Comments

April 16, 2006 at 6:36 pm

(1) Jim says:

Thanks for positing Kellmeyer’s terrific article, which does a thorough job of explaining why “Da Vinci Code” is anything but Gnostic, and, moreover, if ancient Gnostics were around today, they’d undoubtedly join hands with orthodox Christians and virtually every scholar in existence in simply denouncing Brown’s book as, well, dumb–heck, not even worth denouncing.

That said, for anybody out there who is interested in learning about the real thing–Gnosticism as a living, breathing spiritual system, then it’s well worth noting that while Kallmeyer does an excellent job of demonstrating that the “Da Vinci Code” is NOT Gnostic, he’s fairly ham-fisted at describing what Gnosticism IS.

Of course, as anybody who has studied Gnosticism even just a little bit knows, it is famously difficult to describe exactly what Gnsoticism is precisely because it was, is and can be so many things, which is to say it was and is a pluralistic, heterodox tradition, the root idealogy of which c can (and did) form many branches.

Then again, Judaism, Christianity Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and so on, have more than a few branches, don’t they?” And we all know that what these various branches believe and practice can vary widely from one another.

It was and is no different for Gnostic and Gnosticism.

And so, Kallmeyer is a bit misleading in describing Gnosticism (forgiviably so, since one assumes his distortion wasn’t intentional) in that he mistakes the most “world-hating” branch of Gnosticism for the root belief. Unfortunately, this has been all too common throughout history (as a side note, it shows up yet again in Bart Ehrman’s commentary on the Gosepl of Judas, which one might expect since Ehrman is an expert in ancient languages and simply doesn’t quality as an expert on Gnostic or protognostic movements).

Let me discuss just two examples of distortion in Kallmeyer’s article, which also played out in Eherman’s commentary on Judas.

First, by no means did all Gnostics believed that this world was strictly evil or that sex was bad. Yes, virtually all Gnostics believe that this world is flawed–imperfect–which is to say a MIXTURE OF GOOD AND BAD, in contradisticntion to a divine realm whih they perceived to be perfect.

As for sex, yes, some Gnostic groups were encratic (eschewing marriage and child-bearing), but other groups, such as the Carpocratians werequite famously, or infamously, just the opposite–they were libertarian and pretty much said anything goes. In fact, the Orthodox writers against heresies went into quite a bit of detail about the wild sexcapades these folks partook in. And even though these were wildly exaggerated accounts for the sake of polemics, nobody would argue that there were many Gnostics who liked to party.

Now, how can such widely divergent branches have grown from the same tree? Well, it’s all because at its root Gnosticism is all about the knowledge that there is a spark of the divine with in us. I know, that’s oversimplyfying things a bit, but then that’s usually what happens when we search for lowest common denominators (in a blog poasting no less).

At any rate, from this core or “root” belief (actually, a Gnostic more accurately would say, “from this root KNOWLEDGE, or gnosis…”), one must then figure out its implications in everyday life–how it plays out, or ‘branches’ out, in your behavior and communal interaction.

Given this is the case, one can imagine such knowledge causing some people to say, “the next realm is the most important one, and it’s so perfect that when I look at this world, which pales so much in comparison, it’s hard for me to see anything but the evil side of it, and that’s something I just don’t want to attach or marry myself to whatsover–and it’s certainly nothing I want to perpetuate, so, voila, I won’t get married or have any kids.”

Now, this may seem a bit dark and conservative, but I know more than a few liberals who say, “may, this world is so messed up, no way I’m brining a kid into it..”

Meanwhile, others might take a different stance, saying, “Look, the whole point is that this world is besides the point, that is, relatively speaking–which is to say, relative to the divine realm–and so it doesn’t really matter what I do here–I can get married, have kids, whatever–maybe even break the law–as long I keep my on the prize.”

And so it is that the Gnostic root had many branches, most of which appear to have been ascetic, some of which were libertarian, and still others were fairly mainstream, such as the Valentinians, who seemed to have struck something of a middle ground position, as reflected in a favorite sentiment of Gnostics: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give unto God what is God’s.”

You know, let’s all just get along. We’re all in this mess together, and sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, but we KNOW there’s something better, and this knowledge should guide our actions to as to act like it.

As a modern Gnostic, that pretty much reflects my view.

In short, asceticism, libertarianism, or anything in between were not the end of gnosis but merely the means by which a Gnostic felt she or he could maximize the divine spark within and knowledge thereof. And so, to the extent that any given strategy promotes this knowledge, it’s good, and to the extent it doesn’t, you shouldn’t slavishly adhere to it.

Liberation is the key.

in this sense, like Buddhism, Gnosticism is all about liberation and spiritual freedom (and thus one should avoid pigeonholing Gnostics, at least as much as anyone else). Not surprisingly, this is exactly why Gnostisicm has often been called the “Buddhism of the West.”

So, in short, and in my point of view, it’s best to be careful not to mistake the branch for the root, whether for Gnosticm or any tradition.

Also, as a side note, when it comes to modern Gnostic branches, in my humble opinion, I’d advise anybody to be wary of all self-advertised “Gnostic” groups, most of which, ironically, are all about their branch beliefs and all too little about the root, gnosis.

But, actually, that’s probably a good thing, because any venture into joining a modern Gnostic sect or “religion” (i.e., the social expression of a spiritual belief system), is likely to send you scurrying right back where you belong–searching within.

April 16, 2006 at 7:07 pm

(2) Jim says:

Thanks for positing Kellmeyer’s terrific article, which does a thorough job of explaining why “Da Vinci Code” is anything but Gnostic, and, moreover, I’m fairly confident that if ancient Gnostics were around today, they’d undoubtedly join hands with orthodox Christians and virtually every scholar in existence in simply denouncing Brown’s book as, well, dumb–heck, not even worth denouncing.

That said, for anybody out there who is interested in learning about the real thing–Gnosticism as a living, breathing spiritual system, then it’s well worth noting that while Kallmeyer does an excellent job of demonstrating that the “Da Vinci Code” is NOT Gnostic, he’s fairly ham-fisted at describing what Gnosticism actually IS.

Of course, as anybody who has studied Gnosticism even just a little bit knows, it is famously difficult to describe exactly what Gnsoticism is precisely because it was, is, and can be, so many things, which is to say it was and is a pluralistic, heterodox tradition, the root idealogy of which can (and did) form many branches.

Then again, Judaism, Christianity Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on, have more than a few branches, don’t they? And we all know that what these various branches believe and practice can vary widely from one another.

It’s no different for Gnostics and Gnosticism.

And so, Kallmeyer is a bit misleading in describing Gnosticism (forgivably so if one assumes his distortion was unintentional) in that he mistakes the most “world-hating” branch of Gnosticism for the root belief.

Unfortunately, this sort of Gnostic “profiling” has been all too common throughout history. On a related note, such inaccurate pigeonholing shows up yet again in Bart Ehrman’s commentary on the Gospel of Judas, which one might expect since Ehrman is an expert in ancient languages and simply doesn’t quality as an expert on Gnostic or protognostic movements.

I’d like to point out just two examples of distortion in Kallmeyer’s article, which also played out in Eherman’s commentary on Judas.

First, despite Kallmeyer’s profile, by no means did all Gnostics believe that this world was strictly evil or that sex was bad. Yes, virtually all Gnostics did, in fact, believe that this world is flawed–imperfect–which is to say a MIXTURE OF GOOD AND BAD, and to be sure, this stood in contradistinction to a divine realm and deity which they perceived to be perfect.

As for sex, yes, some Gnostic groups were “encratic” (i.e., eschewing marriage and child-bearing), but other groups, such as the Carpocratians, were quite famously, or infamously, just the opposite. They were libertarian and pretty much said anything goes.

In fact, the Orthodox writers against heresies, and against the Carpocratians, went into quite a bit of detail about the wild sexcapades these folks partook in. Let’s just say that more than a few bodily fluids were discussed. And even though these were wildly exaggerated accounts for the sake of polemics, nobody would argue that there were many Gnostics who liked to party.

Now, how can such widely divergent branches have grown from the same tree? Well, it’s all because at its root Gnosticism is all about the knowledge that there is a spark of the divine with in us. I know, that’s oversimplifying things a bit, but then that’s usually what happens when we search for lowest common denominators (in a blog posting no less).

At any rate, from this core or “root” belief (actually, a Gnostic more accurately would say, “from this root KNOWLEDGE, or gnosis…”), one must then figure out its implications in everyday life–how it plays out, or ‘branches’ out, in your behavior and communal interaction.

Given this is the case, one can imagine such knowledge causing some people to say, “The next realm is the most important one, and it’s so perfect that when I look at this world, which pales so much in comparison, it’s hard for me to see anything but the evil side of it, and that’s something I just don’t want to attach myself to or marry myself to in any way, shape, or form–and it’s certainly nothing I want to perpetuate.

So, voila, I just won’t get married or have any kids.” (Whoops, there goes the Carolingian empire! Sorry Mr. Brown.)

Now, this all may seem a bit dark and conservative, but I know more than a few politically liberal folks who are prone to saying, “Man, this world is so messed up, no way I’m bringing a kid into it. And marriage–don’t get me started. I’m stayin’ single, baby!”

Meanwhile, gnosis might lead a Gnostic to an altogether different stance, so as to say, “Look, the whole point is that this world is besides the point, that is, relatively speaking–which is to say, relative to the divine realm–and so given this relative unimportance, it doesn’t really matter what I do here–I can get married, have kids, whatever–maybe even break the law–just as long I keep my eyes on the prize.”

And so it is that the Gnostic root had many branches, most of which appear to have been ascetic, some of which were libertarian, and still others which were fairly mainstream, such as the Valentinians (i.e., followers of the Gnostic writer, Valentinus), who seemed to have struck something of a middle ground position, as reflected in a favorite sentiment of Gnostics: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give unto God what is God’s.”

It’s the let’s-all-just-get-along perspective. You know, “We’re all in this mess together, and sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, but we KNOW there’s something better, and if we’re really sensitive to what’s best within us, this knowledge should guide our actions, shouldn’t it?

So be good. As a modern Gnostic, that pretty much reflects my view, and in fact, you can find this view “within” all the major religions. In other words, just as their is the spark of the divine within each of us, so there is even with religious bodies, as well (even if bodies of all different kinds so often fail at turning this spark into a fire).

At any rate, in short, asceticism, libertarianism, and/or anything in between were not the end of gnosis but merely the means by which a Gnostic felt she or he could maximize the divine spark within and knowledge thereof. And so, to the extent that any given religious strategy promotes this knowledge, it’s good, and to the extent it doesn’t, you shouldn’t slavishly adhere to it.

Liberation is the key to gnosis, just as gnosis is the key to liberation.

in this sense, like Buddhism, Gnosticism and its knowledge is all about liberation and spiritual freedom (and thus one should avoid pigeonholing Gnostics, just like anybody else). Not surprisingly, this is exactly why Gnosticism has often been labeled the “Buddhism of the West.”

Back to the original point, it’s just best to be careful never to mistake the branch for the root, whether for Gnosticism or any tradition, all the while being mindful that we all stem from the same tree of gnosis.

Finally, as a side note, when it comes to modern Gnostic branches, in my humble opinion, I’d advise anybody to be wary of all self-advertised “Gnostic” groups, most of which, ironically, are all about their branch beliefs and all too little about the root, gnosis.

But, actually, that’s probably a good thing, because any venture into joining a modern Gnostic sect or “religion” (i.e., the social expression of a spiritual belief system), is likely to send you scurrying right back where you belong–searching within.

April 17, 2006 at 5:04 pm

(3) altreligion says:

Thanks, Jim, excellent commentary!