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

Re: a non-labeled explanation

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Annie Well, as you already pointed out, Cayce is not Gnostic . Essentially this would be off topic, but you do point out that your intent is to try and get a
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Annie

      Well, as you already pointed out, Cayce is not "Gnostic". Essentially
      this would be off topic, but you do point out that your intent is to
      try and get a comparative analysis so as to gain a better
      understanding of the concepts outside the terms.

      I think perhaps it is best to try to deal with both at the same time.
      If you are trying to explain how a computer works, you will have to
      deal with terms like "CPU" and "RAM", but perhaps you are right that
      we could put less emphasis on the term itself for a bit.

      However, instead of trying to do some kind of complete outline
      comparing Cayce's ideas with Gnosticism, perhaps you could pick out a
      few points that to you illustrates what you think this picture looks
      like, and what it means... and then we can talk about what the
      Gnostics thought of such things. We need not even really point out
      what is Cayce's ideas and what is yours.... but just what ideas you
      think needs to be dealt with in a clear way.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:
      > Here is a link which is information from Edgar Cayce's readings.
      http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce03.html
      >
      > Now I'm sure this is off-topic, in a sense, since obviously
      traditional gnosticism was of a time long before Mr. Cayce's time.
      Alternatively, it is a very good explanation of the structure of how
      things perhaps are, and reflects maybe what gnosis leads one to
      understand, in words that are concrete and understood mutually. It
      is also a good demonstration of the sampling found in
      all 'religions'. The reader can pick out with ease the parts which
      have been incorporated into various religious denominations, which
      shows elements can be found everywhere, often hidden in a bunch of
      man made crap, excuse my bluntness, but that all the truths combine
      together in a logical and cohesive big picture. That's not my
      purpose, however.
      >
      > The reason I'm posting this is to maybe get some feedback of how
      this relates to what the traditional gnostics thought. There doesn't
      seem to be anywhere it is presented in this way, but with the
      knowledge of this group which has been fine tuned by the method of
      discussion, there's some clarity possible as far as defining their
      ideas for shared understanding now. The terminology is all fine and
      good, but it's hard to understand the precise concepts by using the
      same to explain those concepts. The text references also help, but
      are vague. If these things are of a certain defined character, there
      must be a way to define them outside of the experience yet still
      commonly understood. I'm sure Edgar Cayce is not at all considered
      to be gnostic, I don't think I've heard him classified as such, and
      definitely he's been called a psychic. But for these purposes, I
      don't think it matters. I don't want to discuss him in the terms of
      being gnostic, just utilitize information which he channeled for
      means of comparison. Although he is known as a 'christian',
      fundamental more than anything else, that is his own identity, and
      the channeled information seems to be coming from more of a
      collective source of consciousness but not extending to the Father as
      the source of that mind, only going as far as the parts below the
      veil where we know the Logos. These things are purported to have
      been new ideas to him as well, and many times he didn't even know the
      meanings of words he had used while in a trance. I realize that
      psychic is a limited plane, but the information he relates doesn't
      seem to be of a psychic nature, if you get my meaning. It may come
      via that channel, but it's not originated there. Many people see
      these things as bogus, because they are not understandable on a hylic
      or psychic level, in the complete form, the big picture.
      >
      > I hope that was clear, and if not appropriate, just let me know.
      I'm still looking for some kind of baseline of gnosis that is neutral
      but simply explained in 'layman's terms'.
      >
      >
      >
      > love from annie
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.