Gnosticism and My Experiences with Mysticism

 
Marcus Borg
Scores of widely accepted Gnostic works were excluded from the New Testament's canonization in 397 A.D. because they contradicted the beliefs of the Catholic hierarchy. Before and after the canonization, many such scriptures were destroyed, although one or more occasionally turns up in a cave or monastery. In 1945, a treasure trove of such documents was found near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and, thirty years later, the Gospel of Judas was discovered nearby. Although Gnostic beliefs were diverse, the following suggest how different Gnostic thinking was from what became orthodoxy:

There is only one "true God," but there are numerous lower deities, three of which created the universe as we know it. Those three were: Jehovah, the god of the Hebrew Bible who behaved like a jilted lover; Saklas, the fool who created humanity; and Nebro, a blood-drenched rebel. 

Judas was hated by the other apostles because he alone understood Jesus' message. He turned Jesus over to the Romans at Jesus' command. 

Jesus didn't die as an atonement for sin but to escape earth. We're not saved by faith but by secret knowledge, and we can only obtain that knowledge if we're among the few people who are immortal. 

Jesus laughed easily, often at things that appalled his apostles. For example, he laughed at their piety; at their inability to understand him; at the heroes of the Hebrew Bible; and at the conceit of Jehovah. During his crucifixion, the essence of Jesus comforted his frightened followers in their hiding places.

In some Gnostic stories, Jesus occupied the body of a grown man after expelling its previous occupant. In others, he was born a baby, and his supernatural powers made him into a bad-tempered brat who killed, blinded, or paralyzed anyone who angered him. 

The Gnostic writings are so filled with absurdities that I assume their writers were either trying to be funny or else their intention escapes me. For instance, in one part of the Acts of John, the Apostle John successfully commanded bed bugs to leave his bed and stand outside the door; in another he raised from the dead a celibate married woman with whose corpse a man had tried to have sex, his attempt being thwarted by a guardian snake that encircled his ankles and scared him to death. Then, a few pages later, I came across one of the most hypnotic passages of Scripture. In it, the apostles joined hands and danced ecstatically around Jesus while responding Amen to his chanting. I will share but a few lines...


The number Eight singeth praise with us. Amen
The number Twelve danceth above us. Amen
The Whole on High taketh part in the dancing. Amen
He who doth not dance, knoweth not what is being done. Amen

A lamp am I to thee that beholdest me. Amen
A mirror am I to thee that perceivest me. Amen
A door am I to thee that knockest at me.
Amen 
A way am I to thee, a wayfarer. Amen

As I read those words just before dawn, my bedroom began to spin; I became unable to judge distance; and my plants beneath their grow-light shone with glory. It wasn't the first time I experienced a euphoric hallucination, the early ones dating from childhood. I especially remember my inability to judge distance and the extreme clarity of objects, experiences that were like being in Oregon's High Desert on a sunny day when all things seem alive and it seems that I can reach out and touch mountains that are two miles high and eighty miles away. Although some of my later hallucinations involved drugs, they were all more real and memorable than most of life. 

A recent help to me in making sense of my experiences are the writings of theologian, Marcus Borg, who also loved the remote clarity of the Oregon High Desert and died there in 2015. Only upon reading about his experiences did I stop interpreting my own to mean that I am too sensitive, too suggestible, overly impressionable, or borderline insane, possibilities that worried my mother, although she didn't know the half of it. The word that Borg gave me was mystical, which seemed to leap off the page and with it, years of striving, of wondering, of challenging, of drawing demarcations, all fell away or, perhaps, came to fruition.

Do I mean to say that I have been in contact with something from without? No, but then I don't consider the distinction meaningful. I'll try to explain myself with an example. In 1978, after a night that started with waking nightmares during which I became too scared to speak as a succession of chimeras leaped toward my face, and that ended with a heaven of kaleidoscopic colors playing before my closed eyes in a darkened room, I sat atop a farm truck to watch the sunrise. As I looked across cotton fields at a row of large oaks that stretched along the bank of the Mississippi River, the trees began to sway, even to dance, and I knew that I was one with the universe, which, I believe, was what Jesus felt as the apostles danced. The fact that I had taken a chemical the night before in no way lessened the profundity of the experience because the drug was but a key to a place that had been there all along.

I've surely forgotten entire years of events that occurred during the intervening decades, but I'll never forget what I felt that Louisiana morning. Church is a little like that, its truth being in something other than consenting to dogmatic absurdities, something that is the result of many things, among them tradition, antiquity, community, sanctuarial beauty, liturgical elegance, the transition from sitting to standing to bowing to kneeling to making the signum crucis and back again, and to something else that I can't name anymore than I can name what happened as I sat atop that farm truck. After receiving the Eucharist, I watch as others proceed slowly and quietly down the center aisle and kneel before the altar, some of them so old and frail that they can't kneel. As I observe the poignant solemnity of a procession that started in Eugene 164 years ago and that always ends in death, tears sometimes come, and I don't know why. I just know that they come from the best part of me, the part in which trees dance, and rooms spin, and I experience compassion, and I love my wife as myself. 

"Neither shall they say, 'Lo here! or, Lo there!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is within."

11 comments:

Emma Springfield said...

I have read that several of our founding fathers were Gnostics. I know little about the subject so I have nothing to say about it. This was an interesting post.

PhilipH said...

I'm no Gnostic nor Agnostic; I simply know what I know in my mind, my brain and life. You, Snowy, seem to be wanting to search for answers, proofs, opinions, esoteric confirmations on an long and winding road.

Might it be best to cease such an impossible journey and take up a new path, such as booking a seat on the first trip to Mars, or a Moon vacation with Richard Branson ... i.e. something with more chance of a successful conclusion than your life-long quest?

Love and kindest regards, Philip

Linda Sue said...

People are curious. Interesting post, as usual. All sorts of human invention- A pretty accurate book historically, Is "Zealot"- another "Holy Blood Holy Grail" from long ago, and my favorite "God is disappointed in you"- hilarious!

Snowbrush said...

"Might it be best to cease such an impossible journey and take up a new path, such as booking a seat on the first trip to Mars, or a Moon vacation."

Ha. Climbing Mt. Saint Helens and seeing nothing but gray rock for hours and hours cured me of what little interest I had in place that have no identifiable life.

Philip, you might recall a BBC series from 2004 called "The Atheist Tapes," which contained interviews with various scientists and philosophers. One of the interviews that got left out was with British theologian Denys Turner. Anyway, the interviews in their entirety, including the one with Turner, were released on a set of two DVDs, and they're very interesting. I especially enjoyed the one with Turner because I had a pretty good idea what the others were going to say, but he, the only theist, surprised me. Something that did surprise me about some of the scientists was that they spoke of having what they thought qualified as mystical experiences, but that they simply put a different interpretation upon them as would a religious person, and that they strenuously objected to religious people saying to them, "See, you too are religious."

A couple of other thoughts about what might be called mystical experiences: unlike dogma, they tend to be the same across religions; they include a sense of oneness with the universe; and, of course, they can be induced by hallucinogenics. I heard a program on NPR (America's radio version of the BBC) about psilocybin being given to people with cancer to help them deal with their fear of death. Those people tended to report that their experiences were among the most meaningful--if not THE most meaningful--of their lives. Of course, one can look at such experiences in two ways, that they were the result of chemically induced insanity and therefore had nothing to do with reality, or that they were gateways into another form of consciousness. Having had them, I hold the latter view. Although I know that such drugs operate by shutting down the left part of the brain, the part that distinguishes between you, me, and that over there, and that it is from this shutting down that comes a feeling of unity with all things, I remain unconvinced that the left brain (the side that men have traditionally claimed to be the rational side that characterized their own thinking as opposed to the inferior feminine right side) gives us the more accurate view of reality. cont.

Snowbrush said...

Surely, in the larger picture, unity with all things becomes our reality after we die and are transformed into undifferentiated matter and energy that, as long as earth endures, will go on to become parts of other forms of life. Perhaps this breaking down and becoming absorbed into the whole is an unconscious state of being, but from my childhood on, I couldn't accept that it was, no matter that it appears to be, and no matter that I don't believe in the supernatural. I think that you can accept it, and that you regard anything other than such acceptance as an immature and irrational, if not outright delusional, view of reality that is unworthy of one so intelligent as myself (I'm assuming, of course, that you regard me as intelligent). Yet it seems to me that your view (as I imagine it) that only mammals have achieved a high level of consciousness, with other life forms having progressively lower levels until one gets to down to things that don't have any level of consciousness, has its own problems. For one thing, it can't be proven. For another, it's a completely anthropocentric view where by all things are judged as being less-than-us simply because they are unlike us. Because of this, it's a view that results in showing nonhuman reality less respect and holding that nonhumans have fewer, if any, rights. Because of this, it's a view that tends toward exploitation.

In that BBC series, Denys Turner, held that what he called "card carrying atheists," that is atheists who are like reverse fundamentalists in their atheism, tend to maintain their atheism by holding that any question that can't currently be addressed by science shouldn't be asked (for instance, are all things conscious, and did creation have a why as well as a how), and it hit me that, by god, he was right. I've known many atheists who were very proud of the fact that they were too intelligent, even as children, to wonder if existence had a purpose. When the interviewer said that he was such a person, Turner said that he (Turner) had had a more intellectually interesting childhood than did the interviewer, and I thought this made sense. Most Christians maintain their belief by refusing to ask certain questions, and, according to Turner, many atheists do to. Another of the interviewees (an atheist with a Nobel Prize in physics) said that when he asks such questions of other physicists, their eyes glaze over because they find them completely unworthy of a moment's consideration. I can't see that this is the mature and intelligent position that such people hold it to be.

There's always this friction between you and me, my friend, whereby I say that I wonder, and you say (in effect), "Don't waste your time wondering." It doesn't take into account that I can't be as you are. I never have been, and I see no reason to think I ever will. I think we are both at a loss when it comes to understanding the other's orientation. I'm hardly like the person who believes in the virgin birth and so forth, but neither am I like the atheist who regards things like theology as a waste of time, although, like such atheists, the word "supernatural" is nonsensical to me. As one of the interviewees said: Atheists tend to hold that questions about ultimate things are uninteresting, yet what one believes--and the questions one asks--determines one lives.

Marion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Snowbrush said...

"I have read that several of our founding fathers were Gnostics."

Might you be confusing Gnosticism with deism?

"A pretty accurate book historically, Is "Zealot"- another "Holy Blood Holy Grail'"

I'll look them up--thank you.

"I talk to God & He speaks to me..."

I know, but you never tell me what, exactly, God says to you, or even if the two of you communicate in English or in some heavenly language. I know that if I heard God talking to me, I would ask him a lot of questions, so maybe you have too. Has God told you which parts of the Bible are authentic? Has he explained why the innocent suffer in a world controlled by a deity that is both all good and all powerful? Did he tell you to vote for Trump? Has he explained why, in the Old Testament, he ordered genocides and told his warriors that they could keep the young virgins for themselves? Has he given you edicts regarding hot topics like abortion and the rights of LGBT people?

My father also heard God speak and would tell Peggy and me over breakfast what God had said the previous night. God's main messages were that the King James Bible was the only acceptable version and that he (my father) was going to win the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Dad's faith was such that he came very near giving away his life savings because, after all, he was about to become a millionaire and didn't need it. If I hadn't spoken to his preacher, I think he would have followed through, but even then, his preacher obviously wanted to believe Dad's word over mine (after all, he wanted that money) and therefore became angry with me. Time after time, Dad gave us the date that he was going to appear on the Tonight Show to accept his prize from Ed Mahon, and time after time, the day came and went with no money being awarded. This didn't deter Dad in the least because he simply said that God was testing him, and the next time he would win for sure. Marion, so far as I know, even the people who have done the most for humanity--people like Gandhi and King--never claimed that God was speaking to them directly, so why is it, do you think, that he so favors you?

PhilipH said...

"whereby I say that I wonder, and you say (in effect), "Don't waste your time wondering." It doesn't take into account that I can't be as you are. "

Precisely correct, Snowy. And I should have kept to the old adage: 'Never discuss religion or politics' as one will never win. ;-)

Snowbrush said...

"I should have kept to the old adage: 'Never discuss religion or politics' as one will never win. ;-)'"

I love talking about religion, and while no one is likely to change his or her mind, the possibility of (if nothing else) learning why the other person feels a certain way is still there. What makes things hard for me in talking to you about religion is that I can't make you understand how things are for me. You give perfectly good advice, but I can't follow it. I wish I could. Indeed I do. I wish I could, in effect, shit or get off the pot, but I really and truly can't. While my actual beliefs remain the same (for instance, I never come close to believing in supernatural entities, and I am convinced that the world would be better off if the Bible--among other Scriptures--had never been written), my enormous emotional need to believe that all of the things I love will survive death remains the same--in fact, I think it's increasing. That aside, my dear and generous friend, you serve as an inspiration to me in that you have the ability to befriend people with whose views you are opposed to the point of being appalled. I think I'm a reasonably compassionate person, but I think you might be my better in this regard. In any case, I sometimes find myself behaving with greater compassion because of you. I also understand that you approach me as you do about religion because my distress distresses you, and you want to say something that might help me. I'm under no illusion that many people care about me, and you do. I know that; I never doubt that; and I just wish that you and I lived near one another because while I don't know whether or not we would be great friends in person, I nonetheless believe that we each could rely upon the other to be there when the chips were down.

I was thinking of you last night while watching a movie about the WWII British homeland (before the American entry into the war). It was entitled Mrs. Miniver and starred Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon, and various strong supporting actors. It was released in 1942, won six Academy Awards, and is number 40 on the American Film Institute's list of the most inspiring films of all time. If you haven't seen it, PLEASE do so, but don't first look it up on Wikipedia because Wikipedia will tell you how it ends, and this isn't a film that you want to know the end to. I recall that you were a little tyke during that war, so you wouldn't know the answer to this first hand, but one thing I wonder about is how Mrs. Miniver was received in Britain because, while it's a wonderful, wonderful film, perhaps the recipients of those German bombs weren't interested in seeing a movie that consisted of powerful images of German bombs falling, no less, on their homeland. Would you happen to know anything about its reception in Britain, or is there anyone you could ask?

Snowbrush said...

Philip, I found the answer to my question about Mrs. Miniver's reception in Britain: "The film exceeded all expectations, grossing $5,358,000 in the US and Canada (the highest for any MGM film at the time) and $3,520,000 abroad. In the United Kingdom, it was named the top box office attraction of 1942.

Starshine Twinkletoes said...

Both yourself and Philip are incredibly straight talking and kind people, you just view and act somewhat differently, but your hearts are made of deep rose gold and they are honest hearts. I love you both, but Philip sends me flowers so I love him more. Hahahahaha. I'm just pulling your leg dear Snow, you are both beloved. X