Michael

>>>Maybe I don't belong in any camp.<<<

And maybe "camp" isn't the best word anyway. I used it because it is
how Ken described himself, but in fact I am a firm believer in
exploring all of our subtle differences rather than glossing past
them with pretense of alignments. However, at the same time dealing
with a question like this is bound to create some simple groupings
(though we should not hold them overly tightly).

>>>All I want to do is remedy my woeful ignorance (and
misunderstanding, no doubt) of Gnosticism. Learning is the goal.<<<

No one could deny that it is an honerable goal, and in fact I am
glad you brought it up because I do like to point out to the many
new people here who joined recently that this is not a club OF
Gnostics (and many people here do not consider themselves to be
Gnostic) but a club about historical Gnosticism and the way many
people today understand them.

>>>I do not want to practice it, or _any_ spiritual system.

Applying certain principles of Greek philosophy to my life is quite
sufficiently satisfying, thank you. Not to mention challenging.<<<

You confused me a little there, Greek philosophies are almost all
spiritual systems. Do you mean to say you feel it is best to remove
the spiritual elements from those philosophies even though you
attempt to otherwise practice them?

Anyway, this particular Greek philosophy that this group deals with
is no doubt related to some of the other philosophies you mention....

>>>There are Neo-Stoics and Neo-Epicureans that attempt to expand
upon and apply their respective doctrines as best as possible,
considering modern conditions. They attempt to follow in the
footsteps of the ancients with the necessary modifications to fit
into the present. In fact, Stocism underwent many modifications over
the course of centuries.<<<

Indeed, we have previously talked about terms like "neo-Gnostics"
and "semi-Gnostics" and "pseudo- Gnostics" For some unexplainable
reason there are some people who find the term "neo-Gnostic"
insulting, but we need not concern ourselves with that. I take it as
a given that a modern person who thinks of themselves as a "Gnostic"
is a neo-Gnostic, categorically (etically) speaking, no matter what
their emic definition.

>>>All I ask is a no more than provided by scholars writing for
general (although educated and interested) audiences - a lengthy
discussion of the background of the material (social, cultural,
philosphical, etc.) and explanations of the always-necessary
technical and untranslatable terms.<<<

And, of course, making this available to the layperson is exactly
what this club is here to do. However, I have recently been
interested in exactly what people do with the history... how they
write it off, or accept it, or if they are using it for intellectual
curiousity vs how they may use it to recreate something from the
past. Even those like myself who place a great deal of effort into
history as an objective study (something not all historians have
equally attempted) have to admit that history is not a pure
science.... so I do think the human element as it relates to people
today need not be completely removed (otherwise this would be
STRICTLY a history group rather than LARGELY a history group).

>>>But is there any reason for Gnosticism to be adapted to present
times?<<<

Well, that is part of my own question as well. Let me also ask
you... is there any need for Stoicism to be adapted to present times?

When does it stop being Stoicism and become something else? Or, more
importantly, what is it about Stoicism that attracts modern minds to
it? Do we take it fully as it was understood by its ancient
practitioners? Or, are there things about Stoicism that can be
adapted to modern thinking while still keeping it's essential
attributes by which it is defined?

The questions are exactly what I am trying to explore on the front
of traditional Gnosticism.

>>It's challenging enough to attempt to make an ancient Greek
philosophy part of one's life. Wouldn't that be even more so with
Gnosticism?<<<

I think that is true, and a very good observation. However, in the
case of Gnosticism I think it was very difficult to make a part of
one's life even in it's original era.... or I think more accurately,
as an esoteric system it demanded that one make their life a part of
it, rather than the inverse.

PMCV

Hey George

>>>I think we agree that your key point is this:

"... there is one major caveat as far as i can tell. and that
is who is going to modernize it?"

This is analagous to asking who is going to modernize
christianity. Who will modernize the Presbyterians?
The Baptists? The Catholics?<<<

Not to speak for Crispin, but I read his point to be a rhetorical
device meant to point out that perhaps it is unrealistic to assume
one can truely modernize without knowing the original in an intimate
way.

>>>The obvious answer is whomever wants to and can get a
following devoted to the modernization.<<<

Would that really constitute a "modernization"? Or would it simply
be a "modern creation"?

>>>Please note that nowhere in this discussion is there a
stipulation as to competency. The only requirement is that
the modern English-speaking audience is drawn to it.<<<

Not true, George, the issue of competency has been broached so it is
now part of the conversation. With that in mind, would there be
different answers if we were very specific to include the attribute
of competency or accuracy of function?

>>>We can only presume that only a form of modern gnosticism
that correlates well to ancient gnosticism will have the
"depth" that will make it possible for senior members to
continue to feel connected to the old truths.<<<

That is a good issue you raise, and I think it would connect to the
competency issue in profound ways.

>>>When establishing a new gnostic "denomination", would there
be anything worse than to have adventurous members look
behind the curtain, and find out that it has no real foundation
in gnostic roots.<<<

And more importantly, does it HAVE to be the case that there is
nothing behind the curtain? If there IS something genuine behind the
curtain... what is it?

As an aside, you mention to Michael...

>>>The Mystery schools were gnostic, in that they sought to
acquaint the "brothers" (and "sisters"?) with the existence
of a spiritual existence, and the confidence that they would
be "raised" after death.<<<

Remember, we are not so far reaching or flabby with the
term "Gnostic" here. Lets not confuse the situation for the new
people who may not always be clear about the specific subject this
group deals with.

PMCV

George

>>>>WHAT I WOULD CHANGE
2) I would eliminate those versions of Gnosticism that
invoke "Aeons" and other "principalities" that rule over
imaginary spheres of influence.<<<

Interesting. So essentially you would eleminate every group that fits
the historical definition of "Gnosticism"?

PMCV

Michael,

Yep.  I was directing this post to you.
But of course, others can join in any time.

George

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "George" <historynow2002@...>
wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> You are interested in gnosticism and say:
> "Applying certain principles of Greek philosophy to my life
> is quite sufficiently satisfying, thank you. Not to mention
> challenging."
>
>
> Under these conditions, I would think focusing your research
> on what is best known about Greek mystery communities would
> be your best bet!
>
> The Mystery schools were gnostic, in that they sought to
> acquaint the "brothers" (and "sisters"?) with the existence
> of a spiritual existence, and the confidence that they would
> be "raised" after death.
>
> What group(s) would we know better?
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>

George

>>>>Without a gathering of Gnostic "saints", there is no modern
gnosticism. This group provides an electronic gathering.
But notice that it is completely democratic. There is no
one who has established any foundation for ritual, or symbols
or even exactly what the nature of gnostic metaphysics might
be. Essentially, then, we have a form of "Unitarian Gnosticism".
Perhaps most of the members here are familiar with the old
protestant denominations called Unitarians and Universalists.<<<

Do NOT misunderstand the function of this group, George. You are not talking to a forum that is trying to foster a modern form of "Gnosticism", you are partly talking to historians, linguists, and other people who have academic training and are  interested in the function of an historical category called "Gnosticism" (though there are some people here who find that interest via their own modern notions of "Gnosticism", you would do well to keep a critical perspective here). While this does not mean many of us may not have a personal interest in the practice of Gnosticism, those interests are not the focus of this forum and not held by many others here.

>>>>And this is how "internet gnosticism" strikes me as well.
We have dozens of different opinions - - and this is all well
and good. Discussions of modern gnosticism need to include whether
or not there will be a single creed, or a democratic toleration
of any gnostic creed or non-creed.<<<

We aren't here to discuss modern Gnosticism (if such a thing exists). The questions at hand were instead meant to bring up some thought on what it is that draws the modern mind to historical Gnosticism, and how that historical Gnosticism gets changed and adapted by modern people.... and how modern people may feel about the various lines being drawn.

So, if a kind of consensus is something you feel is important, keep this in mind as consensus in this group .... the word "Gnosticism" here ALWAYS is to be used in the technical/historical meaning of the word, and that includes what the historical meaning of the word implies about ritual, cosmology, soteriology, eschatology, etc..

In other words, we are very much more specific and technical about the term than you just were... so be careful about the kinds of accusations that fit you better than the people you are talking with (especially since last time we talked you accused us of the opposite extreme).

Again.....

>>>There is no one who has established any foundation for ritual, or symbols or even exactly what the nature of gnostic metaphysics might be.<<<<

Make no mistake, when we talk about "Gnostic" we are talking about the two basic historical subcategories of Valentinian and Sethian. It would be difficult to point out a more specific notion of "metaphysics", so your point is completely false. I value your conversation, but don't forget where you are and confuse us with other Yahoo groups. If you are here, you are here because you are interested in historical Gnosticism.... end of story (or make your own Yahoo Group, or join one of the other 300 groups that are less specific)

Emic has value, but don't begrudge us the etic.

PMCV

Forgive my seemingly perpetual delays in getting back to making some replies here, but I'm still getting my new computer system hooked up, and finding more difficulites than I would ever have counted on making this "new & improved" technology compatible with my old peripherals.  Other aggravations are also eating away at my time, and I'm even running late in heading out of town right now, which will set me back even further, but I noticed a couple of things here that I wanted to point while I was checking in.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@... wrote:
>
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> you can't give away what you ain't got.
> i repeat: you can't give away what you ain't got.

You had me hooked as soon as I saw where your initial (and succinct) assertion was going there, Crispin, but by the time I got to the reiteration, I'll have you know that I almost spilled my drink! 

> and i have yet to encounter any self-described Gnostic who
> has what it takes to deliver such precious fruit. and
> maybe i simply don't have the capacity to recognize
> such a person. i'll be the first to grant you that.

Well, as long as we're talking about "capacity," your comments also reminded me of the lyrics to the song made famous by one of my favorite movies as a youngster:

… So the people of the valley sent a message up the hill
asking for the buried treasure, tons of gold for which they'd kill.
Came an answer from the kingdom: "With our brothers we will share
all the secrets of our mountain, all the riches buried there."
—One Tin Soldier, by Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter
Copyright © 1969 by ABC / Dunhill Music, Inc.

Even back then, it occasionally took some doing for me to get past the ultra-liberal passivity of it all, but I did very much admire Billy Jack.  Looking beyond the anti-war sentiments expressed in the verses, the notion of the jealous "valley people" looking to take something from those who lived atop the mountain kingdom also stands for me as a broader analogy representing the inverse of what you described above:  Can someone even truly accept that which they cannot perceive?  In the end, we're talking about the reciprocal nature of supply and demand.  If we're all stumbling blindly in the dark, Thomas warns us of the pitfalls that lie ahead.

Regarding other portions of your post, I should point out that the "George" to whom you were responding here is not the same one you are recalling.  The one you had in mind now goes by "Ken" at this group and at most of his others.  I don't believe he ever announced that change here, so there's no way you would have known that unless you had monitored posts on those other lists.  Just wanted everyone to be on the same page before any misunderstanding got out of hand.

Gerry

Hmm.... OK. Not sure how to answer.

The Greek philosophies I attempt to study are Epicureanism and
Skepticism; spent some time with Stoicism the last few years.
Neo-Platonism is next on the list.

As far as studying the Greek mystery schools, I'm not sure how well
that could be done. Are there reliable records of their teachings and
practices? That would seem contradictory for a mystery school. The
rites of Orpheus and Mithras were well-guarded secrets, no?

Were you indicating the study of the mystery schools could yield
spiritual benefits, so to speak? I'm not clear about the meaning of
your post and your question.

Anyway...

I simply want to learn about ancient religious thought and practices
from reliable sources. The study of that aspect of history is simply
irresistable! Our civilization today is solidly founded on the thoughts
of the ancients; we are what they were. Fascinating, no?


--Michael


--- George <historynow2002@...> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Yep.  I was directing this post to you.
> But of course, others can join in any time.
>
> George
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "George" <historynow2002@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > You are interested in gnosticism and say:
> > "Applying certain principles of Greek philosophy to my life
> > is quite sufficiently satisfying, thank you. Not to mention
> > challenging."
> >
> >
> > Under these conditions, I would think focusing your research
> > on what is best known about Greek mystery communities would
> > be your best bet!
> >
> > The Mystery schools were gnostic, in that they sought to
> > acquaint the "brothers" (and "sisters"?) with the existence
> > of a spiritual existence, and the confidence that they would
> > be "raised" after death.
> >
> > What group(s) would we know better?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@... wrote:
>
>
> hi Gerry.... first of all my deepest apologies to George
> (Historynow2002).  i thought he was George Harvey of
> Gnostic Thought.  looks like the karmic moment is
> mine!!
>
> you ask, Gerry, "Can someone even truly accept that
> which they cannot perceive?"  i don't know the answer
> to that unless "trust" or "faith" count as relatively
> meaningful substitutes for acceptance as you've
> employed it here.  this reminds me of a theological  term
> i learned in this group, "apophatic":  pertaining to a
> knowledge of God obtained through negation; of or
> relating to the belief that God can be known to humans
> only in terms of what He is not (such as `God is
> unknowable').  i mention this because i think i would
> have to describe my own capacity to recognize someone
> "who has what it takes to deliver such precious fruit" as
> reliant upon an essentially apophatic process, e.g., you
> should know i'm not one to deliver the goods as it
> should be obvious to all that, one, i still harbor old
> resentments and, two, i make irresponsible and silly
> assumptions.  therefore you can rule me out.
>
> also, i would like to clarify that i don't mean to sound as
> if i am condescending to "self described Gnostics."  that
> one is searching for a saner and more virtuous way to
> live is to be commended.  i only wanted to point out
> that, from my perspective, i have yet to encounter a self
> described Gnostic who has made public claims of
> having actually obtained to true gnosis to actually be in
> possession of true gnosis.  they have all, as i have, had
> their respective asses hangin' in the wind too often
> to be considered cup bearers of the divine vino.
>
> your friend,
>
> Crispin Sainte III


Crispin, I wonder if Gnostics of old were immune to "asses hangin' in
the wind"?  After all, in some cases, one must get into the ring in
order to fight for the prize.  And how one takes the punches might be
significant.  I'm thinking maybe I should consider tattooing my ass
so as to at least make it more interesting than a bare one when
others are forced to view it hangin' out there occasionally.

I mean, no matter how hard we try, we're still humans living in an
inferior world (according to Gnostics and other varieties of
Platonists), and we're told that we receive the truth in the form of
images.  Granted, there are some seriously degraded, incomplete, and
skewed images rampant in our world, according to many observers.
And, truly, what is considered degraded, incomplete, or skewed could
remain solely in the subjective mind of the beholder *unless* we
somehow perceive an ultimate, objective, ideal Truth.

The Gnostics, as you say, write about an ultimate, unknowable,
ineffable Source beyond human conception.  And they write about an
imperfect world.  How one gets from one realization to another seems
to be part of the process of Gnosis.  And they speak of sacraments
and study and revealed knowledge.  I'd have to agree with everyone
here who says that any modern attempts at recreation of ancient
initiations are at best based on careful study of historical
evidence, but that this evidence is piecemeal and much of it lost or
subject to speculation without an uninterrupted transmission of a
specific, active esoteric path and initiatory system intimately known
to those directly involved.

That said, what about mystical revelation?  Should we assume that
only the esoteric ancients were privy to this special revealed
knowledge?  Or would this spiritual experience be available to modern
people?  The problem as I see it might be how to interpret it.  There
are many people in this group who feel an affinity to greater or
lesser extent to the Gnostics of old,... on an intellectual level,
through spiritual experience of their own, or both.  And many are
frustrated with a do-it-yourself approach because the blind leading
the blind could also refer to one's own sorry ass as one's only
guide.  So, for a bit more objectivity, why not study these Gnostics
(or other similar groups, for that matter) with a critical eye and
try to at least compare one's own path to what can be construed or
debated about those in antiquity with whom one feels simpatico?
That's not to say that what we can deduce about their way would be
superior to our personal paths or realizations.

On this matter, I'd have to agree with PMCV when he said in a recent
post that "in the case of Gnosticism I think it was very difficult to
make a part of one's life even in it's original era.... or I think
more accurately, as an esoteric system it demanded that one make
their life a part of it, rather than the inverse."  So, where are the
neo-Gnostic esoteric systems such as this?  Public forums online,...
public churches?  Not in my opinion.  Even the ancients who had
involvement in the exoteric church were not necessarily invited to
participate in secret initiations.  And esoteric involvement involved
transformation, yes, but also most likely was carefully executed in a
way to come to a specific realization.  I'm not convinced that all
symbols and rituals just adorn a basic core (of Gnosis or
other "core" attributes) common to some other religions, past and
present.  It is quite possible that unambiguous symbols and practices
represented specific purpose that, although superficially familiar,
may not be entirely functionally interchangeable with symbols and
rituals in another system.  And because of the esoteric nature, we
simply might not be privy to all this information, although we could
conjecture.  But I'm open to ideas if anyone who posited this would
like to share their opinions as to what constitutes a common core.

More on transformation.  What kind of transformation?  IOW, I might
get that tattoo on my butt by exposing it and getting struck by
lightning during a storm and then become transformed in more ways
than one.  Should I survive, I might have a new, healthy respect for
nature and gain a pantheistic worldview, or I might view it as a sign
from a god to be feared, or I might be glad to still be alive, pull
up my pants and promise to forthwith live an ethical life and love my
neighbor, or I might search for the hidden meaning of the outer
experience related to my inner search of self, or even become a
secluded monk on a mountaintop waiting for another exhilarating
lightning hit.  But I might not gain a kind of acquaintance the
Gnostics were going for.  And Valentinian and Sethian groups, as
other esoteric groups, seemed to have what they considered a tried
and true framework that hopefully helped to nurture a specific,
desired understanding for those adept.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Eh, I'm not sure all my ramblings here are cohesive, and I just might
change my mind about some things after further pondering, and didn't
I just hear someone snoring...

So, PMCV, for now, count me in, uh, hmmm, I really don't know where.
Maybe closer to the first category you devised, for now at least,
although I really don't care if people were to try to work out a neo-
Gnostic esoteric group, if that should be their interest.  As far as
modernizing, I'm just not sure what is meant by "core," so attempts
might not always stack up to resemble Gnostic functions in a
historical sense, unless someone has access to hidden info I'm not
privy to.

Cari

lady_caritas wrote:
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@... wrote:
>
>>
>> hi Gerry.... first of all my deepest apologies to George
>> (Historynow2002).  i thought he was George Harvey of
>> Gnostic Thought.  looks like the karmic moment is
>> mine!!
>>
>> you ask, Gerry, "Can someone even truly accept that
>> which they cannot perceive?"  i don't know the answer
>> to that unless "trust" or "faith" count as relatively
>> meaningful substitutes for acceptance as you've
>> employed it here.  this reminds me of a theological  term
>> i learned in this group, "apophatic":  pertaining to a
>> knowledge of God obtained through negation; of or
>> relating to the belief that God can be known to humans
>> only in terms of what He is not (such as `God is
>> unknowable').  i mention this because i think i would
>> have to describe my own capacity to recognize someone
>> "who has what it takes to deliver such precious fruit" as
>> reliant upon an essentially apophatic process, e.g., you
>> should know i'm not one to deliver the goods as it
>> should be obvious to all that, one, i still harbor old
>> resentments and, two, i make irresponsible and silly
>> assumptions.  therefore you can rule me out.
>>
>> also, i would like to clarify that i don't mean to sound as
>> if i am condescending to "self described Gnostics."  that
>> one is searching for a saner and more virtuous way to
>> live is to be commended.  i only wanted to point out
>> that, from my perspective, i have yet to encounter a self
>> described Gnostic who has made public claims of
>> having actually obtained to true gnosis to actually be in
>> possession of true gnosis.  they have all, as i have, had
>> their respective asses hangin' in the wind too often
>> to be considered cup bearers of the divine vino.
>>
>> your friend,
>>
>> Crispin Sainte III
>>
>
>
> Crispin, I wonder if Gnostics of old were immune to "asses hangin' in
> the wind"?  After all, in some cases, one must get into the ring in
> order to fight for the prize.  And how one takes the punches might be
> significant.  I'm thinking maybe I should consider tattooing my ass
> so as to at least make it more interesting than a bare one when
> others are forced to view it hangin' out there occasionally.
>
> I mean, no matter how hard we try, we're still humans living in an
> inferior world (according to Gnostics and other varieties of
> Platonists), and we're told that we receive the truth in the form of
> images.  Granted, there are some seriously degraded, incomplete, and
> skewed images rampant in our world, according to many observers.
> And, truly, what is considered degraded, incomplete, or skewed could
> remain solely in the subjective mind of the beholder *unless* we
> somehow perceive an ultimate, objective, ideal Truth.
>
> The Gnostics, as you say, write about an ultimate, unknowable,
> ineffable Source beyond human conception.  And they write about an
> imperfect world.  How one gets from one realization to another seems
> to be part of the process of Gnosis.  And they speak of sacraments
> and study and revealed knowledge.  I'd have to agree with everyone
> here who says that any modern attempts at recreation of ancient
> initiations are at best based on careful study of historical
> evidence, but that this evidence is piecemeal and much of it lost or
> subject to speculation without an uninterrupted transmission of a
> specific, active esoteric path and initiatory system intimately known
> to those directly involved.
>
> That said, what about mystical revelation?  Should we assume that
> only the esoteric ancients were privy to this special revealed
> knowledge?  Or would this spiritual experience be available to modern
> people?  The problem as I see it might be how to interpret it.  There
> are many people in this group who feel an affinity to greater or
> lesser extent to the Gnostics of old,... on an intellectual level,
> through spiritual experience of their own, or both.  And many are
> frustrated with a do-it-yourself approach because the blind leading
> the blind could also refer to one's own sorry ass as one's only
> guide.  So, for a bit more objectivity, why not study these Gnostics
> (or other similar groups, for that matter) with a critical eye and
> try to at least compare one's own path to what can be construed or
> debated about those in antiquity with whom one feels simpatico?
> That's not to say that what we can deduce about their way would be
> superior to our personal paths or realizations.
>
> On this matter, I'd have to agree with PMCV when he said in a recent
> post that "in the case of Gnosticism I think it was very difficult to
> make a part of one's life even in it's original era.... or I think
> more accurately, as an esoteric system it demanded that one make
> their life a part of it, rather than the inverse."  So, where are the
> neo-Gnostic esoteric systems such as this?  Public forums online,...
> public churches?  Not in my opinion.  Even the ancients who had
> involvement in the exoteric church were not necessarily invited to
> participate in secret initiations.  And esoteric involvement involved
> transformation, yes, but also most likely was carefully executed in a
> way to come to a specific realization.  I'm not convinced that all
> symbols and rituals just adorn a basic core (of Gnosis or
> other "core" attributes) common to some other religions, past and
> present.  It is quite possible that unambiguous symbols and practices
> represented specific purpose that, although superficially familiar,
> may not be entirely functionally interchangeable with symbols and
> rituals in another system.  And because of the esoteric nature, we
> simply might not be privy to all this information, although we could
> conjecture.  But I'm open to ideas if anyone who posited this would
> like to share their opinions as to what constitutes a common core.
>
> More on transformation.  What kind of transformation?  IOW, I might
> get that tattoo on my butt by exposing it and getting struck by
> lightning during a storm and then become transformed in more ways
> than one.  Should I survive, I might have a new, healthy respect for
> nature and gain a pantheistic worldview, or I might view it as a sign
> from a god to be feared, or I might be glad to still be alive, pull
> up my pants and promise to forthwith live an ethical life and love my
> neighbor, or I might search for the hidden meaning of the outer
> experience related to my inner search of self, or even become a
> secluded monk on a mountaintop waiting for another exhilarating
> lightning hit.  But I might not gain a kind of acquaintance the
> Gnostics were going for.  And Valentinian and Sethian groups, as
> other esoteric groups, seemed to have what they considered a tried
> and true framework that hopefully helped to nurture a specific,
> desired understanding for those adept.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.
>
> Eh, I'm not sure all my ramblings here are cohesive, and I just might
> change my mind about some things after further pondering, and didn't
> I just hear someone snoring...
>
> So, PMCV, for now, count me in, uh, hmmm, I really don't know where.
> Maybe closer to the first category you devised, for now at least,
> although I really don't care if people were to try to work out a neo-
> Gnostic esoteric group, if that should be their interest.  As far as
> modernizing, I'm just not sure what is meant by "core," so attempts
> might not always stack up to resemble Gnostic functions in a
> historical sense, unless someone has access to hidden info I'm not
> privy to.
>
> Cari
>
We use the sacraments as our grid, but only two of our calender regular
rituals are really
Gnostic in origin and each is done once a year Epiphany (Pistis Sophia)
and Good Friday (Acts of John).

