn was derived in greatmeasure from the Egyptian Wisdom, as can be shownby the next quotation:

Many philosophers and scholars of the ancientworld, drawn thither by the fame of Egypt, came toher temples to receive both scientific knowledgeand mystical illumination. Porphyry relates howPythagoras . . . presented himself to the priests ofHeliopolis, who sent him to those of Memphis, whoin turn directed him to those of Thebes, where hewas made to undergo hard painful trials. . . . Ac-cording to Iamblicus, the sage of Samos spenttwenty-two years in the temples of Egypt. There hestudied the science of Numbers, which he after-wards taught with celebrated brilliancy to his dis-ciples. Thales studied in the sanctuaries of Mem-phis. Democritus passed five years in the companyof Egyptian priests, thanks to whom he made athorough study of astronomy and geometry. Plato,accompanied by Eudoxus, spent thirteen years inHeliopolis, in whose temples both of them studiedgeometry, theology and the priestly science. Thegeographer Strabo relates how in Heliopolis he wasshown the house where Plato and Eudoxus hadstayed. ��##/#� 4��$�� '�� ( �� )�� ;�7��%< 4�$�5�� 4#�� ::� ��)�+��

All the evidence presented above shows unmistak-ably, that it was not “a confusion” that “prompted Dr.Wilder to his choice,” giving “credit to the (long dis-carded) theory that the Ammonian School . . .” etc.etc., but his knowledge of the Occult tradition.

Until more information is discovered, the peripateticway of reasoning will always negate the Occult tradi-tion. For the moment the two positions are irreconcil-able regarding Pot-Amun.

The Eclectics

Now turning to the Eclectics.

Dr. Siémons says that

Dr. Wilder’s enthusiasm led him to a number ofimprudent generalisations and wrong assertionsthat he could have corrected by a direct referenceto the original Grecian literature.

Examples may be given as follows:

1. His too exclusive attribution to Neo-Platonists ofspecific terms like Eclectics and Eclectic Philosophy(chosen as the title of his pamphlet) is the apparentresult of a series of confusions or misinterpreta-tions. . . . ��)��

2. Taking for granted that the various denomina-tions enumerated in the Encyclopedia (Eclectics,Analogetici [Analogeticists] and Philalethes[Philaletheians]) applied to the Neo-Platonists. . . .��)�� .�/��%�% /��0

This long quotation shows that Dr. Siémons is underthe misapprehension that Dr. Wilder, one of thegreatest American Platonists of the nineteenth cen-tury, knew nothing about the original Platonic andNeoplatonic literature and had to resort to the Edin-burgh Encyclopedia to get his knowledge. But indeedhe is not the only one to refer to the Neoplatonists asEclectics. Isaac Preston Cory in the Introduction ofhis book Ancient Fragments published in 1826, talksthe same way about the Neoplatonists:

In the third century, Ammonius Saccas, univer-sally acknowledged to have been a man of consum-mate ability, taught that every sect, Christian,Heretic or Pagan, had received the truth, and re-tained it in their varied legends. He undertook,therefore, to unfold it from them all, and to recon-cile every creed. And from his exertions sprung thecelebrated Eclectic school of the later Platonists.Plotinus, Amelius, Olympius, Porphyrius, Jambli-chus, Syrianus, and Proclus, were among the cele-brated professors who succeeded Ammonius inthe Platonic chair, and revived and kept alive thespirit of Paganism, with a bitter enmity to the Gos-pel, for near three hundred years. �� *�� %��$ "��%�#� =#� � '��%� �&) *�> ��#�#!��$

$#� #' *�� &) ��?��&% ;##

Jewish perennialists? (Maybe there aren’t; if not,why not?) Where, come to think of it, are the Cana-dian scholars of Traditionalism? (William Stoddart isa long-time resident of Windsor, Ont.)

