Christian Gnosticism & Islamic Sufism

[yuuteya]

Those mainstream/dominant versions of Christianity and Islam seem to have caused much controversy among people. But have you heard of Gnosticism and Sufism? They are like alternative versions of 'Christianity' and 'Islam' but different from the popular/dominant versions. There are various theories as to their origins. Some scholars say their origins pre-date mainstream Christianity/Islam, but they adopted Christian/Islamic elements, and co-existed side by side with them. Unfortunately Gnosticism and Sufism have experienced some persecution in history as 'heresies' by the mainstream/hardliners. In general, they believe in pacifism, humanism, universalism, and experiencing/unifying with 'god' through esoteric knowledge or mystical-inspirational practices.

Gnosticism

History of Gnosticism

The roots of Gnosticism reach far into antiquity and, during much of its history , has faced such persecution as to destroy most records about it. Gnosticism transcends the boundaries of secular religion. Elements of it can be found among Quakers and Old Catholics, the Hebrew Kabbalah, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Baha'i', in Greek philosophy, and even polynesian Huna. Kabbalistic Gnosticism (or a predecessor thereof) was probably brought to Palastine from Ur of the Chaldees by Abraham. Gnosticism even transcends the long-standing war between science and religion. In fact, it was Gnostic philosophers like Pythagoras, who were primarily responsible for developing the scientific method. On the other extreme, we can see Hebrew messianic movements (a constant process in Judaism) growing consistently out of Kabbalistic Gnosticism. There is no clear evidence indicating Christianity to be an exception to this rule. In fact, the earliest recorded scism in Christianity was between the Gnostics and Pistics. Several of the Gospels are clearly Gnostic in orientation, including the Gospels of John, Thomas, Philip, and Mary. Then, it was the Pistics who were the heretics, and they were often hated at that, because it was (and still is) Pistics who would burn Gnostic writings wherever they could find them.

In AD 38, the Church of Antioch was founded by James, Peter and Thomas in Antioch, Asia Minor.
In AD 64, Pistic Christianity began growing by leaps and bounds when Nero began throwing Christians to the lions in the arena. Roman courts offered Christians an out: they could denounce their religion and go free. The Pistics refused and died for it. The Gnostics were horrified. They were faced with a veritable Jonestown horror in their midst. Their friends and neighbors were commiting suicide by walking willingly into the mouths of lions.

While Gnostics respected honesty, they respected life more, and they knew that the man who would brandish a sword at them was not interested in honesty, but only in their obedience. They became hated and scorned by Pistics for refusing to die with them.

Better advertising could not have been bought. No faith, no commitment, could have been more impressive to the spectators. The arena made converts by the droves, and it was Pistic Christians that they sought out to learn more about this powerful religion.

In Ad 325, the Roman Catholic Church was created by a pagan emperor named Constantine. It was only superficially a Christian Church. The First Nicean Council was assembled to work out the details. While it was supposed to have been made up of Christian elders from five major Christian centers (Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch), it also included elders of all the major Pagan religions of Rome. Bishops from the cults of Mithras, Tammuz, Oannes (Dagon), Ceres, Janus, Bacchus, Apollo, Osiris, Jupiter, and Constantine's own religion: Sol Invictus, were invited. It was Constantine's wish that all of the Pagan religions, then at odds with each other, creating unneccesary conflicts, be unified into one "Catholic" church. "Catholic" means universal. The proceedings of that council were conducted by Constantine with an iron hand(1), and one of the positions which he insisted upon, and got, was to make Pistis a doctrine of the new church. Gnosticism could not be tolerated, because it encouraged its members to question authority. Pistis was thus politically expedient, because it forbade questioning.

The institution of the papacy was built on the doctrine of being the successors of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, and the first bishop. History, however, does not show Peter to have been in Rome, or to have ever been a bishop, anywhere(3). The first bishop of Rome was listed as Linus. "Peter of Rome" took the place of the Pet-Roma, the "Book of Stone" which played a major part in initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries. The statue of Jupiter (Jo-Peter) in Rome came to be worshipped as the image of Peter, with the claim that it always had been the image of Peter(4).

An effective unification of all of Rome's religions had to, not only include the major dieties of those religions, but it also had to place them in a position subordinate to the over-god, who was to pull them all together, and to grant him the higher authority. The names of the disciples, then, corresponded to the names of those dieties. Matthew was Mithras, Thomas - Tammuz, Mark - Mars, John - Oannes, Peter - Jupiter, Paul - Apollo. Even the Virgin Mary was a variation on older myths. The name "Jesus Christ" was actually a contraction on "Hesus" and "Christos".

The use of crosses, as symbols, was almost non-existent before. This was generally regarded as a violation of the second commandment, and the reminder of Christ's suffering was usually deemed inappropriate.

A vote was cast to decide whether women had souls. The women won by one vote. Among early Christians, however, it was the women, as much as the men, who had visions and were accepted for that ability.

The Church of Antioch left the council in disgust. As a consequence, it was persecuted as far away as Malabar, India.

The new church was virtually Christian in name only. Early Christians, and not Gnostics alone, were committed pacifists and anarchists. They refused to enter the military, or any kind of government work. After the Nicean Council, this changed, such that within 60 years almost every soldier and civil servant was a Catholic. The traditional Christian virtues of love, tolerance and forgiveness were quickly swept under the proverbial carpet.

Constantine never converted. On his deathbed, when he was too delirious to protest, "Saint" Eusebius entered his chambers, sprinkled holy water on him, and declared him baptised. Constantine, ruthless as he was, had put a stop to the persecution of Christians, but his successors began the persecution of Gnostics in earnest. Popes and Catholic emperors, alike, have shown, by its fruits, that this religion is, in fact, the utter depth of evil. Emperors Valens and Valentinian were such ruthless butchers as to make even Caligula look like a sweetheart. They were barely the beginning. http://www.teachingreligion.com/gnosticism/history.html

Sufism

Also diffferent from mainstream/dominant forms of Islam, there is the alternative version called 'Sufism'. It seems to have certain elements that resemble Gnosticism, such as unification with 'god' through mysical/spiritual experiences, inspirational music, and esoteric meditations.

Sufism, Sufis, Sufi Orders
Sufism's Many Paths
Dr. Alan Godlas, University of Georgia

Sufism or tasawwuf, as it is called in Arabic, is generally understood by scholars and Sufis to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam. Today, however, many Muslims and non-Muslims believe that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam. Nevertheless, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one of the foremost scholars of Islam, in his article The Interior Life in Islam contends that Sufism is simply the name for the inner or esoteric dimension of Islam.

After nearly 30 years of the study of Sufism, I would say that in spite of its many variations and voluminous expressions, the essence of Sufi practice is quite simple. It is that the Sufi surrenders to God, in love, over and over; which involves embracing with love at each moment the content of one's consciousness (one's perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, as well as one's sense of self) as gifts of God or, more precisely, as manifestations of God. http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Sufism.html

[Faithless]

A lot of that sounds good, but I think the main problem with the gnostics was that they seemed like an early version of Evangelical Christians -- that salvation can only come from knowledge of god. That being the case, that would rule out a lot of good people on this earth who don't really have the same concept of god.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. It became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity, and was noted for three factors which differed from the two other branches of Christianity:
* Novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and the world which differed from those of other Christian groups.
* Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism.
* Lack of discrimination against women.
* A belief that salvation is achieved through knowledge. In the words of The Gnostic Apostolic Church humanity needs to be awakened and brought "to a realisation of his true nature. Mankind is moving towards the Omega Point, the Great day when all must graduate or fall. This day is also the Day of Judgement in that only those who have entered the Path of Transfiguration and are being reborn can return to the Treasury of Light." 1

The movement and its literature were essentially wiped out by the end of the 5th century CE by heresy hunters from mainline Christianity. Its beliefs are currently experiencing a rebirth throughout the world.

[yuuteya]

Women are recognized to have played an essential role in the history and development of Islamic Sufism.

Sufi Women (http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufismwomen.html)

Sufi Women

Early Sufi Women a translation by Rkia Cornell of Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami's (d. 1021 CE) Dhikr an-Niswat al-muta'abbidat as-sufiyyat, explodes many mistaken notions about Muslim women.

Women in Islam (link fixed 2 August 2002) from the journal Sufism: An Inquiry by Dr. Nahid Angha, a Sufi woman who is the co-director of the International Association of Sufism and founder of the Sufi Women Organization.

Women and Sufism, (link fixed 2 August 2002) by Camille Adams Helminski of the Mevlevi Sufi Order, briefly discusses some well-known women Sufis and central issues concerning women in the history of Sufism.

Habiba, A Sufi Saint from Uzbekistan is the title of a video about a contemporary Naqshbandi woman Sufi and healer. You can order it From Mystic Fire Video. (Links fixed 2 August 2002.)

Uzbek Women's Sufi Dhikr recorded in Kokand (Uzbekistan) and linked from the site The BBC Musical Nomad.

The Sufi Women Organization (link fixed 2 August 2002) is an association of Muslim and non-Muslim Sufi women from around the world, of many cultures and Sufi Orders, who address humanitarian issues related to women. One of their activities is a women-only list-serv, Sufi Women Dialogues.

Rabi'a al-'Adawiya, the most famous of all Sufi women and certainly one of the greatest exponents of the love of God.

Rabi'a al-Badawiya (d. 135/752-53) a Muslim woman Sufi saint, is often confused with the more well-known Rabi'a al-'Adawiya, but appears to be the same as Rabi'a bint Isma'il. Some Books on Women in Sufism

http://www.nimatullahi.org/us/KNP/books/Women.html

http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/1-57062-967-6.cfm

A lot of that sounds good, but I think the main problem with the gnostics was that they seemed like an early version of Evangelical Christians -- that salvation can only come from knowledge of god. That being the case, that would rule out a lot of good people on this earth who don't really have the same concept of god.Actually the original Gnostic version of 'god' was slightly different from that of the Pistic version of 'god' (which became imbedded in mainstream Christianity). Compared to the Pistics who became dominant, the Gnostics seemed to be less religious-extremist and practical (hence they didnt want to die with the lions), more inclusive in their approach (with similarities to mystical traditions of non-Christian cultures), and seemed to have elements that came from pre-Christian sources. It could be said that those modern-day Evangelical Christians are Pistic descendants who seem to have re-discovered some Gnostic-like ideas. Although from my persepctive as a Buddhist, I still find even Gnosticism to be too 'christian' for me, ie. anthropomorphic 'god' concept/dualistic paradigms. Im happy with Buddhism all my life and staying with it. But anyway, I just thought of mentioning some of these alternative, mystical approaches to Christianity and Islam, since not all of Christianity and Islam is part of that fundamentalist/extremist/hardline stuff that gets all the media attention...

[yuuteya]

Perhaps Sufism is best known outside the Sufi world through the efforts of the late Pakistani sufi musician Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. He died a few years ago, but for me the universal spiritual essence of qawwali music transcends crude 'religious' and 'secular' boundaries. Its very beautiful and inspiring music. :smile:

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan Official Site (http://www.nusrat.com/)

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan by Aporup Acharya
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=230895
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan - Sufi Qawwal by Aporup Acharya

Born: October 13th 1948
Died: August 16th 1997

The 15th of August. Independence Day. A day we remember and reinforce the idea of our independence. But, far from seeing it as the day Pakistan and India won their consecutive freedoms from colonialism, I see it as the day the music died. As the day one of our greatest subcontinental sons, infinitely greater in stature than any before him, and perhaps after, began losing the battle for his life. In the morning of August 16th, even as both countries were in the throes of celebrating yet another effete year of their respective nationhoods, Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan breathed his last. Bringing to an end what might have been the most sincere, the most powerful, and the most valiant effort to salve the deep, meaningless gash in the subcontinental soul.

For that is what he was, Nusrat. An emissary of peace, and love. A mystic messenger of a forgotten truth. A Sufi sage with a voice from heaven, enjoined to a task on earth. The task of telling the millions that they were indeed God's children, and needed no religion to pray. A task he performed with frenetic fervour and awesome artistry, through a corpus of Qawwali that will resound, and remind, for millennia to come.

...

Nusrat died in 1997, before he was even fifty. In his prime, he seemed an oddity for an international music superstar. A huge man in every sense, he would perform seated, with a nine-member party, using only the human voice, the tablas and harmonium, and still pack more emotion, feeling and soul into his performance than an army of rock stars could ever hope to emulate. In his death, there is an eerie irony. A verse in one of his qawwalis, speaking of the departed Prophet, states: "Allah ne paas bula hi liya, bin dheke khuda bhi reh na saka... " (Allah has taken him to His side; even Khudah couldn't bear not to see him…) -- perhaps lending an air of celestial closure to his all-too-sudden passing.

For us in the subcontinent, however, his death has more message than mystique. Coinciding as it did with the Independence Days of both India and Pakistan, it serves as a mystical reminder of the one wish Nusrat could never fulfill -- that of uniting the two countries. Finally, if there is a sense of independence to remember and reinforce on August 15th, it is but this: that a man of monumental mystic and musical prowess shook off the shackles of his earthly existence on this day and soared free.

[Mr.Lum]

My father and his whole family (except some younger people who married Orthodox or Sunnis) is Sufi Muslim.Iyat Khan is not a Sufi. He is not mainstream Sufi and considered by most Sufi to be basically a Western propogator. His followers are lik the white Buhddists you will encounter at the airport. They selectively take from the Quran and are not considered Islamic, not only by his followers (which is why so many are quick to pick it up) but by most Muslims and Sufis alike. It teaches that Sufism predates Islam and Muhhamed. This basically qualifies it as being pagan in most Islamic (and indeed Sufi) circles and orders. It's a kind of universalism not appreciated by most Sufis and Muslims. This is the "danger" of Sufism in the mind of fundamentalists, and indeed Khan (and another Idris Shah) is their main example. Sufis have been persecuted by fundamentalists from Iran to Algeria because of this (which is not the case with most Sufis I would add). It has many Iranian influences. In the thought of many Muslims (most of those in my family also) consider the Indo/South Asian sorts to be a kind of "voodoo", mixing local, pre/nonIslamic thought with Sufi thought to a very high degree that ends up deluting the Islamic message.

Some scholars say their origins pre-date mainstream Christianity/Islam, but they adopted Christian/Islamic elements, and co-existed side by side with them. Unfortunately Gnosticism and Sufism have experienced some persecution in history as 'heresies' by the mainstream/hardliners. In general, they believe in pacifism, humanism, universalism, and experiencing/unifying with 'god' through esoteric knowledge or mystical-inspirational practices.



Sufis were persecuted because people think that all Sufis are those damned 'universal" Sufis who are what you just described with the predating Islam. Most Sufis are not in that school of thought and a great number of those in that school of thought are westerners who do not reference to the Quran. There is much positive about Sufism but the universal type is basically not Islam. The Sufi "elders" that are from my grandma's village in Algeria warn against it (I hadn't heard of it before then) as it leads off the Sufi path and off of the path to God (in their view). For traditional Sufiteaching I would refer you to the great Persian poet Rumi for just one example. Many Chinese Muslims (my grandpa was one) are Sufis or are Sunnis heavily influenced by Sufism. MY grandma was a more conservative Sufi (though not as conservative as the Sanusiyya) of the Shadhaliyyah ORder in Algeria. My grandpa was introduced to it from meeting Sufis on his hajj.
Also diffferent from mainstream/dominant forms of Islam, there is the alternative version called 'Sufism'. It seems to have certain elements that resemble Gnosticism, such as unification with 'god' through mysical/spiritual experiences, inspirational music, and esoteric meditations.

Not all Sufis do this. Many do it through "natural" means, with no music or aided (drugged) meditations. These are considered by some to be unnecissary earthly pleasures that distort what you're 'getting" form the experience. Many famous Islamic artists, writers, and even politicians (especially in Algeria, Morocco and Iran/central Asia) are Sufi also. Thre were a few Sufi dynasties in Iran for example and Muhammed Ahmed ben Bella (first Algerian president) is a Sufi as well and is well respected for it.

[yuuteya]

Thanks Mr Lum, I really appreciate your point of view in this thread. My purpose was to get some discussion going on other approaches to Islam and Christianity, which are not usually well known outside those circles. Please talk more...

By the way, you mentioned Ahmed Ben Bella. Do you anything about Sidi Abu Madyan the 12th century historical Sufi mystic-scholar who's tomb is in Tlemcen, Algeria? Sidi Abu Madyan's name was later appropriated by Mohamed Brahim Boukharrouba who changed his name into Houari Boumeddiene during the anti-colonial war against France, and later became the president of Algeria and replaced Ben Bella in the 1960s.

This basically qualifies it as being pagan in most Islamic (and indeed Sufi) circles and orders. In the thought of many Muslims (most of those in my family also) consider the Indo/South Asian sorts to be a kind of "voodoo", mixing local, pre/nonIslamic thought with Sufi thought to a very high degree that ends up deluting the Islamic message. Interesting. Some people in Buddhist circles have said a similar thing about Esoteric Buddhism, currently represented by Tibetan Schools and the Shingonshu in Japan. Some Buddhists have said Esotericism uses non-Buddhist/folk-magic in their mystical incantations. But I dont think there was ever any severe persecution against Esotericism by the other Buddhists, like what happened to Sufis in Islam or Gnostics in Christianity. We just consider it to be another school's approach to Enlightenment.


Not all Sufis do this. Many do it through "natural" means, with no music or aided (drugged) meditations. Im curious, could you elaborate on what those "natural" means are.

[Mr.Lum]

Im curious, could you elaborate on what those "natural" means are.


Sure. "Natural" essentially means prayer, meditation, mostly by ones self. Particularly in places like North Africa, Central Asia where there is a lot of empty space and caves to do this in. For example, the area of Algeria where my grandma is from (the eastern High Atlas) there are thousands of little caves for hermits to go and meditate and contemplate the Quran. This is what is mean usually by natural. As unnatural would be incents (sometimes), drugs, illusions (visual or otherwise made) and so on.


By the way, you mentioned Ahmed Ben Bella. Do you anything about Sidi Abu Madyan the 12th century historical Sufi mystic-scholar who's tomb is in Tlemcen, Algeria? Sidi Abu Madyan's name was later appropriated by Mohamed Brahim Boukharrouba who changed his name into Houari Boumeddiene during the anti-colonial war against France, and later became the president of Algeria and replaced Ben Bella in the 1960s.

Yes. Boumeddine overthrew ben Bella in a "bloodless" coup. Abu Madyan is one of the most prized Algerians though. Many of the most important Algerians were Sufis, for example the founder of modern Algeria (he founded the first state in the real sense there) Abd al-Qadir al-Jazziri who fought the French as soona s they arrived in the 1830s was the son of a Sufi mystic and one himself. Many of the Algerian Berbers are Sufi as well. Morocco also has a large number of Sufis, mostly in the High Atlas (Berbers) and some in the eastern quarters on the line with Algeria. In Senagal and Western Sahara is is thought (though no offical stats) that Sufis or Sufi influenced Sunnis are a majority. If you look at the independence (on going) struggle in WS, the Polisario Front isn't known to have attacked any civilians or noncombatants as they do use an Islamic theme for their battle, but it's more Sufi influenced than the fundamentalist influences you find in groups like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezballah, the Armed Islamic Group (Algerian terrorists), the Front for Preaching and Combat (also Algerian, gave way to GIA but attacked fewer civilians as it had a sizable number of Sufis who refused to do so; a major reason for their split acording to some sources), FIS (also Algerian; ISlamic Salvation Front), Islamic Jihad etc etc. These groups use the antitheses of Sufis; Salafism. Salaf is basically anti "innovation" meaning fundamentalist, there is nothing beyond the written word. In the moutnainous areas of Algeria where Sufis often fled to during the civil war, groups like GIA and FIS woudl go deliberately to find Sufis and other "pagans" and massacre them. There have been reports of hermits being pulled from their caves and beaten and killed. You can find hermits like these in North Africa, (particularly the Atlas), eastern Turkey, Syria, Iran, Afgahnistan and China. In Senagal, when one says "Muslim Brothers" or "Muslim Brotherhood" they aren't refering to the same kind in Egypt and Syria who conspired with Sadat to "Empty Egypt of Copts" but the local orderof Sufi mystics. Sufis are considered to be the worst of the worst (more so than SHia) in Saudi Arabian government banter. It's basically the polar opposite of the more common Islamic movements today. Sufis can be people who combine Sufic traditions with Sunni or Shia beliefs or just Sufis.

Here is a site with some Sufi orders (and their Sheiks)
http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufismorders.html

Sufism is kind of like an Islamic Quakerism, though it lacks the pacifist element.

[kuilong]

Unfortunately, most of the information about the various heterodox sects (collectively, and sometimes inaccurately termed "Gnosticism") is fragmentary, and known largely through the obviously colored lens of quotations by orthodox Church Fathers (by "orthodox", I mean, of course, the bunch who won out in the end). This is part of the reason why I think modern-day Marcionites (or even those who try to revive European pre-Christian religions, like Asatru) are so misguided. I mean, a few polemical quotes from Justin Martyr aren't enough to reconstruct a religion, just as we can't reconstruct Elamite well enough to carry on a conversation in it without massive invention. It would be okay if these people admitted they were trying to create a new religion, but they claim to be reconstructing a pre-existing one -- and they're not.

The summary of Gnosticism in the first post is the sort of drivel usually consigned to Protestant evangelical anti-Catholic screeds; most of it has no historical warrant at all. As a random example, the Church of Rome existed long before Constantine; AFAIK, it was first mentioned in I Clement, whose terminus ad quem we can safely put at A.D. 140 (see, for instance, the relevant entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionar).

[thaite]

sufis are cool

[Yeahman]

"In Ad 325, the Roman Catholic Church was created by a pagan emperor named Constantine."

hahahahha. We can have a serious discussion about gnosticism, which I would enjoy, but we should at least stick to the facts, not neo-gnostic/protestant propoganda.

