Gnosticism - The world is a vampire, sent to drain? Secret destroyers hold you up to the flames?

[Typoz]

The point of this story is to show that, at least for me, that growth could not have happened without the pain and suffering. It definitely seems as if we're here to experience exactly that kind of learning and growth. The problem is that all of this new understanding rests on the idea that there is a life after death. If not, then the whole discussion is pointless.

Thank you for an interesting first post here.

I think I have some idea of what you mean about suffering, particularly through ill-health, it may be a way to make some kind of progress.

But this may also explain why there is a veil of ignorance about any possible afterlife. If we had concrete knowledge of an afterlife, it would immediately put a halt to the growth and development. It also explains why only extremely good people (like saints, etc.) are allowed to have mystical confirmation of the afterlife, but not the rest of us.

Here I'm not sure that I can wholly agree. While it may not be possible to share a belief or conviction with others, there are very many people who having had a near-death experience are afterwards convinced of the reality of some greater spiritual power, usually expressed as overwhelming love and light, but also are certain that life continues after this one. Here my point is that this can happen to anyone, it isn't a special reward reserved for saints, it may just as well be someone who has lived anything but that kind of life, the sun shines on everyone equally, without regard to merit.

A related point, which is at least my own opinion, is that for too long spiritual truths have been handed out to us via some sort of priestly hierarchy, while nowadays this scattering of NDEs throughout the population is leading to a democratisation, a decentralisation of spiritual ideas.

There is also evidence via reincarnation, which again seems to be unrelated to merit either in the current or in a past life, this knowledge is scattered throughout the population too.

There are a couple of problems. One is that people often are uncomfortable talking about such things - I've never discussed it with my work colleagues for example, so this vast pool of knowledge is not fully used, but nevertheless it is out there.

Because of the ideas I've expressed so far, it seems logically I should disagree with your idea that, "If we had concrete knowledge of an afterlife, it would immediately put a halt to the growth and development". Personally I've had firm views on the afterlife for decades, and I would never consider that it has slowed down any progress I might otherwise have made, for me it is simple, regardless of one's views, one is still living in a physical body on this physical Earth, and hence all of the same challenges and obstacles are still there to be overcome. The only sense in which I may consider it an advantage is that I no longer sink quite so deep into the darkness of deep hopelessness, though I may still go through such episodes, I always have a light, metaphorically, to guide me back out again. And frankly I'm grateful for that. I did explore the darkness quite enough in years gone by.

Wow, sorry about that diversion, I think I lost track of the original topic a little bit there. Anyway, welcome to the forum.

 

[Arete]

Thank you for an interesting first post here.

I think I have some idea of what you mean about suffering, particularly through ill-health, it may be a way to make some kind of progress.

And thank you for your thoughtful responses. Yes, that is the basic idea.

Here I'm not sure that I can wholly agree. While it may not be possible to share a belief or conviction with others, there are very many people who having had a near-death experience are afterwards convinced of the reality of some greater spiritual power, usually expressed as overwhelming love and light, but also are certain that life continues after this one. Here my point is that this can happen to anyone, it isn't a special reward reserved for saints, it may just as well be someone who has lived anything but that kind of life, the sun shines on everyone equally, without regard to merit.

Good point about NDE's They don't necessarily happen to only saints or good people. Mediumistic ability also seems to be rather random in terms of the types of people blessed with it. However, there aren't any solid studies that I know of on the matter of whether people given such experiences also deserve them.

A related point, which is at least my own opinion, is that for too long spiritual truths have been handed out to us via some sort of priestly hierarchy, while nowadays this scattering of NDEs throughout the population is leading to a democratisation, a decentralisation of spiritual ideas.

There is also evidence via reincarnation, which again seems to be unrelated to merit either in the current or in a past life, this knowledge is scattered throughout the population too.

I'm rather neutral on the religious hierarchy and religion in general. I tend to defend organized religion as doing a great deal of good in history, and that is a very unpopular opinion these days. In particular, the Catholic church has been highly open in terms of providing it's members with whatever it deemed as evidence throughout the years. Every Catholic had access to an entire database of miracles both in writing and sometimes in material form (incorruptible bodies). That is not to say they didn't have secrets, it's just that they really did take care to try and provide their adherents with evidence and not just faith-based doctrine. Other Christian denominations, as well as Eastern religious traditions have offered the same kind of service. I think the democratization and decentralization we see now is simply a neutral modern phenomenon that has affected all of our institutions.

I would love to believe that there are great spiritual truths hidden from us deep inside the Vatican, or as part of some esoteric mystery school. This is something that I think about quite often. But the more research you do on such matters, the more you realize that there really isn't any "hidden" truth out there. In particular, I am fascinated by the ancient mystery schools, as they did manage to completely hide their secrets. That alone is worthy of fascination. But something tells me that if we were to uncover these hidden secrets, they wouldn't be that radically different from other religious or philosophical ideas, and probably would not offer solid evidence of an afterlife.

But perhaps my cynicism is part of the problem. We moderns now believe in dark matter, atoms and various forms of electro-magnetism, most of which we cannot see directly, and the evidence for which is almost all based on modeling, mathematics and causation. To my mind, if we had a similar kind of evidence for the afterlife, I'm not sure if this would satisfy me at all, as it would still leave quite a bit of room for doubt. Perhaps I have a problem with uncertainty, but what I think people want and need is the type of evidence similar to kicking a rock. Various forms of solipsism aside, this would be the kind of evidence that would allow people to truly believe. As of now, I assume when someone believes, it still has to be based on faith. I simply don't believe those who tell me they "know". Something tells me that if you scanned the contents of their heads and hearts, you would still find massive doubt, but psychological mechanisms in place to allay that doubt.

There are a couple of problems. One is that people often are uncomfortable talking about such things - I've never discussed it with my work colleagues for example, so this vast pool of knowledge is not fully used, but nevertheless it is out there.

This is very true and has also been my experience. I'm an outwardly normal looking chap, but I can't tell you how many times I have been looked at like a crazy person for my desire to discuss such things. To my mind, these are the most important questions we will ever have, and to ignore them is what I would call crazy. One thing I have done is express an interest in ghost stories. People tend to think of this as "fun" and therefore they have no idea of my motivations lol. However, I am convinced that people do not want to talk about these things is because their strategy for dealing with mortality is one of denial. To even talk about it in any kind of real way is just too uncomfortable for most people. In fact, if I could flip a switch and forget about it myself, that would be hugely tempting. It's torture to think about mortality, and it is bliss to think about your daily routine as if you were immortal. IMO, this is the reason people in the modern world are so into generic things like "mindfulness". We are not allowed to be openly religious or spiritual anymore, and mindfulness is nothing more than brainwashing yourself into believing that tomorrow never comes. It's a dressed up version of the strategy of denial that people are already using anyway.[/QUOTE]

Because of the ideas I've expressed so far, it seems logically I should disagree with your idea that, "If we had concrete knowledge of an afterlife, it would immediately put a halt to the growth and development". Personally I've had firm views on the afterlife for decades, and I would never consider that it has slowed down any progress I might otherwise have made, for me it is simple, regardless of one's views, one is still living in a physical body on this physical Earth, and hence all of the same challenges and obstacles are still there to be overcome. The only sense in which I may consider it an advantage is that I no longer sink quite so deep into the darkness of deep hopelessness, though I may still go through such episodes, I always have a light, metaphorically, to guide me back out again. And frankly I'm grateful for that. I did explore the darkness quite enough in years gone by.

Wow, sorry about that diversion, I think I lost track of the original topic a little bit there. Anyway, welcome to the forum.

Don't be sorry, I enjoy these topics immensely and I am here to get different perspectives.

As for my original thesis, it was just a thought that I have had about my recent experiences in life, but I am not wedded to it at all. There are a couple other lines of thought that may provide insight into the subject:

1. Whether someone has a Gnostic viewpoint or not is purely psychological. I know that I have always been a cynical, questioning person. And I know others who have always been the opposite. Neo-Platonism would be an example of a happy, positive alternative to the Gnostic worldview, but I could never wrap my mind around it completely. And there are also people who don't need any more than a materialist view of life to be happy. The psychological element is a huge factor in all of this.
2. I remember a few times where I attempted to manipulate a belief in an afterlife or immortality and it worked for the time period of the session. What I discovered was that the belief allowed me to experience the most peace and joy I have ever had. Since that time, I am fairly convinced that the root cause of all of our ills is death. If we do the thought experiment of immortality, we quickly discover that every other problem in life is related to death, and that if/when it were to be overcome we would have nothing but a kind of joyous existence. This experience definitely contradicts my idea that pain and suffering is needed for growth. In those moments, I felt just as connected and empathetic as the pain and suffering has allowed me to feel. However, it was for a short duration, and who knows how I would feel on a daily basis owning the truth of immortality. Would I eventually get bored and replace my newly acquired loving empathy with various kinds of fun deviousness? And even if this did happen, what could possibly be the harm? When there is no death, you cannot truly hurt anyone by definition.

My apologies for the long and tedious post which is definitely going off topic somewhat. To get back on topic. Upon reflection, I think my Gnostic view has always been the stuff of movie cliche's. I hated God for not existing and for not saving us from this mess. And while that is an understandable feeling, it is no basis for spiritual development.

 

[Arete]

Another point about evil. I'm sure we have all had this experience. There are times in life when we are absolutely convinced that a particular thing or event is an "evil". Then after a few years of experience, we often find that the supposed "evil" is totally transformed by new experiences, or a new perspective on the matter. When we talk about "suffering" we are always using a generic epithet, or grandiose examples. It may be helpful to do a life review and list all of our sufferings and why they are currently almost laughable to us. When I look back and think about how seriously I took certain things, and how completely wrong I was so many times, it calls for a certain amount of humility, and a certain amount of hope that I will be radically wrong one more time. The thing about being wrong isn't so much that one switches political parties, for example. The experience is more like a total transformation and transcendence of the original question, so that you are in a completely new state of existence.

There are also examples of people who simply deny the existence of evil, like the Neo-Platonists. And at first blush, it sounds completely crazy. But their entire point is that, viewed from a higher perspective, the evil is seen more clearly and it's "evilness" no longer relevant. I think there is a lot of merit to this viewpoint and it is very easy to believe this way when we are happy and healthy, and outside of the maelstrom of suffering. So it does offer a font of hope. I'm just not sure how much it helps with the largest and most pervasive sources of suffering, like sickness and death.

 

[Typoz]

I think the democratization and decentralization we see now is simply a neutral modern phenomenon that has affected all of our institutions.

Thanks for the response. For now, just a brief comment to expand on this idea. While you are certainly correct that there is a general trend in the modern world for the organisation of society to change. For example in the UK we don't revere politicians, nor the royal family, there is more of a feeling that people are much the same no matter what their station in life.

However my point about NDEs was a little different. CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) has only been possible since its development in the mid-twentieth century, which is very recently compared with the history of humankind. It is just a blink of an eye. But the practice of CPR has made successful resuscitation possible in cases which for the rest of human history would have resulted in a death certificate (as it were). And it is this medical progress which is feeding the vast number of NDE reports in modern times. Sure, they happened throughout history, but rarely, sporadically, perhaps so rarely that an entire religion could be built around a single instance. But today such occurrences are commonplace, an event which might have founded a religion, is nowadays happening to Joe Bloggs down at the garage, and this has basically pulled the stopper out of the bottle and given information directly to the masses, without it being filtered or re-interpreted first.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not intending this to be in any way anti-religious, I merely describe current events. But since it is still such a short interval, we're still within that first blink of an eye, the potential for dramatic shifts in society has barely begun. The mere fact that it is still difficult to talk about such matters indicates that. But this may be changing. There are efforts to introduce the concepts of the NDE into the educational process of at least some medical professionals, moving it out of the realm of gossip and into the realm of legitimate scientific knowledge.

 

[Arete]

However my point about NDEs was a little different. CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) has only been possible since its development in the mid-twentieth century, which is very recently compared with the history of humankind. It is just a blink of an eye. But the practice of CPR has made successful resuscitation possible in cases which for the rest of human history would have resulted in a death certificate (as it were). And it is this medical progress which is feeding the vast number of NDE reports in modern times. Sure, they happened throughout history, but rarely, sporadically, perhaps so rarely that an entire religion could be built around a single instance. But today such occurrences are commonplace, an event which might have founded a religion, is nowadays happening to Joe Bloggs down at the garage, and this has basically pulled the stopper out of the bottle and given information directly to the masses, without it being filtered or re-interpreted first.

Excellent point. I must admit I never thought of it that way. Rupert Sheldrake has a pet theory that I don't think he advertises much, about the idea that baptism may have started as drowning in order to induce an NDE.

Whether someone holds a Gnostic or any other spiritual viewpoint, practical matters could easily unite us all. The goal should be to make the spiritual world as real and close to this world as possible. Technology may play a huge role in that, as it has aided all of of our other human endeavors.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

This week we talk to Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio’s Miguel Conner about all things gnosticism:

• The origins of the gnostics
• The main gnostic groups
• How gnosticism relates to western magic
• How gnosticism relates to the wider pagan world
• UFOs and gnosticism

And ultimately, the ‘shape’ of the gnostic journey and how it has lasted into the modern era. Download the episode directly here or listen along on YouTube below.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Random, admittedly unoriginal thought:

What if the Veil isn't meant to deceive us but a necessary barrier placed for our protection? I've been told by a friend of mine who's deeper into past lives and subtle worlds than I am that I shouldn't try to force contact for the sake of desiring proof, that there's a real danger in making contact with realities humanity isn't prepared for.

Even Sri Aurobino, if I understand correctly, noted the necessity of a Skeptical Age to prevent us from being too easily taken in by spirits and our own superstitious reaction to them?

As much as it pains my anti-authoritarian streak...what if the Archons are actually the Good Guys?

"People do terrible things to one another when it all falls apart Slade.

But it's always the same things.

That's what makes our job easier."

-The Filth

 

[Hurmanetar]

Random, admittedly unoriginal thought:

What if the Veil isn't meant to deceive us but a necessary barrier placed for our protection? I've been told by a friend of mine who's deeper into past lives and subtle worlds than I am that I shouldn't try to force contact for the sake of desiring proof, that there's a real danger in making contact with realities humanity isn't prepared for.

Even Sri Aurobino, if I understand correctly, noted the necessity of a Skeptical Age to prevent us from being too easily taken in by spirits and our own superstitious reaction to them?

As much as it pains my anti-authoritarian streak...what if the Archons are actually the Good Guys?

"People do terrible things to one another when it all falls apart Slade.

But it's always the same things.

That's what makes our job easier."

-The Filth

Some of the best stories involve villains who turn out to be benign or even nice... Or heroes who twist off to become villains. Maybe what the higher powers are - whether good or evil - cannot be gauged from our present page in the story. From a literary perspective we can be certain that some villains (perhaps even some archons) will not always remain villains and some heroes will disappoint.

Curiosity pushes boundaries. Being anti-authority pushes boundaries. Both can be rewarding and both can be dangerous. "Curiosity killed the cat," and all that.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Some of the best stories involve villains who turn out to be benign or even nice... Or heroes who twist off to become villains. Maybe what the higher powers are - whether good or evil - cannot be gauged from our present page in the story. From a literary perspective we can be certain that some villains (perhaps even some archons) will not always remain villains and some heroes will disappoint.

Curiosity pushes boundaries. Being anti-authority pushes boundaries. Both can be rewarding and both can be dangerous. "Curiosity killed the cat," and all that.

My worry though is that once we accept the idea that we can't judge higher powers our moral compass ends up skewed. OTOH context does matter to some extent and in this case if we consider the possibility of subtle worlds we're accepting the possibility of entities that are both powerful, able to influence this world, and possibly not very benevolent at all....at least from our perspective.

Are we pigs in a pen or corn in a corn field, waiting to be harvested? Or are we shielded by a benevolent "White Lodge" from the power of the "Black Lodge"?

I should note the reason for my quote - The Filth is a comic written by Grant Morrison. His much longer work, Invisibles, is about mystic anarchists fighting the forces of the Archons. The Filth is the mirror to that idea, where the Archons are in fact the (arguably overzealous) good guys.

Maybe there's just too many different parties in the spirit worlds involved, whole civilizations where some want to exploit us and others want to uplift us....and some that want to uplift us but in a way that at least temporarily exploits us...

And, of course, maybe there's nothing out there....but I increasingly doubt that's the case.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Church of the Ragged

At the very least, Gnostic mythology is a frighteningly elegant metaphor for the history of human societies.At best it’s some kind of truth, or quasi-truths; the visible edges or remnants of a hidden or lost knowledge.A lost knowledge so incredibly powerful, so politically sensitive and spiritually incendiary, that it might allow us to better comprehend our place in a dangerous and magickal universe, and perhaps even offer us that fabled Emancipation.

Eleleth tells Norea that she isn’t just a fallen shadow-creature, but that she has the spirit of truth emanating within her, a fragment of the imperishable light, and is therefore a holy immortal being of the Pleroma. Norea has the mother of wisdom Sophia within her, in the form of Zoe, or Life itself. And this means the Authorities of Darkness despise her in their jealousy. This insight is crucial. I personally believe this insight cuts to be the very heart of Gnosticism in all its permutations. Which is the fact that Knowledge, Enlightenment, or Emancipation isn’t just a state, it’s a process; the process of becoming free, of literally seeing spiritual truth. Inherent within this notion is the implication that the illusory world of matter, the realm of chaotic shadow-form overseen by the blind demiurge, can still be reconnected or transformed or taken back into the Pleroma, into the infinite, imperishable Light. This is admittedly my own personal interpretation of some pretty hardcore variations of Gnostic cosmogony. But what this suggests to me is that even the demons and dark angels of Samael can still cry out to the Holy Spirit just as Norea does, and ask for their sight to be restored. To no longer be avatars of Samael, blinded as he is blind, but to become more than shadow-soul – to become independent agencies gifted with a fragment of the Pleroma within them by awakening to the reality of pneuma; the divine spark and breath of life. Here at Amid Night Suns I often refer to this luminous pneuma as the Innermost Light, or the Midnight Sun.

In Gnostic lore the feminine Sophia and the masculine Father of the Entirety want to redeem everything in Creation by bringing it all into the true Light. In some variants of Gnostic cosmogony it is the presence of Christ who allows Sophia to reconnect with logos, her syzygy and male counterpart, and thus restore balance to the cosmos. But what all of this lore implies is that the Archons are, in a sense, artificial beings. They have ‘souls’ born from the realm of Chaos and shadow-form, and are technically sentient, but they are also cold, unfeeling and spiritless. If Sophia’s desire is to redeem the entire fallen world of form (and in some Gnostic variants, also redeem herself) then it must be possible for even the Archons to experience enlightenment, to awaken topneuma and achieve Gnosis. To transform themselves into beings of imperishable light. In fact, this happens to a son of the Demiurge in Hypostasis of the Archons. Sabaoth witnesses his father Yaldabaoth (another name for Samael, along with Saklas) being cast down into the Abyss of Chaos by a powerful angel of divine fire created by a single breath from Sophia. In seeing this internment of his blind, power-obsessed father Sabaoth renounces his part in his father’s false claim to supreme godhood and prays to Zoe and Sophia for redemption. His prayers are answered and he is taken up and made gatekeeper of the portal between the Pleroma and our shadowy, chaotic world of forms.

Personally, this idea comforts me. That darkness can eventually become light; that a cancer doesn’t just have to be cut out, it can eventually be healed completely. Or in a more mainstream Christian sense a fallen angel can become a true angel of light once more. Our sight can be restored. Our wings can be returned to us.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

 

[hypermagda]

My worry though is that once we accept the idea that we can't judge higher powers our moral compass ends up skewed. OTOH context does matter to some extent and in this case if we consider the possibility of subtle worlds we're accepting the possibility of entities that are both powerful, able to influence this world, and possibly not very benevolent at all....at least from our perspective.

Are we pigs in a pen or corn in a corn field, waiting to be harvested? Or are we shielded by a benevolent "White Lodge" from the power of the "Black Lodge"?

I should note the reason for my quote - The Filth is a comic written by Grant Morrison. His much longer work, Invisibles, is about mystic anarchists fighting the forces of the Archons. The Filth is the mirror to that idea, where the Archons are in fact the (arguably overzealous) good guys.

Maybe there's just too many different parties in the spirit worlds involved, whole civilizations where some want to exploit us and others want to uplift us....and some that want to uplift us but in a way that at least temporarily exploits us...

And, of course, maybe there's nothing out there....but I increasingly doubt that's the case.

Brilliant post Sci (i had missed it). I see things very similarly. I especially liked this: "once we accept the idea that we can't judge higher powers our moral compass ends up skewed". It's true that the wider context matters but the very fact that we are kept in ignorance about it justifies rebellion against "the-(spiritual)-powers-that-be". We are entitled to an explanation, to say the least, and instead we are kept guessing - or teased with bizarre psi stuff (or miracles etc for the religiously inclined).

For some reason the great movie "Spartacus" (Kubrick) comes to mind. Old movie but still one of my favourites. A Gnostic movie for sure btw :-)

 

[hypermagda]

Another point about evil. I'm sure we have all had this experience. There are times in life when we are absolutely convinced that a particular thing or event is an "evil". Then after a few years of experience, we often find that the supposed "evil" is totally transformed by new experiences, or a new perspective on the matter. When we talk about "suffering" we are always using a generic epithet, or grandiose examples. It may be helpful to do a life review and list all of our sufferings and why they are currently almost laughable to us. When I look back and think about how seriously I took certain things, and how completely wrong I was so many times, it calls for a certain amount of humility, and a certain amount of hope that I will be radically wrong one more time. The thing about being wrong isn't so much that one switches political parties, for example. The experience is more like a total transformation and transcendence of the original question, so that you are in a completely new state of existence.

There are also examples of people who simply deny the existence of evil, like the Neo-Platonists. And at first blush, it sounds completely crazy. But their entire point is that, viewed from a higher perspective, the evil is seen more clearly and it's "evilness" no longer relevant. I think there is a lot of merit to this viewpoint and it is very easy to believe this way when we are happy and healthy, and outside of the maelstrom of suffering. So it does offer a font of hope. I'm just not sure how much it helps with the largest and most pervasive sources of suffering, like sickness and death.

Of course not all psychological suffering is justified and may be even due to excessive sensitivity (and thus more usefully dealt with "downstream", so to speak), but it's preposterous to state that any kind of suffering can evaporate thanks to "a few years of experience" as you wrote. I doubt that the Holocaust could be considered as "not evil" after "a few years of experience"/"new experiences". Maybe by you, if you were not directly affected, but hardly by the actual victims and their relatives. And if my example is too grandiose, I could come up with hundreds of other lesser known examples (murders, rape, abuse of minors etc etc). The "higher perspective" you mention is a lot easier and certainly comfortable if you are not directly affected. Though terror acts have always horrified me, I myself was considerably more furious when my metro station was bombed two months ago, and this evil act has reinforced my attitude of intolerance towards evil rather than transforming me into thinking that its "evilness is no longer relevant" as you wrote. I am pretty sure I will never forget what happened and will continue to take it very seriously indeed for the rest of my life. Maybe you would feel the same way if real evil (rather than "ordinary existential suffering") affected you directly. Maybe not, but then do not include me here, thank you very much (I quote you) :-): "I'm sure we have all had this experience. There are times in life when we are absolutely convinced that a particular thing or event is an "evil". Then after a few years of experience, we often find that the supposed "evil" is totally transformed by new experiences, or a new perspective on the matter."
I notice that at the end of your post you added a bit of a disclaimer : "I'm just not sure how much it helps with the largest and most pervasive sources of suffering, like sickness and death." which makes me think that you were mostly thinking of "ordinary" existential suffering when you wrote this post and not of the totally justified suffering caused by evil acts.

 

[Laird]

Well said, Magda, and it needed to be said.

 

[Arete]

Of course not all psychological suffering is justified and may be even due to excessive sensitivity (and thus more usefully dealt with "downstream", so to speak), but it's preposterous to state that any kind of suffering can evaporate thanks to "a few years of experience" as you wrote. I doubt that the Holocaust could be considered as "not evil" after "a few years of experience"/"new experiences". Maybe by you, if you were not directly affected, but hardly by the actual victims and their relatives. And if my example is too grandiose, I could come up with hundreds of other lesser known examples (murders, rape, abuse of minors etc etc). The "higher perspective" you mention is a lot easier and certainly comfortable if you are not directly affected. Though terror acts have always horrified me, I myself was considerably more furious when my metro station was bombed two months ago, and this evil act has reinforced my attitude of intolerance towards evil rather than transforming me into thinking that its "evilness is no longer relevant" as you wrote. I am pretty sure I will never forget what happened and will continue to take it very seriously indeed for the rest of my life. Maybe you would feel the same way if real evil (rather than "ordinary existential suffering") affected you directly. Maybe not, but then do not include me here, thank you very much (I quote you) :): "I'm sure we have all had this experience. There are times in life when we are absolutely convinced that a particular thing or event is an "evil". Then after a few years of experience, we often find that the supposed "evil" is totally transformed by new experiences, or a new perspective on the matter."
I notice that at the end of your post you added a bit of a disclaimer : "I'm just not sure how much it helps with the largest and most pervasive sources of suffering, like sickness and death." which makes me think that you were mostly thinking of "ordinary" existential suffering when you wrote this post and not of the totally justified suffering caused by evil acts.

I'm not sure why the subtle hostility. I am just throwing out ideas and experiences here, and trying to offer a little hope. I do think that ALL suffering is related to death in some way, shape or form. Therefore, your extreme examples of suffering are right in line with what I view as the ONLY real suffering we experience. So I'm not sure that we are so different.

Also, I contend a rather radical notion that I think most people will reject, so I'm not surprised at your reaction. That radical notion is that if we truly believed in an afterlife/immortality, then even the the forms of suffering that deal with death would be much less painful. I use the analogy of getting a cold. It's definitely suffering, and we want to avoid it for sure. But the knowledge that we most likely won't die from it, and that it is temporary, makes most of us leave the common cold completely off of our list of complaints about suffering. I maintain that if we had FULL knowledge of an afterlife where we are immortal, then even the more extreme sufferings you are citing would be rendered toothless. The problem is none of us REALLY believe in an afterlife. So therefore, anything related to death is the paragon example of evil to us. If we did have a sure knowledge of an afterlife, as much as we're sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, wouldn't that change everything?

The implication is that we should do whatever possible to bring this world closer to the spiritual world, and that alone would ease almost all of the suffering in the world. And if there is no spiritual world, all bets are off, except maybe trans-humanism. This is what motivates my study of PSI, spirituality, consciousness, etc. Gnosticism certainly explains how I FEEL about the suffering we experience. But for me it's not a good explanation of why we suffer, which is still an open question.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I think it's only natural this will end up being a heated debate, as it concerns the place of Good/Evil (so God, karma, etc) in the universe.

That said it seems like one worth having.

=-=-=

How I Stopped Being Agnostic… and Became a Gnostic

I’ve now stopped referring to myself as agnostic after learning about the original meaning of the word. The word agnostic comes from the ancient Greek “ágnōstos,” which means without knowledge or ignorant. In contrast, the Greek word “gnosis” means knowledge or understanding. The more I learn about the roots of cultures and religions, the more I’m becoming “gnostic” in the many senses of the word.

We currently live in a time of spiritual malaise, especially in the west. Excessive materialism and consumerism, rising rates of mental illness and a loss of the sense of community are just some of the symptoms. Rekindling a spiritual inner life and a Gnostic “heart knowledge” may be part of the cure to our modern unease and anxiety.

The modern “new atheists” believe that “religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.” (Simon Hooper). However, I believe that this is extremely discriminatory towards the religious and cultural heritage of many peoples throughout history. Persecution and eradication of the rich literature of the Gnostics is just one example the catastrophic losses of knowledge and suppression of cultures by those in power.

Furthermore, the modern scientist often forgets that religion and spirituality has been irrevocably indispensable to the development of modern chemistry, medicine, philosophy and psychology. My previous articles are filled with examples of this relationship (here,here, here).

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

You who hears all.
Who attends to every prayer.
Who sees all -
I pray You blink -
And miss what happens next.
-Grant Morrison, Annihilator

=-=-=
The following has major book spoilers:

Gnosticism and Mccarthy's Blood Meridian

"Leo Daugherty's essay is one of the best explications of the Gnostic underpinning of Blood Meridian, since, unlike so much of the so-called critical exegesis of the novel, it manages to account for the presence of the epilogue in an inclusive way, structurally and thematically."

On the presence of Evil, I was reminded of this piece:

So, whereas most thoughtful people have looked at the world they lived in and asked, How did evil get into it?, the Gnostics looked at the world and asked, How did good get into it? This was of course a very sensible question, and remains so. After all, the Satan of Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Church and the Protestant Reformation is a strikingly domesticated, manageable, partitioned-off personification of evil as the Gnostics saw evil. They saw it as something so big that "evil" is not really an applicable term—because it is too small. For them, evil was simply everything that is, with the exception of the bits of spirit emprisoned here. And what they saw is what we see in the world of Blood Meridian.

This raises an issue I have with gnosticism, even its present day incarnations - I believe Laird mentioned this as well ->

It's just so dreary. I mean you look at Nature and think "It's all evil" - same with societal structures, religion, science, etc. It's all the work of the Archons?

I think this is why the Hermetics had a better life philosophy, one that posits The Fall as a matter of confusion rather than the fault of Man or because of a Demiurge.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Where does suffering come from? "Sophia" means Wisdom. Who is Sophia, one of the key figures in Gnostic systems of thought?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

The Gospel of Judas

INTRODUCTION: INCIPIT The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.

The next morning, after this happened, Jesus [appeared] to his disciples again.

They said to him, “Master, where did you go and what did you do when you left us?”

Jesus said to them, “I went to another great and holy generation.”

His disciples said to him, “Lord, what is the great generation that is superior to us and holier than us, that is not now in these realms?”

When Jesus heard this, he laughed and said to them, “Why are you thinking in your hearts about the strong and holy generation? [37] Truly say to you, no one born [of] this aeon will see that [generation], and no host of angels of the stars will rule over that generation, and no person of mortal birth can associate with it, because that generation does not come from […] which has become […]. The generation of people among [you] is from the generation of humanity […] power, which [… the] other powers […] by [which] you rule.”

When [his] disciples heard this, they each were troubled in spirit. They could not say a word.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]