This essay emerges from a comparative philosophical inquiry aimed at tracing deep structural and existential parallels between Neoplatonism—particularly the metaphysics and soteriology of Plotinus—and foundational texts of classical Indian philosophy, namely the Bhagavad Gītā and the Kaṭha Upaniṣad. While these traditions arise from distinct cultural, linguistic, and historical matrices, my analysis reveals a remarkable convergence in their ontological and ethical visions.

At the heart of both Plotinian and Indian thought lies a radical distinction between two orders of reality: the transient, sensory world (prakṛti, maya, or the realm of phenomena) and the eternal, transcendent Principle (the One, Brahman, or Ātman). Both frameworks conceive the embodied human condition not as a natural or original state, but as a fall—a descent into multiplicity, passion, and ignorance—from an authentic, unified, and divine origin. This metaphysical “exile” necessitates a path of return: what Plotinus calls the flight from the world (phuge tou kosmou), and what the Upaniṣadic and Gītā tradition names mokṣa or jñāna-yoga—liberation through knowledge and inner transformation.

One of the most compelling analogies I explore is the shared emphasis on inner purification as a prerequisite for metaphysical ascent. For Plotinus, the soul must undergo a rigorous process of katharsis—detachment from the body, mastery over passions, and withdrawal from sense-impressions—to align itself with the Intellectual-Principle and ultimately reunite with the One. Similarly, in the Bhagavad Gītā, Krishna instructs Arjuna to withdraw the senses “like a tortoise drawing in its limbs” (II.58) and to cultivate sthitaprajña, the steadfastness of one who rests in the Self beyond pleasure and pain. The Kaṭha Upaniṣad’s famed chariot metaphor (1.3.3–9) further reinforces this parallel: the intellect (buddhi) as charioteer, the mind as reins, the senses as horses—only when all are under control can the Self reach “the highest step of Viṣṇu.”

Moreover, both traditions affirm that authentic knowledge is not discursive or empirical, but contemplative and transformative. It is not enough to merely reject sensory attachments; one must redirect consciousness toward the Supreme. As Plotinus insists, this requires awakening “another vision… to be waked within you” (Ennead I.6.8)—an inner eye capable of beholding the One. In like manner, the Gītā states that desire vanishes “at the vision of the Supreme Being” (II.59), implying that liberation arises not through negation alone, but through positive realization of the divine ground of being.

What fascinates me most—and what I intend to develop further—is how these traditions, despite their geographical and doctrinal distances, converge on a non-dual soteriology: the individual’s return to unity is not merely moral improvement, but ontological reintegration. The self does not become divine—it remembers its true nature. Whether termed henōsis in Neoplatonism or ātma-jñāna in Advaita Vedānta, this realization dissolves the illusion of separation.

I look forward to continuing this dialogue with scholars across disciplines—philosophy, religious studies, comparative theology, and social thought—to explore how such cross-cultural analogies challenge modern assumptions about the boundaries of rationality, spirituality, and human flourishing. I welcome critical engagement, alternative interpretations, and collaborative reflections on how ancient wisdom traditions might inform contemporary existential and ethical challenges.