Gnosticism and Death

[ELoWolfe]

I just reactivated by Facebook account after a year of deactivating it, and during the process of catching up, I found a friend from college had died unexpectedly (as I am sure most deaths are). It got me thinking this morning about death and how various faiths deal with it.

I know this is an issue for the NeoPagan community, as their members are now reaching a maturity that they have to deal with issues such as death and children. And it is something the Gnostic community is coming to deal with. But I wonder what individual members feel about it.

The Orphites and Valentinians had the three structures of humanity that has been discussed a lot on this board: the Hylic; the Psychic; and the Pneumatic. And for a while, I was accepting of these. I thought of the Hylics as, truthfully, the scornful and horrible of humanity. They were the serial killers, the rapists and those filled with hate. They were easy to see as almost less-than-human. They were the classical "other," that deserved scorn.

But while I compartmentalized these people to human pariahs, they were still humans. They still had mothers who loved them, and they were still loved themselves. If God is love, as said in the scriptures, and whoever loves their brothers and sisters is in the light, then as long as these horrible people loved someone else (no matter their own crime), they are, technically, not hylic. Are they?

I make this distinction because to the early Gnostics, the Hylics were those who did not (and could not) accept the truth. To the earliest Gnostics, these would probably have been the majority of civilization, in the cities and rural areas. And these people supposedly had no light in them and everything about them would perish when they died. In contemporary times, we would probably say this group is the atheists.

Now my friend was no pariah, but he certainly wasn't a believer. He chose not to believe, but he was not a bad person. He laughed; he loved; he was loved; but he did not care to know God. With his death, he will tragically be forgotten in history (as will the majority of people). But is he gone - never saved?

I once had a vision of a paradise, where those who did not know yet were still good people lived together and received teachings from the Pleroma every day. When they received their fill, they entered the Pleroma themselves.

I guess I am trying to come to an understanding about the reality of the situation about death. It is one thing to read, and say, someone or a group of people are not going to find salvation. But when it comes to the reality of the situation, the real grim experience of it, does it still make sense? Intellectual and emotional seem to be counter from each other.

It is difficult.

So, with death and our mortal expiration... what is your take on it? Do you believe the traditional thoughts of Gnostics? Is it harsher or gentler? Do you believe in something else?

 

[frangipani]

I just reactivated by Facebook account after a year of deactivating it, and during the process of catching up, I found a friend from college had died unexpectedly (as I am sure most deaths are). It got me thinking this morning about death and how various faiths deal with it.

I know this is an issue for the NeoPagan community, as their members are now reaching a maturity that they have to deal with issues such as death and children. And it is something the Gnostic community is coming to deal with. But I wonder what individual members feel about it.

The Orphites and Valentinians had the three structures of humanity that has been discussed a lot on this board: the Hylic; the Psychic; and the Pneumatic. And for a while, I was accepting of these. I thought of the Hylics as, truthfully, the scornful and horrible of humanity. They were the serial killers, the rapists and those filled with hate. They were easy to see as almost less-than-human. They were the classical "other," that deserved scorn.

But while I compartmentalized these people to human pariahs, they were still humans. They still had mothers who loved them, and they were still loved themselves. If God is love, as said in the scriptures, and whoever loves their brothers and sisters is in the light, then as long as these horrible people loved someone else (no matter their own crime), they are, technically, not hylic. Are they?

I make this distinction because to the early Gnostics, the Hylics were those who did not (and could not) accept the truth. To the earliest Gnostics, these would probably have been the majority of civilization, in the cities and rural areas. And these people supposedly had no light in them and everything about them would perish when they died. In contemporary times, we would probably say this group is the atheists.

Now my friend was no pariah, but he certainly wasn't a believer. He chose not to believe, but he was not a bad person. He laughed; he loved; he was loved; but he did not care to know God. With his death, he will tragically be forgotten in history (as will the majority of people). But is he gone - never saved?

I once had a vision of a paradise, where those who did not know yet were still good people lived together and received teachings from the Pleroma every day. When they received their fill, they entered the Pleroma themselves.

I guess I am trying to come to an understanding about the reality of the situation about death. It is one thing to read, and say, someone or a group of people are not going to find salvation. But when it comes to the reality of the situation, the real grim experience of it, does it still make sense? Intellectual and emotional seem to be counter from each other.

It is difficult.

So, with death and our mortal expiration... what is your take on it? Do you believe the traditional thoughts of Gnostics? Is it harsher or gentler? Do you believe in something else?

I am saddened for your loss, and know only too well the emotional pain associated with such a loss. I know we would like to believe every good person goes to heaven, but that is just a religious fairy tale. I don't want to be insensitive with this reply, but just answer your query as I believe honestly. I think it is sad billions of people over the years die without true Gnosis. True Gnosis is what Christ came here to teach us through His life. It is true Gnosis that gives our immortal soul a lifeline to the Pleroma. True Gnosis is realised in each of us when we experience the revelation of seeing ourselves as what we really are - Living Thought Energy - a spirit, and see ourselves for who we truly are - a culmination of thoughts that make us the person we are. It is at this point we become enlightened and can change our thought structure through the teachings of Christ, because people (not all) have that inherited Spark from the All through the Demiurge who had it through Sophia, even though supressed by the Demiurges creation (including our instinctual being) can be rekindled and brought out in us and grow. This is what the teachings of Christ are and this is the rebirth of spirit that brings salvation. It is a state of mind, soul and spirit that is in harmony with the Pleroma and therefore once the burden of the physical life is shed can be redeemed. Sadly few find it and billions after leaving this world, find they cannot see the Pleroma only what they have left behind for a time and the void, whether or not they see each other in the void I don't know. That is the outer darkness, the second death and it is fact, but sad. Christ came not to save the world but those out of it who were His (like minded to Him) and while He gave us the way and the truth He did not force it upon us, each of us chooses what we believe. Some people just never give it much thought living in this world even though really decent people, they live for this world and at days end they die with a soul, mind and spirit developed only from feeding on the world around them while they were here. We, are after all the sum total of our thoughts.
Finally: the Hylic; the Psychic; and the Pneumatic. Hylic - sociopathy (no soul). Psychic - those of us with the spark and finding Gnosis (the faithful) Pneumatic - Those with a higher purpose born with Gnosis and aware of their true selves from the beginning (probably patiently waiting for their earthly race to be run).
Hope this helps answer your questions.

 

[nazz]

I really want to comment on this but I've been rather busy. I'll be back...

 

[ELoWolfe]

I look forward to your reply, nazz. I hope my further comment doesn't hinder it at all.

Thank you, frangipani. Sometimes, you have to hear the truth to accept it, even when you know it deep inside.

But what do you think about marriage in relation to death? For example, while I may be Psychic and hopefully find entrance to the Pleroma, my husband is not. He was formerly a Wiccan and at the moment seems to be Agnostic (at best).

But Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Do you think that means they will be saved as well, thanks to the grace afforded to the believing spouse?

I know Jesus spoke on divorce. Matthew 19:6: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’" Further, in Luke, Jesus mentions that in the resurrection, there will be no marriage. I know the Teachings of Phillip mentions marriage a lot (saying it is a blessing and good), but this is because the symbolic union between our divine twin and ourselves. It is, I suppose, a reason why there is no "marriage" in heaven.

But I think of the story of Jonathan and David. 1 Samuel 18:1: "After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself."

Now correct me in my thoughts, but I take everything to mean this:

It is through love that we are united. There are several degrees of love, but Marriage implies complete union - just the way the Divine Marriage is the union of the pleroma and ourselves. But in "this age," as Jesus says, there is also a union of souls that happens with such a deep love. Outwards marriage makes a union of flesh, but inward marriage makes a union of the soul.

So if one of the two in an inward union receives the grace of gnosis, the pair is validated and saved because of their knit souls.

Why not divorce? Because you have the chance of damaging, and condemning, a spark of the divine that is free to join the pleroma. Such an act, I think, would in turn remove the love and grace that you were given, since you pulled away from another spark. Now if they don't have gnosis, and decide to pull away, that is their decision. An act of adultery ruptures this union, a condemnable act according to Jesus. I don't think that means it can't be forgiven and reconciled; just that it tears at the fabric of the union.

Why would it be better to remain single, like Paul or Jesus? I suppose because some marriages won't produce that union. To quote Jesus, Matthew 7:5: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Ensure your own grace before you attempt to confer that grace to another. If you receive the grace after the marriage, keep it. Before? Stay as you are. Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." You can save others without having to marry them.

In regards to the children, since Paul mentioned them, it would be because you teach them the ways of gnosis so they can better receive it. Not everyone will though, and you will have your prodigal sons. That is their choices; not yours. When they're born, and raised, they are holy. I think.

