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

12848Re: A Question for the gruop...

Expand Messages
  • imdarkchylde
    Nov 9, 2006
      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
      Hope you are Blessed!
      Whirled and inner peas

      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
      > the tree of "Esotericism", and as such has things in common with
      > forms of mystical or esoteric thought. Also, as a branch on the
      > of "Hellenism" and "Middle Platonism" we see similarities with
      > 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".
      > 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
      > must know is who we are within a wider spiritual cosmology, and how
      > as individuals relate to that cosmology (where we are from, and
      > we can return).
      > >>>Is it the dusty ramblings in the many and sometimes
      > 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
      > 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
      > reactonary perspective. This is very much like the destinction
      > a priori knowing vs a posteriori knowing in that it is a knowing
      > 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
      > me, you would have to start by helping me understand HOW to
      > contextualize things correctly for the system. You might give me
      > ritual activities, or meditations, meant to widen my awareness and
      > evoke spiritual experiences. At the same time you would likely work
      > my ability to conceptualize things I had not previously understood.
      > Eventually I will have to come to understand a cosmology that
      > several very complicated notions of infinity, and what they have to
      > with me. I will have to gain that understanding by connecting the
      > 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
      > between teacher and pupil, in joint pursuit of the subject,
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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".
      > the same time, if I don't have understanding of the meaning of
      > dusty texts I ALSO don't have Gnosis. One is just a happening,
      > the other is just a context. A true full comprehension (gnosis)
      > 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
      > of the bike... how to make it, how to ride it, and finally where
      > bike will take you.
      > Anyone here disagree or have thoughts?
      > PMCV
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic