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

Re: Mysticism a Regressional Experience?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.