Priesthood

So, I've applied and been accepted into the Apostolic Johannite Church Priesthood Formation Program.

I'm very excited about this. I've found a place (or it found me) to further study and explore Gnosticism - and in turn reflect on my own Gnosis.

To put it simply, I will post as often as I can, and this should not interfere too much with that (seeing as I post mainly when I'm at work, heh heh...). However, this blog will also be a way for me to express and reflect my own learnings as I pour my very few hours of free time every week over all these books I'm supposed to read. Good thing I got most of them already...

Congratulations to all my brothers and sister(s?) who are also beginning their studies towards ordination!

PAX

Right and Wrong

Because I am a strict advocate of questioning reality and our relation to it, I felt a need to throw some words up here about it.

Right and Wrong are concepts that humans have struggled with since the beginnings of civilization. As a matter of fact, you can almost define "civilization" as being a group of people with concepts of right and wrong. You can certainly bet that any civilization will view themselves (or ourselves) as having solid, concrete rules in place to ensure that right and wrong are no longer issues.

While this is a good approach in theory, it nearly always falls short of its goals. Hence, a smaller group of people is usually assembled within the larger group to debate about topics and matters of right and wrong.

After a period of time, what is considered right and wrong is usually adopted by society as a "norm." As people evolve towards a higher level of conscience, different approaches to right and wrong often change the society's point of view as to whether their "norm" is right or wrong.

Examples:

(a) Slavery
Up until a couple hundred years ago, slavery was widespread throughout the world. It was considered no problem at all to enlist the aid of a slave to do the work of whatever your heart desired. Since society has began questioning morality, slavery has since been outlawed in nearly all modern society.

(b) Pedophilia
Up until a couple hundred years ago, people would get married at 12 and 13 years of age. A woman was considered adult as soon as she hit her menstrual cycle. A boy was considered adult as soon as he went through puberty. Jewish law states that a boy is an adult at 12-years-old. Muhammed (in Islam) was actually married to a 9-year-old. Within the last couple of hundred years, however, society has viewed the ages and maturity levels of minors quite differently and changed its view on the morality of youthful relationships.

(c) Legal Age
It has been adopted as a norm for our youth today to figure that they are adults when they reach the age of 18. As they reach this age, more opportunities become available for these youths. Smoking, joining the military, getting married, etc. This was another non-existent issue until a couple hundred years ago when people reflected on the maturity of youths, and issued limits on their ages. While it is considered by society to accept a youth into adulthood at age 18, one can drive at age 16, and can't drink alcohol until age 21. Yet, society has accepted 18 as the "legal age."

(d) Marriage
Society has made a collective approach to marriage as being between a man and a woman. While it is not quite clear where we derive this idea of marriage from, society is beginning to reflect what is right and wrong about marriage. Homosexuals are being considered to be given as much right as heterosexuals in marrital issues. Society is in the process of questioning the norm of its morality, and changing it. It has already done so with marriage a few times in history, as it used to be common place for one to marry more than one spouse and even at times marry one's sibling. This is considered immoral by today's standards.


These are just a few examples. So what is it exactly that determines society's morality? Is it a collective conscience that decides what works and what doesn't?

I believe that society is evolving. The more it evolves, the better its values towards preserving humanity and happiness come about. Morality is an evolutionary inevitability, and it is society that sets the rules. Is society always right? No. Will it eventually make amends with right and wrong? Sure. All the examples above support the idea that society is evolving towards a better standard of right and wrong in its morality.

Whether it's always going to be right and wrong, we can only guess. But I do suggest that we, as individuals, always keep our minds open when thinking about these issues. Never let society alone tell you what is right and wrong. We each are able to determine morality.

The Brother of Ignorance: APATHY

There is an old joke that I have always thought really funny:

Reporter: Excuse me, sir, but I'd like to get your opinion on something. What do you think of ignorance and apathy in this country?

Sir: I don't know, and I don't care.

This is a great example of what apathy is. It is a lack of care.

The problem with apathy is that it perpetuates a misguided feeling of separation from the whole. If, for instance, someone is in a problematic situation that you could help them out of, apathy stands between you two and prevents you from caring about the well-being of that other person. It doesn't effect me, so who cares?

There is an excellent parable in Luke that, while probably not it's intended meaning, expresses the trouble with apathy:

29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

While I believe Jesus in this passage was actually displaying a feeling of good neighborship for men between each other, only a blind man could see past the obvious implications here. Priests, considered to be men of God, and Levites - God's servants - are the characters in the parable who show the apathy. This shows that anyone can feel apathetic towards a situation.

What we must be careful about in practice is being mindful towards humanity. Why don't more people give blood? Why is there so much poverty in the world? Why does anyone, in the modern world today, suffer beyond any extreme?

The problem comes from apathy. If more people cared what happened to others, obviously, there would be fewer problems. It doesn't necessarily mean that NO ONE would have problems, as this is a fact of life, but we could definitely allow an easier way to survive.

Apathy doesn't even have to stop with poverty. Our school systems suffer because we lack resources (or a better appropriation of resources). Why? Because fewer people care about the process of education. It doesn't effect them, so they don't feel a need to do anything about it. This breeds more apathy.

Most people can recall with joy an instance in their life when someone showed an act of kindness towards them for no reason. This, also, can breed and populate more kindness within humanity. How much more do you think we can spread the feeling if we TRY to be mindful towards others as often as possible?

Go to blood drives, donate money...and if you're broke, donate TIME. You have your own currency to help the rest of humanity. Spend it.

Do not fall in love with apathy. We all live in this world together - so we must help everyone else survive. If you only help those who help you, what reward is there in that?

The Faith Of a Gnostic

There seems to be some misunderstandings about Gnostics and their relation to "faith" as a substantial force in religious thinking.

Some believe that Gnostics require no faith - they simply "know" what they have to. To an extent, this is true. This has led some to believe that Gnosis is impossible to reach because they just don't "know" what it is they're supposed to know. It's also led to an elitist theory of Gnosticism by those who question its validity, in that we are perceived as believing that only we "know." I will try to shed some light on this, and help clarify a little.

Faith, in and of itself, is a very important step in the Gnostic path. In order to first start down your path, you have to feel some problem in the world - more or less a feeling of "this isn't right." For the Religious, we might call this "questioning your faith." It is only questioning your faith in someone else's beliefs, however.

It might then seem a little lonely because one feels that there is no one who thinks the same. Some might like this feeling of isolation, and a feeling of rebellion of the Whole can take place. This is not always bad, or even mostly bad, as it is just another way to walk down the path.

For the Gnostic, to start down a path to Gnosis is to have faith that he/she will become aware of Gnosis. You have to believe it's there in order to proceed. If you are of the belief that the idea of realizing Gnosis is all illusion, you will more than likely drown yourself out of the sensations neccesary to realize Gnosis.

When Gnosis is finally surfaced - when it is brought to the conscious level - it is only then that it becomes a matter of "knowing." Faith is no longer a big issue, but it is still there. You have to have faith in your knowledge to believe it's real. You have to know that what you are feeling is real, and you have to believe it's real. This, of course, is not a big problem. It's like believing you got cut when you see your finger bleeding.

To put it lightly, Gnosticism is a faithful religious practice. However, it's not based off faith, it's based off the experience of Gnosis. The goal is not to stop at faith, but to keep going until it's no longer a matter of faith. Once that point is reached, a maze of other reflective goals appear, so that it never satisfies a person to stop searching for deeper and better understanding of said knowledge.

Faith is not salvific. Faith is merely a step towards that salvation. Gnosis is the goal.

Joshua or Isabelle Daher

Almost 11 weeks old!

It's getting good. Trying to stay relaxed. Breathe.

I feel a sense of amazement at this whole pregnancy. I heard his/her heartbeat today, and I almost cried. It really overcame me. I didn't know I'd get so attached this early. I can't wait!

Gnosis Is Not Gained

We are here for Gnosis. This is the point. That's why you're on this site, and why you spend countless hours searching for answers. Gnosis is the point of existence. So how do you get it?

The answer, silly, is that you don't GET gnosis. You already have it. You just have to become AWARE that you have it.

Gnosis is awareness of being aware. It is the point to where we long to return. It is realizing the source of self. You become aware of your gnosis, and you realize what/who "I AM." The "I Am" here, of course, is the spirit of you, me, and the Divine.

Point here is: stop looking for gnosis outside of yourself. Realize that it's with you, constantly. There is no need to seek it out.

Be still. Stop thinking. Realize.
You know.

Gnosticism

Gnosticism - The view of life through an experience of gnosis.

There have been a few places where struggling to define Gnosticism in theological terms has led to even bigger and more horrible discussions about the use and general relevance of theology in Gnosticism to begin with. It occurs to me that some might be trying to argue too much about word meanings and not enough on the actual intent on the message.

From what I've seen, Gnosticism is a very secluded religion. There are no big huge Gnostic megachurches, and there are no cathedrals. You can't just walk down the street and join a Gnostic church, much less find a priest or minister to help you better understand the experience of gnosis, even if you just want help becoming aware of it yourself. The horrible truth of it is many miss out on the freedom of gnosis because we cannot comfortably give a concise definition of Gnosticism. When one who has not become aware of Gnosis approaches Gnosticism, he/she will either be interested or not. To those who are not interested, they usually require more information at a greater depth.

To argue whether this is important seems to be a rediculous point to take. If we are to share our gnosis with others, we must invite others to the table. We must take an approach to defining what it is we view Gnosticism as, not so we feel better at night, but so we can open our doors to those who might show interest in the field.

I had never even heard of Gnosticism until three years ago. This was not because I was happy with my religion and was not searching. This was not because I didn't read a lot, or because I just didn't look for the answers. I looked, trust me. I had heard of Wicca and Fairy Magic and Masons, but not Gnosticism in general. I hadn't heard of it because it is not taken seriously as a religion, and therefore few people talk about it.

I don't believe we should try to define Gnosticism for ourselves to feel better about what we practice. I believe we should look for a theological definition that is acedemically accepted so that we may begin the processes of approaching a scholarly study of it.

We must make Gnosticism accessible to people of all walks, and in the modern world, that's through our educational processes. If we cannot explore a Gnostic defintion of Gnosticism, our way of life will only be cycled between a very few. The fact that this is the case now is a travesty.

Gnosis of the Soul

It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long, . . without shadow, without darkness, without air and without space, intangible, odorless, tasteless, without eye, without ear, without voice, without mind, without energy, without breath, without mouth . . unaging, undying, without fear, immortal, without stain, without measure, without inside and without inside.

[Brihadaranyaka 3.8.8]

Upanishads

Bible Worship

Here in the deep south, I reside in an area commonly referred to as "the Bible Belt." What this means is that there are a bunch of Southern Baptists and Anglo-Protestant movements that all seem to derive their message from one source: the Holy Bible.

While it has been a Christian source of inspiration for centuries, it's growing reputation for being the "inerrant word of God" has actually created a purely brainwashed culture. Where normally sane, rational, intelligent people would collaborate and decide whether general information is acurate or trustworthy, there seems to be a lack of such common sense when the Bible, or what is perceived to be Biblical teachings, is brought into the mix.

While drawing inspiration from historical and religious related texts is quite honorable, the exagerrated form in question is quite reasonably a step backwards.

For example: the issue has been brought to many school boards across the country whether the Theory of Evolution should be taught as school curriculum. They (those who oppose evolution) argue that the Theory of Evolution has not been proven, and that they have an equally valid theory which includes God into the mix, and therefore, if evolution is taught, so must their Intelligent Design theory - in the interest of "fairness." Of course, the holes in their train of thought are (1) Evolution has been proven (the "theory"is not whether evolution exists, but about the mechanics of evolution, i.e. how it works), (2) there is no religious bias in the scientific methods to determine evolution, and (3) their Intelligent Design theory has no provable scientific thought and cannot be taken as anything other than faith. To teach a particular brand of "faith" in school and limiting the reliablity of proven testable theories is against moral ethics and common reason.

The basis of the argument for Intelligent Design is that they do not except the Theory of Evolution because it goes against their religious beliefs. Regardless of how it is presented, this is the obvious fact of the argument. And those that bring this debate to the table are generally going by the Biblical account of Genesis.

Why is it we can't have both? Why is it that if you believe in Evolution, you have to discount Divine involvement?

Many more books have been made to appease the two, and reconcile the two ideas as both being valid. This is a farce and should be treated as patronization.

The truth of it should be that the Bible, while inspirational and well written, is NOT from God. It is NOT the be-all end-all of the religious kingdom. Neither is the Qu'ran, nor the Torah (even though it is included in the Bible). When people start waking up to the conclusion that all these texts - including the discoveries of Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea - are man's account of things in the natural and spiritual world and they are NOT God's rules on the subjects, an age of reason might take place, and from there a step into people's own spirituality can be explored.

To come to the conclusion that any of these texts contains the only answers we'll ever need is to eliminate any possibility of error, and in effect creates a circle of perfection around a material object. This leads to a form of idolatrous Bible worship, as one finds whatever means possible to defend its perfection.

The answers are not written down to find. They are not in an instruction book, or on the pages of some long lost text. The answers are within, as they have always been. All we have to do is look.

Reuniting Reality

Once given a proper look, ignorance can be percieved as the barrier which breaks down unification. This is not saying ignorance is stupidity, but rather a lack of knowing.

Once this is realized, the rest of the pieces fall like dominos. From ignorance is born separation, a feeling of one's self apart from the rest of the whole. Whether you can think it, know it, or feel it, all of humanity and nature is one. To view it scientifically, we are all gaseous molecules and atoms floating around in space, constantly colliding with one another and continually spawning new molecules and new forms. Take a few lenses off the microscope and yet still more mystery is unveiled. What we once thought of as "our body" is swarming with life forms, both parasitic and benign.

The point here is that reality is not so separate. What we view as "you" and "me" is in effect "us." The separateness that is felt between the two is simply an unconcious level of not being able to feel that atomic connection between each other.

Gnosis is, in some ways, a regaining of that feeling. To be able to feel your connection to the wholeness of nature is startling. It is a jolt of feeling that actually provides a sense of clarity. Enlightenment. Beginning as a realization of the self, i.e. the self beyond the physical, the clarity of the relation to the world is unveiled.

You find yourself being able to feel that you are not looking through your eyes, feeling with your hands, or breathing with your lungs. You find that "you" just "are." All other sensations are just the material way of intaking information. Each physical sensation is just another electrical impulse to the brain. You are almost able to shed the body, and consciously "float."

Beyond these experiences, the next goal is to be able to return to this state of mind. The more one can realize their gnosis, the easier it is to realize on a day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, second to second basis.

Gnōthi Seauton

“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”


Teilhard de Chardin
French Geologist, Priest, and Mystic
1881 - 1955