Gnosticism Q&A (Jesus, ritual, gospel, mystic, Buddhism)

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies. I'd be delighted if you'd pop over and take a look at the thread.
Modern Gnosticism

luna

Well, that is certainly an interesting thread - and is a good example of how diverse Gnosticism is today, which mirrors how diverse it was in ancient times.
Although Gnostics may not encourage diversity, neither do we try and prevent it.
I guess this stems from the concept that gnosis is a very personal goal, it is ineffable so it cannot be taught - each person must forge their own path to God (this is what i think Jesus meant with the symbology of the wide and narrow gates).

There are a couple of things from that thread i would like to give my opinion on;

Originally Posted by CCS

I would rephrase this: Through personal spiritual effort we can glimpse the knowledge of our place within God (gnosis) and understand the nature of material illusion. But I think that "effort" is the wrong term here. The gnosis isn't something that can be "grasped" or attained, only glimpsed through learning how to think in non-deductive ways.

I would agree with this too, but i wouldn't say that my original statement was false either. The simple truth is, i do not know of anyone alive today who has acheived gnosis, and even if they had, its ineffable, it cannot be described.
So, trying to descibe gnosis to someone else boils down to personal interpretation and imagination. Saying "gnosis can only be found thusly" simply cannot be accurate.

For example, my personal belief is that even a glimpse of the divine Depth would yield more knowledge of God than a human could otherwise know, so even a glimpse would be great understanding.
I would also say that what i mean by "personal spiritual effort" is that gaining/glimpsing gnosis is something we must do ourselves, by our own effort, noone else can do it for us.

Also, the link this person gives leads me to believe that their gnostic path is somewhat different to mine, far more esoteric "new-age" than i am. This modern gnosis is quite different to the ancient understanding, not that it is wrong though. Which leads me onto;

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Gnosticism isn't a religion, it's a method. It transcends religions for that reason. It is a means of taking an interior journey to find one's "self." Modern Gnosticism is more closely related to psychology, linguistic philosophy and anthropology then it is with religion.

This is very much a modern take on gnostic belief, in my opinion this is an extreme interpretion. Ancient gnosticism was clearly religious, we can see that from the texts, this modern Jungian interpretation is really quite different to the original Gnostic sects.

I agree moreso with Gnosteric;

I believe that the Gnostic religion helps us understand the experience of Gnosis. I also believe it helps us increase the likelihood of experiencing Gnosis. For me, the religious container helps me translate "wild gnosis" into transformative action and pychological/spiritual growth. It also helps me find community.

Except that i personally do not agree with organised Gnostic chuches, i think they lead to doctine and dogma formation, that i believe to be a hinderance to gnosis acquisition.

Out of curiosity, which of these posters is the "gnostic friend" you speak about?

[lunamoth]

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies, and for taking a look at my other thread. Although it represents quite a lot of diversity in thought about Gnosticism, I don't think it is any moreso than among those of us who go by the name of Christians.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Except that i personally do not agree with organised Gnostic chuches, i think they lead to doctine and dogma formation, that i believe to be a hinderance to gnosis acquisition.

The idea of Gnostic churches seemed like a paradox to me too, since most Gnostics seem to strongly reject any kind of doctrine (and common ritual?). I disagree that doctrine is a hindrance; I see it more as a stepping stone. In science we don't each start out with reinventing concepts like the atom and evolution: we build upon previous knowledge and ideas. I don't see why the same should not be true in religion.

Out of curiosity, which of these posters is the "gnostic friend" you speak about?

Well, more like an online acquaintance: we've had a lot of interesting past discussions at that forum. AdD is the person I referred to, and his take on gnosis is the one I would most closely relate to, except that I am rather more orthodox than he.

luna

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies, and for taking a look at my other thread. Although it represents quite a lot of diversity in thought about Gnosticism, I don't think it is any moreso than among those of us who go by the name of Christians.

I agree.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The idea of Gnostic churches seemed like a paradox to me too, since most Gnostics seem to strongly reject any kind of doctrine (and common ritual?).

Yes, kinda. I think the idea is that nothing should be set in stone, as this could lead to a restriction on imagination thus interpretation thus revelation.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I disagree that doctrine is a hindrance; I see it more as a stepping stone. In science we don't each start out with reinventing concepts like the atom and evolution: we build upon previous knowledge and ideas. I don't see why the same should not be true in religion.

I think we'll have to agree to disgree on this then. To me, doctrine leads to the eventual distinction between "correct interpretation" and "incorrect interpretation", i don't like that idea. I think religion differs from science in this regard, whos's to say that my religious interpretation is wrong?

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Well, more like an online acquaintance: we've had a lot of interesting past discussions at that forum. AdD is the person I referred to, and his take on gnosis is the one I would most closely relate to, except that I am rather more orthodox than he.

Well, i read a few of his posts and there was a lot that i liked. Although he seems to view Gnosticism quite differently to myself, there is much we agree on too.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I think we'll have to agree to disgree on this then. To me, doctrine leads to the eventual distinction between "correct interpretation" and "incorrect interpretation", i don't like that idea. I think religion differs from science in this regard, whos's to say that my religious interpretation is wrong?

I guess it depends upon your approach to doctrine. I don't think doctrine necessarily leads to the correct/incorrect dichotomy. However, doctrine does legitimately (IMV) define various schools of religious belief. The problem is not with a Catholic doctrine, for example, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception. The problem is with other Christians (and other religous Faiths) saying that that is wrong. You can say it is a Catholic doctrine, you can say you don't accept it and why, but you can't say that it is 'wrong.'

IMO there is nothing wrong with various religions, denominations, sects, etc. having their own conflicting doctrines that they feel are most right. And I have no problem with whatever 'authority,' if it exists, saying this is what defines 'us' and if you don't accept it you are not 'us.' Does not make much sense to me when someone says "I am 'you' even though I reject much of your doctrine."

And, let's not confuse any of this with the Kingdom of God.

luna

[Godfather89]

Doctrine and Dogma is not what Gnosticism is about originally it was for people who discovered Gnosis and wanted to share there experiences with others who had similar experiences. To put a personal experience one that is different for everyone into doctrine is wrong without a shadow of a doubt. As I have said in the past "Many people, many ways back to god, and many ways to understand God."

As for Christ and whether he was real, like a historical physical person on earth type of thing... I would say no I believe he was a visionary type of experience. He is a being but a being of both our minds and yet maintains The Christos Identity on its own. Jesus was probably a commoner who discovered Christos in introspection.