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

Re: another newbie

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Ben, welcome to the group. Looks like we got a bunch of new people all at once. It is always interesting to hear the different ways in which people have
    Message 1 of 27 , Nov 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Ben, welcome to the group. Looks like we got a bunch of new
      people all at once. It is always interesting to hear the different
      ways in which people have come to hear of Gnosticism.

      Since some of you new people have given us a brief intro of who you
      are and how you came to be here, let me take a moment to give you
      all an idea of where "here" is and what this group is all about.

      You all have probably already noticed that in the "Gnosticism"
      section of Yahoo Groups there are almost 300 forums dealing with the
      subject. Many of these groups have slightly, or sometimes very,
      different functions or focuses... so here is ours.

      For one, we are very careful here with the definition of the
      term "Gnosticism". As you all may already know the term "Gnosticism"
      was invented by modern scholors, and we stick to a historical
      definition just so there is no confusion about what anyone is
      talking about. We fully understand that the word has come to be used
      in many different ways, and that is ok, but when we use it here we
      mean it in the traditional sense of the word.

      Also, we are not connected to any modern "Gnostic" church or order,
      but instead deal only with the beliefs as they are exhibited in the
      historical texts like the Nag Hammadi. This does not mean that we
      are not interested in personal spiritual paths, just that we try to
      never loose focus concerning how that may or may not relate to the
      historical groups. Many people here do not consider themselves to
      be "Gnostic", though many others do.

      Also, we do have some historians here, and sometimes the
      conversation can get a little technical... PLEASE don't be afraid to
      say so. It does not mean any of you are dumb, just that specialists
      sometimes forget when they are talking to a wider audience. We try
      to keep the specialist lingo to a minimum so that everyone knows
      what is going on... but we also rely on newbies to the subject to
      speak up and help the group include them in the conversation. We
      want everyone here to be able to express their interest in
      traditional Gnosticism and learn from each other.

      Anyone who wishes to better understand the historical Gnostics, this
      is probably one of the best places on the net for that. On the other
      hand, many people find that they are more interested in the personal
      journey more, and find that the traditional Gnostic groups are a bit
      dull. While we do hope it is fun and interesting here, if you do
      find this particular groups focus on the ancient text to be a bit of
      a yawn, may I offer another specific group that deals more with
      modern thinking and personal progression that still sometimes
      touches on historical Gnosticism from the opposite direction than we
      do.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GnosticThought/ That group is
      run by a person who is a member here as well, but the focus is much
      wider than this group.

      If you have any specific texts you would like to deal with, or any
      specific beliefs within Gnosticism, or interest in any particular
      sect.... questions, comments, disagreements..... feel free to start
      a conversation.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Hoomer <hoomerick@g...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello....newbie here as well...
      > Ben...31...
      > I was brought up in england around the town of Glastonbury ( a
      significant
      > place for Gnostics....)Though I attended CHurch of ENgland
      schools...I never
      > felt at home. I eventually went a bit new age....which lead
      to "paganism".
      > Whereupon I practised a form of magic.
      > I then "recently" met a wonderful woman...who just happens to be a
      > manichean essene/carmelite/coptic christian0
      (http://essenes.net/ ). So as I
      > consider myself a "grail seeker" first and foremost...I have no
      trouble
      > embracing Gnostcism and her spirituality...relaly it feels like a
      logical
      > growth from what I was doing already....
      > I joined this site as a "friend" of the AGCA (
      > http://gnostic-church.org/)...and am currently considering joining
      > "properly"....
      > My interest center around kabbalah, the grail and Gnosticism in
      general.
      > I have recently begun a Gnostic scriptures "book reading" group...
      > and invite anyone to join.
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gnostic_scripture_discussions/
      > --Ben
      >
      >
      > --
      > He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
      > through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
      >
    • pmcvflag
      BTW, Ben... While the Grail myths are not technically Gnostic, I also have an interest in them. I run another group (with a far wider focus) that deals with
      Message 2 of 27 , Nov 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        BTW, Ben...

        While the Grail myths are not technically Gnostic, I also have an
        interest in them. I run another group (with a far wider focus) that
        deals with them, the troubadours and "Courtly Love", as well as a
        number of related forms of esoteric romance. Here is the URL for
        anyone here who is interested...

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/esotericromance/

        PMCV



        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Hoomer <hoomerick@g...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello....newbie here as well...
        > Ben...31...
        > I was brought up in england around the town of Glastonbury ( a
        significant
        > place for Gnostics....)Though I attended CHurch of ENgland
        schools...I never
        > felt at home. I eventually went a bit new age....which lead
        to "paganism".
        > Whereupon I practised a form of magic.
        > I then "recently" met a wonderful woman...who just happens to be a
        > manichean essene/carmelite/coptic christian0
        (http://essenes.net/ ). So as I
        > consider myself a "grail seeker" first and foremost...I have no
        trouble
        > embracing Gnostcism and her spirituality...relaly it feels like a
        logical
        > growth from what I was doing already....
        > I joined this site as a "friend" of the AGCA (
        > http://gnostic-church.org/)...and am currently considering joining
        > "properly"....
        > My interest center around kabbalah, the grail and Gnosticism in
        general.
        > I have recently begun a Gnostic scriptures "book reading" group...
        > and invite anyone to join.
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gnostic_scripture_discussions/
        > --Ben
        >
        >
        > --
        > He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
        > through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
        >
      • Ben
        ... The Grail ultimatly is about divine union... what can be more Gnostic than that?
        Message 3 of 27 , Nov 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >
          > BTW, Ben...
          >
          > While the Grail myths are not technically Gnostic, I also have an
          > interest in them. I run another group (with a far wider focus) that
          > deals with them, the troubadours and "Courtly Love", as well as a
          > number of related forms of esoteric romance. Here is the URL for
          > anyone here who is interested...
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/esotericromance/
          >
          > PMCV
          >
          The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...

          what can be more Gnostic than that?
        • arlene anjum
          Hello....newbie here as well... ... significant ... schools...I never ... to paganism . ... Wow so lucky to have that experience. Did you ever get to meet
          Message 4 of 27 , Nov 9, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello....newbie here as well...
            > Ben...31...
            >  I was brought up in england around the town of Glastonbury ( a
            significant
            > place for Gnostics....)Though I attended CHurch of ENgland
            schools...I never
            > felt at home. I eventually went a bit new age....which lead
            to "paganism".
            > Whereupon I practised a form of magic.

             

            Wow so lucky to have that experience. Did you ever get to meet Caitlin Matthews or her husband John Matthews? John is an excellent historian.But I digress..his focus is mainly Arthurian and Celtic Myth cycles..couldn't resist I have  friend who just came back from Glastonbury..AA



            pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            Hey Ben, welcome to the group. Looks like we got a bunch of new
            people all at once. It is always interesting to hear the different
            ways in which people have come to hear of Gnosticism.

            Since some of you new people have given us a brief intro of who you
            are and how you came to be here, let me take a moment to give you
            all an idea of where "here" is and what this group is all about.

            You all have probably already noticed that in the "Gnosticism"
            section of Yahoo Groups there are almost 300 forums dealing with the
            subject. Many of these groups have slightly, or sometimes very,
            different functions or focuses... so here is ours.

            For one, we are very careful here with the definition of the
            term "Gnosticism". As you all may already know the term "Gnosticism"
            was invented by modern scholors, and we stick to a historical
            definition just so there is no confusion about what anyone is
            talking about. We fully understand that the word has come to be used
            in many different ways, and that is ok, but when we use it here we
            mean it in the traditional sense of the word.

            Also, we are not connected to any modern "Gnostic" church or order,
            but instead deal only with the beliefs as they are exhibited in the
            historical texts like the Nag Hammadi. This does not mean that we
            are not interested in personal spiritual paths, just that we try to
            never loose focus concerning how that may or may not relate to the
            historical groups. Many people here do not consider themselves to
            be "Gnostic", though many others do.

            Also, we do have some historians here, and sometimes the
            conversation can get a little technical... PLEASE don't be afraid to
            say so. It does not mean any of you are dumb, just that specialists
            sometimes forget when they are talking to a wider audience. We try
            to keep the specialist lingo to a minimum so that everyone knows
            what is going on... but we also rely on newbies to the subject to
            speak up and help the group include them in the conversation. We
            want everyone here to be able to express their interest in
            traditional Gnosticism and learn from each other.

            Anyone who wishes to better understand the historical Gnostics, this
            is probably one of the best places on the net for that. On the other
            hand, many people find that they are more interested in the personal
            journey more, and find that the traditional Gnostic groups are a bit
            dull. While we do hope it is fun and interesting here, if you do
            find this particular groups focus on the ancient text to be a bit of
            a yawn, may I offer another specific group that deals more with
            modern thinking and personal progression that still sometimes
            touches on historical Gnosticism from the opposite direction than we
            do....  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GnosticThought/ That group is
            run by a person who is a member here as well, but the focus is much
            wider than this group.

            If you have any specific texts you would like to deal with, or any
            specific beliefs within Gnosticism, or interest in any particular
            sect.... questions, comments, disagreements..... feel free to start
            a conversation.

            PMCV

            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Hoomer <hoomerick@g...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello....newbie here as well...
            > Ben...31...
            >  I was brought up in england around the town of Glastonbury ( a
            significant
            > place for Gnostics....)Though I attended CHurch of ENgland
            schools...I never
            > felt at home. I eventually went a bit new age....which lead
            to "paganism".
            > Whereupon I practised a form of magic.
            >  I then "recently" met a wonderful woman...who just happens to be a
            > manichean essene/carmelite/coptic christian0
            (http://essenes.net/ ). So as I
            > consider myself a "grail seeker" first and foremost...I have no
            trouble
            > embracing Gnostcism and her spirituality...relaly it feels like a
            logical
            > growth from what I was doing already....
            >  I joined this site as a "friend" of the AGCA (
            > http://gnostic-church.org/)...and am currently considering joining
            > "properly"....
            >  My interest center around kabbalah, the grail and Gnosticism in
            general.
            >  I have recently begun a Gnostic scriptures "book reading" group...
            > and invite anyone to join.
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gnostic_scripture_discussions/
            >   --Ben
            >
            >
            > --
            > He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
            > through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
            >






            Arlene Anjum
             
            The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. – Albert Einstein 1879-1955, German-born American Physicist


            Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

          • arlene anjum
            The Grail ultimatly is about divine union... How very Great Rite . Grail is often associated with the feminine divine..AA ... The Grail ultimatly is about
            Message 5 of 27 , Nov 9, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...
              How very "Great Rite" . Grail is often associated with the feminine divine..AA

              Ben <hoomerick@...> wrote:
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              >
              > BTW, Ben...
              >
              > While the Grail myths are not technically Gnostic, I also have an
              > interest in them. I run another group (with a far wider focus) that
              > deals with them, the troubadours and "Courtly Love", as well as a
              > number of related forms of esoteric romance. Here is the URL for
              > anyone here who is interested...
              >
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/esotericromance/
              >
              > PMCV
              >
              The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...

              what can be more Gnostic than that?










              Arlene Anjum
               
              The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. – Albert Einstein 1879-1955, German-born American Physicist


              Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

            • Ben
              ... divine..AA ... well no how very alchemy ..... to quote the master hismelf: 22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, These nursing
              Message 6 of 27 , Nov 9, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, arlene anjum <koalaKards@y...>
                wrote:
                >
                > The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...
                > How very "Great Rite" . Grail is often associated with the feminine
                divine..AA
                >
                well no how very "alchemy".....


                to quote the master hismelf:

                22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These
                nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."

                They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as
                babies?"

                Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you
                make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the
                upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single
                one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when
                you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot
                in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will
                enter [the kingdom]."

                The grail is something you become not own....
                an object is an object..a symbol is a symbol....

                but

                God is God.......

                Thomas Aquinas stated that there are ONLY 3 movements in the
                universe....

                straight line.....masculine..the penis...the rod..the sword..air and
                fire

                circular...vagina...womb...cup..shield...water and earth

                and

                obtuse.....a unification of male and female...chanign direction
                midflow...serpetine....the kabbalistic lightning flash..the
                chord...quintessence...aether..the Christ.....

                SO we see the idea of the alchemical unity.....

                a "chemical wedding" (the rosicrucian term)...a marraige of opposites
                to form a new whole.....

