Bréhier revives the possibility of Indian Upaniṣadic influence on Plotinus, specifically in the area of mysticism – asking what in Plotinus’ philosophy is foreign with respect to the Greek philosophical tradition. After Bréhier there are vigorous defenses of Plotinus’ Greek origins – not all of which respond directly to the key issues he raises, or address Plotinus’ mysticism specifically. My purpose in this paper is not to answer Bréhier, but to revisit him, for the purpose of delineating paradigmatic differences between Plotinus’ metaphysics and that in Advaita Vedānta. Starting with differences in their respective texts and conceptions of the Divine, I explore concrete concepts (Māyā, tolma, the forms, gun․as, etc.), so unique to each tradition that they comprise the heart and essence of their differences. I assert as well that their metaphysical distinctions imply dissimilarities in their modes of mysticism. In this effort I uphold numinous experience above historical influences. This paper therefore has four parts: (1) Revisiting Bréhier, Armstrong, and Others; (2) Defining Terms: Texts, Methods, and Conceptions of the Divine (Striking Similarities); (3) Contrasting Advaita Vedānta and the Enneads (Paradigmatic Differences); and (4) Conclusion.

Resurrected Christ comes to the Apostles bearing signs of His torture. His body is a perfect body, but yet his “glorious body of the resurrected Christ is disfigured and disabled in that it still bears the marks of crucifixion.” His ribs have obvious signs of injuries. Resurrected Christ has a perfect body that passes through the walls, and yet with visible wounds, “and by his wounds we are healed” (Is 53:4). United apostles have been with no fear, because His visible “defects” convinced them that eschatology entered present time. It is because of his bodily “imperfections” that they believed in Him. Wounds became a powerful symbol of faith, motivation and conviction. Disability, sickness and other conditions of human beings became incorporated into God, participating in His suffering body.

The Serbian Orthodox Church is considered by a number of Serbian citizens to be the “guardian” of tradition and cultural heritage. Issues related to church reforms are thus often particularly sensitive, and are perceived by some of the public as a danger to the preservation of cultur­al and religious identity. On the other hand, there are opinions in favor of reforms. In this context, the issue of church calendar reform is of special interest. Although it has been raised for more than a century, it is still as relevant as in the first attempts at the reform thereof. This paper explores the attitudes on online platforms in Serbia on this issue. Is the church calendar perceived as an integral part of the cultural heritage? What are the pros and cons of calendar reform? What would be the consequences of its potential change?