The Importance of Plato's Republic

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Lake

Now, Plato's Republic is part of the Nag Hammadi library but is it really important to Gnostic thought?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Lake

Now, Plato's Republic is part of the Nag Hammadi library but is it really important to Gnostic thought?

Well, the Republic maybe less so than Timaeus, but there is little question that Plato is an influence in Gnostic thought. There have been people who speculated Persian, Iranian, and Egyptian sources, but those theories have fallen to the side. Not to say that these cultures had no influence, they did, but there is a syncratic underscore that is firmly rooted in Neoplatonism that is too solid to debate any longer.

Before anybody wonders about this, lor is somehow "turned off", let me point a couple of things out....

Hermeticism, at least the branch called "Classical Hermeticism" is also Platonic

Nearly Everything we know about Pythagoras is also post Platonic

The same is true of most of what we know of the Mysteries

Egyptian and Roman Mysteries that had a syncratic impatus, such as Serapis and Mithras show heavy Platonic influence

The Medieval notion of the "One Lady" is also Platonic

The VAST majority of modern "occult" systems are explicetly influenced by one of these historical occult schools, Gnosticism, Classical Hermeticism, Post Platonic versions of the Greek Mysteries or Egyptian thought, etc.. Whether we are talking about Wicca, Thelema, Kabbalah, Chaos Magick, your system was likely influenced by Platonic thought.

In fact, some scholors have even noticed a difference between pre Platonic eastern (Hindu/Buddhist) thought and post Platonic. I personally think that may go a bit far, but there does seem to be a change in some specific areas relating to connections with the west (for instance, it is undeniable that "Pure Land" Buddhism comes after Manichaeans iniltrated the area, and archeological finds have demonstrated an overlay of Buddhism to Manichaeist influence.... consider the Kellis Find).

Well, all that is speculation, so I don't forward it as "fact", just as theories with impressive evidence. One thing is for sure though..... when talking about WESTERN esotericism, we are very often talking about some form of Neoplatonism. The Grandfathers of that movement are Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Pythagorianism (which probably did not exist in any recognizable form before Plato).

Even some Native American thought was changed, redirected, on these grounds. It could be argued (though I have disagreed myself) that while Sidhartha and Jesus have divided the modern world on the surface.... Plato has done more to unite it than any source besides Aristotelian science (which the "Communist" state of China recognizes very publically and officially).

Ok, my arguements are a bit sensationalistic on purpose (which is not to say that they are absolutly unwarented)...... because I am fostering debate. What do you all think?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Lake

Thanks for that.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ludi

I am annoyed by Plato's idea of Forms.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Demetrios

[QUOTE=Ludi]I am annoyed by Plato's idea of Forms.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, it's annoying to live in the cave, nothing to watch but shadows...

Anyhow, the idea of Forms (or theory of Ideas, to be more exact) is tough nut to crack, but it has interesting parallels to macroscopic quantum fields and their possible role in phylogeny - or formative causation, as Sheldrake calls it.

But this is going OT, better stop hand and continue in the Science/Philosophy Forum, if there's interest.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ludi

Sure, I'm interested.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Demetrios

[QUOTE=pmcv]Hey Lake


Well, the Republic maybe less so than Timaeus, but there is little question that Plato is an influence in Gnostic thought. There have been people who speculated Persian, Iranian, and Egyptian sources, but those theories have fallen to the side. Not to say that these cultures had no influence, they did, but there is a syncratic underscore that is firmly rooted in Neoplatonism that is too solid to debate any longer.

Before anybody wonders about this, lor is somehow "turned off", let me point a couple of things out....

Hermeticism, at least the branch called "Classical Hermeticism" is also Platonic

Nearly Everything we know about Pythagoras is also post Platonic

The same is true of most of what we know of the Mysteries

Egyptian and Roman Mysteries that had a syncratic impatus, such as Serapis and Mithras show heavy Platonic influence

The Medieval notion of the "One Lady" is also Platonic

The VAST majority of modern "occult" systems are explicetly influenced by one of these historical occult schools, Gnosticism, Classical Hermeticism, Post Platonic versions of the Greek Mysteries or Egyptian thought, etc.. Whether we are talking about Wicca, Thelema, Kabbalah, Chaos Magick, your system was likely influenced by Platonic thought.

