OccultForum.org

Original post: pmcv

Squirley

I.e., how on earth could you distinguish WHAT is important to Gnosticism, if all you did was read academically? I could tell you very clearly some ways that Manicheanism and Catharism diverge from the ancient Gnostics, and also the overlap, but I'm pretty sure my reasoning would be ENTIRELY different than what academics would say, even where we might agree, and even though I'd freely admit whatever similarities/differences are noted by academics.

"Gnosticism" is an academic category. It is an etic definition not an emic one (until recently). Neanderthals may have had a pretty good idea who they were as individuals and to a certain extent as a group, but they most likely had no idea who they were as "neanderthals"... that is to say, they probably had no concept of how the modern category was created in order to destinguish them from other closely related hominids.

What is important to "Gnosticism" is entirely an academic subject... even if we believe in the ideas of "Gnosticism"... since we are choosing the academic word in order to define ourselves. The question becomes whether we really fit that word, or if we have taken the word and changed it to mean something other than it's academic function. Doing so is ok (a lady may call her husband a "neanderthal" based on his eating habbits), but it is best if we do so conciously (hopefully the lady knows her husband is not literally a neanderthal according to the more technical definition of the word)

Whether something technically fits the category has nothing to do with whether it is valid, or even if it may be closely related. Gnosticism is an entirely arbitrary destinction.

This has absolutely nothing to to with whether I personally believe in the system presented in, say, Allogenes, or the Valentinian Exposition. Yes, it is true that in order to understand these texts fully I would need to be involved in the experience based aspects of the system as well... but that is completely irrelevent to the categorical function of the word "Gnosticism" and what groups fit it vs what groups don't.

Many scholors now argue that "Gnosticism" is a false designation concerning something that never actually existed. Now, I personally disagree with that. I think the term is still useful in spite of the fact that the word has become over-used and misunderstood. I simply point that out to show that the function of the word is the real point here. If you use the term in a way that is different from the academic usage, that is fine. However, doing so does not imply that academicians could not possibly know the function of their own word.

The issue of Archons, and what the teachings about Archons are all about, is central to distinguishing Gnostics from other mystics and other philosophers and various people they may have been associated with.

And yet, I have pointed out different texts that take a very different view of this subject but are still generally considered "Gnostic". So, we are then left with the problem of either fixing definition as it relates to the specific attribute you present here, or of rethinking which groups fit that definition. Otherwise we have an inconsistancy.

I just did, again. Didn't say you had to answer. But you can't claim I'm 'telling the pope what it means to be Catholic', without an eyebrow raised anyhow, smileys asside, especially if you don't answer

The "pope" comment was in reference to the "old school" comment... not the act of being "Gnostic". I agree with you that one can not understand certain aspects of the texts outside personal practice.... BUT... it is also true that one cannot understand them without historical context. One cannotclaim to be "old school" without knowing what the "old school" is. No doubt at all, historical readings are limited.... but so are modern personal readings without knowing the backdrop of the texts.

But then, what on earth could you know about Valentinus, Ptolemy, the Naasenes/Ophites, etc., without them? How could you attempt to categorize ANYTHING in Nag Hammadi as Gnostic or Sethian or Valentinian, without them?

Good question. The answer is.... the categories of "Sethian" and "Valentinian" are as arbitrary as "Gnosticism". These categories do not refer to the sects by the same name. The words themselves were taken from the heresiologists, but not to imply any destinctions that the heresiologists made between the sects. On the contrary, their function is essentialy the opposite of that intended by the works of the heresiologists. The names were chosen after the definition, which means that the definition would have simply found other names if we did not have the works of the heresiologists.

The specific sectarian destinctions are quite a different story. It is true that we are almost entirely dependant on polemicists (not necessarily the same thing as "heresiologists"). However, we have to be VERY critical about what we are reading in these accounts. Many scholors believe, for instance, that some of the sects in the heresiological accounts never actually existed (such as the "Cainites"). Others certainly did, but the heresiological accounts disagree with each other concerning their beliefs (Clement vs Ireneus on Carpocratians). Some of them appear to be misunderstandings on the part of the heresiologist concerning what the meaning was of something they read or heard (many cases in Irenaeus... or Ephiphanius' supposed experience with a group that is actually only based on his understanding of the writing).

I am not saying that the accounts can't be gleaned for any useful info... just that one either needs to be very critical so that what is actually useful can be found. Otherwise it is safer to simply try to avoid them altogether.

I.e., ok there are differences, but there are similarities. Which are more crucial, when it comes to categorization? And why?

A category, correctly applied, needs to be based on attributes that demonstrate the similarities of the groups inside it vs the differences with the groups outside it. Differences and similarities are equally important in the function of creating a categorical destinction.

If you only concentrate on the similarities, then we can make almost any "esoteric" or "mystical" group part of the category of "Gnosticism" and then the word becomes useless. Some people include ANY group that has some notion of mystical "Knowing" to be part of "Gnosticism". As previously stated, it is fine if they wish to do that but I think it is best if they at least have some idea of the original meaning of the term.

I wouldn't mind a good reference to a book that handles the issue of the 'Persian/Iranian' branch, while you are at it, though.

Rudolph deals with them as categories of origin (starting on page 275). Other scholors develope the idea in a more specific way... or, did you mean you wanted a book more specifically about the sects? Such as Manichaeans? For a good outline of Manichaean belief and practice there is "The Manichaean Body" by BeDuhn.

What about Mandeans?

I am not aware of any scholors that still classify them as "Gnostics", and even the person who originally called them "Gnostic" (causing a number of people to write of them as such for a few years), Lady Drower, later recanted the categorization.

Yes. We could be simply using the term 'moral' in different ways.

But where do you get this idea that morality is a function of providence?

A "moral" code needs no demonstration. In this particular case we are talking about the difference between it and "ethics". A moral code is simply provided by the social administrator or the religion. Where were the 10 commandments supposed to come from? Direct revelation, providence.

That is what I was refering to, I was just saying not all Gnostics were Platonists, per se.

Well, that question is something still part of the conversation.

But HOW Platonist do you assume them to be, and HOW much would be reading into things? That they drew upon Platonist thought, I agree.

To say they "drew upon Platonist thought" could mean anything. If I take a single idea from Plato while disagreeing with everything else he said, I still "drew" on his thinking. The Gnostics went much farther, obviously, and I think you probably agree with that, don't you?

Where they disagreed vehemently with the mainstream of Platonists, I think is indicated clearly enough in the Apocryphon of JOhn's treatment of the Demiurge and Archons.

What is a "mainstream" Platonist? Do you mean only the initial school? Do you include middle and neo Platonists? Do you believe that there were no Platonic schools of thought that had a negative view of the Demiurge?

Understand the traits associated with the Archons, and the texts open up a bit.

Can you demonstrate for us that the traits of the Damiurge are identical in the Apoc of John, the Tripartite Tractate, and Allogenes? Can you demonstrate that the Demiurge in the Tripartite Tractate is more negative than the one in Numinius? If that is THE defining attribute, then that line gets so fuzzy that it becomes useless.

And it is difficult to say just what role different texts had, which ones were associated. It could be that for one lesson or for certain newcomers an Aeon-only text or a text that glossed over the nature of Demiurge and Archons was used, but that for other lessons, or for those with an ability to look squarely at the problem of ancient religious texts, gods and worldly rulers, the scandalous texts were reserved.

We could equally speculate that the inverse was true... but I doubt both scenarios. I am glad, BTW, that you pointed out that you understand Voegelin made some serious categorical (historical) errors. At the very least we can be sure that much of what he was talking about is not relavent to this forum.

Again, some of Demetrios' points are relevant. If one IS ready and able, and one DOES peer behind the veil, one may not be able to convey key parts of it adequately in words/symbols/structure/logos. Yet some of what pertains to HERE in the body or psyche, may very well HAVE to rely upon bodily/physical actions/objects, or psychic symbolism and rites.

Lets not forget that in Philip, for instance, the hylic and psychic were steps into pneumaticism. A ladder is useless without it's steps. On top of that, words (according to Philip again) are for psychic communication. The truth is found inside the words, but so is falsehood. The question is not just about looking behind the words, but doing so in the correct way. Many people believe themselves to have looked behind the veil, communicating this using the Gnostic termenology is dependant on knowing the meaning of the terms in question. Otherwise, whatever is being communicated (no matter how deep it is) is something other than the point of the text.

It is easy to say that in looking behind the veil the meaning will become plain, and then we will know that the meaning is the same as any other esoteric system. I, on the other hand, an bringing into question that assumption. Having some similarities does not make to things synonymous in my view.

Be careful... it would be very easy for you to argue that if I got it I would just know what you are saying is right, but I can make exactly the same claim without any demonstration. By pointing out the problems I am, I am actually making a stronger case for the function of the Gnostic system, as something that meant to demonstrate rather than just make a claim no different than the ones we see in the "Demiurgic" texts. If you draw a line overly solid between the academic understanding and a practical one, you will teeter dangerously on this edge of turning the texts into pistic dogma. It would be to not only remove the psychic step from the ladder, but to assume that one cant have both academic and experience based knowing... and even perhaps know when and where and why they apply to the subject at hand. Surely you don't intend to go that far, right?

I know there is a growing anti-intellectualism amongst many self styled "Gnostics", but this sentiment is not in agreement with historical Gnosticism. I really don't get the impresion that you are trying to lead in that direction, so I think we should continue to avoid assumptions about the lines we are talking about just yet.

PMCV

Original post: SquirleyWurley

I'll have to return to this later, but for the time being, I'm not making any particular claim about Platonism, I just didn't want to assume too much from an assumption of Gnosticism EQUALS Platonism, and whatever particular notions there might be about what that would imply... and I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm just warry of different approaches and how people decide what is relevant or crucial to their categories, on this subject.

Maybe I should rephrase. If you take Nag Hammadi and leave out everything that refers to demiurge/archons as ingorant or worse, all you seem to have is a very loose notion of 'heresy' and 'platonizing' or 'emmanationism' and 'syncretism'... And in practice, that has meant a broader context, but a context for non-Gnostic Christianity to re-vision its origins, rather than a greater insight into 'those folkes' that the polemicists were talking about, that were called Valentinian or Barbeloite or Sethian.

The Apocryphon of John indicates what various texts might have looked like, connected to the 'Barbeloites' and 'Sethians' who were talked about by heresiologists. Other 'Sethian' texts in Nag Hamamdi may be refering to others who the heresiologists were not aware of or were not writing about.

The Gospel of Truth indicates the style and form of some Valentinian, but Irenaeus' account gives way more details, and the Letter of Ptolemy to Flora gives important insight far beyond what is found in the Gospel of Truth in Nag Hammadi.

The themes explored by Apocryphon of John and by Valentinians, without sacrificing the parts that are critical of the cosmos and the way it is ruled, the distinctive parts that are mentioned by the heresiologists, form a basis to speak about other groups and texts.

I do not consider Crowley, Sylvia Browne, Samael Von Weor, nor Blavatsky, to be Gnostic. I consider myself Gnostic precisely in the sense that the Apocryphon of John is different from them, precisely in those certain areas which are overlooked by neo-Gnostics and the sorts of Christians who like the more flexible mystical approach of the Gospel of Thomas but shy away from dualism or scandal. I.e., I consider the others as too pro-cosmic, far too confident/hopeful about the way the universe works, the grand scheme.

Much of what Voegelin would criticize in them, I would also criticize, though I'd call it Archon influence and he'd (wrongly) call it Gnosticism. Voegelin found it easy to see how liberals could pave the way for extremists, and seemed to be blind how orthodoxy and conservatism paved the way for the extremists he complained about, but you are right, that would get off topic for these boards, as it would be about political theory and the history of theology and politics since the High Middle Ages, rather than about ancient Gnostics.

I think there are ways to reconstruct a bit of Gnosticism, authentically, and to practice it, and to integrate the practice with a reading of the texts. That is where I'd start, before going further into the nature of Archons and how important the concept is, and how that frames the variant mythopoetic expressions and variant dualist or emmanationist systems.

Elaine Pagel's Gnostic Paul, though I could criticize various aspects of it, is a good read, for understanding some of what it might mean to be esoteric, and to have psychic teachings for the psyche or for psychics. At least it would be very relevant for those Gnostic traditions that are said to have claimed to trace back to Paul. And principles could be abstracted from it and applied to other traditions, experimentally.

Attempting to practice the path, to look at what is said about the body and about the psyche, is important, integrated with an understanding of academic info/context, of course. From there, over some time, things stand out as important that some academics might miss or not emphasize enough. That is where I'm coming from.

I've explored this from different angles, practically, as my path, while absorbing the scholar's writings that I've found helpful. Some of those angles proved more fruitful, and opened up the texts in certain ways.

Original post: pmcv

Squirley

I'll have to return to this later, but for the time being, I'm not making any particular claim about Platonism, I just didn't want to assume too much from an assumption of Gnosticism EQUALS Platonism, and whatever particular notions there might be about what that would imply...

Understood... and the caution you express is something I think more people should.

In any event, I hope that I did not unintentionally imply that Gnosticism equals Platonism.

and I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm just warry of different approaches and how people decide what is relevant or crucial to their categories

I understand that as well. I just wanted to express how important I feel it is to be careful on this front.

Maybe I should rephrase. If you take Nag Hammadi and leave out everything that refers to demiurge/archons as ingorant or worse, all you seem to have is a very loose notion of 'heresy' and 'platonizing' or 'emmanationism' and 'syncretism'... And in practice, that has meant a broader context, but a context for non-Gnostic Christianity to re-vision its origins, rather than a greater insight into 'those folkes' that the polemicists were talking about, that were called Valentinian or Barbeloite or Sethian.

Very true... and even with all the texts together in the Nag Hammadi, we still see a very broad range of movements reflected. In fact, to turn this over... even if we only looked at the books that put the Demiurge in a negative context, we still would not be dealing with all Gnostic texts. Any way we look at it we have a number of movements reflected. The only question on that end is which ones fit what category and why.

The Gospel of Truth indicates the style and form of some Valentinian, but Irenaeus' account gives way more details, and the Letter of Ptolemy to Flora gives important insight far beyond what is found in the Gospel of Truth in Nag Hammadi

Yes, and there is debate about which one is more truly reflective of the original Valentinian system... but that is perhaps a bit overly technical for this group to deal with.

I do not consider Crowley, Sylvia Browne, Samael Von Weor, nor Blavatsky, to be Gnostic.

And, if it puts you at ease, neither does this forum. That is why we specifically labeled it "Traditional". I wanted to be sure that we all understand that we have some kind of fucus that is not simply repeated in the other forums (and I know very little about these modern groups so I would certainly have nothing to say concerning them)

I think there are ways to reconstruct a bit of Gnosticism, authentically, and to practice it, and to integrate the practice with a reading of the texts. That is where I'd start, before going further into the nature of Archons and how important the concept is, and how that frames the variant mythopoetic expressions and variant dualist or emmanationist systems.

When you get time to return, perhaps this is a good place to concentrate on in the continuing conversation, since it relates very much to the point of some of the questions I raised for you concerning the destinction between Gnosticism, the two later forms of Platonism, and other related groups.

I do agree that we can actually understand quite a bit about Gnosticism (from more than one angle). As I'm sure you know, there are many people who seek to justify modern systems as directly related to ancient Gnostics by trying to discredit any evidence to the contrary with "We just can't really know anything historically about them". On the contrary, while there are holes, we have a lot of pretty good info if we know how to take it apart and put it together. I think that the personal, the historical and the literary critique all go hand in hand.

So, cheers to the process of putting it together

PMCV

Original post: SquirleyWurley

Re: character...

I'd suggest anyone who's interested in Gnostic teachings, to consider the character of the demiurge and archons in various texts, as contrasted with other examples of character, as contrasted with spiritual examples. This helps to understand a bit of one's own psyche and the nature of the cosmic/astral realm of psyche in general. Other things to get insight about are legalistic moralism, ignorance, callousness, recklessness, and rationalization, system-building obsessions, superstition, materialism. Understanding some of the literature on sociopaths, con-men, and extreme narcissism, can be helpful.

From something I posted on another thread [I know Poemandres is 'Pagan Hermetic' but it relates and this passage runs parallel to other texts about archons, and is extremely relevant to the subject at hand]:

Poemandres:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html

24. Well hast thou taught me all, as I desired, O Mind. And now, pray, tell me further of the nature of the Way Above as now it is [for me].

To this Man-Shepherd said: When the material body is to be dissolved, first thou surrenderest the body by itself unto the work of change, and thus the form thou hadst doth vanish, and thou surrenderest thy way of life, void of its energy, unto the Daimon. The body's senses next pass back into their sources, becoming separate, and resurrect as energies; and passion and desire withdraw unto that nature which is void of reason.

25. And thus it is that man doth speed his way thereafter upwards through the Harmony.

To the first zone he gives the Energy of Growth and Waning;
unto the second [zone], Device of Evils [now] de-energized;
unto the third, the Guile of the Desires de-energized;
unto the fourth, his Domineering Arrogance, [also] de-energized;
unto the fifth, unholy Daring and the Rashness of Audacity, de-energized;
unto the sixth, Striving for Wealth by evil means, deprived of its aggrandizement;
and to the seventh zone, Ensnaring Falsehood, de-energized.

26. And then, with all the energisings of the harmony stript from him, clothed in his proper Power, he cometh to that Nature which belongs unto the Eighth, and there with those-that-are hymneth the Father.

They who are there welcome his coming there with joy; and he, made like to them that sojourn there, doth further hear the Powers who are above the Nature that belongs unto the Eighth, singing their songs of praise to God in language of their own.

And then they, in a band, go to the Father home; of their own selves they make surrender of themselves to Powers, and [thus] becoming Powers they are in God. This the good end for those who have gained Gnosis - to be made one with God.

Why shouldst thou then delay? Must it not be, since thou hast all received, that thou shouldst to the worthy point the way, in order that through thee the race of mortal kind may by [thy] God be saved?

[emphasis added]

==============

Apocryphon of John :

And these are the bodies belonging with the names:
the first is Athoth, a he has a sheep's face;
the second is Eloaiou, he has a donkey's face;
the third is Astaphaios, he has a hyena's face;
the fourth is Yao, he has a serpent's face with seven heads;
the fifth is Sabaoth, he has a dragon's face;
the sixth is Adonin, he had a monkey's face;
the seventh is Sabbede, he has a shining fire-face.

And he named each power beginning with the highest:
the first is kindness with the first (power), Athoth;
the second is forethought with the second, Eloaio;
and the third is divinity with the third, Astraphaios;
the fourth is lordship with the fourth, Iao;
the fifth is kingship with the fifth, Sanbaoth;
the sixth is zeal with the sixth, Adonein;
the seventh is intelligence: with the seventh, Sabbateon.

And these have a firmament corresponding to each aeon-heaven. They were given names according to the glory which belongs to heaven for the destruction of the powers. And in the names which were given to them by their Originator there was power. But the names which were given them according to the glory which belongs to heaven mean for them destruction and powerlessness. Thus they have two names.

[emphasis added]

===========

Note that:
the first corresponds to the Moon,
the second Mercury,
the third Venus,
the fourth Sun,
the fifth Mars,
the sixth Jupiter,
the seventh Saturn

Vices/Virtues associated with the planets should be considered, especially as they might be used by Archons (to make one legalistically moralistic/judgmental or dominating, or corrupt or reckless, etc., or otherwise bound to the cosmos or the body etc.).

Note that the means to transcend the material limitations or vices or hindrance of the planetary sphere, is an important aim of these texts.

Sincere invocations of your own, drawn from imagery supplied by these texts in earlier parts, refering to the highest Aeonic Spiritual source, and the desire for Gnosis, the Desired-Wisdom, is essential.

The point is that such planets have attributes, and one attribute is of a nature that undermines the negative anti-spiritual Archon-interference of the planet, allowing the planet to get out of your way. When dealing with the planet Jupiter or Saturn, whether with (Yhvh or Eloim or other names), intelligence is preferable to the other qualiities, and helpful in seeing through ensnaring falsehood, and striving for emminence/wealth by evil means can be overcome by rousing envy against the lordly tyrants (envy is given in certain translations of certain copies), but it is more clearly desirable to overcome the problems of Jupiter's imminence/wealth/power/bigotry/controlling interference by appeal to one's zeal/fire/passion for higher things (zeal or fire being another translation).

By taking these positive attributes as aspects of character that unlock the power of one's own spirit, one is EMPOWERED FOR REAL in one's character/psyche/soul (note that soul in Greek is Psyche)...

From THAT foundation, one can more easily deal with the reality behind the names of the planetary archons, without so much hindrance/opposition.

================

Another thing to reflect are the lowest two aeon pairs of Ptolemy's system: Wisdom that is Desired-For, and Blessedness that is Churchlike. Consider replacing 'that is' with 'united with'. Consider replacing 'that is' with 'essence shaped by what is'...

===========

This gives plenty to contemplate and much to apply in one's relationships, reflections, and understanding of character.

When dealing with aggravations of the psyche (in those seeking Gnosis, or in others), reference to Galatians especially chapter 5 (on spiritual fruit), and 1 Cor 13, is particularly helpful to re-direct the psyche so that it interferes less, acts up less, meddles less in the usual boisterous controlling or rationalizing ways, helping it to be more humble, understanding, wisdom-seeking, meek, kind, etc.

Considering these things, and making them a part of one's life, for a sufficient length of time, can make different aspects of the Gnostic texts and teachings stand out, making one's wrestling with the Gnostic teachings/texts more fruitful.

Original post: Demetrios

pmcv wrote:Demetrios

You do understand I was giving you a little crap, right? I mean, I respect your job quite a bit actually. I simply thought it was fun to make a dramatic deal out of your point

Sure I understand. And simply am gratefull whenever given lessons, and sometimes a simple thanks is just that, simple, with no irony attached (except the irony inherent in simplicity )

Ah, ok. Well... the term "perfectness" is something we have not defined together. However, I think the way I understand your point is pretty well founded from the Gnostic perspective in that "perfectness" would not exist in the general Gnostic world view.

Since I don't think "perfectness' is definable or understandable, perhaps we can skip trying? What I can think of, it's beyond dichotomies of existing or not-existing, beyond all conseptualizations.

Zazen is actually a personal interest of mine. However... how would you put that in Gnostic terms?

Got me there, nothing comes to mind in Gnostic terms.

Ok, BUT, in Allogenes there still IS a goal that is seen as an objective truth... an absolute. Really, what I am saying is sort of a middle ground between extreme dogmatism and relativism. I believe that this middle ground WAS the intent of the historical Gnostics. In fact I may be wrong personally, but I STILL believe it was an important point for the historical Gnostics.

Oh, I'm all for middle ground or The Middle Way...

That is a Buddhist POV. You could be right, you could be wrong.... but either way it is not a Gnostic understanding of the situation. The Gnostics did not "flush attachements", generally speaking. And, the assumption that anything gained was already there is also not a Gnostic belief.

Well, whether they did or didn't, I'm toying with the idea that "powers" is a metaphor for attachments.

Lotus flowers don't make pearls. Find the lotus flower in Gnostic texts. *lol* We are not talking about Buddhism here. If you can make a direct allegorical connection, fine, but if you can't then we need another way to express the point. I am not sure we can assume that the lotus and the pearl are the same thing. I don't think you can so easily assume the goal is the same.

Sorry, there was me, thinking we were just jivin' with fancy metaphors...

There is a whole forum for "Eastern Faiths" and there is also one for comparative mythology.... part of the question is whether you can express the point using Gnostic terms and texts. I need you to understand. It has nothing to do with whether I personaly agree with any points you make. You NEED to make the points using the Gnostic system or they are about other occult groups. I understand your point deals with various systems being the same... so, in order to make it you need to use the lingo if the systems you are talking about (in this case it surely includes Gnosticism).

Sorry, was applying "Buddhistic" jive as metalanguage, cause works best for me. In order to speak comparatively about this or that tradition and deepen our understanding, some metalingo or rather a number of them is needed, would seem the case for me.

I get the impression you really want to skip the specifics since in doing so it makes the generalities look more cohesive. I simply don't think this is a good way to go about dealing with the question.

The reason I skip specifics for time being is at least twofold: 1) to speak specifics as meaningfully as possible, a common frame is needed; 2) I lack the qualifications to speak specifics

Perhaps you could take a number of terms from a couple of systems and try to show us why they mean the same thing? We can then test if they really do or not.

Indeed, that's what I shoud do and what I said several posts ago that this is what should be done, but as said, I lack the qualifications to go as deep as necessary, as I think doctoral thesis is close to the level what comparative (scientific) approach would involve.


I really don't think I have much more of value to add, and this discussion seems to be going on nicely without me, so in the hope that at least some common ground has been met, understanding of differences has grown and even perhaps some wisdom gained in the process, I'll but out for at least a while, unless there's some unsolved or too unclear issues re my positions that I must still try to shed light to.

Original post: pmcv

Demetrios

Since I don't think "perfectness' is definable or understandable, perhaps we can skip trying? What I can think of, it's beyond dichotomies of existing or not-existing, beyond all conseptualizations.

Can't argue with you there... otherwise I would have to take back all those things I said about apophatic spirituality.

Well, whether they did or didn't, I'm toying with the idea that "powers" is a metaphor for attachments.

I think the element is there... the Archons certainly can be expressed in such a way. However, I think in the Gnostic perspective we would have to add that it is more about specific kinds of attachment rather than in a general way. The other side of the coin in Gnosticism is that it is also a kind of attachment that brings about spiritual recognition and even "salvation".

Sorry, was applying "Buddhistic" jive as metalanguage, cause works best for me. In order to speak comparatively about this or that tradition and deepen our understanding, some metalingo or rather a number of them is needed, would seem the case for me.

Hmmmm, I think I see your point there. However, doesn't it seem that if the metalingo comes from one of the specific spiritual traditions being compared with the others, that we would add to a certain amount of confusion? What I mean is, it would seem better to create one, or to use one outside the groups in question.

Of course, I suppose the opposite could be true if we are dealing with a specific audience. For instance, if we are talking to Buddhists then perhaps it is the best to use the Buddhist lingo and then compare the other lingo to it. Well, you have some knowledge of Platonism in different eras as well. How well do you think you could use that in here?

Actually, I was just thinking that in my point to Squirley about ethics vs morals, perhaps it would have been better to try and use the Platonic terms of "popular morals" and "philosophical morals". You have corrected me on such things in the past... I bet you could pull that off as a lingo that would be very recognizable to the reader of Gnostic texts.

I really don't think I have much more of value to add, and this discussion seems to be going on nicely without me, so in the hope that at least some common ground has been met, understanding of differences has grown and even perhaps some wisdom gained in the process, I'll but out for at least a while, unless there's some unsolved or too unclear issues re my positions that I must still try to shed light to.

Well, ok... and if you chime in now and again about the mod's spelling errors and gross linguistic misuse, maybe you'll throw in something nice about him too so that his fragile ego is preserved

PMCV

Original post: pmcv

Squirley

I'd suggest anyone who's interested in Gnostic teachings, to consider the character of the demiurge and archons in various texts, as contrasted with other examples of character, as contrasted with spiritual examples. This helps to understand a bit of one's own psyche and the nature of the cosmic/astral realm of psyche in general.

Absolutely. And maybe at some point it will be helpful even looking beyond the psyche into the pneuma.

Other things to get insight about are legalistic moralism, ignorance, callousness, recklessness, and rationalization, system-building obsessions, superstition, materialism. Understanding some of the literature on sociopaths, con-men, and extreme narcissism, can be helpful.

Absolutely again. I would also add some helpful understandings when considering these texts is a knowledge of the era, the primary philosophical influences, the lingo, critical thinking, creative thinking, spiritual experience... and most especially initation into the sect involved. Well, as many of them as possible anyway

AND, I would add that it is helpful not to only concentrate on the Archons and what they imply, but also the Aeons and the Sotor.

From something I posted on another thread [I know Poemandres is 'Pagan Hermetic' but it relates and this passage runs parallel to other texts about archons, and is extremely relevant to the subject at hand]:

Thanks for that, Squirley. It very much helps point out what I was saying about how motifs like this exist in movements outside Gnosticism (with Hermestic texts not being technically Gnostic), as well as how similar motifs can be used for different meanings in different sects.

By taking these positive attributes as aspects of character that unlock the power of one's own spirit, one is EMPOWERED FOR REAL in one's character/psyche/soul (note that soul in Greek is Psyche)...

I think that perhaps you should add, so that others here who may not know the lingo you and I are familiar with don't become confused, that in Gnostic thinking the soul (one of the words translated from "psuche") and the spirit (pneuma) are not the same thing.

PMCV

Original post: SquirleyWurley

Demetrios,

I thought you were giving a good challenge to PMCV. I would not accept your view entirely, but there are aspects to it that are relevant.

It is true that the experience of certain insights, connects those who have such insights, beyond language, symbol, etc., and this can be found in Gnosticism, in certain ways. But PMCV is right to point out that Gnostics did emphasize certain teachings and insights, as crucial, and some of these teachings and insights, are distinctive. And the teachings, words, even the specific rights, were in some cases seen as crucial, by certain Gnostics.

I think the 'middle ground' has something to do with the 'middle way' and something to do with an 'intersection' but it also has to do with correctly assessing the differences alongside similarities. As you note, that can get technical.

My own proposal, following PMCV's suggestion of tradition-neutral lingo, is to distinguish experiences, rites, teachings, and themes, and to have a way to indicate how central such things are, how they are approached, how distinctive or universal they are, within a tradition.

I.e., there are Buddhists and also Gnostics who speak in terms of error, lack of insight, and the journey of the full potential of mind into specific minds and out of the realm of contingent/dependent/aggregate confusion. The Buddhist as well as the Gnostics speak of enlightened conditions/states/realms, and also ignorant conditions/states/realms, the consciousness of an individual experiencing the relative ups and downs, in a mixed/confused state that comes nearer to one or the other pole of potential consciousness. There are Buddhists and Gnostics who recognize many teachers of differing degrees of insight, related to their way and movement, in different traditions. There are Buddhists and Gnostics who emphasize certain initiations, rites, norms, vows, sacraments, guidelines, etc. But to understand this better, distinctive and exclusive claims from each, are helpful, to correct against potentially over-identifying on the basis of similarities. The role of anti-cosmic/anti-archon, quazi- or completely dualistic systems, in Gnosticism, does distinguish Gnosticism, leading some Gnostics to treat Buddhism as partly Gnostic, nearly Gnostic, a precursor to Gnostic teaching, or perhaps almost as a Gnostic heresy, suitable for those who may not be able to or ready to recieve Gnostic teachigns, and this same issue may lead some Buddhists to treat Gnosticism as almost a Buddhist heresy or as a related but somewhat lacking tradition, suitable to people not yet ready for Buddhism.

PMCV,

maybe at some point it will be helpful even looking beyond the psyche into the pneuma.

According to the nature of their psyche and its specific issues, or its degree of development, yes.

I would also add some helpful understandings when considering these texts is a knowledge of the era, the primary philosophical influences, the lingo, critical thinking, creative thinking, spiritual experience... and most especially initation into the sect involved. Well, as many of them as possible anyway

Hard to be sure about what initiation meant for most, though.

Knowing something about Plato, Plotinus, and the Stoics, something about the myth of Prometheus and Psyche (and knowing that Prometheus means Forethought, and that Psyche can mean 'soul'), yes. A little info on different types of Zoroastrianism and Zurvanism, speculations about pre-Zoroastrian Magi/Magianism/Mazdaism, some info on Hellenistic Jews, the book of Enoch, etc.

I would add that it is helpful not to only concentrate on the Archons and what they imply, but also the Aeons and the Sotor.

Yes, I meant the point on the archons to correct the imbalance, not to exclude emphasis on Aeons and the Sotor.

motifs like this exist in movements outside Gnosticism (with Hermestic texts not being technically Gnostic), as well as how similar motifs can be used for different meanings in different sects.

It highlights the issues brought up by Demetrios, too, in that different traditions can share certain elements, attitudes, practices, styles, while also having distinctive differences. If one focuses on the level of 'psyche', then one can emphasize the character-building of any system, and the meditative practices/states that may be similar, but then at the 'psyche' level there are also distinctive differences in the use of metaphor and the actual teachings about the nature of the cosmos/humanity, in certain ways, that may or may not be crucially distinctive/exlcusive.

====

A lot of people are claiming to be advanced in their pneuma/spirit, without a firm grounding of insight into their psyche/soul, without development of their character, and they are getting bitten on the ass, as it were.

Some of them wish to be super-magicians/human gods, as if they could defy the limits of the flesh and carnal brain, and make it something it isn't. Others wish to be Archons/rulers, as if they could defy the rulers of the cosmos and make it like the paradise in their psychic vision, as if they co-created reality and had a chance to magickally make it in their image as lords of the mannor, or as if they could tell others why they incarnated as a victim or predator, etc., as if all was well in the harmony of the spheres. Others think they can play with demons and visions without developing insight and character and principles and knowledge that could guide them and help them to advance safely.

=====

In the Gnostic texts, Achamoth learned the hard way. Can't we learn by observing the passion of Sophia, so we can repeat the latter, better part, instead of keeping on replaying the error?

Those who see no distinction between themselves and God/Nous, are like Sophia clashing with Horos, the boundary, they deny distinction/differentiation/difference/positive duality in relationship. And they deny positive duality in union, as they seek the wisdom that is unspiritual, undesirable, instead of the desired-for, spiritual Aeonic Wisdom, as they avoid union with what would shape their essence, spiritually. Those who deny the dual conditions of the world, who do not differentiate between health and sickness of the soul, are trapped by archons of ignorance, just as Sophia covered Yaldabaoth in a cloud, just as Yaldabaoth claimed he was the only One, just as the Archons acted like the Cosmos and its ways, were the all/whole/complete/THE authority.

This insight is distinct and crucial, though other teachings easily relate to other traditions. Often there is some aspect of other traditions that goes some distance towards the Gnostic type of insight, but does not go as far, does not develop and differentiate as distinctly and fruitfully. Often it is a heresy in other traditions, but sometimes there are aspects of the traditional/mainstream religious movements that take some steps in the general direction.