The older I get and the more I read, the more I understand that
EVERYTHING is based on perception - and it follows that if
everything is based on perception, there is no absolute truth.  What
makes you think the ancient Gnostics had absoulte truth?  It seems
that if they had, they would have been the victors instead of the
orthodox Christian group and the world would be an entirely
different place!
(I say all this as a point of argument - not as an attack)  I see
Gnostics as no different than any of those living today who are on a
path to enlightenment.  As a matter of fact, they had less info,
because they did not have as complete an understanding of the world
as we do today - we have explored the universe and know that heaven
is not tiered - there is no such thing as heaven being 'up there' in
the clouds - we have a better understanding of DNA, infection,
mental illness, etc. than those who lived 2000 years ago.  And yet,
we understand so little of the world and the living beings who
inhabit it!
At best, we are viewing the world as a shadow-play on the walls of a
darkened cave - as the ancient parable suggests.  We seem to have
progressed very little in 2000 years, largely, I believe, because we
refused to let go of the idea that the ancients held the secret to
knowing God.

As Dorothy realized, in the end, that she had the ability all along
to get out of Oz, we, also, have the ability to 'see God '- and we,
too, have had it all along.  It is our misguided beliefs that hold
us back.

Barbara

    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Dearest Darkchylde,
>
> When I wrote my critique on the Da Vinci Code I was giving another
> point of view, my point of view. If you read Plato you will see
the
> Greek Intellectuals gathered at places like the Lyceum to debate
> ideas, this was stimulating to the brain function and thought
> processes, it can be described as a Mind Walk. This is why I am
> here. I was expressing my view point, this is all. I am hoping to
> find people to discuss ideas and to have cordial exchange of
> thoughts on the subject of Gnosis and transcendence, not just
people
> taking sides but people who really do say something and think
things
> through. I hope you will enjoy this type of thought process, where
> it is allowed even encouraged to have a dissenting point of view.
> One question to ask is why you think that way or try to find where
> someone is coming from. By the way, the Gnostics called the
> Literalists Babies or Children as they believed their approach
> towards spirituality to be undeveloped and childish, now would you
> want to debate that? With Love, Aleada
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Darkchylde
> >
> > >>>So I adamantly refuse to think of another's beliefs
> as "wrong".<<<
> >
> > I applaud your open-mindedness. I do think it is important to
> > understand, though, that the Gnostics were actually quite
willing
> to
> > think of the beliefs of others as "wrong". Now, of course anyone
> is
> > welcome to disagree with the Gnostics here, but it is also to
> disagree
> > with the ancient meaning of the very word "Gnosis", since the
> whole
> > point of that word was to draw a line between what they viewed
as
> a
> > right understanding vs a wrong one.
> >
> > >>>So how can we say someone is wrong because they do not see as
> we
> > do? Aren't we more enlightened than that?<<
> >
> > How do you logically justify the assumption that enlightenment
> equates
> > with un-critical acceptance of anything anyone says? I ask that
> > honestly and out of curiousity. Some would argue that if we were
> > enlightened we should accept the notion that WE can be wrong,
and
> toss
> > things out for the sake of debate so that we can really test
them
> (a
> > basic notion of the "Enlightenment Era").
> >
> > The reason I am curious about this is that is all seems so
> > inconsistant with the fact that you also talk about "Truth". If
no
> one
> > can be wrong, then there can be no such thing as "Truth" other
> than
> > the one truth that no one is wrong. What I mean is, if everyone
is
> > already right, then there is simply no need to look any further
> for
> > not only any kind of scientific "truth", but also for any
> spiritual
> > truth. It also means, that in thier own world even those who
think
> > others are "wrong" are right to do so... and justified in
whatever
> > action they take. What, then, would even be the point of
> questioning
> > the fact that anyone says others are wrong, since they would be
> right
> > to do so?
> >
> > If all that is true... what is the point of being interested in
> > Gnosticism other than for the sake of personal entertainment?
> >
> > PMCV
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: pmcvflag

To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:59 AM

Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Salvation

Hey Ms Aleada Aine, welcome to the group.

>>From my reading, and I do admit it is not extensive in the field of
Gnostic Literature, it is similar to other paths to enlightenment.<<<

I wanted to point out something for anyone new to this subject,
because it is something expressed by a number of people here in the
last week. I know there are many ways that people use the
word "Gnosis" these days, and many of those usages do not agree with
each other. I have seen the word used to refer to ESP, and I have
seen the word used to refer to racist dogma, but more common today
the word has come to either mean the mystical experience (direct
experience of "God"), or to "enlightenment", or lastly to some kind
of personal truth.

What I think it is important to understand is that none of these
meanings are the meaning used by the traditional "Gnostics". In this
forum, we do try to stick to this more ancient meaning of the
word "Gnosis" for the sake of better communication.

>>>I am not seeing from reading Freke and Gandy that much of the
secrets were passed on to us, probably because they were transmitted
in person by teacher to pupil but also because they were experienced
as direct experience of ones own volition through spirit. I believe
this was the only way to transmit this Knowing, through
experience.<<<

Plato defines the notion of Gnosis in the way the Gnostics used the
word this way....

"This knowledge is not something that can be put into words like
other sciences; but after long-continued intercourse between teacher
and pupil, in joint pursuit of the subject, suddenly, like light
flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul and
straightway nourishes itself."

Both Plato and the historical Gnostics agreed that there was a
strong and important experience aspect, but also a strong and very
important intellectual aspect to Gnosis. In other words, it isn't
one or the other, but must have both. It is a sort of epiphany
bringing the ends of various knowledges and experiences together
into a comprehensive cognitive state. This cognitive state includes
very specific training in, and understanding of, the Gnostic cosmic
structure and lingo, initiatory experience, and knowledge of the
self and how one fits into the spiritual world.

PMCV

Thank you Mike, I want some boks that give interpetations of the
Gnostic Gospels, I went to Barnes and Nobel and I tought these books
seemed pretty good but it looks like I may be wrong and that's why I
asked, I know different interpetations can affect meaning. After
going to B & N I looked up the books on Amazon to read more, and
then I put them on my wish list, I should of given only the title, ,
sorry. I will look up the books you recomended, thanks again. AA

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...>
wrote:
>
> eagleeyedwildwoman wrote:
> > What books do you all recommend?, I want to read translations
the
> > scriptures. I went to my local books store and found these books
> > possibilities:
> >
> > The Gospel of Thomas: The Gnostic Wisdom of Jesus
> >
> > by Jean-Yves Leloup, Jacob Needleman (Foreword)
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24 hours
> > Price: $9.72
> >
> >
> >  The Gospel of Philip : Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of
> > Sacred Union
> >
> > by Jean-Yves Leloup, Jacob Needleman (Foreword)
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24
> >
> >
> >  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene
> >
> > by Jean-Yves Leloup, Jacob Needleman (Foreword)
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24 hours
> > Price: $9.72
> >
> > Gnostic Gospel Of St. Thomas
> >
> > by Tau Malachi
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24 hours
> > Price: $11.67
> >
> >
> All of Stephan Hoeller's books on Gnosticism, if I may plug my
Bishop.
> The Nag Hammadi Library in English ed.by Robinson, The Gnostic
Bible and
> the Gnostic scriptures are good too.  The Gnostic Paul and The
Johanine
> Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis by Pagels, etc.   Kurt Rudolph's book
on
> Gnosticism is good too.  Check out the bookstore at
> <http://www.gnosis.org> for still other titles.
>
> --
> Mike Leavitt
>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > What books do you all recommend?, I want to read translations the
> > scriptures. I went to my local books store and found these books
> > possibilities:
> >
> > The Gospel of Thomas: The Gnostic Wisdom of Jesus
> >
> > by Jean-Yves Leloup, Jacob Needleman (Foreword)
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24 hours
> > Price: $9.72
> >
> >
> > The Gospel of Philip : Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of
> > Sacred Union
> >
> > by Jean-Yves Leloup, Jacob Needleman (Foreword)
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24
> >
> >
> > The Gospel of Mary Magdalene
> >
> > by Jean-Yves Leloup, Jacob Needleman (Foreword)
> > Avg customer review:
> > Usually ships in 24 hours
> > Price: $9.72
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
>
>
>
>
> On the one hand, you mention visiting your local bookstore, but you
also
> appear to have pasted the above information from an on-line dealer.
> Either way, I'm curious as to how your searches were narrowed down
> to so many titles by Leloup?
>
> Here's the thing.  In the past, I haven't minded being critical
> of various authors and editors on the subject of Gnosticism, but I
have
> generally managed to find something positive to say about all of
them,
> even if their works were not among my favorites.  I have to tell you
> (and everyone else here) that I have been particularly bothered over
> recent months by some of the pseudo-scholarship that is becoming
> increasingly available to the public.  I have even felt that certain
> instances deserved mentioning here, but the difficulty for me has
been
> in figuring out how to go about basically trashing an author's work
> without it looking like a libelous attack.  At this point, my
attitude
> is pretty much one of "appearances be damned"—I feel a need to
> get something off my chest.
>
> I have promised a number of times to wrap us some thoughts on a
> discussion on Critical Reading that began several months ago.  My
new
> computer system is on order, so I'll hopefully have both the means
> and the time to get around to resuming that message thread over the
next
> couple of weeks.  As it was, we looked at the ways in which one
passage
> from a Gnostic text might be rendered by various translators.  Most
were
> good translations, but, depending upon the criteria one might use to
> evaluate them, some could simply be deemed "better."
> Personally, I wondered if it might be helpful to include some other
> versions that I found to be altogether bad.  And I don't mean that
> they simply are not my favorites, or that by comparison to certain
> others they simply weren't as good.  No, I mean BAD.
>
> Well, now that Leloup's name has been brought up, I have to say that
> from what I've seen of his work, anyone interested in a serious
> exploration of Gnosticism would do well to steer clear of that
author.
> He was, in fact, the worst offender I encountered.  The
> misrepresentations found in the commentaries of certain of these
alleged
> "experts" in the field are bad enough, but when it comes to
> downright fabrications in their "translations" that are
> ostensibly based on the Coptic originals, I find myself left with no
> respect whatsoever for these individuals.  There's simply no reason
> for anyone to rely on such unscrupulous sources when one might just
as
> easily choose to become acquainted with the work of reputable
scholars.
> Even among these genuine scholars, we may continue to question their
> work and the conclusions they've drawn, but if we limit ourselves to
> the works peddled by those other folks advocating one conspiracy
theory
> after another, then we may as well be meeting at one of the numerous
> "Dan Brown" or "Holy Blood" sites that are available (ad
> nauseam) on the Internet.
>
> I'll try to jump back into the mix here as soon as I'm able, but
> as difficult as it is for me to keep my PC running at the moment, I
> still have some research to do this morning for a couple of friends
who
> have no computer at all.
>
> Gerry
>






I must recommend a few books myself.  I keep rereading Tau Malachi's
Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ.  I was given it as a Christmas present,
and I messed the cover up and will continue to wear the pages thin
with rereading.  It deals with Christian Gnostism, but the parallels
drawn in from other beliefs are enhanced and even supported by the
Kabbala.  Much of the more enigmatic aspects of Kabbalistic reasoning
and instruction are explained and there is much of practical
application for daily life as well.  I have read (and different
translations still tend to impart the same message)  everything from
the Hymn of the Pearl (a personal favorite) to the Pistis Sophia.
Bert Ehrman has an excellent compilation of texts in his Lost
Scriptures, although he draws some conclusions from orthodox and
gnostic gospels I don't agree with in Lost Christianities-but his
research is good.  I believe it does us no good to pigeonhole any
translations being "good" or "bad".  What you can't get from one
translation you may get for another, for there is a reason for all
things.  I tend to brace when I hear that someone is "wrong" for
their belief, interpretation, whatever.  Perhaps it would be more
enlightened of us to say "different".  As I told my parents when I
was accused of thinking the cannonized scripture as "incorrect"  Not
incorrect, I told them, but incomplete.

Also, the Sophian Fellowship has wonderful thoughts and quotes from
the 'gnostic' texts on their website, as well as a mentoring program
I am getting involved in as soon as possible.  I too have some
technical problems.

Love and peas
Darkchylde

>
>
> In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can say I
> have discovered:  Truth is a highly personal thing - even for the
> gnostic and orthodox writers  - and people have been battling over
> that for millennia!
>
Truth is one, each of us expresses it differently, that's all.

--
Mike Leavitt

Barbara

>>>What makes you think the ancient Gnostics had absoulte truth? It
seems that if they had, they would have been the victors instead of
the orthodox Christian group and the world would be an entirely
different place!<<<

It is not my intent to state whether the Gnostics HAD the absolute
truth. You misunderstand my point there, Barbara. My point is that
the Gnostics of old BELIEVED there is an absolute truth (even if
sometimes they admitted that they didn't completely have it, they
believed it was there all the same). How do I know they believed
that? Because they tell us over and over that it is core to the very
function of thier system.

No one here can completely refute the notion of absolute relativism,
nor can they refute the notion of absolute truth. It is not my place
or intent to convince you either way, I am not here to be a
spiritual guru. That is a question you have to answer for yourself,
and let others answer for themselves. Instead we are simply here to
try and see how the Gnostics looked at the situation so that we can
understand what they believed accurately before we either agree or
disagree with them. After that it is your own business. And heck, in
the process of understanding them, they may even make us think about
it and help us define our own thinking a bit better.... even if we
disagree with them.

Now, if you wish to talk about it on a more philosophical level,
then we need not even drag the Gnostics into it... but then we
wouldn't really be talking about the focus of this group (which is
Gnosticism). However, talking about it that way would require some
smoothing out of what appears to be some serious core
inconsistancies in your points (or at least the way you communicated
those points). Not to say you are right or wrong, just that you seem
to be hopping over the fence and making points for both sides
without seeming to realize it. Or maybe you do realize and you are
just trying to confuse poor ol' befuddled minds like mine ;)

PMCV

Hey William

>>>>I conclude that, in traditional gnosticism, salvation is
obtained through this `proper understanding' which, presumably,
is `gnosis'.<<<

That is what the Gnostics of old tell us they believed, yes.

>>>>So gnosis, or `proper understanding', is `a comprehensive
cognitive state' with two major aspects ...<snip>.... and, if I
understand you correctly, we must acquire both (1) and (2) for
gnosis and salvation.<<<<

Yes, I think you will find that the Platonist concept is repeated in
Gnostic texts (since that appears to be where they actually got the
word "Gnosis" itself), and reflects their general view on the
meaning of the word itself.

>>>I've always thought gnosis was obtained via spirituality so I
agree with your emphasis on `knowledge of the self and how one fits
into the spiritual world'. But other things concerning this
intellectual aspect that you've introduced puzzle me. Gnostic cosmic
structure? Gnostic lingo? Initiatory experience? I don't follow the
logic, God's logic (since he, presumably, set up the system in the
first place), that requires us to receive `specific training and
understanding' in these matters. Why would God consider such
activities to be important?<<<

Who said it was "God"? Surely it wasn't me who implied such a thing.
I am just trying to explain the way the ancient Gnostics talked
about these concepts.

Actually, to put it that way.... most of thier texts don't say their
system was created by "God" either, but usually some spiritual force
that is ABOVE "God", but beneath the high spiritual source. It seem
pretty common that the "revelation" is brought by either Sophia, or
the Logos, not "God".

>>>How can, for example, `very specific training in, and
understanding of, the Gnostic cosmic structure' help one towards
salvation?<<<

Because, according to the Gnostics of old this lower realm is one of
ignorance, and coming to understand that "God" is ignorant and you
were not created by him is part of the act of breaking his hold on
you. In other words, they believed that the cosmic structure itself
is flawed and just by understanding that you start the process of
jumping outside of that flaw into something more perfect.

Imagine you had a disease (genetic and fatal), but you were also a
doctor that was very close to the cure. However, completing the last
steps of the cure meant understanding some specific scientific
principles that you had not quite payed attention to when you were
back in school, and then putting them into practice. Most people who
have worked with higher math will say that understanding it is both
an experiencial and an intellectual venture very much like the kind
of Gnosis that Plato describes... and so this process is what our
hypothetical doctor must go through in order to effect his own cure.
This is kind of how the ancient Gnostics talk about Gnosis and
salvation. Of course, my analogy isn't perfect so don't hold me TOO
closely to it. ;)

>>>I didn't think there was `just one' gnostic cosmic structure, I
thought they were many.<<<

Well, it is true there are many in a way, but also true there is one
in a way. What I mean is, there are many variations on the Gnostic
cosmic outline, but they all fit a very specific and strict general
form (otherwise they wouldn't be Gnostic). Some texts, like the
Valentinian Exposition, even express openness to other variations
with the explicit understanding that the underlying structure is
still the same.

>>>>Since God is, ultimately, `in charge' of salvation why should he
be bothered about such things?<<<

I think, William, that you may be grappling a little with the very
notion of "God" itself as the Gnostics tended to view it. I think
this may be causing some confusion when trying to read their texts
or understand their system. The idea that "God is, ultimately, `in
charge' of salvation" is essentially a Christian belief, not
necessarily a Gnostic one.... at least not directly.

Remember that fragment from Basilides we posted for you? Well, from
that perspective your question itself doesn't make sense. Why, after
all, would a god that did not create us be concerned with us at
all... in ANY way? Why would a spiritual source that does not even
think, think about us? Why would a spiritual realm that has no good
or evil reflect on anything we do? The Gnostics explained their
views on these things through a series of subtle and complicated
allegories.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@...>
wrote:
>
> The older I get and the more I read, the more I understand that
> EVERYTHING is based on perception - and it follows that if
> everything is based on perception, there is no absolute truth.
What
> makes you think the ancient Gnostics had absoulte truth?  It seems
> that if they had, they would have been the victors instead of the
> orthodox Christian group and the world would be an entirely
> different place!
> (I say all this as a point of argument - not as an attack)  I see
> Gnostics as no different than any of those living today who are on
a
> path to enlightenment.  As a matter of fact, they had less info,
> because they did not have as complete an understanding of the world
> as we do today - we have explored the universe and know that heaven
> is not tiered - there is no such thing as heaven being 'up there'
in
> the clouds - we have a better understanding of DNA, infection,
> mental illness, etc. than those who lived 2000 years ago.  And yet,
> we understand so little of the world and the living beings who
> inhabit it!
> At best, we are viewing the world as a shadow-play on the walls of
a
> darkened cave - as the ancient parable suggests.  We seem to have
> progressed very little in 2000 years, largely, I believe, because
we
> refused to let go of the idea that the ancients held the secret to
> knowing God.
>
> As Dorothy realized, in the end, that she had the ability all along
> to get out of Oz, we, also, have the ability to 'see God '- and we,
> too, have had it all along.  It is our misguided beliefs that hold
> us back.
>
> Barbara
>
>    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Dearest Darkchylde,
> >
> > When I wrote my critique on the Da Vinci Code I was giving
another
> > point of view, my point of view. If you read Plato you will see
> the
> > Greek Intellectuals gathered at places like the Lyceum to debate
> > ideas, this was stimulating to the brain function and thought
> > processes, it can be described as a Mind Walk. This is why I am
> > here. I was expressing my view point, this is all. I am hoping to
> > find people to discuss ideas and to have cordial exchange of
> > thoughts on the subject of Gnosis and transcendence, not just
> people
> > taking sides but people who really do say something and think
> things
> > through. I hope you will enjoy this type of thought process,
where
> > it is allowed even encouraged to have a dissenting point of view.
> > One question to ask is why you think that way or try to find
where
> > someone is coming from. By the way, the Gnostics called the
> > Literalists Babies or Children as they believed their approach
> > towards spirituality to be undeveloped and childish, now would
you
> > want to debate that? With Love, Aleada
> >
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Darkchylde
> > >
> > > >>>So I adamantly refuse to think of another's beliefs
> > as "wrong".<<<
> > >
> > > I applaud your open-mindedness. I do think it is important to
> > > understand, though, that the Gnostics were actually quite
> willing
> > to
> > > think of the beliefs of others as "wrong". Now, of course
anyone
> > is
> > > welcome to disagree with the Gnostics here, but it is also to
> > disagree
> > > with the ancient meaning of the very word "Gnosis", since the
> > whole
> > > point of that word was to draw a line between what they viewed
> as
> > a
> > > right understanding vs a wrong one.
> > >
> > > >>>So how can we say someone is wrong because they do not see
as
> > we
> > > do? Aren't we more enlightened than that?<<
> > >
> > > How do you logically justify the assumption that enlightenment
> > equates
> > > with un-critical acceptance of anything anyone says? I ask that
> > > honestly and out of curiousity. Some would argue that if we
were
> > > enlightened we should accept the notion that WE can be wrong,
> and
> > toss
> > > things out for the sake of debate so that we can really test
> them
> > (a
> > > basic notion of the "Enlightenment Era").
> > >
> > > The reason I am curious about this is that is all seems so
> > > inconsistant with the fact that you also talk about "Truth". If
> no
> > one
> > > can be wrong, then there can be no such thing as "Truth" other
> > than
> > > the one truth that no one is wrong. What I mean is, if everyone
> is
> > > already right, then there is simply no need to look any further
> > for
> > > not only any kind of scientific "truth", but also for any
> > spiritual
> > > truth. It also means, that in thier own world even those who
> think
> > > others are "wrong" are right to do so... and justified in
> whatever
> > > action they take. What, then, would even be the point of
> > questioning
> > > the fact that anyone says others are wrong, since they would be
> > right
> > > to do so?
> > >
> > > If all that is true... what is the point of being interested in
> > > Gnosticism other than for the sake of personal entertainment?
> > >
> > > PMCV
> > >
> >
>


Barbara
Please forgive if I sounded as though I didn't respect your opinion.
My heartfelt apologies.  I cetainly did not mean that, and I must not
have communicated what I meant.  When I am working with a horse I
know the horse technically doesn't do wrong- he (or she) is acting on
instinct and impulse and I inadvertantly triggered a response that is
detrimental to the training process.  WHereas the horse would not be
considered wrong, I, as the human, being more enlightened and I AM
the one bothering him in the first place (they don't come in my
living room and run me off the couch on a whim to go for a run)I can
be wrong in that I would give into frustration and anger and
aggression and abuse an animal that wouldn't be doing anything but
grazing if it wasn't for me anyway.  So instead I realise that the
horse is only being a horse and it is I who must evolve to get the
responce I seek.  Those who do not understand there is no need for
fear and dominance and superiority would be drawn to religions that
promote such ideas.  I feel gnostics rise above those tendencies (or
should) in order that there path make way for a spiritual
transformation that should be ever evolving and growing that becomes
apparent in their everday lives and with every person they meet and
every choice they make.  Then they are like the good horse whisperer
that knows the animal he is working with is not on lis level of
rational or intellect, yet this is not from superiority or judgement
but rather by respect for the parameters that animal can function
in.  Those who are not in "the know" are simply not there because
they are still burdened by superior thinking and judgement.
Rally, I beg forgiveness at any offense I gave.
Love and peas forever
Darkchylde


PMCV
So much to reply to.  I do not see it as an attack (although it seems
my opinion might have been taken as one.)  As a gnostic I avoid
anything that smacks of domination, and I believe the only absolute
truth is that we are all in this together.  Have a problem with
dissention?  Quite the contrary, my point is that we cannot judge
anothers beliefs to be wrong.  That hardly sounds like there is no
room for dissention.  And I do believe(this doesn't make it truth,
albeit MY truth) that enlightment will not come if there is not a
tolerance for ALL beliefs and faiths.  I can only speak from my
person experience, but I have searched many faiths, and even put my
name to a few of them, and my present evolution has led me to
gnostism.  I worshiped the Gad and the Goddess as a wiccan, and I now
understand that I was not 'wrong' but incomplete with my awareness
and knowledge now.  And I might point out gnosis means knowledge, and
that can take many forms and have many names but you will know it to
be the truth when you FEEL it, as I do.  Christ never told anyone
they were wrong, yet he imparted a belief that I believe brought
people around because of that fact. Perhaps you miss the point with
so much polartization and judgement on what is "wrong" and what
is "right".  I do not even believe that you are wrong for casting
judgement.  I do not believe I am right in my views that no jugement
should be cast.  But I will remind that to dominate, to make oneslef
superior for what is believed or not is the very urges I seek to
eliminate on my effort to expand the Christ consciouness within me.
I was unaware that Gnosis meant "right" anything.  I was under the
impression it meant knowledge and didn't make such constrictive and
human confines on ideas that extend beyond the physical realm.
Uncritical acceptance is not what I have for the traditions of
others, but rather a healthy respect and the true spirit of
compassion and acceptance for anyone - which cannot exist in my heart
while I harbor judgemnt and critism.  I have enjoyed the postings by
Tau Malachi and have read the work of Bishop Hoeller on their
thoughts on Sufism, Islam and the like and never once was there a
judgement or accusation of the belief as wrong.  And to think that I
excuse all behavior because I refuse to think another is wrong shows
you have made judgments on my rationallizing that are incomplete, as
you do not know me very well.  If as a gnostic I seek to elimiate
cosmic ignorance then I would do well to steer away from judgements
or condemnations.  My heart, which I have learned to listen to, tells
me that my head is right.
I do find it much more interesting with different points of view.
After all, aren't we just individual flames of a larger fire?
Love and peas and compassion
Darkchylde

PMCV

I agree that it is facinating to try to understand what the Gnostics
of old thought - but understanding at the same time, that this was
not a homgeneous group, by any stretch.  I do think it's very
curious that there were so many different groups of Christian
communities in the first few hundred years with so many disparate
views.  There was much controversy.  How could it be that Jesus left
so many different impressions among his followers?  Surely what he
was teaching had a hidden meaning - some 'got it' or thought they
did and others took his teachings literally, interpreting it as best
they could... on and on throughout the millennia.

My whole point is this - it can only be informed speculation on our
part.  Somewhere else in this website, someone made the comment that
personal experience is also necessary - not just special knoweldge
or understanding.  That is the point I am trying to make (although
not clearly, as you point out).  The only thing about which we can
be sure is our own personal experience.  We can then interpret the
books in that light.

Barbara

  In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Barbara
>
> >>>What makes you think the ancient Gnostics had absoulte truth?
It
> seems that if they had, they would have been the victors instead
of
> the orthodox Christian group and the world would be an entirely
> different place!<<<
>
> It is not my intent to state whether the Gnostics HAD the absolute
> truth. You misunderstand my point there, Barbara. My point is that
> the Gnostics of old BELIEVED there is an absolute truth (even if
> sometimes they admitted that they didn't completely have it, they
> believed it was there all the same). How do I know they believed
> that? Because they tell us over and over that it is core to the
very
> function of thier system.
>
> No one here can completely refute the notion of absolute
relativism,
> nor can they refute the notion of absolute truth. It is not my
place
> or intent to convince you either way, I am not here to be a
> spiritual guru. That is a question you have to answer for
yourself,
> and let others answer for themselves. Instead we are simply here
to
> try and see how the Gnostics looked at the situation so that we
can
> understand what they believed accurately before we either agree or
> disagree with them. After that it is your own business. And heck,
in
> the process of understanding them, they may even make us think
about
> it and help us define our own thinking a bit better.... even if we
> disagree with them.
>
> Now, if you wish to talk about it on a more philosophical level,
> then we need not even drag the Gnostics into it... but then we
> wouldn't really be talking about the focus of this group (which is
> Gnosticism). However, talking about it that way would require some
> smoothing out of what appears to be some serious core
> inconsistancies in your points (or at least the way you
communicated
> those points). Not to say you are right or wrong, just that you
seem
> to be hopping over the fence and making points for both sides
> without seeming to realize it. Or maybe you do realize and you are
> just trying to confuse poor ol' befuddled minds like mine ;)
>
> PMCV
>

Dearest Aleada
Technical difficulty kept me from responding to this the regular
way.  I didn't mean to slam any one's point of view, and this is an
open forum where your opinion, my opinion and any other opinion can
be expressed and debated, and I was merely explaining my point of
view as well. For there to be such disscussion it would be best to
foster an atmosphere without judgement, as there may be many out
there who liked and believed the Da Vinci Code and they have a right
to thier 'dissenting' opinion as well. I agree wholeheartedly that
the thougth process you spoke of is right- I have no problem with
dissention because just as I have learned far maore from making
mistakes than getting it right, I also have learned more from those
who dissagree with me many times than those who do.  If you wish to
foster this thought process you speak of, wouldn't it be better to
come from a place of compassion and seeking a common ground rather
than on trying to make someone else wrong so we are right?  Judgement
and critism does not give someone the chance to express their
dissention.  I believe I have the very thought process you speak of,
thank you for the advice anyway.

Love and peas
Darkchylde

Hey Darkchylde

>>>When I am working with a horse I know the horse technically
doesn't do wrong- he (or she) is acting on instinct and impulse and
I inadvertantly triggered a response that is detrimental to the
training process. WHereas the horse would not be considered wrong,
I, as the human, being more enlightened and I AM
the one bothering him in the first place (they don't come in my
living room and run me off the couch on a whim to go for a run)I can
be wrong in that I would give into frustration and anger and
aggression and abuse an animal that wouldn't be doing anything but
grazing if it wasn't for me anyway.<<<

I like that picture you paint. It allows for openness towards
other's beliefs without stating that we must throw out critical
perspective in the mix.

>>>So much to reply to. I do not see it as an attack (although it
seems my opinion might have been taken as one.)<<<

Don't worry, Darkchylde, most of us in this group actually respect
and enjoy a little bit of a friendly challenge ;) . Honestly, you
don't need to apologize. We test ideas and debate as friends here.
Not everyone is able to do that, and when they find this to be a
threat they write us off as "silly academics". You are welcome to
question my ideas, but expect me to question in return. Keep in mind
that this should always be brought back to the subject at hand....
not just our personal views (that rule applies to me as well).

>>>As a gnostic I avoid anything that smacks of domination, and I
believe the only absolute truth is that we are all in this
together.<<<

Very understandable, though I would question whether it is
indicative of being a Gnostic. Of course, the Gnostic was a rebel
against temporal authority, Yaldebaoth and maybe even the Roman
occupation, but on the other hand the Gnostic also believed in a
rightful cosmic order. Personally, I probably still have some of
that punk rock anarchism in me from my youth, but it would not be
right of me to foist that on to historical Gnostic thinking.

>>>Have a problem with dissention? Quite the contrary, my point is
that we cannot judge anothers beliefs to be wrong. That hardly
sounds like there is no room for dissention. And I do believe(this
doesn't make it truth, albeit MY truth) that enlightment will not
come if there is not a tolerance for ALL beliefs and faiths.<<<

I can certainly sympathize, but I am not so sure the Gnostics would.
Think about it another way, Yaldebaoth can be seen as an allegory
for the those very religions you say we should respect (and I
generally feel ambivalent for). In fact, that is actually partly
what his function is. It becomes very clear in the Gospel of Judas
that the Demiurge is intended as an attack on religious faith. This
is not what we can call tolerance of all beliefs and faiths, but
just the opposite... it is a rejection of blind faith and poorly
thought beliefs.

Now, I am not saying the Gnostics must be right about this. Once
again, that is for people figure out on their own. What I AM saying
is that no one can say that the Gnostics were particularly
relativist.

>>>I can only speak from my person experience, but I have searched
many faiths, and even put my name to a few of them, and my present
evolution has led me to gnostism.<<<

I'm sure nearly everyone here can sympathise with the growth process.

>>>And I might point out gnosis means knowledge, and that can take
many forms and have many names but you will know it to
be the truth when you FEEL it, as I do.<<<

Well, actually that isn't really an accurate meaning for the
word "Gnosis" as the Gnostics used it. This is a subject this forum
does tend to revisit pretty often.

>>>Christ never told anyone they were wrong, yet he imparted a
belief that I believe brought people around because of that fact.<<<

I guess that depends on who's version we are reading. ;) In the
Bible the "Christ" is quite direct in calling people hypocrites,
etc.. However, we don't have to take the Bible seriously here if we
don't want. There is no assumption of scriptural validity here.

>>>Perhaps you miss the point with so much polartization and
judgement on what is "wrong" and what is "right". I do not even
believe that you are wrong for casting judgement.<<<

I didn't cast any judgement, Darkchylde. I am simply trying to
present a historically acurate understanding of the Gnostic belief
system so people can think and talk about about them in an informed
way. Please don't assume that I am some kind of missionary for that
position.

>>>But I will remind that to dominate, to make oneslef superior for
what is believed or not is the very urges I seek to eliminate on my
effort to expand the Christ consciouness within me.<<<

No one is trying to dominate here, Darkchylde. This forum deals with
historical forms of Gnosticism, and all we want to do is make sure
that it is understood.... not agreed with.

>>>>I was unaware that Gnosis meant "right" anything. I was under the
impression it meant knowledge and didn't make such constrictive and
human confines on ideas that extend beyond the physical realm.<<<

Like I mentioned above, we do try to stick with the historical
Gnostic meaning of the word "Gnosis" in this group.... for the sake
of communication. I think you will find that Gnostic ideas were very
open in many ways that many people find very interesting today, but
maybe not in the ways that many would LIKE them to be open.

>>>Uncritical acceptance is not what I have for the traditions of
others, but rather a healthy respect and the true spirit of
compassion and acceptance for anyone - which cannot exist in my heart
while I harbor judgemnt and critism.<<<<

Respect and tolerence is not the same as agreement. Glad you pointed
that out.

>>>And to think that I excuse all behavior because I refuse to think
another is wrong shows you have made judgments on my rationallizing
that are incomplete, as you do not know me very well.<<<

Hmmmmm, maybe you are right. However, on what grounds do you NOT
excuse a behavior? How can you say something is not ok if you can't
say it is wrong? What is the arbitrary difference you assign?

>>>If as a gnostic I seek to elimiate cosmic ignorance then I would
do well to steer away from judgements or condemnations. My heart,
which I have learned to listen to, tells me that my head is right.<<<

You needn't defend your heart here (the head may be something a bit
more testable), thit is your own. Honestly, it simply isn't the
point of this forum. What we are talking about is Gnosticism.

>>>I do find it much more interesting with different points of view.
After all, aren't we just individual flames of a larger fire?<<<

I find various views interesting as well. After all, without the
challenge I would not have been able to test my own views. Sometimes
I have been wrong (yes, I can say "wrong"), but I think the trick
has been to accept that with humility rather than saying nobody can
be wrong therefore I must be right (Thanks Mike.... I think *lol*).

PMCV

Hey Barbara

>>>I agree that it is facinating to try to understand what the
Gnostics of old thought - but understanding at the same time, that
this was not a homgeneous group, by any stretch.<<<

Very true, and VERY good point. There are important differences we
really need to try and keep in mind. However, there are also things
that tie these groups together. When I attempt to outline systems of
Gnosticism I try to do my best and say things like "this is a
Sethian version" or "this is Valentinian" when they do differ. On
the other hand, there are important things that draw these groups
into a single category, and I think we should not foget that either.

