Re: Lebanese Gnostics? Crispin's questions
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, F8snafs@... wrote:
>Widad, when we moderators mention that our focal point is historical
> First, my thanks as well to the moderators. I hope I haven't gotten
> so far off topic with my replies as to make you regret your
Gnosticism, we don't mean to imply that our group prefers fossilized
discussion. :-) Tangential dialogue is bound to occur in lots of
threads; however, we do want to maintain historical Gnosticism as a
focus, whether we're directly discussing ancient scripture or
comparing to modern trends. You have kept the focus very nicely.
> To answer, or at least attempt to answer, the questions behindauthentic
> your questions, Crispin, yes, for all intents and purposes this
> whole activity has virtually everything in common with an
> Sufic transmission: taking care in dress and behavior as to beWhile Crispin and other members are considering any comparisons of
> indistinguishable from the culture and norms at hand; formulating
> new material and editing existing materials per the demands of
> time, place and culture; submission to the teacher; student
> selection based upon perceived capacities; stressing the
> importance of attaining states in their proper order; anonymous
> charitable works within the community.
> So is this Sufism or Gnosticism or a hybrid? What do you think?
this modern group to the ancient Gnostics ~
Interestingly, exactly four years ago, PMCV brought up the subject of
Sufism and Gnosticism:
I'll defer to PMCV to update any of his thoughts on this subject, of
At the time, I came up with some links that included a little
discussion on the subject of any Sufism Gnosticism relationship.
Not all links are still working, but this one was interesting:
Also, some follow-up posts:
- Steve wrote:
>Doesn't seem necessary for the Quabalists and the breaking of the
>> I'm curious what others think. Going back to Plato (as Steve did
>> with his reference to Theaetetus), we see Plato's demiurge in
>> Timaeus. How is a relational demiurge of some sort necessary
>> functionally to a Gnostic system, and is this necessary to carry into
>> a modern adaptation?
> Hi Cari. IMO, it's fascinating to see how, for example, the author of
> The Apocryphon of John goes back and forth from the Timaeus to Genesis
> and uses both as a point of departure for his/her own perspective. In
> Timaeus Plato has the Demiurge using the Form of the Intelligible
> Living Creature as a template for the Cosmos. As such, Plato seems to
> be an early advocate for 'Intelligent Design'. For Plato, the world is
> intelligible, hence modeled upon an intelligible pattern. In the
> Apocryphon of John the Demiurge also seeks to work from an intelligible
> pattern, but doesn't fully understand it. Consequently his handiwork is
> flawed in ways that go beyond the inherent imperfection of a copy in
> relation to the original. IMO, it might be possible to dispense with a
> demiurgos in an Neo-Platonic emanationist system wherein the only
> problem with materiality is the inherent inferiority of copy to
> original and wherein the successive unfolding of emanations is simply
> inevitable. However, it seems to me that the problem in the Apocryphon
> of John goes deeper than this and is conceived as being an actual
> rupture in the Great Chain of Being. As such, it would be difficult to
> account for this apart from a Demiurgic figure, or at least a Sophia
> figure driven by a desire which is contrary to the will of her Consort,
> that is to say, unbalanced. What is your opinion on this? -Steve W.
vessles. Might make it better though, if he were there.