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

Re: Under the Groups wire--pt. 2

Expand Messages
  • hey_market
    It may be either etic or emic, but I do think that it is possible for it to be a bit of both, For starters, as you point out, gnosis IS a unique
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      It may be either etic or emic, but I do think that it is possible for
      it to be a bit of both,

      For starters, as you point out, gnosis IS a unique realization--an
      entirely unique pheneomenon of divine realization, even if the
      historical occurence of the phenomenon of Gnosticism and related
      movements are associated with all sorts of cultural influences.

      And as you rightly note, if it wasn't, to a degree we might
      legitmately ask, well, why bother?

      At the same time, what is uniquely realized in gnosis itself is a
      truth about the reality of the cosmos, including the truth about
      one's origins and place in the cosmos, as well as one's destiny.

      In this sense gnosis might be said to reflect a core of truth in
      everything, including other religions, even esoteric religions,
      except that one must admit that the latter faiths would stand at the
      outer core of this epiphany, which is true tultimate knowledge or
      experience..

      And so, these other faiths would necessarily be seen as a bit removed
      from this realization. Maybe way removed. Or... May entirely removed.

      Ultimately, the idea of gnostic salvation for all simply depends upon
      whether or not it's really available to all.

      If it IS available, then it logically follows that all religions have
      the seed of gnosis or spark of gnosis within them, even if this spark
      is rather dim, and perhaps getting dimmer to the extent they are
      removed from the truth (gnosis).

      It's worth noting here that the Manicheans held that this spark was
      indeed to be found in everything--including every worldly thing--from
      the lowest forms, even plants, although it took what we might call
      gnostic redeemers (i.e., higher spiritual beings, including human
      beings referred to as the "Elect") to release this divine energy or
      light imprisoned within such less enlightened beings, whether human
      or otherwise.

      Such benevolence was the responsibility of the elect. In fact, this
      is what they have been elected to do--to experience gnosis and more
      or less collect it and then deposit it back in heaven. There's a neat
      Manichean myth that explains this understanding: when the moon is
      waxing, and it gets brighter, this is because is collecting all of
      the light from unenlightened beings on earth, and then when it wanes,
      this is because it is depositing the light to its divine twin, the
      sun, who in turn spreads the light to the world.

      (As a side note, with such an amazingly sunny view of life, it is
      hard to imagine how the Manicheans were seen as the ultimate negative
      gnostics. You coulden't be more ULTIMATELY positive about nature than
      if, well, you were Hermetic. Then again, the bad wrap is easily
      explained by religious power politics.)

      At any rate, this immensely positive Manichean notion is juxstaposed
      with a different sort of elect. That is, if it is the case that
      unlike the Manicheans we assume that the divine spark IS NOT resident
      within everything, and thus there are only, shall-we-say, pre-
      destined souls (in something of a Calvinistic form of Gnosticism),
      then all of those beings who do not experience gnosis, or even
      posssess the spark of potential to experience it, well, they cannot
      be said to merely stand at the outer core of gnostic salvalion.

      They are simply left out altogether, or perhaps more accurately, they
      have never entered the kingdom in the first place. They were never
      borne to it.

      And I might add, if there is no reincarnation, then they may never
      enter.

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., ernststrohregenmantelrad <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:
      > Gnosticism is not what many people think it is. Many people
      > tended to look it at it from the present perspective. It is not
      feel
      > good religion or some kind or aurtinative to Christianity. I think
      > most people will do Psycholization and and start to talk
      > Gnosticsm as some kind of Jungian psychology.. Well, Jung did
      > that (along with Alchemey) and so is others including Hoeller. It
      > is not about finding the lowest common demonianor. If you did
      > then you are missing the boad. A while back there was a
      > discussion about the uniqueness of Gnosticism. Everyone
      > answered without the hesitation NO. Gnosticism is not unique or
      > some thing in that nature. I lost the interest in the post because
      if
      > you think like that you missed the whole point. Gnosticism IS
      > UNIQUE. If not why bother with it. If it is like any other
      revelation
      > why bother learning (and when I mean learn learn mythos , and
      > rites and initiation etc...) If you are there just to find the
      least
      > common demoniator why bother? This is not for you. But, you
      > see that is why one must make sure to distingish between emic
      > and etic when you talk about things. And all tooo common I see
      > the mixing of two by many. Emic: Gnosticism is UNIQUE. Etic :
      > Gnosticism/Christianity has the esoteric core some what equal
      > to all esoteric core in all religion.- transcedental unity of
      religion.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@y..., wherecar54 wrote:
      > > Hi Hey market,<br><br>I agree with what you have
      > > said here.<br><br>I am a great Edgar Cayce fan. I
      > > discovered Gnostic thought by reading his material. Here are
      > > a couple of exerpts from Cayce regaurding some of
      > > your comments.<br>Also, In Cayce's readings, Jesus was
      > > the same as you or I and only you can save yourself.
      > > Jesus Christ = a man + the realization and assertion of
      > > being one with God, Gnosis.<br><br>Q) ...Is Gnosticism
      > > the closest type of Christianity to that which is
      > > given through this source? <br>(C) This is a parallel,
      > > and was the commonly accepted one until there began
      > > to be set rules in which there were the attempts to
      > > take short cuts. And there are none in
      > > Christianity!<br><br>05/14/41 5749-014 /23<br><br>(C) The
      > disturbance has ever
      > > been, since the first disagreement as to what sacrifice
      > > and as to the character of sacrifice was to be
      > > offered, that someone is to set a rule by which all others
      > > are to be judged, or to which all are to
      > > conform...<br><br>6/13/39 3976-23 /4<br><br>(C) ... more and
      > more have been
      > > the turmoils that have arisen in the attempt of
      > > individual leaders or groups to induce, force or compel, one
      > > portion of the world to think as the other, or the other
      > > group to dwell together as brethren with one bond of
      > > sympathy, or one standard for all.<br><br>1/15/32 3976-008
      > > /7<br><br>(Q) Please explain "The kingdom of the Father." (C)
      > > The consciousness of His force, power, activity, in
      > > every element of action on the part of those who
      > > without thought of self have opened the way for the
      > > activity of the Christ Consciousness in the material
      > > world...<br><br>09/18/32 262-028 /12<br><br>(Q) Upon what
      > religious
      > > thought will fall the greatest responsibility in leading
      > > the world toward the light of understanding? <br>(C)
      > > That as is comprised in that as has been given,
      > > whether it be the Greek or the barbarian, whether it be
      > > from the bond or from the free, "Thou shalt love the
      > > Lord thy God with all thine heart, and thy neighbor as
      > > thyself!" <br><br><br>(C) To us here, as individuals, we
      > > have accepted, we do accept those tenets of the
      > > Nazarene, Jesus of Nazareth, whose whole gospel was
      > > combined in that message, "Ye shall love the Lord thy God
      > > with all thy heart and mind, and thy neighbor as
      > > thyself." And then, as to make this become a more practical
      > > experience in the lives of individuals, He gave "A new
      > > commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
      > > another."<br><br>06/13/39 3976-022 /9
    • ernststrohregenmantelrad
      I hate to burst the bubble but again I must stress the fact that we shouldn t project our present situation on to the groups which existed in the 2nd century.
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I hate to burst the bubble but again I must stress the fact that we
        shouldn't project our present situation on to the groups which
        existed in the 2nd century. If I sound rude, please excuse me, it
        is not a personal attack on anyone.

        >--- In gnosticism2@y..., wherecar54 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >There were so many groups of Gnostics, that I think that it is
        >difficult to put a label on what exactly a Gnostic is.

        Yet, we ALL have a notion of what Gnostics are. The main
        characteristic of Gnostics that everyone agrees is "salvation
        through knowledge", but I feel that that is not enough to discribe
        Gnostics. Because if we accept the primiss of "salvation through
        knowledge" we will be led to ask "salvation" from what? That is
        where the worldview comes in. For Gnostics one is to be saved
        from this world created by Demiurge. If one is have Gnosis,
        salvation through knowledge, then one KNOWS his origin and
        his destiny and escape the trap created by Demiurge. Everytime
        one thinks of salvation one thinks of "sin". Keeping this in mind,
        for Gnostics sin is not a disobeydience to God but ignorence.
        (Sin in Greek comes from the archery meaning "missing the
        mark".) Ignorence to the fact that you don't know. You don't know
        your origin and how this screwed up world came into being. So
        in order for a person to have Gnosis, salvation through
        knowlege, ONE MUST ALSO HAVE SOME KIND OF SETTING.
        And for Gnostics this setting must be a certian kind. One that
        Michael Williams calls it "Biblical Demiurgic Tradion " or what
        ever but the main thing is this worldview.

        >I consider Gnosis to be what "new age" thought calls oness
        with
        >Creation. The Gnostics certainly knew how to achieve this.

        New Age doesn't distinguish between the creator and created
        because of its instance on Holism. However, our friends,
        Gnostics, did. In fact Gnostics didn't see the creator as same as
        the redeemer. On top of that the creator is ignorant (and evil by
        some) Demiurge. So I found it preflexing to use the term
        "Creation". That is so un-Gnostic. Do you mean God or Cosmic
        what ever.... The term Gnostics use is Pleroma (Fullness) but it
        is surely NOT anything that was Created.

        >I am more familiar with Christian Gnosicism, than any other. I
        don't know much
        >at all about pre-Christian Gnosticism.

        I don't know. Tell me how much you know about Christian
        Gnosticism like Valentinius. Maybe you could tell all of us the
        function of 7 sacraments as it pertains in the GPh. If you don't
        know pre- or proto- stuff (what came before) then how can you
        really acess the stuff.

        >Does Gnostic interpretation help me with daily life? Yes, it
        does.

        How? Tell me. Did you find out that the world is a crappy place? If
        you adhere to Gnostic priciple then you know why the world is
        crappy place.

        >Do I consider it to be a religion? No I don't.

        Well, it is RELIGION if you know what RELIGION means.
        Stephan Hoeller in his lectures always laments the fact that
        people today shun away from the word, RELIGION, and use
        spireetiarrrtie.

        >Does it bother you the way I look at Gnosticism or think about
        it?

        Not really, but let's get the fact straight.

        >I study Gnosticism to understand. I study Christian Gnosticism
        to
        >understand that evolvement of Christianity and to get a better
        >understanding of what was originally taught by the man Jesus.

        Man Jesus? That is the thing. Is Jesus a man or god? or both?
        What do you think I've been talking about all this adaptionalists
        and docetists? For the heck of it? Do you study all the facts or do
        you only "studied" things that congeanal to you only? Meaning do
        you already have pre-conceived notion of Christianity or
        Gnosticism. I think you do. And if what you read about Gnostics fit
        in your pre-conceived notion great if not well....

        >Gnosticism is unique in it's symbolry, as is any religon or
        >philosophy. The goal is not unique. The goal is the same as in
        every
        >religion or philosophy.

        And what is that goal? It all depends on what do you mean by
        "goal". If you read anything on Gnostics, some considered
        Gnostics to be elitists. That shows that at least Gnostics thought
        of themselves as UNIQUE which means they weren't concerned
        with speereetural relativesim that is prevent today.
      • wherecar54
        Man. Yes
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 24, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          <<Man Jesus? That is the thing. Is Jesus a man or god? or both?>>

          Man.

          <<If you adhere to Gnostic priciple then you know why the world is
          crappy place.>>

          Yes

          <<And what is that goal?>>

          To escape the world of the demiurge.

          <<Maybe you could tell all of us the function of 7 sacraments as it
          pertains in the GPh. If you don't know pre- or proto- stuff (what
          came before) then how can you really acess the stuff.>>

          Do you really consider everyone to be so ignorant or inept or just me?

          <<If I sound rude, please excuse me, it is not a personal attack on
          anyone.>>

          Likewise, I'm sure!!

          http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/detail.htm




          --- In gnosticism2@y..., ernststrohregenmantelrad <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          > I hate to burst the bubble but again I must stress the fact that we
          > shouldn't project our present situation on to the groups which
          > existed in the 2nd century. If I sound rude, please excuse me, it
          > is not a personal attack on anyone.
          >
          > >--- In gnosticism2@y..., wherecar54 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > >There were so many groups of Gnostics, that I think that it is
          > >difficult to put a label on what exactly a Gnostic is.
          >
          > Yet, we ALL have a notion of what Gnostics are. The main
          > characteristic of Gnostics that everyone agrees is "salvation
          > through knowledge", but I feel that that is not enough to discribe
          > Gnostics. Because if we accept the primiss of "salvation through
          > knowledge" we will be led to ask "salvation" from what? That is
          > where the worldview comes in. For Gnostics one is to be saved
          > from this world created by Demiurge. If one is have Gnosis,
          > salvation through knowledge, then one KNOWS his origin and
          > his destiny and escape the trap created by Demiurge. Everytime
          > one thinks of salvation one thinks of "sin". Keeping this in mind,
          > for Gnostics sin is not a disobeydience to God but ignorence.
          > (Sin in Greek comes from the archery meaning "missing the
          > mark".) Ignorence to the fact that you don't know. You don't know
          > your origin and how this screwed up world came into being. So
          > in order for a person to have Gnosis, salvation through
          > knowlege, ONE MUST ALSO HAVE SOME KIND OF SETTING.
          > And for Gnostics this setting must be a certian kind. One that
          > Michael Williams calls it "Biblical Demiurgic Tradion " or what
          > ever but the main thing is this worldview.
          >
          > >I consider Gnosis to be what "new age" thought calls oness
          > with
          > >Creation. The Gnostics certainly knew how to achieve this.
          >
          > New Age doesn't distinguish between the creator and created
          > because of its instance on Holism. However, our friends,
          > Gnostics, did. In fact Gnostics didn't see the creator as same as
          > the redeemer. On top of that the creator is ignorant (and evil by
          > some) Demiurge. So I found it preflexing to use the term
          > "Creation". That is so un-Gnostic. Do you mean God or Cosmic
          > what ever.... The term Gnostics use is Pleroma (Fullness) but it
          > is surely NOT anything that was Created.
          >
          > >I am more familiar with Christian Gnosicism, than any other. I
          > don't know much
          > >at all about pre-Christian Gnosticism.
          >
          > I don't know. Tell me how much you know about Christian
          > Gnosticism like Valentinius. Maybe you could tell all of us the
          > function of 7 sacraments as it pertains in the GPh. If you don't
          > know pre- or proto- stuff (what came before) then how can you
          > really acess the stuff.
          >
          > >Does Gnostic interpretation help me with daily life? Yes, it
          > does.
          >
          > How? Tell me. Did you find out that the world is a crappy place? If
          > you adhere to Gnostic priciple then you know why the world is
          > crappy place.
          >
          > >Do I consider it to be a religion? No I don't.
          >
          > Well, it is RELIGION if you know what RELIGION means.
          > Stephan Hoeller in his lectures always laments the fact that
          > people today shun away from the word, RELIGION, and use
          > spireetiarrrtie.
          >
          > >Does it bother you the way I look at Gnosticism or think about
          > it?
          >
          > Not really, but let's get the fact straight.
          >
          > >I study Gnosticism to understand. I study Christian Gnosticism
          > to
          > >understand that evolvement of Christianity and to get a better
          > >understanding of what was originally taught by the man Jesus.
          >
          > Man Jesus? That is the thing. Is Jesus a man or god? or both?
          > What do you think I've been talking about all this adaptionalists
          > and docetists? For the heck of it? Do you study all the facts or do
          > you only "studied" things that congeanal to you only? Meaning do
          > you already have pre-conceived notion of Christianity or
          > Gnosticism. I think you do. And if what you read about Gnostics fit
          > in your pre-conceived notion great if not well....
          >
          > >Gnosticism is unique in it's symbolry, as is any religon or
          > >philosophy. The goal is not unique. The goal is the same as in
          > every
          > >religion or philosophy.
          >
          > And what is that goal? It all depends on what do you mean by
          > "goal". If you read anything on Gnostics, some considered
          > Gnostics to be elitists. That shows that at least Gnostics thought
          > of themselves as UNIQUE which means they weren't concerned
          > with speereetural relativesim that is prevent today.
        • ernststrohregenmantelrad
          ... both? ... Well, that is not most Gnostics think. Well, I m simplfying a bit but Gnosticis like Basildes had docetic view which states that Jesus is pure
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 25, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@y..., wherecar54 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > <<Man Jesus? That is the thing. Is Jesus a man or god? or
            both?>>
            >
            > Man.
            >

            Well, that is not most Gnostics think. Well, I'm simplfying a bit but
            Gnosticis like Basildes had docetic view which states that Jesus
            is pure god NOT man.

            > <<If you adhere to Gnostic priciple then you know why the world
            is
            > crappy place.>>
            >
            > Yes
            >
            > <<And what is that goal?>>
            >
            > To escape the world of the demiurge.
            >

            So then what is the function of Sophia to you? Or Logos. Since
            you claim Jesus is just a man. (Do you go far as to be of
            adaptionalists position?) I just want to hear your position not
            what you've read because I want to see how "biblical demiurgy"
            could apply in "adaptionalists" or even more Jesus the man
            position.

            > <<Maybe you could tell all of us the function of 7 sacraments
            as it
            > pertains in the GPh. If you don't know pre- or proto- stuff (what
            > came before) then how can you really acess the stuff.>>
            >
            > Do you really consider everyone to be so ignorant or inept or
            just me?
            >
            No, I just except if someone claim to be such and such I expect
            that person to know what is he is talking about. You claimed to
            be a "Christian Gnostics" So, I was wondering how much you
            know about that Tradition by asking something about the
            scripture that they used that typified them - the GPh. It is the
            same thing if someone claim to be a Hindu and I asked
            something about Vedanta.


            > <<If I sound rude, please excuse me, it is not a personal attack
            on
            > anyone.>>
            >
            > Likewise, I'm sure!!
            >
            really, it's not
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.