PMCV:

You write:
" Do NOT misunderstand the function of this group, George. You
are not talking to a forum that is trying to foster a modern
form of "Gnosticism", you are partly talking to historians,
linguists, and other people who have academic training and are
interested in the function of an historical category
called "Gnosticism" ...."

I find that this academic interest is sometimes obscurred
by what, by youw own admission, gets discussed frequently:

"....(though there are some people here who find that interest
via their own modern notions of  "Gnosticism", you would do
well to keep a critical perspective here)."

In fact, I VIVIDLY recall an attempt by me many months ago
to focus on the academic aspects of ancient gnosticism and
its precursors, and I was rather SAVAGED by those who thought
I shouldn't try to deal with gnosticism in an historical
way, but in other - - less objective - - ways.

So I think you can see why I sometimes misunderstand what
the point of this group is.

I was responding to your question about modern gnosticism.
That's all I was trying to do.  I didn't accuse the group
of anything.  I merely pointed out that even ATTEMPTING
to have a "modern gnosticism" on-line would be rather
thin soup.

Regards,

George

Hey all, don't know if anyone else had problems getting into Yahoo
tonight. I guess they are making more changes.

Anyway, George....

>>>I find that this academic interest is sometimes obscurred
by what, by youw own admission, gets discussed frequently<<<

Observation of etic and emic definitions are both valid in academic
exploration, so long as they maintain their clear bounderies and we
look at the emic FROM the etic. We allow for the emic perspective of
individuals here with the understanding that we maintain etic modes
of distinction as a forum. I realize this has been a difficult
concept for you (it can be confusing), but none the less we have
maintaned this line quite rigidly.

>>>In fact, I VIVIDLY recall an attempt by me many months ago
to focus on the academic aspects of ancient gnosticism and
its precursors, and I was rather SAVAGED by those who thought
I shouldn't try to deal with gnosticism in an historical
way, but in other - - less objective - - ways.<<<

Ah, I think I see where your confusion lies. You thought you were
being reprimanded for being too objective, when in fact you were
being questioned and challenged for not being logical or historical
enough.

>>>So I think you can see why I sometimes misunderstand what
the point of this group is.<<<

Yes, I do understand. If you wish I can suggest a few books dealing
specifically with the subject of how to deal with the category of
Gnosticism from an academic perspective. For the purpose of this
forum, though, a good place for you to start would be to stick to
the more academic meaning of the word "Gnosticism" itself. That way
we at least know we are all talking about the same thing.

>>>>I was responding to your question about modern gnosticism.
That's all I was trying to do. I didn't accuse the group
of anything.<<<

That is questionable. Here is actually what you said about this
group....

"This group provides an electronic gathering. But notice that it is
completely democratic. There is no one who has established any
foundation for ritual, or symbols or even exactly what the nature of
gnostic metaphysics might be.

Essentially, then, we have a form of "Unitarian Gnosticism"."

Whether you would call this an "accusation" or merely a "mistaken
assumption" about what this forum is here for, I felt it needed
refutation. Otherwise, your general point was perfectly ok.

PMCV

Crispin

>>>hi Gerry.... first of all my deepest apologies to George
(Historynow2002).  i thought he was George Harvey of
Gnostic Thought.  looks like the karmic moment is
mine!!<<<

I did also want to point out that even if it had been that George, now
known as Ken, everyone does have the right to comment on every post
here. We do try to avoid intentionally emotionally provacative
exchanges.

PMCV

Crispin

I know Cari may be out for a bit, but you raise some interesting
points.

>>>so then, is there an underlying reality/truth governing existence
that is not subject to our imagination, prejudices and whimsy; that
remains largely unperceived by our ordinary perception?  both
ancient and current Sufis say (Rumi, for instance) that humankind
can develop (after all Rumi was an evolutionist) the organs of
perception necessary to know and experience this underlying -- or
pervasive yet mostly undetected -- reality/truth.  Valentinians and
Sethians and Platonists and Hermeticists, etc.,  made similar
claims.  we witness their containers and outer forms changing via
the requirements of time and culture, but ultimately the contents
they seem to suggest appear to be virtually the same.<<<

This then brings the same question I recently brought up to Ken
about the notion of a "core". In spite of the fact that you and Ken
seem to differ on the details, you both seem to very much agree on
this prime methodology of not only assuming a core (which probably
most people here would not argue with.... thought perhaps from the
critical perspective we should not make the assumption), but
assuming the function of that core in practice.

This assumption presumes that one who holds it knows better
the "core" than others do. And, just as I pointed out to Ken, they
may well be right but it poses some interesting problems that seem
HIGHLY instrumental in the move from an etic to an emic perspective
in this case.

If the concept of Gnosis has a number of attributes, then when one
person takes one of those attributes as the "core" defining quality,
while another person takes another attribute to be the true point
instead and feels justified discarding the rest as less important,
then no matter how much they may claim otherwise they are indeed
reducing the larger system into something that they presume to know
BETTER than those who reduce it differently or choose to conciously
avoid reducing it at all.

This leaves a strange discord between the academic study and the
modern practitioner that should not exist, and doesn't exist for the
academic study of the ancient practice. It also leaves a discord
between the modern practice and the traditional practice in this
case (as it sometimes does with Sufism as well).

>>>so, imo, if you want to examine an example of a living tradition
that is in many ways quite similar to ancient Gnosticism, i would
recommend Knowing How to Know by Idries Shah and the classic The
Gulistan of Sadi: The Rose Garden, translated by Edward B. Eastwick,
with an introduction by Shah and a preface by the Atish Kadah.  i'm
sure you will see the same parallels i see, but also the differences
in container and form between traditions, and (from the Shah book)
insight as to why it must always be so.<<<

I do think that the same questions can be applied to modernized
Sufism (neo-Sufism), though it isn't really our point here.

For the sake of keeping some historical perspective (one that can be
applied to our question of Gnosticism via analogy) let me bring up
something briefly about Idris Shah.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s there was something I call
the "Occult Vogue" which was the beginning of the modern "New Age"
movement. The most famous protagonists of this ideal are people like
Crowley and Blavatsky, and there are a number of offshoot groups
that came from these roots. The hallmarks of these groups are a
marked universalism (based on the belief that they had discovered
a "core" that could be removed from one group and fed back into any
other), and a sort of infiltration of "traditional" spiritualities
(sometimes real, sometimes invented). One of the methodologies of
these movements was to offer a version of ancient religions
highlighted with the catchphrase "true". For instance, Bessant's
orientaphile Hindu Buddhist school was the "true" version
of "Eastern" ideas.... because it offered the intended inner
transformation and understanding of the universal underlying "core"
(whether the other Hindus understood or agreed).

This method was extended to any religion that had any kind of
mystical school in it. Theosophical groups, Gurdjieff, Occultists
like Crowley, "traditionalists" like Evola, all became interested in
the living mystical traditions, and some of them created schools
based on these traditions but often not technically connected to the
surviving (or dead, or never existed) religions. Sufism was a
popular target.

Shah Idries was a companion of Gerald Gardner (who invented "Wicca"
with the help of Crowley), and is firmly linked to this "Occult
Vogue" school of thought. I am not saying this to imply that there
is anything wrong with that, or that we should assume Theosophy and
Wicca and Thelema, etc., to be wrong or flawed. Instead, by pointing
out that many traditional Sufi schools consider Shah to be a false
teacher who has twisted or misunderstood their school of thought we
raise the same issue of modernization that we are talking about with
Gnosticism.

A grounding in traditinal versions of the school of though should
help us avoid the flaw of assuming the core before it is evidenced
in the system's original context. That is to say, if we let the core
(if there is one) emerge through the communication of the system
itself, we stand a better chance of not falling into the pit of
eisegesis.

PMCV

Crispin

>>>>hello PMCV... its not clear to me what you assume i'm
assuming.  what is my "prime methodology?"  please
demonstrate, as i wasn't even aware i was in possession
of such a beast.  what is this "core (which probably most
people here would not argue with)" and to what or to
whom does this alleged core belong?<<<

Honestly, Crispin, I am a bit flabbergasted. It is like an elephant
in the middle of the room. You clearly stated that you assume a
core, so I only answered your own presentation. The essential
element in your whole argument for the possibility of modernization
simply cannot happen without the assumption of a core. I am not
presuming your point, I am working from the point you presented.
Perhaps I misunderstood (something I am never afraid to admit), or
perhaps you didn't communicate so well........... or perhaps you
didn't think about it. I don't know which, so I am open to
clarification.

>>>>maybe you could cite a more specific quote from
my posts to help me understand this "core" notion of
mine (if you find one that that is used in the same
context as my reply to Lady Cari's question).<<<

Ok, let me point out a few quotes that just plain make no sense
without a presumption of a core attribute.....

>>>>in fact i believe there are people today
that have the necessary inner dimensions required to
resurrect Gnosticism, albeit in a new design that
accounts for our modern emic realities, but i don't
know why they would wish to do so (one of the reasons
i'm so interested in Widad's alleged Lebanese Gnostics).
that the practice of Gnosticism has a limited modern
appeal -- mostly, it seems, with those who are
disenchanted with, or hold a grudge against, the usual
Christian systems<<<

Here is another...

>>>i will say that i see no value to a Gnostic resurrection or
modernization if it cannot produce an inner
transformation, namely true self knowledge, one of
those criteria (and, for me, what gave Gnosticism its
primary value to humankind)<<<

Now, I don't know if you are being sardonic or if you really don't
see the elephant that is not only in the middle of the room, but has
set on your leg and cracked it to such a degree that the bone is
cutting through the flesh... but those statements are deeply rooted
in assumption whether you intended them or not. Again, maybe you
simply want to rephrase them?

>>>it seems that what was originally DESIGNED to function within the
contexts of particular emic realities that haven't even
existed for over 1500 years couldn't possibly function in
its original form today and still produce the same viable
results as the original.<<<

Once more, assumption of a core. Maybe true, I am not debating the
point... but please don't get huffy if I point out a critical
perspective. (patience in communication is not your strong point,
Crispin)

>>>i'll address the rest of your post, with one exception, in
sections as i find time to do so.  your posts sometimes
overwhelm me (i don't mean this as either praise or
criticism, that's just a reflection of my limitations) and
for my sake i need to keep it simple.<<<

I am genuinely and truly sorry about that. I try my very best to
communicate directly. I do NOT mind you pointing out when I fail at
that. I SHOULD try to keep it simple sometimes, myself.

>>>>lastly, since you have so casually dismissed Idries Shah<<<

Crispin.... I think you need to read my post again. I not only did
not dismiss Idris Shah, but I was very careful and explicit to point
out that NOTHING I said did so. However, I DID talk about Shah in
such a way that drew questions as to whether we can really accept
the notion of a "genuine" Sufism (contrasted with supposed false
examples) based on a context that some present when it is questioned
by other Sufic schools. The question is fair.

>>>perhaps you, PMCV, might suggest to Lady Cari one or more
books that you are thoroughly acquainted with that
deal with contemporary Sufism ("modern" Sufism may
be a bit of a misnomer as there is nothing to suggest
that it ever died and was resurrected: as far as i can
discern it has been active and evolving for several
centuries).<<<

Well, do you also consider Gurdjieff to be a "Sufi" simply because
Sufism has not died? How about Evola? Ouspenskyi? I am NOT putting
these people down, but I am NOT going to simply take them all at
equal face value without question or criticism (or historical
debate) simply because there are surviving Sufi schools. That simply
isn't logical.

BTW, at the same time that it is questionable whether Gnosticism
could have lived (some scholars have considered several movements
today to be living forms of Gnosticism), it is also questionable
whether Sufism predates Islam or ever truly existed outside of Islam
(or can). You mentioned that you did not need to convert to Islam...
how do you know then that what you practice is truely "Sufi" WITHOUT
a presumption of a core? Something that can be removed of it's
original context? Sounds like a "core". Again, simply following the
implications you seem to present.

AND, if we MUST assume the Sufism of Shah, then why can we not also
assume the Gnosticism of Thelema or the "Witchcraft" of Gardner? I
don't understand the line you seem to draw.

>>>>who knows... there's a better than zero  chance (after all,
Shah's writings make for well under ten percent of of my Sufi
library) that i've studied those books as well and we can both whole-
heartedly recommend them.  fair enough?<<<

Not quite "fair enough", but certainly an ok point. The question
here is not a percentage, but a context. I am not accusing you of
anything, Crispin, just pointing out that YOU have brought up a
distinction (one that is questioned by some traditional Sufi
schools) and compared that definitive attribute to one you also draw
in Gnosticism (though how you can say that doesn't imply a "core" I
am confused about).

After all, I don't claim to know Sufism, only to know a number of
self proclaimed "Sufis" who disagree with each other. I DO, however,
know a bit about Gnosticism. YOU drew the comparison, so I continued
it into the debate about modern vs traditional. Can you continue in
a dispassionate way or should we reframe the question?

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, --Michael <epsilon717@...> wrote:
>
> Are there any books about Mary Magdalene that more or less relate to
> Gnosticism? Or any books on Gnosticism more or less related to MM?
>
> I'm trying to expand my wish list (and eventually my library).
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>



Shalom and wingwhispers!
I have found Karen King's book on Mary to be one of the best, I
think, and so far the only one I have read cover to cover and bought
a copy, I was so impressed.  I want to read the book Tau Malachi
suggested on the Sophian Fellowship next, but I have just now
finished King's book.  Good luck!
Love and peas
Darkchylde

PMCV,

You suggest that I was challenged (many months ago) "for not
being logical or historical enough."  This was not my
perception at all.  I would say the better way of explaining
the controversy was that I was writing as

"an historian studying gnosticism without being gnostic"

rather than

"a gnostic dismissing history that is not pertinent to
'living' gnostically."

If you remember this differently, I can provide the key posts
in evidence easily enough.

But if we move forward, I note with interest you writing:

"For the purpose of this forum, though, a good place for you to
start would be to stick to the more academic meaning of the
word "Gnosticism" itself. That way we at least know we are all
talking about the same thing."

It is, of course, quite important to use a common vocabulary.
And so I am happy to accept and use your meanings for these
terms.

But this leads me to ask for additional definitions, so that
we can see how different issues relate to each other.

What term shall we use for those modern schools of thought
(ranging from Catholicism to New Age thinking) that calls
for a raising of the spirit into a new dimension of purity
or enlightenment?

We do need a term for this.  Without such a term, modern
students will continue to miss the commonalities between
gnosticism and denominations of today.  Without this, there
will continue to exist the implied view that there was a clear
and clean line between Gnosticism and Christianity.

If you believe in a form of Christianity with lots of powers
and principalities and angels and saints from heaven interacting
in the world of mortals, this would not be different, in principle,
from ancient gnosticism.

In addition to a term for modern expressions of "gnostic-ite"
religious thoughts, I would also like a term or definition for
how one "Lives Gnosticism" today.

Is there a consistent view on this?  I would not be surprised
if there is not.  But if there is, I certainly want to learn
what "living gnosticism" means exactly.

Thanks!

Regards,

George

For starters, let me express the inspiration and enlightenment I have
received from reading this forum.  Overall, I am ever delighted with
the wisdom and self-awareness I find expressed here.
In particular, I wish to bless Cari, Michael, and Ralph for their
contributions.  You guys seem to express your opinions and such with
respect, compassion and tolerance I find refreshing, albeit rare.  I
thank you for showing me a better way, where there can be dissention
without judgement, condemnation or superiority.  I believe such
kindness to be reflections of your connection to the Light,
or "knowing a tree by its fruit."  I am not so evolved yet, although
I struggle daily to get there.  I still have the weakness of wanting
to be "right", seeking to prove this to others how "wrong" they are,
regardless of the ruthlessness it takes to get to that end.
So I also wish to thank my judgmental and intolerant mirrors that
show me myself, and how I am when I endulge in intolerance, judgment,
and that dark enjoyment of being "right."  I must be tolerant of
intolerance, or else I become what I most despise.  I must not pass
judgment on the judgmental, else I pass judgment on myself.
Thanks to both for the help on the path.

Love and Peas,
Darkchylde

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
>
> lady_caritas wrote:
>  to Tsharpmin7@:
> >
> >
> > The Gnostics, as you say, write about an ultimate, unknowable,
> > ineffable Source beyond human conception.  And they write about
an
> > imperfect world.  How one gets from one realization to another
seems
> > to be part of the process of Gnosis.  And they speak of
sacraments
> > and study and revealed knowledge.



> >
> We use the sacraments as our grid, but only two of our calender
regular
> rituals are really
> Gnostic in origin and each is done once a year Epiphany (Pistis
Sophia)
> and Good Friday (Acts of John).
>


Mike, I find that interesting.  I looked up those two sacraments you
mentioned at gnosis.org and Rev. Steven Marshall's homily for
Epiphany also mentions a ritual described in the Panarium of
Epiphanius:

~~ The Valentinians of Alexandria symbolized the appearance of the
infant of light in a procession honoring the image of the Goddess
Kore. In this Epiphany procession they carried an image of the divine
child which they called Aeon. Holding a cup before the statue of the
Virgin Kore, they would carry the image of the infant of light around
the altar. According to the Panarium of Epiphanius: "In many places
they celebrated a very great festival on the night of Epiphany,
particularly in the so-called Koreion at Alexandria. There is an
immense temple there, the temenos of Kore. After watching all night,
singing and playing the flute in honor of the sacred image (Kore),
and celebrating a pannychis, they go down after cock crow, bearing
torches into a kind of underground crypt, carrying up a carved wooden
idol, who sits naked on a bier and has a cruciform seal on his
forehead, two more on his hands, and two more on his knees,
altogether five gold seals. They carry the god seven times around the
center of the temple amid loud playing of flutes and drums and
singing of hymns, and then carry it to this underground place. When
they are asked what mystery this is, they say that at this hour Kore—
that is the Virgin—has given birth to Aeon."

In this procession, the image of the god is carried on a bier. In the
Egyptian mysteries, the image of Osiris is carried in a chest on a
bier. The wounded Fisher-King of the Grail romances is also carried
out on a bier accompanied by maidens carrying the hallows of the
Grail procession. Several modern Gnostics suggest that the image
carried around the altar was not that of a god but that of a naked
Goddess figurine, such as may be seen in the examples of early Greek
or late Egyptian statuary. Whether the image of a god or a goddess,
we have in this Alexandrian ceremony a deep and ageless mystery.~~
http://gnosis.org/ecclesia/homily_Epiphany.htm


And, very likely, the Alexandrian ceremony purported by Epiphanius to
have occurred could have had special meaning not necessarily shared
by other religious groups, in spite of any outward similarities found
in other ceremonial processions.

