Question for Gnostics

I have a question for you.

The Demiurge - the Jewish God - gives laws. The design of these laws is to entrap us within the web of duality; value judgements like good and evil.

God, the father, the unbegotten infinite essence, is all mercy.

Meaning what? That one should disobey the "demiurgic" conscience? Or that one should concentrate his entire being on the 'infinite beyond', indifferent to issues of right or wrong here below??

Help me understand some of the moral implications of Gnostic theology.

What is the importance of conscience and how one acts in the physical world?

reply to post by dontreally


The Demiurge exists only in concept, to reveal to the Gnostics (or those who follow the Gnostic path but are of other spiritualities, such as myself) in meditation the enslaving behaviour monotheism brings to humanity. Thus it is but a tool, to fight off such oppressive forces.

Heres another question.

Do you believe belief in the concept of right and wrong "creates" the punishments inflicted by the demiurge on the deceased soul? and therefore, anyone who 'transcends this "understanding" through Gnosis - which is the binding of ones mind to this 'higher perception' - causes one to aswell transcend the modes of right/wrong, created by the 'demiurge'?

So if someone who has this higher perception of "gnosis", were to kill, rape and harm others, "knowing" that the 'higher spirit' was compelling him to do it, would infact be free from punishment? Because he doesnt acknowledge the construct of divine punishment?

Or rather, does he accept the duality of good and evil, joy and pain, and reconciles himself through this 'higher perception' that even if he were subject to 'divine wrath', it wouldnt matter to him, because his mind is attached to this higher perspective?

reply to post by dontreally


It means, that the jewish fake-god isn't the true god (according to the gnostics).

My memory may fail me, but considering that I believe you have read Hans Jonas' book on the subject, this is possibly a trick question from you.

reply to post by SuperZepto


Well, all spiritual things exist "only in concept"....But as we know, they are also quite real.

Gnostics consider the demiurge not just as a mere "concept", but as an actual being - a cosmic power - which most people worship as God.

Originally posted by dontreally
I have a question for you.

The Demiurge - the Jewish God - gives laws. The design of these laws is to entrap us within the web of duality; value judgements like good and evil.

God, the father, the unbegotten infinite essence, is all mercy.

Meaning what? That one should disobey the "demiurgic" conscience? Or that one should concentrate his entire being on the 'infinite beyond', indifferent to issues of right or wrong here below??

Help me understand some of the moral implications of Gnostic theology.

What is the importance of conscience and how one acts in the physical world?

There are no moral consequences in Reality. God cannot judge himself. And you cannot judge yourself. Outside of Reality, where most live, there is judgement of self. If you are living in duality you will judge and condemn yourself out of ignorance. Most of what we do is an effect of our denial of Truth. So we suffer from both good and evil. In Truth good and evil do not exist so they are inconsequential. But most do not live in Truth so they are very relevant.

If we do not live in Reality, and we are expressing our free will to be ignorant, we live in pain. The consequence of duality is judgement and shame we bring on ourselves when the Truth cannot be denied.

So the idea of simply subscribing to non-duality to allow oneself to be evil without consequence doesn't work. You have to actual live in Truth/Reality/Kingdom of God/Heaven.. In which case it is impossible to do/be either good or evil because they do not exist.

Love. This is the practice that brings about an experience of non-duality. Love is not good.. it is God/Reality/Truth.

reply to post by bogomil


No. Its more like, let me hear what YOU have to say about it. Because the conclusions are rather, radical, as you well know.

reply to post by rwfresh

Heres a moral scenario.

Lets say you make me a promise. You say you will lend me a thousand bucks by this date. You've saved some money to give to me but something else has come up which sparks your interest. You REALLY want to buy it.

What do you do? Since truth and falsehood do not enter the equation, does it even matter? If we both thought the same, would you just screw me and I, indifferent to the fact that you screwed me?

Real moral situations come up. What would you do? What would you suggest be the right thing to do?

In other words, call it whatever you want.

If you suggest that it would be "loving" to respect an oath, you are in effect saying the same thing, in a different way, of "Thou shalt not steal" ie; dont make an oath, a promise, and then not make good on it. By doing so you "steal" something from the person you promised to give to

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by bogomil

 

No. Its more like, let me hear what YOU have to say about it. Because the conclusions are rather, radical, as you well know.

So it WAS a trick question. But very well....

Authority always says that authority is right. And it doesn't matter what it is about.

There's nothing 'radical' about rejecting self-proclaimed authority, it's done all the time.

Only on the circular premises of OT 'validation' (socalled napkinism) is there any radicality present.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Heres a moral scenario.

Lets say you make me a promise. You say you will lend me a thousand bucks by this date. You've saved some money to give to me but something else has come up which sparks your interest. You REALLY want to buy it.

What do you do? Since truth and falsehood do not enter the equation, does it even matter? If we both thought the same, would you just screw me and I, indifferent to the fact that you screwed me?

Real moral situations come up. What would you do? What would you suggest be the right thing to do?

Truth is all that matters. Sorry if i wasn't clear. I am telling you that Truth is non-duality. It is a thing. It is God. And God is Love. Reality/Truth/God and Love are one. This is the nomenclature i use. The one true God is Reality and is Truth. Also the only thing that is Real. So.. what else matters?

I don't live in Truth. And neither do you. The entire scenario is in the context of duality/ignorance and denial. In which we both live. This isn't to say that i am not deeply involved in the drama of my ignorance. But when opportunity arises to express what i know to be true i will take the opportunity. The practice of love is the only method of becoming True. So in your scenario i would concentrate on what would be a loving thing to do. The loving thing to do would reveal to both of us what is True. But i cannot be True in ANY scenario if i am in duality and in denial of Truth/God/Love. But the practice would be to act(BE) in a way that reveals/expresses what is True. So dependent in your scenario is who YOU are, what our relationship is, Who i am, what is our history?

Truth isn't a game. And i am not suggesting i am living in Reality. But when it comes down to communicating God it serves no purpose for me except to express what is most True from my context of duality. This is the conundrum. Be aware of it. We are not true. so we will be judged (by ourselves) either way. But the practice of Love is the only path to freedom and Reality. There is no trick. You cannot rape, murder, steal and have no consequence. It's not so much that raping and killing are BAD, it's that doing these things traditionally move you away from what is Real. They are VERY dramatic acts. And drama engages the false self. Becoming numb is a strategy but in fact is more harmful. The Truth will be known and you will suffer it the farther away you are from it. Realizing the Truth can be painful.. But the practice of Love makes it much less so.

This thread is in theme practically identical with this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dontreally is simply in best preaching-style repeating the same message slightly changed. All according to the steamroller principle of hammering home propaganda by repetition, and ignoring any opposition no matter how justified such opposition is.

I'm offski. Anybody interested in what relevant opposition there have been on former occasions can read the above link.

reply to post by bogomil


My thread on the Gnostic demiurge was about the metaphysical concept of the demiurge.

This thread focuses more on the moral implications of that belief.

Two different subjects.

reply to post by rwfresh

You cannot rape, murder, steal and have no consequence. It's not so much that raping and killing are BAD, it's that doing these things traditionally move you away from what is Real. They are VERY dramatic acts. And drama engages the false self. Becoming numb is a strategy but in fact is more harmful. The Truth will be known and you will suffer it the farther away you are from it. Realizing the Truth can be painful.. But the practice of Love makes it much less so.

What do you mean by "traditionally move you away from what is real" ?

So, any "drama" is bad? And by drama you mean intense emotion. So, therefore, any intense emotion towards good, ie; love, is also bad?

I see how badly you want to stay away from value judgements like "good" and "bad", but you are simply talking about the same thing. Real and Unreal is the same thing as Good and Evil. An evil person is living a delusion. A good person is living in truth.

reply to post by rwfresh


dp

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by rwfresh

 

You cannot rape, murder, steal and have no consequence. It's not so much that raping and killing are BAD, it's that doing these things traditionally move you away from what is Real. They are VERY dramatic acts. And drama engages the false self. Becoming numb is a strategy but in fact is more harmful. The Truth will be known and you will suffer it the farther away you are from it. Realizing the Truth can be painful.. But the practice of Love makes it much less so.

What do you mean by "traditionally move you away from what is real" ?

So, any "drama" is bad? And by drama you mean intense emotion. So, therefore, any intense emotion towards good, ie; love, is also bad?

I see how badly you want to stay away from value judgements like "good" and "bad", but you are simply talking about the same thing. Real and Unreal is the same thing as Good and Evil. An evil person is living a delusion. A good person is living in truth.

I'm not attempting to deceive you or trick you. If you have a desire to rape and or murder without consequence you may want to investigate the nature of desire rather than test your ability to ignore your own judgment. But either way your entire experience is inconsequential in Reality. You do not effect Truth whether you rape or not. Someone living in Reality knows that there is nothing to gain from rape or murder even when their is no consequence. There is no desire to carry out such a dramatic act of delusion in Reality. If you know "good" is delusion what will you gain from forcing yourself to rape someone? Your whole question is completely deluded. But that's where we meet.. in the world of delusion.