Talk:Gnosticism/Archive 1

npov

the article obviously has a bias slant in its sympathy DanteDanti

Why don't not just fix it then? Also, provide examples if you want someone else to do it so we know what you're aiming at here. Your statement is sort of vague. The NPOV claim has been removed (though not by me). Nixdorf 08:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever added the neutrality-dispute markup tag to this article, discuss the matter here, don't just tag it as non-neutral. It will be removed unless you state your points here soon. Nixdorf 07:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Article violates Npov. sorry I wasnt logged in before. DanteDanti

This article is very large, would you please point out the part(s) you believe violates the NPOV so they can be fixed? Quote and reference or just edit the article to conform to the NPOV. Nixdorf 16:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

It would be far preferable to use the {{POV-section}} tag for those specific areas you feel violate NPOV. It's hard to guess where in the long article the problems are perceived to exist. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

"Article violates Npov" is the extent of the discussion? Is that really it, then? Are we to take this seriously? I certainly think not. --Wetman 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Too technical?

I dont believe that this is too technical, this isn't simple english wikipedia after all. just an anonymous usrs opinion.

I reverted the markup as "too technical" long ago, and I agree. Nixdorf 07:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist Influence?

Is there really any direct Buddhist influence with gnosticism? The only exchange between Buddhism and Hinduism with Western civilisation before the British visiting Asia was when Alexander the Great conquered parts of India. His successors in the Indo-Greek kingdom were influenced by Buddhism, and possibly spread it back west, and King Ashoka sent missionaries to the Seleucids and Greek-Bactrians. However, on the greek end, no record of this exists. Nonetheless, some aspects of gnosticism are too similar to Buddhism to discount the possibility of influence. --202.156.6.60 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anurag Sagar

I wish Kabir's "Anurag Sagar" (the Ocean of Love) could be fit in here somewhere.

It's 15th century, and Indian, so it's not "Gnostic" in the old 1st century sense. However, the philosophy is CLEARLY Gnostic. You can download the whole thing at http://www.geocities.com/anulbird/anuragindex.html . You have the good (but, in terms of this world, "weak" and "alien"), and then you have the creator God who makes a place in the void, and then starts devouring souls. Some are stuck to the created world beyond repair, some are in between, and a few are going to make it. The Aeons all make appearances. And the Eternal Word is the ride back home.

Wonderful Entry.

-- User:LionKimbro there were budists in egypt before christ.

Greek spelling and Unicode

On the Greek spelling of the word gnosis: the Unicode characters used here are the correct. Using the "sigma" of the math markup for the greek text is not correct Greek, it just looks like Greek, and is thus misleading information. In Greek, a sigma appearing last in a word has a distinctly different shape than a sigma in the middle of a word, as in the math symbols.

If your browser or its character set or your operating system does not support Unicode correctly, that's sad, but the same is probably true of several Wikipedia web pages containing Chinese or Japanese Unicodes.

--Jörgen Nixdorf

Gnosticism and suicide cults

The growth of Gnosticism in the first centuries AD was mirrored by the growth of murder/suicide cults based on various interpretations of christian theology. A notable example of this are the Marnimites in Northern Africa. This sect would ambush travellers. The Marnimites would then present the traveller with a sword and demand that the traveller murder the Marnimites. (This was a martyr cult). These martyr cults became the reason for the Catholic Church allowing killing in self-defense in violation of the third commandment. It is argued that these provisions were then exploited by nefarious bishops to allow for the wholesale persecution of the Gnostics.

     -I'd like to point out that the original Greek text of the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill." Therefore, they didn't really violate the third commandment.

Praise and criticism

This is a first-rate entry! Thanks a lot for shaping up what was a pretty bare beginning. --MichaelTinkler

---

I still feel it could be a lot better... e.g. talking about the variety of different Gnostic systems in more clarity -- but its the best I can do at the moment. Thankyou for the encouragement. -- Simon J Kissane

---

well, it's not like we have any real idea about them - after all, it was a Secret. It's kind of like trying to write about the Mystery Religions - they're remarkably elusive! I've been reading French structuralist takes on the Eleusinian mysteries all summer and I have a headache. My only quibble (and I'm not about to do anything about it) is the "scholars think...equally valid." That's what always gets Christianity off track, listening to scholars. Every really good schism starts with someone writing a commentary on the book of Romans.... --MichaelTinkler

Oh, the sacred mind. I was raised in Catholic grammar school in the sixties and never knew there was this whole other stream of interpretation about what the man called Jesus by the Greeks was trying to tell us, and what sort of religion should emerge from his being here. Only recently, when I read Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels (St Elaine I call her) and got a hold of Nag Hammadhi Library in English, Robinson, editor, did it really open my mind to what these people, second and third century, Hellenistic Egypt thereabouts, were trying to get going. Since this is an encyclopedia entry, anyone reading this should understand something important:

 The gnostics were a diverse group that came up with a 

wildly imaginitive body of myth from both Hellenic and Jewish sources, and the thing is NOT to take this or that myth literally and stick to it like a cult member or something. Whats important for us in the post rennaissance - post reformation post enlightment and now post twentieth century to understand is the way they did what they did. The vocabulary, the quality of writing, the intelligence level, the depth of imagination. The quote from Homer. The pagelong excerpt from Plato's Republic. The prayer of thanksgiving (nag hammadhi codex 6 page 63, page 329 in the Robinson translation) where we give thanks

 to You, undisturbed name, honored with the name

"God" and praised with the name "Father"..... ...for giving us mind, speech and knowledge:mind, so

we may understand you....

I sound like I'm preaching here, but I just to inform anyone looking up info in this index that this religious community in late antiquity held the promise of a religion that truly held the mind of every human being to be a sacred gift, not just a machine or a tool. A promise of course not yet delivered to humanity. Another text is titled The Book of Thomas the Contender. At's right, coulda been a contenda. But hope proves a man deathless, said Melville. John Joyce

Gnosticism in regard to certain films

There are Gnostic themes in the Truman Show and the Matrix? I think it's important to distinguish between actual gnostic ideas and dimestore Buddhism in the cultural wake of Jack Kerouac.JFQ

I have added an explanation to why these films can be regarded "gnostic" -- User:Nixdorf

Absolutely, especially given "The Architect" in Matrix ][. -- User:LionKimbro

Hippolytus

I saw Hippolytus had been added as a "gnostic" in the "list of gnostics". This must be wrong, Hippolytus was an orthodox, busy fighting gnosticism and several other "heresies". I removed the entry. I have done a lot more things to this entry and Aeon too, but need help with peer review, please check my text. -- User:Nixdorf

Archons

This was utterly fascinating. I wonder what the Wikipedia will be able to tell me about the Archons.

---

Who do you think 'The Archons' are? Just ponder it for a moment... I'll give you a hint, they aren't from this planet...

they resemble the marcabians from scientology (which is heavily based on gnosticism). Gringo300 07:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Matter as evil

By the way, the Gnostics didn't necessarily deem matter 'evil', but rather 'incomplete'. Gnostics living in Egypt equated the material universe with the injured, re-assembled body of Osiris (missing his penis, symbolic of reproductive power), which forced him to become, symbolically, 'the god of the dead', as the Gnostics believed that death was caused by this 'incompleteness' of matter... Very interesting when one compares this idea to modern theories about entropy... Khranus

Some gnostics held the view you state, of matter as 'incomplete'. Some gnostics still held it to be evil, such as the dualist traditions of mandaeanism and manichaeanism. Nixdorf 21:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Final Fantasy 7 gnostic?

Was Final Fantasy 7 Gnostic? It didn't seem like it, to me. -- LionKimbro

Well actually it was, sort of. Kabbalah is sort of like the gnosticism of Judaism, Sephiroth is a reference to Kabbalah. And some might not agree with this, but Cloud was like the serpent in the garden from gnostic stories while Jenova is the demiurge.

Spirit?

I changed the link for "spirit" so it doesn't point to the disambig page "spirit" anymore. It points to "Holy Ghost" now, but I'm not sure that's the best of all choices. Joyous 21:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

After some discussion with User:Gary D, I redirected the link "spirit" to point to Akasha. Joyous 22:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

William Blake?

Surprised to see no mention of William Blake here, who was probably more influenced by Gnosticism than any other major English poet. (Maybe Harold Bloom would cite Yeats and Shelley (and I suppose even Milton) as post-gnostic, too.)

On the other hand some of the film references here seem a little bit of a stretch. Not everything about a false world or illusion goes right back to gnosticism, you know (the Matrix, seems ok, Maybe. Perhaps also _Blade Runner_, which quotes Neo-Gnostic Wm. Blake). Christianity has a long tradition of linking "the world, the flesh, and the Devil," that exists in parallel to Gnostic-type beliefs, and of seeing the world as fallen and vain and etc. So one has to be careful abt. being seeing Gnosticism everywhere. Toy Story? The Truman show?

The movie called The Truman Show is most definately gnostic influenced, it's very obvious. Have you even seen this movie? Nixdorf 08:02, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

History vs. Modern practice

Given the revival of Gnosticism as fueled by popular authors Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown, it seems this entry should reflect that more. Perhaps we could relegate statements of Gnostics in the past tense to a section entitled, "History", and focus more upon modern practice in the other sections.

Ideas?

SwissCelt 17:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

an anon's edits

An anon just made major edits, mainly POV from what I have read. I don't have time right now to go over and copyedit it, however, I will put it on my task list. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Samael Aun Weor

An earlier version said that Samael Aun Weor's books did not talk about fundimental Gnostic concepts and this is false. Whoever wrote that is misinformed. The Demiurge, the incompleteness of "matter," etc., are all explained -- however not within the box that people consider Gnosticism. Instead of talking about the incompleteness of matter in such terms, Materalistic Philisophy is spoken of (and how it is incomplete), instead of repeating the story of the Demiurge in a mundane way he brings a real depth to it (IMO) by contrasting the Elohim (Imperfect "God" Being within Creation) with the Aelohim (Perfect Absolute "Non-Being"), etc.. Stating that he does not have Gnostic concepts is a common misconception furthermore because many of his works are Buddhist in nature, and his works as a whole are much broader than what is considered Gnosticism. The majority's "official" opinion is such because they/we have formulated a theory based on concepts that are believed to be reasonable. Samael Aun Weor's work is no different in the respect that it is just another theory to the average reader, however it happens to be that this one is radically different than official opinion. The fact that these texts are very esoteric means that they are left open to interpretation, and thus to categorically reject Samael Aun Weor's works as something not Gnostic is not only ignorant, but exceedingly superficial. Therefore, with this entry I am only attempting to clear up this ignorance.

For example, if I were to ask if Gnosticism had strong ties with Tarot, many people would say no and even some would laugh. Yet, the very first paragraph of the Pistis Sophia talks about Arcanum 1 and Arcanum 24. Anyone who truly understand what the Tarot is understands this, yet, the "official" opinion of "scholars" completely ignore these esoteric matters, even though it is readily admitted that these texts are esoteric in meaning!

Of course many people disagree and I have no problem with that. However I cannot see how one opinion can be considered an unbreakable dogma when the authors of the texts are all dead.

"....however not within the box that people consider Gnosticism" "many of his works are Buddhist in nature" I hadn't heard of the Elohim - Aelohim distincion, but I belive you are redefining the word 'Gnosticism'. Incompleteness of matter isn't the same as materalistic filosophy. There is no trace of Tarot cards before 15th century.

I've read that Samael Aun Weor emphasized ritual sex as the final way of achieving Gnosis. However, there is no proof that the ancient Gnostics had such practise. On the contrary, they didn't want to reproduce offspring. This seems like a fundamental difference.

Here is an idea for article text: "Many New Age authors like Samael Aun Weor read and interpreted Ancient Gnostic texts." This this definitely neutral though a bit technical piece. -Hapsiainen 22:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

'Gnosticism' is just a conjugation of 'Gnosis' that scholars used to represent those things which they understood it to be. Really the definition is arbitrary. That being said, it is obvious that I feel that a transvalution of what Gnosticism really is should take place. Regarding the sexual mysteries, there are clues, as the texts are completely esoteric, that are missed by not only contemporary commentators, but more importantly by non-Gnostics throughout the ages who are now looked at as authorities. About Oriental Philosophy (Buddhism, etc.): Gnosticism is born on the border of the orient, Jesus, a Gnostic, visited the orient and there is actually a good deal of evidence to prove this. White Tantra rarely produces children, and there is plently to state that Jesus practiced and taught sexual magic (the Cross of Man and Woman). I also suggest a reexamination upon what exactly Tarot is, because as I stated earlier, the very first chapter speaks of the First Mystery and Twenty Fourth Mystery (which is Tantra, btw). It is Tarot, and actually, it is oversights like this that prove how blind supposedly educated people are to the obvious. The real reason for confusion for this in particular is that no one actually understands what the Tarot is, as it is well beyond cards that can be used as a divination tool. In short, there is plenty of ignorance regarding this subject, and it is well beyond my abilities and this forum to explain everything, obviously. Therefore, it is good to finally note that Samael Aun Weor explains these things to the reader thoughout all his works.

The revision itself is fine enough for now, as I do not have the time to enter into a polemic, but thank you for the comments! -Paul Stone Feb 26, 2005

Gnostic Texts

Regarding this sentence at the top of the Gnostic Texts section:

Note that like everything else about Gnosticism, the identification of a text as Gnostic or not may be controversial, however most Nag Hammadi codices may be assumed to be Gnostic in essence, except for the copy of Plato and the "sayings" Gospel of Thomas.

Why would the Gospel of Thomas not be considered a Gnostic text? For some reason I was under the impression that everyone agrees that's exactly what it is. Wesley 19:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, definitely not everyone agrees on that; see the Gospel of Thomas article; some selected quotes: The Gospel of Thomas did in fact include a great deal of material unparalleled in the New Testament. It, however, lacks distinctive terms from second century Gnosticism such as archons, pleoroma, aeons, demiurge that would be expected from a product of historical Gnosticism [...] Some scholars consider this gospel to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among other, more clearly gnostic texts. Others reject this interpretation, because Thomas lacks the full-blown mythology of Gnosticism as described [...] Ray Dassen 21:31, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

I am currently reading a translation of some Nag Hammadi texts. ("Nag Hammadin kätketty viisaus". Editors Dunderberg & Marjanen. 1999.) It also comments them and states that it is too one-sided to describe the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic. Then you would define Gnosticism to cover any religious movement, which teaches that the soul is from the divine world of light. You would have to include Neoplatonism etc to Gnosticism. Many Christian movements appreciated the Gospel of Thomas besides Gnosticism, too. -Hapsiainen 22:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

-- I see no problem with adding neoplatonism as gnosticism, if at its core that's what it is. I would also place the Gurdjieff Work as a modern gnostic movement, given its definition of cosmoses and ladder going from The Absolute to the Moon. I do wish we had more info on the Mystery movements of Antiquity... patrice.boivin@gmail.com

Everyone has an opinion about Gnosticism: reading Pistis Sophia with a good introduction would help. The current rewritten fluff about the Gospel of Thomas in this article does not describe what is Gnostic about its text. (Might be hard to find!) --Wetman 23:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Adding Emile Cioran

To my friend Trödel(whoever he is).

I made this entry about a gnostic author. It is EMILE CIORAN. He is quiet famous. Wikipedia has a page on him. I didn't spell him right.. Of course he is more of a philosopher than a writer. The book i'm talking about is not on the list of his major works in wikipedia. i' ll have a visit on him.. it is something like "le demiurge mal" in french. that's the bad (evil?)(incompetent?) demiurgue. (pardon my english). He is aware and has knowledge of every gnostic belief (Markion,cathars) and agrees with them. he has a certain "style" in his speech. sometimes he becomes blasphymous (a dictionary please). he hated humans.well we all have been there, right?

what's that name Trodel? Is it German? i'm Greek. i'm Sotiris.(i didn't expect that someone would look my entry. you see in Greece nothing works.ha, ha..) --213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)SOTIRIS--213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

by the way did you know that the Apatchi (indians) were gnostics too or maybe deists? they believed that there was a god but didn't honour him as he didn't care about humans. instead they worsiped an evil spirit that believed to be omnipotent. (ΔΟΜΗ 2004,encyclopedia).Bye. SOTIRIS

Welcome to wikepedia see your talk page for a quick response - thanks for the information - I will put it back in shortly. Trödel|talk 18:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thomas a Gnostic

The Gospel of Thomas is definately a gnostic text. Granted that it is disputed whether he wrote it, but he is usually identified as gnostic. Trödel|talk 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read the discussion above, you are not the first one who asked it. Also other early Christian movements used and appreciated the book, so it isn't merely Gnostic. -Hapsiainen 21:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

More essentially, its content isn't gnostic. When you see it called gnostic, the writer may be confusing it with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas—or may merely be parrotting hearsay. --Wetman 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding Nietzsche's "eternal return"

The "eternal return" is the concept where a demon condemns man to live his life again and again. it's a trap inside time. it is typically gnostic. i would also add in gnostic moovies, "the groundhog's day". it's the same recipe of "eternal return" and very near to Truman, Matrix etc. the only difference is that in "groundhog's day" the "God" character is not malivoulent but wants to teach man. fine film.

--213.5.49.215 13:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Objections

First of all, the article is ambigious as to different periods in this set of beliefs. Platonic and neo-Platonic are not really "Gnostic," but deal with similar concepts. Similarly talking about 'Gnosticism in the 20th century' is kinda like talking about witchcraft in the 20th century. It's not the same as withcraft in the midle ages or antiquity, or Mesopotamia. There's an intellectually dangerous conflation of terms here.

Secondly, it would help if there were sources sited in the text. "Generally believed" is always a bit sketchy as an introduction. It is unclear as to what "equally valid" with traditional Christian teaching means. Equally valid as a social movement? Sure. Equally valid religiously? That's opening a whole big can of worms.

There are mentions of Jesus. As a writer, the author must make clear how that name is being treated. For the purpose of this article is Jesus a)the son of God and one indivisible part of the Holy Trinity (mainstream Christian teaching), b) a historical figure, a Jew who got executed but who spawned a religious movement, or c)a totally made up figure that's part of the mythology of a religious movement from the late Antiquity.

There's a strong argument about whether Manicheans are Gnostics or just a branch of Christianity considered heretical by the majority. Cathars and Bogomils can be treated in similar ways.

• As your statements are mainly conjecture, and you seem to know very little about Gnosticism. As to who Jesus represents to Gnostics, it's clearly in the article. He does not fall into any of your three categories. Nor is it a twentieth century revival like you insinuate by comparing Gnosticism to Witchcraft. Maybe you should read up on Gnosticism before you come here and voice your clearly pro-Catholic Church objections. Instead, it sounds like you're stating that "Gnosticism is just another form of Satan-worship." --Bastique 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Gringo300, (since you didn't sign your own name) perhaps you may want to go back and reread the article a little better. There are books listed that have been preserved by some faction of the Gnostic church or another since the times of Jesus. The Acts of Thomas come to mind. I agree, that someone needs to go in there and write about Gnosticism in Medievel times and the Renaissance, but as Gnostics had to congregate in secret for fear of being hung or burned or drowned by Catholic Christians as being heretical, most of what you find on Gnostics are executions rather than actual records. But preserve the church they did! I'm done ranting... --Bastique 00:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How DO I Get Unicode to Work?

Does anyone know how I can get the Greek To show up propperly? --203.59.210.198 11:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Gnosticism was also evident in Judaism BCE

• Gnosticism though not a religion as such, is perhaps one of the oldest "philosophies" or "ways of thought" known to humankind. Gnosticism is not the accumilation of factual, intellectual or rational knowledge. On the cotrary Gnosticism involves the relational or experiential knowledge of a God and/or a Divine entity or of the divine or spiritual nature within one's being.

--203.59.210.198 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A critical distinction that this article is lacking

This is a tough cookie, and I'm not sure I know exactly how to fix it. In common parlance, "Gnosticism" is often times restricted to meaning the early 1st, 2nd, 3rd century Mediterranean traditions and their variants. But when we start to include groups like Cathars and Bogomils, the opening line, that gnosticism is a "blanket term" for first and second century sects, begins to hurt the clarity of the article.

Most of this article details characteristics of what might be referred to as "Classical Gnosticism." Though later types of Western Gnosticism (Cathars, so-called Rosicrucians, Kabbalah, Sufism, Alchemy) have much in common with their Classical brethren, they do not share all of the characteristics that this article claims are normative: for instance, none of the later examples speak of a Demiurge figure, and instead relegate this theme to other mythic representations: the Cathars have in his place the Devil, for instance. As such, it is misleading and confusing to include the Demiurge in the "theology" section of an article that is supposedly describing an umbrella that includes Cathars and Alchemists.

An example of some beliefs that are more normative to "gnosticism as a whole" would be the three parts of the soul, the transcendant nature of God, the illusory veil of perception (see MAYA). All gnostic and gnostic-ish traditions tend to focus on the allegorical interpretations of myth in scripture rather than historicity and literality of scripture.

I think the problem could be rectified if we determine what characteristics are specifically characteristic of Classical Gnosticism, versus gnosticism as a whole, and include an appropriate section. This is a difficult task, to say the least, since many scholars agree that "little-g gnosticism" is not restricted to Classical (big-G) Gnosticism, and includes other religious traditions such as Sufism and Kabbalah (which have been described by scholars as Islamic and Jewish Gnosticism, respectively - Seyyed Hussein Nasr, Gershom Scholem).

We ought to either put Classical Gnosticism and its characteristics on its own section, or weed out the later traditions (Cathars, etc) from the article that do not fit this paradigm.

-sparkwidget

What about Classic Gnosticism, Mideval revivals (Hermeticism, Cathars and whatever), and Present-day revivals as three main categories? Nixdorf 21:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think what is more important is to carefully comb the article for proposed normative characteristics that are actually specifically characteristic to Classical Gnosticism. Including some summary sections on the different historical phases would be helpful as well.

New section: Gnostic Discussion Groups and Email Lists

I've added a section for discussion groups and email lists that focus on Gnosticism, listed two groups that I'm subscribed to which are relatively functional and focused. I was going to add the newsgroups soc.religion.gnosis and alt.religion.gnostic, but both of those appear "dead". I encourage other people to add fora which are topically relevant and of high quality. Thomas Leavitt

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

People of all kinds of preferences do that kind of things all the time at the Wikipedia. They will get tired of it. Nixdorf 08:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

I slightly recast just the opening, so that it introduces the term and tells how we know about Gnosticism of Antiquity. Is some text missing in the description that follows? It seems like a hodgepodge of secondary details instead of a presentation of the broad world-picture gnostics shared. The section title might be "The Gnostic World-Picture".... Following the general world-picture, a few central texts should be discussed: Pistis Sophia is an essential. Modern gnosticism might follow that. --Wetman 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas irrelevancies

The following text is irrelevant to the subject Gnosticism:

Among the Nag Hammadi library texts, the Gospel of Thomas is the most controversial. It is dated by an early camp among scholars as early as the 50s and by a late camp to a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 90s. Some modern scholars, e.g. John Dominic Crossan find Gnostic beliefs in it, while others consider the gnostic tendencies a later addition to an originally non-gnostic text. Lastly, some in the early camp see connections between it and the hypothetical Q document which plays an important role in the synoptic problem (the literary relationship between and among the first three canonical gospels).

If this text throws light on Gnosticism, begin by quoting a gnostic line or two (there are but 114 sayings) and elucidating what's Gnostic about them and help the reader build a picture of Gnosticism. Name-dropping is uninspiring if the reader is simply presented with unspecified "findings". Labelling a text "controversial" without exploring the controversy (if it's relevant) is not enlightening either. -This isn't good enough. -Wetman 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Jung--goal of Gnosticism psychologically dangerous?

I considered modifying a sentence in the article, but hesitated to do so because although familiar with the subjects, I am not an expert on Jung nor on Gnosticism. Instead I will post my concern here, and if appropriate somebody more knowledgeable can make the change.

The last sentence of the entry under Carl Jung, in the "Gnosticism in Modern Times" section, reads as follows: "On the other hand, what is known is that Jung and his ancient forebears disagreed on the ultimate goal of the individual: whereas the Gnostics clearly sought a return to a supreme, other-worldly Godhead, Jung would see this as analogous to a total identification with the unconscious, a dangerous psychological state."

I wonder about the closing comment, "...a dangerous psychological state." Is the writer saying that Jung in fact did state that the ultimate goal of Gnosticism would amount to a dangerous psychological state? Or is he/she only assuming that Jung might have thought so, because he himself believes so? If this is only an assumption by the writer, then it does not belong in the article at all and should be removed. That Jung would regard this goal in such low esteem strikes me as odd, since he was very friendly to the Hindu tradition, the highest goal of which is perhaps identical--Nirvikalpa Samadhi--a state which would be ludicrous to regard as psychologically dangerous. The state is considered to be not only superlatively desirable, but perfectly compatible with normal, in fact, vastly enhanced, functioning in the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) I feel relatively safe assuming that Jung was aware of this and would not have such a pessimistic view of this condition.

I don't know enough about Jung, but I have to say that Samadhi and Gnosis are not synonyms. Gnosis means a rescuing knowledge. According to the article, Samadhi is the state of being aware of one’s Existence without thinking. Also the worldviews are different. Hinduism doesn't have myth of an ignorant or limited lesser creator god. Gnosticism has it, and also a myth of a lesser, material world. You can't unite it because your spirit is from Pleroma, the adamant world. So there isn't only one substance, although the material world is temporary. In Manicheaism, which is sometimes included to Gnosticism, the material world is permanent, too. That's why I don't trust your comparison. -Hapsiainen 06:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but my concern is over the accuracy with which the sentence expresses Jung's actual thinking, since that is what the entry is supposed to reflect, as opposed to the writer's opinion.

For example, would Jung adhere strictly to the distinctions you mention in your response, and proceed to reject Gnosis as unhealthy while simultaneously embracing Samadhi as desirable? Or would he be more inclined to think that, although the myths don't match perfectly, belonging, as you say, to different worldviews, the intent behind each was still *essentially* the same--to advocate a return to Ultimate Source and a departure from illusion? (To quote from the Samadhi article--"Samadhi is the only stable unchanging Reality. All else is ever changing and does not bring everlasting peace or happiness. Staying in Nirvikalpa Samadhi is effortless but even from this condition one must eventually return to ego-consciousness. However, it is entirely possible to stay in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and yet be fully functional in this world. This condition is known as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi.")

Would Jung have indeed equated this return to Ultimate Source to a total identification with the unconscious? And then beyond that, did he indeed regard such a thing as psychologically dangerous?

My opinion is that unless Jung specifically stated both that 1) in his view Gnosis meant total identification with the unconscious and 2) that he regarded this condition as psychologically dangerous, the comment is only an opinion by the writer and should not be in the article.

I think what is being refered to is from the seven sermons to the dead:

What is the harm, ye ask, in not distingusihing oneself? If we do not distinguish, we get beyond our own nature, away from creatura. We fall into indistinctiveness, which is the other quality of the pleroma. We fall into the pleroma itself and cease to be creatures. We are given over to dissolution in nothingness. This is the death of the creature. Therefore we die in such measure as we do not distinguish. Hence the natural striving of the creature goeth towards distinctiveness, fighteth against primeval, perilous sameness. This is called the PRINCIPIUM INDIVIDUATIONIS. This principle is the essence of the creature. From this you can see why indistictiveness and non-distinction are a great danger for the creature. We must, therefore, distinguish the qualities of the pleroma.

The process of individuation involves the ongoing discovery of the unconscious self/Self by the conscious ego. This process, theoretically, could ultimately result in complete consciousness - which is not the same as identification with the unconscious. Jung would see the Gnostics' desire for a return to the supreme as analogous to the individual's total REALIZATION of the unconscious. I think that the sentence that begins, "On the other hand, what is known is that Jung and his ancient forebears disagreed on the ultimate goal of the individual" should be deleted as it is based on a misunderstanding of Jung's psychology. Chrismau 21:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dating

I am opposed to the entire AD/CE edit war. If I notice any further edit, from either side, that only switches the style, and it is not supported by consensus on this talk page, I intend to revert it.

I do not consider it obvious which is preferable, and will cheerfully supply arguments for either. Neither is obviously "less colored", which is why this wasteful war has been fought in good faith. Septentrionalis 18:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel guilty. But the article had originally CE form. Then someone changed it into AD. The person did't change anything else. I was annoyed with such change, I think such editing shouldn't be tolerated, and changed it back. (Don't laugh at me.) Then the situation happened again. The IP was quite similar, so I believe that the person revisited the article. I at least tried to do something else for the article, and not just to roll it back and forth. AD means "in the year of the Lord", so it states that Jesus is the Lord. There isn't an official recommendation in Wikipedia for either style. But I have become quite sensible about religious topics when editing Wikipedia. I see regularly how someone moans in articles how awful the subject is ([1], [2]), and thought that the style change was something "How unchristian!"-POV moaning. But on the other hand, many Gnostic sects saw Jesus as their saviour figure, so AD isn't that bad style for the article. -Hapsiainen 20:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Gnosticism and Kabbalah

Proposed Addition The Kabbalah article has a Gnosticism and Kabbalah section, is a similar/identical section needed here on the Gnostic side? (BTW&JIC, I realized the link between Gnosticism and Kabbalah was generally missing while looking at the Alan Moore, Promethea and Kabbalah pages.) --Xpi6 09:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles?

I've noticed that this article has been highlighted as possibly being too long. Does anyone else think this might benefit from being divided into several articles? The lines I'm thinking of would be to divide the Gnostic Myth section and make it a separate article - the outlining on the page suffers from having several important elements left out, and because it conflates elements from several myths into a basic form (though sme effort has been made to distinguish Valentinian and Classical myths).

This would allow a more detailed rendering of historical material concerning gnostic behaviour in antiquity, the historical elements of gnostic studies (such as issues with the translation and precurment of the texts from Nag Hammadi) and the emergences of modern gnostic movements in the main article. At the same time the Gnostic myth article could deal more with theological issues (details of cosmology, ethics, and the relationship with orthodoxy) and offer a more detailed elucidation of the myths themselves, which are the cornerstones of the movement, and their principle objects of study.

Even if the split didn't occur along these lines, I do think something is needed to differentiate between modern gonstic currents and those in antiquity. 'Gnosticism' is a famously vague and disputed term - Wikipedia has an opportunity to present an overview of gnosticism that evades many of the common pitfalls afflicting assessments of this religious grouping, and I think a more clear division between ancient and modern gnosticism would be a good start.

Thoughts?

Visual Error 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not begin anyway by writing brief inclusive prefatory paragraphs to the subsections "Gnosticism in modern times" and "Gnosticism in popular culture"? Then, when the concise overview is fully developed and well-rounded, you might make a new article Modern Gnosticism and move the bulleted details that currently constitute both sections to the new article, leaving a header Main article: Modern Gnosticism here. That way nothing is lost. --Wetman 19:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - thats a fine idea! I'll see what I can come up with as soon as I find some time. On reflection, I think a division between Modern and Ancient Gnosticism would fit the bill perfectly .Visual Error 09:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I dig this idea too. But where will you place mideval gnosticism (catharism and bogomilism) and renaissance gnosticism (hermeticism)? Is it "old" (certainly not when compared to the original movements) or modern (certainly not when compared to modernity)? Nixdorf 20:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Having been given time to think about it, I think that a central Gnosticism page from which other articles derive can only properly be founded on changing conceptions of what Gnosticism is - given the nebulous, disputed nature of the term, this seems to be the only way to approach the subject while allowing for all various (and varying) schools to which it refers, and also include reference to recent scholarly disputes concerning the overly-flexible nature of the term itself. In particular, the term 'gnosis', around which the entire movement revolves, hasn't been given enough exposure in the article: there should be some discussion of the terms' usage in its original, Platonic context.

I would suggest beginning with a generalised discussion of the Bible in antiquity, and the fluid nature of nascent Christianity. This would allow the demonstration of how certain Biblical texts slowly coalesced to form what would become a verified and authoritarian canon; this process was as much informed by a decision on which works were to be excluded from the canon as which to include. Gnosticism as a distinct entity arose at this point, much as the term 'heresy' around this point began to possess negative connotations of 'dissent' as opposed to the former meaning of 'choice'. Essentially, it is important to dispel the notion that Gnosticism and Orthodoxy emerged fully formed and with their own canonical texts, and more emphasis must be laid on the essential fluidity of Gnosticism, as often being an "assorted bin" for non-Orthodox Christian traditions.

This all highlights the central problem of Gnosticism which modern scholarship is seeking to overcome: the category has in the main been defined by those who seek to detract from it. In effect, modern scholars seeking to identify the broad characteristics of Gnostic schools have found a series of philosophies and cosmological myths whose few unifying characteristics are disproportionately emphasised, while at the same time their individual attributes are suppressed. As such the central idea or definition of Gnosticism is something from which its various instances divurge to varying degrees and which none follow absolutely, rather than a general type to which they all conform. This has led to, amongst other things, a mis-indentification of Plotinus opponents in Book 9 of Enneads as being Gnostics, because the quarrels Plotinus brings to bear are, to the modern mind, key Gnostic traits; however, the objections Plotinus raises apply as much to orthodox Christianity and its figures (such as Clement of Alexandria) as to ancient heresies.

From here, I would move on to illustrate this point, focussing on the efforts of Irenaeus and other heresiologists to catalogue Gnostic schools (only superficially; in actuality, this was an effort to cement the superiority of emergent Orthodoxy by 'proving' the moral insufficiency or apparent ridiculousness of its competitors). Though these figures are almost universally discredited in their transmission of the facts (baby-eating and so forth), their system of over-emphasising similarities and suppressing individual attributes has survived into modern approaches to the subject, as noted above. As an approach, Irenaeus and others sought to demonstrate a 'genetic' inheritance between heretical schools, and thus produce a 'domino' effect: with their progenitor discredited the falseness of Gnostic schools could be demonstrated as incontravertible.

This 'inheritance' approach works in tandem with the tendency to overemphasize certain facets as noted above, and in like fashion it persists into modern approaches. I believe Irenaeus held Simon Magus to be the instigator of the heresies he investigates; the fact that the Wikipedia article presents what is essentially Irenaeus' list of Notable Gnostics, while noting Irenaeus's suspect status, is surely a weakness. In a wider example, in the perception of Catharism as being Gnosticism, though no direct link between themselves and ancient Gnostics has been, as far as I'm aware, demonstrated; this might be taken further, as the Cathars, as far as I'm aware, did not believe at all in the efficacy of knowledge as a salvific force. Given that gnosis - 'knowledge' - is the central feature of Gnosticism as a category, the inclusion of Catharism as a Gnostic school only shows how the kernel has outgrown the nut.

After this, there is little to note; with the supremacy of Orthodoxy there remained little trace of ancient Gnosticism throughout the middle ages. There is, of course, room for discussion of Theosophy, for example, but I would limit this to being a school of thought that borrows from ancient Gnosticism, not a gnostic religion per se. We should dispel the notion that Gnosticism is a perennial philosophy in itself; at most it is an expression of a perennial philosophy, and to declare that modern groups can be Gnostic in the same fashion as their ancient forebears is to stretch the term to breaking point.

Instead, I would suggest discussing modern Gnostic scholarship, for example, with Hans Jonas' sutdy 'The Gnostic Religion' (though this is widely discredited in scholarly circles, it is nevertheless indispensible to an encyclopedia article due to its undeniable popularity, and the eminence of the author as an existential philosopher). The Nag Hammadi finds should be discussed, including the many problems surrounding access to them by scholars, and the problems encountered during their translation. Though the Nag Hammadi texts do not, themselves, present 'Gnosticism' distilled to its core they nevertheless present a scattering of texts of central importance to the practitioner of gnosis in antiquity.

Finally, I would conclude by discussing the recent work of people such as Michael Allen Williams, to demonstrate the massive tensions that exist between different breeds of Gnosticism. For example, Zoroastrianism, often held to be a form of Gnosticism, posits two original entities, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, from whose interactions the universe was formed as an effort to asure the former's victory, while Classical Gnosticism in the Judeo-Christian-Platonic tradition posits a solitary monadic source from which the universe was gradually emanated, with the universe appearing through the mediation of the demiurge. In still other traditions the myth is altered: for example, the Baruch by Justin tells of the union between a male and a female entity, Elohim(?) and Eden respectively; through this union, the material universe is formed. Following this union, Elohim has a mystical, revelatory encounter with a superior entity, indentifiable as the Gnostic Parent. He feels, after witnessing this perfection, compelled to destroy his inferior creation; he is prevented by the monadic source he encountered. Though the myths display certain similarities and repeat themes, to call them instances within a unified, envolving school of thought, with clear, inherited mythemes and motifs, would be an exaggeration.

This, of course, presents an apparent problem: the article would, by now, have built up a definition of Gnosticism only to demonstrate its insufficiency. Given, however, that this has been a central thrust of recent scholarship, I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it requires compensation. There are a few possible remedies:

• first, removal of references to related yet non-Gnostic religious movements, such as Catharism. Though on the surface similarities are noticeable (and this, of course, should be noted), the system does not posit knowledge as a central point in salvation - I would suggest making this a key criteria for inclusion;
• we might identify the key Gnostic traits:
  • reliance on knowledge over faith or other forces in attaining salvation, and demonstrate its depiction in various schools of thought;
  • the key metaphor of sexuality as opposed to speech (in Orthodoxy) as the central Gnostic metaphor in its myths;
  • the definition of God as only being possible through stating what God is not, that is, without extension, without motion, without intention (whereas orthodoxy posits a God with identifiable, positive qualities);
  • the notion of materiality as being distant from true divinity (without allowing this to become a crude depiction of 'negative matter');
  • the varying view of creation as an action performed by lesser beings, rather than by the Almighty;
  • and so on...
• we might explore the central Gnostic schools or texts, such as Valentinism or Classical Gnosticism (as related in the Secret Book of John and Reality of the Rulers), and from there move on to a briefer exploration of the related schools and texts (perhaps including modern sects in this section);

On the whole, I think I prefer the latter approach, as it gives room for explorations of key texts in toto, and does not invite a tendency to see Gnosticism as being defined by certain key traits to be emphasised over others.

Basically, I think there has to be a change of approach here. With subjects like this, there has to be an especial stritness about what to include - if gnosis as a concept plays no part in a system of salvation, that system's status as gnostic is necessarily suspect. I think its also important that we don't try to cram all the information into a single page article, but make room for sub-articles as well (perhaps a brief summary of a text may be supplimented by a fuller appreciation in its own). Centrally, I think there should be more of an effort to note the trends in recent scholarship, and use this as the backbone of the article, rather than subscribe to the difficulties instigated by Irenaeus. I think there's a lot to be done here - comments on my suggestions? Visual Error 18:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First, the criteria proposed by Visual Error are somewhat off target. The phrase "knowledge as a central point in salvation" is misleading. To me, salvation implies being saved from the results of our own actions, which isn't consistent with Gnostic thought. I think that the phrase, "direct experience (knowledge) of God resulting in an ultimate reunification with God" would be more accurate. Second, I don't find it helpful to say that Gnosticism has a "key metaphor of sexuality as opposed to speech". I'm not aware of sexuality being overly significant in Gnostic myth or practice. It certainly isn't essential to the definition of Gnosticism. Third, it's also not in any way central to Gnosticism to define God by what he is not. Simply because that was the strategy used in an attempt to explain God, doesn't mean that it should be part of the Gnostic criteria.

This is from the Gnosis.org website:

The following characteristics may be considered normative for all Gnostic teachers and groups in the era of classical Gnosticism; thus one who adheres to some or all of them today might properly be called a Gnostic:

The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.

As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.

A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).

In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.

For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.

Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.

Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.

What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.

Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.

Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.

The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.

Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man.

The above "criteria" could be used as a basis for a revised entry for "Gnosticism". Chrismau 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chrismau. However, I'm afraid I don't agree with all of them; I'll discuss them in order.

"The phrase "knowledge as a central point in salvation" is misleading. To me, salvation implies being saved from the results of our own actions, which isn't consistent with Gnostic thought."

According to the Chamber's Dictionary, 'salvation' denotes the "means of preservation from any serious evil" or "the saving of man from the power and penalty of sin". Though I appreciate your own personal feelings on the nature of salvation, this does not mean that such feelings take precedent over the dictionary definition in tackling this subject. As it is accepted amongst a general audience, I don't think the notion of salvation is at odds with Gnostic thought (indeed, the mode and forms of salvation was the central point of it).

The term "Gnosticism", as I wrote up in the main article, derives from the Greek gnostikos which means 'those capable of knowing'. In a specific sense, the phrase designates knowledge through acquaintance as opposed to that known through proposition (this meaning is reflected in your phrase "direct experience of God"). The term was used by Irenaeus to designate those cults and movements which threatened emergent orthodoxy; it was never self-applied by any ancient Gnostic group (this is part of the reason I have made the suggestions I made above - once again, Irenaeus plays too great a part in our conception of what Gnosticism is - rather than appeal to the detractors first and the primary texts second, a reversal is called for).

However, before that the term had a long history of usage in a Platonic context: the first usage was by Plato in the Politicus (258e-267a, I think, in case anyone's interested), where he compares the gnostike techne to the praktike. He describes the ideal politician as being an excellent practitioner of the former mode of knowledge; considered only in the light of his ability toward this ‘art of knowing’, any man, be he ruler or private man may become ‘royal’. Here, gnostikos makes reference to an ability to possess knowledge of a certain kind, not the possession of knowledge or the knowledge that is possessed. (Such a notion would have been attractive to even orthodox Christians such as Clement, given that it posits a mode of salvation open to all - I believe Clement was happy to call himself a gnostic, but isn't considered one by modern scholarship - another demonstration of the discrepancy between the ancient usagea and the modern one.)

Leaving this aside, if we allow Irenaeus' usage to stand, we are left to understand that a 'Gnostic' would be one who considers himself able to experience the divine directly, that is, to know the Godhead through participation in it. In a sense, an amalgamation of both our viewpoints would be in order, but it remains essential to understand the appelation 'Gnostic' in the original Platonic Greek context, rather than the modern one. As such, the phrase is Irenaeus, and designates "those who know", or "who are capable of knowing", or, possibly, considering Irenaeus' aims, "those who consider themselves capable of knowing". As such, the term 'Gnostic' itself presents problems, as by adopting it we are tacitly offering approval of Irenaeus' account.

As I said before, the title was never self-applied by any group now called "Gnostic", so it's possible that Gnostics did not consider this facet of their beliefs to be so central (though this seems counter-intuitive, otherwise why would Irenaeus choose such a designation for them). We are faced with the choice of accepting Irenaeus' summary and, if we do, understanding gnostikos in its proper, ancient context, or we have to admit the title's flawed nature, and the very category of Gnosticism thereby starts to crumble. Though ordinarily I would plump for the latter, this is of little use in an encyclopedia entry; my suggestions therfore trod gingerly between the two options.

"I don't find it helpful to say that Gnosticism has a "key metaphor of sexuality as opposed to speech". I'm not aware of sexuality being overly significant in Gnostic myth or practice."

Throughout Gnostic myth sexuality is a root metaphor which is constantly evoked to illustrate mythic events. Let's take the creation of Ialdabaoth by Sophia as an example. In the Ap. John, this event is described as happening due to the creation by Sophia without the correct input from her complimentary aeonic partner ("her consort did not consent"). The product of this process was, of course, the mishapen, leontomorphic demiurge. Yet this does not explain the metaphor - why was the shape and nature of Ialdabaoth explained by the non-participation of Sophia's consort? The explanation is, once again, to be found in the original Platonic context of Gnosticism.

In ancient Greek times, the creation of a foetus was said to occur when a 'form' - carried in the male seed - was married to passive, recalcitrant matter - provided by the female in the womb. Thus, the female did not, as we know now is the case, donate any genetic (or similar) information toward the creation of her child, but only constituent material. Thus, if Sophia brings forth a child without male input, the child will be necessarily formless, a monstrosity. This is a clear example of a sexual metaphor, even if we must investigate a little to discover it.

One might also take as a further indicator of Gnostic sexual metaphor the figure of the Barbēlo. The name 'Barbēlo' is an ad hoc construction derived from the Coptic for "great" and "emission" according to Bentley Layton. F.C. Burkitt before him held that the word meant "seed". A conflation of the two positions is necessary to arrive at an understanding of the Barbēlo’s nature. First it may be seen that the Barbēlo is a representational self-image of the Parent (‘great emission’): essentially, a poetic device that allows the depiction of the nature and attributes of an otherwise incomprehensible being in an organized manner, comprehensible to the human mind. Second, Burkitt’s assertion that Barbēlo is ‘seed’ signifies that the Barbēlo is a figurative representation of that part of the Parent which is generative. It is, as the text states, a ‘womb for the entirety’ (Ap. John, 5.5). This gives us, as in most Gnostic texts, the alternative trinity of Father, Mother and Son - such a nuclear unit, that of the family, surely acknowledges the prerequisite importance of sexuality in creation.

Finally, in a mythic context, one might briefly note the consistent Gnostic referral to androgyny as an evocation of higher, perfected realities (as Jung might phrase it, the reconciliation of opposites; or, to Blake, the holding of contraries in a creative mutual opposition). The Barbēlo is a fine exemplar of this, yet the Parent itself is often referred to as an androgyne ("mother-father" in Ap. John). It must be remembered that, in the classical Gnostic myth, the inhabitants of the Pleroma should not be seen as separate and distinct from the Godhead; this would be paradoxical, as it would involve both a division of the Parent, thus undoing its (unknowable) perfection; and since the Godhead is all that exists at this stage of the myth, existence exterior to it is as yet impossible (forever impossible, some might argue). Thus the Barbēlo itself, and the consecutive emanations of male-female pairings that follow it, are to be understood as co-identifiable as, but not co-extensive with, the Godhead itself. Thus the perfection of the divine and the divine creative process are both indicated through reference to, on the one hand, androgyny, and on the other, sexual pairings prefiguring further such pairings. This mode of perfection only breaks down with the elopement, as it were, of Sophia in which, as we've seen, the breakdown of proper sexual propagation occurs, with disastrous results.

There are several other examples of sexuality in Gnostic myth: the rape of Sophia/Eve by the demiurge, which is immediately juxtaposed with the 'acquaintance' of Adam with his consort Eve, from with union springs Seth (Ap John, 24.34-25). The association between acquaintance as a particular form of knowledge and sexual intercourse has also potentially seeped into Gnostic ritual practise in the form of the bridal chamber (a similar association lies behind the Biblical pun, to "know" another). This sacrament, referred to in the Gospel of Philip was (if I remember rightly) a Valentinian ritual that evoked the perfection of the divine through a ritual pairing (thus human sexuality becomes a method of imitating the divine androgyny). Though the exact nature of the ritual is unknown, this hypothesis certainly accords with Valentinus' relaxed attitudes to sex, compared to contemporary orthodox attitudes.

"It's also not in any way central to Gnosticism to define God by what he is not. Simply because that was the strategy used in an attempt to explain God, doesn't mean that it should be part of the Gnostic criteria."

This is a good point - I'm not sure all Gnostic texts define God through negatives. However, it remains that the Ap. John, one of the the most central Gnostic texts (it was found in two extent copies at Nag Hammadi, indicating its importance to the group that buried it), describes God extensively in this manner. This probably stems from a Neoplatonist influence, complimenting as it does Plotinus assertion for the search for a being 'superior to knowledge'. If I were to revise, I would suggest that the "negative God" shouldn't be a central criteria, but it remains an interesting point at which Gnosticism coheres with Neoplatonism and breaks from orthodoxy.

However, I think the list of criteria you've drawn up, Chrismau, just lead us out of the old problems of Gnosticism into new ones - in essence, if the old definitions of Gnosticism were too elastic, I think your definition is too restictive, and too coloured by the agenda of modern Gnostic movements:

• The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.

What about the Justin of Baruch that I mentioned above? This Gnostic text posits a materiality that was brought into being by two principles: Elohim, male, and Eden, female. The text does not describe any decay from an original monad at all, but merely depicts the encounter between Elohim and a higher spiritual reality following the universe's creation. While I agree with you on the whole, I would alter this to state that Gnostic creation is by a process more akin to spontaneous emanation than orthodoxy modes of creation ; once again, this might be seen as a point of cohesion with Neoplatonism (though I think the Neoplatonists saw creation as a constant, ongoing process, not an isolated event). "Split" is also misleading, in the the constituents of the spiritual universe are not split from the Godhead, but are, as I said above, co-extensive with it.

• As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.

This ignores the Platonic influence on Gnosticism: the figure of the demiurge was prefigured by at least two Platonic characters: the demiurge of Timaeus, and the leontomorphic figure of desire in Socrates' model of the psyche in Republic. As such, the figure of the demiurge is not always negative, but rather he struggles (as in Plato's Timaeus) to imitate higher perfections through the manipulation of passive, recalcitrant matter. Thus his partial failure is not necessarily due to malevolence, but ignorance, or an insufficiency of skill.

• In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.

In connection with the Platonic sources of the demiurge, above, space and time are not always assessed as being malevolent. This is more the standpoint of Classical Gnosticism; Valentinianism, for example, merely attests to the ignorance of the demiurge, rather than his evil nature. Likewise, material creation (as I've already pointed out in the main article) is not evil to Gnostics per se, but merely as a method of demonstrating its extreme distance (epistemically speaking) from the Pleroma. Here, we can encounter another similarity with Neoplatonism. Also, the focus of Valentinianism was not in the divisions between the different hierarchies of being in the universe, but rather their interdependence (as may be evidenced by the poem 'Summer Harvest'). Basically, it would be as correct to suggest that time and space, in Valentinus' view, make possible the conveyance of man to God, and vice versa.

• For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.

This is too simple. Valentinus and his followers accepted the books of the New and Old Testament; Valentinus himself spent some time explaining the Mosaic law in terms of its derivation from three sources: the true God, the demiurge, and Moses himself. As such, the Mosaic law may hardly be seen as a simple force of enslavement (much like physicality itself) but rather an ambiguous code of conduct itself insufficient to provide salvation.

• Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.

Within those texts that make reference to manind, this is potentially the case. However, Adam is not mentioned in all texts - thus, while I would suggest that adam can be an emblematic exemplar of man's fallen status, I would hesitate to make this a criterion for admission.

• Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.

This is idealised Gnosticism. In truth, Gnostics typically saw mankind as divided into three categories: hylics, psychics and pneumatics. Hylics were fully entrapped by materiality, and beyond saving; psychics were of the second order, being capable of being saved, but not yet so; pneumatics (alt. the posterity of Seth) were those who were saved, through acquaintance with the Pleroma. However, there is no indication that this structural breakdown of humanity is symbolic of a similar breakdown of structure in individuals. Though modern interpretations of Gnosticism see it as such, and attempt to egalitarianise the gnostic goal (we might blame Jung, who looked at Gnosticism through the interpretive matrix of alchemy, and saw the tripartite division of humanity as being symbolic of such a division in the psyche), Gnosticism in its original context was strictly elitist, and some members of humanity were simply considered beyond help.

• What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.

Given that you consider this a criterion for what is Gnosticism, I don't understand your first objection to my suggestion to make salvation-through-knowledge a central criterion for inclusion in the article.

• Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.

I don't recall this being mentioned in any ancient Gnostic text. Could you please cite a source?

• The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.

True, in that it restores a portion of the power lost by Sophia into the Godhead.

• Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man.

This is simply wrong. As I said before, Valentinus accepted the books of the Old Testament, and (with reservations) accepted the Mosaic law. He did not reject it, nor enjoin any of his followers to. A very few Gnostic sects were opposed to the Hebraic law, but this is far from being a universal attribute of Gnosticism. It also makes the mistake of assuming that Gnostic movements detached themselves from a fully-formed orthodoxy, and thus asserted itself by its opposition to it. In fact, orthodoxy and Gnosticism emerged together, and co-developed into their respective forms.

On the whole, I'm reserved about the credibility of gnosis.org. Though I started out by reading Stephan Hoeller's work on Gnosticism, I now think that his interpretation of Gnosticism does not have the necessary consideration towards the ancient philosophical milieu of which Gnosticism was a part. The Gnostic Society has its own, modern agenda, which should not be allowed to confuse scholarly explorations of ancient Gnosticism, arrived at through careful research and investigation. For what its worth, I have my own interpretation of Gnostic myth; but I would not make the mistake of abrogating, as Hoeller does, all the features of my own particularly modern interpretation to the original Gnostic myth-makers themselves. I find Gnostic myth to be an incredibly fertile ground for depicting humanity's relationship with reality (which Kant called unknowable) and with the psyche, but I do not feel it is right to identify my preoccupations with that of the original Gnostics.

Anyway, hope these comments have given food for thought. I've had to do most of my arguing from memory, so if anyone spots a mistake, please let me know - I want to get this article sorted as much as everyone. Visual Error 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for defining God by what He (mind the capitalized, male pronoun) is not are logical. If God is unknowable (cannot be made into a self-contained, discrete conception which sufficiently defines His being), and He stands in direct opposition to the state of affairs in reality, wouldn't it be logical that the sum of lifeless, discrete, physical emanations of the Deimurge, which do stand at definite points, could be used to reverse-engineer a conception of God? It would seem that God follows a fatal strategy in Gnosticism, except instead of Baudrillard's conception of obliteration of meaning in said strategy, the obliteration of form for essence would be the requisite property.

I'm not sure I exactly follow you. The usage of the impersonal pronoun is to reflect the common Gnostic conception of God as androgynous, rather than male. In any case, wouldn't it be logically inconsistent to deem God unknowable (save via negativa) and then declare him to be male? I think the ascription of 'male-ness' to God is more intended in a Platonic sense (is in possessing 'male' form without 'female' constituent matter) than a simple designation of gender identity.

As to reversee-engineering - it's an intriguing concept, but I don't think it's viable. The demirurge didn't create reality in opposition to the Pleroma, but in unconscious (yet imperfect) imitation of it. Thus the oppositional categories into which the world is split are unified in the Pleroma (for example, in the pairs or 'syzygies' that constitute the divine emanations in Valentinus); it would be hard to logically reverse engineer such a concept from the presentations of materiality.

As to Baudrillard, I'm not overly familiar with him, but from what I can gather the concept of obliteration of meaning refers to the loss of semnatic identity of a word, due to the dissolution of the ideal in the face of overwhelming (over)exposure. I'm not sure exactly what application this has with a Gnostic god, but I'd like to hear an elaboration, please. Visual Error 11:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

this article is obtuse

I read the whole thing and I still don't understand what Gnosticism is.

This article is confusing and complicated.

It uses complex words when simple would suffice.

Maybe the original author wasn't a native english speaker. I don't know. But, it needs work. --Capsela 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Partly it might be due to the article as discussed elsewhere on this page, but partly it is also related to the fact that Gnosticism really is a complicated doctrine, it was probably even intended to be hard to understand, that is sometimes the sole point of esoteric thought systems: "getting it" means you achieve gnosis. Unlike major religious movements, religions of this type does certainly not have the intent that anyone should understand them. While Wikipedia does its best to decloud this religion it simply is not easy, by the way, do you find articles like Z-transform or RNA interference easier to understand? Why should Gnosticism be any easier? Its inventors surely believed it to be the most complex knowledge, partly only accessible to the Aeons themselves. Nixdorf 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense Nixdorf, but that sounds like a load of poop. Gnosticism = knowledge of poop. Or marketing through obscurity. Or pseudo-mysterious new-age poop.--Capsela 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The offense could be taken by the Gnostics whereof there are few left... But really: poop was around in the year 400, bad products probably also, but marketing as we know it today certainly was not around, lest you define it very loosely. That marketing should be non-obscure is the total opposite of a gnostic world view, poopy or not. As far as we know the Gnostics were not "marketing" their religion, if you wanted to know about it you had to ask, and they might tell you if they find you worthy, so naturally this thought system was not cast in easy-to-understand terms. However its New Age influences can be quite easily dismissed as New Age is a 20th century phenomenon lest you define it very widely as any syncretism, as the mixture of proto-christianity and platonism that I believe Gnosticism really is. Nixdorf 21:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

New section headings

I'd like to make some suggestions towards a wholesale revision of this article. On the whole, I think the article as it stands is fairly strong (I would say that, since I contributed quite a bit of material to it - material which, if anything, only contributes to the problems of the article) but I think there's just not enough information concerning the historical development of gnosticism, its sources, the philosohpical context of its emergence (especially the importance of Platonist philosophy as a driving force behind its use of metaphor), the development of modern assessments of gnosticism and the related difficulties present in arriving at a broad, unifying categorical definition. I've written about these problems extensively, above.

Anyway, I'd like to suggest a new layout, which I think would unify the thrust of the sections into something more coherent - please let me know what you think.

• Overview

• Etymology

1. Meaning of 'gnosis' as a designation of a certain form of knowing
2. Philosophical context - the important thing here would be to ground Gnosticism in the context of the Greek philosophy it finds itself in, as being a general striving for knowledge - the great change made by Gnosticism is to place this striving within a specifically religious context, through a unification with Judeo-Christian mythology.
   1. Platonist context of the term gnostikoi - that is, those capable of knowing - first used by Plato in the Politicus
   2. Aristotelian influence - the bios theoretikos - the pursuit of knowledge being the aim of life, attained through contemplation unmarred by manual labour)
   3. Neoplatonism - the similarities between Neoplatonist agendas and certain Gnostic agendas (esp Valentinians). A mention of modern efforts to assess the true intentions of Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics', as being an address to Christianity in general, rather than to Gnostic schools specifically (the latter conception arising due to confusion re modern usages of the terms 'gnostic' and 'heretic' versus ancient usages, confusions arising due to modern editing, and the transmission of Plotinus text through the mediation of Porphyry)

• Sources

1. Heresiologists and gnostic detractors
   1. Justin - the First Apology to Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, which mentions the lost Syntagma, which summarizes the heresies of Simon, Menander and Marcion.
   2. Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses - the transmission of Irenaeus conceptions of gnosticism to modern scholars should be pointed out, as it ties in with the close of the article
   3. Hippolytus
   4. Tertullian
   5. And so on (the list could expand to include Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis... The importance of this section in coming first is that the modern categorical definitions of gnosticism arrive from the conceptions of these first attempts to define its nature by early orthodox writers - which brings about problems considering their avowed antagonism to it, which would tie in with the scholarly difficulties that would be mentioned towards the end of the article)
2. The Nag Hammadi Library
   1. Discovery at NH (a history of the find)
   2. Translation (this would have to make some mention of the difficulties encountered in first acquiring and then rendering the text in modern languages, as noted by Bentley Layton in The Gnostic Scriptures)
   3. Significance of NH, in allowing an access to undiluted gnostic texts and philosophies
   4. List of texts found at NH

• Nature and Structure of Gnosticism

1. Main features of Gnosticism
   1. A typological model - I've written about this at length, above. Basically, this would amount to a list of general criteria-for-inclusion within the article; in short, these would be:
      1. The notion of a remote, supreme and unknowable monadic divinity;
      2. The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded;
      3. The identification of the fall as a occurence within divinity itself, rather than as occuring entirely through human agency (the myth of Sophia);
      4. The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the Platonist tradition demiurgos (his derivation from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic should be mentioned here), elsewhere 'Ialdabaoth', who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes malevolent, and thus opposed to it;
      5. The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow, or in certain cases as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
      6. The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening; the salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrently restoration of the divine nature; and thus individual redemption becomes a cosmically significant event;
      7. Knowledge as a central factor in this process of restoration, acheived through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
2. Rituals and practise - an examination of the evidence for/against libertinism (mainly a heresiological allegation) and ascestism (for which much more evidence exists), and a description of some Gnostic rituals (such as the Bridal Chamber of the Valentinians)
3. Dualism and monism - an examination of the tendencies towards dualism in early Gnostic strands (for example, the Book of John), contrasted with later attempts to refine this stance into a form of monism, as may be found in Valentinian myths wherein materiality, accordingly, has a 'ignorant' rather than an 'evil' status, and is taken to be a form of perceptive error, rather than a distinct mode of being altogether. This section would require careful citation and construction, but is highly necessary - one of the central problems of modern conceptions of Gnosticism is an over-reliance on simplistic assessments of matter versus spirit, body versus soul, in short, a tendency to accept rather than to test allegations of dualism. I recommend checking out the work of Michael Allen Williams with regard to this - his work is seminal, and highly regarded.
4. Major Gnostic schools - a basic breakdown of Gnostic schools and their central texts - this would essentially reproduce the Gnostic sects section in the current article

• History - an exploration of the history and evolution of Gnostic ideas, from the Sethian schools into the later Valentinian systems, Manichaeism, Mandeanism and so on. Potentially, this could mention such later movements as Catharism, but only as a movement influenced by gnosticism, not gnosticism itself.

• Gnosticism in modern times - this section in the current article is, basically, a mess. We have a mixture of those who studied Gnosticism and wrote on it (Jung, Mead, Jonas, Voegelin, Blavatsky), those who may have referenced gnostic texts but for which there is insufficient proof (Blake) and modern 'revivals' of gnosticism (Crowley, Hoeller, Iohannes), with no differentiation between the respective agendas or interests of these parties. Perhaps a separation, along the lines I've mentioned, or a presentation in chronological or alphabetical order? Nevertheless, some form of organisation is required.

• Gnosticism in pop culture - as above, we have a mixture of those who echo, reference and revive gnosticism (or even simpyl 'touch on', with little clear explication of such vague assertions), with no clear divisions, or any organisation (perhaps 'music', 'literature' and 'film').

• Gnosticism as a potentially flawed category

1. Mention the efforts of schloars to arrive at a unified understanding of what gnosticism is in such conventions as that held in Messina in 1966. The result of such conventions were disappointing, arriving only at tentatively worded proposals, and created as much new confusion as it clarified the concept of gnosticism (cf Christoph Markschies, Gnosis).
2. An examination of the problems with the term itself, as being a wholly modern construction, rather than one that was used in antiquity (eg. 'Catholic') or which makes reference to a particular derivation or unified origin for the movement ('Platonism').
3. The modern scholarly assessments of gnosticism as an inadequate or even fundamentally flawed 'modern typological construct', as being too wholly derived from heresiological conceptions, too emphatic concerning points of cohesion without sufficient recognition of common deviations from such points and the common, overly simplistic assessments of gnostic agendas as being summarised as 'body-' or 'matter-hatred'; basically, the problems with viewing gnosticism as basic anticosmism. This would draw heavily on the works of Williams (noted above), who seek to examine the usefulness of the blanket term in allowing a meaningful discussion of its constituents; ultimately, Williams concludes that the term has outlived its usefulness, and requires replacing.

I think this layout would offer a more unified, historical view of gnosticism, rather than straddling an explication of 'gnosis' as an apparent perennial philosphy and 'gnosticism, a single historical occurrence of the aforesaid philosophy, as the article seems to do now. The greatest advantage of a new approach (as I see it) would be to unify the thrust of the article both chronologically (within limits) and developmentally, beginning with the simplest and most basic conceptions of gnosticism (a la Irenaeus et al) and ending on the most recent scholarly endeavours to resolve its difficulties.

Probably the best way to go about it would be to alter and organize those sections of the current article that are to be kept, and then to work on material for the new sections; summaries of Gnostic myths should probably be moved to the articles related to the texts or movements from which they are derived. Any comments and suggestions would be sincerely appreciated (I would say more, but it's twenty past one where I am, and I need sleep...) Cheers all, Visual Error 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, it's a go for me. Could you do some intermediate work on a sub-page like Gnosticism/New heading layout and merge back when we see how it looks? I'm a little worried that it could turn out that the heading order is too "scholarly" (too academic) and will not satisfy what the average reader comes to the Gnosticism entry looking for. However a well composed opening paragraph solves that I believe. Another issue is if this should need some splitting into sub-articles, we have avoided this for long, but it may be imminent. Nixdorf 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing man, I'll get to work as soon as I can! As to the splitting up of the page, I think this would only strengthen things - movements like Valentinianism or Sethianism probably do require their own pages in order to fully explicate their minutiae (if only because the general descriptions of gnosticism have to abstract so much to fully cover the movements it involves). I hear your recommendations on the opening paragraph - I'll do my best. Visual Error 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent fresh start. Some of the current text even would fit within the new schema. --Wetman 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the idea must be to enhance form without losing any content... Nixdorf 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

New layout

The new layout I've been working is in the final stages - if people want to review it they can go here. I'm going to add a link at the top of the Gnosticism page so people can access it easily. Visual Error 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm flabbergasted. Put it in place of the old crap! Excellent work! Nixdorf 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers man - I'll do that now Visual Error 17:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the old subpage if it's OK with everyone? Nixdorf 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay - I've uploaded the new content. There's till some work that needs to be done, for example, before the article reaches a desirable level of completion. The references to gnosticism in literature, music, film etc. need to be examined and tidied up, and moved into a chronological order, if one can be determined. The main text is probably going to be peppered with typos and mangled phrases, despite my best efforts to avoid these. I'm going to keep checking through, but any help would be appreciated. Wiki-links, as well, probably disambiguation and checking (I'm not sure if every first-instance is linked).

With possible further content, I would like to see some corroborated information (rather than 'most scholars agree...') on Buddhist/Hindu influence, though I've hinted this in the monism section. I think I remember that a book called The Allure of Gnosticism had an essay outlining the points of comparison with Mahayana Buddhism, and a possible method of transmission, but I might be wrong. If anyone has access to that text, it would be cool if they could check it out.

Other than that, I think simply a little more content in sub-pages would be a new goal. I'm going to port relevant content from the old article into some he sub articles on Valentinianism and Sethianism, if they exist. I'm also going to work on the Barbelo pages, and other pages about the gnostic mythemes and central figures; I think some work might need to be done to making gnosticism cohere more as a category - perhaps by creating a category table at the bottom of the page - thoughts? Cheers Visual Error 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we got a lot to do still but we beat any other Encyclopedia now for sure, and there is more coming. A category table might help to keep things coherent, but there is also the categories that help out a lot. However we need to start thinking of splitting it up. Nixdorf 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - I think I concur. Along what lines were you thinking? We could do as Wetman suggested above and split the article into a 'Gnosticism' main page from which 'Modern Gnosticism' could be linked, which could contain all content from Gnosticism in modern times onwards. This would be in keeping with the article as it stands (as distinguishing between ancient and modern gnosticism as part of its central thrust), and it would allow efforts to be concentrated on working on the 'modern' content, which is patchy.

I do think a category table is also something we should think about (I'd volunteer to put one together if I knew how) especially with the splitting that seems to be looming, and the beefuign up of the category in general, but I think that that can be left until such a time as it's definitely a requirement. Visual Error 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tables for suggestions on when to use tables; one of the first links there shows the technical details for how to create tables. Basically, you can either use HTML if you're familiar with HTML tables, or you can use wikipedia's own wiki syntax, which is generally simpler to read and edit once you get used to it. Or if you know what you want the table headings to be, you can spell that part out here and I'll try and convert it to wiki table syntax with one or two rows. Once that's done, the rest will be easy and can be copy-pasted into the article. Wesley 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Wesley! I'll have a look as soon as I can and see what I can put together. I'll get in touch if I need a hand along the line, if that's alright - Visual Error 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

Can more people contribute to this in the Heaven's Gate article, or add it to the Modern times section. Their is a superficial resemblence to the Philosophy. They are not completely the same (instead of a transcendent platonic realm, there is another planet, instead of merely knowing, their is also reincarnation into a space-ship) but their general feeling for this planet's reality are similar. IdeArchos 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)