Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10915Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (SALVATION in gnosticism)

Expand Messages
  • Nick Lawrance
    Apr 1, 2005
      From Gich
      Where does GNOSIS come into this?
      Achieving Gnosis makes you realise you have always been spiritual from the start.

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:40 AM
      Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (SALVATION in gnosticism)

      Hey PMCV

      SALVATION in gnosticism.

      Thanks for some very useful comments on this topic. Could I attempt to sum
      them up as follows:

      (1) Materialists - they die.

      (2) Psychics - they MAY get another chance.

      (3) Spirituals - they meld back into the Pleroma,....

      Where does GNOSIS come into this?


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "pmcvflag" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:38 AM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (and the source)

      > Ok, Gich......
      >>>>"Back to the present. It might help if I outline my thoughts on
      > the "inner spark" and the TWIN. We haven't discussed this in depth
      > but I have found the idea of a TWIN or CONSORT (acting as some sort
      > of mirror of ourselves) very useful in trying to get to grips with
      > gnostic cosmology and the esoteric gnosis. It seems to me that a
      > useful way of conceptualising this is to think of MAN having
      > an "inner spark" and the TWIN having an "outer spark". These are
      > only "names"; not necessarily physically "inside" or "outside" of
      > anything; in fact to avoid the "inner/ outer" confusion it would
      > probably be better to call them the "man spark" and the "twin
      > spark"."<<<
      > I think you may be right that we are a little closer to being on the
      > same page in that you seem to recognize that while the "inner"
      > and "outer" are important contextual tools, as such they cannot be
      > strictly and conclusively seperated in the other context.
      > Just remember, no matter what context, you may want to be careful
      > with your "man spark".
      >>>>"We can think of both MAN and the TWIN as dualities and I find
      > the following diagram a useful aid to conception:
      > [1] (Man, "inner spark")<<<------"link"------>>>(Twin, "outer
      > spark").
      > I think of the "link" rather like a "communications channel" between
      > the inner and outer sparks. Man is born ignorant of his true nature
      > and, in this state, the communication is one-way: the Twin knows
      > about the Man, but the Man does not know the Twin. However, after
      > Man receives the esoteric gnosis the communication becomes two-way
      > and Man gets to know the Twin; he gets to know his true nature and
      > the nature of the spiritual realm (the pleroma)."<<<
      > This depends on what you are calling the "Man" ("person", if we wish
      > to be PC)... the body? the mind? Remember, Gnostics consider the
      > person to be three parts, not two. Where are you trying to draw the
      > link? I'll bring that up again with your next chart.
      >>>>"Your words "we are a sort of twin to our spiritual consort" seem
      > to mirror my thoughts above and diagram [1] quite well.
      > So, you are stating that WE are the entity "not of this world" that
      > is involved in our personal receipt of the esoteric gnosis."<<<
      > Hmmm, sort of, in that for the Gnostics of old the Logos and the
      > Sophia are manifest in our existance and in our initiation. Where
      > the Sophia is equated with the soul, the Logos is equated with the
      > spirit.
      >>>>"I have been thinking of Man as a duality something like:
      > [2] [(body, (mind, ignorance), soul) || ("inner spark")]
      > and the "not of this world" part of Man is the "inner spark".
      > Whether this "spark" is physically inside or outside of the body (or
      > both) does not matter."<<<
      > One of the big differences between Gnostics and modern Christians is
      > the fact that modern Christians are supposed to think of the human
      > as a duality. Gnostics, on the other hand, did not. Instead the
      > human had THREE parts....
      > Body, Mind, Spirit.
      > The mind (not to be confused with the intellect) was equated with
      > the "soul", and the spirit with the infinite Pleroma.
      >>>>"After receipt of the esoteric gnosis the duality changes to
      > something like:
      > [3] [(body) || (mind, gnosis) <---awareness---> (soul, "inner
      > spark")].
      > The "not of this world" part of Man is now the pair (soul, "inner
      > spark")and Man, through his "mind" (now equipped with gnosis),
      > becomes aware of his soul, the "inner spark", the Twin (via the
      > link) and the pleroma."<<<
      > It is not something we can categorically state to be Gnostic belief,
      > that every person has this "Consort".... OR... that it is
      > necessarily simply a matter of recognizing that we do have it
      > (perhaps it would be something that we actually sort of create, or
      > incubate). Although this does seem to be the basic Valentinian
      > outline, not all the texts deal with it in the same way.
      >>>>"(Q1) In the receipt of the esoteric gnosis do you see any
      > channelling of this gnosis to Man from the Twin?"<<<
      > Well, not in the way that New Agers "channel" beings from Atlantis.
      > The mind talks to the body, the spirit talks to the mind... the
      > Consort is the spiritual spark, so in that way the Gnostics
      > certainly believed that the Consort is instrumental in bestowing
      > Gnosis.
      >>>>"(Q2) In the receipt of the esoteric gnosis do you see any
      > channelling of this gnosis to Man from the pleroma?"<<<
      > The Consort is IN the Pleroma, so there is no difference between
      > your q1 and q2.
      >>>>"(Q3) Do the gnostics believe, literally, in the existence of the
      > pleroma, a place where "the saved" enjoy everlasting life after
      > their earthly death?"<<<
      > Different texts seem to deal with this in different ways, but
      > generally speaking... no... there is no "Heaven" where Gnostics
      > believed they floated on clouds and played harps in praise of God
      > for all eternity. Instead, in release from linear existance there
      > would be no conciousness as we know it. Again, there are no hard
      > fast rules here as to how Gnostics dealt with the subject, but the
      > general rule of thumb looked something like this...
      > You are what you identify with (not what you think you identify
      > with, or we could all simply say "spirit"). If your primary identity
      > is with the body, then you die with that body.... the end. If you
      > identify with the soul, then depending on the group you either die
      > with the body, or perhaps you are recycled without identity, or
      > perhaps you go to a sort of temporary little heaven (or hell) and
      > get another chance to try again. If you identify with the spirit
      > then you meld back into the Pleroma, which then melds back into the
      > Second Father, which then disappears into the First Father.
      >>>>"I'm leaving your questions to me for the time being. This post
      > is long enough already! :)"<<<
      > That is ok, most of them where rhetorical questions meant to get you
      > to consider your own questions in a slightly different way.
      > PMCV
      > Yahoo! Groups Links

    • Show all 4 messages in this topic