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

Re: [Gnosticism] Re: new Hoeller book

Expand Messages
  • Hvonhofe169@cs.com
    hello john, A question you ask caught my eye: together with the quote (i assume from Jung):
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      hello john,

      A question you ask caught my eye:

      <<Is Abraxas the Father or the demiurge?>>

      together with the quote (i assume from Jung):

      <<""Abraxas is the god whom it is difficult to know. His power is the
      very greatest, because man does not perceive it. Man sees the summum
      bonuum (supreme good) of the sun, and also the infinum malum (endless
      evil) of the devil, but Abraxas he does not see, for he is
      indefinable life itself, which is the mother of good and evil
      alike.)"">>

      I just read a very fine book by Kieren Barry:  "The Greek Qabalah:  Alphabetic Mysticism and Numerology in the Ancient World".  He uses the example of Abraxas to distinguish the two basic ways in which the popular hellenistic practice of gematria  (the adding together the numeric values of the letters of Greek names & words) was used.  1) it can be applied retroactively to sacred texts/words/names to draw further meaning & connections or 2) it can be used in the crafting of a word or name to encode that further meaning from the beginning -- here Barry gives the examples of ABRAXAS & MEIThRAS, both of which add to 365 to represent the days of the solar year.

      Now as for Abrasax, father, demiurge, sun, & son:  i wonder if maybe this encoded 365 in the name of Abraxas points to Time as the Abraxas that is not seen and the Sun as the Abraxas that is.  (Time as a function of Light.)

      may the sun shine!  :-)

      Hal

      In a message dated 7/27/02 8:09:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
      <<Hoeller says that Gnostic texts speak of a God that cannot be
      limited or qualified, but he also says that it is a totally benign
      God. >>

      And Gnostic texts don't?
      Jesus mentions the "sweetness" of the Father.
      In Gospel of Truth evil is simply lack of knowledge of the Father
      which will disappear once the Father is known, and matter is an
      illusion. GoTr "the Father is sweet and his will is what is good"
      Apochryphon of John section 3 (pg 104 in my 3rd ed) Here the same
      contradiction exists. The Father is described as infinite and
      immeasurable and indescribable. But he's also "good" and possesses
      mercy and redemption and life giving and goodness-giving-good and
      grace-giving-grace etc..
      Or Tripartite Tractate where the Father has "lack of any malice"
      Gospel of Philip 53:15-25 which also brings up duality and it's
      dissolution but then states "But those who are exalted above the
      world are indissoluble, eternal" (so much for nonexistence)
      GoPh 66:10-15 "In this world there is good and evil. It's good things
      are not good, and it's evil things are not evil". This mirrors The
      Corpus Hermeticum which says all good in this world is corrupted by
      evil, and one would think vice-versa, so there is no true good in
      this world.
      The Father is constantly described as "incorruptible" The beginning
      of GoEgy for example. In Eugnostos the Blessed or Sophia of Jesus
      Christ the Father 9[5}:10 "He is unchanging good"
      There is no darkness in the Father. Darkness belongs to our realm.

      The Father is transcendent and indescribable, but *in the attempt* to
      describe, evil is never used to describe him. Where is anything evil
      or bad used to describe the Father?
      When it's said he can't be described, that means words cannot limit
      him. How can a word, a sound, describe silence, what's at rest and
      has no-thing and no-time and infinity?
      GofPh 53:25 "names given to the worldly are deceptive, for they
      divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect"

      In the attempt to describe the Father as indescribable and invisible,
      somehow this has been interpreted as unknowable, and a dualistic
      mixture of both good and evil, or neither, because the lack or
      presence of either is a limitation. But dualism is the realm of the
      demiurge.
      Only the Son knows the Father, and we too can become sons, therefore
      we too can know the Father. In order to know the Father a
      transformation has to occur.
      Evil is a lack, a negation, a shadow, that which doesn't exist.
      In Origin of The World the shadow lies in place where the Father is
      not. That becomes the source of matter, and our world.
      Book of Thomas the Contender 140:15 "to the fool, however, the good
      and bad are the same"

      Is Abraxas the Father or the demiurge? I say he's the demiurge, and
      so do others.
      http://www.luckymojo.com/willss14abraxas.html

      Jung described Abraxas as transcendent being and non-being,
      indescribable. But this sounds more like the demiurge, which in our
      realm is duality mixed and is blind as to the nature of good and
      evil. The demiurge contains what exists and what doesn't, being and
      non-being, shadow and light.
      ""Abraxas is the god whom it is difficult to know. His power is the
      very greatest, because man does not perceive it. Man sees the summum
      bonuum (supreme good) of the sun, and also the infinum malum (endless
      evil) of the devil, but Abraxas he does not see, for he is
      indefinable life itself, which is the mother of good and evil
      alike.)""

      In Origin of the World, the Chaos is a subsequent creation to the
      light, and it's a shadow of it. Therein lies the spirit of evil.

      In Gospel of Egyptians Abraxas is the emanation of Eleleth, in
      Trimorphic Protennoia, the demiurge is an emanation of Eleleth.

      When duality resolves, evil dissolves because it never was. It's
      empty shadow. When the Father is known, darkness disappears. In the
      absence of evil, the notion of good also disappears because
      everything IS good. Then everything simply becomes *what is*. Right
      now, things are becoming.
      The word good uses the word evil to define it. Words are part of our
      dualistic concept. The essence of good remains although it's
      comparison to anything else disappears because everything else
      disappears. Everything is good where the Father is. There is no
      darkness in the light.  What was will always be, what's living will
      not die.



      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "eris never died." <jkr@n...> wrote:
      >i just picked up a copy of the new Stephen Hoeller
      book, "Gnosticism: New
      >Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing," which is supposed
      to be
      >his attempt at a good introductory text on Gnosticism. he says
      himself in
      >the intro that it's not written in academic style, and that it's
      written
      >for a larger audience. it seems like it will be more a presentation
      of the
      >Hoeller system than one that the scholars will accept. i came
      across a
      >passage that seems a bit suspect:
      >
      >"These texts proclaim the existence of a transcendent and totally
      benign
      >God, a substratum of reality that is unchanging and immeasurable,
      >transcending any particularity or limiting imposition one might
      attribute
      >to it. It goes without saying that this God image is quite
      incompatible
      >with the image of an arbitrary, tyrannical personal God in whom, to
      say
      >the least, good and evil seem to be liberally mixed." (11).
      >
      >here, Hoeller says that Gnostic texts speak of a God that cannot be
      >limited or qualified, but he also says that it is a totally benign
      God. he
      >contradicts himself in the same sentence by limiting and qualifying
      the
      >Infinite. by calling the Infinite benign, he makes it out to be
      more of a
      >Good Christian God. he also seems to say that good and evil cannot
      be
      >mixed in the transcendent God (he is emphasizing the good over the
      >evil). in one way he is right i guess, since at the level of the
      Infinite,
      >good and evil actualized cannot be mixed, being finite categories
      that do
      >not apply. i don't think he meant it that way though.
      >
      >i'm expecting this to be a bit new agey and fluffy bunny
      presentation of
      >Gnosticism (i hope he proves me wrong). he did have a cute little
      image of
      >the night sky being a sea of blackness (the Limit?) in which tiny
      >holes are poked and through which the light of the transcendent God
      passes
      >to us below via the stars. is this an image that anyone has seen
      >in Gnostic myths before, or is this a new Hoellerism? really, i
      think its
      >cute and romantic, but is it Gnostic?
      >
      >john.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.