Socially Engaged Spirituality

I've been intending on writing about this for months now. When I returned to graduate school it was primarily to pursue my research interests in psycho-spiritual development. However, I found myself quite drawn to the certificate program in Socially Engaged Spirituality despite reservations about relevancy, time, and additional cost. Long story short, I followed my intuition and applied for the program. Since starting, I've gained a great deal of insight into spirituality and spiritual practice by approaching from this outer form of mysticism, directly connecting inner and outer transformation. The program director is Donald Rothberg, who has recently written The Engaged Spiritual Life exploring engaged spirituality from a Buddhist perspective. You can also listen to a radio interview with Donald Rothberg on KPFA's Living Room. Interview begins about twenty minutes into the program.

In my coursework so far, I have not only made connections and gained insight into Gnostic practice, but in the process have developed a theory on psycho-spiritual transformation. So, the program has directly benefited what I had thought was an unrelated research interest. Score another one for intuition. And, yes, Engaged Gnosticism will have its place in the Gnostic Studies program at the Gnosis Institute.

Following the Path of Gnosis: The Spiritual Exercise of Attention

Gnosticism can be seen as flowing from the joining of three major streams of Western practice and thought: the philosophical traditions, particularly the practices of Platonism; the mystery traditions (aka “schools” or “cults”) of mythic and symbolic experiential religious transformative practices; and, the “apocalyptic” (in the sense of visionary) traditions, principally those within Judaism. Because of our modern understanding and modern practice of philosophy, we often view ancient philosophy through a modern lens, seeing it as an abstract, theoretical, or system-bound way of thinking. However, in the ancient world philosophy was primarily a way of life, a practice of self-transformation.

The philosophical act is not situated merely on the cognitive level, but on that of the self and of being. It is a progress which causes us to be more fully, and makes us better. It is a conversion which turns our entire life upside down, changing the life of the person who goes through it. It raises the individual from an inauthentic condition of life, darkened by unconsciousness and harassed by worry, to an authentic state of life, in which he attains self-consciousness, and exact vision of the world, inner peace, and freedom. (Hadot, 1995, p. 83)

The means of achieving these goals of living out a philosophy were spiritual exercises. When there is mention of “spiritual exercises,” there is a strong association with the work by Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (aka Jesuits). However, Ignatius is not the originator of the concept, but a later exemplar of a long tradition that predates Christianity.

Spiritual exercises are essentially intentional techniques for growth and transformation that include: modifying consciousness, training the mind, preparing/preempting reactions to experiences, developing mental and emotional capabilities, focusing attention, etc. Pierre Hadot (1995) has traced the use of spiritual exercises in the philosophical practices of antiquity at least as far back as Plato. And, similar types of practices are a hallmark of religious and spiritual practice.

Attention (prosoche) is named in both of Philo of Alexandria's lists of spiritual exercises. This is the focus on the present moment, a vigilance and readiness to act and react to what is present. This is a practical emancipation of ourselves from being caught up in past or future, or any other dissociated state, through applied attention. The present is the only situation in which we have the freedom to act, in considerations of the past and future we can only be reactive. We are more familiar with this exercise from the Buddhist tradition where it is called “mindfulness.”

As a meditation teacher instructed a group I was in, “We often say that it is very easy to be mindful. The difficulty is remembering to be mindful.” This points us to the core of the exercise: it is not simply having the capacity for attention or mindfulness, but applying attention that is the spiritual exercise and that application is were the difficulty lay and where some discipline is required. The description of this as an “exercise” is apt, for just like a physical exercise, one has to actually perform it to gain any benefit. Knowing how to exercise, being capable of exercise, and knowing that exercise is beneficial, isn't enough—it must be performed regularly. This failure to exercise is a particular danger in the case of spiritual exercises, as we may have a tendency to dismiss them as merely “mental” exercises. And in a sense think that thinking about them is somehow equivalent to doing them.

Attention is also like a physical exercise in that it is more difficult when beginning, and that one encounters resistance and may discontinue after trying it a few times when immediate dramatic results do not manifest. A number of strategies will help with this. One is making a commitment to a mindfulness meditation class or group. These can be found almost everywhere. An experienced and knowledgeable instructor can greatly aid in getting started and save you time in developing skill as you progress. However, the benefits of committing to a class or group can almost be replicated on your own by having a specific place, a specific time, and a conducive environment to work through the issues in beginning the practice of attention. The “technique” is simple yet there are a lot of skills that can help. The usual method of beginning is to focus your attention on your breathing for a set amount of time. There are many variations possible, such as different targets of the focus of your attention, the main thing is to find a focus that works for you. When you catch yourself having drifted in your focus, re-focus and continue. Over time you become capable of maintaining focus for longer, and catching your mind wandering more quickly. When you have performed this basic focusing exercise for long enough, you can begin the actual exercise of maintaining attention in more circumstances and for longer in your life.

The most frequent excuse or complaint concerning any exercise is that you don't have enough time. However, as you practice mindfulness you will realize that it is the only time when you are really living. So, it isn't that you don't have time in your life, but this is when you actually get to live your life. The indirect benefits also vastly outweigh the cost in time spent, as research shows that even a little mindfulness exercise improves focus and performance (University of Pennsylvania, 2007). Furthermore, as you progress you can exercise in more situations. Being mindful while washing dishes, for example, makes washing dishes a spiritual exercise. It is something of great value that can be added to many situations. Such as, enjoying the time spent waiting, instead of feeling frustration. Or, being able to give our full attention to someone as the precious gift that it is.

This exercise of attention is exercising and developing consciousness of awareness itself. And, every situation we can exercise attention in, it another situation where we are now free not only to act, but to be. This is not only a basic skill and a place to start on the path of Gnosis, it is a very powerful tool in its own right, for it is the ability to focus, to shine, the light within. As the Gospel of Thomas says, "within the person of light there is light. If it shines, the world is illumined. If it does not shine, there is darkness."

Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a way of life: Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Cambridge: Blackwell.

University of Pennsylvania (2007, June 26). Meditate to concentrate. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625193240.htm

Spirituality: Flat or Multi-level?

Two basic views of spirituality are developed as the fundamental framework for understanding individual spiritual experience in William James' classic the Varieties of Religious Experience. “The result is two different conceptions of the universe of our experience.” (James, 1902/1982, p. 166) James terms this difference as the difference between the “once-born” individual and the “twice-born” individual.

In the religion of the once-born the world is a sort of rectilinear or one-storied affair, whose accounts are kept in one denomination, whose parts have just the values which naturally they appear to have, and of which a simple algebraic sum of pluses and minuses will give the total worth. Happiness and religious peace consist in living on the plus side of the account. (p. 166)

The “once-born” understanding is a horizontal or “flat” understanding of spirituality. “Flat” meaning that in this view, spirituality is something understood within a single framework of meaning. For example, if one text or teacher says the opposite of another text or teacher, then by necessity there is a contradiction. As a single framework for meaning, literalism is an example of a flat understanding of spirituality, however, a flat understanding need not be literal. A flat understanding can be nuanced or complex, but that nuance or complexity is external and general. The framework doesn't change, from person to person, or as one learns or increases in understanding—everything makes sense within it, or makes no sense at all.

In contrast, in the “twice-born” understanding there is more than one framework. This does not mean that all the frameworks are understood, for that would be a flat understanding, though perhaps categorized or compartmentalized. Rather there is an awareness of at least one more framework, even if it is largely unknown.

In the religion of the twice-born, on the other hand, the world is a double-storied mystery. Peace cannot be reached by the simple addition of pluses and elimination of minuses from life. ... There are two lives, the natural and the spiritual, and we must lose the one before we can participate in the other. (p. 166)

From the “flat” understanding of the “once-born” that James uses to describe this to his audience, the multi-level view of the “twice-born” is the illness of a “sick soul” that requires an individual process of growth or transformation. Yet even after this process these individuals have “drunk too deeply of the cup of bitterness ever to forget its taste, and their redemption is into a universe two stories deep.” (p. 187) This is an example of the incommensurability of these two frameworks for understanding spirituality.


James, W. (1902/1982). The varieties of religious experience: a study in human nature. New York: Penguin.

Questions: Practices for Gnosis

...since (some forms) Buddhism uses vipassana and shamatha to attain enlightenment and liberation (also Nirvana) Gnosticism uses (insert method here) to attain enlightenment and liberation (also called Gnosis). ...does the EG teach a specific method to allow the user to obtain enlightenment, or in this case, Gnosis?

It is a mistake to simply equate Gnosis with enlightenment. Gnosis is the method/means of liberation, not the liberated state. The state of redemption or liberation would be more equivalent to the enlightened state. The one who is liberated has Gnosis, it being the means of liberation, and the texts use it in that way as well, but it is not the only way that the term is used.

In short, Gnosis is not in itself a state of being (though you can use it to indirectly refer to that), it is a way to refer to a fundamental spiritual growth/transformation/liberation process.


The methods for progressing in Gnosis that are referred to in ancient scriptures, and that we use today in the EG, are richly poetic and symbolic forms of personal transformational experiences that are either focused upon an individual or are generally participated in by a group. They produce changes in consciousness, and have both initiatory (pivotal) transformative effects, and also gradual transformative effects from regular participation (such as meditation has).

They involve participating in the sacred stories (myths) of the tradition and applying them directly to yourself through having a form to experience them in, so one can gain gnosis of them. In our practice, many aspects of these are revisited every year. There are also times in one's life when there is a more direct need/use of a deeper application/experience of some of them. And there are traditional methods for this as well.

One can also go through a long process of learning how to offer these methods in service to others, which involves participation at gradually higher levels of responsibility, while undergoing a further transformative process. They are not something you can try on your own without training and experience.

These methods are what we do as a church. They are richly symbolic liturgical services, that primarily consist of the mysteries/sacraments that are listed in the Gospel of Philip. The regular transformational method we use is the Holy Gnostic Eucharist. The methods we employ as a church are the mysteries/sacraments and other liturgical rituals.

I know Christian churches generally use striped-down versions of the sacraments and largely understand them in a theological manner that is quite different from their origin as mystery practices in the ancient world. But that is not our approach. We take care to follow the traditional forms and traditional requirements for conveying the mysteries. And, in my own experience and experiences of others reported to me—these forms serve that purpose. And that is the purpose and function of the EG as a church. It isn't that we hold services and then do the real transformational work later on, the services are real transformational methods—our services are public group spiritual practice.

Individual spiritual practice is also encouraged. Contemplation, prayer, meditation, active imagination, and dream work, are among practices commonly used by individuals in our tradition. Education in the tradition and related topics is also a part of our ministry through the Gnostic Society. All of these activities fit under the ancient understanding of spiritual exercises and aid our personal development, as well as preparation and integration of the mysteries. Yet, the spiritual practices that are more oriented towards attaining Gnosis are the mysteries instituted by Christ.

The 2008 Gnostic Calendar is Available!

The 2008 Gnostic Calendar features a focus on the Hermetic tradition, all new quotes from almost all of the people listed, and more holidays and days of interest than previous years. The price hasn't increased from last year at $22.

Gnostic prints from this and previous years are also available as a fund raising effort.

Continuing illness has delayed the Gnostic Calendar this year. The illness is, unfortunately, serious and it is possible that this will be the last year the Gnostic Calendar will be produced. Your purchases will aid with medical expenses, and are greatly appreciated.

Order at http://gnosis.org/calendar

Also, please spread the word about the Gnostic Calendar on your website, blog, email list, etc.

Questions: Gnostic, Christian, and Difference

"When I first saw the term Gnostic I thought it was something similar to atheism or agnosticism."

In Greek agnostic is "gnostic" with the privative alpha, which just means that the beginning "a-" is the equivalent of the English "un-" So it means someone without gnosis, or in English without gnosis of God.

Despite their being opposite terms literally, they are similar in reality. One has to be an agnostic before they can become a Gnostic. And, in as much as one has limited gnosis, a Gnostic remains agnostic where they don't have gnosis.

"Are Gnotics Christians? That seems to be the case?"

There are both Christian and non-Christian Gnostic traditions. And remember, this was at the very beginnings of Christianity, so much of what one thinks of as "Christian" in a modern context doesn't apply.

Gnostic traditions follow a similar form whether or not the central teacher/initiator/mystagogue is Christ, or John the baptist, or Seth, or Hermes trismegistus. So, it is somewhat akin to "mysticism" in that the form of mysticism can be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, etc. Gershom Scholem pointed out that mystics have more in common with mystics of other traditions than they do with other followers of their own tradition. This is even more true of the various Gnostic groups/sects/traditions.

The majority of Coptic Gnostic texts that have been recovered are Christian. There was also a Jewish Gnostic sect called the Sethians, which appear to have accepted Christ as equivalent (or even identical) to Seth. In later Manichaean tradition, the prophet Mani became revered as a teacher/initiator in his role as apostle of Christ.

The majority of Gnostics today are Christian Gnostics, people who approach Gnosis primarily through the Christian mythos and forms of worship. (Or, they are Gnostic Christians, who take more of a Gnostic approach to Christianity.)

"What is the single greatest difference between it and Christianity, if so?"

The difference between ancient Gnostic and proto-orthodox movements wasn't doctrinal, it was on the most basic and fundamental level, a radical difference in the very understanding of the teachings of Christ, and the practice of Christianity. There are fundamental or paradigmatic differences. One is in the nature of certainty, and the other lies in the relation of the individual to the religion.

There is an orthodox paradigm (or strategy) for religion and also a gnostic paradigm (or strategy) for religion. Both terms refer to their general meanings in Greek and not to specific religious traditions.

In the orthodox strategy, truth is sought in authoritative statements which is literally "ortho-doxia" in Greek. In general, it establishes a collection of such statements from teachers or sources that are considered authoritative. An example being the collection we call the Bible. Over time when contradictory teachings arise or contact with distant groups occurs, these are refined and debated, and the trusted body of statements is expanded or contracted.

This is not to say that this is the whole of such religions or that it limits the religious and spiritual experiences or practices of its followers. It is the collective strategy for establishing truth. It is their quest for certainty.

The results of such a strategy are the necessity to determine what is and isn't orthodox. What isn't is heresy and is dangerous in this view because it has been shown to be wrong. When the stakes are made great with eternal salvation or damnation, not to mention the historically important socio-political aspects, then "protecting" people from heresy can get very ugly.

The alternative strategy seeks certainty not in authoritative statements, but within oneself. This is the strategy used by the Buddha, who instructed people not to take any statement on authority, but to test it to see if it was true. This is also the strategy used by the ancient Gnostics, since this type of knowledge, gnosis, is only found within oneself for oneself.

Having one's religious certainty founded upon inner realization has practical difficulties. One is that it isn't the default human way of going about things. So, these traditions have always had an outer preparatory aspect that functions more in terms of an orthodox approach in order to prepare people to undertake a gnostic approach. In early forms of Christian Gnosticism, this took place within the Christian church.

This can be a dangerous strategy in that the orthodox approach can overwhelm the gnostic one, and this is what seems to have happened in Christianity. After all, all it takes is people who gain positions of authority in this preparatory aspect who don't understand the further development within the tradition to derail the whole thing by saying that is all there is to it.

The other fundamental difference is in the relationship of the individual to the religious tradition. The Gnostic approach to religion is individually transformative rather than primarily collectively proscriptive and prescriptive.

In the orthodox paradigm the relationship of the individual to the religious tradition is complex, but is primarily through proscriptive statements, "don't ___", and through prescriptive statements, "do ___", that are authoritative in that they are commanded. These have external ramifications that are detrimental or beneficial, such as "sin" and "forgiveness of sin," for example. There is also an inner spiritual developmental and transformitive dimension, but this is not ones primary relationship to the religious tradition, unless you are a mystic.

In the gnostic paradigm the relationship of the individual to the religious tradition is more pragmatic: the tradition is an aid and guide to personal spiritual development and transformation. It is a path of gnosis, which is internal and is a knowledge that you are, that comes from spiritual development and transformation. Instead of reading a text that reports a spiritual experience as a source for authoritative information, a Gnostic reads such a text for personal transformation, to gain insight, or may explore it by creatively retelling it, or seek a similar spiritual experience.

Critical Approaches to Religion & Gnosticism

Use the skills and tools to multi-dimensionally examine, contextualize understandings, and articulate findings, in the study of religion in general and the Gnostic tradition in particular. This course is required for most Gnosis Institute programs and is suggested for everyone interested in exploring religious traditions and the Gnostic tradition.

Course begins April 24th at the Gnosis Institute.

Course Description

Gnosis, Episteme, and Doxia, Oh My!

One of the biggest misconceptions concerning Gnosticism is the oft repeated phrase: “Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge.” This is then frequently followed by the claim that “Gnostics thought they were saved by possessing secret knowledge,” or some variation thereof. It is also a common mistake to view Gnosis as if it either were information, or could be summarized as information.

The reason these are false is that Classical Greek had more than one word for knowledge: there are essentially four words for different types of knowledge, and there are additional words having to do with the source or origin of the knowledge. As the title suggests, we will be considering three of them.

Doxia: Opinion or Statement, with the connotation of mere opinion. It is part of the word “orthodox”, with “ortho” meaning: straight. correct, or right. As in orthopedic ('leg straightener'), or orthodontist ('teeth straightener'). A less frequently used sense of doxia as 'praise' is preserved the the “Great Doxology.”

In English: Doxia corresponds to statements of either fact or opinion. For example: “green is a color” or “green is the best color.” Doxia is a type of knowledge that may or may not be the real case, that is, it may not correspond to what we can test by reason or measurement, or may include what cannot be tested.

Cognitively: this type of knowledge can be thought of as one type of memory. If someone asks you a question and you remember the answer, then that one example of doxia as knowledge. A piece of doxastic knowledge can be isolated, or unrelated to other knowledge. It can also co-exist with a contradictory piece of knowledge.

In Learning: Learning doxia is often referred to derogatorily as “regurgitation” in the sense that one memorizes (ingests) then demonstrates memorization (regurgitates). However, essentially all education begins by learning doxia, as the other types of knowledge occur within the individual.

In Argumentation: Staying at level of opinion or statements of “truth.” Or, considering everything to be a matter of opinion. Such as, “My opinion is as good as anyone else's.”


Episteme: Systematic or interrelated knowledge, or Understanding. Also, professional or practical skill. Episteme is a compound word in Greek, literally meaning: “to stand or erect upon.” It is constructed upon previous knowledge and can in turn be constructed upon itself, hence the systematic or interrelated nature. Classical philosophers referred to the understanding they gained from reasoning about it as episteme. For example, the Socratic Method is one that examines doxia through reasoning in dialog. Part of the word “epistemology”, with “logos” meaning speech, account, or reason.

In English: episteme corresponds to most of what is meant by the word “knowledge”. It is also the term that described professional skill, such as the practice of: science, law, and philosophy. It is the type of knowledge or understanding that would qualify someone as an expert witness in a court of law, for example. This knowledge may not already exist within the knower as doxia, but can be derived from the system of existing knowledge. Someone who is knowledgeable in the sense of episteme, can not only present a conclusion (which would be doxia), but can derive or explain the conclusion as well, that is, take someone through a process to gain episteme of their own.

Cognitively: episteme is much more complex and uses more than one type of memory. It involves agentic cognition (from “agent”), that is, the active use of and direction of thought. This thought utilizes skills in reasoning, already established system of related knowledge, and a general understanding of the situation or framework for meaning (a paradigm).

In Learning: This is the level where a student not only remembers the facts, but has developed an understanding. The knowledge has been internalized and can be considered in part, as a whole, and in relationship. It remains theoretical or abstract knowledge in many ways. The limitations of episteme can be seen in such contrasts as “knowing versus know-how,” and in “education versus experience.”

In Argumentation: Justifying statements and deriving conclusions using valid reasoning demonstrates some level of episteme. However, there is a difference between systematic knowledge and simply related knowledge. Merely giving a reason for a statement that is only another statement, whereas episteme is demonstrated in a way that someone could follow in constructing their own episteme. Often following such demonstrations requires a great deal of prior knowledge, skill, or even experience.

In the Republic, Plato uses the distinction between a doxastic cognition and an epistemic cognition as the justification for the statement that “philosophers should be rulers, or rulers philosophers.” The philosopher is better suited to rule because he uses epistemic cognition as the basis for judgment.



Gnosis: what enables recognition, an ingrained familiarity, experientially derived (as opposed to sensed), structural or irreducible “being” knowledge. The word gnosis is used to describe knowing someone, or knowing a landscape. It is a part of “diagnosis,” the process of recognizing an illness.

In English: there is no corresponding term. We can see echoes of it in notions like “hands-on experience,” but they fall short. Usually we are reduced to analogies, like the “difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” Or, “the map is not the territory.” Some aspects of an eye-witness refer to gnosis, such as recognizing a perpetrator. Yet, the circumstances may limit the process of gnosis, and this has been demonstrated to be susceptible to recognition of the suspect rather than the perpetrator. A better example in the use of gnosis is the practice of having a body identified by the next of kin.

Cognitively: Gnosis is outside of the range of agentic cognition. It is developed through an experiential process in the individual, but not directly through consciously directed thought. While derived from and related to experience, it is not simply sensory in nature. It isn't a memory of the senses, for example. This can be seen in the process of recognition. We are able to recognize people after dramatic changes, or written text that is fuzzy, scrambled, or misspelled.

In the general sense particular types of gnosis are related to particular regions of the brain. This can be seen in cases such as facial agnosia, where a brain lesion leaves someone unable to recognize faces. They still have the sensory data from looking at someone's face, but there is no recognition. It takes an epistemic process of deduction to determine who someone is. In general, gnosis is a type of meta-knowledge that is fundamental to who we are in the world.

In Argumentation: Difficulties in using gnosis in argumentation go back at least as far as Plato. Early dialogs that use dialectical reasoning to examine a matter of opinion or statements of definition (doxia), end without a firm resolution of whether what was examined was mere opinion or merely inadequately expressed. In later works Plato introduced the notion of Forms as a way to include aspects of gnosis.



When it appears in English, particularly when it is capitalized, Gnosis refers to a particular type of gnosis: the redemptive or liberating gnosis that was sought by the ancient Gnostics, and mentioned frequently in their scriptures. In these scriptures Gnosis is related to a particular mythological/symbolic framework. This reflects some kind of participatory view, an understanding that this framework was a vital (if not necessary) tool for attaining liberating gnosis. However, this framework does not exhibit the hallmarks of episteme, it isn't consistent, and has many variations—it just isn't systematic. What these stories reflect is efforts to express Gnosis in a way that might lead someone to their own gnosis to some limited extent.

We've all read gripping stories that made us feel like we were “there.” The Gnostic scriptures, as we have them, don't have the narrative qualities that might engage us as a modern reader. The New Testament, for example, is very terse. There are no rich descriptions of events, for example, just the bare bones. They are more in the line of “seeds” of a full narrative that a contemporary storyteller might give. We see this particularly in the Gospel of Thomas, where the longest story is only a few sentences. Yet, they are still stories, and the type of gnosis that they were seeking to lead one towards isn't gnosis of the scenes or of how the characters looked.

Gnosis is also developmental. One seeks it. One attains it. Yet, one already has it in some way, but it isn't manifest. In the Hymn of the Pearl there is the recognition of the truth of the letter (or call to awaken), because the letter was written in his heart.

Gnosis is also transformational. Descriptions of the transformation of the individual through attaining Gnosis in ancient texts include: rebirth, resurrection, redemption, liberation, and awakening.

Gnosis was not the goal of Gnostics, but rather the means. Gnosis was the path. As GRS Meade wrote:

They are now generally referred to in Church history as the Gnostics, those whose goal was the Gnosis,—if indeed that be the right meaning; for one of their earliest existing documents expressly declares that Gnosis is not the end—it is the beginning of the path, the end is God--and hence the Gnostics would be those who used the Gnosis as the means to set their feet upon the Way to God.

Mandeans and their Current Struggle

A nice short film clip on YouTube that gives an introduction both to the Mandeans, and to their current situation.

The 2008 Gnostic Calendar

There will be a 2008 Gnostic Calendar, it is just running behind schedule. They will be available for order early in November.

Fortunately, costs have not increased significantly, so they will be available for the same price as last year. Postage costs have increased so there will be some increase in shipping costs.

GnosCast: The Gnostic Podcast - Episode 6

Episode 6: Illuminating the Da Vinci Code Seminar 3

Pulling Back the Veil: The Spiral Sacred Quest

Our Sacred Stories as Experiences, Guides, and Quests

This seminar explored what directions these particular stories lead us, and what lies beneath and beyond them.

Recorded: Sept. 26, 2006

Diagrams displayed on overhead projector during seminars

I've been catching up on recorded audio lately. This last of the Illuminating the Da Vinci Code Seminars has been waiting quite some time, but not quite a year. After a continuous reduction in computer time and time online, I've been able to get a laptop and wireless connection. Editing audio always takes longer than I think it will, and I've been recording and editing for over two years now.
I've been wanting to produce more of the main GnosCast podcasts, so look for more in the not to distant future.

I've also gotten a number of homilies finished for the GnosCast-Reflections podcasts. If you are looking for Gnostic content, they are a great resource. Averaging around 20 minutes, they are reflections on holidays, scriptures, and themes important for spiritual life. They are not planned out before hand, and I don't know what all I'm going to say. Delivered in the altered state of consciousness after participating in the Eucharist, I find it useful to listen to them myself.

Sebastian

After returning from the Shakespearean festival, I ended up being adopted by a cat. He and I were somewhat acquainted when he lived with a young couple next door. He used to prefer our back yard, and make his way to and fro through a gap in the front yard.

Some weeks back I noticed him hanging around some of the time, long after the couple had moved. When I let him inside, he was quite skinny, showing his ribs through his coat. For some reason this reminded me of the poster-child for why you don't want to be a saint, saint Sebastian, who is always portrayed as a skinny archery target. Thinking of the cat-goddess Bast, cinched the deal.

Sebastian is not afraid to say whatever is on his mind, and is a friendly cat, wanting to meet everyone who visits.

Questions: becoming a Gnostic & Baptism

Sometimes questions come in around the same time whose answers are interrelated.

I want to become a Gnostic officially in the Gnostic Church. How do I do this?


I have been thinking about baptism for the last three weeks. ... In thinking through this I had to ask myself what happened. The answer is that I am aware that my ego has to die in order to be reborn. ... I would like to be baptized.

A Gnostic is someone who is following the path of Gnosis: someone with Gnosis and who is seeking Gnosis. There isn't really an official membership status in the Ecclesia Gnostica, no membership lists, it is more a matter of participation.

While we do not become a Gnostic through any external means, the ancient mystery of baptism can initiate and solemnize a personal commitment to attaining Gnosis. As such, it is a rebirth and an initiation (a beginning). The conscious choosing of a baptismal name (whether new or reaffirming one's current name), and the conscious choosing to solemnly begin (again) a process of transformation and liberation can have a profound effect. Being willing to begin yet again, is a willingness to be transformed. We are always beginning. Yet, many people refuse to begin, which is in a way a refusal to really live.

Approaching transformation often looks like death. The caterpillar is broken down into goo before it becomes a butterfly. It seems like death, it may even feel like death, but it is a re-constellation a restructuring of a living being. In the spiritual path the ego does not really die while the body lives. What happens is a process of decentering and disidentification. The ego continues to perform its function, but it moves from the center of our inner experience and we identify with it less and less. The first movement from the center is a big work, and the next movements are almost as big. It is not a process of ego death, per se, but a process of the ego taking up its rightful place as a faithful servant to that which is worthy of devotion and service.

In this there is a sense of compassion and respect for the ego. For if it has done its job well, then it is firmly rooted in the center of our inner experience when we begin the path. It will resist each act of shifting it, and the closer it is to the center, the stronger it is at resisting. It is a servant who thinks itself sovereign. Yet beneath this false order is a true and transcendent one. There is a true sovereign that the ego will serve. It needs to recognize, to have Gnosis of, our true center that is connected with the transcendent; and the ego needs to recognize that it is separate from that center.

If the ego can be thought of as a tree, the true center might be thought of as a bubbling spring whose depths are deeper than the world. The tree grows over and protects the spring, but also believes that it is the spring as well, the source of the water. Moving it meets with resistance. But once moved, gradually more of us is nourished by this transcendent center and the whole inner garden is transformed.


We hold open services and offer open communion. There are no requirements for attending or participating, services are offered as a service to those who wish to participate, to the extent that they wish to participate. There is no pressure to participate, and there is no mechanism of membership. So, those considering baptism will need to make inquiries of their own initiative, and eventually ask to be baptized. As you will not be asked under most circumstances, though you may be presented with the possibility.

In the Ecclesia Gnostica, baptism is offered as an initiatory mystery and isn't thought of as replacing or rectifying a previous baptism. It is an opportunity to consciously chose and consciously undergo this ancient mystery/sacrament. There are no requirements as such, just a deep affinity for the Gnostic tradition, and a sense that it is the "right time" to undergo the mystery. Familiarizing yourself with the Gnostic Catechism, to see if you are in general agreement or have a general affinity, is highly recommended and a good indicator to your officiating priest that you know what you are doing. An interview with the officiating priest is required, but this doesn't have to be in person. It is not uncommon for people to contact a parish, then travel there to be baptized.

Traditionally, baptisms take place on Holy Saturday, or alternatively on the Epiphany. There are also times when baptisms are not traditionally performed. We tend to view these as secondary to kairos which is Greek for "the right time." It is the candidate's sense that it is the "right time" for baptism that is most important.

As for scheduling, take a look at the liturgical calendar and see if any particular holiday makes particular sense as the right time. Usually it is best to have a few weeks before the decision and the event. Another consideration is a baptismal name. It is optional, but can be symbolic of one's intention of transformation, and also of devotion or affinity either to a figure such as a saint, or even something more general or abstract, as seen in such ancient names of Epiphaneus and Theophilus. This is usually stated as a middle name by the priest in the baptismal ceremony, but it can be "said" silently and kept as a private intention.

I should note that I have used the term "priest" as the officiant of the baptismal ceremony as this is the usual case. However, by tradition, baptism does not require a priest, although a priest is preferred. In cases of emergency or extreme need, any baptized person may perform a baptism. A case of offering an initiatory mystery they themselves have already received. There is a beautiful account of a simple yet moving baptism performed by Philip K. Dick for his son in the novel VALIS. Yet, for the full experience of the mystery of baptism in all it's symbolic beauty and transformational symbolism, seek out a parish and make arrangements.

Living in Gnosis from the Gospel of Truth

Understand the inner meaning, for you are the children of inner meaning. ... Speak from the heart, for you are the perfect day and within you dwells the light that does not fail. Speak of truth for those who seek it and of gnosis to those who have sinned in their error.

Steady the feet of those who stumble and extend your hands to the sick. Feed the hungry and give rest to the weary. Awaken those who wish to arise and rouse those who sleep, for you embody vigorous understanding. If what is strong acts like this, it becomes stronger.

Focus your attention upon yourselves. Do not focus your attention upon other things—that is, what you have cast away from yourselves. Do not return to eat what you have vomited. Do not be moth-eaten, do not be worm-eaten, for you have already gotten rid of that. Do not be a place for the devil, for you have already destroyed him. Do not strengthen what stands in your way, what is collapsing, support it. One who is lawless is nothing. Treat the lawless one more harshly than the just one, for the lawless does what he does because he is lawless, but the just does what he does because he is righteous. Do the Father's will, then, for you are from him.

The Gospel of Truth in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (p. 43 [32-33])

Iraqi religious minorities continue to suffer

The persecution also affects such communities as the Sabean Mandaeans, who follow the teachings of John the Baptist; Yazidis, whose rituals include worship of a fallen angel who repented; and Jews. More than 80 percent of Mandaeans have left Iraq since 2003.

Read More

The Inner Experience by Thomas Merton

The first thing that you have to do, before you even start thinking about such a thing as contemplation, is to try to recover your basic natural unity, to reintegrate your compartmentalized being into a coordinated and simple whole and learn to live as a unified human person. This means that you have to bring back together the fragments of your distracted existence so that when you say “I,” there is really someone present to support the pronoun you have uttered.

Reflect, sometimes, on the disquieting fact that most of your statements of opinions, tastes, deeds, desires, hopes, and fears are statements about someone who is not really present. When you say “I think,” it is often not you who think, but “they”—it is the anonymous authority of the collectivity speaking through your mask. When you say “I want,” you are sometimes simply making an automatic gesture of accepting, paying for, what has been forced upon you. That is to say, you reach out for what you have been made to want.

Who is this “I” that you imagine yourself to be? An easy and pragmatic branch of psychological thought will tell you that if you can hook up your pronoun with your proper name and declare that you are the bearer of that name, you know who you are. You are “aware of yourself as a person.” Perhaps there is a beginning of truth in this: it is better to describe yourself with a name that is yours alone than with a noun that applies to a whole species. For then you are evidently aware of yourself as an individual subject, and not just as an object, or as a nameless unit in a multitude. It is true that for modern man even to be able to call himself by his own proper name is an achievement that evokes wonder both in himself and in others. But this is only a beginning, and a beginning that primitive man would perhaps have been able to laugh at. For when a person appears to know his own name, it is still no guarantee that he is aware of the name as representing a real person. On the contrary, it may be the name of a fictitious character occupied in very active self-impersonation in the world of business, of politics, of scholarship, or of religion.

This, however, is not the “I” who can stand in the presence of God and be aware of Him as a “Thou.” For this “I” there is perhaps no clear “Thou” at all. Perhaps even other people are merely extensions of the “I,” reflections of it, modifications of it, aspects of it. Perhaps for this “I” there is no clear distinction between itself and other objects: it may find itself immersed in the world of objects and to have lost its own subjectivity, even though it may be very conscious and even aggressively definite in saying “I.”

If such an “I” one day hears about “contemplation,” he will perhaps set himself to “become contemplative.” That is, he will wish to admire, in himself, something called contemplation. And in order to see it, he will reflect on his alienated self. He will make contemplative faces at himself like a child in front of a mirror. He will cultivate the contemplative look that seems appropriate to him and that he likes to see in himself. And the fact that his busy narcissism is turned within and feeds upon itself in stillness and secret love will make him believe that his experience of himself is an experience of God.

But the exterior “I,” the “I” of projects, of temporal finalities, the “I” that manipulates objects in order to take possession of them, is alien from the hidden, interior “I” who has no projects and seeks to accomplish nothing, even contemplation. He seeks only to be, and to move (for he is dynamic) according to the secret laws of Being itself and according to the promptings of a Superior Freedom (that is, of God), rather than to plan and to achieve according to his own desires.

It will be ironical, indeed, if the exterior self seizes upon something within himself and slyly manipulates it as if to take possession of some inner contemplative secret, imagining that this manipulation can somehow lead to the emergence of an inner self. The inner self is precisely that self which cannot be tricked or manipulated by anyone, even by the devil. He is like a very shy wild animal that never appears at all whenever an alien presence is at hand, and comes out only when all is perfectly peaceful, in silence, when he is untroubled and alone. He cannot be lured by anyone or anything, because he responds to no lure except that of the divine freedom.

Sad is the case of that exterior self that imagines himself contemplative, and seeks to achieve contemplation as the fruit of planned effort and of spiritual ambition. He will assume varied attitudes, meditate on the inner significance of his own postures, and try to fabricate for himself a contemplative identity: and all the while there is nobody there. There is only an illusory, fictional “I” which seeks itself, struggles to create itself out of nothing, maintained in being by its own compulsion and the prisoner of his private illusion.

The call to contemplation is not, and cannot, be addressed to such an “I.”

From The Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation by Thomas Merton (pp. 3-5)

Questions: Approaching Gnosticism

I prefer an inquirer who is interested and a bit cautious as opposed to (overly) enthusiastic ones. As there is a process of discernment and orientation that really needs to take place and needs to be grounded in the real situation both within and without.

The basic concerns expressed, understandings of, and assumptions about religion in the world today have little to do with individual spiritual life—individuals following their own spiritual path, and taking it seriously by taking responsibility for it.

The path of Gnosis is an individual path, your path. Making use of the Gnostic tradition in following your path doesn't change the nature of this: that it is your path, your responsibility, your life in the deepest sense. This can be very difficult for people to even understand in this culture of collective religious identity. There is also a tendency to imagine that having a connection with others who are on a similar path, making use of the same tradition, will mean some fundamental change in the nature of our own spiritual path with the result that the path itself will be easier. Yet, what is really possible from such interactions is aid, sometimes profound aid, in walking your own path.

From the perspective of the Gnostic tradition, personal growth and transformation is what it is all about, expressed as Gnosis—knowing through growing, growing through knowing. But a very deep and sure knowing, a knowing that you are, rather than a knowing that you posses. It is a true knowing that is liberating. Gnosis is this way of knowing, and with it comes a deep understanding of who we are, and where we are, and what sets us free.

Just as their is no collective substitute for the individual spiritual path, there is no collective substitute for Gnosis. No amount or type of information will satisfy. And, the Gnostic tradition itself can only be a guide and aid. One can take ancient Gnostic texts and create systems of thought interwoven with beliefs, this has happened in the past and takes place more frequently now that we have such a rich treasure of ancient texts, but that will not substitute for Gnosis—and Gnosis is your individual responsibility and path.

I hope this has provided a basic orientation or confirmation of our general approach.

Questions: Liturgical Participation & Spiritual Practice

In your opinion, would you think it would be counterproductive to be active in the Roman Catholic Church while retaining a Gnostic point of view in my worship? Is there some other more optimal way to explore the path of Gnostic Christianity?

There are a number of people I know who participate in Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and other forms of worship, and are Gnostic at heart. This is something that goes back to the dawn of the tradition. Gnosticism didn't start out as a denomination with distinct liturgical practices, and an identification as “Gnostic” has never been the point. Of course, in their earlier forms the mysteries were more direct and experiential everywhere they were celebrated. And, they didn't include elements designed to be barriers to Gnostics either. Yet, the barriers depend on us to make them work, so they have never really worked.

In many churches, the Roman Catholic most recently, the Eucharist has gone through a process of rationalization. Every element has had to be defended only on grounds such as biblical mention and theological argument. This has left most with outer forms that are stripped down at best, and with inner forms that make them harder to use as spiritual practice. Yet, even a difficult spiritual practice is better than no practice. There is no substitute for experiencing the rich symbolism and participating inwardly in the mystery of transformation. Yet, even going to a service where you are given space to consider and are directed towards spiritual participation regularly, is helpful. It serves as an anchor point for other aspects of spiritual practice.

Just know why you are there. Participate as deeply as you can, participate inwardly. Don't get caught up in participating outwardly in the political nature of a church. I've seen people get lost in the process of seeking to recreate an orthodoxy to be more in line with their views. Yet, the best one could hope from that would be the same system with a slightly different policy. Be a passerby, be a guest, a thoughtful and polite guest. People are people, they come to church for different reasons, and some will be similar to yours. There are others with some Gnosis that you may connect with, though they may shrink from being considered “gnostic” or stop short of making Gnosis their path.

Liturgy, public worship, is central but not the only aspect of spiritual practice. Finding other practices that work for you, that aid and perhaps add balance or fill in gaps in liturgical practice, is key. It doesn't have to be of a particular form, or even something that you think of as spiritual practice. What turns us towards the life of the spirit, towards God, will serve—if it has purpose and intention, and is done with regularity. Traditional forms of spiritual practice have proven valuable to many people over the centuries, and having community aspects of practice is valuable. As is having a guide with some experience when starting out. This is generally more readily available through Buddhist practice groups and many have benefited from such training and practice. Contemplative practice is more in line with the Gnostic approach, but is usually hard to come by.

Questions: Children and Liberation

If Gnosticism sees the world as a kind of prison from which one seeks liberation then how should a person view his children? It seems on one level a rejection of the world should involve a rejection of those things which bind oneself to the world. Is it consistent with Gnosticism to love one's children and still be on the path to Gnosis and ultimate liberation?

There is a current that goes against having children in the history of Gnosticism. However, there isn't any such current opposed to loving and caring for the children that you have. And, neither of these short statements is all that meaningful without more context—for Gnostics, the answer doesn't lie at the level of the physical.

In one view, if humans are imprisoned here then we shouldn't take part in that imprisonment. "I have sown no children to the rulers of the world," is in keeping with this view. The world is an often harsh place, and at times and places is much more so. If bringing about more people will perpetuate misery and slavery, it is certainly something to consider. In general, acting consciously and with consideration is a good thing all around. I think the main issues Gnostics have taken with bearing children, is that we often do so unconsciously, perpetuating unconsciousness, and we focus on physical reproduction that is often seen in an egoistic way. Either in seeing the child as the parent's property, as the parent's immortality or legacy, or fulfillment of the parent's hopes and dreams.

However, it is not human bodies or human forms that are imprisoned, but rather human spirits--sparks of the divine. And, depending on how the story is told, we could take another view in which being incarnated, even in a prison, can be an opportunity for a spark of the divine to seek liberation. Yet, there is a greater responsibility, a responsibility towards the divine within the child. It is a responsibility to nurture not only a child, but if at all possible, a conscious human being capable of self-determination.

Love, duty, and affection can be manipulated into chains that bind. Parents also have their responsibility to follow the path to their own liberation, in addition to responsibilities towards children. And, the same is true for children, they must seek their own path even if it is quite different from what their parents wish. In a larger deeper sense, as scriptures continually tell us, ultimately we are not parents and children of each other, but are all children of God. This is a model for nurturing each other in loving-kindness, and treating one another as self-determining individuals with a deep kinship.

The tension between ties as binding us together or of being bound up in them, is one that runs through all human relationships. Yet it is not a quality of our relationship with God. In developing that relationship, we gain gnosis that helps us with our other relationships.

People often fear that if those they love were to be free in their love, then they wouldn't choose to love them back. Yet love without freedom isn't really love. In Gnostic tales it is the Demiurge who commands love and obedience. While the highest unknowable God does not force our love, but loves us freely and completely.

Just as we shouldn't serve the Archons (Powers) blindly in any other circumstance, we shouldn't serve someone else's inner-archons blindly, even out of love for that person. For in doing so, we bind not only ourselves, but them as well. Indeed, serving the divine within someone else may require uncompromising determination against being manipulated by the other forces within them. We can see this clearly in addictions and self-destructive behaviors, but it runs deeper than that. To not be a slave nor enslave on a psychological level can be a difficult attitude to maintain.

So, I would say the Gnostic attitude towards conception is less clear, and would certainly involve consciously considering the deeper responsibilities. While the attitude toward children is to value them. Love them deeply, care for them as children of God, and aid them towards growing into people capable of being free to seek their own liberation. To not fall into the trap of feeling that we own them, or that we are owned by them.

We must always seek to follow our own path, it is a vital part of who we are, we cannot put it off. If we are on a path of growth and transformation it has effects on those around us. Change may be perceived as dangerous and sometimes freedom is scary for others. We must be mindful of this, but not try to stop our growth for anyone else. We must also be mindful that it can take time for us to integrate the changes we go through, and so not make decisions that effect those around us before we can grow into a change—before we attain gnosis from it.

Home

I am back home again. I actually arrived back over a week ago. Yet, traveling back to Utah from California requires a longer mental decompression or social quarantine than the eleven hours it generally takes to drive back.

It really is like one of those novels where someone is split between two worlds, when you are in one world the other fades and doesn't make sense. Combine that with the usual surreal atmosphere I most often feel here, and it makes for some difficult transitions.

Yes, I was born here and have spent most of my life here, but that doesn't cancel out the oddness. Mostly what experience does is help you cope by muting your expectations. You learn to not expect things to make sense in any direct correlative way. You get used to “the look.” So, you are only disoriented for a moment by a family on television looking so recognizably Mormon that they couldn't look more so by singing LDS kids songs in front of an LDS temple with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir accompanying.

I'm not saying that conformity is a common occurrence here, I'm saying it's ubiquitous. Even non-conformists tend to conform to a narrow range of non-conformist conformity. That's why some people joke that to set your clock to local time, you need to set it back fifty years.

Let's call it chronic culture shock. Sure, I can help minimize it by not watching local news, or leaving the house. And, yes, if I look out my window a sad number of my actual neighbors could serve as extras in a low budget film set in the deep south, but that effect is ruined when they talk and sound like the kids I grew up with.

I understand that I'm especially sensitive to the peculiarities of the locals right now, that I'm giving in to stereotyping, and that there are other people here with lifelines that stretch out across the vast deserts and mountain ranges of the continental divide that separate us from the rest of the world. There are others that aren't too deeply entrenched in the psychological cultural social religious divide that morphs just about everything here. Yes, there are such people. Mostly, they hide it well.

So, although I arrived back at my place of residence four days before Sunday, I didn't arrive back to anything approximating home. I arrived back to dead and dying plants, the proliferation of weeds, an ambitious gopher, a small insect invasion in the chapel, aches and stiffness from so much time spent on the road, and many more tasks and chores I could bore you with. There was so much to do that I hardly slept Saturday night, only catching a couple of hours between tasks to get the chapel ready. I thought about canceling the service, I had little chance of getting things done, along with the little sleep.

But, the Eucharist is very important to me. It is my central spiritual practice. And offering it to people here is the most important thing I can do for them, although they most often don't see it that way. So, I managed to make it, barely—hopping out of the shower as the first person arrived.

I was celebrating the Eucharist not in the lovely chapel in LA with assistants and a full house of people deeply participating, but in my poor thinly attended chapel here in this odd region. And then it happened. As the service moved towards the consecration, I was finally home. Offering myself, my life here and now, to be a conveyance of transformation just as the bread and wine are offered.

There is nothing particularly special about the bread and wine. Non-fermented wheat flour and fermented grape juice. Yet in the offering they are given up to be transformed. In the consecration they embody that transformation. And, in the communion we incorporate that transformation.

Where the Eucharist is celebrated, there is home. That is the reality that bridges and transcends both irreconcilable worlds.