Gnosticism

[mothandrust]

Quote:Very abstract this Gnosticism.

yeah, i think it is. i don't think it comes with a definite structure or single conclusion - and the more i read, the more i realise how little i know.

Quote:I still am perplexed, THE TREES, THE ANIMALS, THE UNIVERSE, MANKIND...the Creator of all that, to Gnostics, that is the Demiurge? The living Spirit that has nothing to do with ego, the genius behind all that is held in contempt?

If nothing here is, well, to a Gnostics' satisfaction what abstraction is of primacy?

How do they know they would like that abstraction any better than their experience on earth?

Gnostics do or do not believe in duality; more like Taoism?

Essentially, my question: Do they need to consolidate everything into "One" and then "Leave"?

Would Heaven's Gate be considered Gnostic? How about the Solar Temple, were they Gnostic?

Time is running out so they say, that is something man-made and that becomes more proveable every day.

i cannot answer any of your questions, at least not directly. what i can do is offer a personal perspective - although, having said that, i don't even claim to be a gnostic, except in the most fundamental sense of the word - as in, seeker of knowledge (or truth).

in fact, that is what first drew my attention to it - knowledge seeking Christians??? i thought they got all their info from a single source and relied on hierarchical interpretation. then i discovered the church as we know it despised the very notion of Gnosticism, and effectively obliterated it over 1,500 years ago.

when i read 'the Gnostic Gospels', by Elaine Pagels - although yes there was all this stuff about ancient spirits and mythology - my overriding impression was that Gnosticism was about finding our for yourself - and rejecting all forms of hierarchy - empowerment. and, as such, far more akin to Buddhism and Daoism.

subsequently/consequently i read the gospels of Judas and Thomas. accepted, there were tens, perhaps hundreds of other scriptures in that clay pot and i know none of them so cannot comment (and no doubt there's a wealth of info) but from my understanding - they promote question and wonder and reject any sort of middleman, and they say, most particularly in Thomas, heaven is in front of you, you must just open your eyes.

but it is not a religion that tells you what to do (and think) so it cannot have a coherent core or structure - so from such perspective, there should be as many versions of Gnosticism as there are people who choose the label.

and,
strange, is it not, that the hierarchical portrayal of Thomas and Judas is one of doubt and betrayal, and the gnostic image is one of of question and appreciation (of Jesus' motives)?

propaganda, n'est pas?

[ccarota]

Quote:great post Chris (so good you posted it twice) - really useful, detailed and coherent info.

Big hugs,

jj

np, jj

Sorry about the double post... it was so long that by the time i finished editing time had run out and I couldn't post it anymore... so I just posted it again. Thanks for the response, and for starting this thread.. (BTW, love the avatar)

To answer SeriaExpLain's questions...

Quote:Very abstract this Gnosticism.

I still am perplexed, THE TREES, THE ANIMALS, THE UNIVERSE, MANKIND...the Creator of all that, to Gnostics, that is the Demiurge? The living Spirit that has nothing to do with ego, the genius behind all that is held in contempt?

The tress, animals, the visible universe and the human race are all physical, literal "things", but within them is a living essence... LIVING trees, human BEING, animal LIFE, ... one must separate the literal form from its inner essence. The demiurge is said to have maintained the illusion of a purely physical reality by playing upon the limited awareness of our material ego. The very idea of linear human creatin could be a lie. Personally, I don't think that humanity CAN be created... I think that which is human has always been. It is an essence which can never die or be recreated. One might say that our predicament with the hemiurge has made us "human", and before that we were just human forms without the same inner essense.

Regardless, that is just speculation. the long and short of it is this... the Living Spirit is ABSTRACT, and "The Creator" is LITERAL... Gnostics rejected the literal as a lie or illusion, and used thier inner knowledge to "see" the invisible and abstract meaning behind the physical world and based their actions on what they saw. From a sociological point of view, they observed that a belief in a literal creator fostered a worship of the ego and a material conception of our existence. Heave and helle were some promise (or threat) which existed after or beyond phsycial life, and the one made who died and was reborn within the same phsycial life was designated as teh only son of god.

This approach as overly dependant on literal comparison to human limitation. The word you used is a perfect example... genius. It implies that there the is some kind of intelligence which is comparable to humanity behind the creation of the physical universe. When in fact, humanity could be far more intelligent than they seem, and the spirit might not be intelligent at all, let alone intelligible... the very idea of intelligence is limiting and human in nature. That is why teh Gnostics favor "knowing", because it has nothing to do with being smart or stupid.

Also, it is not a matter of holding the demiurge or reality in contempt, at least not for me. I see the demiurge and his prison as a worthy opponent of mankind, a challenge that could bring out our best, and push us toward our final spiritual evolution by putting us in the most difficult circumstances possible... this way we have no choice but to do our best or be left behind. What better preparations from exploring the unknown could there be then a spiritual prison where we learn to "see" for ourselves?

Quote:If nothing here is, well, to a Gnostics' satisfaction what abstraction is of primacy?

How do they know they would like that abstraction any better than their experience on earth?

Its not that gnostcs are dissatisfied, contemptible or hateful. Quiet the opposite, the experience of gnosis brings about a state of being which can only be describe as blissful and joyful... but at the same time, their quest is always there, they can never be in forget or be in denial of it, and that takes a constant vigilance and unbending intent. It is this direction of purpose which is often mistaken for dissatisfaction or contempt. But the gnostics are just describing things they way they "see" them, even if it seems offensive or impractical.

I don't really know what you meant by "what abstraction is primacy" primacy is the abstract, everything literal is born out of it... so by embracing the primacy of the abstract, our understanding can encompass both the formations of literal reality and the greater and infinite abstract from which it emerges. They don't "know" things to be better or worse, that is the egos comparison. I think they believed that the earth was a place for awareness to grow in preparation for the unrestricted abstractions of the unknown, but it was hijacked by the demiurge, and the souls inside were trapped and unable to move beyond it... Stil, who knows, its mythology after all.

At the same time, as I said before, such a prison of reality (not a literal prison, but the abstract restrictions of a prison) is probably all part of the plan. What plan? Who knows, but if its not time itself that is moving, than it would have to sa that the only things which has meaning is the movement of the Spirit from being hidden to revealed. Still describing reality this way often seems impractical to people... like "if you can't change it, why talk about it" or "if you don't like it, why don't you just leave?" But I think they are just avoiding the real question... "Who am I outside of this reality and what can I do to know more?"

Quote:Gnostics do or do not believe in duality; more like Taoism?

I dismissed the word dualism because it promotes a literal interpretation of what gnostics were.. it implies on/off, yes/no, good/evil, and of believeing in one of two literal opposites. You are right, yes it is far more like taoism, in that it is a matter of visible and invisible, but teh visible is still a part of the invisible because its essence remains there, and what is seen is only a replica created by our five senses. Thre true nature of whatever it is can only be glimpsed by seeing (knowing) it's invisible essence.

This concept is by no means exclusive to the gnostics... its is quantum physicals, yoga, its is the science that is encoded into all ancient mythologies and cosmologies, it is passed on through the oral tradition, and through the practices of shamanism. All of the indigenous peoples, trans personal psychologies and now even material physicists would agree with the gnostics concept of the nature of reality. their myhtology about the demiurge as the evil god, their so called hatred of materialism, and so forth is what led to their historical classification as "dualists".

Quote:Essentially, my question: Do they need to consolidate everything into "One" and then "Leave"?

Ah, the fulcrum point. Id say that yes, the focus of their mythology is towards a sort of gnostic communion among humanity where the infernal contract is reversed. For that to happen, I suppose that some threshold would have to be passed where heroes are being born, people around the world actualize their intend for self knowledge and can act upon it like Christ did. But again, that is pretty literal. Who knows. Freedom is a concept worth striving form even if we can't always understand it. As Mothandrust pointed out, gnosticism is essential about an individuals journey to self knowledge... so even if the gnostic elevation does come, to all of humanity, the faith that one has in such an event can bring about a tremendous about of potentiality with ones own life. So I would say gnostic mythology is more about the journey of the individual than the end results humanity...

and yet...

So much of the path of knowledge can be defined by "and yet..." so I'll just leave it at that.

Quote:Would Heaven's Gate be considered Gnostic? How about the Solar Temple, were they Gnostic?

Come on now... I think you have to research and determine those things for yourself, unless you've already made up your mind. Its dis informative to link to theses religious cults and Crowleys work and whatnot with a philosophical and spiritual concept such a gnosticism because perpetuates all the propaganda that was used against gnostic throughout history and makes it more difficult for people to interpret it for them selves. Instead, you could interpret it for yourself whether they fit the bill based on some of the things we've discussed... I would say no, but its not really about finding a literal definition which can be applied en mass to the events of history. What we are discussing is timeless, so cults like heavens gates and the solar temple are probably better explained by the mythology of gnosticism then defined by it.

Quote:Time is running out so they say, that is something man-made and that becomes more provable every day.

Have to agree with you there. I'm not a big believer in macro evolution, but telescopic spiritual evolution seems inevitable to me... check out this clip from waking life... a very gnostic movie, IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4 it

If you are interested i interpreting gnostic themes in a more contemporary milieu, I would recommend watching cyberpunk movies... The Matrix is totally a gnostic allegory, an many scifi films contain the same themes and symbols... metropolis, mad max, robocop, blade runner, the terminator, akira, dark city...

I recommend watching "The Cyberpunk Educator" first, which can be downloaded for free from this website.. http://www.cyberpunkfilm.com/ shit.. you can't get it anymore. Oh well, you can view it on you tube instead -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...7624587352

It a two hour movie/documentary about the great chain of being, the hero's journey and gnostic mythology as portrayed by the scifi fillms of the 1980s and 90s. Its edited to music and its really kicks ass. If you like anime, theres lots in there. Also, the work of philip k dick is very gnostic and contemporary... And so are alot of RPG video games like Fallout and TORMENT. Anyway, gnosis is something we have to discover for ourselves because it challenges every assumption we have. Even if the mythology is not literally true, the process of self-discovery is invaluable to any warrior on the path of knowledge.

