Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Gnostic beliefs on matter
- Thanks.I think the Hermetic vision is backed-up by the Biblical passage of
the Apostle Paul when he speaks of seeing "through a
glass"-a mirror-"darkly" which is to have an obscure, or imperfect vision
of reality.This is unfortunately what we experience most of the time.
Paul explains,however, that we do not now see clearly; but at the end of
time;(the timeless mystical vision), we will do so.
The problem with Gnosticism is that, because it sees the material World as
an evil place,one need not care for it.Ironically a similar philosophy
is shared by certain fundamentalist Christian believers(I think we all know
who some of these people are)! Like the Gnostics,they wish to escape
from this World to Heaven and therefore see nothing fundamentally wrong in
exploiting the Earth.As a result we now have a major environmental crisis
on our hands.Heaven is a state of consciousness,and the Work towards this
awareness needs to start on Earth so that we,and therefore the World,can be
transformed-just like the alchemical process.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jimdale827" <jimdale827@...>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Gnostic beliefs on matter
> Thanks for the reply sir.
> [It sounds like you had an experience of gnosis or divine knowledge-
> a mystical experience.]
> It certainly was, and absolutely mind-blowing.
> [One needs to distinguish between gnosis and the movements that fall
> under the name Gnosticism.]
> I could not agree more. They are ranting on about something they are
> choosing to believe in but not talking about an experience which they
> know from personal experience first hand by being there and living it.
> [whereas an experience of gnosis can reveal a mystically transformed
> Yes, I had that further experience some time later and that too was
> mind-blowing. Tell people about these events and they go `Derrrrr" !
> Yes some aspects of what I have read of Hermeticism also correlate
> with the experience of what I and some others call the mystical
> gnosis event.
> Gnosticism does not interest me but the living phenomenon of gnosis
> and that mystical state of mind does, for it is like a personal
> quantum leap in awareness and a deep primordial wisdom or innate
> cosmological understanding.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Chris Holtzhausen\(private\)"
> <tessalonics@...> wrote:
>> It sounds like you had an experience of gnosis or divine knowledge-
>> a mystical experience.One needs to distinguish between gnosis and
>> movements that fall under the name Gnosticism.......
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- Hey Mark
>>>At times when reading the Gnostic texts and some of theirinterpreters, I often wonder to what degree an "historical" Gnostic
practitioner might have presented, or appeared, as a modern day
Could you help me by telling me what you mean by "charismatic"? I am
not sure if you mean this in the generic, or if you mean it in the
modern evangelical sense, or if you mean it etymologically.
>>>Thus, I think experience was important, maybe even critical, toHistorical Gnosticism. But such an experience only helped to start
them on the path, and it was not the whole of the path. If you want
to find a person who has lost faith, then find a charismatic who can
no longer experience the "Spirit." I think Historical Gnosticism
would agree with the idea that faith may be initiated through an
experience, but faith grows through an act of will. Experience is
the proverbial icing on the cake. Without a doubt, beautiful and
delicious, but without a substance that sustains and nurishes.<<<
This could raise an interesting question for another thread. One may
wonder exactly what function pistis, praxis, and gnosis have in the
larger concept of Gnosis (with a capital "G") for historical (and
traditional) practitioners. Is there a correct mix or specific
interaction that one can find stated (or even implied) in the texts?
>>>I am a fairly firm believer that every generation castratesthe previous one in order to individuate themselves. Or to put it
differently, each generation has the right or obligation to recast in
their own terms/lingo that which their ancestors held as sacred.
This is not the same as rejecting. Many, perhaps due to an
intellectual laziness, find it easier simply to reject tradition,
instead of re-interpreting it. Tradition, in its most meanigful
sense, however, is this very process of re-interpretation through
Interesting point. I find I can't disagree.
There is, as you point out, a move to reject all notion
of "tradition" itself. I find it interesting that the rhetoric used
in these cases are very often based on singular experience and a
reaction against that experience (people who were raised with strict
fundementalist backgrounds). This is then cast in a lingo that is
very closely related to racist doctrins, i.e., all notion of
tradition or structure of any sort must be spiritually dead (the
proof being their personal experience with one single false claim)
and need not be examined or understood before making such a
More important to our subject is how shockingly many people who are
interested in Gnosticism are very much using Gnosticism (and by this
I mean the historical texts) as a weapon for this kind of reaction
without really wanting to try and understand the texts in and of
themselves (I am tempted to call it the Da Vinci code complex, but
maybe there are better terms).
>>>When it comes to the questions of what is outdated and what mustbe changed, I think we need to be careful to distinguish between
the "form" of the Gnostic "truths" and the "content" of those
truths. In other words, there were many social and political norms
that "formed" the Gnostic content and we must account for these,
which is the domain of hermeneutics. Nonetheless, I think there are
some spiritual truths that worked then and that work now, regardless
of the "forming" influence of culture. In this sense, these texts
are not just "moldy old texts and docrines," but give "form" to a
spiritual "content" that speaks to us today.<<<
In the end, that may be key to the whole issue. When you state this,
though, do you have any specific examples in mind? If not, could we
impose upon you to find a couple? It seems to me that the point may
be too core to the conversation to be left abstract.
>>>What is the "truth" the texts intend?<<<Well, I guess I could counter by asking "what is truth", but I think
Darkchylde already does this. Frankly, though, it isn't so much my
point. Rather, I was trying to raise the question of whether the
authors of the texts believed in a "truth" or whether they were
relativists like the modern popular postmodernists (or maybe bits of
To be fair, let me try to give my own perspective on the texts and
some examples of what they may posit as "truths".
For one, I think they intend their cosmology as a genuine
functional "truth" (whether that cosmology is literal or allegorical
may be a different question, but from the functional perspective it
may not matter).
I think they intend to offer a specific soteriology as a literal
truth based directly on the functionality of the cosmology (again,
whether that cosmology is literal or allegorical).
I am open to debate on these points, as always, but I just wanted to
offer what I think to be the intended function of many of these
texts so that it doesn't seem like I am standing outside the issue.