12872Re: A Question for the gruop...
- Nov 14, 2006Darkchylde
>>>I just felt it to be a moment of 'gnosis' as I didn't just hearabout from a second party, or read it, I KNEW the connection I had to
the ALL, the Unmainifest.<<<
Ah, I see what you mean. I had thought you were connecting the
word "Gnosis" to the experience itself, but if I understand you now
you mean to connect it to a sort of realization that contextualized
the experience. Is that correct? It may sound like hair splitting, but
the destinction could actually be very very important.
>>>It wasn't due to visualization (although I think that to be ausefull and necessary tool in meditation) albeit it may have been
triggered by my contemplations on the Epinoia. I came back with
that 'water splashed in the face feeling' and it left me irrevocably
changed. If I had never experienced it, I would probably still believe
as I do now, but I wouldn't KNOW. It is one thing to read about it,
contemplate it, talk about it, but it quite another to experience it.
Yes, I do. You mentioned in a previous post how you may have taken the
experience fery differently if you were, say, Catholic. I think that
is a very good and important point... and very related to the subject
of whether it is technically "Gnosis" or not. Many people who are more
influenced by modern esoteric traditions equate the word with the
experience itself. It is very often that we hear people say "look, I
had this experience so now I have gnosis". In a modern sense of the
word that is surely true, but I do find it unfortunate that people
feel the need to foist this modern esoteric thinking back on
traditional Gnostic thinking in such a way that causes them to misread
the Gnostic texts.
In the Gnostic texts this word is simply not a single cohesive
experiencial instance. I do see how one could read Plato and think
that is what he meant ("like a flash of light"), or read the Gnostic
texts and believe they are talking about the mystical experience, but
I think a closer reading shows this to be inaccurate. I think there is
no question that the concept of Gnosis is used to describe more than
one aspect of revelation, comprehension, and advancement on the
initiatory path of the ancient Gnostics. The salvific effect
of "Gnosis" is not generally attributed to a single event so far as I
can remember from any of the texts (unless somebody else can think of
One could almost wonder if perhaps in modern English rather than
claiming to have attained Gnosis, it could be more accurate to talk
about various gnosises in a larger concept of Gnosis.... if that makes
any sense. Just a thought.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>