Ask a Gnostic Anything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sophia_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sophia_Christ said:
Haha. I understand why you might get this impression but the truth is there are mystical strains of all Western religions. John of the Cross’ Infused contemplation, Jewish Kaballah, and Sufi Islam all sound very “Hindu-y,” but that is only because the emphasis tends to be on the exoteric forms of these religions.

I would not be comfortable labeling Gnosticism as pantheistic because as I said the universe is flawed. Nor would I call it ditheistic because I do not view Jehovah as evil, just imperfect. I guess Gnosticism could be called panentheistic in a sense but I believe this to be a reductionist interpretation.
Click to expand...
Let us not also forget that wonderful book “Cloud of the Unknowing”, a wonderful treatise of Christian mysticism 🙂

.
 
Sophia_Christ said:
In precosmic times, there was one monistic entity without a second. In time, other beings began to emanate from this primordial source. One of these beings was Sophia; a feminine entity who is Wisdom personified. In order to break the monotony of the perpetual harmony that was taking place in this divine play, Sophia created a being who was imperfect. This being mistook himself to be the original, true God from which everything initially emanated. But really he was only half divine and half matter. He created an imperfect universe and “created man in his own image” which means that they, like their creator had an element of divinity in them yet were still susceptible to the temptations of material nature.

Thus goes the Gnostic story of creation and it is a MYTH. In fact, it is believed by many modern Gnostics to be allegorical the workings of our psyche. The true God is our actual self and material nature is the ego. The creative energy of Sophia represents the human tendency to give life to this false entity that is the ego which brings man further away from God. It now follows that it is the responsibility of man to reject the temptations of material nature (ego) and merge their consciousness with God (true self). I really find the Gnostic creation story to be quite profound psychologically and I think most would agree if they look at it objectively.
Click to expand...
If I wanted to look at everything you said “objectively” in order to possibly understand/agree, then I would need some historical background and literature, as it relates to the aforementioned, to peruse. What would you recommend?
 
Sophia_Christ said:
I don’t follow-it appears that you’re limiting an omnipotent entity by saying that its truth could only be revealed in one singular form to all people…
Click to expand...
So truth, to you, is whatever you “experience.” Meaning subjective. Based on self, and not on any absolute truths.
 
Sophia_Christ said:
I don’t follow-it appears that you’re limiting an omnipotent entity by saying that its truth could only be revealed in one singular form to all people…
Click to expand...
If you say that truth can be reveal in different ways, then in a certain way, you’re correct. I can say, in one form: “the sky is blue”, but I can also say, in another form: “caelus est caerulus” (that’s a strange sentence, I suppose: I haven’t written Latin in years :o ): or in another form “der Himmel ist blau”. These are different ways to experience Truth. However, one cannot say that “the sky is blue” and “el cielo es de color naranja” are both true at noon.

In the same way, we can’t say the Christianity and Islam are both true; one teaches that Jesus is divine, and the other denies it. One is wrong (in this instant). End of story. Despite the good intentions of some, one cannot get around the law of non-contradiction.

Moreover, we can also say, as Catholics, that although the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Latin Ordinary Liturgy are quite different, they are both individual participations in the same event, specifically the Sacrifice on the Cross, the Last Supper, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, etc. A Thomist would say they are essentially the same, but differ in their accidents 😃

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Lucretius said:
I was referring to:

St. John of the Cross (and St. Thomas Aquinas, who influenced him) do not teach being “absorbed” into God, like an egg getting mixed into and becoming part of the batter. Rather, they teach that we “participate in the Divine Nature”, we “become God by participation”, or we “become by Grace what God is by Nature” (St. Athanasius: “God became man, so that men could become gods.”). St John beautifully uses an example of a window being cleaned:

Esoteric mysticism is not Hinduy in itself, and is certainly not foreign to Apostolic Christians. One of my critiques of Protestant thought is that they distorted the traditional understanding of Grace (specifically sanctifying Grace), and lost this understanding of what the east calls “theosis” and the west calls “deification” 😦 It’s just that we Abrahamic religionists judge esoteric experiences with an exoteric standard (the Torah, the Magisterium, the Gospels, the Quran, etc.). The eastern Asians (usually) do not, and so has a tendency to fall into pluralism, claiming that mutually exclusive experiences of Truth are both true, which is insane :rolleyes:

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
It is clear that you have an understanding of John of the Cross (probably moreso than me) and I thank you for that beautiful passage. It is well understood by me that there are differences in St. John’s contemplation, Jewish Kaballah, and Sufi ecstasy-I am not trying to propagate some Ramakrishna “many paths to the same summit” brand of pluralism. To that end we probably agree.

My point is that you must see how one who has never read St. John might interpret phrases like “become God by participation” or “participate in the divine nature” might see this as ‘Hindu-esque’ because the gap between God and man is reduced. Similarly, you related my experience of Gnosis with Hindu moksha when I am experiencing something quite different even if it does not appear that way to you on the surface.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
OK, so there is the “true God,” Sophia, who was tired of harmony and created a being who had a big ego and decided to create a universe because of it? Yes?
So was this true god mad at Sophia? If Sophia is wisdom personified, didn’t she kinda do something stupid by creating this guy who thought he was the original? Because my lacking of fully understanding your view, maybe, is that Sophia wasn’t as smart as she thought. Also, is there other God like beings besides the true god, Sophia, and the imperfect being?
Also, if it is just a myth, what has to be believed by you?
Click to expand...
🍿
 
Sophia_Christ said:
In precosmic times, there was one monistic entity without a second. In time, other beings began to emanate from this primordial source. One of these beings was Sophia; a feminine entity who is Wisdom personified. In order to break the monotony of the perpetual harmony that was taking place in this divine play, Sophia created a being who was imperfect. This being mistook himself to be the original, true God from which everything initially emanated. But really he was only half divine and half matter. He created an imperfect universe and “created man in his own image” which means that they, like their creator had an element of divinity in them yet were still susceptible to the temptations of material nature.

Thus goes the Gnostic story of creation and it is a MYTH. In fact, it is believed by many modern Gnostics to be allegorical the workings of our psyche. The true God is our actual self and material nature is the ego. The creative energy of Sophia represents the human tendency to give life to this false entity that is the ego which brings man further away from God. It now follows that it is the responsibility of man to reject the temptations of material nature (ego) and merge their consciousness with God (true self). I really find the Gnostic creation story to be quite profound psychologically and I think most would agree if they look at it objectively.
Click to expand...
Is Sophia another term for the “Logos”?

.
 
Sophia_Christ said:
In fact, it is believed by many modern Gnostics to be allegorical the workings of our psyche. The true God is our actual self and material nature is the ego. The creative energy of Sophia represents the human tendency to give life to this false entity that is the ego which brings man further away from God. It now follows that it is the responsibility of man to reject the temptations of material nature (ego) and merge their consciousness with God (true self). I really find the Gnostic creation story to be quite profound psychologically and I think most would agree if they look at it objectively.
Click to expand...
Sophia Christ, what is your opinion of Psychologist Carl Jung? He has a tendency to follow this sort of thinking process.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Servant19 said:
I find your use of the term “emanation” very interesting.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by emanation and how it relates to God and cosmology please?

🙂

.
Click to expand...
This may not be the best definition but by emanation I mean ‘brought forth as a result of.’ So by God’s Cosmic energy, he brought forth beings such as Sophia of the Gnostic creation myth.

Does this answer your question?
 
Sophia_Christ said:
This may not be the best definition but by emanation I mean ‘brought forth as a result of.’ So by God’s Cosmic energy, he brought forth beings such as Sophia of the Gnostic creation myth.

Does this answer your question?
Click to expand...
Yes, like the Sun, and the “rays of the sun” right?

.
 
Sophia_Christ said:
This may not be the best definition but by emanation I mean ‘brought forth as a result of.’ So by God’s Cosmic energy, he brought forth beings such as Sophia of the Gnostic creation myth.

Does this answer your question?
Click to expand...
When we die is it your belief that humans will live eternally with what you call the true God, as well as the “imperfect” God we call the Trinity?
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
OK, so there is the “true God,” Sophia, who was tired of harmony and created a being who had a big ego and decided to create a universe because of it? Yes?
So was this true god mad at Sophia? If Sophia is wisdom personified, didn’t she kinda do something stupid by creating this guy who thought he was the original? Because my lacking of fully understanding your view, maybe, is that Sophia wasn’t as smart as she thought. Also, is there other God like beings besides the true god, Sophia, and the imperfect being?
Also, if it is just a myth, what has to be believed by you?
Click to expand...
God is not afflicted with petty human emotions such as anger. Different Gnostic schools have different interpretations on this act of Sophia. Some believe her to be a mischievous character. The Valentinian interpretation was that because the True God is ultimately incomprehensible, she began to feel great pains of separation as a result of her not being able to fully comprehend Him (Sophia was NOT a perfect being). This anxiety began to manifest in all kinds of forms and one of these was Jehovah. Jehovah took on a life of its own and then the creation occurred. So it is not a lack of intelligence but a strong desire to know God in His entirety which caused Sophia to create Jehovah.
 
…

Dear friend, would you mind elaborating if you see any difference between Sophia, and the Logos, or Primal Will or First Emanation of the true God?

Thankyou 🙂

.
 
Denise1957 said:
So truth, to you, is whatever you “experience.” Meaning subjective. Based on self, and not on any absolute truths.
Click to expand...
Not everything experienced is truth, but the truth is not limited to one single experience
 
Sophia_Christ said:
God is not afflicted with petty human emotions such as anger. Different Gnostic schools have different interpretations on this act of Sophia. Some believe her to be a mischievous character. The Valentinian interpretation was that because the True God is ultimately incomprehensible, she began to feel great pains of separation as a result of her not being able to fully comprehend Him (Sophia was NOT a perfect being). This anxiety began to manifest in all kinds of forms and one of these was Jehovah. Jehovah took on a life of its own and then the creation occurred. So it is not a lack of intelligence but a strong desire to know God in His entirety which caused Sophia to create Jehovah.
Click to expand...
Why couldn’t she understand him if she is Wisdom? When I think of “perpetual harmony” I don’t think great pains and anxiety. I think quite the opposite.
 
Lucretius said:
If you say that truth can be reveal in different ways, then in a certain way, you’re correct. I can say, in one form: “the sky is blue”, but I can also say, in another form: “caelus est caerulus” (that’s a strange sentence, I suppose: I haven’t written Latin in years :o ): or in another form “der Himmel ist blau”. These are different ways to experience Truth. However, one cannot say that “the sky is blue” and “el cielo es de color naranja” are both true at noon.

In the same way, we can’t say the Christianity and Islam are both true; one teaches that Jesus is divine, and the other denies it. One is wrong (in this instant). End of story. Despite the good intentions of some, one cannot get around the law of non-contradiction.

Moreover, we can also say, as Catholics, that although the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Latin Ordinary Liturgy are quite different, they are both individual participations in the same event, specifically the Sacrifice on the Cross, the Last Supper, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, etc. A Thomist would say they are essentially the same, but differ in their accidents 😃

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
You are talking about dogma and I am talking about direct experience. The experience of God may differ based on culture or time period but it is still God
 
Sophia_Christ said:
Not everything experienced is truth, but the truth is not limited to one single experience
Click to expand...
How do you know what is truth in what you “experience” and what is not? How do you differentiate? What makes you sure of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top