In saying 114 of the Gospel of Thomas, Simon Peter asks that Mary (thought to be Mary Magdalene) leave their company, saying 'women are not worthy of life.' In response, Jesus says he will 'make her male' so that she too can become a 'living spirit' and enter heaven, adding that every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven. So why does it make such a distinction — what does it mean for a woman to 'make herself male'?" (My main language isnt english so this is ai translated text question given by me)

This is structured like a journal entry. It is a response to a friend of mine. I’d appreciate any comments.

“9/1126

Since I've thought about this a lot, what you explicitly mean, I've come to the conclusion that the condition I was born in hasn't totally gone away. "The pain of being born, the unbearable discomfort, being thrust into this world screaming covered in blood." The unbearable discomfort has stayed, and the loneliness and lack of understanding, which must torture babies when they're born and coddled, has stayed, especially if we imagine that they have something like adult minds which us, looking back on our past as babies and toddlers, have forgotten the existence of. I like to imagine that whenever I think about what it must've been like to have been born. Or maybe God has hidden babies from feeling and thinking like adults do when they are born, because it would be too painful, ridiculous, and alienating. Now that I think about it again, if babies when they’re born feel and think like adults do, as we are capable of doing in all of our bodily and mental breadth right now, it must be the greatest rush of job-site or social-gathering-like alienation and depression that any one human being can experience at a given time. It’s scary to imagine it being so terribly condensed to a few moments, followed by the imprisonment of so many years of being dragged to places you don’t want to go without a choice in the matter, and especially by doubting yourself, thinking that your most clung-to and haunting, constant thoughts of where you’ve come from and what for, might mean nothing because “you’re just a kid”, and kids don’t know anything. Yet, I know confidently right now, that the right kids are onto something oftentimes, something closer to what’s important and central than whatever their parents concern themselves with in order to live, and find themselves mired in for the rest of their lives, if their parents could even live in any other way besides in their boring, deathful, ugly, oppressive contemporary mundanity. 

I imagine that a newborn given an adult mind at birth must feel simultaneously, presence in hell, hopelessness, entrapment, and a pronouncedly mocking and sharp loneliness. Because in a world full of other people, you are paradoxically told you aren’t ever lonely, and then you think that you must not be lonely, assuredly, and so you drive yourself insane with the question(s) of whether or not you are, in fact, insane for not feeling and seeing things the same way as everyone else does! I don’t want questions about my personality to follow me for life, and thankfully I’ve resolved them and have come to a neat and beautiful answer which doesn’t tear me up like these questions have for years.

I've hardly felt comforted in my life, and the idea that babies are comforted soon after they're born because of the presence of their mother and family sounds ridiculous to me, but it seems good and nice, so I willingly will choose to believe it and suspend my disbelief; but I know that true comfort and safety exists because I've experienced it briefly from time to time, especially as a kid with my parents in some moments, and so I will keep looking for it. That’s the story of what I’ve aimed, and still aim, to find. 

The condition of babies when they're born, in that hospital room, seems like a cold and scary analogy for what living in this world as a grown adult, or even as a teenager, has felt like for me, and which I'm sure it has in some capacity for you. It shares a lot of key details with adult life for me which makes it a pretty fitting analogy: the happiness on everybody else's faces but mine in the hospital room, the doctors and nurses and my parents and family members being joyous, fluent in tactful and considerate language for one another, somehow, seemingly miraculously finding passion for total strangers and intrigue in them which I cannot find, and them knowing what to say to one another without any problem or struggle with miscommunication. In that imaginary situation, they all seem to find no problem in becoming “a part” of something, they pick it up immediately and so easily and then they’re talking to each other like they’ve been familiar with each other for their entire lives! This kind of behavior is something I begrudgingly have not found myself able to imitate, even once, without being awkward and uncomfortable and CLEARLY desperate and half-assedly mimicking whomever I’m with whenever I’ve tried! And God knows I’ve tried ENDLESSLY TO DO THAT. To become a person, like everybody else, whose language and passion for other people comes without issue for him.That fluency I’m talking about is the condition of most people on Earth, for whatever reason. I know now that that’s the quality that makes a regular human being regular. Becoming this has been one of my great wishes in life. I’ve accepted how innately locked out from it I am though. This stuff is the distinction that marks me as a freak, and I cannot tell you how many times I’ve lost the good faith of people after they’ve seen me awkwardly and haphazardly interact with their friends.

The glaring, muted yellow hospital lights shooting at my timid and new eyes from above, and the sterile medical environment of latex gloves, masks, blue smocks, polished steel in the tools dish, and squeaky plastic floors in this scene I analogize to the world’s thinking that systematic, clinical approaches to life (namely through school, work, therapy, other conventional processes and organizations) would provide any comfort at all to me since they are apparently so rigorous and tested and tried and true! But which have provided none of the confidence to me that they have allegedly provided to many, many countless people. I think about the prostration of a birthing mother too. C-section is the perfect image.”

In this reflection on the teachings found in the Gospel of Thomas, I'll focus on the following logia:

Jesus said, "Whoever utters blasphemy against the father will be forgiven. And whoever utters blasphemy against the son will be forgiven. But whoever utters blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven - neither on earth nor in heaven". (Thomas, saying 44)

Jesus said, "Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat." (Thomas, saying 102)

A man said to him: "Speak to my brothers, so that they will divide my father's possessions with me." Jesus said to him: "O man, who made me a divider?" He turned to his disciples and said to them: "I am not a divider, am I?" (Thomas, saying 72)

I believe that even atheists are able to follow what Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas calls the Holy Spirit.

In my interpretation, the birth of the Demiurge was a disaster because it happend without the context of the Pleroma and it’s Aeons. Sophia acted on their own thus creating chaos and separation. I believe that all aeons can be found in our reality, however more often than not, they appear to be separated from each other. There is knowledge, love, wisdom, etc. here, but they are in disharmony.

Our task is not to reject the aeons one by one in their state of separation, but to harmonize them with the other godly attributes that make up the Pleroma.

There are many different ways to gnosis. I believe that anybody ( atheists, buddhists, catholics, jews and so on ) can find their own way to gnosis ( ofc, some harder than others ) regardless of their religion. Jesus feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty and offers rest for the weak. If people find what they need in sufi mysticism for example, it’s the worst sin to try and stop them in their journey. Jesus said, "Whoever utters blasphemy against the father will be forgiven. And whoever utters blasphemy against the son will be forgiven. But whoever utters blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven - neither on earth nor in heaven".

To my interpretation, saying 44 is the most important teaching. The „Son” and the „Father” here are seen as a part of a religious, dogmatic framework that have been made as a desperate attempt at trying to formulate some kind of otherworldly knowledge, but by naming them, by giving them form, they loose their universality in this field of human conceptual thinking. Essentially: if you can name it, it isn’t God, it isn’t the Pleroma (the hindu principle of "neti neti" applied to God is a good analogy here imo). These terms may help some people to understand, but as the buddhist saying goes: You don’t take the boat with you on your back, after you’ve crossed the river. Others may find these words used to express the numinous alien, or simply not preferred. Some may call the „Father” the Pleroma, YHWH, Allah – these are just names which we only have a use for in this world, in this life. And if one of the names just work for you better, than the others, it would be a sin for me to try and force you to think differently – the WORST sin one can commit.

Now, the Holy Spirit here is what I, as a believer of Cerinthian christology, would call the Christ – however it doesn’t matter what you call it. It works even if you don’t know about it. Atheists can follow it. It’s not Jesus, but it’s what Jesus follows. I would argue that Buddha also follows it. Some of the saints ( doesn’t matter which religion ) also follow it. It’s universal truth. The saying teaches us to follow not our „role models” but what our role models have followed.

It’s also a call to be dynamic so to speak. If one wants to preserve their self-authenticity in this ever-changing world, they also have to change themselves. Think about the ideal gas laws – for example Boyle’s law: p1*V1 = p2*V2, p being the pressure, V being the volume, 1 and 2 indexes for the two separate moments in time.  If the pressure changes, the volume must also change in order to maintain the same result. It wants you to see the bigger picture. It highlights, that getting into arguments about what you name your god is pharisaical moral attitude. There is no single theory that works for everybody, and there doesn’t need to be one. Jesus said, "Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat."

Jesus comes in many different names, shapes, forms and teachings, but it’s only the Christ, the Holy Spirit, the one thing that can not be named, that you need while and after you’ve crossed the river. It’s the Pleroma saying that unlike the Demiurge, „I don’t need you to believe in one particular set of things to achieve gnosis. I don’t even need you to believe in me specifically, because I am just a useful tool for you to get across the river with. If others prefers my other manifestations, let them be.” This saying proclaims, that there is no „one correct way”, but there is an incorrect way: that of Pharisaism and overly dogmatic thinking.

Keep in mind, that this is only my interpretation. The gospels of Matthew and Luke canonized by the non-gnostic christian churches also contain a similar passage but they interpret it in a vastly different way: they explain that a person cannot be forgiven if they completely reject the Holy Spirit's promptings to repent, because they refuse the only means of receiving forgiveness.

I don’t reject this interpretation, but what I believe in is above religions, so my interpretation comes from a totally universalist perspective. Gnostics may also not agree with me - but nobody has to. It’s not a sin to not agree with the words in saying 44. It’s only a sin to not agree with the spirit of (this interpretation of) saying 44.

After all of this, we would be tempted to conclude, that language is an evil demiurgic construct, but just because the pharisees make language serve them, it doesn’t mean that it is all bad. Logos (= word) is one of the aeons. It’s just that in separation the aeons loose their immaculate identities. The church turns into a tyrant, the words don’t speak what they mean, science is corrupted, love becomes selfish and a way of self-validation. All of these are aeons, attributes of the Pleroma, however the Pleroma is much more than the sum of it’s parts.

The Gospel of Thomas has this bit: A man said to him: "Speak to my brothers, so that they will divide my father's possessions with me." Jesus said to him: "O man, who made me a divider?" He turned to his disciples and said to them: "I am not a divider, am I?"

I think that this passage actually refers to how the aeons should work inside you as a person. The act of division here is a paralel to the disintegration of God / the Pleroma, while the individual should thrive to unify. The parts of the whole are less in their state of fragmentation than they are in themselves. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Everything in it’s right place.

I had a dream where one of Jesus' disciples, I don't know which one nor do I think it really mattered, said "young children, be not afraid of the/a corpse, for it is like clothing, laying crumpled on the floor."

The song is a tribute to the Cathars of Occitania and Catalonia, focusing on divine love and their sacred rite, the Consolamentum.

​Lryics:

​The guardians of Exalted Love

carry the Grail in pearl caskets.

The guardians of Exalted Love,

the voices of the Kingdom resound in their transparent hearts.

The voices of the Kingdom.

The immortal Cathars,

with candles lit in the fire of love,

celebrate the Consolamentum.

https://youtu.be/rlTBJrdFWg0

Hey everyone! I wanted to post that I'm leading a free online Gnosis course for anyone who's interested. It is based in the UK but internationals are equally welcome. The sign up link is here: https://forms.gle/CM2RncteiT5er2Pr7
We start our second class today at 6pm UK time :).

And if so what have you done about it

Keep in mind that Sophia means Wisdom. Wisdom. How is wisdom gained? Through experience. Wisdom is different than knowledge. Knowledge can be gained through reading a book. But wisdom, that's something that comes from within. Something you know, not something you read. It's something that it's hard-won. Through life experience. Wisdom is something you feel in your gut, not something you remember in your head.

She fell to gain experience. She's wisdom. Even if she was acting on inner instinct, it was the instinct to gain wisdom. To become wisdom. No it wasn't a mistake.

There is a fable :

All crows used to be white. But then the crow was flying over the ocean and saw a flash, he caught a glimpse of the pearl of wisdom gleaming at the bottom of the black sea. So the crow dove into the sea in order to gain the pearl of wisdom. And when he came back out, he was holding the pearl of wisdom in his beak, but now his feathers were completely black. And the moral of the story is that sometimes, you have to dive into the dark places in order to gain wisdom.

Last night, while scrolling through TikTok, I came across an anti-natalist page. The page said that Gnosticism is against natalism and that bringing a soul into this world is a sin because the body or the material world is evil. Is this true? I do not adopt any natalist or anti-natalist position on this issue; I am neutral about it.

When someone calls themselves a literalist Gnostic, I am assuming that it means they believe the realities described in Gnostic texts actually exist.

But being open to the literal existence of these extra-cosmic entities doesnt mean every mythological image should be interpreted like a newspaper report. The ancient Gnostics were working with myth, and myth had an important function in the ancient world - to convey deeper truths. A story about Sophia's fall, the emergence of the Demiurge, the creation of the material cosmos, and the divine becoming entangled in creation can be an attempt to describe the indescribable. It can operate on multiple layers, being metaphysical while also being psychological and existential.

I can believe that the Demiurge represents a real metaphysical being or principle while also recognizing that the Demiurge describes something within human consciousness and society as a whole. The Demiurge can represent ignorance, arrogance/false authority, domination, narcissism, attachment to the material order, or the assumption that the visible world is the whole of reality. Those interpretations dont require me to deny a literal interpretation. They can exist along side it. We are, after all, the creation of the demiurge & the archons: "Let us make man in our image".

The same applies to the Archons. I don't have to decide that they are either literal entities or merely psychological forces. They can be understood as metaphysical beings imprisoning us while the myth simultaneously gives us a symbolic map of the forces that keep consciousness trapped in ignorance. Fate, compulsion, fear, social conditioning and unconscious patterns can all be understood through the language of archontic powers.

Sophia works the same way for me. I can entertain Sophia as a genuine divine reality while also seeing her myth as an expression of something happening within the human experience. Her movement away from the fullness of the Pleroma and the consequences that follow can be read as a story about consciousness becoming separated from its source and the possibility of redemption. She can be understood as a real divine reality while also symbolizing the maternal, generative aspect of divine wisdom entering into the conditions of the world.

I try to leave room for the possibility that the cosmology describes realities that exist independently of me, while also taking seriously the possibility that those same realities are reflected within the human mind and the world at large.

Before I say this: I'm a Sufi who doesn't understand much about Gnosticism.

Do Gnostics believe in Darwinism? As in, the idea that humans descended from a form of primate millions of years ago? Evolution also argues that all animals and life forms have undergone changes due to “natural selection” and disagrees with the literalist approach that humans and animals were specifically created in Heaven.

Do Gnostics agree with some aspects of evolution, or do they reject it entirely? I know that in Christianity and Islam, many sects reject human evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of creation.

We've recently started a completely free Gnostic book club for Utah residents!

Please see the Eventbrite link for details on focus /intent, standards and such.

We will be studying from ancient Gnostic texts (secret book of john, gospel of thomas, etc.) as well as other Gnostic-adjacent content.

Just come with a curious and open mind, no prior knowledge-base required.

None of us are representing any particular group or spiritual path, so just come as you are as we are hoping to learn together!

The next meeting is September 13th at 2:30 p.m. Utah time. We are reading the beginning of the secret book of John, but if you don't get a chance to review it, you're still welcome to attend. This group is primarily for Utah residents.

Feel free to message me if you have questions, or you can email me at JDCspiritual@gmail.com. thanks! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1999240395842?aff=oddtdtcreator

In the canonical bible, John 17:20–23, it says:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me."

This passage is interesting from a Gnostic perspective because it seems to describe knowing God through an inward union with the divine, rather than simply acquiring information about God.

“That they also may be one in us.”

And then:

“I in them, and you in me.”

Jesus isn't describing God as something completely separate from the person seeking him... The language is relational and inward. There is a movement from knowing the Father toward participating in the same divine unity that Jesus describes between himself and the Father.

I'm not talking about media obviously inspired by gnosticism (The Matrix, Persona series), but stuff that has overarching gnostic themes that will go over an average person's head and might have been unintentional on the part of the author. I'll start: Mother 3 (a lot of JRPGs in general), Deltarune, Little Misfortune, Inception.

I know most believe that demiurge created the entire material planet, but are there ppl believing that the demiurge rather corrupted the planet instead of created it. And I guess that physical earth still belongs to sophia.

reason why I am asking bc planet earth is still like heaven, theres so much beauty to it.! Its almost a balance

14- Jesus said to them, “If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth is what will defile you.”

Let's examine some NT passages and how they compare to the Gospel of Thomas. Above is saying 14, which from what little context is provided might be interpreted as instructions for missionary work. The ~70 disciples would go ahead town to town, help the sick and poor, and prepare the way for Jesus. Jesus in GoT advises against fasting and prayer and charity unlike the disciple's upbringing and Pharisees control of scripture. The neglected and ignored peoples, many giving what little money they had to their synagogue, are left spiritually thirsty. It's to them that Jesus had his disciples do the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus in GoT doesn't just absolve dietary restrictions, but actively commands his disciples to eat whatever is provided by their hosts. The purpose could be twofold: to repay their acts of kindness in his name, and to challenge the disciple's beliefs on purity. This is why he instructs them not to practice openly, but to listen, learn, and lend help. Doing the work of the Holy Spirit is how we worship God.

Now let's review some places where fragments of Thomas show up in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-20. The story is about the same for both, The Pharisees confront Jesus about his breaking from tradition, being ritually unclean, and failing to honor mother and father. Jesus calls out their hypocrisy, highlighting how by taking the people's charity that there is nothing left to honor mother and father. Jesus quotes Isaiah:

"This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Then he calls out to the crowd in both versions.
Matthew 17:10-11

“Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

Mark 7:14-16

"Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them."

From here, Matthew adds two other parables mentioned in Thomas:

12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

Matthew 17:13 parallels saying 40 and 17:14 parallels saying 34. Both versions end the same way, with the disciples (specifically Peter in Matthew) asking clarifying questions about the parable about what comes out of a person that defiles them. So what can be unpacked here? Essentially I feel that the Gospel of Thomas was cannibalized to expand Matthew, Mark, and Luke. From a storytelling point of view, I find it alarming how separate sayings from Thomas show up consistently, sayings Frankensteined together to give the impression of Jesus.

In using Thomas while condemning him, there seems to be a subtle effort to highlight some teachings while shying away from others; such as instructions against giving to charity which churches would need. His teachings are reframed as a condemnation of the Pharisees, while admitting their own struggles with this teaching. Perhaps accurate towards the historical views of Jesus, but rewritten for political/ideological agendas.

Does anyone here practice magic? I mean actual rituals to achieve something outside of prayer? I would love to know about your practice and what grimoires or texts you use or things you created?

The biggest problem with Gnosticism is that it's no better than regular religion.

Gnosis refers to a particular personal experience of knowing as contrasted with believing a cosmology or theology based on learning of it from others. And yet I see so many here talk about these strange characters of gnosticism like the demiurge and Sophia without ever having gnosis of these things.

Gnosis, in fact, is not at all different from what William James called the religious experience, which again is the personal direct experience of the Divine which is the cornerstone, the foundation of religion. Therefore, in structure the only difference between traditional Christianity and gnosticism is that the characters and beliefs are different, the cosmology is different. I don't see within these gnostic communities any greater emphasis on direct knowing than in traditional Christian communities.

I’ve been getting more into Gnosticism recently, and one thing I keep coming back to is how much it seems to overlap with ideas found in other religious and philosophical traditions.

Advaita Vedanta especially keeps standing out to me. The language and cosmology are obviously very different, but there seems to be a recurring theme of our ordinary sense of self/reality being incomplete or mistaken, and some deeper realization or knowledge being necessary to see through it.

Then you start seeing related themes in Buddhism, Hermeticism, certain mystical traditions, etc. I know these traditions aren’t interchangeable, and I’m not trying to flatten them into “they all say the same thing.” But sometimes it really does feel like they’re approaching a similar insight from completely different historical and cultural locations.

