Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Yezidis

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically gnostic groups.
    Message 1 of 9 , May 1, 2006
      Hey Mer248lina

      >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
      line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
      Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

      Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
      would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
      right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
      as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
      gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

      I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
      these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
      here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
      Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
      Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
      conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
      much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
      Gnosticism.

      A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
      by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
      issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
      technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
      such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
      actually fit.

      The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
      by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
      She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
      (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
      study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
      categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
      not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
      bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
      not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
      repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
      not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

      I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
      youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
      closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

      Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
      believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
      something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
      attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
      as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
      generally don't.

      Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
      would they be?

      PMCV
    • icybrethovhecate
      Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don t know what your talking about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a
      Message 2 of 9 , May 1, 2006
        Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
        about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
        as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
        feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
        which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
        Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
        aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
        Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
        they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
        knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
        Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
        Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
        Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
        like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
        http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
        http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
        http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
        http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hey Mer248lina
        >
        > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
        > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
        > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
        >
        > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
        > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
        > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
        > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
        > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
        >
        > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
        > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
        interest
        > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
        > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
        here.
        > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
        > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
        > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
        > Gnosticism.
        >
        > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
        Gnosticism"
        > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
        important
        > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
        > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
        category,
        > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
        > actually fit.
        >
        > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
        > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
        friend.
        > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
        > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
        > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
        > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
        > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
        > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
        to
        > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
        > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
        > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
        >
        > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
        Mandaean
        > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
        > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
        >
        > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
        > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
        > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
        > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
        > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
        subject
        > generally don't.
        >
        > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
        > would they be?
        >
        > PMCV
        >
      • Will
        Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king) is the demiurge, but
        Message 3 of 9 , May 1, 2006
          Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The
          Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king)
          is the demiurge, but as for Lucifer...they only say that he is Azazel,
          or Shaitan. So yes, the surrounding evironment labels them devil
          worshippers, but Lucifer is a rather elusive term... not very easily
          used here. But Yezidi as Gnostic? That's pretty silly to me. If
          anything, neo-gnostic... but even then, it doesn't really fit. Even
          though they see Melek Taus as the Demiurge, that doesn't mean
          anything. Jews and Christians believe YHWH is the demiurge, but that
          doesn't make them Gnostic. It would help your case a little if this
          demiurge was keepin the man down, especially for something Sethian,
          but that isn't the case... and even then, it would totally wipe out
          your arguement.

          As for them holding faith over knowledge, that simply can't be true.
          Think about what faith is: Even though everyone around them is against
          them, they are still faithful to Melek Taus. All the religions have
          their knowledge, but it's different with their faith. For example,
          it's hard to go to war and fight, but people look up to someone who
          fights to protect their country(I mean, pre-Iraq deal), and it can
          keep you going. But what if as a man, you dress up as a woman and walk
          around town? Everyone automatically turns against you. How much
          strength would you have then? Everyone around the Yezidi antagonizes
          them. So as you can see, faith is an integral part of Yezidi culture.
          Even more so than their "knowledge".



          http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
          <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
          >
          > Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
          > about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
          > as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
          > feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
          > which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
          > Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
          > aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
          > Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
          > they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
          > knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
          > Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
          > Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
          > Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
          > like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
          > http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
          > http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
          > http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
          > http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html
          >
          >
          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hey Mer248lina
          > >
          > > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
          > > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
          > > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
          > >
          > > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
          > > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
          > > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
          > > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
          > > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
          > >
          > > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
          > > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
          > interest
          > > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
          > > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
          > here.
          > > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
          > > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
          > > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
          > > Gnosticism.
          > >
          > > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
          > Gnosticism"
          > > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
          > important
          > > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
          > > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
          > category,
          > > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
          > > actually fit.
          > >
          > > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
          > > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
          > friend.
          > > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
          > > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
          > > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
          > > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
          > > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
          > > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
          > to
          > > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
          > > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
          > > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
          > >
          > > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
          > Mandaean
          > > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
          > > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
          > >
          > > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
          > > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
          > > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
          > > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
          > > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
          > subject
          > > generally don't.
          > >
          > > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
          > > would they be?
          > >
          > > PMCV
          > >
          >
        • pmcvflag
          Hey Icybrethovhecate ... about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
          Message 4 of 9 , May 1, 2006
            Hey Icybrethovhecate

            >>Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
            about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
            as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
            feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
            which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
            Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
            aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
            Yezidism before you make claims.<<<

            It isn't that I haven't read anything on Yezidis, it is just that
            you and I have been reading different sources. I have to side with
            Will on this one... the sources you site in order to demonstrate
            your point seem questionable to me. Melek Taus doesn't mean "Black
            Peacock", and I am not aware of any critical historian that would
            agree with the notion that the Yezidis have been around for 4000
            years. Another site you list is nothing more than a copy of Isya's
            hopelessly outdated book... again full of questionable information.

            I am not trying to be adversarial here, but I think we should be a
            bit more questioning of our sources... don't you? I think I would
            rather take my info from more academic sources in this case rather
            than sensationalist occult resources.

