Modern Gnosticism

[Gnosteric]

Hi Thomas. By the tone of your post, you sound more interested in trashing modern Gnosticism than discussing it as a topic. We probably have too much disagreement to have a productive discussion. That's too bad.

BTW, I wouldn't join a Roman Catholic thread just to belittle your tradition.

[taijasi]

As for your six points, Thomas, I can agree with the last 5 of Gnosticism wholeheartedly ... and I find that the Christian response seems artificial in some cases (2-5), #6 is not at odds at all between the two systems (the approaches complement each other!), and similarly, #1 seems to be a point of view.

Yes, Gnosticism is characterized by an inherent duality and a regard for the material world - product of the Demiurge, the Jewish YHWH - as an inferior emanation of God, rather than a direct and literal "Creation." But then, science itself supports this view (more than Creationism) ... speaking of progress with which certain systems (AHEM!) seem to be fighting claw, tooth and nail these days.

In light of the struggle which Xianity still wages against science (as epitomized in the first few chapters of Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, which I have begun reading), doesn't what you say about Gnosticism seem a bit hypocritical?

Originally Posted by Thomas

What finished gnosticism, what bankrupted myth, was progress - man was 'growing up' (albeit in an unfortunate direction) - and it is impossible to turn back the clock. We cannot undiscover what has been discovered any more than we can turn back the clock. The church might be blamed for resisting this process, but the gnostic simply rejects it.

The question facing the gnostic is that either he has learned nothing from history, or his version of history has nothing to teach him.

Indeed, the Gnostic doesn't suggest, as do Creationists, that things just simply appeared (some 4000 years ago, or what-have-you). Rather, the emanation, or work of the Demiurge, occurred according to a PROCESS ... which is described in some detail in the Kabbalah, from what I gather - yet is certainly given in detail by various Theosophical authors, these resonating considerably with the Neo-Platonics (eg, Plotinus) in their explanations.

Hmmm ...

Namaskar,

taijasi

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Gnosticism isn't a religion, it's a method. It transcends religions for that reason. It is a means of taking an interior journey to find one's "self." Modern Gnosticism is more closely related to psychology, linguistic philosophy and anthropology then it is with religion. Indeed, I have been helped in my journey by reading Friedrich Neitzsche, Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell as much as any recognized "religious" text. I prefer the language of Christianity (my favorite ancient Christian text is the Gospel of Thomas) because I am most comfortable with having grown up in an "orthodox" Christian culture - but I was unable to ascertain its meaning for me until I walked away from it and began studying other myths. I am also very fond of the Tao Te Ching.

This distinction you make between gnosticism as an approach vs. a religion has helped me understand why I have such difficulty getting a handle on what people mean when they say they are gnostic. When you use this idea of gnosticism as an approach I can relate to it, the means of an interior journey. I think this explains why many of your posts resonate with me, but other aspects of gnosticism fall flat.

Gnostic myths are not to be taken literally. They are vehicles to aid in the inward journey and not an end in themselves. Consequently, it is not accurate to say "Gnostics believed Jesus was this . . . " or "Gnostics believed the existence of a 'demiurge' . . ." in the same sense that we talk about followers of a religion "believing" in the tenets of a particular faith.

Many gnostics speak as if they do take the myths literally, or perhaps I misunderstand them.

This is part of why "Christian" Gnostics were so infuriating to early Church "fathers" who sought to unify everything "christian" under one umbrella of right thinking. There are as many expressions of the experience of Gnosis as there are people to experience it. There is no right thinking - no "orthodoxy" or "catholic" vision - and hence no reason not to create new mythical vehicles, or borrow one from another culture's Gnostics if you come across one you like.

But there were various identifiable schools of gnostic thought, and they cared enough about their own ideas that they would challenge the orthodox ideas. Something just does not seem to add up here. I mean, back in the day, each school thought itself correct, right? Only in retrospect can we look back and say well, this school of thought became dominant so now we call it orthodox. However, what you say above does agree with what Thomas says about the catholic, as in unifying, vision.

It is liberating to know and acknowledge the common experience that binds us all together. For me (and in the language of Christianity), it was the experience of the "second coming of Christ." The first was the momentary glimpse, the ephiphany, of a darkly glimpsed shadow of my connection to "God" through the sacrifice of Christ. But the second was the trascendent experience of discovering the mystery of Christ in me.

I frankly do not see what is unorthodox about what you've described here.

When the Way is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born
Along with hypocrisy.

When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.

If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom
Then people would profit a hundredfold;
If we could abolish duty and justice
Then harmonious relationships would form;
If we could abolish artifice and profit
Then waste and theft would disappear.

Yet such remedies treat only symptoms
And so they are inadequate.

People need personal remedies:
Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature;
Bind your self-interest and control your ambition;
Forget your habits and simplify your affairs.

- Tao te Ching

We've got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.


When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

- Gospel of Thomas

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Gnosteric

I do (wasn’t Paul a Gnostic?), but I certainly can’t speak for all Gnostics…. not even all Christian Gnostics. Please understand that there are Sethian Gnostics (who might be considered pre-Christian), Valentinian Gnostics (some believe Valentinus was almost voted in as Pope way back when), Hermetic Gnostics, Pagan Gnostics, and Phildickian Gnostics. Just to name a few, so their chosen books will vary.

Paul was a Jew, I believe.

Finding Gnostic consensus is a very tall order, indeed. I would have to argue with your claim that “most Gnostics” feel this way, but, yes, a good minority would probably be uncomfortable in a church setting. That said, there are many of us that acknowledge that some Gnostics (just like any other tradition) are further down the path than others. (Maybe they’ve had a few more incarnations.) I know that many Gnostic Priests have much to offer me and I would love to have such an elder as a mentor. We try not to let our egos get in the way. ... Although it is probably safe to say that the average Gnostic is more autonomous and non-conformist than your average Methodist or Baptist. Clergy also act more like guides than “chosen ones.” Gnostics have direct access to Gnosis and don’t need them to mediate.

Mediate what? What is your concept of God? Would you express it that you have some kind of personal relationship with God? Is Gnosis a breakthrough in understanding God or understanding yourself, or yourself in God? Do Gnostics agree on this point? BTW, priests are not viewed as chosen ones in my tradition. It's more of a specialized role. I also do not see priests as 'mediating' between me and God. More like an assistant in that respect.

Eat babies and partake in orgies. ...
Seriously, on the outside the average Gnostic church probably looks much like a Catholic one to a stranger. They have Priests (men and women) who wear collars. They celebrate the sacraments (plus a couple more) and engage in prayer and readings. Much, but not all, of the language is the same or similar. On the inside though, things are very different.

Specifically how are things different?

A Priest of the AJC says that Gnostics are “Catholic on the outside and Buddhist on the inside.”

There is an affinity between Traditional Christianity and Buddhism, I think.

[lunamoth]

Hi Thomas, Thank you for your well-considered reply. I'll make a few responses but point by point would be tedious for us all, I think.

Originally Posted by Thomas

To say that the church occludes this interiority, that her dogmas and doctrines snuff out this inner light, is a patent nonsense - faith, and a specifically Orthodox and Catholic faith - has produced mystics, saints, doctors, scientists and artists of every ilk - there are libraries of the most profound mystical texts ... really I am astounded that some seem to not notice, or somehow separate the great mystics from the church they love, that somehow Eckhart or Mount Athos is not connected with Orthodox Christianity.

This is a distinction between mysticism and gnosticism, I think. Mysticism maintains its relationship to the religion from which it arises, and acknowledges the doctrine or dogma of the Church (or whichever religion), while gnosticism changes, minimizes or simply eradicates the dogma.

Dogma, doctrine and discipline flows from what man holkds to be true. Whilst there is a wide resource of gnostic literature freely available, the access to gnostic practice, method and discipline (in the sense of ascesis) is not so readily available, nor so readily absorbed. The ancients spoke of theurgy and some practiced the most austere ascetic regimes, the Pythagorians had their rules, the Epicurean and the Stoic likewise (the Christians borrowed freely from the latter in both thought and act), the Essenes (ditto). All the Mysteries had their preparations, and some lengthy and testing ... and some far more restrictive and demanding in terms of personal freedom than Christian doctrine ... as was elsewhere, ask the Cathars!

I got some of this from reading Pagels, actually. It seems that at least part of Ireaneus' objection to Gnosticism was that it created an elite within the community, a community within the Christian community that was seperated by their extra practices and beliefs. It is ironic, in a way. A criticism of orthodoxy is that it is for everyone, the 'unthinking' masses, and so it is limiting to those who are inclined to find their own truth. Yet, that is exactly what Ireaneus perceived as the strength, the grace, of what became orthodoxy. It is for everybody.

Everything turns on this point, for it is impossible for the gnostic (in the historical sense) to embrace Christianity without abandoning everything he holds to be the case, and it is equally impossible for a Christian to be a gnostic (in the historical sense) for the selfsame reason.

But it seems that at least some modern gnostics do not claim that they embrace Christianity so much as they use the Christian metaphors and language in their personal gnosis. I would guess that if modern Gnostics do perform similar sacraments in their churches as Christians, these sacraments would have a very different meaning for them than they would for orthodox/traditional Christians.

Likewise the Christian understands gnosis in a way that is meaningless, and a scandal to the gnostic. The Word, to the gnostic, is only ever a metaphor for somewhere-other-than-what it says, somewhere-other-than-here. The Word, for the Christian, evokes the reality of a love that underlies all existence, that chooses to manifest Itself in solidarity with the here-and-now.

Are you sure about this Thomas? I know that gnostics tend to speak in terms of knowledge, rather than love, but I'm not certain that they mean a knowledge that is disconnected from the here and now.

For the modern gnostic, it is insufficient to declare himself such without offering adequate definition of what, to him, the term implies, precisely because its understanding has become so diffuse as to be all but meaningless - and one in which 'I believe in Christ but not in what the church says' is intellectually insufficient - it is no argument - any more that the insistence that 'I am the authority for my own existence' stands in the face of the evidence of psychology and the science of perception.

Yes, I agree with this, but I think AdD's use of the term gnosticism as an approach is fairly universal. I don't think in this sense that a Gnostic, even one who associates himself with Christianity in some way, would say "I believe in Christ." Perhaps he would say "I am Christ" or "Christ is the Way."

The one crucial thing man absolutely cannot guarantee is himself.

At this point I should note that many now regard Plato's Myth of the Cave as actually sounding the end of the era of mythology. Philosophy had rendered it's answers insufficient for anything other than speculation, as it has laid bare the processes of speculation itself - of fantasia and imaginatio - it could not answer the questions of being and existence - of man's tragic and short-lived state - in any way adequately in a world that was revealing its secrets to the emergence of science.

I'm not familiar with the Myth of the Cave, but I could see how Plato and the Greek Philosophers ushered in the Age of Reason, leading to the equation of myth with superstition or outright ignorance. Yet somehow, in a way I don't quite understand, Gnosticism seems to be about using myth to overcome ignorance. My own reading in existentialism is very limited.

The gnostic believes in knowledge. The philosopher asks what is knowledge, and what do we really know? How do we know?

What finished gnosticism, what bankrupted myth, was progress - man was 'growing up' (albeit in an unfortunate direction) - and it is impossible to turn back the clock. We cannot undiscover what has been discovered any more than we can turn back the clock. The church might be blamed for resisting this process, but the gnostic simply rejects it.

And the only cure for the death of myth is God among us, the Real Incarnation. I think I get that. But, I think this still sells modern Gnosticism short. I don't think we need to view Gnosticism in antagonism to Christianity, except of course when it sees itself as such.

The Christian Way is a way of gnosis, any way towards interiority is a way of gnosis, Buddhism is a way of gnosis, but one cannot conflate Christianity with gnosticism as it is expressed, any more than one can say Christianity and Buddhism is the same thing.

I agree. Would not many Gnostics also agree with this?

[lunamoth]

Hi Thomas, Thank you for your well-considered reply. I'll make a few responses but point by point would be tedious for us all, I think.

Originally Posted by Thomas

To say that the church occludes this interiority, that her dogmas and doctrines snuff out this inner light, is a patent nonsense - faith, and a specifically Orthodox and Catholic faith - has produced mystics, saints, doctors, scientists and artists of every ilk - there are libraries of the most profound mystical texts ... really I am astounded that some seem to not notice, or somehow separate the great mystics from the church they love, that somehow Eckhart or Mount Athos is not connected with Orthodox Christianity.

This is a distinction between mysticism and gnosticism, I think. Mysticism maintains its relationship to the religion from which it arises, and acknowledges the doctrine or dogma of the Church (or whichever religion), while gnosticism changes, minimizes or simply eradicates the dogma.

Dogma, doctrine and discipline flows from what man holkds to be true. Whilst there is a wide resource of gnostic literature freely available, the access to gnostic practice, method and discipline (in the sense of ascesis) is not so readily available, nor so readily absorbed. The ancients spoke of theurgy and some practiced the most austere ascetic regimes, the Pythagorians had their rules, the Epicurean and the Stoic likewise (the Christians borrowed freely from the latter in both thought and act), the Essenes (ditto). All the Mysteries had their preparations, and some lengthy and testing ... and some far more restrictive and demanding in terms of personal freedom than Christian doctrine ... as was elsewhere, ask the Cathars!

I got some of this from reading Pagels, actually. It seems that at least part of Ireaneus' objection to Gnosticism was that it created an elite within the community, a community within the Christian community that was seperated by their extra practices and beliefs. It is ironic, in a way. A criticism of orthodoxy is that it is for everyone, the 'unthinking' masses, and so it is limiting to those who are inclined to find their own truth. Yet, that is exactly what Ireaneus perceived as the strength, the grace, of what became orthodoxy. It is for everybody.

Everything turns on this point, for it is impossible for the gnostic (in the historical sense) to embrace Christianity without abandoning everything he holds to be the case, and it is equally impossible for a Christian to be a gnostic (in the historical sense) for the selfsame reason.

But it seems that at least some modern gnostics do not claim that they embrace Christianity so much as they use the Christian metaphors and language in their personal gnosis. I would guess that if modern Gnostics do perform similar sacraments in their churches as Christians, these sacraments would have a very different meaning for them than they would for orthodox/traditional Christians.

Likewise the Christian understands gnosis in a way that is meaningless, and a scandal to the gnostic. The Word, to the gnostic, is only ever a metaphor for somewhere-other-than-what it says, somewhere-other-than-here. The Word, for the Christian, evokes the reality of a love that underlies all existence, that chooses to manifest Itself in solidarity with the here-and-now.

Are you sure about this Thomas? I know that gnostics tend to speak in terms of knowledge, rather than love, but I'm not certain that they mean a knowledge that is disconnected from the here and now.

For the modern gnostic, it is insufficient to declare himself such without offering adequate definition of what, to him, the term implies, precisely because its understanding has become so diffuse as to be all but meaningless - and one in which 'I believe in Christ but not in what the church says' is intellectually insufficient - it is no argument - any more that the insistence that 'I am the authority for my own existence' stands in the face of the evidence of psychology and the science of perception.

Yes, I agree with this, but I think AdD's use of the term gnosticism as an approach is fairly universal. I don't think in this sense that a Gnostic, even one who associates himself with Christianity in some way, would say "I believe in Christ." Perhaps he would say "I am Christ" or "Christ is the Way."

The one crucial thing man absolutely cannot guarantee is himself.

At this point I should note that many now regard Plato's Myth of the Cave as actually sounding the end of the era of mythology. Philosophy had rendered it's answers insufficient for anything other than speculation, as it has laid bare the processes of speculation itself - of fantasia and imaginatio - it could not answer the questions of being and existence - of man's tragic and short-lived state - in any way adequately in a world that was revealing its secrets to the emergence of science.

I'm not familiar with the Myth of the Cave, but I could see how Plato and the Greek Philosophers ushered in the Age of Reason, leading to the equation of myth with superstition or outright ignorance. Yet somehow, in a way I don't quite understand, Gnosticism seems to be about using myth to overcome ignorance. My own reading in existentialism is very limited.

The gnostic believes in knowledge. The philosopher asks what is knowledge, and what do we really know? How do we know?

What finished gnosticism, what bankrupted myth, was progress - man was 'growing up' (albeit in an unfortunate direction) - and it is impossible to turn back the clock. We cannot undiscover what has been discovered any more than we can turn back the clock. The church might be blamed for resisting this process, but the gnostic simply rejects it.

And the only cure for the death of myth is God among us, the Real Incarnation. I think I get that.

The Christian Way is a way of gnosis, any way towards interiority is a way of gnosis, Buddhism is a way of gnosis, but one cannot conflate Christianity with gnosticism as it is expressed, any more than one can say Christianity and Buddhism is the same thing.

I agree. Would not many Gnostics also agree with this?

Yikes, that was more point by point than I intended! Hope I did not really bore you all with my ramblings!

luna

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Many gnostics speak as if they do take the myths literally, or perhaps I misunderstand them.

Perhaps. Gnostics aren't known by what they call themselves. They are known by what they know.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But there were various identifiable schools of gnostic thought, and they cared enough about their own ideas that they would challenge the orthodox ideas.

I think you've got it backwards, though. The "right" thinking side of the equation begins slandering and prosecuting free-thinkers, who want to continue to be free-thinkers (and teach others about the joys of free-thinking) and they defend themselves. It's often a losing battle, because the mere act of defending one's self against proponents of "creeds" is itself considered a heresy. I see no evidence of the "orthodoxy" until middle of the second century - well after the existence of Gnostic thought in Christianity.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Something just does not seem to add up here. I mean, back in the day, each school thought itself correct, right?

"Correct about what?" is the important question. Gnostics can be correct about the method and not genuinely care one lick about the literal truth of a cosmology expressed in a myth. I don't have any firm opinions about matters that are unknowable to me, that are beyond my comprehension, or that are not subject to being meaningfully expressed by our limited tools of language and logic. On matters that can be investigated and examined, that is a different issue altogether. "God is a Trinity" is a claim that cannot be investigated (and frankly doesn't mean anything to me), so it really doesn't concern me, nor do I care whether someone else agrees or disagrees with it. "The words of the Bible are an unaltered record of the teachings of Jesus as conveyed to the Twelve Apostles", however, is an empirical claim. It can be investigated if someone is genuinely interested. Will we ever know the answer with any solid certainty? Probably not. The best that can happen is that we can either be convinced or not convinced by the evidence we discover. And in such situations it's okay to disagree without slandering (or worse) those we disagree with.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Only in retrospect can we look back and say well, this school of thought became dominant so now we call it orthodox.

I think Orthodoxy/Catholic considered itself right-thinking from its inception. It has always oriented itself around prosecuting dissent - it is the method by which it defines itself. I recommend reading the writings of Tertullian and Ireneaus and paying careful attention to the types of arguments they made and think about why they approached things the way they did. As I said earlier, it is not a disagreement about theological ideas. It is a different method of knowing one's self, which gives birth to an entirely different sort of vision.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I frankly do not see what is unorthodox about what you've described here.

It was kind of a joke actually. I used a Christian symbol to impart a meaning in the mind of many readers that was different than the meaning I subjectively intended. It was really intended for you since I figured you'd probably recognize both meanings.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

We've got to get ourselves back to the garden.

