The Conspiracy of the 'other' Gospel

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
My views as a Gnostic also seem to coincide with Humanism, as I think reason is a primary component to the path which Christ showed his followers... who promptly turned around and made it into an establishment and institution.

Hello TheCrystalSword,

I just have a few questions about your belief structure, which if you could answer would greatly improve my understanding of your perspective. Thank you in advance.

1. Can you describe the path which Christ showed his followers?

2. Is it a hard path to walk which requires great sacrifice, or is it a broad and easy path to walk?

3. What are the fundamental beliefs (which all Gnostics accept) of Gnosticism?

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic



[edit on 7/12/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Hello TheCrystalSword,

Hello there, a pleasure to make your acquaintance!

I just have a few questions about your belief structure, which if you could answer would greatly improve my understanding of your perspective. Thank you in advance.

You're welcome in Advance.

1. Can you describe the path which Christ showed his followers?

Hrm. Yes and No. The path to the top of the mountain may seem clear to me, but others may see yet other paths. Christ preached that one should love your neighbor as you would yourself, and said the same of your enemies. He spoke on judgment of others being only the dominion of God, and depending on the texts one ascribes to, also claims that there is a spiritual world all around us that we are not attuned with. From what I perceive, Christ wished people to find a path so that all mankind could warm themselves in the comfort of our Creator... and when I say *A* path, I actually mean many. It is the Christians duty to find a path for those they care for, which should be all mankind. It is not the Christians duty to find their own path, and force everyone they encounter onto the same path.

We all have much to learn from eachother, and people have a hard time avoiding their own idiosynchratic egos when it comes to truth.

2. Is it a hard path to walk which requires great sacrifice, or is it a broad and easy path to walk?

I would argue every path is a hard one to travel, provided you are dedicated to enlightening yourself and casting off the material shackles which imprison your mind and soul. In my case, I am of the belief that one of the best paths is also one of the hardest for people to accept... as it involves casting off beliefs associated with material punishment and the judgment of a god who is described as all loving. It is a bit more involved than that, and there is much ugliness that I stare directly at to try and understand its place in the great design, rather than shunning my creator as being an unloving one due to the suffering of the world.

I guess my answer is... any path which brings growth to the soul is destined to be a hard one to traverse.

3. What are the fundamental beliefs (which all Gnostics accept) of Gnosticism?

This one is a bit easier for me to answer. Gnostics believe that the bible is an introductory lesson for those seeking spiritual enlightenment. It was something of an initiation into the teachings of Christ, in their view. Much of their spiritual pursuits occurred AFTER familiarization with the Bible, as many of their teachings were oral and interactive with other faiths.

The Gnostics believed that the Demiurgos created the material Universe, but that the Demiurgos was birthed imperfectly from Sophia (The Female Aspect of the Creator), and thusly was unable to be aware of any being other than itself... thusly, it believed itself to be the one and only.

Gnostics feel that the God of the Old Testament was this Demiurgos. The Gnostics also believe that Christ was the true spiritual heir to Sophia, and brought teachings which could help free man from the material prison placed on them by the Demiurgos.

A primary tenet of Gnosticism is exploring their own faith and dissecting it, as well as exploring other faiths and doing the same thing. The Gnostics were particularly popular because they tended not to deny the existence of spiritual entities other than the Demiurgos, allowing them to interact much more openly with followers of polytheistic faiths.

Phew... there is actually quite a bit the Gnostics believed, what is tragic is some of their knowledge is missing. As the story goes, the fellow who discovered the old Gospels found them in jars in the desert and brought them home. Supposedly, they burned some of the scrolls during the night to keep warm.

In any case, the Gnostic gospels are considered Apokryphal by the Catholic Church. I hope this helps a bit, as it is somewhat disjointed and not complete at all...

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Hello there, a pleasure to make your acquaintance!

And the same to you, Namaste.

Thank you for your thorough reply.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
1. Can you describe the path which Christ showed his followers?

It is the Christians duty to find a path for those they care for, which should be all mankind. It is not the Christians duty to find their own path, and force everyone they encounter onto the same path.

Agreed

It is the ego which wishes to feed itself through creating a sense of separation, in this case through differences in belief structures. It seems to me that more people are interested in sharing their views to feed a sense of superiority, than to alleviate the suffering of others. Fear based tactics used to force someone to accept a belief structure, obviously feed this sense of superiority. Instead of creating fear in others in hopes to use that identification to take advantage of an insecurity, we should spread the message of love and sacrifice that Jesus talked about.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
2. Is it a hard path to walk which requires great sacrifice, or is it a broad and easy path to walk?

I guess my answer is... any path which brings growth to the soul is destined to be a hard one to traverse.

Agreed

Perhaps it could be said that the degree of sacrifice is directly related to the degree of growth?

The following are two bible verses which I think a lot of us have conveniently forgotten:

(Matthew 7:13-14) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

(Mark 8:34) And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
3. What are the fundamental beliefs (which all Gnostics accept) of Gnosticism?

The Gnostics believed that the Demiurgos created the material Universe, but that the Demiurgos was birthed imperfectly from Sophia (The Female Aspect of the Creator), and thusly was unable to be aware of any being other than itself... thusly, it believed itself to be the one and only. Gnostics feel that the God of the Old Testament was this Demiurgos. The Gnostics also believe that Christ was the true spiritual heir to Sophia, and brought teachings which could help free man from the material prison placed on them by the Demiurgos.

I assume you're familiar from where the word Gnosticism comes from, so I will just post some information about it for others who are reading this post.

Gnosticism comes from the greek word gnosis. Gnosis is knowledge gained through direct experience; knowledge that transcends theory, dogma, or belief.

It is my understanding that the Gnostic's goal is to attain Gnosis which will lead to enlighenment, or awakening. Since gnosis transcends ordinary physical perceptual knowledge it can be said that beliefs and theories formed without direct experience will only be an obstacle in attaining Gnosis. This is because no new information, or knowledge can be obtained if our beliefs are conditioned to not accept new knowledge that contradicts them.

For this reason I am always a bit perplexed at the (sometimes) elegant, yet dogamtic doctrine of some forms of Gnosticism. Would not this presupposed dogma inhibit the attainment of Gnosis?

Maybe an example will help in getting my point a cross:

Let's suppose there is a Gnostic who attains Gnosis that contradicts the fundamental Gnostic belief of the Earth being created by Demiurge. Could this Gnostic, being in posession of Gnosis which contradicts fundamental Gnostic doctrine, still consider himself a Gnostic?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, and the belief in Demiurge is not absolute doctrine. It could very well be that it is something which is supposed to be experientially explored by Gnostics; something to test, in other words. If that is the case, wouldn't starting out with no hypothesis (presupposed belief) help in obtaining a more objective experience?

Thank you for your time, I appreciate any feedback you can give. I'm reading the Nag Hammadi Library at this time, and have found it extremely interesting. My favourite is probably the Testimony of Truth.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

P.S. Do you know anything about Samael Aun Weor and the International Christian Gnostic Movement he started?

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
And the same to you, Namaste.

Thank you for your thorough reply.

I attempt to be eloquent, but I fear I am merely verbose. ;-)

Agreed

It is the ego which wishes to feed itself through creating a sense of separation, in this case through differences in belief structures.

I at times find it fascinating that people seek such manners to differentiate themselves... are we not individually unique enough that we do not have to feel superior in a religious context?

It seems to me that more people are interested in sharing their views to feed a sense of superiority, than to alleviate the suffering of others. Fear based tactics used to force someone to accept a belief structure, obviously feed this sense of superiority. Instead of creating fear in others in hopes to use that identification to take advantage of an insecurity, we should spread the message of love and sacrifice that Jesus talked about.

Well, I feel that there are many paths to the peak, it is the Christian's responsibility... and perhaps the responsibility of other responsible spiritual people of various faiths, to help their fellow people reach the peak. It is not our place to tell them which path is correct, because correct in that sense is very relative to the climber as far as I understand.

Perhaps it could be said that the degree of sacrifice is directly related to the degree of growth?

Yes, but not always. Equivolency is tricky in a spiritual sense... what might seem minor may have greater implications outside of yourself.

(Matthew 7:13-14) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

A very good bit of scripture, and widely debated as to the meaning. It has been used in fearmongering as well as in other ways, the meaning is rather flexible to a persons perceptions. I believe I understand your gist as to its meaning though... it is a harder path to tread in seeking the truth because it is so easy to settle for the lies.

(Mark 8:34) And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Another fascinating quote... which in a manner repeats the previous. Take up your own cross, for it is not an easy thing to bear. To be misunderstood and stand outside the fabricated realities which people shelter themselves with, to see the paper backdrops for what they are, and to see the props others create in order to cling to their belief structures can be both harsh to observe as well as difficult to elaborate to one who does not see such things.

I assume you're familiar from where the word Gnosticism comes from, so I will just post some information about it for others who are reading this post.

Gnosticism comes from the greek word gnosis. Gnosis is knowledge gained through direct experience; knowledge that transcends theory, dogma, or belief.

Emphasis mine... this is what most faith, spirituality, and religion lacks. The desire to transcend its own system. If one is to be godly and follow in the footsteps of Gods one and only son, then one must move beyond human petulance and opression.

It is my understanding that the Gnostic's goal is to attain Gnosis which will lead to enlighenment, or awakening. Since gnosis transcends ordinary physical perceptual knowledge it can be said that beliefs and theories formed without direct experience will only be an obstacle in attaining Gnosis. This is because no new information, or knowledge can be obtained if our beliefs are conditioned to not accept new knowledge that contradicts them.

Precisely. In a sense, the pursuit of spiritual empowerment and awareness is eternal.

For this reason I am always a bit perplexed at the (sometimes) elegant, yet dogamtic doctrine of some forms of Gnosticism. Would not this presupposed dogma inhibit the attainment of Gnosis?

Only if one looks upon the Gnostic texts as Dogma, rather than parables which one is to dwell on. Such as the exercise in Zen theory of the falling tree in the forest, it is not meant to contain meaning as much as drive the mind to search. From what I garner, much of what would appear "Dogmatic" to those not pursuing Gnosis seems "Enigmatic" to a Gnostic. They are questions seeking answers, or answers seeking questions.

Let's suppose there is a Gnostic who attains Gnosis that contradicts the fundamental Gnostic belief of the Earth being created by Demiurge. Could this Gnostic, being in posession of Gnosis which contradicts fundamental Gnostic doctrine, still consider himself a Gnostic?

Of course. The Dogma is irrelevant to the growth of the spirit, a Gnostic should know at least that. The words are less important than the journey and the pulling back of the veil. What is said is less important than being able to SEE.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, and the belief in Demiurge is not absolute doctrine. It could very well be that it is something which is supposed to be experientially explored by Gnostics; something to test, in other words. If that is the case, wouldn't starting out with no hypothesis (presupposed belief) help in obtaining a more objective experience?

Much of the written Dogma would be introductory to the gnostic acolyte... it is writing which drives the mind to fertility. Much of gnostic tradition relied upon talk and peer interaction, Gnosticism is an exploratory faith, not a dogmatic one. In that sense, it is more like a living faith than a dead faith (Such as Catholicism).

Thank you for your time, I appreciate any feedback you can give. I'm reading the Nag Hammadi Library at this time, and have found it extremely interesting. My favourite is probably the Testimony of Truth.

I need to pick up a physical copy of the NHL, it is nice to have something physical in your hands that you can flip through.

P.S. Do you know anything about Samael Aun Weor and the International Christian Gnostic Movement he started?

Not until you mentioned him.... I googled it, but have not had a chance to read much of the writing. There is quite a bit of it from what I noticed, on a variety of topics.