No Muslim country was singled out for its share ofshame or acclaim, except indirectly Dr. Nasr’s home-land, Iran. I wonder if there was a tacit agreement tokeep the proceedings free of politics — except for a lit-tle U.S. bashing and, as it happened, Pope-bashing. Iwas quite disappointed with Dr. Nasr’s extemporizeddismissal of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech inRegensburg, Germany, September 14, when the Pon-tiff quoted an ugly characterization of the Prophet bya 14�� century Byzantine emperor. “It set the Mos-lem-Christian dialogue back fifty years,” Dr. Nasrcomplained; the audience applauded. At least twicehe had explained it was not his writ to instruct Catho-lics or members of other religions on their beliefs. YetI feel that as both a distinguished scholar and a manof discernment he owed it to this audience, if not tohimself, to allude to the context in which the offensivepassage was used, as well as to suggest that the re-sponses in the Arab world were disproportionate ifnot unfortunate.

I am left with a few questions of my own. No. 1. Isthere a special relationship these days between theTraditionalists and the Ismailis? Are members ofboth groups outcasts in the Islamic world (despite thefact they may be said to constitute its beating heart)?I may pose this question but I cannot answer it.

No. 2. Traditionalism sees itself as timeless; but inthe contemporary world does it find itself playing therole of a new Bahá’í or a new Unitarianism? (I sensehere a couple of “no” answers.) Is perennialism, inother words, a critique and a corrective? Does it, asDr. Nasr suggested, in an intriguing image, provide

an aerial perspective, so that one is able to rise aboveground level and regard from an aerial perspectivethe walls that enclose each initiatic organization —walls that protect the truth of one from the truth ofanother, walls that preserve one orthodoxy from an-other orthodoxy, walls that preserve any orthodoxyfrom heterodoxy, as the Talmud erects walls aroundthe Torah. Thus each may have its own magisterium.(Here I am introducing the word Stephen Jay Gouldhas revived for the purpose of distinguishing the au-thority of religion from the authority of science; noSacred science for him.) Again, I have no answer tothis question but I can raise it.

Off and on since the early 1960s, I have been readingGuénon’s books, and for the last four years I havebeen pondering the editorials, essays, articles, andreviews in Sacred Web and other books and journals.It was not until this conference (or colloquium) that Iheard anyone ever pronounce the names FrithjofSchuon and Titus Burkhardt. (Watch out for the pro-nunciation of Titus!) So for forty years I saw Tradi-tionalism as offering a critique of the largely veiledassumptions of the Western world. May I be forgivenfor now seeing it as constituting, as well, a welcomecritique of the largely veiled assumptions of the worldof the Middle East?

John Robert Colombo is known as “the Master Gath-erer” for his innumerable publications devoted to thelore and literatureof Canada. He is the recipient of anhonorary doctorate from York University and is aMember of the Order of Canada. He is the author, edi-tor, or translator of more than 180 books, includingstudies devoted to the supernatural and the paranor-mal. He has devoted three books to the Anglo-Frenchthinker Denis Saurat (who absorbed from childhoodthe folk traditionsof the Pyrenees). Some recent publi-cations include The Native Series (a set of six booksdevoted to Native studies) and The Penguin Dictio-nary of Popular Canadian Quotations.

why we shouldn’t be surprised to find in The Key toTheosophy quotations from Mosheim and the Edin-burgh Encyclopedia.

Dr. Siémons says that because Diogenes Laërtius“never spoke of Ammonius” in connection with thePhilaletheians, the Eclecticsand the Analogeticists, “itseems clear that he had in mind other philosophers ofthe past” ��)��. Yes, on this we agree completely withhim, only pointing out that if Diogenes Laërtius doesnot speak of Ammonius Saccas it is because, as I saidabove, he wrote his Lives before Ammonius was bornor was known; but he mentions the Philaletheians,the Eclectics and the Analogeticistsshowing their ex-istence at that time in the past, and for some reasonhe puts them together. “These philosophers of the

past” as Dr. Siémons puts it, represent a longphilosophical tradition to which Ammonius Saccasbelonged, and it is from them — although we don’tknow who his master was — that he started his initialphilosophical inquiry, launching later on his ownschool, and calling it with the various terms dis-cussed above, which are in consonance with this tra-dition of many centuries.