            As with the Mandaeans, much of the early direct academic info on the
            Yezidis comes from E. Drower. It is of note that she believes the
            term "seiten" (or shaytan, etc.) enters the Yezidi lingo initially
            as an attack, and the reason Yazidis are forbidden to state the name
            is partly because it sounded superficially like a name they already
            had and they did not want thier god cursed with the equation.

            "Indeed, it is possibly the Yazidis themselves, by tabooing all
            mention of the name Shaitan, or Satan, as a libel upon this angel,
            who have fostered the idea that the Peacock Angel is identical with
            the dark fallen angel whom men call the Tempter." (E.Drower "Peacock
            Angel")

            She reports posing the question to a qawwal, point blank, and being
            told that the equation was a mistake.

            If you look in Isya's "Black Book" (which we don't know to be real,
            for sure... but you gave us a link to), you will actually see that
            it directly states that the name Satan is avoided because
            it "resembles" the name of thier god.

            Now, of course it is up to you whether you believe any one resource
            here more than another, but I think that there is enough evidence
            contrary to the usual occult line to at least warrent some
            scepticism. If you don't like what I say, at least allow for the
            possibility that I may not be completely ignorant. Since you are now
            talking in a community that values some academic perspective, try to
            allow that academic perspective have a place in your side of the
            conversation as well. I question your RESOURCES, not YOU.... please
            have the same respect.

            >>>And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic, they believe that Lucifer(Melek
            Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value knowledge rather than faith as
            the means of salvation(remember, it is Lucifer who told Adam and Eve
            to eat from The Tree of Knowledge). Theyn also honor Jesus. And the
            Mandeans are included in my Gnostic Bible, so their Gnostic as
            well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I like the Yezidis even if
            I don't agree with all their beliefs.<<<

            The so called "Gnostic Bible" contains many texts that scholars
            don't consider to be Gnostic. Even one of the book's editors, Dr
            Meyer, would surely tell you in retrospect that some of the texts
            are not technically "Gnostic". In fact, Dr Meyer states more
            recently in his essay for the Gospel of Judas that the category
            of "gnostic" is defined by a direct relation to Sethian beliefs. In
            other words, one of the compilers of your "Gnostic Bible" has
            perhaps become even more strict than ME in using this term.... and
            obviously can not consider some of the texts in his own book to
            be "Gnostic".

            If you go around saying that just because it is in the compilation
            called "The Gnostic Bible" it must be "Gnostic", it is almost like
            the Christians who say "the Bible says it so it must be true". The
            Gnostics had NO "Bible".... so don't take the "Gnostic Bible" too
            seriously.

            BTW, "Lucifer" enters our language as a mistranslation in the Latin
            Vulgate concerning the king of Babylon in Psalms. I doubt whether
            the average Yezidi has even heard the term. The Bible doesn't say
            that "Lucifer" tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of
            knowledge (not that we care what the Bible says *lol*)

            PMCV
          • debbie wheeler
            pmcvflag wrote: Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically
            Message 5 of 9 , May 2, 2006
              pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              Hey Mer248lina

              >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
              line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
              Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

              Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
              would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
              right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
              as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
              gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

              I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
              these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
              here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
              Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
              Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
              conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
              much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
              Gnosticism.

              A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
              by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
              issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
              technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
              such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
              actually fit.

              The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
              by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
              She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
              (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
              study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
              categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
              not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
              bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
              not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
              repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
              not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

              I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
              youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
              closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

              Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
              believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
              something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
              attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
              as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
              generally don't.

              Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
              would they be?

              PMCV
               
              Thanks pm, now you've given me a load of work to do lol. Have to verify what you've said about Salvation, gnosis and mandeans.





              Mer248lina


              Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets.
            • Will
              ... http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out in a solar symbol
              Message 6 of 9 , May 2, 2006
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, other guy <no_reply@...> wrote:

                >> >>...he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                >> feathers is a symbol of the sun).

                http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look

                This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out
                in a solar symbol because of the number of eyes (twelve). The roots of
                the eyes of the feathers are seven in number, and denote the planets
                of the ancients, which are numbered from the supernal triad - the
                three feathers springing from the birds head. dividing the image in
                half, is the Moon, representing opposites, while He stands on the
                Earth symbol as a foot stool. The Sumerian symbol to the left, the
                star, represents a god. The rest of it says something like, "created
                in light and darkness" or something of that nature.

                >>His secret name is Shaitan(Satan) which the Yezidis are forbidden to
                speak.

                You're forgetting these are Iraqi Kurds. That word is probably not in
                their original vocabulary from "4,000 years ago, when they started
                this religion" as one of your sources says(*snicker*). It's probably a
                label that an outside culture gave their deity. Probably somewhere
                from a short distance west? Speaking of origins, Most scholars agree
                that the Yezidi are an evolution of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Want
                sources? Go find them, there's plenty of material out there. Try not
                to use keywords like "Lord Lucifer" in the search though...just a tip.

                >> And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
                >> aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn).

                How is that evil? Those are just attributes of the Sun (the whole
                "fire as light and fire and burn").
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.