>>>"If our creators had no purpose or intention in the sense ofsomething being 'worked toward', then they're even bigger fools than
we are, and allowed something to happen for no reason."<<<
It is funny you should say that, because that is essentially the
Gnostic stance, or at least part of it. The Sethians very
specifically call our creator "Fool" (Saklas) The real source of the
spirit, on the other hand, is not our Creator, the Demiurge
>>>"I felt like my ideas are not seen as gnostic, which I don't mind,because I have never put too specific a label on my things of this
Annie, you should not feel bad about that for another reason. The
fact is, technically speakin no one here is part of that category
called "Gnosticism". So no, your ideas are not necessarily Gnostic,
but then neither are mine are anyone else in the modern era... at
least not technically.
>>>"The attachment I have toward the name G-d seems to be a barrierin mutual understandings, as I was beginning to suspect."<<<
Let me post something from the real Basilides that may help with that
......"There was when naught was: nay, even that "naught" was not
aught of things that are. But nakedly, conjecture and mental
quibbling apart, there was absolutely not even the one. And when I
use the term "was" I do not mean to say that it was ;but merely to
give some suggestion of what i wish to indicate, I use the
expression "there was absolutely naught". Naught was, neither matter,
nor substance, nor voidness of substance, nor simplicity, nor
impossibility of composition, nor inconceptibility, imperceptibility,
neither man, nor angel, nor God ; in fine, anything at all for which
man has ever found a name, nor by any operation which falls within
range of his perception or conception."......
This is a cut and paste from the Gnosis.org website, and there could
be some problems with this translation (besides some spelling and
grammar errors) but I think for now it gets the point across.
However, I do understand what you mean in that we do need some kind
>>>With this background and also having read Freke and Gandy's booksand Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing
personal Gnosis which I'm sorry to say is being separated from this
discussion or seems to be discounted.<<<
It isn't that your personal definition of the word "Gnosis" is
discounted here, just that it isn't the definition of the
word "Gnosis" that this forum uses.
>>>Freke and Gandy explain the experience of Gnosis as more than canbe written, it must be experienced, it is that knowledge or knowing
beyond intellect that cannot contain the totality to Gnosis.<<<
Freke and Gandy also claim that this definition of the word "Gnosis"
is the one used by the traditional Gnostics... but I should point
out that Freke and Gandy are mistaken. We are a bit more technical
>>>You are all so intelligent but you miss the mark if you think youwill "get it" from all your books and reading, get quiet and get in
touch with the God with in and you may start to have Gnosis.<<<
You misunderstand, Aleada, no body suggested that your idea
of "Gnosis" is something that would be found in a book, but you need
to also understand the historical meaning of the word "Gnosis" and
not only the modern definition you get from people like Freke and
>>>>Whatever the culture it's all the same God or Great Spirit,whatever; the experience of Gnosis is the same, look at the mystics
and refer to Barbara's experience and you will see what it is to
No, that is what it means to have a mystical experience..... not
Gnosis. They are not the same thing.
Why do you feel that we must use your definition of the
word "Gnosis" rather than the one this forum was designed to deal
with? It isn't that I disagree with the importance of the experience
you are talking about, it is just that we don't call that
experience "Gnosis" here.