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

each of us expresses it differently ???? No we do not.

Expand Messages
  • Dick Richardson
    Found this recent post on this list... (But think on this also). [ Truth is one, each of us expresses it differently, that s all. Mike Leavitt wrote Re:
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006


      Found this recent post on this list……. (But think on this also).

       

      [ Truth is one, each of us expresses it differently, that's all. Mike Leavitt wrote Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Salvation   In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can say I have discovered: Truth is a highly personal thing - even for the gnostic and orthodox writers - and people have been battling over that for millennia! Truth is one, each of us expresses it differently, that's all. Mike Leavitt ]

       

      The truth of what exactly?  Toothache? Backache? Catching a fish on hook? Riding a horse? The Gnosis experience? What exactly?  Every extant thing has it set of truths about it and its inner dynamics whether they be physical or metaphysical. Although there is some degree of fact about this assertion (especially in the past) it is not strictly true.

       

      There are those (and this person is not saying this however) that think the truth of the deepest revelation of the Introverted Mystical Experience (gnosis) is relative to the observer, and some that go even further and say that all experience is relative to the observer and thus there is no ‘real’ creation or real extant things, other than the mind throws up miscellaneous chaotic experiences – hence a whole she-bang of irrelevant illusions – and life is a game played by fools etc. Yet those who seem to have no sensory deformities more or less all witness the same world, the same things and the same stuff, and all more or less in the same colours even – and to say nothing of the same effects of such things and the feelings which they trigger in us. So if all existence is an illusion then we are all suffering the same one. Some illusion eh. And keep in mind that it would be more difficult to issue forth an illusion than something that actually exists to be experienced by all.  And why would the nature of reality do that?  And who would it be trying to fool and why?  The idea is crap and nonsense – and atom bombs work for all of us; and so does life.

       

      However, this Gentleman is presumably saying (and he will correct me if I am wrong no doubt) that the truth of this gnosis experience IS the same for all but we each talk of it differently. Yeah?  No; we do not ! True, we all choose our words and put them in this or that order.  But one has to take the whole of what one is saying – and stick with it – do not skim or assume what somebody is saying – question them if in doubt about something (you cannot talk to dead mystics/gnostics too readily so talk to the living ones).

       

      You and I can never ever know exactly what another person has experienced (and it does not matter a damn anyway – for you sure know when YOU have). All we have to go on is their words, their description of the journey and the place (realm ) in which one has this primordial wisdom experience, understanding or gnosis (all the same thing).

       

      In the last forty years (and including long before mass publication of these ancient texts) I alone have found about one dozen living people who talk of the identical thing which I also found.  Some of them call it gnosis, some call it spiritual illumination, some call it revelation, and some call it nothing at all other than mystical experience. But listening to them and questioning them (in depth) one can soon ascertain that they are not talking about something else. So much for relativity and the so called uselessness of words then. True, they could all be lying and have invented it all – but none of them knew each other – what a coincidence eh. And that is just among the few thousand people I have known, and only those that spoke English too.

       

      Throughout the evolution of the incarnate human mind our language evolves and we get better and better with regard to talking about the intangibles. We will get there if the planet lasts long enough. Moreover, and one foot-note. If we all spoke differently regarding this event then there would be no damn point ever talking about in the first place. Think about it.

       

      Describe (in detail) your own encounter with this mystical gnosis (it is easy enough) and using your own words (not structured sentences that you find in books) and then we can read them all and make correlations. THAT is how humankind of the future will, in academic terms, come into a better Paradigmatic understand of the human mind, consciousness, and our place in the scheme of things. Leave footprints in the sands of time for generations yet to come.  Writing and communication has never been so easy and effective as it is now – do not look a gift horse in the mouth. Use what you have got now to good effect.  And in so doing we will make all these bloody Bishops and churches and self erected bloody gurus redundant and they can all get a proper job and quit messing with little kids minds.  Now that is a  good enough reason to live here is it not ! Nothing else is going to do it for us. The only thing human beings need salvation from is the trade of Priestcraft. And if anyone argues with that then it is because they are one of them or in their pay :- )  QED.

       

      And if you mystics/gnostics do not get off your butt and do it - then who is?

       

      DO NOT WASTE IT ON YOU !

       

      Dick Richardson.

      Depth Psychology, Physics and Metaphysics.

      http://www.psychognosis.net

       

       

       

    • pmcvflag
      Hey Dick Your post is largely a response to Mike, but I thought I would throw in some observations as well. You state.... ... on hook? Riding a horse? The
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006
        Hey Dick

        Your post is largely a response to Mike, but I thought I would throw
        in some observations as well.

        You state....

        >>>The truth of what exactly? Toothache? Backache? Catching a fish
        on hook? Riding a horse? The Gnosis experience? What exactly? Every
        extant thing has it set of truths about it and its inner dynamics
        whether they be physical or metaphysical. Although there is some
        degree of fact about this assertion (especially in the past) it is
        not strictly true.<<<

        Whether or not we agree with the Gnostics, I think there is no
        question that the Gnostics believed in an absolute spiritual
        truth... and they would not have connected that Truth to any worldly
        experience. With this understanding, Mikes philosophical point is
        unambiguous.

        >>>>There are those (and this person is not saying this however)
        that think the truth of the deepest revelation of the Introverted
        Mystical Experience (gnosis) is relative to the observer, and some
        that go even further and say that all experience is relative to the
        observer and thus there is no `real' creation or real extant things,
        other than the mind throws up miscellaneous chaotic experiences –
        hence a whole she-bang of irrelevant illusions – and life is a game
        played by fools etc. Yet those who seem to have no sensory
        deformities more or less all witness the same world, the same things
        and the same stuff, and all more or less in the same colours even –
        and to say nothing of the same effects of such things and the
        feelings which they trigger in us.<<<

        Your point is one that I have just made recently as well. However,
        at the same time I think it is important to point out that even if
        one disagrees with an absolute relativistic approach of the sort
        that has become so popular recently, this doesn't negate the effect
        of percpetion and language when it comes to trying to communicate a
        shared experience, which is in turn related to something very
        important.... context. Context IS relative, and unavoidable.

        Words have baggage. For instance, I notice you use the word "Gnosis"
        in a way that is different from the way the ancient Gnostics used
        the word. Without knowing your context, those of us who use the word
        in a more traditional way may hear something very different than
        what you are saying, and then the whole communication could seem
        have a different point. Yes, I agree that after talking longer, and
        with patience, we may find common ground... but when we first
        started we talked about it differently.

        >>>>However, this Gentleman is presumably saying (and he will
        correct me if I am wrong no doubt) that the truth of this gnosis
        experience IS the same for all but we each talk of it differently.
        Yeah? No; we do not ! True, we all choose our words and put them in
        this or that order.<<<<

        Not only that, but we may have different words.

        >>>But one has to take the whole of what one is saying – and stick
        with it – do not skim or assume what somebody is saying – question
        them if in doubt about something (you cannot talk to dead
        mystics/gnostics too readily so talk to the living ones).<<<

        I think that is good advice, but I find it very interesting that it
        comes across as if you didn't take the advice in the same breath
        that you make the observation. You seem to just now admit that the
        larger idea can be put together using various words and modes of
        communication, but that sticking at the level of individual lingo
        can throw that off. What is the difference between what you just
        said and what Mike previously said?

        >>>You and I can never ever know exactly what another person has
        experienced (and it does not matter a damn anyway – for you sure
        know when YOU have). All we have to go on is their words, their
        description of the journey and the place (realm ) in which one has
        this primordial wisdom experience, understanding or gnosis (all the
        same thing).<<<

        Deeper communication sometimes calls for deeper and more subtle word
        usage. If, as you say, all we have to go on is our word usage, then
        we should be very careful about that word usage... right? And yet,
        from the traditional Gnostic perspective you misuse the
        word "Gnosis" in the communication. How do you reconcile that with
        your point?

        >>>>In the last forty years (and including long before mass
        publication of these ancient texts) I alone have found about one
        dozen living people who talk of the identical thing which I also
        found. Some of them call it gnosis, some call it spiritual
        illumination, some call it revelation, and some call it nothing at
        all other than mystical experience.<<<<

        And that boils it all down. You just spent a lot of effort saying
        exactly what Mike just said, while starting as if you disagreed.

        >>>Throughout the evolution of the incarnate human mind our language
        evolves and we get better and better with regard to talking about
        the intangibles. We will get there if the planet lasts long enough.
        Moreover, and one foot-note. If we all spoke differently regarding
        this event then there would be no damn point ever talking about in
        the first place. Think about it.<<<

        And this explains the problem. You are equivocating on the meaning
        of "same" and "different" to apply it to an arbitrary notion that
        was simply not contained in the post you were answering. One second
        you admit that many people use different terms (talk about it
        differently), and then you say they don't talk about it differently.
        This is not only confusing language usage, but genuinely illogical.
        I think you may want to step back and take the good advice you gave
        previously.

        >>>>Describe (in detail) your own encounter with this mystical
        gnosis (it is easy enough) and using your own words (not structured
        sentences that you find in books) and then we can read them all and
        make correlations.<<<

        Ok, I will make up my own words the way you suggest. Let me now tell
        you about my experience....

        thjk thjklslkcm qoiemsli sk slien sliaiallar popoew.

        Is your experience the same as that one? ALL words we use to
        communicate come from a structured source. Books, our parents,
        society, culture... there is no difference in taking the words from
        one source rather than another. There is no such thing as "our own
        words", and to suggest that people who find a lingo in common should
        not use them would be absolutely hypocritical to your other point.
        Words are just a tool. The point is what they communicate. Don't
        begrudge those who happen to have found a common language. If you
        had not done so, you could not be talking here now... so why is it
        any different if we use the Gnostic lingo?

        Since we are in a forum that deals specifically with historical
        Gnosticism, lets remember their perspective on it whether or not we
        agree with it. From Philip....

        "But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes,
        because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names.
        Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to
        teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers
        (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a
        kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those
        that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that
        through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that
        are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They
        make them be removed from those that are not good and place them
        among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted
        to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever."

        PMCV
      • GP
        Mr. Richardson you have some interesting ideas. Considering the notion you talk about -- the essential mind. i.e. What is there when personality is stripped
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 15, 2006

          Mr. Richardson you have some interesting ideas. Considering the notion you talk
          about -- the essential mind. i.e. What is there when personality is stripped
          away.
           
          Considering animals, I know that each animal has a
          mind and each one comes with an essential well, "being" for lack of
          a better word. And each one can change his/her behavior based on my,
          well, training of what I need of that animal.
           
          I know that most  animals are the way they are essentially because of
          the nature of their parents: that's breeding. So there is personality
          which may be a result of genetics, intelligence which may be a result
          of training and genetics, enviornment (food aplenty vs. spare food/ clean
          pens vs dirty pens/ cruel treatment vs. kindly treatment) and after that you
          have ???? the unknown? the essence of that animal?

          Seems to me you have just an energy, a notion of pigness or goatness or cowness.
           
          So can you say that if we are stipped of personality (genetics),
          environment, training, we are just "man". (Is that why Jesus is called
          the "Son of Man"?) If we are persuing Gnosis, are we just returning to our
          "humanness"? If that is the case, then the statement that "we are all One" is true???
           
          Please forgive my inquiries. I hope they are not off the topic of the board.
          Incidentally, I don't share your dislike of Priests. They are just another
          human notion aren't they? Kind of like Magic that Ms. Caritas mentioned?
           
          Ms. Caritas,
          Thank you for your suggestions. I very much appreciate them. I especially liked the quote from Thomas: 6. Thanks!
           
          GP 


          Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football ’06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!
        • elmoreb
          I have a question for you, regarding your obvious distaste for organized religion ( or at the very least its leaders). Do you think gnostics felt the same way?
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 16, 2006
            I have a question for you, regarding your obvious distaste for
            organized religion ( or at the very least its leaders).

            Do you think gnostics felt the same way?



            Also, to get us all on the same page regarding the use of gnostic and
            gnosis:

            Gnostic: "Gnosticism" is, specifically, a category derived to express
            the emphasis of "Gnosis" in the belief system held by any one of a
            number of inter-related, spiritual traditions of the Late Antiquities.(
            cut and pasted from the home page)

            Gnosis: Gnosis is an absolute cognition based both on intellectual
            understanding as well as experience of the subject of spirituality as
            understood by the Gnostics, which includes the form and function of the
            mythological outline with special attention to cosmology and
            soteriology (means of salvation) ( from PMCV's FAQ, in the database)
          • Michael Leavitt
            ... I know I m getting old and forgetful, but I don t remember writing this, and it is far too simplistic a statement for anything I would usually write. I
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 16, 2006
              Dick Richardson wrote:
              > Found this recent post on this list... (But think on this also).
              >
              >
              >
              > [ Truth is one, each of us expresses it differently, that's all. Mike Leavitt wrote Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Salvation In all my readings and experiences, there is one thing I can say I have discovered: Truth is a highly personal thing - even for the gnostic and orthodox writers - and people have been battling over that for millennia! Truth is one, each of us expresses it differently, that's all. Mike Leavitt ]
              >
              >
              >
              I know I'm getting old and forgetful, but I don't remember writing this,
              and it is far too simplistic a statement for anything I would usually
              write. I strongly suspect it is a miss attribution. BTW I have been a
              gnostic priest for 36 years, and don't consider myself a sleasebag.
            • pmcvflag
              Hey Mike... ... this, and it is far too simplistic a statement for anything I would usually write. I strongly suspect it is a miss attribution. BTW I have been
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 18, 2006
                Hey Mike...

                >>>>I know I'm getting old and forgetful, but I don't remember writing
                this, and it is far too simplistic a statement for anything I would
                usually write. I strongly suspect it is a miss attribution. BTW I have
                been a gnostic priest for 36 years, and don't consider myself a
                sleasebag.<<<

                Don't waste your breath. Dick just left, and honestly his last slew of
                parting posts got so bizaar that I just erased them. I mean, if he
                isn't here to answer them anyway they are just preaching. I guess in
                internet lingo that is called a "troll".

                PMCV
              • janahooks
                Hey, Mike and pmcv-- ... of ... Rats. I was hoping to see someone s vitals slapped or that neat butterfly trick. (Sorry, couldn t help myself.) ;p Mike,
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 18, 2006
                  Hey, Mike and pmcv--

                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                  > Don't waste your breath. Dick just left, and honestly his last slew
                  of
                  > parting posts got so bizaar that I just erased them. I mean, if he
                  > isn't here to answer them anyway they are just preaching. I guess in
                  > internet lingo that is called a "troll".
                  >
                  > PMCV

                  Rats. I was hoping to see someone's 'vitals' slapped or that neat
                  butterfly trick. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) ;p

                  Mike, could you e-mail me a new mailing address for you? I figured
                  the one posted awhile back might be old.

                  Ok, this has nothing to do with anything, and is a question for anyone
                  who wants to answer it: I was talking to someone recently who said
                  that the words for 'soul' and 'spirit' were used to mean the same
                  thing in the Bible. Knowing that there is a distiction in Gnostic
                  texts, I just wondered if that's true.
                • Michael Leavitt
                  ... ac998@laafn.org
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 18, 2006
                    janahooks wrote:
                    > Hey, Mike and pmcv--
                    >
                    > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >> Don't waste your breath. Dick just left, and honestly his last slew
                    >>
                    > of
                    >
                    >> parting posts got so bizaar that I just erased them. I mean, if he
                    >> isn't here to answer them anyway they are just preaching. I guess in
                    >> internet lingo that is called a "troll".
                    >>
                    >> PMCV
                    >>
                    >
                    > Rats. I was hoping to see someone's 'vitals' slapped or that neat
                    > butterfly trick. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) ;p
                    >
                    > Mike, could you e-mail me a new mailing address for you? I figured
                    > the one posted awhile back might be old.
                    >
                    >
                    ac998@...
                    > Ok, this has nothing to do with anything, and is a question for anyone
                    > who wants to answer it: I was talking to someone recently who said
                    > that the words for 'soul' and 'spirit' were used to mean the same
                    > thing in the Bible. Knowing that there is a distiction in Gnostic
                    > texts, I just wondered if that's true.
                    >
                    > Not oriiginally, like with St. Paul it wasn't. That is a product of protestant reductionism.
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.