Question regarding Gnostisicm

Hi Lono i too would be interested in anyones  thoughts on the story of Adam and Eve and the two basic versions or interpretations. Jeremy Narby's book the cosmic serpent talks about DMT and shaman taking thier awareness down to the level of DNA and see's the serpent shape as symbology of dna strands and knowledge from this realm. The serpent represents knowledge or the unseen and femine energy too perhaps? the snake may have become somewhat demonised over the years.

I recently received a tape of a lecture that discusses the relationship of the "Mary" (StellaMara) with the serpent.  In many statues and paintings, she's standing on a snake/"serpent" (or more than one snake in other depictions) and Genesis 3:15 says, "I will put enmities between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."  Presumably meaning the woman is Mary and she will crush the head of the serpent.

Also interesting to note that the Caduseus (the intertwined snakes, symbolising the medical profession) has also been witnessed by many 'alien abducees' on the uniforms of the 'aliens'.  I wonder if that's just sheer coincidence or misinterpretation? 

I believe the sperpent/snake has many meanings.  If we stretch our imagination and consider the Archon's (sometimes called Archangels) may have been advanced beings from some other dimension or world that came here and had a hand in originating life here on Earth, it's possible that either they physically resembled serpents or they may have had a DNA helix as an insignia representing their race that was interpreted as intertwined snakes?  Or perhaps both views are correct and have been confused in the retelling over the generations here on Earth.  Trying to unravel the true meaning is extremely confusing from our present perspective.  We've been taught that certain stories are strictly allegorical, yet I sometimes wonder if that isn't the lie.

From what I read about the gnostics, one reason they were persecuted for heresy is that their beliefs were dynamic. Unlike the Bible which is supposed to be a complete and solid foundation for faith, the gnostic beliefs shifted depending on the latest revelations. So the Church said the gnostics were crazies who believed different things on different days, that they were making things up on a whim.

Gnostic Christianity may differ in details from other forms of gnosticism. After all, gnostic ideas are supposed to come through inner revelation, direct contact with the fountain of truth - or at least possible truths checked over with your inner guidance. So taking that into account, then considering the revelation must still be put into language, and the language may be traditionalized and further corrupted by succeeding generations, in the end there may be some contradictions regarding the details.

When someone claims to be gnostic, sometimes they mean "I study the ancient gnostic scriptures, can speak the lingo, and consider these the foundation of my belief system," other times they might mean "I adhere to the gnostic principle of truth through revelation, and use this as the core of my learning and discovery process."

Personally I think that sticking too closely to the scriptures of the old gnostics goes against the idea of gnosticism, because it takes something dynamic and living and turns it into just another static religion. The terms archon, pleroma, aeon, etc... and their associated concepts were the best they had to label and explain what was revealed to them. If they were alive today, they might express it differently. They probably are, and have.

Doesn't answer your question, Lono, but just wanted to add my 2 cents.

Even the three-book series Gnosis by Boris Mouravieff, despite its title, differs from the traditional Christian Gnosticism. So that's another face of gnosticism. It deals with Esoteric or Inner Christianity and outlines a system similar to, but more complete than, the Fourth Way stuff of Gurdjieff. And yet even with gnosis forming the core of that material, the terminology is different. So I guess it comes down to learning about the various faces and putting together what makes the most sense. Metahistory.org has done this, which may explain why it is not exactly identical to what you may read in other treatments of gnosticism.

Yeah I hear you. Maybe finite intelligence due to the complex balance of individuality and cooperation automatically organizes into hierarchies, but despite our being of finite mind while here, we are still connected to the greater infinite within, so there is no justification for abandoning the infinite within for some external finite energy sucker.

Interesting point - maybe these are just archetypes that are whole and non-dualistic in themselves, but express themselves in dualistic forms. Maybe the snake is an archetype expressed in animal form, slithery cunning in another, virtuous wisdom in another, hidden genetic potential in another. I would think that hyperdimensional entities, being "broader" in their scope of existence, would be purer and more wholistic in their expression of an archetype. Like the grays and their operators, not only reptilian insignias, but reptilian DNA, slithery cunning, etc... Then the question is, what would happen if a reptilian chose to flip over into the STO mode of expression - they would not switch archetypes, they would merely switch expression of that archetype. Self-serving cunning may become sharp wisdom in the name of serving others, and so on.

The Matrix movies are another example - how do you interpret something like that except according to your own perception of what those archetypes mean to you? How is it that myths, allegories, have so many different simultaneously valid layers? The story of Adam and Eve and the serpent - I wonder if there is any single true meaning, or whether it's just a general "shape" that molds the different but valid interpretations of it. Like a coat hanger - holding coats is what it does, but it does not determine the exact coat per se. Just thinking out loud...  So that gets back to why the gnostics did not have a single solitary unified consistent doctrine. The only way to indirectly understand an archetype is by looking at its many different manifestations and looking for the constant between all of them.

Pictus, you spoke for me too. Lots of new research area for me and I'm going a lot slower than I prefer, because of business, work, so-called social life, laziness etc. Even my dreams began to warn me by showing me in exams which I didn't study, or even didn't know that I'd enter one! The interesting thing is, the teachers who got me to their exams are sure that these would be no problem for me. They trust my knowledge but I find myself thinking "oh no, I haven't studied these subjects!". Interesting dreams which I saw several times lately.

Anyway, back to Lono's original questions about Gnostic sources - there's one more indicator that I use; the approach to woman/female/yang. Pinkrlyq's reference from the Bible exists in Quran too - literally with same words! Elsewhere I wrote about indicatiors of Archon mind; supressing woman/female/yang is one of the most important indication for me. So, I prefer metahistory's views. All kind of Middle-east based religious texts go back to Yhwh and I believe - as Tenet wrote - any kind of hier-Arch-ical Archonic game is definitely not for the good of human beings.