What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gnostics
Gnostics have always sought to "know" rather than to accept dogma and doctrine, often to their peril. This inquiry into Gnosticism examines the character, history, and beliefs of a brave and vigorous spiritual quest that originated in the ancient Near East and continues into the present day.Lawrence Durrell writes, "This is a strange and original essay, more a work of literature than of scholarship, though its documentation is impeccable. It is as convincing a reconstruction of the way the Gnostics lived and thought as D.H. Lawrence's intuitive recreation of the vanished Etruscans."
136 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1973
42 people are currently reading
816 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Lacarrière
105 books10 followersFrench writer. He studied moral philosophy, classical literature, and Hindu philosophy and literature. Professionally, he was known as a prominent critic, journalist, and essayist.
A passionate admirer of ancient Greece and its mythology, Lacarrière wrote about it extensively. His essay L'été grec (Greek Summer) was an immense popular success. His classical works Maria of Egypt and Dictionnaire amoureux de la Grèce (Dictionary for one who loves Greece) were also successes.
Of interest to ethnographers and ecologists is his Chemin faisant: Mille kilomètres à pied à travers la France 1974, (On the way: One thousand kilometers by foot across France). It was based on his walking across France in 1971, when he kept to small roads and byways, stopping at villages. Beginning in August, he traveled from Saverne in the Vosges, reaching Leucate in November, which is located in the Corbières. It was reprinted by Fayard in 1997 with a postscript entitled "Memory of roads," and addition of selected letters from readers. It was released again in 2014, again by Fayard.
Lacarrière's 1973 literary essay, Les Gnostiques, is well respected for its insights into the early Christian religious movement of Gnosticism. The writer had met English author Lawrence Durrell in 1971, who had been studying some Gnostic texts since the early 1940s. Durrell featured Gnosticism as a plot element in the novels of his The Avignon Quintet (1974 to 1985). He also wrote a "Foreword" to the 1974 English translation of Lacarrière's essay.
For the whole of his work, in 1991 Lacarrière was awarded le Grand Prix de l'Académie française (the Great Prize of the French Academy).
He died in Paris on 17 September 2005, following complications from orthopedic surgery. His body was cremated and his ashes scattered in Greece, in the waters off the island of Spetses.
A passionate admirer of ancient Greece and its mythology, Lacarrière wrote about it extensively. His essay L'été grec (Greek Summer) was an immense popular success. His classical works Maria of Egypt and Dictionnaire amoureux de la Grèce (Dictionary for one who loves Greece) were also successes.
Of interest to ethnographers and ecologists is his Chemin faisant: Mille kilomètres à pied à travers la France 1974, (On the way: One thousand kilometers by foot across France). It was based on his walking across France in 1971, when he kept to small roads and byways, stopping at villages. Beginning in August, he traveled from Saverne in the Vosges, reaching Leucate in November, which is located in the Corbières. It was reprinted by Fayard in 1997 with a postscript entitled "Memory of roads," and addition of selected letters from readers. It was released again in 2014, again by Fayard.
Lacarrière's 1973 literary essay, Les Gnostiques, is well respected for its insights into the early Christian religious movement of Gnosticism. The writer had met English author Lawrence Durrell in 1971, who had been studying some Gnostic texts since the early 1940s. Durrell featured Gnosticism as a plot element in the novels of his The Avignon Quintet (1974 to 1985). He also wrote a "Foreword" to the 1974 English translation of Lacarrière's essay.
For the whole of his work, in 1991 Lacarrière was awarded le Grand Prix de l'Académie française (the Great Prize of the French Academy).
He died in Paris on 17 September 2005, following complications from orthopedic surgery. His body was cremated and his ashes scattered in Greece, in the waters off the island of Spetses.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
March 23, 2016
This is the second time I've read this book; the first time was about a decade ago. I considered it one of my favorite books back then and had recommended it to a number of friends. Reading it again, I do remember the beauty of the writer's thoughts. I was mesmerized by the topic: the a-history of the gnostics. I include this book in my list of books of reading for insomnia - a sort of collection of books which come to my mind when I think of that liminal space between dreaming and being barely awake. Books to read when you are awoken in the early morning, or when you are forced to have to get up. Books that reveal a hidden light into the everyday.
June 5, 2014
One of the better books on Gnosticism that I have read. Jacques Lacarriere writes in a poetic way that helps evoke the overtly mystical quality of the great Gnostic age of Basilides and Valentinus. He is less squeamish about tackling the Gnostics often bizarre ritualistic practices (as they come down to us through their Christian opponents), and he makes a decent case in rescuing their complex ideology from being that as simply 'world hating'.
November 13, 2019
I have always been amazed by gnostics and their views on life and our existence, they were always enigma in the history of our civilization, maybe they spoke the truth and because of that they were crushed by establishment and it's main device, the church. Jacques Lacarriere essay is crucial one to understand more about who were they, what they believed and what they preached. This essay is more philosophical one than historical and Lacarriere transports you to III century Alexandria, one of the crucial cities in development of religions. At the end we can conclude that today's world is similliar to time when Gnostics lived, many things stay the same, injustice, control by the state and its instruments, materialism, immorality, poverty, diseases, is really our planet Hell and creation of Demiurge?
Read
March 21, 2018This book is a lyrical meditation on ancient gnosticism as the 'betrayal' of the physical cosmos. It is beautifully written. Lacarriere has heavyweight fans like Lawrence Durrell and Marguerite Yourcenar.
Lacarriere nicely conveys the alienated horror the ancient Gnostics felt for the world around them. And he maintains that this is in some ways comparable to our contemporary alienation under capitalism. In this way, an ancient heresy and modern revolution are used to illuminate each other. And our author goes about this in a manner that is very convincing.
I found myself also quite interested by the brief criticisms our author permits himself of the so-called Traditionalist School (the discussion occurs towards the end of the book) that begins with René Guénon. For our purposes here, let us say that the Traditionalist maintain that the Truth that all the Great Religious Traditions point to is unsurpassable, and thus they, and only they, are the bearers of Truth.
The argument with this is (or so I take Lacarriere to mean) that given the radical evil of the World (according to the Gnostics), we can expect no help from past religions that all spoke to a very different time. Our author argues that this 'cult of the past' "can only distract Man from his true quest: the quest for a new consciousness, springing from his immediate experience and contingent on the present."
Of course, this is exactly what Guénon feared most. 'Everyone doing their own thing'. While I think Guénon has a point specifically here, Lecarriere is certainly right to argue that Man is no longer the passive recipient of natures blows that he was in either ancient or even medieval times. The modern capitalist industrial / technological revolution has changed all that! The several great religions born in the wake of the Agricultural Revolution and consequent rise of Empire cannot hope to speak to a world in which Man has become an Effective Power.
This is radically new. Our author maintains that religious answers to the human condition, if they can be found, must only be in the future, not the past.
A Huge If, ...but I agree. Modernity has changed the way people live as much as the Agriculture Revolution (alongside the rise of Empire) once did. The Axial Age Religions arose as a response to this. If the changes wrought by modernity (industry, technology and science, media and the internet) prove to be as profound as those at the dawn of History and continue to endure, it is no longer entirely impossible to imagine a new religion (and religious sensibility / ethos) eventually rising and swallowing up its predecessors.
I think that Lecarriere not only imagined this, but hoped for it too
Lacarriere nicely conveys the alienated horror the ancient Gnostics felt for the world around them. And he maintains that this is in some ways comparable to our contemporary alienation under capitalism. In this way, an ancient heresy and modern revolution are used to illuminate each other. And our author goes about this in a manner that is very convincing.
I found myself also quite interested by the brief criticisms our author permits himself of the so-called Traditionalist School (the discussion occurs towards the end of the book) that begins with René Guénon. For our purposes here, let us say that the Traditionalist maintain that the Truth that all the Great Religious Traditions point to is unsurpassable, and thus they, and only they, are the bearers of Truth.
The argument with this is (or so I take Lacarriere to mean) that given the radical evil of the World (according to the Gnostics), we can expect no help from past religions that all spoke to a very different time. Our author argues that this 'cult of the past' "can only distract Man from his true quest: the quest for a new consciousness, springing from his immediate experience and contingent on the present."
Of course, this is exactly what Guénon feared most. 'Everyone doing their own thing'. While I think Guénon has a point specifically here, Lecarriere is certainly right to argue that Man is no longer the passive recipient of natures blows that he was in either ancient or even medieval times. The modern capitalist industrial / technological revolution has changed all that! The several great religions born in the wake of the Agricultural Revolution and consequent rise of Empire cannot hope to speak to a world in which Man has become an Effective Power.
This is radically new. Our author maintains that religious answers to the human condition, if they can be found, must only be in the future, not the past.
A Huge If, ...but I agree. Modernity has changed the way people live as much as the Agriculture Revolution (alongside the rise of Empire) once did. The Axial Age Religions arose as a response to this. If the changes wrought by modernity (industry, technology and science, media and the internet) prove to be as profound as those at the dawn of History and continue to endure, it is no longer entirely impossible to imagine a new religion (and religious sensibility / ethos) eventually rising and swallowing up its predecessors.
I think that Lecarriere not only imagined this, but hoped for it too
December 28, 2012
This is a beautiful essay on The Gnostics (leaders, groups, ideology, theology, etc.). It's a short tome, but the writing is beautiful and waxes poetic as it tries to embody the ideology through it's performance on the page. The essay isn't interested in being didactic or overly historical, and is written in a very personal manner which makes it very unique and more engaging. If I were to teach a class on gnosticism, this would definitely be on my required reading list.
April 8, 2020
Author takes early christian slander against gnostics as truth but considers the orgies as something positive instead, because he was big in May 68 spirit. The eating-babies-at-liturgy parts were omitted for convenience, though.
April 6, 2023
Lacarriere presents his own musings on the subject of Gnosticism; in all it's contradictory thoughts and actions which spread throughout history. Ideas which manifested esoterically into the public consciousness, even if it's adherents had never heard, nor studied the ideology itself. That of regarding life as being a mistake, a cosmic horror a la Thomas Liggoti, but still within the realm of Christianity in it's earliest form. A complete inversion of everything that became; every notion of morality, of proper conduct, of the use and value put on knowledge, on truth, on suffering, and on the divine spark so heavily valued by the original thinkers in their evaluation of how did something originate in such a low and based existence. The filth which we find ourselves, not just physically but metaphysically, pyschically, spiritually, our transcendent value denigrated down to a purely materialistic conception in our current time. How do we escape...how do we find not just solace or comfort, but liberation, and how can we constitute an idea of liberation utilizing the tools of a materialistic reality forged by the Archon's and the Demiurge?
The most intriguing aspect of the Gnostics is their propensity to look at basic situations from an inverted perspective; the night sky for example, is not just void space, with hints of bright little tears illustrating the afterlife. Those tiny holes into what must await us, is a logical enough position. What do we think when we view the night sky? We focus on the positive, on the thing that draws our eyes, the tiny little sparks littered throughout the sky, and yet engulfed by perpetual blackness. Dense, uncaring, unwarm, void-space housing what would constitute existential dread to a Cioran, or the nothingness of a Sartre. Yet the Gnostics instead viewed those illuminations as proof of a falsity, of a fiction created solely to keep us mystified by the illuminated, to keep our eyes from dwelling on the void itself. On the gnosis, the hidden esoteric truth; hidden only to the most astute of gazes. The black sun surviving unseen, while the golden rays of our own celestial body keep us perpetually ignorant of what truly exists beyond the pale.
This contrarian notion leads to a reconsideration and reevaluation of everything, of basic human interaction, sexual notions, the role of community and togetherness, procreation, the act of creativity and its expression. How does one reconcile existing in a perpetual state of purposefully created material suffering, and find any joy utilizing its materialistic tools? Yet the Gnostics did not focus their response to suicide, they instead pursued knowledge and their own integration of Platonic thought with what became the early Christian Church. We had notions of what they thought and did almost entirely through those early writings of the Desert Fathers, in their renunciations of the Gnostics as exemplifying abject heresy. With ideas of dualism existing alongside the Manicheans, positing that the God of the Old Testament was a deceiver; a false God meant to perpetuate suffering, and in this binary, the inverse takes on a liberatory quality. If the illuminated world is rooted in materialistic bleakness, then the darkness and the hidden qualities must be the key to exiting and finding Sophic solutions to the ultimate reality problem.
This idea was never fully extinguished, and ironically became a mainstay of our own cultural malaise. The most revolutionary thinkers throughout history have often exhibited a neo-gnostic, or reorientation and presentation of gnostic ideals; that of William Blake, Bataille, Jung, Baudrillard. They all saw something there, or stumbled into a position that was beyond sympathetic to the concept of a hidden world. For Blake, his own formulation of a Christianity that was more than sympathetic to the figure of Lucifer as the light-bringer, the forsaken and brilliant arbiter of creativity and rebellion in the face of a universe not conducive to his own brilliance. For Blake, "Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy, And in the wither'd field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain". The sophic understanding is there, just for those receptive enough to notice.
The truest of Gnostic thinkers to surface in modernity, that of Baudrillard, infuses the Gnostic ideals with that of technology becoming the new Demiurge, the medium through which the false reality can manifest in that of 'hyper-reality.' The screen becomes the reality, a false reality already set in a false reality, a simulacrum. The screen masks the reality, and the reality masks the nothingness, we are further removed, with the manipulation and denigration of that initial primal spark slipping further and further into the ether. We chose, through transhumanism, its own gnostic perversion, to utilize the material medium, in this case technology and medicine, to recreate the material world in a way more conducive not to wisdom or knowledge, but instead solely to alleviate suffering to remain in this false corporeal world endlessly. This thought then permeates and spreads amongst the elite, the silicon valley papacy with their own transhumanistic notions of how to create the material in their own baseless image.
We can follow the ancient Gnostic practice of disassociation, choosing to separate from corporeal reality, to remain nothing in its face, and not be tricked into functioning with it. Instead pursuing that which cannot just alleviate, but falsify the chains themselves, and push further to the nothingness of the realm of the true God. As enjoyable as dissociation sounds, it is life-denying. So, the paradox remains, if we exist in a perverted form of Gnostic ideals, in the form of hyper-reality, the Cyber-God, and materialistic self-worship; can we use the original Gnostic expressions to instead attempt to subvert and reorientate the physical plane? Or is the truth instead just pure disassociation? The joy of Lacarriere's 'The Gnostics," is just that, reading his poetical modernist-musings in the midst of our own post-modern terrors, and asking the questions which will obviously arise. The key one being, “Which way is up when simulation is all-encompassing?"
The most intriguing aspect of the Gnostics is their propensity to look at basic situations from an inverted perspective; the night sky for example, is not just void space, with hints of bright little tears illustrating the afterlife. Those tiny holes into what must await us, is a logical enough position. What do we think when we view the night sky? We focus on the positive, on the thing that draws our eyes, the tiny little sparks littered throughout the sky, and yet engulfed by perpetual blackness. Dense, uncaring, unwarm, void-space housing what would constitute existential dread to a Cioran, or the nothingness of a Sartre. Yet the Gnostics instead viewed those illuminations as proof of a falsity, of a fiction created solely to keep us mystified by the illuminated, to keep our eyes from dwelling on the void itself. On the gnosis, the hidden esoteric truth; hidden only to the most astute of gazes. The black sun surviving unseen, while the golden rays of our own celestial body keep us perpetually ignorant of what truly exists beyond the pale.
This contrarian notion leads to a reconsideration and reevaluation of everything, of basic human interaction, sexual notions, the role of community and togetherness, procreation, the act of creativity and its expression. How does one reconcile existing in a perpetual state of purposefully created material suffering, and find any joy utilizing its materialistic tools? Yet the Gnostics did not focus their response to suicide, they instead pursued knowledge and their own integration of Platonic thought with what became the early Christian Church. We had notions of what they thought and did almost entirely through those early writings of the Desert Fathers, in their renunciations of the Gnostics as exemplifying abject heresy. With ideas of dualism existing alongside the Manicheans, positing that the God of the Old Testament was a deceiver; a false God meant to perpetuate suffering, and in this binary, the inverse takes on a liberatory quality. If the illuminated world is rooted in materialistic bleakness, then the darkness and the hidden qualities must be the key to exiting and finding Sophic solutions to the ultimate reality problem.
This idea was never fully extinguished, and ironically became a mainstay of our own cultural malaise. The most revolutionary thinkers throughout history have often exhibited a neo-gnostic, or reorientation and presentation of gnostic ideals; that of William Blake, Bataille, Jung, Baudrillard. They all saw something there, or stumbled into a position that was beyond sympathetic to the concept of a hidden world. For Blake, his own formulation of a Christianity that was more than sympathetic to the figure of Lucifer as the light-bringer, the forsaken and brilliant arbiter of creativity and rebellion in the face of a universe not conducive to his own brilliance. For Blake, "Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy, And in the wither'd field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain". The sophic understanding is there, just for those receptive enough to notice.
The truest of Gnostic thinkers to surface in modernity, that of Baudrillard, infuses the Gnostic ideals with that of technology becoming the new Demiurge, the medium through which the false reality can manifest in that of 'hyper-reality.' The screen becomes the reality, a false reality already set in a false reality, a simulacrum. The screen masks the reality, and the reality masks the nothingness, we are further removed, with the manipulation and denigration of that initial primal spark slipping further and further into the ether. We chose, through transhumanism, its own gnostic perversion, to utilize the material medium, in this case technology and medicine, to recreate the material world in a way more conducive not to wisdom or knowledge, but instead solely to alleviate suffering to remain in this false corporeal world endlessly. This thought then permeates and spreads amongst the elite, the silicon valley papacy with their own transhumanistic notions of how to create the material in their own baseless image.
We can follow the ancient Gnostic practice of disassociation, choosing to separate from corporeal reality, to remain nothing in its face, and not be tricked into functioning with it. Instead pursuing that which cannot just alleviate, but falsify the chains themselves, and push further to the nothingness of the realm of the true God. As enjoyable as dissociation sounds, it is life-denying. So, the paradox remains, if we exist in a perverted form of Gnostic ideals, in the form of hyper-reality, the Cyber-God, and materialistic self-worship; can we use the original Gnostic expressions to instead attempt to subvert and reorientate the physical plane? Or is the truth instead just pure disassociation? The joy of Lacarriere's 'The Gnostics," is just that, reading his poetical modernist-musings in the midst of our own post-modern terrors, and asking the questions which will obviously arise. The key one being, “Which way is up when simulation is all-encompassing?"
January 3, 2025
"Jsem hlasem probuzení ve věčné noci."
Gnostický hymnus
"My jako myslící primáti jsme bytostmi odcizenými až do hlubin svých mozků, bytostmi odsouzenými k celoživotnímu zotročení, jemuž lze uniknout jen procitnutím ze zmrtvělosti a spánku." (str. 26)
"Zásadní rozdíl, který odděluje gnostiky od jejich současníků, spočívá v tom, že jejich rodnou "zemí" není Země, ale ztracené nebe, jež chovají ve svých vzpomínkách: jsou autochtony jiného světa. Odtud pramení jejich pocit, že spadli na naši Zemi ze vzdálené planety, že zabloudili do špatné galaxie. Proto touží po návratu do pravé vlasti, do zářného nadsvěta, který se třpytí za bariérou noci. Vykořeněnost gnostiků není geografická, nýbrž planetární. Přistupovat k nim jako k cizincům v politickém nebo občanském smyslu by bylo absurdním nedorozuměním, asi jako dávat Marťanům dočasné pobytové vízum. Všichni jsme ve stejné situaci, ale jen gnostici si ji plně uvědomují. Celé lidstvo se nachází ve vesmírném exilu, uvízli jsme v galaktickém bludišti, které nás vyvrhlo do bláta planety Země." (str 27)
"Pohleďme na oko. Je kulaté a sférické, podobá se vesmíru, jak si jej představovali gnostici. Na jeho kulovitém povrchu se rýsují tři kruhy: bělmo, duhovka a zornička. Vnější kruh je bílý, arterie a žilky se tu větví jak vláknité mlhoviny. Mezikruží duhovky punktované pigmenty nese vzory, skvrny a kresby. A konečně vnitřní kruh zorničky je temnou propastí, v níž lze zahlédnout hlubiny duše i odraz světelné emulze, který je pozůstatkem božského světla. Oko tak přirozeně opakuje strukturu vesmíru: sublunární kruh zorničky, střední kruh galaktického světa, vnější kruh mimogalaktického světa. Prohlédnout lidské oko znamená pochopit plán celého světa. Bádat v něm a ztratit se v této temné propasti jako lůně oceánských hlubin protkaných třpytným chvěním znamená pochopit nejzazší povahu naší existence na tomto světě, magický bod, kde se člověk a Bůh setkávají a spojují."
"Protože je každý člověk od narození uvržen do světa vystaveného ďáblovu násilí, musí se osvobodit pomocí stejného brutálního násilí, bezohledným bojem proti ďáblovi."
"Svět se vyvíjí jen díky herezím." (Zamjatin)
Poznání je spojeno s překračováním. Gnostici byli divoká banda, čítající spousty menších "sekt", ti z výše postavených byli "jinde", neskonale inteligentní jedinci, jejichž podobné zástupy můžeme objevit v některých řadách hermetiků a jim podobných, ale jejich žáci byli někdy jako banda hipíků (euchité), někdy stejní maniaci jako všude jinde (pojídání nechtěného plodu po orgiích), co nepracovali (nevidím rozdíl oproti církvi, ta si přitom na ně stěžovala), přitom šlo ale v jádru o odnož křesťanů, ale můžeme říct, že ne oveček, ale těch, co chtějí znát pravdu - křesťanská církev jim dávala na prdel za jejich heretické, až ignorantské chování. Někdy byly jejich myšlenky logicky i nebezpečné obecně stanoveným definicím (dualismus). Více než cokoliv mě ale fascinovalo přemýšlet nad tím, jak je Bible (pro některé doslova sola scriptura) více než studnou spíše nástrojem - je štěstí člověka v ignorantství pouhé banální zábavy a práce. Nemusíte se ničím zabývat. Co se v Bibli ponechalo a co se z ní dalo pryč, protože to "někomu nesedlo v jeho definici... která je koneckonců vždy nějak subjektivně odůvodněná". Jestliže je v textu něco, co mi dovoluje mít moc... pak je prakticky nevyhnutelné, že s pomocí té moci budu vykořisťovat ostatní svojí doktrínou. Proč bych toho, z pozice opice-člověka, neměl využít? A nemám zájem řešit tu otázku dobra v lidské duši, kterou média vždy rády prezentují. Co ty nánosy toho špatného? Proč nikdy nevidíme ty detaily z každodenního života - a teď nemám na mysli přímo akty násilí, ale čistou sobeckou vypočítavost, se kterou se vzájemně vymačkáváme jako pomeranče. Každý vykořisťuje v rámci svých možností, co nejvíc z dané situace může a tohle se neváže jen k náboženství a lidi, kteří namítají "Já nejsem věřící" - stejně se tě to týká, žiješ v kultuře, staletí budované na těchhle základech, sociologicky, výchovou, strukturou společnosti se tě to dotýká, a i když se otevřeně nehlásíš, jsi členem. Takže, kdo chce, aby obyčejný člověk měl skutečné poznání? A je to ještě lepší... kolik lidí o něj vůbec stojí - když jsou zaměstnáni banálními cíli, které sežerou většinu jejich času? Iluze štěstí a spokojenosti. Vsadím se, že jeden den slyšet, co si vaše polovička skutečně myslí, by stačil, aby zbořil celou vaši víru v to, že tady nejde o manipulaci / moc. Dokonce i zde v 'Les Gnostiques' je zmíněno, slovy a z pozice akademické-církevní, že nemůžeme ve své fyzické podobě skutečně spatřit Boha, protože bychom z toho zešíleli. Do jisté míry chápu tohle stanovisko, protože skutečná podoba a definice Boha je nad naše chápání, ale stejně tak za tímhle vidím záměr další, zájem, jako vždy, mocenské třídy na Zemi. Je tolik skrytých textů a skrytých z nějakého důvodu... okultní svazky, vědomosti. Alchymie, hermetismus - Markión. Jeho texty nejsou (ale texty kritiky křesťanské církve jeho textů ano). Záleží, jak moc nebezpečná je vaše myšlenka vůči vládnoucí vrstvě, jak moc chcete nakrknout zmanipulované zástupy fanatiků, kteří si vybudovali "způsob". Nekanonizované texty a okult. Co to znamená? To je cenzura. Nechají vás hádat se ohledně věcí, v nichž na vaší volbě doleva nebo doprava vůbec nezáleží, protože trik je v tom nechat vás konzumovat to, co vám nic nedá a vše vezme.
Další gnostické texty: Pistis Sofia (opět na ni narážím) a je vskutku zajímavé, že dvě vydání zde na databázi mají kombinovaných "0" hodnocení. Největší náboženství na světě. Lidi nechtějí skutečně vědět. Mariino evangelium, Tajná kniha Janova, Moudrost Ježíše Krista.
"...Neustále se potýkat s myšlenkou, že existují dva vesmíry a dvě božstva, že někde v hlubinách galaxií žije váš dvojník, naše pravé já, které se nikdy nerealizovalo, a že vlastně od počátku máme tělo, srdce a duši navždy oddělené..."
Gnostický hymnus
"My jako myslící primáti jsme bytostmi odcizenými až do hlubin svých mozků, bytostmi odsouzenými k celoživotnímu zotročení, jemuž lze uniknout jen procitnutím ze zmrtvělosti a spánku." (str. 26)
"Zásadní rozdíl, který odděluje gnostiky od jejich současníků, spočívá v tom, že jejich rodnou "zemí" není Země, ale ztracené nebe, jež chovají ve svých vzpomínkách: jsou autochtony jiného světa. Odtud pramení jejich pocit, že spadli na naši Zemi ze vzdálené planety, že zabloudili do špatné galaxie. Proto touží po návratu do pravé vlasti, do zářného nadsvěta, který se třpytí za bariérou noci. Vykořeněnost gnostiků není geografická, nýbrž planetární. Přistupovat k nim jako k cizincům v politickém nebo občanském smyslu by bylo absurdním nedorozuměním, asi jako dávat Marťanům dočasné pobytové vízum. Všichni jsme ve stejné situaci, ale jen gnostici si ji plně uvědomují. Celé lidstvo se nachází ve vesmírném exilu, uvízli jsme v galaktickém bludišti, které nás vyvrhlo do bláta planety Země." (str 27)
"Pohleďme na oko. Je kulaté a sférické, podobá se vesmíru, jak si jej představovali gnostici. Na jeho kulovitém povrchu se rýsují tři kruhy: bělmo, duhovka a zornička. Vnější kruh je bílý, arterie a žilky se tu větví jak vláknité mlhoviny. Mezikruží duhovky punktované pigmenty nese vzory, skvrny a kresby. A konečně vnitřní kruh zorničky je temnou propastí, v níž lze zahlédnout hlubiny duše i odraz světelné emulze, který je pozůstatkem božského světla. Oko tak přirozeně opakuje strukturu vesmíru: sublunární kruh zorničky, střední kruh galaktického světa, vnější kruh mimogalaktického světa. Prohlédnout lidské oko znamená pochopit plán celého světa. Bádat v něm a ztratit se v této temné propasti jako lůně oceánských hlubin protkaných třpytným chvěním znamená pochopit nejzazší povahu naší existence na tomto světě, magický bod, kde se člověk a Bůh setkávají a spojují."
"Protože je každý člověk od narození uvržen do světa vystaveného ďáblovu násilí, musí se osvobodit pomocí stejného brutálního násilí, bezohledným bojem proti ďáblovi."
"Svět se vyvíjí jen díky herezím." (Zamjatin)
Poznání je spojeno s překračováním. Gnostici byli divoká banda, čítající spousty menších "sekt", ti z výše postavených byli "jinde", neskonale inteligentní jedinci, jejichž podobné zástupy můžeme objevit v některých řadách hermetiků a jim podobných, ale jejich žáci byli někdy jako banda hipíků (euchité), někdy stejní maniaci jako všude jinde (pojídání nechtěného plodu po orgiích), co nepracovali (nevidím rozdíl oproti církvi, ta si přitom na ně stěžovala), přitom šlo ale v jádru o odnož křesťanů, ale můžeme říct, že ne oveček, ale těch, co chtějí znát pravdu - křesťanská církev jim dávala na prdel za jejich heretické, až ignorantské chování. Někdy byly jejich myšlenky logicky i nebezpečné obecně stanoveným definicím (dualismus). Více než cokoliv mě ale fascinovalo přemýšlet nad tím, jak je Bible (pro některé doslova sola scriptura) více než studnou spíše nástrojem - je štěstí člověka v ignorantství pouhé banální zábavy a práce. Nemusíte se ničím zabývat. Co se v Bibli ponechalo a co se z ní dalo pryč, protože to "někomu nesedlo v jeho definici... která je koneckonců vždy nějak subjektivně odůvodněná". Jestliže je v textu něco, co mi dovoluje mít moc... pak je prakticky nevyhnutelné, že s pomocí té moci budu vykořisťovat ostatní svojí doktrínou. Proč bych toho, z pozice opice-člověka, neměl využít? A nemám zájem řešit tu otázku dobra v lidské duši, kterou média vždy rády prezentují. Co ty nánosy toho špatného? Proč nikdy nevidíme ty detaily z každodenního života - a teď nemám na mysli přímo akty násilí, ale čistou sobeckou vypočítavost, se kterou se vzájemně vymačkáváme jako pomeranče. Každý vykořisťuje v rámci svých možností, co nejvíc z dané situace může a tohle se neváže jen k náboženství a lidi, kteří namítají "Já nejsem věřící" - stejně se tě to týká, žiješ v kultuře, staletí budované na těchhle základech, sociologicky, výchovou, strukturou společnosti se tě to dotýká, a i když se otevřeně nehlásíš, jsi členem. Takže, kdo chce, aby obyčejný člověk měl skutečné poznání? A je to ještě lepší... kolik lidí o něj vůbec stojí - když jsou zaměstnáni banálními cíli, které sežerou většinu jejich času? Iluze štěstí a spokojenosti. Vsadím se, že jeden den slyšet, co si vaše polovička skutečně myslí, by stačil, aby zbořil celou vaši víru v to, že tady nejde o manipulaci / moc. Dokonce i zde v 'Les Gnostiques' je zmíněno, slovy a z pozice akademické-církevní, že nemůžeme ve své fyzické podobě skutečně spatřit Boha, protože bychom z toho zešíleli. Do jisté míry chápu tohle stanovisko, protože skutečná podoba a definice Boha je nad naše chápání, ale stejně tak za tímhle vidím záměr další, zájem, jako vždy, mocenské třídy na Zemi. Je tolik skrytých textů a skrytých z nějakého důvodu... okultní svazky, vědomosti. Alchymie, hermetismus - Markión. Jeho texty nejsou (ale texty kritiky křesťanské církve jeho textů ano). Záleží, jak moc nebezpečná je vaše myšlenka vůči vládnoucí vrstvě, jak moc chcete nakrknout zmanipulované zástupy fanatiků, kteří si vybudovali "způsob". Nekanonizované texty a okult. Co to znamená? To je cenzura. Nechají vás hádat se ohledně věcí, v nichž na vaší volbě doleva nebo doprava vůbec nezáleží, protože trik je v tom nechat vás konzumovat to, co vám nic nedá a vše vezme.
Další gnostické texty: Pistis Sofia (opět na ni narážím) a je vskutku zajímavé, že dvě vydání zde na databázi mají kombinovaných "0" hodnocení. Největší náboženství na světě. Lidi nechtějí skutečně vědět. Mariino evangelium, Tajná kniha Janova, Moudrost Ježíše Krista.
"...Neustále se potýkat s myšlenkou, že existují dva vesmíry a dvě božstva, že někde v hlubinách galaxií žije váš dvojník, naše pravé já, které se nikdy nerealizovalo, a že vlastně od počátku máme tělo, srdce a duši navždy oddělené..."
December 28, 2013
A wonderful essay on the life and times of this religious movement that stirred the christian world for a few centuries. Easily read, lets you know the movement's main branches and protagonists and keeps you curious and interested in each page.
To be honest, I doubt this is an objective depiction of the gnostics. Some of them are presented something as poets of religious doctrines rather than religious leaders. Then you need to read something from the side that likes Gnostics, since they have much suffered by false accusations in the past.
To be honest, I doubt this is an objective depiction of the gnostics. Some of them are presented something as poets of religious doctrines rather than religious leaders. Then you need to read something from the side that likes Gnostics, since they have much suffered by false accusations in the past.
August 9, 2021
A fascinating overview. This introduction to the Gnostics is superior to the more mainstream offerings of Pagels and Hoeller because it does not sugarcoat the actual practices of the ancient Gnostics. Furthermore, the author strikes us as more authentically invested in a gnostic worldview, unlike the rather dry academics who dominate the market.
September 4, 2020
Such a wonderful piece. At some points I was wondering if this is a novel or a historical essay. The book was highly recommended by Henry Miller and Lawrence Durrell (I think Durrell gave it to Miller). A lot to be learned from Lacarriere.
May 27, 2008
Read Grant Morrison's The Filth all the way through in one sitting then read Jacques Lacarriere's The Gnostics.
June 12, 2017
Fascinating attempt at understanding Gnosticism via tracing it back to basic phenomenological experiences.
August 16, 2020
fascinating on a historical level, still a dream of a read.
October 13, 2025
The thing about the Gnostics is that they have always been chic, no? At least, even in 1973, when this book was written, they were already chic. I mean, look at this cover? So cool, right?
Like I said, written in 1973. Who knows how dated and perhaps inaccurate some of the suppositions here are. Lacarrière at least demonstrates how piecemeal any study of the supposed Gnostics is—breadcrumbs, really, except for some assorted texts. Thus, the life of a heretic should be. As a result, the general vibe of this slim volume reminds me of watching one of those old In Search Of episodes narrated by Leonard Nimoy—yes, perhaps much of this is now wrong, but the vibe is a delight. [In Search Of, BTW, would premier three years later].
But to say just that this book is merely a nostalgia trip does do a disservice to Lacarrière's obvious existential passion and research, his poetic prose, and his synergy with authors like Emile Cioran and Marguerite Yourcenar, whom he looks up to in their disdain as kind of modern Gnostics. And here lies the rub: while Lacarrière documents some of the wild parties some of the more hedonistic branches partook in (again, supposed), for the most part, the Gnostics are a glum bunch. And that's not even to mention their elaborate and incredibly tiresome cosmology. It's why so much of the singularity of gnostic thought leads towards an incredible kind of solipsism that unfortunately can be embraced by some extreme discompassionate modes of thought, like, er fascism. Yes, some gnostics can be real dicks.
But don't get me wrong: I, too, find the Gnostics chic. Their willingness to question and question, their desire to "know" (right there in the name)—all of this is beautifully rendered in a compact and dare I say fun style by the author. It didn't make a believer out of me, nor even a seeker, at least not yet. But I can appreciate the ardour of thought.
Like I said, written in 1973. Who knows how dated and perhaps inaccurate some of the suppositions here are. Lacarrière at least demonstrates how piecemeal any study of the supposed Gnostics is—breadcrumbs, really, except for some assorted texts. Thus, the life of a heretic should be. As a result, the general vibe of this slim volume reminds me of watching one of those old In Search Of episodes narrated by Leonard Nimoy—yes, perhaps much of this is now wrong, but the vibe is a delight. [In Search Of, BTW, would premier three years later].
But to say just that this book is merely a nostalgia trip does do a disservice to Lacarrière's obvious existential passion and research, his poetic prose, and his synergy with authors like Emile Cioran and Marguerite Yourcenar, whom he looks up to in their disdain as kind of modern Gnostics. And here lies the rub: while Lacarrière documents some of the wild parties some of the more hedonistic branches partook in (again, supposed), for the most part, the Gnostics are a glum bunch. And that's not even to mention their elaborate and incredibly tiresome cosmology. It's why so much of the singularity of gnostic thought leads towards an incredible kind of solipsism that unfortunately can be embraced by some extreme discompassionate modes of thought, like, er fascism. Yes, some gnostics can be real dicks.
But don't get me wrong: I, too, find the Gnostics chic. Their willingness to question and question, their desire to "know" (right there in the name)—all of this is beautifully rendered in a compact and dare I say fun style by the author. It didn't make a believer out of me, nor even a seeker, at least not yet. But I can appreciate the ardour of thought.
August 14, 2024
Ce livre est bien écrit au niveau du style, et il nous fait découvrir quelques personnages de l’histoire du gnosticisme. Il s’étend malheureusement avec une longueur qui fait sourciller sur les rites sexuels des gnostiques et les ressentis poétiques de l’auteur. Le résultat est un tableau un peu flou mais résolument poétique d’une fraction de la large tapisserie du gnosticisme, et à mon avis il y manquait un développement adéquat de la cosmologie et de la métaphysique du mouvement. À la fin, ce livre ne prétend pas être un livre d’histoire ni d’érudition ni académique ni philosophique. Qu’est-il donc? Encore une fois, un compte rendu poétique du ressenti de l’auteur. Assurément intéressant, aucunement exhaustif.
March 3, 2019
I very interesting overview of Gnostic thought from it's early Christian beginnings. This is not as much an historical look, but the approach of an essayist examining Gnostic thought and it's appeal to those who felt disenfranchised by the world around them.
April 27, 2025
An enigmatic exploration of gnosticism which is fittingly mysterious in itself. Doesn't go heavy on scholarship and tries to get to the essence of what they believed and the rituals they enacted throughout the years.
August 31, 2023
Sometimes reads scattered, but when it hits, it does hit
November 9, 2025
“In the teeming multiplicity of the stars he saw the flaming grid that bars our terrestrial prison, and in the oppressive orbs of the planets the gaolers of our planetary detention.”
January 16, 2014
History has made every attempt to destory all records of the gnostic belief. History is written by the victors and Christianity stomped Gnosticism out millenia ago. This book examines the information available and tries to piece together a model we can understand. An impossible undertaking which was done reasonably well. Overall, it was ok.
May 24, 2008
Unique look/interpretation of their history.
August 5, 2011
Not so much a scholarly work, but a poetic meditation on the gnostics. I've sited this book in more than on paper.
December 31, 2017
A magnificent, lyrical and thought provoking essay.
November 16, 2016
A candle once lit/read you cant blow out. Our pure darkness illuminated.
October 17, 2025
Maybe my favourite. Wonderful little book.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews