Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
I was wondering does anyone think that it is possible to reconcile the various traditional Gnostic views with each other as a coherant movement or could it be that the Valentinians, Sethians etc should be viewed as independent movements and that the very term Gnosticism might be innaccurate when trying to deal with them.
Varying viewpoints
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Shepard of Arcadia
In the academic front this is a hot debate.... which may be why you brought it up?
I wonder if you will forgive that I maybe suggest a more personal view? Though it is not one that is wholey rejected by the academic outlines.
The Sethian and the Valentinian model are not so far removed from each other. Yes, they are independant movements (sects, categorical destinctions), but the connections are very real as well. In fact, you don't need to "reconcile" them so much as to simply understand the common lingo in both of them that already exists.
Because I think you may be talking about academic outlines, let me start from that direction. Even though Dr Williams (and many have taken his very important work on the subject to heart) suggests that perhaps "Gnosticism" is a destinction that has inaccurate baggage, he does not go so far as to say these various sects are not related. Whether or not you wish to question the term "Gnosticism" I am not aware of anyone, practitioner or sholor, who has suggested that the Valentinian and Sethian groups were not related.
From the practitioner stance, may I point out that in fact the lingo of the Sethian and Valentinian outlines were closely enough related that even heresiologists in thier own time connected the movements.... and the very fact that the Nag Hammadi texts include both show an interaction.
It is not only possible to reconcile these movements, I would go so far as to say that doing so could present a person with a foundation of the origins of most western esoteric doctrins up to the modern era.
This is why a "Gnosticism" forum is important here, in my view (and why I think keeping the focus is also so important (Chela, a challenge to prove me wrong again)). I honestly believe that if one does not understand the origins of one's movement, then one does not understand the movement itself.... and Gnosticism has influenced more movements, either directly or indirectly, than just about any movement that I can think of in the western world.
OK, my own bias.... I know, that is a tall claim... but if you want to challenge me on that I will back it up.
PMCV
Shepard of Arcadia
I was wondering does anyone think that it is possible to reconcile the various traditional Gnostic views with each other as a coherant movement or could it be that the Valentinians, Sethians etc should be viewed as independent movements and that the very term Gnosticism might be innaccurate when trying to deal with them.
In the academic front this is a hot debate.... which may be why you brought it up?
I wonder if you will forgive that I maybe suggest a more personal view? Though it is not one that is wholey rejected by the academic outlines.
The Sethian and the Valentinian model are not so far removed from each other. Yes, they are independant movements (sects, categorical destinctions), but the connections are very real as well. In fact, you don't need to "reconcile" them so much as to simply understand the common lingo in both of them that already exists.
Because I think you may be talking about academic outlines, let me start from that direction. Even though Dr Williams (and many have taken his very important work on the subject to heart) suggests that perhaps "Gnosticism" is a destinction that has inaccurate baggage, he does not go so far as to say these various sects are not related. Whether or not you wish to question the term "Gnosticism" I am not aware of anyone, practitioner or sholor, who has suggested that the Valentinian and Sethian groups were not related.
From the practitioner stance, may I point out that in fact the lingo of the Sethian and Valentinian outlines were closely enough related that even heresiologists in thier own time connected the movements.... and the very fact that the Nag Hammadi texts include both show an interaction.
It is not only possible to reconcile these movements, I would go so far as to say that doing so could present a person with a foundation of the origins of most western esoteric doctrins up to the modern era.
This is why a "Gnosticism" forum is important here, in my view (and why I think keeping the focus is also so important (Chela, a challenge to prove me wrong again)). I honestly believe that if one does not understand the origins of one's movement, then one does not understand the movement itself.... and Gnosticism has influenced more movements, either directly or indirectly, than just about any movement that I can think of in the western world.
OK, my own bias.... I know, that is a tall claim... but if you want to challenge me on that I will back it up.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: uraeusheap
I hope I'm not hijacking the thread here, but thinking in terms of forming a coherent movement... and speaking of practitioners as well as scholars... I find I'm quite frustrated by the fact that most discussions of Gnosticism are so theoretical, although I suppose the deficiency might be in my own reading.
What was the nitty-gritty of daily practice for Gnostics? If they prayed to God, what did they call him and what did they say? If they meditated, on what? Were there any texts or interpretations of texts that were truly occult (i.e. officially, deliberately kept secret), and what barriers and hierarchy were organized around them.
I hope I'm not hijacking the thread here, but thinking in terms of forming a coherent movement... and speaking of practitioners as well as scholars... I find I'm quite frustrated by the fact that most discussions of Gnosticism are so theoretical, although I suppose the deficiency might be in my own reading.
What was the nitty-gritty of daily practice for Gnostics? If they prayed to God, what did they call him and what did they say? If they meditated, on what? Were there any texts or interpretations of texts that were truly occult (i.e. officially, deliberately kept secret), and what barriers and hierarchy were organized around them.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Uraeusheap, I don't think that is "hijacking the thread" at all, in fact I think that is a very good question.
I think that there are many who are overly ready to draw a line between what is understood by Scholors and practitioners, so I am refreshed by the fact that you used the terms in conjunction. I DO understand that you may feel some frustration by the fact that discussions of the topic seem so theorhetical, but may I point out that even the original Gnostic texts tend to maintane that stance.... and for good reason. The specifics of Gnostic practice has traditionally only been passed on to Gnostic practitioners. The theorhetic discussion is much like the fact that when higher math and physics are passed on to the general reader they are reduced to theorhetic outlines.... this is simply because it is the practical way to communicate in the given situation that is removed from specialization.
You may not know this, but the existance of this forum within the "Occult Forums" was debated. What you have just asked was in fact the essential outline as to why "Gnosticism" should even be here in this list of forums. Specifically speaking, in order to be "Occult" there must be a secret doctrin (just as you point out). Not only does the Gnostic system have this secret doctrin, it is in part the origin of much of the western outlines of such doctrins. The Gnostic system (as part of the neoplatonist/neopythagorian/classical hermetic outline) is one of the grandfathers of all western occult systems.
However, I will be honest in saying that I believe that the Gnostic/Pythagorean/Neaplatonist understanding of "God" is quite degenerate in the way most modern "Occult" organizations interperate it. I don't mean that to say that the movements themselves are less valueable, but that often where they borrow from traditional Gnosticism they do not contain the core of the system itself.... in the very function of "Gnosis". There is a reason that Gnostic texts don't outline any kind of "prayer to God" in that they don't really worship a "God" in the commonly understood meaning of the word. I can demosntrate this further if you feel I am not being clear, but the point is this is not a religion that worships. In fact, doing so would be against the point.
Meditation? maybe a bit more to the point in the fact that interperatation of meaning is so important. Considering the fact that "God" is called a "Fool", andthe true source is not concious because of temporal designations, the word "Meditation" could have an important connotation here.
Still, the prime function in "Gnosticism" must remain the very meaning of the word "Gnosis", which I think most people misunderstand.
PMCV
Uraeusheap, I don't think that is "hijacking the thread" at all, in fact I think that is a very good question.
speaking of practitioners as well as scholars... I find I'm quite frustrated by the fact that most discussions of Gnosticism are so theoretical, although I suppose the deficiency might be in my own reading.
I think that there are many who are overly ready to draw a line between what is understood by Scholors and practitioners, so I am refreshed by the fact that you used the terms in conjunction. I DO understand that you may feel some frustration by the fact that discussions of the topic seem so theorhetical, but may I point out that even the original Gnostic texts tend to maintane that stance.... and for good reason. The specifics of Gnostic practice has traditionally only been passed on to Gnostic practitioners. The theorhetic discussion is much like the fact that when higher math and physics are passed on to the general reader they are reduced to theorhetic outlines.... this is simply because it is the practical way to communicate in the given situation that is removed from specialization.
What was the nitty-gritty of daily practice for Gnostics? If they prayed to God, what did they call him and what did they say? If they meditated, on what? Were there any texts or interpretations of texts that were truly occult (i.e. officially, deliberately kept secret), and what barriers and hierarchy were organized around them.
You may not know this, but the existance of this forum within the "Occult Forums" was debated. What you have just asked was in fact the essential outline as to why "Gnosticism" should even be here in this list of forums. Specifically speaking, in order to be "Occult" there must be a secret doctrin (just as you point out). Not only does the Gnostic system have this secret doctrin, it is in part the origin of much of the western outlines of such doctrins. The Gnostic system (as part of the neoplatonist/neopythagorian/classical hermetic outline) is one of the grandfathers of all western occult systems.
However, I will be honest in saying that I believe that the Gnostic/Pythagorean/Neaplatonist understanding of "God" is quite degenerate in the way most modern "Occult" organizations interperate it. I don't mean that to say that the movements themselves are less valueable, but that often where they borrow from traditional Gnosticism they do not contain the core of the system itself.... in the very function of "Gnosis". There is a reason that Gnostic texts don't outline any kind of "prayer to God" in that they don't really worship a "God" in the commonly understood meaning of the word. I can demosntrate this further if you feel I am not being clear, but the point is this is not a religion that worships. In fact, doing so would be against the point.
Meditation? maybe a bit more to the point in the fact that interperatation of meaning is so important. Considering the fact that "God" is called a "Fool", andthe true source is not concious because of temporal designations, the word "Meditation" could have an important connotation here.
Still, the prime function in "Gnosticism" must remain the very meaning of the word "Gnosis", which I think most people misunderstand.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: uraeusheap
I'm still confused but less confused.
There are 2 types of occult communities:
- the kind that keep secrets and admit it
- the kind that keep secrets and deny it, they will not admit their existence to laymen. Do they really exist? If they do, they haven't told me yet.
The first type is more likely to experience difficulties with leaks, parasitism and misappropriation of their secret rituals and myths, the second type is more likely to experience problems with continuity.
What I've been lead to believe is that in early Xian hierarchy there were no rigid divisions between Gnostic and pre-orthodox/roman strands of thought; some bishops seem quite Gnostic and others more heresiological. If the bishops mingled, the practitioners must have too, so presumably a Gnostic would have knelt down beside a hylic and recited the Pater Noster quite happily - hence he would (ostensibly) have been praying to Jehovah.
Meditation is a very tricky word. What I understand by it is focusing the awareness on a static object, or allowing thoughts or sensations to pass through the awareness without support or hindrance. One might meditate on a "hard and tight" object like a coloured disc or a "soft and loose" one like the sense of enjoyment at a communal meal, but the point is to follow one or a few precise techniques, day after day. Is there any room for meditation by that definition in Gnosticism?
Mulling ideas over, allowing a strand of thought to develop, or become creative in any way, may be very valuable but it's better called contemplation than meditation.
I'm still confused but less confused.
There are 2 types of occult communities:
- the kind that keep secrets and admit it
- the kind that keep secrets and deny it, they will not admit their existence to laymen. Do they really exist? If they do, they haven't told me yet.
The first type is more likely to experience difficulties with leaks, parasitism and misappropriation of their secret rituals and myths, the second type is more likely to experience problems with continuity.
What I've been lead to believe is that in early Xian hierarchy there were no rigid divisions between Gnostic and pre-orthodox/roman strands of thought; some bishops seem quite Gnostic and others more heresiological. If the bishops mingled, the practitioners must have too, so presumably a Gnostic would have knelt down beside a hylic and recited the Pater Noster quite happily - hence he would (ostensibly) have been praying to Jehovah.
Meditation is a very tricky word. What I understand by it is focusing the awareness on a static object, or allowing thoughts or sensations to pass through the awareness without support or hindrance. One might meditate on a "hard and tight" object like a coloured disc or a "soft and loose" one like the sense of enjoyment at a communal meal, but the point is to follow one or a few precise techniques, day after day. Is there any room for meditation by that definition in Gnosticism?
Mulling ideas over, allowing a strand of thought to develop, or become creative in any way, may be very valuable but it's better called contemplation than meditation.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Uraeusheap
Initially, this was the case. Valentinians existed right in and among what was to later become the Catholic and the Orthodox chruches. According to one source (questionable source) Valentinus was almost elected Bishop of Rome, which would have retroactively placed him in the line of Popes (there was no such thing as the "Pope" at this time, of course). This form of Gnosticism has traditionally seen no problem with Hylic and Psychic Christianity, but simply sees them as lower steps in the initiation process. That is to say, the church is simply the exoteric container of the esoteric, Gnostic, mysteries.
It is also important to note that this form of Gnosticism is ambivalent towards the Demiurge rather than putting the demiurge in such a negative context the way the Sethians do.
In spite of the fact that the Sethian and the Valentinian outlines may seem so destinct, let me point out that the essential mythological structure and the soteriological functions were basically the same still, and there is plenty of evidence of interaction between them at even the earliest stages.
To move away from the historical and deal with your points concerning the more practical and esoteric destinctions.
Well, I personally see some other divisions that we could mention. For instance, the very modern notions of pure and absolute subjectivism in many of the occult orders (and most occult orders are modern and have virtually no connection to older esoteric systems), vs the more philosophical and initiatory outlines of older systems.
As for the keeping of secrets, I think that most of the older occult fit somehwere in the middle of the two extremes you presented, but tending towards the first one. Whether or not there are any secret Gnostic orders that exist within the chruch, or as some state, within the scientific community, or on thier own, is something that can really probably give us no constructive use in the conversation.
What you are calling "meditation" is what I tend to call "visualization", but I get your point and am willing to use the definitions you gave. So, using your destinction between meditation and contemplation, I would have to say that both have generally been an integral part of Gnostic practice (though in very specific formats). However, I think there is a difference in that the two practices are melded a bit. Since Gnosticism does not agree with the more modern subjectivism trend, contextualization is very important. Because of this, the meditative techniques are not meant to be wholey experiencial.
To outline this another way.... if you were following the conversation between Chela and I, Chela mentioned that Gnosis is not about studying how to ride a bike academically, and I countered that Gnosis is also not the experience of riding a bike. This is because Gnosis is a systematic realization that must have both of these forms of understanding extensively developed within it's base, and then it goes on to incorparate the two into a single discipline.
To simply meditate on a colored disk would have no function in Gnosticism, beyond maybe its hylic function of calming the body, or the psychic function of clearing the mind. However, the more complex meditative tehcnique of confronting the Archons in their spheres is one that is interesting.
Also, there were the "Agape" feasts that sound very much like what you are calling "soft and loose".
PMCV
Uraeusheap
What I've been lead to believe is that in early Xian hierarchy there were no rigid divisions between Gnostic and pre-orthodox/roman strands of thought; some bishops seem quite Gnostic and others more heresiological. If the bishops mingled, the practitioners must have too, so presumably a Gnostic would have knelt down beside a hylic and recited the Pater Noster quite happily - hence he would (ostensibly) have been praying to Jehovah.
Initially, this was the case. Valentinians existed right in and among what was to later become the Catholic and the Orthodox chruches. According to one source (questionable source) Valentinus was almost elected Bishop of Rome, which would have retroactively placed him in the line of Popes (there was no such thing as the "Pope" at this time, of course). This form of Gnosticism has traditionally seen no problem with Hylic and Psychic Christianity, but simply sees them as lower steps in the initiation process. That is to say, the church is simply the exoteric container of the esoteric, Gnostic, mysteries.
It is also important to note that this form of Gnosticism is ambivalent towards the Demiurge rather than putting the demiurge in such a negative context the way the Sethians do.
In spite of the fact that the Sethian and the Valentinian outlines may seem so destinct, let me point out that the essential mythological structure and the soteriological functions were basically the same still, and there is plenty of evidence of interaction between them at even the earliest stages.
To move away from the historical and deal with your points concerning the more practical and esoteric destinctions.
There are 2 types of occult communities:
- the kind that keep secrets and admit it
- the kind that keep secrets and deny it, they will not admit their existence to laymen. Do they really exist? If they do, they haven't told me yet.
Well, I personally see some other divisions that we could mention. For instance, the very modern notions of pure and absolute subjectivism in many of the occult orders (and most occult orders are modern and have virtually no connection to older esoteric systems), vs the more philosophical and initiatory outlines of older systems.
As for the keeping of secrets, I think that most of the older occult fit somehwere in the middle of the two extremes you presented, but tending towards the first one. Whether or not there are any secret Gnostic orders that exist within the chruch, or as some state, within the scientific community, or on thier own, is something that can really probably give us no constructive use in the conversation.
What you are calling "meditation" is what I tend to call "visualization", but I get your point and am willing to use the definitions you gave. So, using your destinction between meditation and contemplation, I would have to say that both have generally been an integral part of Gnostic practice (though in very specific formats). However, I think there is a difference in that the two practices are melded a bit. Since Gnosticism does not agree with the more modern subjectivism trend, contextualization is very important. Because of this, the meditative techniques are not meant to be wholey experiencial.
To outline this another way.... if you were following the conversation between Chela and I, Chela mentioned that Gnosis is not about studying how to ride a bike academically, and I countered that Gnosis is also not the experience of riding a bike. This is because Gnosis is a systematic realization that must have both of these forms of understanding extensively developed within it's base, and then it goes on to incorparate the two into a single discipline.
To simply meditate on a colored disk would have no function in Gnosticism, beyond maybe its hylic function of calming the body, or the psychic function of clearing the mind. However, the more complex meditative tehcnique of confronting the Archons in their spheres is one that is interesting.
Also, there were the "Agape" feasts that sound very much like what you are calling "soft and loose".
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
The reason I ask is because as a practitioner I feel that tradition is important and anyone can see how quick things can get watered down. But the ancient Gnostics seem to evade me whenever I think I have them figured out. So I began to wonder if maybe they should be seen as independent movements, but I think your right and perhaps they might reveal their secrets after all.
The reason I ask is because as a practitioner I feel that tradition is important and anyone can see how quick things can get watered down. But the ancient Gnostics seem to evade me whenever I think I have them figured out. So I began to wonder if maybe they should be seen as independent movements, but I think your right and perhaps they might reveal their secrets after all.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: [Gnostic]a+
hehe, this forum can loose beginners in gnosticism, pmcv goes real indepth. i actually think you should read some more introductory books on gnosticism before swallowing everything pmcv says. kurt rupolphs or stephan hoellers books are good for introductoreis into gnosticism. after that, your ready for the 4 coarse meal pmcv dishes out :S
hehe, this forum can loose beginners in gnosticism, pmcv goes real indepth. i actually think you should read some more introductory books on gnosticism before swallowing everything pmcv says. kurt rupolphs or stephan hoellers books are good for introductoreis into gnosticism. after that, your ready for the 4 coarse meal pmcv dishes out :S
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
I'm not really a "beginner" at all,btw I've read Rudolph's was Hoeller's any good?, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to find a way to keep traditional gnosticism alive in a very small way by trying to find the undercurrent between all their writings and find the foundation of their practice.
I'm not really a "beginner" at all,btw I've read Rudolph's was Hoeller's any good?, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to find a way to keep traditional gnosticism alive in a very small way by trying to find the undercurrent between all their writings and find the foundation of their practice.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Shepard of Arcadia, I think GnosticA+ is poking a bit of fun at me because I am such a tight ass.
I agree with you that traditions can be important, not only because things can get watered down. I think of it this way, science in whole could not have come from a single mind. It grows over time with new discoveries and is recorded to be added to. A tradition grows over many years as well, and many minds add to it. A good tradition is an external quilifier meant to produce certain results that have stood the test of time.
Another aspect of a good tradition is that there are always new lessons. It is one thing if you feel that the Gnostic teachings evade you because they are set up to do so that you remain interested simply because of the puzzle (which is how I see the systems of Dr Kelley, Dee's friend) this would be a hoax. It is another thing if you feel that Gnosticism evades you because it has many levels and just when you get one you realise there is still something beyond that. In this latter case you should have proof that the system IS giving you breakthroughs, otherwise you should leave it and find another.
Having said that, let me point out that Gnosticism is traditionally an initiatory practice. What this means is, in order to find the undercurrent of the Gnostic system you have to also think outside the texts a little..... BUT, I would caution that we should be careful about assuming the Gnostic texts are as cohesive as you seem to imply.
PMCV
Shepard of Arcadia, I think GnosticA+ is poking a bit of fun at me because I am such a tight ass.
I agree with you that traditions can be important, not only because things can get watered down. I think of it this way, science in whole could not have come from a single mind. It grows over time with new discoveries and is recorded to be added to. A tradition grows over many years as well, and many minds add to it. A good tradition is an external quilifier meant to produce certain results that have stood the test of time.
Another aspect of a good tradition is that there are always new lessons. It is one thing if you feel that the Gnostic teachings evade you because they are set up to do so that you remain interested simply because of the puzzle (which is how I see the systems of Dr Kelley, Dee's friend) this would be a hoax. It is another thing if you feel that Gnosticism evades you because it has many levels and just when you get one you realise there is still something beyond that. In this latter case you should have proof that the system IS giving you breakthroughs, otherwise you should leave it and find another.
Having said that, let me point out that Gnosticism is traditionally an initiatory practice. What this means is, in order to find the undercurrent of the Gnostic system you have to also think outside the texts a little..... BUT, I would caution that we should be careful about assuming the Gnostic texts are as cohesive as you seem to imply.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
Man i'm not being clear at all, must be the lack of sleep lately, or maybe I'm just not being honest with myself, The thing is I was trying to reconcile my own personal knowledge on Gnosticism with the varying viewpoints of the ancient Gnostics. Gnosticism has been a wonderful home for me and is my cornerstone but when I came to the forums and saw the in depth academic facts you brought to the table it made me think if I was really being true to the Gnostic tradition so it motivated me to try to somehow create a unified doctrine out of the various texts available, but now that I think about it maybe I shouldn't let it constrain me too much since all things must evolve in order to survive and simply not try so hard and just go with the flow and not force anything.
Man i'm not being clear at all, must be the lack of sleep lately, or maybe I'm just not being honest with myself, The thing is I was trying to reconcile my own personal knowledge on Gnosticism with the varying viewpoints of the ancient Gnostics. Gnosticism has been a wonderful home for me and is my cornerstone but when I came to the forums and saw the in depth academic facts you brought to the table it made me think if I was really being true to the Gnostic tradition so it motivated me to try to somehow create a unified doctrine out of the various texts available, but now that I think about it maybe I shouldn't let it constrain me too much since all things must evolve in order to survive and simply not try so hard and just go with the flow and not force anything.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Hey Shepard of Arcadia, let me ask you a couple questions then. Of the traditional forms of Gnosticism, which ones do you feel most akin with? Perhaps that is the starting point for the conversation. And, after that, how do you feel the ones you prefer relate to the ones you are less interested in?
I do think that pointing out the similarities is an important topic for sure. There is debate as to whether there was actually ever such a thing as historical "Gnosticism", but I do agree with you that there are attributes that warrent the category. Still the main question here is what exactly attracts you to the Gnostic system over other systems?
PMCV
Hey Shepard of Arcadia, let me ask you a couple questions then. Of the traditional forms of Gnosticism, which ones do you feel most akin with? Perhaps that is the starting point for the conversation. And, after that, how do you feel the ones you prefer relate to the ones you are less interested in?
I do think that pointing out the similarities is an important topic for sure. There is debate as to whether there was actually ever such a thing as historical "Gnosticism", but I do agree with you that there are attributes that warrent the category. Still the main question here is what exactly attracts you to the Gnostic system over other systems?
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
I would say I feel most kin to the Valentinian model but I like some of the Sethian cosmology as well. I see these forms related as a single movement but loose one. What attracted me to these Gnostic systems? Well anyone who converts to anything will say something just 'clicked' and also parts of my life mirroring Gnostic myths.
I would say I feel most kin to the Valentinian model but I like some of the Sethian cosmology as well. I see these forms related as a single movement but loose one. What attracted me to these Gnostic systems? Well anyone who converts to anything will say something just 'clicked' and also parts of my life mirroring Gnostic myths.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Ok, so let me continue this line of questioning a little.
So, you see Valentinians and Sethians as a single movement to some extent, but you also find some difference in the cosmology. Besides the specific personages of Seth and Jesus, what do you see as separating the two so that you prefer Valentinian thought? What is it that you don't find you like so much about the Sethian model?
Also, I am not sure that I fully understand the implications of your "just clicked" experience besides the similarities you see with your own life. Can I ask you a few points concerning the philosophy and lingo of traditional Gnosticism as a means to help us communicate?
For one, how do you see the personages in the Gnostic mythology as they relate to this "click"? What I mean is, do you view the allegorical functions of the Sophia and the Logos as having their intended rules in that "click" as a sort of initiation into a new perspective? Or do you feel at this point that it is more about the fact that they seem to agree with a perspective that you already held?
Or, was part of your initial question meant to state that you are unsure of what these mythological figures represent?
Also, do you have a perspective concerning the destinction between the three sources of the First Father, the Second Father, and the Demiurge (using the Valentinian terms here for your convenience)?
I think this will help me understand what you mean.
PMCV
Ok, so let me continue this line of questioning a little.
So, you see Valentinians and Sethians as a single movement to some extent, but you also find some difference in the cosmology. Besides the specific personages of Seth and Jesus, what do you see as separating the two so that you prefer Valentinian thought? What is it that you don't find you like so much about the Sethian model?
Also, I am not sure that I fully understand the implications of your "just clicked" experience besides the similarities you see with your own life. Can I ask you a few points concerning the philosophy and lingo of traditional Gnosticism as a means to help us communicate?
For one, how do you see the personages in the Gnostic mythology as they relate to this "click"? What I mean is, do you view the allegorical functions of the Sophia and the Logos as having their intended rules in that "click" as a sort of initiation into a new perspective? Or do you feel at this point that it is more about the fact that they seem to agree with a perspective that you already held?
Or, was part of your initial question meant to state that you are unsure of what these mythological figures represent?
Also, do you have a perspective concerning the destinction between the three sources of the First Father, the Second Father, and the Demiurge (using the Valentinian terms here for your convenience)?
I think this will help me understand what you mean.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
I like both of them but I thought they seemed to be in conflict a bit that's why I started the thread since they seem to have a different take on the emanation cosmology.
A little bit of both actually. It all came to a head when I was reading about Gnosticism on the internet a little whil after I had an earth shattering mystical experience. The laungauge used in the myths did wonderfully in making sense of the experience I had and here I am.
Besides the specific personages of Seth and Jesus, what do you see as separating the two so that you prefer Valentinian thought? What is it that you don't find you like so much about the Sethian model?
I like both of them but I thought they seemed to be in conflict a bit that's why I started the thread since they seem to have a different take on the emanation cosmology.
\For one, how do you see the personages in the Gnostic mythology as they relate to this "click"? What I mean is, do you view the allegorical functions of the Sophia and the Logos as having their intended rules in that "click" as a sort of initiation into a new perspective? Or do you feel at this point that it is more about the fact that they seem to agree with a perspective that you already held?
A little bit of both actually. It all came to a head when I was reading about Gnosticism on the internet a little whil after I had an earth shattering mystical experience. The laungauge used in the myths did wonderfully in making sense of the experience I had and here I am.
I fall more in line with the Sethians in this subject in that i identify with a more negative creator god enslaving humanity. But I have to be honest, I was being a bit arrogant up there. GnosticA is right, when it comes to the academic facts about Gnosticism I fall behind. I'm just too much heart and not enough head when it comes to the subject.Also, do you have a perspective concerning the destinction between the three sources of the First Father, the Second Father, and the Demiurge (using the Valentinian terms here for your convenience)?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: uraeusheap
[QUOTE=pmcv].... and Gnosticism has influenced more movements, either directly or indirectly, than just about any movement that I can think of in the western world.
OK, my own bias.... I know, that is a tall claim... but if you want to challenge me on that I will back it up.[/QUOTE]Since no one has taken you up on that: a small challenge: the metaphysical poets aren't really a movement but can you relate Gnosticism to William Blake? The Seven Eyes of God and the Four Zoas and their emanations/shaktis... or was that just a fertile imagination.
[QUOTE=pmcv].... and Gnosticism has influenced more movements, either directly or indirectly, than just about any movement that I can think of in the western world.
OK, my own bias.... I know, that is a tall claim... but if you want to challenge me on that I will back it up.[/QUOTE]Since no one has taken you up on that: a small challenge: the metaphysical poets aren't really a movement but can you relate Gnosticism to William Blake? The Seven Eyes of God and the Four Zoas and their emanations/shaktis... or was that just a fertile imagination.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Varying viewpoints
Original post: pmcv
Uraeusheap, as for your question....
Let me first point out that my intention with the statement was meant specifically to deal with western esoteric movements of the sort most people mean when they say "occult", however, now that you bring up that subject it could be interesting to some here.
To start with, the similarities of Blake's myths with Gnosticism is not accidental, or even due to interest in similar sources like Plato (though he obviously was influenced by Plato as well).
I don't think there is any record of exactly where Blake read these myths (though it is interesting to note that he was friends with the curator who catalogued the Pistis Sophia... but that would have been very late in his life), but as Smith noted in an afterward to the Nag Hammadi library, Crabb Robinson recorded that in a debate with Blake over the implications of Wodsworth Blake gave Robinson a lesson on the doctrin of the early Gnostics as a counter to Wodsworth's positive stance on nature.
Ironically, one of the people Blake attacks was also very interested in Gnosticism.... Voltaire. Of course, other popular authors have very explicitely and publically admitted an interest in Gnosticism, like Melville and P.K. Dick.
However, what I really was talking about was the way the a surprising veriety of modern "Occult" groups have admitted some dependence on Gnostic outlines even when the order has no over-all philosophical connection whatsoever. Blavatsky, Crowely, Yeats, Mead, and from them of course Gardner etc. Even Chaos Magick and religious satire groups have used these sources..... Genesis P-Orridge, RAW... I even remember the word Yaldebaoth jumping up in some of the original Subgenius books now and again. And, other influences happen indirectly. For instance, Jung is a heavy influence on many modern groups.
So, we have Gnostic influence on Golden Dawn, OTO, Subgenius, Chaos Magick, Wicca, Theosophy and so on.... Of course, most modern occult orders actually have many influences (often including eastern) so I don't mean to imply these particular group are Gnostic spinoffs (on the contrary most of them hold views completely incompatible with what traditional Gnostic texts taught), just that Gnosticism was included in the mix, and often also closely related to other influences (since as we know, Kabbalah, Classical Hermeticism, and even Sufism have very close ties to Gnosticism). When you lump the initial groups that were contemporary with each other, Merkabah, Classical Hermeticism, and Gnosticism (all of which seemed to have also interacted with each other to various degrees) then you have a triat of western esoteric sources that are only eclipsed by thier mutual categorical container..... neo-Platonism.
That is what I mean when I say that Gnosticism is one of the primary sources of western esoteric tradition
PMCV
Uraeusheap, as for your question....
Since no one has taken you up on that: a small challenge: the metaphysical poets aren't really a movement but can you relate Gnosticism to William Blake? The Seven Eyes of God and the Four Zoas and their emanations/shaktis... or was that just a fertile imagination.
Let me first point out that my intention with the statement was meant specifically to deal with western esoteric movements of the sort most people mean when they say "occult", however, now that you bring up that subject it could be interesting to some here.
To start with, the similarities of Blake's myths with Gnosticism is not accidental, or even due to interest in similar sources like Plato (though he obviously was influenced by Plato as well).
I don't think there is any record of exactly where Blake read these myths (though it is interesting to note that he was friends with the curator who catalogued the Pistis Sophia... but that would have been very late in his life), but as Smith noted in an afterward to the Nag Hammadi library, Crabb Robinson recorded that in a debate with Blake over the implications of Wodsworth Blake gave Robinson a lesson on the doctrin of the early Gnostics as a counter to Wodsworth's positive stance on nature.
Ironically, one of the people Blake attacks was also very interested in Gnosticism.... Voltaire. Of course, other popular authors have very explicitely and publically admitted an interest in Gnosticism, like Melville and P.K. Dick.
However, what I really was talking about was the way the a surprising veriety of modern "Occult" groups have admitted some dependence on Gnostic outlines even when the order has no over-all philosophical connection whatsoever. Blavatsky, Crowely, Yeats, Mead, and from them of course Gardner etc. Even Chaos Magick and religious satire groups have used these sources..... Genesis P-Orridge, RAW... I even remember the word Yaldebaoth jumping up in some of the original Subgenius books now and again. And, other influences happen indirectly. For instance, Jung is a heavy influence on many modern groups.
So, we have Gnostic influence on Golden Dawn, OTO, Subgenius, Chaos Magick, Wicca, Theosophy and so on.... Of course, most modern occult orders actually have many influences (often including eastern) so I don't mean to imply these particular group are Gnostic spinoffs (on the contrary most of them hold views completely incompatible with what traditional Gnostic texts taught), just that Gnosticism was included in the mix, and often also closely related to other influences (since as we know, Kabbalah, Classical Hermeticism, and even Sufism have very close ties to Gnosticism). When you lump the initial groups that were contemporary with each other, Merkabah, Classical Hermeticism, and Gnosticism (all of which seemed to have also interacted with each other to various degrees) then you have a triat of western esoteric sources that are only eclipsed by thier mutual categorical container..... neo-Platonism.
That is what I mean when I say that Gnosticism is one of the primary sources of western esoteric tradition
PMCV