The idea of Salvation is pivotal in Christian theology. You are basically doomed, from a combination of Original Sin, and your own transgressions, and headed for the Lake o' Fire, that God put there for just such an eventuality. And you cannot Save yourself, only intercession of God can get you out of the hole you've dug for yourself - even if you didn't know you were digging. However, God just might save you from, well, God. It's a lot like saying "nice doggie" to a junkyard Rottweiler, just so he doesn't tear your leg off.
The Salvific myth belies its origins in the Demiurge. It is the Demiurge who demanded, above all else, to be obeyed and worshipped. In fact, he is powerless without your obedience and worship, which is why it's such a big deal. So he has set the rules, and the punishment.
Gnosticism departs profoundly from Christianity on this crucial point. We are saved not from the Wrath of the Big Dog, but rather from Ignorance. Gnosis frees us, saves us, from the veil of illusion that prevents us from both knowing who we are and experiencing the Divine. This freedom, and its ensuing responsibility, is both the gift and the curse of gnosis.
7 comments:
I have a question about the nature of the demiurge. If the Church wants us to beleive that we cannot save ourselfs, and Gnosis frees us from the Demiurge, Then what exactly is Gnosis? Is it knowlege of something? experience? Both? and how does one aquire Gnosis to be free?
I was also contemplating something I found interesting in your post that stated that Gnosis saves us from ignorace (or the Demiurge?). And I was thinking that all of the negative or evil things that one sees in the world are caused by ignorance. Wars for example seem to steam from people not haveing compassion for eachother, not seeing eachothers true needs of the body and the spirit, and thinking that their way is the only way to think and act. It also seems to have to do with thinking that we are separate from other being in this world. So I'm wondering if the nature of this ignorance is separation? and if Gnosis can bring this separation into reunification? and, what does this reunification mean? and reunification of what into what?
An excellent comment, Marion, thank you and welcome.
First off, what is gnosis? It is not "knowledge" in the sense of episteme, or factual knowledge, but rather can best be tranlated as "enlightenment" or "insight".
How one attains gnosis is an individual journey - for some it is a blinding flash, like Paul's, or a sudden "click" like Basho's frog. Certainly it starts with a sense of unease with the world as it appears to be, an intuition that "this is not the deal". I write about this at some length in Gnosticism 102.
"All people, according to their stage of development, possess the Gnosis of God in a way special to themselves." - Theodotus
Your comment about separation was bang-on. Yes, the Demiurge seeks to create division between us and our own (and collective) Divinity. The goal is reunification with the Pleroma ("fullness"), to be multiplied by the zero of God.
Hi, i have a few questions about Gnosis. Just a brief intro first so you know the context i am asking my questions from. I have begun engaging my mind Gnosticism only in the last six months, mainly with the text of the Gospel sayings of Thomas. Additionally, i am a humanities postgraduate University student who has read and reflected the work of various Social Theroists such as Habermas, Bourdieu, Foucault, Luhman, Marx Weber, Durkheim, Titmuss, various feminists, etc. I don't know if your familiar with any of these but my questions relate to two in particular. I will only ask about one of them in this post, and will ask about the other another time if you don’t mind.
My two questions are these. 1. My readings in books on Gnosticism and the web lead me to think that Gnosis is something that those who are able to critically reflect can gain, regardless of Gnostic allegiances. What i have found as i have engaged in critical reflexivity on the sayings of Thomas is that they have reaffirmed dispositions from personal views i have arrived at from epiphanies one is confronted with when consuming the contrasting and often conflicting work of the social theorists stated. So question one is, can gnosis be gained through this form of critical reflexivity?
2. The social theory I’ll ask about (for this post) that seems seem to have a Gnostic message in the essence of what he is saying is Pierre Bourdieu and the theory of habitus.
This concept is related to his notion of fields (but i don't want to make this too long for you). Essentially, the idea is that the fields of society we operate in cause us to internalise the dominant narratives occurring in these fields into our minds, called the habitus. Thus, we are constrained by complex mental structures which produce a guiding false consciousness in every belief, decision, and response to social stimuli we encounter. Freedom from this, according to Bourdieu, is the ability to temporarily displace our habitus through constant critical reflexivity on our taken for granted assumptions (note the difference between reflection and reflexivity) from the fields of society. This seems like a logical route to both gnosis and the need to hold onto gnosis you were speaking about...
I was wondering if you have encounterd Bourdieu and the habitus, and just what your general views on are. I’ll ask about another soon too if you don’t mind answering me.
Thanks.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
;-)
Certainly, on your two points; gnosis is an universal human birthright, and does not require the religion of Gnosticism to become active. Rather, Gnosticism exists as a culture to ampliphy and celebrate the experience and Truth of gnosis.
And certainly, the field/construct is usually operating in a way contradictory to Gnosis (the general operating in the interest of the general rather than the specific) , therefore the Gnostic experience (as a specificity) is in a way fundamentally antisocial. Which pretty much explains the Albigensian Crusade.
These are my errant ramblings, please don't go looking for doctrine.
I have one question, I have just recently started reading upon this subject of Gnosticism, I understand the how and why and what, and that its the seeking of Gnosis etc...my confusion is the timeline? What about dinosaurs - humans did not come about for millions of years, there no account for this that I have read about. I guess I am having issues with the evolution part and how it fits in?
Clearly, only those dinosaurs who attain gnosis are saved.
Umm.... what?
It's pretty safe to assume that the authors of Gnostic Scripture were unaware of dinosaurs, DNA, carbon dating, the existence of Neptune, and the designated hitter rule. I don't think this proves much except that we have the ability to learn things.
I think the question of dinosaurs alludes to the fact that humans have not always existed from the period of "creation". Many religions have creation stories that are integral to their doctrine because we all like to think that humans were created right from the start. I think it's easier to see humans as 'an evolution of consciousness'. We are only a form, the Divine is eternal and does not change. It is in this form that it has currently placed the logos, or the Divine reason. Feel free to comment or correct my views.
Post a Comment