Strictly for the benefit of those
(such as myself) who have never heard of this word ... or aspect of Christian theology ... here's the
intro from Wikipedia:
In Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis (Greek: Θεωσις, meaning divinization (or deification, or to make divine) is the call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis comprehends salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the East and the West.
A further quotation (from Wiki) will show where the
Christian approach to this subject differs from the Esoteric traditions which appeal to myself and Nick:
St.Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." His statement is an apt description of the concept. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through JesusChrist, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek philosophy). [For a further investigation of HENOSIS, which is the teaching in which I place my confidence ... see the bottom portion of this post --> ]
... As God became man, in all ways except sin, He will also make man God, in all ways except His divine essence. (all emphasis added)
What I prefer, is the teaching that Man and God are of ONE Indivisible Essence (sic) ... so that ALL appearances of distinction are both originated by the Godhead, and resolved in the Godhead, yet can never be said to "truly apply" (ontologically) - even to a Humanity, or Angelic Order, existing temporarily and conditionally in outward manifestation.
In other words, what we
experience as the
separation, one person from another, and all persons (both individually and collectively) from God,
is not an "actual" condition of things, but rather,
simply the NATURE of our (lesser, or mortal) conditioned `Being.' We experience a MODE of Being,
one FORM of existence - as separate, "sinning,"
in need of Redemption/Salvation/Liberation, and so on.
So, in contrast to the Christian teaching, I believe that ... that which
"cannot be perceived, conceived or expressed," as St. Maximus puts it, is not "
bestowed on us" at all ("
as ineffable pleasure and joy"), but rather,
is simply our deeper, higher, innermost Nature (or,
Essence ... from `esse,' the Latin for
`to be').
In Theosophical Teachings, this is referred to as
the triple-Aspected Atma, Buddhi & Manas (man's
Higher Triad), which itself is an expression of the
Monad, `Our Father Who Art in Heaven.' If, in the Buddhic world, we speak of
but One, Spiritual Soul for all of Humanity ... then we can
scarcely imagine the
non-duality of (our) Being in the Atmic world, let alone in that
even more transcendent world of `the Monad' - called
Aupapaduka (Sanskrit for
Self-produced, spontaneously generated), or
parentless.
The Monad is understood as
LIKE a parent (an androgynous, Father-Mother `Deity,' relative to Christian theology - since this is every bit the `God' of Hebrew and also New Testament Scripture) ... while
in its own world, the Monad
qua Monad is
SELF-existing, NON-Dual with "relation to"
DEITY (a DIFFERENT Theosis, entirely, from both Eastern and Western Orthodox Christian tradition).
Words, language, and even all conceptuality,
of course, FALL APART as we attempt to speak of
such a non-conditioned level of Being ... as St. Maximus, and the Mystics of all ages, all traditions, so well convey.
Does the difference
make a difference?
I think so, but only for the
followers. A rose, by any other name ...
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
Excerpted from:
Edward Moore, S.T.L., Ph.D.
St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology
Deification of the soul is a concept shared by the Hellenic pagan philosophical tradition and Orthodox Christianity. In the ancient Greek language, the concept is denoted by two separate terms. For the pagan Neoplatonists, such as Iamblichus, the deification of the human being was described as
henôsis, or unity with God.
[1] For Christian theologians of the Greek tradition, the term was
theôsis, meaning a divine mode of existence.
[2] The difference resides in the ontological and metaphysical presuppositions informing these two philosophical and theological approaches.
Iamblichus considered deification (
henôsis) as involving a creative partnership with God, realized through theurgic rituals that raise the soul up to the level of divine demiurgic power.
[3] In other words, the deified soul, for Iamblichus, is the soul that has come to experience the glorious satisfaction of maintaining the cosmic order - in other words, in sharing in the activity of the One. For the Orthodox Christian tradition, on the other hand, deification (
theôsis) implies a state of being that was described, by the most gifted Church Fathers, as an endless, mystical yearning for divine fulfillment.
[4] Both Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa argued that God is beyond the experience of humanity, who are destined to eternally strive - albeit unsuccessfully - for a complete experience of divinity. The most one can hope to attain is a fleeting sense of His infinite vastness. Later in the Christian tradition, however, Maximus the Confessor described
theôsis as the replacement of the human ego by the divine presence.
[5] In both cases, the attribution of
theôsis to these states is paradoxical. If I am eternally incapable of attaining Godhood, how can I ever claim to be deified? Conversely, if God overwhelms my existential center of being with His absolute presence, then do I not effectively cease to exist as a person?
In this paper, I will examine the manner in which the Christian tradition fluctuated between the two extremes of eternal separation from God, and the absolute, person-negating presence of God in the soul. It is in the pagan Neoplatonic tradition, as exemplified by Iamblichus, I will argue, that a personalistic, existentially viable theory of the
eskhaton is to be found. By this I mean a theory in which the person, the soul, is intimately bound up with the inner working - or
eternally realized history - of the cosmos, in so far as the soul co-operates with God in the maintenance of the cosmic order. This is precisely the goal of Iamblichean theurgy: to raise the soul to the level of perfect demiurgic co-operation with the highest divinity. Yet even Iamblichus' theory requires qualification - if it is to remain existentially viable - as I hope to make clear in the conclusion of this paper.
[6]
[1] See, for example,
De Mysteriis 10.5.34-35.
[2] See, for example, Gregory Nazianzen,
De filio (
Orat. 30) 21.27-33 (ed. Barbel), and also the interesting passage in John of Damascus,
De natura composita 3.4-7.
[3] See G. Shaw,
Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 1995), p. 51.
[4] This notion is first found in Origen's
De Principiis, 2.11.7, where he uses the notion of an eternal feasting on divine food. It is later developed along more mystical lines by Gregory of Nyssa. On Gregory, see H. Urs von Balthasar,
Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa, tr. M. Sebanc (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1995), Part One, Chapter 1.
[5] Maximus,
Chapters on Knowledge 2.88; also L. Thunberg,
Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1985), p. 89
[6] When I speak of personalism and existentialism, I am referring mainly to the work of Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev, for whom human freedom is essentially creative, and geared toward an
eskhaton in which personal creative activity is enshrined in/as the human image of God. See, for example, Berdyaev's major works,
Slavery and Freedom,
The Destiny of Man,
The Meaning of History and
Truth and Revelation.
~+~+~+~+~+
I would
strongly encourage the reader to consult the
rest of this article online ... as it will show
precisely where your emphasis, faith and belief, Thomas,
relying upon ONE tradition ... differs from that of
myself, Nick and many a thousand of modern esotericist - relying upon another entirely. Are they both,
equally metaphysically sound, and rigorous?
Damn straight they are!!!
Not that there aren't other differences, but FINALLY, one of your own posts, Thomas, provides a
beautiful segue for the making of a point I have been trying to make
for YEARS!
Apologies, Thomas, in advance - effort has not been to
hijack the thread, but simply to show parallel, and
contrasting teachings -
every bit as important to some of us ... but do not let my emphasis on the
HENOSIS detract from your sharing on
THEOSIS! 
[For the record, many esotericists, including myself, believe that Master Hilarion, in between his current - or most recent - incarnation(s), was none other than the NeoPlatonic Iamblichus, or Jamblichus, referenced in the article above ... after his
conversion from Saul of Tarsus to Paul, and the Renunciation/Crucifixion Initiation that truly made him St. Paul, just as Jesus of Nazareth became the `Adept of Galilee' some years earlier. The same tradition is that the Revelation of the Apostle John was dictated by the Initiate Paul, to the Apostle, John. A fascinating study, unto itself, though a bit tangent to the discussion of theosis & henosis.)
