Re: [Gnosticism2] Basilides
- On 1/6/06, lady_caritas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, Benjamin BAum <hoomerick2@g...> wrote:
> On 1/6/06, lady_caritas firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > BTW, Basilides was not a Valentinian, but, of course, was considered a
> > "heretic" by Irenaeus who reviled him. Also, were these allusions you
> > mention purported to be statements of Basilides? Do you have a reference?
> > Thanks,
> > Cari
> > >>
> 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...)
Say, Ben, again, no one is screaming here. We're just seeking some accurate information and sometimes a glimpse of truth. I find it all interesting, actually.Ok ...its interesting yes....but I seek to do more than merely study...so I really dont see the point of spending a great deal of energy on somthing you know is piffle.....UNLESS you are just doing it for information....which is ok......but I am not.
First of all, since you view Irenaeus's writings as interesting, let's look at Basilides' Myth According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon in _Against Heresies, Book I_. Chapter 24, Sections 3-7 (Scroll down about ¾ of the following page.):Ok I shall read this when I get a chance..certainly..thank you
You may notice that the "father" is not the same as the ruler "Abraxas" (Abrasaks) (chief of the heavens, but not a supreme god) and that it was the unengendered parent (unborn father), not the ruler, from whom Christ emanated.
Now as far as phantoms et al., may I assume you're referring to a docetic depiction of Christ, in which Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not "waiting to incarnate," ~no I am referring to this: The Basilideans worshipped a supreme god called Abraxas (or Abracax) and claimed that Jesus Christ was only a phantom sent to earth by him.>>
in contrast to an adoptionist portrayal in which Jesus, the man, would be infused with the Christ at some point, such as his baptism?
>>yes in contrast to this idea....which is again cosmic sperm floating about...."jesus the spirit channeler" .."jesus the medium".....this to me is false.....he's either God or he isnt......I realise this view is too Christian for many Gnostics.....I too had the view of Christ the man who awakend this special cosmic semen in himself. Thats a nice view...its all a bit new age fluffy and "cosmic christ" like.....either God is God...or he isnt....
How literally should we take all this? It's evident that the historicity of a corporeal man, Jesus, didn't seem so important in a docetic rendering. What about the possibility of this as a literary device to further underline the corruptible and incorruptible differentiations in Gnostic mythology? The incorruptible Christ wouldn't be the same as the physical man, Jesus, of the corruptible world.yes in contrast to this idea....which is again cosmic sperm floating about...."jesus the spirit channeler" .."jesus the medium".....this to me is false.....he's either God or he isnt......I realise this view is too Christian for many Gnostics.....I too had the view of Christ the man who awakend this special cosmic semen in himself. Thats a nice view...its all a bit new age fluffy and "cosmic christ" like.....either God is God...or he isnt....This means Christ was not God....but merely a lesser being...it almost makes Christ into an Archon! in my mind.....I dont fully agree with Docetism but however I dont cling to the fact that Christ was incarnate...or human...to me that is superflous......BUt....either Christ WAS/IS God or he isnt.......thats my point......thus the cosmic sperm is just as I mentioned....like some special floating archon ready to incarnate or appear on earth..when told to......which is NOT God....
Well I fully beleive the Physical Christ was a reincarnation of the Adam Cadmon....frankly one thing I like about Gnosticism is that it fully embraces the fact that even God can make mistakes!But then this again is magick vs mysticism......cosmic sperm vs God......In Christ and SophiaBen
- hello 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