Elijah

I think it’s easy to see the Platonic influence in their ideology but I’m just not sure how they were using/teaching those texts and the ideology with the people. They could have been using it like a mystery school system where a narrative is presented to the larger group and the understanding is explained to the inner group. They could have been used with a larger group of people who were already familiar with the philosophy/initiated. They could not have been used at all and just were just content produced at philosophical schools like fan fiction/philosophy.
I think the Christianization of the Gnostics is just using his popularity to promote a particular philosophical outlook. That and reinterpreting the story from the perspective they are familiar with of Jesus being a Gnostic himself who is was just trying to teach the people whatever they interpret Jesus to believe. This is still a very very common interpretation but now usually the teaching isn’t a metaphysical/gnostic one but a morality one, because the idea of faith in Jesus alone leading to personal salvation seems completely absurd.

The rejection of this idea would mainly be because they are not considering that the resurrection of the dead is the driving ideology here and bringing about that day is the motive. What the early Christians thought was going to be accomplished from getting the people to serve Christ is debatable but the people accepting him as the messiah was part of the plan to move more towards that new day where death is a thing of the past.

So anyway faith in Jesus as the way to salvation (orthodoxy) was getting lots of competition from different interpretations of what leads to salvation. This is where you get hybrid understandings like found in the Gospel of Thomas where understanding Jesus’ sayings will lead to eternal life not faith in him or sacrificing yourself as he did.

This debate and argument as you know gets settled though once your buddy decides to either jump on the bandwagon or is simply using the faith people have in Jesus for his own advantage. For better or worse (mainly worse) this is where the ideological love affair between the Christian meme and the Empire meme gets going. On the positive side the whole world is going to know about Jesus now that Rome has adopted it but on the negative side Christianity loses all credibility being associated with Rome. To the point of people considering the possibility that the Roman version of the dead guy is just a conspiracy theory to help keep the people in check by our rulers.

The Gnostic vs Orthodox debate is killed by Rome so the conversation naturally moves on to, whether what is going on with Rome part of the Christian plan or is Christianity getting played. It’s easy enough to claim that turning Rome Christian is part of the plan and Christ was meant to be like an ideological Trojan horse to help make the emperor more Christ like while spreading the message. Which is an understandable opinion then but now it seems a little absurd to think that it was going to change anything because nothing has changed. The empire still exists, the wars, slavery and oppression are still rampant, and all the while our leaders try to pretend to be the most Christian while convincing us it’s ok. (Speaking from an American perspective of course.)

It’s the platonic understanding of God they were fans of. The universe had a beginning but God didn’t and was still an active (but unknowable) principal in the universe. Other philosophical outlooks that considered the universe eternal or god inactive or created would be opposed.

mountainman

Do you associate the gnostics with the pre-Christian Hellenistic temples and shrines?

...[trimmed]....



This begs the question as to why none of the gnostics are named
in the fourth century by the orthodox. The orthodox christians have
somehow stolen philosophy from the academy of Plato but have
failed to tell us how they did it, and when, and what the result
of this robbery was. The received history seems squeaky clean.

The link to Indian thought in the term "Gnosis" is that the Greeks
did not consider "gnosis" to be intellectual knowledge - but rather
"spiritual" knowledge or self-knowledge in the same sense as do
the Indian traditions distinguish between intellectual knowledge,
and the knowledge associated with a self-realised or awakened
soul.

Elijah

You could associate them somehow, sure, but were temples and shrines used by Gnostics, I don’t know, or were the temples and shrines that have been discovered from that time used by Gnostics, I also don’t know. The words are kind of broad.

Hellenistic means influenced by Greek/roman culture and they may have brought Gnosticism to the Jews but all the temples and shrines weren’t exclusively Gnostic. Actually I think it would be a sign that they weren’t Gnostic to find a temple or shrine. If they believed that knowledge was the source of salvation then there is no real need for a temple to worship at or a shrine to make offerings at. If they are still making offerings to god then it’s doubtful they are familiar with Plato’s ideology.

Both the Hellenistic culture and the Gnostics were influenced by Plato but I don’t associate the temples or shrines with the Gnostics even though I’m sure there were instances when it occurred when/if they built schools.
They didn’t steal anything. Plato’s understanding of God was the dominate understanding of God at the time, for the educated. You don’t know if Jesus himself was influenced by Plato or the writers over the years who interpreted him were. It wasn’t that they were stealing an idea they were reinterpreting their religion from the perspective of what platonic thought brought to the understanding of god and the spiritual elements of the universe.

God becoming unknowable made the basic premise of Judaism of everyone worshiping/serving God impossible because you couldn’t know god to serve him or worship him. This leads to a lot of ideas about the intermediary between god and his creation; things like Logos and the Demiurge are now more of the topic of concern. It also allows for physical personifications to be the representations of spiritual elements(Logos) and concepts like “the image of the invisible god” are now understandable from a philosophical perspective.
I don’t know if that’s the Gnostic/platonic goal. All knowledge leads to knowledge of the self. The more you learn about the nature of the world the more you learn about your nature and your place within the cosmos. And vice versa, where learning about yourself would lead to awareness of the reality of the world around you.

Spiritual knowledge from the platonic/Gnostic perspective is synonymous with intellectual knowledge and your awareness that what your intellect is picking up on is eternal aspects to the universe. It’s about being initiated or not.

“SOCRATES: Take a look round, then, and see that none of the uninitiated are listening. Now by the uninitiated I mean the people who believe in nothing but what they can grasp in their hands, and who will not allow that action or generation or anything invisible can have real existence.” Plato Theatetus

The platonic influence on the Gnostics and the world at the time would be related to his theory of forms and the reality of a spiritual side to the universe, while the world we perceive with our senses is just a temporary reflection of the eternal. (2 Cor 4:18) It also ideologically created a need for god to require an intermediary of some kind who could later be seen as the source for why the world is corrupt by some Gnostics.

What is the salvation being offered in your Indian understanding of Gnosis?

mountainman

The temples and shrines continued to be sponsored by Emperors
and rich private patrons. The temples of Asclepius were known
to have represented the ancient public hospital system. The
architecture was patronised by the rulers until the fourth CE.


Plato's academy was again a sponsored monument.
Through their great renown and wisdom the philosophers
attracted temples and shrines and libraries from the
rulers and others. They did not build it themselves.

Furthermore, the temples outlasted the gnostics who
staffed them in a custodial fashion. In a certain sense
we could argue that the temple networks in the empire
which existed before christian churches and basilicas
were some sort of Greek Religious public service.

I do not follw that conclusion at all since the final words
of Socrates were "I owe a cock to Asclepius".


How does one differentiate between the Hellenistic culture
and the Gnostic culture? In my opinion they are identical.

Therefore the Gnostics were those who served in and administered
the activities associated with the extremely widespread ancient
temple networks which were in place, and which continued to
attract the sponsorship of Emperors, at least to Diocletian.


I think it is actually more than intellectual knowledge.



Enlightenment.

Think Buddha.

"AWAKEN !!!"

Elijah

I’m unsure of what you are suggesting here now. Are you saying that there are no actual Gnostic sects out there, only philosophical schools and the surrounding buildings that we confuse for Gnostic worship centers? Like I mentioned earlier where the texts are more like fan fiction produced from philosophical schools?

Or are you really suggesting everyone and building in Hellenized culture should be considered Gnostic?
That’s showing him taking care of his own business regarding his upcoming death and not having a problem with the customs; it’s not a changing of his understanding of God that is gone through at great lengths in his student’s work.

Reunderstanding sacrifice to god is something required after Plato, see Philo’s attempt to reconcile it in his work.
This is very strange association you have going on between these two words. The Hellenized culture brought more with it then platonic thought. The Sophists were as big or bigger than the Platonists and it can be argued that it’s their influence you can see in Jesus. There also the materialists and the Pythagoreans and that’s just the philosophical branches. There are also mystic religions, mystery religions and the imperial cult which is probably much more of influence on Christianity than Gnosticism which Christianity is basically an antithesis to.

Gnosticism looks like Platonic thought being packaged for the masses not the driving force behind the roman empire’s construction.

It’s knowledge of the intellectual/spiritual side of the universe, not the knowledge an intellectual would have. You’re in a cave you know right?
So no actual salvation then, just some bit of information about the universe that makes your day more tolerable? Not even a reward during reincarnating or reunification with the One?

mountainman

For the purposes of exploring the relationship between
the gnostics and early christianity, as simple as it may
sound, my answer would be yes. At least the representative
"Guardian Class" of the people, many of whom could not
read or write, etc. See Plato's "Guardian Class" - the learned.

Prior to Christianity gnostics were represented as a huge mixing
pot of geographically dispersed collegiate and collaborative cults.
Much like the ubiquitous nature of the corner grocery store and
milk bar in western suburbia before the appearance of the
McDonalds Chain outlet.




No, I am trying to follow Plato out into the sun.



Do not Buddha and the gnostics say ...


Salvation is from our sleep and dreams.
Salvation is towards our wakefulness.
Salvation IMO is related to self-awareness

There is no formula for happiness ....
There is no formula for salvation ...
other than ...

Be still!
Be silent!

Elijah

So you are relating Gnostics to an archetype of individual now and not a belief system?
Yea it appears to be used as a blanket term to cover various groups.
Well you’ll have to get past the puppeteers first and that’s only after you realize that you are trapped facing a temporary illusion created by the more eternal aspects in the universe that are beyond/behind your perception.

Sounds like new age mumbo jumbo to me. So you don’t think the Gnostics were preaching platonic philosophy but some type of mindfulness in order to achieve peace of mind? So you’re Gnostics didn’t believe knowledge was the source of salvation at all but mental practice instead was? I guess it doesn’t matter if what defines your Gnostics isn’t their beliefs but them being of the Guardian Class.

mountainman

I am identifying the gnostics as greeks, Hellenes, and the Graeco
part of the Graeco-Roman civilisation. I am identifying the entire
lineage of Pythagoras and Plato, through Apollonius of Tyana, to
Ammonias Saccas, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, possibly Arius
of Alexandria, and definitely Sopater - who were associated in some
manner with the Greek academy of Plato - as examples of gnostics.

Eusebius names none.


HAL is deprogrammed by Dave in 2001 by removing HAL's memory.
We are responsible to attend to our own programming and deprogramming.
The puppeteers are our own subconscious creations and are maintained
and preserved by our own memories - and can be made redundant
if we leave the cave. We have employed them, we can also let
them go. Buddha may have called them desires and thoughts.


New age Buddha? The message is not new.

The Gnostic idea of philosophy parallels the Buddhist idea
of philosophy and takes in the same categories --- there
is a balance between academic pursuits of the intellect
on the one hand, and on the other hand the physical yoga
of the body, including the issues of vegetarianism,
knowledge of healing, and ascetic practices.

Elijah

You are using that word very broadly it seems. I think most people are going to assume you mean the writers and communities that used the texts like found in the Nag. What do you think the ideological common ground for all of those individuals above is?
That’s the opposite of what Plato was teaching. What we perceive as reality is the illusion and what our thoughts are detecting is the higher aspect of our soul connecting with the eternal aspects of the universe.

I’ll relate it to an aether theory for you since we both seem to be fans. The big philosophical argument between Plato and the Sophists was about if everything in the universe was in a constant state of flux/change or was that just the limit of our physical senses. The Platonists go with us being limited in our ability to perceive anything but change giving us just a partial view of the universe. The spiritual side is just like an aether that is constant in the universe and doesn’t change or react to matter interacting with it so it becomes undetectable to our senses/detection. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist we just have no way of proving it.

In the cave you are chained facing a wall representing a limitation to our ability to perceive what is really behind what we are seeing. But the key to the platonic thought here that is different then what you are suggesting from the Buddhist is these things/forms/universal/ideals are real, not illusions. The illusion is what you see.

Meditating your or the world’s problems away always comes off as new agey nonsense to me. You are correct it’s not a new idea and I don’t know Buddha well enough to say that it was his way.
I don’t know what you consider the Gnostic idea of Philosophy. I’m sure there are parallels in a Buddhist schools somewhere sometime with every popular Greek metaphysical idea if you look hard enough but that’s just because of how things work when there is as much variety and culture influence as we see in philosophy.

I think you should consider the differences more between the Gnostics and the Buddhists, if you really don’t believe there was any actual salvation to be had beyond a better quality of life with the Buddhist philosophy, because I don’t really know how popular or satisfying that would be. Reward in afterlife for good behavior, better reincarnation, resurrection or reunification with God seem like they would be more popular.

Toto

Just to be clear, the idea that Gnostics were the remnants of the pagan priesthood is mountainman's own theory, which has no support anywhere - no historical data or expert professional opinion.