Re: Tangential musing
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mary VanEsselstyn"
>I think I share your view, Mary, but as far as Gnostics were
> I may be a pessimist when it come to a world that is changing
> drastically and may not turn out for the better
concerned, creation was an abysmal failure from early on, so their
goal never really focused on making a utopia of the physical world.
Where would one start?
> When I used to believe the optimists I was often disappointed.Sounds like my own experience again, but then, this is someone whose
mother came right out and taught, "Don't get your hopes up, honey;
I'd hate to see you disappointed." That kind of instruction
evidently left a profound impact.
> If optimism means lookng for utopia or a perfect society thenYep, I'd probably agree with that, too, although it may be helpful to
> count me out but. It doesn't have to be either or. I find it helps
> me to be more content and less disappointed and discouraged
> when more reailstic than the otherway around. from my own
> understanding I believe the Gnostics are realists but am afraid
> Americans have always been conditioned to be optimistic no matter
> how bad thiings look and may be the reason we don't learn from the
> lessons of history.
examine how we mean to use "realists" in that instance. What some
people see as being `real' involves things like material acquisition
or gaining fame and prestige. In another sense, even atheists will
lay claim to being realists, but then, it may be a fine line indeed
that separates them from the Gnostics (let's see if that statement
can stir up some controversy). ;-)
> However I don't see that if one is not always optimistic aboutI'm not sure if I follow you correctly here. Either you're saying
> our futrure in the world it means living wiith out hope or in
> despair by giving up and crawling in a hole. They are not the same
> thing in my view and is possible to survive without wishful
> thinking. If we can become a realist we may find ourselves feeling
> more serene when we accept the world and our lives the way they
> really are. then we can lower our expectations for ourselves and
> others. I don't know what others think about my world view but
> has worked fo me, a recovering optimist Mary
that we don't need to engage in wishful thinking in order to live in
a world where we can maintain hope, or you're saying that a pragmatic
approach to survival in the world is simply not the same as those who
wish to bury their heads in the sand. You could well be saying both,
I'm just uncertain which elements you wanted to emphasize. Either
way, pondering your comments led me to a discovery on the Web today
that may fit right in with what we're discussing.
What I ran across turned up when I was looking for instances
of `hope' in the Nag Hammadi texts. Just like the goal of realists,
I had intended to point out that hope can have different objectives,
so I'll elaborate on these distinctions first. The world we live in
was very real to the Gnostics, but so was their determination to
focus on a higher reality. Just as with the passage that Cari
offered, the Gospel of Thomas offers another insight into the fact
that we have to deal with existence in the here and now by advocating
that we give Caesar what is Caesar's.... Taxes are real enough, as
certain as Death, even, but that IRS deadline is something we
generally don't celebrate. Neither do we all run off and hide from
the revenuers. Extreme reactions aside, it's just one of those
things that happens, and most of us deal with it the best we can.
For the Gnostics, the concern that was even *more* real to them was
that part of us which is of the Divine.
Similarly, with `hope,' we can examine where it is exactly that we're
placing our aspiration. We can observe the tragedies in the world
around us and hope for a better tomorrow, but you'll be hard-pressed
to find instances of that sort of hope among Gnostic writings.
Again, they described the origin of the world as beginning with the
flaw of creation. In most texts, hope is viewed as one of the
ingredients that brings us closer to God, a divinity that transcends
that creation, but at the same time, you can find examples of what
*not* to hope for:
"Woe to you who hope in the flesh and in the prison that will perish!
How long will you be oblivious? And how long will you suppose that
the imperishables will perish too? Your hope is set upon the world,
and your god is this life! You are corrupting your souls!"
The Book of Thomas the Contender
Now, here's what I stumbled across, and it may well be that no one
else will find it even remotely interesting, but it really struck me
as peculiar. The Gospel of Truth opens with a paragraph that
mentions hope in the context of our eventual reunion with the
Father. Something caught my eye just below that part in the first
translation I readsomething I really hadn't noticed in previous
readings. When I consulted another version, I wondered about the
difference in perspective between the translators. Since the
paragraphs are divided differently, I'll add emphasis to the last
portion of each of these passages so you can compare what I found to
be a bit controversialin fact, the rest is just background material
for anyone less familiar with the work, so you can jump straight to
the ALL-CAPS parts if you wish:
"This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And
terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because
of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance
vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form
while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of
truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable,
inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this
forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established
truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful.
"For this reason, DO NOT TAKE ERROR TOO SERIOUSLY."
Translated by Robert M. Grant
". . . ignorance of the Father brought about anguish and terror; and
the anguish grew solid like a fog, so that no one was able to see.
For this reason, error became powerful; it worked on its own matter
foolishly, not having known the truth. It set about with a creation,
preparing with power and beauty the substitute for the truth.
"This was not, then, a humiliation for him, the incomprehensible,
inconceivable one, for they were nothing, the anguish and the
oblivion and the creature of deceit, while the established truth is
immutable, imperturbable, perfect in beauty. For this reason, DESPISE
Translated by Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae
Now, here's where y'all can tell me if I'm reading too much into it,
but IMO, not taking something seriously is not at all the same as
despising it, and yet, both of those translations make sense to me in
a Gnostic context. As I said previously, recognizing a preferential
reality as it relates to Spirit is not the same as denying the
reality of the physical world in which we find ourselves at the
moment. If that spiritual reality indeed has *more* value to us
though, then we'll be more likely to take the problems of this world
less seriously. If we keep in mind that our insertion into this
imperfect world is the immediate obstacle that keeps us from our
ultimate reunion with the Divine, then I can see where such
figurative language as "despising" the world would also be justified.
While I may be satisfied with the end result of either
interpretation, I'm really not sure how Grant came by his translation
of the Greek in that first version. The original verse derives from
_katafronó_, which would generally be rendered as any of the
following verbs: disdain; despise; contemn; scorn. Breaking the
word into its roots, we could even see something like `to look down
on' or `to think low' of something . . . but `not to take it
seriously'? I just don't know about that, but it does make me
question whether something as simple as one's outlook could be
responsible for what looks like a very liberal translation.
Could Grant be more of an optimist than Attridge and MacRae? That
was honestly what jumped into my head when I compared those two
passages. In a way, this is related to what Cari was pointing out
with her earlier comments. While she allowed for a Gnostic worldview
that is characterized by imperfection or lack, the gist of her
question was whether or not one's attitude or outlook had to
necessarily follow in the same negative direction. After just
looking back through the earliest extant archives (they're difficult
to read now because of formatting errors), I realize that we had a
similar discussion about 2½ years ago (#5557). Then as now, I
contend that there is definitely a difference between how we view the
world and the disposition we maintain (in any given moment) as we
attempt to survive in it. IOW, our outlook need not match our
In recognizing that distinction, I see little importance in whether
one is optimistic, pessimistic, realistic, etc., other than in how we
go about relating to one another. For instance, as PMCV pointed out
last month, we have had difficulties in the past with members who
were so adamantly negative in both their worldviews AND attitudes
that their lack of civility and otherwise brutally antisocial
behavior made discussions with them virtually impossible. Similarly,
we've encountered people who saw the world through such rose-colored
glasses, with respect to both worldview and personal outlook, that it
was pointless to discuss the traditional gnostic groups with them.
If they're in such denial as not to recognize that a certain degree
of negativity (even in an accidental sense) is inextricably linked to
Gnostic accounts of the creation, then it's probably best that they
investigate some other spiritual avenue. In that archived post cited
earlier, Terje had made some comments regarding the dangers of
rejecting and reinventing the negative worldview generally associated
with those groups:
". . . if one thinks of "Gnosticism" positively - one projects the
ideas, values and opinions one already possess upon the bleached and
abstract fabric of the "ideogramme" of Gnosticism - the result is
more or less a synthetic construct; a neo-religious ideology - such
as Theosophy, New Thought, "New Age" and similar of the kind."
I have to agree with him there, and while both types of extremes
mentioned above are still prevalent on the Internet, this
misperception of Gnosticism seems to be far more common. IOW, our
attitudes and outlooks can vary just as other attributes of our
personalities vary, but if we go about tinkering too much with the
worldview of the Gnostics, then we're really discussing somebody
else's worldview, regardless of what we call it.
- Jana, Mike is in fact clergy in the EG, and we value his presence. As
Cari states, the EG is a bit of a modern reworking of the
Valentinians... with a slight Jungian slant. So maybe I could make
something a bit more clear about the historic Valentinians (and this
is outside Mike's answers concerning his own church).
The Valentinians were part of early Catholic/Orthodox church (before
the schism between the two). Valentinians existed within that
Catholic church but offered a continued "initiation" beyond
that "orthodox" teaching. In other words, there were a
true "esoteric" order that existed within an exoteric foundation.
This should answer the question you had concerning bishops and
You have to understand, even though it has been popular for modern
sensationalist authors to build some kind of a fight between
Gnosticism and religious orders, the fact is historically this is not
something that happened until later.
There were also other Gnostic groups that were NOT part of the
Catholic (or even "Christian") outlines. For instance, Sethians were
probably not originally Christian. Some scholors believe that John
the Baptist was actually Sethian, but we can't know for sure
(however, this could imply something about the teachings of Jesus if
it is true... and if Jesus even ever historically existed. Gnosticism
is not dependant on an actual historical Jesus though).
However, let me point out to you that Gnostics were historically
quite structured. In spite of the need by some New Age authors to
make Gnostics some kind of spiritual anarchists, in fact these orders
were initatory, and that means there was also a destinction made
between levels of initation. One of the attacks that we see in the
anti-Gnostic authors of the time was that Gnostics are a bit too
elitist. I don't think that is completely true either, but that is
not to say it is completely false.
As we read historical Gnostic texts, such as those found in the Nag
Hammadi library, we will see mention of those levels of initiation.
If there are levels, there is structure... they simply go hand in
Ok, finally, your question in this last post... do Gnostics pray for
This is an arguement that I don't think can be completely resolved.
Part of that may be in that it depends on the sect. Truth is, if you
really look through the Gnostic texts, you would be hard pressed to
find an example. On the other hand, the people who wrote against
Gnostics accuse them of making love potions, stomach ointments, and
spells (spells are simply prayers) etc.. If you think about it, it
does not seem logical that a Gnostic would do such things, since some
of the things mentioned would really be against Gnostic beliefs.
So, you already conceded that Gnostics probably would not pray to the
first father (since it does not think or hear or consider anything
from the field of time... including prayers), so then who would a
Gnostic pray too? The Second father? The Sophia? The Logos? It
depends on whether you take these to be literal beings... otherwise
you are praying to aspects of yourself that connect you to the second
father. I am trying to pooint out that the question you ask is not
cut and dry, balck vs white, but that it also may entirely depend on
the practice of the sect invloved. Many Gnostics probably don't
believe in prayer, but some may.
--- In email@example.com, "janahooks" <janahooks@y...>
> > > I guess you could call us neo-Valenitnians. I am the senior
> > of
> > > the Ecclesia Gnostica, which along with the Gnostic Society, is
> > > parent body of http://www.gnosis.org/. My Bishop is Stephan
> > Höeller,
> > > who has written a number of books on Gnosticism.
> Mike, I had even told my husband that I thought you were a priest.
> You have that patient air about you! I read about the sacraments
> the site, but I need to look at them again. Are they necessary to
> achieve gnosis or salvation?
> Cari, Mike, pmcv, anyone,
> Do gnostics believe that any being (I understand the First Father
> does not) intervenes on our behalf? For instance, if one wanted to
> pray for another's protection or health?