MANKIND COULD HAVE EVOLVED DIFFERENTLY
/HUMANITY COULD BE OTHERWISE DEVELOPED/
Usually the evolution of man is perceived as a continuum of constant growth. Man and Mankind are marked as constantly evolving. However this process does not follow man’s perception. The true evolution of man – of mankind – always comes up short. Something vital has been neglected.
Development of technology (both tools of peace and war) has reached a level which was unimaginable until very recently. Today’s man is looking outside the constrictions of our planet. I will not delve into a detailed description of this phenomena, because you know more about it than me. Let me merely mention a few quandaries. I assume that the existing weapons’ arsenal would suffice to destroy life on our planet, or at least of people inhabiting it, a few times over. Why? The climatic change alone is expected to provide plenty of difficulties. The existing nutritional industry is capable of feeding more people than there presently exist on this planet. Of course we would not feed everyone, because the fed need the hungry. Why is that? Currently there are, or we need, about a billion hungry people and a great, ever increasing number of unemployed people. The development of medicine or genetics is so great that certain mortals languish into an incredibly old age, some – a very small few – even dream of immortality. What good will it do them? The foolish act of mindless reproduction which has evidently escaped its demiurges’ control, as reluctant as they may be to admit it, can hardly be called evolution. Constant linear development of man is therefore merely an illusion or, at best, man’s mindless hastening towards his own demise.
Let us examine a few obvious inconsistencies of mankind’s social development (socio-political, socio-economic and socio-religious system regulation). No great development in modern regimes can be detected in comparison to ancient Greek regimes (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy). The planet continues to be filled with a varied repertoire of social regimes in many combinations, ranging from totalitarian or post-totalitarian systems to regimes ruled by political (in places military) and financial and religious elites (Even elements of theocratic regimes are prominently represented in the 21st century). Developed modern systems are said to have developed to perfection such as the ever praised modern democracy, »order of freedom« and other human rights. However, a sceptic may dub it more a »mediocracy« than a democracy. The regimes rule man (modern day demos) foremost through mass media, propaganda by three main sub regimes: the economic, the political and the religious.
The system of values of social differentiation – »segregation« is so firmly rooted on our planet that it is safe to say that it is historically preset, or even predestined for us. Any and all ideas seeking to exceed it have failed relatively quickly. A greater social equality, aid to the undeveloped, inter-generational solidarity and the like are merely empty words: either utopia or the consequence of the regime’s calculation. For modern earthlings of the developed world three articles – status symbols such as a house, weekend retreat, and car – whether owned or merely desired, suffice for a classification within the system of values of social stratification in to their individual classes. And so a large majority of the plebs continues to live in servitude. What evolution is understood to have brought is that they are serving by their own choosing that is to say that they live in voluntary servitude. Such regimes are, as is befitting, dressed up in legitimacy of democracy and with it legal coercion of the rule of power. The mechanism of establishing and preserving the rule of elites is achieved through electing representatives in advance at democratic elections where the voters know who they can – or must – vote for. They are provided with the right choice by the election propaganda through the media which are of course owned (controlled) by the elites. (More on this in the book Traktat of the freedom or the values of the system 1).
2. When observing through the eyes of the spirit, or put differently, intuitively, evolution of man shows a different face than that presented by our modern mages and our spiritual guides. Human development seems more akin to regress than progress. Is this a consequence of the loss of our historical memory, the knowledge of the extent of man’s spirituality of old? Or is it a consequence of the monopoly of religious institutions over spirituality? Be it the former, the latter or both, you will not believe. But this train of thought is not aimed at examining religion but rather at the capability of direct facts of consciousness through intuitive examination. This capability is given to all men. In times past Gnostic texts defined religion as certainty through comprehension – a certainty of intuitive reason. Put another way – intuitive certainty was knowledge that spoke for itself.
