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

5885[Gnosticism] Re: Thomasine Metaphor or universal microcosm?

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    May 17, 2002
      Reply 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
      whom?

      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.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic