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

5911[Gnosticism] Re: Thomasine Metaphor or universal microcosm?

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    May 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Been on a bit of a sabbatical, just catching up. Actually, I don't
      really have much to say concerning the overall conversations since
      for the most part what everyone has said here seems to flow pretty
      rationally. There is only one thing that stands out to me as
      something that really needs clerification, and that is from Play.

      Play, I'm not sure that you are completely clear on exactly what the
      Gnostic "Prime Source" refers to. I could be wrong, and simply have
      misread you, but I get this impression from things you have said
      like the following cut and paste....

      >Who views "the world" as flawed? Us [humans] or the Prime Source?<

      You see, the Prime Source doesn't "view". You seem to have the
      impression that the Prime Source (Bythos) is a being, like some kind
      of God.... it isn't. You mention this as a "question that hasn't
      been answered", but it is difficult to answer since the question
      itself doesn't exactly make sense from the traditional Gnostic
      perspective. I did in fact attempt at one point to answer, I guess
      it just didn't come across right so I'll try again. The Prime Source
      is infinity, absolute infinity. Bythos does not hear, see, think,
      feel, provide, love, punnish, dictate, create, or even interact, it
      is not a "who". I guess that that removes one half of your question,
      and thus answers it.

      Your next question on the other hand is more readily dealt with...

      >What exactly is meant when you use the words "the world"? Do you
      mean human society, religion and culture? Or do you mean all of it?<

      (in reference to what is flawed) The "world" is the field of
      opposites, which is removed from infinity by it's dependance on
      linear movement. In other words, "opposites" or "contrast" is a
      split and another term for "split" can be "flaw" if we assume there
      is something that is not "split". Therefore (from our perspective),
      material existance is less than the implication of what is beyond
      it, and thus "flawed". This of course means everything, anything you
      can concieve, feel, think, experience, is experiencable because of
      the "flaw" or "split" from non-time (at least this is the Gnostic
      perspective, which answers the first question again).

      You also state...

      >If there really is one God, One Source, then remnants of who this
      source is should exist in every religion on this planet.<

      That is a strong "if". What if, on the other hand, "God" is
      something we made up to create rules... sometimes for good, other
      times for bad. You are making an assumption of a God that I don't
      make, and you will find that many Gnostic texts are trying to
      overcome that very notion of "God". One God? Balderdash.

      You then go on to state that God is in all things. There is a word
      for that, it is "Pantheism". Gnostics are not pantheists though, and
      I make no such assumption that "God is in all things", or that God
      is good, etc. You continue from that with this ...

      >To my satisfaction at least, after detailed research and
      experience, it no longer is just a theory. It has become common
      knowledge to me now and I wish to share it with others like you who
      are close to raising "the veil" in your life.<

      Without the other assumptions though, this means nothing. My
      research is also detailed, and in some ways it is very scientific
      and logical as well. How do you know that it is not I who have
      raised the veil, and you who are only close (I'm not saying this is
      the case, only that it is presumptuous to assume)? I have a
      completely different experience (as do the other Gnostics here), and
      most of us have already at one time believed as you do and left that
      belief behind (right or wrong).

      >I can provide all sorts of references, ideas and quotes on all
      sorts of topics to clearly present my case if anyone here is

      Well, that is fine... for what it's worth. Actually, you gave us a
      little story about a Christin who goes to heaven after praying for
      the Massiah. I thought I would point out to you that this is
      originally an old Jewish parable, whomever you got it from simply
      revamped it into a Christian instead of a Rabbi (see "Treasury of
      Jewish Folklore", ed Ausubel) just thought I would point that out
      for technical accuracy sake.

      >And because of these thoughts, you are filled with love and
      compassion and will someday gain gnosis.<

      ?, I'm not sure you mean the same thing as Gnostics do when you use
      the word "gnosis". That being the case, how do you know that Lady
      Cari has not passed us all up in that persuit... including you? Take
      your terms "love" and "compassion" and then look back to the
      explination of the Prime Source. Since Gnosis is a cognisence of the
      Prime Source you will see that "love" and "compassion" are not
      relevent to what Gnostics mean by the word "Gnosis" as anything more
      than steps that can become traps in and of themselves. Granted, you
      may mean something else by the word, but since this is a traditional
      Gnostic forum, we go by the original usage here. Perhaps then you
      can clerify what you meant by the word and we may have another word
      to describe it.

      I do not mean to invalidate what you are saying, I simply mean to
      point out that it is nothing new to most of us. It is however
      something I disagree with... at least as I understand you to mean
      (and like I said, I could have misunderstood your intent).

      (Peering throught the wake of a shark and whale, the minnow rears
      it's terrible head and utters a mighty gurgle that nats and smaller
      insects tremble at... at least if they fall in the water
      unexpectantly without something to crawl out of the water onto [in
      which case the only mock all the harder]. All the while trying to
      avoid the shark an the whale's mouths, "Oh yeah big creatures?" it
      exclaims, "Ha! I pick my morsels from the teeth of the Leviathan and
      the toes of the Behemoth, and they care not. Frolic not in my home
      without some caution master Moby!". :P [that is THE raspberry for
      those of you unfamiliar with internet emoticons])

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic