Comments on: What Is Gnosticism?

By: Occult Investigator » The Essential Human Brand

Occult Investigator » The Essential Human Brand — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:02:23 +0000

[...] erience of transcending limitation into potential I distilled down from what I think is the essence of Gnosticism (although others disagree). And I just spotted an arti [...]

By: fantastic planet » What is This Thing Called Gnosticism?

fantastic planet » What is This Thing Called Gnosticism? — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:33:12 +0000

[...] 10:36 am
What is This Thing Called Gnosticism?

The question has been raised, “What is Gnosticism?” Well, this question gets raised again and again and [...]

By: J. Puma

J. Puma — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:04:02 +0000

yeah, but there’s a real danger in saying ‘anything can be gnostic,’ too– it’s not anything to anybody. i think your three points are good, but they could be applied to any process of seeking. there’s more to it than just this process, otherwise we could just say ‘hey, everyone seeking to overcome limitation is a gnostic,’ which isn’t the case. it’s definitely a distinct tradition; for instance, zen buddhism (which, as you know, i think is a close parallel to gnosticism) is really awesome, but it’s not gnosticism.

there’s a definite tradition involved, and i don’t think one can ignore the eucharistic aspect, either. i have more to say on this, but i’m still thinking on it– more later.

By: scott rassbach

scott rassbach — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:26:36 +0000

It does make sense to say that Gnosticism means different things to different folks. I mean, look how many emperical versions of Christianity there are, and yet they claim to be one church!

By: Occult Investigator » Is Gangsta Rap Gnostic?

Occult Investigator » Is Gangsta Rap Gnostic? — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:07:58 +0000

[...] Is Gangsta Rap Gnostic?

I just thought of a good test case for my tentative three part criteria of what makes a myth gnostic. As a reminder, the three thing [...]

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:27:05 +0000

Yes, I saw your comments on Jordan’s post about the “gnostic streams” where you asked a similar question. His response as to why he called it “gnosticism” rather than “mysticism” didn’t make a lot of sense to me. It was basically “that doesn’t apply here.” But I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question. And as far as I can tell, you’re right. Gnosticism and mysticism seem to be the same thing by the definition I gave above. In order to narrow it down, we’d have to add in a bunch of ad hoc qualifiers such as “mentions Jesus, mentions Sophia,” etc. Which I personally don’t think are really necessary to get at what gnosticism is really about. I like the two ideas that you attached much more that going that route.

One other thing I wanted to add in the notes to this essay is the similarity to the 3 points I outlined above to the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism:

1. Dukkha: All worldly life is unsatisfactory, disjointed, containing suffering.
2. Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or desire (tanha) rooted in ignorance.
3. Nirodha: There is an end of suffering, which is Nirvana.
4. Marga: There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path.

Though the wording is different (desire as the root cause, etc), the biggest difference to my eyes is that Buddhism lays out a pathway to get you from one place to the next. Maybe that’s what I was really getting at in terms of gnosticism as a methodology. And perhaps that methodology comes from the two things you added as qualifiers: “friendship” with God, and continual creative invention. Maybe the creative-play is the gnostic equivalent of the Eightfold Path. The Gospel of Thomas seems very much to convey a specific methodology as well. It might be worth trying to boil it down into a set of essential principles, something like the Eightfold Path.

By: Arizona

Arizona — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:13:03 +0000

I’m still struggling with a definition of gnosis and gnosticism. The definitions with an emphasis on experience don’t really distinguish gnosticism from mysticism generally. The Wikipedia description is specific to 2nd century Christian Gnosticism and not general enough to cover gnosticism in other times, places and cultures. Your basic idea of limitation and its transcendance is common to virtually all religions and even to most philosophical or secular moral thinking (such as Plato or Confucius). The idea that an inner spiritual value or entity or potential (such as soul or higher Self) will save you is also common to all religions, especially in their mystical forms.

The only elements that ring true for me are:

* Gnosis is closest to the “know” we experience in close friendship or love. “The gnostic in any form is a ‘friend of God’.” (source) Not all mystics emphasize this element of religious experience. God is often seen as “up there” - awesome or mighty - but for the gnostic, God is also “down there” and ultimately as human as we ourselves are.

* Gnostic insight is expressed through creative and playful forms (myths, poetry) rather than intellectual or rigid forms (theology). (source) All religions use myth, stories, poetry, etc, to convey their message but gnosticism encourages the continued creation of new stories, new myths, new expressions of old truths.

The latter element - the creative and playful and ongoingly inventive aspect - is clearly what most appeals to you, Tim. The friendship idea, too, but not quite so prominently.