I could use some help.

What to read for a good look at the Cologne Mani Codex????

What are similiar Codices that relate to Creation in clear concepts?


And do most Gnostic recognize that Buffy, of Buffy the Vampire slayer
was written as Mary Magdalene, and was often portrayed as Gnostic?


thanks for your replies ahead of time

Hello lady_caritas

On 04-Oct-03, you wrote:


> Yes, the intent and focus make a lot of difference. Paul's mention
> of "creed" reminded me of an incident. Apologies if I have already
> relayed this story. Many years ago I heard a minister recount a
> conversation with one of his parishioners who was refraining from
> joining in the congregational reading of various creeds (Apostles',
> Nicene, etc.) during the worship service because he didn't believe
> in everything contained in them. The pastor recommended he just
> recite them anyway and that they would become a part of him. Oh,
> brother. So, this would be a suggestion of conscious focusing of
> someone *else's* intentions. Do we see borderline brainwashing?
>
> I don't feel that gnosis can be taught or forced, although certainly
> ritual can be an aid for some, part of the experiential process.
> Likely a recognition beginning the process of gnosis could occur
> regardless of any formal practice if the individual is ready.

Actually both you and the minister had it right.  Repetition is one of
the keys to how ritual works, so not only your intention is critical,
but so is the content of the ritual, because it can help you
internalize gnosis or orthodoxy.  BTW, if you can ever find it on
line somewhere, C. W. Leadbetter's THE CHRISTIAN CREED, is excellent.
OP for years.  He contends, in essence, it is one long Zen Koan, and
was originally a meditation exercise, not a creed.  I never felt so
bad about it after reading that book. :-)

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

Hello lightquadrille

On 04-Oct-03, you wrote:

> I could use some help.
>
> What to read for a good look at the Cologne Mani Codex????
>
> What are similiar Codices that relate to Creation in clear concepts?

For a good intro, you couldn't do better than to find )OP for years
though) or find on line, a copy of Duncan Greenlees' THE GOSPEL OF
THE PROPHET MANI.

> And do most Gnostic recognize that Buffy, of Buffy the Vampire
> slayer was written as Mary Magdalene, and was often portrayed as
> Gnostic?

That's a stretch, but you may have a point.  I didn't like the
program, so I only watched it once.  I saw more influence of the old
Bella Lagosi Dracula movies than anything else, though even there
there was some occult, as opposed to specifically Gnostic knowledge
applied.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

Hello Terje Bergensen,


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Bergersen" <terje@b...>
wrote:
>


>
>
> With regards to the excerpt:
>
>[ Are the means by which Alchemy is designated a "sacred art"
qualified and
> explained in the book?
> Is it established, with textual (and I don`t mean a citation from
another
> book of this kind.. ) evidence and groundwork,
> that Alchemy -as a sacred art- originates and is employed -to those
ends-
> in Hellenistic antiquity?
> That question is quite interesting,  if it is qualified,"proved" or
proved
> probable, and given foundation - it is worth the chapter or the
half -
> which is the usual contigent in books like these..]
>
> The primary focus of Eamon's book are the recipe and formula books
designated
Books of Secrets in antiquity and medieval periods and as such
pertain to
the practical side of alchemy as opposed to the philosophical side.
I do not think that Eamon is wrong in referring to alchemy as a
Sacred Art, as it is in accord with not only other scholarly books
that I have read on the subject, but actual texts that are attributed
to late antiquity.
The literary tradition behind the recipe books dates back to
Hellenistic times and has its roots in the alchemical tradition.
Three of the earliest recipe books are Egyptian papyri known as the
Leyden X, Stockholm papyrus and Papyrus Ebers.
Three other alchemical manuscripts to which scholars attribute the
originals to the Hellenistic period are the `The Precepts of Hermes
Trismegistus', ` Zosimus, On Completion' and `Book of Comarius,
Philosopher and High Priest Who Was Teaching Cleopatra the Divine,
the Sacred Art of the Philosopher's Stone'.  Sacred Art actually
appears in the title of the latter, while Zosimus' work refers to
alchemy as the Divine Art.





[Of course, Alchemy is a very specific topic to many readers of this
list,
> while it is a general and tenuous one to many others...
> I get the impression that the simple definition used for "alchemy"
here
> has to do with the doctrines concerning "refinement", which is to
say -
> "perfection" - I have this quiet suspicion that very many, too many
to
> list, in fact, of the religious and philosophical remnants of our
past and
> passing civilizations (our culture is turning into static..beyond
that
> threshold lays oblivion), traditions,movements,groups..religions -
in some
> way employ intelligence,immagination,intuition and a collective and
> individual effort towards one or another kind of such "refinement".
> To demonstrate the idea behind such "refinement" (which
incidentally is
> also just a barely workable metaphor) you could employ mental
images,
> examples which is not the thing itself, or entirely representative
as such
> - but which gives you an impression of what is at stake and if not
the
> processes themselves, at least the fact of some kind of process
being
> involved; one such would be the very primitive concern of what it
takes to
> purify a metal - or distill something - or indeed, "produce gold".
That`s
> everyday usage of the term "alchemy" - hard work and concentration
to
> which is added a bit of genius, and a pinch of brimstone  - produced
> brilliance, pure gold..
>
> The nature of the formula as claimed by the Messalian heretics
(according
> to Theodoret among others) could remind one somewhat of the
overblown and
> optimistic evaluations of certain
> philosophers,authors,artistes,socioanthropologists,psychologists and
> others.. concerning the effect of the "Psychedelic"; by "cleansing
the
> doors of perception" - in the case of the messalians by way of "fire
> baptism" and ascetic and devotionary discipline - in the case of
Huxley
> and other Psychedelic pioneers - by ingesting, "under the right set
and
> setting", a substance - a true vision or appreciation of reality,
not the
> collective and dull reality, but an expanded, "higher" reality -
which to
> the Messalians included angels,spirits,gods and so
forth .The "effect" of
> the discipline as cited by Theodoret almost suggest a shamanic
direction..
> which isnt too uncommon among pietists - consider the trances and
> ecstasies of the early Quakers, the Shakers, the noncomformist
communalist
> sects of the Taborians and their russian brethren the Dukhobors
etc. all
> sharing a lifestyle and perspective which includes the ideal of
> "perfection" and the acquisition of the vision of heaven,angels etc.
> through ascetic discipline and contemplative prayer.]
>

   To my knowledge Psychedelics are not mentioned in Eamon's book.



> [All this is well and good, if it can be established that the
doctrinal
> platform of for instance the Messalians or the Cathars - include an
> understanding of human divinity or consciousness of the divine,being
> increased by effort and technique; I`ll admit that we may very well
> combine two words -sacred- and -art-, but do we with those
ingredients get
> Alchemy?
>
> I suspect the author of that book of really sincerely and perhaps
even
> intensively studying what Titus Burkhardt had to say about Alchemy
being
> an Sacred Art..but I also suspect,being a suspicious bastard.. that
he
> runs off with it, reversing the relationships, so *any* "Sacred
Art", as
> qualified by ourselves, becomes "Alchemy", and uses the two so much
> interchangeably. This is typical of so-called "popular occultists"
and
> thats where I spot that assertion which includes or employs
a  "total
> unknown", which if partially "known" - like through the articles
> I cited in my last post, also is controversial.]

  Eamon also writes:
"We are obviously concerned here with a cultural climate in which the
distinction between gold making and gold faking was not as obvious as
it is to us. As Joseph Needham observed, the distinction between
aurification (counterfeiting gold and aurifaction
(transmuting "ignoble" metals into gold) is not technological but
cultural: it depends upon what you think you are doing. Indeed the
alchemists real aim had little to do with either the making or
counterfeiting of gold. His goal was a religious one: to project upon
matter the mystical drama of the passion, death and resurrection of
the god of the mystery cult. In the sudden appearance of alchemical
texts at the beginning of the Christian era we witness the
convergence of two esoteric traditions, one learned and the other
popular, one representing the revealed wisdom of the East and the
other by the craft tradition, the guardian of trade secrets…" -page
31, Science And The Secrets of Nature, William Eamon.

>
> [The cited authors casual accusation that Christianity, in
general , of
> trying to obliterate a "science" or initiatory tradition, that
really did
> not please me or impress me either ; considering that the Alchemical
> tradition were sustained in particularly two areas, one western and
one
> eastern, and these were chiefly Christian and Islamic; The religious
> imagry/ideas that the author obliquely refers to in the excerpt -
> originates from these two, to which is added an almost necessary
> "Platonic" perspective on the relationship between a manifest,solid
and
> muteable/manipulative/elastic constitution of matter/physicality -
and a
> spiritual world of forms,"ideals",patterns and "powers" which
> inform,"sustains" and penetrates into the physical and sensual
domains in
> which man, The Quintessence, finds himself immersed. This
dependence of
> the Christian philosophers who employed themselves with or of
Alchemy in
> one variety or another, upon Platonism,especially neo-platonism, is
very
> much in evidence. From what we can gather it is highly probable that
> Thomas of Aquinas, a Docteur and Sainte of the Catholic Church,
authored
> the Aurora Consurgens,
> which is a very curious document which, read by modern or probably
> contemporary eyes..]

   It is true that for a period the Church did not ban alchemy, but
that is not to say that it supported it either. In 1317 Pope John
XXII issued a Papul bull condemning the art. It is also true that
various heretical sects were known to have practiced the art.
   For example, Nestorians and the Monophysites were aquainted with
alchemical doctrines and carried these through Syria and Persia.
"The immediate cause was the expulsion of the learned sect of the
Nestorians from Constantinople in A.D. 431. They formed an active
school of Greek learning at Edessa in the north of Syria. Thence they
were expelled by the Greek Emporer in 489. They then moved to Nisibis
in Mesopotamia and soon after A.D. 500 finally settled a Jundai-
Shapur, the great Persian medical school, some distance north of
Basra. The Nestorians long retained a knowledge of Greek and soon
began to translate Greek works into Syriac. In the next century the
Monophyisite Christians wer also expelled from Constantinople and
migrated to Syria and Persia. Some, at least of the Greek works of
alchemy were translated by them in Syriac." Page 68, The Alchemists,
F. Sherwood Taylor
   I have read elsewhere that the Ophites practiced alchemy but the
source eludes me at the moment.  Nevertheless, Seligmann in his
History Of Magic and the Occult, mentions that the serpent Ouroboros
was worshipped by several sects of the Ophites.  This symbol not only
appears on gnostic gem amulets but is also a prominent symbol in
alchemical texts. In Arcana Mundi, in the section on alchemical
texts, Luck gives an Ouroboros symbol accompanied with the words "One
is all, and by it all, and if one does not contain all, all is
nothing." Page 367 Arcana Mundi , Magic and Occult in the Greek and
Roman Worlds , Georg Luck.