But what do you think (any reader): is the spouse of a gnostic saved as well, or will the two be separated upon death (even though God united)?

 

[frangipani]

A very interesting post. This is an issue I have often contemplated myself. My husband and I are soul partners we have a bond unlike any other married couple we know of. To better understand our bond one could say I am him and he is me, the two truly are one in spirit separated only by the bodies we occupy. As you know the word marriage simply means two becoming one. A modern analogy is arc welding where two pieces of steel are joined by the intervention of the welder and the two become one. For this to happen and the welders intervention to take effect and create a strong bond both pieces of steel need not be the same size, shape, weight or age but both must be fundamentally of the same substance. I believe that when our bodies expire the souls of the faithful are redeemed to the Ineffable One and because they are like minded to Christ but now free of the body they are perfected and become one in the Pleroma with Christ. I believe in the case of an unbelieving partner where the two people are soul partners separated by the bodies that it is possible for the unbelieving partner to be redeemed where their unbelief is because of the burdens of the body are overwhelming their spark of Truth. I think this because one who possesses Gnosis could not have a bond with one who does not have that fundamental inherited spark from the Ineffable One. In the spiritual realm where there is neither male nor female the marriage is the complete bond between all like minded souls to that of Christ and two definitely become one as indeed all become one with Christ. In essence none of us lose ourselves nor our soul partners but become part of a much greater bond that encompasses all that we are and all that our soul partners are in an overwhelming bond of unity.

 

[nazz]

The Orphites and Valentinians had the three structures of humanity that has been discussed a lot on this board: the Hylic; the Psychic; and the Pneumatic. And for a while, I was accepting of these. I thought of the Hylics as, truthfully, the scornful and horrible of humanity. They were the serial killers, the rapists and those filled with hate. They were easy to see as almost less-than-human. They were the classical "other," that deserved scorn.

But while I compartmentalized these people to human pariahs, they were still humans. They still had mothers who loved them, and they were still loved themselves. If God is love, as said in the scriptures, and whoever loves their brothers and sisters is in the light, then as long as these horrible people loved someone else (no matter their own crime), they are, technically, not hylic. Are they?

I think we should avoid compartmentalizing people in this manner. For one thing it is not really are place to judge anyway. I think the three categories are meant as generalities which apply to various inclinations. I don't think there are set in stone hard lines between groups. The characteristics of the hylical nature include being mainly focused on materialistic gain--money, possessions, and sensual pleasures. A conscience that is dull (or non-existent) and a willingness to sacrifice anything to achieve one's physical desires. Little to no interest in intellectual pursuits, emotionally flat and not exhibiting any depth of feeling or appreciation of the finer things of life. Unconcerned with matters of the soul.

The characteristics of the psychical nature are these: the conscience is more developed. There is less attachment to the material realm and the primary focus is on the matters of the soul. An ability to feel emotion very deeply and and a heightened aesthetic sense. The psychical approach to religious matters is from an intellectual or emotional perspective.

And finally the characteristics of the pneumatical nature are a spirit that is fully quickened and united with the Divine Being. The pneumatic approach to spirituality is mystical in nature rather than just intellectual or emotional.

But the point is this. One individual person may exhibit signs of all three categories to one degree or another and there may be many shades of grey between. So if we are to categorize people at all it would only be a generalization based on the most prominent. Just because someone may experience an activation of their pneumatic nature does not mean they will have zero interest in the intellectual, emotional, or physical aspects of life.

I make this distinction because to the early Gnostics, the Hylics were those who did not (and could not) accept the truth. To the earliest Gnostics, these would probably have been the majority of civilization, in the cities and rural areas. And these people supposedly had no light in them and everything about them would perish when they died. In contemporary times, we would probably say this group is the atheists.

Not necessarily in my opinion. It really depends on the individual as I noted above. Spiritual sensitivity is not completely absent in all atheists and they certainly can exhibit a strong psychical nature.

Now my friend was no pariah, but he certainly wasn't a believer. He chose not to believe, but he was not a bad person. He laughed; he loved; he was loved; but he did not care to know God. With his death, he will tragically be forgotten in history (as will the majority of people). But is he gone - never saved?

My hope is that no one is completely lost. That there is always the chance they can reach out to God. But I do think it gets harder and harder and there may indeed come a point where it becomes impossible for them. Scripture speaks of the Abyss and the Bottomless Pit. I have peered over the edge of that before and it is the most horrible thing to behold. A place of utter despair. I liken it to a black hole where not even light can escape. So perhaps if people cross over that "event horizon" there is no coming back.

Jesus said, "For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him." I think this is applicable to this situation. The more we seek after the Spirit the more we receive from God. But when we turn in the opposite direction we lose what little we had before.

I once had a vision of a paradise, where those who did not know yet were still good people lived together and received teachings from the Pleroma every day. When they received their fill, they entered the Pleroma themselves.

I believe there are many levels between this aeon and the Pleroma. We must pass through all of them to reach our home being purified in the process.

So, with death and our mortal expiration... what is your take on it? Do you believe the traditional thoughts of Gnostics? Is it harsher or gentler? Do you believe in something else?

I think there are many degrees both harsh and gentle.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

God is all, and all is in God. We are all inherently divine, but some personalities will take many thousands of years and lifetimes before they listen up.

Its okay because we all get "there". No time restrictions, if not in this life maybe the next.

 

[theosis]

I'm sorry for your loss. I recently lost a family but I can take no solace in religion because there is no afterlife. If you read the Hebrew Bible (or if you read the NT correctly too), you'll see that there is no such thing as Heaven. Sheol is a state of non-existence.

 

[ELoWolfe]

To look at people and not think to judge them is a radical concept more pronounced in our modern worldview. I would say with certainty that, in a world where religion was less tolerated and more meaningful (on a global scale, no individual), the Gnostics did compartmentalize people.

I personally don't like the distinction of three people. Instead, I have come up with a personal 5-person system. I wont bore anyone with the description here, but it rests on the idea that I don't think humanity is all that evil. I disagree with the ancient Gnostics there.

If we were to stick to the three-person categories, though, I would definitely consider Atheists as Hylic. Not because they're bad people, but because they have shut themselves off from the divine. To use a metaphor, pneumatics have the faucet turned on; psychics have it dripping (to various degrees); hylics have no water. The sink could be beautiful, the faucet itself wonderful and good, but without the water...

But again, I don't know if I would agree with absolute destruction of the soul in such regard. I believe in more universalism. The hylics who are good but shut themselves off, I think, are in Sheol, sleeping and essentially dead but not destroyed. I do agree with the black hole event horizon though - my own vision had just that. Ironically, it was Lucifer who stood at the gate in a last effort to save souls. Except he wasn't the Prince of Evil, but a "Jailer of the Damned," a job he has no joy in keeping.

But I enjoy the universalism and hope that you, nazz and Contemplative Cat, has. I hold it too. To various degrees.

theosis, Samuel was raised by the Witch of Endor from Sheol. And Jesus mentions Lazarus and the Rich Man (Dives) after death. So from a theological point of view, there is an afterlife, except there is disagreements with what it is (perhaps).

 

[nazz]

To look at people and not think to judge them is a radical concept more pronounced in our modern worldview. I would say with certainty that, in a world where religion was less tolerated and more meaningful (on a global scale, no individual), the Gnostics did compartmentalize people.

I personally don't like the distinction of three people. Instead, I have come up with a personal 5-person system. I wont bore anyone with the description here, but it rests on the idea that I don't think humanity is all that evil. I disagree with the ancient Gnostics there.

If we were to stick to the three-person categories, though, I would definitely consider Atheists as Hylic. Not because they're bad people, but because they have shut themselves off from the divine. To use a metaphor, pneumatics have the faucet turned on; psychics have it dripping (to various degrees); hylics have no water. The sink could be beautiful, the faucet itself wonderful and good, but without the water...

But again, I don't know if I would agree with absolute destruction of the soul in such regard. I believe in more universalism. The hylics who are good but shut themselves off, I think, are in Sheol, sleeping and essentially dead but not destroyed. I do agree with the black hole event horizon though - my own vision had just that. Ironically, it was Lucifer who stood at the gate in a last effort to save souls. Except he wasn't the Prince of Evil, but a "Jailer of the Damned," a job he has no joy in keeping.

But I enjoy the universalism and hope that you, nazz and Contemplative Cat, has. I hold it too. To various degrees.

theosis, Samuel was raised by the Witch of Endor from Sheol. And Jesus mentions Lazarus and the Rich Man (Dives) after death. So from a theological point of view, there is an afterlife, except there is disagreements with what it is (perhaps).

It's good to bounce differing ideas off one another. It's not that one is right and the other wrong but just different perspectives. Thanks for sharing