>>>I do think it's very curious that there were so many different
groups of Christian communities in the first few hundred years with
so many disparate views. There was much controversy.<<<

I agree absolutely! In fact, it is the study of Gnosticism that has
really brought this realization to the academic community at large.
However, it doesn't only apply to Gnostic groups. There were many
non-Gnostic Christian groups as well. I don't find it curious in
that I don't think there was as much of a genuine "system" from the
very beginning. There is something called the "Eusebian Paradigm"
that says there was one original church. Scholars today generally
reject this "Eusebian Paradigm" because it just doesn't work with
the historical info we have right now.

>>>How could it be that Jesus left so many different impressions
among his followers? Surely what he was teaching had a hidden
meaning - some 'got it' or thought they did and others took his
teachings literally, interpreting it as best they could... on and on
throughout the millennia.<<<

Well, outside the question of whether Jesus ever actually
historically existed, I think it actually makes sense. The info we
have shows even the very first generation of Christians looking at
this message in many different ways. This is common for purely oral
teaching.

>>>My whole point is this - it can only be informed speculation on
our part.<<<

True. However, isn't informed speculation at least a little better
than uninformed speculation? What I find so common today is that
many people talking about "Gnosticism" do so in an uninformed way.
It is not about whether I am right or wrong, I have learned from
people less technically educated on the subject and I admit it up
front. But, instead it is about whether somebody has simply really
taken the time to stop and think about it critically rather than
just trying to make the "Gnostics" fit thier own preconcieved idea.

>>>>Somewhere else in this website, someone made the comment that
personal experience is also necessary - not just special knoweldge
or understanding.<<<

I have made that point myself. HOWEVER, I have also found myself
having to make the point that it is NOT JUST personal experience
either. BOTH must be there. Failure on EITHER side is failure to
gain Gnosis (at least according to the historical meaning we see in
the texts). There had been a common attempt today to equate "Gnosis"
with personal experience, and that simply is not what the word meant
in the Gnostic texts.

>>>That is the point I am trying to make (although not clearly, as
you point out). The only thing about which we can be sure is our own
personal experience. We can then interpret the books in that
light.<<<

So you don't believe in the notion of the "Logos"? Does that mean
you don't think the Sophia ever "fell"?

PMCV

Darkchylde, I Never said certin Christians were  wrong in my first
post on this line. I was expressing a point of view that we all have
God in our DNA and that having the blood line of Jesus was, again in
my opinion, of no consequence nor should it be. Also, I want to
stress that the quest for Gnosis should be an individual matter with
teachers along the way; but ultimately between you and God. If you
read what I wrote this is it, so why the discussion about that I
said someone was wrong? Unless we are continuing an argument from
another group? Also consider dear Gnostics, that just because some
in a certain Royal line in Europe claim heredity to Jesus does not
make it so. It's a claim made by wealthy people that helps justify
their leadership, also something to consider. I really don't want to
be jumped all over when I try to make a point so please really
consider what I write and don't read other things into it and I will
try to do the same for you.

Quietly, Aleada



Hi I'm new here
Looks like I'm come across an intelligent group of thinkers. I know
I'm going to be a bit behind the times with this comment but perhaps
I have something different to say on the subject so, here goes: I
finally saw The Da Vinci Code at the movies Wednesday night. I will
not give a movie review. I did not read the book. I do like that
this movie and book get people interested in the alternative
scriptures and therefore Gnostic thinking. But the idea of this
woman descendant of Mary Magdalene and Jesus being the Holy Grail
becomes a road block to Gnosis which is a direct knowledge of God.
It is also a problem in the Omen which I know is pure fun but
unfortunately is what many people believe, that is the idea of the
big characters playing these big roles while we sit back a watch.
Many people do not realize they are the Hero of their own story and
have a direct connection to God or the Great Spirit. Our path is to
realize that connection and have direct experience of this.
Realization with direct experience of the Divine is Enlightenment or
Gnosis and it may be so individual that it is experienced or related
differently for each of us. Gnosis is an on going process, it is the
road traveled ever onward. Leader or teacher come into our life and
will help us on our way but it is we who decides and we who exert
the effort, I mean to say don't rely on the way showers, it is your
journey and all you really need is you. The blood line of Jesus was
said to be part of the royal family of the Hapsburgs, who's line
runs through most of the royal houses of Europe, this is another
form of Hierarchy which is anti Gnostic thinking. I see little
evidence of Jesus in the royal lines. I see more evidence among the
rich about power, selfishness, and oppression. I see evidence of
his teachings among those who relinquish power in favor of helping
humanity. Sacred words from my own countries constitution say, All
men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with unalienable
rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I believe
Eve, our original Earth Mother chose Gnosis over obedience and
opened the door for Men to become Gods which was the Creators test
of our capacity to make our own way. We too become Gods and create
our own Universes as Great Spirit wills it so, ever onward. Yes
Barbara I too have visions and as the veil gets thinner it seems
more of us are doing so. Some of the visions I have had are not all
light and gold some are about being stripped naked of all beliefs
and ego, some were harsh from where I have sat but I am thankful for
all revelation which aids my souls growth. I am working each day to
simplify my soul and be open to the purest gold the soul has to
offer, Gnosis.

In Peace,
Your Sister,
Aleada Barbara Aine
--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Darkchylde
>
> >>>When I am working with a horse I know the horse technically
> doesn't do wrong- he (or she) is acting on instinct and impulse
and
> I inadvertantly triggered a response that is detrimental to the
> training process. WHereas the horse would not be considered wrong,
> I, as the human, being more enlightened and I AM
> the one bothering him in the first place (they don't come in my
> living room and run me off the couch on a whim to go for a run)I
can
> be wrong in that I would give into frustration and anger and
> aggression and abuse an animal that wouldn't be doing anything but
> grazing if it wasn't for me anyway.<<<
>
> I like that picture you paint. It allows for openness towards
> other's beliefs without stating that we must throw out critical
> perspective in the mix.
>
> >>>So much to reply to. I do not see it as an attack (although it
> seems my opinion might have been taken as one.)<<<
>
> Don't worry, Darkchylde, most of us in this group actually respect
> and enjoy a little bit of a friendly challenge ;) . Honestly, you
> don't need to apologize. We test ideas and debate as friends here.
> Not everyone is able to do that, and when they find this to be a
> threat they write us off as "silly academics". You are welcome to
> question my ideas, but expect me to question in return. Keep in
mind
> that this should always be brought back to the subject at hand....
> not just our personal views (that rule applies to me as well).
>
> >>>As a gnostic I avoid anything that smacks of domination, and I
> believe the only absolute truth is that we are all in this
> together.<<<
>
> Very understandable, though I would question whether it is
> indicative of being a Gnostic. Of course, the Gnostic was a rebel
> against temporal authority, Yaldebaoth and maybe even the Roman
> occupation, but on the other hand the Gnostic also believed in a
> rightful cosmic order. Personally, I probably still have some of
> that punk rock anarchism in me from my youth, but it would not be
> right of me to foist that on to historical Gnostic thinking.
>
> >>>Have a problem with dissention? Quite the contrary, my point is
> that we cannot judge anothers beliefs to be wrong. That hardly
> sounds like there is no room for dissention. And I do believe(this
> doesn't make it truth, albeit MY truth) that enlightment will not
> come if there is not a tolerance for ALL beliefs and faiths.<<<
>
> I can certainly sympathize, but I am not so sure the Gnostics
would.
> Think about it another way, Yaldebaoth can be seen as an allegory
> for the those very religions you say we should respect (and I
> generally feel ambivalent for). In fact, that is actually partly
> what his function is. It becomes very clear in the Gospel of Judas
> that the Demiurge is intended as an attack on religious faith.
This
> is not what we can call tolerance of all beliefs and faiths, but
> just the opposite... it is a rejection of blind faith and poorly
> thought beliefs.
>
> Now, I am not saying the Gnostics must be right about this. Once
> again, that is for people figure out on their own. What I AM
saying
> is that no one can say that the Gnostics were particularly
> relativist.
>
> >>>I can only speak from my person experience, but I have searched
> many faiths, and even put my name to a few of them, and my present
> evolution has led me to gnostism.<<<
>
> I'm sure nearly everyone here can sympathise with the growth
process.
>
> >>>And I might point out gnosis means knowledge, and that can take
> many forms and have many names but you will know it to
> be the truth when you FEEL it, as I do.<<<
>
> Well, actually that isn't really an accurate meaning for the
> word "Gnosis" as the Gnostics used it. This is a subject this
forum
> does tend to revisit pretty often.
>
> >>>Christ never told anyone they were wrong, yet he imparted a
> belief that I believe brought people around because of that
fact.<<<
>
> I guess that depends on who's version we are reading. ;) In the
> Bible the "Christ" is quite direct in calling people hypocrites,
> etc.. However, we don't have to take the Bible seriously here if
we
> don't want. There is no assumption of scriptural validity here.
>
> >>>Perhaps you miss the point with so much polartization and
> judgement on what is "wrong" and what is "right". I do not even
> believe that you are wrong for casting judgement.<<<
>
> I didn't cast any judgement, Darkchylde. I am simply trying to
> present a historically acurate understanding of the Gnostic belief
> system so people can think and talk about about them in an
informed
> way. Please don't assume that I am some kind of missionary for
that
> position.
>
> >>>But I will remind that to dominate, to make oneslef superior
for
> what is believed or not is the very urges I seek to eliminate on
my
> effort to expand the Christ consciouness within me.<<<
>
> No one is trying to dominate here, Darkchylde. This forum deals
with
> historical forms of Gnosticism, and all we want to do is make sure
> that it is understood.... not agreed with.
>
> >>>>I was unaware that Gnosis meant "right" anything. I was under
the
> impression it meant knowledge and didn't make such constrictive and
> human confines on ideas that extend beyond the physical realm.<<<
>
> Like I mentioned above, we do try to stick with the historical
> Gnostic meaning of the word "Gnosis" in this group.... for the
sake
> of communication. I think you will find that Gnostic ideas were
very
> open in many ways that many people find very interesting today,
but
> maybe not in the ways that many would LIKE them to be open.
>
> >>>Uncritical acceptance is not what I have for the traditions of
> others, but rather a healthy respect and the true spirit of
> compassion and acceptance for anyone - which cannot exist in my
heart
> while I harbor judgemnt and critism.<<<<
>
> Respect and tolerence is not the same as agreement. Glad you
pointed
> that out.
>
> >>>And to think that I excuse all behavior because I refuse to
think
> another is wrong shows you have made judgments on my
rationallizing
> that are incomplete, as you do not know me very well.<<<
>
> Hmmmmm, maybe you are right. However, on what grounds do you NOT
> excuse a behavior? How can you say something is not ok if you
can't
> say it is wrong? What is the arbitrary difference you assign?
>
> >>>If as a gnostic I seek to elimiate cosmic ignorance then I
would
> do well to steer away from judgements or condemnations. My heart,
> which I have learned to listen to, tells me that my head is
right.<<<
>
> You needn't defend your heart here (the head may be something a
bit
> more testable), thit is your own. Honestly, it simply isn't the
> point of this forum. What we are talking about is Gnosticism.
>
> >>>I do find it much more interesting with different points of
view.
> After all, aren't we just individual flames of a larger fire?<<<
>
> I find various views interesting as well. After all, without the
> challenge I would not have been able to test my own views.
Sometimes
> I have been wrong (yes, I can say "wrong"), but I think the trick
> has been to accept that with humility rather than saying nobody
can
> be wrong therefore I must be right (Thanks Mike.... I think *lol*).
>
> PMCV
>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Darkchylde
>
> >>>When I am working with a horse I know the horse technically
> doesn't do wrong- he (or she) is acting on instinct and impulse and
> I inadvertantly triggered a response that is detrimental to the
> training process. WHereas the horse would not be considered wrong,
> I, as the human, being more enlightened and I AM
> the one bothering him in the first place (they don't come in my
> living room and run me off the couch on a whim to go for a run)I can
> be wrong in that I would give into frustration and anger and
> aggression and abuse an animal that wouldn't be doing anything but
> grazing if it wasn't for me anyway.<<<
>
> I like that picture you paint. It allows for openness towards
> other's beliefs without stating that we must throw out critical
> perspective in the mix.
>
> >>>So much to reply to. I do not see it as an attack (although it
> seems my opinion might have been taken as one.)<<<
>
> Don't worry, Darkchylde, most of us in this group actually respect
> and enjoy a little bit of a friendly challenge ;) . Honestly, you
> don't need to apologize. We test ideas and debate as friends here.
> Not everyone is able to do that, and when they find this to be a
> threat they write us off as "silly academics". You are welcome to
> question my ideas, but expect me to question in return. Keep in
mind
> that this should always be brought back to the subject at hand....
> not just our personal views (that rule applies to me as well).
>
> >>>As a gnostic I avoid anything that smacks of domination, and I
> believe the only absolute truth is that we are all in this
> together.<<<
>
> Very understandable, though I would question whether it is
> indicative of being a Gnostic. Of course, the Gnostic was a rebel
> against temporal authority, Yaldebaoth and maybe even the Roman
> occupation, but on the other hand the Gnostic also believed in a
> rightful cosmic order. Personally, I probably still have some of
> that punk rock anarchism in me from my youth, but it would not be
> right of me to foist that on to historical Gnostic thinking.
>
> >>>Have a problem with dissention? Quite the contrary, my point is
> that we cannot judge anothers beliefs to be wrong. That hardly
> sounds like there is no room for dissention. And I do believe(this
> doesn't make it truth, albeit MY truth) that enlightment will not
> come if there is not a tolerance for ALL beliefs and faiths.<<<
>
> I can certainly sympathize, but I am not so sure the Gnostics
would.
> Think about it another way, Yaldebaoth can be seen as an allegory
> for the those very religions you say we should respect (and I
> generally feel ambivalent for). In fact, that is actually partly
> what his function is. It becomes very clear in the Gospel of Judas
> that the Demiurge is intended as an attack on religious faith. This
> is not what we can call tolerance of all beliefs and faiths, but
> just the opposite... it is a rejection of blind faith and poorly
> thought beliefs.
>
> Now, I am not saying the Gnostics must be right about this. Once
> again, that is for people figure out on their own. What I AM saying
> is that no one can say that the Gnostics were particularly
> relativist.
>
> >>>I can only speak from my person experience, but I have searched
> many faiths, and even put my name to a few of them, and my present
> evolution has led me to gnostism.<<<
>
> I'm sure nearly everyone here can sympathise with the growth
process.
>
> >>>And I might point out gnosis means knowledge, and that can take
> many forms and have many names but you will know it to
> be the truth when you FEEL it, as I do.<<<
>
> Well, actually that isn't really an accurate meaning for the
> word "Gnosis" as the Gnostics used it. This is a subject this forum
> does tend to revisit pretty often.
>
> >>>Christ never told anyone they were wrong, yet he imparted a
> belief that I believe brought people around because of that fact.<<<
>
> I guess that depends on who's version we are reading. ;) In the
> Bible the "Christ" is quite direct in calling people hypocrites,
> etc.. However, we don't have to take the Bible seriously here if we
> don't want. There is no assumption of scriptural validity here.
>
> >>>Perhaps you miss the point with so much polartization and
> judgement on what is "wrong" and what is "right". I do not even
> believe that you are wrong for casting judgement.<<<
>
> I didn't cast any judgement, Darkchylde. I am simply trying to
> present a historically acurate understanding of the Gnostic belief
> system so people can think and talk about about them in an informed
> way. Please don't assume that I am some kind of missionary for that
> position.
>
> >>>But I will remind that to dominate, to make oneslef superior for
> what is believed or not is the very urges I seek to eliminate on my
> effort to expand the Christ consciouness within me.<<<
>
> No one is trying to dominate here, Darkchylde. This forum deals
with
> historical forms of Gnosticism, and all we want to do is make sure
> that it is understood.... not agreed with.
>
> >>>>I was unaware that Gnosis meant "right" anything. I was under
the
> impression it meant knowledge and didn't make such constrictive and
> human confines on ideas that extend beyond the physical realm.<<<
>
> Like I mentioned above, we do try to stick with the historical
> Gnostic meaning of the word "Gnosis" in this group.... for the sake
> of communication. I think you will find that Gnostic ideas were
very
> open in many ways that many people find very interesting today, but
> maybe not in the ways that many would LIKE them to be open.
>
> >>>Uncritical acceptance is not what I have for the traditions of
> others, but rather a healthy respect and the true spirit of
> compassion and acceptance for anyone - which cannot exist in my
heart
> while I harbor judgemnt and critism.<<<<
>
> Respect and tolerence is not the same as agreement. Glad you
pointed
> that out.
>
> >>>And to think that I excuse all behavior because I refuse to
think
> another is wrong shows you have made judgments on my rationallizing
> that are incomplete, as you do not know me very well.<<<
>
> Hmmmmm, maybe you are right. However, on what grounds do you NOT
> excuse a behavior? How can you say something is not ok if you can't
> say it is wrong? What is the arbitrary difference you assign?
>
> >>>If as a gnostic I seek to elimiate cosmic ignorance then I would
> do well to steer away from judgements or condemnations. My heart,
> which I have learned to listen to, tells me that my head is
right.<<<
>
> You needn't defend your heart here (the head may be something a bit
> more testable), thit is your own. Honestly, it simply isn't the
> point of this forum. What we are talking about is Gnosticism.
>
> >>>I do find it much more interesting with different points of view.
> After all, aren't we just individual flames of a larger fire?<<<
>
> I find various views interesting as well. After all, without the
> challenge I would not have been able to test my own views.
Sometimes
> I have been wrong (yes, I can say "wrong"), but I think the trick
> has been to accept that with humility rather than saying nobody can
> be wrong therefore I must be right (Thanks Mike.... I think *lol*).
>
> PMCV
>




First I would like to respond to our earlier exchange where the
statement was made about why to get into gnostism.  Well, I didn't
get into it for entertainment but I didn't get into it so I could be
right and everyone else be wrong.  I could have stuck with most
orthodox beliefs had that been my motivation.  I also feel that since
my beliefs are considered heresy by many in mainstream Christianity,
that to be intolerate towards another's beliefs is to go against one
of the main attractions that gnostism had for me, which is the
freedom to interpret as I wish.  And do not get hung up on the fact
that I do not see a difference in what is good and what is evil.  But
to judge and condemn and critize, reguardless of justification, would
I think expose one's cosmic ignorance, and align one to dark forces.
You made an excellent point about Yeshua pointing out to the
Pharisees and their hypocrisy, or his reaction to the temple
merchants.  Still, this showed thier ignorance, and Christ didn't
tell the woman caught in adultry she was wrong.  He also never told
anyone that they were wrong that I could find, and he kept a careful
balance of severity and mercy, the Middle Pillar concept of the
Kabala if you will, and rather than telling people they were wrong he
told them how to be right.  As far as historical accuracy goes, we
seem to rewrite history on a daily basis as new evidence come to
light so I would warn against being to ridgid in what is believed to
be accurate, because what is seen as historically accurate now may be
seen to be inaccurate in the light of some future evidence.  I
believe the gnostic perspective to be a bit more far reaching, even
with the ancients, as there were many factions then with differing
views and opinions that perhaps didn't jive on one plae but when all
are boiled down they come to the some conclusions. I am a Valentinian
myself, but there is much diversity out there and I for one
wholeheartedly embrace that. And I do not defend my heart or head,
and as you pointed out the forum is on Gnostism and my heart and my
head are gnostic so I believe I can include them in my discussion.
You ask how I can say something is not okay if I can't say it is
wrong.  I do feel there are many things that are not "okay", such as
killing, domination, and the like but I assign no difference,
arbitrary or otherwise, that would make me jugde another because they
do not think as I do.  The Cathars were quite tolerant and were wiped
out by a dominating presence that was not tolerant.  When you truly
are superior in your thinking, then like Christ you won't need to
feel as you are superior and you would not communicate this
superiority to others.  The need to feel superior dissentegrates when
your reasoning rises above it.  Perhaps there are others who have
differnet ideas on what should be expressed in this forum.  And what
you consider to be historically accurate might not be considered
historically accurate and it not be, hmm, wrong.

Love and peas
Darkchylde

Dear Barbara,

What would you recommend as far as Monroe's books? How long did you
work with the Hemi sync?

I didn't like Carlos Castaneda too much, my husband was drawn to it
as to the adventure in it but also found his views depressing when I
discussed it with him and he reviewed it. I got on a web site for
people discussing Castaneda and wow were those people anxious, they
were so worried about not being a Nagual or whatever it takes for
them to live after death and one wrote to me about how he thought it
was ok to suck energy from other people like they were cattle. It
was creepy. I also found a site about how much of a liar Castaneda
was. When pursuing spiritual matters it seems what you put it you
get out and perhaps he saw what he would see at that level.

I don't discuss my personal experiences much as they are personal
and I don't want things to be about competition or what ever, if
there is a need I will but not for now.

Don Miguel, yep studied a year with one of his apprentices. I
thought she and he lacked compassion and were too much about the
money. I did find some of his exercises very good for quieting the
mind of chatter. I have mixed feeling about him and it. One thing is
his idea of dropping our story when he claims to be smoking mirror,
now what a big story is he!

As far as forgiveness, it's sort of like non judgment and living in
the present, this also quiets the mind, not having to plan or
running a program about the past. Meditation helps as thoughts flow
though you and you don't attach importance or meaning to them.
Sometimes the realization that you can't make a bear into a dove and
it is not up to you anyway is a good approach to people, just allow
and most of all allow yourself to be human.

I'm a big believer in Compassion, what you give is what you get and
I'm compassionate to the suffering of humanity and the world Gaia
with all her children, it is a motivator in me.

I also am Rekei 2, my husband has great healing hands and has helped
me and others. I don't understand your statement about magic and not
wanting to use it for healing? Jesus used healing in his ministry as
did his followers, I think it's wonderful. But I also think at times
the greatest love is to detach and not be a sap, though love.

love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
Yes I think so too, those are the highest vibrations and letting go
of ego this helps clear the way. Your experience you told us about
is one of enlightenment, I have a series of drawings from China that
shows a farmer leading his ox, he enters the state of enlightenment
which is symbolized by a circle then there is the farmer again
walking down the road with the ox the same but also changed. From
what I have read of Gnosis you enter this state then you continue on
your path, it is never the same but ever onward.

love/peace/forgiveness//compassion I have been told by a powerful
Native American medicine woman that without this there is really no
power, people think they have power but they really do not.

I know that Gnosis is about enlightenment, the intellect is part of
the path of growth; the ever onward part but Divine Union is Gnosis,
it is enlightenment.

I would like to grow in spirit and share this Peace with others like
the Gnostics of old did. They formed small circles to share their
teaching and taught others so the Holy Spirit would grow. This is
what is needed in the world today, a true healing and love of one
another.

Concerning Jesus's  suffering/sacrifice; sometimes a person comes to
a crossroad where he is tested, sometimes that test may even be
death, it is about trust and bravery, it's not such as bad message
when we see a person willing to sacrifice themself for another, what
a wonderful act of :love/peace/forgiveness//compassion!

May the Spirit be with you,
Aleada Aine



--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@...>
wrote:
>
> It seems, Aleada Aine, that our paths have sometimes taken us to
the
> same places!  I have also studied with one of Don Miquel's
> apprentices, and even tried to start my own Four Agreements group
> (unsuccessfully).  Some of his teachings are a bit fearful - which
I
> try to avoid - as this is totally opposite from my personal
> experience with the divine.  However, I believe his teachings are
> very valuable to begin the forgiveness path, which, in my opinion,
> is what Jesus taught, and what is essential to 'salvation'/gnosis.
>
> I have also used the Monroe Institute Hemi-Sync tapes (for 5
years)
> with limited success.  When a friend of mine listened to my
> description of my ecstatic experience, he immediately recognized
the
> similarity to 'going out of body' that Monroe describes in his
> books.  The vibrations were similar, the descriptions of getting
> back into the body were nearly exact. I read 2 (maybe 3?) of his
> books, and although the vibration experience was very similar, my
> original ecstatic experience was quite different from that
realized
> by using the hemi-sync tapes.  I have only once reached that
> ecstatic state. However, I was able to reach some very profound
> states of meditation and a few brief out of body trips through
Hemi-
> Sync. Fear always seemed to bring me back into the body in a short
> time!
>
> Through the first few years after my original spontaneous, prayer
> induced ecstatic state, I was often awakened in the night with
> vibrations that took over my entire body.  These were un-nerving
at
> first and occasionally resulted in brief out of body travels - but
> none quite as extentive as those described by Monroe in his
books.
> Frankly, some of his descriptions were a bit frightening, and I
> decided that was not the path for me as my experience was not at
all
> fearful - quite the opposite.  I did not wish to traverse the
> negative underworld.  So I turned to more uplifting methods.
>
> I dabbled in Reiki - am Reiki II trained - and will say that this
> was a positive experience as the energies with these methods were
> loving and healing.  However, I do not wish to pursue 'magic' and
> came across many who were enamored with that aspect of the Reiki
> energy, so I have not pursued it.  I will say, however, that I
> employed a Reiki Master (long distance) to help clear my oldest
> daughter of the negative energy that kept her in that dark
tunnel.
> This woman was able (by phone contact and through meditations that
> she taught my daughter and me to use) to help my daughter
understand
> why she was in the debilitated state and gave her clearing
practices
> to assist her on the path to wellness.  Did these work?  All I can
> say is, these prayer / energy rituals helped us both have faith
that
> she would find her way back to health.  And she did - but, as I
said
> before, it was gradual and took several years.  Wellness is a
state
> of mind that takes constant practice!
>
> During that time I also studied the Flower of Life Workshops -
> learned how to form the merkaba - this was also a very positive
> energy producing ritual.  I found this a good way to clear
negative
> thoughts and begin a meditation.
>
> I have also persued other Native American rituals and own a
Tibetan
> brass bowl and a more modern crystal bowl to produce wonderful
> sounds that aid in relaxation and meditation.
>
> I grew up in the 60's and 70's, was part of the original
hippie/pot
> generation, although I may be one of the few who never partook -
> HONESTLY!!!  Almost everyone I knew did - including my husband of
32
> years.  It may be that an ecstatic state can be reached through
> drugs, but from what I have read (Carlos Casteneda), many of these
> journey's can also be frightening and dangerous.  Again, I had no
> such experience with my ecstatic state - it was pure
> love/peace/joy.  No negativity at all, so I choose to not go on
that
> path.
>
> Another helpful meditation/wellness path can be found in Peter
> Kelder's "Fountain of Youth" book.  These are a series of Tibetan
> exercises for health and wellness that he swears keeps a person
> young - they are easy, yet invigorating and I would highly
recommend
> them for any age.
>
> Eventually I gave up on reproducing that ecstatic state, believing
> that it was a one time experience meant to allow me to realize
that
> God does exist, that the path is
love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> and that to pursue that state constantly would be counter-
> productive.  I can see how drug addicts become addicts! I wanted
so
> much to experience that agin, it could have consumed me and my
> life.  Instead, I have concentrated on the message I learned from
it.
>
> I guess I realized that being in body has its purpose, and to
> constantly seek out of body experiences would prevent me from
> spreading comfort to my family and others.  Besides, I had a house
> to keep clean, 4 daughters to run around, volunteer work to do,
> etc.
>
> I continue to read and puzzle over the Jesus phenonmenon - I do
> believe he taught the path of love and forgiveness, but that
message
> got diverted to suffering/sacrifice unfortunately.
>
> For those interested, I recommend some of the following authors /
> books that can help you understand the beginnings of early
> Christianity including the battle between orthodoxy and Gnosticism:
>
> Jesus Seminar Fellows:  Crossan, Borg, Funk
> Bishop Spong's many books
> Bart Erhman's books :  Lost Scriptures; Peter, Paul and Mary
> Magdalene; and especially Misquoting Jesus - a very careful
> discussion of textual criticism of the Bible.  It is eye-opening
and
> helps you understand how the Bible came to be what it is, what
> the 'original' texts (we actually have no such things) say as
> compared to the popular translations.  He also discusses the
Gnostic
> texts and decribes the battles between the leaders of the early
> church.  Obviously, the orthodox group won out, which is why we
have
> the Bible as it is today.
>
> In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can say I
> have discovered:  Truth is a highly personal thing - even for the
> gnostic and orthodox writers  - and people have been battling over
> that for millennia!
>
> Barbara
>
> Here's a quote from the latter:
>  In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From my reading, and I do admit it is not extensive in the field
> of
> > Gnostic Literature, it is similar to other paths to
enlightenment.
> I
> > am not seeing from reading Freke and Gandy that much of the
> secrets
> > were passed on to us, probably because they were transmitted in
> person
> > by teacher to pupil but also because they were experienced as
> direct
> > experience of ones own volition through spirit. I believe this
was
> the
> > only way to transmit this Knowing, through experience. I
approach
> the
> > problem of how it was done with the wealth of knowledge we have
> > available to us through many paths leading to the same
conclusion,
> > Union with the Divine or Divine experience, the type of
experience
> > Barbara so beautifully describes. I have years of Buddhist and
> Hindu
> > study and a year of Toltec with Don Miguel. I also work with
> Native
> > American spirituality and am getting into Hemi Sync with the
> Monroe
> > Institute though CD's, they stimulate or access that part of the
> brain
> > for this type of experience, it's awesome.
> > The idea of forming a small circle where one can raise energy
for
> > healing and opening to spirit is a goal of mine, this was a
common
> way
> > to transmit this Knowing according to above named authors. The
> > experience of ceremony is powerful especially in circle and I
will
> > look into the Masonic rituals to learn more of the art of
> initiation.
> > Plato and is followers used play acting or drama to transport
> > themselves from nonordinary reality. Much of what must be
> accomplished
> > for the realization of Gnosis is the dropping of the trappings
of
> ego,
> > much of the studies I recommend teach just how to do this. Then
> there
> > is the opening to receiving spirit. Rhythmic drumming, dance, or
> > awareness of the now in such acts as walking or other movements
> can
> > trigger an ecstatic state. Psychedelic drugs can also trigger
such
> > states, such as peyote but should be used only with a trained
> shaman,
> > I would imagine. I am excited to explore which of the sacred
texts
> may
> > enlighten me more as to just how the work was done from the
> Gnostic
> > point of view but from what I have read  it surely must of been
> more
> > that just use of intellect.
> >
> > Yours in Spirit,
> > Aleada Aine
> >
> >
> > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > >
> >
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I really like Bentley Layton's translations.

http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/facultypages/cvbl.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385478437/103-1005991-0341427?v=glance&n=28315\
5

Thomas

--
Thomas Leavitt <thomas@...> - 831-295-3917
Godmoma's Forge, LLC - www.godmomasforge.com
- Web and graphic design made spiffy -

Encrypted public key at http://www.thomasleavitt.org/thomas.asc

Download GnuPG (including for Windows) at
http://www.gnupg.org/download/ to read .asc attachment (encrypted signature)

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@...> wrote:
>
> You've written previously:
>
> "secret teachings are the key to propper understanding through
which salvation is attained"
>
> and from this I conclude that, in traditional gnosticism, salvation
is obtained through this 'proper understanding' which, presumably,
is 'gnosis'.
>
>
>
> You now write:
>
> "Both Plato and the historical Gnostics agreed that there was a
strong and important experience aspect, but also a strong and very
important intellectual aspect to Gnosis. In other words, it isn't one
or the other, but must have both. It is a sort of epiphany bringing
the ends of various knowledges and experiences together into a
comprehensive cognitive state. This cognitive state includes very
specific training in, and understanding of, the Gnostic cosmic
structure and lingo, initiatory experience, and knowledge of the self
and how one fits into the spiritual world."
>
>
>
> So gnosis, or 'proper understanding', is 'a comprehensive cognitive
state' with two major aspects:
>
> (1) experiential [a divine revelation, perhaps ?]
>
> and
>
> (2) intellectual
>
> and, if I understand you correctly, we must acquire both (1) and
(2) for gnosis and salvation.
>
>
>
> I've always thought gnosis was obtained via spirituality so I agree
with your emphasis on 'knowledge of the self and how one fits into
the spiritual world'. But other things concerning this intellectual
aspect that you've introduced puzzle me. Gnostic cosmic structure?
Gnostic lingo? Initiatory experience? I don't follow the logic, God's
logic (since he, presumably, set up the system in the first place),
that requires us to receive 'specific training and understanding' in
these matters. Why would God consider such activities to be important?
>
>
>
> How can, for example, 'very specific training in, and understanding
of, the Gnostic cosmic structure' help one towards salvation? I
didn't think there was 'just one' gnostic cosmic structure, I thought
they were many. Since God is, ultimately, 'in charge' of salvation
why should he be bothered about such things?
>
>
>
> William
>
>


Hello, William.  If I may sneak in here a moment,... when you
mention "God," are you referring to the ineffable Unknown beyond
human conception?  If so, then we have no way of knowing whether
this "god" even would "consider such activities" or "be bothered
about such things" in an anthropomorphic way.  And salvific Gnosis
doesn't mean total dissolution into the Unknown while in this human
state.  It seems to me from reading the writings of the ancients,
_Allogenes_ for instance, that there are limits to understanding this
unrecognizable god.  And, in _Allogenes_, this is learned from the
holy powers from the Barbelo aeon.  We can attain acquaintance, or
Gnosis, to a point.  And we use our human faculties within a worldly
context for interpretation of the spiritual world and nurturing the
spiritual seed.  So, it might behoove us to understand the need for
specific training and understanding of this context.

It seems that there are many modern people who can empathize with the
words of the ancient Gnostics.  So, maybe they were on to something,
even without all our modern technological and scientific knowledge.

In order to understand the various Gnostic systems, it would
logically follow that learning their lingo and cosmology would help
us to get a better idea of how they approached the process of Gnosis,
even if we don't have complete, firsthand knowledge of their esoteric
initiatory practices.

Sophia's experience without the Logos resulted in her Fall.  It also
would logically make sense in our world to consider the lopsidedness
of relying solely on experience without critical evaluation and vice
versa in the process of attaining Gnosis.  For the ancients,
understanding the mystical experience was the task of philosophy.

Cari

Aleada Aine

"I don't understand your statement about magic and not
> wanting to use it for healing?"

Reiki is an energy that is very powerful - some of those I know use
this energy as a way to feel personally empowered.  I believe in
humility and do not desire to 'show-off.'  I sometimes lay my hands
on people who will allow it, without their knowledge of using Reiki.
I might say "You look like you're in pain.  Do you have a
headache?"  They will tell me so and I would speak softly to them,
lay on my hands etc....."  This seems to work well.  It works
espeically well within my own family and circle of friends.

I worked with the Monroe Tapes at least 5 years, off and on,
whenever I had time.  (Which was hard at the time with all 4 girls
still being at home and having 3 Girl Scout Troops)  Carlos
Casteneda, Ruiz as well as Monroe frightened me with their
descriptions of negative beings outside of this realm.  There was no
indication of that type of thing in my mystical experience - so I
concluded that those paths are not for me - although there are some
valuable lessons to be learned in each of these systems.  There's
quite a lot of negativity with the Flower of Life system too, for
that matter.
The Monroe books I read are: Journeys Out of the body, Far Journeys
and Ultimate Journey.  Never in my experiences with Monroe Hemi-Sync
did I encounter negative beings - but, each time I found myself
outside the body (and sometimes I only got partially out - which is
a very strange sensation!) I had an almost immediate panic which
instantly brought me back into physical awareness. This is probably
related to my comments earlier -and it is likely that my fear is
what prevented me from being able to stay out of body! I did find,
however, that the tapes were terrific for relaxation!  Good luck
with your experimentation.

I am hesitant to be around WACKOS as my children call them - people
who can see auras, feel energy, use magic ...  These gifts, in my
opinion, should not be used for personal gain or power\, but perhaps
that strong feeling is misplaced.

There is certainly a great deal of magic in the early history of
Christianity (Simon Magnus competing with Peter in flying around
Rome and doing all kinds of other magic...)  To me it reminds me of
some of the charlatan evangelists on TV today.  It's not what gnosis
should be about, in my opinion.

Barbara

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Barbara,
>
> What would you recommend as far as Monroe's books? How long did
you
> work with the Hemi sync?
>
> I didn't like Carlos Castaneda too much, my husband was drawn to
it
> as to the adventure in it but also found his views depressing when
I
> discussed it with him and he reviewed it. I got on a web site for
> people discussing Castaneda and wow were those people anxious,
they
> were so worried about not being a Nagual or whatever it takes for
> them to live after death and one wrote to me about how he thought
it
> was ok to suck energy from other people like they were cattle. It
> was creepy. I also found a site about how much of a liar Castaneda
> was. When pursuing spiritual matters it seems what you put it you
> get out and perhaps he saw what he would see at that level.
>
> I don't discuss my personal experiences much as they are personal
> and I don't want things to be about competition or what ever, if
> there is a need I will but not for now.
>
> Don Miguel, yep studied a year with one of his apprentices. I
> thought she and he lacked compassion and were too much about the
> money. I did find some of his exercises very good for quieting the
> mind of chatter. I have mixed feeling about him and it. One thing
is
> his idea of dropping our story when he claims to be smoking
mirror,
> now what a big story is he!
>
> As far as forgiveness, it's sort of like non judgment and living
in
> the present, this also quiets the mind, not having to plan or
> running a program about the past. Meditation helps as thoughts
flow
> though you and you don't attach importance or meaning to them.
> Sometimes the realization that you can't make a bear into a dove
and
> it is not up to you anyway is a good approach to people, just
allow
> and most of all allow yourself to be human.
>
> I'm a big believer in Compassion, what you give is what you get
and
> I'm compassionate to the suffering of humanity and the world Gaia
> with all her children, it is a motivator in me.
>
> I also am Rekei 2, my husband has great healing hands and has
helped
> me and others. I don't understand your statement about magic and
not
> wanting to use it for healing? Jesus used healing in his ministry
as
> did his followers, I think it's wonderful. But I also think at
times
> the greatest love is to detach and not be a sap, though love.
>
> love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> Yes I think so too, those are the highest vibrations and letting
go
> of ego this helps clear the way. Your experience you told us about
> is one of enlightenment, I have a series of drawings from China
that
> shows a farmer leading his ox, he enters the state of
enlightenment
> which is symbolized by a circle then there is the farmer again
> walking down the road with the ox the same but also changed. From
> what I have read of Gnosis you enter this state then you continue
on
> your path, it is never the same but ever onward.
>
> love/peace/forgiveness//compassion I have been told by a powerful
> Native American medicine woman that without this there is really
no
> power, people think they have power but they really do not.
>
> I know that Gnosis is about enlightenment, the intellect is part
of
> the path of growth; the ever onward part but Divine Union is
Gnosis,
> it is enlightenment.
>
> I would like to grow in spirit and share this Peace with others
like
> the Gnostics of old did. They formed small circles to share their
> teaching and taught others so the Holy Spirit would grow. This is
> what is needed in the world today, a true healing and love of one
> another.
>
> Concerning Jesus's  suffering/sacrifice; sometimes a person comes
to
> a crossroad where he is tested, sometimes that test may even be
> death, it is about trust and bravery, it's not such as bad message
> when we see a person willing to sacrifice themself for another,
what
> a wonderful act of :love/peace/forgiveness//compassion!
>
> May the Spirit be with you,
> Aleada Aine
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@>
> wrote:
> >
> > It seems, Aleada Aine, that our paths have sometimes taken us to
> the
> > same places!  I have also studied with one of Don Miquel's
> > apprentices, and even tried to start my own Four Agreements
group
> > (unsuccessfully).  Some of his teachings are a bit fearful -
which
> I
> > try to avoid - as this is totally opposite from my personal
> > experience with the divine.  However, I believe his teachings
are
> > very valuable to begin the forgiveness path, which, in my
opinion,
> > is what Jesus taught, and what is essential
to 'salvation'/gnosis.
> >
> > I have also used the Monroe Institute Hemi-Sync tapes (for 5
> years)
> > with limited success.  When a friend of mine listened to my
> > description of my ecstatic experience, he immediately recognized
> the
> > similarity to 'going out of body' that Monroe describes in his
> > books.  The vibrations were similar, the descriptions of getting
> > back into the body were nearly exact. I read 2 (maybe 3?) of his
> > books, and although the vibration experience was very similar,
my
> > original ecstatic experience was quite different from that
> realized
> > by using the hemi-sync tapes.  I have only once reached that
> > ecstatic state. However, I was able to reach some very profound
> > states of meditation and a few brief out of body trips through
> Hemi-
> > Sync. Fear always seemed to bring me back into the body in a
short
> > time!
> >
> > Through the first few years after my original spontaneous,
prayer
> > induced ecstatic state, I was often awakened in the night with
> > vibrations that took over my entire body.  These were un-nerving
> at
> > first and occasionally resulted in brief out of body travels -
but
> > none quite as extentive as those described by Monroe in his
> books.
> > Frankly, some of his descriptions were a bit frightening, and I
> > decided that was not the path for me as my experience was not at
> all
> > fearful - quite the opposite.  I did not wish to traverse the
> > negative underworld.  So I turned to more uplifting methods.
> >
> > I dabbled in Reiki - am Reiki II trained - and will say that
this
> > was a positive experience as the energies with these methods
were
> > loving and healing.  However, I do not wish to pursue 'magic'
and
> > came across many who were enamored with that aspect of the Reiki
> > energy, so I have not pursued it.  I will say, however, that I
> > employed a Reiki Master (long distance) to help clear my oldest
> > daughter of the negative energy that kept her in that dark
> tunnel.
> > This woman was able (by phone contact and through meditations
that
> > she taught my daughter and me to use) to help my daughter
> understand
> > why she was in the debilitated state and gave her clearing
> practices
> > to assist her on the path to wellness.  Did these work?  All I
can
> > say is, these prayer / energy rituals helped us both have faith
> that
> > she would find her way back to health.  And she did - but, as I
> said
> > before, it was gradual and took several years.  Wellness is a
> state
> > of mind that takes constant practice!
> >
> > During that time I also studied the Flower of Life Workshops -
> > learned how to form the merkaba - this was also a very positive
> > energy producing ritual.  I found this a good way to clear
> negative
> > thoughts and begin a meditation.
> >
> > I have also persued other Native American rituals and own a
> Tibetan
> > brass bowl and a more modern crystal bowl to produce wonderful
> > sounds that aid in relaxation and meditation.
> >
> > I grew up in the 60's and 70's, was part of the original
> hippie/pot
> > generation, although I may be one of the few who never partook -
> > HONESTLY!!!  Almost everyone I knew did - including my husband
of
> 32
> > years.  It may be that an ecstatic state can be reached through
> > drugs, but from what I have read (Carlos Casteneda), many of
these
> > journey's can also be frightening and dangerous.  Again, I had
no
> > such experience with my ecstatic state - it was pure
> > love/peace/joy.  No negativity at all, so I choose to not go on
> that
> > path.
> >
> > Another helpful meditation/wellness path can be found in Peter
> > Kelder's "Fountain of Youth" book.  These are a series of
Tibetan
> > exercises for health and wellness that he swears keeps a person
> > young - they are easy, yet invigorating and I would highly
> recommend
> > them for any age.
> >
> > Eventually I gave up on reproducing that ecstatic state,
believing
> > that it was a one time experience meant to allow me to realize
> that
> > God does exist, that the path is
> love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> > and that to pursue that state constantly would be counter-
> > productive.  I can see how drug addicts become addicts! I wanted
> so
> > much to experience that agin, it could have consumed me and my
> > life.  Instead, I have concentrated on the message I learned
from
> it.
> >
> > I guess I realized that being in body has its purpose, and to
> > constantly seek out of body experiences would prevent me from
> > spreading comfort to my family and others.  Besides, I had a
house
> > to keep clean, 4 daughters to run around, volunteer work to do,
> > etc.
> >
> > I continue to read and puzzle over the Jesus phenonmenon - I do
> > believe he taught the path of love and forgiveness, but that
> message
> > got diverted to suffering/sacrifice unfortunately.
> >
> > For those interested, I recommend some of the following
authors /
> > books that can help you understand the beginnings of early
> > Christianity including the battle between orthodoxy and
Gnosticism:
> >
> > Jesus Seminar Fellows:  Crossan, Borg, Funk
> > Bishop Spong's many books
> > Bart Erhman's books :  Lost Scriptures; Peter, Paul and Mary
> > Magdalene; and especially Misquoting Jesus - a very careful
> > discussion of textual criticism of the Bible.  It is eye-opening
> and
> > helps you understand how the Bible came to be what it is, what
> > the 'original' texts (we actually have no such things) say as
> > compared to the popular translations.  He also discusses the
> Gnostic
> > texts and decribes the battles between the leaders of the early
> > church.  Obviously, the orthodox group won out, which is why we
> have
> > the Bible as it is today.
> >
> > In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can say
I
> > have discovered:  Truth is a highly personal thing - even for
the
> > gnostic and orthodox writers  - and people have been battling
over
> > that for millennia!
> >
> > Barbara
> >
> > Here's a quote from the latter:
> >  In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From my reading, and I do admit it is not extensive in the
field
> > of
> > > Gnostic Literature, it is similar to other paths to
> enlightenment.
> > I
> > > am not seeing from reading Freke and Gandy that much of the
> > secrets
> > > were passed on to us, probably because they were transmitted
in
> > person
> > > by teacher to pupil but also because they were experienced as
> > direct
> > > experience of ones own volition through spirit. I believe this
> was
> > the
> > > only way to transmit this Knowing, through experience. I
> approach
> > the
> > > problem of how it was done with the wealth of knowledge we
have
> > > available to us through many paths leading to the same
> conclusion,
> > > Union with the Divine or Divine experience, the type of
> experience
> > > Barbara so beautifully describes. I have years of Buddhist and
> > Hindu
> > > study and a year of Toltec with Don Miguel. I also work with
> > Native
> > > American spirituality and am getting into Hemi Sync with the
> > Monroe
> > > Institute though CD's, they stimulate or access that part of
the
> > brain
> > > for this type of experience, it's awesome.
> > > The idea of forming a small circle where one can raise energy
> for
> > > healing and opening to spirit is a goal of mine, this was a
> common
> > way
> > > to transmit this Knowing according to above named authors. The
> > > experience of ceremony is powerful especially in circle and I
> will
> > > look into the Masonic rituals to learn more of the art of
> > initiation.
> > > Plato and is followers used play acting or drama to transport
> > > themselves from nonordinary reality. Much of what must be
> > accomplished
> > > for the realization of Gnosis is the dropping of the trappings
> of
> > ego,
> > > much of the studies I recommend teach just how to do this.
Then
> > there
> > > is the opening to receiving spirit. Rhythmic drumming, dance,
or
> > > awareness of the now in such acts as walking or other
movements
> > can
> > > trigger an ecstatic state. Psychedelic drugs can also trigger
> such
> > > states, such as peyote but should be used only with a trained
> > shaman,
> > > I would imagine. I am excited to explore which of the sacred
> texts
> > may
> > > enlighten me more as to just how the work was done from the
> > Gnostic
> > > point of view but from what I have read  it surely must of
been
> > more
> > > that just use of intellect.
> > >
> > > Yours in Spirit,
> > > Aleada Aine
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

"So you don't believe in the notion of the "Logos"? Does that mean
you don't think the Sophia ever "fell"?"

I do believe in Logos and I do believe in the myth of Sophia.  If
that were not true, we'd not be searching for meaning in life,
knowing that this physical world is not our true home.  The problem
is how to get back to paradise.  Another problem is that 90% or
greater of earth's population doesn't even question this human
dilemma.

I have often contemplated whether some of these 2000 year old
writings are descriptions of personal mystical experience, which
these individuals interpreted (rightly or wrongly, just as we do)
based upon their own personal experience in a world of Roman
occupation, Jewish law, poverty, etc.  One also has to think about
the fact that Jesus, if he was actually one person (as you point
out), and his initial followers may have been illiterate - and all
that is written is oral tradition changed a thousand times and
passed through several generations before it was written by persons
who never had 'gnosis'.  And it certainly was used by the Roman
empire for control of its population - it was then that it seemed to
take on more and more pagan/mystery religion ideas and ritual  - so
it was more easily incorporated into Roman society. And gnosis got
forgotten in the process .  Sophia seems forever doomed!

Although this type of forum is great to discuss ideas, it also is
difficult to get ideas across!

Thanks for your comments.

Barbara

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Barbara
>
> >>>I agree that it is facinating to try to understand what the
> Gnostics of old thought - but understanding at the same time, that
> this was not a homgeneous group, by any stretch.<<<
>
> Very true, and VERY good point. There are important differences we
> really need to try and keep in mind. However, there are also
things
> that tie these groups together. When I attempt to outline systems
of
> Gnosticism I try to do my best and say things like "this is a
> Sethian version" or "this is Valentinian" when they do differ. On
> the other hand, there are important things that draw these groups
> into a single category, and I think we should not foget that
either.
>
> >>>I do think it's very curious that there were so many different
> groups of Christian communities in the first few hundred years
with
> so many disparate views. There was much controversy.<<<
>
> I agree absolutely! In fact, it is the study of Gnosticism that
has
> really brought this realization to the academic community at
large.
> However, it doesn't only apply to Gnostic groups. There were many
> non-Gnostic Christian groups as well. I don't find it curious in
> that I don't think there was as much of a genuine "system" from
the
> very beginning. There is something called the "Eusebian Paradigm"
> that says there was one original church. Scholars today generally
> reject this "Eusebian Paradigm" because it just doesn't work with
> the historical info we have right now.
>
> >>>How could it be that Jesus left so many different impressions
> among his followers? Surely what he was teaching had a hidden
> meaning - some 'got it' or thought they did and others took his
> teachings literally, interpreting it as best they could... on and
on
> throughout the millennia.<<<
>
> Well, outside the question of whether Jesus ever actually
> historically existed, I think it actually makes sense. The info we
> have shows even the very first generation of Christians looking at
> this message in many different ways. This is common for purely
oral
> teaching.
>
> >>>My whole point is this - it can only be informed speculation on
> our part.<<<
>
> True. However, isn't informed speculation at least a little better
> than uninformed speculation? What I find so common today is that
> many people talking about "Gnosticism" do so in an uninformed way.
> It is not about whether I am right or wrong, I have learned from
> people less technically educated on the subject and I admit it up
> front. But, instead it is about whether somebody has simply really
> taken the time to stop and think about it critically rather than
> just trying to make the "Gnostics" fit thier own preconcieved idea.
>
> >>>>Somewhere else in this website, someone made the comment that
> personal experience is also necessary - not just special knoweldge
> or understanding.<<<
>
> I have made that point myself. HOWEVER, I have also found myself
> having to make the point that it is NOT JUST personal experience
> either. BOTH must be there. Failure on EITHER side is failure to
> gain Gnosis (at least according to the historical meaning we see
in
> the texts). There had been a common attempt today to
equate "Gnosis"
> with personal experience, and that simply is not what the word
meant
> in the Gnostic texts.
>
> >>>That is the point I am trying to make (although not clearly, as
> you point out). The only thing about which we can be sure is our
own
> personal experience. We can then interpret the books in that
> light.<<<
>
> So you don't believe in the notion of the "Logos"? Does that mean
> you don't think the Sophia ever "fell"?
>
> PMCV
>

Lady Cari,

Books Yum, where and what do you recomend concerning the Allogenes?
Aleada



reading the writings of the ancients,
_Allogenes_ for instance, that there are limits to understanding this
unrecognizable god. And, in _Allogenes_, this is learned from the
holy powers from the Barbelo aeon


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@> wrote:
> >
> > You've written previously:
> >
> > "secret teachings are the key to propper understanding through
> which salvation is attained"
> >
> > and from this I conclude that, in traditional gnosticism,
salvation
> is obtained through this 'proper understanding' which, presumably,
> is 'gnosis'.
> >
> >
> >
> > You now write:
> >
> > "Both Plato and the historical Gnostics agreed that there was a
> strong and important experience aspect, but also a strong and very
> important intellectual aspect to Gnosis. In other words, it isn't
one
> or the other, but must have both. It is a sort of epiphany
bringing
> the ends of various knowledges and experiences together into a
> comprehensive cognitive state. This cognitive state includes very
> specific training in, and understanding of, the Gnostic cosmic
> structure and lingo, initiatory experience, and knowledge of the
self
> and how one fits into the spiritual world."
> >
> >
> >
> > So gnosis, or 'proper understanding', is 'a comprehensive
cognitive
> state' with two major aspects:
> >
> > (1) experiential [a divine revelation, perhaps ?]
> >
> > and
> >
> > (2) intellectual
> >
> > and, if I understand you correctly, we must acquire both (1) and
> (2) for gnosis and salvation.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've always thought gnosis was obtained via spirituality so I
agree
> with your emphasis on 'knowledge of the self and how one fits into
> the spiritual world'. But other things concerning this
intellectual
> aspect that you've introduced puzzle me. Gnostic cosmic structure?
> Gnostic lingo? Initiatory experience? I don't follow the logic,
God's
> logic (since he, presumably, set up the system in the first
place),
> that requires us to receive 'specific training and understanding'
in
> these matters. Why would God consider such activities to be
important?
> >
> >
> >
> > How can, for example, 'very specific training in, and
understanding
> of, the Gnostic cosmic structure' help one towards salvation? I
> didn't think there was 'just one' gnostic cosmic structure, I
thought
> they were many. Since God is, ultimately, 'in charge' of salvation
> why should he be bothered about such things?
> >
> >
> >
> > William
> >
> >
>
>
> Hello, William.  If I may sneak in here a moment,... when you
> mention "God," are you referring to the ineffable Unknown beyond
> human conception?  If so, then we have no way of knowing whether
> this "god" even would "consider such activities" or "be bothered
> about such things" in an anthropomorphic way.  And salvific Gnosis
> doesn't mean total dissolution into the Unknown while in this
human
> state.  It seems to me from reading the writings of the ancients,
> _Allogenes_ for instance, that there are limits to understanding
this
> unrecognizable god.  And, in _Allogenes_, this is learned from the
> holy powers from the Barbelo aeon.  We can attain acquaintance, or
> Gnosis, to a point.  And we use our human faculties within a
worldly
> context for interpretation of the spiritual world and nurturing
the
> spiritual seed.  So, it might behoove us to understand the need
for
> specific training and understanding of this context.
>
> It seems that there are many modern people who can empathize with
the
> words of the ancient Gnostics.  So, maybe they were on to
something,
> even without all our modern technological and scientific knowledge.
>
> In order to understand the various Gnostic systems, it would
> logically follow that learning their lingo and cosmology would
help
> us to get a better idea of how they approached the process of
Gnosis,
> even if we don't have complete, firsthand knowledge of their
esoteric
> initiatory practices.
>
> Sophia's experience without the Logos resulted in her Fall.  It
also
> would logically make sense in our world to consider the
lopsidedness
> of relying solely on experience without critical evaluation and
vice
> versa in the process of attaining Gnosis.  For the ancients,
> understanding the mystical experience was the task of philosophy.
>
> Cari
>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> Lady Cari,
>
> Books Yum, where and what do you recomend concerning the Allogenes?
> Aleada
>


Hi, Aleada.  Like Thomas, I like Bentley Layton's translations.  You
can find _Allogenes_ (The Foreigner) in Layton's collection, _The
Gnostic Scriptures_, which Thomas and others recommended.  Other
collections that contain this work include James M. Robinson's
edition of _The Nag Hammadi Library_ and also _The Gnostic Bible_
edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.  These all include
informative introductions.

You can find the same translation as found in Robinson's edition of
_The Nag Hammadi Library_ online, here:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/allogene.html

Also, John D. Turner has an online link to a different translation of
_Allogenes_ on his homepage.

http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/John%20Turner%20-%
20HomePage.htm

Hope this helps.

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Also, John D. Turner has an online link to a different translation
of
> _Allogenes_ on his homepage.
>
> http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/John%20Turner%20-%
> 20HomePage.htm


Here's an easier link to John D. Turner's homepage:

http://tinyurl.com/lrko5

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Lady Cari,
> >
> > Books Yum, where and what do you recomend concerning the
Allogenes?
> > Aleada
> >
>
>
> Hi, Aleada.  Like Thomas, I like Bentley Layton's translations.
You
> can find _Allogenes_ (The Foreigner) in Layton's collection, _The
> Gnostic Scriptures_, which Thomas and others recommended.  Other
> collections that contain this work include James M. Robinson's
> edition of _The Nag Hammadi Library_ and also _The Gnostic Bible_
> edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.  These all include
> informative introductions.
>
> You can find the same translation as found in Robinson's edition of
> _The Nag Hammadi Library_ online, here:
> http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/allogene.html
>
> Also, John D. Turner has an online link to a different translation
of
> _Allogenes_ on his homepage.
>
> http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/John%20Turner%20-%
> 20HomePage.htm
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cari
>

Aleada, I almost forgot.  Karen L. King wrote an excellent book on
_Allogenes_ entitled _Revelation of the Unknowable God_.

Cari

Dear Barbara,
The way your last post was written, I got confused with reading it
and thought you thought Reiki was magic and therefore didn't like it.
My husband said this was not the case; you just had a issues with
what you consider magic.

> this energy as a way to feel personally empowered. I believe in
> humility and do not desire to 'show-off.' <

So do I, this is an important aspect of Spirituality; not to profit.
Why did you need to make this statement? Is this accusatory? Do you
assume because I want to work with a circle that I want to do it for
ego and material gain? Why don't you ask me some questions on my
motives for working in circle instead of making these blanket
statements? Considering your year long training with the Four
Agreements: { Don't make assumptions, ask questions}.

Buddha and Jesus had what may be considered challenging experiences,
encounters with the Devil or Demons. I know you know the beautiful
story of Jesus experience but I want to share with you a tidbit from
Buddha. Buddha encountered the Demons and after they tried to scare
him to no avail he invited them to have tea and conversation with
him. On one plane he encountered the Gods, he asked them the meaning
of life, they said they did not know but if he found out would he
please tell them.

Some TV evangelist I think have healing power, Ernest Anglesly I
think does heal. I don't have time to be judgmental about them
unless they attack me or my path, I am by the way a Witch.

I am hesitant to be around WACKOS as my children call them - people
> who can see auras, feel energy, use magic ... These gifts, in my
> opinion, should not be used for personal gain or power\, but
perhaps > that strong feeling is misplaced.<

Yes it seems that strong feeling against other people you may
consider different and labeling them as WACKO's may be misplaced and
perhaps if you ask spirit to open yourself to new experience while
keeping you safe you will be more open to nonjudgement and new
experiences and other people. I like Hemi Sync's energy balloon, it
may help me as I have actually encountered people consciously
sucking my energy when I have been in a high energy state. I have my
angel to call on to protect me, I know this works.

I guess I am a WACKO in your eyes, I do see energy while doing Chi
Kung and have seen aura before but this is when I was in a high
spiritual state. I hope to achieve this again and to maintain it and
make it grow and to teach others as I learn from others. I know
women who travel around the country and world seeking religious
experiences from famous gurus, this is all well and good, I guess.
As I do not have the money for this, it is not for me. I do know
spirit is in my heart and Soul so I do not need all this running
about. I am selective about what I study, Gnosis is one path I would
like to incorporate into my Spiritual path although it is in and of
it's self is incomplete as much has not been passed down but other
traditions can fill in as can direct experience with Spirit and with
Masters which as Medicine people. With some people I find nuggets
even though I do not agree with all, I find this with Don Miguel and
with Wayne Dyer, I do not agree with all but at times the nuggets
are there. If I do create a circle it will be a friendship and not
for personal material gain and I will help with healing not for pay
but I do understand some people need to charge and to be famous; who
am I to judge?

I have enough money and do not desire fame, ok I'd like my art to be
famous but it's not a big concern, I do it for love but like a
writer you like people to experience your stuff. I do not want to be
a Queen bee or anything of the sort. Reading on the Gnostics with
Freke and Gandy, in circle, roles were often done by drawing straws
so everyone would get a chance to play, at times to lead ect. I have
been involved in circles where there is always one head and it is
always done one way and this is not what I want. I want a circle of
equals with people sharing like minded each with their own gifts, I
want a family, people that truly love each other and are lke minded.
I'm not sure how to go about this but I pray on it. If I find a
circle already for me when I move like this and they invite my
husband and I in that would be nice to.

Why a circle aside from friendship or family, you might ask? When
you have a circle the power increases exponentially. I have felt
this in circle with Unity and at other circles. I know energy
healers that use circles this way to heal each other after working
with the sick to get back what may have been drained.

We are all connected, we are all within the energy of Great Spirit,
nothing is outside, we can tap into this.

Like the Matrix movie, this Earth plane can be considered an
illusion; I would rather think of it as an energy field on a certain
level, one we can learn to transcend. Some Gnostic writers say this
was not Sophia's fault so to speak but a Divine plan set up to help
the Children grow. I did a Hindu energy healing called Deeksha this
spring held at Unity church. The leader said that all your suffering
and pain are not your fault, this Universe is a very ancient being
that we incarnate to become part of this is all, a very ancient
being, when we come here we are taught a false program to are true
nature.

I for one love this Beautiful Earth and her children. I have a
Mothers Heart and this is a good thing, I do not turn my back on
this life at all. I love her beauty, I have always loved her Nature.
We are a very powerful part of this being and we can elevate her and
all her children by our Spiritual work and in doing so free
ourselves, it's not about running away, it's about bravely facing
ourselves in all our Glorious Manifestations.

Peace Be With You,
Aleada Aine

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@...>
wrote:
>
> Aleada Aine
>
> "I don't understand your statement about magic and not
> > wanting to use it for healing?"
>
> Reiki is an energy that is very powerful - some of those I know
use
> this energy as a way to feel personally empowered.  I believe in
> humility and do not desire to 'show-off.'  I sometimes lay my
hands
> on people who will allow it, without their knowledge of using
Reiki.
> I might say "You look like you're in pain.  Do you have a
> headache?"  They will tell me so and I would speak softly to them,
> lay on my hands etc....."  This seems to work well.  It works
> espeically well within my own family and circle of friends.
>
> I worked with the Monroe Tapes at least 5 years, off and on,
> whenever I had time.  (Which was hard at the time with all 4 girls
> still being at home and having 3 Girl Scout Troops)  Carlos
> Casteneda, Ruiz as well as Monroe frightened me with their
> descriptions of negative beings outside of this realm.  There was
no
> indication of that type of thing in my mystical experience - so I
> concluded that those paths are not for me - although there are
some
> valuable lessons to be learned in each of these systems.  There's
> quite a lot of negativity with the Flower of Life system too, for
> that matter.
> The Monroe books I read are: Journeys Out of the body, Far
Journeys
> and Ultimate Journey.  Never in my experiences with Monroe Hemi-
Sync
> did I encounter negative beings - but, each time I found myself
> outside the body (and sometimes I only got partially out - which
is
> a very strange sensation!) I had an almost immediate panic which
> instantly brought me back into physical awareness. This is
probably
> related to my comments earlier -and it is likely that my fear is
> what prevented me from being able to stay out of body! I did find,
> however, that the tapes were terrific for relaxation!  Good luck
> with your experimentation.
>
> I am hesitant to be around WACKOS as my children call them -
people
> who can see auras, feel energy, use magic ...  These gifts, in my
> opinion, should not be used for personal gain or power\, but
perhaps
> that strong feeling is misplaced.
>
> There is certainly a great deal of magic in the early history of
> Christianity (Simon Magnus competing with Peter in flying around
> Rome and doing all kinds of other magic...)  To me it reminds me
of
> some of the charlatan evangelists on TV today.  It's not what
gnosis
> should be about, in my opinion.
>
> Barbara
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Barbara,
> >
> > What would you recommend as far as Monroe's books? How long did
> you
> > work with the Hemi sync?
> >
> > I didn't like Carlos Castaneda too much, my husband was drawn to
> it
> > as to the adventure in it but also found his views depressing
when
> I
> > discussed it with him and he reviewed it. I got on a web site
for
> > people discussing Castaneda and wow were those people anxious,
> they
> > were so worried about not being a Nagual or whatever it takes
for
> > them to live after death and one wrote to me about how he
thought
> it
> > was ok to suck energy from other people like they were cattle.
It
> > was creepy. I also found a site about how much of a liar
Castaneda
> > was. When pursuing spiritual matters it seems what you put it
you
> > get out and perhaps he saw what he would see at that level.
> >
> > I don't discuss my personal experiences much as they are
personal
> > and I don't want things to be about competition or what ever, if
> > there is a need I will but not for now.
> >
> > Don Miguel, yep studied a year with one of his apprentices. I
> > thought she and he lacked compassion and were too much about the
> > money. I did find some of his exercises very good for quieting
the
> > mind of chatter. I have mixed feeling about him and it. One
thing
> is
> > his idea of dropping our story when he claims to be smoking
> mirror,
> > now what a big story is he!
> >
> > As far as forgiveness, it's sort of like non judgment and living
> in
> > the present, this also quiets the mind, not having to plan or
> > running a program about the past. Meditation helps as thoughts
> flow
> > though you and you don't attach importance or meaning to them.
> > Sometimes the realization that you can't make a bear into a dove
> and
> > it is not up to you anyway is a good approach to people, just
> allow
> > and most of all allow yourself to be human.
> >
> > I'm a big believer in Compassion, what you give is what you get
> and
> > I'm compassionate to the suffering of humanity and the world
Gaia
> > with all her children, it is a motivator in me.
> >
> > I also am Rekei 2, my husband has great healing hands and has
> helped
> > me and others. I don't understand your statement about magic and
> not
> > wanting to use it for healing? Jesus used healing in his
ministry
> as
> > did his followers, I think it's wonderful. But I also think at
> times
> > the greatest love is to detach and not be a sap, though love.
> >
> > love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> > Yes I think so too, those are the highest vibrations and letting
> go
> > of ego this helps clear the way. Your experience you told us
about
> > is one of enlightenment, I have a series of drawings from China
> that
> > shows a farmer leading his ox, he enters the state of
> enlightenment
> > which is symbolized by a circle then there is the farmer again
> > walking down the road with the ox the same but also changed.
From
> > what I have read of Gnosis you enter this state then you
continue
> on
> > your path, it is never the same but ever onward.
> >
> > love/peace/forgiveness//compassion I have been told by a
powerful
> > Native American medicine woman that without this there is really
> no
> > power, people think they have power but they really do not.
> >
> > I know that Gnosis is about enlightenment, the intellect is part
> of
> > the path of growth; the ever onward part but Divine Union is
> Gnosis,
> > it is enlightenment.
> >
> > I would like to grow in spirit and share this Peace with others
> like
> > the Gnostics of old did. They formed small circles to share
their
> > teaching and taught others so the Holy Spirit would grow. This
is
> > what is needed in the world today, a true healing and love of
one
> > another.
> >
> > Concerning Jesus's  suffering/sacrifice; sometimes a person
comes
> to
> > a crossroad where he is tested, sometimes that test may even be
> > death, it is about trust and bravery, it's not such as bad
message
> > when we see a person willing to sacrifice themself for another,
> what
> > a wonderful act of :love/peace/forgiveness//compassion!
> >
> > May the Spirit be with you,
> > Aleada Aine
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems, Aleada Aine, that our paths have sometimes taken us
to
> > the
> > > same places!  I have also studied with one of Don Miquel's
> > > apprentices, and even tried to start my own Four Agreements
> group
> > > (unsuccessfully).  Some of his teachings are a bit fearful -
> which
> > I
> > > try to avoid - as this is totally opposite from my personal
> > > experience with the divine.  However, I believe his teachings
> are
> > > very valuable to begin the forgiveness path, which, in my
> opinion,
> > > is what Jesus taught, and what is essential
> to 'salvation'/gnosis.
> > >
> > > I have also used the Monroe Institute Hemi-Sync tapes (for 5
> > years)
> > > with limited success.  When a friend of mine listened to my
> > > description of my ecstatic experience, he immediately
recognized
> > the
> > > similarity to 'going out of body' that Monroe describes in his
> > > books.  The vibrations were similar, the descriptions of
getting
> > > back into the body were nearly exact. I read 2 (maybe 3?) of
his
> > > books, and although the vibration experience was very similar,
> my
> > > original ecstatic experience was quite different from that
> > realized
> > > by using the hemi-sync tapes.  I have only once reached that
> > > ecstatic state. However, I was able to reach some very
profound
> > > states of meditation and a few brief out of body trips through
> > Hemi-
> > > Sync. Fear always seemed to bring me back into the body in a
> short
> > > time!
> > >
> > > Through the first few years after my original spontaneous,
> prayer
> > > induced ecstatic state, I was often awakened in the night with
> > > vibrations that took over my entire body.  These were un-
nerving
> > at
> > > first and occasionally resulted in brief out of body travels -
> but
> > > none quite as extentive as those described by Monroe in his
> > books.
> > > Frankly, some of his descriptions were a bit frightening, and
I
> > > decided that was not the path for me as my experience was not
at
> > all
> > > fearful - quite the opposite.  I did not wish to traverse the
> > > negative underworld.  So I turned to more uplifting methods.
> > >
> > > I dabbled in Reiki - am Reiki II trained - and will say that
> this
> > > was a positive experience as the energies with these methods
> were
> > > loving and healing.  However, I do not wish to pursue 'magic'
> and
> > > came across many who were enamored with that aspect of the
Reiki
> > > energy, so I have not pursued it.  I will say, however, that I
> > > employed a Reiki Master (long distance) to help clear my
oldest
> > > daughter of the negative energy that kept her in that dark
> > tunnel.
> > > This woman was able (by phone contact and through meditations
> that
> > > she taught my daughter and me to use) to help my daughter
> > understand
> > > why she was in the debilitated state and gave her clearing
> > practices
> > > to assist her on the path to wellness.  Did these work?  All I
> can
> > > say is, these prayer / energy rituals helped us both have
faith
> > that
> > > she would find her way back to health.  And she did - but, as
I
> > said
> > > before, it was gradual and took several years.  Wellness is a
> > state
> > > of mind that takes constant practice!
> > >
> > > During that time I also studied the Flower of Life Workshops -
> > > learned how to form the merkaba - this was also a very
positive
> > > energy producing ritual.  I found this a good way to clear
> > negative
> > > thoughts and begin a meditation.
> > >
> > > I have also persued other Native American rituals and own a
> > Tibetan
> > > brass bowl and a more modern crystal bowl to produce wonderful
> > > sounds that aid in relaxation and meditation.
> > >
> > > I grew up in the 60's and 70's, was part of the original
> > hippie/pot
> > > generation, although I may be one of the few who never
partook -
> > > HONESTLY!!!  Almost everyone I knew did - including my husband
> of
> > 32
> > > years.  It may be that an ecstatic state can be reached
through
> > > drugs, but from what I have read (Carlos Casteneda), many of
> these
> > > journey's can also be frightening and dangerous.  Again, I had
> no
> > > such experience with my ecstatic state - it was pure
> > > love/peace/joy.  No negativity at all, so I choose to not go
on
> > that
> > > path.
> > >
> > > Another helpful meditation/wellness path can be found in Peter
> > > Kelder's "Fountain of Youth" book.  These are a series of
> Tibetan
> > > exercises for health and wellness that he swears keeps a
person
> > > young - they are easy, yet invigorating and I would highly
> > recommend
> > > them for any age.
> > >
> > > Eventually I gave up on reproducing that ecstatic state,
> believing
> > > that it was a one time experience meant to allow me to realize
> > that
> > > God does exist, that the path is
> > love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> > > and that to pursue that state constantly would be counter-
> > > productive.  I can see how drug addicts become addicts! I
wanted
> > so
> > > much to experience that agin, it could have consumed me and my
> > > life.  Instead, I have concentrated on the message I learned
> from
> > it.
> > >
> > > I guess I realized that being in body has its purpose, and to
> > > constantly seek out of body experiences would prevent me from
> > > spreading comfort to my family and others.  Besides, I had a
> house
> > > to keep clean, 4 daughters to run around, volunteer work to
do,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > I continue to read and puzzle over the Jesus phenonmenon - I
do
> > > believe he taught the path of love and forgiveness, but that
> > message
> > > got diverted to suffering/sacrifice unfortunately.
> > >
> > > For those interested, I recommend some of the following
> authors /
> > > books that can help you understand the beginnings of early
> > > Christianity including the battle between orthodoxy and
> Gnosticism:
> > >
> > > Jesus Seminar Fellows:  Crossan, Borg, Funk
> > > Bishop Spong's many books
> > > Bart Erhman's books :  Lost Scriptures; Peter, Paul and Mary
> > > Magdalene; and especially Misquoting Jesus - a very careful
> > > discussion of textual criticism of the Bible.  It is eye-
opening
> > and
> > > helps you understand how the Bible came to be what it is, what
> > > the 'original' texts (we actually have no such things) say as
> > > compared to the popular translations.  He also discusses the
> > Gnostic
> > > texts and decribes the battles between the leaders of the
early
> > > church.  Obviously, the orthodox group won out, which is why
we
> > have
> > > the Bible as it is today.
> > >
> > > In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can
say
> I
> > > have discovered:  Truth is a highly personal thing - even for
> the
> > > gnostic and orthodox writers  - and people have been battling
> over
> > > that for millennia!
> > >
> > > Barbara
> > >
> > > Here's a quote from the latter:
> > >  In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
<no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From my reading, and I do admit it is not extensive in the
> field
> > > of
> > > > Gnostic Literature, it is similar to other paths to
> > enlightenment.
> > > I
> > > > am not seeing from reading Freke and Gandy that much of the
> > > secrets
> > > > were passed on to us, probably because they were transmitted
> in
> > > person
> > > > by teacher to pupil but also because they were experienced
as
> > > direct
> > > > experience of ones own volition through spirit. I believe
this
> > was
> > > the
> > > > only way to transmit this Knowing, through experience. I
> > approach
> > > the
> > > > problem of how it was done with the wealth of knowledge we
> have
> > > > available to us through many paths leading to the same
> > conclusion,
> > > > Union with the Divine or Divine experience, the type of
> > experience
> > > > Barbara so beautifully describes. I have years of Buddhist
and
> > > Hindu
> > > > study and a year of Toltec with Don Miguel. I also work with
> > > Native
> > > > American spirituality and am getting into Hemi Sync with the
> > > Monroe
> > > > Institute though CD's, they stimulate or access that part of
> the
> > > brain
> > > > for this type of experience, it's awesome.
> > > > The idea of forming a small circle where one can raise
energy
> > for
> > > > healing and opening to spirit is a goal of mine, this was a
> > common
> > > way
> > > > to transmit this Knowing according to above named authors.
The
> > > > experience of ceremony is powerful especially in circle and
I
> > will
> > > > look into the Masonic rituals to learn more of the art of
> > > initiation.
> > > > Plato and is followers used play acting or drama to
transport
> > > > themselves from nonordinary reality. Much of what must be
> > > accomplished
> > > > for the realization of Gnosis is the dropping of the
trappings
> > of
> > > ego,
> > > > much of the studies I recommend teach just how to do this.
> Then
> > > there
> > > > is the opening to receiving spirit. Rhythmic drumming,
dance,
> or
> > > > awareness of the now in such acts as walking or other
> movements
> > > can
> > > > trigger an ecstatic state. Psychedelic drugs can also
trigger
> > such
> > > > states, such as peyote but should be used only with a
trained
> > > shaman,
> > > > I would imagine. I am excited to explore which of the sacred
> > texts
> > > may
> > > > enlighten me more as to just how the work was done from the
> > > Gnostic
> > > > point of view but from what I have read  it surely must of
> been
> > > more
> > > > that just use of intellect.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in Spirit,
> > > > Aleada Aine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willpenrhiw@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

bkimbell98 wrote:
> "So you don't believe in the notion of the "Logos"? Does that mean
> you don't think the Sophia ever "fell"?"
>
> I do believe in Logos and I do believe in the myth of Sophia.  If
> that were not true, we'd not be searching for meaning in life,
> knowing that this physical world is not our true home.  The problem
> is how to get back to paradise.  Another problem is that 90% or
> greater of earth's population doesn't even question this human
> dilemma.
>
> I have often contemplated whether some of these 2000 year old
> writings are descriptions of personal mystical experience, which
> these individuals interpreted (rightly or wrongly, just as we do)
> based upon their own personal experience in a world of Roman
> occupation, Jewish law, poverty, etc.  One also has to think about
> the fact that Jesus, if he was actually one person (as you point
> out), and his initial followers may have been illiterate - and all
> that is written is oral tradition changed a thousand times and
> passed through several generations before it was written by persons
> who never had 'gnosis'.  And it certainly was used by the Roman
> empire for control of its population - it was then that it seemed to
> take on more and more pagan/mystery religion ideas and ritual  - so
> it was more easily incorporated into Roman society. And gnosis got
> forgotten in the process .  Sophia seems forever doomed!
>
> Although this type of forum is great to discuss ideas, it also is
> difficult to get ideas across!
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Barbara
>
>
Clear as a bell.

--
Mike Leavitt

Hey Barbara

>>>I do believe in Logos and I do believe in the myth of Sophia. If
that were not true, we'd not be searching for meaning in life,
knowing that this physical world is not our true home. The problem
is how to get back to paradise. Another problem is that 90% or
greater of earth's population doesn't even question this human
dilemma.<<<<

I think you are right. However, I would also point out that without
the ability to state the possibility that something is "wrong" we
throw out the allegorical function of the Logos. This is why I
thought perhaps you were against the notion. Gnostics never cared
about "paradise", it was not the point of their notions of
salvation. That is an idea connected to the religion of the very
same common folk you just mentioned in a negative way.

>>>>I have often contemplated whether some of these 2000 year old
writings are descriptions of personal mystical experience, which
these individuals interpreted (rightly or wrongly, just as we do)
based upon their own personal experience in a world of Roman
occupation, Jewish law, poverty, etc.<<<

I really like the fact that you point out the interpative aspect of
the mystical expeirence. Many people today deny such a thing exists
while presenting the opposite view that everything is about personal
experience. Whether or not I feel you have presented an over all
consistant point, I have to give you kudos for doing so in this
particular area. If everything is personal interpretation, then so
too must be the mystical experience.

However, in the end we have to remember that whether or not WE feel
this way, the Gnostics of old did not. The function of the Logos in
the liturature is pretty clearly presented as an external and
objective force.

The notion of objective and empirical truth vs falsehood is so
deeply core to historical Gnosticism, that it is possible to
genuinely say that modern relativism is anti-Gnostic on this front.
To say that there can be no wrong, is to say that one does not agree
with the myth of the Logos and the fall of Sophia. Now I am not
saying THAT is right or wrong, just that it is a disagreement with
the historical Gnostics.

>>>One also has to think about the fact that Jesus, if he was
actually one person (as you point out), and his initial followers
may have been illiterate - and all that is written is oral tradition
changed a thousand times and passed through several generations
before it was written by persons who never had 'gnosis'. And it
certainly was used by the Roman empire for control of its
population - it was then that it seemed to take on more and more
pagan/mystery religion ideas and ritual - so it was more easily
incorporated into Roman society. And gnosis got forgotten in the
process . Sophia seems forever doomed!<<<

If we can't say something is right or wrong, we can't say if anyone
genuinely had "Gnosis". I absolutely think the point
that "Christian" beliefs became a tool for political aims is an
historical fact, but I have to disagree that this is when "Pagan"
(and I hate the word because it is already creating historical
confusion) Mystery elements came into play. In fact, I can
historically demonstrate otherwise if you are interested in the
subject. Texts like Thomas demonstrate Mystery elements, Paul has
Mystery elements, and if we accept Secret Mark then even the oldest
existing Gospel has mystery elements.  Jewish sources contemporary
with Jesus demonstrate a Mystery element being introduced into
Judism in opposition to Roman occupation. There is some reason to
argue that perhaps from the very beginning, with Jesus himself (and
even before Jesus, with John) there were some Mystery elements. I
think it is important to consider that this may not have been a
later addition.

I would also say that it is not Sophia that has been left behind in
recent thinking, but the Logos. Sure, the name of the Logos has been
used more often, but the allegorical function of the Logos is far
more lost.

>>>Although this type of forum is great to discuss ideas, it also is
difficult to get ideas across!<<<<

Very true. However, anyone who is going to be part of a group
dealing with Gnosticism, whether from an academic perspective or
from an emic perspective, should be willing to put in the work...
don't you think?

PMCV

--Aleada Aine,

Sorry if you thought I was accusing or attacking or assuming
anything about you - not the case.  I do not judge anyone here - nor
even those who charge for 'magic' - I've paid a few in my time!!!  I
just don't desire to do that myself - it may be because of feelings
of unworth, or it may be fear of failing or whatever - it just
doesn't feel right to me.  So I choose not to do it and really don't
care why I feel this way - it's just the way it is.

This misunderstanding is exactly why I don't like these kinds of
posts - one can never really tell what a person is saying because
you cannot see their face - looking at a person and feeling their
energy is a way to communicate that words on a page cannot convey.

I have a sister in law that travels the world doing Reiki and all
kinds of other magic - Tarot and whatever.  She has followed many
gurus - all of them eventually telling her she sufferes from
narcissism. She's a bit full of herself. Guess my reaction is based
on my experience with her.  Before she got into metaphysical things
she was on the stage - so she's used to being the center of
attention.  Actually, my children are into theater, music and
performing too, so this is not foreign to this house.  And this may
be why they find their aunt very amusing, and cannot take her
seriously at all.

It may also be amusing to you to know that my children call me and
my spiritual friends WACKOS too - I did not mean that as an insult -
again, you cannot see me smiling and laughing at myself as I write
these things.  I do not take myself seriously (a Ruiz thing) and
normally do not take anything in life seriously - I have weathered 3
teenage girls and am working my way through a fourth teenage
daughter - so I have been tested repeatedly.  I do admit, they all
know just how to push my buttons, though.

Sorry for the misunderstanding,
Barbara




- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Barbara,
> The way your last post was written, I got confused with reading it
> and thought you thought Reiki was magic and therefore didn't like
it.
> My husband said this was not the case; you just had a issues with
> what you consider magic.
>
> > this energy as a way to feel personally empowered. I believe in
> > humility and do not desire to 'show-off.' <
>
> So do I, this is an important aspect of Spirituality; not to
profit.
> Why did you need to make this statement? Is this accusatory? Do
you
> assume because I want to work with a circle that I want to do it
for
> ego and material gain? Why don't you ask me some questions on my
> motives for working in circle instead of making these blanket
> statements? Considering your year long training with the Four
> Agreements: { Don't make assumptions, ask questions}.
>
> Buddha and Jesus had what may be considered challenging
experiences,
> encounters with the Devil or Demons. I know you know the beautiful
> story of Jesus experience but I want to share with you a tidbit
from
> Buddha. Buddha encountered the Demons and after they tried to
scare
> him to no avail he invited them to have tea and conversation with
> him. On one plane he encountered the Gods, he asked them the
meaning
> of life, they said they did not know but if he found out would he
> please tell them.
>
> Some TV evangelist I think have healing power, Ernest Anglesly I
> think does heal. I don't have time to be judgmental about them
> unless they attack me or my path, I am by the way a Witch.
>
> I am hesitant to be around WACKOS as my children call them -
people
> > who can see auras, feel energy, use magic ... These gifts, in my
> > opinion, should not be used for personal gain or power\, but
> perhaps > that strong feeling is misplaced.<
>
> Yes it seems that strong feeling against other people you may
> consider different and labeling them as WACKO's may be misplaced
and
> perhaps if you ask spirit to open yourself to new experience while
> keeping you safe you will be more open to nonjudgement and new
> experiences and other people. I like Hemi Sync's energy balloon,
it
> may help me as I have actually encountered people consciously
> sucking my energy when I have been in a high energy state. I have
my
> angel to call on to protect me, I know this works.
>
> I guess I am a WACKO in your eyes, I do see energy while doing Chi
> Kung and have seen aura before but this is when I was in a high
> spiritual state. I hope to achieve this again and to maintain it
and
> make it grow and to teach others as I learn from others. I know
> women who travel around the country and world seeking religious
> experiences from famous gurus, this is all well and good, I guess.
> As I do not have the money for this, it is not for me. I do know
> spirit is in my heart and Soul so I do not need all this running
> about. I am selective about what I study, Gnosis is one path I
would
> like to incorporate into my Spiritual path although it is in and
of
> it's self is incomplete as much has not been passed down but other
> traditions can fill in as can direct experience with Spirit and
with
> Masters which as Medicine people. With some people I find nuggets
> even though I do not agree with all, I find this with Don Miguel
and
> with Wayne Dyer, I do not agree with all but at times the nuggets
> are there. If I do create a circle it will be a friendship and not
> for personal material gain and I will help with healing not for
pay
> but I do understand some people need to charge and to be famous;
who
> am I to judge?
>
> I have enough money and do not desire fame, ok I'd like my art to
be
> famous but it's not a big concern, I do it for love but like a
> writer you like people to experience your stuff. I do not want to
be
> a Queen bee or anything of the sort. Reading on the Gnostics with
> Freke and Gandy, in circle, roles were often done by drawing
straws
> so everyone would get a chance to play, at times to lead ect. I
have
> been involved in circles where there is always one head and it is
> always done one way and this is not what I want. I want a circle
of
> equals with people sharing like minded each with their own gifts,
I
> want a family, people that truly love each other and are lke
minded.
> I'm not sure how to go about this but I pray on it. If I find a
> circle already for me when I move like this and they invite my
> husband and I in that would be nice to.
>
> Why a circle aside from friendship or family, you might ask? When
> you have a circle the power increases exponentially. I have felt
> this in circle with Unity and at other circles. I know energy
> healers that use circles this way to heal each other after working
> with the sick to get back what may have been drained.
>
> We are all connected, we are all within the energy of Great
Spirit,
> nothing is outside, we can tap into this.
>
> Like the Matrix movie, this Earth plane can be considered an
> illusion; I would rather think of it as an energy field on a
certain
> level, one we can learn to transcend. Some Gnostic writers say
this
> was not Sophia's fault so to speak but a Divine plan set up to
help
> the Children grow. I did a Hindu energy healing called Deeksha
this
> spring held at Unity church. The leader said that all your
suffering
> and pain are not your fault, this Universe is a very ancient being
> that we incarnate to become part of this is all, a very ancient
> being, when we come here we are taught a false program to are true
> nature.
>
> I for one love this Beautiful Earth and her children. I have a
> Mothers Heart and this is a good thing, I do not turn my back on
> this life at all. I love her beauty, I have always loved her
Nature.
> We are a very powerful part of this being and we can elevate her
and
> all her children by our Spiritual work and in doing so free
> ourselves, it's not about running away, it's about bravely facing
> ourselves in all our Glorious Manifestations.
>
> Peace Be With You,
> Aleada Aine
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Aleada Aine
> >
> > "I don't understand your statement about magic and not
> > > wanting to use it for healing?"
> >
> > Reiki is an energy that is very powerful - some of those I know
> use
> > this energy as a way to feel personally empowered.  I believe in
> > humility and do not desire to 'show-off.'  I sometimes lay my
> hands
> > on people who will allow it, without their knowledge of using
> Reiki.
> > I might say "You look like you're in pain.  Do you have a
> > headache?"  They will tell me so and I would speak softly to
them,
> > lay on my hands etc....."  This seems to work well.  It works
> > espeically well within my own family and circle of friends.
> >
> > I worked with the Monroe Tapes at least 5 years, off and on,
> > whenever I had time.  (Which was hard at the time with all 4
girls
> > still being at home and having 3 Girl Scout Troops)  Carlos
> > Casteneda, Ruiz as well as Monroe frightened me with their
> > descriptions of negative beings outside of this realm.  There
was
> no
> > indication of that type of thing in my mystical experience - so
I
> > concluded that those paths are not for me - although there are
> some
> > valuable lessons to be learned in each of these systems.
There's
> > quite a lot of negativity with the Flower of Life system too,
for
> > that matter.
> > The Monroe books I read are: Journeys Out of the body, Far
> Journeys
> > and Ultimate Journey.  Never in my experiences with Monroe Hemi-
> Sync
> > did I encounter negative beings - but, each time I found myself
> > outside the body (and sometimes I only got partially out - which
> is
> > a very strange sensation!) I had an almost immediate panic which
> > instantly brought me back into physical awareness. This is
> probably
> > related to my comments earlier -and it is likely that my fear is
> > what prevented me from being able to stay out of body! I did
find,
> > however, that the tapes were terrific for relaxation!  Good luck
> > with your experimentation.
> >
> > I am hesitant to be around WACKOS as my children call them -
> people
> > who can see auras, feel energy, use magic ...  These gifts, in
my
> > opinion, should not be used for personal gain or power\, but
> perhaps
> > that strong feeling is misplaced.
> >
> > There is certainly a great deal of magic in the early history of
> > Christianity (Simon Magnus competing with Peter in flying around
> > Rome and doing all kinds of other magic...)  To me it reminds me
> of
> > some of the charlatan evangelists on TV today.  It's not what
> gnosis
> > should be about, in my opinion.
> >
> > Barbara
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Barbara,
> > >
> > > What would you recommend as far as Monroe's books? How long
did
> > you
> > > work with the Hemi sync?
> > >
> > > I didn't like Carlos Castaneda too much, my husband was drawn
to
> > it
> > > as to the adventure in it but also found his views depressing
> when
> > I
> > > discussed it with him and he reviewed it. I got on a web site
> for
> > > people discussing Castaneda and wow were those people anxious,
> > they
> > > were so worried about not being a Nagual or whatever it takes
> for
> > > them to live after death and one wrote to me about how he
> thought
> > it
> > > was ok to suck energy from other people like they were cattle.
> It
> > > was creepy. I also found a site about how much of a liar
> Castaneda
> > > was. When pursuing spiritual matters it seems what you put it
> you
> > > get out and perhaps he saw what he would see at that level.
> > >
> > > I don't discuss my personal experiences much as they are
> personal
> > > and I don't want things to be about competition or what ever,
if
> > > there is a need I will but not for now.
> > >
> > > Don Miguel, yep studied a year with one of his apprentices. I
> > > thought she and he lacked compassion and were too much about
the
> > > money. I did find some of his exercises very good for quieting
> the
> > > mind of chatter. I have mixed feeling about him and it. One
> thing
> > is
> > > his idea of dropping our story when he claims to be smoking
> > mirror,
> > > now what a big story is he!
> > >
> > > As far as forgiveness, it's sort of like non judgment and
living
> > in
> > > the present, this also quiets the mind, not having to plan or
> > > running a program about the past. Meditation helps as thoughts
> > flow
> > > though you and you don't attach importance or meaning to them.
> > > Sometimes the realization that you can't make a bear into a
dove
> > and
> > > it is not up to you anyway is a good approach to people, just
> > allow
> > > and most of all allow yourself to be human.
> > >
> > > I'm a big believer in Compassion, what you give is what you
get
> > and
> > > I'm compassionate to the suffering of humanity and the world
> Gaia
> > > with all her children, it is a motivator in me.
> > >
> > > I also am Rekei 2, my husband has great healing hands and has
> > helped
> > > me and others. I don't understand your statement about magic
and
> > not
> > > wanting to use it for healing? Jesus used healing in his
> ministry
> > as
> > > did his followers, I think it's wonderful. But I also think at
> > times
> > > the greatest love is to detach and not be a sap, though love.
> > >
> > > love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> > > Yes I think so too, those are the highest vibrations and
letting
> > go
> > > of ego this helps clear the way. Your experience you told us
> about
> > > is one of enlightenment, I have a series of drawings from
China
> > that
> > > shows a farmer leading his ox, he enters the state of
> > enlightenment
> > > which is symbolized by a circle then there is the farmer again
> > > walking down the road with the ox the same but also changed.
> From
> > > what I have read of Gnosis you enter this state then you
> continue
> > on
> > > your path, it is never the same but ever onward.
> > >
> > > love/peace/forgiveness//compassion I have been told by a
> powerful
> > > Native American medicine woman that without this there is
really
> > no
> > > power, people think they have power but they really do not.
> > >
> > > I know that Gnosis is about enlightenment, the intellect is
part
> > of
> > > the path of growth; the ever onward part but Divine Union is
> > Gnosis,
> > > it is enlightenment.
> > >
> > > I would like to grow in spirit and share this Peace with
others
> > like
> > > the Gnostics of old did. They formed small circles to share
> their
> > > teaching and taught others so the Holy Spirit would grow. This
> is
> > > what is needed in the world today, a true healing and love of
> one
> > > another.
> > >
> > > Concerning Jesus's  suffering/sacrifice; sometimes a person
> comes
> > to
> > > a crossroad where he is tested, sometimes that test may even
be
> > > death, it is about trust and bravery, it's not such as bad
> message
> > > when we see a person willing to sacrifice themself for
another,
> > what
> > > a wonderful act of :love/peace/forgiveness//compassion!
> > >
> > > May the Spirit be with you,
> > > Aleada Aine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "bkimbell98" <bkimbell98@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It seems, Aleada Aine, that our paths have sometimes taken
us
> to
> > > the
> > > > same places!  I have also studied with one of Don Miquel's
> > > > apprentices, and even tried to start my own Four Agreements
> > group
> > > > (unsuccessfully).  Some of his teachings are a bit fearful -
> > which
> > > I
> > > > try to avoid - as this is totally opposite from my personal
> > > > experience with the divine.  However, I believe his
teachings
> > are
> > > > very valuable to begin the forgiveness path, which, in my
> > opinion,
> > > > is what Jesus taught, and what is essential
> > to 'salvation'/gnosis.
> > > >
> > > > I have also used the Monroe Institute Hemi-Sync tapes (for 5
> > > years)
> > > > with limited success.  When a friend of mine listened to my
> > > > description of my ecstatic experience, he immediately
> recognized
> > > the
> > > > similarity to 'going out of body' that Monroe describes in
his
> > > > books.  The vibrations were similar, the descriptions of
> getting
> > > > back into the body were nearly exact. I read 2 (maybe 3?) of
> his
> > > > books, and although the vibration experience was very
similar,
> > my
> > > > original ecstatic experience was quite different from that
> > > realized
> > > > by using the hemi-sync tapes.  I have only once reached that
> > > > ecstatic state. However, I was able to reach some very
> profound
> > > > states of meditation and a few brief out of body trips
through
> > > Hemi-
> > > > Sync. Fear always seemed to bring me back into the body in a
> > short
> > > > time!
> > > >
> > > > Through the first few years after my original spontaneous,
> > prayer
> > > > induced ecstatic state, I was often awakened in the night
with
> > > > vibrations that took over my entire body.  These were un-
> nerving
> > > at
> > > > first and occasionally resulted in brief out of body
travels -
> > but
> > > > none quite as extentive as those described by Monroe in his
> > > books.
> > > > Frankly, some of his descriptions were a bit frightening,
and
> I
> > > > decided that was not the path for me as my experience was
not
> at
> > > all
> > > > fearful - quite the opposite.  I did not wish to traverse
the
> > > > negative underworld.  So I turned to more uplifting methods.
> > > >
> > > > I dabbled in Reiki - am Reiki II trained - and will say that
> > this
> > > > was a positive experience as the energies with these methods
> > were
> > > > loving and healing.  However, I do not wish to
pursue 'magic'
> > and
> > > > came across many who were enamored with that aspect of the
> Reiki
> > > > energy, so I have not pursued it.  I will say, however, that
I
> > > > employed a Reiki Master (long distance) to help clear my
> oldest
> > > > daughter of the negative energy that kept her in that dark
> > > tunnel.
> > > > This woman was able (by phone contact and through
meditations
> > that
> > > > she taught my daughter and me to use) to help my daughter
> > > understand
> > > > why she was in the debilitated state and gave her clearing
> > > practices
> > > > to assist her on the path to wellness.  Did these work?  All
I
> > can
> > > > say is, these prayer / energy rituals helped us both have
> faith
> > > that
> > > > she would find her way back to health.  And she did - but,
as
> I
> > > said
> > > > before, it was gradual and took several years.  Wellness is
a
> > > state
> > > > of mind that takes constant practice!
> > > >
> > > > During that time I also studied the Flower of Life
Workshops -
> > > > learned how to form the merkaba - this was also a very
> positive
> > > > energy producing ritual.  I found this a good way to clear
> > > negative
> > > > thoughts and begin a meditation.
> > > >
> > > > I have also persued other Native American rituals and own a
> > > Tibetan
> > > > brass bowl and a more modern crystal bowl to produce
wonderful
> > > > sounds that aid in relaxation and meditation.
> > > >
> > > > I grew up in the 60's and 70's, was part of the original
> > > hippie/pot
> > > > generation, although I may be one of the few who never
> partook -
> > > > HONESTLY!!!  Almost everyone I knew did - including my
husband
> > of
> > > 32
> > > > years.  It may be that an ecstatic state can be reached
> through
> > > > drugs, but from what I have read (Carlos Casteneda), many of
> > these
> > > > journey's can also be frightening and dangerous.  Again, I
had
> > no
> > > > such experience with my ecstatic state - it was pure
> > > > love/peace/joy.  No negativity at all, so I choose to not go
> on
> > > that
> > > > path.
> > > >
> > > > Another helpful meditation/wellness path can be found in
Peter
> > > > Kelder's "Fountain of Youth" book.  These are a series of
> > Tibetan
> > > > exercises for health and wellness that he swears keeps a
> person
> > > > young - they are easy, yet invigorating and I would highly
> > > recommend
> > > > them for any age.
> > > >
> > > > Eventually I gave up on reproducing that ecstatic state,
> > believing
> > > > that it was a one time experience meant to allow me to
realize
> > > that
> > > > God does exist, that the path is
> > > love/peace/forgiveness//compassion
> > > > and that to pursue that state constantly would be counter-
> > > > productive.  I can see how drug addicts become addicts! I
> wanted
> > > so
> > > > much to experience that agin, it could have consumed me and
my
> > > > life.  Instead, I have concentrated on the message I learned
> > from
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > I guess I realized that being in body has its purpose, and
to
> > > > constantly seek out of body experiences would prevent me
from
> > > > spreading comfort to my family and others.  Besides, I had a
> > house
> > > > to keep clean, 4 daughters to run around, volunteer work to
> do,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > I continue to read and puzzle over the Jesus phenonmenon - I
> do
> > > > believe he taught the path of love and forgiveness, but that
> > > message
> > > > got diverted to suffering/sacrifice unfortunately.
> > > >
> > > > For those interested, I recommend some of the following
> > authors /
> > > > books that can help you understand the beginnings of early
> > > > Christianity including the battle between orthodoxy and
> > Gnosticism:
> > > >
> > > > Jesus Seminar Fellows:  Crossan, Borg, Funk
> > > > Bishop Spong's many books
> > > > Bart Erhman's books :  Lost Scriptures; Peter, Paul and Mary
> > > > Magdalene; and especially Misquoting Jesus - a very careful
> > > > discussion of textual criticism of the Bible.  It is eye-
> opening
> > > and
> > > > helps you understand how the Bible came to be what it is,
what
> > > > the 'original' texts (we actually have no such things) say
as
> > > > compared to the popular translations.  He also discusses the
> > > Gnostic
> > > > texts and decribes the battles between the leaders of the
> early
> > > > church.  Obviously, the orthodox group won out, which is why
> we
> > > have
> > > > the Bible as it is today.
> > > >
> > > > In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can
> say
> > I
> > > > have discovered:  Truth is a highly personal thing - even
for
> > the
> > > > gnostic and orthodox writers  - and people have been
battling
> > over
> > > > that for millennia!
> > > >
> > > > Barbara
> > > >
> > > > Here's a quote from the latter:
> > > >  In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, eagleeyedwildwoman
> <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From my reading, and I do admit it is not extensive in the
> > field
> > > > of
> > > > > Gnostic Literature, it is similar to other paths to
> > > enlightenment.
> > > > I
> > > > > am not seeing from reading Freke and Gandy that much of
the
> > > > secrets
> > > > > were passed on to us, probably because they were
transmitted
> > in
> > > > person
> > > > > by teacher to pupil but also because they were experienced
> as
> > > > direct
> > > > > experience of ones own volition through spirit. I believe
> this
> > > was
> > > > the
> > > > > only way to transmit this Knowing, through experience. I
> > > approach
> > > > the
> > > > > problem of how it was done with the wealth of knowledge we
> > have
> > > > > available to us through many paths leading to the same
> > > conclusion,
> > > > > Union with the Divine or Divine experience, the type of
> > > experience
> > > > > Barbara so beautifully describes. I have years of Buddhist
> and
> > > > Hindu
> > > > > study and a year of Toltec with Don Miguel. I also work
with
> > > > Native
> > > > > American spirituality and am getting into Hemi Sync with
the
> > > > Monroe
> > > > > Institute though CD's, they stimulate or access that part
of
> > the
> > > > brain
> > > > > for this type of experience, it's awesome.
> > > > > The idea of forming a small circle where one can raise
> energy
> > > for
> > > > > healing and opening to spirit is a goal of mine, this was
a
> > > common
> > > > way
> > > > > to transmit this Knowing according to above named authors.
> The
> > > > > experience of ceremony is powerful especially in circle
and
> I
> > > will
> > > > > look into the Masonic rituals to learn more of the art of
> > > > initiation.
> > > > > Plato and is followers used play acting or drama to
> transport
> > > > > themselves from nonordinary reality. Much of what must be
> > > > accomplished
> > > > > for the realization of Gnosis is the dropping of the
> trappings
> > > of
> > > > ego,
> > > > > much of the studies I recommend teach just how to do this.
> > Then
> > > > there
> > > > > is the opening to receiving spirit. Rhythmic drumming,
> dance,
> > or
> > > > > awareness of the now in such acts as walking or other
> > movements
> > > > can
> > > > > trigger an ecstatic state. Psychedelic drugs can also
> trigger
> > > such
> > > > > states, such as peyote but should be used only with a
> trained
> > > > shaman,
> > > > > I would imagine. I am excited to explore which of the
sacred
> > > texts
> > > > may
> > > > > enlighten me more as to just how the work was done from
the
> > > > Gnostic
> > > > > point of view but from what I have read  it surely must of
> > been
> > > > more
> > > > > that just use of intellect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours in Spirit,
> > > > > Aleada Aine
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William"
<willpenrhiw@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "William"
<willpenrhiw@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does one obtain salvation through gnosticism?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hey Aleada Aine

>>>Dear Barbara,
The way your last post was written, I got confused with reading it
and thought you thought Reiki was magic and therefore didn't like it.
My husband said this was not the case; you just had a issues with
what you consider magic.<<<<

I think that it is more important to THIS forum to stop and think
about whether any of this has anything to do with "Gnosticism".
Reiki is Reiki, Magic(k) is something in and of itself... but what
does it have to do with Gnosticism?

>>>>So do I, this is an important aspect of Spirituality; not to
profit. Why did you need to make this statement? Is this accusatory?
Do you assume because I want to work with a circle that I want to do
it for ego and material gain? Why don't you ask me some questions on
my motives for working in circle instead of making these blanket
statements? Considering your year long training with the Four
Agreements: { Don't make assumptions, ask questions}.<<<<

I can't talk for Barbara and her intent here (maybe it is
atagonistic, maybe not), but I can say that for the group as a whole
we try to avoid being overly defensive. You will be challenged here.
Still, consider whether your point has anything to do with
Gnosticism (and no, Gnosticism is not equated with modern ecclectic
popular postmodernism in this forum), and two, whether your point is
allowing for exploration of that historical form of Gnosticism. It
isn't that we are against other ideas, just that we do have a focus.

>>>>Some TV evangelist I think have healing power, Ernest Anglesly I
think does heal. I don't have time to be judgmental about them
unless they attack me or my path, I am by the way a Witch.<<<<

It is perfectly ok to be a "Witch" here. No one judges you on that.
However, just as we would expect any "Christians" here to try and at
least have a critical mind for Gnostic thinking, we would expect the
same for the atheist (of which we DO have some), the Satanist, the
Agnostic, the Jew, the Sufi... this is a forum about Gnosticism.

>>>Some Gnostic writers say this was not Sophia's fault so to speak
but a Divine plan set up to help the Children grow.<<<

Please point out those "Gnostic" writers. I am interested to learn
which texts you are talking about.

>>>>I for one love this Beautiful Earth and her children. I have a
Mothers Heart and this is a good thing, I do not turn my back on
this life at all. I love her beauty, I have always loved her Nature.
We are a very powerful part of this being and we can elevate her and
all her children by our Spiritual work and in doing so free
ourselves, it's not about running away, it's about bravely facing
ourselves in all our Glorious Manifestations.<<<

You could well be right, and the Gnostics wrong, but we should not
confuse something as "Gnostic" just because we consider it accurate.

The question becomes, is a person here to learn about Gnosticism? Or
to present their own personal views on the universe?

PMCV

Barbara

>>>This misunderstanding is exactly why I don't like these kinds of
posts - one can never really tell what a person is saying because
you cannot see their face - looking at a person and feeling their
energy is a way to communicate that words on a page cannot convey.<<<

All the more reason to really give some time and patience to
understanding what other people really mean. Could be seen as a strong
point.

PMCV