Two Different Approaches to Knowing God...

[Sunstone]

Please Note: This thread is in the Mysticism DIR.

I have heard that the ancient Greeks distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: Logos and gnosis. Logos was intellectual knowledge, non-participatory knowledge. It was the sort of knowledge you might get from reading a book on human sexuality. Gnosis, however, was hands-on, or how-to knowledge. It was participatory knowledge, the sort of knowledge you might get from participating in an actual sexual act, rather than just reading a book about it.

I find the distinction between logos and gnosis somewhat useful when thinking about what it means to know god. Of course, by "god" I do not necessarily mean here an actual deity. Instead, I mean the content of the mystical experience*. Some people say that content is an actual deity. Others say it is not. About whether it is or isn't, I myself am agnostic.

Now, the core question I have is this: What, if anything, is the effect or impact of knowing god in the sense of logos on knowing god in the sense of gnosis? Put differently, does knowledge (logos) of god have consequences for knowledge (gnosis) of god?

Some would say yes. Among those who say yes, there are apparently many who believe that logos of god furthers the likelihood of obtaining gnosis, or experience, so to speak, of god. e.g. I read and understand the notion that god is the ultimate source of reality, or that god is my savior, and by doing so, I become "closer to god".

Others would say no, that logos of god has little or nothing to do with gnosis of god. Jiddu Krishnamurti, and apparently at least some Zen teachers, even go so far as to say that logos of god impairs or hinders one's odds of obtaining gnosis of god.

But what do you think?

A second question, which I find even more interesting than the first, is what, if anything, are the similarities and differences between logos of god and gnosis of god?

*The mystical experience being referred to here is the one in which the subject/object division of ordinary consciousness abruptly breaks down resulting in an undifferentiated field of awareness in which "all things become one"

 

[Jumi]

I find that the logos god tends to rule people who want rules set for themselves and others, where as the gnosis god frees us to be ourselves. To me the two don't seem to share much, though some seem to find the gnosis god in logos god, freeing themselves from the texts. The opposite is also true, some find the gnosis god and abandon it for the logos god.

 

[YmirGF]

Without the gnosis part there is only the empty speculation of logos. In my own experience, the gnosis aspect turned everything I thought I knew on its pointy little head. I quickly understood the books professing to know so much, knew precious little, to the point of making some assumptions about reality utterly hilarious and endlessly laughable.

One wonders how many of these absurdities actually gained traction, but one doesn't need to look much further than the good Prof. Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians", really, to understand why. Some folks need pat answers and an authority figure to follow. The gnostic follows their own inclinations and are trail-blazers rather than followers. They simply don't need the books to tell them what is what. They see it, experience it and laugh in that knowing...

 

[Vinayaka]

For me there is only gnosis as a reality. Logos end in words, whereas gnosis goes away beyond words. I would agree with Krishnamurthi that logos hinders gnosis, yet he seemed to fall into the same trap. Talking about not talking is still talking. Talking about God is a mystery for the mystic. Talking, discussing, debate, puts it all into the intellect.

There was a meeting between two great mystics, Sage Yogaswami of Jaffna, and Sri Ramana Maharshi, the sage of Arunachala. Upon meeting, they just sat down together for the afternoon, neither saying a word. When asked by a devotee later why they hadn't even spoken a single word, Yogaswami responded, 'Nothing to say.' That pretty much sums it up for me. Now ... how to get to that experience, or as some would say, the great non-experience, yes, words can be used to map the route.

 

[Windwalker]

Great goglimogli! Those are huge and complex questions! I love it!! The only fear I have is how much time do I want to invest in a post, and how much time do you have to take the time to read it and tease apart everything in it? Hmmmm.... let me process this. I love the questions as there is much to say to them!

 

[GodsVoice]

Please Note: This thread is in the Mysticism DIR.

I have heard that the ancient Greeks distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: Logos and gnosis. Logos was intellectual knowledge, non-participatory knowledge. It was the sort of knowledge you might get from reading a book on human sexuality. Gnosis, however, was hands-on, or how-to knowledge. It was participatory knowledge, the sort of knowledge you might get from participating in an actual sexual act, rather than just reading a book about it.

I find the distinction between logos and gnosis somewhat useful when thinking about what it means to know god. Of course, by "god" I do not necessarily mean here an actual deity. Instead, I mean the content of the mystical experience*. Some people say that content is an actual deity. Others say it is not. About whether it is or isn't, I myself am agnostic.

Now, the core question I have is this: What, if anything, is the effect or impact of knowing god in the sense of logos on knowing god in the sense of gnosis? Put differently, does knowledge (logos) of god have consequences for knowledge (gnosis) of god?

Some would say yes. Among those who say yes, there are apparently many who believe that logos of god furthers the likelihood of obtaining gnosis, or experience, so to speak, of god. e.g. I read and understand the notion that god is the ultimate source of reality, or that god is my savior, and by doing so, I become "closer to god".

Others would say no, that logos of god has little or nothing to do with gnosis of god. Jiddu Krishnamurti, and apparently at least some Zen teachers, even go so far as to say that logos of god impairs or hinders one's odds of obtaining gnosis of god.

But what do you think?

A second question, which I find even more interesting than the first, is what, if anything, are the similarities and differences between logos of god and gnosis of god?

*The mystical experience being referred to here is the one in which the subject/object division of ordinary consciousness abruptly breaks down resulting in an undifferentiated field of awareness in which "all things become one"

It's a mystery to people how the MIND works but when you realize what the MIND is, then you will know what the voice is that you had to obey until you discovered the MIND, which is who God is. There are many ways in which God was revealed but it all started out one day when He spoke these words in my MIND, "I AM YOUR CREATOR". You would think that's all it would take to know that the MIND is God, the Creator but there is much more to it than just logical thinking.

 

[Windwalker]

Now, the core question I have is this: What, if anything, is the effect or impact of knowing god in the sense of logos on knowing god in the sense of gnosis? Put differently, does knowledge (logos) of god have consequences for knowledge (gnosis) of god?

I'm really going to try to not write an entire chapter of a book on this, so I'll see what I can do here.

Yes, it does have an effect. Most certainly. Everything we experience in life, whether it's interfacing with the world in our daily tasks and thoughts, are all simply one thing: mediated experience. Anything we experience as William James put it immediately splits into two parts; subject and object. Something happens and our mind instantly asks "What was that" (the objective reality of the experience), and "What does it mean" (the subjective reality of the experience).

In both of these cases of objective and subjective understanding we draw from our available symbol sets, through language and culture. These are all metaphors, "as if" representations for the world which our minds process and stick into our memories for us to process and digest, to puzzle over, integrate, or reject them. The symbol set we have available to us is what we will use when have a mystical experience. We must translate that raw experience into the "what was that," and "what does it mean" buckets in order for it to have any context for meaning to exist for us from it. That last sentence says it.

What language we translate that experience with, will in fact, unavoidably become part of that experience itself as it occurs, as this happens at the speed of neuron flashing. So the very second we enter into our normal dualistic state of reality, our typical "waking consciousness" state, the experience becomes imbued with the symbol of it. Our experience of it now is being held in this "structure" of our minds, that linguistic, symbolic structure that we hang our experiences on and finding truth and meaning in and through.

With me so far I assume? Now, lets say we are seeking an experience of God, not translating a current or past one. What influence does the symbol of God have on the experience itself as it happens to one who begins to experience it? Any? Again, I'd say yes. And here is where the why of it splits into two parallel parts.

First the expectation of the reality of the symbol will influence what is experienced at the outset since it carries itself with them into the experience. Secondly and more a factor I believe is that the type of symbol it is will shape the path the person takes to find it, which will drag all that symbolic meaning right along with into the experience as well. When the experience is moved into, how it will impress itself upon the mind will be in fact mediated through those very symbols. Hence, Krishna appears to Hindus, Jesus to Christians, and so forth. And all of that after the fact will then be committed memory imbued with what I mentioned at first in full circle.

But here's where I start to go deep with this. I'll get back the rest I want to say, for myself if for no one else I need to go play some music. My bansuri is calling to me to play a song to Krishna.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm really going to try to not write an entire chapter of a book on this, so I'll see what I can do here.

Yes, it does have an effect. Most certainly. Everything we experience in life, whether it's interfacing with the world in our daily tasks and thoughts, are all simply one thing: mediated experience. Anything we experience as William James put it immediately splits into two parts; subject and object. Something happens and our mind instantly asks "What was that" (the objective reality of the experience), and "What does it mean" (the subjective reality of the experience).

In both of these cases of objective and subjective understanding we draw from our available symbol sets, through language and culture. These are all metaphors, "as if" representations for the world which our minds process and stick into our memories for us to process and digest, to puzzle over, integrate, or reject them. The symbol set we have available to us is what we will use when have a mystical experience. We must translate that raw experience into the "what was that," and "what does it mean" buckets in order for it to have any context for meaning to exist for us from it. That last sentence says it.

What language we translate that experience with, will in fact, unavoidably become part of that experience itself as it occurs, as this happens at the speed of neuron flashing. So the very second we enter into our normal dualistic state of reality, our typical "waking consciousness" state, the experience becomes imbued with the symbol of it. Our experience of it now is being held in this "structure" of our minds, that linguistic, symbolic structure that we hang our experiences on and finding truth and meaning in and through.

With me so far I assume? Now, lets say we are seeking an experience of God, not translating a current or past one. What influence does the symbol of God have on the experience itself as it happens to one who begins to experience it? Any? Again, I'd say yes. And here is where the why of it splits into two parallel parts.

First the expectation of the reality of the symbol will influence what is experienced at the outset since it carries itself with them into the experience. Secondly and more a factor I believe is that the type of symbol it is will shape the path the person takes to find it, which will drag all that symbolic meaning right along with into the experience as well. When the experience is moved into, how it will impress itself upon the mind will be in fact mediated through those very symbols. Hence, Krishna appears to Hindus, Jesus to Christians, and so forth. And all of that after the fact will then be committed memory imbued with what I mentioned at first in full circle.

But here's where I start to go deep with this. I'll get back the rest I want to say, for myself if for no one else I need to go play some music. My bansuri is calling to me to play a song to Krishna.

A wonderful effort, WindyOne.

That said, part of the problem, as I see it is for those on the "outside, looking in". What you say applies very nicely from the standpoint of someone who has had experience with gnosis. Individuals who have had or enjoy the experience know well the pitfalls of elaborating on the experience as others who have no experience of gnosis really cannot conceive what the words are trying to convey. It is outside the realm of logos. If an individual who is "outside" reads the words of others on the "outside" they will glean very little useful information but will likely be successful in padding their own expectations on how things ought to be. Another tough nut to crack is determining who actually knows what they are talking about from those who do not.

 

[Windwalker]

A wonderful effort, WindyOne.

That said, part of the problem, as I see it is for those on the "outside, looking in". What you say applies very nicely from the standpoint of someone who has had experience with gnosis.

This is why I said it may take a lot for me to go into this. I did attempt to touch on the different sides of this, of those that have experienced it in contrast with those seeking it. Different things are going on in how the symbols are being understood. My post fell a little short of explaining that very well as I see it. To attempt to circle back around to that here...

Individuals who have had or enjoy the experience know well the pitfalls of elaborating on the experience as others who have no experience of gnosis really cannot conceive what the words are trying to convey.

Well, yes they can conceive of it, and that is the pitfall itself. It's in the realm of conceptions. But, and how I feel I have something different to say to this, this type of conception is not just philosophical or theoretical, but archetypal. That is far more influential and impactful than mere concepts. This is the part of this I didn't have a chance to get into much before.

Archetypal forms operate at a much deeper symbolic level, touching into opening someone to the transcendent itself within them through the signs of the images of the divine. It literally engages "faith" in them, which is a touch of the divine itself within. How well that manifests itself to them, beyond mental constructs of truth into the experience of that divine within is a matter of many factors and variables.

This is where the seeker lives. They live in the world of "faith". They hear the words of the mystics and the realized, and of course what they hear is a "glimpse", but it is a glimpse nonetheless because it inspired something within them, which is in fact that very something they seek! Once on the other side of that of course, such words have a vastly more opened context in which to look at them and understand them, like the many facets of a jewels turned in the sunlight of their own experience. Now, that faith is replaced by experience.

So do the words have meaning and value on that path? Certainly. They inspire the soul, and it is the soul they seek to see and know.

If an individual who is "outside" reads the words of others on the "outside" they will glean very little useful information but will likely be successful in padding their own expectations on how things ought to be.

I feel the pain here. Yes, teachers who preach the words of those with actual insight, while holding no more than a mere reflection themselves can be that proverbial "blind leading the blind". Such is the blight of all those who fall prey to the charismatic preacher who takes words of transcendence and stuff them into their unenlightened bag of narcissism which they hand out to others as enlightenment. Nonetheless, even so, there are those who can hear things that inspire the heart, despite the vile packages spewing them forth in a different context altogether.

How that happens, or can happen goes a lot deeper than I care to go right now.

Another tough nut to crack is determining who actually knows what they are talking about from those who do not.

Actually, I don't find that very hard. The contexts in which they speak will quickly expose their lack of awareness. I can "hear" those with experience, as well as those only guessing and thinking they know. You certainly get it, but we merely try to find our own unique ways to express our different perspectives on these things. But it's the same, for sure.

 

[Windwalker]

Without the gnosis part there is only the empty speculation of logos. In my own experience, the gnosis aspect turned everything I thought I knew on its pointy little head. I quickly understood the books professing to know so much, knew precious little, to the point of making some assumptions about reality utterly hilarious and endlessly laughable.

One wonders how many of these absurdities actually gained traction, but one doesn't need to look much further than the good Prof. Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians", really, to understand why. Some folks need pat answers and an authority figure to follow. The gnostic follows their own inclinations and are trail-blazers rather than followers. They simply don't need the books to tell them what is what. They see it, experience it and laugh in that knowing...

Ah, reading back at the posts I didn't see earlier. Here's what you mean by how do people know the difference when they heard the words of those with no experience versus those who do. I think you answered the question yourself. You did. So can others. It may not be simple. It may cause distress when things don't fit according to how you want them to, "believing" in them as authorities or experts on the subject, someone to give hope to the thirsty soul, and yet something seems "off".

But one thing here, I'm a big fan of the whole "authoritation", external deity or expert or guru, versus the whole introspective path. In the cognitive sciences they speak of this in terms of the strict-father home versus nurturant parent home. Those raised with the strict-father model tend to gravitate towards conservative values, as well as being very strong in seeing things in strict cause and effect relationships. Those raised in the nurturant parent homes tend to be much more progressive and liberal in values and see things much more in terms of systemic causation, that effects have a multiplicity of causes that work as a whole. They have much more introspective and holistic viewpoints they bring into this.

So, where I disagree here is that you can in fact have mystics who are very much the "strict-father" viewpoint, as well as those with the "nurturant parent" mindset. It really isn't a matter of growing past that mode or approach into the more holistic systemic causation mindset. That really doesn't happen without some major unseating of personality and upbringing. As hard as it may seem to wrap the mind around it, you can have very true mystics who see God as the Father you must obey. This all too is part of that symbolic set we bring into translating mystical experience.

 

[YmirGF]

So, where I disagree here is that you can in fact have mystics who are very much the "strict-father" viewpoint, as well as those with the "nurturant parent" mindset. It really isn't a matter of growing past that mode or approach into the more holistic systemic causation mindset. That really doesn't happen without some major unseating of personality and upbringing. As hard as it may seem to wrap the mind around it, you can have very true mystics who see God as the Father you must obey. This all too is part of that symbolic set we bring into translating mystical experience.

I can agree with this and instantly thought of the old English poet/mystic William Blake. The Christian symbolism was a cornerstone of his understanding and so it was quite natural for him to use it as the lens through which he offered his amazing insights.

So, though I do not share much enthusiasm for this type of concept morphing, I can see how it would create a bridge between understandings for those who are ready.

 

[GodsVoice]

This is why I said it may take a lot for me to go into this. I did attempt to touch on the different sides of this, of those that have experienced it in contrast with those seeking it. Different things are going on in how the symbols are being understood. My post fell a little short of explaining that very well as I see it. To attempt to circle back around to that here...


Well, yes they can conceive of it, and that is the pitfall itself. It's in the realm of conceptions. But, and how I feel I have something different to say to this, this type of conception is not just philosophical or theoretical, but archetypal. That is far more influential and impactful than mere concepts. This is the part of this I didn't have a chance to get into much before.

Archetypal forms operate at a much deeper symbolic level, touching into opening someone to the transcendent itself within them through the signs of the images of the divine. It literally engages "faith" in them, which is a touch of the divine itself within. How well that manifests itself to them, beyond mental constructs of truth into the experience of that divine within is a matter of many factors and variables.

This is where the seeker lives. They live in the world of "faith". They hear the words of the mystics and the realized, and of course what they hear is a "glimpse", but it is a glimpse nonetheless because it inspired something within them, which is in fact that very something they seek! Once on the other side of that of course, such words have a vastly more opened context in which to look at them and understand them, like the many facets of a jewels turned in the sunlight of their own experience. Now, that faith is replaced by experience.

So do the words have meaning and value on that path? Certainly. They inspire the soul, and it is the soul they seek to see and know.


I feel the pain here. Yes, teachers who preach the words of those with actual insight, while holding no more than a mere reflection themselves can be that proverbial "blind leading the blind". Such is the blight of all those who fall prey to the charismatic preacher who takes words of transcendence and stuff them into their unenlightened bag of narcissism which they hand out to others as enlightenment. Nonetheless, even so, there are those who can hear things that inspire the heart, despite the vile packages spewing them forth in a different context altogether.

How that happens, or can happen goes a lot deeper than I care to go right now.


Actually, I don't find that very hard. The contexts in which they speak will quickly expose their lack of awareness. I can "hear" those with experience, as well as those only guessing and thinking they know. You certainly get it, but we merely try to find our own unique ways to express our different perspectives on these things. But it's the same, for sure.

One mind is enough for us all, but most minds get confused.

There is only one but that one is hard to find. When you find that one, it is an easy one.

Give me a man who knows his God and I'll give you a spiritual man who is in God.

If you have something to give, then give it. If you don't have something to give, then don't give it. If you have everything, then you gave it all.

The life you think you have only deceives you of the life you can't see. That life is unthinkable until you're not deceived.

A few living in the Word of God will understand the Bible, but many will live in the Bible and not understand the Word of God.

 

[Orbit]

Please Note: This thread is in the Mysticism DIR.

I have heard that the ancient Greeks distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: Logos and gnosis. Logos was intellectual knowledge, non-participatory knowledge. It was the sort of knowledge you might get from reading a book on human sexuality. Gnosis, however, was hands-on, or how-to knowledge. It was participatory knowledge, the sort of knowledge you might get from participating in an actual sexual act, rather than just reading a book about it.

I find the distinction between logos and gnosis somewhat useful when thinking about what it means to know god. Of course, by "god" I do not necessarily mean here an actual deity. Instead, I mean the content of the mystical experience*. Some people say that content is an actual deity. Others say it is not. About whether it is or isn't, I myself am agnostic.

Now, the core question I have is this: What, if anything, is the effect or impact of knowing god in the sense of logos on knowing god in the sense of gnosis? Put differently, does knowledge (logos) of god have consequences for knowledge (gnosis) of god?

Some would say yes. Among those who say yes, there are apparently many who believe that logos of god furthers the likelihood of obtaining gnosis, or experience, so to speak, of god. e.g. I read and understand the notion that god is the ultimate source of reality, or that god is my savior, and by doing so, I become "closer to god".

Others would say no, that logos of god has little or nothing to do with gnosis of god. Jiddu Krishnamurti, and apparently at least some Zen teachers, even go so far as to say that logos of god impairs or hinders one's odds of obtaining gnosis of god.

But what do you think?



A second question, which I find even more interesting than the first, is what, if anything, are the similarities and differences between logos of god and gnosis of god?

*The mystical experience being referred to here is the one in which the subject/object division of ordinary consciousness abruptly breaks down resulting in an undifferentiated field of awareness in which "all things become one"

I think mysticism is about the direct experience of god, which, like your sex analogy, is way more fun than reading about it in a book.

 

[Windwalker]

I think mysticism is about the direct experience of god, which, like your sex analogy, is way more fun than reading about it in a book.

Hmmm... interesting analogy. Could you say then that only reading about mysticism can be likened to porn?

 

[The Graveyard Cowboy]

I always thought of the logos as mystical, like the Tao in Taoism. Gnosis was the capacity to grasp the true logos. Gnosis is a perceptual mechanism whereas logos is the true reality. I guess what I'm saying is that gnosis is the knowing and logos is what is being known.

 

[Windwalker]

I always thought of the logos as mystical, like the Tao in Taoism. Gnosis was the capacity to grasp the true logos. Gnosis is a perceptual mechanism whereas logos is the true reality. I guess what I'm saying is that gnosis is the knowing and logos is what is being known.

You may find some of my thoughts from before on this interesting. I explore it over several pages of discussion. Interested in your thoughts to my thoughts on this: Logos and Aum

 

[crossfire]

Gnosis is about reaching out into the "undiscovered country." Logos can serve as an anchor by which to return.
Gnosis is from travelling the territory. Logos is a map.

 

[PearlSeeker]

A ladder is useful for climbing to the roof (and going down) but once you are there, you don't need it.

Many people who had gnosis had directly or indirectly left their trace of wisdom. Sacred writings have more layers of meaning and message. More than it appears. Words can contain logos and gnosis. The problem is when we use it only to stay on the ladder and not going deeper. The same with theory and praxis.