This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
the article obviously has a bias slant in its sympathy DanteDanti
Whoever added the neutrality-dispute markup tag to this article, discuss the matter here, don't just tag it as non-neutral. It will be removed unless you state your points here soon. Nixdorf 07:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Article violates Npov. sorry I wasnt logged in before. DanteDanti
{{POV-section}}
tag for those specific areas you feel violate NPOV. It's hard to guess where in the long article the problems are perceived to exist.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)I dont believe that this is too technical, this isn't simple english wikipedia after all. just an anonymous usrs opinion.
Is there really any direct Buddhist influence with gnosticism? The only exchange between Buddhism and Hinduism with Western civilisation before the British visiting Asia was when Alexander the Great conquered parts of India. His successors in the Indo-Greek kingdom were influenced by Buddhism, and possibly spread it back west, and King Ashoka sent missionaries to the Seleucids and Greek-Bactrians. However, on the greek end, no record of this exists. Nonetheless, some aspects of gnosticism are too similar to Buddhism to discount the possibility of influence. -- 202.156.6.60 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I wish Kabir's "Anurag Sagar" (the Ocean of Love) could be fit in here somewhere.
It's 15th century, and Indian, so it's not "Gnostic" in the old 1st century sense. However, the philosophy is CLEARLY Gnostic. You can download the whole thing at http://www.geocities.com/anulbird/anuragindex.html . You have the good (but, in terms of this world, "weak" and "alien"), and then you have the creator God who makes a place in the void, and then starts devouring souls. Some are stuck to the created world beyond repair, some are in between, and a few are going to make it. The Aeons all make appearances. And the Eternal Word is the ride back home.
Wonderful Entry.
-- User:LionKimbro there were budists in egypt before christ.
On the Greek spelling of the word gnosis: the Unicode characters used here are the correct. Using the "sigma" of the math markup for the greek text is not correct Greek, it just looks like Greek, and is thus misleading information. In Greek, a sigma appearing last in a word has a distinctly different shape than a sigma in the middle of a word, as in the math symbols.
If your browser or its character set or your operating system does not support Unicode correctly, that's sad, but the same is probably true of several Wikipedia web pages containing Chinese or Japanese Unicodes.
The growth of Gnosticism in the first centuries AD was mirrored by the growth of murder/suicide cults based on various interpretations of christian theology. A notable example of this are the Marnimites in Northern Africa. This sect would ambush travellers. The Marnimites would then present the traveller with a sword and demand that the traveller murder the Marnimites. (This was a martyr cult). These martyr cults became the reason for the Catholic Church allowing killing in self-defense in violation of the third commandment. It is argued that these provisions were then exploited by nefarious bishops to allow for the wholesale persecution of the Gnostics.
-I'd like to point out that the original Greek text of the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill." Therefore, they didn't really violate the third commandment.
This is a first-rate entry! Thanks a lot for shaping up what was a pretty bare beginning. --MichaelTinkler
I still feel it could be a lot better... e.g. talking about the variety of different Gnostic systems in more clarity -- but its the best I can do at the moment. Thankyou for the encouragement. -- Simon J Kissane
well, it's not like we have any real idea about them - after all, it was a Secret. It's kind of like trying to write about the Mystery Religions - they're remarkably elusive! I've been reading French structuralist takes on the Eleusinian mysteries all summer and I have a headache. My only quibble (and I'm not about to do anything about it) is the "scholars think...equally valid." That's what always gets Christianity off track, listening to scholars. Every really good schism starts with someone writing a commentary on the book of Romans.... --MichaelTinkler
Oh, the sacred mind. I was raised in Catholic grammar school in the sixties and never knew there was this whole other stream of interpretation about what the man called Jesus by the Greeks was trying to tell us, and what sort of religion should emerge from his being here. Only recently, when I read Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels (St Elaine I call her) and got a hold of Nag Hammadhi Library in English, Robinson, editor, did it really open my mind to what these people, second and third century, Hellenistic Egypt thereabouts, were trying to get going. Since this is an encyclopedia entry, anyone reading this should understand something important:
The gnostics were a diverse group that came up with a
wildly imaginitive body of myth from both Hellenic and Jewish sources, and the thing is NOT to take this or that myth literally and stick to it like a cult member or something. Whats important for us in the post rennaissance - post reformation post enlightment and now post twentieth century to understand is the way they did what they did. The vocabulary, the quality of writing, the intelligence level, the depth of imagination. The quote from Homer. The pagelong excerpt from Plato's Republic. The prayer of thanksgiving (nag hammadhi codex 6 page 63, page 329 in the Robinson translation) where we give thanks
to You, undisturbed name, honored with the name
"God" and praised with the name "Father"..... ...for giving us mind, speech and knowledge:mind, so
we may understand you....
I sound like I'm preaching here, but I just to inform anyone looking up info in this index that this religious community in late antiquity held the promise of a religion that truly held the mind of every human being to be a sacred gift, not just a machine or a tool. A promise of course not yet delivered to humanity. Another text is titled The Book of Thomas the Contender. At's right, coulda been a contenda. But hope proves a man deathless, said Melville. John Joyce
There are Gnostic themes in the Truman Show and the Matrix? I think it's important to distinguish between actual gnostic ideas and dimestore Buddhism in the cultural wake of Jack Kerouac. JFQ
I saw Hippolytus had been added as a "gnostic" in the "list of gnostics". This must be wrong, Hippolytus was an orthodox, busy fighting gnosticism and several other "heresies". I removed the entry. I have done a lot more things to this entry and Aeon too, but need help with peer review, please check my text. -- User:Nixdorf
This was utterly fascinating. I wonder what the Wikipedia will be able to tell me about the Archons.
Who do you think 'The Archons' are? Just ponder it for a moment... I'll give you a hint, they aren't from this planet...
they resemble the marcabians from scientology (which is heavily based on gnosticism). Gringo300 07:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the Gnostics didn't necessarily deem matter 'evil', but rather 'incomplete'. Gnostics living in Egypt equated the material universe with the injured, re-assembled body of Osiris (missing his penis, symbolic of reproductive power), which forced him to become, symbolically, 'the god of the dead', as the Gnostics believed that death was caused by this 'incompleteness' of matter... Very interesting when one compares this idea to modern theories about entropy... Khranus
Was Final Fantasy 7 Gnostic? It didn't seem like it, to me. -- LionKimbro
Well actually it was, sort of. Kabbalah is sort of like the gnosticism of Judaism, Sephiroth is a reference to Kabbalah. And some might not agree with this, but Cloud was like the serpent in the garden from gnostic stories while Jenova is the demiurge.
I changed the link for "spirit" so it doesn't point to the disambig page "spirit" anymore. It points to "Holy Ghost" now, but I'm not sure that's the best of all choices. Joyous 21:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
Surprised to see no mention of William Blake here, who was probably more influenced by Gnosticism than any other major English poet. (Maybe Harold Bloom would cite Yeats and Shelley (and I suppose even Milton) as post-gnostic, too.)
On the other hand some of the film references here seem a little bit of a stretch. Not everything about a false world or illusion goes right back to gnosticism, you know (the Matrix, seems ok, Maybe. Perhaps also _Blade Runner_, which quotes Neo-Gnostic Wm. Blake). Christianity has a long tradition of linking "the world, the flesh, and the Devil," that exists in parallel to Gnostic-type beliefs, and of seeing the world as fallen and vain and etc. So one has to be careful abt. being seeing Gnosticism everywhere. Toy Story? The Truman show?
Given the revival of Gnosticism as fueled by popular authors Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown, it seems this entry should reflect that more. Perhaps we could relegate statements of Gnostics in the past tense to a section entitled, "History", and focus more upon modern practice in the other sections.
Ideas?
SwissCelt 17:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An anon just made major edits, mainly POV from what I have read. I don't have time right now to go over and copyedit it, however, I will put it on my task list. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An earlier version said that Samael Aun Weor's books did not talk about fundimental Gnostic concepts and this is false. Whoever wrote that is misinformed. The Demiurge, the incompleteness of "matter," etc., are all explained -- however not within the box that people consider Gnosticism. Instead of talking about the incompleteness of matter in such terms, Materalistic Philisophy is spoken of (and how it is incomplete), instead of repeating the story of the Demiurge in a mundane way he brings a real depth to it (IMO) by contrasting the Elohim (Imperfect "God" Being within Creation) with the Aelohim (Perfect Absolute "Non-Being"), etc.. Stating that he does not have Gnostic concepts is a common misconception furthermore because many of his works are Buddhist in nature, and his works as a whole are much broader than what is considered Gnosticism. The majority's "official" opinion is such because they/we have formulated a theory based on concepts that are believed to be reasonable. Samael Aun Weor's work is no different in the respect that it is just another theory to the average reader, however it happens to be that this one is radically different than official opinion. The fact that these texts are very esoteric means that they are left open to interpretation, and thus to categorically reject Samael Aun Weor's works as something not Gnostic is not only ignorant, but exceedingly superficial. Therefore, with this entry I am only attempting to clear up this ignorance.
For example, if I were to ask if Gnosticism had strong ties with Tarot, many people would say no and even some would laugh. Yet, the very first paragraph of the Pistis Sophia talks about Arcanum 1 and Arcanum 24. Anyone who truly understand what the Tarot is understands this, yet, the "official" opinion of "scholars" completely ignore these esoteric matters, even though it is readily admitted that these texts are esoteric in meaning!
Of course many people disagree and I have no problem with that. However I cannot see how one opinion can be considered an unbreakable dogma when the authors of the texts are all dead.
Regarding this sentence at the top of the Gnostic Texts section:
Why would the Gospel of Thomas not be considered a Gnostic text? For some reason I was under the impression that everyone agrees that's exactly what it is. Wesley 19:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-- I see no problem with adding neoplatonism as gnosticism, if at its core that's what it is. I would also place the Gurdjieff Work as a modern gnostic movement, given its definition of cosmoses and ladder going from The Absolute to the Moon. I do wish we had more info on the Mystery movements of Antiquity... patrice.boivin@gmail.com
To my friend Trödel(whoever he is).
I made this entry about a gnostic author. It is EMILE CIORAN. He is quiet famous. Wikipedia has a page on him. I didn't spell him right.. Of course he is more of a philosopher than a writer. The book i'm talking about is not on the list of his major works in wikipedia. i' ll have a visit on him.. it is something like "le demiurge mal" in french. that's the bad (evil?)(incompetent?) demiurgue. (pardon my english). He is aware and has knowledge of every gnostic belief (Markion,cathars) and agrees with them. he has a certain "style" in his speech. sometimes he becomes blasphymous (a dictionary please). he hated humans.well we all have been there, right?
what's that name Trodel? Is it German? i'm Greek. i'm Sotiris.(i didn't expect that someone would look my entry. you see in Greece nothing works.ha, ha..) -- 213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)SOTIRIS-- 213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
by the way did you know that the Apatchi (indians) were gnostics too or maybe deists? they believed that there was a god but didn't honour him as he didn't care about humans. instead they worsiped an evil spirit that believed to be omnipotent. (ΔΟΜΗ 2004,encyclopedia).Bye. SOTIRIS
The Gospel of Thomas is definately a gnostic text. Granted that it is disputed whether he wrote it, but he is usually identified as gnostic. Trödel| talk 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "eternal return" is the concept where a demon condemns man to live his life again and again. it's a trap inside time. it is typically gnostic. i would also add in gnostic moovies, "the groundhog's day". it's the same recipe of "eternal return" and very near to Truman, Matrix etc. the only difference is that in "groundhog's day" the "God" character is not malivoulent but wants to teach man. fine film.
-- 213.5.49.215 13:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the article is ambigious as to different periods in this set of beliefs. Platonic and neo-Platonic are not really "Gnostic," but deal with similar concepts. Similarly talking about 'Gnosticism in the 20th century' is kinda like talking about witchcraft in the 20th century. It's not the same as withcraft in the midle ages or antiquity, or Mesopotamia. There's an intellectually dangerous conflation of terms here.
Secondly, it would help if there were sources sited in the text. "Generally believed" is always a bit sketchy as an introduction. It is unclear as to what "equally valid" with traditional Christian teaching means. Equally valid as a social movement? Sure. Equally valid religiously? That's opening a whole big can of worms.
There are mentions of Jesus. As a writer, the author must make clear how that name is being treated. For the purpose of this article is Jesus a)the son of God and one indivisible part of the Holy Trinity (mainstream Christian teaching), b) a historical figure, a Jew who got executed but who spawned a religious movement, or c)a totally made up figure that's part of the mythology of a religious movement from the late Antiquity.
There's a strong argument about whether Manicheans are Gnostics or just a branch of Christianity considered heretical by the majority. Cathars and Bogomils can be treated in similar ways.
Does anyone know how I can get the Greek To show up propperly? -- 203.59.210.198 11:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
-- 203.59.210.198 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a tough cookie, and I'm not sure I know exactly how to fix it. In common parlance, "Gnosticism" is often times restricted to meaning the early 1st, 2nd, 3rd century Mediterranean traditions and their variants. But when we start to include groups like Cathars and Bogomils, the opening line, that gnosticism is a "blanket term" for first and second century sects, begins to hurt the clarity of the article.
Most of this article details characteristics of what might be referred to as "Classical Gnosticism." Though later types of Western Gnosticism (Cathars, so-called Rosicrucians, Kabbalah, Sufism, Alchemy) have much in common with their Classical brethren, they do not share all of the characteristics that this article claims are normative: for instance, none of the later examples speak of a Demiurge figure, and instead relegate this theme to other mythic representations: the Cathars have in his place the Devil, for instance. As such, it is misleading and confusing to include the Demiurge in the "theology" section of an article that is supposedly describing an umbrella that includes Cathars and Alchemists.
An example of some beliefs that are more normative to "gnosticism as a whole" would be the three parts of the soul, the transcendant nature of God, the illusory veil of perception (see MAYA). All gnostic and gnostic-ish traditions tend to focus on the allegorical interpretations of myth in scripture rather than historicity and literality of scripture.
I think the problem could be rectified if we determine what characteristics are specifically characteristic of Classical Gnosticism, versus gnosticism as a whole, and include an appropriate section. This is a difficult task, to say the least, since many scholars agree that "little-g gnosticism" is not restricted to Classical (big-G) Gnosticism, and includes other religious traditions such as Sufism and Kabbalah (which have been described by scholars as Islamic and Jewish Gnosticism, respectively - Seyyed Hussein Nasr, Gershom Scholem).
We ought to either put Classical Gnosticism and its characteristics on its own section, or weed out the later traditions (Cathars, etc) from the article that do not fit this paradigm.
-sparkwidget
I've added a section for discussion groups and email lists that focus on Gnosticism, listed two groups that I'm subscribed to which are relatively functional and focused. I was going to add the newsgroups soc.religion.gnosis and alt.religion.gnostic, but both of those appear "dead". I encourage other people to add fora which are topically relevant and of high quality. Thomas Leavitt
User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!
I slightly recast just the opening, so that it introduces the term and tells how we know about Gnosticism of Antiquity. Is some text missing in the description that follows? It seems like a hodgepodge of secondary details instead of a presentation of the broad world-picture gnostics shared. The section title might be "The Gnostic World-Picture".... Following the general world-picture, a few central texts should be discussed: Pistis Sophia is an essential. Modern gnosticism might follow that. -- Wetman 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The following text is irrelevant to the subject Gnosticism:
If this text throws light on Gnosticism, begin by quoting a gnostic line or two (there are but 114 sayings) and elucidating what's Gnostic about them and help the reader build a picture of Gnosticism. Name-dropping is uninspiring if the reader is simply presented with unspecified "findings". Labelling a text "controversial" without exploring the controversy (if it's relevant) is not enlightening either. -This isn't good enough. - Wetman 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I considered modifying a sentence in the article, but hesitated to do so because although familiar with the subjects, I am not an expert on Jung nor on Gnosticism. Instead I will post my concern here, and if appropriate somebody more knowledgeable can make the change.
The last sentence of the entry under Carl Jung, in the "Gnosticism in Modern Times" section, reads as follows: "On the other hand, what is known is that Jung and his ancient forebears disagreed on the ultimate goal of the individual: whereas the Gnostics clearly sought a return to a supreme, other-worldly Godhead, Jung would see this as analogous to a total identification with the unconscious, a dangerous psychological state."
I wonder about the closing comment, "...a dangerous psychological state." Is the writer saying that Jung in fact did state that the ultimate goal of Gnosticism would amount to a dangerous psychological state? Or is he/she only assuming that Jung might have thought so, because he himself believes so? If this is only an assumption by the writer, then it does not belong in the article at all and should be removed. That Jung would regard this goal in such low esteem strikes me as odd, since he was very friendly to the Hindu tradition, the highest goal of which is perhaps identical--Nirvikalpa Samadhi--a state which would be ludicrous to regard as psychologically dangerous. The state is considered to be not only superlatively desirable, but perfectly compatible with normal, in fact, vastly enhanced, functioning in the world. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) I feel relatively safe assuming that Jung was aware of this and would not have such a pessimistic view of this condition.
I appreciate your point, but my concern is over the accuracy with which the sentence expresses Jung's actual thinking, since that is what the entry is supposed to reflect, as opposed to the writer's opinion.
For example, would Jung adhere strictly to the distinctions you mention in your response, and proceed to reject Gnosis as unhealthy while simultaneously embracing Samadhi as desirable? Or would he be more inclined to think that, although the myths don't match perfectly, belonging, as you say, to different worldviews, the intent behind each was still *essentially* the same--to advocate a return to Ultimate Source and a departure from illusion? (To quote from the Samadhi article--"Samadhi is the only stable unchanging Reality. All else is ever changing and does not bring everlasting peace or happiness. Staying in Nirvikalpa Samadhi is effortless but even from this condition one must eventually return to ego-consciousness. However, it is entirely possible to stay in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and yet be fully functional in this world. This condition is known as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi.")
Would Jung have indeed equated this return to Ultimate Source to a total identification with the unconscious? And then beyond that, did he indeed regard such a thing as psychologically dangerous?
My opinion is that unless Jung specifically stated both that 1) in his view Gnosis meant total identification with the unconscious and 2) that he regarded this condition as psychologically dangerous, the comment is only an opinion by the writer and should not be in the article.
I am opposed to the entire AD/CE edit war. If I notice any further edit, from either side, that only switches the style, and it is not supported by consensus on this talk page, I intend to revert it.
I do not consider it obvious which is preferable, and will cheerfully supply arguments for either. Neither is obviously "less colored", which is why this wasteful war has been fought in good faith. Septentrionalis 18:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Proposed Addition The Kabbalah article has a Gnosticism and Kabbalah section, is a similar/identical section needed here on the Gnostic side? (BTW&JIC, I realized the link between Gnosticism and Kabbalah was generally missing while looking at the Alan Moore, Promethea and Kabbalah pages.) -- Xpi6 09:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article has been highlighted as possibly being too long. Does anyone else think this might benefit from being divided into several articles? The lines I'm thinking of would be to divide the Gnostic Myth section and make it a separate article - the outlining on the page suffers from having several important elements left out, and because it conflates elements from several myths into a basic form (though sme effort has been made to distinguish Valentinian and Classical myths).
This would allow a more detailed rendering of historical material concerning gnostic behaviour in antiquity, the historical elements of gnostic studies (such as issues with the translation and precurment of the texts from Nag Hammadi) and the emergences of modern gnostic movements in the main article. At the same time the Gnostic myth article could deal more with theological issues (details of cosmology, ethics, and the relationship with orthodoxy) and offer a more detailed elucidation of the myths themselves, which are the cornerstones of the movement, and their principle objects of study.
Even if the split didn't occur along these lines, I do think something is needed to differentiate between modern gonstic currents and those in antiquity. 'Gnosticism' is a famously vague and disputed term - Wikipedia has an opportunity to present an overview of gnosticism that evades many of the common pitfalls afflicting assessments of this religious grouping, and I think a more clear division between ancient and modern gnosticism would be a good start.
Thoughts?
Visual Error 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
First, the criteria proposed by Visual Error are somewhat off target. The phrase "knowledge as a central point in salvation" is misleading. To me, salvation implies being saved from the results of our own actions, which isn't consistent with Gnostic thought. I think that the phrase, "direct experience (knowledge) of God resulting in an ultimate reunification with God" would be more accurate. Second, I don't find it helpful to say that Gnosticism has a "key metaphor of sexuality as opposed to speech". I'm not aware of sexuality being overly significant in Gnostic myth or practice. It certainly isn't essential to the definition of Gnosticism. Third, it's also not in any way central to Gnosticism to define God by what he is not. Simply because that was the strategy used in an attempt to explain God, doesn't mean that it should be part of the Gnostic criteria.
This is from the Gnosis.org website:
The above "criteria" could be used as a basis for a revised entry for "Gnosticism". Chrismau 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I read the whole thing and I still don't understand what Gnosticism is.
This article is confusing and complicated.
It uses complex words when simple would suffice.
Maybe the original author wasn't a native english speaker. I don't know. But, it needs work. -- Capsela 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to make some suggestions towards a wholesale revision of this article. On the whole, I think the article as it stands is fairly strong (I would say that, since I contributed quite a bit of material to it - material which, if anything, only contributes to the problems of the article) but I think there's just not enough information concerning the historical development of gnosticism, its sources, the philosohpical context of its emergence (especially the importance of Platonist philosophy as a driving force behind its use of metaphor), the development of modern assessments of gnosticism and the related difficulties present in arriving at a broad, unifying categorical definition. I've written about these problems extensively, above.
Anyway, I'd like to suggest a new layout, which I think would unify the thrust of the sections into something more coherent - please let me know what you think.
I think this layout would offer a more unified, historical view of gnosticism, rather than straddling an explication of 'gnosis' as an apparent perennial philosphy and 'gnosticism, a single historical occurrence of the aforesaid philosophy, as the article seems to do now. The greatest advantage of a new approach (as I see it) would be to unify the thrust of the article both chronologically (within limits) and developmentally, beginning with the simplest and most basic conceptions of gnosticism (a la Irenaeus et al) and ending on the most recent scholarly endeavours to resolve its difficulties.
Probably the best way to go about it would be to alter and organize those sections of the current article that are to be kept, and then to work on material for the new sections; summaries of Gnostic myths should probably be moved to the articles related to the texts or movements from which they are derived. Any comments and suggestions would be sincerely appreciated (I would say more, but it's twenty past one where I am, and I need sleep...) Cheers all, Visual Error 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The new layout I've been working is in the final stages - if people want to review it they can go here. I'm going to add a link at the top of the Gnosticism page so people can access it easily. Visual Error 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay - I've uploaded the new content. There's till some work that needs to be done, for example, before the article reaches a desirable level of completion. The references to gnosticism in literature, music, film etc. need to be examined and tidied up, and moved into a chronological order, if one can be determined. The main text is probably going to be peppered with typos and mangled phrases, despite my best efforts to avoid these. I'm going to keep checking through, but any help would be appreciated. Wiki-links, as well, probably disambiguation and checking (I'm not sure if every first-instance is linked).
With possible further content, I would like to see some corroborated information (rather than 'most scholars agree...') on Buddhist/Hindu influence, though I've hinted this in the monism section. I think I remember that a book called The Allure of Gnosticism had an essay outlining the points of comparison with Mahayana Buddhism, and a possible method of transmission, but I might be wrong. If anyone has access to that text, it would be cool if they could check it out.
Other than that, I think simply a little more content in sub-pages would be a new goal. I'm going to port relevant content from the old article into some he sub articles on Valentinianism and Sethianism, if they exist. I'm also going to work on the Barbelo pages, and other pages about the gnostic mythemes and central figures; I think some work might need to be done to making gnosticism cohere more as a category - perhaps by creating a category table at the bottom of the page - thoughts? Cheers Visual Error 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can more people contribute to this in the Heaven's Gate article, or add it to the Modern times section. Their is a superficial resemblence to the Philosophy. They are not completely the same (instead of a transcendent platonic realm, there is another planet, instead of merely knowing, their is also reincarnation into a space-ship) but their general feeling for this planet's reality are similar. IdeArchos 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
the article obviously has a bias slant in its sympathy DanteDanti
Whoever added the neutrality-dispute markup tag to this article, discuss the matter here, don't just tag it as non-neutral. It will be removed unless you state your points here soon. Nixdorf 07:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Article violates Npov. sorry I wasnt logged in before. DanteDanti
{{POV-section}}
tag for those specific areas you feel violate NPOV. It's hard to guess where in the long article the problems are perceived to exist.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)I dont believe that this is too technical, this isn't simple english wikipedia after all. just an anonymous usrs opinion.
Is there really any direct Buddhist influence with gnosticism? The only exchange between Buddhism and Hinduism with Western civilisation before the British visiting Asia was when Alexander the Great conquered parts of India. His successors in the Indo-Greek kingdom were influenced by Buddhism, and possibly spread it back west, and King Ashoka sent missionaries to the Seleucids and Greek-Bactrians. However, on the greek end, no record of this exists. Nonetheless, some aspects of gnosticism are too similar to Buddhism to discount the possibility of influence. -- 202.156.6.60 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I wish Kabir's "Anurag Sagar" (the Ocean of Love) could be fit in here somewhere.
It's 15th century, and Indian, so it's not "Gnostic" in the old 1st century sense. However, the philosophy is CLEARLY Gnostic. You can download the whole thing at http://www.geocities.com/anulbird/anuragindex.html . You have the good (but, in terms of this world, "weak" and "alien"), and then you have the creator God who makes a place in the void, and then starts devouring souls. Some are stuck to the created world beyond repair, some are in between, and a few are going to make it. The Aeons all make appearances. And the Eternal Word is the ride back home.
Wonderful Entry.
-- User:LionKimbro there were budists in egypt before christ.
On the Greek spelling of the word gnosis: the Unicode characters used here are the correct. Using the "sigma" of the math markup for the greek text is not correct Greek, it just looks like Greek, and is thus misleading information. In Greek, a sigma appearing last in a word has a distinctly different shape than a sigma in the middle of a word, as in the math symbols.
If your browser or its character set or your operating system does not support Unicode correctly, that's sad, but the same is probably true of several Wikipedia web pages containing Chinese or Japanese Unicodes.
The growth of Gnosticism in the first centuries AD was mirrored by the growth of murder/suicide cults based on various interpretations of christian theology. A notable example of this are the Marnimites in Northern Africa. This sect would ambush travellers. The Marnimites would then present the traveller with a sword and demand that the traveller murder the Marnimites. (This was a martyr cult). These martyr cults became the reason for the Catholic Church allowing killing in self-defense in violation of the third commandment. It is argued that these provisions were then exploited by nefarious bishops to allow for the wholesale persecution of the Gnostics.
-I'd like to point out that the original Greek text of the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill." Therefore, they didn't really violate the third commandment.
This is a first-rate entry! Thanks a lot for shaping up what was a pretty bare beginning. --MichaelTinkler
I still feel it could be a lot better... e.g. talking about the variety of different Gnostic systems in more clarity -- but its the best I can do at the moment. Thankyou for the encouragement. -- Simon J Kissane
well, it's not like we have any real idea about them - after all, it was a Secret. It's kind of like trying to write about the Mystery Religions - they're remarkably elusive! I've been reading French structuralist takes on the Eleusinian mysteries all summer and I have a headache. My only quibble (and I'm not about to do anything about it) is the "scholars think...equally valid." That's what always gets Christianity off track, listening to scholars. Every really good schism starts with someone writing a commentary on the book of Romans.... --MichaelTinkler
Oh, the sacred mind. I was raised in Catholic grammar school in the sixties and never knew there was this whole other stream of interpretation about what the man called Jesus by the Greeks was trying to tell us, and what sort of religion should emerge from his being here. Only recently, when I read Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels (St Elaine I call her) and got a hold of Nag Hammadhi Library in English, Robinson, editor, did it really open my mind to what these people, second and third century, Hellenistic Egypt thereabouts, were trying to get going. Since this is an encyclopedia entry, anyone reading this should understand something important:
The gnostics were a diverse group that came up with a
wildly imaginitive body of myth from both Hellenic and Jewish sources, and the thing is NOT to take this or that myth literally and stick to it like a cult member or something. Whats important for us in the post rennaissance - post reformation post enlightment and now post twentieth century to understand is the way they did what they did. The vocabulary, the quality of writing, the intelligence level, the depth of imagination. The quote from Homer. The pagelong excerpt from Plato's Republic. The prayer of thanksgiving (nag hammadhi codex 6 page 63, page 329 in the Robinson translation) where we give thanks
to You, undisturbed name, honored with the name
"God" and praised with the name "Father"..... ...for giving us mind, speech and knowledge:mind, so
we may understand you....
I sound like I'm preaching here, but I just to inform anyone looking up info in this index that this religious community in late antiquity held the promise of a religion that truly held the mind of every human being to be a sacred gift, not just a machine or a tool. A promise of course not yet delivered to humanity. Another text is titled The Book of Thomas the Contender. At's right, coulda been a contenda. But hope proves a man deathless, said Melville. John Joyce
There are Gnostic themes in the Truman Show and the Matrix? I think it's important to distinguish between actual gnostic ideas and dimestore Buddhism in the cultural wake of Jack Kerouac. JFQ
I saw Hippolytus had been added as a "gnostic" in the "list of gnostics". This must be wrong, Hippolytus was an orthodox, busy fighting gnosticism and several other "heresies". I removed the entry. I have done a lot more things to this entry and Aeon too, but need help with peer review, please check my text. -- User:Nixdorf
This was utterly fascinating. I wonder what the Wikipedia will be able to tell me about the Archons.
Who do you think 'The Archons' are? Just ponder it for a moment... I'll give you a hint, they aren't from this planet...
they resemble the marcabians from scientology (which is heavily based on gnosticism). Gringo300 07:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the Gnostics didn't necessarily deem matter 'evil', but rather 'incomplete'. Gnostics living in Egypt equated the material universe with the injured, re-assembled body of Osiris (missing his penis, symbolic of reproductive power), which forced him to become, symbolically, 'the god of the dead', as the Gnostics believed that death was caused by this 'incompleteness' of matter... Very interesting when one compares this idea to modern theories about entropy... Khranus
Was Final Fantasy 7 Gnostic? It didn't seem like it, to me. -- LionKimbro
Well actually it was, sort of. Kabbalah is sort of like the gnosticism of Judaism, Sephiroth is a reference to Kabbalah. And some might not agree with this, but Cloud was like the serpent in the garden from gnostic stories while Jenova is the demiurge.
I changed the link for "spirit" so it doesn't point to the disambig page "spirit" anymore. It points to "Holy Ghost" now, but I'm not sure that's the best of all choices. Joyous 21:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
Surprised to see no mention of William Blake here, who was probably more influenced by Gnosticism than any other major English poet. (Maybe Harold Bloom would cite Yeats and Shelley (and I suppose even Milton) as post-gnostic, too.)
On the other hand some of the film references here seem a little bit of a stretch. Not everything about a false world or illusion goes right back to gnosticism, you know (the Matrix, seems ok, Maybe. Perhaps also _Blade Runner_, which quotes Neo-Gnostic Wm. Blake). Christianity has a long tradition of linking "the world, the flesh, and the Devil," that exists in parallel to Gnostic-type beliefs, and of seeing the world as fallen and vain and etc. So one has to be careful abt. being seeing Gnosticism everywhere. Toy Story? The Truman show?
Given the revival of Gnosticism as fueled by popular authors Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown, it seems this entry should reflect that more. Perhaps we could relegate statements of Gnostics in the past tense to a section entitled, "History", and focus more upon modern practice in the other sections.
Ideas?
SwissCelt 17:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An anon just made major edits, mainly POV from what I have read. I don't have time right now to go over and copyedit it, however, I will put it on my task list. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An earlier version said that Samael Aun Weor's books did not talk about fundimental Gnostic concepts and this is false. Whoever wrote that is misinformed. The Demiurge, the incompleteness of "matter," etc., are all explained -- however not within the box that people consider Gnosticism. Instead of talking about the incompleteness of matter in such terms, Materalistic Philisophy is spoken of (and how it is incomplete), instead of repeating the story of the Demiurge in a mundane way he brings a real depth to it (IMO) by contrasting the Elohim (Imperfect "God" Being within Creation) with the Aelohim (Perfect Absolute "Non-Being"), etc.. Stating that he does not have Gnostic concepts is a common misconception furthermore because many of his works are Buddhist in nature, and his works as a whole are much broader than what is considered Gnosticism. The majority's "official" opinion is such because they/we have formulated a theory based on concepts that are believed to be reasonable. Samael Aun Weor's work is no different in the respect that it is just another theory to the average reader, however it happens to be that this one is radically different than official opinion. The fact that these texts are very esoteric means that they are left open to interpretation, and thus to categorically reject Samael Aun Weor's works as something not Gnostic is not only ignorant, but exceedingly superficial. Therefore, with this entry I am only attempting to clear up this ignorance.
For example, if I were to ask if Gnosticism had strong ties with Tarot, many people would say no and even some would laugh. Yet, the very first paragraph of the Pistis Sophia talks about Arcanum 1 and Arcanum 24. Anyone who truly understand what the Tarot is understands this, yet, the "official" opinion of "scholars" completely ignore these esoteric matters, even though it is readily admitted that these texts are esoteric in meaning!
Of course many people disagree and I have no problem with that. However I cannot see how one opinion can be considered an unbreakable dogma when the authors of the texts are all dead.
Regarding this sentence at the top of the Gnostic Texts section:
Why would the Gospel of Thomas not be considered a Gnostic text? For some reason I was under the impression that everyone agrees that's exactly what it is. Wesley 19:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-- I see no problem with adding neoplatonism as gnosticism, if at its core that's what it is. I would also place the Gurdjieff Work as a modern gnostic movement, given its definition of cosmoses and ladder going from The Absolute to the Moon. I do wish we had more info on the Mystery movements of Antiquity... patrice.boivin@gmail.com
To my friend Trödel(whoever he is).
I made this entry about a gnostic author. It is EMILE CIORAN. He is quiet famous. Wikipedia has a page on him. I didn't spell him right.. Of course he is more of a philosopher than a writer. The book i'm talking about is not on the list of his major works in wikipedia. i' ll have a visit on him.. it is something like "le demiurge mal" in french. that's the bad (evil?)(incompetent?) demiurgue. (pardon my english). He is aware and has knowledge of every gnostic belief (Markion,cathars) and agrees with them. he has a certain "style" in his speech. sometimes he becomes blasphymous (a dictionary please). he hated humans.well we all have been there, right?
what's that name Trodel? Is it German? i'm Greek. i'm Sotiris.(i didn't expect that someone would look my entry. you see in Greece nothing works.ha, ha..) -- 213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)SOTIRIS-- 213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
by the way did you know that the Apatchi (indians) were gnostics too or maybe deists? they believed that there was a god but didn't honour him as he didn't care about humans. instead they worsiped an evil spirit that believed to be omnipotent. (ΔΟΜΗ 2004,encyclopedia).Bye. SOTIRIS
The Gospel of Thomas is definately a gnostic text. Granted that it is disputed whether he wrote it, but he is usually identified as gnostic. Trödel| talk 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "eternal return" is the concept where a demon condemns man to live his life again and again. it's a trap inside time. it is typically gnostic. i would also add in gnostic moovies, "the groundhog's day". it's the same recipe of "eternal return" and very near to Truman, Matrix etc. the only difference is that in "groundhog's day" the "God" character is not malivoulent but wants to teach man. fine film.
-- 213.5.49.215 13:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the article is ambigious as to different periods in this set of beliefs. Platonic and neo-Platonic are not really "Gnostic," but deal with similar concepts. Similarly talking about 'Gnosticism in the 20th century' is kinda like talking about witchcraft in the 20th century. It's not the same as withcraft in the midle ages or antiquity, or Mesopotamia. There's an intellectually dangerous conflation of terms here.
Secondly, it would help if there were sources sited in the text. "Generally believed" is always a bit sketchy as an introduction. It is unclear as to what "equally valid" with traditional Christian teaching means. Equally valid as a social movement? Sure. Equally valid religiously? That's opening a whole big can of worms.
There are mentions of Jesus. As a writer, the author must make clear how that name is being treated. For the purpose of this article is Jesus a)the son of God and one indivisible part of the Holy Trinity (mainstream Christian teaching), b) a historical figure, a Jew who got executed but who spawned a religious movement, or c)a totally made up figure that's part of the mythology of a religious movement from the late Antiquity.
There's a strong argument about whether Manicheans are Gnostics or just a branch of Christianity considered heretical by the majority. Cathars and Bogomils can be treated in similar ways.
Does anyone know how I can get the Greek To show up propperly? -- 203.59.210.198 11:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
-- 203.59.210.198 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a tough cookie, and I'm not sure I know exactly how to fix it. In common parlance, "Gnosticism" is often times restricted to meaning the early 1st, 2nd, 3rd century Mediterranean traditions and their variants. But when we start to include groups like Cathars and Bogomils, the opening line, that gnosticism is a "blanket term" for first and second century sects, begins to hurt the clarity of the article.
Most of this article details characteristics of what might be referred to as "Classical Gnosticism." Though later types of Western Gnosticism (Cathars, so-called Rosicrucians, Kabbalah, Sufism, Alchemy) have much in common with their Classical brethren, they do not share all of the characteristics that this article claims are normative: for instance, none of the later examples speak of a Demiurge figure, and instead relegate this theme to other mythic representations: the Cathars have in his place the Devil, for instance. As such, it is misleading and confusing to include the Demiurge in the "theology" section of an article that is supposedly describing an umbrella that includes Cathars and Alchemists.
An example of some beliefs that are more normative to "gnosticism as a whole" would be the three parts of the soul, the transcendant nature of God, the illusory veil of perception (see MAYA). All gnostic and gnostic-ish traditions tend to focus on the allegorical interpretations of myth in scripture rather than historicity and literality of scripture.
I think the problem could be rectified if we determine what characteristics are specifically characteristic of Classical Gnosticism, versus gnosticism as a whole, and include an appropriate section. This is a difficult task, to say the least, since many scholars agree that "little-g gnosticism" is not restricted to Classical (big-G) Gnosticism, and includes other religious traditions such as Sufism and Kabbalah (which have been described by scholars as Islamic and Jewish Gnosticism, respectively - Seyyed Hussein Nasr, Gershom Scholem).
We ought to either put Classical Gnosticism and its characteristics on its own section, or weed out the later traditions (Cathars, etc) from the article that do not fit this paradigm.
-sparkwidget
I've added a section for discussion groups and email lists that focus on Gnosticism, listed two groups that I'm subscribed to which are relatively functional and focused. I was going to add the newsgroups soc.religion.gnosis and alt.religion.gnostic, but both of those appear "dead". I encourage other people to add fora which are topically relevant and of high quality. Thomas Leavitt
User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!
I slightly recast just the opening, so that it introduces the term and tells how we know about Gnosticism of Antiquity. Is some text missing in the description that follows? It seems like a hodgepodge of secondary details instead of a presentation of the broad world-picture gnostics shared. The section title might be "The Gnostic World-Picture".... Following the general world-picture, a few central texts should be discussed: Pistis Sophia is an essential. Modern gnosticism might follow that. -- Wetman 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The following text is irrelevant to the subject Gnosticism:
If this text throws light on Gnosticism, begin by quoting a gnostic line or two (there are but 114 sayings) and elucidating what's Gnostic about them and help the reader build a picture of Gnosticism. Name-dropping is uninspiring if the reader is simply presented with unspecified "findings". Labelling a text "controversial" without exploring the controversy (if it's relevant) is not enlightening either. -This isn't good enough. - Wetman 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I considered modifying a sentence in the article, but hesitated to do so because although familiar with the subjects, I am not an expert on Jung nor on Gnosticism. Instead I will post my concern here, and if appropriate somebody more knowledgeable can make the change.
The last sentence of the entry under Carl Jung, in the "Gnosticism in Modern Times" section, reads as follows: "On the other hand, what is known is that Jung and his ancient forebears disagreed on the ultimate goal of the individual: whereas the Gnostics clearly sought a return to a supreme, other-worldly Godhead, Jung would see this as analogous to a total identification with the unconscious, a dangerous psychological state."
I wonder about the closing comment, "...a dangerous psychological state." Is the writer saying that Jung in fact did state that the ultimate goal of Gnosticism would amount to a dangerous psychological state? Or is he/she only assuming that Jung might have thought so, because he himself believes so? If this is only an assumption by the writer, then it does not belong in the article at all and should be removed. That Jung would regard this goal in such low esteem strikes me as odd, since he was very friendly to the Hindu tradition, the highest goal of which is perhaps identical--Nirvikalpa Samadhi--a state which would be ludicrous to regard as psychologically dangerous. The state is considered to be not only superlatively desirable, but perfectly compatible with normal, in fact, vastly enhanced, functioning in the world. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) I feel relatively safe assuming that Jung was aware of this and would not have such a pessimistic view of this condition.
I appreciate your point, but my concern is over the accuracy with which the sentence expresses Jung's actual thinking, since that is what the entry is supposed to reflect, as opposed to the writer's opinion.
For example, would Jung adhere strictly to the distinctions you mention in your response, and proceed to reject Gnosis as unhealthy while simultaneously embracing Samadhi as desirable? Or would he be more inclined to think that, although the myths don't match perfectly, belonging, as you say, to different worldviews, the intent behind each was still *essentially* the same--to advocate a return to Ultimate Source and a departure from illusion? (To quote from the Samadhi article--"Samadhi is the only stable unchanging Reality. All else is ever changing and does not bring everlasting peace or happiness. Staying in Nirvikalpa Samadhi is effortless but even from this condition one must eventually return to ego-consciousness. However, it is entirely possible to stay in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and yet be fully functional in this world. This condition is known as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi.")
Would Jung have indeed equated this return to Ultimate Source to a total identification with the unconscious? And then beyond that, did he indeed regard such a thing as psychologically dangerous?
My opinion is that unless Jung specifically stated both that 1) in his view Gnosis meant total identification with the unconscious and 2) that he regarded this condition as psychologically dangerous, the comment is only an opinion by the writer and should not be in the article.
I am opposed to the entire AD/CE edit war. If I notice any further edit, from either side, that only switches the style, and it is not supported by consensus on this talk page, I intend to revert it.
I do not consider it obvious which is preferable, and will cheerfully supply arguments for either. Neither is obviously "less colored", which is why this wasteful war has been fought in good faith. Septentrionalis 18:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Proposed Addition The Kabbalah article has a Gnosticism and Kabbalah section, is a similar/identical section needed here on the Gnostic side? (BTW&JIC, I realized the link between Gnosticism and Kabbalah was generally missing while looking at the Alan Moore, Promethea and Kabbalah pages.) -- Xpi6 09:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article has been highlighted as possibly being too long. Does anyone else think this might benefit from being divided into several articles? The lines I'm thinking of would be to divide the Gnostic Myth section and make it a separate article - the outlining on the page suffers from having several important elements left out, and because it conflates elements from several myths into a basic form (though sme effort has been made to distinguish Valentinian and Classical myths).
This would allow a more detailed rendering of historical material concerning gnostic behaviour in antiquity, the historical elements of gnostic studies (such as issues with the translation and precurment of the texts from Nag Hammadi) and the emergences of modern gnostic movements in the main article. At the same time the Gnostic myth article could deal more with theological issues (details of cosmology, ethics, and the relationship with orthodoxy) and offer a more detailed elucidation of the myths themselves, which are the cornerstones of the movement, and their principle objects of study.
Even if the split didn't occur along these lines, I do think something is needed to differentiate between modern gonstic currents and those in antiquity. 'Gnosticism' is a famously vague and disputed term - Wikipedia has an opportunity to present an overview of gnosticism that evades many of the common pitfalls afflicting assessments of this religious grouping, and I think a more clear division between ancient and modern gnosticism would be a good start.
Thoughts?
Visual Error 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
First, the criteria proposed by Visual Error are somewhat off target. The phrase "knowledge as a central point in salvation" is misleading. To me, salvation implies being saved from the results of our own actions, which isn't consistent with Gnostic thought. I think that the phrase, "direct experience (knowledge) of God resulting in an ultimate reunification with God" would be more accurate. Second, I don't find it helpful to say that Gnosticism has a "key metaphor of sexuality as opposed to speech". I'm not aware of sexuality being overly significant in Gnostic myth or practice. It certainly isn't essential to the definition of Gnosticism. Third, it's also not in any way central to Gnosticism to define God by what he is not. Simply because that was the strategy used in an attempt to explain God, doesn't mean that it should be part of the Gnostic criteria.
This is from the Gnosis.org website:
The above "criteria" could be used as a basis for a revised entry for "Gnosticism". Chrismau 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I read the whole thing and I still don't understand what Gnosticism is.
This article is confusing and complicated.
It uses complex words when simple would suffice.
Maybe the original author wasn't a native english speaker. I don't know. But, it needs work. -- Capsela 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to make some suggestions towards a wholesale revision of this article. On the whole, I think the article as it stands is fairly strong (I would say that, since I contributed quite a bit of material to it - material which, if anything, only contributes to the problems of the article) but I think there's just not enough information concerning the historical development of gnosticism, its sources, the philosohpical context of its emergence (especially the importance of Platonist philosophy as a driving force behind its use of metaphor), the development of modern assessments of gnosticism and the related difficulties present in arriving at a broad, unifying categorical definition. I've written about these problems extensively, above.
Anyway, I'd like to suggest a new layout, which I think would unify the thrust of the sections into something more coherent - please let me know what you think.
I think this layout would offer a more unified, historical view of gnosticism, rather than straddling an explication of 'gnosis' as an apparent perennial philosphy and 'gnosticism, a single historical occurrence of the aforesaid philosophy, as the article seems to do now. The greatest advantage of a new approach (as I see it) would be to unify the thrust of the article both chronologically (within limits) and developmentally, beginning with the simplest and most basic conceptions of gnosticism (a la Irenaeus et al) and ending on the most recent scholarly endeavours to resolve its difficulties.
Probably the best way to go about it would be to alter and organize those sections of the current article that are to be kept, and then to work on material for the new sections; summaries of Gnostic myths should probably be moved to the articles related to the texts or movements from which they are derived. Any comments and suggestions would be sincerely appreciated (I would say more, but it's twenty past one where I am, and I need sleep...) Cheers all, Visual Error 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The new layout I've been working is in the final stages - if people want to review it they can go here. I'm going to add a link at the top of the Gnosticism page so people can access it easily. Visual Error 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay - I've uploaded the new content. There's till some work that needs to be done, for example, before the article reaches a desirable level of completion. The references to gnosticism in literature, music, film etc. need to be examined and tidied up, and moved into a chronological order, if one can be determined. The main text is probably going to be peppered with typos and mangled phrases, despite my best efforts to avoid these. I'm going to keep checking through, but any help would be appreciated. Wiki-links, as well, probably disambiguation and checking (I'm not sure if every first-instance is linked).
With possible further content, I would like to see some corroborated information (rather than 'most scholars agree...') on Buddhist/Hindu influence, though I've hinted this in the monism section. I think I remember that a book called The Allure of Gnosticism had an essay outlining the points of comparison with Mahayana Buddhism, and a possible method of transmission, but I might be wrong. If anyone has access to that text, it would be cool if they could check it out.
Other than that, I think simply a little more content in sub-pages would be a new goal. I'm going to port relevant content from the old article into some he sub articles on Valentinianism and Sethianism, if they exist. I'm also going to work on the Barbelo pages, and other pages about the gnostic mythemes and central figures; I think some work might need to be done to making gnosticism cohere more as a category - perhaps by creating a category table at the bottom of the page - thoughts? Cheers Visual Error 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can more people contribute to this in the Heaven's Gate article, or add it to the Modern times section. Their is a superficial resemblence to the Philosophy. They are not completely the same (instead of a transcendent platonic realm, there is another planet, instead of merely knowing, their is also reincarnation into a space-ship) but their general feeling for this planet's reality are similar. IdeArchos 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)