8 posts tagged “gnosticism”
I just listened to a radio show from one of my friends on Facebook on the topic of Gnosticism and the Hymn of the Pearl. I get a lot out of myth and the resulting analysis of them, and so this section of his talk was very interesting to me.
Basic story:
"The Hymn of the Pearl tells the story of a prince sent by his father, the grand King of Kings, down to Egypt to fetch “the one pearl which resides there near the ravenous dragon.” His Father promises him that once this is accomplished, he could “put(back) on that jewel-studded garment” which was made out of love” for him and would become a herald for the kingdom along with his “well-remembered brother.” Leaving his kingdom in the East, he arrives in Egypt and hurries “directly to the dragon and camps near his den.” In order “to guard against the Egyptians and against intercourse with their impurities,” he puts on their “style of dress” in order to go undercover as well as to shun any suspicion that he was a stranger in their land. As fate would have it, the Egyptians become aware that he is a stranger, form a plot to snare him and knock him into a slumber with their matter-laden food. With a taste he succumbs into forgetfulness, no longer remembering he was “a child of the king” and so becomes subservient to their king. Then he sinks “into deep sleep under the heaviness of their food.” Meanwhile, his parents recognize that he is suffering and also “suffer” over him. So the King of Kings sends a letter, exhorting him to “arise and become sober out of sleep,” since he had “fallen under the servile yoke.” He is instructed to “call to mind” his garment full of gold and his mission regarding the pearl. Heading back home toward the light, he encounters “a female being” that lifts him up and helps guide him on his return journey. Finally he is reunited with his beloved garment and “perceived in it” his “whole self as well.” From here he enters the royal realm of peace."
The basic explanation was that the Prince represents the soul. It starts in the heavens, then is encased in bodily form in order to blend in while on its search for the pearl. The soul then forgets its purpose, forgets that it even had another home. Once a message from above comes to wake him up he is finally able to complete his mission and return to the fullness.
The interesting part of the talk comes in the discussion of what the pearl means.
"With this, the pearl can be isolated as “part of the divinity lost to darkness” which can only be reached if the prince retrieves it. In this sense both the prince and the pearl are the soul. He goes further in asserting that the “interchangeability of the subject and the object of the mission”(savior and soul/prince and pearl)”is the key to the true meaning of the poem and to Gnostic eschatology.”
Nice. We are both searching and waiting to be found. I love the subject/object ambiguity. :)
And then the meaning of the cloak:
"The pinnacle moment to understanding the cloak’s purpose is when the prince states that while they derived from “one and the same,” they were “partially divided: and then again” they “were one with a single form.” When he saw the garment, he saw in it his “whole self.” From this one may suppose that whatever the prince is so is the cloak and could even haphazardly guess that they are both soul. But they can be one form and yet fulfill different functions and even identities."
Awesome. I just love the multi-faceted explanation. The intricacies you can get through this sort of complicated myth and symbolism are what really excite me.
-Hafiz, Sufi Master
**********************************************
Why blame the people for following the parrot? They are blind, how could they know? The only way they'd learn is if they could see...and you can't force someone to see, only shine the light in their direction.
And the parrots? Are they to blame? How could they be? They are just parrots, just trying to earn the treat they get whenever they impress people. They are just as blind as the people who follow them, or even more so. Not just blind, but bound.
Do you see the blind people? Do you see the parrots? Chances are, there are more than you think.
Since the whole of the Eucharist ritual is published on the website of the church, I figured I would share a couple parts of it that I really like.
Sophia and the Logos
"And the Logos answered: "They say I came for all,
but in truth, I came for Her Who came for all.
For it had come to pass that there were those who had
lost their way and, lacking in spark, could not return
unto the Fullness.
Seeing this, She came unto them, giving her life to the depths of matter.
And in truth She did suffer and become blind.
But our Father, sensing Her anguish, sent Me forth, being of Him,
so that She might see and We be as One again.
Though they see it not, it is She, the tender Mother of Mercy,
Who is the great redeemer."
Viewing the story through the Gnostic myth just makes so much sense to me. That the Logos would come specifically to redeem her. That it was her who gave up everything and suffered in blindness and ignorance so that her children might have the hope of rejoining with the Fullness once again. And like I said before in a previous post, I really identify with the Sophia and the feelings that drive her.
Before, I felt like I could identify with God or Jesus, but only loosely. I felt some sort of passionate longing to fill up the hearts of people who suffer, but it could only loosely translate to the story I was taught. I mean, I know Jesus was supposed to have sacrificed his life for us, and that God is supposed to be watching us longingly, wishing he could save us from all pain but knowing that it isn't in our best interests....but there was something missing. I would often imagine them and how they would feel watching us struggle and make mistakes.
But this...this is exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find. That we were stuck in darkness and that Sophia loved us so much that she couldn't bear to leave us. That she spread herself out, buried herself deep in every heart, behind every pair of eyes...even though she knew the power of ignorance and blindness would overcome her. This sort of devotion and unconditional love...this is what I've longed to express but never quite had the right vehicle to explain.
"I have always been with you. I have whispered your name in the rustle of the leaves of autumn; I have called to you with the voice of the waves of the sea. I have watched you while I hid in the clouds. The birds have sung my messages, and I have given you echoes of my presence through all eyes that have looked at you—for in all creatures exists a spark of my Presence. I have waited for you, my beloved, for I have loved you and longed to give you life."
I really hate bringing up gender when it comes to religion...but part of me does wonder if it is because this love is feminine in nature that I can identify with it so much. If that was what was missing for me personally. I'm not sure.
Keep in mind I'm not advocating a literal interpretation of the myth. It is a myth. But it makes so much sense on a deep level, as an allegory for my own spirituality. I make no claims of cosmology, only claims of personal resonance.
Ineffability
And we invoke That which is no thing:
That which the mind cannot grasp nor comprehend,
But only respond in ecstasy and awe, here present now and forever.
One of the problems I've had with "traditional" religion is that it is so easy to start thinking that God is this or that. That God behaves or thinks a certain way according to what the bible or the priest says. It's easy to forget that God is so much more than an anthropomorphism. Saying things like this keep that fresh in our minds, and apophatic theology is an important aspect of mysticism.
There is a song we sing that has the lines "there isn't anything she isn't, and there isn't anything that she is," she being Sophia (aka the Holy Spirit?).
I love things like that. Apparent contradiction meant to elevate your mind to a different level of understanding.
And we talk so much about Sophia and the Logos...and their "characters" but when it comes to God...to the Fullness...we don't give him a character. We call him Father, but we do as little as possible to form him to our understanding, to shape him into us. References to him are vague, which is good. We cannot grasp too tightly.
All in all, I am really enjoying being a part of this community.
The second weekend Ben was here, we went to a small Gnostic church in Mountain View. Since then, we've gone back a few times, the most recent being this past weekend.
I have to say, for a long time I've been searching for something that could fulfill me spiritually. Some sort of way to make the thoughts in my head more than just thoughts. I've thought about trying to get more involved at my alma mater, maybe see if I could work myself in somewhere...but then I didn't really want to deal with college kids anyway.
I thought about going to a church where they integrate all the world's religions. Philosophically, I agree with this approach, so why not throw myself into the practice of all of them? But it just didn't feel right for some reason. Like I said, on a philosophical level I can get quite a lot of inspiration from other religions, particularly eastern ones. But when it comes to the practice? It just doesn't feel like home.
Then there was my current church. I usually go to the Jesuit Catholic church at the university I attended. I get a lot out of it, and I really like it there...but so much depends on (a) my mood, and (b) who the celebrant is. There are over 40 different Jesuit priests there, and not all of similar capabilities. Sometimes you get someone who does a better job of giving a fresh perspective, or exposing hidden meanings. Sometimes you don't.
But more importantly, my mood affects how much spiritual nourishment I get out if it. Why? Because everything is presented to me in an exoteric format. The internal, esoteric meaning is there, but it's hidden. I can see it, but I have to be focused in the right way. And sometimes it's just not as easy to keep that up.
But here it was different. Because the church is an esoteric one, the symbolism is acknowledged as symbolism, which gives it even more power. The esoteric understanding is the one presented, so I have interaction and I don't have to strain to see it.
Then there is the myths themselves. I actually find a lot of resonance in the Gnostic myth, in a way I didn't really get until I went to this church. I'd like to go into a lot of depth here, but I don't know if I have the time. So for now I will just assume that you know what I'm talking about. How Sophia, out of love, gets lost in creation. How strongly and fiercely she loves her children. I feel so similar sometimes. That heartbreakingly powerful love, I've felt that. Like my heart is going to explode if I can't be with that person, to help them and to just pour out my love to them. But whenever I do this, I tend to lose myself. I tend to feel like I am becoming more and more blind....just as she did.
But the Logos came for her. To help bring her out of darkness and rejoin with her. And because of him the spark of divine light in all of us, that piece of her in all of us, can now reconnect with God. And that resonates a lot with me. I just want to spread myself out, give myself away. Become like her, God's immanence. So much so that I feel like I lose connection to the transcendent part of myself, of God. And so I, too, need something to help me awaken, keep me connected.
Anyway.
Back to the actual service. The smell of incense automatically put me in a nostalgic, spiritual mood. The altar was full of plants and candles. The celebrant is a woman. The songs were absolutely beautiful. There were very little instruments and there was no choir. What made it beautiful was that each song had a harmony, and different members of the church each sang in different parts. There is something so spiritual about harmonization...it's something that has always gotten to me.
The Eucharist itself was very similar to a Catholic service. Different emphasis of course, since it wasn't just about Jesus. In fact, one thing I like about this church is that they rarely say the name Jesus at all. Instead they say the Logos, or the Christ. The reason I like that is because it takes the focus off of the one particular incarnation of the story and emphasizes the eternal meaning of it. Another way in which the esoteric meaning is brought to the forefront.
And let's not forget the other two perks: puppies and cookies! There are two dogs we've seen take part in the service. Well, they sit in the back or come over to sniff people during mass. It's adorable. And no one things they are an interruption or treats them as unclean or something. As long as they are quiet, they're fine. It's like, they don't take themselves so seriously as to not allow for life to be life. I don't know, I just liked it.
And of course, cookies and tea at the end is awesome. That have this brilliant cookie that i *LOVE.* It's an almond cookie with raspberry jam dipped in chocolate. Those are my three favorite flavors! So yummy!
The last thing that makes the experience of going to this church so very spiritually enriching for me is the fact that I share it with Ben. I tend to put myself into other people's perspectives a lot, especially with the people I am closest to. And so being there with him, knowing what it means to him, how he is feeling...amplifies the experience that is already taking place within my own heart.
I'll still go to my good ol' Catholic church every now and then, but I have to say, this place feels like home.
Finally, all my videos have been uploaded to youtube, so now you can go through the whole talk in order, so that everything makes sense. :)
One thing I noticed while re-watching this particular clip was the similarity that this process has to the dialectic process of personal transformation, in particular for me: Annie Dillard's account of the three days.
I think I can add yet one more row to the chart I made on her process of personal transformation
Day One: Oneness
Like Freke says, as a baby you are not conscious of yourself as separate from the rest of everything. You probably feel like you *are* the world, but then of course since you're not conscious you can't say anything about it or even experience it.
This corresponds with Day One in Dillard because here you have the kitsch of complete harmony with everything. It's beautiful, but the lack of consciousness makes it one-dimensional and incomplete.
Day Two: Separateness
Then naturally as we learn to live in the separateness, as we lose that magic and become enveloped in our own heads, and that can be extremely lonely and painful. Separateness by itself is hell. Maybe that's why Sartre said that hell is other people? Because the fact that there is an "other" means that you are separate... I doubt he meant it that way but that's an interesting way we could take it.
Obviously this is a very Day Two style event, since Day Two is a not happy day.
Day Three: Both!
Eventually we come to see that even though we are separate, we are also united in oneness. It is a synthesis of the first two phases, which fits the overall structural scheme perfectly. Now we come to see that we are Being/Awareness and Oneness, but we are also individuals living out our separate lives.
At this point it is tempting and a lot of people really want to say that the separateness is bad and that we should live in the Oneness only, but that is yet another form of escapism and an attempt to go *back* to Day One. What we really want to do is let the Oneness inform our separate lives.
Every part of the process is a necessary part. Perhaps that's why Gnostics don't tend to demonize the Fall quite so much as literalist Christians. We need the separateness, we just don't want ONLY the separateness. We've *needed* to make this journey. It's necessary and in some ways good, even though sometimes it hurts like hell. I guess that's where my hope and trust comes from, from the fact that the difficult times are necessary, in a way Hell (as we have described it here) is necessary to help prepare us and open us up to the possibility of the deepest form of hope. And so in pain I know that not only is everything okay on that level of Oneness, but also that this is a part of my journey that is necessary and in the long run could be characterized as good...on some level.
Of course I don't deny in any way the pain of the moment, the possibility of horrible things happening. It's just that for me, it's the trust in the journey that means the most.
Another interesting thing is that, as Freke points out, this happens on all sorts of levels, be it phases within a persons life (as I've always read Dillard), as one huge overall general progression of a person's life, and even as a progression in history (it may even be a repeating process just as in Dillard...how the Day Three slips into a new Day One without noticing it). This just keeps popping up everywhere!
I'm so happy I went!
Last night I had the pleasure of seeing Tim Freke speak at a bookstore in San Rafael. If you don't know what he's about try watching the following video:
I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I knew he'd be good, but what I didn't count on was (a) the personal resonance that I felt because though he is obviously Gnostic he does not identify himself with ancient Gnosticism and (b) the fact that he had the same sorts of mannerisms and passion for what he was talking about as my favorite professor in college.
I found my heart getting all excited like it always does whenever I'm listening to or reading something of incredible value that resonates with my personal experience. Like Freke, though the history is interesting that is not my focus. I'd much rather look deeply into the essence of it, and it especially delights me when that essence seems to be shared across multiple religious backgrounds.
I had my trusty camera along with me, and so I was able to take a lot of video to share with people who weren't able to come with me. Here are the three that were short enough for me to upload to vox, but the rest will be coming soon once they finish uploading to youtube. I will make another post with links to those videos.
For now:
Oh, I also got a book signed. :)
Forget atheist. Seriously, this is a work about mysticism and Gnosticism. It's not anti-religious at all. He might be against the idea of the Church, but the spirituality he evokes is much deeper.
Here are some connections I've come across recently while looking deeper into Gnostic Christianity:
(WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD)
1. The Alethiometer - While reading a book on esoteric Christianity, I came across this sentence, which seems to support the whole "ladders of meaning" thing that Lyra did when she read the compass.
"A symbol has a chief meaning, and then various subsidiary meanings related to the chief meaning."
2. The very first picture from the North - It showed Dust flowing directly into the man through his daemon, just as mystics/Gnostics believe Wisdom and Gnosis flow directly into a person, with not mediation by the Church necessary.
3. "God" is not who we think he is - In the story, God was actually an angel, the first of its kind, who set up the world(s) the way they did. This matches up almost perfectly with the Gnostic concept of the Demiurge.
4. Metatron - I wondered where that name came from. It seemed so--odd. But I found it last night in my reading:
"According to one accredited tradition alluded to by St. Stephen, the law was delivered 'by the disposition of angels'; according to another this office was delegated to a single angel, sometimes called the Angel of the Law (Gal 3:19); at others Metatron."
5. Will and Lyra - Lyra and Will represent the new Adam and Eve, as Pullman makes ridiculously clear. Check out this verse from the Gospel of Phillip:
"When Eve was in Adam, there was no death; when she was separated from him, death came. If she enters back into him, and he accepts her, there will be no more death."
I know there is a whole lot more and I could go on and on and on, and I haven't even touched on how the concepts are the same, but this will have to do for now, because I need to get back to work. :)