-Chris

[SerialExpLain]

Thank you Chris for taking the time in answering my questions, and I'm looking forward to checking out the links you provided.

I'm not even 1/2 way through the Cyberpunk Educator, but I just had to stop and say its incredible, thanks again - back to watching now.

[ccarota]

np SE, your questions were excellent, and I always enjoy reading what you post:)Enjoy the cyberpunk educator, let me know what you think. - Chris

[SerialExpLain]

Quote:np SE, your questions were excellent, and I always enjoy reading what you post:)Enjoy the cyberpunk educator, let me know what you think. - Chris

I'm glad you enjoy my posts Chris, thanks.


Just finished watching, was really fantastic. It really was a good way to explain a lot of things to me because I always loved Cyberpunk in the '80s, Mirrored Shades really got me stoked and reading others in the genre, and there were a lot of RPGs and later games that I just naturally gravitated to, and a lot of archetypes that I had been struggling with became more clear for me and it just stuck me as just very authentic and how stuff REALLY works, and works out.

You have a gift for making abstract concepts more accessible to people and show how they fit in the larger picture. Thank you so much :smile:

[deathstickboy]

Excellent postings Chris.
Thanks for sharing the Cyberpunk educator as well, interesting stuff there.

[mothandrust]

Chris, thank you for such an awesome post - so much info and alternate perspective/understanding, yet still following (and enhancing) my understanding.

pleased you like the avatar

wanted to respond when i first read your post but thought i'd check out the cyberpunk educator and waking life clip first. the trouble was, they bombarded me with new perspectives and readings that whilst welcome confused the fuck out of me - particularly as i try to incorporate all this new info with my previous fragmented and disparate knowledge.

where to start?

there's nothing i want to challenge in your post - it all seems to make sense and fit with my understanding but just to make a few comments about how your words (and recommendations) shaped/affirmed/inspired my thoughts.

i'm not really that knowledgeable about Gnosticism - only read a few books and all of those relate to either its history (and persecution), or its ethical/social foundations. i'd read far more Daoism and Buddhism (most particularly Zen), and couldn't get over, if the Romans had not hijacked its name, Christianity could have been all but the same. In fact, it inspired me to write a piece called 'a Christian Buddhist', which is somewhere on my website, and considering the knowledge i've gained since writing it, woefully naive and simplistic (although (mostly) still valid).

consequently, your comment re 'the Matrix' made me think fuck, yeah! 'cos i'd always thought it was Buddhist! to me, from a philosophical point of view, i reckon the film pretty much sums up our world - just it's not insectiod, robot monsters feeding from us in our protected bubbles but the merchants and usurers ((whether Zionists, Neocons, Illuminati, Capitalists...) who feed us our food and knowledge and suck us dry, where no-one wants to get out of their bubble (lets hope there's not a power failure)).

i saw all those Cyberpunk films when they first came out - loved them but never really considered them as much more than battles of good and evil, with violence as a solution - i still think that's pretty much what they are, although i accept in many cases they are battling violent, corrupt, despotic authority - but then, i think much of our best literature, back through history, from the likes of Twain, Steinbeck, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Dickens, Swift, Huxley... (i'd reach the word limit) and of course Orwell, has portrayed structured authority as dark and sinister. i also have a deeper problem with these films as representing Gnostic ideology, that is, as stated above, good and evil, with violence as the solution. to my mind that is not very gnostic.

telescopic time - yes, bloody fantastic - been doing a little studying of the Mayan calendar just recently - amazing how so many of these things seem to fit together, don't you think? - will download the whole film when i get the opportunity, but loved the clips.

will perhaps write more later if i can organise my thoughts, but for now can i just ask, have you read 'Answer to Job' by Carl Jung? i'd always had huge respect for Jung after reading some of his work on dreams and symbolism - then i heard in an interview that Jung said of all the books he had ever written, the only one he would not change was ATJ. Read it a couple of months back - couldn't recommend it highly enough, but this seems very much how Jung explains the Old Testament god - with consciousness but no self-consciousness - brutal, uncaring, yet from where all came. who, through humanity's journey, evolves into the enlightened Jesus god. (sorry if i haven't got the/his terminology quite right, but that's my interpretation). And although not covered in ATJ, from what i understand (although i've yet to track down the source) Jung believed that the Jewish rejection of Christ affected their group psyche through not accepting the Christ god, trapping them within a world, where to explain and justify their position as "the chosen ones", they as a group become the messiah in themselves. i've probably not explained that very well, and it might also seem a little off topic but if you have any views or knowledge i'd be pleased to hear.

big hugs,

jj