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

Re: Mysticism a Regressional Experience?

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... Hello, Thomas. You seem interested in roots and, surely, the Gnostics were concerned about origins and cosmogony, origin of the cosmos. What about the
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
      <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:

      > I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek to
      > continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which does
      > not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
      > Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience, myself.
      >
      > I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is the
      > inheritors of the Gnosis.



      Hello, Thomas. You seem interested in "roots" and, surely, the
      Gnostics were concerned about origins and cosmogony, origin of the
      cosmos. What about the Sethians and their writings particularly
      intrigues you?

      Cari
    • verna ward
      Blessings, Thomas! Wanted to respond off group, we will get a perverbial finger shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very clear to me
      Message 2 of 22 , Apr 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Blessings, Thomas!
        Wanted to respond off group, we will get a perverbial finger shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before;  it was made very clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the academic and historical sense, not in the reality of an experience of gnosis.  They aren't bad, they just miss the point.  Its their group.  If I may suggest another group I am on that discusses the mystical experience of gnosis is http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Gnosis/ .  The owner(?) of the group is Dick Richardson, a personal friend of mine and mystic, altho he doesn't care for the 'religion' of gnosticism.  He runs the Psychognosis network, and there is much to be learned from him, if you are seeking info about the experience of gnosis. 
        Now, that said, I agree with you, that our Root, (Dick calls it the Ground of Being, I call it the ONE, or the Great Unmanifest), is what few experience, but it does rejuvinate the spirit.  I had two seperate and distinctly different experiences as OBEs that I am still discovering the truth.
        Could you describe your experinces?  What preceeded, what it was like (as much as you can use our crude language to describe such a wonderfully subtle experiences)?  If you are interested, I can describe mine as well. 
        Walk in Light and Love!!
        whirled and inner peas
        Leigh  (DarkChylde)
         
         
        Gnothi Seauton 

        Thomas Wycihowski <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
        --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "Verna Leigh Johnson"
        <imdarkchylde@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > Brightest Blessings, Thomas!
        > What a blessed name! You aren't kin to the famous (infamous?)
        > brothers that made the Matrix, are you?
        > I agree with you on a few of your points. As a beginner
        Kabbalist,
        > I am still discovering the 'truth' of the Garden of Eden story, but
        I
        > am a Valentian to the core, so to speak, and that is what still
        > resonates within me, like scratching an itch that bugged me for so
        > long.
        > It is interesting you consider 'agnostic' to be "intuitive
        knowledge
        > without the framework of conceptual thought." Knowledge is gnosis,
        > not a 'collection of data, but 'knowledge' (as used by the Hebrew
        > definition and alike in the Greek and Latin as well) thus a,
        meaning
        > anti, meaning 'against' would be without knowlegde in its technical
        > sense.
        > But I understand your meaning, as I have had such 'mystical'
        > exeriences (altho I didn't know they were when I had them) in the
        > form of OBEs, NDEs, and some I don't think have a 'classification' ,
        > (or at least not one that can be pinned down). But having visted
        the
        > Ground of Being, the Great Unmainfest, the Father of the Entirety,
        > whatever pigeonhole you wish to use, I can tell you there is NO
        > THINKING there, only an 'awareness' of self (not ego). I have not
        > been told this, I KNOW this. You may contact me on my personal
        email
        > if you wish, as I have found this may not meet the definition of
        > classification of Gnosticism in the traditional (an to some no
        longer
        > existant) sense and such discussions may not be encouraged, but I
        > will still put in my two cents.
        > Whirled and inner peas
        > DarkChylde
        >
        > my email is imdarkchylde@ ...
        >
        > Gnothi Seauton
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
        > <tjwycihowski@ > wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm continually fascinated by the story of the Garden of Eden
        and
        > > it's various version in Gnostic books.
        > >
        > >
        > > My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that many
        > > people of different religious experiences experience. In a book
        by
        > a
        > > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden as
        a
        > > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self and
        > the
        > > outside worn't exist.
        > >
        > > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree of
        > > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious
        human
        > > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before.
        This
        > > was the "Fall" into matter.
        > >
        > > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
        > > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own
        perspective
        > is
        > > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive
        knowledge
        > > without the framework of conceptual thought.
        > >
        > > Anyways, a lot of mystical experience seems like to me a
        > regression
        > > to a earlier stae of perception and cognition.
        > >
        > > So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive in
        > > nature?
        > >
        > I have had what I would term "blissful" experiences. But I guess
        the way I get to it might be different then some people.

        While I am a hetrosexual in the general sense of the term, I'm
        also an AB (Adult Baby). So basically, my experience of these
        blissfull experiences, the closest I could say I got to "mystical",
        was ina "regressed" frame of mind.
        I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek to
        continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which does
        not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
        Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience, myself.

        I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is the
        inheritors of the Gnosis. Ultimately, these experiences are so
        different, that they can't be framed mentally. In the mundane sense,
        what can't be named or labelled can't be "known". But then how does a
        baby "know" his mothers love? How do we "know" someone loves us.



        Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
        Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

      • Thomas Wycihowski
        ... to ... does ... myself. ... the ... were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve,
        Message 3 of 22 , Apr 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
          > <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
          >
          > > I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek
          to
          > > continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which
          does
          > > not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
          > > Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience,
          myself.
          > >
          > > I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is
          the
          > > inheritors of the Gnosis.
          >
          > First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
          were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
          creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
          consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
          I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
          the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
          Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down from
          father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually culminating
          in Jesus of Nazareth.
          At all times and all cultures, humans have known the primal
          revelation. The apparent discrepancies come from this revelation
          mixing with local customs and cultures.
          The Apocalypse of Adam reveals what happened BEHIND the curtains,
          and is presented as a testament by the dying Adam to his son Seth. It
          reveals the TRUE reason for the discord and evil on what is a good
          planet.
          Basically, humans have lived under spiritual tyrrany sinmce our
          inception. The Demiurge has played one person or religion against
          another, in classical divide and counquer tactics of tyrants.
          Irregardless if this "being" is called Allah, Yahweh, Jesus or
          someother name, in the end it is the same being.
          This deception is used to enslave our minds and keep us busy
          fighting over words and doctrines that in the end serve the Demiurge
          very well.
          Part of it is to steal the Gnosis from us, because the Demiurge
          knows if we remember our root and origins, we will eventually find
          our way out of his and his Aeons clutches.
          The Secret Book of John details, from a Sethian standpoint, the
          associated Aeons and the planets they are related to.
          Combine that with some Hermetic material, and you see that true
          to the conception of demonologists, these beings are not "gods" but
          devils! There the personification of Vice, and the downward pull of
          evil to enslave us for eternity here.
          IMHO, the way to escape is to shed the chains on our minds. We
          must cast away all that holds us down and enlighten our minds with
          the TRUTH of our manipulation by the demonic forces of Ialdabaoth and
          his minions of wickedness.
          >
          > Hello, Thomas. You seem interested in "roots" and, surely, the
          > Gnostics were concerned about origins and cosmogony, origin of the
          > cosmos. What about the Sethians and their writings particularly
          > intrigues you?
          >
          > Cari
          >
        • Thomas Wycihowski
          ... the ... is ... Wilbur, ... While I don t disagree with the Gnostic point of view, I think that what we need to remember is there is two ways to look at it.
          Message 4 of 22 , Apr 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thomas
            >
            > >>>My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that many
            > people of different religious experiences experience. In a book by a
            > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden as a
            > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self and
            the
            > outside worn't exist.
            >
            > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree of
            > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious human
            > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before. This
            > was the "Fall" into matter.
            >
            > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
            > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own perspective
            is
            > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive knowledge
            > without the framework of conceptual thought.<<<
            >
            > I was not sure whether you mean to say you disagree with Ken
            Wilbur,
            > or to say that you disagree with the Gnostic text... or maybe both.
            > Your view does seem to echo a relatively common percpetion of Eden
            > in Christian and Jewish mystical thought. Perhaps you could take a
            > moment to explain how you feel that relates to Gnostic thought on
            > the subject.

            While I don't disagree with the Gnostic point of view, I think
            that what we need to remember is there is two ways to look at it.
            One would be that it is a good thing. We took a chance and by
            doing so delivered ourselves from a state of tragic ignorance. If we
            had remained in that state of counsciousness, would we really be any
            different then the lower animals on the evolution scale? Probably not.
            On the other hand, it IS an unmitigated tragedy. The suffering
            that has resulted, the horror, the pain, the unending madness of a
            world at war wit itself and the proliferation of more and deadlier
            weapons clearly point out how well our decision was.
            So is it good or bad, what they did? The answer is neither. Maybe
            it was necessary for our further development; maybe not.
            I don't disagree with them IF you mean we were scammed and that
            the "diety" didn't have our personal best interest in mind.
            >
            > >>>So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive in
            > nature?<<<
            >
            > Personally, I tend to avoid valuating mystical experience in this
            > forum since my job here is to try and be a bit more objective.
            > However, perhaps others here have something to say on the subject.
            I
            > get the impression that more than really talking about the function
            > of mystical experience, you may be talking about how you feel that
            > experience relates to a specific set of symbols... i.e. the Eden
            > story of Genesis. While there is no doubt that the Gnostic
            > understood this story differently, I think it is important that we
            > understand this particular story within the larger context of the
            > Gnostic world view and spiritual view before assuming the function
            > of the story in their usage even relates to what you are talking
            > about. Otherwise it is comparing apples and oranges.
            >
            > PMCV

            I don't totally disagree with you. But I think that the geniuses
            and masters of Gnosticism would tell you themselves the danger of
            fossilizing what they wrote and making it into some kind of stonelike
            doctrine. They themselves were creative in their approach, and drew
            from many sources in their beleifs and spiritual explorations.
            So while I don't beleive we need to throw the baby out with the
            bathwater, I do not think Valantinus or the other Gnostic masters
            would be upset if we, in the 21st century, applied what we learned in
            expanding and developing what we have received from them.
            Gnosisticism is strongest and most resilienty in it's diversity.
            >
          • pmcvflag
            Hey Thomas In response to Cari s question you state... ... were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other creautres, hominids, predecessors
            Message 5 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Thomas

              In response to Cari's question you state...

              >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
              were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
              creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
              consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
              I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
              the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
              Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down from
              father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually culminating
              in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<

              I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
              mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that does
              not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
              that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
              literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended to
              be allegorical?

              I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
              historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the point",
              but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure
              I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
              authors of the texts can be valuable.

              PMCV
            • Thomas Wycihowski
              ... from ... culminating ... does ... to ... point , ... failure ... Ok. My take is that the authors intent was important, but that it is a more nuanced
              Message 6 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hey Thomas
                >
                > In response to Cari's question you state...
                >
                > >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
                > were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
                > creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
                > consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
                > I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
                > the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
                > Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
                from
                > father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
                culminating
                > in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<
                >
                > I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
                > mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that
                does
                > not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
                > that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
                > literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended
                to
                > be allegorical?
                >
                > I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
                > historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
                point",
                > but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
                failure
                > I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
                > authors of the texts can be valuable.
                >
                > PMCV
                >
                Ok. My take is that the authors intent was important, but that it
                is a more nuanced subject then an either or decision.
                First, the authors were at the very least aware and conversant
                with the story of creation. However, they felt that it needed to b e
                amended, or supplemented by additi9onal information and insights
                provided by other thought and philisophical systems.
                My guess would be that they were describing in mythological terms
                the spiritual/mystical experiences they had when in contemplation, as
                you can see was promoted by NeoPlatonic sages and theurgists. Plus,
                you can't remove the social milieu that most of these texts were
                found in Egypt.
                So who were these written for? Well, first they'd need to be able
                to read. Literacy was not as widespread as it is to day. Second, it
                would be of interest to people who were spiritual seekers. Third, it
                probably would appeal to people who understood, roughly at least, the
                Biblical creation story, as there does not seem, in the text, to be a
                lot of explanation. My assumption is the authors knew that it was
                well known enough not to have to give a lot of background information
                on the Creation story.
                So..we have 1)literate 2) people who are spiritual seekers and are
                3) familiar with the Biblical story of creation. My guess, especially
                with the Sethian material, is that were dealing with Hellenized Jews
                who were familiar with the book of Bereshith, but were heavily
                influenced by both NeoPlatonic philosophy and to some degree Stoic
                ideas. They used these ideas to question and "correct" what they saw
                was wrong with the story of creation, from their perspective.
                So the answer to your question is both. I am sure they visualized
                the structures and cosmologies they conceived as literal, in a sense.
                But just as in the orthodox version of Creation, with the wordplays
                on the name Adfam and others, it was meant to be taken figurative too.
                Just like the Apostle Paul who said he spoke differently to the
                spiritual, so too the Gnostic texts probably would mean different
                things, depending where a person stood in their philisophical and
                spiritual development.
                Hence, the variety of texts. The constant textual and theological
                criticism the Masters engaged in led to new systems of thoughts and
                new ideas. It is a mistake to think this all happened in isolation
                from each other and other systems of thought.

                Thus, I have no problem in both beleiving the story of Creation
                and using modern ideas of evolution, e.t.c to criticisize the
                orthodox account and suggest a personal interpertation that includes
                both literalism and allegorical views.
                We need to be constantly aware of the nuanced nature of the
                Gnostic scriptures.
              • Verna Leigh Johnson
                ... historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we miss the point , but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure I feel that
                Message 7 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  >>>I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
                  historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the point",
                  but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure
                  I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
                  authors of the texts can be valuable.<<<
                  Judgmetal you may think it is (and you would certainly know all about
                  being judgemental, eh?), I was not alluding to your attempts to
                  understand the intent of the ancients. I was refering to the fact
                  that discussions on the ACTUAL, real, mystical experience of gnosis
                  is not encouraged in this group, I have not been allowed to even post
                  things as they didn't fit the definition of gnosis in its historical
                  and academic boundries AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR GROUP, and to focus on
                  gnosticism only in such contexts DOES miss the point, IMHO (and I am
                  allowed that, or should be). Is this not true? The experience of
                  gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it did then, but this
                  is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did I
                  misunderstand? Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE
                  TODAY have, or does that not fit into the criteria of this group?
                  Our discussions offgroup led me to believe this, but mayhaps you have
                  had a change of heart?
                  peas
                  DarkChylde





                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hey Thomas
                  >
                  > In response to Cari's question you state...
                  >
                  > >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
                  > were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
                  > creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
                  > consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
                  > I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
                  > the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
                  > Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
                  from
                  > father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
                  culminating
                  > in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<
                  >
                  > I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
                  > mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that
                  does
                  > not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
                  > that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
                  > literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended
                  to
                  > be allegorical?
                  >
                  > I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
                  > historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
                  point",
                  > but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
                  failure
                  > I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
                  > authors of the texts can be valuable.
                  >
                  > PMCV
                  >
                • Thomas Wycihowski
                  ... shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the academic and historical
                  Message 8 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, verna ward <imdarkchylde@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Blessings, Thomas!
                    > Wanted to respond off group, we will get a perverbial finger
                    shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very
                    clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the
                    academic and historical sense, not in the reality of an experience of
                    gnosis. They aren't bad, they just miss the point. Its their
                    group. If I may suggest another group I am on that discusses the
                    mystical experience of gnosis is
                    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Gnosis/ . The owner(?) of
                    the group is Dick Richardson, a personal friend of mine and mystic,
                    altho he doesn't care for the 'religion' of gnosticism. He runs the
                    Psychognosis network, and there is much to be learned from him, if
                    you are seeking info about the experience of gnosis.
                    > Now, that said, I agree with you, that our Root, (Dick calls it
                    the Ground of Being, I call it the ONE, or the Great Unmanifest), is
                    what few experience, but it does rejuvinate the spirit. I had two
                    seperate and distinctly different experiences as OBEs that I am still
                    discovering the truth.
                    > Could you describe your experinces? What preceeded, what it was
                    like (as much as you can use our crude language to describe such a
                    wonderfully subtle experiences)? If you are interested, I can
                    describe mine as well.
                    > Walk in Light and Love!!
                    > whirled and inner peas
                    > Leigh (DarkChylde)
                    >
                    >
                    > Gnothi Seauton

                    Well, first of all the most prominent nature of it was having
                    returned "Home". I often have felt like an exile, and desired greatly
                    to return to my "home". It's like wandering through a world of exile,
                    a lot like Adam must have felt when he was banished from the Garden
                    of Eden, or Garden of Delight.
                    There was a sense that I had recovered a missing fragment of my
                    self, a self often that is in a divorce from the world I live in. I
                    suppose the best way toi describe it would be my Unconditioned Self.
                    Society is always trying to manipulate our thoughts and our feelings
                    via social pressure, expectations, the media, e.t.c . This creates a
                    form of spiritual colonization that is just a devestating as the
                    colonization that occured when Native Americans were robbed of their
                    land and their ways by the colonists, or what occured in Africa.
                    So this colonization is so insidious that eventually it corrupts
                    the original purity of the mind of their person, setting up various
                    illusions and deceptions that cause the person to be confused about
                    Who and What they are.
                    So there was that sense that I was Home and at the same time a
                    sense of inner joy that for a time, the journey was over for me. I
                    suppose it might have bene like if Adam had been able to sneak past
                    the guardian Cherub back into the Garden, if only for a minute.
                    The worst part was the sense of exile. In many ways, I have often
                    desired to die or at least have a NDE, so I can be enraptured in the
                    sea of bliss and unity that lies beyond the leadened skies.
                    Inevietabley, one returns to the journey and the ceaseless
                    wandering. What I wants is like what the birds released by Noah
                    wanted, which is a place for me to rest and find peace from my
                    wanderings and to bask in a joy that is often difficult to remember.
                    My greatest fear has been to be totally socialized by this
                    heartless society that looks at people as machines and tools for
                    either their personal enrichment or for their use. In this society,
                    people are things, tools, machines. Once one autamaton teaches the
                    young to think that way, they create another autamaton who in turn
                    will take free human children and make them into consumer goods to be
                    sold and bartered for pay.
                    Thank God they haven't mind-raped me to the point that I am just
                    another autamaton, wandering unthinkingly across the landscape. If I
                    ever became like that, I hope God would be merciful and kill me.
                    What good is it to be alive, if your just a walking corpse and
                    your soul is dead within you?>
                    > Thomas Wycihowski <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
                    > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh Johnson"
                    > <imdarkchylde@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Brightest Blessings, Thomas!
                    > > What a blessed name! You aren't kin to the famous (infamous?)
                    > > brothers that made the Matrix, are you?
                    > > I agree with you on a few of your points. As a beginner
                    > Kabbalist,
                    > > I am still discovering the 'truth' of the Garden of Eden story,
                    but
                    > I
                    > > am a Valentian to the core, so to speak, and that is what still
                    > > resonates within me, like scratching an itch that bugged me for
                    so
                    > > long.
                    > > It is interesting you consider 'agnostic' to be "intuitive
                    > knowledge
                    > > without the framework of conceptual thought." Knowledge is
                    gnosis,
                    > > not a 'collection of data, but 'knowledge' (as used by the Hebrew
                    > > definition and alike in the Greek and Latin as well) thus a,
                    > meaning
                    > > anti, meaning 'against' would be without knowlegde in its
                    technical
                    > > sense.
                    > > But I understand your meaning, as I have had such 'mystical'
                    > > exeriences (altho I didn't know they were when I had them) in the
                    > > form of OBEs, NDEs, and some I don't think have
                    a 'classification',
                    > > (or at least not one that can be pinned down). But having visted
                    > the
                    > > Ground of Being, the Great Unmainfest, the Father of the
                    Entirety,
                    > > whatever pigeonhole you wish to use, I can tell you there is NO
                    > > THINKING there, only an 'awareness' of self (not ego). I have not
                    > > been told this, I KNOW this. You may contact me on my personal
                    > email
                    > > if you wish, as I have found this may not meet the definition of
                    > > classification of Gnosticism in the traditional (an to some no
                    > longer
                    > > existant) sense and such discussions may not be encouraged, but I
                    > > will still put in my two cents.
                    > > Whirled and inner peas
                    > > DarkChylde
                    > >
                    > > my email is imdarkchylde@
                    > >
                    > > Gnothi Seauton
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                    > > <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I'm continually fascinated by the story of the Garden of Eden
                    > and
                    > > > it's various version in Gnostic books.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that many
                    > > > people of different religious experiences experience. In a book
                    > by
                    > > a
                    > > > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden
                    as
                    > a
                    > > > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self
                    and
                    > > the
                    > > > outside worn't exist.
                    > > >
                    > > > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree of
                    > > > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious
                    > human
                    > > > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before.
                    > This
                    > > > was the "Fall" into matter.
                    > > >
                    > > > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
                    > > > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own
                    > perspective
                    > > is
                    > > > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive
                    > knowledge
                    > > > without the framework of conceptual thought.
                    > > >
                    > > > Anyways, a lot of mystical experience seems like to me a
                    > > regression
                    > > > to a earlier stae of perception and cognition.
                    > > >
                    > > > So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive
                    in
                    > > > nature?
                    > > >
                    > > I have had what I would term "blissful" experiences. But I guess
                    > the way I get to it might be different then some people.
                    >
                    > While I am a hetrosexual in the general sense of the term, I'm
                    > also an AB (Adult Baby). So basically, my experience of these
                    > blissfull experiences, the closest I could say I got to "mystical",
                    > was ina "regressed" frame of mind.
                    > I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek to
                    > continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which
                    does
                    > not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
                    > Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience,
                    myself.
                    >
                    > I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is the
                    > inheritors of the Gnosis. Ultimately, these experiences are so
                    > different, that they can't be framed mentally. In the mundane
                    sense,
                    > what can't be named or labelled can't be "known". But then how does
                    a
                    > baby "know" his mothers love? How do we "know" someone loves us.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                    > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                    >
                  • Verna Leigh Johnson
                    I am in complete aggreance with you. This feeling of alieness, aloneness and isolation has always existed with me as well (and to most all gnostics, ancient
                    Message 9 of 22 , Apr 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I am in complete aggreance with you. This feeling of alieness,
                      aloneness and isolation has always existed with me as well (and to
                      most all gnostics, ancient and modern). My OBEs and NDEs (altho they
                      are not from an accident or anything - they are from a seizure
                      disorder I inherited) gave me the knowledge not only that this
                      reality was not the only one, and the experieneces (except one)
                      filled me with me with undescribable joy and peace, which as you
                      said, tends to fade in the return to the mundane world.
                      And you are spot on about society, and its control games, which is
                      used to keep us as consumeristic slaves, and far eaiser to control.
                      For that is why. is for control and dominance.
                      The gnostics of old were fighting the same political as well as
                      spiritual battles we face today, but as you also mentioned in a post,
                      that literacy is more prevalent today, and thus it is getting harder
                      and harder for the orthodox religions and society in general to keep
                      controlling people with their brainwashing.
                      But according to the gnostic ideas, Adam was trapped in the Garden of
                      Eden, it was an illusion, (much as this reality is the entrapment for
                      our minds), at least acording to the Apoch. of John. The archons
                      created this Garden, and it can be seen as an allagory of the
                      illusion of the mundane world as well. The snake freed us, if you
                      remember, and the 'banishment' from the garden was nothing compared
                      to the sin of the demiurge when the epinoia was trapped in
                      corruptable matter to begin with. I would rather compare myself to
                      wanting to rejoin the pleroma, rather than a return to the Garden.
                      But we were put here for a reason, and not to be in some state of
                      estatic bliss (altho that sure can be fun). In some Catharian texts
                      (which wehter or not they were gnostic is a source of dissention, but
                      to me they are as gnostic as manicheean texts or the Nag Hammadi)
                      there is the idea that our 'souls' are those of fallen angels, who
                      chose this existance. To aquire gnosis is to free yourself from the
                      gilgumic (to use a kabbalistic term) cycle, and to rejoin the Great
                      Unmanifest, but you can only do this thru gnosis. You came here to
                      learn, to love, and to live. To just wait around for your death
                      would not be the path to gnosis, and mirrors the attitude of the
                      orthodox-'lets all just survive, and we can go to heaven.' This is a
                      flawed view of your own existance. YOu were here for a reason, until
                      you can figure out why, do the best you can, use your time here to
                      help this screwed up society, it needs your imput. As I have in my
                      email signature, and a quote from the aforementioned Dick
                      Richardson, "Enjoy your journey thru time, ab eterno ad hoc, for
                      eternity awaits"...
                      Brightest blessings to you!
                      whirled and inner peas
                      DarkChylde




                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                      <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, verna ward <imdarkchylde@>
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Blessings, Thomas!
                      > > Wanted to respond off group, we will get a perverbial finger
                      > shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very
                      > clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the
                      > academic and historical sense, not in the reality of an experience
                      of
                      > gnosis. They aren't bad, they just miss the point. Its their
                      > group. If I may suggest another group I am on that discusses the
                      > mystical experience of gnosis is
                      > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Gnosis/ . The owner(?) of
                      > the group is Dick Richardson, a personal friend of mine and mystic,
                      > altho he doesn't care for the 'religion' of gnosticism. He runs
                      the
                      > Psychognosis network, and there is much to be learned from him, if
                      > you are seeking info about the experience of gnosis.
                      > > Now, that said, I agree with you, that our Root, (Dick calls it
                      > the Ground of Being, I call it the ONE, or the Great Unmanifest),
                      is
                      > what few experience, but it does rejuvinate the spirit. I had two
                      > seperate and distinctly different experiences as OBEs that I am
                      still
                      > discovering the truth.
                      > > Could you describe your experinces? What preceeded, what it
                      was
                      > like (as much as you can use our crude language to describe such a
                      > wonderfully subtle experiences)? If you are interested, I can
                      > describe mine as well.
                      > > Walk in Light and Love!!
                      > > whirled and inner peas
                      > > Leigh (DarkChylde)
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Gnothi Seauton
                      >
                      > Well, first of all the most prominent nature of it was having
                      > returned "Home". I often have felt like an exile, and desired
                      greatly
                      > to return to my "home". It's like wandering through a world of
                      exile,
                      > a lot like Adam must have felt when he was banished from the Garden
                      > of Eden, or Garden of Delight.
                      > There was a sense that I had recovered a missing fragment of my
                      > self, a self often that is in a divorce from the world I live in. I
                      > suppose the best way toi describe it would be my Unconditioned
                      Self.
                      > Society is always trying to manipulate our thoughts and our
                      feelings
                      > via social pressure, expectations, the media, e.t.c . This creates
                      a
                      > form of spiritual colonization that is just a devestating as the
                      > colonization that occured when Native Americans were robbed of
                      their
                      > land and their ways by the colonists, or what occured in Africa.
                      > So this colonization is so insidious that eventually it corrupts
                      > the original purity of the mind of their person, setting up various
                      > illusions and deceptions that cause the person to be confused about
                      > Who and What they are.
                      > So there was that sense that I was Home and at the same time a
                      > sense of inner joy that for a time, the journey was over for me. I
                      > suppose it might have bene like if Adam had been able to sneak past
                      > the guardian Cherub back into the Garden, if only for a minute.
                      > The worst part was the sense of exile. In many ways, I have often
                      > desired to die or at least have a NDE, so I can be enraptured in
                      the
                      > sea of bliss and unity that lies beyond the leadened skies.
                      > Inevietabley, one returns to the journey and the ceaseless
                      > wandering. What I wants is like what the birds released by Noah
                      > wanted, which is a place for me to rest and find peace from my
                      > wanderings and to bask in a joy that is often difficult to remember.
                      > My greatest fear has been to be totally socialized by this
                      > heartless society that looks at people as machines and tools for
                      > either their personal enrichment or for their use. In this society,
                      > people are things, tools, machines. Once one autamaton teaches the
                      > young to think that way, they create another autamaton who in turn
                      > will take free human children and make them into consumer goods to
                      be
                      > sold and bartered for pay.
                      > Thank God they haven't mind-raped me to the point that I am just
                      > another autamaton, wandering unthinkingly across the landscape. If
                      I
                      > ever became like that, I hope God would be merciful and kill me.
                      > What good is it to be alive, if your just a walking corpse and
                      > your soul is dead within you?>
                      > > Thomas Wycihowski <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
                      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh
                      Johnson"
                      > > <imdarkchylde@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Brightest Blessings, Thomas!
                      > > > What a blessed name! You aren't kin to the famous (infamous?)
                      > > > brothers that made the Matrix, are you?
                      > > > I agree with you on a few of your points. As a beginner
                      > > Kabbalist,
                      > > > I am still discovering the 'truth' of the Garden of Eden story,
                      > but
                      > > I
                      > > > am a Valentian to the core, so to speak, and that is what still
                      > > > resonates within me, like scratching an itch that bugged me for
                      > so
                      > > > long.
                      > > > It is interesting you consider 'agnostic' to be "intuitive
                      > > knowledge
                      > > > without the framework of conceptual thought." Knowledge is
                      > gnosis,
                      > > > not a 'collection of data, but 'knowledge' (as used by the
                      Hebrew
                      > > > definition and alike in the Greek and Latin as well) thus a,
                      > > meaning
                      > > > anti, meaning 'against' would be without knowlegde in its
                      > technical
                      > > > sense.
                      > > > But I understand your meaning, as I have had such 'mystical'
                      > > > exeriences (altho I didn't know they were when I had them) in
                      the
                      > > > form of OBEs, NDEs, and some I don't think have
                      > a 'classification',
                      > > > (or at least not one that can be pinned down). But having
                      visted
                      > > the
                      > > > Ground of Being, the Great Unmainfest, the Father of the
                      > Entirety,
                      > > > whatever pigeonhole you wish to use, I can tell you there is NO
                      > > > THINKING there, only an 'awareness' of self (not ego). I have
                      not
                      > > > been told this, I KNOW this. You may contact me on my personal
                      > > email
                      > > > if you wish, as I have found this may not meet the definition
                      of
                      > > > classification of Gnosticism in the traditional (an to some no
                      > > longer
                      > > > existant) sense and such discussions may not be encouraged, but
                      I
                      > > > will still put in my two cents.
                      > > > Whirled and inner peas
                      > > > DarkChylde
                      > > >
                      > > > my email is imdarkchylde@
                      > > >
                      > > > Gnothi Seauton
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                      > > > <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I'm continually fascinated by the story of the Garden of Eden
                      > > and
                      > > > > it's various version in Gnostic books.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that
                      many
                      > > > > people of different religious experiences experience. In a
                      book
                      > > by
                      > > > a
                      > > > > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden
                      > as
                      > > a
                      > > > > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self
                      > and
                      > > > the
                      > > > > outside worn't exist.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree
                      of
                      > > > > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious
                      > > human
                      > > > > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before.
                      > > This
                      > > > > was the "Fall" into matter.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
                      > > > > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own
                      > > perspective
                      > > > is
                      > > > > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive
                      > > knowledge
                      > > > > without the framework of conceptual thought.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Anyways, a lot of mystical experience seems like to me a
                      > > > regression
                      > > > > to a earlier stae of perception and cognition.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive
                      > in
                      > > > > nature?
                      > > > >
                      > > > I have had what I would term "blissful" experiences. But I
                      guess
                      > > the way I get to it might be different then some people.
                      > >
                      > > While I am a hetrosexual in the general sense of the term, I'm
                      > > also an AB (Adult Baby). So basically, my experience of these
                      > > blissfull experiences, the closest I could say I got
                      to "mystical",
                      > > was ina "regressed" frame of mind.
                      > > I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek to
                      > > continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which
                      > does
                      > > not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
                      > > Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience,
                      > myself.
                      > >
                      > > I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is the
                      > > inheritors of the Gnosis. Ultimately, these experiences are so
                      > > different, that they can't be framed mentally. In the mundane
                      > sense,
                      > > what can't be named or labelled can't be "known". But then how
                      does
                      > a
                      > > baby "know" his mothers love? How do we "know" someone loves us.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ---------------------------------
                      > > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                      > > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                      > >
                      >
                    • Michael Leavitt
                      ... I think this is a vary balanced view of things.
                      Message 10 of 22 , Apr 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thomas Wycihowski wrote:
                        > Ok. My take is that the authors intent was important, but that it
                        > is a more nuanced subject then an either or decision.
                        > First, the authors were at the very least aware and conversant
                        > with the story of creation. However, they felt that it needed to b e
                        > amended, or supplemented by additi9onal information and insights
                        > provided by other thought and philisophical systems.
                        > My guess would be that they were describing in mythological terms
                        > the spiritual/mystical experiences they had when in contemplation, as
                        > you can see was promoted by NeoPlatonic sages and theurgists. Plus,
                        > you can't remove the social milieu that most of these texts were
                        > found in Egypt.
                        > So who were these written for? Well, first they'd need to be able
                        > to read. Literacy was not as widespread as it is to day. Second, it
                        > would be of interest to people who were spiritual seekers. Third, it
                        > probably would appeal to people who understood, roughly at least, the
                        > Biblical creation story, as there does not seem, in the text, to be a
                        > lot of explanation. My assumption is the authors knew that it was
                        > well known enough not to have to give a lot of background information
                        > on the Creation story.
                        > So..we have 1)literate 2) people who are spiritual seekers and are
                        > 3) familiar with the Biblical story of creation. My guess, especially
                        > with the Sethian material, is that were dealing with Hellenized Jews
                        > who were familiar with the book of Bereshith, but were heavily
                        > influenced by both NeoPlatonic philosophy and to some degree Stoic
                        > ideas. They used these ideas to question and "correct" what they saw
                        > was wrong with the story of creation, from their perspective.
                        > So the answer to your question is both. I am sure they visualized
                        > the structures and cosmologies they conceived as literal, in a sense.
                        > But just as in the orthodox version of Creation, with the wordplays
                        > on the name Adfam and others, it was meant to be taken figurative too.
                        > Just like the Apostle Paul who said he spoke differently to the
                        > spiritual, so too the Gnostic texts probably would mean different
                        > things, depending where a person stood in their philisophical and
                        > spiritual development.
                        > Hence, the variety of texts. The constant textual and theological
                        > criticism the Masters engaged in led to new systems of thoughts and
                        > new ideas. It is a mistake to think this all happened in isolation
                        > from each other and other systems of thought.
                        >
                        > Thus, I have no problem in both beleiving the story of Creation
                        > and using modern ideas of evolution, e.t.c to criticisize the
                        > orthodox account and suggest a personal interpertation that includes
                        > both literalism and allegorical views.
                        > We need to be constantly aware of the nuanced nature of the
                        > Gnostic scriptures.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        I think this is a vary balanced view of things.
                      • lady_caritas
                        ... point , ... failure ... about ... post ... historical ... on ... am ... this ... have ... As one of the proclaimed missers of the `point , all I have to
                        Message 11 of 22 , Apr 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh Johnson"
                          <imdarkchylde@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > >>>I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
                          > historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
                          point",
                          > but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
                          failure
                          > I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
                          > authors of the texts can be valuable.<<<
                          > Judgmetal you may think it is (and you would certainly know all
                          about
                          > being judgemental, eh?), I was not alluding to your attempts to
                          > understand the intent of the ancients. I was refering to the fact
                          > that discussions on the ACTUAL, real, mystical experience of gnosis
                          > is not encouraged in this group, I have not been allowed to even
                          post
                          > things as they didn't fit the definition of gnosis in its
                          historical
                          > and academic boundries AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR GROUP, and to focus
                          on
                          > gnosticism only in such contexts DOES miss the point, IMHO (and I
                          am
                          > allowed that, or should be). Is this not true? The experience of
                          > gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it did then, but
                          this
                          > is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did I
                          > misunderstand? Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE
                          > TODAY have, or does that not fit into the criteria of this group?
                          > Our discussions offgroup led me to believe this, but mayhaps you
                          have
                          > had a change of heart?
                          > peas
                          > DarkChylde


                          As one of the proclaimed missers of the `point', all I have to say
                          is, well, yes, I admittedly appear to missing whatever point you seem
                          to be making, Darkchylde.

                          This is a group about historical Gnosticism, that category that some
                          even debate should not be a category,... and members are free to
                          discuss this topic. Whether or not Gnosis "happens to people NOW, as
                          it did then" could be another interesting topic of debate.

                          That said, the letter all new members in our group receive mentions
                          that our focus is historical Gnosticism and "how that relates to us
                          in our modern world." In other words, talk about personal mystical
                          experience is not off limits as long as one relates it to the FOCUS
                          of historical Gnosticism. Pretty simple, isn't it? If someone is
                          not interested in what the ancient Gnostics intended and this someone
                          is primarily interested in discussing personal experience or
                          mysticism in a more general context with others, there are many other
                          groups devoted to that focus. We offer a different angle. That's
                          all. That does not mean that we don't appreciate other `points' of
                          focus.

                          Actually, I had thought you already understood this, considering you
                          already had a conversation like this with PMCV:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12865
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12867
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12872
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12876
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12880

                          I might have missed something, but I couldn't find further posts in
                          this thread, and no one is obligated to always reply if they choose
                          not to. Yet, though I wasn't privy to off-group discussions,
                          perhaps you can appreciate my confusion when you were asking about a
                          change of heart, well, unless that would involve an absolute change
                          of focus, which isn't going to happen in our group.

                          Cari – Point Misser
                        • lady_caritas
                          ... from ... culminating ... curtains, ... It ... Demiurge ... and ... Thank you for all your recent comments, Thomas. I was a little confused by a couple
                          Message 12 of 22 , Apr 6, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                            <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
                            > were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
                            > creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
                            > consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
                            > I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
                            > the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
                            > Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
                            from
                            > father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
                            culminating
                            > in Jesus of Nazareth.
                            > At all times and all cultures, humans have known the primal
                            > revelation. The apparent discrepancies come from this revelation
                            > mixing with local customs and cultures.
                            > The Apocalypse of Adam reveals what happened BEHIND the
                            curtains,
                            > and is presented as a testament by the dying Adam to his son Seth.
                            It
                            > reveals the TRUE reason for the discord and evil on what is a good
                            > planet.
                            > Basically, humans have lived under spiritual tyrrany sinmce our
                            > inception. The Demiurge has played one person or religion against
                            > another, in classical divide and counquer tactics of tyrants.
                            > Irregardless if this "being" is called Allah, Yahweh, Jesus or
                            > someother name, in the end it is the same being.
                            > This deception is used to enslave our minds and keep us busy
                            > fighting over words and doctrines that in the end serve the
                            Demiurge
                            > very well.
                            > Part of it is to steal the Gnosis from us, because the Demiurge
                            > knows if we remember our root and origins, we will eventually find
                            > our way out of his and his Aeons clutches.
                            > The Secret Book of John details, from a Sethian standpoint, the
                            > associated Aeons and the planets they are related to.
                            > Combine that with some Hermetic material, and you see that true
                            > to the conception of demonologists, these beings are not "gods" but
                            > devils! There the personification of Vice, and the downward pull of
                            > evil to enslave us for eternity here.
                            > IMHO, the way to escape is to shed the chains on our minds. We
                            > must cast away all that holds us down and enlighten our minds with
                            > the TRUTH of our manipulation by the demonic forces of Ialdabaoth
                            and
                            > his minions of wickedness.


                            Thank you for all your recent comments, Thomas. I was a little
                            confused by a couple thoughts in the post above.

                            You said, "Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was
                            passed down from father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and
                            eventually culminating in Jesus of Nazareth."

                            You further stated, "Basically, humans have lived under spiritual
                            tyrrany sinmce our inception. The Demiurge has played one person or
                            religion against another, in classical divide and counquer tactics of
                            tyrants. Irregardless if this "being" is called Allah, Yahweh, Jesus
                            or someother name, in the end it is the same being.
                            This deception is used to enslave our minds and keep us busy
                            fighting over words and doctrines that in the end serve the Demiurge
                            very well."

                            When you refer to "being," are you referring to the Demiurge or
                            a "being" used by the Demiurge? You mention "Jesus" in your list,
                            and I am curious if you associate him with the Demiurge or whether
                            you are referring to others who interpret "Jesus" in a deceptive way.

                            Thanks in advance for clarifying for me.

                            Cari
                          • pmcvflag
                            Cari and Thomas ... confused by a couple thoughts in the post above.
                            Message 13 of 22 , Apr 7, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Cari and Thomas

                              >>>Thank you for all your recent comments, Thomas. I was a little
                              confused by a couple thoughts in the post above.<<<

                              Cari, your observations and questions are exactly where I was leading
                              as well. This is the reason I was asking Thomas where he drew the line
                              between literal and allegorical. I think you hit the core of the issue
                              better than I did.

                              Thomas

                              Your post answered many of my questions, but somehow I am still not
                              sure of your stance on the issues that Cari is asking about. I don't
                              want you to think you are getting the 3dr degree (so to speak), just
                              that it is a genuine curiousity that I think is worth exploring.

                              This is my ditto to Cari's question.

                              PMCV
                            • pmcvflag
                              Darkchylde Lady Cari answered it pretty well. I guess I should respond also. ... did then, but this is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did
                              Message 14 of 22 , Apr 7, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Darkchylde

                                Lady Cari answered it pretty well. I guess I should respond also.

                                >>The experience of gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it
                                did then, but this is not what is desired for discussion in this
                                group. Or did I misunderstand?<<<

                                You did, in fact, misunderstand (or perhaps I have not done a good
                                job explaining... though it does seem others here understand). As
                                Cari points out, this is explained in the letter that everyone gets
                                when they join the forum.

                                >>>Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE TODAY have, or
                                does that not fit into the criteria of this group?<<<

                                You are welcome to talk about personal experience as long as it is
                                within the context of historical Gnosticism. Do you find that
                                confusing? If so just ask and I will try to do a better job
                                explaining it.

                                We do accept there are many definitions of "Gnosis" (or "gnosis"),
                                and they are valid in their own (emic) context even if they are not
                                the context this forum uses. For those who are not happy sticking to
                                traditional meanings of terms like "Gnosis" or "Sophia" etc., we
                                would like to help them find the forums that they feel fits them
                                best. Here are a few...

                                The group Darkchylde suggests is run by Dick Richardson (aka Merlin,
                                aka Doug, and maybe a number of other names). It seems to deal
                                largely with semi-psychological notions of mysticism that it
                                calls "Gnostic" (Valentinians would likely call this "Psychic"). The
                                url is already posted in Darkchylde's post so I need not post it
                                again.

                                DharmaGnosis is a group run by Tom Ragland. The subject matter as I
                                understand it is a sort of Jungian conjuction between Kabbalah,
                                Eastern mysticism (especially Buddhism), and a notion of gnosis as a
                                sort of general mystical realization. Though it does not seem to be
                                the focus, the forum has not discouraged critical discussion when
                                the subject has come up.

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DharmaGnosis/

                                Gnostic_Cafe is run by Ms Jenny (aka Vee). The subject matter is a
                                wider and looser grouping of modern spiritual mystical thinking in a
                                very informal setting (as I guess the word "Cafe" in the title would
                                suggest).

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnostic_cafe/

                                GnosticThought is run by GnosticKen (aka George). It deals with what
                                Ken has termed "New Age" Gnostic thinking (which I think may be
                                similar to what I would call "eclectic relativism", but I could be
                                wrong and I don't intend to put words in Ken's mouth), and allows
                                for some exploration of a number of systems from personal
                                perspectives.

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GnosticThought/

                                You are encouraged to be in the groups that you find helpful for
                                what you are trying to discover. Each group has stronger points and
                                weaker points... including this one. I will not go so far as
                                Darkchylde in accusing anyone of "missing the point", since I think
                                that many different functions and foci can have important places
                                within a larger human search for meaning.

                                While we don't disregard other contexts, we do offer a more
                                specifically "historical Gnostic" conversation FOCUS. We think this
                                does have an important value. Take it or leave it... but don't be
                                here and heckle it.

                                PMCV
                              • gnostic_ken
                                ... I ... a ... be ... Hi PMCV, Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought. ... a ... would ... Jenny is Jungian Gnostic. She has disappeared as she does from
                                Message 15 of 22 , Apr 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > DharmaGnosis is a group run by Tom Ragland. The subject matter as
                                  I
                                  > understand it is a sort of Jungian conjuction between Kabbalah,
                                  > Eastern mysticism (especially Buddhism), and a notion of gnosis as
                                  a
                                  > sort of general mystical realization. Though it does not seem to
                                  be
                                  > the focus, the forum has not discouraged critical discussion when
                                  > the subject has come up.
                                  >
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DharmaGnosis/

                                  Hi PMCV,
                                  Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought.

                                  >
                                  > Gnostic_Cafe is run by Ms Jenny (aka Vee). The subject matter is a
                                  > wider and looser grouping of modern spiritual mystical thinking in
                                  a
                                  > very informal setting (as I guess the word "Cafe" in the title
                                  would
                                  > suggest).
                                  >
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnostic_cafe/

                                  Jenny is Jungian Gnostic. She has disappeared as she does from time
                                  to time. The last time she disappeared she deleted her Jung cafe
                                  group. This time she left her cafe running on automatic.

                                  >
                                  > GnosticThought is run by GnosticKen (aka George). It deals with
                                  what
                                  > Ken has termed "New Age" Gnostic thinking (which I think may be
                                  > similar to what I would call "eclectic relativism", but I could be
                                  > wrong and I don't intend to put words in Ken's mouth), and allows
                                  > for some exploration of a number of systems from personal
                                  > perspectives.
                                  >
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GnosticThought/

                                  GnosticThought is only "New Age" in the same sense this group
                                  is "New Age." That is we are not traditional Christian
                                  as "Christian" has been defined for the past 1600 or so years. We
                                  are part of the new age of openness, diversity and tolerance. When I
                                  said "we are all of the new age" I was including you ;-)

                                  GnosticThought could be defined as having the exact opposite focus
                                  of this group. While this group is about historical gnosticism and
                                  modern personal experiences are not off topic so long as they are
                                  related to historical gnosticism in some way, GnosticThought is
                                  about modern personal Gnosis and related mystic experiences with
                                  some historical discussion hopefully relating to modern personal
                                  experiences.

                                  I don't remember ever saying GnosticThought is "New Age" because
                                  spelling it with capital letters usually refers to the loose
                                  movement personified by Shirley MacLaine. The only Gnostic movement
                                  I know of that would fit that definition of New Age would be Sylvia
                                  Browne's Gnostics. While Sylvia Browne Gnostics are welcome on
                                  GnosticThought they are generally not real comfortable with the
                                  range of viewpoints there. They generally want to talk about
                                  Sylvia's personal mythology and most of us relate more to historical
                                  Gnostic mythology than to Sylvia's mythology. Several, such as Tom
                                  and Steve, seem to relate most to Buddhism.

                                  Ken
                                • pmcvflag
                                  Hey Ken ... Ah, yes... and after I posted I thought about at and realized I should have posted all of the mods of the groups. Isn t Brenda also a mod there?
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Apr 8, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hey Ken

                                    >>>Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought.<<<

                                    Ah, yes... and after I posted I thought about at and realized I
                                    should have posted all of the mods of the groups. Isn't Brenda also
                                    a mod there?

                                    >>>GnosticThought is only "New Age" in the same sense this group
                                    is "New Age." That is we are not traditional Christian
                                    as "Christian" has been defined for the past 1600 or so years. We
                                    are part of the new age of openness, diversity and tolerance. When I
                                    said "we are all of the new age" I was including you ;-)<<<

                                    That sounds like what I picked up as well. So my term "eclective
                                    relativism" seems not so far off the mark in intent.

                                    >>>GnosticThought could be defined as having the exact opposite focus
                                    of this group. While this group is about historical gnosticism and
                                    modern personal experiences are not off topic so long as they are
                                    related to historical gnosticism in some way, GnosticThought is
                                    about modern personal Gnosis and related mystic experiences with
                                    some historical discussion hopefully relating to modern personal
                                    experiences.<<<

                                    I think that is a good observation of the primary differences
                                    between the groups. I am glad to see that there are others here who
                                    understand how this forum is meant to function so that it is not
                                    simply that us mods have completely failed to communicate it.

                                    PMCV
                                  • gnostic_ken
                                    ... also ... I ... focus ... who ... Hi PMCV, Yes Brenda is also one of the GnosticThought moderators. You have always been quite clear about the focus of this
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Apr 9, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Hey Ken
                                      >
                                      > >>>Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought.<<<
                                      >
                                      > Ah, yes... and after I posted I thought about at and realized I
                                      > should have posted all of the mods of the groups. Isn't Brenda
                                      also
                                      > a mod there?
                                      >
                                      > >>>GnosticThought is only "New Age" in the same sense this group
                                      > is "New Age." That is we are not traditional Christian
                                      > as "Christian" has been defined for the past 1600 or so years. We
                                      > are part of the new age of openness, diversity and tolerance. When
                                      I
                                      > said "we are all of the new age" I was including you ;-)<<<
                                      >
                                      > That sounds like what I picked up as well. So my term "eclective
                                      > relativism" seems not so far off the mark in intent.
                                      >
                                      > >>>GnosticThought could be defined as having the exact opposite
                                      focus
                                      > of this group. While this group is about historical gnosticism and
                                      > modern personal experiences are not off topic so long as they are
                                      > related to historical gnosticism in some way, GnosticThought is
                                      > about modern personal Gnosis and related mystic experiences with
                                      > some historical discussion hopefully relating to modern personal
                                      > experiences.<<<
                                      >
                                      > I think that is a good observation of the primary differences
                                      > between the groups. I am glad to see that there are others here
                                      who
                                      > understand how this forum is meant to function so that it is not
                                      > simply that us mods have completely failed to communicate it.
                                      >
                                      > PMCV

                                      Hi PMCV,
                                      Yes Brenda is also one of the GnosticThought moderators.

                                      You have always been quite clear about the focus of this group. I
                                      have no idea why so many people seem to misunderstand.

                                      I do know from experience that no matter how clear we try to be
                                      somebody will always misunderstand. Those who misunderstand seem to
                                      talk (write) the most ;-)

                                      So my point is it's certainly not your fault. You are and always
                                      have been as clear as you possibly can be.

                                      Ken
                                    • gnostic_ken
                                      ... Update: Jenny is now back. Ken
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Apr 26, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Jenny is Jungian Gnostic. She has disappeared as she does from time
                                        > to time. The last time she disappeared she deleted her Jung cafe
                                        > group. This time she left her cafe running on automatic.

                                        Update: Jenny is now back.

                                        Ken
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.