^^..hey thanks very much
jamie..i am truly glad you got something from this thread..
is the whole motivation to write anything online..
(speaking of which, apologies for the delay..have had a little net fatigue of late, and very busy)jamie wrote:
Quote:I want to weigh in and say no, that is not an adequate definition of gnosticism. Gnostic thought contains certain aspects beyond that, such as the idea that there is something inherently wrong with the world, it requires correction etc, and the gnostics were seeking some kind of liberation from this world and reunion with sophia in the pleroma.
Many people claim to be gnostics, because they have direct experiences. I think this is just sort of a new age appropriated take on it, and misses the actual point. Many of these people would probly be rather put off by some of the views the gnostics seem to have held about this world.
..i generally agree with you jamie..i've referred to 'Classical Gnosticism' and attempted to convey a general definition..which i tried to give in
this post on p1, starting with:
nen888 wrote:
Quote:Gnosticism comes from a point of view of attempting to explain the troubles and divisions in the world (or the mind) rather than seeking to exclude all externality in the way some eastern paths do..it was also highly critical of traditional church power structures..spiritual truth, they said, should be directly experienced by the observant (gnosis), not dictated by a priest or dogma..hence the Nag Hammadi collection, under a single editorial group, comprises various contrasting and different forms of gnosticism - from christian to almost 'pagan'..'abracadara' was a gnostic magical key word used in ritual, one of the few things known about the Gnostics except for what their persecutors wrote prior to the discovery at Nag Hammadi in1945..
they were branded heretics by the roman church for, amongst other crimes, allowing women and men to worship in the same room, and allowing discussion of deities/entities outside of orthodox christianity..
..and yes i think the term 'Gnostic' has become a very broad, or modern pastiche, definition, based on the literal meaning of the ancient greek word
gnosis γνῶσις - spiritual knowledge through direct experience
..the Golden Dawn (as in the late 19th/early 20th century esoteric lot, not the modern greek political party) did this to an extent, largely because there were almost no primary classical Gnostic texts still existing at that point, when interest in esoterica began to rise..the Nag Hammadi texts were not of course re-discovered until 1945, and not accessible to the public until the 70s -
cue Phillip K. Dick..i don't think he 'missed the point'..but i agree many fashionable uses of the word stray from the original gist..or what is common between the various diverging forms of ancient gnosticism
..if there is an emphasis equal to or greater than the higher order entity level of the 'troubles in the world', in the classical Gnostic texts, it is the core spirit experience which allows one to transcend and withstand or resist the troubles..that the essential 'spark' is uncorrupted..that the spirit dwells within all, beyond the reach of the 'archons', or the 'blind god', or the 'evil-doers', with purification of mind..and that we may each find emancipation in the knowledge and direct experience of the Source (or the Infinite Aeon, or the 'Father' etc) through Sophia (wisdom)
in
The Concept of Our Great Power we are told:
Quote:"..in this aeon, which is the psychic one, the man will come into being who knows the great Power. He will receive (me) and he will know me. He will drink from the milk of the mother, in fact. He will speak in parables; he will proclaim the aeon that is to come..."
and in the Christian Gnostic text
The Sophia of Jesus Christ,
Jesus says:
Quote:" 'He' is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another."
"And he has a semblance of his own - not like what you have seen and received, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the universe. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. Since it is infinite, he is ever incomprehensible. He is imperishable and has no likeness (to anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is eternal. He is blessed. While he is not known, he ever knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishability blessed..."
..similar to descriptions of 'Brahman'...Jesus in India, anyone? ..but that's another story/thread..
thanks again jamie for your comments..i wish you well on your paths of enquiry..
and may Sophia emancipate us all..
.