Apocryphon of John annotation

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ra-Razal

So, I got my mother to read the Apocryphon of John, because shes a big fundamentalist. She tells me that she read it, but it was "too vague" ( :roll: ) so I'm actually going paragraph by paragraph and explaining it the way I see it. Now, after I started, I thought that this would probably be a good idea anyways, so Now I'm here ask for anyones personal input on it that maybe I could add to my description.

http://willlullcom.temp.powweb.com/art/aoj/aoj1.html

At the end of the summary, six pages deep, I add my two cents in about what Gnosticism is about to me. This is where I really get into subjective theories, but I think I make my case.

So I guess I'm just wondering if I could get a critique on wording, etc, and if anyone had some ideas for me. Thanks!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Oh my, Ra-Razal! Don't know if I would have started with the Apoc of John for a newbie *lol*. Have you thought of starting with a Valentinian text so it is less of a shock, and THEN moving to the sethian forms like AoJ at a later date? You could also maybe point out that in spite of how different this all may look to modern Christians, it wasn't back then. And, maybe even some of the aspects of Mark that deal with initiation (you could bring up Dr Smith for this) demonstrates that some of these things were actually part of the earliest forms of Christianity.

Anyway, the first thing that hits me is the first part.... all the stuff about the Church destroying Gnosticism. I don't know how deep you want to go into the history, but you aren't going to find many scholors today who would repeat that model.

Also, that glossary you link to? I wrote it... and that is an old version. If you want a more updated one, you could link directly to my page, or to the one in this forum (I have been trying to get back to it over time and edit it). I think you will find more info in the newer versions (and I need to contact the owner of that page and let them know that it is time to update as well)

I'm not sure.. is that the kind of criticism you are asking for?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ra-Razal

Yes, this was exactly what I was looking for. It probably was rather a bad idea to use the AoJ, but ...I dunno, It has such a powerful message. It's a shame that it will no doubt be a ...shocker, in a bad way. But my mother is opening up to new ideas after being jaded by religion over the years. I don't know if it's all over yet. I was thinking of adding Pistis Sophia in front of the AoJ, but I think it would take me months to try and explain something like that. Maybe(if you felt totally inclined to) you could suggest certain text I should post infront of the AoJ...

I knew that you had written that glossary, but I couldnt find where the updated version of yours was, and I wasn't about to link my mother to "occultforums.com".

For the first part of my page, I actually just go off into a rant, which again, probably wasn't the best idea. As for history goes, I people see what they want to see in history. I see Catholicism as the the church of the devil, so I see a rather negative slant i guess. Maybe you could help me understand a more modern thought to as of what may have really happened. Thanks!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: uraeusheap

[QUOTE=pmcv]Anyway, the first thing that hits me is the first part.... all the stuff about the Church destroying Gnosticism. I don't know how deep you want to go into the history, but you aren't going to find many scholors today who would repeat that model.PMCV[/QUOTE]
Broadly, what model would modern scholars use?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Uraeusheap

Broadly, what model would modern scholars use?

Well, the main subject I intended to speak to with that observation was concerning the level of intent and cohesion that used to be taken for granted. What I mean is, while the "Church" has certainly been involved in oppresion over time, it doesn't, for the most part (there are some specific instances) take place until after the church exists as a political force... which it did not in the time that Gnosticism begins to disappear.

The more recent picture that we see in academic works is not one of the church overpowering and physically destroying Gnosticism, but instead of many different churches having debate and dialogue until they find agreement... and then unifying. At that point, one or the other church disapears while the "winner" makes some changes to accomidate the other group.

Don't get me wrong, there were violent loonies in the process as well, but over-all the early Gnostics seem to have lost ground not because they were open and anarchic in the face of a strong political force... but instead precisely because the faith based church offered something for the larger population, a greater level of inclusion, when the Gnostics were maintaining an intellectual complexity and spiritual exclusiveness. Even today many people are trying to gloss over the philosophical and initiatory side of Gnosticism so as to make it something more like a mystical protestantism that it simply was not.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ra-Razal

Mind if I quote you a bit?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

Even today many people are trying to gloss over the philosophical and initiatory side of Gnosticism so as to make it something more like a mystical protestantism that it simply was not.

Of course not all New Gnostics wish to follow exactly in the footsteps of the old. They would rather blaze their own path.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

AppleJack

Of course not all New Gnostics wish to follow exactly in the footsteps of the old. They would rather blaze their own path.

