>What the fuck is gnosis?
Gnosis basically means "knowledge" but refers to a special kind of knowledge that is obtained via mystical insight and cognition rather than necessarily a type of knowledge one obtains through conventional powers of reason although it typically expresses itself through the language of reason and philosophy. It can strike an individual after years of spiritual and emotional discipline or it can strike a person spontaneously, after a specific unexpected turn of events, depending on the context.
>Are there different kinds of gnosis?
There are as many different kinds of gnosis as there are religions in the sense that each religion may observe the same basic phenomenon and interpret it differently based on what they feel to already be demonstratively true either through reason, logic or sacred tradition from prophetic and gnostic figures of the past. Other religions may have also, theoretically, penetrated the deeper mysteries of the universe, which have thus shed light on those truths discovered by others but which the latter have misinterpreted due to the absence of that greater insight.
>How do I into gnosis?
Kabbalah for Beginners--
Inner Christianity- A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition
"The Lost Gospels" hosted by Peter Owen Jones:
Sufism and Islam--
Irfan and Tasawuuf--
Shi'ism, Sufism and Gnosticism--
Light Within Me--
Teachings of Rumi--
Women and Sufism--
I have other books worth sharing and which are harder to find that I'm willing to upload if people are interested in further reading on either of the above, just ask. I mostly just posted what could be easily found online.
If anyone has anything to had, particularly books dealing specifically with the esoteric traditions of far eastern religions, I'd appreciate it.
Anyone got any good pdf's on Mandaeism and Yazidism?
also, if anyone's looking for a good book on Catharism, I recommend this one:
The word demiurge,derived from the Greek, "demiurgos" literally means "artisan," it is another word, first found in Plato's works, for the active creator of the material world. The concept of the demiurge was developed further on by later platonic schools as well as Judeo-Christian groups.
In Platonism, particularly Neo-Platonism, the demiurge is an emanation from the eternal mind of God who basically sculpts the universe for him. The origin of the universe ultimately lies in God, but the active sculptor, if you will, on his behalf is this demiurge, a sort of lesser spirit or god, depending on your perspective.
In early Christian Gnosticism, the demiurge became characterized as an inferior deity or pseudo-deity who created the material world to imprison men, whose souls were sparks of divine light from the heavenly pleroma (fullness) that comprised the aeons (think 'realms) of the eternal God. Christian Gnostic groups called this demiurge by many names including Yaltabaoth, Sakla and Samael. He was associated by them often with Satan and/or the Jewish god of the Old Testament who unlike Christ's god, as these individuals saw, was capricious, judgmental, ignorant and wrathful, unlike the pure, loving and merciful Heavenly Father.
However, some Christian gnostic groups as well as other religions which contemplated the concept of the demiurge didn't characterize the demi as necessarily evil and in some cases, he was even cast as being good, like a divine servant and manifestation of the creative principle of the Almighty God.
the entity in control of our simulation
in times past it goes by the name god, but in this case he is a lesser god
his minions are archons, they are the various myths, demons, ghosts, ufos, and other paranormal entities that have existed since time began whose aim is to trick us
its the tought of the god that made the world?
i didnt understand much
Gnosis tends to deal with the cosmological hierarchy and detailed origins of the universe that is not readily known to the every man. It also deals with how to have direct or indirect contact or experience with these forces in the path of spiritual ascent. The "Secret Chiefs" would fall into that category.
I had a Gnostic experience once, but I'm still not sure if to call it that or just psychosis. Was the most extraordinary thing I've ever experienced though. If you really want to get into this stuff you can't get it trough reading up on it, I'd rather advice on getting to experience it for yourself, but I couldn't tell you how exactly, but maybe look into meditation and such.
I'd say it's a very deep spiritual insight into the inner workings of everything, getting to know God sorta speak, although there are no real concepts for it so you grasp to the only ones that are out there, to the words the religions you know have taught you, but it defies all words and definitions.
I can say this much, before that experience I was a skeptic atheist who knew only cold logic and reason to make sense of the world, now I'm something more interesting imho. So it was a life changing, everything transforming experience, but I guess this also falls under spiritual insight, just on a very profound level.
this is a neoplatonic school of philosophy that seems legit. Had some good experiences in it and we do talk about Gnosis.
Gnosis is essentially when your seed of consciousness is situated in your soul instead of your physical brain. As someone else put it is also "knowing God" or inner workings of the universe.
>Gnosis is a spontaneous spiritual insight?
In a way, but like the other anon said, it's more of a deeper insight into a knowledge that normal faculties of reason and logic cannot penetrate.To access this knowledge, one cannot simply cultivate the mind, but they must also cultivate the heart and soul.
Reason acts as a foundation, but the idea behind gnosis is that there are things which are beyond the scope of normal reasoning but which are nonetheless real. In a way you could call these truths "supra-rational" as opposed to the everyday rational truths, if that helps, but the truths and reality they concern are so incomprehensible that human language can only convey the general ideas, not the actual reality.
The other anon, not the one you are replying to, the one who claimed having had a gnostic experience once..
An example would be the kind of knowledge OP posted from all the different religious traditions. In a sense all the major religions are a pointer in the direction of the truth, but it's impossible to know the truth from those texts, you got to experience it for yourself. This is also the reason I can't get you concrete examples of this knowledge. I like this little poem from rumi about it, and I'll just leave you with that.
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
How are you?
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?
If you think that the Truth can be known
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening
Called the mouth,
O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly Laughing -
Like >>14656019 was getting, the concept and pursuit of gnosis is very much tied to the notion of Perennial Philosophy
In that there exists this supreme, incomprehensible and transcendent reality that every religion is essentially trying to interpret into language and make sense of. From this reality emanates everything else. But as you move higher up the dimensions of being, the ability to express each individual reality into words becomes more and more difficult. This is pretty much there are so many different religions who seem to be saying the same thing, but also appear to express many different things. Each ancient religious tradition has in some way touched for a brief moment this reality and has built itself around the veneration of it and the attempt to express what it is that it has seen.
In this way, each religion has a singular origin, but some religions, theoretically at least, are closer to the "whole truth" than others. Which religions those are has been an ongoing debate for centuries.
The gnostics are those who seek to experience the realities described in the religious books for themselves and see them with a more perfect clarity through discipline on the spiritual path and who also hope to traverse reach the highest realm of mystical journey which is unity with the Supreme Reality from which all the other emanate from and reflect.
However, I should add that even if you accept one religion to be the truest path, what you read in whatever holy book is merely an attempt to convey experiences, events and realities that are often beyond human description. They do however, act as sign posts on the mystical journey.
Think of a travel brochure. A travel brochure can describe a place with great accuracy in such an eloquent language that you can almost feel like you are at the place being described, but if you want to experience the place in question for real, you must go there yourself. But obviously you need the brochure, you need a map, and you need a travel guide who is at least somewhat familiar with the paths you will walk, of course. This is what, generally speaking, religion is.
How would one go on such a mystical journey? How to take the first steps on this path to supreme reality? How exactly does a gnostic undertake this travel to the higher realms, or what would you recommend? I've read a lots of religious texts in my life, the bible, koran, buddhist scriptures, but I never had a gnostic experience, never really experienced it live for myself. Meditation maybe, shamanistic way of taking hallucinogenics, are there other techniques or whatnot, again what would you recommend for someone wanting to become a gnostic?
Becoming a gnostic, even a low ranking one who is just "aware," is not necessarily about how much information you've absorbed, if we understand a difference between "information" "knowledge," and "wisdom." One can absorb many facts and trivia from books, and certainly this may be helpful but it goes much deeper than that. In the same way that one can talk all the reason one wants into an individual to persuade them not to jump off a bridge to their death and they still do it, a book can relay many facts and wisdom and have no efficacy on an individual if something is out of place in their soul that prevents the knowledge from penetrating the innermost regions of the heart. However, one day, something might happen in the person's life which suddenly causes what was before a mundane curiosity to
Now, others might disagree with me, but I'll tell you my own personal opinion here. I think the best course of action is to find which one religion and its external and philosophical elements seems to speak most to you. These days, especially with the influence of new age religions which like to pick and choose what they want from the spiritual elements of ancient traditions to kind of synthesize a fresh syncretic religion, we tend to think that accepting that all traditional religions have some root in divine truth means that they are all necessarily equal or must be equal and this isn't the case. There can be many paths that can take one close to the summit of the mountain, but not all paths can lead one to the summit itself and some paths may lead to the summit eventually but are filled with so many pitfalls and rough turns that it'd be better to choose another that is safer. This doesn't mean two paths never intersect on their way, but what these new age religions tend to do is act as though they offer a new and more exciting path, when really they are just leaping to and fro from one path to another at every given opportunity only to make no progress.
Well, those things are meant to help one learn discipline and cleanse one's heart after of course that heart has opened. Basically, you open the heart which then allows those rules, rituals and prohibitions to work further to cleanse it so that gnosis may reveal itself. A person who practices all the rites and rules of religion may never have a true gnostic experience if their heart the whole time remains hardened. They are just imitating virtue like a soulless robot. But one can't experience gnosis without first following the external rites and rules of religion to some extent.
Regardless of which religion you're dealing with, if it is a traditional religion that is based in gnosis, the way it understands things is usually like so:
1. There are those who have the truth
2. There are those who have some of the truth.
3. There are those who have none of the truth.
A religious worldview in which gnosis plays a vital role often tends to see other religions as merely alternate, albeit deficient to degree, expressions of the same reality which they have witnessed and in some cases claim to possess a greater insight into what the religious icons of other religions really meant.
which one has the truth according to you?
and what would be the knowledge behind God giving half truths to some communities? Or don't you consider revelation the basis of a religion?
>which one has the truth according to you?
I choose to keep that private...for now
>and what would be the knowledge behind God giving half truths to some communities?
It's not as much a case of God giving them half-truths as it is that the communities in question may come in contact with some sort of truth and attempt to interpret such truths, which are themselves beyond human expression and/or normal human comprehension, which can account for why religions seem to have similar ideas, but are nonetheless different in both belief and practice. Either the religion's founders were unable to interpret the knowledge they received accurately because it was too overwhelming for them, or the people who inherited that knowledge were unable to comprehend and it became altered to suit their own understanding and needs better.
For example, being a Christian does not mean one can't accept that a figure like Muhammad or The Buddha actually had some cognitive insight or gnosis into a world beyond our own or could perform miracles. This doesn't mean, however, one has to accept that they interpreted the truth correctly or that their later followers did or that their religions are equal to one's own.
>Or don't you consider revelation the basis of a religion?
Gnosis is the basis of revelation and thus of any religion grounded, even partially, in the truth. The gnostic essentially believes in a ladder of degrees of revelation that different individuals, even the common people, may be able to experience. Even if you have a dream, for instance, that seems to predict the future and those events happen, even if they were small, or if that dream that somehow gives you a great insight into your own nature as a human being or as an individual, from a gnostic perspective this is but a lower form of revelation or prophecy.
Not necessarily. But a gnostic can be described as someone who pursues gnosis with a certain sincerity and seeks to put the knowledge obtained, whether through direct experience or indirect experience into practice.
Theoretically, even the lower faculties of human reason emanate from a divine source and thus true use of said reason could be seen as a form of gnosis. Gnosis can be accurately described as referring to a knowledge gained through insight and intuition. If reason emanates from the divine logos, then it could be said that a philosopher is a like a low ranking gnostic. Although there's always, historically, been a certain amount of contention between pure gnostics and pure philosophers, with one having a distrust of the other. Some gnostics felt that philosophers had a tendency to assume their reasoning could comprehend all the mysteries of the universe and attempted to cage the universe within fixed laws based more on assumption. They often saw philosophers as too secular or working to undermine God by taking away his mystery. Philosophers meanwhile felt gnostics were too prone to speculation, depending almost solely on inherited knowledge from previous masters which, from their point of view, could not be demonstrated to be true and was often contradictory. Gnosticism, generally speaking, throughout history, in whatever religion, has usually been hierarchical, with people gathering around a supposed master or spiritual guide who is believed to possess a greater insight than themselves and giving their entire being over to him, often accepting his (or her) judgement over their own judgement or reasoning. Many philosophers saw this as intellectually or politically dangerous.
Others, however, sought to wed both philosophy and gnosticism/mysticism together and so some characterized the more general reasoning power of humankind as a something of a more accessible form of gnosis that could serve as a measuring stick.
The fact that mystics from the same religious tradition can come up with contradictory insights bothers me.
I'm very religious myself and I love reading the work of mystics, however, we can't prove that someone's insights are gnosis or delusion,
it seems like a risky path with many pitfalls indeed
It's important to keep a few things in mind:
1.) Because one is usually dealing with a knowledge that is beyond expression through human language, but nonetheless needs to conveyed in its generality through human language, there are bound to be contradictions even between people who have observed the same reality. In some cases the contradictions may only be apparent. On the surface, people may be saying different things, but when you strip away certain things around what is being said that is designed to make it relatable to certain individuals within a certain context, or dumb it down, you may find that the same thing is being said and that it's simply an issue of semantics and different people emphasizing different aspects for different audiences with different concerns.
2.) The contradictions may in fact be real, and this is perfectly natural if you believe there are those with greater understanding than others of certain truths or if you believe that some people's developed or inherited nature prevents them a full comprehension of the truth, but a truly inquisitive and perceptive mind will be able to trace the pieces of truth in every source of wisdom back to the original source in order to distinguish who has the most complete understanding.
3.) In some cases, it isn't your place to judge between those contradicting sources of wisdom who is right and who is wrong. If I'm listening to two scientists, each with his own theory on human biology and the course of its evolution, and I've never studied that field before, who am I to judge who between the two is right or wrong? But does that mean that neither one can be wrong? Of course not, but I don't possess the knowledge or the training to distinguish who that is and therefore it is not my place to debate that issue. In some cases, if you are sincere in embarking on a mystical path, you must be humble and begin your journey with the admission "I don't know."
Wow, I only knew the term Gnosis from the video game series Xenosaga. The game is notorious for having heavily borrowed content from the Bible but damn guys... The rest of the information brought here is just amazing.
Don't you fight this guy in that game?