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

Re: Rex Mundi film,

Expand Messages
  • teafourme
    IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have their eyes and
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 28, 2007

      IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing

      Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have their eyes and minds open too much more.

       

       Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to say to another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own needs.

      Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own issue. The fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what matters.

       

       I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print and screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it has defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started taking this into their homes and communities and talked about it.

      "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!

      Getting the vibration out there.

      In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are vast and varied

       

      The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB and the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad?  It may open a few more minds and ideas.

       Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding Ideas?

       

      Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and literature, this is no different; one means of art might not appeal to one, but may enlighten another.  So if someone has seen or heard of this Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great, another open mind!

       

      Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so they went anyway.  I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out there was hindered at all by him playing the part.

      So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing.  You are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in Chocolate and you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from that movie.  

      Take what you need and left the rest.

      What a great concept for all.

       

      Peace,

       

      KP
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme no_reply@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Thought I would share this find
      > >
      > > http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84733
      > >
      > > Looks VERY INTERESTING.
      > > NO?
      > > KP
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > No, not really.
      >
      > The conspiracy theorists and alternative history writers have already
      > had a field day concerning what might otherwise be of legitimate
      > interest with regards to Gnosticism. Dan Brown took that material and
      > ran with it, and now we can see these popular misconceptions further
      > fantasized into comic book format and a big-screen production of the
      > same. [sigh]
      >
      > The fact that Johnny Depp is involved with this undertaking is really
      > but another nail in its coffin, although I don't mind admitting that
      > I thoroughly enjoyed Chocolat in spite of his appearance in that film.
      >
      > Gerry
      >
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Ms Teafourme/KP ... good thing
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 28, 2007
        Hey Ms Teafourme/KP

        >>>IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a
        good thing<<<

        Perhaps part of the question would be whether this really opens a
        person for "Gnosis" or whether it simply opens a person to
        questions. Now, don't get me wrong... it is important to open a line
        of questioning. In my personal experience the DV Code has done less
        to really open questions rather than edify those who were against
        one stance and turn off those who aren't, but that is another story.
        My point is, just because it attacks "orthodoxy" does not make it
        Gnosis.

        I don't want my point to get in the way of Gerry's sardonic
        response, though it would not be the first time I was accused of
        being overly serious ;) I just mean to point out that I don't know
        whether this movie really has anything to do with Gnosis or not. I
        will be curious to find out.

        We have talked in this forum about popular "arts" and Gnosis
        previously, if anyone wants to search for subjects like the DV code,
        Truman Show, Matrix, Jacob's Ladder (the movie), etc.. I think many
        here are very willing to accept that such a medium could actually
        have that "arete" that relates to Gnosis.

        Still... why is this specific movie "VERY intersting"? We need more.

        PMCV
      • Gerry
        ... thing ... The ... Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew. Do we consider it gnosis that some people have a need to support their
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 1, 2007


          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing
          >
          > Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have
          > their eyes and minds open too much more.
          >
          >
          >
          > Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to say to
          > another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own needs.
          >
          > Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own issue. The
          > fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what matters.
          >

           

          Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew.  Do we consider it "gnosis" that some people have a "need" to support their racist agenda, and apparently claim to find such substantiation within ancient texts?

          Or, take another look at that passage from Prof. Couliano that PMCV quoted.  Some people seem to have no difficulty picking and choosing which portions of that essay they find relevant, all in order to come away with the very understanding AGAINST which the author was writing.  Unless, of course, they actually DID read the whole thing and (more disturbingly) think to themselves, "Hey, let's be gnostics like the communists and nazis!"

           

          >

          > I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print and
          > screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it has
          > defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started taking
          > this into their homes and communities and talked about it.
          >
          > "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!
          >
          > Getting the vibration out there.
          >
          > In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are vast
          > and varied
          >

           

          No.  Talking, in and of itself, is not necessarily a great thing.  I've known plenty of people with diarrhea of the mouth.  If their affliction spewed forth something of substance, even on occasion, I might think differently.  After the Matrix trilogy, there are some people who are honestly convinced that we are living in a computer program, and they faithfully await a savior to come and disrupt the machinations so they can be released.  I have seen "talk" of this on the Net.  "Great"?  I'm not convinced.

           

          >

          > The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB and
          > the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad? It may
          > open a few more minds and ideas.
          >
          > Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding
          > Ideas?
          >
          >
          >
          > Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and
          > literature, this is no different; one means of art might not appeal to
          > one, but may enlighten another. So if someone has seen or heard of this
          > Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a
          > different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great,
          > another open mind!
          >
          >
          >
          > Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major
          > roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so they went
          > anyway. I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out
          > there was hindered at all by him playing the part.
          >
          > So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing. You
          > are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in Chocolate and
          > you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from that
          > movie.
          >

           

          Actually, I missed Chocolat at the cinema.  I'm not even sure that it was ever released around these parts, but I did manage to catch it numerous times on cable.  I wasn't even aware that Johnny Depp was in it until I was well into the film the first time.  Despite the fact that I find his personal notoriety to be a bit of a distraction, I was able to take in the overall work (writing, direction, other fantastic actors, etc.) and managed to appreciate varying levels of appeal.  If I had driven out of town when the movie first came out just to catch an appearance of Lena Olin on the big screen because I think she's hot … would I have gotten as much out of it?  Who knows.  The point is that one would be more likely to come away with a broader appreciation of the work if such preconceptions as "I hate Johnny Depp" or "I love Lena Olin" were set aside at the start.

           


          > Take what you need and left the rest.

          >
          > What a great concept for all.
          >
          >
          >
          > Peace,
          >
          >
          > KP
          >

           

          This seems like a great concept for anyone who can be satisfied with an exploration of profundity that may be limited to thrashing about in the shallow end or simply swimming across the surface.  Perhaps there's more to the pool than we've considered.  Have we pondered the tiles, or the drain, or the filtration system?  How about the source of the water?  Is it, in fact, meant merely for decoration or reflection?  Could it be intended for sacred or ritualistic purposes?  If so, have we already embarrassed ourselves by diving into it in the first place?  Even though we may be accustomed to seeing a bunch of water and thinking to ourselves what a splashing good time might be had therein, perhaps it would be a good thing to consider the context.

          Gerry

        • teafourme
          please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I will just hang around and read for a while with out posting. Although sometimes I learn
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 1, 2007
            please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I
            will just hang around and read for a while with out posting.
            Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and expressing
            my feelings. But I will not subject myself to others who need to
            make their point by lashing out in sarcasms instead of trying to be
            a teacher to someone who obviously is in need of a better
            understanding.

            -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a
            good
            > thing
            > >
            > > Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn
            they have
            > > their eyes and minds open too much more.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to
            say to
            > > another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own
            needs.
            > >
            > > Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own
            issue.
            > The
            > > fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what
            matters.
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew. Do we
            > consider it "gnosis" that some people have a "need" to
            > support their racist agenda, and apparently claim to find such
            > substantiation within ancient texts?
            >
            > Or, take another look at that passage from Prof. Couliano that PMCV
            > quoted. Some people seem to have no difficulty picking and
            choosing
            > which portions of that essay they find relevant, all in order to
            come
            > away with the very understanding AGAINST which the author was
            writing.
            > Unless, of course, they actually DID read the whole thing and (more
            > disturbingly) think to themselves, "Hey, let's be gnostics like the
            > communists and nazis!"
            >
            >
            >
            > >
            > > I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print
            and
            > > screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it
            has
            > > defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started
            taking
            > > this into their homes and communities and talked about it.
            > >
            > > "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!
            > >
            > > Getting the vibration out there.
            > >
            > > In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are
            vast
            > > and varied
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > No. Talking, in and of itself, is not necessarily a great thing.
            > I've known plenty of people with diarrhea of the mouth. If their
            > affliction spewed forth something of substance, even on occasion, I
            > might think differently. After the Matrix trilogy, there are some
            > people who are honestly convinced that we are living in a computer
            > program, and they faithfully await a savior to come and disrupt the
            > machinations so they can be released. I have seen "talk" of
            > this on the Net. "Great"? I'm not convinced.
            >
            >
            >
            > >
            > > The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB
            and
            > > the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad?
            It may
            > > open a few more minds and ideas.
            > >
            > > Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding
            > > Ideas?
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and
            > > literature, this is no different; one means of art might not
            appeal to
            > > one, but may enlighten another. So if someone has seen or heard
            of
            > this
            > > Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a
            > > different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great,
            > > another open mind!
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major
            > > roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so
            they
            > went
            > > anyway. I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out
            > > there was hindered at all by him playing the part.
            > >
            > > So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing. You
            > > are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in
            Chocolate and
            > > you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from
            that
            > > movie.
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > Actually, I missed Chocolat at the cinema. I'm not even sure that
            > it was ever released around these parts, but I did manage to catch
            it
            > numerous times on cable. I wasn't even aware that Johnny Depp was
            > in it until I was well into the film the first time. Despite the
            fact
            > that I find his personal notoriety to be a bit of a distraction, I
            was
            > able to take in the overall work (writing, direction, other
            fantastic
            > actors, etc.) and managed to appreciate varying levels of appeal.
            If I
            > had driven out of town when the movie first came out just to catch
            an
            > appearance of Lena Olin on the big screen because I think she's hot
            > … would I have gotten as much out of it? Who knows. The point is
            > that one would be more likely to come away with a broader
            appreciation
            > of the work if such preconceptions as "I hate Johnny Depp" or
            > "I love Lena Olin" were set aside at the start.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > > Take what you need and left the rest.
            > >
            > > What a great concept for all.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Peace,
            > >
            > >
            > > KP
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > This seems like a great concept for anyone who can be satisfied
            with an
            > exploration of profundity that may be limited to thrashing about
            in the
            > shallow end or simply swimming across the surface. Perhaps there's
            > more to the pool than we've considered. Have we pondered the
            tiles,
            > or the drain, or the filtration system? How about the source of
            the
            > water? Is it, in fact, meant merely for decoration or reflection?
            > Could it be intended for sacred or ritualistic purposes? If so,
            have we
            > already embarrassed ourselves by diving into it in the first
            place?
            > Even though we may be accustomed to seeing a bunch of water and
            thinking
            > to ourselves what a splashing good time might be had therein,
            perhaps it
            > would be a good thing to consider the context.
            >
            > Gerry
            >
          • pmcvflag
            Hey Teafourme You state..... ... will just hang around and read for a while with out posting. Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 1, 2007
              Hey Teafourme

              You state.....

              >>>please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I
              will just hang around and read for a while with out posting.
              Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and expressing
              my feelings. But I will not subject myself to others who need to
              make their point by lashing out in sarcasms instead of trying to be
              a teacher to someone who obviously is in need of a better
              understanding.<<<

              Don't worry, we are all learning all the time. This is not an easy
              subject. It can seem rather tough in here at times. Many of us,
              including myself, can be very blunt and clinical. People who may not
              be used to critical exploration may find it disconcerting at first. I
              think you will find shortly that it doesn't mean people are putting
              YOU down, just raising issues with points.

              I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
              movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
              question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
              that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
              some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
              harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
              hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
              can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
              book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
              personally).

              Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
              they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.

              PMCV
            • lady_caritas
              ... There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious matters. And mostly I
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007


                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
                > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
                > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
                > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
                > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
                > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
                > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
                > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                > personally).
                >
                > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
                > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                >
                > PMCV
                >

                There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious matters.  And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases where misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.

                From an article today in The New York Times:

                Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by scholars like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown best seller "The Da Vinci Code."

                ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra Stanley)

                http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5

                [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1]

                I wonder how Elaine Pagels would really describe what she considers the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and how she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.

                Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:

                http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235

                Cari

                 

              • Michael Leavitt
                Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman. ... Excellent article. -- M. Leavitt
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                  Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.

                  lady_caritas wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
                  > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
                  > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
                  > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
                  > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                  > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
                  > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
                  > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
                  > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                  > > personally).
                  > >
                  > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
                  > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                  > >
                  > > PMCV
                  > >
                  >
                  > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
                  > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
                  > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases where
                  > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
                  >
                  > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
                  >
                  > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the
                  > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
                  > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by scholars
                  > like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
                  > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brown/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
                  > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
                  >
                  > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra Stanley)
                  >
                  > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
                  >
                  > [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1
                  > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1>]
                  >
                  > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she considers
                  > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and how
                  > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
                  >
                  > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
                  >
                  > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
                  >
                  > Cari
                  >
                  Excellent article.

                  --
                  M. Leavitt
                • thalprin
                  ... I think I agree too. It s a find, looks to be an archeological find, and we should, yup, I d imagine try looking/investigating it as that. It ll be
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.


                    I think I agree too. It's a find, looks to be an archeological find,
                    and we should, yup, I'd imagine try looking/investigating it as
                    that. It'll be interesting to see this program when it airs - and I
                    wanna know more about what is/isn't inside the other burial site
                    they're mentioning too.

                    Thanks for posting this link Lady Caritas.

                    Terrie


                    >
                    > lady_caritas wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there
                    is a
                    > > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things
                    that
                    > > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are
                    right
                    > > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to
                    think,
                    > > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                    > > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries
                    particularly
                    > > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate
                    as we
                    > > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the
                    movie,
                    > > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                    > > > personally).
                    > > >
                    > > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum
                    because
                    > > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                    > > >
                    > > > PMCV
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
                    > > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
                    > > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases
                    where
                    > > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
                    > >
                    > > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
                    > >
                    > > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was
                    the
                    > > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
                    > > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by
                    scholars
                    > > like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
                    > >
                    <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brow
                    n/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
                    > > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
                    > >
                    > > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra
                    Stanley)
                    > >
                    > > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
                    > >
                    > >
                    [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                    ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1
                    > >
                    <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                    ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1>]
                    > >
                    > > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she
                    considers
                    > > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and
                    how
                    > > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
                    > >
                    > > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
                    > >
                    > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
                    > >
                    > > Cari
                    > >
                    > Excellent article.
                    >
                    > --
                    > M. Leavitt
                    >
                  • thalprin
                    I think things go/can go odd in acheology sometimes. Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort things out. For example (an example which I think is kinda
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                      I think things go/can go odd in acheology sometimes. Sometimes, it
                      simply takes time to sort things out. For example (an example which
                      I think is kinda funny,) I was watching as show few days/weeks back
                      on Tut, and folks were discussing this mural of him with a deformed
                      leg. Basically, they were staring at this mural and yet wondering
                      why he had 100+ walking sticks burried with him in his tomb. ?
                      Then, as the program went on, essentially trying to riddle his cause
                      of death, they discovered his broken/missing kneecap and wondered ifn
                      that might've been what killed him. In time, I imagine they'll sort
                      things out to speculate that Tut might've had a knee injury that
                      didn't kill him but left him lame. Still, as yet, I don't think I've
                      heard they have.

                      Terrie


                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.
                      >
                      > lady_caritas wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there
                      is a
                      > > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things
                      that
                      > > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are
                      right
                      > > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to
                      think,
                      > > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                      > > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries
                      particularly
                      > > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate
                      as we
                      > > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the
                      movie,
                      > > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                      > > > personally).
                      > > >
                      > > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum
                      because
                      > > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                      > > >
                      > > > PMCV
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
                      > > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
                      > > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases
                      where
                      > > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
                      > >
                      > > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
                      > >
                      > > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was
                      the
                      > > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
                      > > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by
                      scholars
                      > > like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
                      > >
                      <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brow
                      n/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
                      > > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
                      > >
                      > > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra
                      Stanley)
                      > >
                      > > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
                      > >
                      > >
                      [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                      ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1
                      > >
                      <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                      ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1>]
                      > >
                      > > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she
                      considers
                      > > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and
                      how
                      > > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
                      > >
                      > > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
                      > >
                      > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
                      > >
                      > > Cari
                      > >
                      > Excellent article.
                      >
                      > --
                      > M. Leavitt
                      >
                    • pmcvflag
                      Hey Mike ... Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries, I was taken aback by this statement from him... And what of this Mary s
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 9, 2007
                        Hey Mike

                        >>Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.<<<

                        Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries,
                        I was taken aback by this statement from him...

                        "And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel
                        enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say nothing
                        of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?"

                        Good lord! Now Nag Hammadi studies have no validity and anyone with an
                        insterest in Gnosticism must be followers of Dan Brown's uncritical
                        historical theories. Is there an emoticon for the rolling of ones eyes?

                        PMCV
                      • Michael Leavitt
                        ... I didn t take that statement personally, but you have a point. 0)0) (rolls eyes) (I just made that up). :-)
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 9, 2007
                          pmcvflag wrote:
                          > Hey Mike
                          >
                          >
                          >>> Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.<<<
                          >>>
                          >
                          > Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries,
                          > I was taken aback by this statement from him...
                          >
                          > "And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel
                          > enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say nothing
                          > of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?"
                          >
                          > Good lord! Now Nag Hammadi studies have no validity and anyone with an
                          > insterest in Gnosticism must be followers of Dan Brown's uncritical
                          > historical theories. Is there an emoticon for the rolling of ones eyes?
                          >
                          > PMCV
                          >
                          I didn't take that statement personally, but you have a point. 0)0)
                          (rolls eyes) (I just made that up). :-)
                        • tau_mar_thoma
                          ... nothing ... with an ... eyes? ... Greetings, Mike and PMCV: AMEN! It s about time that people accept that, in fact, The Da Vinci Code is a book of
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 11, 2007
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > pmcvflag wrote:
                            > > Hey Mike
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>> Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.<<<
                            > >>>
                            > >
                            > > Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries,
                            > > I was taken aback by this statement from him...
                            > >
                            > > "And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel
                            > > enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say
                            nothing
                            > > of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?"
                            > >
                            > > Good lord! Now Nag Hammadi studies have no validity and anyone
                            with an
                            > > insterest in Gnosticism must be followers of Dan Brown's uncritical
                            > > historical theories. Is there an emoticon for the rolling of ones
                            eyes?
                            > >
                            > > PMCV
                            > >
                            > I didn't take that statement personally, but you have a point. 0)0)
                            > (rolls eyes) (I just made that up). :-)
                            >
                            Greetings, Mike and PMCV:

                            AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da Vinci
                            Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                            comprised of a clever concoction of facts but mostly theories put
                            together to make money, promote movies, and to be the new hot topic of
                            bloggers galore. Furthermore, a lot of his "facts and theories" are
                            imperfectly understood and, consequently, render a very imperfect
                            "gnostic" revelation. Besides, in the final analysis, you will never
                            find Truth in any form of written literature, not even the NHL et al.
                            but solely through experiential Gnosis. The written words have their
                            place, to be sure, but they are at best vague adumbrations of how and
                            what Truth might appear as.

                            It is one thing to say "The Word" but this mystical concept must never
                            be confused - not ever - with the written words of humans, be they
                            spiritual or secular or nearly brain-dead. Unless, at heart, we too
                            are become "bible-beating fundamentalists"? What divine Being ever
                            wrote anything down, other than the demiurge when it "inscribed" the
                            words of the Torah on two blocks of stone?

                            Peace,

                            +Tau Mar Thoma

                            http://www.myspace.com/holy_ewer_gnostic_studies
                            http://blog.myspace.com/holy_ewer_gnostic_studies
                          • lady_caritas
                            ... Vinci ... of ... never ... al. ... their ... and ... never ... Hello, + Tau Mar Thoma. We ve had many discussions about how the ancient Gnostics might
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "tau_mar_thoma"
                              <tau_mar_thoma@...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > Greetings, Mike and PMCV:
                              >
                              > AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da
                              Vinci
                              > Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                              > comprised of a clever concoction of facts but mostly theories put
                              > together to make money, promote movies, and to be the new hot topic
                              of
                              > bloggers galore. Furthermore, a lot of his "facts and theories" are
                              > imperfectly understood and, consequently, render a very imperfect
                              > "gnostic" revelation. Besides, in the final analysis, you will
                              never
                              > find Truth in any form of written literature, not even the NHL et
                              al.
                              > but solely through experiential Gnosis. The written words have
                              their
                              > place, to be sure, but they are at best vague adumbrations of how
                              and
                              > what Truth might appear as.
                              >
                              > It is one thing to say "The Word" but this mystical concept must
                              never
                              > be confused - not ever - with the written words of humans, be they
                              > spiritual or secular or nearly brain-dead. Unless, at heart, we too
                              > are become "bible-beating fundamentalists"? What divine Being ever
                              > wrote anything down, other than the demiurge when it "inscribed" the
                              > words of the Torah on two blocks of stone?
                              >


                              Hello, + Tau Mar Thoma. We've had many discussions about how the
                              ancient Gnostics might have conceived "Gnosis." Of course, without
                              their writings we could not learn what they thought or experienced,
                              nor did they convey this information without a theoretical setting of
                              some sort. We don't have absolute, firsthand knowledge of all their
                              initiatory study and practices; however, their writings exhibit more
                              than a passing familiarity with Platonist philosophy, for instance.

                              You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask, what
                              place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential Gnosis,"
                              what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your reading
                              of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the ancients
                              take this to mean?

                              Do you agree or disagree with the "Attributes of Gnosis" outlined in
                              our group files section regarding the historical Gnostics?
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/files/

                              Cari
                            • Michael Leavitt
                              ... Right on both points. _The Da Vinci Code_ is no better than _Holy Blood, Holy Grail._
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                > Greetings, Mike and PMCV:
                                >
                                > AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da Vinci
                                > Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                                > comprised of a clever concoction of facts but mostly theories put
                                > together to make money, promote movies, and to be the new hot topic of
                                > bloggers galore. Furthermore, a lot of his "facts and theories" are
                                > imperfectly understood and, consequently, render a very imperfect
                                > "gnostic" revelation. Besides, in the final analysis, you will never
                                > find Truth in any form of written literature, not even the NHL et al.
                                > but solely through experiential Gnosis. The written words have their
                                > place, to be sure, but they are at best vague adumbrations of how and
                                > what Truth might appear as.
                                >
                                Right on both points. _The Da Vinci Code_ is no better than _Holy
                                Blood, Holy Grail._
                              • Michael Leavitt
                                ... To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no more no less, sort of like a road map. Now I ll shut up and let the two of you talk.
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                  lady_caritas wrote:
                                  > You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask, what
                                  > place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential Gnosis,"
                                  > what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your reading
                                  > of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the ancients
                                  > take this to mean?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no more
                                  no less, sort of like a road map. Now I'll shut up and let the two of
                                  you talk.
                                • pmcvflag
                                  Hey Tau Mar Thoma ... Vinci Code is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but comprised of a clever concoction of facts
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                    Hey Tau Mar Thoma

                                    >>>AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da
                                    Vinci Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                                    comprised of a clever concoction of facts<<<

                                    I go even further than that, in that I question whether these
                                    supposed "facts" really are facts at all.

                                    Anyway, I will be interested to hear your take on Lady Cari's
                                    questions.

                                    PMCV
                                  • lady_caritas
                                    ... what ... Gnosis, ... reading ... ancients ... more ... of ... Hi, Mike. Certainly there is no need to shut up. Silence can be deafening at times. ;-)
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Mar 26, 2007
                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > lady_caritas wrote:
                                      > > You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask,
                                      what
                                      > > place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential
                                      Gnosis,"
                                      > > what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your
                                      reading
                                      > > of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the
                                      ancients
                                      > > take this to mean?
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no
                                      more
                                      > no less, sort of like a road map. Now I'll shut up and let the two
                                      of
                                      > you talk.
                                      >


                                      Hi, Mike. Certainly there is no need to "shut up." Silence can be
                                      deafening at times. ;-)

                                      So, if "books are the lead into the experiential thing," as you say,
                                      could one also place other things like ritual as part of the
                                      direction, part of the "road map"? Actually, does one even need
                                      books or rituals in order to generate whatever this "experiential
                                      thing" is you mention? Or are you referring to a
                                      unique "experiential thing"? I guess what I'm thinking is that
                                      specific guides might influence direction or quality or framework of
                                      a certain "experiential thing." In fact, all these could be
                                      considered part of the whole experiential process, even as various
                                      facets could be readdressed during an ongoing progression?

                                      And even though many different written words and everyday life
                                      rituals could influence a mystical episode or a progression of
                                      spiritual occurrences and inner exploration in someone's life, it
                                      seems that there are specific paths that rely on particular
                                      precedents, taken together as an interrelated whole, in order to
                                      accomplish desired results within a distinctive context. Gaining
                                      inner knowledge or spiritual clarity or whatever is sought after is
                                      not always a free-for-all, taking various elements out of context,
                                      when it comes to methodology.

                                      A question might remain whether all the guides make any difference in
                                      the uniqueness or authenticity of a mystical experience. And that is
                                      outside the scope of our group. What seems apparent to me, however,
                                      is that how one interprets the experience, how much emphasis one
                                      places on a mystical episode in relation to other aspects of the
                                      process, and how one proceeds in this existent life are factors that
                                      can be observed, apart from judging as to efficacy. And the Gnostic
                                      writings do give us some information on that score.

                                      Anyway, I'll stop here for now to allow for others' coments.

                                      Cari
                                    • Michael Leavitt
                                      ... I agree, and ritual has its part. Being ordained a Deacon and then a Priest were numinous experiences, but geared to service, and initiation in support
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Mar 26, 2007
                                        lady_caritas wrote:
                                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >>
                                        >> lady_caritas wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>> You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask,
                                        >>>
                                        > what
                                        >
                                        >>> place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential
                                        >>>
                                        > Gnosis,"
                                        >
                                        >>> what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your
                                        >>>
                                        > reading
                                        >
                                        >>> of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the
                                        >>>
                                        > ancients
                                        >
                                        >>> take this to mean?
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >> To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no
                                        >>
                                        > more
                                        >
                                        >> no less, sort of like a road map. Now I'll shut up and let the two
                                        >>
                                        > of
                                        >
                                        >> you talk.
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Hi, Mike. Certainly there is no need to "shut up." Silence can be
                                        > deafening at times. ;-)
                                        >
                                        > So, if "books are the lead into the experiential thing," as you say,
                                        > could one also place other things like ritual as part of the
                                        > direction, part of the "road map"? Actually, does one even need
                                        > books or rituals in order to generate whatever this "experiential
                                        > thing" is you mention? Or are you referring to a
                                        > unique "experiential thing"? I guess what I'm thinking is that
                                        > specific guides might influence direction or quality or framework of
                                        > a certain "experiential thing." In fact, all these could be
                                        > considered part of the whole experiential process, even as various
                                        > facets could be readdressed during an ongoing progression?
                                        >
                                        > And even though many different written words and everyday life
                                        > rituals could influence a mystical episode or a progression of
                                        > spiritual occurrences and inner exploration in someone's life, it
                                        > seems that there are specific paths that rely on particular
                                        > precedents, taken together as an interrelated whole, in order to
                                        > accomplish desired results within a distinctive context. Gaining
                                        > inner knowledge or spiritual clarity or whatever is sought after is
                                        > not always a free-for-all, taking various elements out of context,
                                        > when it comes to methodology.
                                        >
                                        > A question might remain whether all the guides make any difference in
                                        > the uniqueness or authenticity of a mystical experience. And that is
                                        > outside the scope of our group. What seems apparent to me, however,
                                        > is that how one interprets the experience, how much emphasis one
                                        > places on a mystical episode in relation to other aspects of the
                                        > process, and how one proceeds in this existent life are factors that
                                        > can be observed, apart from judging as to efficacy. And the Gnostic
                                        > writings do give us some information on that score.
                                        >
                                        > Anyway, I'll stop here for now to allow for others' coments.
                                        >
                                        > Cari
                                        >
                                        >
                                        I agree, and ritual has its part. Being ordained a Deacon and then a
                                        Priest were numinous experiences, but geared to service, and initiation
                                        in support thereof. The mass can do this to you as can Golden Dawn
                                        rituals, these are all I'm familiar with. All have had their effect.
                                        Reading Zostranos, I was there with him for a while, and that was not
                                        the only instance. When I read Gareth Knight on the paths, I worked
                                        them. My psyche got thrown all over the place. So reading has its place.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.