Personal Gnosis and Its Place

UPG is a common acronym used within Pagan communities… Standing for Unverified or Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (here-out just Personal Gnosis), it’s the personal experiences and beliefs we hold concerning the Divine, the Universe, and everything connected with it; or, as Polygnostic puts it:

Personal gnosis is a term used to communicate personal perceptions of the divine, personal attributions of sacredness, and subjective experiences of a religious or spiritual nature […] The term “personal gnosis” has been modified from “UPG” or “unverified personal gnosis”, which has long been used in Pagan circles to communicate personal experiences of a spiritual or divine nature which are not corroborated in sacred lore.

Contrary to popular belief in some circles, these spiritual epiphanies (as they should rightly be called) aren't as simplistic and minuscule as, say, the sense that an Morrígu appreciates a good Lapsang Souchong as an offering- or that Brighid wants you to clean your house. Those sorts of ideas are rightfully Doxa, if only barely- and poorly; personal theories, opinions, ideas, beliefs, and other speculation and supposition about a Deity (or other figure), based in experience rather than what is intellectually certain or verified.

Instead, Personal Gnosis is the series of understandings and conclusions we come to which reflect our understanding of the very nature of the Divine (the Universe, etc), and our relative place to them- which often drastically alters the ways in which we perceive and approach them; incredibly personal esoteric truths about, or other esoteric knowledge of the mysteries surrounding, the nature of a Deity (or other figure)- often garnered through forms of ecstatic communion with the Divine.

Indeed, there are several major distinctions in this area, which Pagans should be taking much greater stock of in general: Doxa, Praxis, and Gnosis.

• Gnosis: "I Know"; an incredibly personal esoteric truth about, or other esoteric knowledge of the mysteries surrounding, the nature of a Deity (or other figure)- often garnered through forms of ecstatic communion with the Divine.
  
  
• Doxa: “I Think”; personal theories, opinions, ideas, beliefs, and other speculation and supposition about a Deity (or other figure), which are based in experience- rather than what is intellectually certain or verified, or obtained through ecstatic communion.
  
  
• Praxis: “I Do”; the process by which gnosis or religious speculation, doctrine, theory, or theology is fully realized as action of worship- as well as the body of accepted practice and ritual which arises as its result.

Personally, I've made the distinction between the lesser Doxa and the greater Gnosis for years after discovering Christian Mysticism and delving deeper into more advanced religious studies; when you move into more advanced materials it quickly becomes apparent that the "Tumblr Idea" of many things is shallow and childish- especially in regards to how it treats Divine Knowledge an Revelation. Though admittedly, until recently, the community was lacking the terminology for such distinctions.

Because I've made these distinctions for a while, though, I get into discussions quite regularly with others about their Personal Gnosis. Some of it’s interesting. Some of it’s shared. Some of it leaves me scratching my head and wondering how the hell they came to that conclusion about this or that... But in all cases these discussions are interesting to me, though sometimes they can get a bit heated- especially when the later reaction occurs.

Apparently at some point, however, I’ve somehow managed to convince certain people that I don’t believe something as significant as Personal Gnosis has any worth, validity, or place in Reconstructionism- or in religion at all… Ironically, at no point in my life have I ever actually said anything of the sort, nor anything which is even remotely reminiscent of it. In fact, what I actually believe is quite contrary to this idea- and it’s contrary for one very important reason:

If I genuinely believed such things I'd be a hypocrite.

Personal Gnosis is a completely rational byproduct of faith and its development- especially in a Reconstructionist faith, where so little information is available in the first place. In fact, I'd argue it's nearly impossible to practice any sort of religion at all, without developing a rather healthy amount of Personal Gnosis along the way. Because of this, my practice also consists largely of Personal Gnosis... And if the majority of my own practice consists of Personal Gnosis? It stands to clearly reason that I’m not against it. 

I’m not the only one, either; as the author of In Defense of “Unverified Personal Gnosis” notes over at The Wild Hunt:

In my observations, […] there those for whom UPG and SPG are important aspects of their spirituality. Many rely on personal gnosis to patch gaps and holes in surviving mythology, to grapple with the Christianiziation of mythology, or even as a substitute for lore where the myths have clearly not survived. For many, UPG/SPG can be important pieces of a living and ever-evolving, new religion.

I fully believe Personal Gnosis plays an integral part of one's own faith. And it's certainly valid in regards to the individual and their own practice. More than that, I believe it has an important place (and role to play) in community discussion, understanding, and growth- both of the individual, and of the faith as a whole, especially as we continue to reconstruct these faith systems. As naturally follows from that, then, I feel Personal Gnosis should be considered relatively valid, and should be broadly respected by the community.

But validating one's Personal Gnosis is remarkably different than whether or not Personal Gnosis is valid to the individual and their practice on a personal level. And as a result, I also believe that there is- and should be- a few major exceptions to communal validity at very specific points in time.

Firstly, Unverifiable means that such belief must be unable to be demonstrated as true or factual according to the parameters of the evidence that we have on the subject the Personal Gnosis Involves.

To invalidate Personal Gnosis, then, means to demonstrate it as being unjustifiable, unreasonable, or otherwise untrue and nonfactual according to the evidence we have.

As rationally follows, to validate one's Personal Gnosis is to prove that it is considered justifiable, rational, or otherwise reasonable according to that evidence we have.

Personal validity to an individual does not mean the accuracy or correctness of the idea by default. Likewise, it doesn’t mean that such Personal Gnosis, by default, should be accepted by the greater community– especially when it’s incorrect according to sources, or worse: Actively harmful to the group.

In other words, Personal Gnosis only ever has value within reason– and never without question. And perhaps this is where people are misinterpreting my words. But as I see it, as such an integral part of human faith on both a communal and personal level? Rigorous standards should be applied to it, which are befitting of its significance and importance.

Unfortunately that’s something I find that the Pagan and Polytheist Community often falls massively short on acknowledging. As John Beckett says in his article Unverified Personal Gnosis, however:

We must be humble, careful, [and] even skeptical about our own religious experiences […] How can we know if a religious experience is good and right and true? […] We can’t, at least not in an absolute sense of knowing. But we still need to interpret and evaluate it.

Respecting something as being a valid personal belief that one can hold doesn’t mean we can’t (or shouldn’t) question its validity or accuracy in relation to the evidence we have- either in general, or as a whole. And Personal Gnosis should absolutely be open to scrutiny and criticism from the greater community in my opinion.

In fact, in order to maintain a healthy community, prevent religious zealousness and spiritual abuse- and ensure we’re not just projecting our own personal desires and beliefs onto figures we acknowledge as being autonomous beings? I’d go so far as to argue that such open and constant scrutiny of our Personal Gnosis, either individually or as a community, is absolutely necessary and integral to its entire function.

But that also poses a very interesting question. And as the Wild Hunt article mentioned earlier goes on to say:

Some of those who are skeptical about UPG / SPG have posed a question that is worth considering: where do we draw the line between one’s personal experience and the accepted consensus of the community? Surely a line must be drawn somewhere to maintain some integrity and consistency within our religions and their practices — right?

These are, honestly, needful questions, and worth keeping in mind for every practitioner for whom UPG / SPV plays an important role

And in that vein, as John Beckett points out in his article? There are, in fact, several things against which we can actually judge our Personal Gnosis in order to validate it fully:

First, we should judge it against our lore, our literature, and our history. How well does it match with what’s generally considered true? If it’s new information, is it consistent with what’s already known? If not, is it plausible, given the changes in time and place since the lore was established? [...] 

We should judge UPG against our own experiences, both spiritually and materially. Is what you experienced consistent with other experiences [that we have had]? Is it meaningful and helpful? [...] 

We should judge UPG against the experiences of others. If multiple people have the same dream in a short period of time, it’s a pretty clear indication something is up [... and ...]

We should pay attention. Finally, is it reasonable, ethical, practical, and helpful?

Of course, not all of these markers will be applicable to all circumstances. But Becket does provide us with an excellent foundational list that's useful as a starting reference. And through that list, we have several markers we can judge against effectively:

• Validity of History
  
  
• Validity of Lore
  
  
• Validity of Reason
  
  
• Validity of Ethics
  
  
• Validity of Personal Experience
  
  
• Validity of External Experience

While I vehemently disagree with the idea that multiple people sharing the same Personal Gnosis or interpretations somehow establishes something as any sort of fact- and ultimately believe that, on every single level, that sort of belief’s an incredibly dangerous stance to take... The fact remains that this criteria he outlines, overall, is an excellent baseline regardless of tradition.

But there's another thing people frequently miss in regards to this verification process. And that's the fact that there's a difference between Validation and Verification- and that Personal Gnosis must remain unverified in order to continue being Personal Gnosis in the first place.

In other words, if lore verifies our Personal Gnosis by providing proof of its occurrence in lore? Then it ultimately ceases to be Personal Gnosis at all. Instead it becomes canon; it becomes lore; it can reasonably be considered an acceptable fact about religion and faith- at least inasmuch as lore can ever be considered truthful or factual, in the first place.

On the flip side of that, however, is something people often like to ignore: Lore and history's ability to invalidate our Personal Gnosis by providing evidence to the contrary of it. But like with validating it? If lore can definitively disprove something that we hold as Personal Gnosis then it becomes nonfactual. It's not cannon... And it also can't remain Personal Gnosis.

People like to speak of "Verified Personal Gnosis"- or something which started as Unverified / Unverifiable Personal Gnosis, but which has since been verified by some area of Lore... I'm staunchly of the belief that VPG absolutely cannot exist in any form, however, for the above mentioned reason: It's not "Personal" and "Unverified" if the surviving lore affirms its truth.

To put it plainly: Personal Gnosis can be validated (considered justifiable or reasonable according to evidence)- but by its very nature it must remain unverifiable (unable to be demonstrated as true or factual according to that evidence)... And that unverifiable nature must, by proxy, also include the inability to invalidate it (or demonstrate it as being unjustifiable, unreasonable, or otherwise untrue and nonfactual according to evidence).

So while I respect Personal Gnosis as personally valid to an individual? I do believe it needs to be critically examined for validity- either by the individual, or by the community, thou preferably by both... And that's not necessarily a bad thing; as Erynn Rowan Laurie says in their post Aisling, Ársaíocht, agus Agallamh: A Modern CR Triad:

All of these aspects [Aisling (UPG), Ársaíocht (History / Lore), and Agallamh (Discourse)] must balance one another. Mysticism, history, and discussion are all important in the rediscovery and reconstruction of oral traditions like those of the Celtic peoples [...] The answer is not to crush any and all manifestations of mysticism within reconstructionist religions because there is a risk that one might be wrong (by far the most common response I have seen), but to examine these manifestations both critically and respectfully in light of what is known, then make a decision.

Beyond all of that, though, there's also a time and a place for Personal Gnosis; there are times when one's Personal Gnosis is a perfectly valid addition to a discussion, which results in the spiritual growth and development of both community and personal practices... And then times when it's not a valid addition to the discussion, and only serves to detract from it or endanger the spirituality of others. And one of the places where I  definitely don't feel Personal Gnosis belongs, in particular, is in the education of others.

Under no circumstances do I believe we should ever teach people about our faith using anything other than reasonably attested and validated information. And due to its unverifiable nature, that means that Personal Gnosis should be never be considered factual- nor should it be treated as a viable substitute for what can reasonably be considered factual according to the archaeological, historical, and loric data that remains... And so when teaching anyone about the foundations and basics concerning our Gods or faith systems? In my eyes, Personal Gnosis ultimately has no place in the discussion.

But none of this means Personal Gnosis has no value, worth, or validity at all. Learning to recognize when it's appropriate, and when it isn't, is an important part of spiritual education, growth, and development. And this isn't a new viewpoint of mine, either. It's one I've had for several years, and have written about at least once before in the past; I've always been very vocal about it.

I hold this stance specifically because I've seen first hand what teaching Personal Gnosis as established religious doctrine and belief does- and how it negatively impacts the communities that choose to do such; it muddies the waters and makes a mess of things, making it impossible to actually teach the faith on a core level- especially when the Personal Gnosis being taught directly contradicts established doctrine, available texts and sources, and more.

I've also seen how taking others Personal Gnosis as fact severely stunts an individual's ability to develop their own relationships with the Gods, and form their own understanding and Personal Gnosis for themselves. And that ability to do that on their own terms, without undue outside influence, and free of the biases and worldviews of others? Is absolutely integral to forming a strong, long lasting, and healthy faith- especially in something like reconstructionism.

I've personally been the victim in the past, of people within the Pagan and Polytheist Communities who uphold their Personal Gnosis as absolute doctrinal truth- and have used it to manipulate, exploit, and abuse me. And I've watched many other fall prey to the same practice; it's not fun to be the victim of that kind of fanaticism, where someone's unverifiable and highly personal Gnosis about your own Gods are used to spiritually abuse you... It's incredibly damaging.

If I can prevent at least that from happening to anyone else in this community? Then I'll very happily scream about the dangers of Personal Gnosis being touted as unquestionable fact- especially to newcomers- until I'm blue in the face and hell's iced over.

Why people are now suddenly so shocked I'd say as much, is entirely beyond me.