[However, if we inspect the Messalians and their
> Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) counterparts
> in late antiquity, we find little evidence of that inspiration, nor
> dependence. We find the suggestion that matter is corrupt through
sin, sin
> having brought about the presence of
> evil spirits within material containers and forms,in particular -
human
> bodies; if these selfsame bodies are exorcised and purified, and
kept in a
> state of "perfection", wherein
> the individual makes no bidding for his fate and desires nothing,
being
> impassionate about anything but doing the will of God, they become
vessels
> of light and of the Holy Spirit.
> This is quite comparable to the speculations and approach of the
medieval
> Homines Intelligae, or the "Brethren and Sistren of the Free
Spirit" -
> Their evaluation of the "base"
> stage of humanity, the state of being for the majority of
humankind, and
> its foundation; sin - is similar to that of the Messalians, while
it is
> quite different from the Cathars, because the latter, while divided
> between Traducianism (wherein the same psychological or "psychic"
> substance or persona is spread thin through the
> generations originating in Adam (and sometimes in Adam and Eve))
and the
> belief of the pre-existence of each individual soul as angels
fallen or
> trapped into the condition
> of incarnation,human bodies - who employs the idea of a metaphysical
> cause: the fall of higher intelligences into Mutiny against God and
the
> "First Creation" (which appears
> to me to be so dependant on Origenes Peri Archon (On First
Principles)
> that they are practically "Origenists") but most dramatically: the
flawed,
> rebellious, "wicked" creation
> of the physical universe, or at least the earth and its inhabitants
> physical forms. A "Biblical Demiurge" theme.
>
> With the Cathars we have an "ascension theme"; they seek liberation
as the
> end of all ascetic and contemplative disciplines used on their
path; the
> ritual of the Consolamentum are a formal seal
> which signify towards the exterior authorities (the "powers"
or "archons")
> that they formally belong to the Church of God and endeavoured to
give
> Caesar what is Caesar`s :
> their bodies, their birthright, their properties and so forth; as
such,
> the body is not claimed from the possession of evil spirits, but in
a very
> real sense consigned and given up to the world.
> With the Messalians we have chiefly a "perfection theme"; they seek
a
> glorified deification of man as a physical creature, the role of the
> "elite" in a Manichaean and Cathar (here they are
> similar) setting is to "show the way", the role of the "elite" with
the
> Messalians is kingship,domination and leadership - a theocracy -
the body
> is claimed from the possession of evil
> spirits, purified, perfected and ..according to Epiphanius, allowed
> certain licenses which would theologically now befall the perfected
soul,
> while in a state of imperfection, any pleasure
> would be considered the privilege of the devil, which of course had
to be
> denied him. In addition, the perfected would expect to receive all
gifts
> and abilities ascribed traditionally to such
> a condition and to the "gifts of the holy spirit".
>
> This difference of opinion upon the theme of Soma is quite
significant,
> from the early 2nd century
> dissent and disagreement, even among those which historians treat as
> "Orthodox", have encrouched the question of the physicality or
somatical
> nature of Jesus/Christ,
> the somatic or spiritual nature of Jesus resurrection and ascent
(and
> death, as shown in the Docetic variant) as put against the expected
> physical or somatical "eternal abode/life"
> of the elect or the true christians, their possible resurrection,
and
> "journey to heaven" - whether there is a temporal "rest" which some
are
> consigned to, an eternal physical hell
> or an eternal physical paradise.. even if the anatomy of God the
Father is
> a complete and actual physical and material analogue to the human,
since
> the human is considered
> "the image of God". Of course, they would not use those struggling
and
> failing terms; agreement over terminology took up quite a lot of
the time
> as well, and even marching out
> as party or rebellious to one or another doctrinal Council, it
doesnt
> appear that everyone got the same idea of what had been agreed
upon.. The
> Messalians heresy would be
> declared as such, treated as such and very strongly argued against
*after
> the disappearance of the heresy*, when the same ideas,practices and
> attitudes were discovered
> and treated in other movements...In the late middle ages. At that
time -
> the more sophisticated and literate followers of such, *would* have
an
> idea about Alchemy and other arts,
> and would adapt either their theology to its imagry,ideas and
terminology
> - or vice versa. The "perfection theme" remains in a more socialized
> fringe than the "ascension theme"-
> the strongest "ascension theme" religion or movement, which is not
> violently fought and polemized against by the west - is actually
> non-Christian and non-western in origin and expression;
> It`s Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism. The "perfection theme" in various
kinds,
> also including the somatic view of the Messalians - you can find
all over,
> but not particularized or put
> into a dogmatic body as such; Christian Science, New Thought,
various
> trends of occultism including the so-called New Age - and yes, here
we
> *do* find it conglomerated
> and synthetized with a symbology adapted from Alchemy.]
>
> The circulation of alchemical texts along sectarian groups does not
necessarily dictate that the same religious doctrines are transmitted
as well. Alchemy has since it inception had two sides one practical,
the other religious.  One sectarian group may interpret the religious
side differently from the next.  I suspect that a lot of what passes
as alchemical doctrine may in fact be practical formula disguised as
such. Imagine how chemical formulas would read if the elements on an
elemental chart were substituted for words from the Bible. H2O might
read as Holy Holy Omega. To the untrained eye this would appear as an
incantation, but the Elect it is the formula for water. Ancient
alchemists did not have the elemental chart, but they did couch their
formulas in cryptic language equally as enigmatic.
>
>

  Sincerely,
  Magusadeptus

Hello Mike Leavitt,

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:


>
> That's a stretch, but you may have a point.  I didn't like the
> program, so I only watched it once.  I saw more influence of the old
> Bella Lagosi Dracula movies than anything else, though even there
> there was some occult, as opposed to specifically Gnostic knowledge
> applied.
>
> Hey, I like the Buffy series. I have seen every episode, Angel too.
I agree that there isn't much Gnosticism, but there is alot of good
old fashioned occultism. Can't say I agree with the Bella Lagosi
analogy, though.
> --

  Sincerely,
  Magusadeptus

Hello Magusadeptus

On 04-Oct-03, you wrote:

> Hello Mike Leavitt,
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's a stretch, but you may have a point. I didn't like the
>> program, so I only watched it once. I saw more influence of the old
>> Bella Lagosi Dracula movies than anything else, though even there
>> there was some occult, as opposed to specifically Gnostic knowledge
>> applied.
>>
>> Hey, I like the Buffy series. I have seen every episode, Angel too.
> I agree that there isn't much Gnosticism, but there is alot of good
> old fashioned occultism. Can't say I agree with the Bella Lagosi
> analogy, though.
>> --
>
> Sincerely,
> Magusadeptus

That was nothing factual, just how it struck me.  I remember in one of
the old Dracula movies this old sage telling Dracula or one of the
other characters how the universe was just different levels of
vibration accounting for physical and spiritual and psychic planes.
He sounded like Annie Besant or Rudolph Steiner.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello lady_caritas
>
> On 04-Oct-03, you wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, the intent and focus make a lot of difference. Paul's mention
> > of "creed" reminded me of an incident. Apologies if I have already
> > relayed this story. Many years ago I heard a minister recount a
> > conversation with one of his parishioners who was refraining from
> > joining in the congregational reading of various creeds
(Apostles',
> > Nicene, etc.) during the worship service because he didn't believe
> > in everything contained in them. The pastor recommended he just
> > recite them anyway and that they would become a part of him. Oh,
> > brother. So, this would be a suggestion of conscious focusing of
> > someone *else's* intentions. Do we see borderline brainwashing?
> >
> > I don't feel that gnosis can be taught or forced, although
certainly
> > ritual can be an aid for some, part of the experiential process.
> > Likely a recognition beginning the process of gnosis could occur
> > regardless of any formal practice if the individual is ready.
>
> Actually both you and the minister had it right.  Repetition is one
of
> the keys to how ritual works, so not only your intention is
critical,
> but so is the content of the ritual, because it can help you
> internalize gnosis or orthodoxy.  BTW, if you can ever find it on
> line somewhere, C. W. Leadbetter's THE CHRISTIAN CREED, is
excellent.
> OP for years.  He contends, in essence, it is one long Zen Koan, and
> was originally a meditation exercise, not a creed.  I never felt so
> bad about it after reading that book. :-)
>
> Regards
> --
> Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...


