6/23/26 07:21 pm
You know...collective gnosis isn't necessarily a huge improvement over personal gnosis just because it's, well, collective. If you have a group of people who generally come from the same cultural background (cultural, not racial--the way you've been conditioned in this life), who are all reading the same books, or at least similar ones, who are all trading notes and talking about what everyone else is doing, and who are basically barraging their brains with all the same archetypes, motifs, and other symbol sets--yes, you're going to have a higher rate of people within the group reporting similar experiences/past life memories/etc. This is even if they do their meditations/etc. independently, without talking to each other about specifics first.
And as for verification? Again, even if you haven't read every single bit of a culture's mythos, if you've read a certain amount of it you can pretty much guess how that culture would have addressed a particular problem/phenomenon/etc. Or, if you're talking about something more modern/not recorded in history/etc., if the same group of people has built up a mythos, regardless of its source, again it's going to have its own parameters, personality, flavoring, whatever you want to call it.
Jung didn't call it the Collective Unconscious for nothing. It's collective, meaning shared, and ostensibly shared among all humans to some extent; at its basis, it's the repository of human experiences, which, over time, are a lot less unique than we hyperindividualized Westerners may want to think. (Everybody's been a beautiful and unique snowflake throughout human evolution.) And it's unconscious (or subconscious, depending on who you talk to), which means that people aren't necessarily consciously aware of where their information is coming from. This means that something may seem to come "out of the blue", when in reality the source is intrapersonal.
Not that unique gnosis can't happen, of course. But it's something to keep in mind along with your trusty Occam's Razor.