- ... THere is much diofference Luci.....There were 2 trees in eden.....do you really require a lkong drawn out explanation of why magic is not mysticism? magickMessage 1 of 99 , Jan 7, 2006View SourceOn 1/6/06, LUCINDA MANNING <smallvoice333@...> wrote:SHrug..."a phantom sent to earth" a bit like magic floating sperm in the spirit realm waiting to incarnate....as opposed to God...but then that is a split within modern and ancient Gnosticism is it not? magic vs mystic......(awaits screaming "no" from people here...)magic vs mystic, I don't see a difference. The Holy Spirit comes from God and is an awakening within you from the Mind of God. I don't see what the big deal is, it has done nothing but great things for me. Unless of course you are afraid of yourself, then it could be a problem, but as I understand it, it's voluntary, there are no forced integrations. Gnosticism is about understanding not splitting the understandings of people apart, a creation of people, not God. God in Spirit, or incarnate does not hurt people, only people hurt people.LuciTHere is much diofference Luci.....There were 2 trees in eden.....do you really require a lkong drawn out explanation of why magic is not mysticism?magick people are vampires ...Essentially lets think of sex.....as this is an easy way anyone here can relate to I would think. Now as Gnostics we are to transcend.....Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal . ---the Gospel of PhilipThus to elevate yin above yang is wrong.....or body over spirit or self over all. Now I realise there are "later" Gnostic schools that would disagree with this ...(though I'd question that they fully would but that is a whole OTHER discussion)....."To love means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the hope that our love will produce love in the lovedperson."
So we see truely love is to GIVE...as God GIVES....if we are to LOVE God we must give of ourselves completly. Giving partially is like making love while wearing a condom. There is a barrier... When weseek to elevate the self as opposed to dissolve the self we cling tothe world. We are of the demi urge...we are stuck in life and death and rebirth(I realise this cycle again is not accepted by all gnostic schools...but exsentially the point is of reinforcing the demi urgic worldas opposed to "reaching" the transcendant Gnostic "God").... we are not transcending...Magic(k) thus is like making love wearing a condom......often magick users see the divine as nothiong more than a great cosmic treasure chest hey can take from!"I summon ye thee foul goat demon...come hither before me..and grant me thine aid...and give me the bestest new goat udders"
Is this Gnosis? NO...this is feeding the self. Thius is elavating the self.
What is wrong with elavating the self? Do we serve the divine or do we serve our selves? Do we love God? Or ourselves?
"All life is the progression towards, and the recession from, one phrase- I Love You."
--F Scot FitzgeraldOn 1/5/06, LUCINDA MANNING < smallvoice333@...> wrote:God does not give people anything they cannot handle. I do believe sometimes the people don't know what to do to help them and that it interrupts their spiritual evolution because they have no point of relevance. So I don't believe that God would be giving matches to a child, much less gasoline. God made a world of people that is the rainbow of everyone being beautiful and different as it should be.The confusion is in what is mental illness and what is spiritual awakening. Christ comes to those who are ill, or in need.This is nice sweet sentiment..and I agree fully...BUT this doesnt work for "special" secret teachings....Christ himself rember had a select group of people that eh taught the special secrets to.....this idea is especially potent within Gnosticism I beleive (please correct me if I am wrong..anyone)....the idea that yes CHrist was for all.....not everyone is ready yet. I think a good way to think of this is how I have already...you dont give a child gasoline and matches.....Remember in eden they took of the tree of life and death...before they should of.....dont cast your pearls before swine.....should you run before you can walk?....its really as simple as that..... inner "teachings" produce profound affects....attempted by one who isnt ready there can be nasty results.....thus the "secrecy in Gnostism" (and similiar) is as much to protect the group from witch finders...but MORE so to protect potential "students"......DO you understand that?
- hello AA.... maybe these particular Wiccan and New Age teachers you speak of need to develop the capacity to recognize those empty containers (I think ofMessage 99 of 99 , Jan 27, 2006View Sourcehello AA.... maybe these particular Wiccan and NewAge teachers you speak of need to develop the capacityto recognize those "empty containers" (I think of thetype of approach you described more as entertainmentand identity seeking) and turn them away at the doorbefore they waste everbody else's time and energy....unless, of course, as part of the teaching, thesemystical tourists are being made examples of. sometransformative traditions have this technique down toa virtual art form. its not as cruel or cold as it soundswhen to do so serves a higher purpose. which is notto say that the individual, whether they are turnedaway or made an example of, does not benefit atsome level.Your friend,Crispin Sainte IIIIn a message dated 1/26/2006 5:34:03 PM Central Standard Time, koalaKards@... writes:Hi,I don't know if this is Homer or Crispin's quote:"but imitating hand-me-down transformative traditionsin hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishmentsis pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in theworld and few ever think twice about it. this may be abit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to containerand content; surface and depth. so if you canrecognize those who rely on the container; those whoappear to you to be empty vessels, you're way aheadof the game. and I believe you are!"I'm seeing this in Wiccan/New Age Community. Lots of wannabees they see Charmed and they look for people in the craft to teach "all that they know" then they consider themselves to be a High Priest/tess or in even New Age circles, Reiki Mastership in a weekend, or people calling themselves shaman after taking a single class just to say they are. I consider them to be "empty vessels". AA
Tsharpmin7@... wrote:hey Homer... you seem to have developed a prettymature and perceptive outlook regarding thesematters in a very short time. you're going to spareyourself a lot of wasted energy.some people approach traditional systems like Fredand Barney in the Flintstones cartoons approach theBuffalo Lodge: for its entertainment and social benefit.The secret handshakes are fun and its good to makefriends with a common interest and slip away fromthe mundane and routine. and there is nothing atall wrong with that as long you're not mistaking it forsomething higher.but imitating hand-me-down transformative traditionsin hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishmentsis pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in theworld and few ever think twice about it. this may be abit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to containerand content; surface and depth. so if you canrecognize those who rely on the container; those whoappear to you to be empty vessels, you're way aheadof the game. and I believe you are!the use of specialized language, myth and allegorymay serve a very specific purpose when employed bythose who have already arrived where I think you wishto someday arrive, Homer. i think you'll understandthe way and why of it as you continue to study theancient Gnostics. and i do agree with you in the sensethat if there were a live and functioning Gnosticismtoday -- and i can't say for sure there isn't -- i imaginetheir use of metaphor and allegory would draw frommore contemporary sources than those employed bythe ancients; that those dusty old paradigms wouldhave long since been discarded as barriers to learningin favor of something much more accessible andimmediate. to foment confusion, even if it'sinadvertant, should be a very trustworthy indication tous that IT'S NOT HERE!as you so wisely suggest, Homer, mystery for the sakeof mystery is just plain vanity and gamesmanship.they are what they are, not what they could be.Your friend,Crispin Sainte IIIIn a message dated 1/26/2006 2:03:26 PM Central Standard Time, shaftpopper@... writes:Dear Crispin,This makes good sense to me. From what I've seen I think there is a lot of copying without understanding if what they're copying is even needed anymore. Its the same with some of the language and the myths and allegories. If I really want somebody to understand me or learn something I can teach I would try to make it as plain as I could. But I think some people like to be mysterious because it makes them feel special, and I think that just encourages the false self or our vanity. I feel like that's the wrong direction to go if you are trying to find something like what the original Gnostics were searching for. I like how in the Gnostic Gospels the Gnostics wouldn't waste their lives to be martyrs if they could help it. What a shame and a waste it would have been if they copied the orthodox Christians who thought that copying the Jesus myth would automatic get them in heaven. I think the Gnostics knew God would have to be insane to want something so cruel.Homer