15 Response to Martha (14) from Bogomil, concerning how to share wisdom that we each carry innnately within us, and suggesting some ideas on alternative reality models.

Dear Martha,
Thanks for your heartwarming response. As everything I owned disappeared in a fire last year, I have to rely on my memory, so the only thing I can say is that my first citation: "In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded" probably comes from the physicist Shroedinger, who in the late 40'ies or early 50'ies (?) meant it as a joke. As far as I know, there was at that time no general interest in the subject of "zero-point" physics, so he was actually a bit prophetic.

The second citation's origin I'm not able to remember.

Concerning the need of a community for sharing wisdom, I feel the same as you. But the problem is, that we first must HAVE some wisdom to share. Otherwise the "community'ing" (communicating) easily could end up as a place where people gather to find common warmth against the individual's isolation in a sometimes cold and hostile existence, and the outer form (the group) will be more important than the content (the search for wisdom). I have seen it happen time and again.

It can be a hard life to be a loner (an outsider), whether the loneliness is in the mind or socially, but if you succeed in the search for wisdom, it also carries it's own reward. What you call being "around glory" is maybe what's called bliss in the east, and it's closely connected to wisdom. If you find one, it's easier to find the other. It's such an overwhelming experience, that it can give a lifelong motivation for peeling the existential onion layer for troublesome layer.

But sorry, I'm getting ahead of things. Where to start? I again agree with you, that it would be very nice having an adept around, and as it is, we are definitely not short of potential candidates. But a closer look at each of these candidates has shown me, that though some of them seem to posses some "wisdom", I wouldn't trust my life or spiritual wellbeing on it.

So, back to peeling my own existential onion again. I have reason to think, that each one of us actually HAS wisdom at the center of our being. But using a gnostic model of universal existence, I also accept, that the manifested universe actually is somewhat hostile to finding this inner "essense" with its wisdom. It's not in the interest of the universe (and/or its creator), that we "escape" (find wisdom). We are so to speak, working uphill.

By refusing to become "saved" as a disciple of some self-appointed guru or adept, I do not go to the other extreme and believe in solipcism. I've used a considerable part of my life collecting information in various ways from other people. In this process I've had two invaluable tools 1/ I can join any belief-system as a PARTICIPATING OBSERVER (= I can always leave, before I'm brainwashed) and 2/ After having tried any given belief-system, I look at it from a bird's-eye view, using what I call "para-structuralism" as a comparative method for evaluating its information. By doing this, I avoid the trap of being caught up in axiomatic "circle-thinking" (ie starting with an "obvious truth" and ending with a predestined answer).

To give an example: I'm at the present reading an otherwise interesting book about quantum-gravity, but the author (who seems to have an obsessive aversion against anything not-of-this-world) starts the book by DEFINING away the possible existence of a non-manifested state of being. Hocus-pocus. It's not there, because it's not there. Ofcourse many of his later conclusions thereby re-inforce his fundamental thesis, and though he expresses useful ideas, he eventually changes his DEFINING to a dogmatic attitude. The man is obviously intelligent, but a victim of his own belief-system.

So what I do is to simply look at the various belief-systems conclusions (almost no matter how strange they seem to be) and compare them to each other. This "crazy scientist" compared to this almost-not-understandable mystic. It's like connecting a jigsaw-puzzle. And what a (half-finished) puzzle I've laid for myself! Glory be! Though mind you. This puzzle maybe only has meaning for me, and it's still a "map". It's not the "territory". I am tentatively starting on a territory journey now.
With love
Bogomil

14 Back and forth: a response to entry 13 from Martha White (Sept18), and a further response from Bogomil (Sept 11), concerning the revival of Gnosis and modern practice of the Mysteries:

I found Bogomil’s contribution to be most interesting and lovely. I agree with his assessment with meditation. Though it is most valuable for an individual, and though it may be enable one to connect to other meditators, we do need to find a broader way to facilitate community and shared wisdom
 
This entire subject is not about “knowing” anything for sure.  This is about the paradox of “reclamation of the Gnosis of the past” (as best we may) and the “emergence of Gnosis for the future” (as best we may).  The word “paradox” comes from two Greek words: “Para” and “Doxos” - “Para” meaning “around” and “Doxos” meaning “glory.”
 
So, when we are immersed in paradox, we are around glory.
 
I particularly loved Bogomil’s citation (for which he does not supply the source):  

In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded.
Whatever is still there, after you have stopped believing in it,
must be true.

Now – THAT is true in my own personal experience and, I think, bears further insight.
 
Love,
Martha

Here is Bogomil, in response to entry 12, below:

Hi Linda,
it would be interesting to follow your reconcilation between gnostic ideas and shamanism. (I myself was for 2 years member of a shamanistic group as a participant observer some time ago).

Now gnosticism had a very wide scope. As one of the earlier christian opponents of it said: "There isn't a day, when they don't invent something new", but still there was some basic tenets, which was shared by most of the various varieties of gnosticism. A more or less pronounced doubt about the validity of the created universe. But as with buddhism also a strong sense of compassion and ethical responsibility. So even if we are living in an illusion, we can still treat it with respect.

The central ideas of gnosticism and nature-worship are in the theological sense far from each other, but taken pragmatically there's no reason why anyone can't use both systems. After all gnosticism was a "live and let live" system, decentralised to a high degree and easily adapted to new ideas.

There exists a historical bond between gnosticism and the original pre--christian religions in Europe. When the church started it's various scourges in form of propaganda, dis-information, witch-hunts, actually for a period exterminating great numbers of gnostics like the nazis did with the jews (finally finishing all these atrocities with the crusades) all the different oppressed groups integrated into a kind of common "underground". This underground is partly the base for many modern groups working with alternative belief-systems.

Even nowadays, you will meet this disinformation from radical christians. Nature worshippers are occasionally labelled "satanists" and a christian/gnostic hybrid has turned up, claiming that gnosticism is a christian sect. Sometimes with an aggressive fervour. (And ignoring, that gnosticism existed hundred of years before christianity).

I also feel that time and energy doesn't allow the scope for exploring, I would like, but being a syncretist at heart, I think Linda's approach can be of interest, and I for one would like to hear more later if possible.
My best wishes
Bogomil

13 More on various approaches to reviving Gnosis, a lively and challenging response from Bogomil in Sweden:

Dear John and Martha White,
I also would like to find/recreate the applied/functional aspects of Gnosticism, and I have a few suggestions.

But in the name of honesty, I must first state my personal belief system, so you know not only what I say, but also from where I say it. I have for 40 years searched for "Reality" (now being 60+), and have slowly learned, that that "rockground" you can build any true spiritual (for lack of a better word) experience upon, is, if it exists at all, very difficult to find.

I also do not share John's idea (sorry if that's the wrong word), about the earth having a manifested divine spark in Sophia. But I do share his ideas about being a decent person (ecology etc). I am in gnosticism, what hinayana/theravada buddhists are in buddhism. A hardheaded dualist, considering that the whole universe (multiverse) is dreaming itself, as much as we are. The biggest con-trick ever. There may be some scattered examples of really awakened individuals here or there in the universe. Sofar I haven't met any.

I do not consider myself a religious person in any sense of the word, though I am convinced, that there exist both a true "God" (whatever that is) and a totally deranged creator of the universe. The architect/demiurge. But this is more of a philosophical inclination.

Apart from being boringly abstract, I have occasional glimpses of practicality, so here come my suggestions:

Though being somewhat of a weird hermit myself, I also often feel the need of contact (especially in my search for reality). Partly we are herd animals after all. Partly the interplay between different individuals can be very creative, and partly it's rational to share information, experience etc. One person can't do it all. So I suggest, that everybody interested could join a special forum, where we could exchange ideas, methods, experiences etc. If we are to find answers, I'm afraid we have to find them ourselves.

Sorry, there are no Messiashs hanging around at the present (to my knowledge). But please don't look to me for the practical arrangements about creating such an web-forum. I'm almost an imbecile, when it comes to computers.

To my knowledge, there exist no pagan/non-christian forums, and I believe such a forum would fill a need. I suggest that such a forum would be a place, where anybody can air anything leading to a functional gnosticism. Abstract, practical or whatever. All honour to this forum we are using now, but I doubt it would fit with maybe two pages long, and possibly strange ideas.

I have two very general observations to make about possible starting-points. Such a search for reality can 1/be based upon intellectual activity. It sounds maybe to highbrow, but I have together with my interest in religion etc. also been interested in science. Especially quantumphysics, scientific cosmology, chaostheory and epistemology. These subjects tells us very much about what the universe is, but in a way they tell us even more about what it is NOT. This taken syncretistically together with theological philosophy gives some surprising results.

Next, Meditation techniques. Meditation is fundamentally a tool, and it can easily be taken out from whatever belief-system it is attached to. After all the initial steps (almost no matter your religion) is to create inner silence, and later to "stop the wotld" as Don Juan put it. The problem with meditation is, that it's so darned boring. It usually developes into a "duty", which you then have a bad conscience about not doing. Let's put our heads together and find a scope of various techniques, suitable for different types of people. Personally I have f.ex. found, that the Monroe "hemi-sync" system is an excellent startingpoint for me (though not for everybody).

Please let me finish with two of my favourite citations.

In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded.
Whatever is still there, after you have stopped believing in it, must be true.

Bogomil

12 Response to Entry 11 on the question about Mystery Schools in the modern world. It comes from Linda, a friend of Martha White.
 
Martha and I share many of the same concerns and insights—and I believe there is a way to explore recovery of parts of the mysteries of the ancient Gnostics.  
 
I, too, would like to label myself an Anthropo!  But I do not believe reviving an ancient Gnosticism is the answer. We humans stick labels on things and they are impossible to change or correct, except with diligence bordering on propaganda and timeframes often measured in generations.  In this case (reestablishing ancient Gnostic understandings based upon the Nag Hammadi texts) we don’t have the luxury of time.  I think a core group of Gaia/Sophia lovers, which you may indeed be creating with your book and other writings, is about the best humanity can hope for to get us to the other side of the 6th Extinction!  And it appears that we need to do something!
 
I have no ideological home either, yet harbor an enormous love and respect for Nature (Sophia), and like Martha, a great deal of interest in bringing back the Great Mystery Schools. But I am not hopeful.  I don’t have the funds or years left in this lifetime to explore all the studies and movements known collectively as the “Mystery School(s).  But I did find Shamanism several years ago, and am exploring all facets of it,—except that psychoactive plants are simply not available to me and likely will never be. (This I suspect is the case with most “ordinary-straight-living” people in this country.) Although I do not believe using the products of Nature in a spiritual way are wrong—but our government here in the US is never going to allow this without great fights and religious labels!  
 
I am finishing up my second year as a Shamanic student with a teacher from a line with tethers to Michael Harner and the Foundation for Shamanic Studies.  I have learned to trance journey by drum and/or rattle and am able to do this to contact Non-Ordinary Realities and the spirits there (here) at will.  My experiences (and information obtained) have been validated, are interesting and sometimes mind-boggling in accuracy and effectiveness.  
 
Buddhism, too, I am practicing as an ethical foundation—this is where the “ego” will be confronted and overcome, one hopes, by those of us without ethneogenic resources.  A two-fold path.  Buddhism and Shamanism in the modern seeker.  Why not?  Each is available now to the interested, thinking men and women in the 21st Century.  
 
So—NOT having access to any teacher resembling the Telestai—AND NOT having access to ethnogenic plants and fungi, I go with what I DO have!
 
You wrote:

My final observation on 2012 would be that the serious interest in shamanism, building since the 1960s, will peak out and morph into something else. In part, it will dissipate in overpopularization, and the radical impact of the shamanic revival will largely be lost in cooptation. This enormous breakthrough will be trivialized and degraded into a cliche. As it looks right now, anyone who cares to do so can claim to be a shaman, and be taken as such! The awful lurch from shamanizing to shamming is inevitable, but the core factor of the breakthrough will remain intact. I would define this core factor as the entheogenic question—which can be formulated in a number of ways…..

I agree with you in part.  Certainly anyone can call themselves a shaman and degradation of the term and those practicing it for monetary and ego reasons are “shamming.”  Know that I and my fellow students are, by and large, doing this for the greater good of the natural world and all beings.  We are very aware and concerned at what is happening. I was surprised to learn this when we talked about our futures.  These folks are Mainers (I recall you came from Maine—I live in Downeast Maine, although am “from away”) who have very little in material or monetary wealth.  They are not intellectuals and my raves of your book, with suggestions to read it, read it-- fell on deaf ears.  There is no overt interest except for perhaps one other individual, who hasn’t followed up.  You are a bit over the top for any mainstream reader, as you are aware!

...I am also pondering your ideas as expressed to Martha in regards to going it alone given the lack of community, and the need to find a viable reflection back to nature without community. It is hard, but steps can be taken. And as a solitary seeker with very few others I can even discuss these things with—life is daunting and depressing at times.  I am already, as you suggested, LEARNING Gaia’s ways, since my interest in the Middle World and the spirits of nature—water, earth (plants), fire and air seems to be paramount, I need to explore on my own to find the Organic Light or its equivalent.  This exploration seems to be the ONLY avenue open to me, and perhaps to most of us.
 
I have an opportunity to teach approximately 2 hours in my shaman’s apprenticeship circle.  This will be to an audience of about 12 people—and I want to introduce them to the concept of the ancient Gnostic Mystery School, and lead them on a drumming journey to Hypathia, for ideas and insights, and then make a collective attempt in Sacred Circle to contact that ancient being, The Organic Light of Nature for advice and counsel—we will hone our intentions and phrase our request carefully.  I don’t expect downloads or traumas, but I think a few of my fellow student Shaman Practitioners might bring back some interesting insights, instructions or information.  Many are quite good at this process of spirit contact.  The spirit of Hypathia seemed pleased and encouraging when I contacted her.  I am in awe of the Organic Light and hesitate to try this contact on my own, but I will when the time seems right and I gather my courage.  
 

11 Recent inquiry from Martha White about reviving Gnosticism:

I have discovered that there is a Gnostic church here in Portland that is associated with the Ecclesia Gnostica headquartered in Los Angeles, led by Stephan Hoeller. It is, of course, a Christian Gnostic church which is entirely mislead, but I plan to attend some of their functions in order to see if I can find someone, anyone, out there who has some sort of expanded awareness...
 
In any event, I wonder – do you think that there is any way to recover the Mysteries?  I have certainly attended different Mystery Schools, but I want, more than anything in life, to participate in the Gnostic Mysteries and haven’t a clue as to how to go about it except through inner resources.  
 
We Anthropos, however many of us there really are, seem to be so out gunned and out manned – and the destruction of humanity and the world seem so advanced that I wonder if it really matters anymore.  Evil, it seems to me, really appears to have won and I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way to, as you say, mirror back to Sophia, her true nature from the light of my own divine nature so that she can complete her own reclamation.

So – John – what can one person do? ... Most likely, if an ancient Gnostic appeared before me in this moment, they would say that what I am after is almost impossible outside of some sort of supportive community, without the assistance of a Gnostic adept, given the horrific culture we are forced to inhabit.
 
So what do you think?  Is there some way to recover these ancient mysteries and to begin to share the possibilities with others?
 
JLL: Your questions raise some tough issues, to be sure. I am not sure that I can provide a satisfactory response, but I will try.

In the first place, I don't think that Gnostic churches a la Hoeller or anyone else are going to do it.  Religiosity, ritual, costume, hierarchy, and pious preachment are just what we don't need to recover Gnosis. I object to the cult of Mary Magdalene on similar grounds. Remaking Gnosticism in this way, we end up with little better than an alternative version of the doctrinal religion that suppressed it.

So, what to do? I think that the answer to your question is embedded in the question—right at the place where you mention community. I would agree heartily that what you are after "is almost impossible outside of some sort of supportive community." And that would have to be a commmunity with Gnostic adepts in it. As Terence McKenna wonderfully said, "A shaman is a person that a culture has agred can go outside that culture." This implies the freedom to be in a culture/community and not captive to it. The modern urban cultures we inhabit, as well as small-town cultures without a spiritual basis, do not allow anything like this.

Like you, I suffer from the lack of such a community. It seems extremely difficult to find one, or attract one. Some existing ecovillages and "emergent communities" may provide the right environment for the practice of Gnosis, but so far I have not made that connection... In any case, the practice is the same in a community or in solitude: learn nature and communicate with the non-human realm, either by the study of your habitat or by experimentation with psychoactive plants.

If you accept the equation of a Gaian outlook with Gnosis, as I have proposed, there may be some kind of Gaian Gnostic activism that could be effectuated in urban life... Gnostic study group, for instance. Or a small-scale urban project to grow mushrooms, gather and study psychoactive plants, or just watch David Attenborough videos and discuss them. I not strong on practical advice. The key is to LEARN, to be passionate about learning Gaia's ways. The passion to learn can engender strength against the difficult conditions that prevail today. And learning is a shared experience, even if it is only between two people.

Entheogenic practice is the most direct route back to the Mysteries of Sophia, but every intimate experience with nature is an opportunity to mirror back to Sophia (as you beautifully put it) those elements that we carry of Her Story. I love the term Anthropo. To be an Anthropo is, not to represent humanity (that Steinerite arrogance, fixated in the Christ figure), but to foster and express the inborn genius of humanity. The conditions for cultivating Gnosis today are unfavorable, but the recovery of the Mysteries is always possible as long as individuals continue to acknowledge that genius in themselves and respond to it, encourage it, in others.

All my writing is directed to that innate genius, the mark of the Anthropos. I would rather treat people as intelligent and be disappointed than consider then as stupid and have them live up to my expectations. It takes a lot of defiance to keep the Gnostic spirit alive.

JLL 3 Sept 2007

10. A response to my book Not in His Image, raising questions about my view of Carlos Castaneda, whose work I discuss (with apparent approval, if not keen endorsement) in several places on this site:

[I am] reading NIHI and finding it quite fascinating and insightful.  In fact, I daresay that it's one of the most brilliant and original pieces of work I've read in some time.  I do have some questions about the material covered in the book thus far, but I don't have it on hand at the moment so I will wait until I can quote directly from the text to ask them.  

I do have a question about some of the material covered on Metahistory in relation to Carlos Castaneda.  I have only read a small amount of his works, so I don't possess the knowledge you do about their relation to the Gnostic materials, but I noticed a few things in an article on Metahistory titled "The Topic of Topics" that I wanted to bring up.  In the article you state:

According to a scathing look into Castaneda's life on Salon.com ('The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda' on salon.com ) and the cult that grew up around him, he himself was all about power, control, manipulation and deception. Of course, this article may not contain absolute truth, but it seems to gel pretty well with other sources I have read about Castaneda.  

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/12/castaneda/

How do you feel about all of this hubub about Castaneda and Don Juan?

JLL: Castaneda and his writings are a litmus test for our powers of moral invention, or, more precisely. for the way we view those powers. I read his first book, The Teachings of Don Juan, the moment it came out in September 1968, and continued to follow his narrative down to the posthumous publication, The Active Side of Infinity. During those thirty years, I and a good number of my close friends lived through many of the matters described in the serial narrative.

Whether or not Castaneda invented don Juan, fabricated the Toltec lineage, and faked the anthropology, the narrative he produced over thirty years is not mere make-believe. It is an example—I would say, the paramount example in our time—of magical realism in action. It demonstratees what cult novelist John Gardner, who scored a few bestsellers in the 1960s, called moral fiction. Fiction can be moral even if it's author is not. This is one way in which human beings can transcend their own wretchedness, though it does not excuse or legitimate that wretchedness.

I don't judge Castaneda's life, I validate the experiences I've had relating to his narrative, and the things I've learned from it—about stopping inner talk, for instance. I don't judge anyone, I test rather than judge. I have tested Castaneda's work and found it veracious in many respects. I didn't know him personally and never had the chance to test him (having met him only once, in non-ordinary circumstances), so I hold no evaluation on the man. I question if and how the facts of his personal behavior put his feat of creative invention in question.

It is if you were to dismiss the work of Edgar Allen Poe because he was known to have been a liar and con-man, a drunk who commited incest, and totally delusional in his human relations. A dozen other artists comes readily to mind....

Castaneda's serial narrative of neo-shamanism is moral fiction carried to its shimmering, transcendent edge. Let me see someone do better.

JLL 30 August 2007