Gnostic Nirvana?

hmmm, not sure, since i don't know that much about gnosticism.

as i understand it, gnosticism views jesus as a man of normal biological birth who became a compelling teacher and perhaps (?) rabbi who spoke out against the roman emperor's claim of divine birth.

siddartha gautama /aka the buddha was born in nepal around 600bc into a royal family. as a young prince he was struck by the differences between his existence and that of his people, which led him to leave his home and comfort and pursue "the truth".

one of the obvious differences between the teachings of jesus and the buddha seem to be that jesus spoke about enlightenment in a way that relied on the blessing of god, while the buddha taught that enlightenment would come through your own efforts.

both have the intention of easing human suffering one by salvation and one by arduous practice.

this is way too simplistic, but it gives us a place to take off from.

I started this thread, and then unforeseen circumstances kept me off-line for some time. But I hope to pick up the topic; maybe someone else is interested, too.

As far as gnosticism and Yehoshua (Christ) goes, there's not the same concern over who he was as might be imagined. What I mean is, the focus of gnosis is not about defining understandings as a group or philosophy--it's about individual experiences of 'knowing.'

Christianity teaches enlightenment as 'salvation' and pushes the 'Gotta please the tyrant' self-rescue program--but the bible doesn't truly relate what is widely assumed (that is, if you read only the red letter parts). If one disregards all but the words of either Christ or Buddha (or rather, that which we have recorded as being said by them), completely devoid of anything else (including christianity and buddhism themselves)...

what they both say is actually the same message as far as gaining proximity to the divine.

The merit system is based on love and losing the walls of ego that separate us from each other.

Once we gain the proper perspective, clarity results. But the viewpoint of the ego, of selfishness, will never allow sight of the higher reality. One must love others sincerely in order to be given truth. And they must love the truth in order to follow it.

That's where these two teachers speak to us from--both instruct us to look within and to only look at self--but to understand those around us as a literal part of ourselves (with forgiveness, compassion, and acceptance), and to act accordingly.

Christ said 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Buddha said 'If you do not care for each other, who will care for you?'

Christ said, 'Don't worry about food and clothing and what you'll need tomorrow.' (paraphrased, it's the 'lillies of the field' speech)
Buddha said, 'When wishes are few, the heart is happy. When desire ends, there is peace.'

In the Gospel of Thomas (so-called gnostic text), there are several sayings which mention 'emptiness,' in the same manner as Buddha extolled.

Gnosticism has little real similarity to Buddhism; they expressions of different fundamental conceptions of the Universe and Ultimate Realities. One arose from Abrahamic roots, while the other developed in Hindu Northeast India. One tauts a means for a select few to attain Godly wisdom, and the other is a prescription that may be followed by anyone seeking surcease from suffering.

Gnosticism was a late development of Christianity. What we know of it today was based on a number of obscure gospels, most of which date well after the accepted cannon (themselves written a generation, or more after the founders ministry). The Gnostic gospels tend to be exclusive in tone and never so far as we know were widely accepted as being "true" to the teachings of Christ. Mainstream Christianity suppressed the the minority Gnostics as heretical, and they vanished (for all practical purposes) from Christian doctrine. Revival of modern Gnosticism dates only from the mid-20th century, when a number of Gnostic writings (mostly fragments) were discovered near an early Christian settlement. Interpretation of the newly discovered documents and their fragements still remain tangled in theological dispute. Some claim to discern Gnostic influences in several minor Christian sects, none of which had wide acceptance nor survived for very long.

The Pali texts of Buddhism followed by the Theravada date very close to the time of the historical Buddha, and are still authorative with most Buddhists and Buddhist sects. There aren't a whole lot of similarities between Theravada and the modern Gnostics. What similarties that do seem to exist between modern Gnostisicm and Buddhism, are found mainly in the Sanscrit texts of Mahayana Buddhism.

Mahayana Buddhism developed several hundred years later, and Mahayana texts in Sanscrit are regarded somewhat as "hidden teachings" of the Buddha. Buddhist sutras/texts are very formualistic, and their teachings put into the mouth of either the Buddha, or one of his famous disciples. Actually, the doctrines/teachings are widely known by Buddhist scholars to be the result of several hundred years of theological study, argumentation, and theory. Nothing in the Sanscrit texts that I know of contradicts the earlier Pali documents, they are expansions and interpretations of Theravada doctrine, not a repudiation of them.

Mahayana Buddhism adopted a number of doctrines that made it more accessible to the laitity. The adaptations of Mahayana changed it from a minor Indian sect followed by a small band of monks into a world-class religion that spread throughout Asia. Today, most Buddhists follow one or another of the Mahayana branches or sects, and Theravada is mostly found in Southeast Asia, especially Ceylon.

If "gnosticism" has a relationship with "esoteric Christianity" then the Gurdjieff literature may be relevent here.

http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/fourthway.htm

Gurdjieff's system had a concept of the possibility of man being able to escape the "law of accident" and becoming part of "the Absolute". Some might interpret that synonymous with Nirvana.

I used to think gnostics were a type of pasta..

Until I tried to bite one.

Actually, isn't the root word gnosis, meaning knowledge?

Yes, gnosis (grk, knowledge), is the root of Gnositic. The esoteric "knowledge" contained in the Gnostic writings supposedly lead to mystical power. The "knowledge" claimed by the Gnostics wasn't inclusive, but exclusive to a small spiritually advanced few. Though many claim that the Gnostic writings are "feminist", scholars believe that the evidence is clear that they are as male oriented as more conventional christian doctrines. There are a lot of misunderstandings and disputes over exactly how the so-called Gnostic writings should be regarded. Working with them is somewhat like trying to reconstruct life in a vanished age from a partial skelton of an extinct animal.

An excellent turn of phrase.

In regard to the religions/philosophies, themselves, I would have to say I agree.

However, my interest isn't toward the religious slants and subsequent differences...(inevitable Kipling-ish east meets west, perhaps?

Men make religions--either directly and on purpose (such as L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith); or they build them in the wake of the turbulence caused when a light truly shines truth in this world. Amid the highly debatable, never humanly resolvable, question of whether or not 'truth' does actually exist and can be realized somehow--the most significant effect is our human confusion, trying to make sense of that we cannot fathom. Out of the scrabble to follow, we create religions and then name them after their inspiration--and the generations who follow are easily mistaken when they believe that the person so named actually started the religion (when in fact, surely, a new or revised religion is the last thing on Earth a truly enlightened soul would desire to instigate).

The Buddha and Christ, neither one (IMO) sought to build that which now exists in their respective names. If that were so, then both would have to be total hypocrites--seeking the type of egoism that they did not teach or example.


I understand what you are saying--from the outside it would seem accurate. I know that as far as Buddhism goes, you are one that has an 'inside' perspective--and because of that, I'm happy that you posted here. Your input is much needed.


No. But that one statement could birth its own robust thread, so I won't divert into my ideas about that here. That is a widely accepted idea, though, but it's based on a lack of evidence more than actual evidence, it would seem.



That's the key, right there! What we know of it today...

We really know nothing--what we 'know' we have guessed at and conjectured by way of elimination and assumption. We really don't even know for sure that there were a group of people who identified themselves in the same manner in which we attempt some 2,000 years later. Most of what we have is relatively recently discovered texts--which had been only mentioned briefly, in prejudice, in some of the early Church Father's writings.

Those alone do tell us that Gnosticism (if it existed as such) was not a development of christianity (the kind we know today) but rather seemed to be something needed extermination--quick!

You posted good information about why we really can't assume anything about Gnosticism (as a religion). We just don't have enough evidence to know.


On that, I totally believe what you say. Modern 'gnostics' (at least those of a structured sort of following, that I have personally met and talked to) are seeking gnosis but are not gnostics. It seems to me that they're trying to reinvent something according to what they think people 2000 years ago thought--but there has been no continuity...and they look without rather than within...



Thanks for that information! I am familiar with those names, but didn't know those details--my studies in Buddhism have not been of a very wide scope--I've been most interested in what is available regarding Prince Guatama's life, although I do have a general understanding of the history of Buddhism and the branches it has formed (but poor recollection of the specific names, etc).

I'm not a meditator (just a non-stop contemplator) and so I am drawn more to koans and proverbs--my grasp on buddhism is simplistic and Zen-flavored--basically I didn't get into Buddhism (and I'm not) or search for something within it--my studying led me there and it was more like I found a school of thought, so to speak, that chimed in with the way of thinking that I'd always had...

Anyway. About the 'secret teachings.' The Gospel of Thomas is known as 'the secret teachings' as well--basically a collection of a teacher's sayings as recorded, list-fashion, by a disciple. And, although generally there is much speculation and debate concerning their 'biblical correctness,' personally, I have found all the sayings to have meaning--without any conflict or contradiction of the canon (as well as the uncanonized 'christian' texts that are available).

Gnosis isn't a group thing--it is totally individual by necessity. My understanding of the 'Way', from both an eastern and western perspective,
is that it is a solitary journey that must be compassionate and aware. It is
the individuals approach to life--and along the way, the ego dies.