Re: [Gnosticism2] Old vs new
- --- pmcvflag <email@example.com> wrote:
> I have seen many people suggest that modern notionsI got the feeling from reading the ancient texts
> of Gnosticism
> outweigh ancient forms. So here is the question; Why
> would "Gnosticism" need to "keep up with the times",
> so to speak? In
> what way would it need to be modernized, or what is
> it failing by
> modern standards?
that the gnostic thinkers back then were full tilt
using every resource they had at their disposal
to shift their paradigms into new ways of thinking.
Given seven heavens, they quested for the eighth
and ninth. Given Adam and Eve fallen in the
garden, they wanted to know the Snake. They wanted
to understand and surpass the archons and embrace
a reality beyond. They took the best of Plato,
of Hermes, of Judaism, of the Mysteries, and
danced with a sense of psychological creativity
that confused their opposition.
Fast forward to modern times retaining the same
gnostic spirit of daring thought process. Would
not such a gnostic spirit explore and embrace
and even surpass modern psychology and science,
explore the opening up of the world's scriptures
in translations and computer analysis, compare
mystical paths from various traditions, and as
such become neo-gnostic in the same way that
ancient neo-platonists took the ideas of Plato
into their then modern age?
Thomas Ragland (Gnostic Tom)
"So little time, so much to unlearn."
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around