We are already there.

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

[Thomas]

This came to me on the road, and I am well aware it reads like a 'trick question', but I think it is valid nonetheless.

If the Gnostic believes in the 'free thinking' expression of spiritual realities in terms of a mythic cosmology ...

... why then does he insist that another's doctrine must equally be a mythic cosmology? Why cannot it be a literal reality, that encompasses the mythic and the metaphorical?

Thomas

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Thomas

This came to me on the road, and I am well aware it reads like a 'trick question', but I think it is valid nonetheless.

If the Gnostic believes in the 'free thinking' expression of spiritual realities in terms of a mythic cosmology ...

... why then does he insist that another's doctrine must equally be a mythic cosmology? Why cannot it be a literal reality, that encompasses the mythic and the metaphorical?

Thomas

The Gnostic doesn't insist anything about another's cosmology. A person can have "faith" in whatever cosmology they want. It's of no matter. And the reason it's of no matter is because Gnosticism isn't about cosmology in the first instance.

The literalist and their creeds, on the other hand, do insist on imosing their cosmology on others. I daresay the point of a "creed" is to standardize dogma. It then becomes a political, social and psychological device to deny the reasonableness of dissent and stifle creativity.

That being said, if you want to make assertions about "reality" that are subject to investigation by scientific methodology, be prepared to be challenged to prove those assertions by something other than subjective faith or emotion. Absent compelling proof, you shouldn't be the least bit surprised when someone doesn't share your "faith." After all, it's a gift from God so that no man may boast, right?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Are you Muslim, Thomas?

If not, why not?

[Thomas]

The Gnostic doesn't ... right?

That doesn't address the question.

Are you Muslim, Thomas? If not, why not?

Nor does that, unless I'm missing something?

Thomas

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Gnostic doesn't ... right?

That doesn't address the question.

Certainly it does. In technical terms it's an "objection to the question because it assumes facts not in evidence." Your question relies on a false premise, in other words.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Are you Muslim, Thomas? If not, why not?

Nor does that, unless I'm missing something?

Thomas

Perhaps you are missing something. Perhaps not. My questions assumes no facts about you, so it should be quite easy to answer.

Care to try?

[Thomas]

Your question relies on a false premise, in other words.

My question, revised:
If the Gnostic believes in the 'free thinking' ...
... why then does he insist that Scripture cannot it be a literally true?'

Thomas

[wil]

Hopefully modern gnosticism is about knowing, learning and being open. And not about obtuse questioning, putting one into a corner or trick bags.

I suppose an open mind would consider as a possibility that some spiritual texts are literal. However if in reading one finds contradictions abound and the only way to explain is again through some convoluted method of what 'is' means then that leads one to think otherwise.

Flip side is that hopefully one who knows wouldn't have trouble with another that believes in the litteral...as long as ones beliefs are allowed to end when anothers begin..

[flowperson]

Ummmm...going back a bit Thomas, I believe that "how" one believes has everything to do with "what" one believes. Without a significant level of emotional investment, all belief becomes transitory. And, there are both negative and positive emotions as we all know from life's experiences.

I believe that there is justification for the truth in this approach for both Gnosticism and Orthodox-conservative Christianity. It's the way of humanity.

My intuition says that we are looking at a much deeper level of division here rather than just historical and philosophical approaches. The world is shattering itself in many ways, and I believe that over time people will increasingly gravitate towards belief systems that offer them more flexibility to apply moral standards in their lives, and, as you pointed out, Gnosticism appears to offer such flexibilty due to the wide diversity of its sources.

By the way it was The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trisgismestrus I believe. I've done considerable research into the origins of alchemy, and this work, attributed to the Egyptian god Thoth, was a foundational document in the practice. Thoth was said to have brought the knowledge of the art of metalworking to the ancient Egyptians, BTW. Most of the rest of the really ancient knowledge in alchemy came from India and China.

flow....