Sitting still doing nothing

Move!

2005-09-29T00:12:00.000+01:00

I've moved over to http://taognostic.org! Please update your bookmarks and never visit here again. Ever.

The Taognostic Principle

2005-09-27T21:57:00.000+01:00

Tao-gnostic: The Way of Internal Knowing

1. The one true knowledge is that which comes from within. This knowledge is a combination of inner and outer, light and dark, hate and love; the unity of the opposites. This knowledge is only obtained through gnosis, or personal experience.

1. (Human) life is a microcosm of all life and thus internal knowledge is also knowledge of all that is around.

1. Mind is the root of all matter, and awareness/consciousness is fundamental as it is the basis of our experience of reality. Reality is a sporadic subjective experience. Through self-discipline, exploration and questioning we can glimpse beyond our own realities and experience that which links all living beings together.

1. The power of the mind is incomprehensible.

1. The soul is immortal. It is part of a continuous (not necessarily never-ending) cycle of life, death and rebirth. Our bodies are merely shells and yet without them we would not be able to experience and learn our spirits. This is one of the most important examples of the unity of the opposites.

1. Radical questioning of everything in life leads us to explore our minds and thus all that is around us and all that links us together. Radical questioning is especially necessary to understand and overcome the cage in which we live, most commonly known as the Black Iron Prison or Red Dust World. In questioning one must always remember that the questions are just as important as the answers.

1. Power comes in action (yang) and non-action (yin). Civilised man is obsessed with action and hierarchy, believing that he needs more and more power. The Taognostic has his power in himself and lives in non-action (wu-wei), not wishing to preach his path. To internally journey the path of self-exploration is to change the whole world and people around you.

1. Every Taognostics path is different. Each person's journey is a path created by the reflection of their spirit on the cosmos. No category of path is "correct". One who lives a life of extreme activity and relentless exploration is no different to the Taognostic who spends his life in deep meditation.

1. The boundaries and oppression we discover (the archons we encounter) in life are but reflections of imbalance within ourselves, collectively and/or individually. The greatest boundary is that which prevents us from realising our unity with all living beings.

1. Through self-discipline and self-scrutiny we can dismantle the Black Iron Prison/Red Dust World.

1. All materia is an illusion. It ceases to exist when you stop imagining it to.

1. I am the only Taognostic.

Welcome!

2005-06-17T01:20:00.000+01:00

This blog was setup as an archive of my writings. These essays, along with loads of other posts, used to reside over at Infoprophecy, which I have since closed. Check back for new essays!

The theme of this page (sitting still doing nothing) is based on the Taoist concept of wu-wei which you can read about here.

ESSAYS

The camera, the car and the fear
A interesting look at the emerging surveillance state including discussions on fear, psy-ops, data bodies, and societal representations.

The Tao of Gnosticism series

Part one: A brief initial look at the similarity in creation myths and the concept of self-realisation and personal experience.
Part two: Shared and differed concepts of spirit, flesh, sages and Jesus.
Part three: Alchemy and the psychology of alchemy in relation to gnosis.
Part four: Archons, nature, evil and more psychology of gnosis.

The camera, the car and the fear

2005-05-20T18:56:00.000+01:00

Tim recently posted something about some guy he was sat next to on a train journey home from a fishing trip. This dude was the type who manages to drown you in his whole life story in a remarkably short time. Usually the asshole you'd rather just slap around the face. Anyway, the discussion got onto surveillance and Tim pointed out that this guy probably couldn't give a shit whether he has to show ID everywhere, whether his kids have RFID's in their heads, or whether or not he had a camera intently watching him and his partner performing some intricate sex position. After all, he's not doing anything wrong so what does he have to worry about?

This question has plagued me for a while, and Tim also admits to doing what I used to do all the time; trying to convince people that their liberties are at stake, blah, privacy, blah. So now it's time to de-plague myself and sort out a few other issues aswell.

First off, let's look a little closer at that statement:

"I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about."

Clearly, the interpretation of this statement depends on your ideas surrounding what's right and what's wrong. For example, Mr Eco W. Arrior will be extremely pissed off that his handy lampost mounted cam has alerted the authorities to the fact that he has broken the laws by spraying too much water on his garden. Mr Arrior is infuriated because he needs this water to keep up the health of his crops, which currently make up a large part of his diet, thus allowing him to neglect evil transglobal corporations like Walmart. He is also annoyed because he knows that what his government has told him about water shortages is bullshit; it's just another scheme to make more cash for water companies. Mr Dick Head (I'm not biased, honestly) walks over from across the road and tries to calm Mr A down: "Look man, it's the law! You don't need that much water for your lawn anyway. If you want your fruit and veg, the Walmart down the road has a huge selection." This further infuriates Mr A. The point is that the whole statement is full of absolutes and is completely down to interpretation. If you have view A, as opposed to view B, you're going to deduce completely different meanings from the statement. Another statement (which reminds me of a friend's outlook) is: "I've been hurt before, so I'll never get with anyone again." That's stupid. Nearly as stupid as "I'm going to die anyway, so I'm not going to bother looking as I cross the road."

So the statement is pretty much useless. It distracts us from our individuality and denies us our beautiful ability of being able to hang loads of meanings on different symbols or concepts. Time to look at some more interesting concepts regarding surveillance and why it gets to some people and not others.

