Monism and Gnosticism

[nazz]

Generally speaking, Gnosticism is strongly associated with dualism. It is generally believed that Gnostics understood reality as consisting of a purely spiritual realm (the Pleroma) and a purely material realm (the Kenoma) and drew a sharp distinction between the two. It is reported that some Gnostics viewed the material world as entirely evil.

However I am finding that this view may be misleading if not downright mistaken. I've seen several references to a Sethian monism and there is also this from a Valentinian pov:

Valentinian Monism - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition

Myself, I am finding myself more and more drawn to a monistic view. I can't find any other means how to reconcile how spirit could affect matter or vice versa. By spirit here I mean anything non-physical like the mind. I am thinking that the non-physical and the physical must be two forms of the same thing. So in effect I am rejecting both materialism and idealism. I'm not sure what to call my view.

This view works quite well with my cosmogonic ideas of emanationism. All aeons are simply an emanation of the original. As the ripples spread out they become more and more kenomic in nature, farther and farther removed from the Divine Presence. I've mentioned before I don't necessarily accept the idea of the demiurge as the creator of the material realm. If anything is creating it is simply manipulating what already exists. But I hold open the door to the idea that minds could generate worlds on their own and perhaps our universe is such a world.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Gospel of Thomas, 113: "His disciples said to him, 'When will the kingdom come?'
Jesus said, 'It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.'"

Luke 17:21: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

How I understood the idea of the Craftsman "creating" the material world was not that he made the actual material, but that he fashioned the world using the material. So essentially, he created, in the sense of a potter creating a pot out of clay. So too the Craftsman created the body of man from dust.

That is just semantics.

I agree with the idea of monism though. I don't think there could be dualism because to admit dualism is to admit that the Father has an equal to be opposite to. The Craftsman is inferior, so how could he be opposite? This isn't Zoroastrianism.

Now, that doesn't mean I believe necessarily in pantheism.

 

[nazz]

Gospel of Thomas, 113: "His disciples said to him, 'When will the kingdom come?'
Jesus said, 'It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.'"

Luke 17:21: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

How I understood the idea of the Craftsman "creating" the material world was not that he made the actual material, but that he fashioned the world using the material. So essentially, he created, in the sense of a potter creating a pot out of clay. So too the Craftsman created the body of man from dust.

That is just semantics.

By that do you mean you don't accept that as literally true though? I know I don't. If anything the Craftsman simply got the Big Bang rolling. Maybe started life, I dunno.

I agree with the idea of monism though. I don't think there could be dualism because to admit dualism is to admit that the Father has an equal to be opposite to. The Craftsman is inferior, so how could he be opposite? This isn't Zoroastrianism.

That's a more specific form of dualism--theological dualism. I had in my mind a more inclusive form--ontological monism. I think theological dualism could fit inside of that but I agree the Craftsman is not equal to the Father. Not even close. But if he exists he exists because of the Father as does everything else.

Now, that doesn't mean I believe necessarily in pantheism.

Perhaps Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know what to call my view really. Pluralistic monism?

 

[frangipani]

I understand what is being said about a monad, however nature itself shows us there is a positive and negative in every thing, the north and south poles, male and female, positive and negative electrical charge, the living needing to feed off what is dead, indeed life and death itself.
In the beginning I believe their was a singularity (The Ineffable One) but when a part of that singularity strayed (Sophia) a rift was caused and the One became two, the original Singularity (The Ineffable one) and an offshoot the Demiurge (lesser god). As a result there are now two dimensions of existence, one the original Spiritual plain, where the Ineffable One resides and this one, the matter plain where the Demiurge resides. These can be seen as a positive plain and a negative plain. Why would we see the spiritual as the positive plain? Because it was the first before all else. Why would we see the matter plain as the negative? One, because it is second and two, because the universe is an ordered chaos, it has balance but not peace and quiet. Our own planet is also violent and not at peace and violence is fundamental in the balance of nature here.
Electrical current is a reasonable analogy to demonstrate two plains. With electricity the positive is always present and live. The positive exists without the negative, but the negative does not exist without the positive. The spiritual plain is always here, but the matter plain could not have come into existence without the pre-existent spiritual plain.
I don’t think the Ineffable one would have had any interest in the matter creation had the Demiurge not ‘breathed life into the man he had created’. While mankind was not human, that is an animalistic creature without a living spirit the matter creation did not concern the Ineffable One. When the mankind received the Living Spirit from the Demiurge and became a living soul the Ineffable One took interest because something that belonged to Him was now residing in a place where it didn’t belong and to this day that has disturbed the peace and quiet of the Ineffable One. He sent Christ, His Son, to enter the man Jesus to explain, teach and show us what we really are, the truth of the creation and the way of salvation and redemption to the Ineffable father of all. When all the true souls are redeemed peace will be restored in Heaven and this creation will perish from His thoughts. Christ did not belong here, as none of His do. The Ineffable One is the True God and a God of peace. He would never have created such a savage and violent universe, nor such a violent and savage planet as this.
There are definitely two gods, one greater and one lesser. The greater was before all things and the lesser could not have existed without the greater.

 

[KriyaUK]

This is very interesting.

I sometimes feel my beliefs are a syncretic mix of Hindu, Buddhist and Deist principles and philosophies; but if I stripped it all down to one simple word, it would be Monism.

However, saying that, I found your viewpoint very interesting Frangipani, about the apparant 'poles' of opposites.

Thanks.

 

[DanielR]

Monism: does this mean that we are basically the Father?? or Bythos?

reminds me of Advaita, tat tvam asi

 

[nazz]

Monism: does this mean that we are basically the Father?? or Bythos?

reminds me of Advaita, tat tvam asi

Well we are all from the Source, Bythos, even the Father. Everything is the same but in different forms but the higher forms constitute the Pleroma and the lower forms part of the Kenoma. So we cannot say we are the Father but we seek to be reunited with him.

 

[DanielR]

thanks nazz, then it is a bit different to Advaita

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Generally speaking, Gnosticism is strongly associated with dualism. It is generally believed that Gnostics understood reality as consisting of a purely spiritual realm (the Pleroma) and a purely material realm (the Kenoma) and drew a sharp distinction between the two. It is reported that some Gnostics viewed the material world as entirely evil.

However I am finding that this view may be misleading if not downright mistaken. I've seen several references to a Sethian monism and there is also this from a Valentinian pov:

Valentinian Monism - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition

Myself, I am finding myself more and more drawn to a monistic view. I can't find any other means how to reconcile how spirit could affect matter or vice versa. By spirit here I mean anything non-physical like the mind. I am thinking that the non-physical and the physical must be two forms of the same thing. So in effect I am rejecting both materialism and idealism. I'm not sure what to call my view.

This view works quite well with my cosmogonic ideas of emanationism. All aeons are simply an emanation of the original. As the ripples spread out they become more and more kenomic in nature, farther and farther removed from the Divine Presence. I've mentioned before I don't necessarily accept the idea of the demiurge as the creator of the material realm. If anything is creating it is simply manipulating what already exists. But I hold open the door to the idea that minds could generate worlds on their own and perhaps our universe is such a world.

This. Sounds like Sankhya yoga. A system that describes the preenlightenment method of Spirit/Matter dualism.
our infinite spirit becomes identified with flesh only through desire.
I am bodiless, conditionless spirit pervading all material.
But as soon as a stomach starts to growl, it is ignorantly stated " I am hungry" even though spirit doesn't starve, only the body does.

Gnostic religions are so similar to yoga in many ways.
Even the Very term Gnosis(divine wisdom) echos the yogic term Jnana(true knowledge)

yoga gives us a hint about Gnostics. Yoga means union, before enlightenment sankhya(dualism) is practiced. But after attachments dissolve(post enlightenment)
Thought patterns shift from dualism to monism.Much like I
n Taoism(with the yinyang symbol, monism comprised of duality), dualism is monism cutting into smaller prices so the mind can handle it.

 

[nazz]

This. Sounds like Sankhya yoga. A system that describes the preenlightenment method of Spirit/Matter dualism.
our infinite spirit becomes identified with flesh only through desire.
I am bodiless, conditionless spirit pervading all material.
But as soon as a stomach starts to growl, it is ignorantly stated " I am hungry" even though spirit doesn't starve, only the body does.

Gnostic religions are so similar to yoga in many ways.
Even the Very term Gnosis(divine wisdom) echos the yogic term Jnana(true knowledge)

yoga gives us a hint about Gnostics. Yoga means union, before enlightenment sankhya(dualism) is practiced. But after attachments dissolve(post enlightenment)
Thought patterns shift from dualism to monism.Much like I
n Taoism(with the yinyang symbol, monism comprised of duality), dualism is monism cutting into smaller prices so the mind can handle it.

That is the beauty of Gnosticism. It parallels spiritual knowledge found in many traditions. What's true is true no mater who says it! I totally agree it is the desire to experience this flesh that keeps us bound in this material realm.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yes. From what I under stand this is also jesus' true teachings.

 

[DanielR]

This. Sounds like Sankhya yoga. A system that describes the preenlightenment method of Spirit/Matter dualism.
our infinite spirit becomes identified with flesh only through desire.
I am bodiless, conditionless spirit pervading all material.
But as soon as a stomach starts to growl, it is ignorantly stated " I am hungry" even though spirit doesn't starve, only the body does.

Gnostic religions are so similar to yoga in many ways.
Even the Very term Gnosis(divine wisdom) echos the yogic term Jnana(true knowledge)

yoga gives us a hint about Gnostics. Yoga means union, before enlightenment sankhya(dualism) is practiced. But after attachments dissolve(post enlightenment)
Thought patterns shift from dualism to monism.Much like I
n Taoism(with the yinyang symbol, monism comprised of duality), dualism is monism cutting into smaller prices so the mind can handle it.

could gnosticism have been inspired by Samkhya Yoga, or maybe it was vice versa, who knows :sarcastic

 

[nazz]

could gnosticism have been inspired by Samkhya Yoga, or maybe it was vice versa, who knows :sarcastic

Possibly but perhaps indirectly from Hellenistic philosophy.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Sankhya is far to old. It is often considered the "first" enlightenment system, before Buddhism Jainism and Vedanta.

 

[DanielR]

nazz, maybe you could help me out with this

I've read the article you posted, would you say Valentinism is radical monism or more like qualified monism (compared to Vishishtadvaita in Hinduism, maybe you've heard about it).

or is it really like Yoga? I'm asking because yoga is imho not monism but dualism since matter and purusha exist separately whereas in Valentinism matter is said to be an illusion like perceived because of our ignorance?

(all info according to your article ) hope I didn't misread anything

thanks in advance

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yoga means union with God(the monad)
Yoga has a wide variety of sytems not unlike Gnosticism.
Vishishtadvaita is the Hindu monist tradition, it describes one pantheist God, with infinite qualities.
Advaita is a step further, they are nonDual(not two, not one either) since the perceptions of various qualities are subjective to sense organs, they are illusions, only the substratum of energy.

The inner reality of the One,and the outer reality of the One are not two things. Like sweetness and sugar, or heat and fire.
The dualism leads to a deep understanding of monism, and monism "ends" with nonduality.

Happy pathwalking.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yoga means union with God(the monad)
Yoga has a wide variety of sytems not unlike Gnosticism.
Vishishtadvaita is the Hindu monist tradition, it describes one pantheist God, with infinite qualities.
Advaita is a step further, they are nonDual(not two, not one either) since the perceptions of various qualities are subjective to sense organs, they are illusions, only the substratum of energy.

The inner reality of the One,and the outer reality of the One are not two things. Like sweetness and sugar, or heat and fire.
The dualism leads to a deep understanding of monism, and monism "ends" with nonduality.

Happy pathwalking.

 

[nazz]

nazz, maybe you could help me out with this

I've read the article you posted, would you say Valentinism is radical monism or more like qualified monism (compared to Vishishtadvaita in Hinduism, maybe you've heard about it).

or is it really like Yoga? I'm asking because yoga is imho not monism but dualism since matter and purusha exist separately whereas in Valentinism matter is said to be an illusion like perceived because of our ignorance?

(all info according to your article ) hope I didn't misread anything

thanks in advance

I'm just learning about this too so I am no expert. Plus I am no expert on Vedantic thought either. My sense is that Gnostic thought is different from Advaita which posits that there is only One Being and all forms are just illusion. The Gnostic idea is that everything originates from One Being and all forms are composed of it but they are nevertheless real as distinct entities.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Gnostics aren't nondualist. But a nondualist could be Gnostic. With such close similarities with yoga it is reasonable to assume they would reach similar conclusions if only the Gnostics were able to develop further.

 

[DanielR]

thanks to you both