Gnosticism...

SallyMander wrote:

Take two for echi. I'm probably addressing too much at once. "Gnowing" means gnostic revelation below.

[1] Premise: Revealed knowledge (gnowing) of the divine (or divine being) is a personal event between man and god. (This principle became popular in Europe during the Enlightenment.)

[2] Even assuming that, man experiences all through his/her human faculties. By virtue of differences and human means of "representing," or "experiencing," human experience is individual, relative, and subjective. ("Angry" to me feels different and "is" a different _experience_ for me than "angry" to you.) Thus, because of our widely varying inner experience, we would be unlikely to experience the divine or a divine being as any other human would. Where does that leave "gnowing"? Each person's "knowledge" of the divine would be relative and subjective, right?

[3] Therefore, divine "is" absolute, but its experience by multiple individuals has integrity only if we were all one, and also one with the divine. That oneness would have to exist beyond (human, worldly) time and space, to assure the integrity of the divine and individual perception of it. (A gnostic principle?)

I don't know if it is a gnostic principle, but I believe it to be true.

Quote:

[4] Fact: The human brain at times processes perception and fancy through the same neurological centers, thus, at times we experience fact and fancy as "the same." In human mode, how do we know we "gnow"?

[5] We cannot separate for sure our own relative-subjective perception from divine revelation while we exist in human form.

I believe that is exactly what "gnosis" is all about.

Quote:

Therefore, we would have to die (abandon flesh) to "experience" the universal undistorted. Yet we have to deal with Earthly matters in life. Would we know that we "gnow" by faith? Would our prophecies be more likely to come true than the predictions of those less in the gnow?

I am unaware of any gnostic prophecy.

Quote:

[6] Despite the dogma of Western religion, it would seem useless to codify "knowledge" of the divine into religion because we as humans experience and represent our gnowing drastically differently. Where does that put churches, liturgy, and Bible/Koran, etc.?

Any clearer? A little disjointed, I guess.

[7] 2. Meanwhile, as humans, if one knows what's going on intuitively (or by common sense) or absolutely, why cite sources even in human existence? No substantiation would add to or detract from absolute truth.

Yet, what if humans "gnow" opposing things? How would we know whether THEY gnow about something happening on the planet? They could make the right prediction based on the wrong reasons/phenomena. Or we could simply see "it" differently and assume our way is correct and gnown.

[8] Could we know by how pious/faithful the speaker?
[9] By the way we intuitively feel in their presence?
[10] By the history of what they have said and done (could they never be wrong)?
[11] By science--the antithesis of divine revelation?

I have found that science and reason are supportive of my spiritual convictions.

Quote:

Any more intelligible, echi?

Too many suppositions and questions? Remember, I'm barely hatched.

No problem, Sal. It seems that I'm a relatively slow thinker. Embarrassed

0 Replies

azure wrote:

I'm not Gnostic but do follow Buddhist philosophy.
I find there are similarities but major differences.
Gnostics do believe in a form of enlightenment and also similar to eastern religion they believed in reincarnation. However Buddhism sets itself apart from it all because they do not hold a heirarchy or believe in a particular deity.

IMO, The gnostic idea of God is very similar to the Dharma. "God" is thought of as similar to "natural law", or the "way of nature" (also similar to the Tao).
The demiurge/creator god of the Old Testament is not the true God, but more closely represents Satan. Meanwhile, the serpent represents not Satan, but Christ! (But then, there are many so-called "gnostic" interpretations and ideas.)

Quote:

I also find that people wil dismiss Gnostism because its based on hidden knowledge but if we were to look at other religions they also have similar sects. For example The Vedas in Hinduism and Kabbalah in Judiaism.

My understanding is that the "hidden knowledge" of gnosticism is/was the result of a very effective campaign by the Catholic Church to destroy gnosticism and all factual records of its existence.

0 Replies

You're right about that similarity Echi but perhaps it my own perception of the major difference involving the deity or deities that originated in Gnostism. For example the deity that created the old testament is readily or was readily viewed as a minor God. I have also read and heard that some Gnostics believed the inventor of the old testament was a bad angel or lesser God who was unable to achieve a creation worthy of permaneance. This does not correlate with buddhism in my mind however the state of enlightenment and becoming does correlate to Budhism to me. Just my thoughts of course that Gnostism thought of deities almost seems to relate to Paganism.

Your point abouut a catholic campaign is thought by many. It would be awfully hard to really know the whole truth considering all that happened during that time period and the conversions by guilt and force. But we do at east know in part that the Gnostics believed in obtaining knowledge to advance into enlightement, perhaps awakening more so then hidden.

BTW: If you do find Gnostic teachings and such interesting you might want to also look at the 5,000 year old Egyptian text called "Alchemy of the soul." It is quite similar in forms of enlightment and such. I never heard of it before until reading it recently.

0 Replies

azure--

Right. I'm with you. As far as similarities are concerned, I was mainly focussing on the ends, not the means.
To your point about the shrouded history of gnostic persecution by Catholicism, I honestly can't remember the source from which I got that information. I am confident it is correct (otherwise I trust I would not have remembered it as such), but I will find evidence and post it, anyway. I really should try harder to avoid posting unsubstantiated claims. I apologize. (But it's still true!) Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
Therefore, we would have to die (abandon flesh) to "experience" the universal undistorted. Yet we have to deal with Earthly matters in life. Would we know that we "gnow" by faith? Would our prophecies be more likely to come true than the predictions of those less in the gnow?

I am unaware of any gnostic prophecy.

I may get the quote thing right this time. (Still wondering how to create those nifty little white boxes. Confused

)

I wasn't thinking of holy prophecy. Rather, that if what the Gnostics said would happen--happened--it would add credibility to the idea that they had an in with verities revealed by the gods/god to only a few.

I am now wondering if the personal (Protestant) god-think of the Enlightenment extends the Classical notion of the enlightened few to everyman's direct potential relationship with hir god/creator/omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent being.

0 Replies

SallyMander wrote:

Take two for echi. I'm probably addressing too much at once. "Gnowing" means gnostic revelation below.

[1] Premise: Revealed knowledge (gnowing) of the divine (or divine being) is a personal event between man and god. (This principle became popular in Europe during the Enlightenment.)

[2] Even assuming that, man experiences all through his/her human faculties.

By 'human faculties,' do you mean 'sensory perception?' Our interaction with environment and the subsequent mental processing of same?

If so, then I'd have to say that,
at first, man experiences all through this means--this the manner we start out in our knowing from birth. It is also the basic idea behind 'blindness' and even 'original sin.' It is ego--the separation of the ethereal reality due to the barrier that being an individual provides for distraction.

That is the foundation for dualism, and is man's necessary starting point. But not the desired end.

Quote:

By virtue of differences and human means of "representing," or "experiencing," human experience is individual, relative, and subjective. ("Angry" to me feels different and "is" a different _experience_ for me than "angry" to you.) Thus, because of our widely varying inner experience, we would be unlikely to experience the divine or a divine being as any other human would.

Widely varying inner experience is not truly 'inner,' it is, again, mechanics of the ego. Those types of experiences are similar to 'on the inside looking out.' But after the ego is battled and discarded, one begins to view
the world 'outside' the self. It is a more objective perspective because it is no longer hampered by the false delusion of separation from the rest of what 'is.'

Quote:

Where does that leave "gnowing"? Each person's "knowledge" of the divine would be relative and subjective, right?

Absolutely not. It might be presented, to others, in a way that differs in expression due to environment, heredity, and experience, but two people, that are in the stage of gnosis in their individual journeys of spiritual evolution, will easily identify and relate to one another--and language, finally, seems to lose its restrictive hold on true communication.

Jung talked about 'archetypes.' These are the universal symbols that rise up in our minds and which transcend normal human methods of sharing information. They haven't changed in 6,000 years, although we are easily distracted by cultural differences that make things seem 'conflicting' in the world, when really it all boils down to just one thing for all of us.

Quote:

[3] Therefore, divine "is" absolute, but its experience by multiple individuals has integrity only if we were all one,

It does, because we are.

Quote:

and also one with the divine.

And we are.

Quote:

That oneness would have to exist beyond (human, worldly) time and space,

It does, most definitely.

Quote:

to assure the integrity of the divine and individual perception of it. (A gnostic principle?)

Exactly. That is an excellent break-down of the underlying essence of gnosis.

Quote:

[4] Fact: The human brain at times processes perception and fancy through the same neurological centers, thus, at times we experience fact and fancy as "the same." In human mode, how do we know we "gnow"?

We don't. We can't. Gnowing is on a deeper level--at a place where we don't play our deception games upon ourselves.

Quote:

[5] We cannot separate for sure our own relative-subjective perception from divine revelation while we exist in human form.

Or maybe it would be more accurate to say 'human mode.'

Quote:

Therefore, we would have to die (abandon flesh) to "experience" the universal undistorted.

This has been my experience. However 'dying' has three separate levels, just as our minds/beings do: Subconscious, superconscious, and ego.

Quote:

Yet we have to deal with Earthly matters in life.

But we don't have to remain bound by that reality. It is transient and illusory.

Quote:

Would we know that we "gnow" by faith?

Well, you just gnow.

Quote:

Would our prophecies be more likely to come true than the predictions of those less in the gnow?

Prophesy is distorted according to modern definitions.

Prophesying, in the original sense of the word, is basically experiencing gnosis. It is not prognostication, because it transcends future, present, and past--beyond time and space.

Quote:

[6] Despite the dogma of Western religion, it would seem useless to codify "knowledge" of the divine into religion because we as humans experience and represent our gnowing drastically differently. Where does that put churches, liturgy, and Bible/Koran, etc.?

Delusion. The total opposite of gnosis.

Quote:

[7] 2. Meanwhile, as humans, if one knows what's going on intuitively (or by common sense) or absolutely, why cite sources even in human existence? No substantiation would add to or detract from absolute truth.

Human common sense is only dealing with one side of the whole--it is rooted in a dualistic perspective.

Quote:

Yet, what if humans "gnow" opposing things?

Then one or both do not really gnow--if it is one, the other will know. But more than likely won't reveal that--it is part of the wisdom that comes from the gnowing.

Quote:

How would we know whether THEY gnow about something happening on the planet?

You can't know what another might gnow.

Quote:

They could make the right prediction based on the wrong reasons/phenomena. Or we could simply see "it" differently and assume our way is correct and gnown.

Actually, that whole concept is not truly something concerning gnosis--it is psychic and of a transitive illusion.

Quote:

[8] Could we know by how pious/faithful the speaker?

It won't appear as such--those are also fleshly ideas--unseen piety is truly holy (pure.)

Quote:

[9] By the way we intuitively feel in their presence?

Possibly. That depends on you, not them, though.

Quote:

[10] By the history of what they have said and done (could they never be wrong)?

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when you get to the gnowing phase.

Quote:

[11] By science--the antithesis of divine revelation?

Gnosis makes it clear that science is just one facet of the whole--religion and art are other facets. They are really connected permanently and harmoniously.

0 Replies

Thanks, echi and Queen Annie. Deja vu. Cool

Sally

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Right. I'm with you. As far as similarities are concerned, I was mainly focusing on the ends, not the means.

That's what it's all about! The ends.

Not the means.

The ends is really just 'the same end.'

The means is the 'path.'

One for every pair of feet.

Gnosis is more on the ends side rather than the means side.

0 Replies

SallyMander wrote:

I wasn't thinking of holy prophecy. Rather, that if what the Gnostics said would happen--happened--it would add credibility to the idea that they had an in with verities revealed by the gods/god to only a few.

The thing about the idea of 'the Gnostics' is that there wasn't such a group philosophy as such...when it gets to the times of Valentinius and Marcion, it is no longer true gnosis, but rather had become just another flavor of religion. Gnosis defies group interpretation. The writings that were left at Nag Hammadi didn't necessarily come from that kind of setting.

That is probably why they have slightly various tones and symbolic themes--although generally contemporary with one another as far as the times they were passed around--they are most likely writings which came from individually scattered souls originally--one here, one there, etc.

We don't have a whole lot of proof that there ever was any sort of 'gnostic society' before the modern version came along--there is much talk about how they 'died out' for around 1500 years--but maybe they never existed in the form we are are wont to believe they had.

Gnosis is also the realization of full revelation--all the things that biblical/Hebrew prophecies, and the NT prophecies, point to--essentially these are all pointing to the arrival at gnosis. Literally spiritual resurrection, from what I understand. There is no need for what we consider prophesy in that stage of life--it is the fulfillment of all prophesy--which is actually about the individual. It is only through each individual that a world (kosmos) can be reunited. One at a time.

Quote:

I am now wondering if the personal (Protestant) god-think of the Enlightenment extends the Classical notion of the enlightened few to everyman's direct potential relationship with hir god/creator/omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent being.

Pardon my dumb question, but are you referring to that of the Reformation? Luther, Tynedale? Or something else?

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
I am now wondering if the personal (Protestant) god-think of the Enlightenment extends the Classical notion of the enlightened few to everyman's direct potential relationship with hir god/creator/omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent being.

Pardon my dumb question, but are you referring to that of the Reformation? Luther, Tynedale? Or something else?

Hm. Not a dumb question--maybe a dumb reference on my part. In my amphibious shorthand, I interconnect the two, framing modern printing as a pre-Enlightenment agent of change and the Protestant Reformation as a pre-Enlightenment phenomenon--even if the two are usually held in opposition. Maybe my bad. I think in relation to 18th-19th century.

Modern printing brought ideas and information previously available to a powerful and select few to many people as published text. Personal Bibles, all kinds of philosophical and scientific text, and even mass-produced smut <g> fed into rejection of kings, clerics and scholars. Dissenters championed personal relationships with god, but also challenged the divine right of kings. Late eighteenth-century dissenters championed science, natural law, and even deism.

With modern printing and dissemination of information and ideas, "How do we know?" became a hot religious AND secular topic--even if some people "gnew" all along. Smile

Knowing god, knowing mathematics, knowing natural rights, and knowing whether the Earth is round, seem related through the spread of ideas and thought. Elevating the individual as a thinker and decision maker goes with freeing of education/learning from church control and freeing society from the divine right of kings. Enlightenment era is a broader and more inclusive marker for me than the Reformation.

Considering what was happening at the time, mysticism and science may be at odds by historical accident (Descartes). The split occurred within the rise of modern science, anti-government, and anti-clerical (Catholic) feeling. The Church was in with the kings and held control of information and institutions of learning. Splitting of science and religion in that context becomes a top-down effort to recork the bottle and unrepresentative of the rising trends in out-of-power circles.

The gnostic connection? Somewhere in there I wonder if gnostic, deist, and natural law perspectives would overlap--conceivably in part through Freemasonry.

Yes, it would seem absurd to have gnostic churches/clubs, as I imagine the philosophy. But societies such as Masonic/Scottish Rite provided a natural fit, yes?

Sally

0 Replies

SallyMander wrote:

Quote:
Hm. Not a dumb question--maybe a dumb reference on my part.

Not at all!!

Thanks for the frame of reference--I follow you.

Quote:

Considering what was happening at the time, mysticism and science may be at odds by historical accident (Descartes).

I feel certain of that.

Quote:

The split occurred within the rise of modern science, anti-government, and anti-clerical (Catholic) feeling. The Church was in with the kings and held control of information and institutions of learning.

Thing to remember that our last 'oppressive king' came in the religious entity that rose from the final true 'world empires'--Rome. When it fell, the world changed. The Vatican is it's 'ghost.' But it's not anything other than a new flavor on top of the same old soda pop.

The age of enlightenment is a perfect tag--truly that was the first breaking through of light rays in the dark clouds that reigned since the last ice age melted/world deluge...

The very first signs of victory, so to speak.

Quote:

Splitting of science and religion in that context becomes a top-down effort to recork the bottle and unrepresentative of the rising trends in out-of-power circles.

Perhaps. I know what you mean--I perceive it more like 'damage control' when they couldn't get the cork back on and knew it. The times we call the 'dark ages.'

Quote:

The gnostic connection? Somewhere in there I wonder if gnostic, deist, and natural law perspectives would overlap--conceivably in part through Freemasonry.

True gnosis is beyond connection--it is the connection, or at least the experience/understanding/realizing of the underlying permanent unity of the all.

Quote:

Yes, it would seem absurd to have gnostic churches/clubs, as I imagine the philosophy.

Maybe it might be clearer for you if you discarded the mental picture of gnosis being a philosophy (or anything else of structure.) It is unbound, limitless, and without any partiality.
We seek it through religion, but it cannot be found there--religion is a starting block (not the only one, but a common one).

Religions are division incarnate. Gnosis is unity, beginning as first internal and then intertwined with the all.

Quote:

But societies such as Masonic/Scottish Rite provided a natural fit, yes?

At first--but then it was 'fellowship.' All religious fellowships are sooner or later 'infiltrated' by the world. Then they are no longer pure--not holy but profane.

All along we were meant to be the only true temples--each pure soul is a shrine, but some are not in use. But all souls will become pure at some point ahead of us. Somehow...

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
The gnostic connection? Somewhere in there I wonder if gnostic, deist, and natural law perspectives would overlap--conceivably in part through Freemasonry.

True gnosis is beyond connection--it is the connection, or at least the experience/understanding/realizing of the underlying permanent unity of the all.

Yes, I think I'm getting onto what you're saying. Smile

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, it would seem absurd to have gnostic churches/clubs, as I imagine the philosophy.

Maybe it might be clearer for you if you discarded the mental picture of gnosis being a philosophy (or anything else of structure.) It is unbound, limitless, and without any partiality.
We seek it through religion, but it cannot be found there--religion is a starting block (not the only one, but a common one).

Religions are division incarnate. Gnosis is unity, beginning as first internal and then intertwined with the all.

Yep. Makes much more sense apart from religion or philosophy.

Quote:

Quote:
But societies such as Masonic/Scottish Rite provided a natural fit, yes?

At first--but then it was 'fellowship.' All religious fellowships are sooner or later 'infiltrated' by the world. Then they are no longer pure--not holy but profane.

All along we were meant to be the only true temples--each pure soul is a shrine, but some are not in use. But all souls will become pure at some point ahead of us. Somehow...
Quote:

Well, that gets into belief systems and expectations such as the Earth not being destroyed by its inhabitants or driven into caves by scourge and war. Time or sequence does not necessarily evolve into gain. I see us more as a big kaleidoscope where some are more aware of the experience and flow than others.

Thanks, Queen Annie!

Sal

0 Replies

ill tell you a secret before you enter heaven, God will test you, and send an angel to apear infront of you as god, if you bow down to the angel and worship him as god then youll go to heaven but youll never get to see Gods true form. but if you see beyond the angel and realize the secret, that what is infront of you cannot be your creator GOD almighty and it has to be the creation of GOD then youll be able to see Gods true form, and sent to heaven to be with the prophets.

0 Replies

That's superstition, not gnosis.

Religion. Gnosis reveals religion for what it is.

Religion is that angel...

0 Replies

echi wrote:

There have been more varieties of Gnosticism....

These days, the word almost always describes a (somewhat) Christian sect that is very similar to Buddhism.

this really piqued my interest. could you explain this a little further for me ?

and perhaps, there is an opportunity to start a thread that discusses the commonalities between the 2 practices ?

dtom

0 Replies

You know, that's a good idea--one I'm pretty into...directly because of experiences.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

echi wrote:
There have been more varieties of Gnosticism....

These days, the word almost always describes a (somewhat) Christian sect that is very similar to Buddhism.

this really piqued my interest. could you explain this a little further for me ?

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been busy with lovesickness. Sad

I'm still not back in top form. I cannot tap into the part of my brain that is capable of giving you a good answer. Someone (queen annie!!) should start a thread on this topic.

0 Replies

hmmm, if i get free, i'll try to put together a thread on it. always interested in learning more. :wink:

0 Replies

I did it.

Right here.

Obviously, I sacrificed a witty start in favor of just starting...
But I know you guys will remedy that, right? Wink

0 Replies

queen annie wrote:

I did it.

Right here.

Obviously, I sacrificed a witty start in favor of just starting...
But I know you guys will remedy that, right?

okay. put down a couple of things over there. thanks for giving it a li'l push. :wink:

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know