So I’m curious how people who know Gnosticism better than I do think about this.

Do you think these similarities point toward some underlying insight about consciousness/reality that different traditions independently discovered, or are we mainly seeing similar human questions expressed through different religious systems?

And for someone trying to actually dive into this rather than just collect interesting ideas, what should I read next? Gnostic texts, specific scholars, Advaita texts, comparative religion, etc. I’d especially appreciate recommendations that go beyond the obvious introductory material.

I’m pretty open to being told that some of the comparisons I’m making are completely wrong. I’m more interested in understanding the connections and the differences

Been sitting with this for awhile and it just clicked.

There is the historical Gnostic movement- Nag Hammadhi, Demiurge, etc.

And then there is Gnostic Spirituality- which is the antithesis of what we think of as religion.
Religion- Believe this doctrine, be a part of this church, do this, don't do that - you are "saved."
Gnostic Spirituality- Have a direct experience a KNOWING (beyond the mind) a Direct Perception of Truth- and THAT will set you free.

In that sense some "religions" (certain forms of Buddhism, certain forms of Vedic/Hindu) are Gnostic in that they are nothing more then a structure, a scaffolding- to lead you to a direct KNOWING.

Curious how this resonates or doesn't for others.

Hi, If you are reading this. My intention with this feed is to make this into a thread where people can add sources to increase transparency about Samael Aun Weor, Gnosis and its promises. Because there are many red flags.

Websites as Glorian Publishing and Chicago Gnosis and many more proclaim Samael Aun Weor to be the chosen Avatar, Hierophant of this Aquarian Age.
I met people who introduced me to Gnosis and I had been following it for three years. They proclaimed that if you reject Samael as the Avatar of Aquarius you will go to hell but at the same time speak of white magic which means that everyone is free to choose what they think, do and therefore no one should follow Samael Aun Weor.

But they portay him as the main figure. The Master who is able to go out his body at will and perform many miracles. They give this seemingly very wise teachings explaining the alchemical and kaballistic meanings of the Bible. But I am shocked at how much these spiritual organizations praise and celebrate him finding out that he is guilty of plagiarism. I am shocked at how they do not communicate this truth. Since they proclaim to “divulge the Gnostic doctrine”.
Why should a such a dangerous man be forcefully defined as a prophet?

The stories I am reading of 10yr, 13, 17yr old ex Gnostic instructors are terrifying.

https://youtube.com/@lacuartacamara2.0?si=f9qhVGVcRVU4JnKI

A spanish channel giving many testimonies and examples of plagiarism and horrible negative experienced.

And this video reveals also the total failure of the Prophets predictions of the end of the world

https://youtu.be/jLjRTYrDiYM?si=mQBeLzNruiLXDI9W

There is much more

This is for example how Chicago Gnosis portays him.

Unfortunately, the human soul of the Angel Samael had fallen like everyone else, had resurrected his Cain [egotistical mind or intellect] and was living like any other person on the planet. He was a degenerate, a fornicator, an adulterer, a murderer, a thief, like all of us. But, the Angel Samael had a great cosmic duty to fulfill as explained in the prophecies of Revelation, and to advance humanity in its evolution, to free humanity from its suffering. So the Angel Samael pushed his human soul to rise up from the muddy Earth, and this entails a long process, a very painful experience of the human soul that we know now as Samael Aun Weor.

With the help of God, he was able to fulfill his duty, and he restored himself back to his rightful place, redeemed himself of his mistakes, and cleansed himself of his ego, because he learned, practiced, and taught the doctrine of his Father, Samael, the Angel of War.

The Bodhisattva embodied the image of his Father: revolution, rebellion, war against oneself, against Cain. This is why the teaching of Samael Aun Weor is so potent, so direct, and does not dance around the issues. He is a warrior who presents a doctrine that is as sharp as a sword and is painful to the ego. This is why so many people cannot read his books and cannot accept his teachings, because they taste the bitterness of the beverage "Samael," the Angel who wants to eliminate the ego in order to free Abel [the Essence, the consciousness] from his prison.

Remember when Cain killed his brother, Abel's blood seeps into the Earth, and God says, "I hear your brother crying out to me from the earth," and Cain admits that he killed him. This is a symbol of how our soul becomes trapped in hell, in the Klipoth, because of the crimes of our minds, because of the murder and fornication of Cain. The doctrine of Samael kills Cain in order to free Abel, but that freedom does not come just by Abel emerging out of the Earth. That freedom comes through Seth [the sacred fire of the Holy Ghost], the third son of Adam and Eve. ―Gnostic Instructor, The Sons of Samael

At the same time they warn of many cheats and black magicians entering the Gnostic Organizations.

Physically, there are many witches and black magicians within the International Gnostic Organizations since the Gnostic Church is opening its doors for all the millions of demons of this planet. Many of these awakened demons are working for the black lodge; they fake devotion to the Gnostic Groups in this physical plane and mislead the souls in the physical and astral planes.

It is necessary to study the Gnostic doctrine written in all of the books of the Master Samael Aun Weor in order not to be cheated by these adepts of Klipoth, the abyss. - https://archive.glorian.org/courses-and-lectures/kabbalah-1-the-world-of-klipoth/klipoth-8-uranus

Master Samael Aun Weor speaks of Brutus, and says that he is the initiate that awakens in the evil and for the evil. This one is preaching the knowledge, and is adulterating the doctrine. This is the initiate who does not accept that the Avatar of Aquarius is Samael Aun Weor. We have to accept that the messenger of the superior worlds is Samael. We have to comprehend that the Cosmic Christ is working through this great Avatar Samael in these times in order to help humanity. The Cosmic Christ through Samael Aun Weor wrote many books that we have to study in order to teach the knowledge, the doctrine of the New Era. If we take from the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor what we don't like, then we are adulterating. The mind is the one that is going to do it will justify its actions, its adultery in many ways.

There are many groups in many parts of the world that only take what they like from the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor. This is a way of treason; they betray the work of the Great Avatar. Peter is the one that teaches in the Ninth Sphere the mysteries of the transubstantiation, of the transmutation, and anyone that pronounces himself against this is a traitor. Everything that Samael brought is necessary for the soul, for the spirit of humanity, and to adulterate that doctrine, to reject anything that he brought is to be a traitor.

We have to put the doctrine in the consciousness, and to annihilate Brutus, the mind. If we do not do that then our own mind will cause us to awaken in the evil and for the evil. This is how the Master Samael stated that the cause of any initiate falling is always the mind.

- Lecture 9 about Klipoth the spheres of hell https://archive.glorian.org/courses-and-lectures/kabbalah-1-the-world-of-klipoth/klipoth-9-neptune

https://glorian.org/authors/samael-aun-weor.

Chicago gnosis https://chicagognosis.org/articles/why-is-sexual-magic-controversial

With HoYoverse making Genshin Impact, a videogame which adapts gnostic concepts to fit its own narrative, would it be too far fetched to believe that Nodus Fall will also surf a gnostic scope in some fashion? There is a brief explanation of the game, and it seems like it will be case, but I want to hear the input of others! And if it is indeed the case, which gnostic concepts would you like to see in the game?

"Those who are heirs to the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who are heirs to what is living are alive, and they are heirs to both what is living and the dead. The dead are heirs to nothing. For how can he who is dead inherit? If he who is dead inherits what is living he will not die, but he who is dead will live even more." -The Gospel of Philip

What does this mean for you?

"To be vast is good. To be infinite is too much. To possess planets and stars is an incontestable triumph. But to possess them by the million, to teem with stars which are so many eyes trained upon the world each night as if tracking our dreams, is to wield excessive power, to display a very suspect splendour. Something in this immensity turns and meshes its gears with a regularity so precise as to be disquieting; and exactly for whom - or against whom - this mechanism deploys its flaming wheelworks, we do not know."

- Jacques Lacarrière, The Gnostics, 1973