Thunder, Perfect Mind

[Apostate1970]

Just felt like posting a poll! :D

Poll questions regard this document (in any translation)...

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html

I searched the forum to see if there was any thread already started that involved any discussion of or reaction to this document and found nothing but one brief mention of it.

I am not especially interested in a detailed discussion of the nature and origin of this work or its place (or lack thereof) in Judaeo-Christianity, although if anyone else is interested in this they're certainly welcome to start such a discussion here and I'm sure I'd follow along.

[bilby]

It seems like a fairly typical epic poem to me. I don't see it having any special merit as such, but it is OK. Like all good art, it informs the viewer about himself, rather than about itself; IMHO it does this passing well, but not on a par with the greatest art. OTOH, poetry is not so much my thing; I prefer a visual medium: Painting or sculpture are more me.

I voted neutral.

ETA I would not have replied at all if I was not in a situation of enforced boredom. (sorry to be brutally honest).

[Apostate1970]

I would not have replied at all if I was not in a situation of enforced boredom. (sorry to be brutally honest).

I'm in somewhat the same position. :D

[Elijah]

One of my favorites.

[Osbert]

One of my favorites.

If you do not mind me asking, why is it one of your favourites ?

Do you know/understand who the speaker is?

[Elijah]

Do you know/understand who the speaker is?

I think the author is unknown but they are channeling the feminine aspect of the universe.
If you do not mind me asking, why is it one of your favourites ?
I think it is well written first off. I like the tone, the confidence and the dualities portrayed.

I’m a fan of the feminine side of religion and there isn’t a lot remaining of their way of thinking and Thunder is a rare case to hear the voice of the divine female aspect that’s been lost in today’s society.

I think that it was lost of so long only to be dug up out of the desert with some Christian texts and Plato's Republic is especially neat.

[ashurbanipal]

Also one of my favorites....

[Apostate1970]

One of my favorites.

If you do not mind me asking, why is it one of your favourites ?

Do you know/understand who the speaker is?

I think it would be really silly and presumptuous to say more than Elijah has said regarding "gnosis" or knowledge of the speaker. I don't think anyone has to answer that, but, since it's been asked, who do you think the speaker is Osbert? I think that trying to answer that and being able to give a sympathetic reading of the poem is what's important. Well, you know what? I'm going to be silly an presumptuous and say that I think it's Sophia.

To quote this translator's own introduction to his translation, as it appears in a collection edited by Willis Barnstone, "In terms of religious tradition Thunder, Perfect Mind is difficult to classify. It presents no distinctively Jewish, Christian or Gnostic themes... the Jewish wisdom literature and the Isis areatologies provide texts which are parallel in tone and style...".

As for tone and style issues: I agree with what Elijah said about "confidence"... it's really "sexy"... :p

I also find it interesting that some of the dichotomies are straightforward opposites, seemingly irreconcilable, while others are merely paradoxical and take some thinking to resolve a meaning. For just one of many examples "Give heed to my poverty and my wealth.": one can be poor in one respect and yet rich in another, so this might be asking the hearer to consider what are the true dimensions of wealth, akin to "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:19-24. Obviously I am not actually intending any connection between these verses but just pointing out the notion.

I also find that, while the paradoxical nature seems to demand reflection and thought to decipher, and while we are exhorted to reflect by the poem itself, the overall tone is more that of a mantra... not meant to be analyzed at all but to be recited poetically or even in a rapid-fire way almost as if to induce a sort of meditative stupor. I think these two opposite reading approaches actually illustrate the thesis/antithesis aspect of the work in a sort of self-reflexive way and thus lend it a kind of consistency which it superficially lacks... and I have to say that I think that's really clever! :D

Here is wikipedia's writeup on it for anyone who is interested and hasn't already looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thunder_Perfect_Mind

To quote the wiki, "Examples of the genre abound in Old Testament literature.". But I think that if you look at canonical OT literature this is just really not correct at all. There may be some riddle aspects in some of the prophetic books but they are not at all "abundant" and they are in a male voice. Of course if we look at extracanonical literature then yes it is somewhat more common.

The closest you can find to this in the canonical literature is in the Catholic bible in Wisdom chapters 6-8. There are very obvious differences here but some of the themes and concerns, and the exhortative and laudatory aspects, and the presence of the feminine are all in common. If anyone does read this they'd have to read all three chapters to get a sense of the commonality.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis006.htm

Ok, I've said enough and I don't want to turn this thread into a bible study thread.

[Scorpion]

This poll is missing TLDR option.

-S-

[Apostate1970]

This poll is missing TLDR option.

-S-

OK, I'll bite: what is TLDR? :confused:

[premjan]

It reads like Vedanta.

[Toto]

tl/dr = too long didn't read. If that was your choice, you don't need to vote.

It is missing the Magic Brownies option. . .

[Apostate1970]

tl/dr = too long didn't read. If that was your choice, you don't need to vote.

It is missing the Magic Brownies option. . .

magic brownie = too spacey/hippie/weird?

[Osbert]

Thanks Elijah, I too am struck by its duality and beauty although I couldn't have put it as nicely as you did.

Apostate1970
I think it would be really silly and presumptuous to say more than Elijah has said regarding "gnosis" or knowledge of the speaker. I don't think anyone has to answer that, but, since it's been asked, who do you think the speaker is Osbert? I think that trying to answer that and being able to give a sympathetic reading of the poem is what's important. Well, you know what? I'm going to be silly an presumptuous and say that I think it's Sophia.

I really am not sure who the " I " speaking is... I think it is a riddle.

I don't think the speaker is supposed to be a person but a "state of being", neither male nor female but transcending both.
There cannot be many things in real life that fit all the descriptions/attributes of the riddle.
I am not a scholar, I asked because I am curious to see if anybody has yet made sense of it.

It reminds me very much of Celtic riddles:

I have been a stag of seven tines, running
I have been a flood across a wide plain, flowing
I have been a wind over a deep lake, whispering
I have been a tear from the brilliant sun, glistening
I have been a hawk in my nest above the cliff, watching
I have been a wonder among the lovliest flowers, blooming
I have been a god with smoke to fill the head, blazing
I have been a spear that roars for blood, flying
I have been a salmon in a clear pool, swimming
I have been a hill where poets walk, singing
I have been a boar upon the hills ruthless and red, roving
I have been a breaker from the winter sea, thundering
I have been a tide of the ocean, delivering to death and returning...
Who, but I, knows the secrets of the unhewn dolmen?

I am the womb of every holt,
I am the blaze on every hill,
I am the queen of every hive,
I am the shield for every head,
I am the tomb of every hope...
Who, but I, gives birth to all that was, is and shall be?

from "The Song of Amergin" - translated by Robert Graves

[gurugeorge]

Just felt like posting a poll! :D

Poll questions regard this document (in any translation)...

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html

I searched the forum to see if there was any thread already started that involved any discussion of or reaction to this document and found nothing but one brief mention of it.

I am not especially interested in a detailed discussion of the nature and origin of this work or its place (or lack thereof) in Judaeo-Christianity, although if anyone else is interested in this they're certainly welcome to start such a discussion here and I'm sure I'd follow along.

It's clearly one of the most powerful documents in the Nag Hammadi find - it has a kind of poetic, spiritual power that reaches through the centuries directly to modern peoples' hearts (hence its popularity nowadays).

One reason for its popularity nowadays might be that Westerners have been primed for this kind of Feminine deity viewpoint by exposure to feminine deities from Hinduism and Buddhism.

In fact, one of the most striking things about the poem is how much it resembles, in its larding of paradox upon paradox, some of the devotional Sakti worship poetry. I wish I could remember where I once found a particularly striking parallel - it was a text in a book that discussed the Upanishads.

At any rate, I think this kind of thought is pretty ancient, and I suspect that Wisdom literature probably goes back to Neolithic roots, and even further, to times when the feminine was a more obvious metaphor for the All.

[Apostate1970]

One reason for its popularity nowadays might be that Westerners have been primed for this kind of Feminine deity viewpoint by exposure to feminine deities from Hinduism and Buddhism.

Om, Tara tutare ture, soha!

:D

:notworthy:

[LukeS]

I was expecting something about mysticical storm chasers. I voted unfamilia / no like.
A second reading (orf the first fewstanzas) improved things, but really it didn't make sense, but it wasn't trying to be surreal, it was trying to make sense. 'Confused' or 'confusing' is the word/s.

How would you like it if I hit you with the plasma screaming, lest you die an effigy of intent, while sleeping?

[Elijah]

I really am not sure who the " I " speaking is... I think it is a riddle.

I don't think the speaker is supposed to be a person but a "state of being", neither male nor female but transcending both.
There cannot be many things in real life that fit all the descriptions/attributes of the riddle.
I am not a scholar, I asked because I am curious to see if anybody has yet made sense of it.

I agree with Apostate1970 that it’s probably something similar to Sophia/Isis.

If it was a poplar piece I would say that it was meant to be read aloud in temple where the priestess was supposed to be an earthly vessel for the spirit and that’s why all the “I am” stuff. But arguing against it being a popular piece is that the tone doesn’t seem to be speaking to believers but to skeptics at a time when the female religions were probably being persecuted or just fading out of popularity.

The male/female duality transcends the physical world in the Gnostic understanding of the universe. (which Thunder looks influenced by and was found with.) The perceivable physical universe is just a poor copy of the eternal side of the universe (Aeon) and Sophia is the eternal feminine aspect of the universe or part of it. The female aspect is usually associated with the Void that existed before the universe began and still remains. If god is one, she is zero. The cosmic womb.

You may want to check out the other Gnostic writings in the Nag (The origin of the World, Second Treatise of Seth.) The Gnostic stuff is really out there and the anthropomorphizing every aspect of the universe makes it especially confusing, which makes it a little understandable why they didn’t want it in the Bible.



For those who were in the world had been prepared by the will of our sister Sophia - she who is a whore - because of the innocence which has not been uttered. And she did not ask anything from the All, nor from the greatness of the Assembly, nor from the Pleroma. Since she was first, she came forth to prepare monads and places for the Son of Light and the fellow workers which she took from the elements below to build bodily dwellings from them.

[gurugeorge]

I really am not sure who the " I " speaking is... I think it is a riddle.

I don't think the speaker is supposed to be a person but a "state of being", neither male nor female but transcending both.
There cannot be many things in real life that fit all the descriptions/attributes of the riddle.
I am not a scholar, I asked because I am curious to see if anybody has yet made sense of it.

I think it's basically consciousness - consciousness, in the sense of the bare capacity to perceive anything at all, unbiassedly reflects all things, good and bad, everything that exists. Before thought steps in and says "this is good" or "this is bad", consciousness has already received it. Hence the "whore" idea - consciousness indiscriminately f***s all its perceptions, as it were.

The idea of the "fallen Sophia" is that this capacity to reflect all unbiassedly is in a "fallen" condition in most of us most of the time, because we think that every passing perception is our lover, we think we'll get love from it (or from the latest toy in life), and we are constantly, sadly, disappointed. For Sophia to be re-connected to Christ means for the mind to understand itself as God's vehicle - to understand that one is God's eye in this world, wherewith God perceives some of His infinite possibility, such that every perception of something existent, whether good or bad, is a perception of God by God, by means of oneself as a vehicle.

But this is monstrous, beyond good and evil, and beyond tribal ideas of God, where God is an idealisation of what's good for the tribe.

[JEST2ASK]

I think it would be really silly and presumptuous to say more than Elijah has said regarding "gnosis" or knowledge of the speaker. I don't think anyone has to answer that, but, since it's been asked, who do you think the speaker is Osbert? I think that trying to answer that and being able to give a sympathetic reading of the poem is what's important. Well, you know what? I'm going to be silly an presumptuous and say that I think it's Sophia.

To quote this translator's own introduction to his translation, as it appears in a collection edited by Willis Barnstone, "In terms of religious tradition Thunder, Perfect Mind is difficult to classify. It presents no distinctively Jewish, Christian or Gnostic themes... the Jewish wisdom literature and the Isis areatologies provide texts which are parallel in tone and style...".

As for tone and style issues: I agree with what Elijah said about "confidence"... it's really "sexy"... :p

I also find it interesting that some of the dichotomies are straightforward opposites, seemingly irreconcilable, while others are merely paradoxical and take some thinking to resolve a meaning. For just one of many examples "Give heed to my poverty and my wealth.": one can be poor in one respect and yet rich in another, so this might be asking the hearer to consider what are the true dimensions of wealth, akin to "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:19-24. Obviously I am not actually intending any connection between these verses but just pointing out the notion.

I also find that, while the paradoxical nature seems to demand reflection and thought to decipher, and while we are exhorted to reflect by the poem itself, the overall tone is more that of a mantra... not meant to be analyzed at all but to be recited poetically or even in a rapid-fire way almost as if to induce a sort of meditative stupor. I think these two opposite reading approaches actually illustrate the thesis/antithesis aspect of the work in a sort of self-reflexive way and thus lend it a kind of consistency which it superficially lacks... and I have to say that I think that's really clever! :D

Here is wikipedia's writeup on it for anyone who is interested and hasn't already looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thunder_Perfect_Mind



also from there:

Though the poem is a recent addition to our literature, it has already had an effect on contemporary culture. Excerpts from the poem were used by Toni Morrison as epigraphs to her novels, Jazz and Paradise.




To quote the wiki, "Examples of the genre abound in Old Testament literature.". But I think that if you look at canonical OT literature this is just really not correct at all. There may be some riddle aspects in some of the prophetic books but they are not at all "abundant" and they are in a male voice. Of course if we look at extracanonical literature then yes it is somewhat more common.

The closest you can find to this in the canonical literature is in the Catholic bible in Wisdom chapters 6-8. There are very obvious differences here but some of the themes and concerns, and the exhortative and laudatory aspects, and the presence of the feminine are all in common. If anyone does read this they'd have to read all three chapters to get a sense of the commonality.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis006.htm

Ok, I've said enough and I don't want to turn this thread into a bible study thread.


Thank You and others for your comments bringing some things to my attention and enlightenment ... :)

I am still mostly neutral but can see why others like it.

[Osbert]

I think it's basically consciousness - consciousness, in the sense of the bare capacity to perceive anything at all, unbiasedly reflects all things, good and bad, everything that exists. Before thought steps in and says "this is good" or "this is bad", consciousness has already received it. Hence the "whore" idea - consciousness indiscriminately f***s all its perceptions, as it were.

The idea of the "fallen Sophia" is that this capacity to reflect all unbiassedly is in a "fallen" condition in most of us most of the time, because we think that every passing perception is our lover, we think we'll get love from it (or from the latest toy in life), and we are constantly, sadly, disappointed. For Sophia to be re-connected to Christ means for the mind to understand itself as God's vehicle - to understand that one is God's eye in this world, wherewith God perceives some of His infinite possibility, such that every perception of something existent, whether good or bad, is a perception of God by God, by means of oneself as a vehicle.

My English often lets me down, I understand and I do not understand what you are saying, I agree that it may be a way to identify with "consciousness".

But what kind of or whose consciousness ? Is the " I " speaking on whose behalf ?

Is it speaking "as if" it were Sin? Lust? Love? ...What?
Is this what they would say?

There cannot be many things that can claim to be all the attributes that Thunder is claiming for itself.

The poetry in the message would need to be understood and impress its chosen readers. It must be aiming to a discerned audience.


But this is monstrous, beyond good and evil, and beyond tribal ideas of God, where God is an idealisation of what's good for the tribe.

Maybe I am too innocent but I do not understand why you think it monstrous, maybe vain and self opinionated ?

[gurugeorge]

I think it's basically consciousness - consciousness, in the sense of the bare capacity to perceive anything at all, unbiasedly reflects all things, good and bad, everything that exists. Before thought steps in and says "this is good" or "this is bad", consciousness has already received it. Hence the "whore" idea - consciousness indiscriminately f***s all its perceptions, as it were.

