Anonymous Commentary ______ Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides 2.14–27 And thus it will be possible neither to fall off into a void nor to dare to attach anything to it, but to remain in non–apprehensive apprehension and in nonconceptual thought; from this exercise, it will at some point happen to you, while also standing away from those things substantiated through him, to stand upon an unutterable preconception of him that ‘images’ (eneikonizomenên) him through silence, without recognizing that it is silent nor conscious that it is ‘imaging’ him nor knowing absolutely anything at all, but being an ‘image’ (eikôn) of the unutterable alone, unutterably being the unutterable, but not as knowing, if you can follow me imaginatively insofar as I am able to explain. But let us become propitious to ourselves by ourselves through that one, so that having turned towards divine possession by the lovely thing–– which we do not know but will at some point come to know–– we may become worthy of somehow containing the Unknowable itself.	Platonizing Sethian analogues ______ Allogenes (NHC XI,3) 60.12–61.22 While I was listening to those things which those there said, there was within me a stillness of silence, and I heard the Blessedness by which I knew my self according to myself. And I withdrew upon the Vitality as I turned towards it [or: to myself], and I became a companion with it to enter within (together) with it, and I stood, not firmly but still. And I saw an eternal, intellectual motion that pertains to all the formless powers, which is unlimited by limitation. And when I wanted to stand firmly, I withdrew upon the Existence, which I found standing and at rest like an image and likeness of what is conferred upon me by a manifestation of the Indivisible and the one who is at rest; I was filled with a manifestation by means of a Primary Manifestation of the Unknowable, as though ‘unknowing’ him, I knew him and received power from him, and having received an eternal strength, I knew that which exists within me and the Triple–Powered and the manifestation of that of his which is uncontainable. And by means of a Primary Manifestation of the First who is unknowable to them all–– the god who is beyond perfection–– I saw him and the Triple–Powered who exists within them all. I was seeking the the ineffable and unknowable god–– whom if one should know him, one would absolutely ‘unknow’ him–– the mediator of the Triple–Powered, the one who abides in stillness and silence, and is unknowable. Allogenes 48.13ff. Since it is impossible for the individuals to comprehend the Universal one that abides in the place that is beyond perfection, they apprehend through a first thought. Allogenes 53.10–31 The entirety beyond perfection precedes knowledge, (in such a way that it is not known by means of knowledge). Since perfect comprehension is impossible to be known, is (known) in this manner: because of the third silence of Mentality and the second undivided activity which manifested in the First Thought which is the Aeon of Barbelo. Zostrianos (NHC VIII,1) 20.11–14 He is a divine father as he is pre–known, and he is not known; for he is a power and a father from himself. Zostrianos 24.1–13 On the one hand, he sees in a perfect soul those of Autogenes; on the other hand, in intellect, those of the Triple Male, in a pure spirit, those of the Protophanes. He hears about Kalyptos through the powers of the Spirit which emerged in a vastly superior manifestation of the Invisible Spirit. By means of the thought that now exists in Silence and in the First Thought (one learns) about the Triple Powered Invisible Spirit; it is an audition and a power of silence which is purified in a vivifying spirit, perfect, first–perfect, and all–perfect. Zostrianos 76.21–25 His knowledge exists outside of him, with the one who examines himself as he is within himself, a reflection and an [image]....	some classic Gnostic analogues ______ Simon Magus, Apophasis Megalê, from Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio omnium haeresium VI.17.1.1–3.4 Marcovich There is, therefore (according to Simon) that which is blessed and incorruptible hidden within every(one), in potentiality, not actuality: [i.e.] that which is ‘the One who Stood, Stands, and Will Stand.’ He has stood above in unbegotten power. He stands below in the flow of waters, having been begotten in an image (eikôn). He will stand above, beside the blessed indefinite power, if he is ‘made out of [or into] an image’ (exeikônisthê). For, he says, there are three who have stood; and without there being the three aeons who have stood, the begotten does not ‘adorn.’ [This begotten one] is, according to them, borne over the water, and is re–modeled according to the likeness [as] a perfect celestial [entity], begotten according to a mental reflection (epinoia) in no way inferior to the power of the unbegotten [itself]. This is, he says, what they say: “I and you, one; prior to me, you; after you, I.” This, he says, is one power divided above [and] below, generating itself, making itself grow, seeking itself,  finding itself, being mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, consort (suzugos) of itself, daughter of itself, son of itself, mother–father, being one: the root of the entireties.	Plotinus V.8[31].11.1ff. If one of us is unable to see himself, then, when he is possessed by that god, if he should bring forth the contemplation into an act of seeing, he presents himself to himself and looks at a beautified image of himself, but dismisses the image though it is beautiful, coming into one with himself, and, being no longer separate, is simultaneously one and all things with that god noiselessly present, and is with him as much as he is able and wishes to be; but if he should revert into duality, while remaining pure, he is immediately subjacent to him, so as to be present to him thusly again, if he should again turn towards him. In this reversion he has this advantage: from the beginning he perceives himself, so long as he is different; but running into the within, he has everything, and leaving perception behind in fear of being different, he is one there. And if he should desire to see while being different, he makes himself external. But one must, on the one hand, learn about him, and, other the other hand, maintain some impression of him while seeking to discern into what sort of thing one is entering, thus, learning with certainty that it is into the most blessed thing, immediately one must surrender oneself to the within and become, instead of a seer, the object of contemplation of another contemplator, shining out with the kind of thoughts that come from there.	some examples of Plotinus’ mystical passages ______ Plotinus VI.9[9].11.38–45 ...running the opposite way, [the soul] will come not into another but into itself, and thus not being in another, it is in no one but itself; yet while in itself, and not in Being, it is in that, for one becomes also oneself and not in substance, but “beyond substance” by means of this intercourse. And so if one should see oneself having become this, one has oneself as a likeness of that, and if one goes on from oneself as an image to an archetype one reaches the “end of the journey.”	Plotinus III.8[30].9.19ff. For, again, since knowledge of other things occurs through intellect, and we are able to know intellect by intellect, by what sudden grasping could we seize that which supersedes the nature of intellect?–– in response to which one should note how it is possible: we will say, it is by means of the likeness within us. For there is something of it with us too; there is not somewhere it is not, for those able to participate in it. For standing anywhere, you have from there that which is able to have that which is present everywhere; just as if there was a voice diffused over a desert, or also in the midst of the desert, people too, and by standing to listen at any place in the desert, you will receive all the voice, and yet not all. What is it, then, which we shall receive when we set our intellect to it? Rather the intellect, being “double–mouthed,” must (so to speak) withdraw backwards, and, as it were, surrender itself to what lies behind it; and there, if it wishes to see that one (n.), it must not be altogether intellect. For it (m.) is itself the first life, being an activity in the going–through–and–out of all things; but going–through–and–out not in its being [now] going–through–and–out, but in that it has [previously] gone–through–and–out. So if, then, it is life, and going–through–and–out, and has all things distinctly and not imprecisely–– for thus it would have them imperfectly and inarticulately–– it is from something else which is not still in the going–through–and–out but is the origin of the going–through–and–out and the origin of life and the origin of intellect and of all things.
				Plotinus V.8[6].1.1–11 Frequently–– awakening into myself out of my body, and coming to be outside of other things but within myself, seeing an extraordinarily marvelous beauty, and coming to believe then I was of the better part, having actualized the noblest life, and having come to identity with the divine and having been settled within it, coming into that actuality, settling myself above every other intelligible object–– after this standing in the divine, having descended into rationality from Intellect, I am puzzled how ever, even now, I descend, and how for me the soul ever came to be inside of the body, being what it appears to be on its own even while it is in the body.
Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides 10.23–29 God is not a quality, but his pre–existence extracts him from both Being and from the “He is.” [The soul] has no criterion for knowledge (gnôsis) of him, but sufficient for [the soul] is the ‘imaged object’ of the “un–knowing” of him, which rejects any form which coexists with a knowing subject.		Apocryphon of John (NHC III,1) 6.24–7.23 [see also parallels: CGL synopsis: 9.20–11.18 = BG 8502,2, 26.11–27.19 and NHC II,2, 4.15] It is he who intelligizes himself in the light that surrounds him, which is the spring of living water, which is full of purity, and the spring of the spirit which poured forth living water from within it. He was providing all the aeons and their worlds, and in every likeness he sees his own image (eikôn) in the pure light–water that surrounds him; and his thought became an actuality; she appeared; she stood before him in the brilliance of his light. She is the power (dunamis) that is before everything, the Pronoia of the All, who shines in the light of the invisible image (eikôn), the perfect power (dunamis), Barbelon, the aeon that is perfected, the glory giving glory to him, since she appeared by means of him. And she gave glory to him, she who is the Primordial Thought, his image (eikôn).	Plotinus VI.9[9].11.4–21 Since, then, there were not two, but the seer himself was one in relation to the seen (for it was not really seen, but unified), if he remembers who he became when he was mingled with that [one], he will have an image of that [one] with himself. But he himself, too, was one, with no distinction in himself either in relation to himself or in relation to others; for nothing moved with him, and he had no wish, no desire for another when he had ascended–– but there was not even any reason or thought, nor even a self at all, if one must say even this; but he was as if snatched away or divinely possessed, in quiet solitude and stillness, having become motionless, not turning aside anywhere in his substance, nor turning about himself, having come to a complete standstill and indeed having become a kind of standing. He was not among the beauties, having already ascended beyond even the chorus of virtues, just like someone enters into the interior of the adyton having left behind in the naos the cult–statues which, upon his emergence back out of the adyton, become the first things [encountered] after the object of contemplation inside, and the intercourse there not with cult–statues or icons, but with the thing itself; for these [statues] become secondary objects of contemplation.	Plotinus V.5[32].8.3–23 Therefore, it is not necessary to pursue it, but to remain quiet until it should appear, preparing oneself to be a contemplator, just like the eye awaits the rising of the sun; and its appearance above the horizon (“from Ocean,” the poets say) offers itself to the eyes to be contemplated. But he whom the sun imitates, whence will he arise? And surmounting what will he appear? Indeed, he will surmount the contemplating Intellect itself. For Intellect will make itself stand towards the contemplation, looking at nothing else but the Beautiful, completely turning and surrendering himself there, but having stood, and, as if having been filled with strength, it sees first of all itself having become more beautiful and glistening, as he is close to him.	Plotinus VI.9[9].9.46ff. “Whoever has seen, knows what I mean”: that then the soul has another life, both while approaching and having already “come forward” and participated in him, so that she is disposed to recognize that the provider of true life is present and she needs nothing further. But on the contrary, it is necessary to put the other things away and stand in this alone, and become that alone, having cut away the remaining things with which were are encompassed, so as to hasten to go out from here, and to be irritated at being bound to the other things, in order that we may embrace with the whole of ourselves, and have no part with which we do not touch god. Here, at this point, one can see both him and oneself as it is right to see: the self glorified, full of intelligible light–– but rather itself pure light, weightless, floating, having become–– but rather, being–– a god; inflamed, then, but if one should be weighed down again, it is as if withering.
Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides 11.16–24 [B]oth the [second] One has changed with respect to substance, and substance with respect to the One, and there is no juxtaposition of one and being, the One [being] the substrate, as if being were accidental, but there is some particularity of the hypostasis, on the one hand ‘imaging’ his simplicity, but on the other hand not standing upon his inviolability, but bringing him around into being.		Apocryphon of John NHC II.22.28 [& parallels] Then the Epinoia of the Light hid herself in him [Adam]. And the Protarchon wanted to bring her out of his rib. But the Epinoia of the light cannot be grasped. Although darkness pursued her, it did not catch her. And he brought a part of his power out of him. And he made another form (plasis) in the shape (morphê) of a woman according to the likeness of Epinoia which had appeared to him. And he brought the part which he had taken from the power of the man into the female modeled thing (plasma), and not as Moses said, “his rib” (Gen 2.21). And he [Adam] saw the woman beside him. And in that moment, the Epinoia of light appeared, and she lifted the veil which lay over his heart (hêt). And he became sober from the drunkenness of darkness. And he recognized–– [II] his image (eine) / [IV] his companion image (shbr–eine) / [III] co–essence (sunousia) / [BG] his substance (ousia)–– and he said, “This is indeed bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Therefore the man will leave his father and his mother and he will cleave to his wife and they will both become one flesh. For his consort will be sent to him, and he will leave his father and his mother. And our sister Sophia is she who came down in innocence in order to rectify her deficiency. Therefore she was called “Life” (zôê) [Gen 3.21LXX] which is “the Mother of the Living, by the Pronoia of the sovereignty of heaven. And through her they have tasted perfect gnôsis.
Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides 14.16–26 Both the thinker and the object of thought are in existence, but the thinker, when the intellect changes from existence into the thinker, in order that it should return to the object of thought and see itself, is life; for this reason, [Intellect] according to life is indefinite. And since all being acts, [the activity] according to existence would be the activity of standing, that according to thought would be an activity turning towards itself, that according to life an activity inclining out of existence.		Valentinus frag. C Layton [=fr. 1 Völker] apud Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis II.8.36.2.1–4.4 Fruchtel, adapted from Layton 1987, p. 235 It seems that Valentinus, too, in some letter (having some such thing [similar to Basilides] in mind) wrote these phrases: “And just as if fear overcame the angels in the presence of that modeled form because it uttered sounds superior to its modelled [nature], by means of the seed of an essence from above within him having been invisibly given, and who spoke freely; thus also in the worldly races of humans, the works of humans became objects of awe for their makers, like statues of men and images and all those those things [human] hands accomplish in the name of God. For Adam, modeled in the name of the Human Being, produced the awe of the pre–existent Human Being, as precisely this stood firmly within him, and they were stricken and immediately made the work disappear.
		Eugnostos the Blessed (NHC III,3) 74.20–75.12 The Lord of the All according to the truth is not called ‘Father’ but ‘Forefather.’ For the Father is the origin of that which is manifest. For that one is the inoriginate Forefather. He sees himself within himself, as in a mirror, having appeared in his likeness as Self–Father, which is the Self–Generator, and as Confronter, since he confronted Unbegotten Pre–Existent one.
		Simon Magus, Apophasis Megalê, from Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio omnium haeresium VI.18.2.1–7.5 Marcovich For Simon explicitly speaks about this in the Apophasis thusly: “I say to you what I say and I write what I write; the writing is as follows. There are two offshoots from the entirety of the aeons, having neither beginning nor limit, from one root, which is the power Silence, invisible [and] incomprehensible; one of these [offshoots] appears from above which is a Great Power, Nous of the Totalities, managing all things, a male, and another (offshoot) is from below, a great god Epinoia, female, generating all things; whence they are ranked in opposing pairs with respect to one another, manintaining conjunction (suzugia), and manifest an intermediate interval, an incomprehensible air, having neither origin nor limit, and in this the Father producing and nourishing all things that have an origin and limit. For this is ‘the One who Stood, Stands, and Will Stand,’ being a masculo–feminine power according to the pre–existent unbounded power which has neither origin nor limit, existing in unity. Proceding forth from this, the Epinioia in unity became two. And that [Father] was one; for having her within himself, he was single. However, he was not first [i.e., temporally prior] but [was, rather] ‘pre–existing;’ for having manifested to himself from himself he became the second. But he was not called “Father” before she named him father. And so since he, bringing himself forward from himself, manifested to himself as his own mental reflection (epinoia), thus also Epinoia, once manifest, did not create <Nous?> but having seen him she concealed the Father within herself–– that is, the power–– and it is a masculo–feminine power and Epinoia, whence they are ranked in opposing pairs with respect to one another; for power is not distinct from mental reflection (epinoia), they being one. From the things above is discovered power, from those below, mental reflection (epinoia). So it is thus also with that which is apparent from them: being one, it is discovered to be two; being a masculo–feminine power, it has the female within itself. Thus there is also Nous in Epinoia, indivisible from each other, being one discovered as two. Justin Martyr, Apologia 36.3.1–6 And almost all the Samaritans, and a few also among the other nations, agree to and revere [Simon Magus] as the first god; and some Helen–– who wandered about with him during that time, who had previously prostituted (herself) in a brothel –– she they claim (to be) the first thought generated by him.			Plotinus VI.9[9].7.1–26 But if because it is none of these, you are indeterminate in thought, stand yourself in these these things and contemplate out from them; but contemplate without throwing your thought outward. For it does not lie ‘somewhere’ having left the other things bereft of it, but it is present ‘there’ to the one able to touch, but is not present to the one unable to. But just as with other things, it is not possible to think something while thinking something else and being oriented towards another, but one must attach nothing to the object of thought, in order that it be indeed the object of thought itself; so also, here too, one should know that it is not possible to think that [One] while having the impression of another in one’s soul, while the impression is active, nor, moreover, when the soul is taken over and possessed by other things can she be imprinted with the impression of the opposite, but just as is said of matter that it needs to be without the qualities of all things if it is going to receive the impressions of all things, so also (and how much more so!) must the soul become formless, if there is not going to be embedded within her an impediment to an impregnation and illumination from the first nature. If this is so, withdrawing from all external things, she [the soul] must turn completely to the within, and not be inclined to any of the external things, but ‘un–knowing’ all things (both as he had at first, in the sensible realm, then also, in that of the forms) and even ‘un–knowing’ himself, come to be in the contemplation of that, and having ‘come together’ and having had sufficient intercourse, so to speak, with that, come announce the communion there, if possible, also to another. Perhaps it is because of doing such a thing that Minos too was said to be the “familiar friend” of Zeus; remembering this [communion] he instituted laws as an image of it, having been filled with legistlative status by the divine touch.