In fact, some scholors have even noticed a difference between pre Platonic eastern (Hindu/Buddhist) thought and post Platonic. I personally think that may go a bit far, but there does seem to be a change in some specific areas relating to connections with the west (for instance, it is undeniable that "Pure Land" Buddhism comes after Manichaeans iniltrated the area, and archeological finds have demonstrated an overlay of Buddhism to Manichaeist influence.... consider the Kellis Find).

Well, all that is speculation, so I don't forward it as "fact", just as theories with impressive evidence. One thing is for sure though..... when talking about WESTERN esotericism, we are very often talking about some form of Neoplatonism. The Grandfathers of that movement are Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Pythagorianism (which probably did not exist in any recognizable form before Plato).

Even some Native American thought was changed, redirected, on these grounds. It could be argued (though I have disagreed myself) that while Sidhartha and Jesus have divided the modern world on the surface.... Plato has done more to unite it than any source besides Aristotelian science (which the "Communist" state of China recognizes very publically and officially).

Ok, my arguements are a bit sensationalistic on purpose (which is not to say that they are absolutly unwarented)...... because I am fostering debate. What do you all think?

PMCV[/QUOTE]
Greek and Indian philosophy asked the same basic questions and both made good progress in many parallel ways, and there were close contacts between them especially during hellenistic times. Greek philosophy was gradually put to death by pistic Christianity, while especially Buddhism evolved into very sophisticated philosophical esoteric schools, whose contributions are still mostly unknown in West - me included.

Still, I would not want to raise Plato on the highest pedestal even among the Greeks, I think in the succession line of Socrates - Plato - Aristotle there is also some devolving in some aspect at least . And my own favourite has allways been the dynamic paradigm of Heraclitus. Also, Egyptian influences in Greek philosophy and especially it's esoteric strands should not be put too lightly aside, remember to whom the tale of Atlantis is attested to and that Plotinus studied in Alexandria, Egypt as a student of Ammonius (who was born to a Christian family but abandoned Christianity, btw).

But my question is this: how much is there, actually, of Plato in Neoplatonism, and how much Plotinus & co are products of their time, affected by other philosophical and esoteric traditions? It should be remembered that Hermeticism, Neopythagoreanism and Apollonios of Tyana (1st century CE), Gnosticism etc. predate Plotinus (205-270). Some seeds for the idea of 'One' and the Neoplatonic soteriology can be found in Parmenides, but unio mystica is the universal religious experience, which certainly predates even Plato .

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Demetrios

[QUOTE=Ludi]Sure, I'm interested.

[/QUOTE]
OK, then I blame you for this:

http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?p=51587#post51587

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Great points, Demetrios.

Greek and Indian philosophy asked the same basic questions and both made good progress in many parallel ways, and there were close contacts between them especially during hellenistic times.

While in the later part of Hellenism there was contact, I think it is far from proven that this contact was all so close. We do certainly see it in Manichaeism though. Prior to that, stated connections (such as the one we see from Alexander at the end of his journey) are largely distant and suspicious observation, with seemingly no valuable communication. I am not so much disagreing with you, as presenting a bit more conservative estimations about how "close" those contacts really were... at least as far as can be historically demonstrated.

Greek philosophy was gradually put to death by pistic Christianity, while especially Buddhism evolved into very sophisticated philosophical esoteric schools, whose contributions are still mostly unknown in West - me included.

Here I have to disagree a bit. Greek philosophy had various schools that were not reconciled. They found new expressions in Roman society, and to some extent pistic Christianity was one of those expressions just as other forms of Christianity were other forms..... and there were other religions fighting in that mix as well. What I mean to say is, I don't think Greek philosophy was killed or victimized. I also am trying to say that Pistic religion, and Praxic religion, should not be seen as completely at odds with Gnosticism in all cases (though certainly it is in some).

Still, I would not want to raise Plato on the highest pedestal even among the Greeks, I think in the succession line of Socrates - Plato - Aristotle there is also some devolving in some aspect at least .

Absolutely agreed. My point in emphasizing his importance in this particular case was not meant to valuate him in the overall scale of Greek Philosophy, but just to point out his influence on this particular movement.... which then influenced later movements as well. Let me point out though that our so called "Socrates" is actually Plato. Aristotle on the other hand has probably had a larger influence on modern western thinking than Plato, but to some extent this subject brings us back to the pistic Christianity (which so often valued Aristotle over Plato) vs Gnosticism.... though that is really a bit overly simplistic, I know.

Also, Egyptian influences in Greek philosophy and especially it's esoteric strands should not be put too lightly aside, remember to whom the tale of Atlantis is attested to and that Plotinus studied in Alexandria, Egypt as a student of Ammonius (who was born to a Christian family but abandoned Christianity, btw).

I don't put it lightly aside, but I do point out that Alexandria may have been incedentally in Egypt, but it was primarily a Greek city. I also point out that the supposed Egyptian origins of tales of Atlantic, the studies of Pythagoras, etc., are highly suspect.

In the case of Gnosticism, we do see a Greek Egyptian syncratism with Semitic mythology, but just as we should not be overly quick to set Egyptian influence aside, we should also be careful to not over stress it. Sure, it is Egyptian, but it is Hellenic Egypt.... traditional Egyptian religian was dead and the aspects that lived on in Hellenized Egyptian Mysteries, like Sarapis, were more about topical flavor in a Greek base.

But my question is this: how much is there, actually, of Plato in Neoplatonism, and how much Plotinus & co are products of their time, affected by other philosophical and esoteric traditions? It should be remembered that Hermeticism, Neopythagoreanism and Apollonios of Tyana (1st century CE), Gnosticism etc. predate Plotinus (205-270).

Now that is an excellent point, Demetrios. While Plotinus is often called "the father of Neoplatonism", he was not himself a Neoplatonist, but a middle Platonist..... and Neoplatonism did predate him. Not so much in the Platonic Acadamies, but outside them. Yes, of course you are right that Gnosticism and Hermeticism both predate Plotinus... and, just how much were they really "Platonic" that is the great point you make that I will admit is difficult to empirically outline. We do know fairly conclusively that at least some Gnostics considered themselves to be Platonists (heresiologists aren't the only ones to tell us this, Celsus' complaint against "Christians", obviously Gnostic, was that they were false Platonists... Christians were "pagan" copiers of true Platonism), and they all used at least some Platonic terms and cosmological outlines, where none of them claimed to be practicing ancient Egyptian religion as far as I can think off hand.

Some seeds for the idea of 'One' and the Neoplatonic soteriology can be found in Parmenides, but unio mystica is the universal religious experience, which certainly predates even Plato .

AH, but Demetrios.... most of what we know of Parmenides was written by,.... guess who..... Plato or later members of Platonic Academies. Is there any question that the man who expressed his ideas through the mouth of the dead Socrates would do the same through the mouth of the even longer dead Parmenides? Other quotes we see come from Plotinus, Proclus, etc.... we have reason to be suspicious here.

I am not saying that Parminides could not have suggested some of these ideas, just that there is some question. It is much like the supposed pieces concerning Pythatgoras. Historically there is no evidence that Pythagoras could have given a fig about arithmatic.

Anyway, I don't mean this post to imply that I disagree with many of your points... in fact I don't. I simply want to point out how debatable the foundation is. I think the context for much of what we are talking about here concerning Gnosticism is truely Syncratic (as opposed to "ecclectic"), and that means there is some reconciliation at a core level (instead of a patchwork of surface flavors). I think we find that primary reconciliation between Greek and Hebrew ideas, with some importan Egyptian influence besides... I have doubts about the Persian (though it certainly was there in some ways I don't see the deep influence that some propose) and the far Eastern (this was certainly in existance in later movements that are related to Gnosticism, but I have yet to see an explicit mention in any genuine Gnostic work).

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Anathema_Oracle

Having been forced to study Plato's Republic as part of my philosophy course, I was very taken with his views.

It's no wonder why in hindsight, as many people have posted, Plato's philosophy has sparked many an occult ideal, possibly the best known in our modern times is Jung's theory of Archetypes, though not as literal perhaps as Plato's forms, nevertheless induce in the reader a kind of archaic wonder at the possibility of tapping into divine truths.

Plato was quite analytical about his ideas, and is the closest equivalent we have to an occult philosopher I believe...and whose great nemesis is strangely enough, Socrates.

Socrates is the rationalists dreamboat, quoted ad nauseum by humanists as one of the first genuinely rational thinkers of ancient times, and Platonic ideals are much maligned as authoritarian and occultic masogyny.

When you deconstruct gnostic ideas, Plato is there, waiting, expounding the notions of absolute truth but also goading the reader to cut through the illusion of speculation, to go and gain the great dialectic, the knowledge of absolute truth.

The imagery of the bound man in the cave, shadows dancing on the wall, is that not similar to buddhist teachings of illusion, to move into the burning light and see?

Though modern philosophers quite despise Plato's notions, possibly because it encourages an idea of the Philosopher king and a class mentality based on knowledge, the forms live on as the purest expression of a hopeful ideal of truth, truth despite all the fictions of the world, not a very popular notion in today's society.

As a side note, Aristotle is probably the most used philosopher in magick, consider his notions of astrology, consciousness, and life as a plan and with a force, and he is the basis of christian scholasticism, possibly THE most maligned form of philosophical thinking in the world today.

Just a thought

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ludi

the forms live on as the purest expression of a hopeful ideal of truth, truth despite all the fictions of the world,

The Forms live on as a pernicious idea that tells us this is not the "real" world and that a better real world lies elsewhere, a salvationist viewpoint.

My personal viewpoint is that we are looking at reality but not seeing reality.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

[QUOTE=Demetrios]OK, then I blame you for this:

http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?p=51587#post51587[/QUOTE]
Hey!!! I heard that.:mad:

As I read it once, Gnosticism can be seen as Platonic thought carried to an extreme. God is not the real God but merely an imperfect representation of it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Demetrios

While in the later part of Hellenism there was contact, I think it is far from proven that this contact was all so close. We do certainly see it in Manichaeism though. Prior to that, stated connections (such as the one we see from Alexander at the end of his journey) are largely distant and suspicious observation, with seemingly no valuable communication. I am not so much disagreing with you, as presenting a bit more conservative estimations about how "close" those contacts really were... at least as far as can be historically demonstrated.

What do you think about Apollonios of Tyana and his importance? Have you read Mead's treatise on the great sage and magus? I find it good work, when you put some slight Mead filters on.

Here I have to disagree a bit. Greek philosophy had various schools that were not reconciled. They found new expressions in Roman society, and to some extent pistic Christianity was one of those expressions just as other forms of Christianity were other forms..... and there were other religions fighting in that mix as well. What I mean to say is, I don't think Greek philosophy was killed or victimized. I also am trying to say that Pistic religion, and Praxic religion, should not be seen as completely at odds with Gnosticism in all cases (though certainly it is in some).

What I mean by death of Western philosophy, is that both ethics and metaphysics are inseparable elements of philosophy, and when the ethical aspact was taken over by pistics, philosophy devolved into the that academic sofistry that it still mostly is in today's West. Same thing didn't happen in the East, where Sophia was never suppressed by Pope and Inquisition.

Let me point out though that our so called "Socrates" is actually Plato.

Not alltogether. There's Xenophon's Socrates also, but I'm first to admit that'n not very helpfull trying to understand what made Socrates great. (Early) Plato and Socrates are difficult to separate, but not allways impossible. Socrates certainly was the "midwife of truth", the challenging question-maker and origin of dialectical philosophy (qualitativley different from sophistry).

What really make's Plato so great (besides his own genious contribution) , so that it is said that all Western philosophy is margin notes to Plato's works, is that he's the great encyclopedist of all the philosophical subjects and lines of thought of his time.

and, just how much were they really "Platonic" that is the great point you make that I will admit is difficult to empirically outline.

snip

AH, but Demetrios.... most of what we know of Parmenides was written by,.... guess who....

Yes, Plato's treatise called 'Parmenides' is what I referred to, sorry for the ambivalent expression. And I agree that it is too wide question and beyond my expertise to answer, but certainly worth asking. One note however that came up with the good question on the Platonic 'Ideas'. The Parmenidic 'One' was not supported by Plato's and not his final word on the subject of Ideas, that was given in the 'Sophist'. Plato's answer is the essential "entanglement" of Ideas, including 'One', 'Many', 'Movement', 'Rest' 'Being', 'Not Being', etc., which can be unfolded by the art of Philosopy. This comes close to the Dynamic and Holistic paradigm of Idealistic Realism, IMHO (and is very similar to the approaches of the Quantum&Consciousness guys, BTW).

I think the context for much of what we are talking about here concerning Gnosticism is truely Syncratic (as opposed to "ecclectic"), and that means there is some reconciliation at a core level (instead of a patchwork of surface flavors). I think we find that primary reconciliation between Greek and Hebrew ideas, with some importan Egyptian influence besides... I have doubts about the Persian (though it certainly was there in some ways I don't see the deep influence that some propose) and the far Eastern (this was certainly in existance in later movements that are related to Gnosticism, but I have yet to see an explicit mention in any genuine Gnostic work).

Excellent point on the genuine syncretism, and I fully agree.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey, Demetrios, I really feel that we are agreed on most counts.... and perhaps we are just reaching for a communicative lingo.

When Anathema_Oracle said....

Having been forced to study Plato's Republic as part of my philosophy course, I was very taken with his views.

I am reminded of a very close frind of mine who HATED Plato, until he took a class on the Republic and realized he absolutely misunderstood almost everything being said prior to that time!

I also agree with Anathema_Oracle, in that some of the moder distaste for Plato is out of social norms (the un PC nature of the Philosopher King) more than an actual outline of the rational nature of some of his outline. Granted.... the notion of the Philosopher king is VERY easy to abuse.... so I think it is not fully developed in Plato... but that is a topic for another forum

As Duhill states.... I do see Gnosticism as sort of Platonic Philosophy taken too an extreme.... BUT, not an extreme in the way of left vs right, when the middle ground is the truth. Instead, I see in Plato a failure to fully develope the apophatic theology that he touched... where we DO see it in some Valentinian works, for instance. This later work is simply a more philosophically advanced notion that is based on a foundation that Plato set PARTLY... which there is not solid evidence for in the western world before Plato.

Ok, more directly to the points you make.....

What do you think about Apollonios of Tyana and his importance? Have you read Mead's treatise on the great sage and magus? I find it good work, when you put some slight Mead filters on.

Well, first off I love how you put it.... "Mead Filters". I have not read this work, and yet I am already thinking of the outline as it must be in the Mead context *lol*. You really paint a good picture there. Let me point out that the date of Apollonius is a rather hot debate. I personally wonder if it matters, because the over all outline is important over the whole spectrum of dates in the debate. In other words, context is the point here.

I think the context is the fact that we can demonstrate how a probably historical personage can in fact be reconciled with mythological outlines... and how the specific outline we are talking about existed beyond "Christianity". AND... let me point out that the solid evidence of this motif before Apollonius, is about as close to solid evidence as can be produced that a motif could be applied to that situation... which means we who study Gnosticism have some evidence for our stance on Jesus as well.

What I mean by death of Western philosophy, is that both ethics and metaphysics are inseparable elements of philosophy, and when the ethical aspact was taken over by pistics, philosophy devolved into the that academic sofistry that it still mostly is in today's West. Same thing didn't happen in the East, where Sophia was never suppressed by Pope and Inquisition.

I absolutely agree, except for your choice of comparison between academics and Sophistry. Please, let us make a difference between true academics (and "Academy" is a Platonic term, after all, and Plato was an enemy of the sophist, posibly beyond logic since not all of the Sophist ideals were as logically wrong as Plato suggests. It has even been argued that Plato uses Sophism against the Sophists.)

Part of my real point here is that Modern Academics should not be equated with Hylicism (pistic), but with Psychic thought. Also, I am not so quick to say that such ideas were not suppressed in the East. Taoists tried to suppress Buddhists, and Buddhists DID supress Manichaeans... with violence that equalled the Cathar extermination in the west. Let us not romanticise anyone here. Besides, whether Sophia was suppressed is less important than the question fo whether Sophia was truely recognized.

Perhaps, what all this boils down to is one point. The fact is that I am in SO much agrement with you in nearly averything but perhaps one point.....

he's the great encyclopedist of all the philosophical subjects and lines of thought of his time.

I absolutely disagree. He is not a compliler of info, but a creator who pretends his own ideas were expressed through others..... Socrates, Pythagoras, Parmenidies, Egyptian sources..... all inventions in my view. Still, I do NOT view Plato as the god of this system we are talking about, but an equal "Logos" as Jesus.... and I do have evidence that historical Gnostics saw something similar. We can be greater than Plato, and greater than Jesus.... no doubt... I "know" that

PMCV

P.S. Let me, for the first time, admit a flaw. I am posting in extreme exhaustion right now so please give me the chance to explain myself if I speak in a way I don't intend right now *lol*.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

OH, and BTW

I want to point out to everyone... our mods are now Paulo, and Asimis, both of whom have expressed a deep interest in the subject (as others here have also) but also an interest in the importance of keeping the subject in focus. I hope these two will feel free in expressing thier views here. Welcom them, they are erudite individuals.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Anathema_Oracle

I just remembered the Druze sect believe that Plato is a prophet of Allah along with Mohammed, and they believe in reincarnation, if anyone is familiar with their religious views, though they keep it a secret would you consider it a gnostic system?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Anathema_Oracle, well, the Druze are too late to technically be "Gnostic", but perhaps thier beliefs could be interesting to compare. I honestly did not know they respected Plato in this way, and know very little about them. I was not under the impression that thier theology included a seperation between Demiurge and an apophatic source, for instance. However, I do know there seem to be similarites with sects that are closer to Gnosticism (though these other sects are not technically "Gnostic") such as teh Manichaeans.

Feel free to tell us what you know about them.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Anathema_Oracle

Sorry if this is off track, here is a brief synopsis link that states their belief in neo-platonic beliefs, there is a more indepth website from the Israeli government but I can't locate it as present apologies: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/druze.htm

here is a quote:

Druze beliefs deviate markedly from those of mainstream Islam, consisting of an amalgamation of Neo-Platonic, Isma'ili, and extreme Shi'ite beliefs. The movement derives its name from an Isma'ili missionary, al-Darazi (d.1019/20), who proclaimed the divinity of the sixth Fatimid caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim (985-1021). The principal figure, however, behind the formation of the movement's beliefs was Hamzah ibn 'Ali (d. 1021) who not only taught the divinity of al-Hakim but claimed that he himself was the cosmic intellect.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey, Anathema_Oracle, to be honest I don't know if this is off track or not. Hey, I am willing to explore the possibilities. Even if this group cannot be Gnostic in the technical sense, it does not mean that they could not be a close relation.

I am concerned about a few things though. One thing this page you offered states is an incedent concerning a sort of large scale violence in a fight between Druze and Christians. Generally, this implies a soteriology based either in faith or practice, since a salvation effect based on some kind of personal revelation doesn't fit well with such behavior. Elitism, sure, Gnostics have not been able to deny that on some level.... but it is an elitism that has few real world effects. Or, at the very least, it implies some form of direct literal scriptural interperative clash.

So, the question would be this.... where does the Druze soteriology lay? Neoplatonic and Shi'ite beliefs can be hard to reconcile.... but that does not mean it has not been done.

This conversation reminds me, I have had some Sufi aquaintances who have insisted on a Gnostic connection. Honestly, thier points have been pretty convincening sometimes. Once again, it can not be technically "Gnostic", but perhaps worth a comparative study..... maybe we need a thread of Mystical Islamic vs Gnostic ideas?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Anathema_Oracle

As stated, it was more a tickling in the back of my mind then a well founded understanding of said associations. I don't know enough about either mystical Islam or Gnostic ideas to have posted this, but the Druze intrigued me for a while, and it's quite hard getting information on their beliefs as they're quite secretive for obvious reasons such as persecution. *shrugs* I'll go away and try and find that site that actually had good infor lol!

Sorry to throw this thread off track

p.s In relation to the fighting between the Druze and christians, that was more recent, and related to the Lebanese civil war and the Druze wanting to retain an autonomous zone around Mt. Lebanon given to them by the French, rather then a religious or doctrinal disagreement I believe.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Noxlux


Hm, shows how much I know, I didn't even know there was a copy of the republic in tha nag hammadi findings.

I think one of the most important key word for understanding the plato-gnosticism connection would be plotinus. not necessarily in a historical sense, but in his forumulation of the ideas of the world soul and our relationship with it. If my understanding is correct he goes: our individual souls are but aspects of the world soul. We can reach the world soul if we turn our attention inwards. However many of us get lost in the mundane and forget this aspect of our true self. hence the important of know thyself. There is a difference in that the remaining writings by Plotinus are theoretical while many sects within gnosticism tended to be more experiencefocused.

A second strong link would be the idea of Anamnesis. According to plato most insights are like uncovering of hidden memories of the world of forms. For the gnosticist this both corresponds to the fact that we reach spiritual truths through ourselves, and to the idea that we can indeed remember what we were before the fall. Divine.

nox

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Noxlux

Let me point out that in Gnostic belief there is something above and beyond the "World Sould".

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Noxlux

Hi pmcv,

I didn't even know there was something corresponding to the world soul in gnosticism?

I was more pointing towards what I percieve as a strong paralell in that in most gnostic views we have a divine spark within, we are part of the divine, and if we turn towards that divine within we alse connect with the real divine beyond yaldaboeths creation.

Nox

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

AH, Noxlux... ok, I got your point now.

Yep, Gnostics certainly do have the notion of the internal spark, or shard..... "spinther", of the divine. Although Gnostics don't cross over into any sort of pantheism that states we are God, it is an essence of the divine that is within that allows a connection to the source. Sounds like that is exactly what you are talking about.

PMCV