Christ necessary for gnostics?

[biased]

What does it mean to be "One with THE one" exactly? Whose version of how to achieve this "oneness" is correct? Which sect? Which text contains/contained the right mysteries/secrets to be decoded? How does one achieve the intended meaning? How do we free ourselves from the reign of the dark archons? What shall do we with all the Gnostic texts that imply Jesus held the key to the secrets to unlocking all these questions? Does achieving Gnosis involve distancing oneself from THE God as well?

Not him but I simply think that poster is referring to the non-dual mystical experience. It is not limited to sects or religions, it is an experience one has either spontaneously, through the use of various psychoactive sacraments or through various forms of meditation and prayer. What makes you think there is an intended meaning? It could simply just to be, experience the moment of clarity for what it is.

The dark archons are personifications of the passions we all struggle with.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Christ is not necessary but coming from a western Christian (Catholic) background following his teachings is much more receptive to my natural state of mind or the way I've been conditioned than some of the more obscure Bodhisattvas and gnostic sages. I find reading Christian mystics to be quite palpable in this same sense.

Ultimately, any messenger who points the way can be substituted but being from the West like I suspect most of us here are we find a natural affinity for Jesus Christ.

No, I agree with you.

I was more so commenting on the idea that one "gnosis" is more "pure" than another.

That is impossible.

 

[Shermana]

Not him but I simply think that poster is referring to the non-dual mystical experience. It is not limited to sects or religions, it is an experience one has either spontaneously, through the use of various psychoactive sacraments or through various forms of meditation and prayer. What makes you think there is an intended meaning? It could simply just to be, experience the moment of clarity for what it is.

The dark archons are personifications of the passions we all struggle with.

I'm not sure if there's any indication that the ancient Gnostics didn't regard the archons as real beings, and it seems they did in fact view them as actual powers and beings. Likewise I don't see how the texts indicate that the archons were such either. I'd say that's more of a modern revisionist approach that had no historic precedent.

When you ask me what makes me think the texts have an intended meaning, maybe because that's how all such religious and spiritual literature was back then? Are you saying that they did NOT have an intended meaning? What makes you think they didn't and were exceptions to the rule? How would one read the Gnostic texts and not think that they had intended meanings?

What kind of "experience" do you think this involves exactly? What particularly do you think the psychoactive "Sacraments" did to induce this "experience"? Are we talking like Mushrooms? I certainly agree that certain Entheogens can give a feeling-based "experience" of achieving Oneness and "understanding", but I'm not quite sure if that's the same type of Gnosis the early Gnostics were aiming for.

 

[Shermana]

No, I agree with you.

I was more so commenting on the idea that one "gnosis" is more "pure" than another.

That is impossible.

Explain some of the different kinds of "Gnosis"es please.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Explain some of the different kinds of "Gnosis"es please.

I don't know. I was responding to these quotes:

Well no. Gnosticism is a reform movement that arose from the incorporation of the Hellenic Mystery religions meshing with Christianity. In reality true Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity and I tie it in more with the thought of the Olympians. As they are the perfect examples of what true Gnosticism is.

Gnosticism is not a religion of prophecy but a theology of wisdom. Dogma and creed have no place in it

My point exactly. Gnosticism is just a reemergence of old practices meshed into Christianity. Syncretism has occurred a lot through history. Personally I believe the further you remove Gnosticism away from Christianity or any form of religious dogma the purer the form

 

[nazz]

Gnosis is the means by which a soul can be liberated from bondage in the physical world. That liberation entails ascending/returning to the Pleroma which depending on how one interprets that could mean becoming one with God--at-one-ment.

 

[biased]

I'm not sure if there's any indication that the ancient Gnostics didn't regard the archons as real beings, and it seems they did in fact view them as actual powers and beings. Likewise I don't see how the texts indicate that the archons were such either. I'd say that's more of a modern revisionist approach that had no historic precedent.

When you ask me what makes me think the texts have an intended meaning, maybe because that's how all such religious and spiritual literature was back then? Are you saying that they did NOT have an intended meaning? What makes you think they didn't and were exceptions to the rule? How would one read the Gnostic texts and not think that they had intended meanings?

What kind of "experience" do you think this involves exactly? What particularly do you think the psychoactive "Sacraments" did to induce this "experience"? Are we talking like Mushrooms? I certainly agree that certain Entheogens can give a feeling-based "experience" of achieving Oneness and "understanding", but I'm not quite sure if that's the same type of Gnosis the early Gnostics were aiming for.

Perhaps the ancient gnostics did view them as literal beings perhaps they did not. When I said intended meaning I guess I was referring more a very literalistic and rigid interpretation. I tend to view the gnostic texts as more of a finger pointing at the moon rather then getting hung up on arbitrary details that ultimately matter very little in an everchanging world.

The experience is not one that comes easily to words. The psychoactives are a catalyst perhaps an intiation rite of some sort, mushrooms could have been one of them. John Allegro has a theory about that in a book titled the Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, I haven't read it but I've read a brief synopsis of it referring to aminitas but many other cultures used other psychoactive sacraments such as the elusive soma and ergot from the elusinian mysteries. I also had in mind a more contemporary worldview though it does have some history.

What I read in the gnostic texts has personally aligned with my own experience with these entheogens especially the universal sense of Oneness. It is the blurring of subject and object. Your mileage obviously varies but that's my take on it.

 

[Shermana]

Gnosis is the means by which a soul can be liberated from bondage in the physical world. That liberation entails ascending/returning to the Pleroma which depending on how one interprets that could mean becoming one with God--at-one-ment.

And what kind of bondage exactly? How does one liberate themselves from this cycle of incarnations and how do they achieve this Gnosis?

 

[nazz]

And what kind of bondage exactly?

Encased in physical bodies within a physical world with all the attendant suffering that entails.

How does one liberate themselves from this cycle of incarnations and how do they achieve this Gnosis?

Through knowledge of God that comes through revelation and by means of spiritual transformation.

 

[Shermana]

Encased in physical bodies within a physical world with all the attendant suffering that entails.

Well that I agree with...to an extent.

Through knowledge of God that comes through revelation and by means of spiritual transformation

So who does God reveal himself to, and what is the method of this Spiritual transformation involved, especially if Christ is not involved? What if such revelation had to do with the Law given to the Israelites so that they would become so disciplined to be "Spiritually transformed"? Each Gnostic sect had different ideas about how this happened, so how do we know who had the right idea?

 

[nazz]

So who does God reveal himself to, and what is the method of this Spiritual transformation involved, especially if Christ is not involved?

I think Christ is not only involved but necessary

What if such revelation had to do with the Law given to the Israelites so that they would become so disciplined to be "Spiritually transformed"? Each Gnostic sect had different ideas about how this happened, so how do we know who had the right idea?

Well I agree with Paul there is no salvation through the law.

 

[vtunie]

So what is Gnosis in the first place? ....

How do we free ourselves from the reign of the dark archons?

Does achieving Gnosis involve distancing oneself from THE God as well?

Or does it involve achieving oneness through obeying His will and avoiding impurity and spiritual contamination like some of the most early Gnostics did?

Gnosis is the direct knowledge of the reasons why and (I believe with much greater difficulty) the agents which.

Therefore NO, and POSSIBLY YES.

The other questions, I think, perhaps risk playing the too much of the game of definitions.

 

[Shermana]

Gnosis is the direct knowledge of the reasons why and (I believe with much greater difficulty) the agents which.

Therefore NO, and POSSIBLY YES.

The other questions, I think, perhaps risk playing the too much of the game of definitions.

Well, in the Pistis Sophia, there is not just one Gnosis, but there are several Gnoses, learning each of the "mysteries" is its own Gnosis, part of the greater understanding of how the Cosmological structure works. To attain salvation, one must have more than just such "Gnosis" but they must live a very pure and strict life and be able to identify the mysterious identifications of the writings of the Psalms and the now-lost "Odes" to their Creation "myth" and be able to identify how it relates to the cycle of each human's life, from the example of Sophia.

Gnosis is more than just a way of saying "Achieving oneness with God", I don't think even the opposite-minded Sethians held such a concept. To all the Gnostic groups (as far as we know from the writings of the particular sects), achieving such union was the RESULT of achieving Gnosis.

The "game of definitions" is extremely important. If we don't know what the terms means when we discuss them, we are simply making empty talk that has no real purpose or meaning. Semantics are always important when it comes to the details.

But whose idea of "Gnosis" or rather, Gnoses was correct? That's the real mystery. Besides the "mysteries of the Mysteries" of the Gnoses of course.