What do Gnostics do?

Ideally the answer would be- 'They achieve Gnosis' - but I don't believe this answer can be given in context of modern Gnosticism.

This is a popular question among those that first approach Gnosticism in it's various forms, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to get a whole lot of answers.

Why?

It seems to me that the answers lie in a variety of places, so I will first give a summary of these and then approach the points in greater detail.

1) While history has afforded us a good deal of material in terms of the Gnostic world-view, it has not afforded us equal detail into the actual practice of Gnostics.

2) Most exploration of Gnosticism today comes in the form of hobby study, academic research and dissatisfaction with existing religious approaches- this is what the newcomer to Gnosticism sees, and this is what they perpetuate.

3) That most 'Gnostics' themselves do not provide through their own work, a coherent praxis towards achieving Gnosis.

All of these points are related.

So now let's begin to examine them in a bit more detail (I say a bit, because I don't want to get overly windy here).

1) While history has afforded us a good deal of material in terms of the Gnostic world-view, it has not afforded us equal detail into the actual practice of Gnostics.

We have countless material outlining the commonalities between Gnostic sects, their views and cosmologies. All of these documents (The Nag Hammadi for example) are the largely the result of the experience of Gnosis.

The material is chocked full of metaphors, symbol sets, wisdom sayings and complex mythologies as to the 'why' behind our present situation. There are endless debates as to whether or not things like the Demiurge or the Archons are to be taken as literal beings or as symbols embodying concepts.

What it isn't full of is -method-. These texts are a result of the paths of those that wrote them- however they do not state how it is they got there (and yes I know there are ritual references, symbolic references etc- what I am talking about is a point blank methodology such as that found in the Eight Fold Path of Buddhism for example. Good examples of texts with practical information are the Greek Magical Papyri, The Books of IEU. )

As such we as Gnostics have followed the historical and 'tradition' expounded example of our forebearers. We know the early Gnostics (many of them at least) adhered to a Sacramental and ecclesial understanding as well as the concept of Initiation. Many early Gnostics were comfortable pursuing their paths within the proto-orthodox and orthodox churches of their day, though holding to deeper interpretations and insights on the nature of what the rituals of 'the Church' entail and what they provide.

Thus it is today that we have, continuing their ecclesial work and the work of later Gnostic communities that have organized themselves along ecclesial lines, Gnostic Churches.

2) Most exploration of Gnosticism today comes in the form of hobby study, academic research and dissatisfaction with existing religious approaches- this is what the newcomer to Gnosticism sees, and this is what they perpetuate.

The appearance of the Nag Hammadi texts has been, in my opinion, both a blessing and a curse. We have a large body of material that has allowed us to take a look at early Gnosticism through the eyes of it's holy texts and not merely through the rabid attacks of the heresiologists and Church Fathers.

However, as I said, I believe this to be, in part, a curse.

While the texts have certainly increased the interest in Gnosticism for the outside world, from the point of view of Gnostics and would-be Gnostics themselves, it has helped create an equally voluminous problem within the Gnostic movement.

Most Gnostics, it seems to me, are not very concerned with the actual achievement of Gnosis itself. The library, the internet and coffee shops are humming with Gnosticism as a topic of hobby study, 'academic' research and also as a vessel for the venting of dissatisfaction with existing religious approaches.

From debates on the meaning behind the Nag Hammadi, to modern applications of 'Gnostic world view', the topic of Gnosticism and Gnosis has largely become that- a topic.

This isn't to say that these things (discussion of meaning, modern applications of Gnostic 'philosophy') are not beneficial- certainly they are, and certainly they are a part of the process we call Gnosis- all wisdom begins with the willingness to ask questions. However, it is the view of this Gnostic that we are coming dangerously close to creating a new orthodoxy devoid of modern experience and revelation and dominated by opinion also devoid of experience

Assuming I am not the only one that sees this problem,. how are -we- as -Gnostics- contributing to this problem specifically, and to a proper modern relevance of Gnosticism and Gnosis generally?

3) That most 'Gnostics' themselves do not provide through their own work, a coherent praxis towards achieving Gnosis.

The answer to my question lies in my third point. Simply put, as a result of our lack of willingness (yes, I know this is a strong term) to actually pursue Gnosis experientially and not just intellectually, we are creating a situation whereby any example we may give to others is sorely lacking in the experiential principle that is behind the whole of Gnosticism- Gnosis itself.

The vehicle of the Gnostic Ecclesia has been a valuable one, it has allowed us to form and work within community and given us points of unity in expression (and thankfully not uniformity)- through it's rituals and it's dialogue-creating environment.

However, it has also given us a crutch- whereby we have transformed signposts into the thing pointed to and exchanged the map for the territory. Why? Because we are forgetting a key
component of Gnostic ritual- That 'Deeper understanding' mentioned above- I will cover this in it's own section.

Don't get me wrong- I am a big supporter of Sacramental Gnosticism (I would not have taken Holy Orders if I did not hold strongly to the value of their presence) but what we seem to forget (for those of us that adhere to Sacramental Gnosticism) is that these things point something greater and are -not- the thing themselves.

Do I think that the experience of the Sacraments as expressed in the modern Gnostic Ecclesia can lead to Gnosis, absolutely- but the key word here is Lead. Lead and not carry, lead and not grant, lead and not bestow.

When something leads, it implies another half, something follows- The Sacraments with their initiatory quality open a path before us, veiled in allegory, symbol and introspection, that we can follow towards the experience of Gnosis. We can only do this however, if we are willing to walk.

If we stop at the Sacraments and an exoteric understanding of the Rites of the Ecclesia and thus a de facto expression that these things alone will lead to Gnosis, then all we have done is exchanged Grace for Gnosis in terms of traditional sacramentology. We run the dangerous risk of presenting a tradition that apes entirely the orthodox expression that we repeatedly say to ourselves 'is not enough'. We swap Father for 'Unknown Father', Logos for Son, Satan for the Demiurge, Heaven for Pleroma and all we have is fringe Christianity that hasn't really left the backyard of orthodoxy, all while claiming to have / threatening to, 'run away'.

The Secret of Intent

What we need to remember about Gnostic scripture and 'tradition' is that these things were attempts to express the inexpressible, not once-off revelations that are bound in stone.
Gnosticism and Gnosis itself has always been about the ever-present 'New-now-ness of that noetic apprehension we call Gnosis' as my teacher once said.

To rest the whole of our gnostic existence on them without individual validation through experience is to simply commit ourselves to another brand of 'faith'- taken at face value and on it's own word.

Now. given the limitedness of historical resources to the methods and approaches of our ancient predecessors, how then should we proceed towards working out the achievement of Gnosis itself.

First we do have to go back to the Gnostic and Ecclesia. I mentioned, and many of you know, that many early Gnostics attended and participated in the ceremonies of their orthodox counterparts. They found value in them because of the particular view they held of them and their effect. So I have had to ask myself- what is this view? Is it simply that when they heard terms like Father, Son and Spirit, they simply replaced in their mind Pleroma, Logos and Pnuema Hagion?

Some might but I think it was deeper than this- much, much, deeper.

If we can draw anything of value from the Gnostic texts, it is in the form of where they intersect. One of the key aspects of Gnostic scripture if not -the- key aspect is the presence of Divine within the being of mankind.

All of the 'origin' texts- Apocryphon of John, On the Origin of the World, The Hypostasis of the Archons etc, are symbolic and mythological explanations and pointers to this reality.

The Kingdom of Heaven is here now, the Pleroma is right here, right now. Your body, your mind, your speech and your actions are inseparable from the Logos. We do not need to look outside of ourselves for that which we seek, we only need to understand experientially that it is already there.

As I have mentioned, all of the rituals of the Gnostic Ecclesia are to lead us to somewhere, and are not to bestow on us something we do not have. All of them, from Baptism, to Confirmation, the Eucharist, to Unction, point to the fact that it is already present.