Thanks for the reference, Mike, but an online search didn't provide
much except to tell me it was out-of-print, as you say.  Maybe I'll
be able to dig up a copy somewhere.  Meanwhile, is he talking about
the Christian creeds I mention above--Nicene, Apostles'?  Whether
creed or koan, reconciling or even meditating on concepts like...
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,... or
resurrection of the body, or Jesus = God, etc. was always an
insurmountable task for me while growing up in an orthodox setting.
I never was able to fully internalize orthodoxy.  I found the rituals
to lack any meaning for me.  My intentions must have been too
critical for the content.  ;-)

That said, if I were to consider any formal ritualistic practice, it
would make more sense and be more authentic if the rituals were
chosen to affirm and develop a worldview based on my own individual
experience vs. trying to ingest a prefab diet of someone's else's
faith or dogma.


Cari

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello lady_caritas
>
> On 04-Oct-03, you wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, the intent and focus make a lot of difference. Paul's mention
> > of "creed" reminded me of an incident. Apologies if I have already
> > relayed this story. Many years ago I heard a minister recount a
> > conversation with one of his parishioners who was refraining from
> > joining in the congregational reading of various creeds
(Apostles',
> > Nicene, etc.) during the worship service because he didn't believe
> > in everything contained in them. The pastor recommended he just
> > recite them anyway and that they would become a part of him. Oh,
> > brother. So, this would be a suggestion of conscious focusing of
> > someone *else's* intentions. Do we see borderline brainwashing?
> >
> > I don't feel that gnosis can be taught or forced, although
certainly
> > ritual can be an aid for some, part of the experiential process.
> > Likely a recognition beginning the process of gnosis could occur
> > regardless of any formal practice if the individual is ready.
>
> Actually both you and the minister had it right.  Repetition is one
of
> the keys to how ritual works, so not only your intention is
critical,
> but so is the content of the ritual, because it can help you
> internalize gnosis or orthodoxy.  BTW, if you can ever find it on
> line somewhere, C. W. Leadbetter's THE CHRISTIAN CREED, is
excellent.
> OP for years.  He contends, in essence, it is one long Zen Koan, and
> was originally a meditation exercise, not a creed.  I never felt so
> bad about it after reading that book. :-)
>
> Regards
> --
> Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...


Thanks for the reference, Mike, but an online search didn't provide
much except to tell me it was out-of-print, as you say.  Maybe I'll
be able to dig up a copy somewhere.  Meanwhile, is he talking about
the Christian creeds I mention above--Nicene, Apostles'?  Whether
creed or koan, reconciling or even meditating on concepts like...
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,... or
resurrection of the body, or Jesus = God, etc. was always an
insurmountable task for me while growing up in an orthodox setting. 
I never was able to fully internalize orthodoxy.  I found the rituals
to lack any meaning for me.  My intentions must have been too
critical for the content.  ;-)

That said, if I were to consider any formal ritualistic practice, it
would make more sense and be more authentic if the rituals were
chosen to affirm and develop a worldview based on my own individual
experience vs. trying to ingest a prefab diet of someone's else's
faith or dogma.


Cari

Cari




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hello Mike Leavitt,


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
>


>
> [That was nothing factual, just how it struck me.  I remember in
one of
> the old Dracula movies this old sage telling Dracula or one of the
> other characters how the universe was just different levels of
> vibration accounting for physical and spiritual and psychic planes.
> He sounded like Annie Besant or Rudolph Steiner.]
>
> Well the Buffy universe does seem to comprise of multiple heavens
and hells, so perhaps your analogy wasn't too far off after all. Of
course, the special effects for the vampires and demons in Buffy are
far superior to the old Bella Lagosi versions.

  Sincerely,
  Magusadeptus

Hello lady_caritas

On 05-Oct-03, you wrote:
>>
>> Actually both you and the minister had it right. Repetition is one
>> of the keys to how ritual works, so not only your intention is
>> critical,
>> but so is the content of the ritual, because it can help you
>> internalize gnosis or orthodoxy.  BTW, if you can ever find it on
>> line somewhere, C. W. Leadbetter's THE CHRISTIAN CREED, is
>> excellent.
>> OP for years. He contends, in essence, it is one long Zen Koan, and
>> was originally a meditation exercise, not a creed. I never felt so
>> bad about it after reading that book. :-)
>
> Thanks for the reference, Mike, but an online search didn't provide
> much except to tell me it was out-of-print, as you say. Maybe I'll
> be able to dig up a copy somewhere. Meanwhile, is he talking about
> the Christian creeds I mention above--Nicene, Apostles'? Whether
> creed or koan, reconciling or even meditating on concepts like...
> God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,... or
> resurrection of the body, or Jesus = God, etc. was always an
> insurmountable task for me while growing up in an orthodox setting.
> I never was able to fully internalize orthodoxy. I found the rituals
> to lack any meaning for me. My intentions must have been too
> critical for the content. ;-)
>
> That said, if I were to consider any formal ritualistic practice, it
> would make more sense and be more authentic if the rituals were
> chosen to affirm and develop a worldview based on my own individual
> experience vs. trying to ingest a prefab diet of someone's else's
> faith or dogma.

The Apostles and the Nicene creeds, especially the latter.  By the
time I got much exposure to them, I was able to reinterpret them in
an Occult or Qablistic manner, and they didn't bother me that much,
but I can sympathize with your situation.  Taking them literally
would be a drag.  Incidentally, even back when we used the Liberal
Catholic Liturgy, Stephen always omitted the Nicene Creed, he hated
it, and still does, even though he recommended the book to me.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

Hello Paul

On 05-Oct-03, you wrote:

>
> Hi
> A thought Mike, and Cari about the comments on the role of a "Creed"
> or about mantras and repetition.
>
> I'm deeply suspicious that either one can serve as a path to gnosis.
> Mantras tend to deaden the mind, as much as any other repetition. If
> not deaden, then program the mind to react in a certain (pavlovian)
> way to certain stimuli. These may quieten the mind or produce a
> feeling of peace. But do they generate new insight?
>
> Creeds --- that I am familiar with, catholic and otherwise, also
> tend to program the mind. The very statement "I believe" is a
> willingness to accept certain precepts or beliefs. Those are in the
> final analysis limiting, conditioned by a culture or a time period,
> and cannot in any sense represent an absolute truth. At the best, a
> way to see through the glass darkly.
>
> Gnosis on the other hand, as I understand it, presents the sort of
> understanding that does not depend on our conditioning or belief. It
> represents a deep insight --- and can come at any time or place. It
> also has a transforming effect on the human soul. Can such an
> insight occur in a mind conditioned by beliefs? Or is it most likely
> to occur when the mind rejects everything it thought it knew, and
> recognizes its own limitations and conditioning?
>
> Paul

Actually despite Lerdbetter's brilliant interpretation, neither
Stephen nor I use the Nicene creed, and our mass has none, just an
"Act of Gnosis."  I never use mantras either, but I cannot
categorically throw them out, even though I share your suspicions.
And as to liturgy, as I said, its content is all important, as is
your attitude toward it.  Ie., we have had Orthodox types in our
congregation who never got any insight out of our mass, because of
their attitude toward it, despite its Gnostic content.  It is
apparent from Pistis Sophia, that some gnostics used mantra-like
formulas, and that their sound was of more importance than their
content.  Gnostics were not just intellectual in their approach, that
too, leads to imbalance.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

Hello Motleyjack,

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Motleyjack <motleyjack@y...>
wrote:
> HI:
>
>    Remember Saint Paul's "Boast" of the man who was taken up into
the third Heaven ("whether in his body, or out, I know not").
>

  Yes, this is because the belief of at least 7 levels of heaven and
the underworld were present in the days of Paul.
  The seven levels of heaven and the underworld are found in ancient
Judeo-Christian lore and was accepted belief, well into the Middle
Ages and was taught by 14th century theologians.
  The 7 earths or underworlds of Jewish lore being;
1.  Eres, a dull and cheerless land
2.  Adama, a land of melancholia
3.  Harrabha, a twilight world of shadows and jungle.
4.  Siyya, a dry land with fair inhabitants and cities
5.  Yabbasha, another dry land inhabited by a tiny race of beings.
6.   Arqa, the inhabitants of this  world are able to visit all
  other worlds, this land has the Hell in it, with its seven levels,
Sheol,
  Perdition, The Gates of Death, The Gates of Shadow and Death,
Silence,
  The Bilge and The Lowest Pit.
7.    Tebbel, a world similar to earth but peopled by monstrous
beings.
   In ancient Greek mythology Hades has at least six levels separated
by
   rivers.
   Writings pertaining to the seven levels of heaven are found in the
Dead Sea
   Scrolls, such as 1 Enoch, and early Christian works like Ascension
of
   Isaiah, Heckahalot literature, Hermetic and Neoplatonic works.
  The seven heavens in ancient lore are:
1. Shamayim
2. Raquia
3. Sagun or Shehaqim
4. Zehul or Machanon
5. Machon or Ma'on
6. Zebul or Makhon
7. Araboth

  Sincerely,
  Magusadeptus

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Paul Kieniewicz <paulmmk@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hi
> A thought Mike, and Cari about the comments on the role of
a "Creed" or about mantras and repetition.
>
> I'm deeply suspicious that either one can serve as a path to
gnosis. Mantras tend to deaden the mind, as much as any other
repetition. If not deaden, then program the mind to react in a
certain (pavlovian) way to certain stimuli. These may quieten the
mind or produce a feeling of peace. But do they generate new insight?



Well, during meditation, the mind is literally quieted somewhat with
a decrease of activity in the back of the brain.  At least, according
to the following links (the second I posted in a past message), "the
parietal-lobe circuits, which orient you in space and mark the sharp
distinction between self and world, must go quiet," thus leading to
lack of spatial awareness ("oneness").  But, at the same time, there
is an increase of activity in the front part of the brain if there is
increased focusing on a task (such as a mantra, I would imagine).

Regarding ritual in general (from the second link below), conversely,
focused, intense sensory stimulation evoking powerful emotions,
putting the brain in hyperdrive, can likewise deprive the same parts
of the brain of neuronal input as one would see with meditation:

>>>Even people who describe themselves as nonspiritual can be moved
by religious ceremonies and liturgy. Hence the power of ritual.
Drumming, dancing, incantations-all rivet attention on a single,
intense source of sensory stimulation, including the body's own
movements. They also evoke powerful emotional responses. That
combination-focused attention that excludes other sensory stimuli,
plus heightened emotion-is key. Together, they seem to send the
brain's arousal system into hyperdrive, much as intense fear does.
When this happens, explains Newberg, one of the brain structures
responsible for maintaining equilibrium-the hippocampus-puts on the
brakes.

It inhibits the flow of signals between neurons, like a traffic cop
preventing any more cars from entering the on-ramp to a tied-up
highway.
'SOFTENING OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SELF'

The result is that certain regions of the brain are deprived of
neuronal input. One such deprived region seems to be the orientation
area, the same spot that goes quiet during meditation and prayer. As
in those states, without sensory input the orientation area cannot do
its job of maintaining a sense of where the self leaves off and the
world begins. That's why ritual and liturgy can bring on what Newberg
calls a "softening of the boundaries of the self"-and the sense of
oneness and spiritual unity. Slow chanting, elegiac liturgical
melodies and whispered ritualistic prayer all seem to work their
magic in much the same way: they turn on the hippocampus directly and
block neuronal traffic to some brain regions. The result again
is "blurring the edges of the brain's sense of self, opening the door
to the unitary states that are the primary goal of religious ritual,"
says Newberg.<<<

http://www.crystalinks.com/medbrain.html
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

As far as your question, Paul, "do they generate new insight?"  Does
ridding the mind of distractions help to provide a more authentic
experience than when all parts of the brain are functioning normally
or does this only produce an artificial state prone to
unreliable "insights"?  I suppose you'd have to enlist the
testimonies of actual practitioners, look for the fruits of the
experience, the "transforming effect," as you say later.  Even if
they were not serving as a path to Gnosis, some might use these
techniques as an aid along the way.

A notable excerpt from the second link to contemplate, regarding
mystical experience:

>>>And whatever light science is shedding on spirituality,
spirituality is returning the favor: mystical experiences, says
Forman, may tell us something about consciousness, arguably the
greatest mystery in neuroscience. "In mystical experiences, the
content of the mind fades, sensory awareness drops out, so you are
left only with pure consciousness," says Forman. "This tells you that
consciousness does not need an object, and is not a mere byproduct of
sensory action."<<<


> Creeds --- that I am familiar with, catholic and otherwise, also
tend to program the mind. The very statement "I believe" is a
willingness to accept certain precepts or beliefs. Those are in the
final analysis limiting, conditioned by a culture or a time period,
and cannot in any sense represent an absolute truth. At the best, a
way to see through the glass darkly.
>
> Gnosis on the other hand, as I understand it, presents the sort of
understanding that does not depend on our conditioning or belief. It
represents a deep insight --- and can come at any time or place.


Again, that would probably be dependent on the temperament of the
individual, as you say in another post.  I personally also view
Gnosis as a process that does rely on a special type of initial
intuitive recognition.  In that vein, I'd agree with Mike that "the
Gnostics were not just intellectual in their approach."  Our
nonrational nature is definitely part of the equation, as well as our
rational side, and the Gnostics seemed tuned into that.



>It also has a transforming effect on the human soul. Can such an
insight occur in a mind conditioned by beliefs? Or is it most likely
to occur when the mind rejects everything it thought it knew, and
recognizes its own limitations and conditioning?


I would agree that we are never completely able to reject all our
conditioning and beliefs,... only sometimes what we consciously are
aware of.  And, as such, yes, insight can occur in a mind conditioned
by beliefs.  We all have beliefs.  I suppose it depends on whether or
not the beliefs are rigid, impervious to scrutiny, and whether we
attempt to use critical thinking, evaluating beliefs against our own
personal experience.  In fact, trusting the veracity of our personal
experience implies a belief, but I would submit that this kind of
belief trumps blind faith in someone else's belief.

Does the mind need to reject all it consciously thought it knew?  Do
we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?  That might work
for some, to go down to ground zero, as much as possible.  For
instance, Paul, I notice you use the term, "soul."  Did you ever at
some point reject that concept and then embrace that concept again
during your journey?



> Paul
>
> PS --- I'm off to Utah for a few days and will be out of email
range until Friday, when I'll be glad to rejoin the discussion.



Hope you had a good trip, Paul.


Cari

Adept Magus wrote:
>>The seven levels of heaven and the underworld are found in ancient
Judeo-Christian lore and was accepted belief, well into the Middle Ages and
was taught by 14th century theologians.  In ancient Greek mythology, Hades has
at least six levels separated by rivers.  The seven levels of heaven are found
in the Dead Sea Scrolls such as 1 Enoch, early Christian works such as
Ascension of Isaiah, Heckahalot literature, Hermetic works, and Neoplatonic
works.


The classic levels of astral ascension are summarized in terms of maturing
from freewill/separate-self delusion, to a peak experience of cosmic
determinism and imprisonment in spacetime unity, on to a kind of spiritual
transcendence of cosmic determinism resulting in "spiritual freedom", to gaze
upon the godhead.


10. The utterly hidden black-box benevolent controller of the deterministic
cosmos.  Apophatic level, indirectly intuited or deduced or felt.  Throne of
the Good god.

9. The divine transcendent realm.  The initiate is pulled up and spiritually
born out from the deterministic cosmos.

8. The fixed stars; cosmic determinism.  Peak experience of
no-free-will/no-separate-self.

5-7. The slow planets.  Intermediate level mystic-experiencing.  Glimpses of
frozen time and of unity.

2-4. The fast planets.  Beginning of one's mystic-experiencing initiations.

1. Earth.  Childish/animal delusion of freewill and motion; time passage taken
as simply real.


The Hermetic astrology of around 250 CE is similar to that of the Renaissance.
The New Chronology postulates that the years 600-900 didn't exist; that would
help explain this similarity, this apparent intact, wholesale leap of mystic
astrology across the supposed long divide from the Roman era to the
Renaissance era.

The astral ascent occurs in conjunction with eating manna -- the bread of
heaven -- or drinking from the krater of mind (krater means a bowl for 'mixed
wine').


-- Michael Hoffman
http://www.egodeath.com -- simple theory of the ego-death and rebirth
experience

Hello Michael

On 06-Oct-03, you wrote:
> The Hermetic astrology of around 250 CE is similar to that of the
> Renaissance. The New Chronology postulates that the years 600-900
> didn't exist; that would help explain this similarity, this apparent
> intact, wholesale leap of mystic astrology across the supposed long
> divide from the Roman era to the Renaissance era.

A more likely explanation is that the Renissance Astrologers studied
Ptolomy and those of the classical era, and based their teachings on
them.  Don't forget Occam's razor.  The Arabs, for one culture, had
preserved those writings.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

Gee, I hope I am correct.

Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy, the vampire slayer, had Buffy portray
Mary Magdalene several times. In Gift, the last episode in season
five,  buffy relates, as Mary Magdalene's missing text (souls) in the
Gospel of  Mary, to Giles, what Dawn  meant to her. The structure of
the dialog was lifted by JW as technique.

In season seven of Buffy, JW had Buffy, as Mary Magdalene, wash the
blood of Spike (a JC figure) in a basement during the ep Never Leave
ME.


But the keenest portrayal of Buffy as Gnostic came in the last eps
series: Empty Places. Buffy was representing Aion time concepts of
Menoan society as she stood in the street, while around her Greek
citizens of SD were bailing out. Buffy the vampire Slayer in the end
was a formal Greek Tragedy, using linear time and the change from
Aion to create Chaos. Buffy is seen as providing Punishment, as
linear time would have/formal definition of Greek tragedy, to those
around her that the Greek Playwrites of the time (sophecles (sp),
Aschelyus, and some others, understood in their own plots of social
commentary.


The Gnostic identity of Buffy comes with the Character Faith taking
Control of the disfunctional group around her, after Buffy, knowing
that evil lurked in the vineyards, again heroic, tried to bring them
together. Faith asked/accused Buffy if she could Follow/can follow.
Of course she could not. Sara Michelle Geller's acting/dialog showed
that she carried knowledge not available to the group. Buffy was
forced out by Faith and those that Buffy had led before; the ones she
was soon destine to lead; again the hero of Campell, and crossing the
thereshold.

This one episode is brilliant, and led me to several formal
definitions of Gnostic, just from decripting the overt dialog.

Michael wrote:
>> The Hermetic astrology of around 250 CE is similar to that of the
>> Renaissance. The New Chronology postulates that the years 600-900
>> didn't exist; that would help explain this similarity, this apparent
>> intact, wholesale leap of mystic astrology across the supposed long
>> divide from the Roman era to the Renaissance era.


Mike wrote:
>A more likely explanation is that the Renissance Astrologers studied
>Ptolomy and those of the classical era, and based their teachings on
>them.  Don't forget Occam's razor.  The Arabs, for one culture, had
>preserved those writings.


Some theorists of revisionist chronology assert that the Arabs preserved the
astrognosis writings for 300 years less than claimed by the established
chronology.

I am only beginning to study the New Chronology theory.
http://www.egodeath.com/newchronology.htm  It's almost all in German at this
point -- I am just beginning to scope it out, looking for English webpages and
machine-translating the German webpages.  I'm also just beginning to study the
history of mystic astrology.  I know little about the history of Roman to Arab
to Renaissance history and transmission of texts.  If I knew anything more, I
would write it, insofar as it's on-topic.

I'm learning Western Esotericism studies; I am currently making a $180
decision whether to order the remaining issues for my Gnosis magazine
collection before they are shredded for good.

I am extremely interested in the theory of paradigms.  Paradigms are
everything; everything depends upon interpretive frameworks for organizing
data and asking questions.  Nevertheless, I'm not a radical relativist; I
think good sense leads the way, even though there's no formally clear basis
for "good sense".

Occam's razor is paradigm-dependent.  The orthodox Christian assessment is
that Occam's razor dictates concluding that literalist Christianity came
first, and then Gnostic Christianity came second.  Radical scholarship makes
an assessment that Occam's razor dictates concluding that Gnostic Christianity
came first, and then literalist Christianity came second.

From the literalist Christianity paradigm, some three hypotheses are involved
in the orthodox Eusebian history, while some fifteen hypotheses are involved
in the Radical assertion of the priority of gnostic Christianity.  From the
point of view of the Radical paradigm, one's model of history is far simpler
and more plausible and sober if one accepts the priority of gnostic
Christianity, with literalist Christianity as a later, deviant, degenerated
form driven by power-mongering hierarchy-builders.

Incommensurable paradigms result in argument about which paradigm has the
fewest hypotheses; in the end, it may amount to a beauty contest, an aesthetic
judgment call.


-- Michael Hoffman

serious inquiry, can anyone here see a Gnostic Connection, or a link
to Mary Magdalene's as she would have been thought of  in Victorian
Times.

Hard question.......but looking for a link. thanks



Early One Morning, 18ish century, song writer unkonwn


Early one morning, just as the sun was rising

I heard a maid sing in the valley below
"Oh don't deceive me, Oh never leave me,
How could you use, a poor maiden so?"

Remember the vows that you made to me truly
Remember how tenderly you nestled close to me
Gay is the garland, fresh are the roses
I've culled from the garden to bind over thee.

Here I now wander alone as I wonder
Why did you leave me to sigh and complain
I ask of the roses, why should I be forsaken,
Why must I here in sorrow remain?

Through yonder grove, by the spring that is running
There you and I have so merrily played,
Kissing and courting and gently sporting
Oh, my innocent heart you've betrayed

How could you slight so a pretty girl who loves you
A pretty girl who loves you so dearly and warm?
Though love's folly is surely but a fancy,
Still it should prove to me sweeter than your scorn.

Soon you will meet with another pretty maiden
Some pretty maiden, you'll court her for a while;
Thus ever ranging, turning and changing
Always seeking for a girl that is new.

Thus sang the maiden, her sorrows bewailing
Thus sang the poor maid in the valley below
"Oh don't deceive me, Oh never leave me,
How could you use, a poor maiden so?"

Gentlepeople,

Penn posited: "In the beginning was the Torah (teaching), And the Torah was
with God, and the Torah was God."

My response is that in the beginning (everything) was, and (everything) was
with God, and (everything) was God.  To this it can be added there never was
and is not now anything that is not God.  This, to me, is the fundamental
Dogma of all Gnostics that God is everything and everything is God by
whatever name you wish to call Her, Him or It.  From that beginning rise all
Gnostic Sects and indeed all spiritual paths.

So, one could conclude that Penn is correct.

LVX,
John
http://gnosticyoga.com

Hey John, and Penn.

Well, to start with Penn's question. The word "Teaching" is probably
not best transliterated with "Torah", not only because the words
don't fit, but also because the author of John probably did not know
Hebrew.

However, in a less technical way I can certainly back that point.
Logos, as we all know, is often translated as "Word". The problems
with that translation are too numerous to deal with in a short post.
The word "Logos" was one used in mystery traditions, and it has a
wide range of concepts it is meant to impart. Study, teaching....
logic... are definately part of the point, within a personification
(the term Torah also does not impart that notion of personification
intended by the text).

To go on to John's point. What you describe, John, is pantheism.
Pantheism is not something the historic Gnostics believed in, nor is
it supported in Gnostic texts that I am aware of. There IS, though,
a notion of the divine within mankind that could look on the surface
to be pantheistic. It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man". Still,
the difference is important to our understanding of the intent of
Gnostic writings.

PMCV


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "John Gilbert" <john2002@a...>
wrote:
> Gentlepeople,
>
> Penn posited: "In the beginning was the Torah (teaching), And the
Torah was
> with God, and the Torah was God."
>
> My response is that in the beginning (everything) was, and
(everything) was
> with God, and (everything) was God.  To this it can be added there
never was
> and is not now anything that is not God.  This, to me, is the
fundamental
> Dogma of all Gnostics that God is everything and everything is God
by
> whatever name you wish to call Her, Him or It.  From that
beginning rise all
> Gnostic Sects and indeed all spiritual paths.
>
> So, one could conclude that Penn is correct.
>
> LVX,
> John
> http://gnosticyoga.com

Hello Lightquadrille

This certainly is a song that reminds me a bit of the form and style
of 12th century work that could be interperated esoterically (I
would guess that the similarity is in fact intentional on the part
of the Victorian author). I actually run a club expressly for the
subject of esoteric romance in this earlier era...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philosophia2/ ...

However, "esoteric" is not the same as "Gnostic". And, the
connections to Mary that could exist have nothing to do with
historic Gnosticism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this kind of
thing did not exist within Gnosticism... it did... just that even if
it is intended (something I doubt from a Victorian author) it does
not imply any Gnostic backdrop. At that point it falls outside the
focus of this forum.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "lightquadrille" <deluxet@q...>
wrote:
> serious inquiry, can anyone here see a Gnostic Connection, or a
link
> to Mary Magdalene's as she would have been thought of  in
Victorian
> Times.
>
> Hard question.......but looking for a link. thanks
>
>
>
> Early One Morning, 18ish century, song writer unkonwn
>
>
> Early one morning, just as the sun was rising
>
> I heard a maid sing in the valley below
> "Oh don't deceive me, Oh never leave me,
> How could you use, a poor maiden so?"
>
> Remember the vows that you made to me truly
> Remember how tenderly you nestled close to me
> Gay is the garland, fresh are the roses
> I've culled from the garden to bind over thee.
>
> Here I now wander alone as I wonder
> Why did you leave me to sigh and complain
> I ask of the roses, why should I be forsaken,
> Why must I here in sorrow remain?
>
> Through yonder grove, by the spring that is running
> There you and I have so merrily played,
> Kissing and courting and gently sporting
> Oh, my innocent heart you've betrayed
>
> How could you slight so a pretty girl who loves you
> A pretty girl who loves you so dearly and warm?
> Though love's folly is surely but a fancy,
> Still it should prove to me sweeter than your scorn.
>
> Soon you will meet with another pretty maiden
> Some pretty maiden, you'll court her for a while;
> Thus ever ranging, turning and changing
> Always seeking for a girl that is new.
>
> Thus sang the maiden, her sorrows bewailing
> Thus sang the poor maid in the valley below
> "Oh don't deceive me, Oh never leave me,
> How could you use, a poor maiden so?"

Hello PMCV,


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>(snip)
>
> However, in a less technical way I can certainly back that point.
> Logos, as we all know, is often translated as "Word". The problems
> with that translation are too numerous to deal with in a short
post.
> The word "Logos" was one used in mystery traditions, and it has a
> wide range of concepts it is meant to impart. Study, teaching....
> logic... are definately part of the point, within a personification
> (the term Torah also does not impart that notion of personification
> intended by the text).
>
(snip)

    Could you give some examples of the various meanings of Logos in
Mystery Traditions and Gnosticism?

    Sincerely,
    Magusadeptus

Can anyone tell me the difference between the "Excerpts of Theodotus"
as found on gnosis.org's library, and the work of the same title
quoted by people such as Elaine Pagels? I notice that the reference
numbers don't match and none of the sayings listed on gnosis.org's
library seem to match any quotations I've read.

Peace

Rodney

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "wvdog61" <wvdog61@7...> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the difference between the "Excerpts of
Theodotus"
> as found on gnosis.org's library, and the work of the same title
> quoted by people such as Elaine Pagels? I notice that the reference
> numbers don't match and none of the sayings listed on gnosis.org's
> library seem to match any quotations I've read.
>
> Peace
>
> Rodney



Any chance you could toss out an example of one of those passages
(with verse references)?  I'm currently trying to track down some
similar inconsistencies from a non-canonical source.  In this
particular case, I think I'm dealing with a mixture of different
translations of the works and both liberal interpretations &
paraphrasing by a couple groups referencing the material.

Gerry

MM John

Tis just one level of a number of levels of interpretation. Word is oft used
to denote a teaching, a law, a reason, etc. One thing I've noted long ago is
that there are a good few levels to interpreting anything in the bible or
any of the scriptures ;)

MP
Penn

--
The chrysalis of the go has to split before one can enter the sanctum
sanctorum of the Divine Presence. In the words of Kathopnishad ... Yoga is
both dissolution and emergence -- both death and rebirth. One has to die to
live. It is a divine filiation and cannot be described in any human
language, for it is reality of a different dimension. In the beautiful words
of Dr. Anand K. Coomaraswamy, "The condition of deification is an
eradication of all otherness." It is for this consummation that 112 dhâranâs
have been described Vijńânabhairava.

The Vijnana Bhairava


> Gentlepeople,
>
> Penn posited: "In the beginning was the Torah (teaching), And the Torah
was
> with God, and the Torah was God."
>
> My response is that in the beginning (everything) was, and (everything)
was
> with God, and (everything) was God.  To this it can be added there never
was
> and is not now anything that is not God.  This, to me, is the fundamental
> Dogma of all Gnostics that God is everything and everything is God by
> whatever name you wish to call Her, Him or It.  From that beginning rise
all
> Gnostic Sects and indeed all spiritual paths.
>
> So, one could conclude that Penn is correct.
>
> LVX,
> John
> http://gnosticyoga.com
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

MM Guys

I partially agree with PMCV. The word Torah also carried with it a number of
meanings. What most people see re this is the word law and it's modern (one
of them) connotation, i.e. something that must be followed. However law is
also used to denoted a teaching, i.e. Plank's law, Murphy's Law, etc. In the
Qabblah, Torah carries with it the meaning of "the living aspect of God" as
was the original Torah. I mean the old oral tradition before it was ever
written down ;)

MP
Penn

--
The goal of mankind is knowledge. . . . Now this knowledge is inherent in
man. No knowledge comes from outside: it is all inside. What we say a man
"knows," should, in strict psychological language, be what he "discovers" or
"unveils"; what man "learns" is really what he discovers by taking the cover
off his own soul, which is a mine of infinite knowledge.

Swami Vivekananda


> Hello PMCV,
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >(snip)
> >
> > However, in a less technical way I can certainly back that point.
> > Logos, as we all know, is often translated as "Word". The problems
> > with that translation are too numerous to deal with in a short
> post.
> > The word "Logos" was one used in mystery traditions, and it has a
> > wide range of concepts it is meant to impart. Study, teaching....
> > logic... are definately part of the point, within a personification
> > (the term Torah also does not impart that notion of personification
> > intended by the text).
> >
> (snip)
>
>    Could you give some examples of the various meanings of Logos in
> Mystery Traditions and Gnosticism?
>
>    Sincerely,
>    Magusadeptus
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Penndragon" <Ginosko@H...> wrote:
> In the beginning was the Torah (teaching), And the Torah was with
>God, and the Torah was God.
>
> MP
> Penn


In the beginning was the Word, the Law, and the Word, the Law, was
one with God, the same Reality, the Word is, God, the Law.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
> out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man". Still,
> the difference is important to our understanding of the intent of
> Gnostic writings.
>
> PMCV

It is not Quibbling, it is significantly, Muy, Importante.

The Word is God, God is the Word.

Two separate and distinctly Different Statements.