William Blake, The Red Dragon & The Woman Clothed With the Sun
- Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
- – WB Yeats
Twice in the last two days I've seen an unusual idea presented: that Gnosticism espouses "two gods"; a deadlocked dueling dualism between the god of spirit and the god of matter. This is of course Manichaeanism, and while Manichaeanism contains many Gnostic elements, this idea is not Gnostic per se – in fact it is ultimately antithetical to positions taken in Thomas and Philip.
Definition time:
Monotheism: the idea of one – and only one – personal "third party entity" Deity.
Polytheism: the idea of many personal "third party entity" Deities
Pantheism: the equation of Deity with the universe (everything is God)
Panentheism: that Deity contains the universe, but the universe does not contain Divinity. "God is everything... and then some."
Chart time:
Perhaps a simpler way to explain is this;
Monotheism: God is one noun
Polytheism: Gods are many nouns
Panentheism: God is one verb with an infinite number of adverbs
The emanations model of Gnostic cosmologies points to an explicitly panentheist view;
- Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.
- - The Gospel of Philip
I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.
- - Gospel of Thomas: 77
Gnostic Tradition teaches that the Pleroma "the Fullness") is the Ultimate Godhead; everything – everything – radiates out concentrically from the Godhead like ripples from a stone dropped in water: Christ, Sophia, the Demiurge, you, me, chartered accountants, loofas, squids, ginko trees. The Pleroma is also the stone, and the water, and the idea and act of "dropping". This is a good analogy, as a wave/ripple is a transitory expression of a phenomenon rather than an object unto itself.
Christianity is superficially monotheistic, although a closer reading of scriptural texts proves it to be in fact polytheist yet monolatric; recognizing numerous deities but worshipping only one. In Christianity this is a hangover from Augustine's stint as a Manichaean (think of the cartoon shoulder-angel vs. shoulder-devil). The OT does seem to give God-status to Ba'al (although Ba'al just means "Lord" – it's like hearing fundamentalists say that Muslims don't worship God because they pray to Allah). The Marian cults of the 20th century are clearly evidence of polytheism, although with a great deal of hoop-jumping and spin-doctoring Fatima and Međugorje can be euhemerized away (an act criminal yet predictable).
Given such a context, it is easy to see why Christian apologists would project their own polytheistic God-vs-Satan dualism on panentheistic Gnosticism. Which begs the question: Does the Demiurge exist?
There's an interesting hide-and-seek phenomenon in particle physics; every time somebody theorizes about a new particle x, it's immediately discovered. Never fails. It's as though these things simply hang around waiting to be noticed. I'm not suggesting that we're inventing subatomic particles, but I do want to draw attention to the close relationship between intellectual constructs and observable reality.
"The way of the world" – domestic violence in down-market neighbourhoods, African poverty, sharpied swastikas on synagogues, parochialism and xenophobia and planned obsolescence – this exists as a construct in the minds of six billion and change earthlings. It is a meme, an idea which while not alive acts as though it were a virus, protecting and replicating and insinuating itself. The Demiurge is not some big bad wolf waiting to huff and puff and blow our houses down; he is the acceptability of "the way of the world", a self-fulfilling prophesy of our apathetic inhumanity. Even though the Archons are not real, they act as though they were through provable, observable and (tragically) repeatable phenomena, all the while slouching towards Bethlehem.
And yes, this meme, this set of constructs, of assumptions, is the Demiurge; the half-creator of the world in which we live; what Rastafarians refer to as the Babylon System. The Matrix.
Rejection of such a system does not make us dualists, or polytheists. Recognizing that we, as daughters and sons of God, can and should do better is not "world-hating". We as Gnostics sound the clarion call to accept our responsibility for ignorance and deception, and to awaken to gnosis: not to do battle with some malevolent third-party entity and settle this once and for all in an Armageddon-style smackdown, but to champion the compassion that is the antidote to Archonic force. To make art and poetry and music, to take a lover, raise a child, extend caritas that is just as visible, just as real a ripple in the pool of God.
20 comments:
I get irritated as hell with this constant drumbeat of the idea that gnosticism is dualistic positing a hostility between god and devil, spirit and matter, etc. Its just a shorthand way for uniformed commentaters to make gnosticism seem ridiculous and pointless, positing a type of knowledge nobody could ever actually use.
To me it has always seemed clear that gnosticism is panentheistic too. "It cannot be named for everything is contained within it" - thats right in the secret gospel of John, a description of God - textbook definition of panentheism.
Even without prooftexting it seems like - the idea of hard dualism just isn't useful from the point of view of any sort of mystical practice one could grow from.
Its ontological monism / epistemelogical dualism. The gulf is a gulf of understanding, of perception, not of being. Thus people like Blake who was working to heal the mind-body split not exacerbate it can be said to be "gnostic."
I would caution lumping things into the categories used by the folks who are so utterly clueless about Gnosticism to describe anything, especially traditions that it takes some hair-splitting to call un-Gnostic. It strikes me as very odd that in defending Gnosticism of the charge of dualism, you level it yourself.
There are multiple layers of interpretation. To grab one and call it "ontological" is to mistake word for object. There is always dualism, if there is one thing, there is another thing--you can then play that fun childhood game of "one of these things is not like the other." And you've got dualism. Jung traced this to human consciousness, and it's not only described in Gnostic texts but also the Tao teh Ching, and elsewhere.
But, that isn't close to the end of the story, for in Gnostic traditions there are different frameworks for understanding. There is the cosmogenesis, to which you refer, one origin for all things. There is the cosmos, where things start to get tricky, and however you slice it, there's good and bad experiences (ontological considerations as far aside as possible). And there is the resolution, that is in the future and much more mysterious.
Now you either have your dualism up front, or you play "hide the bad stuff." One of the ways to hide the bad stuff is in ontology, which always makes me think of the scholastic solution to the problem of evil: it doesn't *really* exist... except in our experience, still. You can hide the bad stuff in the human being, as in original sin. Or you can accept some variation of "there is bad stuff here, and it isn't your fault."
If it isn't your fault, and you acknowledge its existence in experience, plus you happen to be a symbolic story-telling group of folks like the Gnostics: then you get stories with bad stuff in it. Some are of the “one of these things...” variety, some are painted on a larger canvass. And indeed there seems to be two separate concepts here. As in 'In the world there is good and there is evil; but its good is not good, and its evil is not evil.' A cosmic dualism, as in the lesser discernment kind, and a greater distinction between greater probably unknowable things.
The Manichean framework is, for the most part, a development of classical Gnosticism with some new elements thrown in. To point your finger at them and say: they are *really* dualists, is just, well, silly.
While there is no doubt that there were more fundamentalist/literalist Manicheans than in the classical Gnostic movements, they were also larger and set out to help more people. How much of their dualism vs. our dualism is ontological vs. experiential? It is just a guessing game. But my conclusion is that 'dualism' is a dualistic category. Leave it to the theologians and such. The same with all the ___theisms. I never met a ___theism I didn't dislike.
"I would caution lumping things into the categories used by the folks who are so utterly clueless about Gnosticism to describe anything, especially traditions that it takes some hair-splitting to call un-Gnostic. It strikes me as very odd that in defending Gnosticism of the charge of dualism, you level it yourself."
I didn't call Manichaeanism un-Gnostic, I said that the worldview of Manichaean dualism is not Gnostic per se. This is not a "charge", but an entirely accurate summation.
I argue that it was Augustine's cartoon-take on Manichaean cosmology that lead to Christianity's own "immature" cosmology and inherent polytheistic dualism. From there it is predictable that such a world-view would be projected on others (us). When I use the term here I'm employing it in the theologically-specific, not the semantically general as you have chosen to do. Is any distinction "dualist", as you have stated? Of course not. Such a semantic de-rail only serves to muddy the waters.
"The Manichean framework is, for the most part, a development of classical Gnosticism with some new elements thrown in. To point your finger at them and say: they are *really* dualists, is just, well, silly"
That "new element" was predominantly Zoroastrianism, the all-time champ of dualistic cosmologies. So it's not "silly" at all, it's historically accurate. I'm not saying we have to reject Mani and chuck out the baby with the bathwater, but to deny that dualism is at the DNA of the Manichaean experience is misleading. And just as misleading to imply that Manichaean = Gnostic, or to posit that Manichaean dualism is "Gnostic" - which it clearly and demonstrably is not.
"But my conclusion is that 'dualism' is a dualistic category. Leave it to the theologians and such."
Reverend Troy? We are the theologians and such. Are you suggesting that I should not have posted this at all? That the Gnostic refutation of dualism ought not to be stated? That we can't examine history for the origins of this misrepresentation?
"theoologians and such" - kurt rudolph opines that sethian gnosticism is monist bubblegum with a dualist hard candy shell. Or he said something close to that, good enough for me.
RE: the dangers. Check out the old alt.religion.gnostic archives on usenet from 1997-2003 or so. There were and are posters who were self-appointed experts on gnosticism and know the academic angle inside and out. For some reason they seemed to be particularly emotionally invested in pushing a certain interpretation - the world is a shithole, god is a monster, that is gnosis, that is the mystical realization that comprises gnosis, if thats not how you see things, you don't have gnosis.
This always struck me as a rather follish and limited way to look at things. Hans Jonas is a scholar, not a gnostic theologian. Yes he said that the Basilideans described the cosmos as a "prison" but what can someone do or use with that knowledge, what purpose does it serve?
The only reason to make that diagnosis is to overcome and transform it. Reich said to get out of the trap, first you have to realize you are in one - fine. But the misinterpretation that is popular now, because people want to create some sort of atonement theology out of gnosticism, is that "the only way out of the body is death." That just plain isn't true, and anyway, if the ancient gnostcis saw the world that way, why didn't they commit suicide en masse?
They didn't. People like Valentinus were sophisticted thinkers, not heaven's gate kooks. Look at the Gospel of Truth snd then try reading it side by side with Trongyam Chungpa (sp?). They're talking about the same thing.
I for one would like to thank you for this posting Father Jordan. It helped clarify a few things for me as I begin the first few steps into the Gnostic traditions. Initially I am finding it a little confusing separating the truths (for lack of a better word) from the symbologic. I couldn't at this stage engage in the scholarly debate that ensued, but that discourse also helped me as well, so thank you the commentors as well. I had to google at list 6 terms to follow it! :)
I look forward to future conversations and hope that I can contribute soon.
My thanks
Shawn
I'm with shawn. all this stuff is so new to me that I'm having trouble following.
Part of me wonders if I'm just not smart enough for this gnosticism business, but that can't possibly be the case. Thank you for stretching my mind.
Thanks for the feedback - it would *really* help me if you could let me know where I'm being obscure or pedantic. I'm trying to communicate here, not just generate wikipedia hits.
I was breathless when I scrolled down my favorites and found this as your latest entry. I've been doing a bit of reading on Pelagius lately, whose teachings I find to be good and true. Pelagius was a strong opponent of Manicheanism which I always found funny to be associated with Gnosticism. Thank you for shedding so much light on it.
Jason - your comment has been deleted due to groundless ad hominem attacks on Rev. Troy (criticize me here all you want). While he and I do not always agree 100% (more like 92%) his tireless contribution to the greater Gnostic Ecclesia is beyond your right to criticize it.
He's doing the Work. You are not. Shut up.
Father Jordan I apologize if you feel I was attacking you or Rev. Troy's posts via ad hominem. Of course, when you are the sole source of your doctrines, who else is to blame? In this case, it is not a logical fallacy to point the finger at you.
But let me clarify that at no time did I state that you or Rev. Troy were "bad" people, or that you lacked knowledge, or that you weren't serving others doing the "Great Work". If my post came across otherwise, again accept my apologies.
My comment was designed to point out that Gnosticism is greater than the narrow label you have applied to it. And I would add that anyone could be doing the Great Work, simply following their unique spiritual path. One need not build a brick and mortar church, nor publish a prayer book to be doing the Great Work.
Spartacus,
"Of course, when you are the sole source of your doctrines, who else is to blame?"
Of course, when your assertion of self-derived doctrine crests and breaks against the hard reality of actual theological, historical and philsophical study, who else is to blame?
"My comment was designed to point out that Gnosticism is greater than the narrow label you have applied to it. "
If you had added 'my conception of' before 'Gnosticism'- I would have agreed with you- however you did not, and thus, I can't.
"And I would add that anyone could be doing the Great Work, simply following their unique spiritual path. One need not build a brick and mortar church, nor publish a prayer book to be doing the Great Work."
Yes, one could be following their own path, and it could be the pursuit of Gnosis- However, one cannot just follow their own path and have it be the pursuit of 'Gnosticism'.
Jason -
If I might ask, why do you think Father Jordan is the only source of his doctrines? From my experience with his Church, it appears to me that he derives his doctrines from the Gospel of John interpreted in a Gnostic matrix. That said...
These days the word Gnostic is being thrown around left and right. Some say the Da Vinci Code is Gnostic, some say Mormons are Gnostic, some say Nazis are Gnostic. So I understand, since people are engaged in the support or opposition of all sorts of things, why people would be upset if they saw this label (Gnostic) being used for something that they aren't.
Our would-be detractors use the term as a weapon, reducing its meaning to one of several cliches (Pat Robertson's goons said that the recognition of 'two gods' is Gnosis). In response to the lack of consensus, scholars such as Karen King and Michael Allen Williams recommend dismantling Gnosticism entirely as a usable category. They examine all the cliches about Gnosis using classical Gnostic texts, and find that the cliches (world hating, elitism, etc) are not fair generalizations, and so suggest the category should be dismantled entirely. We are encouraged to view Gnostic texts therefore as texts in themselves and try not to generalize. This leaves a TON of room for Gnosis' modern interpreters to claim sucession to Gnosis, whether it be crystal healing (Bethesda Gnostic Church), sex magick (Crowley, Weor), or various other trends (angels, holy grail myths, sacred blood, etc etc etc). Is this diversity a good thing?
Some say yes, this diversity is a fabulous thing. In fact, any move toward dogmatizing Gnosis whatsoever should be avoided. Some say that Gnosis is only Gnosis when it is a vague and undefinable phenomenon. Others say it is only Gnosis when it is THEIR teachings, specifically applied, in THEIR manner (as in an esoteric system like Weor's). Some say Gnosis is no specific idea, but a sum of ideas from certain specific groups. Is there a middle ground?
Yes. This is the part that will make the crystal healers angry: Gnosis is a real thing that can be defined (though it is NOT "endowed" via its definition). This is the part that Michael Williams left out: what unites Gnostic groups is Gnosis. Williams shows that not all so-called Gnostic groups espoused a literal Demiurge, or that there was variations according to libertinism and asceticism among Gnostics, and concludes that these extremes are therefore not adequate to define Gnosticism. What Williams leaves out is GNOSIS (it is in his book twice, I think, both in others' definitions and quotations). This is the only principle that is found is almost every single so-called Gnostic text: the indwelling spirit, and its origin in and eventual return to Heaven. This is what Gnosticism is: Gnosis. The rest (Demiurges, dualisms, esoteric ladders and tarot cards) is conjecture. No wonder the historical Gnostics varied so much, but they agreed on this one point. So despite their huge variation in practices and theological conjectures, it appears these variances were aimed at the same goal, and gives some sort of unity to the general umbrella-designation "Gnostic." In this sense, "Gnosticism" might be a broad category as you say, but there is a narrow definition of "Gnosis." But to say this is the worst heresy for many...
Likewise today we see a huge variation among so-called Gnostics in strategy and practice. My question is, Jason, who are YOU to determine what method is right for people who aren't you? I appreciate that your stand-alone Gnosis gives fruit: I too am stand-alone and am forced to seek Gnosis within the Catholic Church (sometimes too big a task). One not need a church to work the "Great Work," I agree - but do not frown on those who do. Just like our historical counterparts, people all see things differently and need different modes of practice to produce spiritual fruit. These days, many people feel they need a Church setting to find this sort of fruit. The modern Gnostic Churches seek to liberate folks of this niche, so power to them, I say. Our priest friends are not at the head of any sort of monolithic structure, and do not use their office for power or greed. They are not the scribes and pharisees Jesus warns us to abandon for they do (in my experience with them) wash the inside of the cup as well as the outside, and they do genuinely try to practice what they preach. They are not Babylon's thugs as much as Babylon's punching bags. I share your distrust, Jason, of monolithic Church structures and powerful clergy. But I assure you, these guys are not that, and they serve a very important place in the overall "Great Work," just as loners like you and I serve a place. If they indeed seek Gnosis, like you and I, why hold their methods against them? If there are two roads to Scotland, can't we meet one another there from different paths?
Yours,
Sparky
Tone and context are the two most commonly lost dimensions in print communication.
Re theological use of 'manichaean': I have to admit I am uncomfortable with using 'Manichean' in the theologican Augustinian cartoon fashion, as it perpetuates the cartoon understanding. There are clearly Zoarastian elements, actually more of a thread or stream than just elements, in Manicheanism. But did Mani, and those who followed, understand it in the same way as the Zoarastians? To say 'of course' would be an argument from origin, a fallacy long perpetuated and often applied to the whole of Gnosticism.
Re the theological stuff: a carpenter may be a lumberjack (though perhaps a poor one), but a lumberjack isn't a carpenter. Using the categories and tools developed to talk about anything but spiritual experience, makes for unwieldy work at best. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to construct furniture with only a lumberjack's tools, just accept that it will be of a different quality. I don't consider myself to be a theologian, because theology is a particular thing that seems almost antithetical to Gnosticism: in that it is a language in which Gnosis does not exist. It's like discussing skiing conditions in Coptic, it might be possible, but boy would it be a lot of work: and if you're going to have to invent or learn a new sub-language anyway...
Re dualism: I wasn't attempting to ground-out (as in electricity) dualism, but rather to ground it in experience, an attempt to take 'dualism' back out of the abstract realm. If we start far afield, in the realm of ideas, what we do doesn't usually matter. I understand that you are responding to folks doing this, but even that takes us far afield if we seem to be buying into their categories. So, the options, I guess, are to either address questions within the theological system explicitly, or to take arguments “to the mat” and try to ground them in experience.
My leveling a charge of 'leveling a charge,' that's funny.
Jordan, I posted a comment here yesterday that I think got lost. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you this post really spoke to me. Thank you for writing it.
And yes, you and Rev Troy *are* the theologians.
The neat thing about the Gnostic web is that it's making theologians of us all. Fiction and writing are so powerful.... when we write about god, we are also the writers of God, so to speak.
Pauline - you are a rose among thorns, thank you.
"when we write about god, we are also the writers of God" is an extraordinarily simple and elegant summation of the role of imagination in Gnosticism. Blake is smiling at you right now. :-)
J+
Jordan,
You may recall me. I’ve given up commenting for the most part but I’m still lurking here (and at Fantastic Planet) in my effort to understand the modern resurgence of Gnosticism. Though I strongly disagree with nearly all Gnostic distinctives, I do want to agree with you that Gnosticism is not a form a dualism, inasmuch as it does not posit two coequal antipathetic Gods. Not that you need my vote, of course; but there you have it for what it’s worth: a Nicene Christian (for lack of a better term) agrees with you on this point.
And yet, if I could venture to speculate (and please correct me if I say it badly), it seems to me that, generally speaking, Gnosticism does essentially posit two (albeit unequal and not necessarily antipathetic) creative principles: a Pleroma, and a Demiurge. Since Nicene Christians of all stripes accept only one creative principle in the single-yet-undivided trinitarian God, one might understand why the Gnostic view appears dualist.
But ‘dualisms’ are legion. In addition to describing the above, the term may also be used to describe an antipathy of the created order vs the uncreated order, or a material order vs an immaterial order, which breaks down on both a cosmological and anthropological scale. How do you feel that Gnosticism fares in regard to these other dualisms?
It intrigues me that Gnosticism and Christianity both posit a primal unity, a subsequent catastrophe, and a return to unity. The location of the middle point, however -the catastrophe- is a point of disagreement, no?
In Gnosticism, isn’t the catastrophe the demiurgic creation of the material order? And so, even if materiality (our bodies, the earth, the stars, etc) isn’t necessarily evil, it is, at least, unfortunate, even disastrous, since it necessarily involves corruption, decay, etc. The catastrophe simply is, and demonstrates itself in, an antipathy between the material order and the immaterial order. Salvation, then, in the Gnostic view, lies in knowledge of our condition and a corresponding desire for and working-toward a return to that primal unity prior to the catastrophe of materiality. I wonder what you would make of this summary?
By contrast, in the Nicene version, the catastrophe of the cosmos is not located in the creation of the material order, but body and soul, materiality and immateriality, together proceed from that primal unity and enjoyed it in an undivided solidarity prior to the catastrophe. Rather, the catastrophe is located in the striving of free creatures for life apart from the single principle of Life, for individual truth apart from the one Truth, a desire to be god without God. This alienation from Life becomes endemic and necessarily results in death and dissolution, which, from the Nicene point of view, flows from, and is essentially identical to, the catastrophe. Salvation, in the Nicene view, lies in incorporation (literally) into the God-Man, Jesus Christ, who is in Himself the point of perfect unity between all that had been made divergent in the catastrophe, in whom we truly become god with God.
All of this brings up what I see as another major differentiating issue. In Gnostic panentheism, it seems to me, there is a necessity to all things. There is in every thing that is an element of the divine, something unbreakable, living, that will never pass away, a kernel of permanence. There is a concomitant necessity to the universe. I’ve heard it expressed that the cosmos is the process of the Divine’s coming to knowledge of itself, and that we as individuals are specific modes of this process of self-gnosis. All participate in the Pleroma, and this process the self-knowledge is essentially unimpeded, though perhaps slowed, by the catastrophe. All that is, inasmuch as it is, is necessary, since it is a necessary component of that path to self-knowledge of the Pleroma. I wonder if you would agree with this sketch as well?
By contract, there is a sense in which Nicene Christianity is panentheistic as well, but God is seen as “everywhere present and filling all things” while at the same time maintaining a real, free ontological distinction between God and not-God. This is where my own Eastern Orthodox distinctives come in, over and against Augustinian modes of thought, because in the Augustinian model God is often equated with pure being. There is a sense in which the Orthodox accept this, but the being of God is qualitatively rather than quantitatively different than the being we know. As St Maximus puts it, if God is being, then nothing else is being. The being of all things flows from Him, but He is not the being of all beings, but is entirely beyond being. The created order is truly not God, though without God’s gratuitous and sustaining love it collapses into an ontological abyss and become no-thing. All of this creates a cosmological model free of necessity in which everything is gift. The created order is purely gratuitous and beautifully free and unnecessary and adds nothing whatsoever to the divine life, self-knowledge and perichoresis of God in Trinity. But God’s energies overflow His essence and freely create free self-determined beings, who are capable, at the same time, of participation in His perfect life.
Sorry to go on at such length. I’m just trying to iron out where the lines of distinction lie. Any thoughts on all this would be appreciated.
Jordan, your quoting of Blake made me think of the more succinct answer: we must create our own system or be trapped in another's.
That is the problem I see with Theology. It is a system made to discuss and describe religion in an abstract way, as well as, lacking any vocabulary for the experiential--its default view is of religion as ontological beliefs. An unwieldy apparatus for us.
I just discovered this blog and I was fascinated by this entry describing gnosticism as panentheistic. Like another of the commenters here, I am a big admirer of Pelagius, and I have considered myself a panentheist for some time. My panentheism is precisely why I have rejected gnosticism. But now your post has me wondering if I have really rejected gnosticism or just some "outsider" description of gnosticism. I've bought in to the standard description of gnosticism as dualistic, but this blog is making me question that. I think I have a lot to learn.
BS"D
Then..this mean that Judaism is actually Panentheism rather than Monotheism. Which works with our declaration of faith, the Sh'ma: when we say that G@d is One, what we mean is that there is nothing else but G@d. Therefore the universe is contained within G@d's One-ness.
What a wonderful article, Jordan! (I'm sorry if that's too familiar; I'm not sure how to address you.)
In my own (largely solitary) spiritual practice, what I have learned and expreienced has been difficult to describe as I've struggled to put into words my own experience of spiritual reality - struggling for a way to talk about my spiritual experiences for the sake of discussion, community and to promote the highest good (and thus participate in doing The Work you mentioned).
Lately, through conversations with people who seek gnosis and through articles such as this, I've found a language with which to describe and thus discuss my own spiritual discoveries and experiences.
It doesn't matter that much of what was written does not perfectly math my personal spiritual practices; those things that are not real and true for me can still be real and true for you without my own reality being invalidated, yes?
And so I was dismayed when I read further and saw comments by others whose experiences differ from yours (be it a matter of semantics or priorities or focus or what ever) -- comments that first attempt to invalidate your words before stating theirs.
If I understand correctly, Gnosticism is a word that designates the general religious beliefs and practices that those who seek gnosis employ. Not all who seek gnosis are Gnostics.
Your description of Gnosticism was very enlightening, and I am certain you wrote it with good intent, wanting to clarify how some Gnostics, such as yourself, view the subject of dualism.
Some responded with attempts to invalidate what you wrote in order to espouse a difference of experience.
I wonder why discussions such as this tend to evoke anger, antagonism and adversarial stances. The energy generated with this method of 'discussion' is truly ugly. I don't understand why sharing one's experiences, even when they differ, can't be presented in a more loving - or at least respectful - manner.
Isn't The Work an effort to promote the highest good? How can that be done when ad hominem tactics are used? (Apparently some of the more egregious examples of this were removed from the posts, but the rest of the thread remains littered with them.)
Although I do not share the spiritual experiences of Douglas Ian as he stated them in his response here, I still was very impressed. He shared his beliefs without attempting to invalidate anyone else's.
As you said, Jordan, "I'm trying to communicate here..." but these statements:
"so-called Gnostics"
"folks who are so utterly clueless"
"... is just, well, silly"
"a foolish and limited way to look at things"
"that just plain isn't true"
etc -- wow.
These are not examples of positive communication, and - again - I wonder why it's ok with these writers to be so disrespectful of one another, and of you, Jordan.
Just goes to show it may not be wise to read the comments after an article is posted. The problem with that is, I personally am in search of a spirituality-based community. Having profound health issues, going online is my best option. But what I'm finding here... I'm just appalled.
If I post my experiences - what is real and true for me - then someone will no doubt respond by first invalidating my experience and then 'correcting' me with theirs.
Well, I have found one very respectful community - the Order of the Sons and Daughters of Light - but I don't fit in there all that well; my path is much different from their practices. I am very blessed with the respect they show me, even though my experiences and practices are not the same as theirs.
My point in bringing them up is: It's not impossible to have truly respectful and positive spirituality-based discussions even between people whose experiences differ greatly.
And so, again, I wonder: Why not speak and behave more respectfully toward one another? What, I ask, would it cost?
Post a Comment