Probably not.

. . . can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative?

For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s)". — Bret Bernhoft

Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed.

The most useful and authoritative and insightful wisdom I have was/is personally revealed. The idea of sharing it has all the attraction of filming and broadcasting the making of love.

Gnostic: I know something but I can't put it into words for you.

Lay person: Say you don't know something. Can you put it into words?

Gnostic: No, of course not.

Lay person: Then how can I tell the difference between you knowing and you not knowing.

Lay person: I'd like to know what you know;

Gnostic: Try this . . ..

Lay person: Just tell me. I don't want to put in the work.

Gnostic: :smile:

:flower:

1. Nothing exists;

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;

3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

4. Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood — Gorgias

:fire: :cool: :fire:

:flower:

The question of all questions is, why was gnosticism branded as heresy?

What's so, oxymoron notwithstanding, satanic about a direct, one-on-one, encounter with God, the divine?

As @Jack Cummins and I once discussed, the boundary between good and evil seems to get blurred, almost to the point of nonexistence at certain points in spirituality. I can't explain it but it happens in other areas too: wise fool, mad genius, frenemy, I could go on.

Perhaps gnosticism has links to paganism and its very own pantheon of deities, a clear and present danger to Yahweh as the alpha and omega of all there is and beyond.

It bears mentioning whether the Vatican ever really mulled over the real possibility that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, all bona fide prophets, had expreiences that could be interpreted as gnostic in character.

Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

Oh, good. A question I can answer just by providing one of my favorite quotes. One I use on the forum often. This from Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

Oh, good. A question I can answer just by providing one of my favorite quotes. One I use on the forum often. This from Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

:up: I agree with that. It is, however, for the likes of me, very hard to do. I found the 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness hard, but easier than the kitchen table. :yikes:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

:up: And even if you kick it away, it'll crawl back to you.

No.

"Gnosis" denotes (ineffable? unintelligible? imaginary?) awareness of – exposure to – cultic secrets (i.e. mysteries). To be "in the know", or initiated; a species of occult, or magical, thinking (e.g. conspiracy theories ... such as Gnosticism (re: 'existence is a prison of which the prisoners are unaware')). :eyes:

This from Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

:smirk:

I need a little emoji education.

:smirk: — 180 Proof

Smirk. Does that mean you think I'm clever or a boob?

:fire:

Does this mean burned or are you agreeing with me?

And what about those turd emojis? How come we don't have turd emojis?

I need a little emoji education. — T Clark

It's a gnostic thing. You wouldn't understand. :wink:

Definition of "Unspeakable"

1. not able to be expressed in words.

"I felt an unspeakable tenderness towards her"

Similar: indescribable; beyond words; beyond description; inexpressible; unutterable; indefinable; beggaring description; ineffable; unimaginable; inconceivable; unthinkable; unheard of; marvellous; wonderful

2. too bad or horrific to express in words.

"a piece of unspeakable abuse"

Similar: dreadful; awful; appalling; horrific; horrifying; horrible; terrible; horrendous; atrocious; insufferable; abominable; abhorrent; repellent; repulsive; repugnant; revolting; sickening; frightful; fearful; shocking; hideous; ghastly; grim; dire; hateful; odious; loathsome; gruesome; monstrous; outrageous; heinous; deplorable; despicable; contemptible


Gnosticism is heresy!

Heaven forbid anything should be beyond man's ability to describe. After all, next to the brain housing group, we think our tongue is all that. Maybe gnosis inflames the insecurity, the subliminal jealousy, that causes us to devalue and marginalize all else; and when all else has been neutralized, we start on each other.

Hmmm. I'd be careful in assigning too much weight to personal experiences of any kind, particularly those of spiritual or mystical weight. For one thing, such experiences are usually accidental. For another, we can never be too confident that what we felt is what the other person is feeling when they say they've had a spiritual experience.

These things are the exceptions to ordinary experience and not everyone can even have them. This isn't to say that they can't be profound or enlightening or deep. But I would be weary of basing my own views on such experiences.

Is it wisdom? I think it depends on how you use it. What I won't admit of, however, is this non-infrequent "superior" attitude in which such a person has a "you just don't get it" attitude or "I have seen further than you'll ever be able to".

That's pretty smug.

Is it wisdom? I think it depends on how you use it. — Manuel

I tried to confine my consideration to the limitations/definitions specifically outlined in the OP; steering away from other, broader, general, or more traditional (historic) understanding's of the terms. Nevertheless, FOMO is a thing. I get it. Any good little gnostic like myself is happy to have others turn away and go about their business. I'll not be smug about it. The last thing I want is to open a door to potential wannabes, posers and charlatans. On the other hand, there are those on "the other side" who are just as smug, if not worse; looking down their bespectacled nose, with their lab coats on, poo pooing that which they don't understand and won't find in a lab.

:snicker:

↪James Riley :snicker: — 180 Proof

:cool:

It's a gnostic thing. You wouldn't understand. — James Riley

Yeah, but what about the turds?

Absolutely. And I have to say that I tend to sympathize with your views more than the bespectacled lab coat person. I think it is just clearly obvious that there are things which science can't touch or explain, which is to science's merit. It explains what it can. If it tried to explain everything, then it would say nothing.

As for FOMO, sure, that's a thing. And it's fine, it isn't everyone's cup of tea. If we all had the same experience life would be very boring. I prefer people have the "genuine" thing, instead of joining cults. But then this brings up the debate about what "genuine" means.

I prefer people have the "genuine" thing, instead of joining cults. — Manuel

Indeed. Everyone who has something that others want, gnostic or non, will have a following. Look to the leaders who don't say "Follow me." And if you are a follower, don't run too hard after a leader who is trying to get away.

Preach.

:cheer:

Yeah, but what about the turds? — T Clark

Ah, my Padawan, you must go into the wilderness and sit before a turd for a month and experience it. Then you will no longer consider it for use as an emoji. :pray: :grin:

Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed. — James Riley

That's true of personal wisdom, as long as you don't try to proselytize. As soon as you tell someone else that you want to pass-on some "secret knowledge" though, you may legitimately be asked to prove it. But Gnostic revelations and Buddhist insights are entirely subjective. So, they can only reply : "try my method and see for yourself". By definition, subjective truth cannot be shared.

But most folks are not inclined to live as monks in silent meditation on a mountaintop. So, they may follow the advice of the Apostle John "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Old Testament is full of stories about deceiving prophets being shown-up as phonies by the "true" prophets, usually in the form of miracles. The moral of such stories is, if you want me to believe your truth, you prove it to me.

However, some Gnostics (and Bhuddists) have not been content to keep their spiritual wisdom to themselves. So, they have responded to skeptical challenges by predicting future events or by performing minor miracles -- usually of the type that were unrepeatable and difficult to disprove. Another private obstacle for Gnostics is how to make sure that their visions & revelations come from the "True" Good God, and not from the "False" Evil God.

Whatever you believe is "legitimate" wisdom for you. But for me, any postulated truths must meet my minimum requirements. And I don't take anyone's word on faith. As they say in Missouri, show me! :cool:


A Course in Miracles and Gnosticism :
https://translatedby.com/you/a-course-in-miracles-and-gnosticism/original/

That's true of personal wisdom — Gnomon

And that is how I read the OP.

The continuation of my post which you did not include:

The most useful and authoritative and insightful wisdom I have was/is personally revealed. The idea of sharing it has all the attraction of filming and broadcasting the making of love. — James Riley

And in my second post:

Lay person: I'd like to know what you know;

Gnostic: Try this . . ..

Lay person: Just tell me. I don't want to put in the work.

Gnostic: :smile: — James Riley

I perceive, not just in your post but in others in this thread, a certain defensiveness in the need for clarification about charlatans, or those so-called "gnostics" who pretend to superiority or secret. I don't know where that comes from, since it's as easy as breathing for me to spot the pretenders. I would have thought philosophy types would not feel so compelled. Maybe science has infiltrated the ranks, demanding a telling, a writing, and explanation, instead of putting in the real work. And as those words leave my key board, I wonder if maybe I'm beginning to see where a gnostic superiority finds it's roots.

I'm actually very dumb — Wheatley

from the thread Any high IQ people here?

Silence is golden! :chin:

Wrong definition, buddy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dumb

:rofl:

Ah, my Padawan, you must go into the wilderness and sit before a turd for a month and experience it. Then you will no longer consider it for use as an emoji. :pray: :grin: — James Riley

:rofl: