[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 96 KB, 640x640, Sophia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679100 No.17679100 [Reply] [Original]

Why did Gnosticism die out?

>> No.17679117

>>17679100
I need as much literature on Sophia and the personification of Holy Wisdom as possible.

>> No.17679123

>>17679100
It's not very social

>> No.17679129

>>17679100
because it was stupid and mostly appealed to wowie zowie young adults before moving on to more serious persutes in whatever time period they were in.

>> No.17679140

>>17679129
>more serious pursutes

>> No.17679144

>>17679100
Because they were heretics, not because they believed in gnosticism, but because they adhered to retarded beliefs, Mainstream Christianity is Gnosisticism, its just not the edgy kind.

>> No.17679166
File: 27 KB, 385x385, nah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679166

>>17679144
>gnostics were heretics for not being gnostics because christians are gnostics but not actually gnostics

>> No.17679175

>>17679100
In general? Too esoteric.
On /lit/? People moved on to Buddhism and now they're moving on to Taoism.

>> No.17679185

In places where it was not persecuted by Christians and Muslims, it was so open-ended and syncretic that it fused with local folk traditions and diffused to the point of invisibility, despite perhaps having a large effect. Understood properly as an ideal type or family resemblance, "gnosticism" may have disseminated Christian and related Zoroastrian and Jewish eschatologies and soteriologies to inner Asia, while also acting as a vector for neoplatonism and perhaps merkevah mysticism.

In places where it was persecuted, it was simply persecuted. Muslims occasionally classified the more stable gnostics and sub-Christian/sub-Jewish sects as people of the book, but not often I think. Christians even less often since the conciliar epoch was quite aggressive about stamping out heresies, and this orthodoxy policing became an important prerogative of both the Papacy during its (slow) rise to political power and the Byzantine patriarchate's assertion of its authority over internal bishoprics and external bishoprics (who were constantly being lost to the Muslims and regained, so it was important to keep them in the Byzantine "world" even if they were "temporarily" conquered).

Nevertheless "sects" (probably conduits and channels of syncretic openness to gnostic ideas rather than singular, unchanged churches of gnosticism) survived, and we see traces of them in the so-called Bogomils and later Cathars. But characteristically, the wiping out of the Cathars in the Albigensian Crusade was a joint action by the French monarchy and the Papacy, both of which were trying to assert their power: the newly recovered and nakedly ambitious Capetian monarchy used it as an excuse to crush the effectively autonomous realms of southern France, and the Papacy used it as a demonstration that they had temporal power, that monarchs did their bidding under their authority when it came to matters of the faith. The gallican principle of the French monarchs ultimately won that contest, when the Papacy failed to make its spiritual authority the preeminent sovereignty concept in Europe, and that's when you get the Babylonian Captivity.

Nevertheless they survived. Folk traditions are hard to stamp out. Like I said it's a family resemblance. Were the neoplatonic Victorines "gnostic?" Nobody says so, as a matter of habit, but it's possible to put them on the spectrum. Christianity has always had its heresies. It's just a matter of which ones it could fold back into itself. Voegelin would call us all gnostics.

>> No.17679191

'gnosticism' is a bracketing term used by Christian authors to group a lot of different sects and cults that did not necessarily view each other as part of the same group.

>> No.17679205

It was suppressed by the Catholic Church before and especially after the Council of Nicea. Its later variants (Catharism) were also suppressed violently by the Catholics.

Gnosticism, the true Christianity, is antithetical to the human regime of social control and psychological domination that is the c*tholic church.

>> No.17679210

>>17679205
>the true Christianity,
How so?

>> No.17679218

>>17679129
>serious persutes
Well that is one way of putting it.

>> No.17679288

>>17679210
because its antithetical to the human regime of social control and psychological domination that is the c*tholic church, as that anon so masterfully puts it.

if you have even an inkling of how significant the christian event was, you'd never want it seen married to temporal power.

>> No.17679298

>>17679288
But you cannot be a "gnostic" in this day and age, can you?
What does gnosticism imply that exoteric Christianity does not? You can be a Christian but not affiliate yourself to the Church.

>> No.17679312

>>17679205
imagining being this retarded. Catholicism retained Gnosticism to the masses in some degree via mysticism.
>social control
you mean what, allowing human flourishing during the end of Roman Civilization and into the Middle Ages? You have such an awful boomer take.

>> No.17679315

>>17679100
some of their techings are interesting but dualism is a heresy

>> No.17679319
File: 154 KB, 819x1024, 63a0bd59d48a9a8811560594598db329.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679319

>>17679210
The Roman church essentially came about as an extension of the state power of Imperial Rome, articulated with much of the trappings of pagan ritualism (idolatry etc). It is fundamentally a temporal and human organization dedicated to preserving and expanding its own power over the human and temporal. Just glance at any instant of its blood-stained history from the Council of Nicea until the present day. Besides, its scriptures are fundamentally rooted in ancient Israelite (Baalitic) worship, which Gnosticism rejects in favor of Christ's own words.

Gnosticism, on the other hand, proposes a journey of faith much closer to the experience of the original Apostles, and much more in keeping with the actual words of Christ. Gnostics always lived humbly in communion with one another and the land, eschewing the temptations and trappings of the World. It's obvious to me that this is the way Christ intended.

>> No.17679336

>>17679315
Isn't Valentinianism nondual?

>> No.17679338

>>17679336
yes

>> No.17679340

>>17679319
What do you make of Plotinus' criticism of gnosticism?

>> No.17679342

>>17679319
Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

>> No.17679349

>>17679140
>>17679218
in terms of how serious an abstract persuit can be. a clergy is a social role a neoplatonist might be a teacher, etc. each has at least a somewhat developed dogma and the latter is based on faith and does not entirely rely on logic while gnosticism largely does but requires an a prioi mythology of demiurges and gnosis and the rest without having a robust system of faith proceeding logic or developing from some axiom like n.platonism.

its an easily consumable middle starting ground for the intellectually inclined.

>> No.17679355

>>17679298
you can, gnosticism isn't dogmatic, it's in fact precisely only gnostics today who can claim a genuine pedigree from the past. if gnosis is individual, then only individuals can continue the tradition.

>> No.17679358

>>17679340
I'm a work right now, will respond later as it's very nuanced. For now I'll just quote his own summary:
> There are two people occupying the identical house, a beautiful house, where one of them censures its construction and its builder but nevertheless keeps living in it, and the other does not censure him and says rather that the builder made it most proficiently, and yet he is waiting for the time to come when he will be released from the house and will no longer require it.

>> No.17679365

>>17679355
I thought genuine gnosticism was supposed to be initiatic. See the mandaeans today

>> No.17679370

>>17679342
yes, fulfill as in, "complete", finally do away with

>>17679349
you're confusing a rejection of dogmatism with an incapacity or failing. it seems the intuitive thrust on gnosticism is truly lost on you. you really think the goal of all spiritual knowledge is assimilation into a clergy? come on. besides, gnostics had schools and recognized leaders.

>> No.17679380

>>17679365
if anything it's auto-initiatic.

>> No.17679389

>>17679312
was that the same church that nearly excommunicated eckhart and militated against sola fide? please.

>> No.17679433

>>17679380
>auto-initiatic
no such thing

>> No.17679490

>>17679380
this
>>17679433
>he hasn't heard the Voice in the wilderness
>he hasn't listened to the silent Light within

>> No.17679491

>>17679433
so who was the first in a lineage initiated by? his pet dog? give me a break.

>> No.17679501

>>17679490
based, this guy gets it.

>> No.17679516

>>17679490
That "voice" you claim to hear is not the voice of God. If anything, it is Satan's voice leading you astray.

>> No.17679529

>>17679516
>being so terrified of your own depths you run to big daddy priest to tell you what to think
pathetic cockroach

>> No.17679538

>>17679491
the Prophet

>> No.17679539

>>17679389
>>nearly excommunicated eckhart
I don't support that but it doesn't challenge what I wrote.
>Sola Fide
you're kidding, right? That's the opposite of Gnosticism.

>> No.17679557

>>17679539
Protestantism definitely qualifies as a soft gnostic turn in the history of christianity

>>17679538
>you can't emulate the example of Christ or Mohammed who found God in the silence of their heart
>you have to let pedophilic warmongers mediate their revelation for you
lol the absolute state

>> No.17679560

>>17679370
>the intuitive

>> No.17679573

>>17679560
yes, gnosticism is founded on an intuitive knowledge of god and goodness, an intuition that tells me living a simple life in harmony with myself and others is truly christ-like, not legitimizing power with fancy theological language.

>> No.17679579

Where do I start with gnosticism, what are the most important texts and commentaries?

>> No.17679604

>>17679579
save the nag hammadi for last.

read Jacques Lacarriere's essay on the Gnostics. that'll get you up to speed on their temperament and world-vision.

then read Hans Jonas.

then: Kurt Rudolph, Couliano, Filoramo.
Sloterdijk's paper on gnosticism in After God.

Nimrod de Rosario's Gnostic Fragments to wash it all down.

Fiction: Voyage to Arcturus, Those Who Walk Away From Omelas, Yourcenar's The Abyss.

>> No.17679614

>>17679573
>i intuitively fall into a hierarchy as a social being
just seems like a more hand wavy version of a dead on arival cult. at least it had something of a run in france for a second there.

and i wasnt talking exclusively clerical, but also in terms of other systems that were always more prominent like neoplatonism or renaissance humanism.

>> No.17679630

>>17679614
traditions that reject power and the lust for propagation tend to not be powerful or last long, gee it truly is a mystery how this could have happened

>> No.17679636
File: 146 KB, 1080x1074, piss_cum_even.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679636

>>17679100
Because mainstream christians weeded the faith out over narssacistic jealousy. Its all silly son't act like one is "more logical" over another.

>> No.17679637

>>17679579
Nag Hammadi scriptures are the best starting point. Apparently they're the secret teachings of Jesus to his disciples, and many of them predate the canonical Gospels.

>Gospel of Thomas
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html
>Secret Gospel of John
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html
>Apocryphon of James
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/jam-meyer.html
>Sophia of Jesus Christ
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html
>Gospel of Mary Magdalene
http://www.maryofmagdala.com/GMary_Text/gmary_text.html

>> No.17679638

>>17679557
So you are offended because a pleb like you can't obtain an initiation from an authentic source? At least when it comes to "Sufism" it is clear that you can't be initiated without a Shaykh and belonging to an order.

>> No.17679655

>>17679557
>Protestantism definitely qualifies as a soft gnostic turn in the history of christianity
In its more world-rejecting forms, like the Anabaptists and Quakers, sure. However, modern protestantism has become eerily similar to the roman church, just look at the behavior of so-called Baptists and Evangelicals.

>> No.17679656

>>17679638
i'm not offended by anything, it's shills like you read narcissistic wounds in everything. I know my God and he knows me.

>> No.17679666

>>17679557
>Protestantism definitely qualifies as a soft gnostic turn
How? They eliminated personal revelation of Catholicism (for example, Marian revelations) in favor of ridged adherence to the bible.

>> No.17679672

>>17679656
>I know my God and he knows me.
Based. i wish this for every seeker whose heart is true, and i believe this is what Christ wanted for us all.
"Become better than I. Be like the child of the holy spirit.”

>> No.17679678

>>17679655
yeah that's why I called it soft, it's gnosticism at a half-mast, beer belly hanging out. even descartes qualifies as a "gnostic" turn, since he puts the accent mark on the subject

>> No.17679683

>>17679655
>In its more world-rejecting forms, like the Anabaptists and Quakers, sure.
Would you say they are more world-rejecting than ascetic monks who reject the world while trying to have supernatural experiences? Anabaptist and Quakers put worldly work, literally labor, on a pedestal. There's nothing gnostic about it.

>> No.17679695

>>17679666
because the individual is now free to determine his own relationship to his light as he perceives it, far from traditional power structures. what happened afterwards says more about how this impulse is always betrayed by an incontinence in time than the impulse itself

there are gnostic turns everywhere if you know how to perceive them. descartes was an "epistemological gnostic", if i had to be cheeky. book of job was a "gnosticoid" time bomb planted right in the heart of monotheism.

>> No.17679699
File: 54 KB, 686x802, 1565265111951_0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679699

>>17679100
>what is near easterners using their writings as kindling
also it's massively gay, and since being gay is haram gnosticism lost its popularity
>>17679175
how did you know I started playing mahjong?

>> No.17679706

>>17679683
that there's a declension of the original impulse doesn't mean it isn't retained in husks and tatters down the line.

>> No.17679718

>>17679100
/lit/ collectively hit the age of 18, now they're in the Evola phase

>> No.17679748

>>17679683
To what extent does gnosticism reject the world? Is it a complete disregard of everything in the world as evil and worthless (like buddhism) or is it less extreme?

>> No.17679762

>>17679529
>Places the feelings and whims of the Self above submission to God
>Places the individual above the wisdom and authority of the Church (founded by St. Peter at Christ's command)
>Rejects God's perfect creation as flawed and illusory
Gnosticism is literally Satanism.

>> No.17679789

>>17679706
>>17679695
I get what you're saying but I don't think you're correct. Gnosticism isn't about freedom to determine what's true or false. it's the idea that expanding your soul through gnosis is the saving grace (as opposed to faith). Catholicism retains devotions which actually induce gnosis. It'd be a lot to list them all but the idea of St. Terea's "The Interior Castle" is a good example for somone who might not be familar. Meanwhile Protestantism, as far as I can tell, has no such practices. Gnosticism is not about "liberity" per say. It's sort of hyper-catholic in a sense, because "works" are required exclusively. Works being esoteric practices, that is.

>> No.17679792

>>17679748
There are different strains of Gnosticism, some of which are severely antimaterial, anticosmic and dualist, and others (like Valentinianism) which are nondualist and see God's light shining into creation through goodness and beauty, while still recognizing the flawed and temporal nature of the world.

>> No.17679796

>>17679144
Gnosticism precedes the church, so how could they be heretics?

>> No.17679800

>>17679762
>believes in an authoritarian god who can only compel worship through fear
>some guy dying of terminal ass cancer is dying of god's perfection
lol

>> No.17679802

>>17679185
good post

>> No.17679804

>>17679789
>St. Teresa's "The Interior Castle"
>also St John of the Cross, Hildegaard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart
This is true, there is a great wealth of mystical Catholic revelation that is conducive to gnosis. Keep in mind that many of these seekers were accused of heresy and severely punished in their time for their resistance to doctrinal Catholicism.

>> No.17679817

>>17679796
Because "heresy" simply means "something we don't like because it challenges our worldly authority to extract tithebuxx from society."

>> No.17679825
File: 55 KB, 700x394, jung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679825

>>17679100
It didn't.

>> No.17679831

>>17679825
Why did Jung and PKD fail to revive gnosticism even as a form of niche subculture?

>> No.17679841

>>17679490
How do you start with gnosticism? What are the essential reads?

>> No.17679842

>>17679817
you seem to have issues with authority and project this on Gnosticism but nothing about Gnosticism is anti-authority.

>> No.17679859

>>17679841
when i found out about nag hammadi it came as a revelation to me. i read and study these texts and find them infinitely rich. gnosis.org is very helpful.
>>17679637

>> No.17679867

>(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

>> No.17679892

>>17679831
>fail
What do you mean? We live in the most gnostic time since late antiquity. It isn't even a subculture, it's mainstream.

>> No.17679893

>>17679867
Jesus was too based.

>> No.17679896

>>17679859
Thank you anon.

>> No.17679910

>>17679892
>it's mainstream.
Nobody's a gnostic, unless you're somehow including simulation theory popsci fans
Though you're right that such themes are prevalent in modern movies, I especially liked Waking Life's nod to PKD and gnosticism

>> No.17679916

>>17679892
>We live in the most gnostic time since late antiquity.
We live in perhaps the most materialistic and self-centered time in history. I don't see how that is gnostic at all. Gnosticism seeks to transcend the material and surpass the worldly desires of the self to nourish the spark of God within.

>> No.17679956
File: 1.89 MB, 2048x2935, mary with angels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17679956

>>17679804
>Keep in mind that many of these seekers were accused of heresy and severely punished in their time for their resistance to doctrinal Catholicism.
it was that same doctrinal Catholicism which offered them the tools to seek to begin with, though. It'd be a long conversation to get into the history of the RCC, what right or wrong decisions the church made and why it developed the way it did. It's suspect whether one can refer to "catholicsm" as one continuous thing. Is the Catholicism practiced in Germany during the year 1000 the same as the Catholicism practiced in Italy in the year 1500? is there a difference between the Catholic Church as an organization, the Catholic religion as it's practiced, and Catholic ideology? The answer to these questions is yes. I saw you (or another anon) brought up the cathars earlier. I understand and empathize with why Medieval peoples would find the anti-natalism of the cathars dangerous to society as a whole. Medieval France only had a 50% infant mortality rate. If those people who were healthy stopped breeding, not only would France be vulnerable to invasion by foreign powers but also society as a whole would suffer since you needed abled-bodied people to produce children to farm and make food. I do consider Catholicism to a valid Tradition with very valid supernatural practices. One thing I'll definitely say is that Catholicism produced the best aesthetics known to mankind and for that I give them all the credit in the world. Does this mean the church was always correct in it's approach to pagans or other religious system? I'd say no. I don't view them as "evil" for this, I think it happened for reasons. Some of these reasons poor excuses, others rational and understandable.

>> No.17680084
File: 188 KB, 899x1200, 1613289771792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17680084

>>17679956
Be careful not to equate the Church's response to the cathars in France with solely secular motivations. Simply look at the life of St. Dominic and the order he founded as a result of this heresy; a legitimate concern for the salvation of souls led astray by catharism/albigensianism resulted in the creation of the Order of Preachers, which continues to to thrive to this day, and which focuses on study and poverty (as lived within the bosom of the Church) as primary means for the salvation of souls.

>> No.17680128

>>17679910
>>17679916
We live in a religious interregnum, amidst a plethora of different cults. I'd say it's very similar. "Gnosticism" wasn't really something unified and it was definitely not a mass movement. If you can't see it, maybe it's because you're not part of the Gnostikoi.

>> No.17680155

>>17680128
>you're not part of the Gnostikoi.
We're on 4chan, spurdo demiurge memes are everywhere

>> No.17680157
File: 11 KB, 198x254, Evola color.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17680157

>>17680128
>We live in a religious interregnum, amidst a plethora of different cults. I'd say it's very similar.
it's the age of dissolution as foretold by Evola, Guenon, and even Nietzsche in his own way. I don't think the nag hammadi text being found in 1945 was random. Some friend in high places wanted us to have more knowledge in our arsenal to survive the times.

>> No.17680181

>>17680128
>you're not part of the Gnostikoi.
lmao

>> No.17680204

>>17679896
Of course. I hope they reveal some insight to you.

>> No.17680274

>>17680155
>spurdo demiurge memes
Yes, but pearls, swine etc. Can wooden eyes live to see the flame of truth?
>>17680157
>I don't think the nag hammadi text being found in 1945 was random.
I agree. Do you think 'The Jung Codex' is random?
>>17680181
Well, are you?

>> No.17680297

>>17680274
>pearls, swine etc.
Well, I'm definitely interested in the gnostic worldview, but I can't say I'm seeing much of a revival of it outside of very niche circles (like this website) and I don't feel like I belong to any kind of neo-gnostic community.

>> No.17680312

>>17680274
I think jung was a crypto neo-gnostic and that jungian psychology is Christian esotericism distilled from it's religion.

>> No.17680377

>>17680312
>jungian psychology is Christian esotericism
But the psychoanalytic position is that change is self-directed and found within, there is no yearning towards a higher power like in religious esotericism
This is why the traditionalists criticized jungian psychology

>> No.17680385
File: 8 KB, 300x168, animea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17680385

>>17679100
Its spiritual referent, Catholicism and Christianity, died out.

It's hard to sell people saddles in a world where nobody owns a horse anymore

>> No.17680422

>>17679637
>many of them predate the canonical Gospels
Literally only the Greek (non-Gnostic) version of Thomas has a date as early as if not earlier than the earliest canonical texts. All the rest of that shit is 2nd-4th century easily.

>> No.17680424

>>17680377
Yeah that’s why I said it’s distilled. It’s the method, even much of the same imagery including Mary and Sophia, but without the Tradition.

>> No.17680538

>>17680297
>revival
If you're staring yourself blind at the terminology used, then no. Names change, experience remains the same.
>>17680312
I'm referring to the fact that a man with such 'gnostic tendencies' lived to see the Nag Hammadi library discovered and even got some of its texts into his possession. It almost sounds like... magic?

>> No.17680561

>>17680538
>experience remains the same.
How would you qualify today's gnostic experience?

>> No.17680835

I'm reading Matthew right now and the gnostic reading seems far fetched to me. Putting aside that Jesus' name references Yahweh (Yeshua), actual references to the OT are frequent and there is a real impression of continuity. How is this explained by gnostics?

>> No.17680867

>>17680422
>All the rest of that shit is 2nd-4th century easily.
As are the Gospels, what's your point?

>> No.17680919

>>17679100
It's still alive, you got plenty of antinatalists hoping to abandon the flesh with transhumanism and engaging in degenerate sex.

>> No.17680922

>>17680835
matthew was one of the judaizing gospels. luke, and maybe john, are the purest, and even then after a lot of revision

>> No.17681730

>>17680919
what

>> No.17682272

>>17680867
Dude what. Even the most liberal scholars will say that all of them were composed before 120.

>> No.17682976

>>17680867
Gospels of Mark and Matthew are both 1st century, probably right after the crisis with the temple, since those two "prophesize" that situation; Luke and John are obviously later, but were both clearly in use and being referenced by the end of the first century.

Gnostic shit is all late, lmao.

>> No.17683002

>>17679129
>>17679144
The exact opposite actually. The heretics were too childish to understand it and rejected it

>> No.17683142

>>17679100
Because it was wrong.

>> No.17683319
File: 17 KB, 200x200, 1596305127338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17683319

>Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century. The author is unknown, and the Seth referenced in the title appears nowhere in the text.
>The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance."
>Those who believe Jesus to have died on the cross are said to believe in "a doctrine of a dead man." All those without gnosis - including those who had what would become orthodox beliefs, as well as the figures of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, the prophets, and Moses - are all referred to as a "laughingstock."

>> No.17683353

>>17683142
The church that censored them was also wrong, and extremely stupid for it. This isn’t why they died out.

>> No.17683643

>>17679100
Pretty sure Terence McKenna talked about this, but they were generally against procreation. The orginal gnostics relied on conversion to proliferate itself, which was ulitmately not sustainable. They had no offspring to continue their tradition.
Of course, persecution and slaughter didn't do them any favours either

>> No.17684177

>>17679185
Honestly one of the few good takes on Gnosticism I've seen on /lit/.

>> No.17684686

It never died out, there are more "Gnostics" alive today than ever

/thread

>> No.17684765

>>17679185
thank you based whale