On the Mysteries

if they are divided by partial circumscriptions, and separated by the otherness of their places and of the underlying bodies?

How do the theosophers divine philosophers present them as being affected by passions? (By which reason some say they use the erection of phalli and the utterance of disgraceful language). But if they are impassible, then the invocations of the Gods will be vain, claiming as they do that they can propitiate the Gods and soothe their anger. And even more so are those so-called necessities of the Gods. For that which is impassible is also unforced and inviolable. How then, if they are subject to passions, do they perform many things in the sacred rites? But also, invocations are made as if to passionate Gods. So that not only are demons passionate, but also the Gods and as the poet says, according to Homer, "Even the Gods themselves are flexible." But if we say that the Gods (as some wish) are pure minds, and that the demons are participants in soul, then pure minds are much more uncalled and imperturbable by sensory things. But the prayers are different, being borne towards the purity of the mind. And also those things that are borne towards sensory and psychic concerns.

Do the Gods not then differ from demons by body and incorporeal nature? But if the Gods are only incorporeal, how will the Sun and Moon and those visible in the heavens be Gods?

How is it that among them, some are beneficent, and others maleficent?

What is the corporeal thing that connects the Gods in heaven to the incorporeal Gods?

What distinguishes the demons from the visible and invisible Gods, since the visible Gods are connected to the invisible ones?

In what way does a demon differ from a hero and a soul in essence, or by power, or by operation?

be maintained among themselves, if they are privately determined by circumscriptions of parts, and separated by the diversity of their places and underlying bodies?

How do the theologians make the Gods subject to passion? (To whom, for this reason, some say they perform their cult through the erection of phalli and disgraceful talk). And certainly, if they are impassible, then the invocations of the Gods will be vain; in vain do they claim they can conciliate the Gods, appease their anger; in vain do they profess to offer expiations; and especially those commonly bandied-about necessities of the Gods will be empty. For that which cannot suffer, the same cannot be soothed, nor compelled, nor necessitated. Indeed, because the Gods are not free from passion, there are many things in the rites themselves that seem to argue this. Certainly, the invocations themselves are made towards the Gods as if they were subject to passion. Therefore, not only demons, but the Gods themselves will be subject to passions, according to that Homeric line: Even the Gods themselves are flexible. But if we say that the Gods (which pleases some) are pure minds, but demons are animal in their essence and merely participants of mind; then pure minds are more inflexible and unmixable with corporeal things, and thus our prayers can in no way be accommodated to such purity of mind; yet this distinction does not hold; for those things which are offered in sacred rites are offered as if to those using sense and soul.

Are the Gods and demons therefore distinguished, as some think, by body and incorporeal nature? But how will the Sun and Moon and the other visible heavenly bodies be Gods, if the Gods are incorporeal?

Furthermore, how are some of the visible Gods said to be beneficent, and others to be the opposite, maleficent?

What is it that connects the corporeal Gods in the sky with the incorporeal Gods?

What is it that distinguishes demons both from the visible Gods and from the invisible ones, since the visible Gods are connected with the invisible ones?

How does a demon differ from a hero, and from a soul? Is it by essence, or by power, or by operation?