                Ok I am new here...and really dotn wish to blab on too much...and I
                realise that the grail can be seen in many ways. I also know many
                down play the feminine in favor of the masculine or vice
                versa.....even amongst Gnostics....

                The cathars for instance had many many grreat ideas....but shunned
                union on all levels...did they not? Myself..I seek wholism..on ALL
                levels......but I can only speak for myself....

                My apologies if this is stepping on any toes...

                --Ben
              • Ben
                ... Caitlin Matthews or her husband John Matthews? John is an excellent historian.But I digress..his focus is mainly Arthurian and Celtic Myth cycles..couldn t
                Message 7 of 27 , Nov 9, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, arlene anjum <koalaKards@y...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello....newbie here as well...
                  > > Ben...31...
                  > > I was brought up in england around the town of Glastonbury ( a
                  > significant
                  > > place for Gnostics....)Though I attended CHurch of ENgland
                  > schools...I never
                  > > felt at home. I eventually went a bit new age....which lead
                  > to "paganism".
                  > > Whereupon I practised a form of magic.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Wow so lucky to have that experience. Did you ever get to meet
                  Caitlin Matthews or her husband John Matthews? John is an excellent
                  historian.But I digress..his focus is mainly Arthurian and Celtic
                  Myth cycles..couldn't resist I have friend who just came back from
                  Glastonbury..AA
                  >
                  >
                  No...but I have a signed book...from having corresponded with them
                  personally...but no.

                  I have however done "work" (group 'magic') with RJ Stewart....several
                  times. I am however moving away from a less pagan scope in my
                  practises....into a more "classical neo gnosticism"...as mentioned in
                  my intro....
                • pmcvflag
                  Hey Ben I am at a seminar right now, just sneaking online ;) so let me give the short answer to your question and hope you ll forgive if in being short I
                  Message 8 of 27 , Nov 10, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey Ben

                    I am at a seminar right now, just sneaking online ;) so let me give
                    the short answer to your question and hope you'll forgive if in being
                    short I somehow sound curt.... It isn't intended.

                    >>>The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...

                    what can be more Gnostic than that?<<<

                    The word defined by the notion of "divine union" is "mystic"
                    not "Gnostic". There are three terms that may be helpful here.

                    -Mystic is any form of spirituality that deals with this divine union.

                    -Esoteric is a system that has some form of secret knowledge dealing
                    with the notion of this divine union.

                    -Gnostic is a set of specific systems of esotericism from the late
                    antiquities.

                    The three words are not synonyms. So the fact that the Grail myths
                    have mystical, and even esoteric, elements does not make
                    them "Gnostic".

                    PMCV
                  • Mike Leavitt
                    Hello pmcvflag ... I d sure like to see what Valentinus would have done with the Grail myths via interpretation though. Regards -- Mike Leavitt
                    Message 9 of 27 , Nov 10, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello pmcvflag

                      On 11/10/05, you wrote:

                      > Hey Ben
                      >
                      > I am at a seminar right now, just sneaking online ;) so let me give
                      > the short answer to your question and hope you'll forgive if in
                      > being short I somehow sound curt.... It isn't intended.
                      >
                      >>>> The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...
                      >
                      > what can be more Gnostic than that?<<<
                      >
                      > The word defined by the notion of "divine union" is "mystic"
                      > not "Gnostic". There are three terms that may be helpful here.
                      >
                      > -Mystic is any form of spirituality that deals with this divine
                      > union.
                      >
                      > -Esoteric is a system that has some form of secret knowledge dealing
                      > with the notion of this divine union.
                      >
                      > -Gnostic is a set of specific systems of esotericism from the late
                      > antiquities.
                      >
                      > The three words are not synonyms. So the fact that the Grail myths
                      > have mystical, and even esoteric, elements does not make
                      > them "Gnostic".
                      >
                      > PMCV

                      I'd sure like to see what Valentinus would have done with the Grail
                      myths via interpretation though.

                      Regards
                      --
                      Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s
                    • Hoomer
                      ... Gnosis.... but I am getting a feeling for this group..its ok......I wont mention melchizedek...lol... .I need an academic approach as well.....shrug if
                      Message 10 of 27 , Nov 10, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 11/10/05, pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                        Hey Ben

                        I am at a seminar right now, just sneaking online ;) so let me give
                        the short answer to your question and hope you'll forgive if in being
                        short I somehow sound curt.... It isn't intended.

                        >>>The Grail ultimatly is about divine union...

                        what can be more Gnostic than that?<<<

                        The word defined by the notion of "divine union" is "mystic"
                        not "Gnostic". There are three terms that may be helpful here.

                        -Mystic is any form of spirituality that deals with this divine union.

                        -Esoteric is a system that has some form of secret knowledge dealing
                        with the notion of this divine union.

                        -Gnostic is a set of specific systems of esotericism from the late
                        antiquities.

                        The three words are not synonyms. So the fact that the Grail myths
                        have mystical, and even esoteric, elements does not make
                        them "Gnostic".

                        PMCV

                         
                         
                        OK we'll have to agree to disagree.....I was meaning more the word Gnosis....
                        but I am getting a feeling for this group..its ok......I wont mention melchizedek...lol...
                         
                        .I need an academic approach as well.....shrug if thats your thing...this group's,,,so be it
                         
                        I know my girl friend would wince though....lol....but I am not her....
                        --Ben
                        --
                        He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
                        through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
                         
                      • pmcvflag
                        Mike ... myths via interpretation though.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Nov 11, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mike

                          >>>I'd sure like to see what Valentinus would have done with the Grail
                          myths via interpretation though.<<<

                          Hmmm, or how about the Sethians?

                          PMCV
                        • Mike Leavitt
                          Hello pmcvflag ... Yes, yes! Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove - s
                          Message 12 of 27 , Nov 11, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello pmcvflag

                            On 11/11/05, you wrote:

                            > Mike
                            >
                            >>>> I'd sure like to see what Valentinus would have done with the
                            >>>> Grail
                            > myths via interpretation though.<<<
                            >
                            > Hmmm, or how about the Sethians?
                            >
                            > PMCV

                            Yes, yes!

                            Regards
                            --
                            Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s
                          • pmcvflag
                            Hey Ben ... Well, it is certainly ok to disagree here. Who knows where conversation will lead? As for the term Gnosis . I do understand that Many in the New
                            Message 13 of 27 , Nov 11, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Hey Ben

                              >>>OK we'll have to agree to disagree.....I was meaning more the word Gnosis....but I am getting a feeling for this group..its ok<<<<

                              Well, it is certainly ok to disagree here. Who knows where conversation will lead?

                              As for the term "Gnosis". I do understand that Many in the New Age movement use it to refer to devine union, but I can demonstrate that it is not how the traditional Gnostics used the word.  Not that there is anything wrong with the New Age movement, but they are not traditional Gnostics. Actually, the subject was just being discussed in another group so I can paste some of what I wrote here as well. Let me get back to the subject in a moment.

                              >>>......I wont mention melchizedek...lol...<<<

                              Well, there is the Melchezidek of Jewish legend.... and then there is the Nag Hammadi version.  
                               
                              >>>I need an academic approach as well.....shrug if thats your thing...this group's,,,so be it
                               
                              I know my girl friend would wince though....lol....but I am not her....<<<

                              Good, I am glad you can enjoy it *lol*. It really isn't such a bad thing to have an historical understanding to add to ones spiritual understanding. I do find it unfortunate that many people are under the mistaken impression that Gnostics were against academic approach though. Though the New Age groups like the Nazorean Essenes are surely very nice people, their beliefs are not always really very similar to the original Essenes, Manichaeans, etc.

                              So, let me take a moment and use passages from historical Gnostic texts to demonstrate what I mean. First, here are some passages that absolutely prove that union with the divine, or the mystical experience, was not exactly what the Gnostics were talking about with the concept of "Gnosis".....

                              "Whoever comes to understand the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (Thomas)

                              "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." (Thomas)

                              As you can see, Thomas states explicitely that part of the soteriological function of knowledge was related to interpretation... an intellectual process. It also talks about knowing one's self, which certainly for the ancient Gnostics includes divine union, but there is also another aspect to it as the following text demonstrates.

                              "Now it is not merely the washing which liberates, but also the knowledge: who were we? What have we become? Where were we? Into what place have we been cast? Whither are we hastening? From what have we been delivered? What is birth? What is rebirth? (Theodotus)

                              This passage deals directly with the mythological outline in Gnosticism. In ancient Gnostic thinking, knowing yourself means knowing the cosmological outline you are connected to. To them, the spirit is of course from the spiritual source, and one is cast into the physical trap. The Sophia is fallen into the world, and is dealing with the error. The point is, understanding of the mythology was considered part of Gnosis, according to the historical Gnostics.

                              Gnostics got the term "Gnosis" from Plato, who describes it this way...

                              "This knowledge is not something that can be put into words like other sciences; but after long-continued intercourse between teacher and pupil, in joint pursuit of the subject, suddenly, like light flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul and straightway nourishes itself. "(Plato)

                              What is being talked about there is something like what we today would call an "epiphany". It includes both the study aspect of the student and teacher, but also a sort of intuited grasp. Either one without the other was not "Gnosis" in this original usage.

                              So, we should be clear that the Gnostics of old did not see Gnosis as completely destinct from critical thinking. On the contrary, the Gnostics of old saw themselves as philosophers, academicians... scholors. Here is solid proof in Gnostic texts...

                              "For scientific knowledge is necessary both for the training of the soul and for gravity of conduct; making the faithful more active and keen observers of things. For as there is no believing without elementary instruction, so neither is there comprehension without science. For what is useful and necessary to salvation, such as the knowledge of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and also of our own soul, are wholly requisite; and it is at once beneficial and necessary to attain to the scientific account of them. "(Theodotus)

                              "So also scientific knowledge (gnosis), shedding its light and brightness on things, shows itself to be in truth the divine wisdom, the pure light, which illumines the men whose eyeball is clear, unto the sure vision and comprehension of truth."  (Theodotus)

                              Even besides these passages (and these are just a few of many passages I could have picked), we have accounts from Platonists like Celsus and Plotinus that Gnostics were members of the Platonic academies. We are told by other heresiologists that some Gnostics considered Pythagoras to be a prophet equal to Jesus.

                              PMCV

                            • Hoomer
                              ... mmm new agers..I am a bit insulted by this....but nevermind...I realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention this ....you have your
                              Message 14 of 27 , Nov 11, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 11/11/05, pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                Hey Ben

                                >>>OK we'll have to agree to disagree.....I was meaning more the word Gnosis....but I am getting a feeling for this group..its ok<<<<

                                Well, it is certainly ok to disagree here. Who knows where conversation will lead?

                                As for the term "Gnosis". I do understand that Many in the New Age movement use it to refer to devine union, but I can demonstrate that it is not how the traditional Gnostics used the word.  Not that there is anything wrong with the New Age movement, but they are not traditional Gnostics. Actually, the subject was just being discussed in another group so I can paste some of what I wrote here as well. Let me get back to the subject in a moment.

                                >>>......I wont mention melchizedek...lol...<<<

                                Well, there is the Melchezidek of Jewish legend.... and then there is the Nag Hammadi version.  
                                 
                                >>>I need an academic approach as well.....shrug if thats your thing...this group's,,,so be it
                                 
                                I know my girl friend would wince though....lol....but I am not her....<<<

                                Good, I am glad you can enjoy it *lol*. It really isn't such a bad thing to have an historical understanding to add to ones spiritual understanding. I do find it unfortunate that many people are under the mistaken impression that Gnostics were against academic approach though. Though the New Age groups like the Nazorean Essenes are surely very nice people, their beliefs are not always really very similar to the original Essenes, Manichaeans, etc.

                                So, let me take a moment and use passages from historical Gnostic texts to demonstrate what I mean. First, here are some passages that absolutely prove that union with the divine, or the mystical experience, was not exactly what the Gnostics were talking about with the concept of "Gnosis".....

                                "Whoever comes to unde

                                 
                                mmm new agers..I am a bit insulted by this....but nevermind...I realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention this ....you have your aproach...myslef I prefer a less mercurial approach and more of a venusian (intelect vs intuition...hod vs netzach)..you have read every one of the 250,000 pages of their website I assume? ...
                                 
                                unacademic? mmmm I am thinking you have a certain impression of me....already...beleive me I do not think Gnostics were unacademic!
                                 
                                I am well aware of what Gnosis is.....divine union is but 1 way to look at it.....For me the Rosicrucian manifestos had a great affect on my outlook...really they just told me more of what I already beleived.....do you know of the rosicrucians? Or are they not Gnostic either?....
                                 
                                I have experienced Gnosis...I am aware of what it is......
                                 
                                Summa Sceintia Nihil Scire
                                 
                                --Ben
                              • pmcvflag
                                Ben ... realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention this ....you have your aproach...
                                Message 15 of 27 , Nov 11, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Ben

                                  >>>mmm new agers..I am a bit insulted by this....but nevermind...I
                                  realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention
                                  this ....you have your aproach...<<<

                                  Ben, don't misread me here. I did not say you were a New Ager, nor
                                  did I say New Age is bad. If you are insulted it is only because of
                                  a valuation you placed, not me. I'm sorry if the connotations seems
                                  bad to you, I intended no offence. I am simply trying to point out a
                                  difference between a common modern usage of the word gnosis (which
                                  comes from New Age sources) and the traditional Gnostic meaning of
                                  the word.

                                  You are not the only person I am talking to when I outline these
                                  things, by the way. There are a number of new people here who joined
                                  at the same time as you who may also be wondering exactly what we
                                  are talking about. For that reason I try to be very direct and
                                  explain each term as it comes up.

                                  >>>myslef I prefer a less mercurial approach and more of a venusian
                                  (intelect vs intuition...hod vs netzach)..you have read every one of
                                  the 250,000 pages of their website I assume? ...<<<

                                  250,000 pages of who's website? I am not sure exactly what site you
                                  are talking about there.

                                  >>>unacademic? mmmm I am thinking you have a certain impression of
                                  me....already...beleive me I do not think Gnostics were unacademic!
                                  <<<

                                  What are you talking about, Ben? You have confused me. It will not
                                  be good for anyone in the conversation if we read things into posts
                                  that the other person didn't say... would you agree? My only
                                  impression of you is what you yourself told me, which is that you
                                  are new to the subject of historical "Gnosticism" and you are here
                                  to feed your curiousity. I am not new to the subject, so I am just
                                  throwing out points that may be of interest (not only to you, but
                                  also others here).

                                  >>>I am well aware of what Gnosis is.....divine union is but 1 way
                                  to look at it.....<<<

                                  Sure, divine union is one way to use the word. I am simply pointing
                                  out it is not the way the historical Gnostics used the word.

                                  >>>For me the Rosicrucian manifestos had a great affect on my
                                  outlook...really they just told me more of what I already
                                  beleived.....do you know of the rosicrucians?<<<

                                  I do know about the Rosicrucians, both the historical ones run by
                                  Y.V. Andrea and his mentor, as well as the legendary ones they
                                  created, and even various modern groups that claim to be part of the
                                  tradition (I have even been to the AMORC university in Cali, it was
                                  quite fun). The Rosicrucians are a group I am very much interested
                                  in.

                                  >>>Or are they not Gnostic either?<<<

                                  Understand, when I say something isn't technically "Gnostic" it does
                                  not mean I don't think they are interesting, or valid. To use the
                                  technical definition of the word "Gnosticism", I am not Gnostic
                                  either... and in fact technically speaking no one alive today is.
                                  Would you be upset if I said the Rosicrucians are not Buddhist? Of
                                  course not. Why would it matter whether or not they are
                                  technically "Gnostic"? No critical historian today considers the
                                  Rosicrucians to be a form of "Gnosticism", but instead a form
                                  of "esotericism". This doesn't mean that they are not equally as
                                  valid a movement. It just means they are in a different category.

                                  The academic usage the term "Gnosticism" is actually quite specific.
                                  Scholars also invented the term "neanderthal" for the same kind of
                                  reason they invented the term "Gnosticism". What would be the value
                                  of taking the term "Neanderthal" and using it to mean anybody who
                                  has more hair, for instance? Well, of course we can do so, but if a
                                  person was in a university class dealing with the ancient
                                  neanderthals it would seem worth while to use the term to mean what
                                  the specialist uses the term for, right? It is the same here in this
                                  group for the terms "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism".

                                  I have nothing against wider usages, Ben, but please understand that
                                  while I do have a personal interest in the subject I also am talking
                                  from an academic stance. When you jokingly said that your girlfriend
                                  would hate that but you are ok with it, I thought it meant that you
                                  understood that you are dealing with people who have some academic
                                  training in this subject.

                                  >>>I have experienced Gnosis...I am aware of what it is......<<<

                                  Cool, I can dig it. You have had an experience that you choose to
                                  call "Gnosis", and so have I. Not only that, but over the many years
                                  I have been working in this Yahoo Group, my meaning of the
                                  term "Gnosis" has changed. I don't use the word the way I used to.
                                  Now lets all talk and see if the thing we have chosen to
                                  call "Gnosis" is the same thing the ancient Gnostics were talking
                                  about. Lets look at what those ancient Gnostics believed, and
                                  contrast it with how we see things. We don't have to agree with
                                  them, but maybe it is interesting to hear what they had to say all
                                  the same.

                                  PMCV
                                • Hoomer
                                  PLease accept my apologies. --Ben ... -- He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death through ignorance and attains immortality through
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Nov 12, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    PLease accept my apologies.
                                     
                                    --Ben

                                     
                                    On 11/12/05, pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                    Ben

                                    >>>mmm new agers..I am a bit insulted by this....but nevermind...I
                                    realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention
                                    this ....you have your aproach...<<<

                                    Ben, don't misread me here. I did not say you were a New Ager, nor
                                    did I say New Age is bad. If you are insulted it is only because of
                                    a valuation you placed, not me. I'm sorry if the connotations seems
                                    bad to you, I intended no offence. I am simply trying to point out a
                                    difference between a common modern usage of the word gnosis (which
                                    comes from New Age sources) and the traditional Gnostic meaning of
                                    the word.

                                    You are not the only person I am talking to when I outline these
                                    things, by the way. There are a number of new people here who joined
                                    at the same time as you who may also be wondering exactly what we
                                    are talking about. For that reason I try to be very direct and
                                    explain each term as it comes up.

                                    >>>myslef I prefer a less mercurial approach and more of a venusian
                                    (intelect vs intuition...hod vs netzach)..you have read every one of
                                    the 250,000 pages of their website I assume? ...<<<

                                    250,000 pages of who's website? I am not sure exactly what site you
                                    are talking about there.

                                    >>>unacademic? mmmm I am thinking you have a certain impression of
                                    me....already...beleive me I do not think Gnostics were unacademic!
                                    <<<

                                    What are you talking about, Ben? You have confused me. It will not
                                    be good for anyone in the conversation if we read things into posts
                                    that the other person didn't say... would you agree? My only
                                    impression of you is what you yourself told me, which is that you
                                    are new to the subject of historical "Gnosticism" and you are here
                                    to feed your curiousity. I am not new to the subject, so I am just
                                    throwing out points that may be of interest (not only to you, but
                                    also others here).

                                    >>>I am well aware of what Gnosis is.....divine union is but 1 way
                                    to look at it.....<<<

                                    Sure, divine union is one way to use the word. I am simply pointing
                                    out it is not the way the historical Gnostics used the word.

                                    >>>For me the Rosicrucian manifestos had a great affect on my
                                    outlook...really they just told me more of what I already
                                    beleived.....do you know of the rosicrucians?<<<

                                    I do know about the Rosicrucians, both the historical ones run by
                                    Y.V. Andrea and his mentor, as well as the legendary ones they
                                    created, and even various modern groups that claim to be part of the
                                    tradition (I have even been to the AMORC university in Cali, it was
                                    quite fun). The Rosicrucians are a group I am very much interested
                                    in.

                                    >>>Or are they not Gnostic either?<<<

                                    Understand, when I say something isn't technically "Gnostic" it does
                                    not mean I don't think they are interesting, or valid. To use the
                                    technical definition of the word "Gnosticism", I am not Gnostic
                                    either... and in fact technically speaking no one alive today is.
                                    Would you be upset if I said the Rosicrucians are not Buddhist? Of
                                    course not. Why would it matter whether or not they are
                                    technically "Gnostic"? No critical historian today considers the
                                    Rosicrucians to be a form of "Gnosticism", but instead a form
                                    of "esotericism". This doesn't mean that they are not equally as
                                    valid a movement. It just means they are in a different category.

                                    The academic usage the term "Gnosticism" is actually quite specific.
                                    Scholars also invented the term "neanderthal" for the same kind of
                                    reason they invented the term "Gnosticism". What would be the value
                                    of taking the term "Neanderthal" and using it to mean anybody who
                                    has more hair, for instance? Well, of course we can do so, but if a
                                    person was in a university class dealing with the ancient
                                    neanderthals it would seem worth while to use the term to mean what
                                    the specialist uses the term for, right? It is the same here in this
                                    group for the terms "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism".

                                    I have nothing against wider usages, Ben, but please understand that
                                    while I do have a personal interest in the subject I also am talking
                                    from an academic stance. When you jokingly said that your girlfriend
                                    would hate that but you are ok with it, I thought it meant that you
                                    understood that you are dealing with people who have some academic
                                    training in this subject.

                                    >>>I have experienced Gnosis...I am aware of what it is......<<<

                                    Cool, I can dig it. You have had an experience that you choose to
                                    call "Gnosis", and so have I. Not only that, but over the many years
                                    I have been working in this Yahoo Group, my meaning of the
                                    term "Gnosis" has changed. I don't use the word the way I used to.
                                    Now lets all talk and see if the thing we have chosen to
                                    call "Gnosis" is the same thing the ancient Gnostics were talking
                                    about. Lets look at what those ancient Gnostics believed, and
                                    contrast it with how we see things. We don't have to agree with
                                    them, but maybe it is interesting to hear what they had to say all
                                    the same.

                                    PMCV






                                    SPONSORED LINKS
                                    Gnosticism Gnosticism christianity


                                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






                                    --
                                    He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
                                    through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
                                  • pmcvflag
                                    Absolutely no apologies necessary, Ben. I just wanted to try and explain that I am not trying to insult you, or anyone.... and again, I also apologise for any
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Nov 12, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Absolutely no apologies necessary, Ben. I just wanted to try and
                                      explain that I am not trying to insult you, or anyone.... and again, I
                                      also apologise for any insults I have accidentally hurled.

                                      PMCV

                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Hoomer <hoomerick@g...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > PLease accept my apologies.
                                      > --Ben
                                      >
                                    • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
                                      hi PMCV... i ve been away for a while and had a wonderful time. just wanted to poke my head into the room and say i think this is a marvelous reply you ve
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Dec 2, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        hi PMCV... i've been away for a while and had a wonderful time.  just wanted to poke my head into the room and say i think this is a marvelous reply you've written to Ben.  anyone can assume or imitate the trappings of Gnosticism, speak the lingo, etc., but i fear most would tuck tail and run if they believed they were required to excel at some other higher learning such as science or math.  like children playing house, its a very unrealistic understanding of what the actual requirements and necessities of maintaining a family and household.  so let the children play and have their entertainment.  those who mature, mature; those who don't, don't.  this is nothing new.
                                         
                                        your friend,
                                         
                                        Crispin Sainte III
                                         
                                        In a message dated 11/11/2005 4:54:30 PM Central Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:

                                        Hey Ben

                                        >>>OK we'll have to agree to disagree.....I was meaning more the word Gnosis....but I am getting a feeling for this group..its ok<<<<

                                        Well, it is certainly ok to disagree here. Who knows where conversation will lead?

                                        As for the term "Gnosis". I do understand that Many in the New Age movement use it to refer to devine union, but I can demonstrate that it is not how the traditional Gnostics used the word.  Not that there is anything wrong with the New Age movement, but they are not traditional Gnostics. Actually, the subject was just being discussed in another group so I can paste some of what I wrote here as well. Let me get back to the subject in a moment.

                                        >>>......I wont mention melchizedek...lol...<<<

                                        Well, there is the Melchezidek of Jewish legend.... and then there is the Nag Hammadi version.  
                                         
                                        >>>I need an academic approach as well.....shrug if thats your thing...this group's,,,so be it
                                         
                                        I know my girl friend would wince though....lol....but I am not her....<<<

                                        Good, I am glad you can enjoy it *lol*. It really isn't such a bad thing to have an historical understanding to add to ones spiritual understanding. I do find it unfortunate that many people are under the mistaken impression that Gnostics were against academic approach though. Though the New Age groups like the Nazorean Essenes are surely very nice people, their beliefs are not always really very similar to the original Essenes, Manichaeans, etc.

