My theory — the entheogen determinism theory of religion — is the easy and
direct solution to completely straighten out these issues. The discussion
even poses "being troubled" as something challenging to reconcile with
attaining "psychological stability".
When one "asks" — about personal self-control in the face of
entheogen-revealed determinism — one "finds", and then "becomes troubled",
and then awareness turns around, resulting in changing one's mental worldmodel
to an intrinsically lastingly stable one: determinism and transcendence,
rather than the original sinfully distorted and unstable mental worldmodel
which cannot withstand the critical light shed by the intense mystic state of
cognition, but prophetically must be doomed and accursed to fall like a
condemned kingdom.
Different allegory systems are different systems, like different programming
languages being used to accomplish the exactly functionally equivalent
resulting program. I favor Freke & Gandy's broad use of the terms
"Gnosticism" vs. "Literalism", defined in the books The Jesus Mysteries and
Jesus & The Goddess.
http://www.egodeath.com/jesusmysterieschapsumm.htm
The disputation would evaporate by everyone simply keeping track of the two
distinct uses of 'gnostic' — broad, and narrow, and acknowledging that both
are required, for a full study of Gnosticism.
Even if we assume the narrow meaning, and therefore that "gnosticism" is
"different" than "Christian mysticism" or "Sufism" or "Rosicrucianism", this
"difference" is merely a *shallow* difference, like the difference between the
Christian mythic-mystic metaphor of "going to heaven" and the Buddhist
mythic-mystic metaphor of "escaping the cycle of rebirths". These are two
different *metaphor systems* referring to the exact same type of thing.
Enlightenment, regeneration, salvation, nirvana, heaven, sainthood, gnosis,
perfection, spiritual victory, cure, forgiveness of sins, purification,
purgation, exorcism, and so on are all *essentially* the *same* thing, and on
the *surface* *different* descriptions. A full study of mystic and gnostic
religion must study *both* the deep sameness and the surface difference.
These are different descriptions of the same thing.
The same goes for the missing-the-point hair-splitting "debate" between
Gershom Scholem and Moshe Idel, making a mountain out of the molehill of
"theurgic/philosophical Jewish mysticism" versus "ecstatic Jewish mysticism".
Idel claims to "correct" Scholem by recovering mythic-mystic ecstatic Jewish
mysticism, against Scholem's supposedly staid and over-respectable
theurgic/philosophical Jewish mysticism.
But if neither scholar has any real acquaintance with the oral knowledge,
which means ingesting visionary plants to experience determinism, they really
just offer two debased distortions: Scholem accentuates debased literalist
distortion of theurgic/philosophical Jewish mysticism, and Idel accentuates
debased literalist distortion of ecstatic Jewish mysticism. Insofar as either
version of Jewish mysticism is authentic, it is just another equivalent
description of the same old universal perennial core religion, which is
entheogen determinism.
Same with the lopsided exaggerated scholarly distinction between Jewish
mysticism of "unity with God" versus the supposedly incompatible, different
Jewish mysticism of "ascent to a vision of the throne of the unknowable God in
the heavens". Sure, these are different systems — but the difference is
merely superficial, in comparison to the overwhelming sameness of the core,
which is entheogen determinism.
Same with the supposed "difference" between Christianity and Buddhism:
authentic Christianity and authentic Buddhism are merely two different
user-interface skins on the same underlying software: entheogen determinism,
which is what the perennial philosophy and perennial religion is actually all
about in its core.
The same with Hellenistic Jewish, Christian, and Pagan Mystery religions: they
are different cults, different cultic surfaces, of the same core engine of
religious initiation through use of visionary plants to experience and
discover and reconcile oneself with determinism.
Yes, academics should indeed be studying the differences between mythic
metaphor systems, but *as* a mere shallow difference, *as* a mere comparison
of two different metaphor systems for *the same essential thing* — entheogen
determinism. We academics must study the surface-level difference between
Coke and Pepsi, but also the deep sameness and equivalence of them.
The scope of the Gnosticism2 discussion group cannot possibly be gnosticism in
isolation; the only way to understand gnosticism is through a full
investigation of both the similarities and differences between the various
metaphor systems describing the experiential insights of the intense mystic
altered state.
— Michael Hoffman
http://www.egodeath.com — my simple original theory of the ego-death and
rebirth experience
___________________________________
—–Original Message—–
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/8819
From: pneumen_borealis
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 9:44 PM
To:
gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Answer to Job
…
> 1) How do you see salvation acheived in Gnosticism in general?
First an explanation of my understanding of salvation, or, if you may,
the attainment of eternal life. This means that the individual reaches
a psychological state and outlook that is unchangeable. even if
subjected to severe trauma . This is because the sum of past
experiences allow the events of life to be put into immediate
perspective because of some affective psychological mechanism (i.e.
emotional, intellectual, and spiritual function) that is so complex
that it is better suited to literary or allegorical description than
tp academic or intellectual analysis. Passing to this state feels like
you are "saved", because it makes the attitudes towards life of the
previous state seem like they were all based on falsehoods and
erroneous assumptions, a state that requires some apparant outside
force beyond your contriol to come to your rescue.
Gnosis refers to:
a) The blend of cognitive, emotional, and spiritual states that
support this unusual psychological stability;
b) The flash of illumination or slow evolutiuon that brings this state
about.
How is it achieved in Gnosticism?
I really do not know. If I knew, I certainly wouldn't be speculating
about it on the internet. I suppose and intellectual understanding of
the respective mythological systems and a certain devotional emotional
commitment to them (i.e. "faith") prepares you to recognize it when it
happens, but my understanding is that it happens spontaneously, or
through "the Grace of God". The details and conditions will be
intensely personal, and also specific to the culture and religious
tradition of the individual .
This is why I find Job interesting. It appears to offer a literary
case study of how gnosis plays out in a historical biblical setting.
With a little imagination, it is very easy to identify with Job, as it
is easy to identify with Sophia.
> 2) How is that expressed in Valentinian texts?
Primarily through literary and mythological allegory. It requires a
complex analysis in order to make intellectual sense of it. Because
it goes to the root of human experience,the most appropriate way of
analyzing it is to realate the imagery of these texts to personal
experience, and draw paralells between the two. Some objective,
universal psychological framework helps to put into perspective what
otherwise would be a highly subjective exercise. Jung provides an
one, but there are many others. You might say that Valentinian texts,
if examined for a psychological framework (a limiting but useful
interpretation), provide one as well. They obviously go beyond the
psychological dimension, though.
No intellectual analysis will ever do these texts justice as their use
of poetic allegory is much better suited to pointing out the universal
truth of the human condition.
> 3) Do you feel you personally agree with that expression?
>
Yes. This is just a subjective impression, but other gnostic texts
(or the ones I've read) often seem more intent on throwing out the Old
Testament for its own sake, as you say, rather than getting to the
heart of the matter. This could very well be because I haven't read
many, but I can't help but feel that it would be a far better exercise
to reinterpret past texts in light of new events. My impression is
that Gnostics differ from the Orthodox in that they see this as a
continous creative process, so that new layers of meaning are added to
old stories all the time. I reiterate that they would have found Job
very interesting. I would venture to say, however, that any commentary
probably went up in smoke in Alexandria, as did most of their
writings.
P.S. I read the Johannite article. Again, it suggests that from a
Gnostic point of view, gnosis itself is a universal phenomenon not
restircted to a particular time or tradition:
"From the discussion above it should be clear that using the term
'gnosis' to describe
Valentinian teaching is contrary to the use of the term by
the Valentinians themselves. Gnosis refers to mystical experiece and
is not restricted to a particular
group or period of history."
It would therefore seem very appropriate that the Bible be examined to
understand how gnosis was expressed in the Hebrew tradition. So I'll
do that now, making reference to the article to show that I understand
the definitions:
"Herakleon describes the psychic level of salvation as "believing from
human testimony" (Herakleon Fragment 39). Through pistis and psychic
salvation, one attained
to the level of the Demiurge. In order to be saved the
person had to freely chose to believe and to do good works (Irenaeus
Against Heresies 1:6:2). The psychic level of salvation was decisive
in that it
opened the person to the possibility of attaining the
pneumatic level. "
This decribes Job before his crisis of faith. He believes in human
testimony. Indeed, he declares after his confrontation with God
"Before, I heard of you". He believes, and is faultless in his good
works. This opened him up to the crisis that would bring him face to
face with God.
The article points out that the Valentinians saw this process of faith
as essential:
"The superior pneumatic level of salvation depends on the person
having already attained to the psychic level. As the Gospel of Philip
says, "No one can receive without faith" (GPhil 61:35-36)"
The pneumatic condition is also described:
"Herakleon described this as follows: "At first men believe in the
Savior because they are lead to that point by men, but
when they encounter his word they no longer believe because of human
testimony alone, but from the Truth itself" (Herakleon Fragment 39).
Through gnosis one could participate in and experience the
divine realm. Thats what the Gnostic doctrine of the resurrection
refers to: spiritual rebirth through mystical experience (gnosis). One
attained gnosis through the grace of God, not by choice. "
This is precisely what Job experiences. In the end, he believes in God
because of direct contact with the Divine. It renews his faith, making
it more mature than his previous piety. He attains it not by choice,
but because God decides to run him through the wringer and put him to
the test. Life's events drive him to despair, and it is only by a
since and deeply affective questioning of his faith that he arrives at
gnosis.
___________________________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/8824
From: pmcvflag
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:28 PM
To:
gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Gnosticism2] To the point, with Pneumen
Thank you Pneuman, … this is something we can really
interact and communicate with. I have hopes for this conversations
positive value for all of us invloved. To start with I ask
1) How do you see salvation acheived in Gnosticism in general?
your answer…
"First an explanation of my understanding of salvation, or, if you
may, the attainment of eternal life. This means that the individual
reaches a psychological state and outlook that is unchangeable. even
if subjected to severe trauma . This is because the sum of past
experiences allow the events of life to be put into immediate
perspective because of some affective psychological mechanism (i.e.
emotional, intellectual, and spiritual function) that is so complex
that it is better suited to literary or allegorical description than
tp academic or intellectual analysis. Passing to this state feels
like you are "saved", because it makes the attitudes towards life of
the previous state seem like they were all based on falsehoods and
erroneous assumptions, a state that requires some apparant outside
force beyond your contriol to come to your rescue."
As I was hoping, much of your observations certainly help us see
where you are comming from. Of course, eternal life is a
questionable goal when we are talking about Gnostic thought. I also
see another problem. You are very explicit to mention the "outside
force"…. but the Gnostic "Christ" is in fact NOT an outside force
at all. I think perhaps this is, in part, what caused me to be
confused by your previous posts. However, before I continue there…
you continue with…
"Gnosis refers to:
a) The blend of cognitive, emotional, and spiritual states that
support this unusual psychological stability;
b) The flash of illumination or slow evolutiuon that brings this
state about."
What then do you make of the observation in Thomas that "He who
finds will be troubled"? Your observations can certainly be applied
to eastern notions of enlightenment… but how sure are you that
they are the intent of Gnostic "Gnosis"? If Gnosis is the internal
recognition that one IS Christ, and thus connected to ones Father,
the Prime Source, and that recognition is an ongoing and growing
process, what is the value of some external redeemer to die for our
sins? AND, what is the value of being emotionally unchangable within
a growth process? This obviously brings us to the next point….
How is it achieved in Gnosticism?
"I really do not know. If I knew, I certainly wouldn't be speculating
about it on the internet. I suppose and intellectual understanding of
the respective mythological systems and a certain devotional
emotional commitment to them (i.e. "faith") prepares you to
recognize it when it happens, but my understanding is that it
happens spontaneously, or through "the Grace of God". The details
and conditions will be intensely personal, and also specific to the
culture and religious tradition of the individual."
According to the Valentinian sources, it is achieved through a
series of initiations that happen in a specific order. The Gospel of
Philip (which is Valentinian) is very much a text about this system
of initiation. It gives us brief looks at the levels of
understanding that it calls "Gentile, Hebrew, and Christian" (which
to the author are other terms for hylic, psychic, and pneumatic) and
even terms alluding to specific initiatory ceremonies that we also
see mentioned in other Valentinian sources… such as
the "Valentinian Exposition". E.G. The Baptism through the Bridal
Chamber.
2) How is that expressed in Valentinian texts?
Primarily through literary and mythological allegory. It requires a
complex analysis in order to make intellectual sense of it. Because
it goes to the root of human experience,the most appropriate way of
analyzing it is to realate the imagery of these texts to personal
experience, and draw paralells between the two. Some objective,
universal psychological framework helps to put into perspective what
otherwise would be a highly subjective exercise. Jung provides an
one, but there are many others. You might say that Valentinian texts,
if examined for a psychological framework (a limiting but useful
interpretation), provide one as well. They obviously go beyond the
psychological dimension, though.
No intellectual analysis will ever do these texts justice as their
use of poetic allegory is much better suited to pointing out the
universal truth of the human condition."
Agreed, however, the Valentinian texts also make clear that one mush
go through that psychic phase of understanding before they can move
on to the pneumatic. And before that, one must be the hylic.
Let me jump to the only thing that I still must take acception too…
"P.S. I read the Johannite article. Again, it suggests that from a
Gnostic point of view, gnosis itself is a universal phenomenon not
restircted to a particular time or tradition:
'From the discussion above it should be clear that using the term
'gnosis' to describe Valentinian teaching is contrary to the use of
the term by the Valentinians themselves. Gnosis refers to mystical
experiece and is not restricted to a particular group or period of
history.'"
This is false, both academically, and for the purpose of this club.
Gnosticism is a term invented by academics to refer to the emphasis
placed on the invention of an idea called "Gnosis" amongst some
Platonic groups. While the Gnostics certainly viewed thier principle
as universal, it does not mean anyone else in any other culture
forwarded an idea that directly equates with it. In fact, the
specific form and function of what the Gnostics called "Gnosis" was
found by some to be repulsive enough to kill over.
More to the point though, this club does not deal with how we can
hypothetically apply the term "gnosis" to various forms
of "enlightenment" in other systems. This club ONLY deals with the
definition that comes from that academicly invented category that
goes by the name of "Gnosticism". As you can see, this makes any
atttempt to broaden "Gnosis" into an archetypal image into something
other than what this club is about.
You go on to point out various things that are interesting… but
this post is getting overly long. Let me jump right to the end…
"Life's events drive him (Job) to despair, and it is only by a
since and deeply affective questioning of his faith that he arrives
at gnosis"
The question here would be whether that is Gnosis. Since "Gnosis" is
a Greek/Platonic principle, developed (in this case) more
specifically into a sort of trade lingo (meaning more than just the
basic Greek word in and of itself), why should we apply that term to
a writing that may not have the same philosophical context? Does he
gain a knowledge of god beyond what he started with? SURE… is that
alone "Gnosis"? No!!! If we call any notion of spiritual
maturing "Gnosis" then we also have to apply the term to any and
every religion on the face of the earth that has some notion of
spiritual growth and experience of the divine. Since we already have
words to help us describe those effects, such as "esotericism"
and "mysticism", we don't need another…. and we don't need to
loose those special qualiteis that the Gnostics attributed
to "Gnosis" in order to expand our usage to people simply based on
SOME similarities, when there are also important differences.
PMCV
Egodeath Yahoo Group 