Gnosticism seems like its growing all the time in popularity (or some might call it neo-gnosticism). And it’s got me thinking. Mainly, what happens when it reaches a critical mass - when it becomes so popular that it becomes corruptible? Many mainstream Christians of course believe that by its very nature it already is corrupt though, so this would come as no surprise to them. They believe that it “failed” historically simply because it was wrong, and that it couldn’t compete with the righteousness of the True Church.
Which makes me also wonder for a moment, what if Gnosticism hadn’t been supressed, and instead had become the official variant of Christianity? Would this have changed anything in history or the present time? What specifically? If it was “regular” Christianity that had been suppressed, would all of us who are looking for “true” spirituality be looking instead towards the little known secret set of books called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
I guess this breaks down into two questions (at least): is part of the value of gnosticism as a protest against the type of religion we were raised with? If we were raised gnostic, would we protest against that?
What happens when the Da Vinci Code stream finally collides with maximum impact into the Phildickian Gnostic stream? Will it forever change society for the better or will we end up with megachurches where we worship Mary Magdalene riding an intelligent satellite from outer space? And if that happens, will that really be so bad?
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- The Tao of Gnosticism
- The Sethian Gnostics
- Catholics on Gnosticism
- Running Toward the Bomb
- New Gnostic Book!
36 Comments
i imagine if the market model for gnosticism establishes it`s self then mainstream religion will pull it back into the”fold”, as it were. similar to the catholic posters of the matrix.
good questions! i don’t really see gnosticism ever going completely mainstream, though. imho, by its very nature, it’s too slippery for that to happen. i mean, what would that look like? would it be the ecclesia gnostica or ajc or any of the other dozens and dozens of gnostic churches that would be the model?
i can’t speak for anyone else, but if i was raised gnostic i’d most likely still be gnostic. my own personal journey into gnosticism doesn’t really include ‘rebellion.’ it’s about the path that makes the most sense, which gnosticism does for me. but yeah, i’m sure if gnosticism was the mainstream and hadn’t been repressed, we’d probably see people rebelling against it by becoming whatever underground roman catholics would be.
of course, if gnosticism hadn’t been repressed, we might also see the ordination of women, an exceptionally inclusive and anti-fundamentalist christianity focused on self-knowledge and compassion.
i don’t have any reservations about gnosticism ‘going mainstream,’ though. imo, it’s an ideal that ‘gnostics’ should embrace– not a reconciliation with the current mainstream, but a rise in popularity. i used to be all possessive about gnosticism (as a lot of folks seem to be), like it was *my* thing, and how dare the ‘unwashed masses’ start reading philip dick and nag hammadi! now my opinion on the subject has changed 180 degrees. i want to go to a megachurch where mary magdalene rides an intelligent satellite! i want to see icons to our lady of perpelxity in tiny gnostic chapels in shopping malls! how much better a place this earth would be should such things happen!
an addendum: of course it’s definitely corruptible! take a look at samael aon weor or the ‘new gnostic church’ cult, the ‘bullshittian gnostics’– these individuals use gnosticism for restrictive and freaky purposes. gnosticism is a part of the world of forms, the imperfect universe, and is imperfect, alas. in the end, all we can do is practice our own gnosis . . . .
Of course it’s corruptible! Absolutely so! And a gnosticism that is set in megachurches or shopping malls, to m’eye sense, would already be an empty, neutered, commodified thing. Yet another cog in the Society of the Spectacle (now there be some crypto-gnostics, in snooty anarcho-marxist garb–the Situationists…who too were also gobbled and commodified by post-modernism). It would likely be a play at railing against the system…sort of like Rage Against the Machine with their Michael Moore and Chiapas photo-ops and big budget videos and the like (and many of those kids who were groovin’ to Rage and Marilyn manson back in m’eye midwest days now work for Insurance companies or for the military and listen to Mike Savage–so what’s that say?). True gnosticism and gnosis, for that matter is, an individual thing and a thing that’s good at cloaking and adapting…when one cover gets corrupted (like Zoroastrianism or Christianity), it just appears under another guise (Sufis, hermeticists, Levellers, etc.). There’d probably still be real gnostic currents, buried in the old clothes (take note of the abiding mystical traditions within the Orthodox Churches, which definitely carry gnostic “lipstick traces” and informed Gurdjieff to an extent), so there would probably be some of that in any Church of McGnosis or even any Gnosticultism, but the incentives to find, tap and mine those obscured eddies in any mainstream, organized church would probably not be worth the trouble to most people (he says ascribing thoughts to the abstraction of “most people”), that is assuming that most people would even feel there to be any reason to look.
23-skidoo!
i couldn’t disagree more. jesus hung around with prostitutes and tax collectors, and rode into jerusalem on an ass. so a gnostic shrine in a shopping mall, or a gnostic megachurch, would help serve the logos and sophia in a similar fashion, by offering the informational sacrament.
anything gnostic with jesus is already corrupted, imho, in two ways. one, turning chriatianity and jesus on it’s head a la steiner, attributing ideas and thoughts to jesus and the saints that they did not mean. and two, and experience of christianity with gnosis would by default make one not a christian. the state of being of gnosis, a transcendtal state of consciousness and occult knowledge, is my entire spiritual path. i dont need to please my parents (read: my conscious) by evoking jesus and the virgin mary. this is what turned me away from gnosticism and buddhism: being westernized to the point of an egalitarian nursury school. not my cup of tea!
I don’t know but I really liked Robert Anton Wilson who is gnostic. Look at him now, sadly a victim of polio. Nothing protects the body from being ravaged. One of the cruelest things is how the physical body betrays the spirit. The body is corrupt. The physical is corrupt. But their is no escape. For some reason science has me doubting (against my will) there is a thing called the spirit.
The instance anything becomes organized it becomes corrupt. Look at OSHO
I really like in Latin and Afro-Carribean religions, they are extremely popular and widespread, but also totally individualized or based on small groups of practice. Like, you can go into any bodega and buy candles with which to pray, to heal or to smite your enemies. While you’re there, you can get a forty of malt liquor, toilet cleaner, condoms, potato chips and whatever else. There’s something totally sublime about that to me.
How crazy would it be to turn on the television one day to the Christian station, and instead of regular Christian stuff, there was an old televangelist giving a fire and brimstone speech about the Demiurge and the Archons? I mean, I would just about shit my pants I think…
It’ll be bad for the same reason that other megachurches are bad; the original impulse toward illumination will be gone, leaving only an outward form in its wake, after which everyone will scramble like hungry beasts. The only real purpose that religion serves, in my opinion, is fellowship, which isn’t inconsiderable but is an altogether different reward than what most people are after. Gnosis happens when a little bubble goes *pop* inside of one head and the whole universe opens up. I tend to think that in megachurches, or even little churches, there’s often too much noise to hear the God bubble burst.
But humans are humans, and when someone experiences something good (i.e., gnosis), the rest of them try to achieve the same results. Some write methods for reaching this goal, others adhere to the methods, cults form, religions are founded, and the original experience gets further and further away. So definitely, I think Gnosticism is corruptible. Ever notice how everyone now claims to be a Gnostic? The term itself is losing meaning even as we speak.
now this i definitely agree with.
it was my understanding that robert anton wilson is a thelemite.
the size or number of practioners for a religious praxis should not be what we are talking to about corrupting gnosticism, corrupting gnosticism would be in the Idea of gnosticism, like the Kaballah in Los Angeles County.
I’m no longer sure that I think megachurches are bad. Maybe they’re awesome!
hm, but then it wouldn’t be “gnosticism” anymore. gnosis would find another form to take. although i’m not a fan of the megachurch concept, i don’t really have a problem with the idea of a gnostic megachurch in theory, provided it did focus on illumination.
i guess what i mean is that if real, honest-to-goodness *GNOSTICISM* went ‘mainstream,’ i’d be behind that 100%. i’d even support it appearing in popular culture! if it’s the best way to introduce gnosis to people, then i say good on it.
it’s the old ‘elitist’ fallacy, that the gnostics claimed some special knowledge and were therefore ‘better’ than everyone else, which is simply not the case– we were, rather, *more* inclusive than the mainstream, and extended gnosis to all who asked. how is that different than embracing a popular gnosticism?
Maybe the Kabbalah Centre isn’t actually bad. Maybe its actually really good!
Tim! Your a Saint! No, even better, Exarch of the Saints! And your not that bad either, your blog is just really good
I dont care what my girlfriend says. Wait, I dont have a girlfriend, hrrm. *jumps back to reading his book on zen*
I’m serious! What if all of us have it all wrong? How come nobody *EVER* puts that possibility on the table? I’d like to seriously entertain it.
Because nothing is true, everything is permitted! Take :p for being a genotype.
I hate that expression. I think it should be revised to:
Everything is true. Nothing is missing.
As I say: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, as you can still be wrong.
I hear you, and I admit being of two minds (heh) on this one. On one hand, yes, the more Gnosticism gets talked up, as superficial and shallow and saccharine as it might appear in popular media, it could be a good thing because more people will hear about it. On the other hand, it seems to me that the more popular an idea becomes, the more watered down it gets. But I guess that everyone who achieves any kind of gnosis does so in their own way, right? So the more, the merrier.
I’m just on the cynical side of organized religion, of any kind, and feel that it tends to ruin otherwise meaningful ideas and experiences. Religion is to the mystical experience of God what a soundbite is to an aria. At least much of the time.
Found your blog via Fantastic Planet, BTW. Looking forward to reading it regularly now.
Well you’re certainly not alone in that. I myself have been exploring the possibility that maybe my cynicism is misplaced, and that I’m simply cut out for a diferent type of religiosity than most. But that that doesn’t negate where other people find meaning. That’s part of what I’ve been struggling with for a while now.
Anyway, nice to have you around Lesa. I saw your site mentioned on FP the other day and also am looking forward to reading it more as well.
this quote sums it all up for me:
“For the members of the secret societies of this new age, however, Gnosticism has turned out to be, in my opinion, no more than a banal middleclass living room version of ecstasy. Organised forms of Gnosis cannot generate Enlightenment, no matter how banalised and stage-managed. The primacy of the soul yields to marketability, wherein the Gnosis becomes a registered Church or corresponding club. The revolution of sexual lust is conservatively regulated by means of club-statutes. ”
http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/correct.htm
haha!
what a bunch of crap!
I don’t really get the reflexive disgust with organized religion. Two questions come to mind (well more like sets of questions):
1) What is “organized religion?” Where do you draw the line betwen “disorganized religion” and organized religion? Is it a matter of size, or efficiency of administrative structure, or what? Doesn’t the potential for great corruption also exist in “disorganized” religion, or if you reject religion altogether… whatever it is you call your spiritual practices?
2) Why do you think that organized religion cannot bring people to whatever it is that you think organized religion lacks or corrupts? Do you really believe that it serves no purpose in bringing people to authentic religion/spirituality/whatever? Is it possible that “organized religion” as a concept is just a punching bag for people’s continuing frustration with past experiences?
Possible and probable. Your points are very well put, I think.
As to the “argument” going on between the likes of Andrew and JP, I think it’s sort of moving into the “Your mom is so fat she…” territory.
Gnostics are idiots who lack faith.
Inspiring!
What if Gnosticism did go mainstream? Would we recognize it?
What I will suggest—and then run from the flaming arrows—is that Gnosticism started going mainstream sometime after Thomas Aquinas rediscovered Aristotle. So, one form of mainstream Gnosticism is Rationalism. And the cathedrals of this religion are universities. The high priests are analytic philosophy professors.
Pure, unadulterated yet useless reason is mainstream gnosis.
Whatya think? Is it close?
bill, i would say “mainstream delusion.” gnosis is not rational. it is not prude. its beyond the everyday, the normal, the bulletin board, the paper back books, the da vinci whatever, whatever you read about isnt “it”, it isnt in shamanic cultures, it isnt in carlos castenada, it isnt the powder on your nose, but it is blissfull.
Bill, I think that’s a really interesting point of view, and might just do a totally separate post on that idea.
Andrew, I think Bill is precisely saying that gnosis is not rational, but that when you try to talk about inner knowledge and things intangible with people, it inevitably gets levelled out into a common denominator which simply values the power of thinking and the analytic (logical / logos) mind.
Indeed, that is the intent I followed, it was not the only post I was responding to.
I might also wager that Universism is a fair approximation of what Bill is talking about:
http://www.timboucher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=188
There’s a lot of the same language and principles as what I would consider gnostic, but a deep lack of accompanying symbology to actually access and trigger anything which transcends the rational ego.
Oh, my mistake.
Tim, Universism looks a bit like Intelligent Design in that it’s an attempt to create a non-religion religion in the same way that ID seems bent on creating a non-science science. But this could be a good thing.
It seems to validate what my intuition’s been telling me for a few years. And that is that an increasing number of people who’ve sworn off of religion are nevertheless seeking the benefits of it. The increased interest in spirituality in general fits this thought but Univerism takes it to another whole realm.
Also, I just started a book titled “Knowledge And Civilization” by Barry Allen. Allen posits, in a much more knowledgeable way, what I’ve tried to argue with professional philosophers. And that point is that knowledge encompasses more than pure but useless reason. One of the arguments, I posted about here. My basic premise is that, for example, in engineering, right means it works as it needs to work while wrong means that someone loses a lot of money or even their life. And so it is in health care and other areas of intellectual pursuit. Philosophers just are not smarter than the rest of us because they choose to cling to “pure†reason and prevent real life from gumming up the gears.
Anyway, I think you’re on to something. All paths are corruptible, especially when we forget why started down them and then just stop and gaze at our navels.
If Carpocratianism and barbelo-gnosticism go mainstream, I’m all for it.
Of course it’s corrubtable…look at exhibit A, catholicism, or exhibit b, Jerry Falwell. That’s why I religion never works. One you define something as a religion, the doctrinal arguments begin. Once the argument about the length of the mitres begins, it’s all over. Eventually, all movements reach critical mass and become archontic systems…no matter how in tune they may be with the logos at the outset, they will become qlippoths.
Gnosticism is doomed. Gnosis, however, is eternal.
One Trackback
[...] ome je ne sais quois if it becomes a subject of kitchen-table discussion. As Tim asks in a recent post, Mainly, what happens when it reaches a critical mass - wh [...]