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

Re: what is an "Anti-Cosmic Dualism?"

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... there ... I have found noted elsewhere, the reason given why this may have been portrayed that way was qouted as: That these Hellenistic Gnostics were
    Message 1 of 36 , Sep 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Lawrance"
      <nicholson2000r@c...> wrote:
      > From Mike Leavitt
      > I have just an insight. Sophia means wisdom. Wisdom created the
      > demiurge. The demiurge created evil. Therefore the root of evil
      > lies in wisdom. So does the universe. Where does this leave us?
      > Was wisdom unwise, or is there some reason for all of this? Wisdom
      > did this without her consort, so was she only half wise? Still
      > is an irony here.
      > ...........................
      > The Irony that 'Wisdom' should be responsible for an act of folly
      I have found noted elsewhere, the reason given why this may have been
      portrayed that way was qouted as: "That these Hellenistic Gnostics
      were having a dig at the intellectual philosophers: the Platonists,
      Aristoleans, Stoics, Epicureans, and the rest. These Philosophers
      claimed it was possible through reason alone
      (or 'wisdom'; 'Philosophy' means 'love of wisdom') to know the
      Absolute. The Hellenistics Gnostics however said that such perception
      can only come through a higher, intuitive, knowing. Here we have the
      old contrast between the exoteric and the esoteric."
      > Nick

      Thank you, Nick.

      Of course, those Gnostics had those philosophical Platonist
      roots. ;) And, as far as "knowing," there appears to be evidence of
      intellectual abstractions as well as mystical components in
      descriptions we find of the soul's ascent toward Gnosis. One example
      is a passage from _Allogenes_ (_The Foreigner_, Bentley Layton
      trans.), which I might have quoted before, describing a personal

      "Now, I was listening to them say these things {instructions of holy
      powers}, and within me was stillness of silence. I listened to
      blessedness, through which I understood myself as I really am. And I
      withdrew to vitality, which I sought to understand; and I accompanied
      it into itself, and stood at rest--not firmly, but in stillness. And
      I beheld an indivisible, eternal, intellectual movement--belonging to
      all the powers; formless; and unlimited by bestowal of limit. And
      when I wished to stand firmly at rest I withdrew to reality, which I
      found to be standing at rest and still, after an image and a
      resemblance of the (image) which I was wearing. Through a
      manifestation of the undivided and the still, I became full of
      manifestation. (And) through a first manifestation of the
      unrecognizable, I [understood] it (the unrecognizable), at the same
      time [that] I was uncomprehending of it. And from the latter I
      received power, having gotten eternal strength from [it]."

      And then the powers of the luminaries continue by describing the

      As noted by Layton:
      "By progressive mystical introspection, the Foreigner has `beheld'
      the ineffable, i.e. gained acquaintance (_gnosis_) of it (61:8f).
      Yet to `understand' the vision of this object is a different task,
      the task of philosophy; hence the heavy philosophical style of the
      revelation that follows."

      But, then again, in the end, the Foreigner is told to go and not seek
      to understand anything further.

    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello pmcvflag ... Actuallly literal acceptance of authorship and age was quite common. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove - s
      Message 36 of 36 , Oct 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello pmcvflag

        On 10/02/05, you wrote:

        > Hey Mike
        >>>> Wasn't the emerald tablet known before the Renisance rediscovery
        >>>> of
        > the Hermetic texts, and cited by earlier Alchemists? If so, that
        > could lead to the idea it was more ancient. The Sephir Yedzirah was
        > out there long before the Zohar, for instance.<<<
        > If I recall, the oldest version of the "Emerald Tablet" is from
        > around the 800s (AD), in Arabic. I think there were translations
        > from the 1200s in medieval Europe, and certainly there have been
        > people who thought these texts were very old. I am not sure exactly
        > where the discovery era presents any genuine reasoning for an older
        > date for the text, but of course even though the notion is not
        > relavant in modern thinking it could have been part of the reasoning
        > for people at the time. I can't say for sure. However, if you think
        > about it from the Renaissance rational, Hermes was a real person
        > from the time of Moses, which means that all hermetic writings that
        > were valid came from this historical person. So even then some texts
        > would not have predated the others.
        > It is true, the Sefer Yetzirah predates the Zohar.... but it is also
        > from a different tradition than the Zohar. So, this could be more
        > like comparing pre-Hermetic ideas of "Hermes" with those of the
        > Corpus Hermetica. Yes, they predate them, but they also tell us a
        > limited amount about them.
        > So, you could have a point there... the mere fact that the texts
        > were more popular and known before the Corpus Hermetica were
        > rediscovered could have lead some thinkers to the idea that they
        > were older. However, I am not sure exactly where this thinking would
        > have come from... all things considered.
        > PMCV

        Actuallly literal acceptance of authorship and age was quite common.

        Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.