ἕνωσις (Henosis)

Definition and Etymology

Henosis (Greek: ἕνωσις) denotes union or unity, especially in a metaphysical or mystical sense. In philosophical and religious contexts it refers to the unification of the human soul with an ultimate principle, most classically the One of Neoplatonism. The term derives from heis (εἷς, “one”), and thus literally indicates a process of “making one” or “becoming one.”

In later usage, henosis becomes a technical term for the highest form of unitive experience, distinct from ordinary knowledge, moral virtue, or discursive contemplation. It typically implies:

• a non-discursive mode of awareness,
• the overcoming or suspension of duality (subject–object, knower–known), and
• a culminating stage in a graded path of purification and ascent.

Henosis in Neoplatonism

In Plotinus (3rd century CE), henosis names the apex of his metaphysical and spiritual system. Reality is hierarchically ordered:

1. The One – absolutely simple, beyond being and intellect
2. Intellect (Nous) – the realm of Forms
3. Soul (Psyche) – mediating principle, including individual souls
4. Body and the sensible world

Within this framework, henosis is:

• the temporary ecstatic union of the individual soul with the One,
• described as beyond thought and language,
• characterized by the collapse of multiplicity into undifferentiated simplicity.

Plotinus reports such experiences as “flight of the alone to the Alone”, stressing that the One cannot be grasped conceptually; it can only be “touched” in a kind of non-cognitive awareness. Henosis is not a permanent ontological fusion (the soul does not cease to exist as such) but a momentary participation in the One’s simplicity.

Later Neoplatonists, especially Iamblichus and Proclus, systematize henosis further. They introduce henads—multiple divine unities emanating from the One—so that union occurs at multiple levels: with gods, intelligibles, and ultimately with the One. For Proclus, henosis is supported not only by philosophical contemplation but also by theurgy (ritual practices aimed at divine unification). Henosis is thus:

• structured as a gradual ascent through successive levels of being,
• ritualized and communal as well as individual,
• understood as a binding back of the soul to its source.

Religious and Mystical Reinterpretations

As Neoplatonic thought interacted with Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions, henosis or analogous notions were reinterpreted within theologies that affirm a Creator–creature distinction.

In Christian Neoplatonism (e.g., Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor), henosis is translated into ideas of union with God:

• Often framed as participation (methexis) rather than identity,
• Grounded in grace and love rather than purely philosophical contemplation,
• Integrated with doctrines of Trinity, incarnation, and deification (theosis).

Mystics such as Meister Eckhart and later contemplative traditions speak of unio mystica, which scholars sometimes compare to henosis. However, Christian authors frequently insist on preserving some form of asymmetry: the soul may be united with God, but does not become God in essence.

In Jewish and Islamic mysticism, parallels are found in discussions of devekut (clinging to God) or fanāʼ (annihilation of the self in God), though these traditions use their own vocabularies and doctrinal frameworks. Comparative scholars occasionally employ “henosis” as a cross-traditional label for such unitive experiences, while also stressing important conceptual differences.

Contemporary Discussions and Critiques

In modern scholarship, henosis features mainly in:

• Histories of ancient philosophy, especially studies of Plotinus and Proclus,
• Comparative mysticism, as a paradigm of non-dual or unitive experience,
• Philosophy of religion, where it is examined as a model of ultimate religious fulfillment.

Some authors, influenced by perennial philosophy, treat henosis as one instance of a universal type of mystical union found in multiple traditions. Others challenge this, arguing that:

• Henosis is tightly bound to Neoplatonic metaphysics (the doctrine of the One, emanation, hierarchical ontology),
• Different traditions conceptualize “union” in non-equivalent ways (identity vs. participation, personal vs. impersonal, metaphysical vs. affective).

Philosophical critics also question the coherence of henosis:

• If the One is beyond being and knowledge, it is unclear how any meaningful form of “union” can be described.
• If the self is truly dissolved, it is difficult to explain how the experience can later be reported or integrated into a life.

Defenders respond that Neoplatonists themselves present henosis as paradoxical but not absurd, using negative theology (apophatic language) and metaphors to gesture toward an experience that necessarily exceeds conceptual articulation.

In contemporary non-academic languages of spirituality and non-dualism, henosis is less common as a term but remains a reference point for discussions of:

• Pure consciousness events,
• Ego-dissolution and mystical absorption,
• Ultimate “oneness” experiences reported cross-culturally.

Across these uses, henosis continues to signify an ideal of supreme unification, while debates persist about its metaphysical meaning, psychological status, and comparability across different philosophical and religious systems.