As Jeremy pointed out, in what I feel is a relevant post, technology always expands to fill it potentialities. So then, what if we allowed it? What if every single one of us agreed to have cams pretty much everywhere? I guess the open people like the train guy wouldn't have much of a problem. He's already open about who he is and what he does. But what would surveillance cameras be watching? It wouldn't be us at all, only what we come across as; our societal representations. In Tim's post on the Data Body (discussed later), he brings up the idea (via a reader) of the ego being a representation of the Self. Then we're hit with this analogy:

"Interpreting Carlos' suggestion though, the ego serves as the representative of the self. It is sort of a projection or a vehicle for the self to act upon the world. But many people get into the situation where they mistake the vehicle for the reality of the self. This happens while driving too. If someone backs into you in a parking lot, you say, "That bastard hit me!" You don't say, "That bastard hit my car!" You sort of naturally extend your self-consciousness to include your vehicle. And it's not a bad thing; it helps you operate more seemlessly. So imagine if you were always in your car your whole life, and that was the only way you'd ever experienced the world (Sort of Plato's allegory of the cave, but with updated imagery)."

This bears a cool resemblance with what Jung once said while discussing the relationship between the ego and the unconscious:

"The office I hold is certainly my special activity; but it is also a collective factor that has come into existence historically through the cooperation of many people and whose dignity rests solely on collective approval. When, therefore, I identify myself with my office or title, I behave as though I myself were the whole complex of social factors of which that office consists, or as though I were not only the bearer of the office, but also and at the same time the approval of society. I have made an extraordinary extension of myself and have usurped qualities which are not in me but outside Me."

This is where it is important to distinguish between the Self, and the projection of the Self that people around you see. Now, regardless of your terminology or concepts, there is no doubt that what constitutes the Self is not the same as what everyone sees you as because 1) there are differences between the Self and projections and 2) because different people interpret the projection differently.

A nice article that Jeremy referred to in his post on Real ID was The Mythologies of Terrorism on the Net by Critical Art Ensemble. This is an interesting piece which looks at why some people believe it is possible terrorize digital abstractions. Here's an awesome segment:

"From an existential point of view, the record, optimized by the electronic information apparatus, has taken the form of horrific excess. Each one of us has files that rest at the state's fingertips. Education files, medical files, employment files, financial files, communication files, travel files, and for some, criminal files. Each strand in the trajectory of each person's life is recorded and maintained. The total collection of records on an individual is h/er or her data body - a state and corporate controlled doppelganger. What is most unfortunate about this development is that the data body not only claims to have ontological privilege, but actually does have it. What your data body says about you is more real than what you say about yourself. The data body is the body by which you are judged in society, and the body that dictates your status in the social world."

Now I don't think that the data body and Carlos' idea of the Self-representative ego are the same things, but they both point to what the Critical Art Ensemble put so well:

"What we are witnessing at this point in time is the triumph of representation over being. The electronic file has conquered self-aware consciousness."

I think a crisis of representation over being is why there is such a divide between people on surveillance. I think the main manifested reason for the triumph of representation is in the consumer based society in which we live. But then you could link it back further to the first ideas of "wealth" (the origins of agriculture) and thus civilisation itself. Or you could go even deeper and link it to human design and the way in which we work. I'm talking along the lines of the ego, and the fact that most people are confusing their ego with their Self. They think their cars are themselves.

So in light of that view, it seems that police-state style surveillance merely re-ignites issues that are inherent in our human makeup and always have been. Those at different psychological stages are the ones who are disagreeing. But I still don't think this justifies the surveillance. There's one more issue, which I think explains why our rulers want this surveillance and why we must "neutralise" it.

Fear.

I very much doubt that the authorities care what they're gonna see on these cams. Police state surveillance is an incredibly effective psychological operation, which gives the rulers a sense of control, thus fulfilling their psychopathic needs, while at the same time pushing most of us into a state of fear. Fear is the hoofprint of the Archon, and fear is the way in which we further empower authority, or any appropriate Archonian manifestation. This is what's wrong with surveillance, the fear part, but it's also what will allow us to break free of it. When there is no fear, there is no point in the surveillance; by not fearing, you rip the heart out of the psy-op and thus render it useless.

So how do you rid yourself of fear? There is no simple mono-applicable answer to this, but Taoist insight of the soft overcoming the hard might help us out. Wise sages used to teach that the reason China survived its multiple invasions was by succumbing to the invaders. The soldiers were seduced by China's fruits and thus China's culture and people emerged victorious time and time again. The concept of the soft overcoming the hard has application on many levels, including the woman (soft) overcoming the man (hard) in sex. But in the context of surveillance, this would mean either completely accepting the new "improvements" or just not caring about them. By succumbing to the surveillance and "going with the flow", we will begin to dismantle this psy-op.

So I think I'll take a page from the train guys book and not even give surveillance a place to dwell in my already busy and over abused mind.

[Check out Jeremy's great follow up to this post]

The Tao of Gnosticism: Part four

2005-05-05T00:20:00.000+01:00

It's been a while since the last Tao of Gnosticism post, but finally here is part 4. In this part, we're going to take a look at the concept of evil, nature and the archons.

On first impressions, it seems easier to draw a concept of evil from Gnosticism than it does from Taoism. I believe this is mainly due to the more personified nature of Gnosticism. Gnostic ideas follow more like stories and thus contain the symbols and signs that our minds need to understand and extract meaning. This is not to say that Taoism is lacking in symbols (far from it in fact) but Gnostic ideas are narrated in a more storylike manner.

For someone new to Gnosticism, they would probably point to the Demiurge and archons as a source of evil. And so would most Gnostics. After all, these are the bastards that created the Materia, the manufactured world in which we dwell right? Let's take a closer look at archons. One of the hurdles which most people fuck up on in regards to Gnosticism is excess literalism. Maybe some people do think archons are some inorganic hooved maniacs running around our skies oppessing and dominating us. But it is important to look at the concept of the archons, and what the underlying symbolism is. I mean, for example, when I'm writing an essay and a power cut hits, I don't sit there cursing the reptilian bastard archon who's hidden near my power box with a pair of cutters. By trying to add a label of "real", "fake", "live" or "dead" to archons, you are poisoning symbology with literalism. When we allow for a less literal, more open view of archons, we can start to relate to some Taoist ideas.

One idea about the archons is that they are actually completely powerless. They are there, but they can't do a lot. We are the ones who feed them with power when we express strong negative emotions such as fear, or when we surrender authority. Taoists teach that man should refrain from violence (unless completely necessary) and anything that generates strong outbursts of emotion. They believe that these outbursts release a great deal of chee (energy). This energy is what keeps us going; it's what feeds the soul. When you lose control in an outburst, chee flees your body. Say this chee were to travel to some other entity, oh, lets say an archon, it would fit in very nicely with that Gnostic archon explanation and present a shared explanation of some kind of evil/bad.

Another neat idea about archons is that they are purely psychological; a part of every human psyche. When we let this part of us take over, we empower it and it creates all kinds of havoc. This idea is similar to what Jung said about the collective unconscious, although I believe his ideas on the Shadow are more appropriate:

"Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a Shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected and is liable to burst forth suddenly in a moment of unawareness. At all events, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

This fits in nicely with letting emotions flow naturally through you, instead of letting them burst out in a huge outbreak. If archons were to be purely psychological, a dark aspect of the psyche, then Jung tells us how to overcome them:

"Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of Western theosophy, but not the confrontation with the Shadow and the world of darkness. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious."

We must accept and understand the archons and in doing so, we will destroy all reason for their being. This fits in with Taoist thought because in making the darkness conscious, one is maintaining balance. Neglecting the darkness can only lead to imbalance. This idea is revisited later on. Regardless of how you perceive archons, it is their symbolism that is important. Jung's Shadow and Gnostic archons may be literally different, but they can be symbolically interpretted to reveal similar lessons as is the case with Taoist ideas. They are but a small part of a bigger story.

One big area that people like to pull Gnostics up on is Nature and on first comparisons it would seem that Taoists also wouldn't be to happy with Gnostic ideas on the Materia. As Jeremy pointed out, Gnostics also get the "World Hating Dualists" treatment, but most Gnostics are not world/nature hating. Jeremy summed this up really well in his post Gnosticism and Nature:

"We don't want to destroy the natural world or think it deserves disdain; rather, we're interested in pointing out that the aspects which are untouched by the control system are in fact divine and when humans recognize that they share the spark of divinity with the natural world, and recognize their roles as sensory aspects of a greater system, well, that's the Kingdom of Heaven right there. Jesus even says in the Gospel of Thomas that, "Paradise is already starting to spread out all around us, but nobody even notices it." Paradise, for the Gnostics, is the Materia redeemed and cleansed of the evil control systems of the Archons (which manifest, by necessity, as the evil control systems of civilization)."

Gnostic thought does indeed maintain that this material world was created by an evil Demiurge but this does not necessarily mean that all within it is evil. After all, the Demiurge "came from" Sophia who in turn was emanated as an Aeon from the Transcendent God. So there must be some good carried through there right? Even if there wasn't, shortly after the creation of the Material world, Sophia and the Logos penetrated the archonic control of this world and planted the divine inner seed within all of us. Jeremy points out that gnosis doesn't just happen to us, it happens to the whole of creation. I like this idea, and enjoy the thought that all living things contain a divine inner spark. Plants and animals would be doing a great job at cultivating this spark if it weren't for the archonic controls that they are submitted to. All that can become One again is all that can live outside the control systems that the archons impose. Once the Black Iron Prison is ripped down, we'll be closer to nature than we ever were. We don't hate nature, we merely hate anything that prevents us from interacting naturally with other free beings. When you see rabbits chasing eachother in green fields, they are free. Until a hunter shoots them for meat or fur. Just as we are free until we bow down under authority and control systems.

While Taoist thought doesn't ever really associate nature with evil/bad/material, it is interesting to look at the similarities in the origins of nature in Taoism and Gnosticism. As with Gnostic myth, nature in Taoist thought is a mere manifestation of that which is True, the Tao. Taoists however consider nature a lot more representative of the Tao itself, and thus base most of their way of life on living in harmony with nature. When you strip away all the bullshitian stuff, you can see that Gnostic and Taoist thought is not all that different regarding nature. Both are concerned with living in harmony with other living beings and respecting that which gives us life and both are against anything which interferes with our natural interactions.Now the area of nature is cleared up a little, I'd like to delve back into the nature of evil. Is there such a true concept of evil? Killing another man is not so evil when you provide the context that it was in self defence. Death is an interesting area in which to consider evil. Taoists teach that death is merely a transition, and that once we realise this, there is no need for grief. There's no denying that death is just as important as life as they are obviously intrinsically linked. With no death there is no life. Dead plants and animals make way for new ones and their nutrients increase the fertility of the soil which allow trees to grow which allows for us to breathe oxygen. Water is commonly referred to in Taoist texts, mainly for it's strong resemblance to the Tao itself. We cannot live without water but we can die with too much. Another example of the complimentary nature of opposites and their links.

The concept of evil in itself seems to be a contradiction of the relation between opposites. Pure evil can only exist if there is pure good. Since there has to be one for the other to have definition, both pure evil and pure good cannot exist because by their nature they are implying the sole existence of themselves. Taoists shy away from any form of strict evil or good as they see opposites as different sides of same coin and teach that understanding one is the key to understanding the other. This is fundamentally visible in the idea that Yin often represents darkness and evil. Yin is only one half of things.

Earlier on I discussed the Jung inspired idea that we must accept and understand the archons and in doing so, we will destroy all reason for their being. This fits in with Taoist thought because in making the darkness conscious, one is maintaining balance. Neglecting the darkness can only lead to imbalance. Surely the initial observation regarding archons as evil cannot stand. Another Jung quote, from Psychology and Religion sheds further light on this idea:

"If you imagine someone who is brave enough to withdraw all his projections, then you get an individual who is conscious of a pretty thick Shadow. Such a man has saddled himself with new problems and conflicts. He has become a serious problem to himself, as he is now unable to say that they do this or that, they are wrong, and they must be fought against. He lives in the "House of the Gathering." Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself, and if he only learns to deal with his own shadow he has done something real for the world. He has succeeded in shouldering at least an infinitesimal part of the gigantic, unsolved social problems of our day."

Taking into account these thoughts, we are presented with the evidence that archons are not pure evil (if such a thing can exist). We must, to a certain degree, accept and understand the archons in order to fight them; know your enemy. When we internalise this idea, we understand the importance of balance and thus we are in harmony with Tao and what it teaches. Philip K. Dick also thought along these lines and this essay on PKD's Divine Interference adds to the discussion:

"Like the Gnostics of old, Dick flip-flopped between viewing the demiurge and his archons as evil, or as aberrant and selfish products of their own ignorance and power. The difference is crucial: the Manichaean notion that good and evil are absolute principles sucks you into a harsh and rather paranoid dualism, while the other, more "Valentinian" mode of gnosis opens into a continual transformation, an awakening that's always on the fly."

Another relevant segment from MetaHistory:

"They (archons) are agents of error rather than evil; but human error, when it goes uncorrected and runs beyond the scale of correction, turns into evil and works against the universal plan of life. Gnostics taught that the Archons exploit our tendency to let our mistakes go uncorrected."

In this light, we can see archons as creations of their own ignorance, and thus, relating the idea of archons representing the dark side of our own psyche, creations of our own ignorance and human error. Regardless of your view on archons, the symbolic message is the same. Sophia's yearning to know and understand the Transcedent God, her ignorance, led to the Demiurge and the archons. Our ignorance through life follows the same story, but with different characters. The story of creation can be applied to any creation, including our own. The symbolism in creation myths reflects us, the fact that we are microcosms of life itself and that, in understanding that which prevents us from achieveing complete freedom/enlightenment/Oneness, we are understanding ourselves and what it means to live.

The paths of Taoists and Gnostics may initially seem to vary, but when we look closely, as we have done, at their concepts of evil, imbalance, Self and nature, we find they are walking similar paths.

The Tao of Gnosticism: Part three

2005-04-12T22:58:00.000+01:00

This is the 3rd in a series of articles looking at the similarities and interesting parallels between the philosophies of Gnosticism and Taoism. In this post, I hope to try and concentrate on one subject, alchemy. I did state in the last post that I would be covering different issues but I've decided to cover alchemy first before I move onto bigger fish. Thanks to Tim for the heads up on some relevant Gospel of Thomas quotes and Jung's idea's. First of all, it's important to obtain a solid understanding of what alchemy is. When people talk of alchemy, the first thought that usually comes to mind is that of deriving gold from a variety of cheap metals. This is accurate according to some alchemical practices, but is not so relevant when it comes to Gnostic and Taoist alchemy. Wikipedia has this to say about alchemy:

"Alchemy is an early protoscientific practice combining elements of chemistry, physics, astrology, art, semiotics, metallurgy, medicine, mysticism, and religion. There were three main goals many alchemists sought for. The most renowned goal of alchemy is the transmutation of any metal into either gold or silver. Also they tried to create universal panacea, a remedy that would cure all diseases and prolong life indefinitely. The philosopher's stone was the key in these goals. This mythical substance, which could just as well be powder or liquid as a stone, had the ability to do both. The third goal was creating human life. Alchemy can be regarded as the precursor of the modern science of chemistry prior to the formulation of the scientific method."

Talking of the common conception that alchemy was mainly concerned with the transmutation of any metal into gold, Bernand Simon points out in his book, The Essence of the Gnostics, that:

"In fact, alchemists found it convenient to have people think this, because what they were actually searching for was the secret of life, or rather how creation began."

A 19th century alchemist, Mary Anne Atwood, said:

"Alchemy is philosophy; it is the philosophy, the finding of the Sophia in the mind."

This relates to the Gnostic idea of discovering and cultivating the Divine Spark within ourselves through gnosis, special knowledge. The analysis of alchemy has come to take many routes of investigation, including it's inherent links within psychology; an idea pioneered by the work of C G Jung, most notably in his works The Secret of the Golden Flower and Psychology and Alchemy. We can gain a lot of insight into Jung's ideas from a fantastic essay called C. G. Jung and the Alchemical Renewal written by Stephan A. Hoeller. Hoeller begins the essay with:

"[...] A plaque in the small but exquisite museum devoted to the facts and legends concerning Dr. Faust tells us that, although alchemy has often been considered a pseudo-science based on the pretense that gold could be made from other metals, it is now known that, in reality, it was a spiritual art having as its aim the psychological transformation of the alchemist himself."

This presents us with a fascinating perspective on alchemy, one which Jung advocated and discussed extensively. Hoeller goes on to point out what Jung wrote about in TSotGF:

"[...] His studies disclosed that Chinese alchemy, just like the alchemy of the West, deals primarily with the transformational symbolism of the human soul. Although the ancient Taoists postulated that the quest for immortality was the central work of alchemy, their "Golden Flower" of immortality is not substantially different from the "Stone of the Philosophers," which is the supreme objective of Western practitioners of the Great Art."

These ideas will be discussed at the end of this post, along with a few others of relevance. As we can see, alchemy has a wide scope and this allows many overlaps in Gnostic and Taoist thought which in turn allow us to spot similarities in the practices of the two philosophies. To carry on with this discussion, let's take a brief look at the Taoist alchemists and the role of alchemy in Taoism. This nice introduction is from a site called The Golden Elixir:

"In China as elsewhere, alchemy is a doctrine aiming to afford an understanding of the principles underlying the formation and functioning of the cosmos. The alchemist rises through the hierarchy of the constituents of being by "exhausting" (Chin. jin or liao, two words also denoting "thorough knowledge") the nature and properties of each stage. He overcomes the limits of individuality, and ascends to higher states of being; he becomes, in Chinese terms, a zhenren or Authentic Man."

Chinese and Taoist adepts already realised what Jung had stated, in that alchemy was just as involved with the progression of the alchemist as an individual, as it was with the combination of elements and their resulting products/processes. Taoist alchemy takes the form of two seperate, yet intrinsically linked, branches: nei-dan (Internal elixir) and wai-dan (External elixir). Some may say that the methods of cultivating the internal elixir are not related to alchemy but they are missing the point that formation of the internal elixir is just as concerned with mixing and balancing, just not with external materials. The internal elixir approach deals with internal energy. Cultivating the internal elixir involves deep breathing, sexual disciplines and meditation. The external elixir approach is concerned with essence and involves diet and nutrition, physical exercise and herbal medicine. The external elixir approach is in fact so ingrained in Tao practices that they carry out most of the activities required to form it in every day discipline. The same applies for the internal elixir. Taoists do not really consider these two elixirs part of a seperate school of thought such as alchemy; they merely understand their potency in helping them to cultivate the way of Tao. A few parallels to Taoist alchemy and the internal and external elixirs can be found in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. The very first line reads:

"Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

The Gospel goes on to say:

"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you."

This sense of having to look inside yourself aswell as around you fits nicely with nei-dan and wai-dan, and the concept of the Tao being all around us, and inside us. The idea of internal and external elixirs were first explained in The Union of Triple Equation, written by Taoist adept Wei Po-yang in AD 150. Wei Po-yang wrote of the external elixir and how it involved refining pills from minerals and metals. Adepts from many dynasties experimented and there are many stories of Emperor's ordering their Tao herbalists to try and concoct the Elixir of Immortality for them.This is also taken from The Golden Elixir's great introductory text on Chinese alchemy:

"In order to transcend space and time -- the two main features of the cosmos -- the alchemist must take extreme care of their correspondences to the work he performs. Space is delimited and protected by talismans (fu), and the laboratory (danwu, lit. "chamber of the elixirs") and instruments are properly oriented.Among a variety of procedures that the sources describe in an often allusive way, and in a language rich in metaphors and secret names, two stand out for their recurrence and importance. The first is based on lead (yin) and mercury (yang). In external alchemy, these two substances are refined and joined in a compound whose properties are compared to the condition of primeval Unity. In internal alchemy, lead is a cover name for the knowledge of the dao (Pure Yang, chunyang) with which each being is fundamentally endowed, but is obscured (i.e., transmuted into yin) in the conditioned state. Mercury, on the other hand, represents the individual mind.The second most important method, which is proper to external alchemy, is centered on cinnabar (yang). The mercury contained within cinnabar (representing the yin principle contained within yang) is extracted and newly added to sulphur (yang)."

Again we see the fundamental concepts of Yin Yang embodied in the concoction of external elixirs. Gnostic-inspired alchemists often followed The Alchemical Opus in devising elixirs. This model is similar to many methods used in Taoist alchemy. According to the 4th stage of the Alchemical Opus (this information is taken from The Essence of the Gnostics):

"Bringing together the substance of sulphur which represents the sun or masculine and Mercury (as the feminine or Moon) there is a Mystic marriage which joins them together."

As well as the common ingredients of both Mercury and sulphur, both alchemical models take into consideration opposites and the concept of balance. What the 4th stage describes fits the concepts of Yin and Yang to a tee. Sulphur is described as representing the sun and masculinity (qualities that are attributed to Yang in Taoism) and Mercury is said to be the feminine or the Moon (Yin in Taoism is represented by women and darkness). The "Mystic marriage" which the Opus speaks of also fits very nicely with the idea of the primeval Unity in the Taoist external elixir mentioned above.In the Golden Elixir article, we are also introduced to the concept of huandan, or the Elixir of Return:

"The final object of external and internal alchemy is represented as the preparation of an elixir usually defined as huandan (lit., "Elixir of Return"). This expression, recurring in the whole literature, originally denotes an elixir obtained by bringing the ingredients back to their original condition through repeated cyclical operations -- an operation comparable to the process that the adept performs within himself with the support of the alchemical practice."

The use of cyclical variations to bring ingredients back to their original state is, as the quote mentions, also similar to methods of cultivating the internal elixir. It is, in essence, carrying out the eternal process of life; the adept is seeing life progress in front of him thus teaching him and helping him to understand more of how the Tao works. This fits very well with what I mentioned earlier on about alchemists trying to understand how creation began. Bernand Simon pointed out that alchemists (around the 18th/19th century) had found out the processes of creation:

"If energy is put under extreme pressure - heat, cold or density - it tends to become liquid, then solid, and finally gaseous. Reverse that process and you have the art of manifestation. The idea was that by creating the elixir of life the alchemist would live forever."

Simon is of course talking of the alchemists discovering the fundamentals of physics. The idea of huandan fits well with both philosophies and supports the ideas that life functions in a cyclical manner. Taoist's use their body as a home for their spirit. Through good health and longevity, they develop and finally enter their spirit when their body dies. They are then free of this world, and become One with Tao. Gnostics use gnosis in the same manner, to escape the cyclical oppressive rule of the Archons and return to the source; the Pleroma. There is also a reference to this kind of circle which can be escaped by becoming One with the source in the Gospel of Thomas, part 22:

"Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Both Taoist and Gnostic alchemical processes aim at creating life (the Tao) in microcosm. They both understood that lifes secrets are hidden in life, and what better way to discover them than to emulate lifes processes. Jung's take on this was that, in doing this, alchemists themselves went through psychological transformation. This fits in perfectly with gnosis, special knowledge, and the philosophies' shared ideas of the Self. The processes that the alchemists created were reflections of what was happening all around them, and right inside them. In understanding these processes, the balance and concepts that were required, the alchemist began to understand himself. Once again we come full circle back to the concept discussed in the first essay.

Maybe this is why Taoists continue to outlive, teach and bewilder any who try to analyse them from a Western viewpoint. Much of Tao alchemy has embodied itself in practices that all Taoists perform regularly day-to-day such as deep breathing, sexual yoga (with a few exceptions) and diet and nutrition.

For those who are interested in further reading on the topic, be sure to read Stephan Hoeller's full essay, C. G. Jung and the Alchemical Renewal. Jung explores some avenues that I haven't and his work is truly a masterpiece and an inspiration.

The Tao of Gnosticism: Part two

2005-04-07T18:02:00.000+01:00

As promised, here the next post investigating the similarities and parallels in the way of the Tao and Gnostic thought. In the first post I looked at the consensus between Gnosticism and Taoism regarding feminine aspects in the Creation, the process of the Creation and the importance of the Self. First on the agenda in this post is the body and spirit.Again, to clarify the Taoist perspective on this issue, we turn to Lao Tze's writings in the Tao Teh Ching:

"He who knows the Always-so has room in him for every thing;
He who has room in him for everything is without prejudice.
To be without prejudice is to be kingly;
To be kingly is to be of heaven;
To be of heaven is to be in Tao.
Tao is forever, and he that possesses it,
Though his body ceases, is not destroyed."

This passage speaks of knowledge of the Tao: when someone is finally at One with the Tao, his body may cease but his spirit is not destroyed. An example of this is the Yellow Emperor, one of the original practitioners of the Tao, who is said to have, at the age of 111, achieved immortality and ascended to heaven on the back of a dragon. His body is lost but what it has cultivated, the spirit, lives on and becomes one with the Tao. Spirit, shen, is one the Three Treasures of life which were created after Yin and Yang:

"The One gave birth to two things,
Then to three things..."

The Three Treasures are present in all living beings: essence (jing), energy (chee) and spirit (shen). They represent the three levels of existence present in all living beings: physical, energetic and mental. A great deal of Taoist health practices are concerned with enhancing essence which in turn enhances energy and thus spirit. The three are intrinsically linked as are most components of Taoist ideas. One method Taoists use to enhance essence is the cultivation of the External and Internal elixirs. These are achieved by a regimen of healthy nutrition, exercise, deep breathing and sexual yoga. Sexual yoga is one of the most important elements, and involves the art of ejaculation control. Man should not spend his fuel too quickly according to nearly all adepts and teachings. This fuel (semen) is highly valued in Taoists regimes and some masters such as Sun Ssu-Mo advocated, and practiced, one emission per 100 copulations! Sun Ssu-Mo lived to 101 and outlived three Tang Dynasty emperors.

Looking at some old Gnostic ideas, we come across Ephiphanus, Bishop of Salamis, who secretly joined a Gnostic sect with the intention of observersing their heretic practices so he could write about them in his book, the Panarion ('Medicine chest'.) He observed the sharing of women in sex orgies (the Yellow Emperor conincidentally kept a harem of 1,200 women) and the collection of semen which was offered to the Lord as the body of Christ. The semen, or inner essence, in this case seems to be held in very high regard, as it is in Taoist sexual yoga. The idea of the semen being the body of Christ oddly fits with a lot Gnostic thought I think. Gnostic thought greatly varies, but some believe that Logos (Word) and Sophia were the last pair of Aeons to be emanated from the transendent God. After Sophia realises what she has created in the Demiurge, she goes to Earth, penetrating the Archons control and plants the Divine Spark in everyone. Again, gnostic ideas vary, but one idea that I have come across a few times is the belief that Sophia was eventually captured after infusing the Divine Spark into everyone. Logos (in the form of Jesus) then comes to Earth and in his teachings and (human) death tries to re-ignite the Divine Spark within everyone. When his body is killed, his spirit lives on through everyone, and what part of the male human body represents this better than the essence that breathes life into this Earth?

Now, back to the Three Treasures and body and spirit. Basilides, an ascetic gnostic, went against the prevailing orthodox Christian ideas of his time, dispelling the idea of ressurection of flesh. He taught that only souls were saved; bodies were meaningless. Although the Taoist would agree on the importance of the soul (although they may give it a different name), they would differ slightly on the importance of the body. In Taoism, a healthy body is important for a healthy spirit and thus there is a large focus on Taoist health practices regarding breathing, nutrition and herbal medicines.Both Taoism and Gnosticism are clear on the importance of the soul/spirit/mind, that which is free of the body, free from rational understanding. Rational understanding can only explain material origin: In Gnostic thought, one must learn through gnosis, personal experience and in Taoism one must also look into oneself for the answers, a concept which was covered in the first essay. The ideas of body and spirit embody themselves well in the discussion of Jesus Christ. It is very hard to find many Taoist references to Jesus Christ, in fact, I could find none in my lengthy Google trek. The only Taoist discussion that arrives regarding the topic of Christ is that he had little/no significance due to the fact that there is no human-like God in the first place to send him; there is only Tao. I think this view may be due to the focus on the ressurection of flesh in mainstream Christianity, which is something a Taoists would frown upon. Ebionites (a Gnostic sect) held a similar view; that Jesus was just a man. They believed in his character but not his divinity, his relationship with the transcendent God.

It is hard to relate the coming of Christ to any Taoist ideas but one simple thought springs to mind: the idea of the Taoist sage! Some Taoist writings and texts talk disapprovingly of leaders as such, but one cannot deny the importance of the contribution from Taoist sages. Without Lao Tze, we would not have the Tao Teh Ching, without Chuang Tze we would not have the wealth of materials that he wrote. There are many more examples. In this sense, a parallel can be drawn between some of the most enlightened (for lack of a better word) sages, and Jesus Christ. They were both teachers, who brought forth the word of God. Here is a quote from Plato, who's ideas supported a lot of Gnostic thought:

"The truth concerning the soul can only be established by the word of God."

From this angle, a Taoist may appreciate the sage-like ideas inherent in Jesus. Many Gnostic sect ideas agree with this thinking. For example, the Cerinthus believed that Jesus was just a man and that Christ was baptised into him and departed before the crucifixion. The Elchasaites come even closer, with their belief that Jesus (referring to the Spirit) had been made flesh many times. If one made the conclusion that Jesus was indeed a Spirit/Aeon who had been personified in various humans over time, and that he taught gnosis, special knowledge derived from knowing oneself, you have a beautiful parallel with the Taoist sages teaching the ways of the Tao.

What if Jesus was a Taoist? This is not an idea that had occured to me, but whilst searching for information on Taoist views on Jesus Christ, I found a page entitled Was Jesus a Taoist?, by Disciple Dan:

"Before beginning this article, let me say that I have been a follower of Jesus of Nazareth since I was thirteen years old. I was ordained as a minister in the Christian Religion in 1972, and have spent more than thirty years in service as a minister to that religion. I feel, therefore, that I have an established understanding of what Christianity teaches, and am able to speak candidly about that faith. Without the slightest hesitation, I can say that I love Jesus and deeply respect his teachings... but I am no longer a Christian."

DD first makes the argument that Jesus was not the founder of Christianity:

"It is clear to any honest student of the Christian religion that Paul of Tarsus was the founder of Christianity."

I don't think this is entirely relevant to our discussion, but it is something I will look into. The author goes on to point out the differences between Paul and Jesus' ideas, and the similarity between Jesus' views and the core ideas of Tao:

"What did Jesus intend to teach in his new sect? Of course, there is the obvious answer: he intended to teach the simple message of the early gospels which taught a path to peace with God that included only two elements; loving God and loving one another. One thing can be determined with certainty: he did not intend to have a set of written beliefs - a creed, if you will. Had he intended this for his sect, it is obvious that he would have written it himself. No other possibility makes any kind of logical sense at all. He was intelligent, schooled, and able to read and write. He opened the scrolls in the synagogue when it was his turn to teach and he read the Scriptures. He wanted no creed for his new sect because he wrote no creed for his new sect. He wrote nothing because nothing needed to be written. This idea of living by intuition and practical goodness without a set of written commands is Taoist to the core. Ancient Taoism had no creed and does not presume to tell a single individual how he/she must behave."

Of course this idea of living and not being told how to learn/behave is also in agreement with the idea of gnosis, special knowledge.

"The rest of what Jesus intended must be inferred by the example of his living. He lived very simply. He told his followers to go about spreading their message taking no provisions for their journey. He said that while foxes had holes, he had no place to call home. He practiced simplicity to the very extreme. When he was hungry, he plucked corn in the fields to eat as he walked along the way, having brought nothing to eat for himself. This life of utter simplicity is a foundation teaching of Taoism. It is repeated over and over in Taoist thought... simplicity... simplicity... simplicity.Jesus taught humility. He told his disciples that the least among them should be counted the greatest. He told them to lead by serving and not by demanding. It grieved him when they tried to maneuver themselves to positions of higher authority or esteem. Little could he have possibly imagined that a religion would one day be established in his name whose leader would be called the "Supreme Pontiff" who would dwell in the largest, most posh palace in the entire world where people would vie for the opportunity to have audience with him and kiss his feet. Could he have dreamed of the vast treasures of wealth and art that would one day be hoarded in Vatican vaults under lock and key in his name while thousands of the people he loved so much went without the basic necessities of life? No, Jesus taught humility. Humility is a core foundation of Taoism. One of the three treasures of Taoism mentioned in the Tao Te Ching, is humility."

I think the author, in his last sentence, is referring to the Three Jewels which are the subject of Chapter 67 of the Tao teh Ching. The discussion of Jesus' teachings as being Taoist is fascinating and it's something I'd like to do more study on when I'm familiar with a few more gospels and texts.Whether you agree with the idea of Jesus being a Taoist or not, is not the issue though, and to become engrossed in proving such a point is to move into a debate of literal interpretation of ancient writings, and to move away from what's important here: the common ground in idea of the Taoist sage and Jesus Christ. Although their origins may cause debate among the two pools of thought, their purpose is clear and is none other than furthering the importance of understanding the Self, thus bringing us full circle.

Phew! That one was a little harder to write. I already have ideas for the next post! I hope to include Taoist ideas on this planet, in relation to the Gnostic ideas of the Materia and maybe some more detailed stuff on Archons and the Demiurge. If you liked this post, or have any thoughts, please post a comment!

The Tao of Gnosticism: Part one

2005-04-05T01:57:00.000+01:00

Whilst reading a variety of materials on Gnosticism, I've noticed quite a few parallels and similarities with Taoism that I think are interesting. Let's start from the beginning. In Taoist thought, the beginning is described nicely in Lao Tze's Tao Teh Ching. The opening lines of the Tao Teh Ching read:

"The way that can be spoken is not the real Way
The name that can be named is not the real Name."

Later on in the Tao Teh Ching, we are told:

"Tao gave birth to the One;
The One gave birth to two things,
Then to three things, then to ten thousand."

Tao is the power that creates everything. All phenomena in the universe originate from Tao. Tao does not show itself, yet is present in everything. Any attempt to name or describe Tao is futile as Tao is beyond any language, beyond any rational understanding and only the highest Taoist adepts may gain insights into its ways. According to Gnostic thought, in the beginning, there is only the Pleroma; the "empty fullness." Gnostic's regard this as close as can be to God, however it does not possess any human traits as such, and is very similar in concept to the idea of the Tao. The Pleroma is the Primal Source. In Taoism, Tao gave birth to One, which is know as the Supreme Ultimate Source: Tai Chi.

So now we have the Pleroma and the One, both unchanging and fundamental. The next series of events according to Gnosticism are summed up nicely by Gnosticism 101, a post on EGiNA:

"At some point, the Pleroma conceives of the "something" as opposed to "nothing". There is a sudden and significant division between these two poles, a fundamental one and zero. As yin and yang, positive and negative, male and female - all Diads are a reflection of these two "magnetic poles of God". These two poles, yearning for the unity of the pre-existing Pleroma, again come together. The result of that union is a daughter, Sophia ("Wisdom"). Sophia is as close as a Gnostic comes to ascribing a human personality to God."

In Taoism, the Supreme Ultimate Source goes through a very similar process to the Pleroma. Tai Chi was split into two (allegedly by the Big Bang), and Yin and Yang emerged. These poles form a fundamental element in both religions, but more so in Taoism I think. It is also clear from this comparison that both Taoism and Gnosticism agree on the importance of the feminine element in the Creation and in everything that emanated from it. In Taoism the feminine element is of course Yin, which stands for women, water, earth, softness and many other things. In Gnosticism, from the "something" conceived in the Pleroma, emerges Sophia. The next series of events differ on many details in the two pools of thought, but there are similarities in the way that the origin creates one, which creates two, and so on. In Taoism this is the One giving birth to Yin/Yang, which in turn gives birth to the Three Treasures and so on. In Gnosticism, the transcendent God, Pleroma, gives birth to a number of principles, known as Aeons. The Aeons in turn created everything else.

The next main similarity, which is what I believe draws me to both philosophies, is the idea of the divine spark or supreme state of being. Both religions believe in the spark, the knowledge within man. Taoist's do not speak of a God, but of a supreme state of being. This state is locked within every human being and can be unlocked with a great deal of personal dedication and discipline. Taoist's achieve this by cultivating and practicing the way of the Tao; essentially living with the Tao, with nature. Gnostic thought says that once Sophia discovers the agenda of the archons, and their chief, the Demiurge, she sneaks through the Archon control of this planet and plants a divine spark, a part of God so to speak, in everyone and everything. Gnostics seek to cultivate this spark through gnosis (special knowledge), and thus escape the evil Demiurge and his agents. This is a key element in both religions, mans inner potential, and it's what I love about them. The reasons for the existence and cultivation of the spark/state may be different, but they both understand the importance of self-realisation. These ideas are summed up in a great quote by Hermes Trismegistos:

"He who knows himself, knows the All."

Both religions emphasise that this realisation can only be achieved by the self. No-one can help you unlock the potential within yourself. Gnostics use gnosis, special knowledge, to open the gates to their divine spark. Gnosis is knowledge gained from personal experience, and hence one cannot "teach" gnosis. Taoist's also achieve a special knowledge, through different means, but essentially consisting of self realisation; the understanding of the Self.

That's all for now. I may continue this discussion in another post.