Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Gnostic Christianity

Does anyone know about gnostic Christianity, how it differs from mainstream Christianity? Just curious ...

Comments

  • SileSile Veteran
    edited September 2012
    So many ways to try and sum it up, but in my understanding, Gnostic Christianity stresses knowledge as being more important than faith.

    What knowledge is, then, is another hugely important Gnostic topic. It includes regular old knowledge, but also something closer to "insight," or direct experience. Strikes me as very similar to the Buddhist discussions on non-conceptual vs. conceptual experience, i.e. reading about the tree.

    Many Gnostics believe the Divine can be directly experienced, particularly if one follows a path of meditation and contemplation which leads to this eventual direct experience. At that point the division between oneself and the Divine becomes rather fuzzy or is gone altogether; knowing the Divine is achieved through meditation, i.e. knowing oneself.

    As far as the relationship between Gnostic and non-Gnostic Christianity, much of the tension seems to come from the idea, within Gnosticism, that this direct experience is the most important thing--even more important than scripture or sermons. This makes it seem to the non-Gnostics as thought Gnosticism is denigrating scripture, and religious leaders, when in fact Gnosticism is merely saying that "There's no substitution, however well-worded, for actually seeing the tree." In fact it's not even technically possible to experience the Divine via scripture; one can only experience the Divine by experiencing the Divine. It's not possible to transmit experience via words.

    It's very interesting how this concept of "personal knowledge," i.e. direct experience, so easily becomes mistaken as "secret." So often the issue is not one of secrecy and exclusion, but simply that it's not possible to share or transmit experience; one truly has to have it for oneself. When one tries to explain this using the words, "I can't tell you this..." that becomes misunderstood as secrecy. It's not the only way "secret" knowledge is misunderstood, but I think it's one of the biggies. And "secrets" are almost always resented/coveted by others.

    Gnosticism is a massive topic though, covering multiple religions and epochs, each with its own variations on what "gnosis" is and isn't.

    The discussions come very close to those on tantra, and many of the same misunderstandings seem to arise:

    "Tantric meditations do not serve the function of training or practicing extra beliefs or unnatural ways. On the contrary, the transcendence that is reached by such meditative work does not construct anything in the mind of the practitioner, but actually deconstructs all pre-conceived notions of the human condition. The barriers that constrict thinking to limitation-namely, cultural and linguistic frameworks-are completely removed. This allows the person to experience total liberation and then unity with ultimate truth or reality." [Timalsina, S. (2012)]
    musiccozZero
  • Gnostic Christianity was all about direct communication with the Divine via meditation. That's why the Gnostics were ostracized by the Church; the Church wanted to control access to God, meaning that believers were to view the priests as the authorities and the official intermediaries between the common folk and God.

    An interesting thing happens, though, when you have a movement that allows anyone to follow their own (subjectively) Divinely-inspired visions or messages, inspiration, whatever you want to call it. People start coming up with some pretty strange stuff. The Gnostics where not a single, homogeneous entity. They split up into different sects, each following a different prophet who emerged among them. (More on this later.)

    Overall, they believed that this world was suffering, and that it had not been created by God, but by the Demiurge, opposed to God's love. So they believed it was wrong to bring another soul into the world where it would inevitably experience a lifetime of suffering. This lead to some interesting ideas as to how to avoid bringing additional souls into the world.

    Some groups lived the celibate life. The apostle Thomas preached celibacy when he travelled East, and established a ministry in India. He especially appealed to women, including married ones, and urged married couples to live in celibacy together. This didn't win him any friends among the husbands of the women converted to Thomas' message. According to the apocryphal gospel of Thomas and Acts of Thomas, this got him into quite a bit of trouble.

    Others encouraged homosexuality as a way to satisfy sexual needs without creating new life. Still others practiced pederasty to avoid pregnancy. It's said that some developed a Tantric sex technique, which involves avoiding ejaculation during sex. This later was practiced by the Moravian Christian sect, and in relatively more modern times, among members of the Oneida utopian colony in the US in the 1800's.

    We tend to think of the Gnostic Christians as spiritually evolved people devoted to communion with the Divine via meditation in caves, but this is a simplistic view. The reality, it turns out, got pretty messy for some, as is wont to happen among any group of humans. It becomes difficult to sort out what is Divine inspiration, and what is one's own neurosis or personal urges.

    A good source for this is scholar Benjamin Walker's "Gnosticism".
    DaftChriscozZero
  • Gnostism was the faith of the Knights Templar; who believed that the path traveled to the devine, is one of a personal matter, and a personal acceptance, which as said above cannot be re-told by the person who has obtained enlightenment. The Templar's believed in re-birth and re-incarnation, which placed the authority of the Bishops and teachings of the church in herecy.

    Through Gnostism, there was no need for a seperation of the religions' since all come from the same creator; imagine a world where 'all' are permitted to practice or not practice their religion and faith without fanatics demanding one or all be destroyed.

    In the finale days of the Templars in the middle east, they did get to bring about a form of detente between Islam and Christians. But it ended when the vatican decided to rule.
    coz
  • I heartily recommend reading the gnostic "gospels"; I think they they are beautiful and inspiring and that they often seem very dharmic.

    coz
  • Legend has it that Jesus learned Buddhism, and it became part of his teachings. The Gnostic gospels are a direct dictation of his life. And it became the focous of the Lombard crusades; where the church waged it's first purging of it's ranks.

    DaftChris
  • A short, beautiful article by Mehmet Sabeheddin on Gnostic Islam and its relationship to Gnostic Christianity.

    Excerpt:

    "Today Gnosticism is generally regarded as the heart of the Western esoteric tradition. But the Gnostic way of thinking is not confined to the West and Christian forms. Within Islam, that other great monotheistic religion to emerge from the Middle East, there is a vibrant esoteric tradition represented principally by the Sufis, the Gnostics of Islam.

    ...The place where Christian Gnostics and Sufi Muslims meet is ultimately beyond all words and doctrines being one of shared experience. “He who tastes knows” say the Sufis, reminding both the East and the West that “Gnosis is nearer to silence than to speech.”

    http://moorishacademy.org/articles/the_gnostics_of_islam.html
    RebeccaS
  • JohnG said:

    Legend has it that Jesus learned Buddhism, and it became part of his teachings. The Gnostic gospels are a direct dictation of his life. And it became the focous of the Lombard crusades; where the church waged it's first purging of it's ranks.


    Not just legend, there is some evidence too. Jesus Lived In India is quite a good book on this hypothesis. As is this BBC doc: http://krishnatube.com/video/293/Jesus-in-India--BBC-Documentary

    namaste
  • I heartily recommend reading the gnostic "gospels"; I think they they are beautiful and inspiring and that they often seem very dharmic.

    Which translation would you recommend?
  • Jesus didn't ned to go to India. Buddhism was well known in his part of the world as he grew up. It's interesting to read the words of the Philokalia and the sayings of the Desert Fathers. When we read Evagrios the Solitary or St. Anthony we see the same worldview as the Sufi or Buddhist. Try never to see a shape or form during prayer, says Evagrios, 'then you will understand'.
  • Fellow discussants:

    Probably the category “Gnosticism” does not apply to early Christianity. Certainly no early Christian group ever referred to themselves as being "gnostics". The construct "gnosticism" is a dubious category according to Michael Allen Williams in his book, Rethinking "Gnosticism". If the category "gnosticism" has to firmly rest on the notion of "gnosis" then Gnosticism becomes a problem not likely to untangle itself. Brackets and emphasis are mine.
    The problem is not with the data [different early Christian churches], but with the category [of Gnosticism]. The data, the phenomena that have come collectively to be called “gnosticism,” are a truly fascinating assortment of religious phenomena. What has happened, however, in the history of their study is that they have come to be routinely herded into the same corral and treated as though they are best understood when considered to be the same breed, with the same ancestry, the same essential constitution, the same disposition, and the same habits. In the following chapters we will examine such assumptions, while taking a closer look at the supposedly “gnostic” sources described above, and several more. What this examination will show is that “gnosticism” is probably not what it is so often purported to be. Or better put: The sources that are routinely classified as “gnostic” do not in fact share some of the important features that are usually treated as the characteristic or identifying traits of “gnosticism” (Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, 28).
    Silouan
  • It is quite different in practice. You might say the contemplative Christians are aiming for gnosis. One of the main practices is the Jesus Prayer, which is very deep. A good example of the gnostics were the cathars. Their sangha was vegetarian, included women and they had to practice contemplation before teaching. The Inquisition was set up to wipe them out. Must have been doing something to upset the Official Christians . . . :o
  • Christians have not traditionally talked about Gnosticism, but of Gnosis which is the Greek word for knowledge. Gnosticism is a religious category which became popular as a scholarly construct in the 19th century. Contemporary scholarship has identified that Gnosticism as some kind of collective movement that had a group identity as erroneous.

    The term is used to describe a collection of religious heretical movements emanating from within the Christian Church that shared certain fundamental theological presuppositions. Each movement usually coagulated around one individual teacher taking the name of its founder with each teaching a combination of these ideas with special emphasis here and there. At the basis of these movements is how they viewed the Church's relationship to its Jewish roots expressed as their rejection of them.

    Basically, some of the common ideas of these Gnostic heresies include:

    *That the creator God of our world embraced creation in rebellion against the true God.
    *Creation was not seen as good.
    *The body was a prison shackling the divine spark within.
    *Salvation is the communication to individuals of a process of awakening the divine spark within, of recovering the truth of your divine origin, and by following these teachers you are able to acquire again through their special knowledge or Gnosis, the knowledge of your original calling and your destiny, and ultimately you will be saved by escaping your body and physical creation.

    Some Christian Gnostic teachers like, Valentinus, struggled with the fact that Christ actually sweat, urinated, and defecated where the Church affirms this absolutely.



    @Lobster
    The Jesus Prayer, also called the Prayer of the Heart, is the basis of our Hesychast tradition within the Eastern Church. Hesychia means stillness, and it is not particularly tied to the Gnostic movements. It is used by both our monks and laity.

    Also, the Eastern Church is not an invention of modern times, or an attempt to return to something from an age past. If properly prepared, and given the blessing as a pilgrim from the Abbott, I could receive as an Orthodox Christian Holy Communion at St Catherine's monastery, one of the oldest active monasteries in the world, or any ancient Orthodox Church still in service for that matter.

    Also, the inquisition was an activity of the Roman Church that occurred after the schism between the East and West.
  • The Gnostic group I belonged to did not use the Jesus Prayer. The word gnostic is used in Islam but I am not aware of it being used by Jewish mystics. It would of course apply. Just as Buddhists are knowers, just not of cod the creator fish.

    Valentinus was my favourite gnostic. His ideas would certainly liven up Buddhism.

    Are Roman Catholics a form of Christian heresy? Is Christianity still a form Of Judaic heresy?
    Make sure you include me in your prayers, I need all the help I can get . . . :wave:
  • @Lobster
    The Patriarchates of Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, were all in communion at one time and have a shared history since the formation of the early Church. The official date of the Schism was 1054, but tensions between the East and the West were occurring long before that date. After the Schism the patriarchates other than Rome have remained in communion.

    The Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholics are not seen as a heresy by the Orthodox, but some of their doctrines such as Papal Infallibility, the inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed , Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation to name a few of the commonly known dogmas are considered heretical.

    Many followers of the ancient Jewish sects certainly considered the Church Body and its Head, Christ, as heretical, but since the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. the Jewish religion has been splintered with many modern forms and ideas being developed that probably would have been considerable heretical too.

    I think Orthodox Jews are waiting for the Messiah to come and restore the temple thereby making it possible for the resumption of their rituals, including the rituals of sacrifice, and this would include animals. However, someone more familiar or close to the Jewish faith would have to comment and confirm this statement.

    I will keep you in my prayer rule. Please do the same for me.
  • Without denying that there
    Songhill said:

    Fellow discussants:

    Probably the category “Gnosticism” does not apply to early Christianity. Certainly no early Christian group ever referred to themselves as being "gnostics". The construct "gnosticism" is a dubious category according to Michael Allen Williams in his book, Rethinking "Gnosticism". If the category "gnosticism" has to firmly rest on the notion of "gnosis" then Gnosticism becomes a problem not likely to untangle itself. Brackets and emphasis are mine.

    The problem is not with the data [different early Christian churches], but with the category [of Gnosticism]. The data, the phenomena that have come collectively to be called “gnosticism,” are a truly fascinating assortment of religious phenomena. What has happened, however, in the history of their study is that they have come to be routinely herded into the same corral and treated as though they are best understood when considered to be the same breed, with the same ancestry, the same essential constitution, the same disposition, and the same habits. In the following chapters we will examine such assumptions, while taking a closer look at the supposedly “gnostic” sources described above, and several more. What this examination will show is that “gnosticism” is probably not what it is so often purported to be. Or better put: The sources that are routinely classified as “gnostic” do not in fact share some of the important features that are usually treated as the characteristic or identifying traits of “gnosticism” (Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, 28).
    Gnosticism Like modern Druidism appears to be largely a modern invention.
    Those ancient gnostic texts which appear genuine differ far more widely from Buddhism than does mainstream Christianity..the " gnostics " for example taught that all of the material world was created by an evil " god" called the Demiurge...it is in other words extremely dualistic..far more than the Abrahamic faiths.
    Buddhists have nothing to learn from " gnosticism ".
    Whereas mainstream Christianity has produced people like Thomas Merton and Bede Griffith...
    Silouan
  • I could add for Silouan's benefit people like Seraphim Of Sarov and Herman Of Alaska.
    Gnosticism in any of its forms has produced no one of that spiritual stature.
    Silouanstavros388
  • @Citta
    Thank you, and my patron saint, St Silouan of Mt Athos too. :)
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012
    JohnG said:

    Legend has it that Jesus learned Buddhism, and it became part of his teachings. The Gnostic gospels are a direct dictation of his life. And it became the focous of the Lombard crusades; where the church waged it's first purging of it's ranks.

    Any chance of actual evidence that Jesus " learned Buddhism" or that the Gnostic gospels were " a direct dictation of his life " ( whatever that might mean ) ?
  • I will keep you in my prayer rule. Please do the same for me.
    Cool. Will do. :wave:
  • Citta said:

    JohnG said:

    Legend has it that Jesus learned Buddhism, and it became part of his teachings. The Gnostic gospels are a direct dictation of his life. And it became the focous of the Lombard crusades; where the church waged it's first purging of it's ranks.

    Any chance of actual evidence that Jesus " learned Buddhism" or that the Gnostic gospels were " a direct dictation of his life " ( whatever that might mean ) ?
    The rumors that when Jesus wandered off for 40 days he was learning Buddhism. There has never been any evidence of such an excursion, but I would be interested to know where this theory came from. Probably the same place chain e-mails come from :p
  • Maybe its like the Island where jokes come from in Family Guy..
    Or maybe someone just feels compelled to share their papanca and other people then feel compelled to share it with everyone else...
    Its all just stuff as far as I can see.
  • SileSile Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Oh, Gnosticism and anti-Gnosticism were in full swing long before modern times.

    For example, in seeking answers for this OP, perhaps we may consult one or two books of Iraenius' five-volume work, On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis, otherwise titled, Against Heresies, 180CE.

    "The purpose of Against Heresies was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorial campaign praising the pursuit of "gnosis" in Irenaeus' bishopric. Another popular theory states that a group of Gnostics known as the Valentinians remained part of the early Christian church, taking part in regular church celebrations despite their radical differences. It is also said that Gnostics would secretly meet outside of regular church activity where they would discuss their "secret knowledge" and scripture that pertains to it." [see link above]

    Silouan
  • @Sile
    I have been studying a seven part lecture series my spiritual father gave on the subject of heresy and the early Church. The following are excerpts or paraphrases of his lecture on the Gnostic heresies addressing Valentinus in particular.

    Valentinus was a Docetic teacher who was born in Egypt and educated in Alexandria. The Greek word Dokeo means to appear, but not to be in reality, and Docetism is the teaching that the incarnation of Jesus and his body was just a phantom, because the Christ can’t really become physical. If you are a Gnostic to be physical is to be imperfect and maybe even sinful therefore how can Christ be that.

    Bishop Serapion of Antioch was the first to apply the term to describe this heresy in about 190 A.D. though it was much older than that. In his three epistles the holy apostle St John describes false teachings at the time that were asserting that Jesus did not come in the flesh. He says very clearly that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is Antichrist, and he was addressing forms of Docetism, and Dualism. St Ignatius of Antioch, who reposed in 107, refers in letters to Docetic teachings and strongly condemns this heresy.

    Valentinus was deeply influenced by the Greek philosophy of his time called Middle Platonism and relocated to Rome about the year 135. According to Tertullian he was a candidate to be Bishop of Rome, and when he was passed over he was so offended, since he was so intelligent, he separated himself from the Church and promoted his own heresy.

    He claimed to have received his teaching from Thaddeus a disciple of the holy apostle St Paul. Apostolic succession was claimed, but could not proved. He had many disciples that expanded upon his teachings, and later developers of his theories took his fundamental principles much farther. He was very aggressively refuted by St Justin Martyr, and thought to have died about the year 160 A.D.

    What Valentinus was trying to do was make Christianity fit in with the contemporary Greek philosophy of his time, and tried to secularize the Church through his teachings. Middle Platonism taught very clearly that there are two worlds. There’s the ideal world, and then there’s our world the real world, and that there is not a substantial connection between the two. Also, that certainly nothing of the ideal world exists as ideal on the earth. Therefore if Christ is from the ideal world how in fact can He actually be a creature, and enter into our fallen world. That would make him imperfect, and temporary.

    He taught that the true God lived in divine fullness in heaven with all cosmic beings, that the harmony of heaven was destroyed by sophia or wisdom personified that grew discontent, and tried to create for himself or herself another world, an imitation of the true god. Creation was viewed as imperfect at least and evil at worst. Every human person descended from this heavenly world having the divine spark within functioning like a homing device to move towards the next life being released from the things of the body.

    However, when you degrade the body and view the body simply as extraneous to your personhood instead of an essential component of your personhood you either trivialize it and can do anything with it and not affect your personhood. Which means you can act immorally and say that it does not affect my inner person.

    St Irenaeus of Lyons, our great second century Church father wrote very aggressively against Valentinus. In his book “Against Knowledge Falsely So Called” affirmed in the face of Valentian heresy true Orthodoxy and these principles:

    1. The true father of all is the creator of everything that exists. There are not two Gods, two creators, or two creations. The one true God is the maker of the entire cosmos and of every human person. Body and soul are the direct work of the one true God.

    2. Matter is not intrinsically evil. Evil is the misuse of freedom against the will of God. It is parasitic. It doesn’t have an objective existence itself.

    3. Salvation is not escape from the body, but the resurrection of the body and soul. The reconstitution of the entire human person. The restoration of the cosmos. A new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.

    4. And the fundamental Christian affirmations of the incarnation of Jesus Christ that the co-eternal Son of God who has always been in the bosom of His father did in the womb of the Virgin Mary become a human person forever joining the divine nature and human nature in His one person.

    5. The Gospel itself proves the goodness of the material creation of the physical world. This is also proved by the sacraments of the Church which use the stuff of creation like water, oil, bread, and wine to communicate God’s grace, His love, and His salvation.

    What these Gnostic heretics did was that they took the scriptures, and twisted them, the father’s said, to promote their theories. They guarded the text of scriptures, at least some of them did, but they did not guard the history of the interpretation of scripture. St Irenaeus points out that the Church does both. It guards the scriptures themselves and also the apostolic rule for how those scriptures should be understood, and he called Valentinus a mutilator of Holy Scripture.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012
    The concept of heresy has no exact parallel in Buddhism, but from certain standpoints the Mahasanghika Buddhists came close, and for the same reason as the Gnostics of Christianity....they would not accept that " impure" physical form could be a vehicle for a Buddha..they therefore concocted the idea that the appearance of the Buddha was in fact an illusion, that he had no physical form...This is heresy from the Theravadin POV but also from the Vajrayana POV,,my own first teacher Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called the rejection of the physical form of the Buddha the very root and origin of Spiritual Materialism,. He would talk at length about his love for the Native American name " Sitting Bull "..he said its earthiness and solidity was an antidote to the docetic impulse to be found in some distorted views of Buddhadharma.
    " Be Sitting Bull " he would say..." do not attempt to disincarnate clouds of gas ".
    He was a fierce opponent of any kind of solipsism..the idea that "the only thing that exists is my mind."
    RebeccaSSile
  • SileSile Veteran
    "Spiritual materialism" is one of the most brilliant and effective concepts I have encountered, particularly for me as a mostly-Westerner. Shine that light on one's life, and so many things jump out--"My god, I'm wearing a mala so everyone can see, and I might as well be trying to show off a Rolex!" And of course deeper realities than simple outward appearance, too.

    Very interesting about the Mahasanghikas, and thank you for the great Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche quote.



  • I missed out the " be" of course.." do not attempt to be disincarnate clouds of gas"..also " sit on the earth..be unmovable "...
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Sile said:

    "Spiritual materialism" is one of the most brilliant and effective concepts I have encountered, particularly for me as a mostly-Westerner. Shine that light on one's life, and so many things jump out--"My god, I'm wearing a mala so everyone can see, and I might as well be trying to show off a Rolex!" And of course deeper realities than simple outward appearance, too.

    Very interesting about the Mahasanghikas, and thank you for the great Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche quote.



    Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says that practitioners should never stand out from their community. He says even in their homes if we live among westerners and non practitioners we should just keep a white AH symbol somewhere discreet...no obvious shrines on display. However as one of his leading western followers says hardly anyone obeys him in that...
  • SileSile Veteran
    It's very interesting. I suppose it all gets to compromise; I don't think Buddhists should have to go to lengths to hide the fact they are Buddhists i.e. be all underground and hush-hush about it. But not attempting to stand out or make a big deal, I could totally see.

  • Yeah, I think having a shrine is ok. It's natural to like to show off, but I only show off in an ordinary sense like sharing pictures of one's cat or dog.
  • Norbu Rinpoche was addressing his own followers of course rather than stating a general principal...it raises an interesting point though about not manufacturing another ( Buddhist ) personality that then has to be got rid of.
  • Blasphemy is used as part of Buddhist means of ridding oneself of false cods or irrelevant doctrines.
    The thing I liked about Valentius the source of Valentines day, is his card system. It enabled a sex filled Church, later to be decreed official heresy.
    No doubt whether a fish is real, frozen or an imaginary friend is as important as how many pins can dance on the head of an Angel. To others it is just a meal. :)
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Your fish metaphor is getting old lobster..in my opinion. And it was not very funny or insightful to start with.
    But then to be fair I have no idea what you are saying most of the time, or how it relates to any aspect of Buddhadharma...so probably the best thing all round is if I simply skip over your posts.
    Namaste.
  • Lobster talks about fish all the time. What's wrong with this picture? ;)
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    music said:


    Lobster talks about fish all the time.

    He is, afterall, a lobster...

    ...a little shellfish of him I suppose...

    :hiding:
    JasonJeffrey
  • Its a huge topic and controversial, and there's no point in trying to sort it out when the facts of history are not clear, but I'd just like to say that I don't think we're doing either early Christianity or Gnosticism any favours here. I'd have said that Iraneus' views were heterodox and that Valentinius was on the money, but it's just an opinion.

Sign In or Register to comment.