I don't think anyone questions that. But at what point is it no longer "New Gnostic" (neo-Gnostic) but instead "New Age"?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ra-Razal

[QUOTE=pmcv]AppleJack


I don't think anyone questions that. But at what point is it no longer "New Gnostic" (neo-Gnostic) but instead "New Age"?

PMCV[/QUOTE]
Good question. I see it as when the power is taken from the message and distorted into something that promotes no spiritual progress, or perhaps as way to sell Gnostic trinkets.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

I don't think anyone questions that. But at what point is it no longer "New Gnostic" (neo-Gnostic) but instead "New Age"?

I have been wondering myself about mysticism vs Gnosticism. My practice dose walk the fine line of Mysticism and Gnosticism depending who I talk to. I think it is usually pretty clear when someone enters the realm of New age or its opposite over recreation.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: SquirleyWurley

I sometimes find Ptolemy's Letter to flora to be helpful, to introduce Gnostic thought to Christians...
http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm

Re: "New Gnostics/Neo-Gnostics" v. "New Age"

Where would you put the Theosophy of Blavatsky and/or Besant? I would not call it Neo-Gnostic because I think that sort of thing, compared to ancient Gnostic thought, is sufficiently distorted to describe it as influenced by understanding and misunderstanding of ancient Gnostics, and then independengly developed in other directions. Same with Crowley or Weor.

I would call Dr. Stephan A. Hoeller and the Ecclesia Gnostica Neo-Gnostic (perhaps simply Gnostic, though I don't know them well enough to be sure which category to put them in, if I was pressed to do so), because, even if 'Neo', they are rooted sufficiently in ancient Gnostic texts, teachings, reports, figures, etc., to have the term 'gnostic' have meaning and convey something about their interests and attitudes, even if they are 'Neo', even if they go in their own direction on some things, or diverge a bit on this or that, which I wouldn't want to judge at this point, personally, anyway.

If there is no reliance upon ancient Gnostic texts in Nag Hammadi, no concern about reflecting what is known from Nag Hammadi, if there is nothing more 'Gnostic' about it than the Gospel of Thomas, or if there is no real deep parallel to the ancient gnostics and what we know of them, then it is only related to what is understood of ancient Gnostics superficially.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Say, Ra-Razal

Good question. I see it as when the power is taken from the message and distorted into something that promotes no spiritual progress, or perhaps as way to sell Gnostic trinkets.

I would actually be interested if you know where one could buy any "Gnostic trinkets".

AppleJack

I have been wondering myself about mysticism vs Gnosticism. My practice dose walk the fine line of Mysticism and Gnosticism depending who I talk to.

Hmmm, I am not completely sure I know exactly what you mean there. Gnosticism is certainly a form of Mysticism in that it includes mystical experience and understanding as part of it's focus. Mysticism is a very broad category that includes many religious backgrounds (and even none at all). One more specific FORM of mysticism that includes a sort of school of secret initiation is "esotericism". Gnosticism is one specific grouping of esotericism that only includes a few smaller categorical schools. As you can see, the Category of Mysticism is quite a bit larger than that of Gnosticism.

I think it is usually pretty clear when someone enters the realm of New age or its opposite over recreation.

Perhaps for you and I it seems clear, but I think for many people it isn't. To me the line between mysticism and Gnosticism is not at all thin, and quite clear as well. So, perhaps it really comes down to how we use the terms.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

I guess I should have said in the way I view(fill in the blank):)

Hmmm, I am not completely sure I know exactly what you mean there. Gnosticism is certainly a form of Mysticism in that it includes mystical experience and understanding as part of it's focus. Mysticism is a very broad category that includes many religious backgrounds (and even none at all). One more specific FORM of mysticism that includes a sort of school of secret initiation is "esotericism". Gnosticism is one specific grouping of esotericism that only includes a few smaller categorical schools. As you can see, the Category of Mysticism is quite a bit larger than that of Gnosticism.

What I was getting at is that the longer I study Gnostic texts and practice Gnosticism the more I seem to drift away from Gnosticism and more to a General Mysticism.

Perhaps for you and I it seems clear, but I think for many people it isn't. To me the line between mysticism and Gnosticism is not at all thin, and quite clear as well. So, perhaps it really comes down to how we use the terms.

Yes, I believe it dose. My own experiences are why I see the lines as I do. (here is the readers digets version)I see Gnosticism as based on some texts from random related groups talking about hidden ideas and knowledge about the Universe inward and outer. Mysticism as a bare bones hidden ideas and knowledge about the Universe started from within and without the texts and deities. I know these definitions are not standard but this may give you more of an idea of where i am coming from.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

What I was getting at is that the longer I study Gnostic texts and practice Gnosticism the more I seem to drift away from Gnosticism and more to a General Mysticism.

Actually now that I have been thinking along this line of thought the last couple of days I have realized that I have indeed went from Gnosticism to a General mysticism. I guess for a while I just did not want to let go of my identity for something bigger.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey AppleJack

I see Gnosticism as based on some texts from random related groups talking about hidden ideas and knowledge about the Universe inward and outer. Mysticism as a bare bones hidden ideas and knowledge about the Universe started from within and without the texts and deities. I know these definitions are not standard but this may give you more of an idea of where i am coming from.

Yes, those definitions are a bit different from the usual meanings of the terms, but that does help me understand where you are comming from there. Mysticism, BTW, doesn't necessarily deal with anything hidden. In fact, modern Christian fundementalism is also a form of mysticism, as are some forms of "shamanism", etc.. It is such a wide category. This brings up the question; is there any particular kind of mysticism that you feel more drawn to? Mysticism as a category doesn't really deal with how the universe started... that is cosmogeny.... but only how one experiences various notions of spirit.

Actually now that I have been thinking along this line of thought the last couple of days I have realized that I have indeed went from Gnosticism to a General mysticism. I guess for a while I just did not want to let go of my identity for something bigger.

Interesting. Well, of course from the academic stance you could not technically be Gnostic anyway.... no one today is. I think, though, that your instinct to move away from the need to identify with the movement specifically is probably well reasoned.

Of course, I would also point out that "bigger" categorically should not be confused with bigger conceptually. In truth, most forms of mysticism deal with something conceptually a great deal smaller than some forms of Gnosticism. There are many concepts in Gnosticism, such as the apophatic theology, that many modern readers who identify themselves with "Gnosticism" don't actually seem to grasp very well. It is unfortunate that there is so much confusion out there about Gnosticism.

Anyway, was there some particular form of Gnosticism that you were previously more interested in than the others?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

SquirleyWurley

Where would you put the Theosophy of Blavatsky and/or Besant? I would not call it Neo-Gnostic because I think that sort of thing, compared to ancient Gnostic thought, is sufficiently distorted to describe it as influenced by understanding and misunderstanding of ancient Gnostics, and then independengly developed in other directions. Same with Crowley or Weor.

I am in complete agreement with you there. While I do think that it is ok for this particular forum to expand the groups we call "Gnosticism" in ways that I would not do in a more academic setting, I think it is safe to say that we can limit the discussion to groups that have at least some relation to the historical groups. Theosophy, OTO, and Weor do not fit that description.

I would call Dr. Stephan A. Hoeller and the Ecclesia Gnostica Neo-Gnostic (perhaps simply Gnostic, though I don't know them well enough to be sure which category to put them in, if I was pressed to do so), because, even if 'Neo', they are rooted sufficiently in ancient Gnostic texts, teachings, reports, figures, etc., to have the term 'gnostic' have meaning and convey something about their interests and attitudes, even if they are 'Neo', even if they go in their own direction on some things, or diverge a bit on this or that, which I wouldn't want to judge at this point, personally, anyway.

While I personally would tend to talk about any modern group as "neo-Gnostic" and usually extend "Gnostic" only to historical groups, but I think for simplicity sake we can call E.G. Gnostic (even though it is an offshoot of Blavatsky's Theosophy which you viewed as not Gnostic), and also Jordans Johannine group. I see no problem with anyone today wishing to call themselves "Gnostic". I simply like to make a destinction between those groups that have sympathies with the historical groups vs those that have none. I believe that is essentially your point as well?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: SquirleyWurley

pmcv,

Yes, what I mean to do is use the terms in a way that really indicates the degree of sympathy/resonance/parallel, with ancient Barbelognostics and Valentinians, or some of the variants that would have been likely at the time.

I find the term 'Neo' to indicate modification, derivation, taking things into new territory, (whether that is the right way to use the qualifier, that is the way it sounds to me), and I think in some ways Hoeller and the EG are 'Neo' to be sure, but in many ways they emphasize the ancient texts and teachings, significantly enough, to be very relevant to a study of Gnosticism proper.

I think it is very possible for someone today to be so much in sympathy with ancient Valentinians, Barbelognostics, and others, to be able to say they are in the same tradition. I consider myself 'old school' in this way.

If 'Neo' simply means the obvious fact that time has elapsed and I'm doing a bit of reconstruction, then I accept the label, but it has those other implications to me that I wouldn't accept, personally.

I agree there is not necessarily a reason for any given individual to have to identify or not identify with the ancient Gnostics. However, I find that my tendencies and view of the world is more in line with the ancient Gnostics and their closer kind in ancient times, than with the 'Neo' stuff that's around, even the 'Neo-Gnostic' stuff.

Do we call Catholics 'Neo-Christians'... and if not, is it simply because we are playing a game of letting them feel like they really have an authentic succession to Apostles? We should call Protestants Neo-Christians, I would think, by your use of terms...

But I do not claim to know the proper use of the qualifier 'Neo', so maybe I'm just stirring the pot a little, who knows?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

Interesting. Well, of course from the academic stance you could not technically be Gnostic anyway.... no one today is. I think, though, that your instinct to move away from the need to identify with the movement specifically is probably well reasoned.

Of course, I would also point out that "bigger" categorically should not be confused with bigger conceptually. In truth, most forms of mysticism deal with something conceptually a great deal smaller than some forms of Gnosticism. There are many concepts in Gnosticism, such as the apophatic theology, that many modern readers who identify themselves with "Gnosticism" don't actually seem to grasp very well. It is unfortunate that there is so much confusion out there about Gnosticism.

Anyway, was there some particular form of Gnosticism that you were previously more interested in than the others?

from www.m-w.com

Main Entry: mys·ti·cism [url="javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?mystic04.wav=mysticism')"][/url]
Pronunciation: 'mis-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

I would have to say that right now bigger categorically is better for my personal self description. As far as conceptually , my ideas currently are a lot more compact than more traditional Gnostic concepts.
As far as types of Gnostic thought I was(and still am) interested in is sethian and groups like the ophites.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey SquirleyWurley

You make a good point concering the baggage the term "neo" could add for many people. Since the Messina definition of "Gnosticism", all academic usages of the term "Gnosticism" that I am aware of have assumed a specific era as part of the definition (Late Antiquities)... so in that case simply being from a later era would be enough to put something outside the definition (and so give them the "neo").

Christianity is a different type of categorization, primarily emic rather than etic, so it doesn't stand to the same criticism. However, if one does use "Gnostic" as an emic destinction (something I personally don't do) then I think your point is a good one and that is why I previously stated that I think for simplicity sake we can drop the "neo" and simly use the term "Gnostic" for those groups that maintain some genuine similarity to original groups.

I have no problem with the term "Gnostic" applied to a modern person.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey AppleJack

You posted my quote concering the Gnostic categorization, and then a definition of Mysticism. I was not fully sure what you were pointing out so correct me if the assumptions I am working on here are off base. I am guessing that you are pointing out the part of the Mystic definition that deals with "ultimate reality" in contradestinction to what I said about the Gnostic apophatic source?

While that may look like an inconsistancy on the surface, it is based on the general mystical notion of the fact that this ultimate spiritual reality can be experienced. However, just as what many people think of as the ultimate "God" (and spiritual source) is what the Gnostics would call the Demiurge, what most mystics think of as the ultimate spiritual source (the thing we come into contact with in the "mystical experience") looks more like what Allogenes calls the Invisible Spirit, and what the Valentinian Exposition calls the "Second Father". In other words, the mystical picture, according to some Gnostics, is not truely the highest category of spiritual existance.... just the highest one that can be directly experienced.

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

I am guessing that you are pointing out the part of the Mystic definition that deals with "ultimate reality" in contradestinction to what I said about the Gnostic apophatic source?

Yes , I just was not clear enough with my post sorry about that.

While that may look like an inconsistancy on the surface, it is based on the general mystical notion of the fact that this ultimate spiritual reality can be experienced. However, just as what many people think of as the ultimate "God" (and spiritual source) is what the Gnostics would call the Demiurge, what most mystics think of as the ultimate spiritual source (the thing we come into contact with in the "mystical experience") looks more like what Allogenes calls the Invisible Spirit, and what the Valentinian Exposition calls the "Second Father". In other words, the mystical picture, according to some Gnostics, is not truely the highest category of spiritual existance.... just the highest one that can be directly experienced.

So would you say Gnosis can not be directly experienced?Dose it exist? My own view is that if it exist it can be experienced.
I would also like to add that anything beyond the material realm(Demiurge) such as Gnosis can be experienced otherwise we would not know of it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

AppleJack

So would you say Gnosis can not be directly experienced?Dose it exist? My own view is that if it exist it can be experienced.
I would also like to add that anything beyond the material realm(Demiurge) such as Gnosis can be experienced otherwise we would not know of it.

I think you are right. I would say that it is true of ALL knowledge (even false knowledge) that it is a sort of experience. But I think it is wrong to say that if one doesn't experience it by direct union it must not be there. I have never been to Africa, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I am not talking about basic faith here, but experience via implication. I have seen people and animals FROM Africa. I have seen pictures. I have seen the curve of the earth with my own eyes, and reasons to believe that the general map of the globe is realistic.

The question may not be whether something can be experienced, but HOW and how directly.

My point was partly to make a destinction between the Mystical experience (which I don't think the Gnostics would have denied) and a knowing of something that is even beyond that lower form of infinite spirit.

To put that another way, the general "higher" mystic talks about an experience with an infinite spirit. This has been described many ways, as you know. The picture of the mystic having a sort of stopping of the mind, and then a unity with something outside of finite being, is something I am sure you are well familiar with. This direct unity with what many would call "God" is the staple of higher mysticism. In this way mysticism often overturns common religion, the god walking in the garden and talking to the little people starts to look kind of silly for the mystic, and you start to see allegorical interpretation. It is easy to see why the god of common religion becomes the Demiurge for Gnostics... and even for many non-Gnostic esotericists.

However, some Gnostic texts (not all) take it a step further. Even that mystic "God" is seen as something slightly lower than the absolute apophatic source. In other words, just as mystics tend to rethink the common religion notion of "God", some historical Gnostics rethink the mystic notion of "God". The reason for doing so is something similar to the reason we may believe the Earth has a center even though we will never go there.

To make an analogy then. The common religious person makes up all kinds of stories of another land based on knowing there is something there (maybe somebody told them). The Mystic has travled to Africa and seen that it is not exactly what the others are saying it is. The Gnostic texts I am talking about here say "ok, wait a second... there is something I am realizing about the shape of my journey when I travelled to Africa, and it seems to imply the world is a globe. By golly, I think there must be a center to this thing".

Ok, it is a bad analogy for many reasons. The point is, there is a concept of something that is even byond the spiritual notions of mysticism, and there is a reason for the concept. It does involve direct experience, even the mystical experience, but also a sort of demonstrated context that goes beyond the obvious aspects of that experience. Does that make sense?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AppleJack

The question may not be whether something can be experienced, but HOW and how directly.

I totally agree

However, some Gnostic texts (not all) take it a step further. Even that mystic "God" is seen as something slightly lower than the absolute apophatic source. In other words, just as mystics tend to rethink the common religion notion of "God", some historical Gnostics rethink the mystic notion of "God". The reason for doing so is something similar to the reason we may believe the Earth has a center even though we will never go there.

(space):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::space)

The point is, there is a concept of something that is even byond the spiritual notions of mysticism, and there is a reason for the concept. It does involve direct experience, even the mystical experience, but also a sort of demonstrated context that goes beyond the obvious aspects of that experience. Does that make sense?

I wonder dose that make it a Gnostic experience or a Mystic experience within a Mystic experience?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ra-Razal

[QUOTE=AppleJack]I wonder dose that make it a Gnostic experience or a Mystic experience within a Mystic experience?[/QUOTE]
I guess it depends on what framework you use.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

I wonder dose that make it a Gnostic experience or a Mystic experience within a Mystic experience?

Although we can talk about any kind of knowing as an experience, I don't think it is accurate to talk about "Gnosis" as something compared to the mystical experience at all. In fact, I think this is one of the biggest misunderstanding that many modern readers have about the ancient systems. I think it is more accurate to say that "Gnosis" is a comprehensive understanding that includes several types of mystic experience as well as philosophical (or critical) recognition.

PMCV