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

Re: Mysticism a Regressional Experience?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Apr 4 9:13 PM
    • 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 2 of 22 , Apr 5 4:18 AM
      • 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 3 of 22 , Apr 5 6:39 PM
        • 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 4 of 22 , Apr 5 6:46 PM
          • 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 5 of 22 , Apr 6 7:14 PM
            • 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 6 of 22 , Apr 7 8:27 PM
              • 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 7 of 22 , Apr 7 9:33 PM
                • 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 8 of 22 , Apr 8 12:40 PM
                  • 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 9 of 22 , Apr 8 6:27 PM
                    • 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 10 of 22 , Apr 9 8:43 AM
                      • 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 11 of 22 , Apr 26 2:37 PM
                        • 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.