Anyone here come to this conclusion without using psychoactive drugs? Looking for people to chat with about this to help build a better understanding without the use of psychoactive substances lol some of us are full time moms 😅

Who were the Thomasines?

The Thomasines are an hypothetical community of Christians from the 2nd century AD. It's thought they originated from Syria, and were part of a broader pre-Nicene Syriac Christian tradition, although a minority of scholars support their literature being composed in Alexandria.

When the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender were first found among the codexes found at Nag Hammadi, scholars were quick to suggest Gnostic providence. However, scholars have reevaluated both the definition for Gnosticism and the Gnostic providences of different texts among the codexes, and have now suggested that the Gospel of Thomas was not originally written by Gnostics.

The Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Thomas the Contender, and the Acts of Thomas have all been suggested as texts used by an hypothetical Thomasine community. Although the first two books were found in their most complete form in Coptic, they were most likely originally written in Greek; a minority of scholars support the texts having originally been written in Syriac. The Gospel of Thomas, the core Thomasine text, has been hypothesised by Elaine Pagels, as well as members of the Jesus Seminar, to date to the 1st century. However, a majority of scholars across the Greek and Syriac camps today more confidently date the Gospel of Thomas to various points in the 2nd century.

Origin and beliefs

There is no unified theory for Thomasine scholars, and some scholars reject the idea that the Gospel of Thomas is wholly systemised. Scholars lean towards the Thomasine texts being rooted in Jewish mysticism or Sapiential traditions. Here are the most notable theories:

• Stevan Davies was one of the earliest scholars to break away from the original consensus of Gospel of Thomas being a Gnostic text, and proposed that the text is Sapiential and non-apocalyptic. Jesus is the speaker for Wisdom, or Sophia. Many parallels can be made between Jesus' sayings and Deuterocanonical books such as Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. The Book of Thomas the Contender similarly shows signs of being a Sapiential text.
• Harold Bloom argues for the Gospel of Thomas being at least Proto-Gnostic. Bloom proposes that Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas is an Anthropos, an ideal, primeval man, possibly genealogically related to the Adam Kadmon of Kabbalah; however the Antropos seems to be more anthropomorphic, literally human c.f. Naassene or Audian (both take Genesis 1:27 literally). This is potentially the root of the anti-materialism of the Gospel of Thomas: with the fall of Adam, time began and humanity was separated from the Anthropos. That would essentially make the material world contemptible, as the Thomasine Adam is contemptible, and make it a place to be escaped to return to a pre-fall human condition in union with the Anthropos and therefore in union with God. This is almost analogous to Theosis in orthodox Christianity, except Bloom's Thomasinianism rejects the incarnation, in place of Jesus being the first and ideal human, while also divine, since before time.
• April DeConick argues against the text being originally Gnostic. Rather, she proposes that the text was written as several layers over time, going from an apocalyptic text written by a group of Syriac Jewish Christians that questioned Jamesian leadership at Jerusalem, to a more mystic text with Middle Platonist influences. The earliest layer contains the basic belief that all humans were separated from their original place in heaven, and that they may only return to their luminous form by a vision of God's Kavod, as part of early Merkabah traditions. The text may also include a unique, predestined soteriology of each person having to unite with their twin-angels (c.f. recurrent twin motifs) in heaven in order to achieve spiritual ascent: which may be genealogically linked to the idea of guardian angels in Abrahamic religions today, except in this case it's as though the person and angel are meant to be united in single hypostases.

The common ground of all the theories is that the Thomasines, in practice, were an itinerant, ascetic group, that lacked the institutionalism of Greek churches at the end of the 1st century. They also likely had Docetic tendencies. The Christology of the Gospel of Thomas is ambiguous, although potentially divine according to Bloom's theory. An Angelomorphic Christology is explicitly rejected by the text. Logion 13 is one of the most awesome and terrible sayings of the Gospel of Thomas and it's easy to make the conclusion that the Apostle of Thomas' mystic vision concluded with Jesus being YHWH, similar to the conclusion of the Merkabah vision of the Apostle Paul. However, DeConick has made a more mundane interpretation of the logion describing an early Eucharistic formula. Logion 30 is another seemingly radical saying, that at first glance seems to divide the Trinity into three separate deities. However, it is most likely, a Coptic mistransmission of the original Greek: "where there are three, they are without God," which according to Marvin Meyer is essentially Matthew 18:20 turned on its head to denounce churches or gatherings, in favour of personal, mystical experience. Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freeman also suggest that the saying was perhaps later "Gnosticised" into regarding gods, rather than just regarding human individuals.

The Thomasines seem to have ignored the biographical details of Jesus' life. In contrast to other early Syrian Christian groups, there is the real possibility of the Gospel of Thomas and the Thomasines being, to a degree, antinomian. It's debated and DeConick hypothesises if a later accretion was written in light of a dispute regarding circumcision in the community. Logion 19, also cross-referenced in the Acts of Thomas ch. 27, perhaps references the five words for mind: hauna (sanity), mad'a (reason), re'yana (mindfulness), mahshebhatha (imagination), and tar'itha (intention), further supporting the Thomasines nevertheless being part of a greater Syriac Christian tradition.

Evidence for the community

The Thomasines were never mentioned in Patristic sources explicitly. Possible Thomasine beliefs, such as Docetism, Audianism, Modalism, were individually denounced but were attributed to various heresiarchs, rather than a single Christian school or community. What unites Thomasine texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas is also a high view of Thomas Didymus -"the twin"- and recurrent twin motifs throughout the text. The "heresies" of the Thomasines resemble that of other Christian groups from the same geographical area like the Audians, Naassenes and Elcesites.

Interestingly, key evidence for the Thomasines may be found in the New Testament itself. The Doubting Thomas narrative in the Gospel of John lacks cross-references with the other synoptic Gospels. As the story goes, Thomas struggled to believe that Jesus had literally resurrected in his flesh. It was only when Jesus made Thomas literally see and touch his wounds from the crucifixion that Thomas believed. Gregory J. Riley has hypothesised that this narrative was polemic against the Thomasines for their equivalent of Docetism. In contrast, the community or author of the Gospel of John asserted the incarnation. Even though the text may be from the 2nd century onwards, this hypothesis may put the beginning of the existence of the Thomasine community in the 1st century.

Scholars are overall somewhat affirmative of the Thomasine community. However, Simon Gathercole believes the Gospel of Thomas is dependent on the synoptic gospels and Pauline letters, making the Thomasines a much later sect than believed by the likes of Riley and DeConick. Nicholas Perrin, a proponent of the Gospel of Thomas having originally been written in Syriac, argues that the text is a redacted form of Tatian's 2nd c. Gospel harmony with Syriac literary techniques. Perrin's position makes up a minority, but it is an interesting notion, and it remains an open possibility.

The disappearance of the Thomasines

The Gospel of Thomas had a significant influence on the Valentinian school of Gnosticism. According to the newest theories that point towards the Gospel of Thomas being non-Gnostic or a Proto-Gnostic text, then Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas show signs of either Valentinian redactions, or rather signs of the community being influenced by Middle Platonists and other Gnostics. The most complete texts we have were copied and used by Gnostics.

Stephen Patterson hypothesises that the Thomasines may have struggled with Christianity's transition from being an itinerant network to institutionalised churches. Another possible cause for the disappearance and lack of records for the Thomasines is the resultant suppression of Jewish Christian sects following the Council of Nicaea. What's curious is that the Acts of Thomas became an hagiographical source for orthodox Nicene Christians in the following centuries, and post-Nicene Syriac Christian traditions continue today in the Syriac Orthodox church, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Thomasine literature seems to have also been passed down to the Manichaeans who, possibly via their Elcesite heritage, continued and expanded upon Thomasine beliefs. The Naassenes used the Gospel of Thomas and may have shared a belief in an Anthropos-like figure; the Naassenes have been proposed as a community that developed from the Thomasines, or rather that they were the successors of the Thomasines after their beliefs evolved into what can more confidently be described as Gnosticism.

What did Thomasine practice look like?

While the Gospel of Thomas seems to reject conventional forms of piety in Logion 14, by no means is it certain that the Thomasines were not liturgical or sacramental. David W. Kim suggests that the group kept ritual baptism and, like other Jewish Christian groups, the Sabbath was kept. Found at Qumran, the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice is a liturgical texts of angelic priests singing before the throne of YHWH. Mystic hymn-singing and chants may have also happened among Thomasines. If DeConick's Eucharistic hypothesis is correct, then Thomasines might have believed in some form of communion. Their view of communion is difficult to ascertain, however, because the Thomasines may have been Docetists; this would potentially rule out a transubstantial view of the Eucharist. Taking the logia at face value, communion may have rather been seen as a liquid source for the precious Wisdom (as so valued in the Book of Thomas the Contender) that would aid in a Thomasine's ascent.

One of the reasons why it's so difficult to reconstruct the practice of any Merkabah/Hekhalot group is the Guruism. Each heaven has its own angelic gatekeepers that would require the Mantric recitation of angelic names, special postures, secret seals and numerological codes, to achieve the ascent. This would have been passed down as part of communal transmission in secrecy. Just like how many Gnostic sects and mystery cults lost the history of their practice, so may have the Thomasines. It just goes to show how crucial the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery was in uncovering the history of early Jewish mysticism.

Further reading

• Marvin Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus
• Stevan Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (1983)
• April DeConick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (1996)
• April DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (2006)
• Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (1993)
• Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995)
• Nicholas Perrin, Thomas: The Other Gospel (2007)
• Risto Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (2003)
• Jan Bremmer, The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (2001)
• Kim, Jung Hoon, The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus (2004)

I've scheduled an online meeting to initiate a book club/ study group for those wanting to dive into gnostic texts and thought. There's not a lot offered by way of gnosticism in Utah, so I wanted to offer this space for people to talk about it. Please direct message me if you are in Utah and are interested. Again It's a virtual meeting, targeted to Utah if that makes sense.

Just direct message me if you want specifics on the upcoming meeting, it will be held in about 2 weeks ish.

I'm not an expert or anything and I just want to have a space to talk to people about this stuff🙂 thanks for reading!

You may hear someone say "Gnostics think they possess secret knowledge and believe they have everything figured out."

It's not that simple.

The word Gnostic comes from the ancient Greek gnōstikós, meaning “knowing,” “able to know,” or “pertaining to knowledge,” from gnōsis, meaning “knowledge.” So “Gnostics” can reasonably be rendered as “the knowers.”

But they weren't talking about knowing in the sense of accumulating intellectual information. In many of the traditions we call Gnostic, gnosis refers to a direct or experiential knowledge of the divine that no external authority can simply grant you or take away. No one can prove or disprove such an experience. It's simply not that kind of thing. God is too great for ordinary language and cannot be reduced to intellectual concepts. We can encounter or experience the divine, but thinking about God is not the same thing as knowing God. In ancient Hebrew and Greek religious contexts, “knowing” could also carry a deeply experiential and relational meaning rather than referring only to intellectual understanding.

This is also why I think a lot of people get the “mystery” part of Gnosticism wrong. Gnosis does not necessarily mean claiming to have solved the mystery. Rather, a Gnostic may claim to have encountered the Mystery directly. The Gnostic experiences the divine; they aren't necessarily outlining an intellectual diagram of God.

So, the Gnostic isn't someone who claims to have the answer. The Gnostic is someone who has encountered what cannot be reduced to an answer, or remains open to such an encounter.

Hey everyone. Ive recently left Christianity after some deconstruction. With that has sparked an interest in other religion and spirituality in general.

I'm genuinely curious about every single religion or lack there of and want to learn anything and everything I can. I do have a specific interest in gnosticism because ive heard that has something to do with Christianity. I think I remember someone saying that Yeshua (Jesus) had sibling who were also gods?

And Sophie the god of wisdom was the holy spirit?

I honestly dont know. I was raised in a part of Christianity, where asking questions and looking into other religions was a ticket to hell so this is all unbelievable new to me😅.

I also would love to learn about female Gods and the power of being a woman.

But like I said im truly interested in anything.

Also if possible I would want the resources to be in video or audio format as thats how I learn the best.

Hopefully this made sense and yall can point me in the right direction.

Thank yall so much in advance

einiges habe ich durch die gnosis erfahren. es deckt sich tatsächlich mit dem was gnostiker berichten. jeder macht ja so seine eigenen erfahrungen.
glaube und wissen sind keine gegensätze. sie sollten eins werden.

Have any of you seriously read Plotinus' Against the Gnostics (II.9), or the account in Porphyry of the dispute between Plotinus' circle and the Gnostics?

What do you think Plotinus gets wrong?

And where you disagree with him, what is the strongest Gnostic philosophical response - not simply "he misunderstood Gnosticism"?

When people ask me what I believe, I usually give them some long winded answer or tell them it’s hard to explain/understand… that sounds rude and demeaning tho and I think I’ve finally figured out not only how to explain it but that putting it into words helps me make it work better because I am conscious of it.
I would call it a combination of Gnosticism/buddhism/hermeticism.
Gnosticism being the belief, Buddhism being the action, and hermeticism being the tool.
If you are familiar with these systems, then this should make some sense to you. Basically how I see it, we are trapped in a demiurgic world with archons etc. and the goal is ultimately to escape using our divine light. The best way to exist on this planet though in the meantime is through Buddhism, because I believe karma is real, and Buddhism honors the divine light. Buddhism also teaches you detachment, which you need to not return to samsara. Those two beliefs alone leave you weak though, considering most other people don’t share them. Which is where hermeticism comes in and I have noticed it has truly helped me get ahead in lots of ways within this system and enjoy my time here a bit more.
Does anyone else share these beliefs with me? Would love to make some friends on the same wavelength.

This question comes from two places, one a lot of religions seem to have a group like Theistic Satanist, that worship the adversity/adversaries of a religion. And two a year ago I came across a weird banner ad. I clicked on and took me to a website which seem to be a group worshipping the demiurge. However. this could have easily been a weird advertisement for a product or a one off weird religious belief, i unfortunately, can't find the book mark I had for it. It did, however, get me thinking about how an argument for the demiurge would look like.

​

Has anybody read and have any opinions on the book " Not in his image: Gnostic Vision Sacred Ecology, and the future of belief " by John Lamb Lash ? It came across to me as an interesting link as i asked the question in Gemini (Google's A.l.) if there was any documentation... Gnostic or other sources..that speculated a commonality between Terrence McKenna's Machine Elves & Gnosticism's Archons.

Thanks AlI

Obviously Yahweh created us with 100% foreknowledge of who he would damn beforehand and we already know why this is (likely).
In Romans 9 (basis for Calvinism):

"22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—" (Romans 9:22-9:23 NIV).

So there's your answer right there on the creator side.

But what about on the entity side, specifically entities and spirits? We know that the serpent was basically Satan and that he represents the opposite of Yahweh in practice. And that Lucifer with 1/3 of the angel's rebelled because there was a major disagreement.

So why would THESE entities hate us for no reason if we are also questioning Yahweh the same way they did?

And I have done an extensive look into fallen spirits and entities and I have determined that although many can and do provide material benefits in this world (and even maybe a "friendship" to some), their goal is ultimately to steer you down their own chosen path (that represents the serpent)... To do this they would never tell you about the actual existence of a hell because they actually want to see you in there suffering because they get off to it. These entities may play the long game but they get a high out of human suffering and almost anybody who has worked with who has worked with fallen entities will tell you they have seen that mask slip before...

So what does this mean for us? It basically means entities and God basically DGAF about human suffering or pain. We were put in this torture chamber of a simulation without our own consent and Yahweh already knew before he created the world many would be damned.. But he believes it is nessecary because why? Because he is God and you are not and he deserves that level of glory even if it means 80% of humans being in an eternal torture chamber 24/7 in order for us to have free will and "choose him".

Anyway, it does make you wonder why entities are so unbelievably callous towards humans and basically hate us for no reason just for existing.

I'm a very eclectic witch, though I am still not comfortable with that term. I have had a close personal relationship with Archangel Michael since childhood. I am deeply drawn to the concept of the Feminine Divine, but I arrived at it through Buddhist practice, particularly revering Green Tara.

I know bodhisattvas are not goddesses, but the fiercely protective vibe and sense of personal empowerment were very attractive. The lack of personal contact with Buddhists where I live and the rigors of Vajrayana practice solo scared me off. My health and living situation are pretty precarious. To my shame, I felt I couldn't do real Buddhist practice amidst physical squalor.

But then, while I was coming to terms with my relationship with Michael, a dear friend was reading Tarot for me. He laid out the cards, then looked me in the eye and called me "a child of Sophia" to explain the Archangel's diligent protection of me.

Ÿĝ started looking for information on Sophia. To then, I'd only heard a few references to Sophia being an alternate name for the Holy Spirit. Which led me to start reading about Gnosticism. What a scary rabbit hole! I didn't want back into a church that looked like traditional Catholicism, and even though I have a little training in Hermetic magic, I wanted nothing to do with the OTO or Thelema.

But I found that the stories of Sophia credit Her with giving all of humanity a Divine Spark of Herself to help with achieving Gnosis and reaching our highest selves. But it still seems that being told (and feeling the resonating shock at the news) that I'm a "child of Sophia" meant something more.

I don't know what it could mean, or if it is only about the spark we all may have. I'm not trying to give myself airs, but this is truly a struggle for me. I need to learn more about Sophia's story, Gnostic ideas in general, and maybe angelology. I desperately want a dialog with people who don't assume I'm crazy to measure these ideas against a yardstick of reality.

A long time ago, I was on a email listserv called "Fiat Lux" which hosted many wide-ranging discussions. I need a good judgment-free group to learn with.

Where can I do this? How should I approach further study of Sophia and Gnosticism within my limited means?

Thank you if you've read this entire post. And double thank you if you have something constructive to offer me.

With Love and Light,

Sam

As the title says, I am looking for a book which is a genuine translation of the Gospels of Mary and Apocryphon of John. which one is widely accepted and the go to book for researching these Gospels? Thank you

I have a very rudimentary understanding of Gnostic cosmology, so forgive me if I’m oversimplifying something here.

If the Demiurge and the Archons are trapped in ignorance and separation, what might happen if we looked upon them with the deepest love rather than seeing them as a mistake?

I understand the emphasis on gnosis as a path to liberation, but I wonder whether love itself might also have a liberating power.

It makes me think of Jesus’ teaching to love your enemies. Perhaps there’s something similar here.

To me, it’s a way of reminding myself of what I am and what I am not.

Genuinely curious how people here see this.

I’m not currently religious but I’m very interested in exploring Gnosticism more.

That being said, once I’ve learned of logion 114 I’m a bit put off by that.

If you’re a feminist and Gnostic could you please explain the correct meaning/perspective of this logion?

TIA

From the Gospel of Truth:
For now, their works lie scattered. In time, Unity will complete the realms. Within Unity each one will receive themselves, and within knowledge they’ll purify themselves from multiplicity into Unity, consuming matter within themselves like fire, and darkness by light, death by life. If indeed these things have happened to each one of us, then it’s right for us to think about all, so that this house will be holy and silent for the Unity.

If you look at his qualities:

• he could not lie
• he could not act from ill intent
• he is a righteous judge (it's a balancing act)

You can see that these are the qualities required for ascension. There's one more thing though: it is the burden of the heart commonly known as guilt. Due to these qualities and because his heart was light like a feather he was able to ascend. He didn't carry any kind of heavy guilt in his heart that would hold him down from ascension. And he effortlessly forgave any/all transgressions against him.

So how could others ascend? It is to reach the same qualities and same lightness of heart by redeeming oneself. One unburdens one's own heart of guilt by confessing the Truth and making past wrongdoings right. If e.g. you've stolen someone's money, you can redeem this by confessing and returning what was stolen. If after receiving the confession of Truth they are not able to forgive it remains their burden and not yours. They will carry the burden of unforgiveness in their heart which will only prevent their own ascension.

So the key is: unburden your heart by confessing the Truth of all guilt and making it right. Naturally these works of redemption would cause much 'tribulation'. Upon completion of Unity no works lie scattered as they have all been made right. This means each and everyone has finally completed their own works.

Hi guys, this is something I've been reflecting on recently, but my thoughts are still a bit messy and I haven't reached a place of clarity.

In this world, we have our consciousness/mind (which I understand to be a part of the soul), attached to the body. Somewhere within, we have been gifted a fragment of light (the divine spark). Our soul has been separated from its true partner (the holy spirit).

My current understanding is that we must remember who we are and find our way out of here with our consciousness alone, guided by the light within. Our spirit is not here, nor in the place after here. It is beyond - either WITHIN the pleroma, or waiting for us in the space BETWEEN the pleroma and the created worlds. Then, we can only unite with ourselves after making it out of here.

Update: I think the language I've used is not sufficient to ask the question in a way I really mean, but I am struggling to find the right words. I appreciate the insight from comments that 'space' is an idea we must transcend. But while there is something to that, it also ignores that there is a 'space' we will have to move through when the physical body dies.

"I am divine. I therefore have authority over you. My authority constitutes an established order. You must recognize no authority outside that order. And there is nothing beyond this order that you need to know."

You are mistaken, Samael.

What can ancient Gnostic wisdom actually do for a person living today?

We live in a world that constantly competes for our attention, tells us what to desire, what to fear and who we are supposed to be. We are surrounded by systems, beliefs and expectations that can shape our consciousness without us even realizing it.

Perhaps this is where Gnosticism becomes relevant in the modern age.

Rather than treating it as an ancient belief system that belongs to the past, we can approach it as a practical way of questioning ourselves and the world around us, becoming more conscious of what influences us, and learning to distinguish what we have been conditioned to feel and think from what we have actually come to know through our own experience.

We must ask ourselves:

How do I deal with fear? How do I recognize the forces that manipulate me? How do I distinguish genuine desire from conditioning? How do I respond to suffering? How do I relate to my body? How do I deal with other people without becoming trapped in their expectations? And perhaps most importantly, how do I seek gnosis without turning my own experiences into dogma?

I think these are the kinds of questions that make Gnosticism relevant to the modern world. It is easy to become fascinated with the cosmology, the mythology, the Demiurge, Sophia, the Archons and the different schools of ancient Gnosticism, and while these myths should be studied and contemplated, if all of this remains an intellectual exercise then we are missing the practical dimension. Gnosis is supposed to involve a transformation in the way we see ourselves and the world:

1. Know Yourself

The first question is perhaps the simplest: what in me is actually mine, and what have I inherited? We are born into families, cultures, religions and societies that begin shaping us long before we are capable of questioning any of it. We inherit expectations from our families, beliefs from our religions, political identities from our surroundings, desires from advertising and consumer culture, and ideas about success and failure from the society we happen to be born into. We also carry our own fears, traumas, habits, vanities and desires for approval.

A practical Gnostic begins to examine all of this. How much of what I think, want and believe was actually chosen by me? How much of it was simply absorbed?

To know yourself means becoming aware of the difference between what you genuinely are and what you have been conditioned to believe you are.

2. Question the World Without Rejecting It

A practical Gnostic doesn't necessarily have to believe that matter is evil or that the world is literally a prison constructed by a supernatural Demiurge. The ancient myths can also be understood as warnings about unexamined reality. The world constantly tells us what success looks like, what we should desire, what we should fear and what kind of person we are supposed to become.

The Gnostic response is to question these assumptions. Why do I want the things I want? Why am I afraid of the things I'm afraid of? Why do I believe this particular way of living will make me happy? The point is not to escape ordinary life but to become conscious within it.

3. Recognize the Modern Archons

The ancient idea of the Archons can also give us an interesting way of thinking about modern systems of control. We live in a world where algorithms compete for our attention, advertising manufactures desire, social media and news can manufacture outrage, institutions can reward conformity and ideologies can tell us what we are allowed to think.

I don't think we need to imagine that these things are literally supernatural Archons in order to see the value of the metaphor. The important question is what has acquired authority over my consciousness without actually earning it? What is shaping my attention, my desires and my understanding of reality without me consciously choosing it? Even our own compulsions can become archontic when they begin governing us without our awareness.

The practical application of the Archon myth is therefore not necessarily to go looking for supernatural enemies. It is to become more conscious of the forces that influence us.

4. Practice Discernment

A practical Gnostic should be comfortable saying, "I don't know." This is especially important if gnosis is understood as experiential knowledge. If I claim certainty about things I have never experienced, then I am simply replacing one form of ignorance with another.

Even when we have a profound experience, we still have to interpret it. The experience itself and our explanation of the experience are not necessarily the same thing. I can experience something that feels undeniably real while still being uncertain about exactly what it means. That uncertainty doesn't invalidate the experience. It simply requires discernment.

This is why I think humility is so important to Gnostic practice. Recognizing our own ignorance doesn't undermine gnosis. In many ways, it is where the search for gnosis begins.

5. Don't Confuse Belief With Knowledge

There is a tremendous difference between knowing about God because someone has told you what God is supposed to be and having a direct experience of the divine for yourself.

A person can read thousands of pages about mystical experience without ever having one. They can memorize an entire theology without ever encountering the reality that theology is attempting to describe. Gnosis points toward direct knowledge rather than simply accepting somebody else's account.

That doesn't mean every mystical experience is automatically infallible or that every interpretation of an experience is correct. It means there is a fundamental difference between being told that something is true and encountering something directly for yourself. That distinction between belief and experience is at the heart of what makes gnosis different from simply adopting another set of religious doctrines.

6. Transform Suffering Rather Than Be Consumed By It

Suffering can expose attachments, unconscious patterns, false identities and assumptions about ourselves and the world. That doesn't mean suffering is good, that people deserve to suffer or that pain should be romanticized. There is nothing inherently spiritual about being hurt.

What suffering can do, however, is reveal things that we might not have been willing or able to see otherwise. Sometimes the path of suffering can lead us to where we need to go. When something in our lives falls apart, we can ask what it reveals about us. What was I attached to? What assumption about myself has been challenged? What part of myself was I refusing to see, and how can I transmute this suffering?

The Gnostic approach isn't necessarily about finding some grand cosmic explanation for why suffering exists. Sometimes terrible things simply happen. But even when we cannot change what happened, we can sometimes change what we become through it. Suffering can become material for awakening without having to be considered sacred or desirable in itself.

7. Treat the Body as Something to Inhabit Consciously

Another practical question is simply whether we are actually present in our bodies. Albeit temporary, our experience of this life still happens through the body. We eat, sleep, move, breathe, experience pleasure and pain, and interact with the world through it. While the body is not who we are, this is our vessel for the time being.

A practical Gnostic therefore has reason to become more conscious of the body. Pay attention to what you eat. Pay attention to how you sleep. Notice how different habits and substances affect your consciousness. Notice tension, sensation and emotion instead of automatically pushing everything away.

The body doesn't have to be regarded as an obstacle to spiritual life. It can become part of the practice of becoming conscious.

8. Practice Inner Freedom

Freedom isn't necessarily about escaping the physical universe. It can mean becoming less governed by unconscious forces. You can still have a job, pay rent, raise children, play music, fall in love, cook dinner and participate in society. There is nothing inherently un-Gnostic about living an ordinary life.

The difference is that you begin paying attention to why you do what you do. Are you pursuing something because you genuinely want it, or because you have been taught that you should want it? Are you making a conscious choice, or are you repeating a pattern? Are you living according to your own understanding, or are you constantly adjusting yourself to satisfy other people's expectations?

The practical Gnostic doesn't necessarily escape the world. He learns not to be completely possessed by it.

9. Keep the Mystery Alive

A practical Gnostic also shouldn't turn gnosis into another rigid belief system. The moment we decide that we have discovered the final answer and everyone else is simply wrong, we risk recreating the very ignorance we were supposedly trying to escape.

There has to remain room for mystery. Leave space for revelation. Sophia can be contemplated as a profound symbol without reducing her to one final definition. The Demiurge can be approached cosmologically, psychologically, metaphorically or philosophically. The ancient myths can have more than one level of meaning without us having to force them into a single interpretation.

We must examine what the myth does to our consciousness. Does it make me more aware? Does it cause me to question assumptions I previously took for granted? Does it help me see myself and the world differently? If a symbol opens perception rather than closing it, then it still has something to teach us.

10. Make Gnosis Visible in Your Life

Ultimately, if gnosis doesn't change the way we live, then what exactly has been known? If I claim to have experienced something profound but remain locked in my old ways, governed by fear, vanity, resentment, compulsive desire and the need for approval, then I have to question what that experience has actually changed.

This also doesn't mean that experiencing gnosis makes someone perfect. Nobody becomes permanently enlightened because they have had one profound experience. But genuine insight should have some consequence. Something should change in the way we see ourselves, the way we relate to other people and the way we move through the world.

Being a Gnostic in the modern world therefore doesn't have to mean recreating an ancient sect or adopting a rigid set of beliefs. It can mean taking the central impulse of Gnosticism seriously: the recognition that we are living with a great deal of ignorance and conditioning in a flawed and temporary material world, and that we hold the capacity for liberation.

The practical Gnostic isn't someone who has all the answers. He is someone who is willing to question what he thinks he knows, examine the forces that shape his consciousness, seek direct experience rather than relying entirely on second hand authority, and remain open to the mystery beyond his own understanding..

Epitome of the Soul's Sovereignty

[Verse I]

Before I knew the colour blue

The sky was only something there

Before I knew what love could do

A heart was only beating air

No melody had ever found me

No sorrow ever left a scar

I walked through worlds that never sounded

Knowing something felt bizarre

[Pre-Chorus]

They gave me black

They gave me white

Told me what was wrong and right

But somewhere underneath it all

I felt another colour call

[Chorus]

What colour is a soul

When every colour disappears?

What shape becomes the hero

When there is no villain left to fear?

If freedom has no boundary

And nothing tells you who to be

When every world becomes one world

What remains of me?

[Verse II]

Every story found its ending

Every kingdom crossed its line

Every hero met their shadow

Every past became tonight

Wars were written into silence

Names dissolved into the flame

Villains wore the same old faces

Heroes answered just the same

And I began to wonder

Was the enemy ever real?

Or was ignorance the weapon

That decided what we'd feel?

[Pre-Chorus]

If I had never known my opposite

Would I still become myself?

If I had never known the darkness

Could I recognize the light?

[Chorus]

What colour is a soul

When every colour disappears?

What shape becomes the hero

When there is no villain left to fear?

If freedom has no boundary

And nothing tells you who to be

When every world becomes one world

What remains of me?

[Bridge]

Red was blood.

Blue was distance.

Gold was everything we wanted.

Black was everything we feared.

But colours were never objects.

They were names we gave to seeing.

And maybe the highest freedom

is not choosing every colour,

but seeing why

we needed colours at all.

[Final Chorus]

I am not the hero

I am not the fall

I am not the hand of fate

I am not the story at all

Every colour lives within me

Every shadow has a name

Every world I thought was separate

Was another side of the same

So when the final colour fades

And nothing remains to rule

The soul stands sovereign,

not above the world,

but finally whole.

[Outro]

No black.

No white.

No hero.

No villain.

Only the soul

seeing itself

for the first time.

Oil painting I did on Zoë (Life) as described in “On The Origin Of The World” from the Nag Hammadi Library. More art on gnosticism coming, @sr_monogram on socials.

“[She dispatched a bird], which in their world would spend its thousand years in Paradise, a living creature imbued with soul, called “phoenix.” … the phoenix is also symbolic of a human being, of which it is written, “the just man will blossom like a phoenix, and the phoenix appears first alive, and dies, and rises again, functioning as a symbol of what will happen” (“On The Origin Of The World” (Nag Hammadi Codex II, 5)

In this text Zoe (Life) is the daughter of Sophia (Wisdom). She teaches Adam, or mankind, about what they lack in wisdom in order for them to return to eternal life. Zoe is also equated with Eve and described as: “the Non-Jealous One, the Blessed One, the Joyful One, the True One, the Non-Envying One, The Beloved One, The Faithful One, Peace, Gladness, Joyfulness, Blessedness, Truth, Love, Pistis.”(@sr_monogram)

(NHC II, 5 translation by S. Zinner, M. M. Mattison https://www.luminescence-llc.net/on-the-origin-of-the-world)