The idea of the "fallen Sophia" is that this capacity to reflect all unbiassedly is in a "fallen" condition in most of us most of the time, because we think that every passing perception is our lover, we think we'll get love from it (or from the latest toy in life), and we are constantly, sadly, disappointed. For Sophia to be re-connected to Christ means for the mind to understand itself as God's vehicle - to understand that one is God's eye in this world, wherewith God perceives some of His infinite possibility, such that every perception of something existent, whether good or bad, is a perception of God by God, by means of oneself as a vehicle.

My English often lets me down, I understand and I do not understand what you are saying, I agree that it may be a way to identify with "consciousness".

But what kind of or whose consciousness ? Is the " I " speaking on whose behalf ?

Consciousness in general, considered in the abstract. Perception is happening for you, for me, for any sensitive being. In terms of the sheer fact that anything is perceived at all, anywhere, every consciousness is on a level with every other. And this fact of anything being known or perceived at all is a mystery on a par with the other great mystery - that anything exists at all.

Is it speaking "as if" it were Sin? Lust? Love? ...What?
Is this what they would say?

I think some of it will be "terms of art" for the mystico-religious community that produced the text, so some of the terminology will be opaque to us until more is known about the community that used the text, some of those "terms of art" will likely refer to the results of certain practices undergone. (This metaphorical use of language is common in mysticisms, e.g. Buddhist, Daoist, Christian.)

I don't think it's in any way a philosophical treatise that's putting forward any bold or novel propositions or arguments. It's basically reiterating a philosophical triviality - that the Universe is all things, good and bad, and that consciousness reflects all things indiscriminately.

There cannot be many things that can claim to be all the attributes that Thunder is claiming for itself.

The Universe as a whole does; Consciousness, being a faculty the Universe has of canvassing its own possibilities, also does.

The poetry in the message would need to be understood and impress its chosen readers. It must be aiming to a discerned audience.

Yes, as I said, some of it will be jargon, and it would be foolish to try and interpret it too precisely on the basis of a sketchy understanding (as some Western translators have done with Eastern religions), only to find, later in the day, that this was actually meant, and not that.


But this is monstrous, beyond good and evil, and beyond tribal ideas of God, where God is an idealisation of what's good for the tribe.

Maybe I am too innocent but I do not understand why you think it monstrous, maybe vain and self opinionated ?

It's just poetic licence to get the message across: mysticism is "transgressive", it doesn't care about good and evil (although mystics often behave in a loving way, they don't always, sometimes they are selfish), it just cares about the experience/understanding that one is God/the Universe/the Absolute (whatever the ultimate term in the culture is).

The uncensored message is that it really is ok with God that people die horribly, children are raped and tortured, lives made an unending torment of tedium by stupid political ideas, etc., etc. It's just shit happening, just a pattern of being, a pattern of existence, with no intrinsic moral significance whatsoever.

Morality is our game, it only means something to us as human beings (i.e. smart, symbol-using, social animals living on this Earth). The passions morality arouses, the intense desire to eradicate such evils from the world, etc., etc. - these are things that could only happen to an animal, with a specific perspective on things, in terms of which things may be ranked according to preference.

[Apostate1970]

I am basically in agreement with gurugeorge. However I would put much of what he says in less provocative language by saying that the poem is asking merely for an opening of our minds to see the beauty/purpose/meaning in myriad circumstances that we otherwise might not... even when we witness horrific evil we can become conscious of good that is still close by or juxtaposed to it if in nothing more than our reaction. We are being asked to question the validity of our selections and discriminations. This is a theme you mentioned too Osbert. I also think that the poem is densely laden with more conventional meanings as well... meanings that can be taken as moral exhortations. But I won't elaborate on this because there's just no room for it here.

Turning to the poll results themselves... I am a little hesitant to bring this up because I think that too much speculation on it at this still-early stage could skew the results. But I have two, possibly complementary, theories as to why the results are coming out as they are.

Haha! I've just turned on my music and out pops my "psychedelic" playlist. Right now it's In the Morning of the Magicians, by The Flaming Lips... check it out... great song and totally relevant to this discussion. Looks like George Harrison's My Sweet Lord is up next. Here's another if anyone wants to play name-that-tune.

"If you understand or if you don't, if you believe or if you don't... there's a universe of justice, and the eyes of truth are always watching you."

:eek:

:D

Hmmm... hope this doesn't become known as "The Magic Brownie Thread"... I personally don't do anything like that. :rolleyes:

[Osbert]

My English often lets me down, I understand and I do not understand what you are saying, I agree that it may be a way to identify with "consciousness".

But what kind of or whose consciousness ? Is the " I " speaking on whose behalf ?

Consciousness in general, considered in the abstract. Perception is happening for you, for me, for any sensitive being. In terms of the sheer fact that anything is perceived at all, anywhere, every consciousness is on a level with every other. And this fact of anything being known or perceived at all is a mystery on a par with the other great mystery - that anything exists at all.



I think some of it will be "terms of art" for the mystico-religious community that produced the text, so some of the terminology will be opaque to us until more is known about the community that used the text, some of those "terms of art" will likely refer to the results of certain practices undergone. (This metaphorical use of language is common in mysticisms, e.g. Buddhist, Daoist, Christian.)

I don't think it's in any way a philosophical treatise that's putting forward any bold or novel propositions or arguments. It's basically reiterating a philosophical triviality - that the Universe is all things, good and bad, and that consciousness reflects all things indiscriminately.



The Universe as a whole does; Consciousness, being a faculty the Universe has of canvassing its own possibilities, also does.



Yes, as I said, some of it will be jargon, and it would be foolish to try and interpret it too precisely on the basis of a sketchy understanding (as some Western translators have done with Eastern religions), only to find, later in the day, that this was actually meant, and not that.



Maybe I am too innocent but I do not understand why you think it monstrous, maybe vain and self opinionated ?

It's just poetic licence to get the message across: mysticism is "transgressive", it doesn't care about good and evil (although mystics often behave in a loving way, they don't always, sometimes they are selfish), it just cares about the experience/understanding that one is God/the Universe/the Absolute (whatever the ultimate term in the culture is).

The uncensored message is that it really is ok with God that people die horribly, children are raped and tortured, lives made an unending torment of tedium by stupid political ideas, etc., etc. It's just shit happening, just a pattern of being, a pattern of existence, with no intrinsic moral significance whatsoever.

Morality is our game, it only means something to us as human beings (i.e. smart, symbol-using, social animals living on this Earth). The passions morality arouses, the intense desire to eradicate such evils from the world, etc., etc. - these are things that could only happen to an animal, with a specific perspective on things, in terms of which things may be ranked according to preference.

Dear gurugeorge,

I want to thank you for the clear delivery of your opinion in this matter and if the main element of my curiosity were morality or sobriety I would agree with your words entirely.

I was and remain curious in what you call "terms of art" or "jargon"; I would dearly love to decipher / decrypt the document that Apostate 1970 posted.

I was merely wandering if there had been an interpretation of the text somewhere but it doesn't look like it.
You are probably correct in saying that it would be foolish to try and interpret it.
Best wishes.

[gurugeorge]

I was and remain curious in what you call "terms of art" or "jargon"; I would dearly love to decipher / decrypt the document that Apostate 1970 posted.

In the "standard" edition of the Nag Hammadi texts there's an introduction in which an academic gives the general academic consensus (which is by no means settled), and there's a small bibilography attached. If you want more detail that would be a good place to start.

[Chili]

Never read the poem but I would call her Mary who is the most enigmatic of all women for the simple reason that she is the full extent of our own soul from where she is ever so close but yet so far because we cannot make our soul the subject of our inquiry. She is our seat of wisdom and our own gate to heaven which still is smaller than the eye of a neeldle yet opens wide if she wants us in. I would love to do explication of it and may just do that for my own sake and if I have the time I will post it here.

She may be called Sophia but that makes her too distant in our mythology if she is a local girl who made us to be her own.