Talk:Gnosticism
|
|
|
I dont believe that this is too technical, this isn't simple english wikipedia after all. just an anonymous usrs opinion.
I wish Kabir's "Anurag Sagar" (the Ocean of Love) could be fit in here somewhere.
It's 15th century, and Indian, so it's not "Gnostic" in the old 1st century sense. However, the philosophy is CLEARLY Gnostic. You can download the whole thing at http://www.geocities.com/anulbird/anuragindex.html . You have the good (but, in terms of this world, "weak" and "alien"), and then you have the creator God who makes a place in the void, and then starts devouring souls. Some are stuck to the created world beyond repair, some are in between, and a few are going to make it. The Aeons all make appearances. And the Eternal Word is the ride back home.
Wonderful Entry.
On the Greek spelling of the word gnosis: the Unicode characters used here are the correct. Using the "sigma" of the math markup for the greek text is not correct Greek, it just looks like Greek, and is thus misleading information. In Greek, a sigma appearing last in a word has a distinctly different shape than a sigma in the middle of a word, as in the math symbols.
If your browser or its character set or your operating system does not support Unicode correctly, that's sad, but the same is probably true of several Wikipedia web pages containing Chinese or Japanese Unicodes.
This is a first-rate entry! Thanks a lot for shaping up what was a pretty bare beginning. --MichaelTinkler
I still feel it could be a lot better... e.g. talking about the variety of different Gnostic systems in more clarity -- but its the best I can do at the moment. Thankyou for the encouragement. -- Simon J Kissane
well, it's not like we have any real idea about them - after all, it was a Secret. It's kind of like trying to write about the Mystery Religions - they're remarkably elusive! I've been reading French structuralist takes on the Eleusinian mysteries all summer and I have a headache. My only quibble (and I'm not about to do anything about it) is the "scholars think...equally valid." That's what always gets Christianity off track, listening to scholars. Every really good schism starts with someone writing a commentary on the book of Romans.... --MichaelTinkler
Oh, the sacred mind. I was raised in Catholic grammar school in the sixties and never knew there was this whole other stream of interpretation about what the man called Jesus by the Greeks was trying to tell us, and what sort of religion should emerge from his being here. Only recently, when I read Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels (St Elaine I call her) and got a hold of Nag Hammadhi Library in English, Robinson, editor, did it really open my mind to what these people, second and third century, Hellenistic Egypt thereabouts, were trying to get going. Since this is an encyclopedia entry, anyone reading this should understand something important:
The gnostics were a diverse group that came up with a
wildly imaginitive body of myth from both Hellenic and Jewish sources, and the thing is NOT to take this or that myth literally and stick to it like a cult member or something. Whats important for us in the post rennaissance - post reformation post enlightment and now post twentieth century to understand is the way they did what they did. The vocabulary, the quality of writing, the intelligence level, the depth of imagination. The quote from Homer. The pagelong excerpt from Plato's Republic. The prayer of thanksgiving (nag hammadhi codex 6 page 63, page 329 in the Robinson translation) where we give thanks
to You, undisturbed name, honored with the name
"God" and praised with the name "Father"..... ...for giving us mind, speech and knowledge:mind, so
we may understand you....
I sound like I'm preaching here, but I just to inform anyone looking up info in this index that this religious community in late antiquity held the promise of a religion that truly held the mind of every human being to be a sacred gift, not just a machine or a tool. A promise of course not yet delivered to humanity. Another text is titled The Book of Thomas the Contender. At's right, coulda been a contenda. But hope proves a man deathless, said Melville. John Joyce
There are Gnostic themes in the Truman Show and the Matrix? I think it's important to distinguish between actual gnostic ideas and dimestore Buddhism in the cultural wake of Jack Kerouac.JFQ
- I have added an explanation to why these films can be regarded "gnostic" -- User:Nixdorf
- Absolutely, especially given "The Architect" in Matrix ][. -- User:LionKimbro
I saw Hippolytus had been added as a "gnostic" in the "list of gnostics". This must be wrong, Hippolytus was an orthodox, busy fighting gnosticism and several other "heresies". I removed the entry. I have done a lot more things to this entry and Aeon too, but need help with peer review, please check my text. -- User:Nixdorf
This was utterly fascinating. I wonder what the Wikipedia will be able to tell me about the Archons.
Who do you think 'The Archons' are? Just ponder it for a moment... I'll give you a hint, they aren't from this planet...
they resemble the marcabians from scientology (which is heavily based on gnosticism). Gringo300 07:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the Gnostics didn't necessarily deem matter 'evil', but rather 'incomplete'. Gnostics living in Egypt equated the material universe with the injured, re-assembled body of Osiris (missing his penis, symbolic of reproductive power), which forced him to become, symbolically, 'the god of the dead', as the Gnostics believed that death was caused by this 'incompleteness' of matter... Very interesting when one compares this idea to modern theories about entropy... Khranus
- Some gnostics held the view you state, of matter as 'incomplete'. Some gnostics still held it to be evil, such as the dualist traditions of mandaeanism and manichaeanism. Nixdorf 21:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Was Final Fantasy 7 Gnostic? It didn't seem like it, to me. -- LionKimbro
Spirit?
I changed the link for "spirit" so it doesn't point to the disambig page "spirit" anymore. It points to "Holy Ghost" now, but I'm not sure that's the best of all choices. Joyous 21:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
- After some discussion with User:Gary D, I redirected the link "spirit" to point to Akasha. Joyous 22:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
William Blake?
Surprised to see no mention of William Blake here, who was probably more influenced by Gnosticism than any other major English poet. (Maybe Harold Bloom would cite Yeats and Shelley (and I suppose even Milton) as post-gnostic, too.)
On the other hand some of the film references here seem a little bit of a stretch. Not everything about a false world or illusion goes right back to gnosticism, you know (the Matrix, seems ok, Maybe. Perhaps also _Blade Runner_, which quotes Neo-Gnostic Wm. Blake). Christianity has a long tradition of linking "the world, the flesh, and the Devil," that exists in parallel to Gnostic-type beliefs, and of seeing the world as fallen and vain and etc. So one has to be careful abt. being seeing Gnosticism everywhere. Toy Story? The Truman show?
- The movie called The Truman Show is most definately gnostic influenced, it's very obvious. Have you even seen this movie? Nixdorf 08:02, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
History vs. Modern practice
Given the revival of Gnosticism as fueled by popular authors Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown, it seems this entry should reflect that more. Perhaps we could relegate statements of Gnostics in the past tense to a section entitled, "History", and focus more upon modern practice in the other sections.
Ideas?
SwissCelt 17:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
an anon's edits
An anon just made major edits, mainly POV from what I have read. I don't have time right now to go over and copyedit it, however, I will put it on my task list. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Samael Aun Weor
An earlier version said that Samael Aun Weor's books did not talk about fundimental Gnostic concepts and this is false. Whoever wrote that is misinformed. The Demiurge, the incompleteness of "matter," etc., are all explained -- however not within the box that people consider Gnosticism. Instead of talking about the incompleteness of matter in such terms, Materalistic Philisophy is spoken of (and how it is incomplete), instead of repeating the story of the Demiurge in a mundane way he brings a real depth to it (IMO) by contrasting the Elohim (Imperfect "God" Being within Creation) with the Aelohim (Perfect Absolute "Non-Being"), etc.. Stating that he does not have Gnostic concepts is a common misconception furthermore because many of his works are Buddhist in nature, and his works as a whole are much broader than what is considered Gnosticism. The majority's "official" opinion is such because they/we have formulated a theory based on concepts that are believed to be reasonable. Samael Aun Weor's work is no different in the respect that it is just another theory to the average reader, however it happens to be that this one is radically different than official opinion. The fact that these texts are very esoteric means that they are left open to interpretation, and thus to categorically reject Samael Aun Weor's works as something not Gnostic is not only ignorant, but exceedingly superficial. Therefore, with this entry I am only attempting to clear up this ignorance.
For example, if I were to ask if Gnosticism had strong ties with Tarot, many people would say no and even some would laugh. Yet, the very first paragraph of the Pistis Sophia talks about Arcanum 1 and Arcanum 24. Anyone who truly understand what the Tarot is understands this, yet, the "official" opinion of "scholars" completely ignore these esoteric matters, even though it is readily admitted that these texts are esoteric in meaning!
Of course many people disagree and I have no problem with that. However I cannot see how one opinion can be considered an unbreakable dogma when the authors of the texts are all dead.
- "....however not within the box that people consider Gnosticism" "many of his works are Buddhist in nature" I hadn't heard of the Elohim - Aelohim distincion, but I belive you are redefining the word 'Gnosticism'. Incompleteness of matter isn't the same as materalistic filosophy. There is no trace of Tarot cards before 15th century.
- I've read that Samael Aun Weor emphasized ritual sex as the final way of achieving Gnosis. However, there is no proof that the ancient Gnostics had such practise. On the contrary, they didn't want to reproduce offspring. This seems like a fundamental difference.
- Here is an idea for article text: "Many New Age authors like Samael Aun Weor read and interpreted Ancient Gnostic texts." This this definitely neutral though a bit technical piece. -Hapsiainen 22:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- 'Gnosticism' is just a conjugation of 'Gnosis' that scholars used to represent those things which they understood it to be. Really the definition is arbitrary. That being said, it is obvious that I feel that a transvalution of what Gnosticism really is should take place. Regarding the sexual mysteries, there are clues, as the texts are completely esoteric, that are missed by not only contemporary commentators, but more importantly by non-Gnostics throughout the ages who are now looked at as authorities. About Oriental Philosophy (Buddhism, etc.): Gnosticism is born on the border of the orient, Jesus, a Gnostic, visited the orient and there is actually a good deal of evidence (http://www.atmajyoti.org/sw_unknown_life.asp) to prove this. White Tantra rarely produces children, and there is plently to state that Jesus practiced and taught sexual magic (the Cross of Man and Woman). I also suggest a reexamination upon what exactly Tarot is, because as I stated earlier, the very first chapter speaks of the First Mystery and Twenty Fourth Mystery (which is Tantra, btw). It is Tarot, and actually, it is oversights like this that prove how blind supposedly educated people are to the obvious. The real reason for confusion for this in particular is that no one actually understands what the Tarot is, as it is well beyond cards that can be used as a divination tool. In short, there is plenty of ignorance regarding this subject, and it is well beyond my abilities and this forum to explain everything, obviously. Therefore, it is good to finally note that Samael Aun Weor explains these things to the reader thoughout all his works.
- The revision itself is fine enough for now, as I do not have the time to enter into a polemic, but thank you for the comments! -Paul Stone Feb 26, 2005
Gnostic Texts
Regarding this sentence at the top of the Gnostic Texts section:
- Note that like everything else about Gnosticism, the identification of a text as Gnostic or not may be controversial, however most Nag Hammadi codices may be assumed to be Gnostic in essence, except for the copy of Plato and the "sayings" Gospel of Thomas.
Why would the Gospel of Thomas not be considered a Gnostic text? For some reason I was under the impression that everyone agrees that's exactly what it is. Wesley 19:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, definitely not everyone agrees on that; see the Gospel of Thomas article; some selected quotes: The Gospel of Thomas did in fact include a great deal of material unparalleled in the New Testament. It, however, lacks distinctive terms from second century Gnosticism such as archons, pleoroma, aeons, demiurge that would be expected from a product of historical Gnosticism [...] Some scholars consider this gospel to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among other, more clearly gnostic texts. Others reject this interpretation, because Thomas lacks the full-blown mythology of Gnosticism as described [...] Ray Dassen 21:31, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- I am currently reading a translation of some Nag Hammadi texts. ("Nag Hammadin kätketty viisaus". Editors Dunderberg & Marjanen. 1999.) It also comments them and states that it is too one-sided to describe the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic. Then you would define Gnosticism to cover any religious movement, which teaches that the soul is from the divine world of light. You would have to include Neoplatonism etc to Gnosticism. Many Christian movements appreciated the Gospel of Thomas besides Gnosticism, too. -Hapsiainen 22:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
-- I see no problem with adding neoplatonism as gnosticism, if at its core that's what it is. I would also place the Gurdjieff Work as a modern gnostic movement, given its definition of cosmoses and ladder going from The Absolute to the Moon. I do wish we had more info on the Mystery movements of Antiquity... patrice.boivin@gmail.com
Adding Emile Cioran
To my friend Trödel(whoever he is).
I made this entry about a gnostic author. It is EMILE CIORAN. He is quiet famous. Wikipedia has a page on him. I didn't spell him right.. Of course he is more of a philosopher than a writer. The book i'm talking about is not on the list of his major works in wikipedia. i' ll have a visit on him.. it is something like "le demiurge mal" in french. that's the bad (evil?)(incompetent?) demiurgue. (pardon my english). He is aware and has knowledge of every gnostic belief (Markion,cathars) and agrees with them. he has a certain "style" in his speech. sometimes he becomes blasphymous (a dictionary please). he hated humans.well we all have been there, right?
what's that name Trodel? Is it German? i'm Greek. i'm Sotiris.(i didn't expect that someone would look my entry. you see in Greece nothing works.ha, ha..) --213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)SOTIRIS--213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
by the way did you know that the Apatchi (indians) were gnostics too or maybe deists? they believed that there was a god but didn't honour him as he didn't care about humans. instead they worsiped an evil spirit that believed to be omnipotent. (ΔΟΜΗ 2004,encyclopedia).Bye. SOTIRIS
- Welcome to wikepedia see your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.5.49.214) for a quick response - thanks for the information - I will put it back in shortly. User:Trödel/sig 18:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thomas a Gnostic
The Gospel of Thomas is definately a gnostic text. Granted that it is disputed whether he wrote it, but he is usually identified as gnostic. User:Trödel/sig 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Read the discussion above, you are not the first one who asked it. Also other early Christian movements used and appreciated the book, so it isn't merely Gnostic. -Hapsiainen 21:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Adding Nietzsche's "eternal return"
The "eternal return" is the concept where a demon condemns man to live his life again and again. it's a trap inside time. it is typically gnostic. i would also add in gnostic moovies, "the groundhog's day". it's the same recipe of "eternal return" and very near to Truman, Matrix etc. the only difference is that in "groundhog's day" the "God" character is not malivoulent but wants to teach man. fine film.
--213.5.49.215 13:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Objections
First of all, the article is ambigious as to different periods in this set of beliefs. Platonic and neo-Platonic are not really "Gnostic," but deal with similar concepts. Similarly talking about 'Gnosticism in the 20th century' is kinda like talking about witchcraft in the 20th century. It's not the same as withcraft in the midle ages or antiquity, or Mesopotamia. There's an intellectually dangerous conflation of terms here.
Secondly, it would help if there were sources sited in the text. "Generally believed" is always a bit sketchy as an introduction. It is unclear as to what "equally valid" with traditional Christian teaching means. Equally valid as a social movement? Sure. Equally valid religiously? That's opening a whole big can of worms.
There are mentions of Jesus. As a writer, the author must make clear how that name is being treated. For the purpose of this article is Jesus a)the son of God and one indivisible part of the Holy Trinity (mainstream Christian teaching), b) a historical figure, a Jew who got executed but who spawned a religious movement, or c)a totally made up figure that's part of the mythology of a religious movement from the late Antiquity.
There's a strong argument about whether Manicheans are Gnostics or just a branch of Christianity considered heretical by the majority. Cathars and Bogomils can be treated in similar ways.
- As your statements are mainly conjecture, and you seem to know very little about Gnosticism. As to who Jesus represents to Gnostics, it's clearly in the article. He does not fall into any of your three categories. Nor is it a twentieth century revival like you insinuate by comparing Gnosticism to Witchcraft. Maybe you should read up on Gnosticism before you come here and voice your clearly pro-Catholic Church objections. Instead, it sounds like you're stating that "Gnosticism is just another form of Satan-worship." --Bastique 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Gringo300, (since you didn't sign your own name) perhaps you may want to go back and reread the article a little better. There are books listed that have been preserved by some faction of the Gnostic church or another since the times of Jesus. The Acts of Thomas come to mind. I agree, that someone needs to go in there and write about Gnosticism in Medievel times and the Renaissance, but as Gnostics had to congregate in secret for fear of being hung or burned or drowned by Catholic Christians as being heretical, most of what you find on Gnostics are executions rather than actual records. But preserve the church they did! I'm done ranting... --Bastique 00:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)