                                        So, let me take a moment and use passages from historical Gnostic texts to demonstrate what I mean. First, here are some passages that absolutely prove that union with the divine, or the mystical experience, was not exactly what the Gnostics were talking about with the concept of "Gnosis".....

                                        "Whoever comes to understand the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (Thomas)

                                        "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." (Thomas)

                                        As you can see, Thomas states explicitely that part of the soteriological function of knowledge was related to interpretation... an intellectual process. It also talks about knowing one's self, which certainly for the ancient Gnostics includes divine union, but there is also another aspect to it as the following text demonstrates.

                                        "Now it is not merely the washing which liberates, but also the knowledge: who were we? What have we become? Where were we? Into what place have we been cast? Whither are we hastening? From what have we been delivered? What is birth? What is rebirth? (Theodotus)

                                        This passage deals directly with the mythological outline in Gnosticism. In ancient Gnostic thinking, knowing yourself means knowing the cosmological outline you are connected to. To them, the spirit is of course from the spiritual source, and one is cast into the physical trap. The Sophia is fallen into the world, and is dealing with the error. The point is, understanding of the mythology was considered part of Gnosis, according to the historical Gnostics.

                                        Gnostics got the term "Gnosis" from Plato, who describes it this way...

                                        "This knowledge is not something that can be put into words like other sciences; but after long-continued intercourse between teacher and pupil, in joint pursuit of the subject, suddenly, like light flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul and straightway nourishes itself. "(Plato)

                                        What is being talked about there is something like what we today would call an "epiphany". It includes both the study aspect of the student and teacher, but also a sort of intuited grasp. Either one without the other was not "Gnosis" in this original usage.

                                        So, we should be clear that the Gnostics of old did not see Gnosis as completely destinct from critical thinking. On the contrary, the Gnostics of old saw themselves as philosophers, academicians... scholors. Here is solid proof in Gnostic texts...

                                        "For scientific knowledge is necessary both for the training of the soul and for gravity of conduct; making the faithful more active and keen observers of things. For as there is no believing without elementary instruction, so neither is there comprehension without science. For what is useful and necessary to salvation, such as the knowledge of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and also of our own soul, are wholly requisite; and it is at once beneficial and necessary to attain to the scientific account of them. "(Theodotus)

                                        "So also scientific knowledge (gnosis), shedding its light and brightness on things, shows itself to be in truth the divine wisdom, the pure light, which illumines the men whose eyeball is clear, unto the sure vision and comprehension of truth."  (Theodotus)

                                        Even besides these passages (and these are just a few of many passages I could have picked), we have accounts from Platonists like Celsus and Plotinus that Gnostics were members of the Platonic academies. We are told by other heresiologists that some Gnostics considered Pythagoras to be a prophet equal to Jesus.

                                        PMCV

                                         
                                      • pmcvflag
                                        Hey Crispin ... Glad you have been doing well. ... a marvelous reply you ve written to Ben. anyone can assume or imitate the trappings of Gnosticism, speak
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Dec 3, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hey Crispin

                                          >>>hi PMCV... i've been away for a while and had a wonderful time.<<<

                                          Glad you have been doing well.

                                          >>>>just wanted to poke my head into the room and say i think this is
                                          a marvelous reply you've written to Ben. anyone can assume or imitate
                                          the trappings of Gnosticism, speak the lingo, etc., but i fear most
                                          would tuck tail and run if they believed they were required to excel
                                          at some other higher learning such as science or math.<<<

                                          I hope that did not come off as any kind of valuation... not for Ben
                                          or for any other group. There are many today who feel that critical
                                          learning (I will specifically avoid the term "Higher Learning") is
                                          somehow not spiritual. Whether or not that is true, I think that is
                                          not an accurate understanding of the intent of the historical
                                          Gnostics. Ben has NOT specifically stated his agreement with that
                                          sentiment, and I have already apologized for perhaps implying that he
                                          had (unintentionally). The only point I intend is that the anti-
                                          intellectual stance that SOME people feel is not a Gnostic belief.

                                          >>>like children playing house, its a very unrealistic understanding
                                          of what the actual requirements and necessities of maintaining a
                                          family and household. so let the children play and have their
                                          entertainment. those who mature, mature; those who don't, don't.
                                          this is nothing new.<<<

                                          Well, I will leave my own stories of "Playing House" to the other
                                          group *lol*. I will leave the implications to the exploration of
                                          Civilitas and Libido, rather than Gnosticism. Still, I understand your
                                          point.... and I think it is one that is supported in the Gnostic texts.

                                          PMCV
                                        • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:07:37 PM Central Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Hey Crispin ... Glad you have been doing well. ... a
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Dec 5, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:07:37 PM Central Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                            Hey Crispin

                                            >>>hi PMCV... i've been away for a while and had a wonderful time.<<<

                                            Glad you have been doing well.

                                            >>>>just wanted to poke my head into the room and say i think this is
                                            a marvelous reply you've written to Ben.  anyone can assume or imitate
                                            the trappings of Gnosticism, speak the lingo, etc., but i fear most
                                            would tuck tail and run if they believed they were required to excel
                                            at some other higher learning such as science or math.<<<

                                            I hope that did not come off as any kind of valuation... not for Ben
                                            or for any other group. There are many today who feel that critical
                                            learning (I will specifically avoid the term "Higher Learning") is
                                            somehow not spiritual. Whether or not that is true, I think that is
                                            not an accurate understanding of the intent of the historical
                                            Gnostics. Ben has NOT specifically stated his agreement with that
                                            sentiment, and I have already apologized for perhaps implying that he
                                            had (unintentionally). The only point I intend is that the anti-
                                            intellectual stance that SOME people feel is not a Gnostic belief.

                                            >>>like children playing house, its a very unrealistic understanding
                                            of what the actual requirements and necessities of maintaining a
                                            family and household.  so let the children play and have their
                                            entertainment.  those who mature, mature; those who don't, don't. 
                                            this is nothing new.<<<

                                            Well, I will leave my own stories of "Playing House" to the other
                                            group *lol*. I will leave the implications to the exploration of
                                            Civilitas and Libido, rather than Gnosticism. Still, I understand your
                                            point.... and I think it is one that is supported in the Gnostic texts.

                                            PMCV
                                            hi PMCV.... i am doing well, thank you.  i still have both of my legs,
                                            and just returned from a long vacation with my lovely wife: the first chance I've had to spend any significant time out of house or hospital since my accident.  i feel thoroughly rejuvenated and am actually looking forward to my next round in the torture chamber (rehab).
                                             
                                            as to your concerns, no, I had no specific individual (certainly not Ben) or group in mind unless you care to aggregate the following as a single group:  those who seek esoterica for entertainment, for solace, for emotional stimulation or in order to be perceived as unique or a rebel. 
                                             
                                            my post was in part a caveat for those who seem to imagine the ancient Gnostics received a free lunch, i.e., something for nothing.  i think we have all encountered individuals who imagine they can attain to some form of life altering gnosis on their own through pure intellect or passion yet disdain the idea of hard work and guidance, and this in turn they sometimes project backward in time to the Gnostics of old.  it appears to be a unique but anachronistic juxtaposition of mysticism and the American love affair with the self-made man and rugged individualism:  Jesus with spurs and a cowboy hat (of course there are those whose belief system assumes enlightenment as a sort of historical inevitability through reincarnation and, while i don't subscribe to that particular belief, i am respectful of it and mean no offense to those who hold it to be true).
                                             
                                            but mainly i just wanted to express my appreciation to you for reminding all of us that for many of the original Gnostics rigorous study was often a sort of prerequisite for admittance.  i personally believe they wanted the best and brightest and academic excellence helps to separate the wheat from the chaff.  i don't see this as snobbery so much as a recognition on the part of the Gnostics that not everybody who shows up at the door has the current capacity to receive what they offered.  this is simply being sober and realistic.  nothing elitist about it, despite the charges of some Christian apologists that that was precisely what they were.  surely nobody with a clue would call medical schools elitists for maintaining their entrance requirements.  if one thinks of the Gnostics as physicians of the pneuma i think we get a better appreciation of what it took to join their ranks.
                                             
                                            Your refreshed friend,
                                             
                                            Crispin Sainte III
                                             
                                             
                                          • angela jones
                                            Interesting, do you feel fulfilled and whole because of your knowledge? ... Yahoo! Personals Single? There s someone we d like you to meet. Lots of someones,
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Dec 6, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Interesting, do you feel fulfilled and 'whole' because of your knowledge?
                                               


                                              Yahoo! Personals
                                              Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
                                              Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
                                            • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
                                              In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:29:41 AM Central Standard Time, angelanjones2003@yahoo.com writes: Interesting, do you feel fulfilled and whole because of
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Dec 7, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:29:41 AM Central Standard Time, angelanjones2003@... writes:
                                                Interesting, do you feel fulfilled and 'whole' because of your knowledge
                                                Hi Angela, I think knowledge is a tool that can be wielded
                                                wisely or not. I am fulfilled at one level by my educational
                                                accomplishments (isn't it always fulfilling when we achieve 
                                                a difficult goal thorough our own tenacity and sweat), but
                                                it has little or no bearing at other levels of my existence.
                                                 
                                                I experience wholeness when I love, how about you?
                                                 
                                                Your friend,
                                                 
                                                Crispin Sainte III
                                              • pmcvflag
                                                Angela I can t speak for any of the others here. My first inclination was to think that this is off topic here, but in reality there is something about the
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Dec 7, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Angela

                                                  I can't speak for any of the others here. My first inclination was to
                                                  think that this is off topic here, but in reality there is something
                                                  about the conversation that is on mark, and something we must all deal
                                                  with.

                                                  Have you read Plato by any chance? Plato draws a line between
                                                  different kinds of happiness and fulfilment, as well as different
                                                  kinds of unhappiness. Lets think about this for a moment. What is is
                                                  you need to be fulfilled?

                                                  It is possible for a person to be unhappy with the direct day to day
                                                  reality of thier lives, while being quite content deep down inside. On
                                                  the other hand, it is possible for a person who seems to have
                                                  everything to be quite unhappy.According to Plato (and I agree) the
                                                  true deeper happiness comes from an understanding, a realization of
                                                  yourself in your life within this cosmos.

                                                  I don't meant to degrage the conversation by using an example from
                                                  popular media, but I thought that perhaps this trite example frome the
                                                  movie "Matrix" could help illustrate the point. The hero of the movie
                                                  is driven to know, to gain the truth. He has his regrets, but it is
                                                  his deep desire. On the other hand, one of the team he is in only
                                                  wants the direct happiness of his prior experience. Which one do you
                                                  think is deeper and truer?

                                                  PMCV

                                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, angela jones
                                                  <angelanjones2003@y...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Interesting, do you feel fulfilled and 'whole' because of your
                                                  knowledge?
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ---------------------------------
                                                  > Yahoo! Personals
                                                  > Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
                                                  > Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
                                                  >
                                                • angela jones
                                                  Hi, thanx for writing, no haven t had the chance to look into Plato yet. In answer to yr question below I have to say, both points are interesting & I feel my
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jan 12, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment

                                                    Hi, thanx for writing, no haven't had the chance to look into Plato yet. In answer to yr question below I have to say, both points are interesting & I feel my levels of existing need to be heightened then I won't feel so bad at times Yet perhaps 'the highs' won't be so high!
                                                    I know emotion isn't so much an element of spirituality. So in time, I will just BE. Being in the here and now though is difficult as us Humans are just so complex! 

                                                    is driven to know, to gain the truth. He has his regrets, but it is
                                                    his deep desire. On the other hand, one of the team he is in only
                                                    wants the direct happiness of his prior experience. Which one do you
                                                    think is deeper and truer?

                                                    PMCV

                                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, angela jones
                                                    <angelanjones2003@y...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Interesting, do you feel fulfilled and 'whole' because of your
                                                    knowledge?
                                                    >   
                                                    >  
                                                    >
                                                    >            
                                                    > ---------------------------------
                                                    >  Yahoo! Personals
                                                    >  Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
                                                    >  Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
                                                    >






                                                    Yahoo! Photos
                                                    Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.