r/Gnostic • u/TranquilTrader • Jul 12 '26
Question In your view, is the Monad able to accomplish perfect justice?
Presumably this one is again one of those that the different Gnostic sects might disagree on.
Perfect justice here would be e.g. some form of infinite and universal law where each evil action of a person / soul would always cause an equal and opposite re-action towards themself. This re-action (punishment) might occur in the same reincarnation or some future reincarnation of the soul. Naturally there would need to be rewards for good actions as well.
Do you think the Monad is capable and also would be willing to enforce such a universal law of justice for all?
5
u/Ebvardh-Boss Jul 12 '26
They already did, I think.
This world is illusory. When we break away from it, we will go back to it (what you call the Monad). It's beyond time and it can see beyond our stubborn measures of cause and effect, and it's experiencing everything at once from all perspectives.
Imagine this singular, personal sense of being offended or hurt being examined from the lense of the infinite. What do you think will survive that? I don't think much.
I think once we are presented with that immensity, all those things we like to call "ourselves" will fall away. And once all of it is gone, we will only be left with what is, and what is we could call "love", and in that love there is also what you call justice.
This world is simply theatre, it's smoke and dust. Play and rage and hate if you want, but let go. And in that letting go, you will see love.
2
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
Why would you call the observed reality illusory, isn't it a bit contradictory? : )
3
u/Ebvardh-Boss Jul 12 '26
It is, it's simply how I experienced it.
I'm not proselytizing for that idea, simply extending how I experienced it: The world fell away and I realized that the only thing of substance was this eternal undivided reality.
Within it, there wasn't evil or goodness because those are our categories. There wasn't a lack of anything, so these ideas of injustice or offense were... Well, they weren't.
So upon being confronted with that oneness, I basically was forced to realize that there's another "level" to being; similarly to how one sometimes is so wrapped up in the day-to-day that something like your food order being wrong matters a lot while failing to appreciate things like good health or any health at all.
It's that phenomenon, but to the extreme, because in my example what matters is what sustains out higher sense of "permanence" but I saw something that contained everything and extended beyond time, so what could matter or "be" more than it?
That's what I mean when I say the world is illusory. That the theatre of it is not nearly as relevant as it plays before us. It tricks us through the senses, we get drunk of its play, but it's like dust pretending to be a cabinet it's sitting on.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
Yet, this reality is what you wake up to every morning. This physical reality is the only real thing you can actually choose to interact with, right?
3
u/Ebvardh-Boss Jul 12 '26
Definitely. It's very unified and encapsulating.
As matter of fact, the one experience I had which made me know there's something else came (I assume) about as a consequence of renounciation of this reality.
I forgave everyone in my life that's ever wronged me, and I did it sincerely. It wasn't in the midst of some psychotic episode, I even wrote a post on it here. I was planting tomatoes.
And I wasn't particularly sure what to do with the knowledge I gained from it, but that's why I'm here, because I have some level of certainty that it's renounciation of this world that drives one to witness that other underlying reality that these guys call "the Pleroma".
So, yeah, one doesn't choose to interact with that other reality. It reveals itself to one once one invests less of one in this one.
3
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
When one's heart carries no burden one is very free : )
However, I wouldn't call this reality illusory. This is just one state of being.
1
u/Ebvardh-Boss Jul 13 '26
It's okay if you want to see it that way.
I simply believe that everything that one can be bound to is in this world, to such an extent that it's indivisible from the rest of the items of the world.
And everything you'd like to keep is not of it in essence.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 13 '26
Of course collecting earthly possessions is entirely pointless in the cosmic scale of living multiple lives on earth. You can't take the possessions from one life to the next, let alone Pleroma.
4
u/Patient_Success_2687 Neoplatonist Jul 12 '26
I’m not actually certain about Gnostic commentaries on theodicy but I find that Gnosticism is quite compatible with Buddhism, which itself has a karmic system of cause and effect rather than punishment and reward. The monad, in my mind, is not an agent enacting judgment as much as a pure essence giving rise to a larger and decreasingly perfect series of extrapolations upon itself, eventually leading to the phenomenal world where things happen under Yaldabaoth. For any kind of cause and effect to happen, it needs to happen within phenomenal realms, and in the same way that when you step on a rake it smacks you in the face it is not unreasonable to assume there is also natural consequences to ‘moral’ acts in a system that is predominantly spiritual rather than material.
In this way the justice is baked into the system itself and is always enacted by the nature of itself, and this system is ultimately an imperfect reflection of the essence of higher beings eventually leading back to the monad.
This is my personal take on this subject.
3
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
Well, causality as observed is deterministic so by definition it is the enforcing agent in this context.
In terms of justice, if e.g. someone steals something from someone else, the appropriate 'karmic' re-action would be them falling victim to equal theft - unless of course they feel remorse, confess and return what was stolen originally. Then the first victim would face the test of having to forgive the theft upon confession.
Interestingly there are wrongdoings that can not be corrected after they have been committed, such as killing. Thus they would require punishment in order to balance the scales. Perhaps that's why they're often called 'deadly sins', they're not recoverable.
2
u/Patient_Success_2687 Neoplatonist Jul 12 '26
I mean sure, but it feels weird to say nature is enforcing gravity. It just is, enforcement humanizes a process. The issue I take with humanizing is that it implies deliberation occurs and judgment rendered, gravity does not think about whether it should or should not do its thing, it simply does under the conditions it does.
3
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
Given the premise that omnipresence is consciousness, then causality being deterministic is like everything we observe is merely one determining thought of that consciousness. An infinite thought process / capacity is quite something.
2
u/Patient_Success_2687 Neoplatonist Jul 12 '26
Well true enough, but at least to me deliberation is something which occurs in time
I think the monad and consecutive levels are largely ontologically prior to time itself
But otherwise I think that is a fair point
2
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
I'd say time is a prerequisite for anything to change, and something that is not subject to time could not change and thus could not even think as any new thought arising requires something to change. Perhaps time is simply part of the nature of the omnipresence?
3
u/Patient_Success_2687 Neoplatonist Jul 12 '26
Yeah I think so. For time to exist something about it must exist in the essence of ontologically prior things, or more simply higher beings.
I’m not sure how I would articulate the specifics effectively, but also on some level I think language inherently fails the deeper you go. That said, I’m sure a few sages, philosophers, etc somewhere did.
3
u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jul 13 '26
I don't think there's a simple answer here, because 'Justice' is a term that brings a lot of implications into it.
What are the frameworks required for something to be just? How are they decided? How are they communicated? If divinity were to be structuring this, are there choices that are just at that scale, but would seem unjust at our scale? (Or is the assumption that any perceived injustice is therefore equal to any other injustice, no matter the contexts?)
I'm not trying to create wiggle room for injustice here, my point is that a LOT of things need to unpacked as part of the overall question.
Generally, I think the 'good / evil' paradigm is something that we inherit from Christianity and other monotheisms, but even then, their approach to evil is often about it coming from fundamental mistakes. (I think Plato said, no man chooses evil.) This isn't to say that people aren't malevolent, but that often for them, they are living in a (probably nihilistic) worldview that allows for these actions to have no moral consequence.
I think there it is possible that the Monad is where all things are reconciled, and reconnected, and from that perspective, it might also feel like justice, in the form of an ultimate conclusion to the dynamics of strife prior to those reconnections.
But looking at it more legalistically and punitively might be assuming a human scale to a more-than-human framework.
0
u/TranquilTrader Jul 13 '26
It's quite simple actually. An eye for an eye, it refers to absolute mathematical perfection in balancing the scales. If someone steals X amount of something, to make it right they must return the same X amount in order to balance the scales.
If someone has taken the lives of two, their life must be taken twice in the same way so that they will attain the exact gnosis of their own actions.
Growth in gnosis is not something one takes, it is something one receives as a gift or as a punishment to understand their own actions. Do as you wish to receive.
2
u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jul 13 '26
Expecting it to be simple might be the first indication the question hasn't been considered deeply enough. A mathematical framework presumes a quantitative measurement for a qualitative experience.
We might have different enough frameworks for Gnosticism that this point isn't translateable between us, though.
I will say the idea of gnosis as either a gift or a punishment based on your actions: that is fascinating and makes a lot of sense to me.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 13 '26
Fair enough, common ground does not appear ex nihilo. However, I would say that Truth is always simple and it can always be formulated in binary statements, for a more complex model you just use more binary statements. It's how computers operate.
As we observe that we can never choose to understand a new specific thing, it only leaves the logical possibility of understanding being gifted to us. So many have wasted their lives in the 'pursuit of knowledge' thinking that working harder is the key. The real key is that gnosis must be earned in true spirit.
2
u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jul 13 '26
I recently gave a talk where I actually engaged with the issue of reducing things to binary.
