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

Re: Answer to Plotinus?

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown <wilbro99@yahoo.com>
    If my understanding of Plotinus is correct, and he sees evil as ignorance of the good, then that in itself would put him at odds with the Gnostics. If my
    Message 1 of 19 , Jan 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      If my understanding of Plotinus is correct, and he sees evil as
      ignorance of the good, then that in itself would put him at odds with
      the Gnostics. If my understanding of the Gnostics is correct, they
      ascribe the material world as being evil and gnosis as its
      transcending. I see the difference between the two in light of my
      understanding of gnosis, namely, that ignorance is the problem and the
      removal of ignorance leaves only understanding. In this light the
      problem is not between two worlds, but within one's relation to
      oneself. If the Gnostic scheme is a metaphor for that problem, cast in
      the language of the day—complete with Gods and such, that is one
      thing, but if the Gnostic scheme is taken as representing the facts,
      then I am with Plotinus here.

      Tony, not that I know any better, but it seems to me that the quote
      (see below) by Chaung Tzu at the end of your post puts the whammy on
      any underlying purpose of Gnostic teaching. How can the Gnostic path
      be seen as no path when the Gnostic path claims to be a unique path? I
      think I remember the Flag making the claim that there was more to
      Gnosticism than just gnosis. ----willy

      "To exercise no-thought and rest in nothing is the first step toward
      resting in Tao. To start from nowhere and follow no road is the first
      step toward attaining Tao." --Chuang Tzu


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, AJRoberti@a... wrote:
      > Hello Everyone,
      >
      > Have been reading Plotinus' "Against the Gnostics." This treatise
      consists
      > of a series of attacks on the logic of the Gnostic myth, many of
      them quite
      > substantive.
      >
      > Here's one example, from the MacKenna/Page translation:
      >
      > "The Soul that declined, they tell us, saw and illuminated the already
      > existent Darkness. Now whence came this Darkness?
      >
      > "If they tell us that the Soul created the Darkness by its Decline,
      then,
      > obviously, there was nowhere for the Soul to decline to; the cause
      of the
      > decline was not the Darkness but the very nature of the Soul. The
      theory,
      > therefore, refers the entire process to pre-existing compulsions:
      the guilt
      > inheres in the Primal Beings."
      >
      > Here's another:
      > "This All that has emerged into life is no amorphous structure --
      like those
      > lesser forms within it which are born night and day out of the
      lavishness of
      > its vitality -- the Universe is a life organized, effective, complex,
      > all-comprehensive, displaying an unfathomable wisdom. How, then,
      can anyone
      > deny that it is a clear image, beautifully formed, of the Intellectual
      > Divinities? No doubt it is a copy, not original; but that is its very
      > nature; it cannot be at once symbol and reality. But to say that it
      is an
      > inadequate copy is false; nothing has been left out which a beautiful
      > representation within the physical order could include."
      >
      > I was wondering if there was an answer anywhere to the criticisms of
      > Plotinus? Or, can these criticisms be dismissed as archaic or
      irrelevant?
      > In any case, while Plotinus, like Irenaeus and the Christian
      heresiologists,
      > seems to be "besides the point" in attacking the myth while failing to
      > recognize the underlying purpose of Gnostic teaching (and that's
      > notwithstanding the notion of hidden esoteric meanings) they still
      deserve an
      > answer of some sort.
      >
      > Tony Roberti
      > ---
      > Renewal Gnosticism: http://members.aol.com/AJRoberti/rg/index.htm
      > Gulf Coast Gnostics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GCGnostics/
      >
      > "To exercise no-thought and rest in nothing is the first step toward
      resting
      > in Tao. To start from nowhere and follow no road is the first step
      toward
      > attaining Tao."
      > --Chuang Tzu
    • klaus schilling
      ... Of course the material world is evil in the extreme and needs to be denounced. There s no doubt about it. Klaus Schilling
      Message 2 of 19 , Jan 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        "Will Brown <wilbro99@...>" <wilbro99@...> writes:
        > If my understanding of Plotinus is correct, and he sees evil as
        > ignorance of the good, then that in itself would put him at odds with
        > the Gnostics. If my understanding of the Gnostics is correct, they
        > ascribe the material world as being evil and gnosis as its
        > transcending.

        Of course the material world is evil in the extreme
        and needs to be denounced. There's no doubt about it.


        Klaus Schilling
      • pmcvflag
        That is a really good subject Tony. Let me throw in my pennies here. I see the attacks of Plotinus and Celsus as fundamentally different from those of the
        Message 3 of 19 , Jan 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          That is a really good subject Tony. Let me throw in my pennies here.

          I see the attacks of Plotinus and Celsus as fundamentally different
          from those of the Christian heresiologists. The attacks are better,
          more valid, from the former group. Plotinus himself recognizes the
          common origin in Platonism between himself and his Gnostic
          aquaintences, and argues philosophically. Plotinus appears to have
          had Gnostic friends, and there is an atmosphere of debate (except for
          the anger at having been "misquoted" by these Gnosticsand for Plato
          being misunderstood by them. However, on this point the Gnostics
          appear to be right... they may have misunderstood Plotinus' intent,
          but he seems to have forgotton some of his own statements by the time
          the altercation exploded).

          While Plotinus is the end of Middle Platonism, and the beginning of
          Neo-Platonism, his essential argument is against Neo-Platonism, and
          Gnostics as a FORM of Neo-Platonism. He is against the fact that
          Gnostics deride the world, and more so, the creator. For Plotinus the
          Demiurge is Holy and Good. At the same time, Plotinus hates the body
          and accuses the Gnostics of being immoral. This seeming inconsistancy
          may on the surface look very much like the heresiologists rhetoric,
          but I believe it goes a little deeper. Plotinus does not accuse them
          of terrible deeds though, just of not conforming to his exacting
          standards by being too worldly. BTW, though I don't remember him
          using it, this would be an excellent demonstration of Dr WIlliams'
          point that Gnostics were in fact not the ascetic body-haters the
          modern scholors USED to say they were. Plotinus believes the world is
          eternal, he accuses the Gnostics of believeing the world had a
          beginning and would have an end.

          Plotinus also accuses Gnostics of being overly complex (and
          exclusive) in saying the same things as he does, and so of
          degenerating Philosophy into mere Mythology. In a way he is right of
          course, but the seperation he draws is not one innate in Platonism
          (and in fact Plato himself saw value in this kind of mythological
          description, and even talks about how wonderful it would be to
          syncratize the Mysteries with Philosophy.... something that I would
          say is exactly what the Gnostics were attempting).

          To boil that down, Plotinus and the Gnostics tend to be different in
          that they chose a different lingo, and that Plotinus hated the body
          in practice but not in theory, while Gnostics hated the body in
          theory but not in practice. Otherwise it is nearly impossible to
          conclusively draw a destinction between Plotinus and the Gnostics as
          a whole, as they seem to have very directly influenced each other. It
          does seem though in part that Plotinus may have not fully understood
          the psychological aspects of the teachings that his Valintinian
          counterparts were trying to outline. He doesn't in any case deal with
          the notion of the creation and fall and salvation happening on an
          individual basis instead of simply being a literal cosmic
          explination. He never mentions the notion of identifying ones self
          with the fall of Sophia, or the rise of Christ, etc.

          I do have to disagree with Wilbro on something. I see no Gnostic
          teachings that say evil comes from the earth, but only that evil is
          in ignorance of ones self, and that ignorance was the cause of
          creation. When the world is mentioned as a source of evil in Gnostic
          writings, it is generally only on the personal level that this
          holds... not empirically. In this one particular instance, Plotinus
          seems to be argueing the same point as the Gnostics, and only
          thinking he is against them. Perhaps though the fact that this
          misunderstanding happens is a greater proof of the validity of his
          point concerning the overcomplexity of Gnosticism for common
          description. So, maybe he is right in some ways and wrong in others.

          That's my opinion anyways

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, AJRoberti@a... wrote:
          > Hello Everyone,
          >
          > Have been reading Plotinus' "Against the Gnostics." This treatise
          consists
          > of a series of attacks on the logic of the Gnostic myth, many of
          them quite
          > substantive.
          >
          > Here's one example, from the MacKenna/Page translation:
          >
          > "The Soul that declined, they tell us, saw and illuminated the
          already
          > existent Darkness. Now whence came this Darkness?
          >
          > "If they tell us that the Soul created the Darkness by its Decline,
          then,
          > obviously, there was nowhere for the Soul to decline to; the cause
          of the
          > decline was not the Darkness but the very nature of the Soul. The
          theory,
          > therefore, refers the entire process to pre-existing compulsions:
          the guilt
          > inheres in the Primal Beings."
          >
          > Here's another:
          > "This All that has emerged into life is no amorphous structure --
          like those
          > lesser forms within it which are born night and day out of the
          lavishness of
          > its vitality -- the Universe is a life organized, effective,
          complex,
          > all-comprehensive, displaying an unfathomable wisdom. How, then,
          can anyone
          > deny that it is a clear image, beautifully formed, of the
          Intellectual
          > Divinities? No doubt it is a copy, not original; but that is its
          very
          > nature; it cannot be at once symbol and reality. But to say that
          it is an
          > inadequate copy is false; nothing has been left out which a
          beautiful
          > representation within the physical order could include."
          >
          > I was wondering if there was an answer anywhere to the criticisms
          of
          > Plotinus? Or, can these criticisms be dismissed as archaic or
          irrelevant?
          > In any case, while Plotinus, like Irenaeus and the Christian
          heresiologists,
          > seems to be "besides the point" in attacking the myth while failing
          to
          > recognize the underlying purpose of Gnostic teaching (and that's
          > notwithstanding the notion of hidden esoteric meanings) they still
          deserve an
          > answer of some sort.
          >
          > Tony Roberti
          > ---
          > Renewal Gnosticism: http://members.aol.com/AJRoberti/rg/index.htm
          > Gulf Coast Gnostics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GCGnostics/
          >
          > "To exercise no-thought and rest in nothing is the first step
          toward resting
          > in Tao. To start from nowhere and follow no road is the first step
          toward
          > attaining Tao."
          > --Chuang Tzu
        • klaus schilling
          ... This is only valid for feable Gnosticists like Valentinus, Isidoros, Simon the Mage, Herakleion, Ptolemaios, BarDaisanes. True, strong Gnosticists like
          Message 4 of 19 , Jan 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            pmcvflag writes:
            >
            > To boil that down, Plotinus and the Gnostics tend to be different in
            > that they chose a different lingo, and that Plotinus hated the body
            > in practice but not in theory, while Gnostics hated the body in
            > theory but not in practice.

            This is only valid for feable Gnosticists like Valentinus, Isidoros,
            Simon the Mage, Herakleion, Ptolemaios, BarDaisanes.
            True, strong Gnosticists like Satornil, J. Cassianus, and Severus
            hate world and life in theory && practice.

            Klaus Schilling
          • Terje Bergersen
            ... I think I can with a certain confidence state for the record that such weak gnosticists (sic!) are quite happy not be counted among such. That Plotin
            Message 5 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > pmcvflag writes:
              > >
              > > To boil that down, Plotinus and the Gnostics tend to be different
              > in > that they chose a different lingo, and that Plotinus hated the
              > body > in practice but not in theory, while Gnostics hated the body
              > in > theory but not in practice.

              Klaus:
              > This is only valid for feable Gnosticists like Valentinus, Isidoros,
              > Simon the Mage, Herakleion, Ptolemaios, BarDaisanes.
              > True, strong Gnosticists like Satornil, J. Cassianus, and Severus
              > hate world and life in theory && practice.

              I think I can with a certain confidence state for the record that such
              weak gnosticists (sic!) are quite happy not be counted among such.

              That Plotin considers there exists a breach or chasm between a system
              wherein material existence is either considered a cause for ignorance, or
              caused by ignorance (which is, respectively, addressing either an
              individual,specific or a universal,general situation) and a view that all
              suffering and "evil" is caused by ignorance of the good (this would make
              Plotin an excellent source for apologetic of a basically Augustinian
              ethic, an argument for the Privatio Boni doctrine - that evil is the
              absence of good and repaired by being _informed_ of the existence and
              superiority of the good, whatever its definition or actual relevance in
              experience (sic!))
              . The "feeble" Gnosticists, almost contradistinct to the "true,strong"
              Gnosticists - would consider matter as _doketia_ or the appearance of
              reality, but in truth, nothing in and of itself - They would address
              "evil" as a condition caused by the interference of intermediary
              authorities who abuse conscious beings and entrap them on account of their
              affiliation/dependence on matter. I thought this was what the encratists
              were basing their doctrines and practices upon; the orthodox encratists in
              the Syrian tradition, for instance, focused on the condition of
              "translucency" and non-judgement - which meant that the
              adepts/practicioners sought to become as "clarified light",invisible to
              the authorities - by way of "fulfilling the commandments", not in order to
              be favoured, but in order not to be accounted for by the
              authorities/powers.
              Inherent in this is a dual appreciation of the word "acquiantance" -
              either a man is acquianted with material and sensual concerns, and a
              material and sensual "world" - or else he is, by his renouncement of "the
              world and all the matter therein", acquianted with the spiritual and
              suprasensual "world" through his uniformity with the nature of that world,
              while still being "in" this world. As such, Matter does not matter, only
              if the archons which dwell within man (a view shared between a great
              variety of Gnoses, whether you consider them "true" or "false") or some
              exterior influence, be it embodied or disincarnate - confuses and
              confounds man to value either the physical or psychic as being
              divine,eternal,ultimate,absolute or of greater necessity than the soul
              itself. In that respect, man looses himself temporarily through his
              predicament _in_ Matter, just as he stands in danger of eternally loosing
              himself _in_ the "Outer darkness", these two are most clearly not
              identical, just as Chaos and emptiness are _distinct_ from eachother.


              As for Satornil, I am not sure if you are correct, to wit - if we consider
              the implications of Yahweh, the creator of the physical realm being an
              _angel_ or angelos in his cosmology, even subordinate to the Unknown God
              (i.e. employee/servant) - which in Marcion is demoted to ignorant
              lawgiver, demagogue _without_ ultimate authority, a view also reflected by
              Ptolemaus in his letter to Flora, Satornil appears to be closer to the
              Jewish Christian groups, such as the Ebionites and Elchesaities, as well
              as Menander. Also in terms of the Supreme Father himself breathing into
              Man the "breath" or "spirit" so that he might live, _in this particular
              setting_, to wit, the world.
              There is the distinction made between man in generic sense, as being
              passive containers of the spark (an evaluation close to the one possessed
              by Buddhists and Manichaeans, concerning _animals_)- and the disembodied
              and completely spiritual saviour. Like Marcion, Satornil is nevertheless
              positive in his view that such men, in generic, might be redeemed and
              transformed, by the mysteries.

              The terminology used by Simon Magus, according to the churchfathers, are
              quite negative in terms of the souls experience of incarnate existence, I
              see no evidence of an actual practical approach to this negative view of
              the world - appart from the assumed practice of Magic.
              Magic is defined by a manipulation of forms and the nature of containers
              and their relationship to eachother, in order to obtain control or
              influence upon powers which allow themselves to be found in such.

              Pax Pleromae
              --
              Terje Dahl Bergersen
              terje@...
              http://terje.bergersen.net/
            • AJRoberti@aol.com
              Hello Klaus,
              Message 6 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Klaus,

                << Of course the material world is evil in the extreme
                and needs to be denounced. There's no doubt about it. >>

                If this is one's belief, why continue to live?  What incentive is there to continue trudging and struggling through life if the material world is "evil in the extreme"?

                I don't ask this facetiously, but honestly.

                Tony Roberti

              • lady_caritas
                ... of the ... world, ... only ... some ... soul ... loosing ... eachother. Interesting point, Terje, and I would wonder then whether divisive, materialistic
                Message 7 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Bergersen" <terje@b...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Inherent in this is a dual appreciation of the word "acquiantance" -
                  > either a man is acquianted with material and sensual concerns, and a
                  > material and sensual "world" - or else he is, by his renouncement
                  of "the
                  > world and all the matter therein", acquianted with the spiritual and
                  > suprasensual "world" through his uniformity with the nature of that
                  world,
                  > while still being "in" this world. As such, Matter does not matter,
                  only
                  > if the archons which dwell within man (a view shared between a great
                  > variety of Gnoses, whether you consider them "true" or "false") or
                  some
                  > exterior influence, be it embodied or disincarnate - confuses and
                  > confounds man to value either the physical or psychic as being
                  > divine,eternal,ultimate,absolute or of greater necessity than the
                  soul
                  > itself. In that respect, man looses himself temporarily through his
                  > predicament _in_ Matter, just as he stands in danger of eternally
                  loosing
                  > himself _in_ the "Outer darkness", these two are most clearly not
                  > identical, just as Chaos and emptiness are _distinct_ from
                  eachother.


                  Interesting point, Terje, and I would wonder then whether divisive,
                  materialistic distinctions (or judgments based on personal, earthly
                  lifestyle choices) like "feeble" and "strong" in categorizing
                  gnostics would therefore be relevant...

                  Cari
                • Unknown
                  Hi Klaus,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Hi Klaus,

                    <<Of course the material world is evil in the extreme
                    and needs to be denounced. There's no doubt about it.>>

                    I respectfully disagree. How we think, live and function in this material world (which is neither inherently evil nor good) determines whether it is viewed as "evil" or "good" by ourselves. Good & evil are our interpretations of the world, especially when we do not undertstand it. If it appears to be beneficial for us something becomes perceived as "good" and when detrimental it is perceived as "bad". Is rain bad? It gives life to our crops and our land, yet rain that damages our property suddenly becomes bad. Is the rain really any different, and more "good" or any more "evil"? No, but our perceptions of their results are.

                    So in my opinion the world is as we see it. If we choose to see it as evil or bad then that is what it becomes to us. If we choose to see it as good or beneficial, then that is what it becomes to us. Indulging in the dualities of the world being either good or bad in my opinion causes many of our problems.

                    The only benefit of a negative world view is that it allows us to stay forcused on that not of this world and prevents us from being obsessed with the pleasures of this world. Of course teh trade off is that one will never be able to reconcile the two into one and thus achieve the true goal of all gnosis. Just my opinion.

                    Peace,
                    T


                     



                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
                  • troberti <AJRoberti@aol.com>
                    Hello Willy,
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Willy,

                      << If my understanding of Plotinus is correct, and he sees evil as
                      ignorance of the good, then that in itself would put him at odds with
                      the Gnostics. If my understanding of the Gnostics is correct, they
                      ascribe the material world as being evil and gnosis as its
                      transcending. I see the difference between the two in light of my
                      understanding of gnosis, namely, that ignorance is the problem and
                      the removal of ignorance leaves only understanding. In this light the
                      problem is not between two worlds, but within one's relation to
                      oneself. >>

                      This is how I read the Gnostic teaching too -- that it was primarily
                      metaphorical and not literal. However there were schools of thought
                      that appeared to take the teaching literally. I think this second
                      group was whom Plotinus was targeting; those who considered Gnostic
                      teaching more about removing ignorance (as is most clearly stated for
                      example in the Gospel of Truth) would not have fundamental
                      disagreements with Plotinus' arguments, or his overall position.


                      << If the Gnostic scheme is a metaphor for that problem, cast in the
                      language of the day—complete with Gods and such, that is one thing,
                      but if the Gnostic scheme is taken as representing the facts, then I
                      am with Plotinus here. >>

                      Me too. And, I think Plotinus was trying to correct and not destroy
                      (unlike the Christian heresiologists).


                      << Tony, not that I know any better, but it seems to me that the
                      quote (see below) by Chaung Tzu at the end of your post puts the
                      whammy on any underlying purpose of Gnostic teaching. How can the
                      Gnostic path be seen as no path when the Gnostic path claims to be a
                      unique path? I think I remember the Flag making the claim that there
                      was more to Gnosticism than just gnosis. >>

                      There have been debates concerning various specific systems, over
                      whether or not they can be described as Gnostic. But little of the
                      discussion has touched on what I think is more important -- whether
                      or not Gnosticism "gels" on a mystical level with esoteric teachings
                      that do not meet all of the qualifications of being "Gnostic."
                      Personally I think there are strong parallels, on the
                      mystical/experiential level, between Taoism and Gnosticism. Taoism
                      is not Gnostic, but I think they are rooted in the same basic
                      mystical experience.

                      Consider the quote:
                      "To exercise no-thought and rest in nothing is the first step toward
                      resting in Tao."

                      And then compare it to the various passages in the Gnostic texts
                      regarding the value of "repose" (meaning stillness). For example,
                      the Gnostics taught that the Father, the Root of All, resided
                      in "repose." This can very easily be read as promoting stillness
                      meditation, especially in light of the famous Jewish mystical addage
                      to "be still and know that I am God."

                      Tony Roberti
                      ---
                      Renewal Gnosticism: http://members.aol.com/AJRoberti/rg/index.htm
                      Gulf Coast Gnostics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GCGnostics/

                      Truth is too much inclined to exaggerate its own importance, and one
                      must guard oneself against its despotic authority.
                      --Lev Shestov
                    • troberti <AJRoberti@aol.com>
                      Hello PMCV,
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello PMCV,

                        << I see the attacks of Plotinus and Celsus as fundamentally
                        different from those of the Christian heresiologists. The attacks are
                        better, more valid, from the former group. Plotinus himself
                        recognizes the common origin in Platonism between himself and his
                        Gnostic aquaintences, and argues philosophically. >>

                        Yes, this is why they have caught my attention. They do not seem to
                        be arguments intended to "debunk" the Gnostics -- though I think this
                        is how Porphyry, whose attitude is less congenial towards the
                        Gnostics, seems to have interpreted them.

                        My own readings into the background of the Enneads also agrees with
                        what you recounted -- that Plotinus never read what he wrote and so
                        did not take some of his ideas through to their logical conclusions.
                        I think by and large he was frustrated with the inadequacy of
                        language to communicate his thoughts. That might account for some of
                        his anger at being "misquoted" or misinterpreted.

                        Exploring the criticisms of Plotinus requires a vivid look into the
                        world of ancient philosophical discourse, because it proves
                        impossible to examine this fully without examining the personality of
                        Plotinus himself and the nature of his rivalry with the Gnostics.
                        Interesting stuff.


                        << He is against the fact that Gnostics deride the world, and more
                        so, the creator. For Plotinus the Demiurge is Holy and Good. At the
                        same time, Plotinus hates the body and accuses the Gnostics of being
                        immoral. This seeming inconsistancy may on the surface look very much
                        like the heresiologists rhetoric, but I believe it goes a little
                        deeper. >>

                        For Plotinus, the problem with the Gnostics was that they thought too
                        much instead of spending time seeking mystical experience. This
                        might also account for his complaints about the Gnostics' indulging
                        in thaumaturgy -- it is all too easy for magic ritual to become a end
                        in itself rather than a means for mystical attainment.


                        << Plotinus does not accuse them of terrible deeds though, just of
                        not conforming to his exacting standards by being too worldly. BTW,
                        though I don't remember him using it, this would be an excellent
                        demonstration of Dr WIlliams' point that Gnostics were in fact not
                        the ascetic body-haters the modern scholors USED to say they were. >>

                        Ah, yes, this is an excellent point. I think that overall scholars
                        have been and still are carried away with the notion of Gnosticism as
                        highly dualistic. IMO this is a gross misinterpretation of Gnostic
                        teaching.


                        << Plotinus also accuses Gnostics of being overly complex (and
                        exclusive) in saying the same things as he does, and so of
                        degenerating Philosophy into mere Mythology. In a way he is right of
                        course, but the seperation he draws is not one innate in Platonism >>
                        <snip>

                        Plotinus does not seem to understand the nature of the esoteric
                        initiatory process -- which "natural" mystics are likely to see as
                        pompous and unnecessarily overblown.


                        << It does seem though in part that Plotinus may have not fully
                        understood the psychological aspects of the teachings that his
                        Valintinian counterparts were trying to outline. >>

                        Right -- while there was some overlap in their ideas, I think they
                        were ultimately after different goals.


                        <snip>
                        << He doesn't in any case deal with the notion of the creation and
                        fall and salvation happening on an individual basis instead of simply
                        being a literal cosmic explination. He never mentions the notion of
                        identifying ones self with the fall of Sophia, or the rise of Christ,
                        etc. >>

                        In this he might simply not be privy to that as the underlying
                        meaning of Gnostic myth. The Christian heresiologists make the same
                        error, though it is understandable on their part. It is possible
                        that the psychological aspects of Gnostic teachings were a closely-
                        guarded secret.


                        << I do have to disagree with Wilbro on something. I see no Gnostic
                        teachings that say evil comes from the earth, but only that evil is
                        in ignorance of ones self, and that ignorance was the cause of
                        creation. When the world is mentioned as a source of evil in Gnostic
                        writings, it is generally only on the personal level that this
                        holds... not empirically. >>
                        <snip>

                        I strongly agree! I think this is a misreading that has been
                        perpetuated within the scholarly ranks caused by taking the
                        heresiologists at their word. There is little evidence that I have
                        found that the Gnostics considered the world "evil" in an imperical
                        sense -- only insofar as it perpetuated ignorance.

                        Tony Roberti
                        ---
                        Renewal Gnosticism: http://members.aol.com/AJRoberti/rg/index.htm
                        Gulf Coast Gnostics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GCGnostics/

                        Truth is too much inclined to exaggerate its own importance, and one
                        must guard oneself against its despotic authority.
                        --Lev Shestov
                      • Will Brown <wilbro99@yahoo.com>
                        ... Either man is acquainted with the sensual or he is acquainted with the suprasensual whilst still in the sensual world. In other words, there is a
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Bergersen" <terje@b...>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Inherent in this is a dual appreciation of the word "acquiantance" -
                          > > either a man is acquianted with material and sensual concerns, and a
                          > > material and sensual "world" - or else he is, by his renouncement
                          > of "the
                          > > world and all the matter therein", acquianted with the spiritual and
                          > > suprasensual "world" through his uniformity with the nature of that
                          > world,
                          > > while still being "in" this world. As such, Matter does not matter,
                          > only
                          > > if the archons which dwell within man (a view shared between a great
                          > > variety of Gnoses, whether you consider them "true" or "false") or
                          > some
                          > > exterior influence, be it embodied or disincarnate - confuses and
                          > > confounds man to value either the physical or psychic as being
                          > > divine,eternal,ultimate,absolute or of greater necessity than the
                          > soul
                          > > itself. In that respect, man looses himself temporarily through his
                          > > predicament _in_ Matter, just as he stands in danger of eternally
                          > loosing
                          > > himself _in_ the "Outer darkness", these two are most clearly not
                          > > identical, just as Chaos and emptiness are _distinct_ from
                          > eachother.
                          >
                          >
                          > Interesting point, Terje, and I would wonder then whether divisive,
                          > materialistic distinctions (or judgments based on personal, earthly
                          > lifestyle choices) like "feeble" and "strong" in categorizing
                          > gnostics would therefore be relevant...
                          >
                          > Cari

                          Either man is acquainted with the "sensual" or he is acquainted with
                          the "suprasensual" whilst still in the "sensual" world. In other
                          words, there is a necessary breaking of the first to come upon the
                          second regardless of what terms the first and the second are to be
                          cast in. The Gnostic form is just one form of the casting.

                          Another form of the casting: At the center of all castings is a
                          movement, within one's sense of self, from one sense of the self in
                          the world to another sense of the self in the world. From that
                          movement, a reflection upon the self that was takes the form of a
                          transcendence. If, however, the sense of self is seen to be given
                          through reflection, then the act of transcendence is transcended, and
                          Plotinus might then speak in terms of "the alone to the alone."

                          Of course, that cast was made with a baited hook. ---- willy-nilly
                        • Will Brown <wilbro99@yahoo.com>
                          Tony with a touch of pluralism. I agree. It is my contention that there is, in fact, one basic mystical experience that leads to the different attempts to
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jan 8, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tony with a touch of pluralism. I agree. It is my contention that
                            there is, in fact, one "basic mystical experience" that leads to the
                            different attempts to corral it within the confine of words. I would
                            define it an awakening up from a false sense of self, or, a "fog of
                            error," if you will (did some homework I did); and yes, I agree, it is
                            a process. My words would corral it by stating that the false sense of
                            self is a doing and that its demise comes about through a not doing,
                            which is, in effect, a passive stance towards the act that it is. It
                            is here that words arise such as repose, stillness, passive awareness,
                            or, as the Tao would put it: "Do that which consists in taking no
                            action and order will prevail." (Book I, Verse 10, tr. Lau)

                            Having said that, and assuming you agree with what I have said, it
                            would seem to me that we still have the task of uncovering whether or
                            not we are talking about the same thing. That task would, I assume,
                            need to be reduced to a long process of process talk. ---- willy-willy


                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "troberti <AJRoberti@a...>"
                            <AJRoberti@a...> wrote:
                            > Hello Willy,
                            >
                            > << If my understanding of Plotinus is correct, and he sees evil as
                            > ignorance of the good, then that in itself would put him at odds with
                            > the Gnostics. If my understanding of the Gnostics is correct, they
                            > ascribe the material world as being evil and gnosis as its
                            > transcending. I see the difference between the two in light of my
                            > understanding of gnosis, namely, that ignorance is the problem and
                            > the removal of ignorance leaves only understanding. In this light the
                            > problem is not between two worlds, but within one's relation to
                            > oneself. >>
                            >
                            > This is how I read the Gnostic teaching too -- that it was primarily
                            > metaphorical and not literal. However there were schools of thought
                            > that appeared to take the teaching literally. I think this second
                            > group was whom Plotinus was targeting; those who considered Gnostic
                            > teaching more about removing ignorance (as is most clearly stated for
                            > example in the Gospel of Truth) would not have fundamental
                            > disagreements with Plotinus' arguments, or his overall position.
                            >
                            >
                            > << If the Gnostic scheme is a metaphor for that problem, cast in the
                            > language of the day—complete with Gods and such, that is one thing,
                            > but if the Gnostic scheme is taken as representing the facts, then I
                            > am with Plotinus here. >>
                            >
                            > Me too. And, I think Plotinus was trying to correct and not destroy
                            > (unlike the Christian heresiologists).
                            >
                            >
                            > << Tony, not that I know any better, but it seems to me that the
                            > quote (see below) by Chaung Tzu at the end of your post puts the
                            > whammy on any underlying purpose of Gnostic teaching. How can the
                            > Gnostic path be seen as no path when the Gnostic path claims to be a
                            > unique path? I think I remember the Flag making the claim that there
                            > was more to Gnosticism than just gnosis. >>
                            >
                            > There have been debates concerning various specific systems, over
                            > whether or not they can be described as Gnostic. But little of the
                            > discussion has touched on what I think is more important -- whether
                            > or not Gnosticism "gels" on a mystical level with esoteric teachings
                            > that do not meet all of the qualifications of being "Gnostic."
                            > Personally I think there are strong parallels, on the
                            > mystical/experiential level, between Taoism and Gnosticism. Taoism
                            > is not Gnostic, but I think they are rooted in the same basic
                            > mystical experience.
                            >
                            > Consider the quote:
                            > "To exercise no-thought and rest in nothing is the first step toward
                            > resting in Tao."
                            >
                            > And then compare it to the various passages in the Gnostic texts
                            > regarding the value of "repose" (meaning stillness). For example,
                            > the Gnostics taught that the Father, the Root of All, resided
                            > in "repose." This can very easily be read as promoting stillness
                            > meditation, especially in light of the famous Jewish mystical addage
                            > to "be still and know that I am God."
                            >
                            > Tony Roberti
                            > ---
                            > Renewal Gnosticism: http://members.aol.com/AJRoberti/rg/index.htm
                            > Gulf Coast Gnostics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GCGnostics/
                            >
                            > Truth is too much inclined to exaggerate its own importance, and one
                            > must guard oneself against its despotic authority.
                            > --Lev Shestov
                          • pmcvflag
                            ... Actually Klaus the view of Gnosticism you present here is not quite historically accurate. The ascriptions you place are ones you have recieved from
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jan 9, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > This is only valid for feable Gnosticists like Valentinus, Isidoros,
                              > Simon the Mage, Herakleion, Ptolemaios, BarDaisanes.
                              > True, strong Gnosticists like Satornil, J. Cassianus, and Severus
                              > hate world and life in theory && practice.


                              Actually Klaus the view of Gnosticism you present here is not quite
                              historically accurate. The ascriptions you place are ones you have
                              recieved from literary views (your interpretation of writings that
                              don't necessarily imply practice), and heresiological sources that
                              have been brought into serious doubt by more recent discoveries and
                              stricter critical analysis. The strict division of Gnostics into
                              ascetic vs libertine probably didn't exist amongst the Gnostics
                              themselves.... there is absolutely no historical evidence to support
                              it. Instead, it is a case of heresiologists attempting to show the
                              extremity of others in order to make themselves seem more moderate
                              and rational. Layton ("The Gnostic Scriptures" 159) even questions
                              whether we can in fact know if Satornil is even Gnostic since we know
                              almost NOTHING about his doctrin or practice. Still, the
                              heresiologists seem to place him in the category, and that makes us
                              have to consider thet he MAY have been Gnostic... we then also have
                              to keep in mind that the same heresiologist that tells us of
                              Satornil's asceticism tells us that it is only something he pretends
                              to be, and in fact he is libertine in his practice (A.H. 1:24:2).

                              The previous observation presents a few possibilities to us. Just as
                              easily as you can argue that it implies Satornil was truely ascetic
                              and the rest of Irenaeus is false, one could argue that Ireneaus is
                              right and Satornil was a hypocrite. OR, one could argue that in fact
                              Irenaeus simply didn't understand that the asceticism was simply a
                              litterary convintion so it didn't have to mean anything concerning
                              Satornil's own ascetic practice, or maybe he didn't even actually
                              have sources that reflected Satornil's liturature. There are many
                              possibilities that could explain the descrepencies. The most common
                              one in the scholastic word had been the first one... but it has been
                              moving more lately towards the third one.

                              So Klaus, this means to me that your designation of "true" Gnostic
                              may really be more about an eisegetic reading that is convenient to
                              the "facts" your psychological profile wishes to project on these
                              historical groups. This is understandable, but not quite appropriate
                              to presume that others should conform to.

                              PMCV
                            • pmcvflag
                              ... Yes, without a doubt. I do however feel that historians on the subject have generally moved away from this more recently. THe problem is though that many
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jan 9, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > I strongly agree! I think this is a misreading that has been
                                > perpetuated within the scholarly ranks caused by taking the
                                > heresiologists at their word. There is little evidence that I have
                                > found that the Gnostics considered the world "evil" in an imperical
                                > sense -- only insofar as it perpetuated ignorance.
                                >
                                > Tony Roberti


                                Yes, without a doubt. I do however feel that historians on the
                                subject have generally moved away from this more recently. THe
                                problem is though that many of the recantations of this position have
                                only been seen in less poppular works (scholastic journals, etc) so
                                that books written for popular consumption by non-academicians tend
                                to STILL repete the same old points that just don't seem to hold up
                                anymore. This is not the fault of the scholors, it is just a downside
                                of the lack of more recent publications with critical perspective.

                                PMCV
                              • AJRoberti@aol.com
                                Hello PMCV,
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jan 9, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hello PMCV,

                                  << Yes, without a doubt. I do however feel that historians on the subject
                                  have generally moved away from this more recently. THe problem is though that
                                  many of the recantations of this position have only been seen in less
                                  poppular works (scholastic journals, etc) so that books written for popular
                                  consumption by non-academicians tend to STILL repete the same old points that
                                  just don't seem to hold up anymore. >>


                                  Thank you for clarifying that. I confess that I do not read journals on the
                                  subject, so my awareness of the most recent trends in research is not as good
                                  as it could be. I stand corrected.

                                  Tony Roberti
                                • Mike Leavitt
                                  Hello AJRoberti@aol.com ... I hope Klaus doesn t think about this too much and kill himself. :-) Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jan 11, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello AJRoberti@...

                                    On 08-Jan-03, you wrote:

                                    > Hello Klaus,
                                    >
                                    > << Of course the material world is evil in the extreme
                                    > and needs to be denounced. There's no doubt about it. >>
                                    >
                                    > If this is one's belief, why continue to live? What incentive is
                                    > there to continue trudging and struggling through life if the
                                    > material world is "evil in the extreme"?
                                    >
                                    > I don't ask this facetiously, but honestly.
                                    >
                                    > Tony Roberti
                                    >

                                    I hope Klaus doesn't think about this too much and kill himself. :-)

                                    Regards
                                    --
                                    Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                  • klaus schilling
                                    ... Suicide is pointless, as it doesn t stop life permanently. Klaus Schilling
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jan 11, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mike Leavitt writes:
                                      > I hope Klaus doesn't think about this too much and kill himself. :-)

                                      Suicide is pointless, as it doesn't stop life permanently.

                                      Klaus Schilling
                                    • Mike Leavitt
                                      Hello klaus ... I feel better now, knowing that you have thought that one through. ;-) Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jan 12, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hello klaus

                                        On 12-Jan-03, you wrote:

                                        > Mike Leavitt writes:
                                        >> I hope Klaus doesn't think about this too much and kill himself.
                                        > :-)
                                        >
                                        > Suicide is pointless, as it doesn't stop life permanently.
                                        >
                                        > Klaus Schilling

                                        I feel better now, knowing that you have thought that one through. ;-)

                                        Regards
                                        --
                                        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.