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.
--- In email@example.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:
> Here is a link which is information from Edgar Cayce's readings.
> 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
> 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