How many times have we heard it from the self-satisfied who know better than we because they’ve established some repetitive habits: “you can’t be gnostic/religious/spiritual unless you praaaaaactice. You have to Do The Woooooork.” They then proceed, rather smugly in many cases, to explain how those who “do the work” are far superior to those who “merely” study or maintain a spiritual worldview.

This is a fallacious conceit, and a false dichotomy. It is based on a notion that one should set aside certain times for spiritual practice, be those times Sunday mornings, or an hour here and there for meditation, and that those who have done so are spiritually superior to those who have not. If “doing the work” means going to church on Sunday or meditating once a day, then “doing the work” becomes completely useless, because the whole point of the spiritual teachings of Jesus and the Buddha is to make your entire life your practice.

Indeed, we may justifiably reason that what many people consider “the work” is merely peripheral to a healthy spiritual life. The Eucharist, for example, and the various other sacraments, are the least important aspects of the Christian tradition. Meditation and the search for enlightenment are the least important aspects of Buddhism.
Focusing on “the work,” and insisting that setting time aside for practice is an imperative, actually becomes detrimental towards the assistance we may be able to provide other sentient beings, because it quickly devolves into an insistence that salvation is impossible without so doing– “Only those who have been baptised/have taken communion/have achieved satori can be saved.” In this era, if we insist that salvation is only possible through ritual practice or some kind of work, we will alienate far more than we will assist.

In many ways, this is in direct opposition to statements made to the contrary in our historical scriptures and the Gnostic tradition. However, it is the purpose of Way Gnosticism to evolve these traditions by interpreting them according to modern sensibilities– we do not claim that what was correct in the Fourth Century can still apply in the modern day.

Regardless of what has been said by those involved in these traditions, salvation cannot come through mere practice, and cannot be reduced to “Salvation = Eucharist + Prayer + ….” If one views spiritual understanding as a spectrum, these practices are very minor points on that spectrum, insignificant next to the amount of time we are given to express our gnosis throughout the course of our existences within the World of Forms.

What, then, is the most important, from the perspective of Way Gnosticism? It is overcoming the Kenomic Worldview and establishing the reign of the Pleroma within.

This is not to say, of course, that ritual and prayer and contemplative practice don’t have their place– that they are effective and valid cannot be argued by any reasonable student of spirituality. They are, however, pointless if they are the focus of one’s spiritual pursuits, if one’s entire life does not become one’s spiritual practice. If one makes one’s life one’s practice, the formulaic methodologies of ritualism, prayer and meditation can be seamlessly incorporated into an holistic experience without recourse to empty specificity. Gnosis, according to the Way, is primarily Information plus Wisdom, integrated with Insight. Through the Grace of the Limitless Light, Gnosis can emerge within one without any methodology other than study and application of that study to every aspect of one’s life, from brushing the teeth in the morning to drifting off to sleep at night, a far more fulfilling and delightful “practice” than forcing one’s self through a series of tedious exercises only available to a few who are fortunate enough to have access to extra time or geographical resources.

If one never attends church, never meditates, but instead spends one’s entire existence studying and incorporating gnosis into one’s every thought and action, one has accomplished so much more than the average spiritual imperialist, who cherry-picks “practices” from various traditions, or the average religious show-offs who wear their collars out drinking and never shut up about how they’ve encouraged so many people to “do the work.”

Don’t “do the work”– spiritual practice, nine times out of ten, is a complete waste of time, time that could be spent sleeping in or sharing a meal with loved ones or playing with your dogs. If you are inclined towards idleness regarding ritual practice but have a firm conviction regarding the study of the cultivation of gnosis, and its application within every breath you take, every interaction you have with others, and every word you utter, you can safely ignore the platitudes of those who insist that their actions are more valid than your reason for being.

If you hear the Call, and through the Grace of the Lord become inclined to follow the Gnostic Way, there will be no mistaking that this is the case. The Call comes from Grace, according to the Secret Book of John ruled by the Great Luminary Armozel.

However, not everyone hears the Call of the Archangel Armozel, nor is there a need for them to do so. In our post on “Moving from Emptiness to Fullness,” we made the following comment:

…[T]he Way is not for people who are happy and contented and already have a sense of purpose– it’s for people who are living in the Kenomic world.

Who can judge whether someone else is ‘happy’ and ‘contented’ and lives a fulfilling life? Only that person is able to tell.

For this reason, upon Hearing the Call, it is best to focus on one’s own spiritual development, and one’s own search for gnosis within the context of the Way. Attacking those on other Spiritual Paths who may or may not have Heard the Call is useless and counterproductive.

Bullfighting is the greatest enemy faced by contemporary Gnosticism– indeed, to rational spiritual practice of any kind. Gnosticism is dependent on reason– thus the focus on the Mind, Wisdom and the Word. When an argument or idea is presented that is unreasonable (against Nous), unwise (against Sophia), or incoherent (against the Logos), we must ask ourselves whether or not we are experiencing bullfighting.

Bullfighting seems milder than bullshit, but is far more prevalent. Whereas bullshit is intended as such, perpetrators of bullfighting may not set out to deceive or harm. Bullshit is always false, whereas bullfighting can occasionally contain a kernel of truth, or is at least earnestly believed to be true by those engaging in it. In many ways, this makes bullfighting more insidious, and more dangerous, as it’s more difficult to detect. Instead of entering into a complicated discussion of logical fallacy, we can be trained to determine whether an idea is bullfighting by asking ourselves some basic questions about the following areas of analysis:

1. Finger-pointing. Is the argument based on finger-pointing or demonization?

“Our idea must be true because the Roman Catholic Church opposes it.” “If it’s popular, it must be crap.” See also the Anarchonic Fallacy– “Since Gnostic myth often depicts The Demiurge/Creator God and the Archons in opposition to the True God, our singular duty is to ‘freak out the squares.’”

2. Substanceless Speculation. Does it present unsubstantiatable speculation as fact?

“The world will undergo a massive change of consciousness in 2012 because the Mayan calendar says so.” See also Channeling, Seances, etc.

3. Egregious absurdity. Does it depend on ideas that are patently and egregiously absurd?

“The ancient Gnostics were discussing UFOs, and the archons were space aliens!” “I can heal people using the power of magical fairies!”

4. Sentimentality. Does it rely on overt sentimentality? Is it obviously designed to make one “feel good”? Conversely, is it obviously designed to “yank a chain” or make someone angry?

“It doesn’t matter whether magical fairies are real– it makes us feel happy to believe in them.” “You create your own reality!” “Everything happens for a reeeeason!”

5. Self-aggrandizement. Is the perpetrator of the idea mentioned with any kind of frequency? Does he or she emphasize his or her “special status?”

“When I first set out to investigate this idea, I discovered something nobody had ever discovered. I knew then that I had….” etc. “Trust me, because I am enlightened/awakened/an alien/a priest.” See also any number of personality cults.

6. Antiempiricism. Does it denigrate ‘history’ or ’scholarship’?

This is really a corollary of #1. Questioning historical or scholarly theories is one thing, but claiming that history and scholarship have no value is a sure sign of bullfighting.

If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions, you may be dealing with bullfighting. Obviously, many perfectly valid and acceptable ideas may also share one or more of these qualities, but the presence of even a single one should at the very least set off alarm bells.

When facing with possible bullfighting, what should our response be? We must train ourselves to think critically, to investigate whether or not the information in question sounds like bullfighting because it is, or if some additional context may be necessary to understand why it is not.

Bullfighting is loud, frenzied and dangerous, and all too frequently ends in blood. Nonetheless, it is still wildly popular. One thing can be said with great certainty, however: one can’t achieve gnosis while staring down the horns of a bull.

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Matthew 7:1-2
————————-
Hermes to Asclepius:

Hermes. Yesterday we discoursed on the composition of the human, my dear Asclepius, and you proved your ability to grasp the subtle and gross concepts thereof. Upon what topic, therefore, do you wish to converse today?

Asclepius. Today, O Hermes, let us dedicate ourselves to Universal Justice– that which is Fairness and Goodness and Truth– that we may come to an understanding of how Justice is meted out by God, and whether Justice here in the World of Forms is indeed a reflection of the Justice of God. This gnosis will allow us to act Justly in accordance to the nature of God while we interact with this World of Forms in which we reside.

Hermes. A most significant topic, and worthy of our attention, dear Asclepius. Let us, then, proceed by investigating Lex Talionis, that principle of societal justice typically invoked as, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

Asclepius. Indeed, this does seem to me to be the basis of a fair system of Justice, whereby the punishment fits the crime.

Hermes. Is this system, however, not dependent upon the ability of the aggrieved to enact Justice?

Asclepius. Yes, Hermes. Or, if they are unable, to have someone else enact Justice on their behalf. Thus, we have the Law, and those who we trust to enforce it.

Hermes. Do you, then, know of no examples in your life, or from history, in which Justice in this form was not enacted, and the perpetrator escpaed it?

Asclepius. It is true; this does happen due to various circumstances. One may flee to another area, or those who enact the Law may be Unjust.

Hermes. We cannot, then, claim that this Law is Perfect or Fair, as the perpetrators often escape punishment.

Asculepius. So it seems.

Hermes. And as is often the case, those who enforce the Law may be Unjust, and may exploit it to further their own ends.

Asclepius. This is certain!

Hermes. And yet, this Rule is the foundation of Justice according to the Law. Let us put this aside, however, for the sake of argument, and assume an instance in which this Law works as intended. Let us assume that the perpetrator of some evil– say, the theft of some riches– is captured and sentenced to have his hand chopped off.

Asclepius. As would be Fair, O Hermes.

Hermes. What, then, if the thief gladly accepts his fate, and does not recant for the murder? What if he is willing to exchange his hand for the experience of theft? Is this punishment then truly Just?

Asclepius. I think not. He has not learned from his punishment.

Hermes. And how can we know beyond doubt that a thief who claims remorse tells the truth? Perhaps the thief no longer has a hand, but can there be a guarantee that he will no longer steal?

Asclepius. I suppose, without access to the innermost thoughts of the thief, we have no way of knowing that he will no longer steal. But does it not give comfort to the person against whom the offense was perpetrated?

Hermes. Perhaps, but we are working towards Universal Justice. And if Justice is Universal, there must be equibility of effect in both the aggrieved party and the party who committed the offense. If this is the case, is Lex Talionis truly Perfect even when enacted according to the Law?

Asclepius. It appears not, O Hermes.

Hermes. Let us proceed, then, with another example. Suppose a person from one tribe has a hand cut off for stealing from another tribe. Believing the first tribe is acting unfairly, relatives of the thief kidnap and remove the hand of a person from that tribe. As the first tribe sees the kidnapping and punishment as an affront, they proceed to kidnap and remove the hands of yet another person

Apuelius. It seems to me, O Hermes, that eventually no member of either tribe would have hands! My mind is spinning, Hermes, as it seems to me that the foundation of Worldly Law is indeed imperfect and not representative of Universal Justice.

Hermes. Why might this be, O Asclepius, knowing what you do about the composition of the human?

Asclepius. Upon reflection, dear Hermes, the punishments of Lex Talionis apply only to the body of a person, and not to their mind, to their soul or to their spirit.

Hermes. Precisely!

Asclepius. Ah, but what, then, of the doctrine of birth and rebirth found in the work of the Divine Plato, or the concept of Karma ascribed to in the Hind, wherein one’s actions in his current life determine the circumstances of his next life? For example, someone who escapes Justice according to Lex Talionis by fleeing society, or who does not feel remorse for his actions in spite of an equitable physical punishment, may be ensouled into another body in punishing circumstances. For instance, suppose our murderer is reborn as a pig. Would this not be a fitting punishment for our murderer? And, would the knowledge that punishment awaits him in the next life not provide catharsis to the victims of his crime?

Hermes. Let us consider this carefully. I will begin with another example. Let us suppose that our thief escapes punishment, but goes on to suffer an injury which costs him his memory. He takes a new name, settles down in a new city, becomes a kind and charitable member of society, and is completely oblivious to his previous life of crime. When finally placed under arrest for his theft, will he feel remorse for the action? And, is it just to remove his hand?

