- Ben ... and/or did is foolish....Message 1 of 99 , Jan 7, 2006View SourceBen
>>>Nothjing exists in isolation....pretenmding Gnosticism doesand/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 thatfalsehood.....<<<
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 asdualists...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 thustranscended 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
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 oreven 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 beleivethat...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.
- 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