As Blavatsky has remarked:

Between the secrecy imposed, the vows of silenceand that which was maliciously destroyed by everyfoul means, it is indeed miraculous that even somuch of the Philaletheian tenets has reached theworld. �!"# $%&� �)��

[To be continued in next issue of Fohat]

. . . Saccas continued from page 92


SPRING 2007 13

Concerning Ammonius SaccasPart II

J. Ramón Sordo

Concerning the ��

On p.15 of his pamphlet, Dr. Siémons strongly criti-cizes the assertions on p.6 of The Key to Theosophy,and Dr. Wilder’s assertions on p.9 of his own pam-phlet:

And the addition of “learned men of the Syna-gogue, the Academy and the Grove” to the list ofAmmonius’ supporters is open to all manner ofcriticism. ��%� ("��)�) �*+

Concerning the Grove (or the Groves, as in the Keyp.6), this unexplained word is perhaps the looserendering of the Greek [kepoi] = the Garden(s), re-ferring to the School of Epicurus who, in effect,gave his courses in a garden, in the south-westquarter of Athens, the Epicureans being collec-tively named “those of the Garden” [oi apo tonkepon]. There being practically no commonground between Epicureans and Platonists (forwhom metaphysical principles played a majorpart) it is very doubtful that Epicurean contempo-raries of Ammonius felt like joining hands withhim. ��%*� ("��)�) �*+

Dr. Siémons says that “the Grove (or the Groves, as inthe Key p.6)” is an “unexplained word,” and he triesto find its origin only in the Garden or Kêpos ofEpicurus? I really don’t see any need to do this.“Grove is a word meaning sanctum or ashram, in Pla-tonic thought” �,�� ,-.. �*��.��)�� /��. This isconfirmed by Virgil when he talks about the ElysianFields:

Devenere locus laetos, et amaena viretaFortunatorum nemorum, sedesque beatas. . . .

They came to the blissful regions, and delightfulgreen retreats, and happy abodes in the fortunategroves. �� 0�-�)0��-� 1�� &*�-��-*� 2-�) �� .� �3�*�

�� 21 4-5� ��6%� 7��)�� *�� 8��)

9--5)��:� ��* ;��-� �

14 FOHAT

on his accession to the headship of the school,added statues of the Graces) and this may have insome way marked out the area in which theschool habitually met. . . . How the business ofthe school was divided between the public parkand the private estate is less than clear. There isconsiderable evidence, at least, that much of thephilosophical disputation went on in the park, ei-ther in the open air or in some corner of the gym-nasium building. �� $6'�6$ 9=�� -�* ;��-*� =��*�-*

�))� >3:-�� '��

An anecdote, of which I see no reason to disbelieve atleast the essential accuracy, is one told by Aelian,�?�� @�)�-��

SPRING 2007 15

(Purpled robed) and translates the name I bear in myown tongue” �� 6� �!' �� .

But the issue here is if Porphyry was a Jew, or not.

Dr. Siémons says that Malek was a “common” name“in Phoenicia” ergo “Porphyry was not a Jew.”

I am afraid this syllogism is not properly structured;there is no connection between the premise and theconclusion. Once more Dr. Siémons is giving us anassertion based only in his own personal opinion,without any real “historical” facts; and in conse-quence he has no foundation to say that Dr. Wilderand H.P. Blavatsky are mistaken.

Dr. Siémons says that Porphyry was not a Jew be-cause: “his supposed apostasy would have been onemore weapon against him in Eusebius’ hands.” Well,I think that on the contrary the fact of being of Jewishdescent was a powerful tool in the hands of Porphyryand something that those early Fathers feared.

While still a young man Porphyry had the opportu-nity to hear Origen, the great Christian intellec-tual, lecturing in Caesarea. But Porphyry foundOrigen’s attempt to reconcile Christianity with theGreek intellectual tradition to be profoundly ab-surd, and he would note later in life that Origen,while being “a Greek schooled in Greek thought,plunged headlong into un-Greek recklessness;immersed in this, he peddled himself and his skillin argument. In his way of life he behaved like aChristian . . . in his metaphysical and theologicalideas he played the Greek, giving a Greek twist toforeign tales.” ��-�� D�-�� .� "�).��)� @�)�-�-: =�� C��

16 FOHAT

Church fathers from Eusebius to Augustine wereintimidated by Porphyry’s challenges and argu-ments . . . , Constantine in the fourth century andTheodosius in the fifth decided that the only way toovercome Porphyry’s objections was to put hisbooks to the torch. �&.�� %%� ("��)�) �*+

If Porphyry was a Hellenized Jew, as Wilder andBlavatsky assert, this is nothing new in the history ofthat people. History has recorded the names of manyeminent and famous Hellenized and RomanizedJews in Antiquity, and many Germanized,Russianized and Americanized Jews in moderntimes.

Dr. Siémons gives no scientific proof to support hisassertion that Porphyry “was not a Jew,” except hisown dictum. Whereas, all the historical facts confirmthe assertions of Wilder and Blavatsky.

Clement of Alexandria

Another of the “minor historical mistakes” of Dr. Al-exander Wilder, and H.P. Blavatsky, according to Dr.Siémons is their assertion that “Clement ‘had beeninitiated into the Eleusinian mysteries’ and ‘is said tohave declared that the doctrines there taught con-tained in them the end of all instruction’ (&�%�� + ��:� *�� 6*� must be taken with great pru-dence” ��6*�.

I don’t think that what we need here is prudence butknowledge. H.P. Blavatsky and Alexander Wilder fol-low the Pagan and Occult tradition; Dr Siémons’sources of information seem to be scholastic andChristian. Of course their points of view will be al-ways at loggerheads. For Dr. Siémons Ammoniuswas a “young apostate” ��%*�. For H.P. BlavatskyClemens of Alexandria was a “renegade Neo-Platonist,” ��#� F&?� ��*� being “a Christian Neo-Platonist and a very fantastic writer.” ��#� F&?� ��*�

But in this case, using Christian sources and one ofthe works of Clemens of Alexandria quoted by H.P.Blavatsky, we can prove that Clemens was an Initiateof the Mysteries:

And Clement, as an Initiate of the Mysteries — atwhich the secret of the heliocentric system

was taught several thousands of years before Ga-lileo and Copernicus — proves it by explainingthat

By these various symbols connected with (si-dereal) phenomena the totality of all the crea-tures which bind heaven with earth, arefigured. . . . The chandelier represented themotion of the seven luminaries, describingtheir astral revolution . . . because the Sunplaced as a candelabrum in the middle ofother planets distributes light to them.

(Clemens of Alexandria, Stromateis, V, vi) ��#�F&?� ��

. . . the above, written in the earliest Christian pe-riod by the renegade Neo-Platonist [Clemens of Al-exandria] . . . ��#� F&?� ��*� ("��)�) �*+

The secret of the heliocentric system was taught atthe Mysteries. Clemens of Alexandria talks aboutthis teaching. The only way he could obtain thisknowledge is by having been initiated in the My-steries.

That Clemens was conversant with the Mysteries canbe seen by the next quotation:

But Pindar, speaking of the Eleusinian Mysteries,says: Blessed is he who, having seen those com-mon concerns in the underworld, knows both theend of life and its divine origin from Jupiter.�� .--5 �� D�-�� * ��

�� .� 0�-�) 0��-� �� .� �3'

�*� �� 21 4-5� ��6%� 7��)�� -* .� ��8'

��) 9--5)��:� ��* ;��-� �

seven year old was already a good reader. As a friendof the family, Kootenai knew about this, and offeredto lend books to the boy. (At this time, Kootenai prob-ably had the best personal library for at least a cou-ple of hundred miles in any direction, and of coursethere were no public ones.) So, every two weeks orso, the boy would jump on his horse and ride five orsix miles over to Kootenai’s log cabin.�� After sam-pling Mrs. Brown’s cooking, he would pick up a sack-ful of Kootenai’s books, and it was mainly from thesethat he received his early education. When severalyears later, after his family moved to California, Vic-

tor finally began regular formal schooling and didbrilliantly, winding up as Chief Engineer on the east-ern section of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. In man-hood, he became an independent Theosophist whofor over a quarter of a century privately published hisown journal, Theosophical Notes, and wrote The Hallof Magic Mirrors, one of the few favourable biogra-phies of Madame Blavatsky. Even when nearlyninety, Victor Endersby still gratefully rememberedKootenai Brown, the early Canadian Theosophistwho befriended him as a boy.

used the work of a very well informed enemy of Neo-platonism as a partial source of information. And Isay partial because both had other sources of infor-mation, not only occult but written, which Dr.Siémons was not able to detect.

On page 4 of his pamphlet he boldly asserts that “af-ter a century of progress in the field of learning, manyof his [Wilder’s and Blavatsky’s] statements concern-ing the figure and doctrines of Ammonius Saccas, thefounder of the ‘Eclectic Theosophical system’ �9��'B��)5�� *�� , are found wanting in accuracy, if notcompletely groundless.”

Unfortunately, the only proof of the “progress oflearning” that he was able to produce before thereader was a contrived date of birth of AmmoniusSaccas. His whole reasoning, as I have shown aboveis based on that fictitious date, fabricated by him,which only proves his own power of imagination. Invain he has tried to demolish every bit of informationgiven in the first pages of the Key to Theosophy: theinfluence of the School of Ammonius Saccas uponthree early Church Fathers: Pantaenus, Clement ofAlexandria and Origen; the existence of Pot-Amunusing a very unscientific etymology, not being awareof the existence of the Prophets of Amun reported bytwo French scholars; discarding at the same time thefact that the Lives of Diogenes Laërtius are a compi-lation of ancient sources; and attributing ignorance

in Platonic matters to Dr. Wilder for talking about theNeoplatonists as Eclectics.

To have said in his pamphlet that the word Grove isan “unexplained word” ��%� has left Dr. Siémons“open to all manner of criticism” showing that he isnot conversant with the Platonic tradition, as I havedemonstrated with proofs in my analysis. And notbeing a Platonist himself, it was rather injudicious tocriticize a well informed Platonist like AlexanderWilder.

His assertions concerning Clement of Alexandriahave been proved inaccurate, due to a lack of re-search in the very works of Clement of Alexandria.

Dr. Siémons’ assertions that Porphyry was not a Jew,is groundless, as we have shown. It is only based ona bias and a personal point of view, devoid of any doc-umentary support.

One good thing coming from Dr. Siémons’ research isthe fact of making us aware of the importance of Al-exander Wilder as a pioneer of Theosophy. He usedthe word Theosophy in 1869, six years before the for-mation of the Parent Theosophical Society in NewYork. His notions concerning Pot-Amun, AmmoniusSaccas and his Eclectic, Philaletheian Neo-PlatonicSchool, were corroborated by H.P. Blavatsky, notonly in her Key to Theosophy but in other of her writ-ings.

. . . Ammonius continued from page 16

�� These notes are based on Victor Endersby’s reminiscences in a Letter to the Editors, The Canadian Theosophist 61:2(May-June, 1980), 38-39.

A free sample of Fohat will be sent to anyone you might suggest.Subscriptions can be purchased according to the rates on the Contents page.


000

The end of “Concerning Ammonius Saccas”.

000

On the role of the esoteric movement in the ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical Literature”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline.

Published in 2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist, the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.

000


http://www.theosophyonline.com/http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/http://www.filosofiaesoterica.com/http://www.facebook.com/pages/Esoteric-Philosophy/141347145919527http://twitter.com/EsoBlogmailto:[email protected]://www.theosophyonline.com/index.phphttp://www.theosophyonline.com/alfabetica.php

concerning ammonius saccas - · cize wilder and discredit the assertions in the key to theosophy...

Documents