12 Reader Responses

1. Jon Rubin Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 12:28 pm

   By chance, within minutes of reading your post, Tim, I happened upon a relevant bit of Tertullian in Kurt Rudolph’s book, _Gnosis_. Tertullian is complaining about how undisciplined the Gnostics are, and how they lack a set hierarchy:

   In the first place one does not know who is a catechumen, who is a believer, they meet with one another (in the house of the assembly), listen to one another and pray with one another. Even if pagans approach them they throw out that which is holy to dogs, and pearls, though they be false, before swine. They wish the abandonment of discipline (disciplina) to be taken for simplicity, and our concern for it they call pandering. They maintain (ecclesiastical) harmony with all making no distinction. As a matter of fact it exists among them although they hold different doctrines as long as they wage common warfare against one thing, truth (i.e., orthodoxy). They are all puffed up, all promise ‘knowledge.’ Their catechumens are already ‘perfected’ (perfecti) before they are taught. Even the heretical women–how barefaced they are! They make bold to teach, to dispute, to perform exorcisms, to promise cures, perhaps also to baptize. Their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious and inconsistent. Sometimes they assign position to novices (neophytes), at another worldly men, at another recreants (apostates), that they may bind to themselves for the sake of reputation, since they cannot by truth. Nowhere is there easier advancement than in the camp of the rebels, where even to be there is a merit. In this way one man is a bishop today, another tomorrow, today one is deacon, who tomorrow will be reader, today a priest (presbyter), who tomorrow will be a layman. For even to laymen they commit priestly duties.

   So even Tertullian, the Gnostics’ most vociferous critic, didn’t consider them elitists. In fact, his argument seems to be that the Gnostics were too open, lacked a sense of hierarchy, and gave away membership too freely to the common people.

2. Tim Boucher Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 1:05 pm

   Oh I forgot all about that Tertullian bit. I think Elaine Pagels includes that in her Gnostic Gospels book as well. But I hear this shit constantly about gnosticism being elitist. So the perception must be coming from somewhere. Anybody care to explain it from that perspective? What makes gnosticism elitist?

3. J. Puma Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 1:57 pm

   heh, that’s an easy one. i have a whole post on it from a while back (so do you, tim!):

   So why do people think it’s such an elitist movement? I think the problem springs from our societal tendency to form mental hierarchies. Gnosticism does maintain that some people have experiences that other people haven’t. Some people have had their lives changed via an insdecribable experience called “gnosis.” There are those who have, and those who haven’t. It’s pretty easy to see why someone who hasn’t had gnosis would be suspicious of someone who claims to have achieved some kind of enlightenment. That’s because trying to explain enlightenment to someone is like trying to explain what an orgasm feels like. When one hasn’t had that experience, it’s easy to write off the whole scenario as something only available to an elite few who must be holding back some kind of secret information. If those few are holding back that information, well, then they *must* think they’re *better* or something.

   Really, though, the only difference between a “Gnostic” and a non-Gnostic is the level of information one has. A Gnostic is someone who has chosen to walk down an open path towards a particular personal goal. On that path, one naturally learns deeper levels of meaning within the mythic structure of the path. The natural projection of these levels of meaning into further levels of meaning reveals additional information about the goal. The information, however, is available to anyone who wants it.

   church officials also like to point to the longstanding gnostic tradition that the gospels reveal jesus’ exoteric teachings that he gave *before* he died, whereas the gnostic texts give the esoteric teachings that he gave *after* he was resurrected.

   it’s a bad case of cart-before-the-horse. people who claim gnostics are elitist say it’s ’cause the gnostics taught that some people were spiritually superior to others and thus only they could be saved. the opposite, of course, is true; gnostics *really* taught that *anyone* can be saved and once one has one is spiritually elite.

4. Tim Boucher Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pm

   Yeah I posted a link to my older piece on it in the body of my post!

5. alistair Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 2:12 pm

   i continually suprises me that some people are that mean-spirited over knowledge. it seems, once certain peole learn tips and tricks, they become elitist assholes and use thier new power to control others. i see my kids do it and i ask them to build better models for communication. for adults to do it is sad. it is a perception though. there is a natural tendancy for groups, official or otherwise, to give power to a knowledgeable and/charismatic person who is willing to lead. brian, of life of brian fame, told people to fuck off whent hey tried to follow him, but they persisted and got the romans after him.
   about spiritual awakening. i am surprised the people haven`t had these types of experience more frequently, or have they? maybe there is fear in revealing these type of experiences for fear of psychiatric interogation. nobody wants to believe that they`re losing thier mind.
   wait a minute, what is this mind that people are afraid to lose? maybe it`s a conditioned mental experience that makes any new thinking and discovery impossible but for great effort or shock. i think many go looking for gnosis but find religion in the form of bramins, priests and ministers. these people aren`t going to shout that the light is available to everyone who asks. they`ve got bills to pay.
   of the venn diagram that is spirituality religion is a tiny edge of one corner of the circle. but it`s all that religion allows.

6. channel null Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 3:15 pm

   I also suspect that the perception of elitism comes from the fact that likely only someone deeply versed in culture or knowledge would know about the gnostics. Keep in mind that often, “elitist” is just a rallying-cry to garner support for an attack against someone you think view as knowing more than average: at this point in history, gnosticism has receded away from surface awareness. Sure, it’s all over the books, but you have to actually read the books.

   The other thing, I’ll postulate that because there are few gnostics–not the EGC folks, I mean like first century Xians–and so many Protestants and Catholics, gnosticism is “weird”=small=unusual=different=bad=elitist. Keep in mind that one of the first tenants, as enemies.com put it, is “god is the devil earth is hell.” That’ll ruffle feathers.

   I actually had a religious studies professor dismiss a student’s question about the Gospel of Thomas as some imaginary new age document cooked up by publisher, which revealed the prof’s lack of knowledge more than anything else.

   As far as “elitism,” it’s not really justified. It’s necessary to recognize that some people have more experience and knowledge than others, but that’s really it. I’m very much for spreading information–I think it’s fine to discuss one’s techniques and practices. On the other hand, I’m wary of discussing results and “gnostic” experiences, including drugs, because these tend to transcend words and any attempt to explain them sounds ridiculous–it helps enemies cast dispersions. I usually just mutter something like “…experiences… it’s fractal…” Look at occultforums.com for examples of how stupid occultists can sound sometimes. Likewise, most people you meet will look upon psychedelics as childish, be frightened by most rituals, and view upon meditation as alien, so it might be best to keep your mouth closed–or at least not mention the subject–about your hobbies if anonyminity can’t be assured–like it can here the cyberweb.

7. alistair Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pm

   channel null, thanks for the thoughtful response. i think we need to get comfortable with the feelings of not being taken seriously. we won`t be burned at the stake these days, at least not physically. i have been called inchoherent, insane, wrong, heretical, wierd, raised wrong, etc. and that was from one baptist and his wife. i have spent 44 years kept quiet in my embarrassment about talking about what i know. i won`t hide my light any longer. can`t. sorry. i`d rather sound stupid in making my point than deliberately being stupid.
   my hope is that i will find like-minded types to converse with. like here.

8. james Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 4:36 pm

   Well, if Jesus says gnosticism is NOT elitist but his followers make it elitist anyway, it wouldn’t be the first time Christ’s message was perverted by men with no understanding.

   Nietzche famously said that the only true Christian died on a cross 2,000 years ago. He was right. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what Jesus said, whther it’s in the King James Bible or a forgotten Gnostic text– people will make their own interpretations. And then they’ll use the “knowledge” they gleaned from sacred texts and make people feel bad for not being as “enlightened” as they are. Some of them even charge money for this “enlightenment”– that’s like buying up all the air and charging people to breathe.

   It’s spiritual blackmail.

   My favorite targets are always the know-it-alls, because (as my boy Socrates would have said) they really don’t know shit. The wise man is the one who claims NO knowledge– that’s why the Delphic Oracle proclaimed Socrates the wisest man. Socrates made no such claim to power.

   Therefore, I find it a useless waste of time trying to “claim” power. Look at the Bush guys– after two stolen elections, 9/11, Valerie Plame, and Cindy Sheehan, it takes a HURRICANE to finally get dumb people to realize that he is NOT a leader. Mother Nature– an unpredictable, chaotic force– showed the world without a doubt that our Emperor wears no clothes.

   That’s another reason why the Masons are silly, btw: “Order out of chaos”? Fat chance! I’ll always bet on human incompetence and the random absurdities of the cosmos over any collective’s will any day of the week.

   This has been edifying subject matter.

9. human? Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 4:57 pm

   it seems as if the point to organizing any religion would be to create a elitist heirarchy…
   which is probably why the Marxist “opiate of the masses” rings true…

   i always liked Jesus because of things like ‘I haven’t come to call the righteous.’

   personally, its why i love Rastafari. He who feels it knows it. there are Rasta groups and organizations, but there is no standard set of beliefs and there are far more Rasta with their own personal view than their are members of any group…

   chaos! beautiful perfect chaos…

   one
   human?

10. alistair Says:
    September 9th, 2005 at 5:46 pm

    that`s why i like soccer. 22 men chasing a ball around. two teams trying to but the ball in each other`s net(the spear deep into the belly of the prey). we get to hunt in a pack for an hour and a half and then deconstruct the events into acceptable chunks, then drink beer and go home. repeat when needed. it`s as close to religion/cult behaviour as i like to get.
    gnosis for sale is a difficult issue. it is a personal path of reading and meditation and talking with others on the way, but the books were written for profit. where`s the balance? i am a therapist and the spiritual falls into the conversation more times than not. there isno way to distinguish visualisation, sub-modalities, gnosicism, hypnoterapy and the rest. they are all the same thing. so i`m being paid to teach spiritual developement. otherwise people continue to smoke, eat and worry to death.

11. james Says:
    September 9th, 2005 at 5:47 pm

    Same with Buddhism. My grandmother on my mother’s side was a Shinto Buddhist and her life was a perfect example of balance.

12. Rev max Says:
    September 10th, 2005 at 1:48 am

    I was reading an article on NRO the other day whhere Derbyshire (who I usually think is an idiot) was looking at the evolution/ID debate and saying that Science is a gnosis, that is a specialized field requiring years to master and unointelligible to civilians. SO debates about science curricula always turn into an elite vs. masses squabble - the caterpillar trying to dictate to the butterfly how to do things.

    The actual myths, history and everything of gnosticism that probably wouldn’t interest yer average slob. But gnosis itself is available to anyone, even (or especially) children.

    I’ve starte dto feel recently like the myths are about the struggle between the child mind and the some sort of mechanized consciousness that is trying to impose itself on us. I don’t thinkyou have to be intellectual or eltist to reject mechanized consciousness you just have to be honest.

    RE: elitism in the occult or esoteric pursuits , could anyone just hang their shingle and say I am an NLP instructor, I am a witchdoctor, I am a karate black belt? ALl of thos ethings take years of work and dedication and specialized knowledge i think there are instances in which this desire for instant eglaitarianism that some people seem to have is misguided.

    ANyone can do certain things but feeling like some things hsould be available to and open to everyone is not the same as doing it, haveing certain experiences and learning certain things.

    ANd there are good reasons not to tell people about things they aren’t ready for, in many instances this could be dangerous for them, or simply would not be helpful as some things you have to earn.