Erotognosis

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

Erotognosis

Gnosis is a Greek word for â??knowledgeâ?? or the â??means of knowledgeâ??, particularly in an esoteric sense. In the traditional interpretation it is applied as much to straight-forward intellectual investigation as to any technique of consciousness modification or direct experience gained thereby. The concept of gnosis as a path to enlightenment is traditionally associated with a diverse array of philosophical and religious groups which emerged in Egypt during the early centuries of the Christian era. That time period in that location was characterised by the mingling of traditional Egyptian views of the world, which were distinctly magical in orientation, with influences from Roman, Greek and assimilated Mesopotamian cultures, and the newly emergent salvational concepts which were an essential component of early Christianity.

Gnosticism was quite thoroughly suppressed once Christianity became the state religion throughout the declining Roman Empire, and its proponents were condemned as heretics after the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. What seems certain is that the Gnostic tradition comprised of a number of sects pursuing their own magical/mystical paths - a similar ambience might be said to exist today among modern western occultists. Some of those early Gnostics appear to have incorporated erotic, or at least phallic devotional concepts into their practices. One remarkable piece of evidence for this suggestion exists among the collection of Christian sculpture in the Vatican Museum - namely the devotional image "Soter Kosmou" (Greek: The Saviour of the World"). It is not known whether this piece, dating from the first century, is actually on display, as it might be considered offensive or even blasphemous. It consists of an anthropomorphic cockerel whose head is metamorphosed into a disproportionately large erect phallus. In recent times the existence of this early Christian icon was highlighted by supporters of Gay News in defence of that publication against action being brought about for the rare criminal offence of Blasphemous Libel.

Among present day occult practitioners (and not just Chaos Magicians) there is some consensus that the inducement of a state of gnosis is an essential prerequisite for any useful magical activity, be it divination, enchantment, evocation, invocation or illumination. A number of techniques have been described by which such a modified state of consciousness may be induced, and these have been divided into two broad categories of â??Inhibitory Gnosisâ?? and â??Excitatory Gnosisâ?? by Peter Carroll. The classification is not absolute, and occult practitioners usually find on a personal level that some techniques work better than others, or that particular techniques for inducing gnosis are more effective than others when applied to specific intent.

Inhibitory techniques are generally contemplative or yogic in character and are aimed at reducing sensory stimulus, with the subsuming of consciousness in coma and ultimately death being considered as the extreme end of the scale - Thanatos.

Excitatory techniques, in contrast, depend on hyper-stimulation as a means of modifying consciousness. Extremes of pain or fear or persistence with some energetic physical activity (such as a whirling dervish dance) to the point of exhaustion can be effective, but sexual climax as the ultimate expression of life represents the pinnacle of excitatory gnosis - Eros.

Thus â??Erotognosisâ?? is the attainment of a modification of consciousness by sensory stimulation of a sexual nature.

There are physiological differences between human males and females with a regard with a regard to sexual climax, although generalisations may not necessarily apply to particular individuals. Men usually experience a progressively increased level of arousal culminating in a peak of orgasm which is followed by a hiatus, albeit in favourable circumstances that cycle may be repeated a number of times. Most women, in contrast, do not suffer the hiatus of arousal after an initial orgasm, and with continued sensitive stimulation are able to experience a progression of climactic peaks until a point of utter physical exhaustion is reached.

Transcendent erotognosis is the state of consciousness which is experienced immediately preceding and at the point of orgasm, and therefore, by reason of physiology, the gnostic state can generally be sustained by women during a longer period of time than is ordinarily possible for men.

The key to sustained erotognosis for men is to control the physical response to applied stimulus so as to extend the duration of the phase of maximum arousal immediately preceding orgasm, without proceeding forward to ejaculation and the subsequent hiatus. This is essentially a matter of mind and body control, and with a sensitive and appreciative partner, it can be a lot of fun to practice.

The importance of such techniques in occult applications and in hedonistic gratification, was recognised by Crowley who wrote a long essay on the subject entitled â??Energised Enthusiasmâ??; this is included in the book Gems from the Equinox. Sexologists seeking to treat conditions such as premature ejaculation have also proposed similar mind and body control techniques. A technique known as â??Karezzaâ?? or â??Dianismâ?? extends control of the male orgasm to the point where the ejaculate is effectively reabsorbed within the body; my own view is that while this may be interesting to try as an experiment in physical control, it bestows no particular added value in any occult sense. Others might have a different opinion, but I take the attitude that the ultimate release of orgasmic ejaculation is an essential part of the erotognostic experience for a man, and that to deny that element in the process is to reduce the efficacy of any magic that may be undertaken as well as being unfulfilling in an emotional and physical sense.

Erotognosis is an essentially personal experience, but most people find it is most effective if the primary sensual stimulus is being administered by someone else. If the objective is simply to produce a sample of bodily fluid for some purpose then obviously one can do what is necessary oneself, but if the target is the oblivion of gnosis some relinquishment of personal control is desirable.

Most of what I have put forward so far has been couched in terms of so called â??straightâ?? sexual practice, but that is not to exclude the wider dimensions of erotic expression. Basically whatever turns you on will be effective for you personally, and, conversely, you are unlikely to achieve much in the way of gnosis through participation in any erotic practice which you find repugnant. This is not said to discourage experimentation; I have met people who thought the idea of oral sex was repulsive until they found themselves on the receiving end of it; ditto massage with body oil; ditto mild bondage; ditto group sex. With erotognosis one is talking about sensory stimulation techniques applied for an essentially cerebral response, not necessarily about romantic love; although if it exists it can enhance the experience.

In summing up it may be useful to give some indication of typical applications of erotognostic techniques in each of the main areas of magical activity. These are appropriate to either male or female practitioners, and they assume the willing and witting participation of at least one partner to provide sensory stimulation, whether of the same or/and the opposite gender is entirely a matter of personal preference. An obvious caveat in these times of serious risk from life-threatening viral infections is that unprotected penetrative sex involving transfer of bodily fluids should be avoided, unless you are privy to a partnerâ??s sexual and personal history - stay safe.

Eroto-divination is about obtaining answers to questions. Close to the point of orgasm (for men) or in the course of an orgasmic sequence (for women) formulate a question intensely in your mind. Allow yourself to become immersed in the sensation driving you to the pitch of ecstasy and take note of whatever random thoughts or image next impinges on your consciousness - interpret these as the answer to your question. This process may be repeated with different questions, or you can ask the same one again to seek clarification of an earlier question. Men may find this question and answer routine actually helps to delay orgasm, and that the eventual climax of the experience is all the more intense for having gone through the exercise. As an alternative, the person experiencing the erotognosis may be encouraged to make oracular pronouncements while in climax - divination by orgasomancy!

In evocation the objective is to imbue some material basis with a vital essence or to draw forth and fashion some non-material servitor or entity from the energised aura of an operator in the throes of ecstasy. A clear statement of intent should be made at the outset of the working. This class of operation may be more effective if conducted as a group working with the participant willingly providing the erotognostic manifestation (male or female) hoodwinked and subjected to mild physical restraint. Although sexual fluids can be used to charge a material basis, the sweat of passion is equally appropriate, as is breath exhaled with the shriek of ecstatic climax.

Erotognostic invocation typically takes the form of the Hieros Gamos. Alternatively the gnosis may be induced by the means indicated and then used as a conduit by means of which the operator may attempt to take on a manifestation of some appropriate deity, with other participants vocalising any incantation.

Erotic techniques are particularly appropriate for an enchantment. A sigil may be constructed to represent the intended outcome of the working using any standard procedure for example that set out in Austin Osman Spareâ??s Book of Pleasure which has been paraphrased by many other authors more recently. Such a sigil may be strongly visualised at the moment of erotic climax. Alternatively a conjugal act of mutual stimulation might be devoted to such a purpose. A paper representation of the sigil might be placed under the altar of passion, and perhaps left there if an ongoing enchantment is intended. Alternatively the sigil might be inscribed on rice paper, or on a chocolate biscuit which might be broken with a portion being consumed by each of the participants. At the point of collective attainment of the erotognostic state the sigil would be symbolically reconstituted and the enchantment effected.

Illumination by erotognosis is potentially a devastating experience. An effective procedure might open with an arousal and stimulation process along the lines of that set out above for evocation, but this should be carefully planned to â??drip feedâ?? arousal to each sense in turn, with visual stimulus denied until the restrained recipientâ??s frustration is absolute. Matters should be arranged so that when the hoodwink is removed and the restraints are loosened the operator is instantaneously transported from a pit of torment into a paradise of fulfilment. Some caution is advisable here. The operator may experience a very intense emotional release and the working should not be undertaken by anyone who is not in robust physical health. The objective is illumination through the ultimate Excitatory gnosis. On the other hand, being â??fucked to deathâ?? has to be the best of all ways to go.

by Frater Choronzon 999

Phil Hine -Writings

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ludi

One remarkable piece of evidence for this suggestion exists among the collection of Christian sculpture in the Vatican Museum - namely the devotional image "Soter Kosmou" (Greek: The Saviour of the World").

Evidence of a sense of humor?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Chaos Shaman

As much as I would like to agree with you concerning the overbearing nature of "Christian Orthodoxy", history does not support this point. Nor does what we have evidence for actually support the notion of a libertine sexualist form of "Gnosticism"..... unless you can support it. Honestly, I am genuinely ready to hear the argument.... but you cannot simply assume it here, you have to present it. (for instance.... if you cannot present whether such a piece is on display... you have to present whether it actually exists!).

I am not arguing against you, so much as I am stating that you really have not presented your point as to whether something could exist historically in a Gnostic setting.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

pmcv, I did not write this, but I thought it was quite provocative.

Men usually experience a progressively increased level of arousal culminating in a peak of orgasm which is followed by a hiatus, albeit in favourable circumstances that cycle may be repeated a number of times. Most women, in contrast, do not suffer the hiatus of arousal after an initial orgasm, and with continued sensitive stimulation are able to experience a progression of climactic peaks until a point of utter physical exhaustion is reached.

Thought I'd nudge him awake next time, see if this hypothesis holds out.:p

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Ok, to Ludi and to Chaos Shaman....

Ludi.... the picture seems to be a modern representation of the image found on the so called "Abraxas gems". You would need to demonstrate that this image was taken from an historical source to be valid in and of itself.... BUT, I can offer that in fact the elements of the image do have an historical existance in what may be Gnostic beliefs. This is NOT, BTW meant as humor... there is an underlying meaning to this kind of imagery that is quite serious.

However, ther term written underneath (if I understand it) means "savior of the worlds"... which would actually be the Demiurge, not the Logos or any higher spiritual aspect. This would be in agreement with observations of Basilidian lore but that should not be taken as humorous.

However, once again, this looks to me to be a modern reinterperatation.... you would need to demonstrate that it is an historical piece if you wish to argue it's accuracy.

Chaos Shaman....

I can certainly sympathize with modern understanding of the human sexual response..... but you still did not make a point as to how you wish to connect this with Gnostic systems of philosophy. Whether or not the hypothosis holds out in your particular experience, we need to demonstrate whether it holds out as something relevent to the over all philosophy of "Gnosticism". Can you help us bring this subject back on topic?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

I can certainly sympathize with modern understanding of the human sexual response..... but you still did not make a point as to how you wish to connect this with Gnostic systems of philosophy. Whether or not the hypothosis holds out in your particular experience, we need to demonstrate whether it holds out as something relevent to the over all philosophy of "Gnosticism". Can you help us bring this subject back on topic?

PMCV, yes I can and thanks for reminding me. I do want to say that my hope is that this text sparks some interest in terms of practice and ideas, and also encourages critiques from historical, theological and sexual perspectives. Jokes and satire also welcome.

I have noticed that not many people are posting around this area so I thought I would try. I chose something that I thought might be interesting to pick apart. I had considered the idea of placing questions at the end of the text when I originally posted, but decided against it because I did not want to stifle any free ideas that originated on reading it. Neither did I want to prevent a gentle lead-in or encourage anyone to plunge in headlong. There are lots of iron boots in this forum that are not necessarily helpful to people feeling at ease or discussing ideas easily. As a visitor I would like to see that change. Try a velvet glove. In my opinion, discussion should happen on lots of levels if understanding is to be gained.

As a user of these forums, I would like the flexibility to tie practical questions and discussion, with philosophical and theoretical debate across all the occult forums, and yes, my questions are practically based. Yes again, I have left the thread to long with no direction, apologies. I'm hoping for multi-directional responses. Unless we are following an Aristotelian approach here, I would suggest that empirical questions, recollections and discussions, as well as the broader implications in terms of philosophical genres, should be welcomed equally. I am happy to move this topic if you believe it would serve a better purpose elsewhere, however my interest is genuine and I hope that useful discussion follows.
Regards,
Chaos Shaman

Okey dokey then...

PMCV, your question as to whether the above theory holds out in terms of the general philosophy of gnosticism, is also mine. How does your approach to gnosticism fit with the erotognosis text?

A few points and questions - anyone?

1.

there is some consensus that the inducement of a state of gnosis is an essential prerequisite for any useful magical activity, be it divination, enchantment, evocation, invocation or illuminationâ?¦

I am interested in this and am wondering whether or not this consensus can be taken as given? What I mean is, as a magickian, would you say erotognosis was essential to your practice? Also, is erotognosis something you would value personally as being an integral part of your approach?

2.

A number of techniques have been described by which such a modified state of consciousness may be induced, and these have been divided into two broad categories of â??Inhibitory Gnosisâ?? and â??Excitatory Gnosisâ?? by Peter Carroll.

In Liber Null, Peter Carroll explains that for practical application, experience of one of two extremes can help achieve gnosis.

The first state (inhibitory gnosis) is described as â??a pool of waterâ??, calm nothingness, no thought, no action, no movement. This is usually achieved through meditation and its pinnacle is Thanatos â?? an extreme calm.

The second state (excitatory gnosis, or â?? hyper-stimulationâ?? as outlined in the text above) is described as a â??flameâ??, the state in which the senses are overburdened with pain/pleasure etc. The pinnacle of excitatory gnosis is Eros, which is brought about by extreme pleasure. In my opinion, most people will have experienced one or the other of these states at least once at some time, intentional or otherwise, so the question is what are your experiences?

Have you achieved a state of gnosis using any one of these extremes? If you have used both, then which did you find most effective and why? Also, what was your aim in doing this?

3.

some techniques work better than others, or that particular techniques for inducing gnosis are more effective than others when applied to specific intent

This causes me to wonder about peopleâ??s personal erotognosis techniques, guidance on whether these can be discussed here please mod!

Also, do you think 'intent' is essential?


4.

As much as I would like to agree with you concerning the overbearing nature of "Christian Orthodoxy", history does not support this point.

- PMCV

I am interested as to your reasons for stating history does not support this idea PMCV. Could you explain, in your opinion, why not?

5.

â?¦ once again, this looks to me to be a modern reinterperatation.... you would need to demonstrate that it is an historical piece if you wish to argue it's accuracy.

- PMCV

Yes, the piece written is an exploration into these ideas (albeit a comparatively controversial one), and as such is open to discussion. Iâ??m interested in comments about how this interpretation compares with others? What do you see as the flaws in this text? Are there any insights?

6.

I can offer that in fact the elements of the image do have an historical existance in what may be Gnostic beliefs. This is NOT, BTW meant as humor... there is an underlying meaning to this kind of imagery that is quite serious.

- PMCV

I think it would be fair to say in my own approach that many things that seem very serious, can also be humorous at the same time. I am able to laugh or to take them seriously equally. Therefore any humour that might have crept in or have been perceived here, should not automatically be seen as a sabotage attempt. Humour can open up debate and make discussion of this subject more accessible.

7.

However, ther term written underneath (if I understand it) means "savior of the worlds"... which would actually be the Demiurge, not the Logos or any higher spiritual aspect. This would be in agreement with observations of Basilidian lore but that should not be taken as humorous.

- PMCV

Again, I think humour, including the higher forms like sarcasm, satire and irony, are all natural parts of the ways in which we communicate ideas. Laughter, by the way, can be used as post-gnosis technique, so itâ??s good to practice it every now and then. Progress can be made here on all levels.

Do you agree with the quote below?

The danger with modern religious forms is that they have become locked in semantics, they have become bogged down with the symbols and forgotten the spiritâ?¦The Path of the Gnosis is the path of the Whole and offers the Mystery traditions in their totality, Gnosticism is the experience of our heritage within the context of the continuum of the tradition as it has been handed down through history. All things must be seen in the context of the greater picture and that picture holds an image of the destiny of man.

Gnosticism

8.

â?¦ the collection of Christian sculpture in the Vatican Museum - namely the devotional image "Soter Kosmou" (Greek: The Saviour of the World"). It is not known whether this piece, dating from the first century, is actually on display, as it might be considered offensive or even blasphemous. It consists of an anthropomorphic cockerel whose head is metamorphosed into a disproportionately large erect phallus.

Honestly, I am genuinely ready to hear the argument.... but you cannot simply assume it here, you have to present it. (for instance.... if you cannot present whether such a piece is on display... you have to present whether it actually exists!).

- PMCV

I agree, I wanted to ask whether anybody had any knowledge of this because I, like you, find the idea of it fascinating. Any further information welcome!

Here are two Vatican and Soter Kosmou links. You might consider them controversial. I have found nothing so far on the artefact itself, apart from the text on Phil Hineâ??s writings.

http://www.odeion.org/gematria/gemchap-iv.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm

Ludi, you found the picture!

"Soter Kosmou" (Greek: The Saviour of the World)

9.

In recent times the existence of this early Christian icon was highlighted by supporters of Gay News in defence of that publication against action being brought about for the rare criminal offence of Blasphemous Libel.

Can anyone get a copy of this story? Has anyone seen or heard of it?

10.

Transcendent erotognosis is the state of consciousness which is experienced immediately preceding and at the point of orgasm, and therefore, by reason of physiology, the gnostic state can generally be sustained by women during a longer period of time than is ordinarily possible for men.

Again, I was wondering how this would compare to peopleâ??s experiences?

11.

The importance of such techniques in occult applications and in hedonistic gratification, was recognised by Crowley who wrote a long essay on the subject entitled â??Energised Enthusiasmâ??; this is included in the book Gems from the Equinox.

Is 'hedonistic gratification' a necessary part of erotognosis technique?

That's all for now...

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Chaos Shaman, you offer many intersting points and questions... instead of giving my own perspective in order of yours, let me instead attempt to deal with them in subject groupings.

from you #4 (in response to my statement "As much as I would like to agree with you concerning the overbearing nature of "Christian Orthodoxy", history does not support this point.")

I am interested as to your reasons for stating history does not support this idea PMCV. Could you explain, in your opinion, why not?

Actually, as I read my post it is clear that I gave my point no context whatsoever. I thank you for taking the time to ask me what I meant rather than assuming (as many people would), the fault is surely mine on that one.

So, what I was saying there is that I believe many people have assumptions about "Christian history" that are problematic when we deal with some categorization fallacies. For instance, the assumption that "Christianity" is some kind of homogenus whole, or that even "Orthodox Christianity", or even a specific sect like "Roman Catholicism" is, doesn't seem to hold against close scrutiny.

Here is an acecdotal example of what I mean. A few blocks to the north and east of my house is a Catholic church that appeals mainly to an anglo consituency. About an equal distance to the south and east is another that deal mostly with an hispanic populus. While technically these two churches are both Catholic they could just as easily be two completely different sects, not only based on the differences in thier mass (traditional vs folk music playing, hellfire vs love), but even in thier actual beliefs. The modern "anglo" church does not take the notion of praying to the saints very seriously, and some even frown on it, where they hispanic church essentially sees the saints as gods.

It is my oppinion that one of the reasons the Catholic church was so popular against other forms in the early years is exactly because of this sort of ambiguity that allowed people of many minds to feel part of it. How much more so the VERY wide category of "orthodox" Christianity (and I believe we all know we are not talking about the "Orthodox" sect).

Directly to the point now; It seems to me that many people wish to set up some kind of romantic battle between "Orthodox Christians" and the unfortunate "Gnostic Christians" (obviously we are not talking about Sethians in this case), with the Orthodox whiping out the Gnostics who were no match for thier cohesive front to overcome them. In fact though, there really was no such cohesive front, and what was acceptable doctrin could change monthly. Even more to the point, many of these Gnostic Christian communities were simply part of the larger "Orthodox" community, and while we do see cases of Valentinians being driven out of the church, we see just as much evidence form Valentinian ideas and rituals being absorbed into the same said church.

I am NOT excusing the terrible actions that various Christian communities have exibited through the ages, what I am questioning is how much we should see these things as singular in thier historical significance.

To bring that to our subject, first off I don't believe Gnosticism was destroyed (though there is question as to whether it truely ever existed in the way many people mean it). The impatus has come up from time to time over the ages, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconciously (such as motifs that regularly pop up in works of art, influences in modern psychology, or even poppular media). It, or it's close relatives, has influenced some notions of the occult (while being at odds with other notions of the occult), alongside influencing the religious movements previously mentioned.

There is even debate as to whether it may have survived in original form amongst a small sect found mostly in southern Iran and Iraq, mostly now in exile in western countries (though I have doubts this sect is technically "Gnosticism", but instead more of a close cousin).

Ok, let me move on in seperate posts.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

To start with, let me address something about form and function.

I have noticed that not many people are posting around this area so I thought I would try. I chose something that I thought might be interesting to pick apart. I had considered the idea of placing questions at the end of the text when I originally posted, but decided against it because I did not want to stifle any free ideas that originated on reading it. Neither did I want to prevent a gentle lead-in or encourage anyone to plunge in headlong. There are lots of iron boots in this forum that are not necessarily helpful to people feeling at ease or discussing ideas easily. As a visitor I would like to see that change. Try a velvet glove. In my opinion, discussion should happen on lots of levels if understanding is to be gained.

Sure, understanding should be gained on lots of levels, and I also think a "velvet glove" is a superior methodology when it is effective. Then again, there are people who will abuse the velvet glove 9or fail to feel it), and when it comes to keeping the topic, it is time for the boot

As a user of these forums, I would like the flexibility to tie practical questions and discussion, with philosophical and theoretical debate across all the occult forums, and yes, my questions are practically based. Yes again, I have left the thread to long with no direction, apologies. I'm hoping for multi-directional responses. Unless we are following an Aristotelian approach here, I would suggest that empirical questions, recollections and discussions, as well as the broader implications in terms of philosophical genres, should be welcomed equally.

Sure, broader implications ARE welcomed... Freedom of expression is one thing, but I would not join a dog training group to talk about monster trucks. It is disrespectful to the people there. I am not saying that this is what anyone here is doing.... just that I do need people to know that this forum has a focus for a reason. So, broader implications of Gnosticism is fine.

This can, BTW, even include humor (in answer to point #6).... I simply meant to previously point out the destinction between when we may see humor, and when it was intended by the source (though in this particular case the larger question was really whether the source was genuine, and I still have doubts).

Ok, now to your question #1

1.

Quote:
there is some consensus that the inducement of a state of gnosis is an essential prerequisite for any useful magical activity, be it divination, enchantment, evocation, invocation or illuminationâ?¦ (Phil Hine)
I am interested in this and am wondering whether or not this consensus can be taken as given? What I mean is, as a magickian, would you say erotognosis was essential to your practice? Also, is erotognosis something you would value personally as being an integral part of your approach?

No, this supposed consensus has nothing to do with Gnosticism, and cannot be taken as a "given". In fact, I believe here we have a slight communication breakdown. The author of the piece you get this piece from is not in any way using the term "Gnosis" as it is meant traditionally, nor is he Gnostic himself.... nor does his oppinion seem to agree with Gnosticism from what I am reading here. Of course, anybody can use the term "gnosis" for thier own system, but this forum only deals with "Gnosis" with a capital "G", that is to say, the definition used by traditional Gnostics. Perhaps there is something called "eratognosis" that belongs in the chaos magick forum... but the subject here is only valid if you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "erato-Gnosis."

Question 2

Essentially the same answer as question 1. The fact that Peter Carroll uses the term gnosis does not mean he is talking about Gnosis. What is being described here does not seem to have anything in common with the traditional meaning of the term. On the contrary, these descriptions look more like altered states of conciousness equated with what the Gnostics would have seen as ecstatic "praxis" leading to functions that relate to "pharmakeia" in an attempt to divine "heimarene". Not something Gnostic sources put in a positive light.

3.
Quote:
some techniques work better than others, or that particular techniques for inducing gnosis are more effective than others when applied to specific intent
This causes me to wonder about peopleâ??s personal erotognosis techniques, guidance on whether these can be discussed here please mod!

If you bring the subject into a relation to Gnosticism it is fine. First though, you would have to demonstrate that such a thing even existed in Gnosticism.

I guess all of this comes back to one thing, whether or not we are talking about the same thing when we use terms like "Gnostic" and "Gnosis", and how we are to deal with divergence in those definitions.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Ok, I know I am now writing a book. I will try to keep this shorter, and I only have two points left that I feel a need to deal with.

From #7

Do you agree with the quote below?


Quote:
The danger with modern religious forms is that they have become locked in semantics, they have become bogged down with the symbols and forgotten the spiritâ?¦The Path of the Gnosis is the path of the Whole and offers the Mystery traditions in their totality, Gnosticism is the experience of our heritage within the context of the continuum of the tradition as it has been handed down through history. All things must be seen in the context of the greater picture and that picture holds an image of the destiny of man.
Gnosticism

Well, if I understand this, the group is claiming a direct link that I doubt, but beyond that I guess the real important question you intend to ask is if I agree with the sentiment.

So, to start with the first statement, that modern religion is locked in semantics while historical Gnosticism was not.... quite false. On the contrary, Gnosticism had a sort of "trade lingo" that was quite well defined (semantics, after all, is the study of definition). Gnostic texts go to GREAT pains to make sure the definitions are understood. The Tripartite Tractate, for instance takes many paragraphs just to outline what it is talking about by the term "Father". Now, it is true that texts also take pains to point out that none of these words are accurate, that the mystery is clothed in the words, as it were, but this too is about the importance of semantics, not the rejection of it. It is a means of saying "look at the special meanings we are trying to define".

Gnostics have traditionally even engaged in sort of free form interperative exorcises, which I believe the writer of this piece may be confusing with a rejection of semantics, when infact the opposite was intended.... to create a greater understanding of the importance of semantics.

Second thing that jumps out at me is the statement that....

"The Path of the Gnosis is the path of the Whole and offers the Mystery traditions in their totality"

Gnostics were Platonists, thier definitions were based in the Academies, thier cosmology was Platonic, it is quite likely that thier understanding of art, love, etc., was rooted in Platonic thought. Plato states his understanding of the "Mysteries" in the Republic. He tells us that the Mysteries, as they existed contermporary to him, were essentially about peasant superstition and ecstatic animalism.... BUT... that there were symbolic meanings that could... SHOULD... be reworked into a new "Philosophical" mysteries.

I think that the statement that the path of "Gnosis" equates to the "Mysteries" could have even been a bit insulting to historical Gnostics, in that they were aware that they were doing something different than the "pagan" (and I mean that literally as "hick", not in the modern usage) Mysteries.

Lastly....

"All things must be seen in the context of the greater picture and that picture holds an image of the destiny of man."

Of the Gnostic view of the "Destiny of man" (which I mentioned previously as "Heimarene"), there is no question. Gnostics considered "destiny" to be a lower order, for the Hylic. Destiny is a material function, related to failure, related to the Demiurge and the Archons. The "destiny of man" is not something Gnostics took a favorable view of in many cases. The "Pneumatic" is beyond "destiny", and that is the function of "Gnosis".

Ok, to the last point.... #5

5.
Quote:
â?¦ once again, this looks to me to be a modern reinterperatation.... you would need to demonstrate that it is an historical piece if you wish to argue it's accuracy.
- PMCV

Yes, the piece written is an exploration into these ideas (albeit a comparatively controversial one), and as such is open to discussion. Iâ??m interested in comments about how this interpretation compares with others? What do you see as the flaws in this text? Are there any insights?

This, I assume, you mean to concern the first piece, the one that opened the discussion.

I can boil this down quite quickly. The primary problem with the piece is that it starts with a mistaken outline of historical Gnosticism, then jumps quickly into modern occultism, and progresses using the term "gnosis" in it's own way. This seems to me to be an intentional slight of hand, in that the careful reader can notice the writer does not directly state a connection, but implies it so directly that the average reader probably assumes the connection, if not historically then at least concerning word usage (like "gnosis"), when in fact the usage is unrelated to the historical one. Reminds me a bit of the "Da Venci Code", honestly. Entertaining, but anyone who checks the facts will quickly find the problems destroy the thesis entirely.

There is no genuine evidence that erotic practices were ever part of "Gnosticism", though I would argue they were.... albeit in a different way than this author presents.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

Thanks for your replies PMCV. I am a bit swamped by it all to be honest. I am not certain that I can join you in attempting to find the connections between the practice of erotognosis and gnostic studies, although I do appreciate that you have taken quite some time to answer my questions and it has been very useful to me. I had hoped that you would have the knowledge to let me know whether or not the post should be here. I had problems trying to find a category to post this subject in, and I thought that since one aim of gnosticism is to achieve an altered state of consciousness, in order to 'see' the universe as it really is, and the erotognosis technique is practiced to achieve that aim among others, that there could be a connection there. Obviously erotognosis is a technique and also an experience, whereas gnosticism is an entire and complex philosophy. I just thought the text was interesting and that people with an interest in the technique might post.

I am mainly interested in discussing the technique of â??Erotognosisâ?? itself as

the attainment of a modification of consciousness by sensory stimulation of a sexual nature

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: prosperinedemil

Chaosshamanyou asked for my views, but gnostic Studies is way out from the things I know about, so I could get myself into big trouble here. Don't no about that pic either.I always post in forums like Barbelith Undrground and I am not putting my actual forum on here because you know iâ??m in sh** street there!

http://www.barbelith.com/topic/17074

You talk about erotognisis over and over again like OBSESSION!!!?? in the Enochian sex Magick experiments you said it aswell but i still donâ??t know, but folk could hurt themselves doing it so remember that. Most folk are pretty damn boring. Not many occultists are doing anything at all for magick, they are just armchair magicians.

You think that some time in their lives they would have got to top orgasm you say this could have flipped them to an alterd state. I donâ??t know if they would have. I can get near because of my working with Secrets of Western Tantra, and when we talk about Kundalini. Like you said they are the calm end of erotognosis aswell.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Ah, ok, I see where you are comming from with that, Chaos Shaman.

Correct me if I am assuming overly much here, but I believe that by "altered states of conciousness" you are intending the sort of effect caused by medetational trances, ecstatic dances, drugs, and obviously in this case the sexual stimulation that this thread is outlining.

If you do mean that, then it gives your statement....

"I thought that since one aim of gnosticism is to achieve an altered state of consciousness, in order to 'see' the universe as it really is......."

.... a very exact context.

Of course, any time a person changes thier mind (metenoia), or has some kind of epiphany, it can be called "altered conciousness", but I don't get the impression you are talking about that.

This begs one question in particular; how sure are you that Gnostics seek altered states of conciouness? And, how do you support that idea?

As you can see, the whole foundation of your question as a topic here is dependant on this. I believe this is why we are both trying to gain clerification as to what the other person is talking about... eh?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Prosperinedemil.

Well, the webpage you give certainly does give an example as to why people may get the idea about "Gnostics" and altered states of conciousness, etc.. However, let me point out that this forum deals only with traditional Gnostic beliefs, and the outline presented on the page you offer seems unrelated, and even at odds, with that outline.

You may wish, in turn, to take a look at the terms, etymologies, soteriology, cosmogeny, etc., as presented in this group. You will find them in the "stickies" at the top of the forum.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pathless

pmcv,
wouldnt this be an," altered state of conciousness" or maybe evan some astral traveling:

The Sophic Hydrolith "is that through this spirit dying his(a man's) soul is taken from him and lifted up on high; while his body is still upon earth, his spirit and heart are already in the eternal Fatherland."

didnt jesus say,"the kingdom of God is not of this world"

St. Maximums, "it is said that the highest state of prayer is when the spirit leaves the flesh and the world, and in the act of prayer, loses all matter and all form.To maintain oneself unfailingly in this state, is in reality to pray without cease..just as the body, in dying, is seperated from all the goods of this life, so does the spirit, which dies at thesummit of prayer, quit all the representations that it has of the world.For without dying this death,it could never find itself and live with GOD."

Porphyry writes: "There is a two-fold death; the one, indeed universally known, in which the body is liberated from the soul; but the other, pecuuliar to philosophers, is in which the soul is liberated from the body.Nor does one entirely follow the other."

maybe I have read too much of the Desert Fathers how do they fit into Gnostics? Or are they just runaway catholics. It seems like the hesychasm would all be gnostic ancient and modern?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

PMCV, Iâ??m sorry I havenâ??t had much time to reply, you overwhelmed me with information the other day and I wasnâ??t in a position to ponder it; life and all. I have a bit more bad news in terms of the discussion because Iâ??m taking my group on a residential team-building course this week, so I wonâ??t be around to discuss anything until next weekend, but Iâ??m hoping the thread develops in the meantimeâ?¦



In the interim, Iâ??ll quote and comment on one of your points and perhaps we can return to the others later.



[quote]Gnostics were Platonists, thier definitions were based in the Academies, thier cosmology was Platonic, it is quite likely that thier understanding of art, love, etc., was rooted in Platonic thought. Plato states his understanding of the "Mysteries" in the Republic. He tells us that the Mysteries, as they existed contermporary to him, were essentially about peasant superstition and ecstatic animalism.... BUT... that there were symbolic meanings that could... SHOULD... be reworked into a new "Philosophical" mysteries.[/quote] - PMCV

I think this statement needed to be qualified a little PMCV. I would say that you could qualify with â??In my opinionâ?? (â??Gnostics were Platonistsâ?¦â?Â

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Pathless

Well, yes, the passage you quote from the Sophic Hydrolith certainly sounds like some form of altered conciousness.... but it is not a Gnostic text you are drawing from. To be direct... none of the sources you mention fit the category of "Gnosticism", though some are more related than others.

Porphyry, while not technically Gnostic, is a Platonist who has some ideas in common with Gnosticism.

Bishop Maximus wrote against such heresies, and how people like the Nestorians (and presumedly the Gnostics, though I don't recall if he mentions them specifically) defiled the true faith of Roman Catholicism.

And concerning the hesychasm ("quiet", but the meaning changes in Christian texts over time), while having some connotations of mysticism is not part of Gnosticism. I think many people do confuse Mystic with Gnostic. But remember, the definition of "Gnosticism" is actually fairly exact.

I think maybe I can answer this a bit more directly when I get back and to try and deal with points that Chaos Shaman makes. I will do so this evening.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pathless

pmcv,

Thankyou for the time you spend answering my questions.I was going to go into some long post about achieving these states of conciousness and how that must include some day to day mindfulness or worship on the mundane.And naturally that would have to filter into sex as an act of worship....or gnosis?.

But I REALLY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what Im talking about....just trying to learn,and your patience and time is appriciated.THANKYOU

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Pathless

THANKYOU

Say, c'mon... we are just talking here. It isn't like we are doing favors or something. Not everybody here has read the same things, and it sounds like you could give us some lessons about some of the writings of early church fathers when the subject comes up.

Chaos Shaman

Hey, no problem.... I understand the time thing VERY well.

I think this statement needed to be qualified a little PMCV. I would say that you could qualify with â??In my opinionâ?? (â??Gnostics were Platonistsâ?¦â?Â

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

However, I don't need to simply qualify it with "In my opinion", since it is actually academic concensus. â?? PMCV



Also, let me point out that while some 50 years ago there were historians who postulated an Iranian influence in Gnosticism, most of the sects they site do not hold up to the definition of "Gnosticism" itself. Sure, Manichaeans have Zoroastrian influence, but they are not Gnostic so the connection falls apart. â?? PMCV



I still think you do need to qualify with â??in my opinionâ?? PMCV, there is no such thing as academic consensus, although there may be a dominant ideology in our own time and culture (and bear in mind this could obscure the path forward and marginalize independent thought). It is worth bearing in mind that the current dominant ideology has not always been dominant, may not be dominant in the future, and certainly does not represent the full body of thinking that is out there. I often find that historians pursue their careers by either conforming to current thought, or by radically disagreeing with it. In addition, dominant thought trains in terms of academic research, usually gallop towards a dead end in the long term and are often viewed as â??tweeâ?? or â??misguidedâ?? 50 years later. Unfortunately, any dominant ideology can bypass the useful or the innovative quite easily. We are capable of coming up with independent viewpoints PMCV, regardless of current academic dominance. It is one thing to be a scholar, it is quite another to be a â??thinkerâ??.

let me point out that the evidence we have does not imply that any Gnostic groups ever used any sexual practices to attain "Gnosis". In fact, all of the Gnostic texts that actually deal with the subject, that survive, have seem to have a pretty negative attitude about the act of sex as a "hylic" act, and procreation as an outright sin (having a child traps more light in the hyle, and having sex is a physical focus).

- PMCV



It does depend which Gnostic group you are talking about when you say that gnostics would have considered procreation a â??sinâ?? (sin is a Christian concept, granted Christianity does seem to have penetrated gnostic thought after a time, but without qualification, Christian beliefs are not necessarily relevant to the discussion).



You say that gnostic groups would not have used sexual practice to achieve gnosis in the past, does this necessarily mean that they could not do so now or in the future? In terms of the past, gnostics viewed procreation itself as undesirable. However, the avoidance of procreation and so male/female sex was not on moral grounds, but rather on philosophical ones, and without contraception, homosexual practice became more commonplace anyway.



It is worth pointing out as well that the erotognosis technique is not exclusively a male/female practice, and can be used regardless of sexuality. Erotognosis is an independent concept unconnected with procreation and childbirth or heterosexuality, although it does not exclude these things. As you say in your post â??What is, is not, gnosisâ?¦â??[quote] 'In the Gnostic system, it is the Gnosis itself that is the salvationâ??[/quote] [/color] it is the aim of it all, wouldnâ??t you say? Similarly, the aim of erotognosis is to achieve an altered state of consciousness, regardless of morality or sexual persuasion and regardless of procreation, and this is in keeping with the philosophical aim of achieving an altered state of consciousness. In this sense the technique can be said to be a gnostic one.

Quote:

I would argue that Gnosis is a knowledge that is outside of the empirical or rational, it is intuitive knowledge arising from internal sources. - Chaos Shaman

I would partially agree with you, but you go even further when you imply there is no intellectual basis. You, as a person who studied Platonism, will remember that when Plato outlined this tripartite division of the human he made a difference between the psychic (rational) and the pneumatic (which is a sort of pure logical and intellectual understanding). Gnostics also traditionally used these terms, along with his other term "hylic" to mean the physical realm.

- PMCV



I donâ??t imply that there should be no intellectual basis, on the contrary, I would say such a basis is integral, but I would not agree that a bias toward intellectualism should overshadow another form of learning; practice. The use of terms such as â??hylicâ?? by traditional Gnostics recognises a distinction between physical and non-physical realms, and since the erotognosis technique involves transcendence from the physical realm to the non-physical, then erotognosis is one technique that can be used to achieve gnosis, and thus can be considered gnostic.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Chaos Shaman

I still think you do need to qualify with â??in my opinionâ?? PMCV, there is no such thing as academic consensus, although there may be a dominant ideology in our own time and culture (and bear in mind this could obscure the path forward and marginalize independent thought). It is worth bearing in mind that the current dominant ideology has not always been dominant, may not be dominant in the future, and certainly does not represent the full body of thinking that is out there.
[/quote]

Now, we are in agrement that consensus changes.... however, you left out my main point there. I only mentioned the agreement as a secondary principle of what the actual evidence demonstrates. If you wish to disagree with that, you would have to present contrary evidence. Various "thinking" on the subject is fine, but that thinking needs to have some backing to it.

[quote] [/size]
It does depend which Gnostic group you are talking about when you say that gnostics would have considered procreation a â??sinâ??
[/quote]

I never say "gnostics" I only say "Gnostics". I do want to point out also that it is not true that the concept of "sin" is of Christian origin. I am unable to think (at least not off the top of my head) of any historical Gnostic group that did not have a negative valuation on procreation as something that "trapped spirit" in the fetid "hyle". Can you demonstrate otherwise?

[quote]
You say that gnostic groups would not have used sexual practice to achieve gnosis in the past, does this necessarily mean that they could not do so now or in the future? In terms of the past, gnostics viewed procreation itself as undesirable. However, the avoidance of procreation and so male/female sex was not on moral grounds, but rather on philosophical ones, and without contraception, homosexual practice became more commonplace anyway.

[/quote]

First, let me point out that I did NOT say that Gnostic groups in history would not have used sexual practice, just that the evidence does not support it. I then give you the option of presenting contrary evidence in Gnostic texts.

Second, technically there are no "Gnostics" in the present or in the future. The fact that some people today may wish to take pieces of traditional Gnosticism and rework it into thier own system does not make them a part of that original definition.

You go on to point out that "erotognosis" is not dependant or related to procreation, this is your best method for continuing the subject.... because once we remove the procreation aspect the need to seperate it from Gnosticism becomes less destinctly at odds with the definition of "Gnosticism".

However, this also brings us to the real crux of the matter. In cunjunction with your prior point, you go on to quote me concerning the soteriological function of Gnosis along with certain attributes of "Gnosis" that we had been discussing.

However, there are some logical flaws with what you present that I hope you will take the time to clarify for us, and hopefully remove these flaws.

[quote]
I donâ??t imply that there should be no intellectual basis, on the contrary, I would say such a basis is integral, but I would not agree that a bias toward intellectualism should overshadow another form of learning; practice. The use of terms such as â??hylicâ?? by traditional Gnostics recognises a distinction between physical and non-physical realms, and since the erotognosis technique involves transcendence from the physical realm to the non-physical, then erotognosis is one technique that can be used to achieve gnosis, and thus can be considered gnostic.
[/quote]

The mistake made here is that while it is true that Gnostics made a destinction between the physical and non-physical realm, that does not mean that anyone who makes the same destinction is also "Gnostic" (we are not here to deal with "gnostic", only "Gnostic".) There are two possible mistakes here, but there is an ambiguity in your statement that makes the destinctions difficult. Either you are equivocating between "Gnosis" and "gnosis", OR you seem to be saying something follows a line of reasoning that is in fact not there. In either case, you have not yet made the point as to whether the "gnosis" of erotognosis is indeed "Gnosis" as the Gnostics define the term.

I know that is a difficult task I am asking of you, but it is central to your point as far as I understand it. Because, without that then it is completely untrue that simply because erotognosis also makes the "hylic" destinction it is Gnosis being saught.


[quote]
Similarly, the aim of erotognosis is to achieve an altered state of consciousness, regardless of morality or sexual persuasion and regardless of procreation, and this is in keeping with the philosophical aim of achieving an altered state of consciousness. In this sense the technique can be said to be a gnostic one.
[/quote]

[/size]What makes you sure that Gnostics seek an "altered state of Conciousness" or at least that any altered state was considered equal?

Ok, I do understand that I brought up many points here, and some of them are subtle.... so let me revisit the real points I mean to ask.


1) Can you demonstrate that your definition of "Gnosis" (or that used by the "erotognosis" technique) is the same as the one used by Gnostics.

2) Can you demonstrate any historical outline that could accept sexuality in any form as a technique

All of the points I make can really be boiled down to these points.

Now let me be a bit more direct. IF you say to me "PMCV, I don't think I can do that", I may start to argue your point for the sake of keeping this conversation moving. If, on the other hand, you try to keep making the same point, you really are going to have to present some evidence dealing with those two points I make.... not rationals.... evidence.

I do like the subject.

PMCV[/size][/size]

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

Have you, PMCV, ever achieved what you would describe as 'traditional' gnosis as practiced by 'traditional' Gnostics? If you have experienced it, then perhaps you should describe it, and I will describe experiences with erotognosis and we will talk about how they compare.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Chaos Shaman, you ask....

Have you, PMCV, ever achieved what you would describe as 'traditional' gnosis as practiced by 'traditional' Gnostics? If you have experienced it, then perhaps you should describe it, and I will describe experiences with erotognosis and we will talk about how they compare.

I want to say that your basic way of outlining that question is excellent. However, I think it is either sarcastic.... or it concedes to me an observational superiority over the conversation that I did not intend. Either you think I value my own observations more than I do, or you poke me with a stick

Ok, so, just as I challenged you to present the "erotognosis" understanding of what the term "Gnosis' means against the traditional Gnostic outline, I did not assume my own ability to do any better.

I would absolutely LOVE to take your challenge, but how can we do so before we agree on how the traditional Gnostics outlined the term "Gnosis"?

Let me present my understanding, and you can either accept or refuse that outline..... but please outline WHY you do so.

First off; I think the question of demonstrating Gnosis as an "experience" is alreadly flawed. I believe that in the historical setting "Gnosis" is not an "experience" so much as it is a level of understanding that is gained in levels according to initiatory principles.

This means you don't either "have" some experience of "Gnosis" or not, but that you may have a LEVEL of "Gnosis" vs, perhaps having a lower level of "Gnosis" within an ongoing process. Gnosis, according to my understanding (which I believe represent a closer definition to the traditional understanding, though I welcome a challenge there) is not an experience, it is a system of breakthroughs in thought. OR, you and I would have to have an agrement as to who may have attained "Gnosis" vs who may have not. Do you honestly say I have "Gnosis? Or, do you ask about the process itself?

I will be happy to compare, but doing so does not have meaning until we outline what is meant by "Gnosis" in the traditional context.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

This means you don't either "have" some experience of "Gnosis" or not, but that you may have a LEVEL of "Gnosis" vs, perhaps having a lower level of "Gnosis" within an ongoing process.

I understand your point of view pmcv and I agree with you that most people would have attained some form of gnosis at some point. When I asked about the experience of gnosis, I meant just that. Everything has levels and is layered in depth and sucess and I have taken that as given.

Gnosis, according to my understanding (which I believe represent a closer definition to the traditional understanding, though I welcome a challenge there) is not an experience, it is a system of breakthroughs in thought. OR, you and I would have to have an agrement as to who may have attained "Gnosis" vs who may have not. Do you honestly say I have "Gnosis? Or, do you ask about the process itself?

I disagree in the association you have made between gnosis and the word 'understanding'. In our usual existance, understanding simply does not exist - we have theories by which to define, educate and often be brainwashed by, but we do not have understanding. Understanding cannot exist because we look constantly through a given lense and rarely without it. However, certain methods undertaken by an individual, be it philosophical thought, shamanic journeys, meditations, psychonautical experiments, scrying, meditation, remote viewing (the list goes on) seem to break through the grid that we are obliged to define as reality (i.e. outside of mainstream definitions of reality ) and touch upon further possibilities. It seems to me that these possibilities offer more gnostic possibilities than, for instance, studying accepted thought within an historical context alone might offer. Granted we are simply moving to another grid.



I understand that you see a traditional understanding of gnosis as being a system of breakthroughs and I would agree that is the case with all things, but I would not place a hierarchical value upon such experiences. Everything we do is an experience including the usual (or accepted) state of consciousness we find ourselves conforming to and often accepting as 'all there is'. Experiences lead to many places. However, erotognosis methods (with, as an example, tantric sex at the one pole, and BDSM at the other) as with many other techniques, can act as aids, if you like, towards a breakthrough from accepted consciousness. Such a breakthrough is an experience, and can lead to possibilities for further understanding if not understanding itself, and this is what I would define as gnosis.



However, I think that although we can breakthrough, we are often on something like a piece of elastic, and as soon as practice ceases and the verbalisation begins, the elastic pulls us back toward accepted realities again. In this way, knowledge is forgotten or lost. I say this mainly from my experiences with meditation. I meditate fairly often, and I meditated for four days I think it was about five months ago. On reflection of the meditation, I felt that during it I had reached a point that I would never return from, and an understanding of all things which involved being the nothing and being the everything at once. There was light and there was darkness and there was neither, but wasn't a 'me'. From there everything changes. However, the further away I have got from that point in time (life demands I can't sit around doing 4 day meditations mnost of the time unfortunately) the more I have felt myself being pulled back here, until I have reached this point of non-enlightenment again. Now I would say that I had achieved an understanding by having done that, but I would also call this an experience. The two are not mutually exclusive. Erotognosis is a technique that produces meditation-like results and forms part of the experience that I have in the area of practice surrounding altered states of consciousness.

OR, you and I would have to have an agrement as to who may have attained "Gnosis" vs who may have not.

I wouldnâ??t say that it was a case of who 'have' and 'have not' attained gnosis, but I did think that if you have a definition, you might have an experience or two that matches that definition, as I have. If so, I would like to discuss that because it would illustrate common ground.

Do you honestly say I have "Gnosis? Or, do you ask about the process itself?

I ask about the process and any attainments in consequence, because that is what I am interested in.

I will be happy to compare, but doing so does not have meaning until we outline what is meant by "Gnosis" in the traditional context.

I'm certain I've made a start here.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Chaos Shaman

I do think I had not been previously completely clear on the question. When I had asked you to reconsider as to whether you could ask if I (or you or anybody) actually HAD Gnosis it was based on what I thought was comming across in your post as the belief that "Gnosis" was an experience, and that one either had it or didn't.... like a mystical experience. It seems then that you don't use the term that way, so perhaps we are closer to communicating that I thought. However, I also did not mean to say that most people have attained some level of Gnosis either. I suppose that would be another conversation though.

You state....

I disagree in the association you have made between gnosis and the word 'understanding'. In our usual existance, understanding simply does not exist - we have theories by which to define, educate and often be brainwashed by, but we do not have understanding. Understanding cannot exist because we look constantly through a given lense and rarely without it.

I would agree with you on one level, but would caution you to not assume that the concept of "Gnosis" fits in this outline you give. I mean, you believe there is not such thing as understanding, it does not mean the Gnostics did not believe there was such a thing, or that the definition of the word "Gnosis" does not have connotations of "understanding". Your devaluation of "understanding" is not relavant to what the word "Gnosis" means any more than my usage of "understanding" is in the first place. The question is whether the two words could have an equation in the original meaning of the word, and I can point out in Gnostic scripture that they do. In fact, they very word "gnosis" translates better as "understanding" or "insight" than it does "knowledge", etymologically speaking.

Consider this passage from Thomas......

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
1. And he said, "Whoever understands the meaning of these sayings will not taste death."

This is the essence of "Gnosis".

Now, I do understand that to some extent you wished to make a semantic point concerning "understanding" so let me state for the record that I do get it. To some extent I think that the Gnostic view agrees with you, in that particular levels of thinking are considered to be completely filtered by what you called a "lense" (a word that would have had little meaning to Gnostics, but a concept that they tried to convey all the same). For instance, a hylic person sees the world via a hylic perceptual process... namely physical perceptions and physical reactions, instincts drives, etc. A "psychic" person views the world through a psychic process of rationalisms and allegories (this should not be confused with more pure intellectual process) and the pneumatic comes to look past these things.

If full Gnosis is the complete pre-existance, then Gnosis cannot be completely found here on earth, nor even amongst the spiritual Aeons who are still seperate from the absolute source.... but speaking more relatively there is a level of comprehension (according to the Gnostics) that can be had here in the kenoma.

However, certain methods undertaken by an individual, be it philosophical thought, shamanic journeys, meditations, psychonautical experiments, scrying, meditation, remote viewing (the list goes on) seem to break through the grid that we are obliged to define as reality (i.e. outside of mainstream definitions of reality ) and touch upon further possibilities. It seems to me that these possibilities offer more gnostic possibilities than, for instance, studying accepted thought within an historical context alone might offer.

Some of the list you offer could be seen as related to "Gnosis" while others cannot. Understand, "Gnosis" is not anything and everything that breaks common perceptual peradigms. In fact, there are sources that speak of "false Gnosis". For instance, ecstatic experience is seen by many as a way to break habbits of the mind, but they could just as easily create a new paradigm all thier own. This is why the very term "erotognosis" looks like an oxymoron.

Please understand here, it is not that I am disagreing with you, or stating that these experiences you mention have no value.... it is not up to me in this case. I am simply questioning if these things fit the definition of "Gnosis", or more... I am stating that I think it is a misunderstanding of the very meaning of the term to compare them.

You state that you would not place a heirarchical value on these things, but the fact is the concept of "Gnosis" as the Gnostics understood it DID place a heirarchical value on these. In fact, they outlined pretty specific orders of initiation.

However, I think that although we can breakthrough, we are often on something like a piece of elastic, and as soon as practice ceases and the verbalisation begins, the elastic pulls us back toward accepted realities again.

I think that this is where it becomes most obvious that what you are talking about is not the same thing as what Gnostics were talking about. One of the attacks against Gnostics by the heresiologists was that they did not consider one to have achieved any kind of Gnosis until they could outline thier own version of the mythology so that they are "always creating new Gospels". The point being that one does not understand the meaning (such as is stated at the beginning of Thomas) until one can try to pass that meaning on.

The mystical state, whether attained via sex rites, or via meditative trance, is not Gnosis. I am not saying it has no place in the process, but in the Gnostic context we should not confuse the experience with the context, "Gnosis" is the context.

I wouldnâ??t say that it was a case of who 'have' and 'have not' attained gnosis, but I did think that if you have a definition, you might have an experience or two that matches that definition, as I have. If so, I would like to discuss that because it would illustrate common ground.

Ok, fair enough. It is interesting that you bring up BDSM, actually. It is not something I am personally drawn to, but there is a group I used to run relating to my own traditional background that dealt with "esoteric romance". We had a thread going concerning BDSM, and if it could be related to this system in some of it's aspects. The result we seemed to come up with was that on an allegorical level it could, but that unfortunately the movement as a whole was completely ignorant of that allegorical connection. While I would be against connecting an esoteric movement to a paraphilia, I have also wondered if there are people in this movement that could have a chance to "get it", and perhaps help save a dying tradition. Thus far no one from the BDSM movement has expressed an interest, or asked for greater understanding of possible spiritual and initiatory relations of the ritual system that I practice.

To bring that to your point, much like the Gnostics, my own experience deals with levels of initiation based on the same soteriological and cosmological outline. It is a different historical outline, but concieved from the same philosophical (and historical) source. If you had to make a family tree of esoteric traditions, some would be parents (like Platonism) some would be cousins (like Manichaeans), and some would be siblings (like Classical Hermeticism and my own tradition).

My experience, then, would be nearly identical concerning the cosmogeny, cosmology, and soteriology, of "Gnosticism", but differs concerning ritual practice... and some terminology. The mythological outline of "Gnosticism" changes to some extent, but is recognizable still. My experience of Gnosis, then, is one of similitude expressed through common parentage.

I cannot be more specific, because, like "Gnosticism", there are elements that are not meant to be public. I guess that means there is not solid proof I can outline concerning similarities, so it would be up to me to demonstrate that I understand the traditional Gnostic beliefs enough to make such comparisons. I suppose then that it is your right to contest my own understanding of those Gnostic outlines. I have, though, given demonstrations from Gnostic texts to help my point.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Chaos Shaman

Gnosticsm & the Proclamation of Christianity with special reference to John's Gospel (Cont)
Gnostic Redemption
The idea of Gnostic Redemption may at first seem opposed to Dodd's opinion. Thus, Gnosis can have a liberating or redeeming effect as its aim is to release the spiritual element in some men from their bondage to matter. The man [17] who has Gnosis is therefore designated a redeemed man, redeemed from ignorance, the antithesis (direct opposite) of Gnosis. This knowledge is primarily religious since it rests, not on one man's investigation but on heavenly mediation and revelation to the select few.

However this is merely putting a religious gloss on the essential 'detailed knowledge' of the higher world and how to get there.

This idea of redemption is far removed from that proclaimed in the Christian Gospel.

Faith in a Christian Redeemer is an irrelevance when applied to Gnostic redemption because faith, in a Christian context, carries the meaning of belief in, trust in and loyalty to the person of Jesus Christ, whilst Gnosis exists on faith in a system.

Webster's 7th Collegiate Dictionary, 1971, gives this definition of Gnosis : "immediate knowledge of spiritual truth held by ancient Gnostics to be attainable through faith alone." But this is not faith in a person, nor in this context, faith in a Redeemer, but faith in the gnostic system of knowledge.

There is no place for christian redemption in gnosticsm of any form.

The Gnostic is convinced that redemption comes from Gnosis. Dodd points out that Marcus the Valentinian taught "that perfect redemption is simply knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness; for defect and suffering or passion have come about through ignorance. The whole state of affairs produced by ignorance is dissolved by knowledge, so knowledge is redemption of the inner man. Knowledge is as it were the dwelling of the spirit. For the spiritual man is redeemed through knowledge."

The giver of knowledge is a Gnostic redeemer.

Dodd continues: "What then is this knowledge? The Gospel, says Basilides, is knowledge of supramundane things. It is in fact precisely the knowledge in the Gnostic myths - knowledge of the nature and origin of the heavenly aeons, of the nature of this world and its rulers, of the nature and origin of man. Assuming that you are the kind of person capable of receiving this knowledge, and of ascending to the higher world, you will be enabled by receiving it to separate your true self from the material order to which it is essentially alien, to find your way through the barriers which divide this world from the other. The knowledge you possess will arm you against the malign powers that would hinder you on your way. ... In a word, knowledge is power. He who knows what he is and whence he is, can find the way home." He who knows the nature of the world and its governing powers can overcome these powers. Hence he who brings this knowledge to men is their Saviour.

Gnosticsm is a belief that certain people only are capable of receiving gnosis and so able to ascend to the highest realms. Christians can get to the middle realm. The rest are consigned to perdition.

This is poles apart from the knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Christian Saviour and Redeemer.

Some Gnostics also think of Jesus as their redeemer. The Gnostic view is illustrated in this Naassene hymn where Jesus is made to say: "Behold, O Father! This quest of evils upon earth is all astray from Thy spirit. But it seeks to escape bitter chaos, and knows not how it shall come through. Send me therefore, Father. Having the seals I will descend. I will traverse all aeons, and I will open up all mysteries, and I will reveal the forms of gods. And having summoned Knowledge I will communicate the secrets of the holy way."

In this way Christ is made to appear in the guise of a Gnostic redeemer, a revealer of the secrets of the holy way through 'Knowledge' of aeons and all mysteries.

www.grahamhancock.com