... That is all fine and dandy, but I think you underestimate the people here. It is relatively easy to think you can judge one s intellectual ability viaMessage 1 of 2 , Feb 5, 2006View Source>>>>>
That is all fine and dandy, but I think you underestimate the people
here. It is relatively easy to think you can judge one's
intellectual ability via extended conversation (first impressions
can be false even there), but anyone who thinks they can tell the
spiritual abilities based on contrast to those intellectual persuits
demonstrates some misconceptions (both spiritual and intellectual).
It is an ESSENTIAL concept of Gnostic thought, that the spiritual
experience and the philosophical comprehension are enmeshed, if
taken rightly they are mixed into one... they are the rightful
bridegroom and bride. Which ever starting point you come from, one
is not a "Gnostic" until they have both. That much you sem to agree
with, but the valuation jump you then make is unwarented. The
spiritual experience of the Bride, Sophia, is a fallen lie without
her bridegroom. And the waiting bridegroom, Logos, is lonely and
hollow without his love.
What I mean is, you may be able to start from either of two
points... experience or intellect.... but Gnosis is, by definition,
a conjunction of both of these.
Don't be so sure you know the background of any author here, even if
on the surface we may deal a bit more with the historical. I will
await the challenge to see if you know mine.
>>>>>>Dear PMCVSeeing the way your prime focus of discussion and response on the original understanding of Gnosticism and later development of it, it is not too difficult to include you as a Gnostic philosopher. What I would like to say is that every spiritual school of thought has their own accentuation and concept. That is why when we discuss Gnosticism in other traditions, it does not exactly suit for what hermitic understanding really mean. So there must be underlying background of ideas discussed. What I mean with underlying background of ideas is the purport of the participants’ writings implicitly or explicitly.
Apakah Anda Yahoo!?
Lelah menerima spam? Surat Yahoo! memiliki perlindungan terbaik terhadap spam
Hey Gus ... original understanding of Gnosticism and later development of it, it is not too difficult to include you as a Gnostic philosopher.Message 1 of 2 , Feb 6, 2006View SourceHey Gus
>>>Seeing the way your prime focus of discussion and response on theoriginal understanding of Gnosticism and later development of it, it
is not too difficult to include you as a Gnostic philosopher.<<<
Well, I suppose that could be good or bad ;) Let me only point out
that my focus is dictated by the function of the group and the fact
that it is my job to try and maintain that function.... it may not
carry over into other groups I am invloved in (though sometimes it
does). Again, try to avoid assumptions at this point.
>>>What I would like to say is that every spiritual school of thoughthas their own accentuation and concept. That is why when we discuss
Gnosticism in other traditions, it does not exactly suit for what
hermitic understanding really mean. So there must be underlying
background of ideas discussed. What I mean with underlying background
of ideas is the purport of the participantsâ writings implicitly or
Sure, I can see your point. However, that point is very function
dependant. For instance, if you were in the middle of a spiritual rite
and you stopped to talk about history, I think we would all agree it
would be silly. On the other hand, if you were in a history class and
you kept trying to talk about mythological meaning it could equally
detract from the point. If I were in a Buddhist monastary and talked
about nothing but Jesus, they may wonder if I am really understanding
In other words, there are many things we have to consider in a
discussion like this, just as you point out, and many things we need
not worry about. Just as true, there are some things that really can
be divided and some that are a little more fuzzy.
In your initial post, the one that started this conversation, you
>>>> I suggest this forum that everyone here must be aware of theunderlying background of the writers's ideas, whether originating from
phylosophical comprehension or individually spiritual experiences. The
point can be reached from different starting points, be it intuitive
findings, the using of intellective faculty or both of them.<<<<
Sure, it is the goal of this group to try and get to the bottom of
these texts, not only in the ways you discribe, but other ways as
well. On that point it goes without saying. The problem I see is that
you seemed to pigeonhole the group in such a way that actually creates
the very problem that you seemed to be admonishing against....
>>>But for those of having usual (regular) contacts with gnostics ormystical practitioners, the topics discussed will result in
uncontroversial (pedestrian) response and comprehension.<<<
See what I mean? And, it actually works against the first point you
made on that post... if they are both equally able to be a beginning
(this group includes many beginners, after all). This problem, I know,
is partly because you are speaking on such broad terms. I felt that
you need to communicate the point in a more specific way, especially
if you are going to admonish anyone. Which brings us to this point you
>>>The will to achieve spiritual enlightenment--thus, the pointed goalof gnosis--can be started either from the excercise of intellect or
through "true" faith. The Gosples of Gnostics teach us not
underestimate anyone, but our own ego<<<
Demonstrate it. You make a claim, that is good... show the wider group
exactly how you see the Gnostic texts making this case. You need to
demonstrate that Gnostic texts view the intellect in the way you
describe. Anyone can proslytize something they view to be "fact" or
self evident... it takes quite a bit more to demonstrate that somebody
else supports the point as well. I am not saying you are right or
wrong, just that we avoid this kind of assumptions here.
>>>The end-result is one, true comprehesion or divine union orwhatever you name it.<<<
That is questionable. You seem to say it is the point or "end
result"... others would say it is just a first step. You compare
Gnosis with enlightenment and the mystical experience. Again, since we
are talking about traditional "Gnosticism" and you make the point that
the Gnostic texts support the claim, I think in order for the
conversation to have value you need to demonstrate the point. You have
to consider the possibility that you may be thinking something very
different from what others here may assume, or the authors of the
Gnostic texts intended.
I bring these points up not to seem adversarial, but because I get the
feeling you may be making some calls based on a lot of presumptions
that I think you need to fully outline, instead of thinking your
points communicate to everyone here.
You are speaking in a very mystical way, but for communication
purposes we need to you speak in a Gnostic way instead.