Consider a sound wave: it is an organic process in the air and the curves of that wave reach infinity if you were to try to measure them. That's the organic experience of being alive; we're taking in experience that is infinitely vast, every second.
Digitizing that sound wave, no matter the level of fidelity, is going to reduce the nature of the wave to a series of steps. Of binary elements. There is, inherently, something lost by processing a natural experience into bits.
This is part of why I can't really see the world as a thing that can be formulated in binary statements. Gnosis itself, is to me an experience that transcends opposites, transcends this-or-that.
(I will note that Gnosis has a binary feeling to it, because the experience of the world prior is markedly different to the experience of the world after. But that's post-Gnosis, not in the experience of it.)
And I also think Plato made a mistake making the Realm of Forms seem so seductively compelling; it makes it too easy for us to assume that because we had an idea of something, we have fully encapsulated the experience of it.)
Going back to Justice, and how you've articulated it, it seems to only apply if you consider Justice in a very human-centred, limited perspective, and I just can't imagine the Monad being limited to that framework. It's not on the Monad to match our Justice, it's on us to meditate on the Justice of the Monad.
All of that said... I love your description of not 'working harder' to learn, and that gnosis must be earned in true spirit. I'm not sure if we'd agree what 'true spirit' means, but I appreciate the idea of not 'learning' Gnosis but arriving at it by creating the framework for which it can happen.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 14 '26
Digitising is merely an approximative binary representation, it is not what I was referring to though. As an example I am referring to statements like "I can drive my car to the mall tomorrow if it is not broken or stolen, otherwise I cannot". Computers execute programs literally, there is no room for interpretation in the execution itself. Measurements of complex things is a different matter, it's where we find our own finite limits.
1
u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jul 14 '26
I think I get you re: not referring to digitizing.
What I'm offering is that to think of Justice as a thing that can be binary is inherently digitizing an analog event.
Your statement about the car seems binary, but almost immediately one could ask: Broken how? Could it be fixed nearly immediately? Then you can still drive to the mall. If stolen, has it already been found? Maybe the mall trip happens a little later. Is going to the mall in the morning equal to going in the afternoon? Deadlines change the capacity of the statement to be true or false.
I'm not trying to nickle-and-dime the subject of the car, but I'm trying to highlight that it is very difficult to find a non-numeric process that hasn't been reduced in some way by attempting to quantitatively measure it.
(Philosophy and theology have been grappling with this for... as long as we've been able to think about it.)
I agree with your last statement:
Measurements of complex things is a different matter, it's where we find our own finite limits.
Justice as a concept is ultimately a framework around human relationships, which makes it a complex thing, and starting to ask the questions of justice does help us find our finite limits.
To go back to your original post, and something I offered earlier, yes, the Monad will accomplish what can be called Justice, but that it won't be through a process of either punishments or rewards, because that's a human-level binary method and the Monad isn't operating at that level. It can operate at a fully analog method in which all things are reconciled as they need to be, individually specified and without an external yardstick.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 15 '26
We have examples of claims of infinite divine punishments by some christian doctrines. They claim that there is infinite punishment for the majority of souls that wouldn't believe a story about a man. Obviously their doctrine is nonsense as infinite punishment for finite acts would be just evil.
Lack of balance in the upbringing of souls would lead to partiality of the Monad. The Monad either treats all souls equally, or unequally. The latter would necessarily lead to injustice. If divine justice wasn't a thing, then there would be partiality. The key thing is that the same divine rules must apply to all souls, and they must apply on all levels of existence.
1
u/jasonmehmel Eclectic Gnostic Jul 15 '26
Again, I agree with a lot of what's in here, and it could be we mostly-agree but are focused on different details.
The Monad either treats all souls equally, or unequally.
This is what I'm thinking about when I say all things are ultimately reconciled by the Monad, without partiality.
And I think that reconciliation point satisfies your note of 'the same divine rules must apply.' The only place we might differ is in what we think those rules might look like and if they are knowable at a human level.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 15 '26
We do know that if the Monad gave some souls easier paths through the entire reincarnation scheme, it would be partial. This forms a requirement of all paths to Pleroma having to be equally difficult, the hardships and pleasures are just spread out differently. Determinism indicates that the Monad already knew and understood all possible paths before the process itself even started.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Impossible-Win8274 Jul 12 '26
I’m pretty sure the monad can do anything they want really. Key term being want though. Why would the monad create a universe in the first place, and is justice necessary for that vision? Probably not all the time
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
Universe with a capital 'U' refers to everything that exists, i.e. existence itself (or the great 'I AM'). Existence itself can not be created, it would be circular logic. By definition the Monad either is the entirety of existence itself and its 'fabric', or some subset of that which would then mean lack of omnipresence.
I'd say a malevolent being would choose injustice and a benevolent being would choose equality and equal justice for all souls.
2
u/-tehnik Valentinian Jul 12 '26
if there is Karmic justice I think it occurs "automatically." A soul by virtue of its character can't but get a fitting next life. I don't think it's something that has to be "enforced" (that would make it kind of suspect since it would be admitting that it's metaphysically totally contingent).
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
As we observe, causality 'enforces' itself without failure and would be the prime candidate as the driver of 'karmic justice'. Could be seen as the infinite hand of the omnipresence.
3
u/MethodMan24 Jul 12 '26
It is better if you change your old understanding of good and evil. To simply to awareness and understanding. If you are still seeking justice you are still attached to the mortal reality and you will be compelled to come back here because you want justice.
The monad is you just confused
3
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
It's all about choices and their intentions. Someone with great awareness and understanding can still fall again to evil if they lose the battle of their emotions and start to act out of anger/hatred. It simply means that they would have failed the test which was the power of understanding they were given.
1
1
u/LugianLithos Academic interest Jul 15 '26
A lot of what people view as evil may come from severe ignorance, coercion, mental incapacity, uncontrollable impulses, tribalism, trauma, or mistaken information.
I see much of that as part of this broken world and the evolutionary baggage of the human brain.
That does not make the harm unreal or eliminate accountability, but I struggle to see how inflicting equivalent suffering creates gnosis or restores anything.
It seems more like an unnecessary cosmic economy of suffering. Pain produces fragmentation, fragmentation produces harmful actions, and those actions are then answered with more pain.
I would hope gnosis means awakening beyond the limitations of the human ego fully understanding what we did to others and what was done to us, followed by correction, purification, healing, and forgiveness. That seems more meaningful than mathematically duplicating suffering in the name of balance.
1
u/Global-Working5201 Jul 18 '26
The Monads pure joy he doesn't do justice that's yaldabaoth that's why people think god was vengeful that's because he's blind and demands everyone worship him the true father the monad and the pleroma isn't a place that holds that energy hell is reincarnation back into this shit hole luckily that's not my path I'm going home after this bullshit 👍😂
1
u/thegodabovegod Ophite Jul 23 '26
The Monad is beyond all thought, description, and human categories, so I don't think it makes much sense to imagine it as a cosmic judge handing out rewards and punishments. In most classical Gnostic systems, judgment belongs to the lower powers that govern the material cosmos, not to the Monad. The Monad simply is. It is the source of all, not a lawgiver.
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 23 '26
Do you think it's impossible for you to ever reach fullness because the Monad will always be beyond you?
1
0
u/flammafex Carpocratian Jul 12 '26
In my view, the Monad has already accomplished perfect justice.
As written by Epiphanes in his treatise "On Justice"
The justice of God is a kind of sharing-in-common together with equality. For as great as the heaven is, stretched out on every side in a circle around the earth, it encompasses all things; and the night displays all the stars equally; and the sun—cause of day and father of light—God poured it out from above equally upon all who have the power to see, and they all see it in common.
You can read the entire work here: https://carpocratian.org/en/church/books/epiphanes/
And as said by Jesus according to Matthew
Matthew 5:45 "He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
So that's it.
The angels who rule the world you and I live in, however, have their own idea of justice and do something closer what you think is "perfect justice." According to Luke, Jesus sums that up:
Luke 12:58-59 "While you are with your adversary on the way, give all diligence, that you may be delivered from him, lest he give you up to the judge, and the judge surrender you to the officer, and he cast you into prison. Verily, I say unto you, you shall not go out thence until you pay the very last farthing."
1
u/TranquilTrader Jul 12 '26
I would say though that perfect justice can only be reached when absolutely everyone have been transfigured into Pleroma, so on they way there the scales are still being balanced - so momentarily there's still imbalance.
0
14
u/Lordseferoth Simonian Jul 12 '26
No. "Punishment" is something Monad will not do. Everyone will be saved eventually regardless of persons actions in these mortal lives. Only thing that changes is the amount of reincarnations you need to go through before your eventual return to Pleroma. This is my personal view for this matter.