[yuuteya]

As with all rubrics, there is instantaneous subsumption of mulitple perspectives of difference-inside their discursive spheres, ie. catch-all gross terms such as 'Gnosticism', 'Sufism', 'Christianity' and 'Islam' (even 'Asian') are never to be taken absolutely 'literally' in the meticulous sense, but are for the sake of communicative convenience. Otherwise, we all might as well all write a book each just to be as accurate as possible. Live a little guys... Here's an except from wikipedia outlining Gnosticism, for those of you who didn't appreciate the overt subjectivity of the initial political quote on 'Gnosticism'. Although personally, rather than reject obvert subjectivity and bias, just like that, I find it to be a funky hot read than those rote informatic dry encyclopedias that depend on a pretense of 'neutrality'. Although they all encapsulate viral instabilities, but anyway I digress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Lifestyle

Most Gnostics practiced celibacy and asceticism, on the grounds that the pleasures of the flesh were evil; a few however practiced libertinism, arguing that since the body was evil they should defile it, or that since the body was evil it did not matter what was done with it. This led to further distrust, and was an accusation leveled against other groups who did not follow this practice.

Gnostic sects

(Note: It is a matter of controversy if these sects had a real succession of ideas or communion with each other, or if they more or less coincidentally had the same basic doctrine.)

First, the gnostic sects are often divided into an eastern, or Persian school, and a Syrian-Egyptic school. The Persian school has a more definitive division between light and darkness, whereas the Syrian-Egyptic school is more platonist in character. The latter is the one usually associated with Gnosticism, and the one known to include several Christian elements. A group referred to as the Ophites fall in between both of these strains.

Persian Gnostics
Mandaeanism which still exists today, but is non-Christian in character.
Manichaeism which was an entire religion on its own, but is now extinct.

Syrian-Egyptic Gnostics
Cerinthus
Simon Magus and Marcion of Sinope both had Gnostic tendencies, but they were not completely Gnostics. They both developed a big apprenticeship. Simon Magus pupil Menander could also be included.
The Valentinians under Valentinius developed most of the complex cosmology of Gnosticism
The Basilidians
The Ophites (so-named because they worshipped the serpent of Genesis as the bestower of knowledge).
The Cainites (who worshipped Cain, as well as Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, and believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it.)
The Carpocratians
The Borborites
The Bogomils
The Cathars (Cathari, Albigenses or Albigensians).

Sources

We have two main historical sources for information on Gnosticism: attacks on Gnosticism by orthodox Christians (i.e. Heresiologies such as those written by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Epiphanius of Salamis), and the original Gnostic works.

Neither of these two sources are entirely satisfactory. Attacks on Gnosticism by orthodox Christians, hostile as they are, most likely suffer from some degree of bias; and orthodox Christians had a tendency to conflate the many differing groups opposing them. There were considerably more Gnostic scriptures written than orthodox Christian ones, which are hinted at throughout the orthodox scriptures.

Many Gnostic scriptures and other works were written, but until the late 19th and the 20th centuries, none of them were available, except in isolated quotations in the writings of their opponents. Many 19th century scholars devoted considerable effort to collecting the scattered references in the works of opponents and reassembling the Gnostic materials.

Several finds of manuscripts have been made since, most importantly the Nag Hammadi codices. But though we now possess a reasonable collection of Gnostic texts, they are still often difficult to interpret, due to the esoteric nature of Gnostic teaching. We are also faced with difficulties in identifying which teachers or sects authored which texts. The Nag Hammadi Library is available in an English translation and is without doubt the most important collection of source texts for research in Gnosticism. With some basic knowledge of Gnostic concepts, it is not too complicated a read.

Origins of Gnosticism

The origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism; yet others think it derives from Jesus, and is a development of his teaching at least as valid as the orthodox one.

It seems clear that Gnosticism, at least in some of its theologically more developed formulations, was heavily influenced by Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, old Semitic religions, Christianity and (at least in the case of Monoimus) Pythagoreanism.


But anyway, about Islamic Sufism

Sure. "Natural" essentially means prayer, meditation, mostly by ones self. Particularly in places like North Africa, Central Asia where there is a lot of empty space and caves to do this in. For example, the area of Algeria where my grandma is from (the eastern High Atlas) there are thousands of little caves for hermits to go and meditate and contemplate the Quran. This is what is mean usually by natural. As unnatural would be incents (sometimes), drugs, illusions (visual or otherwise made) and so on. Thank you. Very informative. Just as I thought, the 'difference' is predicated upon a fine line of particular practices/approaches (based on your account). Reminds me of practices in my own traditions. But Im curious, have you engaged in those Sufi practices yourself? Or just your family? If you did, what was it like? If its possible to put into words...

Also in your last post you seem to have presented a three-way differentiation between:
(1) mainstream Islam, such as Sunni, etc.
(2) 'regular' Sufism that uses 'natural' means, and
(3) 'universal' Sufism that uses the 'unnatural' means.

You suggested that (1) and (2) were together in their major disapproval of (3) because of its 'unnatural' hallucinogenic inductive approaches. But aren't (2) and (3) more close together (or identical) in their history, beliefs, basic doctrines and teachings? Is the difference that separates (1 and 2) from (3) more a recent occurence due to (3) making liberal (radical?) reinterpretations and 'universalist' attempts to reach outside the Islamic world? Or has this been going on for centuries? Im curious about these differences... Are they doctrinal? practical? political? (Thanks btw, quite interesting!)

Yes. Boumeddine overthrew ben Bella in a "bloodless" coup. Abu Madyan is one of the most prized Algerians though. Who do you think has been more historically appreciated by modern Algerians? Ben Bella or Boumeddiene(Boukharrouba)? I like how you say "deposed" ;) Youve probably read the inspirational writings of Abu Madyan? Come to think of it, are his works read by students in the school system in Algeria? Btw, he's referred to in other ways as well: Sidi Boumeddiene/Abu Madyan Shu‘ayb al-Maghribi/Abu Madyan al-Ghawth/Abu Madyan Shu'ayb ibn al-Husayn al-Ansari. Where you would place Abu Madyan's thought in the Sufi spectrum? Toward the 'natural'/regular side as it could be called, or that 'universalist' side? Do Algerians, and Morrocans as well I guess, consider Abu Madyan to be the greatest Maghreb Sufi? How about the Spanish (Andalucia) element?

Id like to talk with you more about the Berber and/or Maghreb regional-ideal tension with the Islamic umma and/or pan-Arabic ideal, but that might be getting off topic.

Sufism is kind of like an Islamic Quakerism, though it lacks the pacifist element. Do you know of any Sufi orders-groups off hand, that are clearly pacifist/non-violent in practice?

[Mr.Lum]

Also in your last post you seem to have presented a three-way differentiation between:
(1) mainstream Islam, such as Sunni, etc.
(2) 'regular' Sufism that uses 'natural' means, and
(3) 'universal' Sufism that uses the 'unnatural' means.

You suggested that (1) and (2) were together in their major disapproval of (3) because of its 'unnatural' hallucinogenic inductive approaches. But aren't (2) and (3) more close together (or identical) in their history, beliefs, basic doctrines and teachings? Is the difference that separates (1 and 2) from (3) more a recent occurence due to (3) making liberal (radical?) reinterpretations and 'universalist' attempts to reach outside the Islamic world? Or has this been going on for centuries? Im curious about these differences... Are they doctrinal? practical? political? (Thanks btw, quite interesting!)

The universal approch to Sufism is new, it came baout in the 1800s and 1900s at least on a wide scale. There has been the idea that they have been this way for a long time but they've not. They've been mostly tolorant of other beliefs and tried to reason progressive teaching in with Islam but not to the extent that more modern ones do. But both forms, "universal" and 'traditional" sufism use unnatural means. it is more prevalent in universal ones but still used in traditional schools though not as much.

Who do you think has been more historically appreciated by modern Algerians? Ben Bella or Boumeddiene(Boukharrouba)? I like how you say "deposed" ;) Youve probably read the inspirational writings of Abu Madyan? Come to think of it, are his works read by students in the school system in Algeria? Btw, he's referred to in other ways as well: Sidi Boumeddiene/Abu Madyan Shu‘ayb al-Maghribi/Abu Madyan al-Ghawth/Abu Madyan Shu'ayb ibn al-Husayn al-Ansari. Where you would place Abu Madyan's thought in the Sufi spectrum? Toward the 'natural'/regular side as it could be called, or that 'universalist' side? Do Algerians, and Morrocans as well I guess, consider Abu Madyan to be the greatest Maghreb Sufi? How about the Spanish (Andalucia) element?

On ben Bella and Boumeddiene. Ben Bella was elected. Boumeddiene overthrew him and suspended (really threw out) the constitution so that Algeria had no constitution and was a military dictatorship in every sense of the world for a decade. There were massive protests in the streets by the young people when the coup occured. It wasn't a popular movement. Boumeddiene set Algeria on the revolutionary course however. He affired Algeria's third world commitment (not to being poor though he did help that but more to the political end). he nationalized the oil and set up many state corporations, making jobs. But, in terms of history I'd say just from my family and those I know, people like ben Bella better because he was elected and was very, very popular. He was deposed man, like they took him out, put him under house arrest for something like 15 years and then exiled him. As far as I know, Algerian kids don't (at least not anymore) read religious writings in school as the system has been very secularized since the civil war. before that I think most writings read were of the Salafist sort because it was being demanded by a good number of people and the government was getting edu funds from Saudi Arabia and Iran and these sorts of places and a lot of the private schools were run by fundies. I haven't read enough of Abu Madyan to really place him on a spectrum though. he is very popular in Algeria, especially with older people. He is more of a traditionalist from what I remember reading. I'm not quite sure about the Iberian element. I'd have to do some research on that. I think he is well respected by North Africans however, but I'm not sure if I'd say he's the most. There are certain military figures from recent times that people ahve been groomed to love such as Abd al-Qadir that overshadow him.


Do you know of any Sufi orders-groups off hand, that are clearly pacifist/non-violent in practice?


Im not aware of any. I think there are a lot who like to minimize usage of violence but none that completely sware it off like Quakers do (you're not going to get off draft bcause you're youre Sufi that is lol).

Id like to talk with you more about the Berber and/or Maghreb regional-ideal tension with the Islamic umma and/or pan-Arabic ideal, but that might be getting off topic.

PM me about I'd be happy to give my opinion but yeah, its off topic here.

[loserbutt]

hey, here's an interesting article

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/199lssqw.asp

[kuilong]

Hah, you're quoting me back at me! (I've contributed a reasonable amount to the Wikipedia article on Gnosticism in the past -- don't bother trying to guess who I am fromt he page history though. :P) Anyway, if you want to read about Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV

But really, you should expect no less when posting a biased an inaccurate article criticizing a major world religion (ye110man is Catholic, for instance). Throwing mud at other religions isn't very becoming of a Buddhist -- they of all people should know what it's like (ask any Buddhist who went to a Catholic school in Sri Lanka during British times).

[yuuteya]

Mr.Lum: Abu Madyan was born in a small village, near 'Seville', in what was then 'Al Andalus', now 'Andalucia' in 'Spain'.

loserbutt: nice article, hope it helps to broaden the narrow bias against Islam by some circles.

Kuilong: You will never become neutral, not until youve become completely biased. :wink:

[kuilong]

You can never become neutral, until youve become completely biased. :wink:

How profound.

"Neutral" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: it means to represent all relevant viewpoints on a subject. This doesn't mean Holocaust denial deserves as much coverage as Holocaust history; the more mainstream a viewpoint is, the more coverage it gets.

I, for one, think this is a fairer and kinder treatment than an article that attacks Catholicism on false pretenses (and did they forget about Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy?). In fact, I wouldn't even mind if the article strongly disagreed with Catholic theology or social teaching -- after all, I disagree with the Church's teaching on abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, and any number of other things. As with many other things, presentation is sometimes more important than the actual view presented. Come on man, this is basic politeness and fact-checking.

[yuuteya]

And you will never become completely biased, not until 'you' are woven into the heart of the matter.

What do you truly believe in? What do you actually practice? What do you deeply love and hate? Take off the proverbial lab coat and surgical gloves, and wallow naked in the wonderful mud that 'is' life. What lights your fire dude?

And with that, I address your point.

Why do I post something that has an obvious 'position against'?? Because its 'obvious'. Im not trying to be 'neutral', I dont believe in 'that', Im simply expressing one of my biased/personal positions (isnt that obvious? for everyone? 8P If people disagree then theyll react, of course, and they have... Likewise, I too have 'reacted' to other posts I didnt like before ;P ...And thats what keeps us connected and together, and not just 'in here', but 'out there' too...

a biased an inaccurate article criticizing a major world religion .... Throwing mud at other religions isn't very becoming of a Buddhist
Thanks for airing you bias towards me, I appreciate it. You see, you're getting there.. So don't hesitate to throw your own mud at whatever it is you don't like, even at me.. Btw, notice all these ironic references to mud? the metaphor of mud has other meanings in certain Buddhist texts, but again I digress, sorry... Peace :smile:

[John0101]

Interesting thread, I've learned a lot. Please, keep it going.

[kuilong]

And you will never become completely biased, not until 'you' are woven into the heart of the matter.

Haven't they got a thing in Readers Digest for deep quotes like this?

What do you actually believe and practice? What do you actually love and hate? Take off the proverbial lab coat and surgical gloves, and wallow naked in the wonderful mud that 'is' life. What lights your fire dude?

I'm not sure what you mean here -- I believe a lot of things. I'm not particularly religious, if that's what you're asking.

Why do I post something that has an obvious 'position against'?? Because its 'obvious'. Im not trying to be 'neutral', I dont believe in 'that', Im simply expressing one of my biased/personal positions (isnt that obvious? for everyone? 8P If people disagree then theyll react, of course, and they have... Likewise, I too have 'reacted' to other posts I didnt like before ;P ...And thats what keeps us connected and together, and not just 'in here', but 'out there' too...

You're missing the point; I don't care if the screed disagrees with Catholicism. In fact, I welcome such an article. I'm not against opinion.

But some of the claims in that article can be disproven with five minutes of research. I have no idea what the council in which the Church of Antioch left is referring to; probably Chalcedon, which condemned Eutychianism and other doctrines collectively termed "monophysitism" (which has nothing to do with souls, female or otherwise, but rather with whether Christ had one nature or two -- or "one Theandric nature", as St. Cyril put it). A large part of Christendom indeed refused to accept this council, including a part of the Church of Antioch; these today form the Oriental Orthodox churches. But a large part didn't, and today there are three Churches in Antioch claiming to be the successor of Peter's original see: one Oriental Orthodox, one Eastern Orthodox and one Catholic. Know any Indian Christians? (not ones who were converted by the Portuguese or British) If they're not Catholics, chances are they're members of that very same miaphysite branch of the Antiochian Church. Try asking them about that council where they decided women had souls.

"Jesus" is derived from Heb. Yehoshua or Ara. Yeshua; its path of transmission was Gk. Iêsous > Lat. Iesus > En. Jesus. Iêsous was the standard Greek transliteration of the name long before Christianity; it was used in the Septuagint at least a century before Christ, which makes nonsense of the claim that this is a post-Christian corruption of some pagan deity. Incidentally, "Joshua" is the same name, but transmitted directly from Hebrew.

The name "Jupiter" is attested long before Christianity and is cognate with Gk. Zeus Pater and Skt. Dyaus Pitar. The Church in Rome is mentioned in 1 Clement before A.D. 140, in Irenaeus of Lyons' Against Heresies before A.D. 185, in the early third century by Tertullian, etc. And that's just a small sample of errors you can find in ten minutes by flipping open an encyclopedia or a secular history. Ironic, seeing as they refer to "history" to bolster their claim that Peter was never at Rome.

[yuuteya]

John0101 thanks for your interest, you should post more too. I hope kuilong and other christians can talk more about their views on 'gnosticism'. To be honest/biased/positioned about it, im not so interested in 'gnostic christianity' (i think i said that b4?). From my perspective as an 'outsider', I view it provisionally as having its own intra-logical resonant points. But i just thought that it might be constructive if other modalities, alternative approaches, other christianities be given greater (re)consideration, if you are interested in staying within one of the 'christian' cosmologies.

As a 'non-christian' i guess im left out of that picture, or at best called a 'pagan' or a 'heathen' who should convert to save my soul (which has actually happen recently, it was soo hilarious! :D Although I think Mr.Lum has done a nice, succinct outline on 'sufism' from his own 'position'... which to be honest/biased, i find more extra-logical/positionally resonant. But yes, talking more about Maghreb and Berber is outside the Yellow World 'cosmology' if you will, and hence off topic. Contact you later on that Mr.Lum thanks :wink:


Kuilong, thanks for your effort, but since i am honestly and personally not interested in any of the 'christianities' for myself (as ive said b4?), your rational points on that would be better addressed to those 'christians' who are interested in any of the christianities, since it will likely resonate with them more, and not to me in particular, anyway... looking at what youve written its all quite clear, logical, linear-cumulativist, but that's only the half of it. And if you want to make an engagement on the christianities, it would be better to address everyone, inclusively

btw whats 'Readers Digest'? is that a journal of some kind? :confused: athough, sounds like it must be full of mundane plebian things you're missing out on. :tongue: thanks for the reference, i'll look that up...

Anyway, an old story, one of my inspirations come from those beetles that live on dung. People usually ignore them because theyre just 'insects', seeing that theyre small, seemingly worthless, and live their life in dirt, among other impure things. But they actually can get just as close to it, more than the cold and logical entymologist could ever deduce.

anyway, im sorry, back to 'gnosticism'

[Azn Retribution]

some of these tenets of gnosticism are prevalent in many protestant churches... ie Seventh-Day Adventist.

also go play Xenogears/Xenosaga in PSX/PS2. It plays a big part in there too.

[kuilong]

As a 'non-christian' i guess im left out of that picture, or at best called a 'pagan' or a 'heathen' who should convert to save my soul (which has actually happen recently, it was soo hilarious! :D

Actually, you could probably plead invincible ignorance (http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1203.htm).

looking at what youve written its all quite clear, logical, linear-cumulativist, but that's only the half of it.

Yes, no doubt I've been indoctrinated into Western modes of thought and Aristotelian logic, blinding me to the insights of Eastern philosophy.

btw whats 'Readers Digest'? is that a journal of some kind?

It's the best-selling magazine in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader's_Digest).

You know, reading back, I see that I was way more verbally agressive than I should've been. Sorry. :-/

some of these tenets of gnosticism are prevalent in many protestant churches... ie Seventh-Day Adventist.

Really? In my experience, Seventh-Day Adventists have ranged from just normal Protestants who go to church on Saturday to weird apocalyptic elements, but I've never heard of Seventh-Day Adventist Gnostics.

[Mr.Lum]

Really? In my experience, Seventh-Day Adventists have ranged from just normal Protestants who go to church on Saturday to weird apocalyptic elements, but I've never heard of Seventh-Day Adventist Gnostics.


Seventh Day Adventists (in my experience) are pretty wild. I've never met an American one but in Fiji they've gotten a few Fijians to join their ranks. It's pretty crazy. They segragate themselves on one of the islands (not all of Fijian SDAs just ones this one island) to a little village and they have like all these crazy rituals and they talk about how the world is coming to an end when they come to the town market and try to win converts. From what they said, Im glad theyve been mostly unsuccessful. But they could be worse....like Pentacostals.

[yuuteya]

Actually, you could probably plead invincible ignorance Thanks, but that position has already been taken by far more invincible ignorances (http://www.rienzihills.com/SING/praisethelordandpasstheammunition.htm) compared to little me, hey im just an insect, squish me and i die

though i studied about catholicism a while back, to make it short, eye candy was aesthetically pleasiing , some mystical elements resonated, but hard paradigms and rote attitudes were about as appealing to me as the lovely Readers Digest (http://www.catholicdigest.org/subscribe.asp) ...But of course ive had personal 'experiences' with 'christians', who hasn't in this globalized world... Recently, one American friend who was 'baptist', introduced me to the people at her dinner as: "Let me introduce you to ---, he's a pagan" =D lol, i wasnt offended, she was being sincere, so much as laughing inside... In another case, at a party, this guy told me: "you know our heavenly father has a plan for us", but i couldnt take him seriously so i laughed, and he said "its really not good to be heathen" lol.. at which i kept giggling irrationally so he went away, maybe he was drunk, anyway...

Yes, no doubt I've been indoctrinated into Western modes of thought and Aristotelian logic, blinding me to the insights of Eastern philosophy. East-West, directional contrivances that are ultimately empty logical dichotomizations of presence. Anyone, anywhere engages in linear/planar-cumulativist metanarratives, its natural, everyone does it. But i also like other stuff too, like giggling irrationally, among other things =D ~~~

You know, reading back, I see that I was way more verbally agressive than I should've been. Sorry. :-/ i apologize for that initial quote, i didnt realize it offended you or any other christians in some way... actually, i was far more attracted to its overt political narrative against, rather than any interest in its rote 'factual' content... im sorry too.

Seventh Day Adventists (in my experience) are pretty wild. I've never met an American one but in Fiji they've gotten a few Fijians to join their ranks. It's pretty crazy. They segragate themselves on one of the islands (not all of Fijian SDAs just ones this one island) to a little village and they have like all these crazy rituals and they talk about how the world is coming to an end when they come to the town market and try to win converts. From what they said, Im glad theyve been mostly unsuccessful. But they could be worse....like Pentacostals. maybe an ethnographer should do some fieldwork on that island lol.. my experience with seven day adventists is almost none, i met one once in school, but she was about as normal as the rest of us, which means she must have been totally crazy :D ... but seriously, there was nothing odd about her. ... i have had a few experiences with mormons though...