Gnosis in the Christian Scriptures

[Nicholas]

This was William Kingsland's last book, written in 1936. One of his main points seems to be that study of the scriptures requires going beyond the intellect and using intuition. If our intuition is underdeveloped, then we should pay more attention to the Mystics' teachings and try to look more deeply. Kingsland was a mystic and a scholar.

"When we endeavour to bring down into terms of intellect
that which transcends intellect, there is necessarily contradiction,
antinomy. Theology, being precisely this effort, presents
ever a mass of disputable and insoluble problems, and has to
fall back on assertion, dogma. Hence the interminable systems
and disputes of " theologians."

How then are we to transcend the limitations of intellect?
The reply which Bergson gives us is by what he terms intuition.
This is far from being a satisfactory word, but we do not appear
to have any other to replace it. Intuition would still appear
to be an operation of the mind, though a higher one than that
of intellect. It is generally defined as a direct or immediate
perception of truth without reasoning or analysis; but what
is to check such a perception in matters transcending our
normal consciousness?

The answer which we must give to this question is broadly
this; that we shall find a certain unanimity, a certain consensus
of teaching concerning first principles, among those who are
generally classed as seers or mystics."

page 64

 

[David T]

This was William Kingsland's last book, written in 1936. One of his main points seems to be that study of the scriptures requires going beyond the intellect and using intuition. If our intuition is underdeveloped, then we should pay more attention to the Mystics' teachings and try to look more deeply. Kingsland was a mystic and a scholar.

"When we endeavour to bring down into terms of intellect
that which transcends intellect, there is necessarily contradiction,
antinomy. Theology, being precisely this effort, presents
ever a mass of disputable and insoluble problems, and has to
fall back on assertion, dogma. Hence the interminable systems
and disputes of " theologians."

How then are we to transcend the limitations of intellect?
The reply which Bergson gives us is by what he terms intuition.
This is far from being a satisfactory word, but we do not appear
to have any other to replace it. Intuition would still appear
to be an operation of the mind, though a higher one than that
of intellect. It is generally defined as a direct or immediate
perception of truth without reasoning or analysis; but what
is to check such a perception in matters transcending our
normal consciousness?

The answer which we must give to this question is broadly
this; that we shall find a certain unanimity, a certain consensus
of teaching concerning first principles, among those who are
generally classed as seers or mystics."

page 64

Excellent post, therefore totally irrelevant to RF.

" Intuition would still appear
to be an operation of the mind, though a higher one than that
of intellect"

Older much much older than the intellect. Hildegard von bingen said:

"we cannot live in an interpreted world for an interpreted world is not home".

So its all dependent on how we understand ourselves and the world around us. I read a scientific American article Last year about the "DEEPEST MYSTERIES" of science today. Very very churchy in its presentation BTW. It said the two deepest mysteries in science today is the brain, and the universe. Ironically it was unintendedly accurate. To paraphrase the statement:
"The two things we understand the least in science is ourselves and the world around us".

I would say that's a fact!!!! Theology is actually a worthless process in application to the texts, it's a great psych tool in understanding how the intellect has developed and what nonsense is generated by a tiny region of the brain self labeled "higher functioning" its the great shrinking machine. It, "believes" it takes reality and shrinks it so it can manipulate it. Or so it "believes". Nature God cosmos as objects? Ha ha ha. That's theology which has now metamorphed into science.

 

[Nicholas]

Of course David T, there is more to it than intellect vs intuition. Certain mind types crave certainty in moral & intellectual matters over openness or mystery. Plus, whether in science or religion, if one is content, and sees no need for more or deeper understanding, then they are fixed in their path. (At least for most or all of this lifetime.)

Kingsland begins like this:

This work is written mainly for a class of readers. and students
who find themselves altogether out of touch with "Christianity"
in any of its current doctrinal or sacerdotal forms,
but who, notwithstanding this, have some more or less
clear apprehension that behind those forms, and in the
Christian Scriptures themselves, there lies a deep spiritual
truth, a real Gnosis (Gr. knowledge) of Man's origin, nature,
and destiny which has simply been materialized by the
Church in the traditional interpretation of those Scriptures
based upon their literal acceptation.

Not that one does not recognize that even in its most
irrational and unacceptable dogmas, so-called " Christianity "
makes an appeal to a certain class of minds; and, indeed,
is perhaps the only form of "religion " which could make
any appeal to that particular class.

However irrational Christian dogmas may be in the light
of our modern knowledge - and still more so in the light of
the deeper knowledge of the Gnosis - they do, if genuinely
believed in, serve to keep the average individual more or
less on a straight path of moral rectitude, and they afford
him a certain amount of. comforting assurance that he is
not " a lost sinner "...

 

[Shadow Link]

 

[stvdv]

study of the scriptures requires going beyond the intellect and using intuition

Happy to read this. Truth requires going "beyond the intellect". This I learned from the Hindu Scriptures also.
Beyond the mind is very eloquently explained as "In Silence the voice of God can be heard".
Silence being "no mind" is what you described "going beyond the intellect".

 

[David T]

Of course David T, there is more to it than intellect vs intuition. Certain mind types crave certainty in moral & intellectual matters over openness or mystery. Plus, whether in science or religion, if one is content, and sees no need for more or deeper understanding, then they are fixed in their path. (At least for most or all of this lifetime.)

Kingsland begins like this:

This work is written mainly for a class of readers. and students
who find themselves altogether out of touch with "Christianity"
in any of its current doctrinal or sacerdotal forms,
but who, notwithstanding this, have some more or less
clear apprehension that behind those forms, and in the
Christian Scriptures themselves, there lies a deep spiritual
truth, a real Gnosis (Gr. knowledge) of Man's origin, nature,
and destiny which has simply been materialized by the
Church in the traditional interpretation of those Scriptures
based upon their literal acceptation.

Not that one does not recognize that even in its most
irrational and unacceptable dogmas, so-called " Christianity "
makes an appeal to a certain class of minds; and, indeed,
is perhaps the only form of "religion " which could make
any appeal to that particular class.

However irrational Christian dogmas may be in the light
of our modern knowledge - and still more so in the light of
the deeper knowledge of the Gnosis - they do, if genuinely
believed in, serve to keep the average individual more or
less on a straight path of moral rectitude, and they afford
him a certain amount of. comforting assurance that he is
not " a lost sinner "...

I am totally on board with this. It's very Jungian actually. I had to do a retreat out to where I now live. One could say I was having a jungian moment. As I became more enmeshed into the landscape for best description I contemplated the nature and the psyche. To keep it short here the new testament simply emerged out of the landscape itself.

I called a friend and said "I am totally f@@ked, the Bible is true. How do you explain that into a world that already assumes THAT? Even atheists" BELIEVE" they understand that because their understanding is derived from the superficial reading of the text in religion itself.

I have said here and will continue to say "in order to understand God you must understand nature, to understand nature you must understand God. To split that is to negate that, to negate that is to not understand that".

This my writings can tend to take on what appears to be obtuse ramblings confusion the intellect. Which once it encounters what appears to it confused automatically projects that back onto the messenger. This I have stepped into music as my main medium of expression. Although fiction Writing is very interesting to me. Musicians some times are way more aware of certain things.

Inside religion there are those I deeply admire. Tho. As merto.n should be a Saint but never will be a Saint. Fr. Thomas Berry, a rather amazing sweetheart is very inspiring and was deeply aware of our current state with nature was totally incompatible with the scriptures heart.

St Francis said life was interconnected 650 years before Darwin rediscovered that. He called it "family of God". A mystic with a clue. He also said:
"A labour works with their hands, a craftsman works with his hands and his mind, an artist works with his hands, his mind and his heart"

St Francis tells us who he really is as probably the most famous Mystic" Saint in the world.