> Works for what? Math works for its function, but is that function
> related to what the historical Gnostics were trying to talk about?
> Maybe sometimes... but is it the same intent? Can you show it?
If you can gain gnosis through math, more power to you! The proof of
the method is in the trials of the one who subjects him or herself to
the method. It is subjective. What advantage would proving that you
have gnosis have? Self-glorification? The person who does not have it
will not recognise it when it is shown to him. The one who has it will
recognise it in others without it being 'shown' to him. Asking for
proof of gnosis would be like asking DaVinci or Mozart to prove that
they are a genius. The answer should be obvious to anyone aware enough
to pick up on it.
> Well, no, not exactly. Remember that in the definition of this club
> there is no such thing as "modern Gnostics".
Heheh, sorry... I find this extremely hilarious!
> What I am asking is how
> well, and in what context, people understand the historical Gnostic
> texts. If you think it is personal, how sure are you that what you
> are talking about is really "Gnostic" in the same way they were?
This should be obvious to anyone who is one. I see nothing to debate
here. If you are a Gnostic, you should intuitively understand the
texts written by one or more of the ancient sects, and be able to
apply what's written there.
> Let me try to put that another way. What if I am reading a Gnostic
> text about Sophia and the Logos, but the meaning I get from them is
> something completely unrelated to what the author was talking about?
> Did the author HAVE a meaning? Just because two people use the same
> word it doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing. See my
The rest of their symbols should jive. If they don't, the author was
most likely not writing about the same thing, or were a fake in the
> Good point. Leaving aside the fact that they did not consider
> themselves to have been "initiated into Gnosticism" I think the
> concern you raise is important there.
Sure they did. Are you saying the sacraments aren't a form of
> However, what if I told you that "Gnosis" is not a personal
> spiritual experience that links you to the source? Can you
> demonstrate otherwise? It sounds to me that you, like many people,
> believe that Gnosis is a sort of mystical experience. Can you
> demonstrate that the word really means that to the historical
I would tell you you are correct. It's a metaphor. The scource is
something that is within us.
> My point was not concerning the ligitimacy of Crowley's teachings,
> but simply whether or not what he was talking about realy is the
> same meaning as the Logos and Sophia. It is easy to make an equation
> between any two things that seem similar on the surface.... but I am
> asking for an equation on a bit of a deeper level. In other words,
> you need to demonstrate what the Logos and the Sophia mean in the
> original Gnostic texts before you can show us how they are the same
> as Hadit and Nuit.
I am not claiming they are the same... I am saying they are similar.
Water is similar to mercury because both are liquids. Water is not the
same as mercury. One half is similar to two fourths, but is not the
same as two fourths. You can devide something into two pieces, and
that is not the same as it being devided into four pieces. What I am
saying as they are similar in essence.