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

Re: Faith vs Experience

Expand Messages
  • the_passerby7777
    Ah I see you gave a little interpretation of the Adam/Eve story as displayed in the Torah below. Some of what you expressed in the key words innocence
    Message 1 of 111 , Jan 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Ah I see you gave a little interpretation of the Adam/Eve story as
      displayed in the Torah below. Some of what you expressed in the key
      words "innocence" "duality" and "ignorance" and the story about the
      analogy of the "baby" I all held at one time, or another, so I fully
      understand that perspective. So, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and
      Evil is the perception of duality which is an illusion? How is this in
      relation to the fact that Adam was split in his sleep and the duality
      of male and female was invoked, or created? Are you suggesting that
      the Tree of knowledge of Good and evil is the recognition of duality,
      considering that they both dwelt in ignorance to their "difference" or
      at least could not perceive the shame of it, until they ate of the
      tree then begin amongst themselves they covered their themselves, to
      conceal their "difference" or their nakenedness "exposed sexual
      parts"? I also see that you interpret the whole eating from the Tree
      as a negative thing, so what about the serpent?

      The serpent didn't exactly lie, you know? the serpent said when they
      eat their eyes shall be "opened" and they will "KNOW good and evil"
      which the eating thereof will make them Gods having this. In fact the
      serpent never lied once, in the scriptures, Yeshua/Jesus says to be
      wise as serpents, so the serpent was seen as a symbol of "wisdom." In
      fact what is interesting is that the "God" in the Genesis is a Group,
      also interesting is that the "Group-God" actually lied, saying that
      Adam would surely die if he eats. That didn't occur, in fact it was
      actually the Group God that caused death in him and eve, being
      displeased. Also about the negative interpretation of eating of the
      Tree, if Adam and Eve were whole and good prior to eating the Tree and
      weren't ignorant but became so afterwards, why does eating the Tree of
      Knowledge of Good and Evil actually lead to the eating of the Tree of
      Life, where they can actually become Gods, more than they were in the
      beginning? And why does the Lord God (Group-God/Archons) say, "And the
      LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good
      and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also
      from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Why would the
      "group" want to prevent Adam/Eve from ascending or to become as they
      are? Why cast them out, put such obstacles infront of the Tree of Life?

      What is the relationship, in your interpretation with these weighing
      observations? Because if you ask me eating of the Tree of Knowledge of
      Good and evil was a good thing, it leads to the Tree of Life,
      something that could only be accessed since they ate of the Tree of
      Knowledge. To make a point I don't disagree with the fact that duality
      has a issue in this allegory, it does, but seems to me that something
      else is being referred.

      From the word "suffering" you used, and the term you/them, I would
      image that you perceive Eve as ego? I would like to ask your
      background, in regards your beliefs? You have studied Buddhism or
      something of that nature? I often find this sort of thing with people
      who are more eastern in perspective or New Age, they tend to think see
      duality as an illusion. Since the Bridal Chamber and the concepts of
      male/female is so important in regards many Gnostic scriptures, often
      times dualities which you see aren't truly dualities, but are actually
      triads, or trinities. This is not to say that different polarities
      exist, they do, but its just that a duality leads to a triad, like a
      male/female leads to a child, there is a level where they become
      "one," the male and female, neither male nor female. What is
      interesting from your interpretation is the fact that you make no
      mention of the separation of male/female before the tree was eaten,
      and this was not done by Adam, but the "deep sleep" which the Group
      God put over him. I would've imaged it would be important, since you
      allude to Thomas Gospel sayings in the post that I have read from you.
      It speaks very clearly about the male/female concept.



      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, souldreamone@... wrote:
      > Hi Ra
      > Again, I'm at risk of offending someone here with my perspective,
      but it's
      > never my intention to do so. I see the function of myth and allegory
      as much
      > simpler. It is the grasping of limited concepts that makes it
      difficult or
      > impossible to grasp a more expanded understanding, and so the story
      relates the
      > larger truth in the terminology of the smaller truth. In this way,
      it can be
      > interpreted on many levels according to ones willingness to see it's
      > Perhaps the advantage is that it might plant the seed for a future
      > realization. The disadvantage is that incorrect interpretations
      lead to dogma and
      > erroneous conclusions as well as lending support for various crude
      beliefs, and so
      > it can just as easily lock one within a smaller context of
      > For example, I recently heard a discussion among Christians as to
      whether it
      > was Adam or Eve who was really to blame for having us evicted from
      > The metaphorical nature was completely lost in the literal
      > Likewise, the interpretation on the home page is designed to
      support the search
      > for knowledge that seems to dominate modern Gnosticism rather than
      the more
      > subtle Knowingness found within which was once the core.
      > The Adam/Eve myth was not meant to point to a one time historical
      event. We
      > have each lived out the story in our own lives. The baby enters the
      > naked and innocent and soon loses his innocence in the experience
      of dualistic
      > illusion; the knowledge of good and evil, desirable/undesirable,
      > me/other. It means to point to all dualistic perceptions, which are
      > of mind. Once self identified, the apparent individual experiences
      fear, lack,
      > guilt, struggle and suffering. It is this false guilt (shame at our
      > nakedness) that Jesus is addressing with his forgiveness.
      > The movement from innocence to false knowledge is ignorance, and in
      > ignorance man must suffer. All of man's dualistic knowledge falls
      short of Truth
      > because it all arises from nothingness, defining itself in dualistic
      > that form the tension that allows for the movement that we call
      > None of this knowledge is anchored to anything outside the human
      experience, and
      > so none of man's beliefs and concepts can help man realize Truth or
      > ultimate fulfillment to his desires. However, one may move from
      ignorance to
      > wisdom in the understanding of the limitations of mind, the
      futility of human
      > desire and the falseness of his imagined separate identity. From
      that place of
      > wisdom only is the realization of Truth beyond mind's limitations
      > This realization is what Gnosticism is. At best, the scholarly
      research is
      > wisdom, at worst it is ignorance. The "child of seven days" knows
      of innocence.
      > The old man of wisdom seeks transcendence. They are the same, and
      the circle
      > is complete. (GoT#4)
      > Phil
      > In a message dated 1/5/2008 2:55:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
      > rahimalka@... writes:
      > Phil,
      > Well the way "I" see mythology is metaphoric allegory or symbolic
      > allusion. As in they are allegorical esoteric displays of concepts
      > which could not be explained in directly, but that they must be taken
      > and applied within ones self to perceive the reality of it. To me a
      > mythology would relate aspects of our mind and being, and the
      > conditions of laws/forces upon them, but also realities outside of
      > ourselves. You see, I perceive that our pattern in regards our
      > cosmology of being is holographic, so there is realities to these
      > things which have a outer existence, but of course not literally, but
      > more so analogous.
      > It do well to read over some of the Gnostic Creation Myths, to
      > perceive why they put what they did about Eve in the on the home page
      > of this forum. A lot of people interpret Eve as Ego whom are more New
      > Age/Eastern in thought, but this from a Gnostic perspective is flawed
      > because it is the woman who who saves the earth-bound Adam, but this
      > is an metaphoric allegory.
      > It's been a while since I read the scriptures of the Nag Hammadi
      > Library myself, actually its been a while since I read scriptures in
      > general. Maybe I will wipe the dust off of the Nag Hammadi Library and
      > take a read through again, to refresh myself in its images.
      > Peace
      > Ra.
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, souldreamone@ wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > The 'mythology' of Adam and Eve, on the home page of this forum, is
      > being
      > > grossly misunderstood as I implied in a post which was ignored. I
      > suggest that,
      > > generally speaking, mythology is used to justify ones beliefs rather
      > than
      > > challenge them. It's unclear that there's a positive function to
      > them, but I'm
      > > open to the possibility.
      > >
      > > Phil
      > >
      > >
      > > In a message dated 1/5/2008 2:18:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
      > > rahimalka@ writes:
      > >
      > > Thea,
      > >
      > > Yes, I do. That's why I asked Mark. Because I felt that much of it
      > > must be understood, that it is necessary to understand the
      aspects of
      > > the Demiurge, Archons and how such things apply in your
      experience. I
      > > was asked from what authority I can say that, I guess he was
      asking me
      > > what Gnostics of old said that it's a "must". My Answer was that I
      > > don't know of any, but I would gather that the Mythology is
      > > and a MUST to understand, or what would've been the reason to
      write it
      > > in the first place?
      > >
      > > Did you read my whole response though, I believe that the sentence
      > > from the post you quoted actually answers the question you are
      > > me. I would also like to add that I would imagine Mark would
      find the
      > > mythology important.
      > >
      > > Peace
      > >
      > > Ra.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, theoj678@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > In a message dated 1/5/2008 2:27:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      > > > rahimalka@ writes:
      > > >
      > > > do you find Mythology important?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----------
      > > > Would you not find Mythology as part of Gnosticism?
      > > > thea
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.

      > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
    • Michael Leavitt
      SORRY. :)
      Message 111 of 111 , Jan 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        SORRY. :)

        pmcvflag wrote:
        > Michael...
        >>>> Seemed like all your other posts to me. :)<<<
        > Doh! Just because you are right doesn't mean you are not a pain in the
        > ass! *lol*. If you can let a guy PRETEND his spelling is not ALWAYS
        > bad you let him keep his dignity.... if just a little. You know...
        > just for the sake of Chivalry. ;)
        > PMCV
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.