Blessings!!
Now this was one thing I could sink my teeth in, so to speak.  Yum!LOL
Just want to clarify one thing. (I know, *groan*)
A similar analogy would be describing red to a person born blind.  I
can describe the color and its effect and everything most
loquaciously (love that word, have so little chance to use it in
conversation) but how can a blind person know what red is until
he/she sees it for themselves?  To me any discussion of 'gnosis'
would be similar.  I believe you are correct in the fact it is not
one aspect to conquer in order to achieve gnosis, but many.  A
teacher can show the student the door but the student must pass thru
for themselves.  I do believe that someone that has aquired gnosis,
if they have truly had it, it will change them irrevocably.  It did
me.  But it was a combination of being exposed to new ideas, having a
mind open to that experience, and accepting the experience when it
came, and it changed my life.  It was a combination of things, like
you said about the bike.  I learned how a bike is made, how it works,
and then I learned to ride.  Learning to ride alone would not have
made the experience complete, learning to make the bike and how it
works would not have make the experience complete.  But the
combination of the elements would make me a biker. Snicker.  I was
blind, and had red dscribed to me.  I hungered for more than a
description, I wanted to know, to experience red.  Now I can see.
I think many are frustrated as they get the descriptions, they get
the idea- they get it here (touch the corner of the crainum) but they
don't feel it here (touch the heart.) It has to be the entire
experience. Mind, understanding; body, feeling; spirit,
transformation.  Am I in the ballpark at least?  Or am I just parking
cars?LOL
Hope you are Blessed!
Whirled and inner peas
DarkChylde


Gnothi Seauton

**Love thy enemies.  It messes with their heads!**



--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Darkchylde
>
> >>>I think the definition of gnosis and gnostic have been expessed
> adequately enough to show that many have differing branches of the
> same tree.<<<
>
> Yes, I think most of us would agree that "Gnosticism" is a branch
on
> the tree of "Esotericism", and as such has things in common with
other
> forms of mystical or esoteric thought. Also, as a branch on the
trees
> of "Hellenism" and "Middle Platonism" we see similarities with
other
> groups in those categories as well.
>
> >>>But my question is this. What exactly is it we are to 'know?'<<<
>
> Of course that question would depend on who's notion of "gnosis".
For
> instance, many New Age groups seem to connect the term "gnosis" to
> attaining some kind of psychic powers... so what it is they are
> to "know" is how to attain those powers.
>
> In my perspective, when we bring that focus down to the historical
> Gnostics the subject gains a more specific meaning. According to
> Gnostic texts Gnosis is a multifold and comprehensive understanding
> that includes very specific cosmological knowledge, personal
> knowledge, and hermeneutic understanding. More specifically, what
we
> must know is who we are within a wider spiritual cosmology, and how
we
> as individuals relate to that cosmology (where we are from, and
where
> we can return).
>
> >>>Is it the dusty ramblings in the many and sometimes
contridictory
> texts? Is it mythologies and analogies? Or is there something more?
> Why would there be all this learning if we are still trapped in our
> perspectives and do not realize the greater reality that exists
beyond
> what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel?<<<
>
> In traditional "dusty" Gnostic thinking, it is the act of
> understanding itself that frees one from the confines of pure
material
> reactonary perspective. This is very much like the destinction
between
> a priori knowing vs a posteriori knowing in that it is a knowing
that
> goes beyond direct perception. The understaning in question must
> contain both the experience based form of knowledge AND the
> intellectual breakthrough in order to truly BE this
> salvational "Gnosis".
>
> I can put that more simply. Imagine you and I were part of a
> traditional Gnostic sect, and you were my teacher. Now since I am a
> person who is not familiar with the "mystery" you are going to
teach
> me, you would have to start by helping me understand HOW to
> contextualize things correctly for the system. You might give me
some
> ritual activities, or meditations, meant to widen my awareness and
> evoke spiritual experiences. At the same time you would likely work
on
> my ability to conceptualize things I had not previously understood.
> Eventually I will have to come to understand a cosmology that
includes
> several very complicated notions of infinity, and what they have to
do
> with me. I will have to gain that understanding by connecting the
two
> methods you are using to teach me.
>
> As Plato said...
>
> "This knowledge is not something that can be learned only through
> words like other sciences; but rather 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."
>
> >>>What marks a moment of 'gnosis', is it to allow our perspectives
> (or mind) to transend reality as we know it? Is this the 'goal'
> or 'holy grail' that we are to seek?<<<
>
> Although Gnosis has moments of breakthrough presenting it (the
light
> flashing forth), epiphanies, we should be careful not to confuse it
> with the moment of mystical experience. Gnosis, in the traditional
> meaning, isn't an event or a moment, it is the attainment of a
process
> that gives an entire perspective.
>
> In other words, once you have taught me what I am supposed to know
> then if I have not had spiritual experience I don't have "Gnosis".
At
> the same time, if I don't have understanding of the meaning of
those
> dusty texts I ALSO don't have Gnosis. One is just a happening,
while
> the other is just a context. A true full comprehension (gnosis)
must
> have both the event and the context.
>
> Knowing how to build the bike is not Gnosis. Having the ability to
> ride the bike is not Gnosis either. Gnosis is a complete
understanding
> of the bike... how to make it, how to ride it, and finally where
that
> bike will take you.
>
> Anyone here disagree or have thoughts?
>
> PMCV
>

From: pmcvflag [mailto: no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 01:19:49 -0000
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: A Question for the gruop...

Hey Darkchylde

>>>I think the definition of gnosis and gnostic have been expessed
adequately enough to show that many have differing branches of the
same tree.<<<

Yes, I think most of us would agree that "Gnosticism" is a branch on
the tree of "Esotericism", and as such has things in common with other
forms of mystical or esoteric thought. Also, as a branch on the trees
of "Hellenism" and "Middle Platonism" we see similarities with other
groups in those categories as well.

>>>But my question is this. What exactly is it we are to 'know?'<<<

Of course that question would depend on who's notion of "gnosis". For
instance, many New Age groups seem to connect the term "gnosis" to
attaining some kind of psychic powers... so what it is they are
to "know" is how to attain those powers.

In my perspective, when we bring that focus down to the historical
Gnostics the subject gains a more specific meaning. According to
Gnostic texts Gnosis is a multifold and comprehensive understanding
that includes very specific cosmological knowledge, personal
knowledge, and hermeneutic understanding. More specifically, what we
must know is who we are within a wider spiritual cosmology, and how we
as individuals relate to that cosmology (where we are from, and where
we can return).

>>>Is it the dusty ramblings in the many and sometimes contridictory
texts? Is it mythologies and analogies? Or is there something more?
Why would there be all this learning if we are still trapped in our
perspectives and do not realize the greater reality that exists beyond
what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel?<<<

In traditional "dusty" Gnostic thinking, it is the act of
understanding itself that frees one from the confines of pure material
reactonary perspective. This is very much like the destinction between
a priori knowing vs a posteriori knowing in that it is a knowing that
goes beyond direct perception. The understaning in question must
contain both the experience based form of knowledge AND the
intellectual breakthrough in order to truly BE this
salvational "Gnosis".

I can put that more simply. Imagine you and I were part of a
traditional Gnostic sect, and you were my teacher. Now since I am a
person who is not familiar with the "mystery" you are going to teach
me, you would have to start by helping me understand HOW to
contextualize things correctly for the system. You might give me some
ritual activities, or meditations, meant to widen my awareness and
evoke spiritual experiences. At the same time you would likely work on
my ability to conceptualize things I had not previously understood.
Eventually I will have to come to understand a cosmology that includes
several very complicated notions of infinity, and what they have to do
with me. I will have to gain that understanding by connecting the two
methods you are using to teach me.

As Plato said...

