Understanding the Gnostic Heresy

[Soul_of_Shu]

Interesting that BK gets a longish sound-byte as an introduction to this curiosity piece, surely not for lovers of the Steiner-esque explication, rather for those who gravitate toward the insane God/demiurge theory of everything

[AshvinP]

Interesting that BK gets a longish sound-byte as an introduction to this curiosity piece, surely not for lovers of the Steiner-esque explication, rather for those who gravitate toward the insane God/demiurge theory of everything

I really don't get what is at the root of this misunderstanding. SS and you have both alluded to it. Perhaps it is the way I write about canonical Christian scripture with reverence and that is then extrapolated to Steiner. But that only gets translated into this anti-Gnostic sentiment if it is assumed canonical scripture is somehow at odds with gnostic texts. That is a misconception and they are not at odds, although we can only see that if we let go of modern age blinders to the meaning of what is spoken of in the gospels, epistles, etc. Steiner has high praise for early Gnosticism and its understanding of spiritual reality (as does Jung). Although the modern conception of what the Gnostics actually believed, as usual, is way off the mark. As long as we keep projecting flawed modern dualisms and abstractions onto the ancients, we will keep coming up with all sorts of flawed interpretations of what they were actually writing about.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I really don't get what is at the root of this misunderstanding. SS and you have both alluded to it. Perhaps it is the way I write about canonical Christian scripture with reverence and that is then extrapolated to Steiner. But that only gets translated into this anti-Gnostic sentiment if it is assumed canonical scripture is somehow at odds with gnostic texts. That is a misconception and they are not at odds, although we can only see that if we let go of modern age blinders to the meaning of what is spoken of in the gospels, epistles, etc. Steiner has high praise for early Gnosticism and its understanding of spiritual reality (as does Jung). Although the modern conception of what the Gnostics actually believed, as usual, is way off the mark. As long as we keep projecting flawed modern dualisms and abstractions onto the ancients, we will keep coming up with all sorts of flawed interpretations of what they were actually writing about.

Well the actual interview with the featured authors gives a far more nuanced and insightful explication of the gnostic texts than the simplistic notion of 'insane God/demiurge' suggests, which may well jibe with some of Steiner's ideas, albeit perhaps not the Sethian version, in which case it may have some appeal to you.

[SanteriSatama]

https://www.academia.edu/12475726/The_G ... ranslation

[Soul_of_Shu]

https://www.academia.edu/12475726/The_G ... ranslation

Yeah, can it be any wonder that the Gospel of Judas was found buried in the desert? One can only imagine what might have happened to any heretic found with that text in their possession, and attempting to promulgate it in the cancel culture of that time, but it seems unlikely that it would have been good.

[AshvinP]

https://www.academia.edu/12475726/The_G ... ranslation

Yeah, can it be any wonder that the Gospel of Judas was found buried in the desert? One can only imagine what might have happened to any heretic found with that text in their possession, and attempting to promulgate it in the cancel culture of that time, but it seems unlikely that it would have been good.

This is something we really need to become conscious of more. I know it will sound like a nitpick, but think about how many various assumptions are embedded in that one simple observation. For one, we are assuming the Church was in power persecuting "heretics" in the 2nd century AD, which is simply not true. Second, we are assuming they conceived of "heresy" in the same abstract way we do now, i.e. either you accept the propositional truths of the Church or you are a heretic. Finally, we are assuming that exoteric history can give us a fully informed view of what was occurring back then. That last one is the main point I am making - we reinforce unconscious and unwarranted assumptions when making even these simple assertions, and we forget there is a whole lot of the picture we are missing to have a fully informed view. That information will never come from exoteric history because it is simply working off of flawed assumptions and refuses to see any spiritual realm 'behind' the physical one, giving rise to all occurrences in the latter. I am not claiming to have this fully or even mostly informed view, just claiming that there is one and it is certainly not the common understandings of how these spiritual traditions came into existence. If we do not realize that, then we have no reason to dig deeper to look for it.

[AshvinP]

I really don't get what is at the root of this misunderstanding. SS and you have both alluded to it. Perhaps it is the way I write about canonical Christian scripture with reverence and that is then extrapolated to Steiner. But that only gets translated into this anti-Gnostic sentiment if it is assumed canonical scripture is somehow at odds with gnostic texts. That is a misconception and they are not at odds, although we can only see that if we let go of modern age blinders to the meaning of what is spoken of in the gospels, epistles, etc. Steiner has high praise for early Gnosticism and its understanding of spiritual reality (as does Jung). Although the modern conception of what the Gnostics actually believed, as usual, is way off the mark. As long as we keep projecting flawed modern dualisms and abstractions onto the ancients, we will keep coming up with all sorts of flawed interpretations of what they were actually writing about.

Well the actual interview with the featured authors gives a far more nuanced and insightful explication of the gnostic texts than the simplistic notion of 'insane God/demiurge' suggests, which may well jibe with some of Steiner's ideas, albeit perhaps not the Sethian version, in which case it may have some appeal to you.

Alright I will listen when I have a chance. I remember listening to some of their podcasts awhile ago and thinking they were generally insightful guys. If I remember correctly, they did one with BK about Kieslowski and his color movies? That was a fascinating one.

[SanteriSatama]

For one, we are assuming the Church was in power persecuting "heretics" in the 2nd century AD, which is simply not true.

AFAIK we're not assuming widespread persecutions 2nd century, though IIRC theological disagreements tended to sometimes get violent also before Christianity became an orthodox state religion.

This seems to be the most cruxial part, from Edict of Milan, 313.

And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles:

Council of Nicea etc. was called to define the Christianity as organized orthodox religion that could form a legal corporation that could own property, as need to decide who was "real" Christian and who not became a matter of Roman property laws. .

Second, we are assuming they conceived of "heresy" in the same abstract way we do now, i.e. either you accept the propositional truths of the Church or you are a heretic.

Word 'heresy' originates to Latin translation of Irenaios' attack against Gnostics in the late 2nd century: Against Heresies'.

there is a whole lot of the picture we are missing to have a fully informed view.

Of course.

That information will never come from exoteric history because it is simply working off of flawed assumptions and refuses to see any spiritual realm

Exoteric religion = exoteric history.

[Soul_of_Shu]

This is something we really need to become conscious of more. I know it will sound like a nitpick, but think about how many various assumptions are embedded in that one simple observation. For one, we are assuming the Church was in power persecuting "heretics" in the 2nd century AD, which is simply not true. Second, we are assuming they conceived of "heresy" in the same abstract way we do now, i.e. either you accept the propositional truths of the Church or you are a heretic. Finally, we are assuming that exoteric history can give us a fully informed view of what was occurring back then. That last one is the main point I am making - we reinforce unconscious and unwarranted assumptions when making even these simple assertions, and we forget there is a whole lot of the picture we are missing to have a fully informed view. That information will never come from exoteric history because it is simply working off of flawed assumptions and refuses to see any spiritual realm 'behind' the physical one, giving rise to all occurrences in the latter. I am not claiming to have this fully or even mostly informed view, just claiming that there is one and it is certainly not the common understandings of how these spiritual traditions came into existence. If we do not realize that, then we have no reason to dig deeper to look for it.

Indeed, as I said, one can only imagine, as it seems doubtful we'll ever know why those texts were buried in the desert, whether as an attempt to save them from deliberate destruction, or worry about the repercussions of being found in possession of them, or as a respectful ritual gesture of burying someone's cherished possessions in their tomb. All we really know is that gnostic texts for the most part did not survive after an official version of the Jesus teachings was deemed by the high priests to be the only version worthy of making the cut. So my speculation that the phenomenon of 'cancel culture' was as practised then as it is now, may well be implausible. But then again, I see no reason why it wouldn't be plausible either, and thinking that political power plays didn't factor into it at all seems no less naive speculation. In any case, I find it fascinating that all these alternate versions of the teachings co-existed, all apparently having their true believers, and thus the curiosity about why some didn't make the cut, without in any way feeling less appreciation for the deeper archetypal meaning of the original mythos.

[AshvinP]

This is something we really need to become conscious of more. I know it will sound like a nitpick, but think about how many various assumptions are embedded in that one simple observation. For one, we are assuming the Church was in power persecuting "heretics" in the 2nd century AD, which is simply not true. Second, we are assuming they conceived of "heresy" in the same abstract way we do now, i.e. either you accept the propositional truths of the Church or you are a heretic. Finally, we are assuming that exoteric history can give us a fully informed view of what was occurring back then. That last one is the main point I am making - we reinforce unconscious and unwarranted assumptions when making even these simple assertions, and we forget there is a whole lot of the picture we are missing to have a fully informed view. That information will never come from exoteric history because it is simply working off of flawed assumptions and refuses to see any spiritual realm 'behind' the physical one, giving rise to all occurrences in the latter. I am not claiming to have this fully or even mostly informed view, just claiming that there is one and it is certainly not the common understandings of how these spiritual traditions came into existence. If we do not realize that, then we have no reason to dig deeper to look for it.

Indeed, as I said, one can only imagine, as it seems doubtful we'll ever know why those texts were buried in the desert, whether as an attempt to save them from deliberate destruction, or worry about the repercussions of being found in possession of them, or as a respectful ritual gesture of burying someone's cherished possessions in their tomb. All we really know is that gnostic texts for the most part did not survive after an official version of the Jesus teachings was deemed by the high priests to be the only version worthy of making the cut. So my speculation that the phenomenon of 'cancel culture' was as practised then as it is now, may well be implausible. But then again, I see no reason why it wouldn't be plausible either, and thinking that political power plays didn't factor into it at all seems no less naive speculation. In any case, I find it fascinating that all these alternate versions of the teachings co-existed, all apparently having their true believers, and thus the curiosity about why some didn't make the cut, without in any way feeling less appreciation for the deeper archetypal meaning of the original mythos.

I think we do already know. The gnostic traditions survived in what we call "esoteric Christianity". That involves the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, Goethe, Steiner, and all sorts of fascinating and mysterious characters I know... these things sound beyond ridiculous to modern ears, but is it really so much more ridiculous than the assertion that we are all perspectives of one unified Mind? Or that everything we see around us in Nature is mental activity? Or that all past and future experiential states are essentially wrapped up within the ever-present now? I presume you accept all three of those assertions. That was my overall point - if we limit ourselves to exoteric physicalist history, which we really have no warrant to do as idealists, then what you say above is true - your speculation is as good as my speculation is as good as anyone else's about what happened 2000 years ago until modern day, because the framework a priori rules out supersensible and aperspectival (time-free) knowledge. We become complacent with the modern notion that we can never answer these questions with detail and confidence, so we stop asking these questions altogether. If we get beyond that to the esoteric mysteries and evolving Christian tradition, however, then no such limits exist and we can begin to consider that some of these people actually had higher resolution Wisdom on all of these matters, which is now out in the open for everyone to consider and explore for themselves.