In the Eucharist for example, is not so much that the elements are transformed into something that they previously were not- the Body and Blood of the Logos but to point that they always were the body and blood of the Logos. It is not the elements so much that are changed but rather it is, or should be, that it is our perception that is to be changed.

(This isn't to say that a change does not take place within the elements and the context of the priesthood but rather that material never ceased to partake in the larger scheme of it's origin. The Gnostic mythology points to the ignorant Demiurge as having fashioned the material universe, but even he has his ultimate origin in that which we called the Fullness. Matter has always partaken of this reality, but is 'merely' clouded over by our lack of perception.

The role of the priest is to rend the veil of ignorance for a short time to allows us to perceive for that duration, the reality underneath- provided with intent, that we are willing to look. It is this perception of reality that overtime wears away the shroud of the Demiurge to see the everpresent Pleroma)

The intent in all these rituals is to remind us of the fact of our Being, to tell us over and over and over, until we remember finally and definitively for ourselves. It is thus that we find the origin of the distaste of the Gnostic for a priesthood- because those that achieve full realization, need no priest. A distinction should be made here between Understanding (Gnosis)and Being (Apotheosis) however. Until such a time whereby we achieve Apotheosis, we must make use of Gnosis and the methods which lead us to Gnosis until the process of Realization is complete. Thus the role of the Ecclesia, as it was for our predecessors, is essential.

When we are mindful of this intention and bring it to bear in all that we do, eventually we find the prayer of the lips transformed into the prayer of the heart- with the above intent and realization at the forefront of our awareness, all acts become Gnostic practices.

Without this realization and intent, you can attend as many Gnostic gatherings and services as you want, and you are still -not- a Gnostic. However with this intent, all acts, all practices become potential acts of Gnosis.

Additional Solutions/Practices in addition to the Gnostic Ecclesia

These can be wide and varied, and need not come strictly from within the Gnostic mythology- my experiences of Gnosis to date have all (save for one) come from within the practice of Ritual Magick.

Does this mean that everyone should take on the study and practice of Ritual Magick? Certainly not. The key thing here is to search, which implies both looking and exploration from a literal testing standpoint. .

Gnosis is the central experience to which Gnosticism points to- but Gnosticism isn't the thing itself- Gnosis can be achieved with the methods of Thelema, Ceremonial Magick , Buddhism and countless other systems.

However if the system is to be valid in achieving Gnosis, it has to provide a way to experientially address the very things that Gnosis itself illuminates.

The natures of Perception, Awareness, Ignorance, the 'Self', the Divine etc.

Questioning is the beginning of wisdom and often the right questions are as big of keys to understanding as any answers we may find.

So what would I recommend as a practical solutions to holes in Gnostic practice?

Begin exploring the techniques that are specifically and historically tied to the pursuit of awareness and spiritual experience- (some examples:)

Hesychasm- The Eastern Orthodox method of contemplative prayer- which combines mantra, posture, and breathing (orthodox christian)

Shamatha/Zazen- Meditation designed to still the mind, and build concentration and awareness (Buddhist)

Centering Prayer - Christian contemplative prayer- having elements in common with the above techniques (orthodox christian)

Assumption of 'Godforms' - Ritual technique and practice designed to not only invoke the qualities of the Divine under numerous forms but also self-identification with the same towards developing and manifesting those same qualities.

These practices work easily with both intent and the development of the same. The limitedness of coherent praxis is only as limited as the understanding you approach it with- all practice, when bearing in mind the reality of our Being, can become Gnostic practice.

Thus though regular usage of these techniques (and others) and if possible working with a Gnostic Church, we can then begin to move towards (if not achieve) Realization. When the Gnostics of the future look back on us to see what -we- did and where it has gotten us- will they see Gnostics who 'knew' through experiential understanding and application or will they see us pointing back further to those who knew before us.

Will we write the scripture of our lives on the papyrus of our paths, with the ink of our actions or point back to the expression of another, devoid of the relevance of the present and essential NOW.