Cari

lady_caritas wrote:
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
>
>> lady_caritas wrote:
>>  to Tsharpmin7@:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Gnostics, as you say, write about an ultimate, unknowable,
>>> ineffable Source beyond human conception.  And they write about
>>>
> an
>
>>> imperfect world.  How one gets from one realization to another
>>>
> seems
>
>>> to be part of the process of Gnosis.  And they speak of
>>>
> sacraments
>
>>> and study and revealed knowledge.
>>>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>> We use the sacraments as our grid, but only two of our calender
>>
> regular
>
>> rituals are really
>> Gnostic in origin and each is done once a year Epiphany (Pistis
>>
> Sophia)
>
>> and Good Friday (Acts of John).
>>
>>
>
>
> Mike, I find that interesting.  I looked up those two sacraments you
> mentioned at gnosis.org and Rev. Steven Marshall's homily for
> Epiphany also mentions a ritual described in the Panarium of
> Epiphanius:
>
> ~~ The Valentinians of Alexandria symbolized the appearance of the
> infant of light in a procession honoring the image of the Goddess
> Kore. In this Epiphany procession they carried an image of the divine
> child which they called Aeon. Holding a cup before the statue of the
> Virgin Kore, they would carry the image of the infant of light around
> the altar. According to the Panarium of Epiphanius: "In many places
> they celebrated a very great festival on the night of Epiphany,
> particularly in the so-called Koreion at Alexandria. There is an
> immense temple there, the temenos of Kore. After watching all night,
> singing and playing the flute in honor of the sacred image (Kore),
> and celebrating a pannychis, they go down after cock crow, bearing
> torches into a kind of underground crypt, carrying up a carved wooden
> idol, who sits naked on a bier and has a cruciform seal on his
> forehead, two more on his hands, and two more on his knees,
> altogether five gold seals. They carry the god seven times around the
> center of the temple amid loud playing of flutes and drums and
> singing of hymns, and then carry it to this underground place. When
> they are asked what mystery this is, they say that at this hour Kore—
> that is the Virgin—has given birth to Aeon."
>
> In this procession, the image of the god is carried on a bier. In the
> Egyptian mysteries, the image of Osiris is carried in a chest on a
> bier. The wounded Fisher-King of the Grail romances is also carried
> out on a bier accompanied by maidens carrying the hallows of the
> Grail procession. Several modern Gnostics suggest that the image
> carried around the altar was not that of a god but that of a naked
> Goddess figurine, such as may be seen in the examples of early Greek
> or late Egyptian statuary. Whether the image of a god or a goddess,
> we have in this Alexandrian ceremony a deep and ageless mystery.~~
> http://gnosis.org/ecclesia/homily_Epiphany.htm
>
>
> And, very likely, the Alexandrian ceremony purported by Epiphanius to
> have occurred could have had special meaning not necessarily shared
> by other religious groups, in spite of any outward similarities found
> in other ceremonial processions.
>
> Cari
>
>
>
>
>
>
Elements of this are shown in our Sophia ceremony done once monthly.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@... wrote:
>
>>
>
> hi Cari.... i like the  way you ramble and your sense of
> humor.
> i'll just dive in  now.  i think an "ideal" truth launches
> us right back into  subjectivity, reflecting our hopes and
> fears.  so then, is  there an  underlying reality/truth
> governing existence that  is not subject to our
> imagination,  prejudices and whimsy; that remains
> largely unperceived by our  ordinary perception?  both
> ancient and current Sufis say  (Rumi, for instance) that
> humankind can develop  (after all Rumi was an
> evolutionist) the  organs of perception necessary to know
> and experience this  underlying -- or pervasive yet mostly
> undetected -- reality/truth.   Valentinians and Sethians
> and Platonists and Hermeticists, etc.,   made similar
> claims.  we witness  their containers and outer forms
> changing via the  requirements of time and culture,
> but ultimately the  contents they seem to suggest
> appear to be virtually the same.   and we witness them
> in their various  times and cultures pointing their
> fingers at this ineffable  content in the only way our
> ordinary perceptions can  know that they have done so:
> ink on  paper/papyrus.  words and language; be they
> written source material,  imperfect and incomplete
> copies or hearsay.
> now if you, Lady Cari,  for example, were intimately
> conjoined to this ultimate, ineffable  Source or
> reality/truth, should you be described  as container  or
> content?  maybe both?   would you then be the Christ
> (Gnosticism) or "haq," which  can mean either truth or
> God  (Sufism)?  how might you be different  from a book
> widely acclaimed to  contain great wisdom?  what  might
> you accomplish that words, language and  books
> cannot?  might you,  like the householder of the large
> estate entrusted with the care and  maintenance of
> several children, slaves, dogs,  pigs and  cattle in  The
> Gospel of Philip, go about feeding, grooming and
> clothing each according to the requirements  of its kind;
> might you  be like  a "disciple  of God" who  "perceives the
> conditions of [all] souls  and speaks  to each one"
> accordingly, recognizing that each has  different needs
> and stands at a different  level of spiritual  maturity?
> though you may have to  take my word for it, the
> example from GoP above is, as  far as i can discern, in
> perfect harmony with  Sufism as it  has always been
> disseminated.  and  they have always claimed that the
> transmission and the  way of revealed truth is part of a
> guided tour.  the pamphlet at  the gift shop, they tell us,
> is of relatively  limited value.  it may  help us prepare
> for what to expect, how to  behave, discuss history and
> personalities and  beliefs, but, ultimately, "the map is
> not the territory."  it  cannot interact with us or
> address the unique  requirements of our individual
> journeys.


Say, Crispin, thank you for the reading suggestions.  PMCV noted I
might be out for a bit.  I'm trying to keep my foot elevated because
of an ankle I managed to sprain yesterday.  :-(  I'm coming back to
your post here with a few comments at this point though.  [ I'm
trying not to identify too intimately with PMCV's description of
cracked leg with bone cutting through flesh.  ;-) ]

Perhaps you could clarify here for me, Crispin, since you have a
better running knowledge of Sufism than I, a bit more about how the
Sufis viewed being "intimately conjoined to this ultimate, ineffable
Source or reality/truth."  Was there consensus among them about
this?  I'm also having difficulty concerning how becoming "Christ"
vs. becoming "truth" or "God" are related.

The Gospel of Philip, which you mention, talks about receiving truth
in the form of images.  Allogenes speaks of a point beyond which
humans should not seek the Unknowable One "lest he be diminished."
IOW, ~
"we are not acquainted with whether the unrecognizable possesses
angels or gods; nor whether the still has anything within it but
stillness, i.e. its own self."
It seems this mystical ascent does not bring complete disclosure or a
full dissolution into the Unknown.  And at the end, the Foreigner is
told to write a book for the sake of those who "may be worthy" and
deposit it upon a mountain, and "call upon the guardian."  "Come, O
Phriktos, guardian of death."  And, in fact, Allogenes incorporates a
heavy philosophical style in explaining the ascent.  There is
experience and then there is philosophical understanding of that
experience, which we have discussed in this forum.

Rumi, OTOH, speaks of surrender and escape into silence.  And he not
only seems to emphasize mystical experience or emptiness as a major
aim, but also even admonishes using books and practices, although I
read his following poem (I'll just type the beginning lines) in a
lovely book (Rumi the Book of Love, trans. Coleman Barks) and am
talking about it:

"If you want to learn theory,
talk with theoreticians.  That way is oral.

