Re: I suppose It's Another Personal Statement
I hear the struggle and frustration of your spiritual quest and from
experience I can relate to finding something that I hope and feel may
lead me to a new truth--maybe even enlightenement--and then being
disappointed as I delve into my new find deeper. I would not say
that I have found enlightenment, for enlightenment is not found, but
is. What I have found is that all of my looking "out there" will not
lead me to the truths I seek: the truths I seek can only be found "in
here"--in me! I think that in this respect I share a similiar
soteriology with what we commonly call the Gnostics. The Gnostics
have provided us with a variety of historical forms or paths to
follow or learn from, but they all are only forms with which you
yourself become the content, or in other words, they all provide a
path, but you yourself are the one who needs to walk it and
I greatly enjoy studying Gnosticism and learning of all the variety
and various ways of expressing their gnosis, which is the "hidden"
and inward truths that they experienced. I enjoy knowing that
historical Gnosticism in many of its Christian forms developed in a
context of a polemical relationship with what came to be defined as
orthodoxy. But neither historical Gnosticism nor traditional
Gnosticism will give me what I seek. They, as well as other
spiritual paths, may point the way, but I must make the journey--and
it is a journey inward. The only "hidden" truth is the one hidden
within me, which only I can find.
I hope you find within the shadows of Gnosticism something that
speaks to you. But if not, it is still a fun and worthwhile study in
its own right.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "chesterelders"
> I recently posted a brief "personal statement" on gnosticism.
> know I ran roughshod over the innumerable differences between theno
> various gnostics schools and the differences between those schools
> and orthodoxy Christianity. The point I wanted to make is this: I
> longer believe that gnosticism holds an arcane hidden truth whichthe
> church then tried to suppress.sensations
> I was initially attracted to the promise that a "hidden
> knowledge" might release me from the world. For me, the world seems
> like dessicated spirit. Even the greenest and most supple
> of life are just husks. You know what I mean. It's the emptiness ofa
> fragrance triggering a lonesome memory. Who hasn't stood in anempty
> place and had an odor or even a noise coat your tongue with heavyoutside "being".
> memories? It's that poignant loss which drove me to the ancient
> The gnostics spoke of God as being completely
> In fact, the gnostic text the Apocryphon of John speaks of God onlytranscending
> in so-called apophatic language. The point is that the opposite of
> whatever can be said of God must also be true. This leads to an
> endless negation of Divine attributes which leads ultimately to a
> breakdown of all speech. I believe that we're capable of
> being, but only for an instant. Transcending being, however is soknow
> brief that it can only be experienced as a memory. It's like being
> startled and opening your eyes. In that brief instant we see and
> nothing except the sensation of being startled. Then, awarenessbe
> rushes in. I hoped the gnostics could tell me how to express that
> memory with words and rituals which were beyond me.
> I wanted a language which would connect me with the memory of
> that which I couldn't remember. In looking to the gnostics for an
> answer, though I violated one of their most basic tenets: I cannot
> initiated into the mysteries of gnosticism without a guide. Thetexts
> remain sterile in the same way a sighted man's description of thewhat
> world remains sterile to a blind man. Those who might could have
> guided me are long dead; gnosticism remains locked in the past. The
> words they left behind are dessicated husks. Which is better: a
> beautiful woman forever beyond my reach or else a plain and homely
> woman who is interested in me? The one is frustrating and the other
> is unsatisfying. That's the dilemma I'm facing.
> It is no more possible to interpret the writings of the
> gnostics than it is to experience someone else's toothache. I do
> admit to a poignant longing to know what they felt. For example:
> is it like for your passion to exceed your bounds? The gnosticsYet,
> talked about that. The archon "Wisdom" exceeded her bounds and then
> split between the upper world and the lower world. According to the
> gnostic teacher Valentinus, Wisdom was the farthermost emanation of
> God. Wisdom desired to give birth in a way forbidden to emanations.
> As a consequence, a lower image of Wisdom remained trapped in the
> material world even though a higher image was saved. That story
> strikes a visceral cord with me. I've split so many times I can't
> believe there's anything left to split; but of course there is.
> the story can never be to me what it was to those who reallybelieved
> it; the Enlightenment stands between me and that experience.of
> I can't study gnosticism without also mourning that wisdom
> which we'll never know. You might say that our modern understanding
> of the ancient gnostic texts is just as valid as the understanding
> those who wrote them. I disagree, though. Suppose that I'm sick andof
> someone lies to me and says there is a cure. No one's understanding
> of that lie can possible compare to mine. In the same way. my
> understanding of gnosticism can't compare to the understanding of
> those who saw it as their salvation. At best, we can only fake an
> understanding and rapport which leaves us as unfulfilled as a meal
> empty calories.
- lady_caritas wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:I'm still here, but haven't had much to say. I must recommend Giovani
>> chesterelders wrote:
>>> At best, we can only fake an
>>> understanding and rapport which leaves us as unfulfilled as a meal
>>> empty calories.
>> Speak for yourself, friend.
>> Hey, Mike, good to see you! ;-)
Filoramo's, HISTORY OF GNOSTICISM, the coverage is mind boggeling for a
191 page book.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
> lady_caritas wrote:
> >> Speak for yourself, friend.
> >> Hey, Mike, good to see you! ;-)
> >> Cari
> I'm still here, but haven't had much to say. I must recommend
> Filoramo's, HISTORY OF GNOSTICISM, the coverage is mind boggelingfor a
> 191 page book.Mike, I've been meaning to get to Filoramo's book, but now that you
give it such a glowing recommendation, I'll put that near the top of
I just received an order yesterday, which included Birger A.
Pearson's new introductory book, _Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and
Literature_, along with the new International Edition of _The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures_ edited by Marvin Meyer and also _The Gospel of
Judas together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book
of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos, Critical Edition_.
Now I just need to find time to get through all these. :-) I did
start reading the first several pages of Birger Pearson's book and it
appears to be a lucid introduction. I look forward to reading