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

8002Re: Terrorism and the sad truth about 9.11

Expand Messages
  • incognito_lightbringer
    Jul 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      <<. Just because negative
      human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
      can be attributed to the Unknown Father.>>

      I view it as more complicated than this. Positive traits are
      attributed to he Unknown Father, in gnostic texts, in the very
      passages which employ apophatic descriptions. Moreover, there are
      emanations of the True God into the field of existence/space/time,
      which do have positive qualities, and never negative (that I'm aware
      of, if there are please state passages). I'm not convinced the
      resolution of duality means that both dualistic sides are eliminated.
      It seems more that the negative is a form of absence, while the
      positive is that which was all along. The existence of the negative
      is the existence of the positive, by which we view the positive. In
      other words, one defines the other. If one is eliminated the other is
      no longer defineable in dualism. Otherwise, what "is" is then beyond
      existence (or nonexistence). However, in this world, the two have
      mixed, and gnostic and hermetic texts are against mixtures. Which
      they claim produce error and are corruption. (I was never certain if
      this meant there was supposed to be a dualistic universe in which the
      two coexisted seperately, before things went screwy. Thus a heaven
      and a hell. In some texts Sophia falls into matter that already
      exists, for example. Or as in Origin of the World, chaos exists prior
      to the demiurge and matter. Or paraphrase of Shem, where there are
      three seperate roots. When there's a mix, things go wrong.)

      My question is, what is "human"? The body and the psyche are included
      in commonplace understanding of the term, but that's not what it is
      in gnostic texts. Human (as in First Man or inner Man) seems a
      reference to something entirely different, perfect, and unique in
      itself; (the spirit?). It's also the path to the unknown Father, who
      we are told we can unite with and whose kingdom we inherit, as we are
      told only the Son knows the Father, and we can *become like him*. But
      this entails transcendence. Again, more complicated than simply
      stating he's "unknown". He's unknown in rational logical dualistic
      worldly "knowledge", but not in terms of gnosis or union.

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
      > Hello pmcvflag
      > On 03-Jul-03, you wrote:
      > >> I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction
      > >> between the "true God" who is more human than the one, which
      > >> created the body and the psyche alone or with the help of the
      > >> archons.
      > >
      > > Hello again Martin. I thought I would point out that generally in
      > > traditional "Gnosticism" it is exactly the opposite. Traditionally
      > > the "True God" is completely inhuman, separate, infinite. Any god
      > > with anthropomorphic (human) qualities is considered either
      > > inferior, or downright false. Many times we have posted examples
      > > apophatic theology from Gnostic texts in here, so I wont bother
      > > doing it again, but merely point out how works like the Tripartite
      > > Tractate deny any human quality, or even definable quality, in the
      > > "True God".
      > >
      > > PMCV
      > Absolutely correct. That needed to be stated. Just because
      > human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
      > can be attributed to the Unknown Father. His name says a lot about
      > him, if you think about it.
      > Regards
      > --
      > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic