With the author’s permission, I am adding his real name and his Facebook group:
Yosiah Ray – https://www.facebook.com/groups/888353092046884
As an author, I take the liberty of writing an article here and there, quite regularly, that relates to Gnosticism. And so it was on 16.7.2022. I named the article SECOND Gnostic Apostolic Letter – JULY 2022. It was the second article with a similar title, in which I tried to convey my current subjective thoughts about the possibilities of development of Gnosticism for the 21st century, not only in the Czech Republic, but also abroad. The article was published on my personal website samanskecesty.wordpress.com[1] and was directed to both Czech and foreign readers, as it is in both Czech and English languages. The aim of the article was to get the opportunity for dialogue with those who purposefully want to build new Gnostic knowledge (of course with reference and due respect to the heritage of old Gnosticism). I am simply interested in lively ideas on how to revive interest in Gnosticism. And then came the dialogue?! Or, what is it?! Where is the truth, according to the view of a person standing outside of this yawning conflict?!
– The name and surname of the opponent is deliberately not given (Marked as comment I – XXI.)
– The text is not altered – except in case of some vulgarity, which is not our case.
– Nor do I indicate exactly where the dialogue was published (the source exists, of course, but it is possible that the debate will eventually disappear from the internet; it happens, I have backups ready).
– One last addition – this lively dialogue was preceded by a similar dialogue in a different context, but extremely short (now evaluated as unimportant).
– Honestly I’m always surprised by a different answer that deviates from reality, but the following dialogue completely deviated?!
And the story began, another extremely strange conversation. Judge each for yourself, and write honestly what you think, I am grateful for any substantive criticism. Thank you Uroboros – Article Creator
Article creator – preface to the article + article
Please come my way for a moment, my Gnostic brothers and sisters. I appreciate everyone who follows the path of gnosis, but now I take the liberty of addressing you for the second time. Yes, the thoughts came to me, they would not be stopped, they kept on, they wanted to be spoken and they wanted to shout directly to all Gnostics in the whole world! It was inevitable and it cannot be stopped, the mighty torrent of words is like a wild river or like an angry wounded hippopotamus rushing through an African village. Stop, just for a moment, scold me, but tell me, why are these thoughts so vivid that I have to write them down and send them to all the Gnostics like writing after a black raven?
UROBOROS: THE SECOND GNOSTIC APOSTOLIC LETTER – JULY 2022 [2]
No it’s not the end, it’s the beginning. I wake up every morning to understand again and again that humanity worships false and artificial constructs of deities they have created in their own image. In every Gnostic group, both on Facebook and elsewhere on the internet, it seems that everyone has their one truth and they don’t try to understand the Other Gnostics. And that suits everyone who so resents the Gnostics, still sees us Gnostics as heretics. Yes, orthodox Christian apologists fail to answer questions from Christian Gnostics and other Gnostics because they a) aren’t interested, and b) think it’s pointless, and c) have their holy books and shackle people to dogma. In some ways they are sadly right, the 21st century Gnostics are trying to revive the old paths of Gnosis, but they are not even able to agree that the old paths had their purpose, but now we need to look for new paths, paths we have not yet walked. And so I ask all those who want to revive, for example, Manichaeism, Catharism, Sethianism, or the path of the Gnostic Valentinus and Basilides, what will they realistically do to do so? We have many definitions written down, but what can really be done? Also, we have had 1800 years where orthodoxy has taken hold like a wild animal of all of Christianity, and by the passage of time and the sword has gotten the Gnostic ideas out of it. But maybe one idea is a good one, we don’t need to create an orthodox Gnostic Christianity, but a loose Gnostic network of diverse Gnostics (we love personal freedom in belief, not dogmatic understanding) who will point to all orthodox Christians, that they have bet on the wrong books – that not only the Old and New Testaments contain so many errors and mistakes, and have done so since their inception, when for example the New Testament was and always will be nothing but the political madness of the mind of the emperor and pseudo-Christian Constantine professing Mithraism. For this I recommend everyone to really study in detail the history of the origin of all holy scriptures, of all religions, but it applies to all, not only Abrahamic religions, which in the name of their (not only) Abrahamic deity have handed over to the world only blood sacrifices and dogmatic fear and constant threats of hell in a thousand forms. But let us not forget this – the Bible, Ephesians 6; 12: „We wage our war not against human enemies, but against the powers and forces and all that dominate this dark age, against the evil spirits above the earth.“ So the way of reformation is necessary – Gnostic Reformation 1.0
Note: So long have the Biblical orthodox apologists been trying to win that they have finally overlooked a whole host of Gnostic living ideas in the Bible that really do scream the way of truth.
Comment I.
Simple but complex! Let me answer your question!
The words are not your words, the thoughts are not your thoughts, it is the mind control programs of the Demiurge and his legions that have taken control of you! If you had answered my challenge in response to yours, which asked you to define Gnosticism, you would have included the main difference between true Gnosis and false Gnosis, which is that it must include the myth of the ancient Gnostics.
These myths taught that Sophia is Barbelo, the creator of this evil universe, and her abortion of her son Demiurge, who is her son, lover and sometimes enemy. They form the male/female energies of our universe. They are the two dragons of alchemy and ouroboros, the two serpents of Caduceus, and all the esoteric knowledge of serpents known to be evil in one school, as well as Gnosticism. The other side believes the serpents to be wise and benevolent, and even worships them, as did many ancient religions and cults. Any well studied Gnostic cannot deny that Sophia is Barbelo, instead modern Gnostics (actually heretics to us ancient believers) worship Sophia and her Christ, which is Jesus, a false image derived from Horus and the concept of Christos, not Yeshua, the Gnostic master and teacher they call the Messiah. They gods and goddesses of the church, the antichrist, the whore of Babylon and her son the beast, the Demiurge, once Horus, Zeus, etc. They are the demigods of all myths, the demons who play at being gods throughout history. This includes the angels, as the word in Hebrew indicates, who are the servants of Ela, which is Demiurge, the god of this world, Satan and Lucifer, which is the morning star, Venus or ISIS to the Greeks, and Sophia to the heretical modern Gnostics. All of this is found within the esoteric sciences and arts, from which I have formed my conclusions and resources as a full-time theologian and practitioner for nearly three decades, which I share with others.
Yet most who study at this level, even some of my former Grand Masters, are seduced into the occult, the black arts, and the secret societies that are religions, and fall into full-blown demonic possession. Such names are Aliester Crowley, Carl Jung, Helena Blavatsky and many other lesser known but famous masters of these arts and sciences. By combining religion and politics, they control us and our world. It is just such knowledge that distinguishes the ancient Gnostics from those we consider heretics posing as such! But small is the gate and narrow the path that leads to life, and few find it.
The author of this article
You’ve stumbled upon a problem. I know what you are saying here, and I describe it in my Gnostic Pearls, which you so stubbornly refuse to read and then draw educated conclusions about what I really think. Well, lecturing someone does not mean that the one you are lecturing can have the same or even greater knowledge than you. Do you know how to tell? When you consistently accept substantive criticism and can then rework any suggestions. So thank you for enlightening me, but frankly, I didn’t learn anything new from you except what I already know. Or am I wrong and you may actually be able to have the critical and gnostic mind to evaluate my claims – the challenge still stands – https://samanskecesty.wordpress.com/…/uroboros-nova…/.
INFORMATION – THIS POST IS IN CZECH AND ENGLISH
SAMANSKECESTY.WORDPRESS.COM[3]
Comment II.
From what do you conclude that I have not read enough of your works to know that you are not an ancient, that is, by our standards, a true Gnostic? Just that you associate Sophia with wisdom, and not Barbel, e.g. false wisdom? While you are a word smith who talks in circles and uses long but meaningless interviews, like Donald Trump, it is more evasive than addressing the original point.
Article creator
Okay, let’s get this straight. So since you know a lot about me, where do you disagree with me on my Gnostic Perils? And try not to duck and run from the debate. If you’re going to criticize, do it in a substantive way. I would like to know quite clearly where you think I am wrong. Why don’t you go to the trouble of writing it down exactly, maybe I’ll find out you’re right and I’m just not seeing it? That’s fair game for me because I don’t need to win a verbal fruitless debate, but I like to learn from it and believe me I like freedom and factual criticism? So try to be factual and criticize substantively, or will you run away from the debate again?
Comment III.
I was chairman of the theological debate team in my former student years, I know how to debate like a scholar! But you don’t, because you want to make my statements a matter of opinion! That is not true. The teachings of ancient Gnosticism are very well defined, as are the various schools we consider heretical. I responded to your original challenge by offering a counter-argument, a „thrust and parry“[4] maneuver used in debating circles. I told you then that I strongly doubted that you could simply, yet accurately, define ancient Gnosticism. I said at the time that if you could do it, I would meet your challenge just the same. You refused and I rightly considered you, as a debate judge or jury would, disqualified! I also offered to teach you Occam’s Razor’s version of Gnosticism, which is actually its simplest definition. All true Gnosticism must include the ancient myth of Barbel, the demiurge, and our entire world (parallel false universe) is their evil creation. Not only do you not mention this in your teachings, on the contrary, you worship the beast for the trained Gnostic eye. Let those who have eyes see and ears hear! It really is that simple.
Author of the article
I think I have already been condemned by you and am being attributed ideas by you that I absolutely do not hold. For my part, the debate is over because I will not hear any meaningful substantive criticism from you. Have a nice day.
Comment IV.
This is unfortunate, but quite to be expected from a person who is still stuck in an egocentric mindset and life; however, although such a state is indeed condemned by many philosophies and psychologies, I would never condemn a person who wrongly identifies with it, even defends it, and chooses to escape rather than transcend it.
Author of the article
So do one thing properly – read my Gnostic Pearls and I will read your substantive criticism carefully, that will close the loop. I’m not always right about everything, but what I do stand by is substantive criticism. I like to receive it and then I am forced to take it seriously. A healthy gnostic mindset includes the ability to self-reflect, but it has to be backed up by something. So there are two options – either you provide me with substantive criticism of my Gnostic Pearls, or the dialogue is pointless. We are at a tipping point, but it can be overcome.
Comment V.
Touché! Now you’re being all scholarly with me and I have to act like I’m pissed! I may be an educated person, but I despise those years and refuse to go back to them! Are you suggesting I read what I already know to be false and by definition misleading, from a heretic, to prove what? I know it directly contradicts the ancient school of thought? I’ve read all the schools of Gnostic thought and I can correctly classify you by the simple fact that you promote a more modern Gnostic thought, belief system and possibly education in the writings I’ve read. But the fact remains that they are just that, modern! Which is not original. If you want to get something out of this dialogue, then choose to study simple ancient myth, and if you do so honestly, with a true heart, you will find that there is no way to reconcile the two, ancient and all modern schools, one is from the true Creator, the other is from Barbel, Babylon, her middle name, the serpent, and all the other demonic connotations. Finally, there is not enough time in one lifetime to read all the false works, I have spent several decades of my life doing so, I do not wish for another such waste of time, especially when it is futile! If you already know what I have told you, or you have not learned anything from me, then that too is already proving futile and not surprising to me!
Author of the article
Thank you. Honestly, I have never seen such fear of my gnostic writings. If you would at least read it (even with extreme self-denial), I can understand that some of my ideas might upset you, but I really honestly find it ridiculous that I would offer you the opportunity for substantive criticism, and frankly I would even be happy to listen to it, because that’s just what I do with all my articles, studies and books, but you for some nonsensical reason overreact to my taste, like a scared child, excuse me. It’s not such an important piece of work. I was just wondering what you, as a Gnostic, would say about it, what you would find meaningful and why, and equally what would bother you and why. So a simple task, more of a request for a critique from your point of view – and most importantly, that’s where you’ll actually find my take on understanding Gnosticism. I don’t give anyone any easy theses about Gnosticism. They will have their place in my Textbook of Gnosticism.
I don’t understand at all that as a Gnostic you would call someone a heretic? Do you know what that means? How about Cathar? And those other sentences – „Simple but complex! Let me answer your question! Words are not your words, thoughts are not your thoughts, it is the mind control programs of the Demiurge and his legions that have taken over you!“; Not only do you not mention this in your teachings, quite the contrary, you worship the beast for the trained Gnostic eye.“ – that’s a bit over the line and I have no idea what qualifies you to write that. It comes across as rather ridiculous, unfortunately. This is exactly how some people in the orthodox Christian church environment treated me when I started asking questions in depth.
Anyway, about that experience – I have a website where I write about Gnosticism quite a bit, and the site contains about 520 articles, studies, and entire books on Gnosticism, both old and new. I understand the basic differences between the different schools of Gnostics because I study them very carefully and for a very long time, and in depth. I like both the Valentinian and Sethian writings and Marcion and my favorite is The Tripartite Tractate[5]. Yes otherwise you have noticed correctly, new Gnostic paths are emerging and can be combined with the old ones, or emerging on a completely different gnosis – for example PhilDickian Gnosticism – The Gnosis of Philip K. Dick in The Exegesis of 2-3-74. https://dickiangnosticism.wordpress.com/
Comment VI.
As I suspected, and asked several times, you are indeed an educated, modern, perhaps even classical Gnostic, but I was equally correct that you cannot discuss, let alone apply, the ancient concepts that have always distinguished and labeled us as heretics. Perhaps because I am also a theologian, and thus can understand church history, including its infiltration and even formation of classical and modern gnosis, then why do they consider each other heretics? As for your other remarks, especially the indication of your supposed fear on my part in reading your works, there is nothing to fear but boredom and the waste of more time, we both know the classics, among which you are included! So much so, in fact, that it explains your ignorance of the etymology of modern gnosis and its historical split from ancient gnosis. We really don’t need to go any further, unless you also want to discuss antiquity.
Author of the article
An interesting paradox has arisen – you don’t want to read something from someone else because you have already ticked it off in advance into some artificial compartment (a common fallacy of fanaticism and dogmatism), or you don’t really have any idea what I think or how I present my personal coherent subjective doctrine, which comes from me and does not hide behind inspiration from God. You have already condemned my Gnostic Pearls in advance (without reading them), and you consider it a waste of time to read them – so just don’t do it (nothing and no one is forcing you to do so). However, in conclusion – as a Gnostic, or even better as a modern Czech Gnostic philosopher, I will keep my thoughts for those who want to read them and who find in them what is alive and speaks to them. I actually feel sorry for you, honestly, you fight me in the second debate, you label me as the Beast and the herald of the Demiurge, but in the end it’s all about reading a few absolutely simple thoughts I wrote and honestly telling me what you think about them. I don’t have a patent on the truth, I don’t own the truth, the Truth is looking for me.
Comment VII.
The last thing I want to read is something you claim is yours, with no other sources! No wonder you want me to read it so badly, sheer ego! Lol
Article creator
I don’t know why you are reacting like this? You know the extent of my personal gnosis? Do you want to deny that there is the possibility of personal Gnosis even in the 21st century? Do you think the One True Good God has stopped communicating with Gnostics? Is there ever a closed path for Gnosticism?
Commentary VIII.
That’s the first thing you said that is from a good Gnostic background. Of course not, we started our discussion over your proud, arrogant and, as we found out, apparently quite educated promotion of your work. That can be considered scholarship! I am also a former ordained rabbi and make no mistake, we vehemently argue about schools of thought that all have their roots, origins and all have professors if not masters. This is the manner of the theologian from which all gnostic scholars come, cut from the cloth we would say. However, personal gnosis, well that’s another story altogether, quite common today, as is the one I’m not interested in, except your thesis or hypothesis, still based on scholarly works that have rules of engagement. Often they can be mixed, personal gnosis, or psychic work etc. yet as far as I know it is also the fault of many greats, Edgar Cayce, Carl Jung, and even Aliester Crowley at the most extreme, all students of the same works theologians and gnostics study, but from different schools of thought drawing extremely different conclusions! If you have such works other than the articles you posted, of which I have read two, mostly on snake wisdom, lol, that have told me more about you than you currently know about yourself.
Article creator
You can judge for yourself – samanskecesty.wordpress.com[6]
Comment IX.
I am again asking for a summary paper, a thesis, maybe this is too technical for you? Hence the simple summary, even a paragraph will do!
Author of the article
And here we are back again, and probably at the end of the debate. My Gnostic teachings are subjective and thus my understanding of Gnosticism is written in my Gnostic Pearls, or I will not answer simplistically or simply, but I insist on a comprehensive answer that is a result of my personal Gnosis.
I know the various definitions of Gnosis, and I have these displayed on my website.
But really the only personal comprehensive personal Gnosis I have is written down in the Gnostic Pearls. I won’t provide any other answer, because that would be a ridiculous oversimplification. It’s like trying to describe in a few sentences to a layman, for example, Sethianism, it can’t be done because it is a systematically elaborated Gnosis.
Comment X.
I say it is not true! Sethianism can be defined simply as one of the schools of Gnostic thought, or interpreted ad libitum (at will)! But that is probably not only beyond your vocabulary, but undoubtedly beyond your understanding! It is at the heart of many of the problems with your philosophy that we have discussed at length, and it undoubtedly clouds your gnosis. It is cloaked in an ego that requires me to read an unspecified number of your works before I can classify or judge them. Nonsense. It’s clearly a mixture of your own fabrications and what you understand about modern and classical gnosticism, which you yourself can neither define nor simply explain.
The author of the article
If I remember correctly, and it is easy to verify, the subject of the dispute is that you demand a simple or simplistic definition of Gnosticism from me, from the beginning of the dispute?
Well, I have told you repeatedly that I will not provide any simplified version of Gnosticism, and that if anyone wants to understand my personal subjective Gnosticism (which is my personal way), there is only one way to do so – read my Gnostic Pearls, which include a definition of Gnosticism in its entirety, honestly and on my behalf. It is then possible to criticize this work, to disagree with it, and to give perhaps an extremely factual critique of it, which people in the Gnostic circle – men and women – are already doing, quite naturally, and I can learn something new by doing so.
Comment XI.
Well said. There is no way I would read the work of a Gnostic of any kind who cannot simply define Gnosticism, especially the difference between ancient, classical and modern schools of thought.
The author of the article
– Let’s try it another way – this is exactly what I do (simply define Gnosticism, especially the difference between ancient, classical, and modern schools of thought) when I explain it to my audience in my public lectures. But the most important thing is that everyone, for himself, learns the terminology (and constantly at the beginning of the Way must read the writings of the ancient Gnosis) and also that he is able to take away the basic ideas of Gnosticism after such a lecture. This lecture (extremely pared down to the basics) takes 55 minutes, which is admittedly short, but unfortunately this is the way it is determined by the rules of the event organizers.
– Otherwise, my live lecture has the following obligatory main points: (Old) Gnosticism; (New) Gnosticism; New Age Gnosticism; Open Web System – Modern Gnosticism; then 1. Evaluation and interpretation of the old systems of Gnosis; 2. Evaluation of new systems of Gnosis; 3. Departure from any organized or unorganized branch of New Age Gnosticism; 4. Vision of the emergence of a vast living web (internet) for independent and unorganized Gnostics in the 21st century.
Comment XII.
Very well said and thank you, it is late and at least now you have properly explained your lectures and thoroughly I might add. I would further ask what you consider to be the ancient writings of the Gnostics?
Author of the article
Well certainly all the writings with Qumran, with Nag Hammadi. The sources are available to all –
- http://www.gnosis.org/library.html
- https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/
- https://gnosticismexplained.org/
- https://www.cathar.info/
- https://gnosis.study/
- https://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
- + https://dickiangnosticism.wordpress.com/
Comment XIII.
I thought you would say this, and rightly so, but this is NOT the work of the ancient Gnostics! In fact, we don’t have any real Gnostic works from the pre-Christian era because the Christians wiped them off the face of the earth! But we do have ancient myths, such as the Gnostic creation story, which parallels many other ancient creation myths, and yet is uniquely different precisely because it stands alone, unlike the ancient Kabbalistic legends, which agree that our universe was created by an evil demiurge. Therefore, like many scholars, I have stated that unless this very ancient concept is the basis of Gnosticism and everything else in its understanding is built upon it, it is at best modern Gnosticism and the heresy of pre-Christian Gnostics. You are obviously unfamiliar with this concept, no offense, that’s why it seems foreign to you!
Comment XIV.
The modern concept is clearly post-Christian, as it even changes Barbel from female to male!
Comment XV.
Also Christian, after the Hellenistic period, therefore Greek!
Commentary XVI.
Theology and church history as well as esoteric education is what you are lacking, therefore combined with only post-Christian education, which is the basis of both classical and modern Gnosticism, is why you cannot understand what I am sharing which includes the school of thought known as ancient or pre-Christian Gnosticism. I’m on my phone right now, but I’ll post a link to the book later.
The author of the article
In this case, it would be helpful if you would cite the source you are drawing from for all your specific statements. And thank you for allowing meaningful discussion.
Comment XVII.
Of course, and thank you as well. While pre-Christian Gnosticism clearly plays second fiddle to the more popular Hellenized and Christianized forms of classical and modern Gnosticism, it is indeed a well-studied school of thought for which I have read many sources over the years. This includes how easily it reconciles itself to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, while being in opposition to classical and modern interpretations and doctrines, as I have argued all along. In fact, even a simple Google search reveals tons of sources, which was not the case a few decades ago when my Gnostic research began! I even stopped studying Gnostic works for many years because I found them all to be heretical according to ancient Gnosticism.
A simple rule of thumb I often share that defines the difference between the two opposing schools and sets the record straight that the ancient one was original and predates Christianity, even its older Jewish roots, perhaps as far back as the beginning of AD because of its creation myth, is actually a quote from Lance Owens that I found in his work on C. G. Jung’s Gnosis. He said he also borrowed it from another scholar, but I don’t remember who it was. I’m 99% sure it was Alfred Ribi who wrote about Jung and the roots of gnosis, link below.
The fact that Christianity at its beginning, during the split of many schools and the formation of what became the church during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, once again burned books and persecuted the Essenes and any Gnostic sect, just as it did in its bloody crusades around the world, cannot be dismissed or even taken lightly, especially where the rediscovery of hidden works such as the Dead Sea Scrolls is obvious evidence, as is Church history. It is not surprising that we are missing more ancient Gnostic works, however, when combined with Judaism, Kabbalah, mysticism, alchemy, and even magic, which we find especially in Arabic works such as Manichaeism, it all comes together nicely and again stands up against the great power of Christianity, which the ancient Gnostics labeled as Babylonian and Satanic.
Now it seems to me that, like you, I am being challenged to prove the school of thought I have chosen to support, including references to what I read long ago and took me so many years to read, impossible! The difference, however, is that I am familiar with both schools and the great age-old divide between them. I honestly think that the best route to take would be to delve in and explore the ancient Gnostic roots and the broad differences from the classical and modern ones, to be guided by Gnosis! I hope that helps, and I am very glad we have gotten to this level where it is at least established that the ancient Gnostics did exist and were 100% sure that modern day Hellenized and Christianized Gnosis, is heretical, even the doctrine of the arch enemy, the beast, who is the ancient Demiurge, well described in their myths and prophesied to deceive the whole world, even the elect, if he is able to. Let me know if I can help you further with your discovery, my friend. Thank you again and good night.
Author of this article
- Well, first I’ll try to correct you on something and thus remove your „impressions.“ I have been involved in the life of the Protestant Orthodox Church in my country for 22 years. So I certainly don’t lack knowledge of (manipulated) theology and church history. I was partly a Christian apologist at one time, so my studies went very deep. The problem arose when I started asking too many questions, and questions that no one wanted to answer. I also have an extremely detailed article about this on my website. So I began to ask questions differently, and outside of the Church’s understanding, while in a way observing the Church’s interpretations that were so incredibly transparent and untrue that I just stared, and then I didn’t avoid a comprehensive study of the origins of both the Old and New Testaments, and I found that both sets of books were built on sand. I know the history of the canon, and in detail, and I am still going to greater depths, and very carefully noting every little detail.
- Likewise, I do not lack knowledge of the so-called esoteric directions, because by self-education I have attained great knowledge, and I am still benefiting from it, because I translate into my native tongue many books that would otherwise be unavailable to me, but are.
- As much as you may not like it, I also have knowledge of what you call ancient or pre-Christian Gnosticism, because I read exactly those books and the ancient sources to go with it that have been able to take me into an understanding of pre-Christian and non-Christian gnosis, including for example the teachings of Hermeticism and others. In short, from Egypt to Japan.
- I completely understand your statement „This includes the ease with which he accepts the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Nag Hammadi, yet is in opposition to classical and modern interpretations and doctrines, as I have argued all along. ‚ After all, it is clear to any Gnostic, if he really studies on the core of Gnosticism, what separates the old schools from the new and why this is so, just read even the non-Gnostic writings – the Vedic Way writings or Buddhism, as well as Persian mythology in all its glory – this opens up a fullness of insight into terminology and stories that have been quite extremely „alienated“ into the holy scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, and make up quite a large chunk of the false wealth of thought of both early Christianity and Judaism. One of my Gnosis teachers goes even further than you might think, I’ll include a link to his interpretation. Otherwise, the book – The Search for Roots: C. G. Jung and the Tradition of Gnosis – that you recommend I know, I have it listed in my research texts – but I determine my reading order in advance because I like systematic teaching.
- In addition, of course, I have the Mandaean, Essene, Manichaean, and many other texts that really have a high testimonial value for direct extreme „exchange“ of ideas between religions, showing even simple appropriations of Judaism in the form of appropriation and imitation.
- And I’ll mention Carl Gustav Jung – his Red Book, including the part where he narrates his form of gnosis as Basilides, is absolutely amazing, and shows that we are capable, all of us, of working on modern gnosis as well, in a respectful way to the old sources, but in a methodical and substantive scientific and critical way. Systematic education is the basis.
- And again, a quote from you „I honestly think the best route to take would be to immerse yourself and explore the ancient Gnostic roots and the broad differences from the classical and modern ones, to be guided by gnosis!“ I’m honestly fascinated that you’re giving me advice on something that has long formed the basis of my thinking and basically sums up what I already do on a regular basis. I study every day, and I also devote myself to translating and understanding all texts, from all traditions.
- And finally – again, a quote: „that the ancient Gnostics actually existed and were 100% certain that modern day Hellenized and Christianized Gnosis, is heretical, even the doctrine of the arch enemy, the beast, who is the ancient Demiurge, well described in their myths and prophesied to deceive the whole world,.“ I don’t need to disagree with you on this point, because every Gnostic must have this suspicion, and that is exactly what makes us Gnostics – we are able to constantly, if backed by good knowledge, evolve and change our knowledge, we don’t hide in dogmas and precise interpretations, but we question everything. By the way, this is exactly what is part of my Gnostic Pearls. So, shall we conclude that you will try to overcome your disbelief, and try to read them?
- Attachment: https://samanskecesty.wordpress.com/2022/01/19/uroboros-source-of-information-no-11-mgr-jan-kozak-prokop-school-of-indo-european-tradition-bibliotheca-gnostica-article-the-teaching-of-the-gnostics-copyright/
Comment XVIII.
I stand corrected on the depth of your education and the library of works you have read, yet I was not wrong! I also suspected you were highly educated, now I will add intelligent, but in my defense I have been asking you to communicate these types of things from the start so that we not assume ignorance on the other’s part. I have been giving you ides of my experience and sources all along, even formal education, titles, etc. I will now say this, you, like many others including those we have studied in common, fail to see a good versus evil, a right and wrong, true or heretical division in Gnosis. This could be our entire difference! The true ancient Gnostic does not. Gnosticism is about the righteous vs the evil, or demonic. The Essene’s, also Gnostic’s, were clear on this! This is the same case with the Esoteric arts and sciences, but we draw the line precisely where it belongs, its known as the black or white arts, magick, etc. Some will say there is no such thing and get all caught up in left or right-hand paths etc. But the Gnostic knows only PURITY is to be sought and attained. So you will see us Ancients never depart the path for purity, what that constitutes, is a whole other discussion, usually debate to be polite. I think this is where you and I would also separate, especially me, as I throw most spiritual teachings under the bus as falsehood, as do ONLY the non-dualist Hindu and Gnostic concepts according to all my years of theological research. You, if I am not again wrongly assuming, tend to find use for if not follow, teach, etc., what to an ancient Gnostic, like our entire material universes, is Demonic! I guess what I am trying to say is you mix things that ancient Gnosis condemns into „your“ Gnosis, you also seem to not see the Classical and Modern Gnosis as heretical?
Author of this article
- Yes, my education is university and systematic, however, in the field of religion, spirituality and Gnosticism it is always about how I experience it for myself, not for someone else (you could find this out easily on my website where it is written in full detail, it is a kind of personal spiritual diary).
- You are right; I value education extremely highly, and even in spiritual teachings I practice factual scientific criticism, and thus always go to the root of it, and insist that we each be able to follow the rules of truthfulness and verifiability in the 21st century; anything else has no place on the spiritual path, and only delays it; if we devote time to false, and misleading information and sources.
- Response to your sentence, „I will now say this: You, like many others, including those we have studied together, do not see in gnosis a division between good and evil, right and wrong, true or heretical. That could be our whole difference! A true ancient Gnostic does not.“ There is a problem somewhere and it is not with me, what you describe is exactly that black and white (fanatical and dogmatic) way of thinking that has never worked and will never work, for it does not lead to the joy of knowing the truth, but only always to fear for the only correct interpretation. This is exactly the kind of fear that people trapped in religious systems all over the world experience when they are subjected to a clear code and doctrines that they must follow.
- I, on the other hand, as a modern Gnostic, say quite frankly, let us study whatever sources of religion and spirituality there are, and keep what is good in them, and throw away the rubbish.
- Probably no one told you this – but that you dare to call someone a heretic in public in the 21st century is rather extremely insulting, the moment you say this about another is the very moment when you put yourself in the role of an all-knowing and all-understanding raging fanatical sage, and woe betide anyone who disobeys you. I personally have struck that word from my vocabulary, because it is a word that slanders all those who have been called such by false teachers. It is extremely insulting and untrue.
- Can you tell me in what way you are an (Old) Gnostic? Do you realize that your words imply an unwillingness to go beyond your very clear beliefs in any way and think about the fact that you are building your Gnosticism and its foundation on sand? So what exactly is the direction of the old Gnosis you advocate – you have a huge number of groups to choose from? Which one, then, do you subscribe to as the one most true for you?
Comment XIX.
Gnosis is knowledge by its simplest and most pure definition, just as Enlightenment was to the Age of Enlightenment, vs today’s watered down spiritualist and new age meaning. The Essenes and Gnostics were clear about how important purity, even to a fanatical level from the modern perspective, is to Gnosis as well as transcending this evil material world and false reality. Now we have reached the place we could have started! These simple ancient definitions divide the schools of thought perfectly, everything else is of the world, which has always been evil and demonic to the ancient Gnostic, but not to the classical, and even more so to the modern. There is no need for the complexity you choose to focus on, when purity and the purging of all evil is promised in the end. We ancients simply focus on that, even if like myself it took decades of researching and practicing false systems to get there!
Author of the article
Okay, how about I try to break the discussion and ask you, because I see the value in doing so, to read my Gnostic Pearls after all (even with much self-denial), and as we are discussing now, to critically discuss, from both sides, my accidental work of new Gnosticism. I am in no way opposed to your legitimate criticism, so long as it is indeed a factually based criticism. So back to the point? And that is not a command, but a mere human request of a fallible mortal.
Comment XX.
Hmm, at first I like this approach, but then if I digest it, what would we accomplish? The scholarship and sources you demand as a measure of legitimacy, in most cases classical and modern works, are the problem, so how could an institutional view also be the solution? It can’t. Gnosticism always involves a demonic adversary, the problem is similar to what you found in the church system, and I have found it throughout theology, where once we expose the corruption usually by questioning too much as critical thinkers, we realize we have been studying mixed truths all along. The old adage all truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god comes in handy, especially when one realizes that the whole concept of god is actually a false doctrine too, heretical pantheistic to say the least, right? The same is true of everything in the material world for the ancient Gnostic. Once one realizes this, it is the same as realizing other mixed truths, they turn out to be more harmful than good! True ancient Gnosticism saves the seeker from having to spend a lifetime in institutional views and a plethora of library works by simply showing that almost everything, if not everything in this evil material world is demonic and therefore should be rejected, rarely even scanned or filtered for what little truth is in them after one has acquired this very difficult truth!
Article creator
I’ll answer simply – it would indeed achieve mutual respect and the ability to bring the dialogue to a meaningful conclusion, and even if you disagree with me, I’ll know why (and I’ll continue to think about it because I do). I literally love my substantive criticisms, so to speak, because they can move me forward. You’re the first real critic of my work so far, and I think I appreciate that, even though we may absolutely disagree. I’m not about being sucked up to and getting a pat on the back for writing something, but I am about substantive criticism. Many have promised it to me, some have delivered, but you have a highly critical attitude, so it’s meaningful to me. Otherwise, there is no point to the dialogue between us anymore, you have said the essentials and I have enough study material to think and study, because I, as a Gnostic, have to look at your statements (all of them) from twelve angles. So this is my last message, come on give it a try, it will cost you nothing but the ability to be a substantive critic.
Comment XXI.
I love your sincerity, humility, and poetry as a much better writer than myself, in fact I am thinking I may give writing up after all these years and simply claim to be a researcher, and a critic, which like food critics, are at least sometimes admired! What you ask me to do will cost me the greatest thing in this world, TIME, which is beyond value and can never be replaced! By using a built-in Gnostic system of deduction, my job is not to read everything but quickly discredit as much of this evil world as possible, which is illusion to the Hindu as you know, and as quickly as possible! This is like Occams Razor, or (K.I.S.S.) keep it simple, sweetheart. The simple fact that you have not been able to use such a sharp and quick saber as of yet, not realizing the power of removal of everything the ancient Gnostics condemned, is all that holds you back, and what will empower you the most. Let them be your critic or judge, and you will soon realize that all we have to do to find truth is not seek it, but rather reject everything but IT! As the saying goes, remove the lies and what remains has to be true. I offered you plenty to do as you rightly do, meditate from 12 angles, add Gematria in there, and go with 13! Later my brother. Let me know if, other than reading your work, I can assist you in any way. Thanks in return for the dialog, while the dance was long and complex, that was on you and what you need, the answer remains embarrassingly simple!
Article creator
Your decision, goodbye.
[1] My personal gnostic website – https://samanskecesty.wordpress.com/
[2] https://samanskecesty.wordpress.com/2022/07/16/uroboros-druhy-gnosticky-apostolsky-list-cervenec-2022-the-second-gnostic-apostolic-letter-july-2022-copyright/?
[3] https://samanskecesty.wordpress.com/2022/04/09/uroboros-nova-gnosticka-bible-pro-21-stoleti-the-new-gnostic-bible-for-the-21st-century-sbirka-moudrosti-bozich-perel-collection-of-wisdom-gods-pearls-copyright/
[4] „thrust and perry“. To engage in a verbal duel with someone in which both sides constantly exchange arguments, banter and retorts. An allusion to the movements of sword fighting, especially sword fighting. Source: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/thrust+and+parry
[5] The Tripartite Tractate – http://gnosis.org/naghamm/tripart.htm
Gnosticismus/Gnosticism 
Pingback: Uroboros: Gnostic extreme dialogue under high pressure?! [Copyright ©] | The Neo – Gnosticism community