Thanks for clarifying about the seven sermons, but now I'm
puzzled that under the title on the first page of the copy I have, and which I
cannot remember the origins of, it says 'transcribed'. I just
realized was not 'translated', and I mistakenly read it as such the first time,
which does explain somewhat. But transcribed? That would still mean
it was not his original work, right? Or am I missing something here?--I
have just recently read it for the first time, and had never heard of it until
This is the passage that inspired the notion of the madness
(by which I meant mad as in 'insane' rather than 'angry'). There's a
different, deeper, and somehow more rational type of insanity (I know, oxymoron)
which is my concept of mad, and which this description fits well, even if
overlooking the word 'madness' itself.
But Abraxas speaketh that hallowed and accursed word which
life and death at the same time.
Abraxas begetteth truth and lying,
good and evil, light and darkness,
in the same word and in the same act.
Wherefore is Abraxas terrible.
It is splendid as the lion in the instant he
striketh down his
victim. It is beautiful as a day in spring. It is the great
and also the small one. It is Priapos.
It is the monster of
the under-world, a thousand-armed polyp,
coiled knot of winged serpents,
It is the hermaphrodite of the earliest beginning.
It is the lord
of the toads and frogs,, which live in the water and gets
up on the land,
whose chorus ascendeth at noon and at midnight.
It is abundance that seeketh
union with emptiness.
It is holy begetting.
It is love and love`s
It is the saint and his betrayer.
It is the brightest light of day
and the darkest night of madness.
To look upon it, is blindness.
it, is sickness.
To worship it, is death.
To fear it, is wisdom.
resist it not, is redemption.
I have not read a lot of Jung's actual texts, but I am
quite familiar with his work, both in regards to psychology and alchemy.
At first I was quite surprised to see that he is discussed in relation to
gnosticism, and in thinking about the issues talked about in relation to his
ways of presenting, a lot of the confusion I was having in reading the posts
started to clear up.
Maybe it's the 'psychology' category that detracts from Jung's
thinking, that seems to make it less than it is, just as the alchemists who
approach alchemy from a purely material standpoint think Jung devalues
their art by delving into it via the mind rather than the hermetic egg. My
take on it is that all singular manners of explanation of the things discussed
serve no purpose when put back into words, once understood on a inner visual
level that is not totally or completely narrative, symbolic, or allegorical, yet
is a combination of all these plus many more methods of mental interpretation,
suffer more in the way of degeneration by the difficult
transition between thought processes. If one can conceive of things
in a way that's not of 'words' as we traditionally regard and use them, then the
words can get in the way. You can't just explain these things, IMO, and
when you do, they always come out as an inadequate expression which cannot to
justice to the whole thought that lies within.
My referential nomenclature is admittedly and obviously, of a
'psychic christian' origin. This seems to come across as an
misunderstanding on my conceptual ideations. When you say the First
Father, I think of G-d. It's the same as with Jesus, and for some reason I
don't refer to him as the Christ, but that doesn't mean I don't understand
both of the deeper concepts hidden under the names. These were presented
to me as a child in sunday school, within the framework of the psychic
understandings of my teachers, but I did not identify with them as they might
have expected I did. I'm not sure what they were attempting to help me
form in my young mind, because I never could relate to their representations of
concepts that were already forming quite differently in my head, and of which I
didn't reveal. I just called them by the same names, because that's
how I thought of them, just to keep it simple and avoid someone discovering my
variance from their expectations. It was just simpler. These names
have stayed with me ever since, although the connotations are vastly different
than what usually is represented. The names and titles, etc. are just
extraneous details, and I've always felt trying to discern by comparing labels
and designations was a detractor from focusing on the pureness of the
idea. For that reason, also, I'll probably always use the same names,
because they don't get in my way of the concept, nor are they misleading to my
own development, because the ideas they've represented haven't altered, they've
just become fuller and more clear, and to change my reference points would not
be contributing to my evolution of thinking, because these are set in my mind,
personal archetypes--maybe, which is definitely a Jungian flavor, but are
something else I concieve of in a thought far removed from the word
So when it seems a matter for clarification between saying
G-d's face rather than the first Father, to me it is more of a relation in name
only, since the idea behind the names, I see now, is the same.
I also should add some information which might make it easier
to understand my ways of communicating which are quite different than what most
may be used to in regard to this group's subject, that I don't think I mentioned
when introducing myself, thinking it not important for the common purpose of
discussion of gnosticism. I think it is relevant after all to tell you
that I am a writer and a poet, as well as an artist, both computer graphics and
traditional mediums such as charcoal and pastels. My imagination
is an indelible component to my thought processes, more so than for
most, it seems, and that's what influences everything that comes from my mouth
or hands. It's a somewhat misleading way to portray myself, because I am a
practical and analytical thinker but I cannot express myself in that same
fashion. Sometime I'll post a poem or two (they are quite short, and
totally deletable) that will maybe reveal more of me than these convoluted
postings ever will.
love from annie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:52
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Abrasax for
Just a couple of corrections. Seven
Sermons is not actually by
Basilides, it is a modern work.... by Jung
Second, I am not aware of any traditional source that says
about Abraxas being "mad". If you take a look in our "links"
you will see one for Gnostic terms, this should give a bit more
accurate a picture of how Abraxas (or Abrasax) is used
Lastly, it is not "G-d's" face that has not been seen in
text, but the First Father that I believe you may be talking
who doesn't actually have a face to be seen. "G-d" is another
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
"annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:
> They call it the tetragrammaton,
or something like that, I forget
the exact spelling. It's the Hebrew
name for what most people know
as 'Jehovah', and lately I see it made into
'Yahweh'. Hebrew doesn't
have vowels in the same sense the english
language does. The Jewish
people wrote the name like that so as not
to disrespect him by
calling him by name, or perhaps 'invoking' him,
whatever the reason,
it was a no-no. But there's countless names
which the Jews use for
him, Elohim, El Shaddai, just to name two of the
root words. It's
> In the bible, when
you see LORD in all caps, it should indicate the
original texts said YHVH.
> That points out another discrepancy between the OT and NT's
(which are what you figured them to be) because I have read many
times in the Nag Hammadi and other apocryphal texts that, according
the Savior, Christ ( Jesus to me), and several other voices, no
one's seen G-d's face, or knows G-d's name, there is no way we can
conceive of him. I can't remember if it's in the canonized bible,
> I have never been able to conceive of his
image, and when I was
small I pondered on that quite a bit.
Just recently, I've began to
concieve all of everything, 'creation', the
surrounding 'where we
are' --which I imagine we are truly in the darkest
and deepest place
in existence, not be grim :o( BTW--is part of that
entity, but not in
a conscious manner, maybe, as it would drive any other
raving mad immediately to be the essence of creation, wouldn't
All except for G-d. That's the idea of G-d that I have, so
power and ineffableness that nothing could drive G-d mad.
think of that force as Abraxas, which from the little I've read,
> I read the 'Seven Sermons to the Dead' by Basil
Ides, which was the
first I'd encountered that word in use. I'd
heard it but not known
what it was.
> Has anyone else read
that? What else is written about Abraxas?
> love from
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:03
> Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Hello. I'm new here.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, lady_caritas
>Hi, CS and Annie. Pneumen posted a link a little while ago that
> >might find interesting in case you missed
>This offers a good summary of various Gnostic variations of
> >stories with links to scripture you can
read in more detail.
> >Also, for any more
newcomers, don't forget Gerry's recent
>(For source material, i.e. Gnostic scriptures, in addition to
> >Layton's well-annotated _The Gnostic
Scriptures_ that Gerry
> >I'd also suggest
James M. Robinson's _The Nag Hammadi Library_.)
> Thanks Cari, I think I will
visit those links, but I hope no one
> minds if I continue
to ask questions in between readings. =)
> Annie, I
think reading the Bible with two dieties in mind would
what does YHVH mean? OT means Old Testament & NT means New
> Testamnet, yes?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Yahoo! Groups Links
> a.. To visit your
group on the web, go to:
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of