Gnosticism: Esoteric Insight and/or Christian Heresy?

There are many things in Hinduism that suggest a more humble type of attitude is better than baldly asserting 'I am God'. It's paradoxical in some ways, because there is the well known Vedantic maxim 'Thou art That', meaning that each one is themself the Brahman, the Supreme. But in us the Divine is veiled, and through yoga of different types we have to realize it. That is the basic idea. It is in our inmost essential being that the Divine is in us, not in our outer personality, where even if we get a glimplse of something, we remain Bill, John, Jane and so on.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that the living entity here in a material body is always subject to the laws of universal nature, whilst he, as the Avatara or incarnation of God is above nature and master of it in all respects. The idea is that we too can rise above nature and attain to a transcendent consciousness, because the Divine is in us as well as in the Avatar, and indeed eveywhere. However, no matter how high we can get, we are still subject to nature's laws whilst we are here in the body. Birth, death, disease and old age are called the fourfold miseries, to which all of us are subject.

So I think it's an enormous stretch for anyone to say 'I am God'. We're tiny fragments of light - the Divine is a vastness beyond our conception.

 

The moment of clarity in which I became a Christian featured a heightened (to me) understanding of the part of Genesis which says we were created in God's image. I came to realize that all humans are reflections of the divine--which made going to WalMart an exciting new experience for me. And then I came to interpret that thought in terms of the Hindu concept of Atman--Tat Tvam Asi. My understanding was not that I am god, but that God is in all humans and humans are part of God. This, in theological parlance, is called panenthism (not a typo; unlike pantheism, panentheism holds that god is both immanent and transcedent--not co-extensive with nature, but in every part of nature and then some). We can quibble about the metaphors, but interpreting it that way gave me a new respect for my fellow humans and the univerese around me, as well as my god. Can a Christian be a panentheist? The eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity leans that way, and it is central to the movement in Christianity called process theology. Getting back to the thread and to the point, I think this is also the perspective of classical Gnosticism. I think the version of Gnosticism being presented to us by Greatest I Am that emphasizes "I am God" seems to me like something different, more like the Alex Baldwin/Dr. Jed Hill moment--which is almost like standing it on its head and exalting the self as supreme. But maybe I'm not understanding. I also have the sense that the notion that the material world is good is a radical departure from classical Gnosticism--to the point of misbranding. The revised version sounds more like Nietzsche, Max Stirner, or Anton Levay than Basilides, Valentinus, or Ptolemy. It's a free country, and a group of Egoists and materialists can call their beliefs Gnosticism if they want, but it's helpful to realize that this isn't your great great great great great great grandfather's Gnosticism, or the Gnosticism of the philosophy, theology, and history books. It seems closer to its opposite. There is indeed a branch of Luciferianism (not to be confused with Satanism) called "Gnostic Luciferianism" that has this egoist/materialist emphasis.
See Gnostic Luciferianism on facebook https://www.************/gnosticluciferianism
Luciferianism
Gnostic Unrest: Satanism/Luciferianism-- Gnosticism?!
Satanism vs. Luciferianism -
Satanism and Luciferianism
Luciferianism and Gnosticism. Parallels?
Luciferianism - Wikipedia
I wonder if that's not what we're dealing with?

 

Even back in the day, Gnostics were majorly into revisionism of biblical doctrines. Two of the earliest cults of Gnosticism, the Naassenes and Ophites, were majorly into snake veneration and taught that the serpent in the Adam and Eve story was really a hero instead of being the devil. It was the snake, after all, who tempted Eve and Adam into eating the forbidden fruit, thereby giving them knowledge of good and evil. Then there were the Cainites, who taught that Cain, the first murderer, was good. Salvation could be attained only by passing through all experience, and murder was one of them. They also praised Sodom and Gomorrah for challenging conventional moraity. That cult is thought to have given us the Gospel of Judas, in which Judas is really a secret ally of Jesus to bring about the event necessary to fulfill God's plan. Likewise, the Caprocatians taught the doctrine called transmigration or libertinism: that the attainment of transcendent freedom depended on having every possible experience, sinful or otherwise. The initiates into the secret knowledge thought of themselves as exempt from the rules of society binding ordinary humans. Many of these strands of Gnostic thinking were absorbed by the major sect called the Sethians, who revered Adam and Eve's third son, Seth, as the giver of gnosis. Sethians gave us the Apocryphon of John, setting forth in great detail a Gnostic version of Genesis in which Yahweh is bad, His angels are evil Archons, and the serpent is good. Seth was also the name of the Egyptian god of chaos, but so far scholars consider the identity of the two names a coincidental homonym. Naturally, the heresy hunter, Saint Irenaeus (Against Heresies), thought that all this revisonism was the work of Satan and his minions out to deceive the gullible.

 

I can't see how we differ there - did I miss something?

 

It's a tricky thing though to define God. It's easier to say what God isn't than what God is.

Hinduism says God is ultimately Sat chit ananda - being consciousness bliss. I like that, as it's actually quite difficult to conceive of a more desirable state, unless you think complete anhililation of consciousness would be superior.

That's not what the Bible describes as God though. Some Gnostic stuff has a view of the Father in the Pleroma that leans in that kind of direction - neo-platonic anyway. In a way similar to platonism, everything emmanates from this original One.

From 'The Secret Book (Apocryphon) of John'.
This isn't a million miles away from Advaita Vedanta. Later on though, the text becomes very difficult, and presents a cosmology which is somewhat strange, at least to my mind.



The Inexpressible One

The One rules all. Nothing has authority over it.
It is the God.
It is Father of everything,
Holy One
The invisible one over everything.
It is uncontaminated
Pure light no eye can bear to look within.

The One is the Invisible Spirit.
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.

Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.

It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
Light.

The One is without boundaries
Nothing exists outside of it to border it
The One cannot be investigated
Nothing exists apart from it to investigate it
The One cannot be measured
Nothing exists external to it to measure it

The One cannot be seen
For no one can envision it
The One is eternal
For it exists forever
The One is inconceivable
For no one can comprehend it
The One is indescribable
For no one can put any words to it.

The Secret Book of John (Apocryphon of John)

 

Traditional Christians worship Christ because they consider Him to be God incarnate. I see the realtionship between Jesus to Christ in much the same way that Mahayanna Buddhists see the relationship between Siddhartha Gautama to the Buddha. Buddha and Christ are titles and/or roles, not individuals. Buddha means awakened or Enlightend One. Christ means Annointed One and is associated with the Jewish Messiah (mashioch) the chosen one, deliverer or savior. In the Bible before Jesus, the title was given to Cyrus the Great of Persia, as well as to kings, priests, and prophets of Israel and Judea. The Buddha became enlightened after sitting under the bodhi tree. The early Christians disagree over when Jesus became the Christ. The traditional view is that it was that way from before the beginning of time (John Gospel), while some Christian sects said it was at the time of His baptism (Ebionites) or his resurrection. In Philippians 2: 1-24, a favorit passage of Gnostics, Paul talks of a cosmic Christ "Who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant being born in the likeness of humanity." Similarly, the Avatamsaka Sutra of the Mahayana Buddhists speak of a celestial Buddha (vairocana) which is the dharmakaya (unmanifested ineffable aspect of a buddha out of which buddhas arise). Buddhists expect Maitrea as a coming incarnation of the celestial Buddha. Should these human exemplars be worshipped? Neither Siddhatha nor Jesus said so, but certainly they are, Siddhartha especially in Mahayana cultures, although I've seen rather elaborate and fervent devotion to the Golden Buddha in Bangkok. Thailand, which is Theravada.. I think most of the worshipers don't distinguish between the men and their cosmic roles. I think it depends on the definition of "worship". Worship is a right brain activity associated with awe and reverence for the sacred, as opposed the the Enlightenment's quest for the historical Jesus. Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ). I revere the cosmic Christ, but I'm guided in life by teachings and example of the man Jesus, or the best approximation thereof I can come up with--as well as by Siddhartha, as recounted in the sutras.

 

Most religions do have some form of worship. It also seems that many non religious people worship something or other, be it money, sex, power, art, the body beautiful or whatever.

Hinduism has Bhakti Yoga, the Yoga of Devotion. It isn't limited to, but includes worship of usually one of the avatars, Krishna , Rama or some form of the Shakti or Divine Mother. It isn't just aimed at letting the divine know that we think it is wonderful etc, or at asking for this or that outcome in our lives,but also aims, like other paths, at realization. As well as higher forms of Samadhii, there are devotional forms, such as Bhava Samadhi, where the consciousness becomes completely saturated with divine love.

I have heard Benedictine monks talk about different levels of prayer. The ordinary worship where one is asking for blessings is the lowest. At higher levels they say it is more about trying to experience the prescence of God.

I suppose one good thing about worship is that it means exalting certain qualities, such as love, justice, peace and so on. Probably if humans embodied such qualities more, or really did put them above petty motives such as greed, envy, desire and the rest, this world might not be the tragic place that it is. The problem I see is that too often it becomes merely a rote kind of performance lacking in inner feeling, and can become somewhat sterile. It can also be abused by unscrupulous preachers etc who have their own agendas, usually of a negative and 'all too human' kind.

 

As far as I'm aware, the word 'Christ' (Greek 'Christos') means 'annointed one'. This is probably to tie Jesus in with the Davidic kings of Israel who were all annointed (as indeed is the British monarch at their coronation).

In Hinduism as in Buddhism it's open to anybody to attain to the divine consciousness as the Atman is in everyone (or everyone is in the Atman, which I think is better).

Christians though talk about recieving the Holy Spirit, and maybe the real sense of that might indicate some kind of illumination. They also have the term 'theosis' which means becoming like God.

In the Gospel of Thomas is this: The italics are mine - I think this is about as close as any Christian/Gnostic text I have read comes to indicating anything like 'becoming Christ'.

Saying 108: "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that person."

 

As far as I've ever found it's a dying of the self to then live in Christ. Literally being filled with him to overcome the flesh. That said it also is not a one time deal but a continual submission to his will, each & every moment of every day. This is how my father, a Methodist pastor for 45 years & the most righteous (in accordance with Christian teaching) man I've ever known, taught & believed. This is also how all 5 pastors who attend us here at the mission see it too. I don't know if quoting some verses to back the statement up would get hit for proselytizing but if you want verses feel free to PM me a request. Also no I'm not Christian, just born & raised one.

 

Seems unfair that I feel free to quote Gnostic sources but you're worried about quoting the Bible. But as far as I know the rule is not that you can't quote it at all, but that you can't come here and start quoting all the time trying to convert people. Meagain would be better able to advise you on this as he's a mod.

 

It's like this i assure you. Of course you can use a biblical quote to explain or illustrate a point.

 

I was basing my tentative words off the post by skip that specifically says: "NO BIBLE QUOTES" in the new rules pin here. Just being safe

 

.

That's largely because Christianity has become dogmatized, with canonical acceptance of the formulation in the Gospels, especially the John Gospel, that Jesus was the primordial Logos incarnated to die for our sins. This formula was ratified at Nicea in the fourth century. Bart Ehrman makes a convincing case that some of the earliest Christians, the Ebionites, thought that Jesus was the adopted Son of God at His baptism. (See Ehrman, How Jesus Became God) A lot of Christians probably think Christ was Jesus' surname. Those of more scholarly bent are probably aware that Christ is the Greek equivalent of Messiah, a title given (by Yahweh) to Cyrus the Great, a Persian Zoroastrian monarch, centuries before Jesus. The First Man the Bible Calls the Messiah
King Cyrus the Great was a non-Jewish Messiah
Christanity rivals Islam for being the most intolerant of world religions, at least historically, so these terms have become pretty ossified by now. When I call myself a Christian, it's because I accept the core teachings and example attributed to Jesus--not because I believe literally in the truth of the New Testament or the creeds. My beliefs are a minority view, but shared by Progressive Christian scholars like Spong, Borg, Crossan, Pagels, Crossan, etc. I also suspect that it's highly unlikely you or anyone else before or after Siddhartha will ever attain buddhahood in Buddhism, regardless of how possible it might be theoretically.

 

Correction: (That's what I get posting late at night). The last sentence is wrong, because of course there are Arhants in Theravada and the Bohdisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism: There are ,in fact, many examples and they remain important ideals for Buddhists to aim for. The Bodhisattvas held back from Nirvanna in order to guide the rest of us there. Also, I'd like to qualify the statement I made about Christianity rivaling Islam as the world's most intolerant religion, at least historically. Open to new ideas is what I had in mind. Buddhism definitely has the edge on that. I succumbed to the common tendency to overgeneralize about Christianity. Diarmaid MacCulloch (Christianity: The First Three Hundred Years) offers Judaism as another "qualified" rival, so that would take in all Abrahamic religions. And back in the day, Islam was more tolerant than it is now--probably more so than Christianity to "people of the book". But I forgot about the Dyophisties of Syriac Christianity (Latinized Christians tend to do that) who tended to be more tolerant and served Abbasid Islam as its bureaucrats. Today, there are lots of open-minded Christians like myself. But as sweeping generalizations go, I guess mine could get by.

 

Yes, you're correct. The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus was divine and special. Buddhists never made that claim about the Buddha. Does this alter the point I was making that "Christ" (aka, Messiah) was originally a title that even a Persian Zoroastrian king could be given? My point about tolerance and openness was admittedly muddled, but what I was trying to get at was that the title and the man were once separate, but Christians came to believe that Jesus was the only Christ (besides being god) and no other Christians need apply for the position. Classical Buddhism wasn't concerned with making claims about God. Technically, it's possible to be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time--although traditional Christians might say otherwise. So it's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. But you were asking if Christians should worship Jesus or be more like Buddhists. In his role as Christ (and as God), I think Jesus is entitled to be worshiped. (The Buddha is worshiped by many Buddhists; I've witnessed it.) According to Webster's, "worship" has two meanings:
"1 : to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion a celebrity worshipped by her fans."
worship definition - Yahoo Search Results
Since I'm not into supernaturalism, I prefer the latter with regard to Jesus, and think it would be applicable to the Buddha as well. Webster also provides a definition of god as "a person or thing of supreme value" and of divine as "supremely good." It's in that sense that I consider Jesus to be my god and divine. So Jesus could also qualify for worship in the sense of honor and reverence as a "divine being". What a majority of Christians think is probably quite different and more literal, but I think the "progressive" ones I hang with would go along with what I just said. Bishop Spong calls it adapting Christianity to the needs of the twenty-first century.