When you learn a craft, _practice_ it.
That learning comes through the hands.

If you want dervishhood, spiritual poverty
and emptiness, you must be friends with a teacher.

Talking about it, reading books, and doing practices
don't help.  Soul receives from soul that knowing..."

Rumi's teacher was said to push Rumi's books into a fountain at their
first meeting before they went into retreat.  Rumi was to live what
he had been reading and talking about.

I imagine that Gnostics appreciated the necessity of experience.
Books and philosophy were important, too.  An either/or proposition
doesn't appear to have been an issue, the way I've heard some moderns
polarize things.  But it is also clear that philosophy, study and
ritual were part of realizing that experience toward salvation.  I
somehow can't envision them discarding books.

In any case, I've only talked about one Sufi you mentioned, Crispin.
Perhaps you could clarify better what core you see among the various
groups you listed, and whether, for each, this functionally related
to the same concept of Source when talking about "conjoining."

Thank you,

Cari

George

I am trying to keep up with posts, but since early evening yesterday
I have been fighting with a bit of a migraine. If you feel I don't
read you right, or answer your questions, I can try to get back to
them tomorrow.

>>>It is, of course, quite important to use a common vocabulary.
And so I am happy to accept and use your meanings for these
terms.<<<

For that, we try to stick to historical usage.

>>>What term shall we use for those modern schools of thought
(ranging from Catholicism to New Age thinking) that calls
for a raising of the spirit into a new dimension of purity
or enlightenment?<<<

Do you mean we need one term? How about "movements that call for a
raising of the spirit". I mean, I call the New Age movement "New
Age" (and New Age groups are off topic in this forum, I would point
out). I call strains of thinking that assume some personal
experience of spirit "mysticism" (whether they happen to be
Catholic, New Age, or Buddhist), and systems that believe in a
systematic raising of the spirit "esotericism". I am sure we can
come up with many terms that refer to different tkinds of spiritual
thinking.

Making a category that is overly inclusive is generally frowned in
academic practice, since it can too easily be used to gloss and
misrepresent.

>>>We do need a term for this. Without such a term, modern
students will continue to miss the commonalities between
gnosticism and denominations of today. Without this, there
will continue to exist the implied view that there was a clear
and clean line between Gnosticism and Christianity.<<<

Whether there was a line between Christianity and Gnosticism is
something historians are still debating. If we wish to point out
commonalities between modern movements and Gnosticism, we can simply
point to them directly. For instance, we can point out that
Gnosticism was an esoteric system, and there are also modern
esoteric systems. Gnosticism has elements of mysticism, and so do
many modern movements. Dealing with the individual attributes gives
us a much more developed language that allows for both similarities
and differences, more subtle categorical destinctions.

If we really need one word for all these movements, then of course
there is always "religion".

>>>If you believe in a form of Christianity with lots of powers
and principalities and angels and saints from heaven interacting
in the world of mortals, this would not be different, in principle,
from ancient gnosticism.<<<

Dr Williams calls the category "Biblical Demiurgy". Older historians
called it "Gnosticism", but in recent years that category has needed
to be adjusted since it has proven inaccurate. There are forms of
early Christianity that believed in a Demiurge, and powers, etc.,
that are not technically "Gnostic". For instance, Marcion, the
Manichaeans, and many others.

>>>In addition to a term for modern expressions of "gnostic-ite"
religious thoughts, I would also like a term or definition for
how one "Lives Gnosticism" today.<<<

Well, we have generally used the term Neo-Gnostic for modern groups
that hold Gnostic spiritual views. This group has also previously
talked about terms like pseudo-Gnostics, semi-Gnostics. I still like
the idea of simply talking about attributes in and of themselves.

As for the idea that one can truely live as a Gnostic today... that
is something that I am sure there are many different opinions about.

>>>Is there a consistent view on this? I would not be surprised
if there is not. But if there is, I certainly want to learn
what "living gnosticism" means exactly.<<<

This depends on whether we accept, for the sake of discussion, the
theory that the Mandaeans are actually related to the historical
Gnostics. If so, they they would constitute the sole remaining group
of traditional "living Gnostics". Personally, I question the notion
that they really fit the historical category (and it seems to me
that most scholars have abandoned the notion).

Or, are you including neo-Gnostics? It depends on how related you
want to think they are. Mike, for instance, belongs to a group that
we can probably accurately call "Neo-Valentinian". Valentinians were
of course Gnostics, and though the link isn't directy they do seem
to hold the essential theological views of Valentinians.

PMCV

>>>[ I'm trying not to identify too intimately with PMCV's description
of cracked leg with bone cutting through flesh. ;-) ]<<<

blech... In retrospect thaw WAS perhaps a bit overly gruesome *lol*.
At the time I was going for colorful.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> >>>[ I'm trying not to identify too intimately with PMCV's
description
> of cracked leg with bone cutting through flesh. ;-) ]<<<
>
> blech... In retrospect thaw WAS perhaps a bit overly gruesome *lol*.
> At the time I was going for colorful.
>
> PMCV
>


Oh, it *was* colorful, PMCV.  Actually, it was a good reminder for me
not to try to do too much, like carrying elephants, lest another
accident should ensue.  *lol*

clumsycari

These people truly grace our group, and deserve thanks. It is very
good of you to recognize them, Darkchylde, and I thank you for doing
so. In fact, I would like to thank the lot of you for doing your
best to test and debate and think as friends.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "imdarkchylde"
<imdarkchylde@...> wrote:
>
> For starters, let me express the inspiration and enlightenment I
have
> received from reading this forum.  Overall, I am ever delighted
with
> the wisdom and self-awareness I find expressed here.
> In particular, I wish to bless Cari, Michael, and Ralph for their
> contributions.  You guys seem to express your opinions and such
with
> respect, compassion and tolerance I find refreshing, albeit rare.
I
> thank you for showing me a better way, where there can be
dissention
> without judgement, condemnation or superiority.  I believe such
> kindness to be reflections of your connection to the Light,
> or "knowing a tree by its fruit."  I am not so evolved yet,
although
> I struggle daily to get there.  I still have the weakness of
wanting
> to be "right", seeking to prove this to others how "wrong" they
are,
> regardless of the ruthlessness it takes to get to that end.
> So I also wish to thank my judgmental and intolerant mirrors that
> show me myself, and how I am when I endulge in intolerance,
judgment,
> and that dark enjoyment of being "right."  I must be tolerant of
> intolerance, or else I become what I most despise.  I must not
pass
> judgment on the judgmental, else I pass judgment on myself.
> Thanks to both for the help on the path.
>
> Love and Peas,
> Darkchylde
>

To PMCV:

Such a large post!

Let's see if I can give it justice.

You write:

"Do you mean we need one term? How about "movements that call for a
> raising of the spirit".

I find this to be a rather incomplete definition.
The term needs to include at least half of the forms of
Christianity.  Don't you agree?

You write:
> Making a category that is overly inclusive is generally frowned in
> academic practice, since it can too easily be used to gloss and
> misrepresent."

This is pretty much my point.  Outsiders and insiders seem to
obscure the common gnostic thread in much of modern religion.

You write:
> Whether there was a line between Christianity and Gnosticism is
> something historians are still debating."

Would this be a debate on this particular list?  Which Christian
sects of the early Church would NOT have been gnostic?

This may be the crux of our discussion!

Regards,

George