5885[Gnosticism] Re: Thomasine Metaphor or universal microcosm?
- May 17, 2002Reply to #5881: Some thoughts.
WB: My question remains: Are we looking at the same thing?
play: I think we are Will. All of us are looking at the same thing and
seeing it differently through our flawed method of knowing and
learning. Through our current filters. Like seeing the light through a
veil, we have to guess what the shapes are because we don't see them
clear enough with the veil down. Can the veil be lifted? If so, by
I don't think you and I are looking at the same thing, else you would
not say what you are saying. I am speaking to what is seen when the
veil is lifted. Of, course, it may be that what I see, or experience,
as the lifting of the veil, the ending of the temporal sense of self,
leaving the presential sense of self as the ground of self, where
presential is in the presence of what-is, is not the lifting of the
veil you are speaking to.
play: I see and understand your point of view. However, if knowledge
gained can lead one to accept the "kingdom" for what it is fully, they
quickly realize that what surrounds them is a part of it. If they can
accept this connection then they will start to see that they are also
a part of it.
I do not think you see and understand my point of view, and I mean
that as only what I see as the fact of it. I am saying that the
knowledge gained by the lifting of the veil is not something that
needs to be realized or accepted; it is given, it comes with the
territory, the connection is made. Again, maybe we mean separate
things by the lifting of the veil.
play: This is what I mean by remembering. Remembering who we really
are not who we think we might be. The physical aspect of the kingdom
is no less valid than the spiritual part of it just as our physical
aspect of being is no less valid than our spiritual one. These 2
things; physicality and spirituality, are not separate but connected.
"As it is above, so it is below". I forget where that quote comes
from, LOL, but it fits quite nicely here.
You see the spiritual and the physical aspect of the kingdom to be the
two aspects of an extant kingdom. I see the notion of a kingdom as you
have comprised it as a notion only. I see the notion of a spiritual as
deriving from the recognition of presence that is revealed when the
temporal sense of self comes to an end. I will call that the
spiritual, but only as a way to differentiate it from the sense of
being in the world that adheres to the temporal sense of self, and, as
a way of referring to the difference ensuing from that shift in one's
sense of self.
If that notion of a dualistic kingdom arose from an experience, then
it is simply a description of an experience, and if it did not derive
from experience, it is purely speculative. If there is an singular
experience that can be taken as positing such a kingdom, or not,
depending upon how one takes it, that is one thing. If there is an
experience that demands being taken as positing such a kingdom and
there is another experience that does not make such a demand, yet the
general structure of the experience is the same, that is another
thing. What thing do we have here? It is one or the other. Or so it
seems to me.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>