"This knowledge is not something that can be learned only through
words like other sciences; but rather 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."

>>>What marks a moment of 'gnosis', is it to allow our perspectives
(or mind) to transend reality as we know it? Is this the 'goal'
or 'holy grail' that we are to seek?<<<

Although Gnosis has moments of breakthrough presenting it (the light
flashing forth), epiphanies, we should be careful not to confuse it
with the moment of mystical experience. Gnosis, in the traditional
meaning, isn't an event or a moment, it is the attainment of a process
that gives an entire perspective.

In other words, once you have taught me what I am supposed to know
then if I have not had spiritual experience I don't have "Gnosis". At
the same time, if I don't have understanding of the meaning of those
dusty texts I ALSO don't have Gnosis. One is just a happening, while
the other is just a context. A true full comprehension (gnosis) must
have both the event and the context.

Knowing how to build the bike is not Gnosis. Having the ability to
ride the bike is not Gnosis either. Gnosis is a complete understanding
of the bike... how to make it, how to ride it, and finally where that
bike will take you.

Anyone here disagree or have thoughts?

PMCV

Hey Scott

You state....

>>>What pray is a "gruop"?<<<

*lol* Well, a "gruop" appears to be a typo for "group"... as in this
forum (the gathering of people posting on the message board that you
are now presenting your own ideas on)

>>>Stop postponing your enlightenment.  Stop putting off your sudden
knowing.<<<

In order to give such advice you would have to assume that the
person you are talking to has indeed put it off or not attained it.
That would be rather presumptuous.

In any event, "Gnosis" in the traditional sense isn't the same thing
as "enlightenment" in the modern sense. What we are talking about
isn't necessarily identical. With that in mind, can you clarify for
us whether you feel your notion of "Gnosis" is the same as that
presented in the traditional Gnostic texts? It could be important
considering the fact that you are talking to a group that uses a
very specific lingo.

>>>Stop talking about.<<<

This is a forum. That means by definition we are here to talk. You,
in fact, just talked about it as well.

PMCV

Hey Darkchylde

>>>Now this was one thing I could sink my teeth in, so to speak. Yum!
LOL Just want to clarify one thing. (I know, *groan*)<<<

Glad I was understandable *lol*. I am always unsure if I am actually
making sense. Anyway, no groans here... it is part of what we are
here to talk about, after all.

>>>A similar analogy would be describing red to a person born blind.
I can describe the color and its effect and everything most
loquaciously (love that word, have so little chance to use it in
conversation) but how can a blind person know what red is until
he/she sees it for themselves? To me any discussion of 'gnosis'
would be similar.<<<

I think in one sense your analogy is very apropos. I wonder, though,
if it could confuse some people into thinking "Gnosis" is an
experience the way seeing a color is. Still, I can't think of a
better example off the top of my head. I think perhaps just to
clarify we could simply add that the person who sees the red without
thinking about it has no more "Gnosis" of red than the person who
can describe it without seeing it. Both have only one side of the
understanding.

I think many people would rhetorically ask "well, isn't it the
seeing of the red that is the important part, the final goal?" I
think that when looking at the Gnostic perspective the answer to
that question is, no. A computer scanner can detect red vs black
without any cognitive effect. An animal can experience red without
comprehending that the experience has some meaning beyond the simple
fact of being red (why is the stop sign red? does the redness of
some flowers have a function? why should Roxanne not "put on the red
light"? how did "red" come to be seperate from "white" in the first
place? Is there value to viewing colors beyond greyscale?)

>>>I believe you are correct in the fact it is not one aspect to
conquer in order to achieve gnosis, but many. A teacher can show the
student the door but the student must pass thru for themselves. I do
believe that someone that has aquired gnosis, if they have truly had
it, it will change them irrevocably.<<<

I think nobody would quibble with you on that point.

>>>It did me. But it was a combination of being exposed to new
ideas, having a mind open to that experience, and accepting the
experience when it came, and it changed my life. It was a
combination of things, like you said about the bike. I learned how a
bike is made, how it works, and then I learned to ride. Learning to
ride alone would not have made the experience complete, learning to
make the bike and how it works would not have make the experience
complete. But the combination of the elements would make me a biker.
Snicker. I was blind, and had red dscribed to me. I hungered for
more than a description, I wanted to know, to experience red. Now I
can see.<<<

Some would say that perhaps another step in understanding red would
be to form a common conceptualization with others. As Isidore of
Seville said "Who knoweth not the names, knoweth not the subject".

>>>I think many are frustrated as they get the descriptions, they
get the idea- they get it here (touch the corner of the crainum) but
they don't feel it here (touch the heart.) It has to be the entire
experience. Mind, understanding; body, feeling; spirit,
transformation. Am I in the ballpark at least? Or am I just parking
cars?LOL<<<

Sounds right to me. As you state, it goes both ways. Just as people
sometimes get it in the head, but not the heart... there are many
who get it in the heart but don't quite get it in the head yet.
Either direction fails to be Gnosis.

In fact, that does kind of help give perspective to the function of
this forum. There are some 300 groups in the "Gnosticism" section of
Yahoo Groups that deal with the heart side so we figured perhaps we
could fill the gap on the head side *lol*. Well, just joking...
partly.

Seriously though, to be more technical; if one doesn't know about
the Demiurge, the fine points of the difference between the
apophatic infinity vs the kind of infinity presented by the "second
Father", the meaning of the fall of Sophia, the function of
intellect as it is presented, say, in Allogenes... then one has not
attained "Gnosis", by definition of the word.

What I am saying then, and I think you are as well, is that in
traditional Gnostic thinking the experience and the context simply
cannot be removed from each other and still constitute "Gnosis".
That is why we cannot be so quick to discard or discount those moldy
old texts. ;)

PMCV

Blessings, Scott!!
Yeah, my fingers get dyslexic from time to time, and I don't always
proofread.  My spelling ain't so hot either!LOL
I don't remember reading anything that you have posted in English, so
why do you think English isn't cutting it?  Perhaps Hebrew would?  Or
Greek?  I know, Martian!LOL
I agree with you that a moment of Gnosis is Bam.  But without prior
understanding of what is happening, which would come from an
understanding and study from the gnostic teachers, one wouldn't
really understand what is happening to them in the first place.
I really don't think I would have had my moment of Gnosis had I not
started studying Gnosticism to begin with.  When I was a little girl
and growing up in the original Southern Bible-thumper family, a Bam
moment would have done me little good, or I would have misinterpreted
it as coming from what I thought was God but it was really only the
demiuge.  Same thing for when I was a witch.  I had 'psychic'
experiences (fire scrying and the like) but that is not what I am
talking about when I am talking about a moment of gnosis.  I believe
when it hits you, it is like a strike of lightning.  But just as
certain environmental conditions must be met for lightning to appear,
then conditions for gnosis must come the same way.  I personally feel
it is a mixture of having an open mind (and that isn't as easy as it
sounds, I know MANY people who THINK their mind is open, but when you
speak or discuss something with them they are sooo busy being 'right'
they aren't open), study and meditation/contemplation on those things
learned.
That is how it happened with me.  And believe me, I AM LISTENING.
Always.  Waiting for another lightning strike, or the little moments
I have epiphanies, which I consider to be a vehicle to gnosis, but
not the only vehicle.
Are YOU listening?
BTW, my knowledge of French is limited to some profanity, so what,
pray tell, is pourquoi tous ces mots?
Whirled and inner peas
DarkChylde

Gnothi Seauton
**Love thy enemies.  It messes with their head!*

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Hutton"<hmshutton@...>
wrote:
>
>
> What pray is a "gruop"?All this verbiage about
gnosticisms...pourquoi tous ces mots?  (English, obviously, ain't
cuttin' it).It's knowing,  a sudden knowning.  As in Bam!  Flash!At
the risk of being dismissed from this list, I say:  Pay attention!
Stop talking about.Listen.Stop postponing your enlightenment.  Stop
putting off your sudden knowing.The postponement merely drags out
frustration.  And trust an old man:  postponement has nothing to do
with gnosticism.Listen!Listen!  Not to me, but to That!Scott --- On
Thu 11/09, pmcvflag < no_reply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:From:
pmcvflag [mailto: no_reply@yahoogroups.com]To: gnosticism2@...: Fri,
10 Nov 2006 01:19:49 -0000Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: A Question for
the gruop...                  Hey Darkchylde>>>I think the
definition of gnosis and gnostic have been expessedadequately enough
to show that many have differing branches of thesame
tree.<<<Yes, I think most of us would agree
> that "Gnosticism" is a branch on the tree of
"Esotericism", and as such has things in common with other
forms of mystical or esoteric thought. Also, as a branch on the trees
of "Hellenism" and "Middle Platonism" we see
similarities with other groups in those categories as
well.>>>But my question is this. What exactly is it we are
to 'know?'<<<Of course that question would depend on who's
notion of "gnosis". For instance, many New Age groups seem
to connect the term "gnosis" to attaining some kind of
psychic powers... so what it is they are to "know" is how
to attain those powers.In my perspective, when we bring that focus
down to the historical Gnostics the subject gains a more specific
meaning. According to Gnostic texts Gnosis is a multifold and
comprehensive understanding that includes very specific cosmological
knowledge, personal knowledge, and hermeneutic understanding. More
> specifically, what we must know is who we are within a wider
spiritual cosmology, and how we as individuals relate to that
cosmology (where we are from, and where we can return).
>>>Is it the dusty ramblings in the many and sometimes
contridictory texts? Is it mythologies and analogies? Or is there
something more? Why would there be all this learning if we are still
trapped in our perspectives and do not realize the greater reality
that exists beyond what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel?
<<<In traditional "dusty" Gnostic thinking, it is
the act of understanding itself that frees one from the confines of
pure material reactonary perspective. This is very much like the
destinction between a priori knowing vs a posteriori knowing in that
it is a knowing that goes beyond direct perception. The understaning
in question must contain both the experience based form of knowledge
AND the intellectual breakthrough in order to truly BE this
salvational
> "Gnosis".I can put that more simply. Imagine you and I
were part of a traditional Gnostic sect, and you were my teacher. Now
since I am a person who is not familiar with the "mystery"
you are going to teach me, you would have to start by helping me
understand HOW to contextualize things correctly for the system. You
might give me some ritual activities, or meditations, meant to widen
my awareness and evoke spiritual experiences. At the same time you
would likely work on my ability to conceptualize things I had not
previously understood. Eventually I will have to come to understand a
cosmology that includes several very complicated notions of infinity,
and what they have to do with me. I will have to gain that
understanding by connecting the two methods you are using to teach
me.As Plato said..."This knowledge is not something that can be
learned only through words like other sciences; but rather 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.">>>What marks a moment
of 'gnosis', is it to allow our perspectives (or mind) to transend
reality as we know it? Is this the 'goal' or 'holy grail' that we are
to seek?<<<Although Gnosis has moments of breakthrough
presenting it (the light flashing forth), epiphanies, we should be
careful not to confuse it with the moment of mystical experience.
Gnosis, in the traditional meaning, isn't an event or a moment, it is
the attainment of a process that gives an entire perspective.In other
words, once you have taught me what I am supposed to know then if I
have not had spiritual experience I don't have "Gnosis". At
the same time, if I don't have understanding of the meaning of those
dusty texts I ALSO don't have Gnosis. One is just a happening, while
the other is just a context. A true full
> comprehension (gnosis) must have both the event and the
context.Knowing how to build the bike is not Gnosis. Having the
ability to ride the bike is not Gnosis either. Gnosis is a complete
understanding of the bike... how to make it, how to ride it, and
finally where that bike will take you.Anyone here disagree or have
thoughts?PMCV
>
> _______________________________________________
> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
> Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
>

Hey Melissa

>>>One question.....the forum??? I just thought this was an email
group.<<<

Just in case Lady Cari's post doesn't reach you again let me also send
you the URL for the forum...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

Now it is my turn to ask a question. Although I was aware that people
could elect to get our messages through email rather than entering the
group directly, I didn't realize that it was possible to do so without
joining through the forum first. May I ask how you started getting
emails from us? How did you register? I wonder if other people here
are getting emails from us without realizing that these emails are
coming from a forum.

PMCV

Hey Darkchylde

>>>Blessings, Scott!! .....Are YOU listening?<<<<

Scott is not listening. Guess he didn't like us *lol*. Que Seurat,
Seurat.

PMCV

Melissa

>>>I just did a search for yahoo groups and joined and opted for the
individual emails.<<<

AH! Ok. So you should have been redirected to our homepage when you
first joined. There was that snake picture and all that. If you answer
posts from the "messages" page you get options for adding colors to
your posts and all kinds of things. You also get access to photos,
reading lists, descriptions of primary categories of Gnosticism (what
the difference is between Sethains and Valentinians), and even a
little dictionary of Gnostic terms that I wrote up for people who may
be new to them (Barbelo, Bythos, Saklas, Sophia, and all those terms
that sometimes are very unfamiliar to people).

PMCV

Melissa

>>>My newest in-depth research is in regards to Solomon. Don't really
know as much as I would like. I would love to know all your thoughts
and inputs regarding Solomon.<<<

Solomon is definately an interesting subject. However, I'm afraid that
he is a bit off topic here. I was trying to think of a way to help
make it a subject that did fit in our focus, but I am not sure how....
beyond pointing out that from Gnostic thinking he would have been a
servant of the evil Demiurge. Don't know if anyone else can think of
something that relates to Gnosticism that deals with Solomon.

PMCV

pmcvflag wrote:
> Hey Melissa
>
>
>>>> One question.....the forum??? I just thought this was an email
>>>>
> group.<<<
>
> Just in case Lady Cari's post doesn't reach you again let me also send
> you the URL for the forum...
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/
>
> Now it is my turn to ask a question. Although I was aware that people
> could elect to get our messages through email rather than entering the
> group directly, I didn't realize that it was possible to do so without
> joining through the forum first. May I ask how you started getting
> emails from us? How did you register? I wonder if other people here
> are getting emails from us without realizing that these emails are
> coming from a forum.
>
> PMCV
>
>
>
I don't remember how I joined, but email has been dependable on both
this an d my prior computers, and that is how I get the messages from
the forum, unless I want to go back and trace an old message.
>
>

The odes of Solomon are said by some to be proto-gnostic.

pmcvflag wrote:
> Melissa
>
>
>>>> My newest in-depth research is in regards to Solomon. Don't really
>>>>
> know as much as I would like. I would love to know all your thoughts
> and inputs regarding Solomon.<<<
>
> Solomon is definately an interesting subject. However, I'm afraid that
> he is a bit off topic here. I was trying to think of a way to help
> make it a subject that did fit in our focus, but I am not sure how....
> beyond pointing out that from Gnostic thinking he would have been a
> servant of the evil Demiurge. Don't know if anyone else can think of
> something that relates to Gnosticism that deals with Solomon.
>
> PMCV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

pmcvflag wrote:
> Hey Darkchylde
>
>
>>>> I think the definition of gnosis and gnostic have been expessed
>>>>
> adequately enough to show that many have differing branches of the
> same tree.<<<
>
> Yes, I think most of us would agree that "Gnosticism" is a branch on
> the tree of "Esotericism", and as such has things in common with other
> forms of mystical or esoteric thought. Also, as a branch on the trees
> of "Hellenism" and "Middle Platonism" we see similarities with other
> groups in those categories as well.
>
>
>>>> But my question is this. What exactly is it we are to 'know?'<<<
>>>>
>
> Of course that question would depend on who's notion of "gnosis". For
> instance, many New Age groups seem to connect the term "gnosis" to
> attaining some kind of psychic powers... so what it is they are
> to "know" is how to attain those powers.
>
> In my perspective, when we bring that focus down to the historical
> Gnostics the subject gains a more specific meaning. According to
> Gnostic texts Gnosis is a multifold and comprehensive understanding
> that includes very specific cosmological knowledge, personal
> knowledge, and hermeneutic understanding. More specifically, what we
> must know is who we are within a wider spiritual cosmology, and how we
> as individuals relate to that cosmology (where we are from, and where
> we can return).
>
>
>>>> Is it the dusty ramblings in the many and sometimes contridictory
>>>>
> texts? Is it mythologies and analogies? Or is there something more?
> Why would there be all this learning if we are still trapped in our
> perspectives and do not realize the greater reality that exists beyond
> what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel?<<<
>
> In traditional "dusty" Gnostic thinking, it is the act of
> understanding itself that frees one from the confines of pure material
> reactonary perspective. This is very much like the destinction between
> a priori knowing vs a posteriori knowing in that it is a knowing that
> goes beyond direct perception. The understaning in question must
> contain both the experience based form of knowledge AND the
> intellectual breakthrough in order to truly BE this
> salvational "Gnosis".
>
> I can put that more simply. Imagine you and I were part of a
> traditional Gnostic sect, and you were my teacher. Now since I am a
> person who is not familiar with the "mystery" you are going to teach
> me, you would have to start by helping me understand HOW to
> contextualize things correctly for the system. You might give me some
> ritual activities, or meditations, meant to widen my awareness and
> evoke spiritual experiences. At the same time you would likely work on
> my ability to conceptualize things I had not previously understood.
> Eventually I will have to come to understand a cosmology that includes
> several very complicated notions of infinity, and what they have to do
> with me. I will have to gain that understanding by connecting the two
> methods you are using to teach me.
>
> As Plato said...
>
> "This knowledge is not something that can be learned only through
> words like other sciences; but rather 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."
>
>
>>>> What marks a moment of 'gnosis', is it to allow our perspectives
>>>>
> (or mind) to transend reality as we know it? Is this the 'goal'
> or 'holy grail' that we are to seek?<<<
>
> Although Gnosis has moments of breakthrough presenting it (the light
> flashing forth), epiphanies, we should be careful not to confuse it
> with the moment of mystical experience. Gnosis, in the traditional
> meaning, isn't an event or a moment, it is the attainment of a process
> that gives an entire perspective.
>
> In other words, once you have taught me what I am supposed to know
> then if I have not had spiritual experience I don't have "Gnosis". At
> the same time, if I don't have understanding of the meaning of those
> dusty texts I ALSO don't have Gnosis. One is just a happening, while
> the other is just a context. A true full comprehension (gnosis) must
> have both the event and the context.
>
> Knowing how to build the bike is not Gnosis. Having the ability to
> ride the bike is not Gnosis either. Gnosis is a complete understanding
> of the bike... how to make it, how to ride it, and finally where that
> bike will take you.
>
> Anyone here disagree or have thoughts?
>
> PMCV
>
>
Neither, but what role does meditation have in all this?
>
>

Sure hope I didn't offend.  Sagitarrians are not known for tact and
diplomacy. (Been told all us centaurs must be born in a barn.LOL)
I'm going to have to brush up on my French, too at this rate!LOL
Whirled and inner peas
DarkChylde


Gnothi Seauton

**Love thy enemies.  It messes with their heads!**

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Darkchylde
>
> >>>Blessings, Scott!! .....Are YOU listening?<<<<
>
> Scott is not listening. Guess he didn't like us *lol*. Que Seurat,
> Seurat.
>
> PMCV
>

Most excellent question!
I kinda brushed on contemplation with understanding and study, but I
think if would be helpful if not necessary to have a foundation in
some sort of gnostic thought, freeing the perspective to experience
it as a focused event.
I know this forum operates in a historical venure, but the only way
to express a view on meditation and gnosis is to relate some personal
experiences.  Hope I don't offend!! LOL
I used to mediate when I was into Keltic Shamanism and when I was
fire-scrying I had and OBE (out of body experience) but I panicked
and was instantly 'back'.  It was there, it was real, and it came by
meditaion and study but it wasn't gnosis. I didn't experience the
whole floating or seeing my body thing, but my consciousness was
instantly transported to a place of complete and utter blackness - no
stars or anything.  I was terrified (I have since heard this was
described as the 'terror threshold' and I was more of a chicken than
I thought LOL) and have hesitated to open myself up to that again, as
I 'returned' in a sweat and panting.  I had experienced another
realitiy, but without focus or direction or anything it only showed
me there is realities other than the physical one now.  I now
understand I had discovered the tzimtzum, the original constriction
of the Light of the Unmainfest.  "When I formed the light I created
the Darkness" it says in Isaiah.
My momnet I believe I had of gnosis, which had a transforming effect
on my life (which was in a serious downward spiral at the time) was
just a time sitting with a cat on my lap and contemplating what was
it was that distinquished life inside matter, the Epinoia (although I
didn't actually learn that term till later, I was barely thru the
Gospel of Thomas and the Apoch. of John then)I was trying to see the
iife in the crude matter and for just a moment, I saw something, hard
to describe, but like  a light was in the eyes of the cat, and this
same light seemed to eminate from the plants in the window, and
seemed to even float by in the very air in thin streams, and at that
moment I felt an awareness, for lack of a better word, of myself, the
cat, the recliner, the room, the outside ground, it went on and on
and I was truly connected to everything and everone and I was aware
of molecules and stars all at the some moment.  Everything seemed an
amazing dance of precision and chaos, of dark and light all intwined,
and of a supernal light which dimmed the ilght of stars and sun and
which existed in ever radiating streams and I craved this light, I
think, before I was back in the chair with a cat giving me a weird
look.  That I feel went past psychic, and I truly changed and found
the path I now have which brings me this light in small doses.
Sometimes I think I would rather try to recreate that experience
rather than OBEs which terrified me.
Meditation was key in both but one was frightening and didn't change
my life, as it was unfocused and I was still 'in the dark', but the
other was connectied to something wonderful and full of light.  I
experienced it and it was awakening.  I know it, it isn't a belief,
faith or acid flashback (LOL) but a reality just as real or more than
the one I experience as I type on this keyboard.  Both had left me
with a feeling of being really awake for the first time, like water
splashed in your face when your drowsing.
So shove me in the shallow water before I get too deep!LOL
Be Blessed!!
Whirled and inner peas
DarkChylde



Gnothi Seauton

**Love thy enemies. It messes with their heads!**


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> pmcvflag wrote:
> > Hey Darkchylde
> >
> >
> >>>> I think the definition of gnosis and gnostic have been expessed
> >>>>
> > adequately enough to show that many have differing branches of the
> > same tree.<<<
> >
> > Yes, I think most of us would agree that "Gnosticism" is a branch
on
> > the tree of "Esotericism", and as such has things in common with
other
> > forms of mystical or esoteric thought. Also, as a branch on the
trees
> > of "Hellenism" and "Middle Platonism" we see similarities with
other
> > groups in those categories as well.
> >
> >
> >>>> But my question is this. What exactly is it we are
to 'know?'<<<
> >>>>
> >
> > Of course that question would depend on who's notion of "gnosis".
For
> > instance, many New Age groups seem to connect the term "gnosis"
to
> > attaining some kind of psychic powers... so what it is they are
> > to "know" is how to attain those powers.
> >
> > In my perspective, when we bring that focus down to the
historical
> > Gnostics the subject gains a more specific meaning. According to
> > Gnostic texts Gnosis is a multifold and comprehensive
understanding
> > that includes very specific cosmological knowledge, personal
> > knowledge, and hermeneutic understanding. More specifically, what
we
> > must know is who we are within a wider spiritual cosmology, and
how we
> > as individuals relate to that cosmology (where we are from, and
where
> > we can return).
> >
> >
> >>>> Is it the dusty ramblings in the many and sometimes
contridictory
> >>>>
> > texts? Is it mythologies and analogies? Or is there something
more?
> > Why would there be all this learning if we are still trapped in
our
> > perspectives and do not realize the greater reality that exists
beyond
> > what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel?<<<
> >
> > In traditional "dusty" Gnostic thinking, it is the act of
> > understanding itself that frees one from the confines of pure
material
> > reactonary perspective. This is very much like the destinction
between
> > a priori knowing vs a posteriori knowing in that it is a knowing
that
> > goes beyond direct perception. The understaning in question must
> > contain both the experience based form of knowledge AND the
> > intellectual breakthrough in order to truly BE this
> > salvational "Gnosis".
> >
> > I can put that more simply. Imagine you and I were part of a
> > traditional Gnostic sect, and you were my teacher. Now since I am
a
> > person who is not familiar with the "mystery" you are going to
teach
> > me, you would have to start by helping me understand HOW to
> > contextualize things correctly for the system. You might give me
some
> > ritual activities, or meditations, meant to widen my awareness
and
> > evoke spiritual experiences. At the same time you would likely
work on
> > my ability to conceptualize things I had not previously
understood.
> > Eventually I will have to come to understand a cosmology that
includes
> > several very complicated notions of infinity, and what they have
to do
> > with me. I will have to gain that understanding by connecting the
two
> > methods you are using to teach me.
> >
> > As Plato said...
> >
> > "This knowledge is not something that can be learned only through
> > words like other sciences; but rather 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."
> >
> >
> >>>> What marks a moment of 'gnosis', is it to allow our
perspectives
> >>>>
> > (or mind) to transend reality as we know it? Is this the 'goal'
> > or 'holy grail' that we are to seek?<<<
> >
> > Although Gnosis has moments of breakthrough presenting it (the
light
> > flashing forth), epiphanies, we should be careful not to confuse
it
> > with the moment of mystical experience. Gnosis, in the
traditional
> > meaning, isn't an event or a moment, it is the attainment of a
process
> > that gives an entire perspective.
> >
> > In other words, once you have taught me what I am supposed to
know
> > then if I have not had spiritual experience I don't
have "Gnosis". At
> > the same time, if I don't have understanding of the meaning of
those
> > dusty texts I ALSO don't have Gnosis. One is just a happening,
while
> > the other is just a context. A true full comprehension (gnosis)
must
> > have both the event and the context.
> >
> > Knowing how to build the bike is not Gnosis. Having the ability
to
> > ride the bike is not Gnosis either. Gnosis is a complete
understanding
> > of the bike... how to make it, how to ride it, and finally where
that
> > bike will take you.
> >
> > Anyone here disagree or have thoughts?
> >
> > PMCV
> >
> >
> Neither, but what role does meditation have in all this?
> >
> >
>

Hey Mike

>>>> The odes of Solomon are said by some to be proto-gnostic.<<<

Very true, good point. Quite a big debate actually, but some do see
semi-Gnostic elements in the Odes (I use the term "semi" because the
dating is also debated, and if it is after the advent of various
Gnostic schools the way some believe I guess we couldn't call
it "proto". Again, all debated).

If I recall, the Pistis Sophia quotes them (been a long time since I
read that one, so I could be remembering wrong). So, it seems on top
of some possible Gnostic elements we see some possible usage by
Gnostics. Some scholors have tied it to a Johanine community.

Then again, I don't remember the Odes actually mentioning Solomon
other than in the title.

PMCV

> pmcvflag wrote:
> > Melissa
> >
> >
> >>>> My newest in-depth research is in regards to Solomon. Don't
really
> >>>>
> > know as much as I would like. I would love to know all your
thoughts
> > and inputs regarding Solomon.<<<
> >
> > Solomon is definately an interesting subject. However, I'm afraid
that
> > he is a bit off topic here. I was trying to think of a way to
help
> > make it a subject that did fit in our focus, but I am not sure
how....
> > beyond pointing out that from Gnostic thinking he would have been
a
> > servant of the evil Demiurge. Don't know if anyone else can think
of
> > something that relates to Gnosticism that deals with Solomon.
> >
> > PMCV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mike

>>>Neither, but what role does meditation have in all this?<<<

Hmmmm. That could depend on what kind of "meditation" one is talking
about, I guess.

PMCV

Darkchylde

>>>My momnet I believe I had of gnosis, which had a transforming
effect on my life (which was in a serious downward spiral at the
time) was just a time sitting with a cat on my lap and contemplating
what was it was that distinquished life inside matter, the Epinoia
(although I didn't actually learn that term till later, I was barely
thru the Gospel of Thomas and the Apoch. of John then)I was trying to
see the iife in the crude matter and for just a moment, I saw
something, hard to describe, but like a light was in the eyes of the
cat, and this same light seemed to eminate from the plants in the
window, and seemed to even float by in the very air in thin streams,
and at that moment I felt an awareness, for lack of a better word, of
myself, the cat, the recliner, the room, the outside ground, it went
on and on and I was truly connected to everything and everone and I
was aware of molecules and stars all at the some moment. Everything
seemed an amazing dance of precision and chaos, of dark and light all
intwined, and of a supernal light which dimmed the ilght of stars and
sun and which existed in ever radiating streams and I craved this
light, I think, before I was back in the chair with a cat giving me a
weird look.<<<

What you are calling "Gnosis" here, I would more generally refer to
as a specific type of "mystical experience". There can be no doubt
that a form of meditation generally is used to gain this experience,
and it is transformative. Gnostic texts do describe visionary
experiences like this one as part of the process toward Gnosis.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Melissa
>
> >>>One question.....the forum??? I just thought this was an email
> group.<<<
>
> Just in case Lady Cari's post doesn't reach you again let me also
send
> you the URL for the forum...
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/
>
> Now it is my turn to ask a question. Although I was aware that
people
> could elect to get our messages through email rather than entering
the
> group directly, I didn't realize that it was possible to do so
without
> joining through the forum first. May I ask how you started getting
> emails from us? How did you register? I wonder if other people
here
> are getting emails from us without realizing that these emails are
> coming from a forum.
>
> PMCV

Hi PMCV,
One can get e-mails by sending an e-mail to
gnosticism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
That is a leftover from the days when yahoogroups was oneslist. I
understand that this group was formed as a yahoo club. I started the
GT list on onelist which was a subscribtion based internet e-mail
list. egroups ate onelist then yahoo ate egroups. For a while yahoo
clubs and yahoogroups operated side by side on yahoo. Finally yahoo
blended yahoo clubs into yahoogroups. That's how you ended up with
the 2 on the end of gnosticism. There was already a gnosticism list
in yahoogroups. Anyway, if someone is signed up to have the posts
sent by e-mail they are sent. If they don't get them then likely
their SPAM filters are eating them. For some reason known only to
SPAM filters they will let some posts through and send some to the
inbox even though they are all from the same yahoogroup.

So what I am trying to say is anyone who realizes they are not
getting all of their e-mail should check in whatever file their SPAM
filter deposits things it thinks are SPAM.

Hope this helps.

Ken

I just felt it to be a moment of 'gnosis' as I didn't just hear about
from a second party, or read it, I KNEW the connection I had to the
ALL, the Unmainifest.  It wasn't due to visualization (although I
think that to be a usefull and necessary tool in meditation) albeit
it may have been triggered by my contemplations on the Epinoia.  I
came back with that 'water splashed in the face feeling' and it left
me irrevocably changed.  If I had never experienced it, I would
probably still believe as I do now, but I wouldn't KNOW.  It is one
thing to read about it, contemplate it, talk about it, but it quite
another to experience it.
You know?
LOL
Whirled and inner peas
DarkChylde


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Darkchylde
>
> >>>My momnet I believe I had of gnosis, which had a transforming
> effect on my life (which was in a serious downward spiral at the
> time) was just a time sitting with a cat on my lap and
contemplating
> what was it was that distinquished life inside matter, the Epinoia
> (although I didn't actually learn that term till later, I was
barely
> thru the Gospel of Thomas and the Apoch. of John then)I was trying
to
> see the iife in the crude matter and for just a moment, I saw
> something, hard to describe, but like a light was in the eyes of
the
> cat, and this same light seemed to eminate from the plants in the
> window, and seemed to even float by in the very air in thin
streams,
> and at that moment I felt an awareness, for lack of a better word,
of
> myself, the cat, the recliner, the room, the outside ground, it
went
> on and on and I was truly connected to everything and everone and I
> was aware of molecules and stars all at the some moment. Everything
> seemed an amazing dance of precision and chaos, of dark and light
all
> intwined, and of a supernal light which dimmed the ilght of stars
and
> sun and which existed in ever radiating streams and I craved this
> light, I think, before I was back in the chair with a cat giving me
a
> weird look.<<<
>
> What you are calling "Gnosis" here, I would more generally refer to
> as a specific type of "mystical experience". There can be no doubt
> that a form of meditation generally is used to gain this
experience,
> and it is transformative. Gnostic texts do describe visionary
> experiences like this one as part of the process toward Gnosis.
>
> PMCV
>

Let's start with the garden variety type, any visualizing type, or....

pmcvflag wrote:
> Mike
>
>
>>>> Neither, but what role does meditation have in all this?<<<
>>>>
>
> Hmmmm. That could depend on what kind of "meditation" one is talking
> about, I guess.
>
> PMCV
>
>
>

gnostic_ken wrote:
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>> Hey Melissa
>>
>>
>>>>> One question.....the forum??? I just thought this was an email
>>>>>
>> group.<<<
>>
>> Just in case Lady Cari's post doesn't reach you again let me also
>>
> send
>
>> you the URL for the forum...
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/
>>
>> Now it is my turn to ask a question. Although I was aware that
>>
> people
>
>> could elect to get our messages through email rather than entering
>>
> the
>
>> group directly, I didn't realize that it was possible to do so
>>
> without
>
>> joining through the forum first. May I ask how you started getting
>> emails from us? How did you register? I wonder if other people
>>
> here
>
>> are getting emails from us without realizing that these emails are
>> coming from a forum.
>>
>> PMCV
>>
>
> Hi PMCV,
> One can get e-mails by sending an e-mail to
> gnosticism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> That is a leftover from the days when yahoogroups was oneslist. I
> understand that this group was formed as a yahoo club. I started the
> GT list on onelist which was a subscribtion based internet e-mail
> list. egroups ate onelist then yahoo ate egroups. For a while yahoo
> clubs and yahoogroups operated side by side on yahoo. Finally yahoo
> blended yahoo clubs into yahoogroups. That's how you ended up with
> the 2 on the end of gnosticism. There was already a gnosticism list
> in yahoogroups. Anyway, if someone is signed up to have the posts
> sent by e-mail they are sent. If they don't get them then likely
> their SPAM filters are eating them. For some reason known only to
> SPAM filters they will let some posts through and send some to the
> inbox even though they are all from the same yahoogroup.
>
> So what I am trying to say is anyone who realizes they are not
> getting all of their e-mail should check in whatever file their SPAM
> filter deposits things it thinks are SPAM.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ken
>
Good point.  All my spam mail goes to a junk folder first.  I always
check it and found, for the first time, one of PMCV's in there.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ken

>>>>One can get e-mails by sending an e-mail to
gnosticism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
That is a leftover from the days when yahoogroups was oneslist.<<<

AHHHH! That explains a lot. Thanks Ken!


>>>I understand that this group was formed as a yahoo club. I
started the GT list on onelist which was a subscribtion based
internet e-mail list. egroups ate onelist then yahoo ate egroups.
For a while yahoo clubs and yahoogroups operated side by side on
yahoo. Finally yahoo blended yahoo clubs into yahoogroups. That's
how you ended up with the 2 on the end of gnosticism.<<<

Yes, and those who had the Clubs kind of got snubbed. Not only did
we get the @ added (in spite of the fact that we were older and
larger than the group that got to keep it's original name) but we
also lost several years worth of archives. According to our list it
was created at the end of 2001 rather than in 98, and according to
our archives there are a whole bunch of missing posts from Dec 31,
1970 *lol*.

>>>Anyway, if someone is signed up to have the posts sent by e-mail
they are sent. If they don't get them then likely their SPAM filters
are eating them. For some reason known only to SPAM filters they
will let some posts through and send some to the inbox even though
they are all from the same yahoogroup.<<<

We had been thinking about switching it so that no one would get
their posts via email, but I think we gave up on that idea. I guess
the fact that people can subscribe without even knowing there is an
actual forum would make that even more difficult.

>>>So what I am trying to say is anyone who realizes they are not
getting all of their e-mail should check in whatever file their SPAM
filter deposits things it thinks are SPAM.<<<<

Or even better... come sign in to the forum where you can gain
access to a number of resources.

PMCV

Mike

>>>Let's start with the garden variety type (of meditation), any
visualizing type, or....<<<

I DO think that traditional Gnostics had a number of meditation
techniques. I am guessing you would agree. I think that many people
today kind of think of the psychology/biofeedback kind, or something
that is a loose mixing of this with a kind of semi eastern style, when
they hear the word "meditation". I think that this is valuable but not
likely to have been part of Gnostic practice. Instead, what we
generally see both in the texts and in accounts about the Gnostics
leans more towards meditation techniques that are more closely
connected to ritual initiation, glossolalia, intellectual expansion,
and as you mention.... a sort of visualization.

Of course, some of this may be dependant on which sect we are talking
about, but I think much of this was pretty common to the philosophical
Mystery schools of the time.

As far as what it has to do with Gnosis? When I read Allogenes, for
instance, it seems to me that there is an implied cycle, though I may
reading that eisegetically because of my own spiritual inclinations. I
see periods of questioning and intellectual revelation offset by a
sort of visualization. This would fit in with how these various
Hellenist mysteries seemed to view Plato's notion of "Gnosis" as a
spiritual function. More explicitely, the attributes I listed some
time back that we can find in the texts directly outlining Gnosis
certainly demonstrate this multifold definition (and process) as well.
Some types of meditation seem to bridge the experience with the
cognitive in a way that could very easily be implied by the very
definition of the word "Gnosis" in this context.

In other words, I would say that some types of meditation were thought
to be an important aspect of the process towards Gnosis, just as the
mystical experience seems to be.

PMCV


> >
> > Hmmmm. That could depend on what kind of "meditation" one is
talking
> > about, I guess.
> >
> > PMCV
> >
> >
> >
>

Darkchylde

>>>I just felt it to be a moment of 'gnosis' as I didn't just hear
about from a second party, or read it, I KNEW the connection I had to
the ALL, the Unmainifest.<<<

Ah, I see what you mean. I had thought you were connecting the
word "Gnosis" to the experience itself, but if I understand you now
you mean to connect it to a sort of realization that contextualized
the experience. Is that correct? It may sound like hair splitting, but
the destinction could actually be very very important.

>>>It wasn't due to visualization (although I think that to be a
usefull and necessary tool in meditation) albeit it may have been
triggered by my contemplations on the Epinoia. I came back with
that 'water splashed in the face feeling' and it left me irrevocably
changed. If I had never experienced it, I would probably still believe
as I do now, but I wouldn't KNOW. It is one thing to read about it,
contemplate it, talk about it, but it quite another to experience it.

You know?<<<

Yes, I do. You mentioned in a previous post how you may have taken the
experience fery differently if you were, say, Catholic. I think that
is a very good and important point... and very related to the subject
of whether it is technically "Gnosis" or not. Many people who are more
influenced by modern esoteric traditions equate the word with the
experience itself. It is very often that we hear people say "look, I
had this experience so now I have gnosis". In a modern sense of the
word that is surely true, but I do find it unfortunate that people
feel the need to foist this modern esoteric thinking back on
traditional Gnostic thinking in such a way that causes them to misread
the Gnostic texts.

In the Gnostic texts this word is simply not a single cohesive
experiencial instance. I do see how one could read Plato and think
that is what he meant ("like a flash of light"), or read the Gnostic
texts and believe they are talking about the mystical experience, but
I think a closer reading shows this to be inaccurate. I think there is
no question that the concept of Gnosis is used to describe more than
one aspect of revelation, comprehension, and advancement on the
initiatory path of the ancient Gnostics. The salvific effect
of "Gnosis" is not generally attributed to a single event so far as I
can remember from any of the texts (unless somebody else can think of
an example).

One could almost wonder if perhaps in modern English rather than
claiming to have attained Gnosis, it could be more accurate to talk
about various gnosises in a larger concept of Gnosis.... if that makes
any sense. Just a thought.

PMCV

pmcvflag wrote:
> Ken
>
>
>>>>> One can get e-mails by sending an e-mail to
>>>>>
> gnosticism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> That is a leftover from the days when yahoogroups was oneslist.<<<
>
> AHHHH! That explains a lot. Thanks Ken!
>
>
>
>>>> I understand that this group was formed as a yahoo club. I
>>>>
> started the GT list on onelist which was a subscribtion based
> internet e-mail list. egroups ate onelist then yahoo ate egroups.
> For a while yahoo clubs and yahoogroups operated side by side on
> yahoo. Finally yahoo blended yahoo clubs into yahoogroups. That's
> how you ended up with the 2 on the end of gnosticism.<<<
>
> Yes, and those who had the Clubs kind of got snubbed. Not only did
> we get the @ added (in spite of the fact that we were older and
> larger than the group that got to keep it's original name) but we
> also lost several years worth of archives. According to our list it
> was created at the end of 2001 rather than in 98, and according to
> our archives there are a whole bunch of missing posts from Dec 31,
> 1970 *lol*.
>
>
>>>> Anyway, if someone is signed up to have the posts sent by e-mail
>>>>
> they are sent. If they don't get them then likely their SPAM filters
> are eating them. For some reason known only to SPAM filters they
> will let some posts through and send some to the inbox even though
> they are all from the same yahoogroup.<<<
>
> We had been thinking about switching it so that no one would get
> their posts via email, but I think we gave up on that idea. I guess
> the fact that people can subscribe without even knowing there is an
> actual forum would make that even more difficult.
>
>
>>>> So what I am trying to say is anyone who realizes they are not
>>>>
> getting all of their e-mail should check in whatever file their SPAM
> filter deposits things it thinks are SPAM.<<<<
>
> Or even better... come sign in to the forum where you can gain
> access to a number of resources.
>
> PMCV
>
I frankly abhor forums, and much prefer email.   /I only use the forum
for looking up old posts./
>
>
>
>
>

One of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles, The Acts
of Peter, gives us a hint of the ancient White Christian experience
of "negritude" and a sobering perspective on theological
universalism. Marcellus describes to Peter a dream that featured an
evil-looking woman:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/actpete.htm

And Marcellus turned to sleep for a short space, and awoke and said
unto Peter: O Peter, thou apostle of Christ, let us go boldly unto
that which lieth before us. For just now when I turned myself to
sleep for a little, I beheld thee sitting in a high place and before
thee a great multitude, and a woman exceeding foul, in sight like an
Ethiopian (Aethiopissimam), not an Egyptian, but altogether black
(nigram) and filthy, clothed in rags, and with an iron collar about
her neck and chains upon her hands and feet, dancing. And when thou
sawest me thou saidst to me with a loud voice: Marcellus the whole
power of Simon and of his God is this woman that danceth; do thou
behead her. And I said to thee: Brother Peter, I am a senator of a
high race, and I have never defiled my hands, neither killed so much
as a sparrow at any time. And thou hearing it didst begin to cry out
yet more: Come thou, our true sword, Jesu Christ, and cut not off
only the head of this devil (daemonis), but hew all her limbs in
pieces in the sight of all these Whom I have approved in thy service.
And immediately one like unto thee, O Peter, having a sword, hewed
her in pieces: so that I looked earnestly upon you both, both on thee
and on him that cut in pieces that devil, and marvelled greatly to
see how alike ye were. And I awaked, and have told unto thee these
signs of Christ. And when Peter heard it he was the more filled with
courage, for that Marcellus had seen these things, knowing that the
Lord alway careth for his own. And being joyful and refreshed by
these words, he rose up to go unto the forum.

Moronic mainline modernist Christians enslaved to cultural Bolshevism
are sure to be "shocked", "silenced" and "offended" by this ancient
account of hyperaggressive Christian racial consciousness... How to
explain such violence toward an ethnic person? Remember, this text
was written in the early formative years of Christianity and was
intended to inspire and edify, an entirely acceptable part of early
Christian discourses. The harsh reality of the White Christian
attitude to the savage negroid here couldn't be more evident...

Since the Acts of Peter are not a Gnostic text (something
Brightimperator seems a bit unclear about) I started to reject this
post as off topic. However, I found that this post was a good
example two things;

1) how easily people can misread something to back whatever agenda
they wish.

This is why this group is so specific about defining important words
accurately, and trying to avoid eisegesis.

2) Just how vicious some of the attacks against the early Gnostics
were.

This woman that is being killed in Marcellus' dream is meant to
symbolize the Gnostic heresy and the "ugly" filth the author wants
us to believe it brings against the supposed true Christianity of
Peter.

While a close reading demonstrates that in fact the race of the
woman is not what the author is identifying as dirty (the Egyptian
is black as well, but common to the area. Instead it is meant to
point out the author's belief that the theological views of these
terrible Gnostics are not native to the soil they are being
presented in, but foriegn intropolation), but it shows extreme the
polemics against the Gnostics could be.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@...> wrote:
>
> One of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles, The
Acts
> of Peter, gives us a hint of the ancient White Christian
experience
> of "negritude" and a sobering perspective on theological
> universalism. Marcellus describes to Peter a dream that featured
an
> evil-looking woman:
>
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/actpete.htm
>
> And Marcellus turned to sleep for a short space, and awoke and
said
> unto Peter: O Peter, thou apostle of Christ, let us go boldly unto
> that which lieth before us. For just now when I turned myself to
> sleep for a little, I beheld thee sitting in a high place and
before
> thee a great multitude, and a woman exceeding foul, in sight like
an
> Ethiopian (Aethiopissimam), not an Egyptian, but altogether black
> (nigram) and filthy, clothed in rags, and with an iron collar
about
> her neck and chains upon her hands and feet, dancing. And when
thou
> sawest me thou saidst to me with a loud voice: Marcellus the whole
> power of Simon and of his God is this woman that danceth; do thou
> behead her. And I said to thee: Brother Peter, I am a senator of a
> high race, and I have never defiled my hands, neither killed so
much
> as a sparrow at any time. And thou hearing it didst begin to cry
out
> yet more: Come thou, our true sword, Jesu Christ, and cut not off
> only the head of this devil (daemonis), but hew all her limbs in
> pieces in the sight of all these Whom I have approved in thy
service.
> And immediately one like unto thee, O Peter, having a sword, hewed
> her in pieces: so that I looked earnestly upon you both, both on
thee
> and on him that cut in pieces that devil, and marvelled greatly to
> see how alike ye were. And I awaked, and have told unto thee these
> signs of Christ. And when Peter heard it he was the more filled
with
> courage, for that Marcellus had seen these things, knowing that
the
> Lord alway careth for his own. And being joyful and refreshed by
> these words, he rose up to go unto the forum.
>
> Moronic mainline modernist Christians enslaved to cultural
Bolshevism
> are sure to be "shocked", "silenced" and "offended" by this
ancient
> account of hyperaggressive Christian racial consciousness... How
to
> explain such violence toward an ethnic person? Remember, this text
> was written in the early formative years of Christianity and was
> intended to inspire and edify, an entirely acceptable part of
early
> Christian discourses. The harsh reality of the White Christian
> attitude to the savage negroid here couldn't be more evident...
>

Blessings!!
Sorry so long in responding.  This post got buried in my inbox and I
just now found it.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean, and I don't think you are splitting
hairs at all.  I believe words are specific for us to communicate
with, and that did need to be explained, you just did a better job of
it than I.
But it wasn't just a 'single event' although that moment had the more
dramatic in effect on me.  It was the entire process of learning
the 'truth' on 'God' and the spiritual realm, then in a state of
relaxed contemplation could be seen as meditation, which culmulated
into an event wherein I was made aware of the ALL, and my connection
to it.
Kinda like in the Hymn of the Pearl, where the real task had been
forgotten and the child and messenger sent to get the pearl had begun
to serve the other king, then recieves a letter from 'home' which
reminded the child of the task at hand and of their real identity.
Reading the texts were like the letter, it reminded me of the truth,
and for a momnet my perspective allowed me to experience the truth.
Without having learned the truth, or being 'reminded of it' I
wouldn't have really understood what I was seeing and the
comprehension brought about by the event would have also been awry.
That was the point I was trying to make, without success I think.LOL
Hope you walk in Light and Love!!
WHirled and inner peas
DarkChylde


Gnothi Seauton
**Love thy enemies.  Messes with their heads!**

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Darkchylde
>
> >>>I just felt it to be a moment of 'gnosis' as I didn't just hear
> about from a second party, or read it, I KNEW the connection I had
to
> the ALL, the Unmainifest.<<<
>
> Ah, I see what you mean. I had thought you were connecting the
> word "Gnosis" to the experience itself, but if I understand you now
> you mean to connect it to a sort of realization that contextualized
> the experience. Is that correct? It may sound like hair splitting,
but
> the destinction could actually be very very important.
>
> >>>It wasn't due to visualization (although I think that to be a
> usefull and necessary tool in meditation) albeit it may have been
> triggered by my contemplations on the Epinoia. I came back with
> that 'water splashed in the face feeling' and it left me
irrevocably
> changed. If I had never experienced it, I would probably still
believe
> as I do now, but I wouldn't KNOW. It is one thing to read about it,
> contemplate it, talk about it, but it quite another to experience
it.
>
> You know?<<<
>
> Yes, I do. You mentioned in a previous post how you may have taken
the
> experience fery differently if you were, say, Catholic. I think
that
> is a very good and important point... and very related to the
subject
> of whether it is technically "Gnosis" or not. Many people who are
more
> influenced by modern esoteric traditions equate the word with the
> experience itself. It is very often that we hear people say "look,
I
> had this experience so now I have gnosis". In a modern sense of the
> word that is surely true, but I do find it unfortunate that people
> feel the need to foist this modern esoteric thinking back on
> traditional Gnostic thinking in such a way that causes them to
misread
> the Gnostic texts.
>
> In the Gnostic texts this word is simply not a single cohesive
> experiencial instance. I do see how one could read Plato and think
> that is what he meant ("like a flash of light"), or read the
Gnostic
> texts and believe they are talking about the mystical experience,
but
> I think a closer reading shows this to be inaccurate. I think there
is
> no question that the concept of Gnosis is used to describe more
than
> one aspect of revelation, comprehension, and advancement on the
> initiatory path of the ancient Gnostics. The salvific effect
> of "Gnosis" is not generally attributed to a single event so far as
I
> can remember from any of the texts (unless somebody else can think
of
> an example).
>
> One could almost wonder if perhaps in modern English rather than
> claiming to have attained Gnosis, it could be more accurate to talk
> about various gnosises in a larger concept of Gnosis.... if that
makes
> any sense. Just a thought.
>
> PMCV
>

A proto-Gnostic & Mystic Master:  Not only might have he given you
fits in your high school geometry class, this mysterious figure coined
the word `philosophy', was initiated in the Orphic & Egyptian
Mysteries, understood the universe as a harmony of music, math and
magic, and founded perhaps the first egalitarian, ascetic cadre of
freethinkers in the West.  He influenced most of the greatest
philosophers of Greece, including Plato.  Whether in history or in
legendry, this man is one of the main grandfathers of most esoteric
schools of thought our culture.  You know him simply as Pythagoras.

Astral Guest: Charles H. Kahn, author of `Pythagoras and the
Pythagoreans: A Brief History' and Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Pennsylvania joins `Coffee, Cigarettes, & Gnosis' this
Sunday, November 26, at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
Freethoughtmedia.com.  Just click the `now playing' button under the
banner.

Topics Discussed:

--The origins and history of Pythagoras, who arguable established the
first ever `cult' in Western Society.
--His influence on Greek Philosophy, Gnosticism, Christianity and
Judaism, and later Renaissance Philosophy.
--The various doctrines of the Pythagoreans, never seen before in the
classic Greek world, including reincarnation, vegetarianism,
egalitarianism, and more that were later adopted by the Gnostics,
Mystic Jews and Mediterranean Mystery Schools.
--The influence of Pythagoras on modern science, including
history-changing thinkers who were influenced by him.
--The reality that, like all proto-Messiahs and Messengers of Light,
Pythagoras was despised and rebuked during his turn at the wheel.
--Did the Cult of Orpheus influence Pythagoras or did he influence
this mysterious brotherhood?
--Separating the legendary figure from the historical man.
--The shocking truth behind the Pythagorean Theorem and his other
mathematical discoveries.
--The parallels between Pythagoras and the `historical' Jesus.

Pythagoras represents the balanced thinker, the history-altering
genius, an indicivual who understood that the sacred and the secular
were one and the same, that science and magic didn't have to be at
odds, that the natural was supernatural and the supernatural was
natural.  It's a pity atheists or theists can't understand this these
days.


Next week it's The Serpent & The Goddess.  They are also known as Eve
& The Snake, Ophine & Euronyme, Jesus & Mary Magdalene, Arthur
Penndragon & Guinevere and several other archetypal, mythical and
mystic consorts that have been suppressed for thousands of years.  Yet
this primordial syzygy reveals not only the path to gnosis, but the
heart into the secrets of the Holy Grail, the Temple of Solomon, the
Knights Templar and so much more.  Astral Guest: Philip Gardiner,
best-selling author of `Gnosis: The Secrets of Solomon's Temple
Revealed', `The Shining Ones' & `Secrets of The Serpent'.

This week's rebroadcast is `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis #13: The
Thomas Gospel Affair'.  Everything you need to know to delve into the
most influential Gnostic Scripture:  The Gospel of Thomas.  Our guest
was David F. Capps, author of 'The Gospel of Thomas: A Blue Print For
Spiritual Growth'.  The Show starts at 11:30AM PST/1:30 CST/2:30 EST.

Abraxas