The Gnostics and the Archons

Leo40

Jedi Master
There are some threads discussing the writings of the gnostics and their thoughts but I found no mention of the archons which are very important to the gnostics. Therefore I offer this quote:

Quote from John Lash: (_http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/archonfiles/AlienIntrusion.php)

"The Nag Hammadi material contains reports of visionary experiences of the initiates, including first-hand encounters with inorganic beings called Archons. Gnostic teaching explains that these entities arose in the early stage of formation of the solar system, before the Earth was formed. Archons inhabit the solar system, the extraterrestrial realm as such, but they can intrude on Earth. Interestingly, this Gnostic insight accords closely with the view of Jacques Vallee, who maintains that ET/cyborgs probably belong to the local planetary realm. Vallee also proposes that the ET/UFO enigma is a “spiritual control system,” a phenomenon that “behaves like a conditioning process.” (Messengers of Deception). This is exactly what Gnostics said about the Archons: they can affect our minds by subliminal conditioning techniques. Their main tactics are mental error (intellectual virus, or false ideology, especially religious doctrines) and simulation. Archons are predatory, unlike a wide range of non-human and other-dimensional beings also know to the Gnostics, beings who are benevolent or neutral toward humanity.


Physical descriptions of Archons occur in several Gnostic codices. Two types are clearly identified: a neonate or embryonic type, and a draconic or reptilian type. Obviously, these descriptions fit the Greys and Reptilians of contemporary reports to a T. Or I should say, to an ET."

There are definite similarities with Castaneda's predators or fliers.
The gnostic tradition is very old and based on shamanic direct experience.
It is not surprising that they and their writing were almost completely destroyed.
 
Leo40 said:
There are some threads discussing the writings of the gnostics and their thoughts but I found no mention of the archons which are very important to the gnostics...

That's odd. Not only do I remember seeing discussions about it, but Google returned 27 distinct hits when I tried just now. Use a Google query like "site:http://cassiopaea.org/forum archons".
 
Hello Leo40,
The devil is in the details as always. You may consider these threads on J. Lash's take on the matter:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,7206.msg50893.html#msg50893
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27878.msg343510.html#msg343510
 
Thank you, mkrnhr for the threads.

I totally aggree that it is necessary not only to critically examine any text
but also the author and his sources.
What I find peculiar is the examination of where he published his findings.
imho It is sufficient to make sure there is no agenda or slant in the author's text.
We all collect pieces of the puzzle from various sources. The only thing that should
be observed is the fact of corroborating evidence.
In more simple words we select the items that are factual and discard the author's
conclusions which sometimes are erroneous due to professional limitations or other bias.
These limits are due to the excessive specialization in today's academia; very few
researchers are aware of the bigger picture, lacking the correct context for their findings.

The main reason for my post was to note that awareness of "foreign" influence (i.e. hyper-
dimensional) was well known in relative early times and was violently suppressed.
 
To my understanding Lash is not an academic, although I could be wrong. However, his discourse is clearly coloured by new-agy concepts and wishfull thinking. The idea of Archons being multidimensional predators is interresting enough from the historical viewpoint. However, he goes offtrack right after that IMHO :)
 
Hi Leo40. Personally, I'm fine with the stated main reason for your post, but I wanted to offer a note in regards to the following:

Leo40 said:
I totally aggree that it is necessary not only to critically examine any text
but also the author and his sources.
What I find peculiar is the examination of where he published his findings.
imho It is sufficient to make sure there is no agenda or slant in the author's text.
We all collect pieces of the puzzle from various sources. The only thing that should
be observed is the fact of corroborating evidence.
In more simple words we select the items that are factual and discard the author's
conclusions which sometimes are erroneous due to professional limitations or other bias.
These limits are due to the excessive specialization in today's academia; very few
researchers are aware of the bigger picture, lacking the correct context for their findings.


According to my Googling, I'd say the only people talking about Archons in such a way are those J. Lash and J. Weidner kludgemeisters who are least likely to understand Gnosis in the first place.

From what little I understand of them so far, Gnostic texts are non-trivial, non-dialectical material (e.g. redemption, revelation, and symbolism as process) requiring much care to interpret. Casual, novice readers ("non initiates" in Elaine Pagels' jargon) tend to use only their native interpretative framework. This is built from classical subject-object metaphysics and boolean-logic-based-dialectic. Interpreters may reveal their fixations with "static entities" and "states" with their focus on the importance of 'Archons as entities'. Contrast that with a focus on understanding relationships and processes involving all the entities and elements interacting in a multi-contextual presentation within that 'hylic-psychic-pneuma Topos' (system of thought and being).

FWIW.

~Added later: Also, it appears the original Greek text of that treatise has not been found. I suppose that should imply that we should hold that Coptic translation as 'open' for further information.
 
Buddy said:
Casual, novice readers ("non initiates" in Elaine Pagels' jargon) using only an interpretative framework built from classical subject-object metaphysics and boolean-logic-based-dialectic reveal themselves with their focus on the importance of 'Archons as entities' rather than a focus on understanding relationships and processes involving all the entities and elements interacting in a multi-contextual presentation within that 'hylic-psychic-pneuma Topos' system of thought and being.

Hello Buddy,
Although it is understandable, this single sentence can be split in such a way to make it more readable IMHO :)
 
mkrnhr said:
Buddy said:
Casual, novice readers ("non initiates" in Elaine Pagels' jargon) using only an interpretative framework built from classical subject-object metaphysics and boolean-logic-based-dialectic reveal themselves with their focus on the importance of 'Archons as entities' rather than a focus on understanding relationships and processes involving all the entities and elements interacting in a multi-contextual presentation within that 'hylic-psychic-pneuma Topos' system of thought and being.

Hello Buddy,
Although it is understandable, this single sentence can be split in such a way to make it more readable IMHO :)

Done. :)
 
Archons are mentioned here also in this article, talking about lizzie+greys abductions, but stated that the archons part is the "dark consciouness" behind the lizards (which could be the equivalent of the Orion STS mentioned by the Cs, my guess).


Not sure if it brings more info or clarity, in any case, here I post the link:


_http://evelorgen.com/wp/articles/military-abduction-milabs-and-reptilians/horus-ra/#more-1095
 
Richard said:
Buddy said:
'hylic-psychic-pneuma Topos' system of thought and being.

LOL! You got me there Buddy! I sounds very impressive though :P

It took me a couple of readings too but then I remembered that he's referring to "matter-soul-spirit" Hyle being matter, psyche soul, and pneuma being spirit.

Buddy, please remember to aim your writing to an intelligent 10 year old. You keep slipping back to aiming it to a philosophy PhD level. You end up making your readers either 1. Feel dumb or 2.
Think you are disordered. Neither of which are true. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom