prayer vs meditation (Gnosticism)

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...>

wrote:

> [...] Here are some suggestions for your reading

> enjoyment: Elaine Pagel's book The Gnostic Gospels influenced

> my perspective on this.

 

I read Pagel's book years and years ago and don't remember it much

except that I liked it. It's clearly time for a re-read.

 

I have recently revisited the concept of Gnosticism, primarily via

online sources. While I find "knowledge of transcendence arrived at

by way of interior, intuitive means" personally attractive, I am

really uncomfortable with the very dualistic Gnostic view of both

divinity and human nature.

 

Note: this is a somewhat different definition of "dualism" that

Buddhists use. Essentially, here Gnostics are dividing the nature of

things into polarities--light/dark, good/bad, material/spiritual,

with the halves or natures in opposition or conflict.

 

I am particularly uncomfortable with idea of evil (or flawed)

divinity:

 

 

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

 

"Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the

imperfections of the world.[....] Gnostics respond that this

interpretation [...] is false. The blame for the world's failings

lies not with humans, but with the creator." [....]

 

"One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia ("Wisdom") is of

great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her

journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed

consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and

psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw.

This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the

ultimate and absolute God."

[....]

"Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was

made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of

the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic

component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of

the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically referred

to as the "divine spark". The recognition of this dual nature of the

world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the

epithet of "dualist"."

 

[end of quotes]

 

In my personal opinion, I think the idea of evil having a divine

source or origin gives dysfunction a legitimacy it doesn't deserve

and draws attention away from the issue of human personal

responsibility.

 

I also think this basically black-and-white mindset makes it too easy

to equate outside-of-the-expected, outside-of-the-comfortable,

radically transformative energies or deities with evil. And they are

NOT.

> Also, the book Chalice & the Blade by

> Riane Eisler [....] The DaVinci

> Code [....]

 

These I haven't read.

Sigh. Too many books; too little time!

> [from previous postings]

> > [Gnostic texts at the] the Nag Hammadi library site:

> >

> > http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

[Guest guest]

, "msbauju"

<msbauju> wrote:

> ... Essentially, here Gnostics are dividing the nature of

> things into polarities--light/dark, good/bad, material/spiritual,

> with the halves or natures in opposition or conflict.

>

 

I think of this as analogous to the yogic view of "opposites" within

and the work is in learning to bring them together in ways that

honor each.

> I am particularly uncomfortable with idea of evil (or flawed)

> divinity:

>

> http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

>

> "Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the

> imperfections of the world.[....] Gnostics respond that this

> interpretation [...] is false. The blame for the world's failings

> lies not with humans, but with the creator." [....]

>

> "One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia

("Wisdom") is of

> great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her

> journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a

flawed

> consciousness, a being who became the creator of the

material and

> psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his

own flaw.

> This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the

> ultimate and absolute God."

> [....]

> "Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it

was

> made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light

of

> the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and

psychic

> component, as well as a spiritual component which is a

fragment of

> the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically

referred

> to as the "divine spark". The recognition of this dual nature of

the

> world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition

the

> epithet of "dualist"."

>

> [end of quotes]

>

> In my personal opinion, I think the idea of evil having a divine

> source or origin gives dysfunction a legitimacy it doesn't

deserve

> and draws attention away from the issue of human personal

> responsibility.

>

> I also think this basically black-and-white mindset makes it too

easy

> to equate outside-of-the-expected, outside-of-the-comfortable,

> radically transformative energies or deities with evil. And they

are

> NOT.

 

Yes, this piece of Gnosticism does not fit for me, either, in that it

doesn't interest me the way the intuitive knowing part does. But it

actually can describe someone like Osho, who was in some

ways brilliant, but then went off the page, so to speak. Someone

posted on this message board that he may have gone insane

once he became "Bhagavan." When people become a branch

broken off, and lose contact with the rest of the tree, and don't

realize they've broken off.... I've seen a smaller version of this in a

writer called Alice Kohler, too, who wrote an autobiography that

was wonderful, called An Unknown Woman. She had gone off on

her own in Saskatchewan, so somewhere like that, and done a

lot of inner work, and her tale of her journey was splendid. Then

her follow up book came out, and she had "gone off the page," to

quote myself.

 

I think I read in one of Ammachi's books that she supports

dualism. I think it's in her Awaken Children volume 1 in which

she says why would there be only one view or way. Something

like that. And her description of death (like a light bulb going out)

sounds like gnosticism, too, with the physical and psychic

component that dies, and the spiritual component, part of

something larger. What's odd, though, is that she combines

inner and outer awareness in a way that truly works, that brings

about the union of (supposed) opposites, with her influence on

people to be loving - within themselves, and in the world, in their

actions. This is why she's brilliant. She can appeal to dualists

and nondualists - the ultimate yoga. And the two become

one/and the one are two.

 

> > [from previous postings]

> > > [Gnostic texts at the] the Nag Hammadi library site:

> > >

> > > http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html