Man’s spiritual development would have certainly been different if, for the last two thousand years, more people were posing fundamental questions about the meaning of man’s existence; origin of my asking themselves about the meaning of humanity’s existence, orienting themselves by general humanity’s values instead of institutionalized values and norms. These questions which give rise to many subsequent questions such as: Who am I as a man? What am I (as) a man? Why am I a man? How am I a man? Answers to these questions change each time and therein lay the evolution of man. When asking »Who am I?« we are actually interested in »Who is who?«, meaning that we are interested in the role of the individual in the hierarchy of the institution of the system. Similarly the question »What am I?« mostly denotes an interest in money, power, fame, success and prestige of man reduced to a role within the hierarchy of the system – in short – substantiative institutionalized values.
There was once a man who long ago testified about spirituality in a way that continues to elude the majority of earthlings to this day. If any testament can truly fascinate us it is the testament of this man from over two thousand years ago. The fact that his testament of gnosis was preserved seems to me a true miracle.
But before I continue it befits that I first share something of myself, of the origin of my point of view. It would be hard for me to classify myself as a religious man. I would sooner refer to myself as a born sceptic, believing nothing, not even myself. It is hardest to believe oneself – one’s own intuition, if you will. I prefer metaphysics to philosophy: hermeneutics is a wonderful method; gnosis is mysterious almost incomprehensible. The essence of gnosis is the knowledge of cognizance (not faith), this knowledge is a miracle. I am ever anew astonished by that which exceeds man’s reason and lends cognizance a special certainty.
Here I write only the most necessary about him and his testament:
– the message of John’s Gospel is in essence a Gnostic text. It was written (or copied) by a Gnostic. The Gospel according to John is a Gnostic gospel actually comprising two gospels. The later edition by St Irenaeus (a bishop from Lugdunum in Gallia around 130-202, now Lyon, France) remained ignorant of the fundament of this message: the cognisance of God – gnosis. This is especially true of the first chapter otherwise it would not persist among the four canonised gospels.
– John the Baptist was more than merely a Baptist baptising with water. He was a herald – a teacher of gnosis. The story of John the Herald (Baptist) – the first chapter of the Gospel According to John (a pupil loved by Jesus) – is a Gnostic gospel of John the Herald. It contains the fundament of gnosis as taught by John the Herald, the first teacher of John the Evangelist. The first chapter of the Gospel According to John can therefore be dubbed the Gospel of John the Herald.
Later I have given ample thought, that is to say, my mind kept returning to my doubts concerning the title of the book John’s Revelation 2. Had I needlessly encoded the title of the book as well? Did I not merely cause unnecessary confusion? Of course there was no confusion in the minds of Gnostics. Today the title would have probably been different, and since I continue to doubt I will cite the variant. The deciphered title of the book would be John’s Gnostic Gospel, the title of the first chapter would be The Gnostic Gospel of John the Herald. The Gospel of John in its entirety is in fact a Gnostic Gospel (the only one of four, or in fact, five that have been canonized) to include two gospels. The first chapter of the Gospel According to John (a pupil loved by Jesus) – is a Gnostic gospel of John the Herald.
All effort to find gnosis in any of the other three acknowledged gospels (Mark’s, Matthew’s and Luke’s) would be in vain. These are the fundament of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (his views – of what he deemed by cognizance, not faith). Of course the institution of the Church does not understand nor can it accept such a heretic statement. Jesus of Nazareth of this testimony is a Gnostic both in spirit and teaching, if we may put it boldly. The first chapter of John’s Gospel is obviously a gospel in its own right – a revelation in its own right. The persecution of Gnostics and the burning of their living word was a means by which the institution of Church cut Christianity by its roots and demolished its living fundament. This is truly to the detriment of Christianity and the entire human civilization. If things were different humanity may have evolved differently.
 [Traktat of the freedom or the values of the system], Ljubljana (1992, 2001, 2006).
 Rajko Shushtarshich, Janezovo razodetje ali O treh vrednotah; Janezova gnostichna evangelija
[ John revelation Or about three values; John gnostic Ggospel ], Ljubljana (1986, 1990, 1994, 2001, 2007).
Translated from Slovenian by Jaka Jarc