5941[Gnosticism] Re: Thomasine Metaphor or universal microcosm?
- May 29, 2002--- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> There is only one thing that stands out to me asthe
> something that really needs clerification, and that is from Play.
> Play, I'm not sure that you are completely clear on exactly what
> Gnostic "Prime Source" refers to.Thanks for noticing PMCV. And thanks for not beating me up about it.
> I could be wrong, and simply havekind
> 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
> of God.... it isn't. You mention this as a "question that hasn'tSource
> 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
> is infinity, absolute infinity. Bythos does not hear, see, think,question,
> feel, provide, love, punnish, dictate, create, or even interact, it
> is not a "who". I guess that that removes one half of your
> and thus answers it.Then why use words like "He" and "Father" when referencing it? From
out of infinity came everything, including the Father of all things,
no? Creation happened by osmosis? No thought? Totally random events?
> Your next question on the other hand is more readily dealt with...This is just perspective I guess. Sure it can be "flaw" but it could
> >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"
also be quite perfect, just the way it was meant to be.
> if we assume thereyou
> 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
> can concieve, feel, think, experience, is experiencable because ofso then, time itself is a flaw? Or is it illusion? Or is it just a
> the "flaw" or "split" from non-time (at least this is the Gnostic
> perspective, which answers the first question again).
mechanism that allows us to experience this part of our being in a
very limited way sort of like we are all actors in a play? Do
Gnostics believe in the spirit, or better, that humans are partly
spirit? Is spirit infinite or a part of what is infinite? If so,
wouldn't it be possible that part of infinity encompasses all of that
which is finite? Is it possible that infinite can also "express
itself" as finite? Your answers to my questions are only bringing up
more questions it seems.
>Why is that? Wouldn't this logically follow if it were the case? I
> 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".
posted some things on this board already that clearly shows many
similarities between otherwise disparate religions.
> What if, on the other hand, "God" isWhy is "one god" balderdash? The very essence of the meaning of
> 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.
your "Prime Source" means exactly that. You can also easily
substitute the word God with Source. Everything coming from one
source. Why use the words "prime source" then?
> 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,
> I make no such assumption that "God is in all things", or that GodWhether you make the assumption or not, this is true even in gnostic
> is good, etc. You continue from that with this ...
teachings. Especially in gnostic teachings. "Therefore, all the
emanations of the Father are pleromas, and the root of all his
emanations is in the one who made them all grow up in himself. He
assigned them their destinies. Each one, then, is manifest, in order
that through their own thought <...>. For the place to which they
send their thought, that place, their root, is what takes them up in
all the heights, to the Father."
> >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),
> most of us have already at one time believed as you do and leftthat
> belief behind (right or wrong).I don't believe that any of you here believed the way that I do. And
I don't believe that I can believe exactly the way that you do. So
let me re-iterate a gnostic thought..."For the place to which they
send their thought, that place, their root, is what takes them up in
all the heights, to the Father." This isn't about who is right or
>Yes,. I was the one who revamped it. Does it matter if it were a
> >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.
rabbi or a christian? But did you get the point of the story which is
infinitely more important to note?
>It isn't a matter of degree PCMV. She, you, me and others here are
> >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?
all in the same boat.
> your terms "love" and "compassion" and then look back to the
> explination of the Prime Source. Since Gnosis is a cognisence of
> Prime Source you will see that "love" and "compassion" are notmore
> relevent to what Gnostics mean by the word "Gnosis" as anything
> than steps that can become traps in and of themselves. Granted, youtraditional
> may mean something else by the word, but since this is a
> Gnostic forum, we go by the original usage here. Perhaps then youWhatever words you use to define them, love and compassion are
> can clerify what you meant by the word and we may have another word
> to describe it.
important if one is to understand, embrace and accept the truth. The
good and bad of it. That is what we are concerned with here. Gnostic
or not. Gnosis, the way I see it, is the knowledge of the truth which
will never be completely known by any of us in this life. I don't see
this as a flaw. I just see it as the way it is and I'm certain our
spirit knows the reasons.
> I do not mean to invalidate what you are saying, I simply mean toAgree. It is nothing new. It is ancient and timeless this knowledge
> point out that it is nothing new to most of us.
of which we speak. It is a knowledge worth remembering, no?
> It is howeverForget the intent. What are you disagreeing with?
> something I disagree with... at least as I understand you to mean
> (and like I said, I could have misunderstood your intent).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>