6423Re: new Hoeller book / miscellany
- Aug 1 12:15 AMGood that you don't mind the language because my next statement is
proselytizing my ass! Subjective and personal? More crap! By all
means end the conversation, if you have nothing worthwhile to say
than shuddup I say and let me talk, I have plenty more to say!!!!
This is a historical Gnostic board and I am discussing historical
Gnostic literature as it is written. Yes, I admit it, I am
proselytizing historical gnosticism!!! And not this new age amalgam
And I am a gnostic/pistic if you are interested. One can't abandon
one in favor of the other. Total nonsense to do otherwise. What faith
are you may I ask and if anyone thinks faith is a dirty word they
need to abandon gnosticism entirely because they missed the word
Pistis that pairs with Gnosis. Faith, literalness, what else, God?!?
Pretty soon the human being will be allegorical too! We'll all go
around pretending we don't really exist, we're all figments of our
own minds. That should be fun! Wait...that's been done already!
As Philip K Dick said reality is the thing that once you no longer
believe in it it refuses to go away.
Allegory does not preclude literalness but I am assuming for now from
your post that is how you define it. Apologies if not, but that is
how many define it. No one knows were the purely symbolic ends and
literal begins. So many are downright cowardly to accept even the
possibility that the literal is true *in addition* because it is non-
PC in academia to be literal. God forbid anything literal comes
along, it's explained away as some kind of allegory, no matter how
twisted or ridiculous the excuse is. The damn literalists don't know
what literal is anymore!! Yet we live in what we think is literal
reality that is filtered through the mind, and our experience of God
through the same mind can't be anything but symbolic allegory. More
bullshit! Even Corpus Hermeticum says as above so below. (It's on
your homepage welcome message and if it's not Gnostic I suggest as
monitor removing it. From the controversy over what's gnostic or not
eventually "what's Gnostic" will be wittled down to a big fat zen 0
ohmmm ohmmmm). Huge irony isn't it that so many modern day new agers
posing as gnostics scream allegory but have no problem at all with
magic or spiritualism or supernatural experiences, even though that's
not mainstream and very rare to experience, and just as big a mystery.
Buddha's flower sermon, nothing here can be accurately described
either but only experienced. Language is imprecise. The good doesn't
disappear, just duality and our inaccurate language to describe the
experience. So we don't call it good anymore because nothings evil,
big deal! Because the Gnostics texts tell us so damn it! And again,
who says *concept* is dependent on duality?
Language is but not mind and not perhaps not concept if concept is
image. And concept is not dependent on language as some linguists
erroneously think, I don't care how hard they try to argue, one can
think without using language. What the hell is inspiration anyway! If
anyone wants only allegory than the ancient gnostics agree with me
because word and knowledge are lower emanations.
What makes you think the concept of good is so? Or that there is
nothing transcendent non-dualistic Father-like in our everyday mind
we are unaware of being *exactly that* because it's so familiar we
take it for granted and don't recognize what it really is, and that
it's alien to the world of matter? Hello! we can handle paradox!
More nonsense, thinking the resolution of duality has to be something
*entirely different* from *everthing* that's here. You'd think Sophia
had never fallen! The texts say evil disappears, *true* good remains,
a type of good we are unfamiliar with because we live in mixture, but
in essence we know what it is because we are pneumatic, and *in
addition* the Father is other things we can't fathom or conceive.
Certainly not describe using paltry language. For crying out loud if
what's of the Father is in us, as historical Gnostic texts state,
you'd think we'd be familiar with at least a part of it! What the
hell is pneumatic anyway? Historical Gnostic texts consistently refer
to the Father as good. Fine, you don't like that, than let's just say
the emanations of the Father consistently reveal him as good and
never evil and state evil is an illusion and dead and is no part of
the Father and will end up in the cosmic dung heap eventually along
with matter and the cosmocrater who rules it.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>