Asclepius. It seems not, Hermes. He is no longer the same person he was before. One needs the memory of an incorrect action in order to atone for it.

Hermes. Do you, then, Asclepius, have memories of your past lives?

Asclepius. No, O Hermes.

Hermes. And, as you said, you not need the memory of an incorrect action if you plan to show remorse for that action?

Asclepius. Of course, as I said.

Hermes. And would a pig have the memory of being a murderer in a past life?

Asclepius. It is doubtful, Hermes.

Hermes. Would it be Just of God, Asclepius, to punish a poor child in this life for actions that child’s soul may have committed in a prior incarnation?

Asclepius. Not in the least, if that child has no memory of committing those actions.

Hermes. Let us now suppose that a Civil Law was established according to this doctrine of birth and rebirth. Would that Law have any reason to assist those in dire circumstance, if, according to the Law, they are suffering as a consequence of actions for which they have no memory?

Asclepius. On the contrary, it would behoove them not to assist such people, or even to enforce the Law, if they held this doctrine to be true.

Hermes. So, then, can we truly consider the doctrine of birth and rebirth a reflection of Universal Justice according to our reason?

Asclepius. Truly, we cannot, O Hermes.

Hermes. Additionally, Asclepius, whether discussing Lex Talionis or the doctrine of Birth and Rebirth, the punishment wrongs still occurs purely on a bodily level, here within the World of Forms.

Asclepius. And, if punishment is solely meted out to the body, it cannot truly be considered Just. I understand, O Hermes.

Hermes. Very good, my Son! Now then, let us mention what we have reasoned thus far. According to our discussion, we know that the forms of Justice in the World of Forms are in no way reflections of the Universal Justice, as they are Imperfect. Lex Talionis is designed to punish the body of the offender, and those who escape punishment are not subject to Justice. Also, if those who enact the Law are themselves Unjust, we cannot depend upon equinamity. We have also reasoned that the doctrine of Birth and Rebirth is also Imperfect, as those born into new bodies as punishment have no memories of their past lives, but the memory of a thing is necessary if one is to honestly recant that thing. In short, we have learned that Retributive Law can in no way be Perfect, and therefore cannot represent Universal Justice.

Asclepius. Then we truly have concluded nothing, Hermes. Are we any closer to determining the true nature of Universal Justice?

Hermes. We have just begun our investigation, Asclepius, and have only established that the concept of Justice among imperfect humans is in no way representative of that Perfect Justice of God. Let us continue our discourse, then, starting from what we know of God instead of what we know of humanity, and see if this can help us clarify the question a little further.

The Most Important Prayer, if we’re ever going to save this crazy world of ours:

Most Holy Logos, stretch out your hands to all of your charges and lift them as you lifted the sinful woman, especially those who have received no thought or mention in prayer or service, who are neglected and unloved in body, mind, or spirit within this World. Open the doors to the hearts of the glorious Aeons for those who have been cast away in this World of Forms. Nous, Christos, Pistis Sophia, Amen.

Although one might think that the opposite of gnosis would be agnosis, or ignorance, the Way Gnostic finds its opposite in the quality of porosis, a term meaning hardness of heart, dullness, lacking in mental acuity. We find this term used in scripture in a number of places. In Mark’s Gospel, Chapter 3, for instance, Jesus is challenged in the synagogue by those present for desiring to heal the withered hand of a man on the Sabbath (emphasis mine in all following examples):

And he asked them, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill?” But they wouldn’t answer him. And when he’d looked around in anger at them, distressed at the hardness of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch forth your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was made as whole as the other.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul uses the term once again while delivering advice on Christian living to those people:

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

In the Gnostic literature, we find the same phrase used in the text Authoritative Teaching, this time to describe those Servants of the Archons who assail the soul:

But these – the ones who are ignorant – do not seek after God. Nor do they inquire about their dwelling-place, which exists in rest, but they go about in bestiality. They are more wicked than the pagans, because first of all they do not inquire about God, for their hardness of heart draws them down to make them their cruelty. Furthermore, if they find someone else who asks about his salvation, their hardness of heart sets to work upon that man. And if he does not stop asking, they kill him by their cruelty, thinking that they have done a good thing for themselves.

Indeed they are sons of the devil! For even pagans give charity, and they know that God who is in the heavens exists, the Father of the universe, exalted over their idols, which they worship. But they have not heard the word, that they should inquire about his ways. Thus the senseless man hears the call, but he is ignorant of the place to which he has been called. And he did not ask during the preaching, “Where is the temple into which I should go and worship my hope?”

On account of his senselessness, then, he is worse than a pagan, for the pagans know the way to go to their stone temple, which will perish, and they worship their idol, while their hearts are set on it because it is their hope. But to this senseless man the word has been preached, teaching him, “Seek and inquire about the ways you should go, since there is nothing else that is as good as this thing.” The result is that the substance of hardness of heart strikes a blow upon his mind, along with the force of ignorance and the demon of error. They do not allow his mind to rise up, because he was wearying himself in seeking that he might learn about his hope.

In the Secret Book of John, this quality is given to those who do not participate in the Gnostic story:

And thus the whole creation became enslaved forever, from the foundation of the world until now. And they took women and begot children out of the darkness according to the likeness of their spirit. And they closed their hearts, and they hardened themselves through the hardness of the counterfeit spirit until now.

According to our Way, Gnosis = Awakening (Word + Wisdom). As such, we may define Porosis as Unconsciousness (Willful Ignorance + Willful Selfishness).

Unconsciousness is, of course, the natural state of an individual trapped in the World of Forms. It is the unawakened state, the state prior to epiphany or theophany or enlightenment or samadhi or what have you.

Willful Ignorance occurs when one has been presented with the Word, but for whatever reason chooses not just to ignore it, but to oppose it. Obviously those who have never been exposed to the Word cannot be charged with being Willfully Ignorant, which is one of the essential reasons that Ignorance itself cannot be the opposite of gnosis. We find Willful Ignorance in the character of the Demiurge, who, presented with the revelation that he is not the True God, nonetheless carries on as though he is.

Willful Selfishness is, of course, the quality of willfully placing one’s self-satisfaction or pride at a place of supreme importance. We find Willful Selfishness in the character of Pistis Sophia, who, by desiring to create without first returning to the Limitless Light, brings the World of Forms into being.

As Gnosis is the earmark of the Pleromic Worldview, so Porosis describes the state of the individual most firmly involved in the Kenomic Worldview. Neither of these states are static; there is no perfected Gnosis within the World of Forms, nor is there a perfected Porosis. Gnosis is something to be cultivated and typically manifests as a temporary state; Porosis also manifests as a temporary state brought about by the intersection of the three qualities of which it consists. Porosis is as drastic as gnosis, but in the other direction.

Although we may decide to use the word “Gnostic” to refer to ourselves, it is doubtful that one would willingly take the label “Porostic.” It is primarily designed as a tool to help the rational Way Gnostic to avoid falling into such a state. With the definition of this quality in mind, we can ask ourselves, am I being Willfully Ignorant or Selfish? Am I acting as a Pleromic individual, or as someone inside of the Kenoma? We can attempt to avoid Porosis within ourselves, but we must always hesitate before using this tool to evaluate others.

There’s a massive misunderstanding about gnosis going around– a conception exists which says that “gnosis is different for everyone,” that everyone’s experience of gnosis is different and that gnosis is a malleable state, devoid of ontological substance. This is Relativist Gnosis, and it’s incorrect.

The experience of gnosis is the same for everyone who has it. Gnosis is Objective Truth. It is a cultivated experience derived from the inbreaking of the Pleroma, or True Reality, into the World of Forms, or Illusion. As an experience of Truth, it is the exact same experience for everyone. If the experience were relative, it wouldn’t be Truth, and if it wasn’t Truth, it couldn’t be gnosis.

Now, here’s the rub: objectivity appears as subjectivity when filtered through the lens of existence in the World of Forms. Our experiences of gnosis must be identical. However, as we are trapped in this World of Limitations, our ability to describe this experience must also be limited. These descriptions are what makes gnosis seem subjective, or different from person to person. “Everyone has his or her own gnosis” is false. The correct statement should be, “everyone has his or her own description of gnosis.” It’s a subtle distinction, but very important.

What, then, is Gnosticism? It is a conversation between individuals who have had, or who seek to have, this singular, identical experience, but who cannot describe that experience in an identical fashion while stuck in the World of Forms. The Gnostic myths and gospels are attempts by a variety of people to describe an experience that is, in essence, Real. The allowable differences are in the telling, not in the experience.

There is the Experiencer (the Embodied Spark– Humanity) which is trapped within the World of Forms. Then, there is the Experienced– Truth, or The Father, or The Limitless Light or what have you. Gnosis is the intersection of the two, a combination of the Logos, or Word, and Sophia, or Wisdom, and Epiphany, or Awakening (see “The Way“). Now, the Gospel of Philip says that, “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images.” The only possible way Truth can be expressed in the World, by itself or by others, is in “types and images”– imperfect copies of itself. However, it also says (emph. mine) that “….Truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things.” As gnosis is the perception of this “one single thing,” I believe that gnosis requires the “many things” described above — Logos, Sophia, Awakening– to truly be Gnosis. And, these “many things” may take different external forms, but internally, the connection between the Experiencer and the Experienced *must* be identical for anyone who has the experience.

So, the worldly information that contains and expresses gnosis may have some variation, but the experience underneath this containment and expression is the same. The textual evidence may be different– On the Origin of the World versus The Gospel of Truth, say — but the experiences of gnosis underlying these texts is identical. A drop of wine is different than a chalice full, but both are still 80% water, 13% ethanol and 7% other stuff.

We might describe what happened to us during an epiphanic event. We may create myths or participate in rituals designed as an attempt to communicate this indescribable Knowledge. The Knowledge itself, however, exists behind the epiphany, the rituals and the myths, and if it is not the same for each of us, we have nothing that binds us to the Truth.

A dog, a cat, a mouse, a cow and a donkey, all starving, comiserated together in a stable during a time of famine. The dog said, “Our problem is that we have no meat to eat.” The cat shook his head, and answered, “foolish dog. Obviously we suffer due to a lack of fish.” “You are both incorrect,” said the mouse, “as cheese is the solution to our misery.” “Not cheese, but grass, would make us happiest,” mooed the cow. “Stupid animals,” thought the donkey. “None of them realize that we would all be better off with piles and piles of delicious oats.”

An overused trope in spirituality, both in mainstream and New Age circles, depicts the Seeker as “Warrior,” a metaphor which we find immediately and disturbingly suspect. The idea of the Seeker as Soldier may sell books to armchair spiritual fantasists and those hung up on Ephesians 6, but the implications of the word run contrary to everything the Way Gnostic aspires to. Spiritual Seeker as Warrior is a failed metaphor, overextended and bogged down with terrible implications.

The most obvious problem comes from the term itself. A Warrior is someone who makes war on something. When spirituality and warfare mix, even metaphorically (see also ‘jihad’), tragedy almost invariably follows. Warriors exist to incapacitate other people; using warfare to describe the spiritual journey invariably unfulfills the semantic assumptions of these martial comparisons.

The idea of Seeker as Warrior relies quite heavily on a sentimentalized view of a Warrior archetype: heroic, courageous, disciplined, perhaps a knight or a samurai. In reality, these archetypes’ nobility is purely cultural, and glosses over the fact that the primary concern of the Warrior is to exercise power over other people, at the behest of those more powerful. This utilization of power and subjection to power, is the real substance of the Warrior archetype. A warrior exercising power on his own is either a mercenary or a psychotic, whereas a warrior ordered to exercise power who refuses to do so is a traitor.

This relationship of power which is the foundation of the Warrior archetype is the basis for the conclusion that the Warrior– any Warrior, including those who are currently engaged in real-life combat activities– are excruciatingly subject to heimarmene, the World of Fate dictated by the Archons. The Warrior can never escape Fate while still wearing that title; the very word implies that he or she is involved in doing the bidding of heirarchically elevated Rulers. The Warrior cannot question his superiors, cannot throw down his weapons, cannot flee the battlefield, cannot choose his own assignments. Doing any of these things removes his or her status as “Warrior.”

The idea of the spiritual Warrior– even one who claims to be “Peaceful”– is Archonic/Kenomic, as it buys into the idea of this system wherein the exercise of power over others is an accepted state of being. Proponents of the metaphor focus on the above mentioned “positive” qualities sometimes associated with soldiers– heroism, courage, loyalty, discipline– without taking into consideration that one can be heroic, courageous, loyal and disciplined without exercising power through violence, or relying on an archetype so subject to Fate.

Referring to one’s self as a “Warrior” establishes a mind-set heavy with connotation, that there is a “struggle” ahead, and something needs to be conquered or defeated. Although this usually refers to internal states of being, it is all too easy to project this appelation outward onto externalities. What we find in Way Gnostic practice, however, is that this struggle does not exist. There is nothing to conquer or defeat; we do not seek to subdue the Ego, for instance, but to temper it and allow it to incorporate into the whole being. We do not seek to defeat the chattering of the Mind, but to allow the chatter to fade away so that the Mind may settle itself. There is no Pleromic equivalent of the Warrior archetype. The Way Gnostic builds his or her own archetype without the need to resort to the liturgy of violence or sentimentalized defenses of paid murderers.
—————————————
As an aside — Martial Arts practiced by a solitary for contemplative purposes or for health — Tai Chi or Qi Gong — can be of great benefit from the practitioner. It is, however, of grave import that these practices never be used to wield power over another person, or to give someone a sense of physical superiority.

The Lesser Precepts of the Way Gnostic proscribe the practice of fortune telling. The Way Gnostic places no value in the casting of horoscopes or attempts to discern future events via divination, scrying, low magic, etc. There are both mythic and practical reasons for this point of view.

Mythically, the Gnostics were very concerned with what we refer to as “escaping astral determinism.” This is the idea of escaping from “heimarmene,” or fate, by recognizing and denying the influence of the astrological Archons on one’s existence in the World of Forms. In the Books of the Saviour (Pistis Sophia), we find entire passages which discuss the Christos’ ascent through the Planetary Spheres, during which he “changes the direction” of the Spheres, thereby ruining the ability of astrologers to divine:

…[T]hou hast taken their power from them and from their horoscope-casters and their consulters and from those who declare to the men in the world all things which shall come to pass, in order that they should no more from this hour know how to declare unto them any thing at all which will come to pass.

At a later point in the codice, in a different book in the same collection, the soul of the Gnostic, ascending through these Spheres, delivers a resounding denial to the Rulers of Fate who would subject it to Destiny:

Take your destiny! I come not to your regions from this moment onwards. I have become a stranger unto you for ever, being about to go unto the region of my inheritance.

Another, similar account in which the Spheres are disturbed, thereby eliminating Fate can be found in the text “Trimorphic Protennoia”:

And the lots of Fate and those who apportion the domiciles were greatly disturbed over a great thunder. And the thrones of the Powers were disturbed, since they were overturned, and their King was afraid. And those who pursue Fate paid their allotment of visits to the path, and they said to the Powers, “What is this disturbance and this shaking that has come upon us through a Voice to the exalted Speech? And our entire habitation has been shaken, and the entire circuit of the path of ascent has met with destruction, and the path upon which we go, which takes us up to the Archgenitor of our birth, has ceased to be established for us.”

That Gnostic sacramental practice could unloose the bonds of Fate is attested to in the “Excerpts of Theodotus,” a collection of Valentinian sayings recorded by Clement of Alexandria:

Until baptism, they say, Fate is effective, but after it the astrologers no longer speak the truth. It is not the bath alone that makes us free, but also the knowledge: who were we? what have we become? where were we? into what place have we been cast? whither are we hastening? from what are we delivered? what is birth? what is rebirth

Again and again we find this concept in the Gnostic literature. The human is trapped within the World of Forms, under the subject of the Archons, who rule the Zodiac and the Planetary Spheres. This lack of control over one’s own set of circumstances leads to what we refer to in Way Gnosticism as the “Kenomic Worldview.”
Modern Gnostic prophet Philip K. Dick also discusses an escape from astral determinism in the Tractates Cryptica Scriptura:

49. Two realms there are, upper and lower. The upper, derived from hyperuniverse I or Yang, Form I of Parmenides, is sentient and volitional. The lower realm, or Yin, Form II of Parmenides, is mechanical, driven by blind, efficient cause, deterministic and without intelligence, since it emanates from a dead source. In ancient times it was termed ‘astral determinism.’ We are trapped, by and large, in the lower realm, but are through the sacraments, by means of the plasmate, extricated. Until astral determinism is broken, we are not even aware of it, so occluded are we. ‘The Empire never ended.’

As PKD says, until we break this astral determinism, we are so under its influence that we don’t even recognize it. Through various ascent practices, represented in Way Gnosticism by the Greater Precepts or Renunciation of the Archons, we begin to recognize that we exist in this state, and may begin to address it. In essence, we begin to recognize that the Archons are themselves imperfect, and depending upon their influences as guides for Right Action will only ever have imperfect results. This is why we disregard what horoscope casters have to say, and use divinatory tools such as tarot cards as intended– as tools for self-discovery, not for determining future paths.

There is another, more practical reason for the admonition against fortune telling, which was touched upon in the post on Abiding Constancy. The goal of the Way Gnostic in cultivating the Pleromic Worldview is to live as much as possible in the present moment. As part of life in the Kenoma, and modern life in general, we are commonly beset by “archonic” influences such as anxiety, depression, concern, which can weigh us down and cause us to indulge in another kind of “fortune telling.” We become so worried about what “might” happen in any given situation, even something so far in the future or so complex in nature that we aren’t able to discern the webs of cause and effect that may change before the event occurs.

How many times do we stay awake at night worrying or fretting about what might happen the next day, week, month or year? Isn’t this “fortune telling”? Shouldn’t we be sleeping instead? Indeed, a great variety of disorders and health problems arise when we fall under the spell of these Archonic powers that reside within and without of us, unable to live fully in the present moment because our head is full of the chattering of the Rulers of the World of Forms. These obsessive chatterings are the true Archonic Scriptures, chaotic and pointless, distracting and dangerous.

Doing contemplative practice is the best way to train the mind to rid itself of these “Archonic Scriptures” and regular practice will bring about peace and contentment.
The practice of Kimetikos has also been designed to assist the Gnostic practitioner in an escape from the rulers of fate in a mystical sense, beginning with the Rulers of the Body, then moving to the astrological rulers in more advanced, contemplative stages.

Our friend Dean Wilson asks this very question in a post on his website:

The point I’m trying to get at here is that nearly every tradition makes up an older origin to give it credence. If a prophet of Dublin was to get crucified and I was to claim to have been given a book written by one of his disciples, there’d be a stir. If I admitted that I wrote it myself no one would read it, even if it contained the actual teachings of this prophet, even if it’s in the same style and tradition. People seem to think that “older” equals “more true”. Is that necessarily the case?

I once argued this with someone who claimed that Hermeticism was the oldest thing in existence (I love Hermeticism, but come on). I pointed out Gnostic links in the Corpus Hermeticum and he said that he taught the Corpus Hermeticum wasn’t very Hermetic. For anyone who’s even vaguely familiar with this topic, I think the Hermetic nature of the Corpus Hermeticum is fairly evident. Indeed, that’s where the term comes from, and that’s one of the oldest sources we base our knowledge of Hermeticism on (stemming from the same time and place as the height of Gnosticism, which is probably why the Gnostics of Nag Hammadi had Hermetic texts in their library). Instead this guy argued that the Kybalion is what he saw as more Hermetic. I pointed out that it was roughly 100 years old and he tried to backtrack….

This kind of “everything started in Ancient Egypt” argument is, I believe, sorely lacking, yet more and more people seem to use it without understanding much about it or where it came from. There are many who claim Christ was taught by a priest of Osiris, for example, and various other “it goes back to Egypt” claims. While some of these might be true, we need to make the necessary distinction between what may be and what is. The Hermeticism/Hermetism of Ancient Egypt might have been. The Hermeticism we know today is, and just because it’s only 2,000 years old doesn’t make it any less beautiful and valuable and true.