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

Re: Basilides

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Ben ... and/or did is foolish....
    Message 1 of 99 , Jan 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ben

      >>>Nothjing exists in isolation....pretenmding Gnosticism does
      and/or did is foolish....<<<

      No, of course not. I don't see where anyone in the conversation
      implied it did, though. I am not sure I understand your point in
      bringing up the subjec. Feel free to help me here.

      >>>Thomas Aquinas stated that ..... <snip><<<<

      Well, it is all a fun mix of sources there. I enjoy the Jungian
      notion of equating things in this way (on a psychic level, though I
      argue against it for the focus of this forum), but to repeat what
      you stated to Luci recently... it isn't Gnostic.

      >>>THus we can see the false doctrine of dualism is just that
      falsehood.....<<<

      Well, Ben, it is not my job here to figure if dualism is "false" or
      not for others here, but simply whether it is Gnostic.... and it
      isn't. The Gnostics of old were not dualist in the strict sense of
      the term.... so perhaps you could expand on your point so we see how
      it relates to the subject we are looking into?

      >>>>yes many historical "later" Gnostics are seen as
      dualists...frankly this is literalism......<<<

      No... sorry to be so direct. It isn't a literalism, it is a
      misunderstanding of what "Gnosticism" is. The Gnostic outline of the
      cosmos is tri-partite... it is the later Christian idea that is
      technically closer to dualism.

      >>>Yin + Yang doesnt = yinyang it = something new.....you have thus
      transcended duality. I beleive Jesus was God!...but then I think you
      can see this clearly if you look beyond the surface od Gnostic
      thoughts.....which as a Gnostic I thought we were meant to
      do......<<<

      Well, that is actually a pretty interesting subject, Ben. I would
      like to develop a larger conversation about this rather than simply
      giving my perspective here in agreement/disagreement with yours. If
      you think that is ok, then maybe you can start a thread on the
      subject and we can look into it as a group. In doing so, we can look
      at the Gnostic perspective, your perspective, my perspective, and
      that of other groups/sects/people. I think the picture you just
      presented of Gnostic thought is completly off, but that can be part
      of the conversation as well.

      >>>again still magick vs mystic......many modern Gnostic seekrs or
      even just studiers as you seem to insist this place is for....
      (although I really dont see the point of seperating the 2...as well
      it becomes pointless!!!!)...seem to view Gnosticism in this
      dualistic cosmic sperm way....I however do not....shrug<<<<

      Don't take this the wrong way... it is NOT meant as an attack. I
      think the real problem here is in your understanding of what is
      technically "Gnostic".... as well as what traditional Gnostics
      actually believed. I know that it does not sound humble for me to
      say I know the subject pretty well, but if you will allow that
      perhaps I have some understanding of who these people were and what
      they believed (and how the texts were meant in thier original
      context), I would contend that the picture you are presenting is
      more sensational that accurate. There are no "modern Gnostics", and
      the sperm is only in the cosmos... not the Bythos.

      >>>>I never stated Jesus could not be God....I stated many beleive
      that...I do not....<<<

      I know you did not state it, I stated that it is the case in
      traditional Gnostic thought. There are, logically speaking, things
      that simply cannot both be true. If a "god" has anthropomophic
      qualities, then a notion of "God" that is beyond anthropomorphism
      doesn't work. Pantheism and Transcendentalism cannot both be
      true.... one deals with the absoluteness of "God" while the other
      says that God is beyond the notion of "Absolute". The Gnostic notion
      actually presents an idea that is philosophically beyond even the
      notion of transcendance.... it is pure apophatic. No one has, as of
      yet, answered the question that Gnosticism raises.

      >>>transcendance doesnt have to mean duality......<<<

      Very true. In fact, not only are you right to say that it does not
      have to mean duality, but it logically CAN'T mean duality. The very
      notion of "duality" is not transcendant. Again, I am not sure of
      your point there since it seems so obvious. Are you trying to point
      out something you believe you see in Gnosticism (or you believe from
      the heresiologists like Irenaeus about gnosticism)? Or, are you
      following some specific book that talks about Gnosticism this way?
      The point seems so self evident from the Gnostic perspective, but I
      am sure there are many here who are new to the subject so it is good
      you bring it up.

      PMCV
    • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
      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 of
      Message 99 of 99 , Jan 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 of the
        type of approach you described more as entertainment
        and identity seeking) and turn them away at the door
        before they waste everbody else's time and energy....
        unless, of course, as part of the teaching, these
        mystical tourists are being made examples of.  some
        transformative traditions have this technique down to
        a virtual art form.  its not as cruel or cold as it sounds
        when to do so serves a higher purpose.  which is not
        to say that the individual, whether they are turned
        away or made an example of, does not benefit at
        some level.
         
        Your friend,
         
        Crispin Sainte III
         
         
        In 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 traditions
        in hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishments
        is pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in the
        world and few ever think twice about it.  this may be a
        bit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to container
        and content; surface and depth.  so if you can
        recognize those who rely on the container; those who
        appear to you to be empty vessels, you're way ahead
        of 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 pretty
        mature and perceptive outlook regarding these
        matters in a very short time.  you're going to spare
        yourself a lot of wasted energy.
         
        some people approach traditional systems like Fred
        and Barney in the Flintstones cartoons approach the
        Buffalo Lodge: for its entertainment and social benefit. 
        The secret handshakes are fun and its good to make
        friends with a common interest and slip away from
        the mundane and routine.  and there is nothing at
        all wrong with that as long you're not mistaking it for
        something higher.
         
        but imitating hand-me-down transformative traditions
        in hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishments
        is pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in the
        world and few ever think twice about it.  this may be a
        bit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to container
        and content; surface and depth.  so if you can
        recognize those who rely on the container; those who
        appear to you to be empty vessels, you're way ahead
        of the game.  and I believe you are!
         
        the use of specialized language, myth and allegory
        may serve a very specific purpose when employed by
        those who have already arrived where I think you wish
        to someday arrive, Homer.  i think you'll understand
        the way and why of it as you continue to study the
        ancient Gnostics.  and i do agree with you in the sense
        that if there were a live and functioning Gnosticism
        today -- and i can't say for sure there isn't -- i imagine
        their use of metaphor and allegory would draw from
        more contemporary sources than those employed by
        the ancients; that those dusty old paradigms would
        have long since been discarded as barriers to learning
        in favor of something much more accessible and
        immediate.  to foment confusion, even if it's
        inadvertant, should be a very trustworthy indication to
        us that IT'S NOT HERE!
         
        as you so wisely suggest, Homer, mystery for the sake
        of mystery is just plain vanity and gamesmanship.
        they are what they are, not what they could be.
         
        Your friend,
         
        Crispin Sainte III
         
        In 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
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.