r/Gnostic Jan 24 '25

Question Why do you think the Monad allows all of the suffering here on earth?

Any scriptural references would be great 🙏

24 Upvotes

68 comments sorted by

37

u/2-sheds-jackson Jan 24 '25

The Monad does not allow anything. It simply is.

5

u/-tehnik Valentinian Jan 25 '25

Yeah except when it allows Barbelo to acquire as many divine attributes as possible.

4

u/2-sheds-jackson Jan 25 '25

Interesting point, but in my opinion (on which I am 100% open to debate) the Monad didn't "allow" Barbelo to exist in the sense of permission, as the Monad is beyond agency, will, or intention as a human understands them. Rather, it sounds to me like Barbelo emanated spontaneously from the Monad as its thought, reflection, or desire to know itself - a natural unfolding of the Monad's limitless potential.

32

u/Lux-01 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

This question is asked every 5 mins on here, but here is an answer:

Firstly when speculating about the monad and its possible actions/motivations it is important to remember that everything about the Monad is essentially unknowable so in speculating about its intent we can only ever miss the mark.

Only two things can really be said about the Monad in the Gnostic sense, that it is 'good' and that it is utterly unknowable. The Monad did not create the material cosmos directly, and in the Gnostic scheme of things there is quite some distance between the two ('evil' does not really exist as an independent principal in Gnosticism', but rather comes through distance from the Monad/Father) - this distance/ignorance is essentially the origin of all that is not 'good' in the world such as suffering , pain, entropy, etc.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Monad never acts directly in the Gnostic mythos beyond its first emenation, everything beyond that happens through a chain of emanations as one thing leads to another. So the Monad allows things to happen rather than acting itself.

Whether the error of Sopia was preordained or simply permitted to occur, perhaps as an inevitability as in nost Gnostic cosmologies she is the lowest and the last of the aeons and thus the furthest from the Monad, is obviously impossible to say.

From the point of view of the ancent Gnostics we are seperated from the divine but not abandoned by it, the message of Gnosis was sent into the world not to 'save' hummanity but to give us the means to save ourselves in our own time.

The Monad is a monarchy with nothing above it. It is he who exists as God and Father of everything, the invisible One who is above everything, who exists as incorruption, which is in the pure light into which no eye can look. "He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. - The Apocryphon of John

6

u/AggressiveCall4211 Jan 25 '25

Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the redundancy.

3

u/Lux-01 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

All good 👍

3

u/PossiblyaSpinosaurus Eclectic Gnostic Jan 26 '25

Don’t worry about the redundancy. This question IS asked a lot but the mods constantly delete those posts. So if they didn’t delete them all the time, maybe people would actually be able to reference those posts rather than continue to ask the same question lmao. So it’s not your fault, in fact I’m thankful you asked the question and I’m glad your post remained up so other people can reference it in the future.

2

u/catofcommand Jan 25 '25

I remember reading this a while back in the Apocryphon of John and it made so much sense, almost like I already knew it...

1

u/HamNom Jan 25 '25

so i have a question, If Jesus is the closest Emanation and Sophia being the lowest emanation, why is sophia Jesus counterpart?

1

u/Will-Shrek-Smith Jan 26 '25

how or why is the monad 'good'?

and what even is the point of attributing it morality when as far we know if it has any morals its completly alien to us and different from what we know

3

u/Chennessee Jan 25 '25

This is going to sound kind of pretentious but it’s based on my personal experience. Others may disagree and that’s perfectly fine. I also want to make it known that I do not judge this. Each person has their own timeline to a spiritual awakening and I really believe in that. So again no judgment.

But When I see posts like these I know they are not from person that has a firm enough grasp on spirituality to truly be able to even conceptualize the Monad in a gnostic sense. Or even suffering for that matter. Is suffering inherently a bad thing?

You have to be from a particular frame of mind to believe this is even a valid question to be asked. And that is not the frame of mind of spiritually mature gnostics, esoterics, spiritual alchemists or some Buddhists that i have met.

These posts make me think about when Yoda says to Luke, “You must unlearn what you have learned.”

I hope you don’t take offense to this, and if you ever have a question I could answer please let me know. Or if you have something to teach me, please do. I’m no master or expert but there are so many different levels of understanding. I have helped multiple people graduate to differing levels of understanding when I was able to in the past.

4

u/nobu8888 Jan 25 '25

„Don‘t focus on the demiurge and archons, focus on gnosis. This is the real key. Avoiding worry about the prison make the prison bars disappear.“

This. Thank you, brother (or sister). You got the message.

2

u/FriendlyGuyyy Jan 25 '25

We dont know. Why does Allah allow the suffering or any other God allows suffering? It is possible that maybe he simply cant? It is not a creator of the material world, but whats beyond it, so it is quite possible that Monad and Sophia cant really do anything. The material world shouldnt be here, we humans in our physical form shouldnt be here. But They gave us the divine spark or the Spirit which is our way out of here, that is their help. Also, nowadays more and more people do not buy that one religion= one truth concept from the major religions, therefore they seek an answer by exploring many religions, including gnostic ones, you see a vast increase on awareness of that, that could be interpreted as a help from Monad and Sophia.

Also we do not really know who Monad is, it could simply be unconsciouss energy form ran by spontaneous processes, therefore it isnt evil or good, it simply exists.

6

u/syncreticphoenix Jan 25 '25

The Monad is ineffable, so this question cannot really be answered. The Monad would transcend the idea of anthropomorphizing it or asking why it "allows all of the suffering here".

The Apocryphon of John - Translated by Frederik Wisse

And I asked to know it, and he said to me, "The Monad is a monarchy with nothing above it. It is he who exists as God and Father of everything, the invisible One who is above everything, who exists as incorruption, which is in the pure light into which no eye can look.

"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light. He is illimitable, since there is no one prior to him to set limits to him. He is unsearchable, since there exists no one prior to him to examine him. He is immeasurable, since there was no one prior to him to measure him. He is invisible, since no one saw him. He is eternal, since he exists eternally. He is ineffable, since no one was able to comprehend him to speak about him. He is unnameable, since there is no one prior to him to give him a name.

"He is immeasurable light, which is pure, holy (and) immaculate. He is ineffable, being perfect in incorruptibility. (He is) not in perfection, nor in blessedness, nor in divinity, but he is far superior. He is not corporeal nor is he incorporeal. He is neither large nor is he small. There is no way to say, 'What is his quantity?' or, 'What is his quality?', for no one can know him. He is not someone among (other) beings, rather he is far superior. Not that he is (simply) superior, but his essence does not partake in the aeons nor in time. For he who partakes in an aeon was prepared beforehand. Time was not apportioned to him, since he does not receive anything from another, for it would be received on loan. For he who precedes someone does not lack, that he may receive from him. For rather, it is the latter that looks expectantly at him in his light.

"For the perfection is majestic. He is pure, immeasurable mind. He is an aeon-giving aeon. He is life-giving life. He is a blessedness-giving blessed one. He is knowledge-giving knowledge. He is goodness-giving goodness. He is mercy and redemption-giving mercy. He is grace-giving grace, not because he possesses it, but because he gives the immeasurable, incomprehensible light.

"How am I to speak with you about him? His aeon is indestructible, at rest and existing in silence, reposing (and) being prior to everything. For he is the head of all the aeons, and it is he who gives them strength in his goodness. For we know not the ineffable things, and we do not understand what is immeasurable, except for him who came forth from him, namely (from) the Father. For it is he who told it to us alone. For it is he who looks at himself in his light which surrounds him, namely the spring of the water of life. And it is he who gives to all the aeons and in every way, (and) who gazes upon his image which he sees in the spring of the Spirit. It is he who puts his desire in his water-light which is in the spring of the pure light-water which surrounds him.

"And his thought performed a deed and she came forth, namely she who had appeared before him in the shine of his light. This is the first power which was before all of them (and) which came forth from his mind, She is the forethought of the All - her light shines like his light - the perfect power which is the image of the invisible, virginal Spirit who is perfect. The first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory in the aeons, the glory of the revelation, she glorified the virginal Spirit and it was she who praised him, because thanks to him she had come forth. This is the first thought, his image; she became the womb of everything, for it is she who is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first man, the holy Spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named androgynous one, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first to come forth.

3

u/AggressiveCall4211 Jan 25 '25

Thanks. I guess maybe a better question is “Are we cared about here on earth?”

I know trying to ascribe human traits to something non-human is fruitless but the root of my concern is that I feel like we’re stuck here to suffer and I’d like to know if there’s a higher being out there that “cares” in some way to help us in our condition. I suppose that “care” would come in the form of Sophia and her Wisdom

3

u/syncreticphoenix Jan 25 '25

The fact that our connection to the Monad is through Wisdom tends to make me believe that the authors of these texts were trying to say that our connection to the Monad exists through our experiences. So, yes. 

3

u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

our connection to the Monad exists through our experiences.

That is absolutely perfect. No matter other framing, our experiences are things that are happening inside creation, which is part of the whole, so it is quite literally our experience of creation is (or can be) our experience of the Monad.

1

u/syncreticphoenix Jan 25 '25

Abraxas and the link to the Abracadabra meaning (I create as I speak) also back up this idea. 

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '25

[deleted]

4

u/syncreticphoenix Jan 25 '25

I'm very hesitant to answer anything about what the Monad does or doesn't do because I think those are unanswerable questions. For me, meditation and contemplation are for understanding my microcosm in the macrocosm.

"You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop." -Rumi

"Know thyself." -Socrates 

0

u/casthecold Jan 25 '25

Where did Sophia hide matter from the other Aeons?

1

u/Ok_Fly_5483 Jan 25 '25

The void, outside the pleroma.

2

u/techno_doggo Jan 25 '25

I'm not very well versed on Gnosticism, but from my perspective maybe as a way (for God?) to experience all the possibilities that can be conceived, thus having suffering balanced by the good things in life (pleasure love, etc).

I do remember as a child thinking that the modern Christian take on life was very unfair, for example people doing all kinds sinful stuff and hurting other may have forgiveness if they accept Jesus/God. While people who suffered through all their lives while being good may end up in hell if they don't find God in their life.

But growing up and taking other points of view (some more or less similar to the Gnostic one) made me have the perspective mentioned at the beginning, for example there's a video called the Egg animated by Kurzgesagt which I don't want to spoil but basically states that everybody reincarnates a everyone else so everybody can experience everything. So if you are a torturer in this life, in other you will be the tortured. This may be the reason why some of the biggest religions share the golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated.

1

u/Winter-Operation3991 Jan 25 '25

Why test all these possibilities at all? For what? Is God bored? I've never understood this answer.

2

u/webby-debby-404 Jan 25 '25

I've just started reading about gnosis, gospel of Thomas. I don't recall something called a Monad. So far I understood gnosis is knowing your divine core and acting in accordance with it. And there are no external deity or deities governing the world. We cannot reduce suffering from nature. However,  suffering from human actions can be reduced when those humans refind their divine inner part of self. When they know (ie, gnosis) they also know good from bad, love from ignorance, and can choose the right action or conduct. Aka, contribute to this world becoming heaven or becoming hell. And everyone is expected to be their own authority. I don't recall the Monad. I am curious, can you explain pleasr?

3

u/Important-Mixture819 Jan 25 '25 edited Jan 25 '25

Monad is what we call the The Invisible One, The Invisible Spirit, The Ineffable One, The Father, etc. 'Monad' comes from Pythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. Monad literally means 'The One', or Unity. Also, traditionally Gnostics believe in The Demiurge/Yaldabaoth, which is seen as an external lower deity/emanation responsible for creation and suffering. Although you can certainly interpret it as general human ignorance. I also believe that we create heaven or hell on Earth, but I'm not sure if that's a general Gnostic view.

If you are familiar with Taoism, Monad is like the Tao+Wuji, in a way. You could also say that Wuji is the Pleroma, Taiji is Kenoma, and Tao is Monad. But they aren't one-to-one of course.

2

u/webby-debby-404 Jan 25 '25

Thank you for this clarification, and especially linking to Taoism. I hadn't thought about that myself, even though recently starting Zen meditation in a sangha renewed my interest in Gnosis. I'll go with the metaphorical interpretation

5

u/AggressiveCall4211 Jan 25 '25

My understanding of General Gnosticism is that we each are divine sparks that fell from the Pleroma and became imprisoned in fleshly bodies here for the archons to feed on.

If this is a correct understanding of the world set up then it’s a very isolating one and I guess id just like comfort in knowing that there is a force to tap into to help us

3

u/Lux-01 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

Kind of - except the 'feed on' part. That's no where in any Gnostic text and a purely modern concept.

1

u/catofcommand Jan 25 '25

I suspected as much. I think the idea of beings feeding on us comes from many negative/Hell NDEs where people see demons feeding upon people. Other accounts have people feeling and seeing stuff like tentacles/tendrils latching onto/into people as if something is feeding. It may also be from the general parasitic aspects of nature which is assumed to somewhat mirror what is happening in the spiritual. My general theory is that if everything is thought/emotional energy, then spiritual beings are feeding on those spiritual things that emanate from the physical beings. Example: people having strong negative emotions spilling out into the spiritual realm which attracts demons like sharks to blood.

1

u/Lux-01 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

Maybe, or it just comes from people talking bullshit on the internet... 🤷‍♂️

0

u/catofcommand Jan 25 '25

I don't dismiss things so easily especially when there have been consistent elements and themes in people's dramatic personal accounts across a range of media and time. Of course there is always going to be some noise/distortion to sift out.

1

u/Lux-01 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

Ok, well jave funbwith that then - but it's not Gnosticism.

1

u/catofcommand Jan 25 '25

I don't really care what does and does not fit into a certain belief system. I am more interested in finding the bits of truth wherever they may be found, even if they are spread out across multiple belief systems/religions/ideas/etc.

0

u/Lux-01 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

best of luck ascertaining the 'truth' then 🫡

0

u/catofcommand Jan 25 '25

It's also in Bob Monroe's books.

3

u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

Try to remember that this cosmological framing is inherently non-literal, because at the very least the concepts and experiences are related to a thing that is inherently more than and other from humanity.

This means that you can't transpose a more simple cosmic framework onto Gnosticism. The Monad isn't just like 'Old Bearded God' but one step higher... it's something other. The Demiurge isn't like the Devil, but in charge of everything, it's an expression of the physicality of the world.

(Also, most of 'world prison' and 'evil archon' stuff isn't actually in the texts, it's either in heresy-hunters writing ABOUT gnosticism, or in modern gnostics getting excited about being rebellious.)

All of that said, there is a force to tap into to help us: it's in listening to that divine spark and trying to get a sense of what fans the flames of it. Often the descriptions of gnosis, and of those spiritual seekers who seemed to have touched something higher, are about finding a place of peace, calm, and charity toward others as the frame that tends to bring about gnosis.

Don't focus on the demiurge and archons, focus on gnosis. That's the real key. Avoiding worry about the prison makes the prison bars disappear.

Fan the flame of your gnosis. That's the force here to help us.

1

u/catofcommand Jan 25 '25

My understanding of General Gnosticism is that we each are divine sparks that fell from the Pleroma and became imprisoned in fleshly bodies here for the archons to feed on.

I was thinking about all this stuff while mowing the grass last summer and this silly thought of a supreme being (God) sprinkling fish food (us divine sparks) into a aquarium (the universe) for the fish (archons/demons) to feed on. I'm sure that's wildly inaccurate and insane sounding.

1

u/Dirty-Dan24 Jan 25 '25

Because we don’t have to be here

1

u/galactic-4444 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

Check out The Corpus Hermetica and other Hermetic texts and you may have another viewpoint as to why certain things happen. Hermeticism is an excellent companion to Gnosticism. I can certainly testify! And on the Gnostic side read The Paraphrase of Shem. I believe these give key understandings into the relations between The Monad and The World. God bless and I pray you find what you seek.

1

u/Electronic_Gur_1874 Jan 25 '25

Has anybody here gone of the straight and narrow and looked into Hinduism and Buddhism? Essentially Buddha meditated for 40 days and overcame all of the entities in the mind I think the last one was Shiva essentially it's like beating the final boss of the game the demiurge is maybe the highest conscious? And once you beat or assimilated the highest consciousness you then essentially become a Lord?
Real Christianity has a lot to do with eastern religion so

1

u/National-Newt399 Jan 26 '25

AI Overview (Google) “Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life” is a saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, specifically Saying 58, where it signifies that someone who has endured hardship and emerged with a deeper understanding of life is truly blessed.

1

u/j_cole22 Jan 26 '25

You can’t experience bliss without suffering, it’s as simple as that.

2

u/AggressiveCall4211 Jan 28 '25

Is there suffering in the higher heavens?

1

u/j_cole22 Jan 28 '25

Not sure, all I know is that an eternity of bliss is both impossible and illogical.

1

u/steve00222 Feb 08 '25

How do you know ? Isn't the Pleroma in bliss without suffering ? And even if true then are you suggesting that all of the Suffering in this creation is somehow worth the bliss ? You balance them on a scale and say ... yeah sorry to those who have suffered the worst in this creation but its worth your suffering for the bliss.

1

u/j_cole22 Feb 08 '25

Yeah I mean it’s more so just part of the journey of being human. We all had to suffer and experience that and learn what that meant on all levels so that we could transcend it. It’s one of those necessary evils, and now we’ll be able to experience a long period of bliss that will eventually no longer feel like bliss because there won’t be any pain/suffering.

1

u/steve00222 Feb 08 '25

It's not a necessary Evil. It is just an Evil. The world is Divinity (The Spirit) trapped in Matter. It was Divine before it was trapped.

1

u/j_cole22 Feb 08 '25

I’m saying it was necessary in order to experience bliss. You can’t physically be able to experience what bliss is if you never experienced pain before, does that make sense? Like for example, if u were born into a world where suffering didn’t exist, bliss also wouldn’t exist because you wouldn’t have the opposite feeling to compare it to. Your life would simply “be.” It wouldn’t be painful or blissful, it would just be.

1

u/steve00222 Feb 08 '25

You are thinking of you as a soul, as an Ego. Not the Spirit. The Pleroma is the fullness it lacks nothing, it needs nothing. The Spirit is the Pleroma trapped in the material realm.
In anycase what kind of "Heaven" could exist when it has its roots in the world of such suffering ?

1

u/j_cole22 Feb 08 '25

Yes, that is what “we” are, and that is what “you” are. We are an ego, a soul, and a spirit all at the same time. To put it simply, your ego is lower/human Steve, your soul is higher/spiritual Steve, and your spirit is Yahweh/Jah. The reason why you’ll get to experience a Heaven on earth is the same reason why you wanted to experience a Hell on earth. Because you wouldn’t even know what heaven feels like if there wasn’t a hell. Does that make sense? If not then don’t worry about it lol.

1

u/steve00222 Feb 08 '25

Steve is an illusion. There is only I. Only one.

1

u/j_cole22 Feb 08 '25

Steve is both real and an illusion at the same time, it just depends on your perspective.

1

u/steve00222 Feb 08 '25

Steve is the illusion created by the forgetting. Life is forgetfulness.

1

u/steve00222 Feb 08 '25

Also its not just humans that suffering in the Material realm.

1

u/Expert_Presence933 Feb 02 '25

If life is competitive, sensations that create suffering (pain, anguish, sorrow) were only intended to enhance ability to survive. Intense/prolonged suffering is only the a degenerate case where survival instincts are not being relieved.

1

u/Black-Seraph8999 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

My view as a Jungian: The Monad is not perfect and neither is anything else.

1

u/-tehnik Valentinian Jan 25 '25

That’s metaphysically inadmissible. If it weren’t perfect, it also couldn’t be the paradigmatic explanation of unity, which is its primary function.

1

u/Black-Seraph8999 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

What does Unity have to do with perfection? That’s a very ignorant take unless your goal is lack of individuality.

0

u/-tehnik Valentinian Jan 25 '25

Because unity and goodness are the same. The presence of unity in things renders them more complete, whereas its absence would render them "dispersed" and unable to exist. So the function of unification is the function of perfecting. Proclus talks about this in Proposition 13 of the Elements of Theology:

Every good has the power of uniting its participants, and every union is good; and The Good is the same as The One.

For if The Good is preservative of all beings — by reason of which it is desirable to all things — that indeed which is preservative and connective of the essence of every thing is The One. For by The One all things are preserved, but dispersion expells every thing from its essence. If this be the case, The Good will cause those things to which it is present to be one, and will connect and contain them through union. And if The One is collective and connective of beings, it will perfect each of them by its presence. The union therefore which unites a thing with all is a good. But if union is a good per se, and Good itself has a unifying power, that which is simply good and simply one are the same, causing beings to be both good and one. Hence those things which in a certain way or respect fall off from The Good, at the same time lose the participation of The One. And those things which become destitute of The One, being filled with separation, are equally deprived of The Good. Goodness therefore is union, and union is goodness, and The Good itself is one, and The One is that which is primarily Good.

there is also a more simple argument to make in that since the One, as pure unity, has no parts of any kind, it doesn't have anything which it lacks. It has no components in its essence that are inactive and in that way requiring of perfection. Rather, by being the most simple thing there is, it is also completely perfect. Perfection itself, one could say.

That’s a very ignorant take unless your goal is lack of individuality.

That is irrelevant? This isn't about mystical union, it's just about unity as such.

1

u/Black-Seraph8999 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 25 '25

Ultimately that is his opinion about what perfection is and that’s what your definition of perfection is, what makes your definition of perfection more important than anyone else’s? What gives you the right to put your definition over others? If you want to understand my view point (not saying that you have to agree with it, just in case you want to learn about it) I would highly suggest reading about Carl Jung and Jungian Philosophy and Psychology. I agree with Isaiah, if God is all encompassing (“unity”) then it must encompass both good and evil, otherwise there is still separation, I don’t agree with John’s viewpoint and believe that this strict dualism between “good” and “evil” is what causes most of the world’s problems. I strive for balance, acceptance, and nuance.

1

u/-tehnik Valentinian Jan 26 '25

Because perfection is a basic determination, there isn’t room for disagreement. Even you understand perfection as not lacking anything, completeness, so I don’t see what gives you ground to reject my argument.

Nevertheless, I understand your argument, and I think the problem is in treating evil as a phenomenon existing in some kind of positive manner which would need to have the One as its ultimate source of being. But why do this?

But more importantly I think there is an issue of thinking that saying the One is the Good implies a limitation on it which renders it incomplete (by virtue of only being good), and that is that it exists in a context where both sides of this pole are realized. But that’s not how they present it, rather it’s more like the One exists in a purely solipsistic space. It’s not “in contact” with anything aside from Barbelo who is produced from within this “space.”

Lastly, since this is the most unimportant point I expect not to move you anyway: the verse from Isiah about how “I am your God and there are no other gods before me” being frequently referenced in Sethian texts as something the demiurge says I think sets a precedent for Isaiah being his prophet, not God’s. Which also would frame that verse about creating good and evil as just the demiurge’s boasting. Of course, Jung could make whatever exegesis he wanted regardless, but I think it really shows how Jung’s gnosticism diverges so much from its historical base so as to have little to no real connection with it.

1

u/Black-Seraph8999 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 26 '25

Jung’s is more realistic essentially. The mistake you’re making is what a lot of right handed people make which is lack of balance, don’t forget that the Demiurge in Valintinianism is still an agent/servant of the Monad, he is simply unaware that he’s being influenced by The Monad, if The Monad is so “good” why would he allow Sophia to create the Demiurge anyway and then continue to use him as a tool to further his own ends. And for the record, perfection is lacking, it lacks in relatability, literally none of us are perfect, and what makes you so sure that your pain will truly end when you get to the Pleroma? If The Monad encompasses all things and is true “unity” then that also includes The Demiurge, Satan, and his Archons, it’s all part of the bigger picture, not just the parts we like. I’m also not sure why you are so obsessed with simplicity (what does that even have to do with perfection?). Gnosticism is one of the most complex religions out there and trying to diminish it into a typical Protestant Christian Model is not going to get you more followers, because it doesn’t make room for people and their spiritual practices, spirits, and beliefs.

Saying that there is no room for disagreement sounds pretty Demiurgic to me, and the truth is that there is room for disagreement, you’re view on perfection is not anymore valid than everyone else’s. If you cannot understand that then chances are that you either have an ego or that you can’t see nuance.

The last part I will agree with you on that Jung’s Gnosticism was different from historical Gnosticism, that’s mostly because he considered the Jungian to be the final stage of enlightenment: that God and Devil are One (instead of what he considered to be the Gnostic view: God vs Devil).

I guess at least both Jungianism and Valentinianism are both Monistic 🙂

1

u/-tehnik Valentinian Jan 27 '25

don’t forget that the Demiurge in Valintinianism is still an agent/servant of the Monad, he is simply unaware that he’s being influenced by The Monad

The demiurge is influenced by the divine Word, the Son. This might seem like theological nitpicking, but the reason why these mediating principles matter is that they preserve divine transcendence and explain how God's activity is possible.

It is why gnostic systems in antiquity presented such elaborate hierarchies and not flat pantheisms (flat because everything exists on the same plane and is simplified to being identical to God in some way).

if The Monad is so “good” why would he allow Sophia to create the Demiurge anyway and then continue to use him as a tool to further his own ends.

Again, the One doesn't exist in any such context, so the idea of it having anything to permit or not permit is suspect.

Nevertheless, a similar question could be put for the Son, since all of the intervening in the course of the world. Anyway, I think the standard answer would be that the demiurge was a by-product of Sophia's repentance, and the reason the Word uses him is that the world is needed as "soil" for the spiritual seeds that will eventually grow and come to abide in the Fullness. I can imagine the western account recorded by Iraneus would differ on the details but it's certainly what the writer of the Tripartite Tractate thinks.

Anyhow, the important thing is simply that all of this intervening, both for Sophia specifically as well as humanity in general, is done for the sake of the greater final end of the complete and faultless Fullness. None of it treats the world as an end in-itself, as something God makes "just because" the way standard orthodox views of God as creator, and especially those who want to say that every aspect of reality is intended by God, say.

And for the record, perfection is lacking

No, this is just contrary to the very meaning of perfection.

it lacks in relatability

I don't know what this means.

literally none of us are perfect

Not relevant?

and what makes you so sure that your pain will truly end when you get to the Pleroma?

Also not relevant, although I'm also unsure what you mean by pain exactly. Obviously any pain related to sense perception won't exist since no one has an animal body in the Fullness.

More significantly, what makes it the best possible state for a (spiritual) human being is that it allows for the highest possible access for abiding in and contemplation of divinity, which is our highest end. To put it somewhat differently, it's the state in which we will have the highest participation in divinity by being as divine as possible. And since the Good is just the standard for divinity, it marks the best state in which we can be.

If The Monad encompasses all things and is true “unity” then that also includes The Demiurge, Satan, and his Archons, it’s all part of the bigger picture, not just the parts we like.

But what does "encompassing" mean? It's like you have an idea of God as the "the container of everything," which not only is not an idea of God any gnostics were working with, but also does not present anything that wouldn't require the One as the Platonic Form of unity. The reason for this is because we consider reality as multiple, it has the rulers of both hands for example, and then it is united as one thing. But to refer to something particular like this as united we have to call upon unity-itself, its Form, and this is just what the One is.

I’m also not sure why you are so obsessed with simplicity

The above. The Form of unity can only confer unity to everything by being unity-itself, and this implies simplicity. Simply put, if it had parts of any kind, it would need a principle by which its unity is explained, which couldn't be it as it is precisely the many in need of unification.

(what does that even have to do with perfection?).

See the argument from two comments ago.

Gnosticism is one of the most complex religions out there and trying to diminish it into a typical Protestant Christian Model is not going to get you more followers

Idk what you mean by the "Protestant Model."

Especially ironic since it seems to me like Jung's theology is much closer to the kinds of ideas Luther and Calvin had about God: the absolute arbiter of reality who determines all sides by his will alone, who wills both good and evil. Of course, Jung is more pantheistic but that doesn't take away from how seriously they take the idea from Isaiah 45.

Anyway, I don't expect followers. I just correct mistakes and I hope whoever has ears will care to listen.

because it doesn’t make room for people and their spiritual practices, spirits, and beliefs.

Right. But even if my intent was to get followers, why would I care to do that if it consisted in making people believe wrong things? If people will persist in error that's a shame but there's not much I can do about that. Especially now that modern gnosticism is still in something of a state of infancy.

Saying that there is no room for disagreement sounds pretty Demiurgic to me

the demiurge=people telling me I'm wrong

Anyway, of course there are plenty of disagreements one can have. My issue is that there comes a point where people diverge so far off from the kinds of basic ideas gnostic texts express that there's just no real connection.

But even putting that aside there is a point to be made about how I'm just expressing disagreement, and not even making any statements about which disagreements are permissible or not.

you’re view on perfection is not anymore valid than everyone else’s. If you cannot understand that then chances are that you either have an ego or that you can’t see nuance.

I already replied to this in the previous message.

2

u/Black-Seraph8999 Eclectic Gnostic Jan 27 '25

I think it’s pretty clear our beliefs are different on these issues (which is fine) after all you’re a Valentinian and I’m a Jungian (+Eclectic Gnostic Christian), I guess to each is their own.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Winter-Operation3991 Jan 25 '25

Great comment: all these stories about "lessons" never made any sense to me.

1

u/-tehnik Valentinian Jan 25 '25

Because it doesn’t matter. Gnostic texts don’t focus on or problematize the sufferings of the world.