New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I'm still slightly uneasy about the word spirituality, but I like the closing "Paian Anax" 
However, if we're using spirituality in the sense of "spiritual practice" that seems to be a big tent. I'll be frank that the Stoic "Logos" is what turned me away from the Stoics and toward Epicurus. Too much Christian baggage with The Word/Logos. But I'm not against exploring what Hadot would broadly call "spiritual exercises."
In returning to the original texts concerning the gods:
First, I found Dewitt's quote of the gods being friends of sages:
Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."
But also, here are some Fragments and their sources from Attalus's website:
[ U385 ]
Atticus, by way of Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, XV 5 p. 800A: {And as to our deriving any benefit from them while they remain in heaven,} ... in this way, even according to Epicurus, men get help from the gods, "They say, for instance, that the better emanations from them become the causes of great blessings to those who partake of them..."
[ U386 ]
Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.76.1 [p. 106 Gomperz] {Obbink I.27.754}: … he says that as being both the greatest thing, and that which as it were excels in sovereignty, it possesses everything: for every wise man holds pure and holy beliefs about the divine and has understood that this nature is great and august. And it is particularly at festivals that he, progressing to an understand of it, through having its name the whole time on his lips, embraces with conviction more seriously ……
Philodemus, On Music, Vol. Herc. 1, I c.4,6: Now, these very important things may still be said at the present: that the divine does not need any honor; for us, nevertheless, it’s natural to honor it, above all, with pious convictions, even through the rites of national tradition, each according to his proper part.
Philodemus, On the Life of the Gods, Vol. Herc. 1, VI col. 1: ... to the gods, and he admires their nature and their condition and tries to approach them and, so to speak, yearns to touch them and to be together with them; and he calls Sages "friends of the gods" and the gods "friends of Sages."
[ U387 ]
Philodemus, On Piety, Vol. Herc. 2, II.108.9 [p. 126 Gomperz] {Obbink I.31.880}: Again, he says, "let us sacrifice to the gods piously and well, as is appropriate, and let us do everything well according to the laws. But let us do so not disturbing them at all with our opinions on the topic of those who are best and most majestic; again, we say that it is even right to do this on the basis of the opinion which I was discussing. For in this way, by Zeus, it is possible for a mortal nature to live like Zeus, as it appears."
****
Here are some other quotes on the gods from Epicurus:
VS 33. The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness. [note] σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ [dative of Zeus]> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο. [contend/compete]
*****
Principle Doctrine 1. Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται: ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον. [ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.]
Perseus Project translation: 1. A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]
The word translated as "discernible by reason" is θεωρητούς which carries the connotation of "(of the mind) I contemplate, consider; (abstract) I speculate, theorize."
*****
VS 65. It is foolish to ask of the gods that which we can supply for ourselves. μάταιόν ἐστι παρὰ θεῶν αἰτεῖσθαι ἅ τις ἑαυτῷ χορηγῆσθαι ἱκανός ἐστι.
*****
VS 79. He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος.
(NOTE - Just like a god from PD 1)
*****
Letter to Menoikeus:
First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. Do not ascribe to god anything that is inconsistent with immortality and blissfulness; instead, believe about god everything that can support immortality and blissfulness.
.πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε· πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον τὴν μετὰ ἀφθαρσίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτὸν δόξαζε.
For gods there are: our knowledge of them is clear.
θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν· ἐναργὴς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις·
[ Knowledge of them is ἐναργής 1. visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms; so of a dream or vision; 2. manifest to the mind's eye, distinct:— adv. -γῶς, manifestly. 3. of words, etc., distinct, manifest]
Yet they are not such as most people believe; indeed most people are not even consistent in what they believe. It is not impious to deny the gods that most people believe in, but to ascribe to the gods what most people believe. The things that most people say about the gods are based on false assumptions, not a firm grasp of the facts [note], because they say that the greatest goods and the greatest harms come from the gods. For since they are at home with what is best about themselves, they accept that which is similar and consider alien that which is different.
Don, one thing I always remember is that it was against the law upon pain of death to refuse to participate in worship and rituals. No doubt in those rituals, things were said which completely went against Epicurus' description of the gods, because the prevailing religions went against his framing. We don't have his explanations for his choice, but I would guess he didn't feel like being put to death over it. I'd happily chant with supernaturalists if someone said they'd kill me if I didn't.
I'm not going to go so far as to say his whole teaching about the gods was for self protection-- some have suggested it, but that doesn't seem as plausible.
I think all this is definitely worth discussing in detail.
I have source amnesia but I remember reading somewhere that while Epicurus and his followers took part in the rituals and public ceremonies (in part, I'm sure to not be executed), they used them as opportunities to contemplate the "true" nature of the gods as they understood them. So, yeah, sure, I'm pouring a libation to "Zeus" but I'm considering the libation a celebration of my ability to conceive of the gods correctly, to emulate their happiness, to... Etc. The gods don't care about my libation and are most likely unaware of it nor does it have any power... But I can gain benefit from using this as an opportunity to meditate upon - to think deeply about - the nature of the gods.
I suspect I have found myself alone here in these ambitions, which is awkward. So I really think it would be appropriate for me to wrap it up now and stop forcing my agenda.
I wouldn't say that you're alone. Epicurus obviously saw the gods as important as evidenced by the Principal Doctrines, the letter to Menoikeus, etc. I think it behooves us to understand why. He took part in the community religious practices of his day. Why, if they were all based on empty opinions? How does this influence our practice as Epicureans? I find the topic quite worthy of investigation. I'm not sure we will come to the same conclusion, Susan, but I'm curious to see where this path leads.
Several references have been made to images - eidola - that Epicurus says we perceive as eminating from objects that impact our senses and mental perception. I've reinterpreted this as light - for sight at least - bouncing from the object to our eyes. Light is constantly bouncing off objects and striking our eyes. If something produces sound or odors, those too will spread out and if we're in the way we encounter a sound or smell.
Now the idea of our minds perceiving concepts or encountering eidola independent of physical physical senses gets a little trickier. Although, look at those babies again "sensing" whether something is fair, or right or wrong. They're obviously "sensing" something coming from that experience. Although it's their sight that is allowing them to assess the situation, sight is not being used to determine the justice of the situation. This is one reason I'm inclined to think the mental Perceptions and Prolepses either work hand in hand or are the same thing by different names. The Mental Perceptions sense the "pattern" (to co-opt a phrase from Elayne ) but the Prolepsis puts it into a category or paradigm.
I think this has parallels to the Prolepsis of the Divine... But I'm still working on that! 
So where do I personally think this all leads... Or where it comes from?
The more I think about prolepses, the more I'm convinced they have to be inborn and then evolve as we mature. The newborn and toddler sense of right and wrong grows into our Prolepsis of Justice. So where does our Prolepsis of the Gods or maybe of Divinity come from? Take a look at the rapt look on some babies and toddlers faces when they take part in some research studies where they pay attention to puppets. Take a look at this toddler experiencing snow for the first time. Babies and toddlers obviously have the capacity to experience awe to be in wonder. Look at the baby's eyes in that last video link! That sense of wonder, I believe, can grow into a Prolepsis of the Divine.
Well said. The feeling - I might say reaction - of awe is real.
I have additional thoughts but I wanted to share a time when I can say unequivocally that I experienced awe:
On a family trip to California, we had spent the early afternoon at the giant redwoods south of Yosemite Valley. We drove north and went through one of the tunnels and pulled off to take in the view. Little did I know this was the famous Tunnel View. My first view of Yosemite Valley literally took my breath away! I literally - and I mean this - the view was so awesome (in its original sense) and expansive that I didn't feel I could get enough air into my lungs. There was just so much space to take in, I was so tiny in relation to this expanse. All I could do was stare, slack-jawed.
That remains an archetypal, visceral experience of awe for me. It was a precognitive experience. I had no words at the time describe. I remember saying at the time, "Now, I know what breathtaking actually means!"
[Edit: In rereading that, "pre-rational" mighty be better than precognitive. It was a direct sensory - proleptic? - experience that bypassed my ability at first to put it into words.]
Strange as these doctrines may seem, they were combined with definite previews of Christianity. The idea of love between man and God would not have seemed a novelty to Epicureans. They were taught "that the gods were friends of the wise and the wise were friends of the gods." Friendship and love were one for the Greeks, though denoted by different words in Latin and English.
Okay, this is a prime example of why Dewitt drives me crazy in this book. His lack of a source for his quote of "the gods were friends of the wise and the wise were friends of the gods" does not allow us to see the context of the quote.
Plus his assertion that "Friendship and love were one for the Greeks" is self-serving to his quote about the gods and the wise being friends, which makes me dubious.
Of course, the Greeks had a different semantic spectrum when it came to love... And most everything else when compared to modern English words and idioms.
I find this a fascinating thread and plan to weigh in more, but I had to get my DeWitt frustration off my chest. (Sorry, Cassius )
Quote from Godfrey6. In a sentence the author uses the phrase “concepts born of sensation” (followed by προληψεις [prolepseis] and a citation that I don’t understand) (page 58)
I had to investigate. It's appears the Life citations are to the verses in Diogenes Laertius, Book X, Life (of Epicurus). But they don't fall exactly every time. I'm using the one posted to Perseus Digital Library. But that has to be it after checking several, so take the verse number and +/- 1 verse. Could be here using a different translation.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=a(rmoni/a
I'm only about 1/2 through the episode, but it seems from LSJ that ἁρμονία harmonia is a joining together or a joint. So the harmonia/harmony being opposed is the idea that the "soul" is joined together with the body, it's something from outside the body that gets joined to the body. The Epicurean view is that the "soul" arises with the body from physical materials.
I agree with Elayne and Charles that you feel strong emotions in the chest.
Made an interesting discovery in verse 126 this morning:
126c and 126d exemplify why it's important to look at the words Epicurus used and not just modern English translations. Take a look at the final phrases of each: 126c. ...ἀλλὰ τὸ ἥδιστον αἱρεῖται, "choosing that which brings the greatest pleasure" 126d. …ἀλλὰ τὸν ἥδιστον καρπίζεται. "enjoying the fruits of that which brings the greatest pleasure." Both of these use the word ἥδιστον = hēdiston which is the superlative of ἡδύς = hēdus "pleasant" which is related to ηδονή = hēdonē "pleasure". By variously translating these two occurrences of the same exact word as "most pleasing/brings the greatest joy," "most delicious/happiest," "nicest/most agreeable," or "most enjoyable" (for both), the fact that Epicurus used the same word is lost. Only Yonge uses "most pleasant" for both. Epicurus teaches that pleasure is the greatest good, and by refusing to translate words like ἥδιστον more literally as "(that which) brings the most pleasure" it would appear that translators are consciously shying away from acknowledging that pleasure was Epicurus's goal. When Epicurus says pleasure, he means pleasure. Translators should not equivocate or obfuscate. They should strive to illuminate and communicate. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%28%2Fdiston&la=greek&can=h%28%2Fdiston1&prior=to\n&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=2#lexicon
She also mentions Star Trek in that podcast episode, too, so I thought of you, Cassius
Speaking of Lucian: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0910n6s
Just discovered and listened to Natalie Haynes Stands Up for the Classics and this episode extolling the importance of Lucian. She doesn't mention his Epicureanism but it's obviously a fan of Lucian. Enjoyable light-hearted romp through classical history.
I've come up with a first draft of verse 124. I'm convinced that pleasure and pain are the best translations of the "good things" (αγαθοί) and "the bad things" (κακοί) in the first part of the second section. I've included reasons in my text. I also found it interesting that the actual phrase used for the masses is literally "hoi polloi."
I'm sharing the rough literal first draft of a translation below and I'll try and work up a pdf of all the steps soon:
"For they are not prolepses, but the judgements of the hoi polloi concerning the gods [are] false hasty assumptions. Thence, the greatest evils are brought to the wicked from the gods as well as the greatest aid to the good. Because they (the hoi polloi) are believing that those who are familiar with each other through all excellences and goodness (the gods) accept those who resemble themselves; all those not of their sort (are) strange and alien."
"So, accustom yourself in believing that, for us, death is nothing; since all pleasure and pain are in perception of the senses and the mind; and death is the absolute negation of perception. So, correct understanding is that death is nothing for us, and this is what makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not gaining an endless lifetime for oneself but taking away the yearning for immortality."
Epicurus:
LOL!
Continuing on the tangent, the article that I linked to at the beginning of the thread The Polytheism of the Epicureans is a good and fairly brief presentation of the realist viewpoint. I've tended to follow the idealist take, but this got me thinking...
I'm intrigued again Godfrey (Don runs off to read and re-read that article...)
Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.
Yep. There's just too many clear statements in the texts to think he was being totally allegorical.
Oh, I don't think he was (necessarily) being allegorical. He clearly states in Menoikeus: θεοί εισιν. "Gods exist. There are gods."
But I'm not convinced that the general concept of gods within Epicurean circles was of living beings. Doesn't Sedley talk about the gods being mental constructs? I'm leaning more in that direction. Just because they're mental constructs doesn't mean they don't exist. Natural justice exists. Friendship exists. Why not the gods in the same way?
Talk about a tangent!!
Congratulations, Don! That is every bit as opaque to me as when Elli tried to explain it to me!
LOL 
of course we're not talking about individual consciousnesses having any continuance; that's specifically ruled out by other Epicurean theory
Didn’t Epicurus outline a physics for immortal gods?
I've found it interesting in my work on the Menoikeus letter (and in KD1) that Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.
You're welcome to see my post and errata on that in the other thread. Here's an excerpt:
ἄφθαρτον = aphtharton LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states Φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος = aidios "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός = thnētos "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is connected to the verb φθείρω = phtheirō "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be Φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental perceptions, because we do have a Prolepsis of them (More on this difficult term later!)
I'm also not entirely convinced that the gods exist as a mental perception only. That's why they'd be imperishable. Still working my way through that!
